February 19, 2004

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special workshop session on February 19, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chair Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

REPORT, RE: REDEVELOPMENT AREAS

Commissioner Pritchard advised the purpose of a redevelopment area is to be able to redevelop it; and one thing he would encourage is, before tearing down green space, they look at areas that already have some type of development and look to changing and improving them. He stated they keep running across issues in the redevelopment area that need to be addressed by the Board; for example, commercial property requires a certain square footage to be considered commercial; anything else they want to do to the property requires a plan review and variance; and it is several hundred dollars to go through that process every time they want to do something on the same piece of property albeit what it is they would like to do. He stated it is a problem because if a person wanted to add a small conference room and six months later add a bathroom, and six months later add parking spaces, everything requires a variance; and the cost can become prohibitive and have the affect of not allowing the redevelopment of an area. Commissioner Pritchard stated according to Planning and Zoning staff, there is no blanket special exception for Merritt Park Place with respect to lot size; each property is reviewed on its own merits for lot width, lot depth, and lot area; and the only option the planner could think of is for the Board to adopt an overlay district within Merritt Park Place permitting commercial development on substandard lots. He suggested the Board consider having this item brought back on the agenda for discussion and have input from staff to see what the Board can do to resolve the problem.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to prepare a report on requirements for redevelopment areas, and return it to the Board as an agenda item for discussion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: LACK OF ADDRESSES ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES

Commissioner Pritchard stated lack of addresses, especially on commercial properties, is a life- safety issue; people who travel the highways looking for a certain block number find that frequently addresses are not there; they slow down continuously and cause bottlenecks and possible accidents; so it is a matter of life-safety and convenience. He stated at one time the County had a program where it was encouraging commercial properties in particular to put address numbers on the fronts of buildings so they could be seen from the street; and in fact there is an Ordinance for that, but it is not being enforced. He stated there are door hangers in boxes somewhere he has been told; and he thought it might be something that could come back to the Board in the immediate future as an agenda item with a little more study to it as to how the Board can implement a program and encourage businesses to put addresses on their buildings.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to bring back an Agenda item on how the Board can encourage commercial properties to put addresses on their buildings for life-safety and convenience purposes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: USE OF WATER BY FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Commissioner Colon stated yesterday she attended the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council meeting; and one thing that was brought up was the SR 429 northwest extension corridor, which is in the area of Apopka and Silver Springs. She stated they go to those meetings to try and think regionally; and yesterday the numbers that came up were alarming because they were able to concentrate in that one area. She stated she pictured Palm Bay because they were talking about the potential of 249,000 people coming into that area; and because of that, she was able to look at her District and see the potential in the future of 250,000 people moving in there. She stated the numbers were 13 million gallons of water per day; it was compared to what would happen if the area was just office space; the number dropped drastically. She stated those are common sense things, but when able to put it in that kind of study and shown to the community, they show how realistic the numbers are and how the Board really has to plan ahead. She stated she thought it was appropriate because some of the things the Board is going to be talking about today is a school impact fee and the kinds of impacts that causes on a community; and it needs to continue to look at other areas regionally, learn from one another what happens, and be able to look outside of Brevard County. She stated she will share the numbers with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca to see how they went about doing those studies, and if staff can correlate something for Brevard County.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Water Board is talking about desalinization over here; Cocoa gets water from Orange County; Brevard County will have the pleasure of having desalinization, which means more expensive water and brine in the lagoon; and those are the things they are going to be discussing because of problems in that area. He stated there may be a different quality of life here; and he couched it in negative language, but it is good to know what they are up to.

Chair Higgs stated sometimes there are impacts the Board does not see and does not calculate; so it is good to get that input.

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION, RE: SCHOOL IMPACT FEES

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised staff has been responsible for coordinating the data that has gone from the School Board to the consultant Tindale-Oliver; Mr. Wallace is here to present the information; and there is also a representative from the School Board, Ed Curry, who could provide some input. She stated she went to the School Board meeting last night with Mr. Swanke; and they talked for about an hour with the School Board about its interest and took notes of specifics from School Board members that they wanted to provide to the Board. She stated there was no formal action taken last night by the School Board at its workshop because its process is at workshops it does not take action; so it was limited by the fact that it was in a workshop session.

