MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

May 24, 2007

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on May 24, 2007 at 2:01 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were: Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Chuck Nelson, Helen Voltz, and Mary Bolin, Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

 

 

 

Don Lusk, Parks and Recreation Director stated he is advising the Board of an item that staff believes needs some quick action from the Board prior to its summer break.  He advised the City of Melbourne City Council failed to approve the site plan for the Senior Citizen Center at Wickham Park; County staff has been following the Board action from May 2006, which was to locate the facility adjacent to the planned Community Center at Wickham Park; the site plan approval was needed so staff could proceed with the rest of the necessary permitting; he was not at the City Council meeting, but staff was there representing the County; and Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson has done research and has looked at the tape and has additional information.  He stated it appears Melbourne City Council wishes for the County to relocate the facility back to the downtown area; the senior center was at the downtown location previously; and it was not chosen again because of various reasons, such as parking, among other things.  He noted when that did not work out, the County tried to locate the senior center at the airport; and May 2006 was the Wickham Park option.  He stated the Wickham Park location is on land the County owns and it reduces the cost of the facility; the Wickham Park location is appropriate to draw a larger population of seniors and was approved by the members of the Senior Citizens Center, the Referendum Committee, the Wickham Park Advisory Committee, and the South Area Advisory Board; the model for operating senior citizen centers in Brevard County allows the seniors to operate it themselves at a very reduced cost to the Board of County Commissioners; and on March 6 2007, the County did a pre-application meeting with the City of Melbourne which included its Engineering and Planning and Zoning staff; and the County received only positive comments.  He noted May 3 2007, was the City Planning and Zoning meeting at which the site at Wickham Park was approved with a recommendation for the City Council to approve it.  He noted at this point a denial significantly delays staff in the project; a delay costs additional time which equals dollars; the seniors have waited very patiently for the center; and it is prudent that the Board take some action today so that staff can be working on it during the Board’s break.  He stated at the current location, the center is losing money and losing members; and he would like Attorney Richardson to outline for the Board some options staff would like the Board to consider today.

 

Chairperson Colon stated before Attorney Richardson addresses the Board she would like to hear from Jasper Trigg; she would like for everyone to get a little bit of history as to how long the Board has been at this, so that everyone will understand why the Board has to take the measures it will have to take this afternoon; and she would also like people to understand there have  been  hundreds  of  hours  worth  of meetings  that have taken place to identify a location. 

Jasper Trigg stated he witnessed the Melbourne City Council meeting regarding action on the final site plan for the Senior Center at Wickham Park; categorically speaking it was a travesty; the attitudes and actions by the Mayor and some Council members were unconscionable; and the perception by everyone concerned was that the Council’s role was to approve or disapprove the physical site plan and all attachments that had been unanimously recommended and approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on May 3 2007, and was highly recommended for approval by the City Council.  He stated the physical site plan was never discussed; however, discussions by the Mayor and Council members centered around location; they were dissatisfied by the construction of the Senior Center at Wickham Park and recommended that it be located in downtown Melbourne.  He noted lengthy discussion by Council members addressed use of accessing the road leading to the equestrian center during peak periods and bus transportation for residents to and from the senior center.  He stated it is imperative that he provide clarification to some myths expressed by the public and City Council members at the May meeting; myth number one is to construct a new building at the old site which is Melbourne Avenue, and it will serve residents from Trinity Towers and other residents will be able to walk to the Center, leave the Center and go to Downtown Melbourne to dine and shop; the fact is Trinity Tower East, Trinity Tower West, and Trinity Tower South has approximately 500 plus residents; and of the 500 plus residents, within the last three years at the old site, there were eight residents who were members of the senior center.  He stated 99 percent of the members who participated in activities at the old site drove to and from the Center on a daily basis.  He advised myth number two is to construct the center in downtown Melbourne; there is no space in downtown Melbourne; four years ago, after the Board of County Commissioners approved money for the construction of the new center, a representative from Parks and Recreation and himself spoke to the City Manager of Melbourne as well as the Director of Planning and Zoning in reference to two items; the first item was if there was space to be provided for the new center in Melbourne; the answer was that there was definitely not; and the City of Melbourne would not be able to help finance the construction of a new senior center.  He noted at the old site there was inadequate parking; the old site was landlocked from all directions and did not permit for expansion; expansion has to be a primary concern because it is anticipated that the senior growth in the City of Melbourne is three percent per year; and based on current needs and anticipated needs, there has to be a site that will provide for expansion.  He stated based on insensitivity, illogical reasoning, and impractical idealism by the City Council, the seniors feel they are hostages to an unscrupulous action by the City Council; the seniors have been in a temporary location for three years; it is inadequate, membership has been lost, programs have been downsized; and because of that the group has lost money.  He advised based on the initial referendum which was $400 plus thousand dollars, and additional funds that were available by the City Council, it was agreed upon by all parties concerned that rather than try to remodel the old site to construct a new building; and in order to meet Code requirements by the State at the old site, it would have cost $1.1 million to bring it up to Code; and to have constructed a new building at that time would have cost $1.5 million, so it was obvious the primary concern was to construct a new building.  He stated today the seniors are in dire need of a new building and they would like to have it now.

 

Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Trigg could share some history of how the senior center is now at the airport and that the Board was also trying to work out something at the airport that was not able to be possible.

 

Mr. Trigg stated effective June 8 2007, the senior center will have been located at 1300 Airport Boulevard for three years; the Airport Council has agreed to permit the senior center to remain there until next summer with the understanding that the new building will be ready for occupancy; and at the present time the County is paying $28,000 per year for lease of the two buildings on the airport site.  He stated because of the lack of space and other amenities, the senior center has been reduced in its membership from 1,000 to 650 persons, which translates into a loss of funds and membership.

 

Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson stated the site plan that was in front of the City of Melbourne on Tuesday also included the Community Center at Wickham Park; so by virtue of this denial, the whole site plan for the community center and the senior center were denied; and at this point the County cannot proceed with just the community center.  He advised the Melbourne Planning and Zoning Board unanimously approved the project; staff recommended approval of the project; and in watching the DVD of the meeting, as Mr. Trigg stated, the sole basis for denial was because of location.  He stated Melbourne wanted to send the County the message that it wants the senior center downtown and not at Wickham Park; the site plan was denied solely upon that reason; and having reviewed the DVD and the evidence and testimony submitted, he does not think there is any legally sufficient basis to uphold that decision.  He stated in addition to not approving the site plan, the City Council directed the City Manager or Mayor to send a letter to the Board of County Commissioners advising the Board it does not want the center to be at Wickham Park; he was advised by the Clerk that the decision Tuesday night will be reduced to a final written order within a few days; at that point appeal deadlines potentially start running; and since the Board will not be meeting again for a while, it is important at this point for staff to ask the Board to authorize the County Attorney’s Office and staff, as may be necessary, to file a petition and/or initiate applicable intergovernmental dispute resolution procedures so that the County reserves the right to challenge or delegate the decision; and that the County does not end up waiving anything by running of time between now and the Board’s next meeting.  He stated staff would also like the Board to authorize the County Manager or Mr. Lusk to send a letter to the Mayor of the City of Melbourne requesting clarification of the City’s position regarding the old downtown site of the senior center; the old site was discussed a lot by the City Council; Melbourne recently leased that site from the County; and the County owns it, but it is currently under lease to use as parking.  He stated his understanding from Melbourne’s staff is that the City needs that site for parking and it is intending to improve it for parking.  He noted staff needs direction; if the City of Melbourne really wants the senior center located downtown, which did not work before because the City would not give the County the approvals and variances necessary, it needs to clarify its position on that, because the City is acting as if it is a viable option, which it is not.  He stated staff would like direction regarding the location of the senior center; inquired if the Board wants to proceed with the location at Wickham Park and do what is necessary to continue moving through that process, or should staff begin to reconsider the location and re-open that for consideration; noted right now staff is working on permitting, and staff needs direction on how to proceed or not proceed with bidding on the job. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired how much money has already been spent on the project; with Mr. Lusk responding approximately  $440,000 in construction dollars and $82,000 in rental space at the airport lease location; the longer the senior center stays at the airport, the more responsible the County is for some of the repairs that have to be done to the building.  Commissioner Voltz stated the Board needs to move forward legally with whatever it wants to do; and what the City of Melbourne did was not right.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Chairperson Colon to direct the County Attorney’s Office to file a petition and/or initiate applicable intergovernmental dispute resolution procedures to preserve the County’s right to challenge the City of Melbourne’s decision; authorize the County Manager to send a letter to the City Manger of Melbourne requesting clarification of the City’s position regarding the old downtown site for the senior center; and direct staff to move forward legally to pursue the Wickham Park site.   

 

 

Chairperson Colon stated it saddens the Board to have to take legal action; if the City Council of Melbourne wants to listen to the seniors of Melbourne, the seniors of Melbourne have made it perfectly clear that the parking at this location was not adequate; the seniors asked the City of Melbourne to identify a piece of property; and the Board looked at every available piece of property before deciding on Wickham Park.  She stated the seniors would have liked to stay downtown if the parking was adequate, but the parking was not adequate and had to be shared with the Hennigan Center.  She stated the Board also looked at Rhodes Park and the airport; all along the Board was listening to its seniors; the seniors were the ones telling the Board where they wanted the location; and she does not understand if the City of Melbourne really cares about the seniors of Melbourne, the County and the City should be listening to the seniors.  She stated the Board has no choice but to take legal action.  She stated Melbourne is huge; it is a huge growing city; and seniors come from everywhere to go to the senior center.  She stated there are only eight residents from the Trinity Towers that use the senior center, and she wants people to understand that the seniors have been in charge of the location of the new senior center.  She stated she is going to call some of the City Council members herself and she would appreciate it if the other Commissioners could also share their thoughts. 

 

Chairperson Colon called for a motion on the vote.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chairperson Colon thanked the seniors and the Board of Directors; and noted the Board is sorry they are having to deal with this.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired of Mr. Trigg if he believes the City Council fully appreciated the seniors’ position on the issue; or if it is a matter of the seniors requesting that it be reconsidered, rather than the County going through the legal process.

 

Mr. Trigg stated he believes concern for the seniors was completely ignored.  Commissioner Scarborough stated sometimes it is not the Board of County Commissioners; the senior center is for the seniors; it is run by the seniors; and inquired would it be something the seniors could request as opposed to the Commission, and explain to the Council the long travesty of one problem after another.  He stated it is difficult to think the answer is in the courts as opposed to a greater wisdom prevailing in the minds of a City Council that is elected to represent the seniors.

 

Mr. Trigg stated at the meeting on the May 22, 2007, past senior President Richard Delauder made a presentation  to the Council  and provided information in terms of history, needs, consequences, problem areas, and things of that nature; and he pleaded with the City Council to accept the recommendation to build the senior center at Wickham Park; and it has been accomplished to no avail.

 

Mr. Richardson stated having watched the meeting, he does not think hope is lost to accomplish something like Commissioner Scarborough is suggesting; all he is asking as far as legal action is the ability to file to preserve the County’s rights if it needs to go to court; and he would strongly advise the seniors to contact their Council members.  He stated after the denial, it cannot be heard by right until six months have passed, but Melbourne can waive the timeframe by a majority vote.  Commissioner Scarborough stated rule 13 of Robert’s Rules of Order allows for reconsideration by a motion of somebody voting in opposition at the next meeting; and inquired if something like that is possible. 

 

County Attorney Scott Knox noted the problem is there is a 30-day window to file anything. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want the seniors to think this is the favored course of action; suggested calls to the City Council from the County Commissioners asking them to approve the location for the seniors; noted the lifespan of many seniors are coming to an end; and some of them a lessened quality of life because of the failure to meet together as elected officials and help them. 

 

Mr. Richardson stated the City of Melbourne can waive the six months by a majority vote of their Council.  Commissioner Bolin inquired what was the vote of the City Council; with Attorney Richardson responding it was 5:2 against.  He noted the members who supported the motion are the ones who have to bring it back up for reconsideration.   He stated of the members who voted against it, they knew they were not considering the site plan and were just trying to send a message to the Board of County Commissioners about where it should be located; in the face of potential legal challenge, and if the seniors express their will, the City Council might change its mind.

 

Chairperson Colon stated if the seniors ask to be put on the agenda, it would be at the discretion of the City Manager and the City Council.  She stated it comes across as adversarial between the City of Melbourne and the Board of County Commissioner; that is not the case; the City of Melbourne is going against the will of what the seniors want; and the City does not realize how many seniors will be affected. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the irony is that the seniors wanted to be there and would have been there if it could have been built there; and the City is sending the seniors back to a place they could not build on.  He commented on the City of Melbourne’s plan for the downtown area and about the parking that has been made available to help the downtown area.

 

 

 

Euri Rodriguez, Solid Waste Director, stated at the same meeting in which the City of Melbourne   discussed  the  senior  center, the  City Council also discussed the expansion of the Sarno Landfill.  He noted during the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes, Sarno Landfill was rapidly running out of space; in August 2006, Solid Waste had a workshop with the Board of County Commissioners and he was directed by the Board to proceed with the permitting of the S.R. 192

site, which has 3,000 acres that would serve for 66 years; but the Sarno Landfill, under the current configuration, has a lifespan of four years; and the expected permitting process and construction is estimated to be six years, which means there is a two-year gap.  He stated reconfiguring the landfill and taking out a pond and replacing the stormwater capacity in the back of the landfill would have given the County the two years it needed.  He noted the County went to the City; there were some small concerns that were taken care of; and City staff recommended it go to Planning and Zoning.  He noted the County went to Planning and Zoning on May 3, 2007 and received a unanimous vote with a recommendation for approval; and the City Council on Tuesday denied the request after some discussion.  He stated what the County is facing right now is that in several years, Sarno Landfill will be closing and there will not be any place to put construction and demolition from the south end of the County; and there will not be any place to put yard waste, tires, or white goods for the south end of the County.  He noted there are several options staff can do, but all of them are extremely expensive; staff does not expect to have a permit in place on S.R. 192 at that time; and so there is going to be a gap.  He stated there is the northeast expansion area of 68 acres, which staff is trying to preserve in order to sell it to help finance the 192 site, if staff is successful with the site.   He stated currently the 192 site has a Conditional Use Permit for a landfill; it does not have the other permits that are necessary such as land clearing and building, which are from the City of Melbourne that the County would be required to have; but staff has not pursued those permits because it was not heading in that direction right now.  He stated shipping out of County is another option; it is very expensive, he ran some numbers; if the County were to keep one-quarter of the waste and ship out three-quarters of the waste in order to expand the life of the Sarno Landfill, it would cost the County $7 million per year; and that is just for contracting and assuming there is no inflation clause.  He noted currently the County charges $23.66 per ton and would be paying $30.00 per ton; in operating costs, it costs the County approximately $8 to $9.00 per ton because it is an old landfill; the capital investment has been recuperated; and the difference is what the County has been saving for going to the 192 site.  He noted that option could not be implemented without a drastic rate increase.  He advised another option would be for the County to transport the waste to the Cocoa Landfill; it would cut down on the life of the Cocoa Landfill; but it could save some time.  He stated it would cost the County $2.6 million in equipment; he would need a completely different fleet of 18-wheelers; what he has right now is aluminum made to transport soft garbage and not hard garbage; and he would need 15 trailers, ten tractor trailers and eight new positions in order to be able to transport the waste to Cocoa.  He stated that is for two years; after the two years the equipment would be for sale; and the operating cost would increase approximately by $1.5 million per year.

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if the increases would be paid for by the southern part of the County or the entire County; with Mr. Rodriguez responding the entire County; and Solid Waste has never had special rates for certain areas of the County.  He noted the Board could do that, but it means in the northern part of the County, because of putting construction and demolition in a Class I landfill, they should be paying $29.50 per ton instead of $23.00 per ton.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if the Titusville facility was strictly for yard waste; with Mr. Rodriguez responding affirmatively; there is some small construction and demolition, but only for homeowners; and there is also a metal pile at the Titusville facility along with some recycling.

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired how the waste is getting to Sarno Landfill now, if the Department does not have steel trailers; with Mr. Rodriguez responding people bring it to the landfill.  He stated the last option is to get out of the business and let everybody take the waste to Cocoa themselves. He noted it would save the County $2.6 million.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated with that final option the Board will find a lot of people who have property that is trashed; because rather than hauling it to West Cocoa, they will dump it in the City and on other property.  Mr. Rodriguez stated there was that problem in the north area before the County opened the Mockingbird facility; there was illegal dumping inside the city as well as outside the city; and he would expect the same thing to happen inside the Cities of Melbourne and Palm Bay, as well as the southern area of the County.  He commented on the price of fuel and the miles per gallon of the trucks transporting the waste.  He stated citizens could take the waste to the private facility currently in Melbourne and pay for that, but it would be up to the citizens; a lot of the residential construction and demolition from renovation is included in the assessment; and when the citizens bring it to the County, they have already prepaid it.  

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Board could enter into a contract with the private facility to have those particular things taken there instead.  Mr. Rodriguez stated it is his understanding that the City of Melbourne has a lawsuit against the private facility; there are some concerns about wetlands and the footprint of the landfill with the City of Melbourne; the facility is permitted by DEP to go up to 80 feet; it has no variance from the City to go beyond 40 feet; and he thinks they are past 40 feet right now.  He stated the County probably could contract with the facility for yard waste, but that still leaves the metal goods.  He advised with yard waste, the only way to control it is the residential yard waste, which is collected by Waste Management.

 

Chairperson Colon inquired if the Board is asking for only a two-year extension at the Sarno Landfill; with Mr. Rodriguez responding affirmatively.  Chairperson Colon inquired of the status of the S.R. 192 site.  Mr. Rodriguez stated staff has already started the wetland delineation process; staff is collecting data for the geo-technical work; half of the facility has already been flagged for wetlands not yet determined; staff expects to apply for the Environmental Resource Permit within the next nine months; and six months after that, staff expects to apply for the Solid Waste Permit.  He stated one factor that has increased the time was the possibility of opposition during the permitting process; and if there is not opposition during the permitting process, it will take less than the six years that was estimated.

 

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the issue is that the County will need to file something within 30 days if it is going to reserve any rights it had to try to contest the denial of the CUP; and Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore has looked at the transcript and has some evaluation as to if the County will have any success with it.

 

Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore stated she reviewed the City of Melbourne meeting from Tuesday; the sentiment from many of the Council members was that the facility, overall, should shut down sooner rather than later; the Council feels that commercial and residential interests have grown around the landfill; and now the landfill is a nuisance and presents health and safety hazards.  She stated staff approved the application; the Planning and Zoning Advisory Board had a public hearing and approved the application and issued written findings that the application met substantial and confident evidence for approval; some limitations were imposed  such  as  the entire landfill be closed by 2013; that there be some height limitations on the area of the current stormwater pond in terms of how much debris could be piled up there; and there is some question as to whether or not the decision was in fact based on substantial competent  evidence,  so  there  is certainly  reasonable  grounds  to  challenge  the denial if the Board chooses to do so.  She noted staff would need an answer today because of the 30-day timeframe to file a petition.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to direct the County Attorney’s Office to file a petition of objection to the City of Melbourne regarding its denial for the expansion of the Sarno Landfill. 

 

 

Chairperson Colon inquired of some of the concerns from the City Council regarding whether the County is in the middle of a contract with the private sector.  Mr. Rodriguez stated one issue was a letter from someone stating that during the hurricanes, a piece of metal was sent flying that allegedly came from the landfill; and in the last month or so there have been two fires in the landfill.  He noted one fire started in the landfill and the other one started behind Interstate Batteries and went through a vacant piece of property to reach the landfill.  He stated there was also a question on whether Brevard County was still negotiating with Florida Recyclers for the purchase of the private landfill; and he informed the Council that the discussion had ceased approximately five years ago. 

 

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Mr. Knox stated the County Attorney’s Office will file the petition within 30 days to toll the time for the Statute of Limitations; from that point forward the County has to go through the dispute resolution process; and hopefully it can be resolved between the time it is filed and the time it has to go forward.

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the Board needs to continue the discussion regarding space for the Sheriff and the Public Defender; and it is part of the agenda, but he would like to make sure it gets discussed.

 

Chairperson Colon stated it is part of the agenda report and it will be discussed.

 

 

 

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated before the Board is information from the Joint Committee on property tax relief and reform; and Legislative Delegation Coordinator Leigh Holt has a PowerPoint presentation for the Board. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is important for the whole community to watch and be a part of the discussion.

 

Legislative Coordinator Leigh Holt stated she has good news for the Board; the Governor signed the budget today; his veto list totaled $459 million; and he vetoed over 600 projects.  She noted Brevard County did keep $175,000 for the Brevard County Emergency Operations Center; $250,000 for the Brevard County Veterans Memorial Center  Park; and $100,000 for the Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore home replica.  She stated those projects were not vetoed and are kept in the final budget; the Emergency Operations Center was the County’s only budget request; and the Veterans Center and the Moore Center have also been supported by the Board.   She stated on Monday in Tallahassee, the only discussion was on the new proposal which is a tiered approach to Homestead Exemption, which would require a constitutional amendment; and that leaves for June 4, 2007, a conservation about immediate tax relief for November 2007, which can only be accomplished with a freeze or a rollback.  She stated the $25,000 exemption for tangible personal property, which would be for businesses, has been universally accepted; it has been in the House, the Senate, and the Governor’s proposal; and it would help Brevard’s businesses a lot.  She stated there are still considerations for first-time homebuyers, affordable housing, and renters; highest and best use of business property versus current use for income based use; and there are still a lot of things to be considered that have been discussed in previous proposals.  She stated she has the PowerPoint presentation that was shown to the Legislative Committee on Monday; it is pretty long and complicated; so she is just going to go through a couple of points; and if the Board has questions, she would be happy to answer them.  She stated the Legislative Committee talked about the current system; what the main challenges are; and how the tiered approach might address those things.  She stated there are four things happening; first is the real estate market; and right now about 50 percent of homesteads have exemptions that are significant.  She stated it is the property valuations that have brought the Save Our Homes is equity to the front; dealing with the property valuations is a Property Appraiser issue of how properties are valued; she does not think it is as important for Brevard County as it is in Palm Beach County, as there is not consistency among property appraisers and the way they are doing appraisals; and even though there are rules, there seem to be some differences from county to county, so that is something that still needs to be addressed.  She stated when valuations start to level as the market starts to cool it is expected that it will adjust itself. 

 

Ms. Holt noted the chart in the presentation has a blue line that shows the homestead appreciation; between 2006 and 2007, it is going to drop off and begin to rise again; but it will take a while for the homestead value exemption to catch up with that.  She noted there are very large differences for different taxpayers; and one’s next door neighbor may be paying a lot more for the same size house.  She stated the Legislative Committee took all of the homesteaded properties in the State and divided them into ten groups; each bar on the chart represents 430,000 homesteads; so it is an equal division of all homesteads into ten groups; ten percent of homesteads are getting ten percent of the benefit; and ten percent of the homesteads are getting 87 percent of the benefits.  She noted the Board can see there is a wide variation between different homesteaders and what kind of benefit they are getting from Save Our Homes.  She noted the people with the lowest benefit are paying 25 percent of all property taxes; ten percent of the homes are paying 25 percent of the property taxes; and the people with the highest benefit are only paying one percent of all the property taxes.  She stated clearly there is inequity; ten percent of the homes should be paying ten percent, and they are not; and the burden has been shifted to the non-homesteaded properties to the people who have moved in recently and have not accumulated Save Our Homes.  She stated the chart in front of the Board shows what would have happened if not for Save Our Homes versus what has happened with  Save  Our  Homes;  in the  middle  column  with  Save Our  Homes, the average Statewide millage has risen to 18.5; if not for Save Our Homes, and if everybody had been paying their fair share since 1992, the average Statewide millage would probably have stayed at 14.8; which means 25 percent of the tax burden has been shifted to the non-homestead and commercial properties.  She commented on the lock-in effect with people afraid to move because their taxes are going to go up; noted only six to seven percent of homesteaders sell their property and move; only half of those buy again in the State of Florida; so the people who are locked-in is about three percent of the homesteaders  she stated the House and Senate staff perception is that portability may not be as important in the cooling real estate market; when everyone’s house was suddenly worth three times as much as it was yesterday, more people were thinking about moving because they saw windfall profit that may come their way; and then the new taxes and the new homes did not look so good.  She stated now that it is leveling it would go back to the numbers where only six or seven percent are impacted.  Ms. Holt noted the portability issues, which did have some constitutional challenges that had already been identified may not be as important as people thought it was.  She stated as the Legislators traveled around the State and were told by citizens that their taxes were too high, it was not the homesteaders protected by Save Our Homes because their taxes have not gone up that much, or they have gone down, such as they have done in Brevard County; it is because their bills have not changed and they are enjoying the services that have been added to their local community; and so they are really not engaged in the conversation.  She noted the homesteaders who have been protected are now disinterested because they have not been impacted by the changes in their local budgets.

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if Ms. Holt had a percentage of those who were disinterested; with Ms. Holt responding Statewide, 43 percent of residential properties are homesteaded.  Chairperson Colon inquired what the percentage is for Brevard County; with Ms. Holt responding in Brevard County, 71 percent of residential properties are homesteaded, which is a huge percentage of the residential population.  Chairperson Colon stated that is why the comparison is important; it is the 29 percent that the Board has such a great concern because of the discrepancy; and instead of focusing on the 30 percent, more is being looked at for the 70 percent that is already protected.  She stated if the State wants balance it would be the 30 percent which is the commercial and others. 

 

Ms. Holt stated that is why those things are going to be on the table on June 4, 2007; in spite of what the State went through during the legislative session and all the different models, there was a new model that was unveiled in the Joint Committee that is basically new in the conversation; and that is the tiered method of taxation.  She stated the reality is it is the first model that might possibly address the inequity and something that the current homesteaders that are protected by Save Our Homes might vote for because it does require a constitutional amendment; the 71 percent of homesteaders would possibly go to the polls and vote for this because they would benefit; the original model that was developed by Representative Simmons actually showed that they would equalize the amount of property tax revenue from homesteaders and non-homesteaders; and fixing the inequity should be the ultimate goal.  She stated the challenge is that three different models were presented in the tiered program; each of the three models could have a million variations with different percentages and different tiers; and it is very complicated.  She noted whereas in the past, the County was able to look at the proposal from the House, the Senate, or the Governor and project the impact to the County; in this case the State cannot give the County any indication of what the impact to Brevard County would be; there is the original plan that shows Brevard’s cut to be $36 to $46 million; none of the

numbers presented on Monday were close to those numbers in the original plan; and the legislation is not able to give the Board any direction that will help it in the budgeting process. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated what the Board is addressing is something that would occur with  the  people  voting  for  a  constitutional  amendment;  and  inquired  if it would not occur to impact this budget; with Ms. Holt responding affirmatively.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired when the legislation is intending to put it on the ballot to be voted on; with Ms. Holt responding it could be on the ballot for the Presidential Primary on January 29, 2008; and that means it would go into effect in the next budget year.

 

Ms. Holt stated the first method is a flat percent; if a home is valued at $100,000 the owner is going to pay on 50 percent of the home value; and if the owner is protected by Save Our Homes, paying on 50 percent is not bad.  Commissioner Voltz stated when looking at the value of a home there are a lot of taxes included in the tax bills; and inquired if the Legislation has addressed those yet; with Ms. Holt responding right now the Legislation is applying it to the whole tax bill; and this would completely change the way revenue is generated.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if that includes the School Board; with Ms. Holt responding affirmatively; and that issue of what it would do to the School Board was not raised until late in the meeting on Monday.  She stated there was some discussion about the way to keep the schools at their same income would be to adjust the millage upward so they can collect more to keep the same revenue; and the way it is written at this point would impact schools and the whole bill.  Commissioner Voltz stated if it is adjusted to collect more revenue then the 50 percent goes out the window; with Ms. Holt responding not for Brevard County. 

 

Mr. Whitten inquired if the exception on bonds was still in the scenario; with Ms. Holt responding the Legislation has not gotten to that level of detail yet.  Mr. Whitten stated he believes the exemption is still there so the bonds will still be able to be paid and meet the obligations; and logistically he does not see how it is going to be applied to each and every parcel because there is going to be a different valuation on each and every parcel because there is going to be a different valuation for the operating millages and a different one for the debt service.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated this is addressing a constitutional amendment as to how the Board has the Homestead Exemption and Save Our Homes; it has to be brief; people need to know what they are voting on; and it may not be such that certain entities can be extracted and put other entities in.  Mr. Whitten stated he sees it very difficult to present this to the voters so they will understand and he sees it doubling if it is implemented.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many words can be on a constitutional amendment; with Mr. Knox responding the language has a 75 word maximum.  Commissioner Scarborough stated that in itself limits the capacity to have many complex ideas presented; and he sees it as being across the board.

 

Ms. Holt stated the Legislation’s intent in presenting it was that it was across the board, but they had not gotten to the bond issues or the School Board.  Commissioner Scarborough stated unless the Legislation comes back and allows an ability to roll up millages outside of this to protect the bonded indebtedness to discuss millage and legislations; and inquired if that is where it should go.  Mr. Whitten stated that is one way of doing that; if it is going to be applied across the board there is going to be some ability to ratchet up the tax rate for the debt in order to make the debt service payments.  Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board knocks the values down certain things would be allowed to ratchet up and it is going to be worse. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated there is also the circumstance that on the bond indebtedness if the value is lowered the millage has to be raised and the County could get more millage than it voted on. 

 

Ms. Holt stated the flat percent is actually the easiest to put on the ballot because everybody would have the same amount exempted; and that is complicated.  She showed the Board another example of the flat percent in which everyone would get 35 percent instead of 50 percent; and noted it shows the taxable value.  She noted the next method is a tiered percentage; the positive thing about the tiered method is the people in the less expensive homes have the bigger exemptions; as the home gets more expensive there is less of an exemption; and it is really an attempt to address low income.  Chairperson Colon stated if one is blessed, then they are in trouble.  Commissioner Voltz stated that basic assumption is that because one lives in a big house, they can afford to pay more taxes; and when the Board wanted to give a break to the low income on the Fire Assessment Fee, the Board was told it could not do that.  Mr. Knox stated the Board was told it could do it, but it could not collect it. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated if the Legislation would have spoken to the counties maybe it could have been worked out where the inequities would have been addressed in a manner that would take everybody into consideration.  Commissioner Scarborough stated this is not directed to the counties as it is directed at the value on the homes which impact everybody.  Chairperson Colon stated the Board wants the schools to be protected and the same level of service that is being given right now to the children.  Commissioner Voltz stated if Delegations all over the State would have conversations with the School Board and the County Commissioners, then maybe the Board would understand where they are coming from; the Delegation would understand how the Board’s budget process works; and in understanding the process it would help the Delegation determine how it would do some of these things.  She noted the goal of the Delegation is to lower property taxes for the citizens; the goal of the Board is to make sure it has lowered property taxes; and both are trying to get to the same place but going in different directions to get there. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the State just raised $546 million that citizens are going to have to pay for throughout the State; if that had not been the case then she would have said everyone is at the same playing field with the same rules; but the same rules are not applying to the State; and that is where it is uncomfortable.  She stated if the State was considering all of these cuts itself then it would be leading by example; but it is not leading by example.

 

Ms. Holt stated as the Delegation presented the models, they impacted the schools as well, but they were not able to say how much.  She stated between this example where the just-values are different for different values of homes, there is another version; with any of the numbers the percentages could change, the value ranges could change; and there are huge opportunities for change. 

 

*Commissioner Voltz’s absence was noted.

 

Ms. Holt advised the third model is county by county; it is the only model that recognizes there are 67 counties and they are all different; and rather than randomly picking a value for each tier it works off of the median value in the County.  She stated this would be better for the fiscally constrained counties; and because their property values are lower, their median is lower, so they would be able to collect more.  She stated this model adjusts itself over time as the median value grows with property values; whereas with the other tiered approaches, those tiers are set and people would move into a new bracket as the value of their home went up, which is the way properties are assessed.  She noted with this model there would be a border effect; the people that  are in  Scottsmoor  and  across  the  line in  Volusia would be in different brackets because Volusia’s median may not be the same as Brevard’s median; and there would be some inequities that way.  She stated people who preferred Save Our Homes would be grandfathered-in, which is probably the only way it would pass on a ballot; but the basic argument for any of the tiered approaches is that it improves the equity among the homesteads. 

 

*Commissioner Voltz’s presence was noted.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if someone with Save Our Homes is able to look at two formulas and say whether they want to stay under the current formula for Save Our Homes, and if it is an individual grandfathering-in; with Ms. Holt responding affirmatively.  Commissioner Scarborough stated then it could pass because a lot of people are going to vote against the unknown; and if people do not understand something they vote against it.

 

Ms. Holt state the last two bars on the chart show that only 20 percent of the homesteads are the ones that would benefit from grandfathering; 80 percent of the homesteads in any of the models would pay less taxes with the tiered approach; and it is just a small group of ten or 20 percent that would want to stay with Save Our Homes.  She stated if the goal is equity, then this could get them there; that each group is paying its fair share; but it would be very complicated to put on a ballot.  She stated it takes care of the lock-in because one could sell their home and move to a new home and it would still be whatever tier that home was; and if one is downsizing, they can move to a higher tier in one of the models.  She stated even for the people who chose grandfathering, if they chose to move, they would no longer have the Save Our Homes and they would move into the tiered model and they would still save, versus what happens to them today.  She stated the key phrase is, “taxing authorities will lose revenues unless other adjustments are made”; and “the magnitude of these effects will depend on the size of the enhanced exemption”; and there are no numbers associated with those two statements.  She stated revenue losses would be more problematic for some taxing authorities and the second bullet point says, “jurisdictions that have an unusually large homestead property component in their tax base,” which is Brevard County. She stated jurisdictions that rely more heavily on property tax revenues would impact most of the municipalities.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired about the three percent cap that the Delegation was looking at, which was Representative Stan Mayfield’s Bill; with Ms. Holt responding it was passed, but it has not been signed and has not gone to the Governor yet.

 

Ms. Holt stated the methods are complicated and it took the Delegation about two and a half hours to explain it to the committee; and getting it to 75 words on a ballot would be the biggest challenge in the proposal.  She stated she would be happy to answer any questions, but the reality is that it may all change again on June 4, 2007, and a lot more will be known then than today.  She stated the revenue caps, the rollbacks, and all of those things were not even discussed yet; and hopefully they will be addressed on June 4, 2007.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated there has been some speculation that the deal had already been cut; and inquired if Ms. Holt had any indication if that is true, as it is hard to imagine. Ms. Holt stated she does not believe the Legislation Delegation is that close; in addition to these things, the Democratic party put out a fourth version of the plan; and there was no testimony at the meeting on Monday, as there was just a presentation by staff and members of the Joint Committee, House and Senate, asking questions about the model so they can be ready for June 4, 2007; but it does not seem to her or Mr. Thrasher that they are that close.

 

Mr. Whitten stated Ms. Holt is mentioning June 4, 2007 but the Special Session is June 12 through 22, 2007; with Ms. Holt responding June 4, 2007 is another meeting of the Joint Committee where they will take up all the other parts of the plan in addition to the tiered approach; and the goal would be to go to the Special Session on June 12, 2007 with some structure of a plan that could be debated.

 

Chairperson Colon stated right now the Board does not know if it is looking at $40 million or $76 million.  Ms. Holt stated that is correct; less is known about that today than when in session.

 

Chairperson Colon inquired if it is possible for the County Attorney to draft a letter with the legalities of the concerns in regard to Representative Mayfield’s Bill to go to the Governor’s office; with Mr. Knox responding he can do that and he will pull the concerns off of the list he gave the Board of the Bill itself.  Chairperson Colon stated it will become part of that package that the Governor receives. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Lobbyist John Thrasher is engaged on the issue; with Mr. Knox responding he does not know.  Commissioner Scarborough stated Chairperson Colon may want to phone Mr. Thrasher with Ms. Holt and see how to structure the letter.  Chairperson Colon stated instead of memos she would rather have an official letter to the Delegation from the Board.  Commissioner Scarborough stated with all that is going on it adds another level of complexity to doing government; and inquired why should Brevard County have the level of complexity of trying to make things work in addition to everything else.  He stated Brevard County is unique with what the Property Appraiser has done with the values.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board has to remember that the people of Brevard County did vote on the three percent tax cap and they know the legal issue with it; and at all times the Board needs to keep in mind that was the wishes of the voters, as it goes forward.

 

Chairperson Colon stated the Board received an email from Jack Schluckebier from the City of Melbourne; the Florida League of Cities invited Senator Haridopolos and Representative Altman to the League of Cities; and the panel explained perfectly the fact that Brevard County seems to have always been very fiscally responsible and that everyone being fiscally responsible is paying for the misspending and all of the abuse that is going on in other parts of the State; and he was able to elaborate it nicely.  She stated she would like to get a copy of the memo and read it for the record.

 

 

 

Mr. Whitten stated in part this workshop is a continuation of the discussion of the courthouse expansion and facilities needs; a synopsis has been distributed to the Board in regard to where the Board is with the Justice Center expansion; and Steve Quickel and Teresa Camarata can help explain the chart.  He noted the Board directed staff earlier in the year to issue an RFP for A&E  Services  and  Construction  Management  Services  for  a  90,000 square feet to 120,000 square feet of expansion space for judicial support space and other office needs adjacent to the courthouse for courts and the State Attorney; and staff has selected the firms and the firms are on board.  He noted the direction from the Board was to negotiate and bring the contract back to the Board.

 

Steve Quickel stated staff received the authorization to have them submit a proposal.  Mr. Whitten stated the intent of that was to see how far staff could get in terms of the amount of space that could be built or expanded out up to the Charter Cap of $20 million; the Board has set aside a sufficient amount of debt service in the current fiscal year budget to finance approximately $20 million in construction; he mentions current fiscal year because it is a recurring tax revenue source; and with the issues in Tallahassee staff is not sure that the revenue source is going to be there next year.  He noted the information given to the Board outlines the current space allocation for the State Attorney, Public Defender, and the Sheriff’s Office in Building E; and the space that would be available if an expansion could take place across the road.  He stated currently the State Attorney who occupies Building D has approximately 50,000 square feet; an expansion of 120,000 square feet would allow him to expand into 66,000 square feet; the Public Defender on the second floor of Building E has approximately 19,000 square feet; and to occupy the second floor or Building D or E, he would expand to 26,000 square feet.  He advised the Sheriff’s Office, which occupies the entire floor of Building E, which is 17,000 square feet, would be able to expand into the entire Building E, or some portion of Building D if the State Attorney moves across the road and Building D becomes available.  He stated it may be a good time for the Board to discuss the negotiations for the renovation of the first floor of Building E.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the Board has been working with the Public Defender; he appreciates the cooperation he has gotten from the Public Defender and the Sheriff; at the meeting on Tuesday there was a misunderstanding about whether or not the acquisition of the Gus Hipp building was tied to the relocation of the Pubic Defender into the Sheriff’s space; but there is still a problem and with due respect to the Sheriff, Mr. Russo needs to know where he goes from here; and Mr. Russo is willing to drop his litigation if the Board proceeds with the renovations.  He stated the Sheriff has indicated his acquisition is tied to the deal; and the Board needs to figure out where it goes from here.  He stated he has not had a chance to talk about the Gus Hipp building; other than the revenue source which was the Sheriff’s phone money that came from the prisoners’ phone calls and that was going to be sufficient to pay for the debt associated with the acquisition; and it is not an ad valorem source, but Commissioner Scarborough pointed out it could be used to offset other ad valorem dollars as the Board gets into the Budget process.  He stated he is looking for direction from the rest of the Board members because the Board is in a Catch-22; he appreciates Mr. Russo coming to the meeting today; and with the Board not meeting for a month, he would like to do something even if it is to say it cannot do anything.

 

Chairperson Colon stated she has no intention of changing her vote from Tuesday; there was a lot of thought that went into it; it did not just happen because the Board felt like it; the Board needs to know what is going to happen in June and what the State is going to do to the municipalities and to the County; and nothing has changed from Tuesday until now.  She stated in regards to this particular project it is moving along.

 

Mr. Quickel stated staff has had some very preliminary discussions with an architectural engineering firm and the construction manager and staff has told them it might be premature to start until staff gets a clearer picture of the reality of the project; and a great deal of effort will be spent on generating plans upon which some firms can be developed and then the construction manager can go out and get quotes for the price.  He stated one of staff’s fears is getting a premature start and telling them to start and then they lose interest and say the County is not serious about this; and as soon as the contractors are told to start, the dollars are going to start adding up and it will become very expensive very quickly; it is not fair at this point in time to have them go out and incur a great debt until staff can give a clearer definition of where it is going with the project.

 

Chairperson Colon stated this is not a position the Board likes to be in; it has been forced into the position it is in; and there are some people who do not understand that and think the Board wants to make the cuts and put projects on hold. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he is more concerned with the $2.1 million per year annually that the Board may be expending when it may have other options compared to having to resolve the issue of space now because that has to get done; and facing the fact that the Board may not be able to spend the $2.1 million it may have to spend the other money to fix the Public Defender space.  He noted if it goes through this and it ends up in court and the County loses, then it will be compelled to provide space.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated what concerns him is fragmented conversations; there probably is not anything that comes before the Board that is not a good idea; the Board of County Commissioners are the only ones in Brevard County who will weigh everything within the County; and he is very concerned with the series of dialogues that have been presented to the Commission.  He stated when the Board decided to go with the more aggressive idea of building across the street it was the best of all worlds; the Board was able to open up space for government opportunities, and keep an integrated system of where people are going to be working with the courts; and it was a great idea.  He noted at the time the Board was cautioned that it was pushing the envelope, money-wise; and when it was discussed later the Board was told it could go ahead with some A&E work without coming to some final commitment.  He stated simultaneously the Board was discussing the budget; there was a meeting where the discussion was that the Board needs $76 million in cuts; on top of that there were $23 million and of that some of it was cost avoidance, such as new libraries; and the Board has already voted for no new libraries.  He stated then the Board had a list come back to it for $49 million; the problem is not which of these he has to cut, but what else does he have to cut; and then there is a discussion about impacts by different Departments.  He stated Human Resources Director Frank Abbate has talked about certain provisions of a union contract if certain things occur; and Mr. Knox has now provided the Board with provisions if it is going to challenge Constitutional Officers and the timeframes in which to do that.  He stated the trouble is that everybody wants to pull one thing aside; this is not easy because Public Defender J.R. Russo needs the space; the Board is going to do the wrong thing because it is the cheap thing; and inquired how the Board meets minimum requirements of jail and new judges if there is a collapse.  He noted there was a crisis once when portables were hauled in; and inquired if staff has looked at portables as options.  Mr. Whitten stated staff has not; staff does not even know what the target is until something happens.  Commissioner Scarborough stated staff has not given him a way to get to $76 million and he is continuing to get additional requests that draw further upon the available resources.  Mr. Whitten stated that is going to be the challenge for staff.  Commissioner Scarborough stated court could be held in portables too.  Mr. Whitten stated  the  challenge for  staff is  going to be to bring  the Board those proposals back when the Board meets again on June 25, 2007 there is a short timeframe to do that; and hopefully there will be some direction from the Special Session.  He stated in essence staff needs to bring the Board a menu of cuts and whatever those are going to amount to so that the Board can get to whatever the target or benchmark percentage is going to be; there is a lot of work for staff to undertake between now and when it sees the Board again on June 25, 2007.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff will look at portables; with Mr. Whitten responding affirmatively. Commissioner Scarborough stated the court system has had portables before and it is an option if there is not money for the other things.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board is still talking about bonding out $20 million to get some of the things done.  Mr. Whitten stated that is part of the issue; if things are next year as they are today, the Board can do that; and the Board does not know what is going to be imposed on it as a result of the session.  Commissioner Voltz stated her point is that the Board does not know; if it bonds out today, it does not know if it can pay it next year; and it will be in trouble.  She stated she agrees with Commissioner Scarborough that the Board has to move on, but if there is no money to do it, then it will not do it until all of the other stuff gets straightened out.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated in the worst case scenario the Board is required to maintain space, but nothing says it has to be concrete and not portables.

 

Mr. Knox stated ultimately the Board has to make the decision on where the spaces are allocated and who gets what space; even though Mr. Russo has filed suit and the Sheriff does not like the arrangement the Board has negotiated, it still has the ability to make the decision that it is the arrangement it would like to have if that is what it chooses to do; and ultimately that is the Board’s call.

 

Deputy County Attorney Shannon Wilson stated in light of the meeting on Tuesday, the County Attorney’s Office went back to the owner of the Gus Hipp property and asked if he would be willing to extend that Contract or at least give the County the first option if it was put on the market.  She stated the owner came back and said he would be willing to extend the court Contract until June 26, 2007 with the understanding that the County would be cutting down the original 60-days for due diligence to 45 days; and that would give basically 14 days to close from June 26, 2007.  She stated if the Board wanted to avail itself to that ability for that Contract, the property owner is willing to do that; but the County Attorney’s Office would need authority from the Board to have the County Manager or her designee sign that with those two provisions; and that at least gives the Board another option.

 

Mr. Whitten stated the effect of that is that it allows the Board to do what it suggested to the Sherriff that it would do on Tuesday; and that was to simply have them hold the property or give the County first right until it sees what is happening with the session.  He advised the effect of what Ms. Wilson stated is that if the owner is going to sell the property he is going to call and let the County know that he has to sell it and he will do that until June 26, 2007, so that the Board can at least determine where it is after the end of the Special Session.  Chairperson Colon inquired how long the property has been on the market; with Mr. Whitten responding approximately one year.  Chairperson Colon stated that is her point; the property has been on the market for over a year; and the Board should not allow anyone to push it against the wall, as the State is already doing that.  She stated the Board did not deny it on Tuesday; the Board asked  for an  opportunity  to find out what kind of position it is going to be in; and the Board was very clear about what it was saying on Tuesday.  She stated there are no easy decisions; it is not just about the Sheriff’s Department or the Public Defender’s Office; it is about all of the $76 million worth of cuts that are going to be impacted; and they are all important and they are all needed, or else the Board would not be considering them. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated his problem is that the first topic of conversation when the Board comes back in June is if it proceeds with this issue; and he is not going to be sufficiently orientated on one day back in session to be able to see where it is going.  He stated he feels the and is going to be struggling until the last hour on September 18, 2007, and his prediction is that no one will know what the budget is going to look like until the final vote, if there is a vote in favor of the budget. 

 

Ms. Wilson stated she has spoken to Mr. Knox about whether the County Attorney’s Office needs to check its Agreements in the purchase because it may not allow modulars on this site.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the County Attorney’s Office may need to go back and get amendments to those Agreements. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated people understand a lot more than the Board thinks they understand; the Sheriff understands and Mr. Russo understands.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can give Mr. Russo what he wants and he can leave and he does not have a problem, as well as libraries and others also.  Commissioner Voltz stated when the Board looks at the whole picture, everyone understands that the Board is under a crunch.  Commissioner Scarborough stated they really do not care whether the Board is under a crunch or not; they care about whether or not the Board is going to take care of them or not.  Commissioner Voltz stated the Board has set priorities which are Public Safety and Transportation; everything else has to come into line as they need to, but the focus should be on Public Safety and Transportation; and those are the things the Board is going to have to address. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated at the Board meeting on Tuesday the Board allocated the money for the jail expansion.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the Board made a decision to bond LOGT which could have been offset by General Fund dollars; the Board did not look at re-prioritizing projects and it made the decision to do that.  He stated the Sheriff’s CSI operation is part of Public Safety and he thinks the Public Defender is part of that and once he is in the system he needs the space.  He stated the Board made a decision to do some bonding on Monday and then later decided not to.  Commissioner Voltz stated LOGT is about funding roads.  Commissioner Nelson stated he understands that but those dollars were also funding road construction; and the Board took those General Fund dollars and moved out LOGT.  He stated of the LOGT, the Board moved $800,000 but the amount of debt payment was more because of LOGT.  Mr. Whitten stated the Board had some dollars that it moved last year which was $1.5 million that was not allocated and so it was a mixture of the $1.5 million and the $800,000 to $900,000 to get the Board the appropriate debt service.  Commissioner Nelson stated the Board did not look at prioritizing certain roads which could have saved the General Fund.  He stated the Board is going to meet on June 25, 2007, with a little better information but it will not have any new information to base a decision on because the Board will have to get to the end of the process in order to make a decision.

 

Chairperson Colon stated the best thing the Board can do is have Ms. Wilson look at the legalities of portables; before the Board heard about the budget cuts it was on track; none of it is off the table and none of it is being denied; and what the Board is saying is that it is also frustrated as it has to worry about the whole County.  She commented on the problems that other counties are running into; and noted the federal government is also watching to see what the municipalities  and  counties are doing.   Commissioner Scarborough stated the other states are going to win because they are going to have the matching dollars; so grants that were originally going to Florida will not be able to go because Florida will not have the matching dollars.  Commissioner Voltz stated the County would have to give up property in the south County that she went to the State to fight for; and Brevard County got the grant but it does not have the match. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the Board needs to tell the Public Defender something; the Board had reached a point where it had agreed on moving in that direction; and it is unable to do that.  Commissioner Scarborough suggested Mr. Russo address the Board.

 

J.R. Russo, Public Defender, stated he thought an agreement had been reached the other day; he thought he and the Sheriff were happy with the change; the change that the Sheriff is getting is netting him more square footage than he is giving up; and he does not understand the lack of continuing to agree to a program unless it is linked to something else.  He stated if the Board waits until June 26, 2007 or September 18, 2007 or January 1, 2008, it does not matter; he still needs the space; he is still going to be here legally if he wins the suit, and he thinks he has a good chance at winning it and the Board will have to provide it; and that is the bottom line.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many additional square feet Mr. Russo needs; with Mr. Russo responding he has 3,800 square feet under the plan that he has packed 14 offices into; that would work easily until January 2009, when the Board will be talking about the other plan.  He stated he has eight lawyers he needs to hire; and he could put 14 offices into the 3,800 square feet.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many more square feet does he need; with Mr. Russo responding 3,800 square feet would be how much he needs.

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the 14 offices can be in other buildings on the campus rather than all in one spot; with Mr. Russo responding no they do not, but it is very difficult to run an office when there is a piece here and a piece there, but they do not have to be in the same spot. Commissioner Bolin stated she understands Mr. Knox to have said that who is housed by each office is decided upon by the Board.  Mr. Knox stated the Board is responsible for providing space for not only County functions, but also the Constitutional Officers, which include Mr. Russo, so that is the Board’s responsibility by law and the Board gets to make those calls; if Mr. Russo needs space and the Board agrees that he needs space then it has to provide the space someplace; if the Board feels it needs to move some people out in order to do that then that is what it has to do; and it may be premature to be talking about that at this point because the Board does not know what is going to happen with the County itself. 

 

Mr. Russo stated one thing that has been left unsaid is that maybe one thing that can be done is a review on how the Public Defender, the Sheriff and other agencies are actually using the space that they now have. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board does not know what is going to happen; and on June 25, 2007  or  September 18, 2007 the  Board  may  still not know what is going to happen next year. 

She stated with all of those things in mind the Board has to back off and not spend the money.  Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board has to lay off 1,400 employees space would open up through that process.  Commissioner Voltz stated she does not think the Board will have to do that.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many employees Commissioner Voltz thinks will have to be laid off and if there is a number she is working with that he has not heard.  Commissioner Voltz stated  she cannot  see the State  causing all of Brevard County to implode.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not just Brevard County as it is every city and county in the State; the Board has to prepare for the worst and hope for the best; and if it does not prepare for the worst then it is going to fail as a Commission.  Commissioner Voltz stated if employees are facing layoff then the Board needs to make some decisions so that it does not lose hundreds of employees; and it will not just be the County as the Cities will also lose employees.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is that most of the County’s expenses are salaries because it is a service industry; and the main cost savings he sees is the reduction of staff and that is why he keeps returning to the concept of freezing wages.  Commissioner Voltz stated the legislators have to come back and face the music; whatever happens they have to face the music too; they are going to do something, but she does not think it will cause the Board to layoff 500 or more employees; and the legislators were elected by the same people the Board was elected by. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated as late as this week one of the legislators’ office is still giving out information that there is only going to be a six percent cut; so that misconception is still being spread to the public. 

 

Mr. Knox commented on the legislators giving the same information to Hillsborough County and they do not get it yet.

 

Chairperson Colon stated she would like to discuss Charter Officers cuts that are going to have to be made.  She stated everyone who has been elected right now is going through some hard times, whether it is a Council member, a Mayor, County Commissioner, State Representative, or a Constitutional Officer, everyone is dealing with this right now.  She requested Mr. Knox to elaborate a little on the budget appeals for Charter Officers and if there are certain deadlines or resolutions.

 

Mr. Knox stated all of the Charter Officers except the Tax Collector had to submit their budgets by June 1, 2007; each one of them has a little bit of a different posture when it comes to how the final budget gets approved; in the case of the Supervisor of Elections and a portion of the Clerks budget that the County Commission actually funds, which is not always part of it, the Board just says yes or no to whatever budget it wants; and if they do not like it then they can take the Board to court.  He stated in the case of the Sheriff, if the Board approves a budget he does not like he gets to appeal to the Governor’s Cabinet and the Governor and Cabinet have to hold a hearing and it is determined from that hearing what the Sheriff’s budget is going to be; and their decision is final in that case.  He noted in the case of what the Property Appraiser is going to be and their decision is final in that case.  He noted in the case of the Property Appraiser it is similar, except the Department of Revenue makes the decision and then the Board has a right to appeal that decision if it does not like it.  He stated the Tax Collector has no appeal process built into the Statute, the only way to get involved in the Tax Collector’s budget is to institute a Chapter 120, Administrative Procedures Act request for hearing on a special interest; because the County gets money back at the end of the year from the Tax Collector, in the event he does not spend it all, the Board has an interest that would probably be worthy of protection; but that would require an administrative lawsuit.  He stated those are the basic options.

 

Chairperson Colon inquired if there are things the Board has to take action on today; and inquired if there are deadlines and if the Board has to request certain budgets for certain dates.  Mr. Knox stated  June 1, 2007, is the  deadline  for all  of them except the Tax Collector, which is August 1, 2007; the Board can move it up to May 1, 2008 if it passes a resolution, but the Board has done that in the past and the Sheriff has asked to be relieved from that and the Board has done that.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the Department of Revenue approves the Property Appraiser’s budget and if the Board does not like it, it has to go back to the Department of Revenue.  Mr. Knox stated the Board would have to go back to the Governor and Cabinet if it does not like the Property Appraiser’s budget.  Commissioner Voltz stated the Property Appraiser could cut his budget on his own; with Mr. Knox responding he could do that.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated if the Board appeals or goes to pursue other action if it does not like the other budgets that have been submitted through the different processes, how does that affect the Board as far as the timing of finalizing the budget it has to prepare; and inquired if it can be done in a timely manner.  Mr. Knox responded it probably cannot be done in a timely manner; if the Board is filing an administrative procedure it will not be resolved in a month or so in order to get the Board’s budget finalized; and he is not sure how it all gets worked into the equation, but there are certain deadlines that have to be met. 

 

Chairperson Colon inquired how the Board goes about handling something like this; noted Brevard County is not the only county asking Constitutional Officers to have to do these considerations; and inquired who in Tallahsassee does the Board have to put on notice to let them know appeals may be coming and can it be put in writing because the Board needs to know the process to the T so that it does not miss any deadlines.  Mr. Knox stated the decision makers in Tallahassee that the Board does not deal with here are the Department of Revenue because they are going to approve both the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board can send a letter ahead of time saying it would appreciate an increase in their budget because of everything the Board is going through.  Mr. Knox noted that would be a good idea. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to allow Chairperson Colon to write a letter to the Department of Revenue requesting an increase in the Tax Collector and Property Appraiser’s budget.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board does not come together on September 18, 2007, and three votes are needed to pass a budget, what is the implications if the Board does not come together.  Mr. Knox stated if the Board cannot come to a budget that all but three cannot agree upon, then it will have to go back to last year’s budget until it comes to an agreement on this year’s budget.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired what if the Board does not have the revenue for last year’s budget because the State has taken away the revenue; and stated across the State will be a failure to pass budgets.  Mr. Knox stated the Board would not have an incentive to  do that because it  would keep it at existing  rates for another year, but it is

something the legislature needs to look at when it is trying to look at when it tries to revise the whole system.  Commissioner Scarborough noted it is not going to be easy and if there are not three Commissioners who are in agreement there will be a problem; and the Board needs to be thinking about those things early on. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated it will be hard on many other jurisdictions not to be able to come to an agreement on a budget, because at that point there will be a lot of passions; she is thankful for the Board because it has not made it personal; and in other jurisdictions the war has started, but Brevard County is hanging in there.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if Mr. Whitten could get the Board figures on what kind of dollars it would be spending for capital equipment for any facilities projects and if it is all put on hold how much could be saved this year.  Mr. Whitten stated he can only give the property tax projects.

 

Chairperson Colon stated one of the gentlemen on the panel for the Florida League of Cities sent the Board an email; and inquired if Mr. Whitten would read the email. 

 

Mr. Rogero read an email from Melbourne City Manager Jack Schluckebier to Senator Mike Haridopolos, dated May 15, 2007, at 2:13 p.m. into the record.  

 

Chairperson Colon stated the dialogue has been going back and forth, which goes back to the cities and counties that have not been fiscally responsible and were the ones who started all of this, and yet everyone else has to pay.  

 

Mr. Whitten stated that is everything staff has for the Board.  He noted for the record that the Gus Hipp property has been listed for sale since March of this year.  Chairperson Colon inquired how long it was on the market before that; and noted there have been properties on the market for 11 months.  Commissioner Voltz stated the Board had the same deal when it had the EELs purchase and it lost a couple of properties because it did not move fast enough. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated going back to the court facilities, he has heard from the folks in Melbourne that there is a possibility of putting a judge there; Judge Rainwater stated a judge could be put in Titusville; the Board needs to get with Judge Rainwater and include her in these conversations; but the best thing is to have good dialogue on how to keep things in tact as best it can.  He stated he does not want to hurt anybody more than he has to in the process.  Mr. Whitten stated the Board had asked for a five-year history of expenditures for Departments; staff had hoped to give that to the Board today but hopefully it can get it to the Board next week.

 

 

Chairperson Colon stated today is Richard Grissom’s birthday; he is the employee that was lost last week; and the Board has asked everyone who was touched by Mr. Grissom to turn on their headlights to say happy birthday to him.  Commissioner Voltz stated anybody can make a donation at the Community Educator’s Credit Union for Mr. Grissom’s family and encourages everyone to do that.

 

                                                                

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:28 p.m.

 

 

                                                                        ____________________________

                                                                        JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ATTEST:                                                         BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

 

 

__________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK 

 

 

 

        (S E A L)