Bob Wallace with Tindale Oliver & Associates advised the presentation will include the formula and some of the components that go into the calculation of school impact fees, and the proposed school impact fee and how it compares to other communities around Brevard County and in the State. He stated the Board should establish the basis for the impact fee in terms of it being a capital cost; it is only used for capital construction; and they will look at the cost of infrastructure, which in this case would be the capital cost of new school facilities per unit growth. He stated it talks about the cost per student of providing capital school infrastructure; and the second part of that equation will deal with the credit side in terms of how much new revenue the construction of homes generate that are also used or can be used for capital facility construction, because if the Board does not give credit, then it is in essence double charging for the costs. Commissioner Scarborough requested a copy of Mr. Wallace’s power point presentation; with Mr. Wallace responding he thought the Board had copies of his presentation. Mr. Wallace stated the basic formula demand is students per household times the cost to build a student station, minus how much revenue is generated by new construction, and the total cost of new growth minus new revenue generated by construction of a home. He stated the school impact fee will be a Countywide fee; the Board would assess the fee in municipalities and the County; the calculation includes the public school system of 81 schools; and what is being provided in terms of number of students and level of service excludes private and home-school facilities. He stated the impact fee for schools, because of how the demand is calculated in terms of students per home, is only charged to residential land uses. Mr. Wallace advised they worked very diligently with County and School Board staffs to pull together all the information for the calculation; they looked at the current utilization rates or current standards in terms of how the schools are operating; and they found that elementary schools are operating at 85% as well as middle schools, but high schools are over capacity at 102%. He stated they looked at how many student stations are in the approved and adopted five-year work program for the School Board; to maintain those utilization levels, the School Board has planned just under 6,000 new student stations to be constructed over the next five years at $5,931 each; and Tindale-Oliver used that information to determine the cost per student and the current service delivery provided by the School Board. He stated the costs are for prototype schools that the School Board has designs for and is constructing; they looked at four of the most recent prototype schools, two elementary, one middle, and one high school that have been constructed in the last seven to eight years; and in order to bring those to today’s dollars, they used inflation adjustment factors to get the equivalent dollars of what it would cost to build those same schools in 2003. He stated when they looked at developing the cost components for the cost per student station, they looked at the construction and land costs, bussing costs, and debt service costs incurred in various debt service issues the School Board uses to finance new school construction; and he will break those down into components. Mr. Wallace stated the third component is the debt service cost per student; they looked at what it costs the School Board to finance the construction of new schools because that debt is an additional cost over and above the pure construction costs for building new schools; and that cost is about $465 per student station. He stated when looking at the total cost per student station and how it breaks out, they find the construction cost per student station, after they adjusted it based on utilization rates, is about $15,300; then they added the bus and debt service costs and got a total impact cost of $15,800 for each new student who comes into the Brevard County school system from a capital cost perspective, not dealing with maintenance or operation costs. He stated the next part of the equation is the credit side; there are other revenues used in part to build capital facilities for new students; and those revenues include State funds and the local two-mill ad valorem tax that is used to build new schools. He stated the State revenue sources are the Public Education Capital Outlay Source and Capital Outlay and Debt Service Source; the first comes from the utility taxes imposed upon utilities in Florida at the State level; and the second source is from licensing of motor homes that is also imposed at the State level. He stated those sources of revenue, through Constitutional formula, are allocated to various school boards; and when they looked at those revenues and how Brevard County school system used those in the last five years, they found that a very small percentage has actually been used for capital facility expansion. He stated the primary use of those funds is remodeling and renovation of schools; and remodeling and renovation do not add capacity, but continue to serve the current student population and are eligible capital expenditures, such as roof replacements and HVAC changes to extend and improve the life of the system. He stated only about $1.4 million of that revenue over the last five years were used to add capacity, which came to about $238 per student; so that is the State revenue credit. He stated they looked at local revenues; one source is that the school system sells and disposes of assets; over five years, that generated about $1 million, which translates into revenue that can be used for expansion of facilities at about $169 per student; so they gave credit for that revenue source because it is also used to expand the school system. Mr. Wallace stated the big source of revenue is the two-mill ad valorem tax used by the School Board; they looked at the projections provided by the School Board, historical trends, and increased property values and felt the revenue projections should reflect 6% annual increase, and because millages and valuations go up, the amount the School Board gets increases, therefore creating additional monies for capital expansion. Mr. Wallace advised when they looked at the details of how the School Board historically used the two mills and how it is projected to use the two mills in the future, they found that 35% is actually used for capital facility expansion; the balance is used for renovations and capital maintenance, such as roof replacements, etc. of existing schools; and that translates to about $15 million per year. He stated when they looked at the annual revenue streams over a twenty-year period and brought it back to current value, it is worth almost $2,300 per student; so they basically said those three revenue sources create a credit of about $3,100 per student against the total construction cost per student, leaving a net impact cost per student of about $12,700. He stated every student who comes into the Brevard County school system costs $15,716, but the new student also generates $3,100 in credits; so the net impact is $12,700. Mr. Wallace advised they looked at the current student population, number of units by single-family detached, residential attached, and manufactured homes to determine the student generation rates for types of units, and taking all residential units, the average is about .35 student per residential detached unit; and the Board has the numbers of all the attached and manufactured homes. He stated they used the student generation rate times the cost per student to come up with the impact fee; the example is simplistic and shows that a single-family detached home would have about a $4,400 impact fee; and the three residential units that would be assessed the impact fee are $4,400 for residential detached, $2,800 for residential attached, and $2,600 for manufactured home. He stated based on the study, at 100% of what the Board could charge, that would be the impact fee schedule the Board could implement. Mr. Wallace stated they looked at several counties to compare them with Brevard County; Volusia County may be at $1,100 and has not touched its school impact fee since 1992; however, it is in the process of reviewing that. He stated Seminole County has also not reviewed its impact fee since 1992 and is at $1,400; and the more recent ones are Polk County at $3,400, Lake County at $4,100, and Osceola at $6,300. He stated at 100%, Brevard County would come in at $4,400 roughly per single-family detached and other units less than that; and that gives the Board a summary and overview of how the fee was developed and calculated using the information obtained from County and School Board staffs and what it could charge if it wants to move forward and implement the school impact fee at 100%.

Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Wallace is basing the fee on 2003 numbers, and did Orange County just increase its impact fee; with Mr. Wallace responding Orange County did increase its impact fee, but he does not have that information; it is considering an update to its transportation impact fee, but that has not been passed by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners; and he can check on that. He stated Osceola County just increased its fee two months ago and is the highest in the State; it is about $8,000; and adjusted downward would be $6,257.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Osceola County is not at 100%; with Mr. Wallace responding that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Wallace knows what percentage it is; with Mr. Wallace responding he believes it is about 75%. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how can Osceola County’s impact fee almost double Brevard County’s fee, and did Mr. Wallace look at its report; with Mr. Wallace responding he has in general looked at the report; it was done by a different consultant; the methodology is slightly different; but he does not know specifically why that is the case, but how they dealt with the credits could make a significant difference; and his guess is Osceola County may have been using 90% of its State funds and two mills to maintain the capital structures it has and not any where near 35% like Brevard County is using to maintain its capital facilities. He stated the credit calculations by itself could vary the fee up to $3,000. Commissioner Scarborough stated one question the Board will get from the Press is how come Brevard County is almost half the amount; and inquired if Mr. Wallace could provide the Board copies of the Osceola Study with his critique; with Mr. Wallace responding affirmatively.

Ms. Busacca stated the consultant’s report states that Brevard County cost per student station is on the average 15% lower than the State’s cost per student station, depending on the type of school; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he is talking about almost double the cost. Mr. Wallace stated he believes Osceola and Lake Counties utilize the State’s average cost because those counties were building schools above the State’s cost; whereas Brevard County is more efficient in its construction of capital schools and is doing it for less than the State’s projections, which means it is getting more bang for the buck because allocations are based on State standards and Brevard County is doing it for less. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a substantial deviation, so the Board needs to have more information. Mr. Wallace stated he will be glad to provide the information on Osceola’s fee and how it was calculated.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the calculation for student cost is based on regular education student stations or does it include exceptional education student stations because those are more costly; with Mr. Wallace responding he thinks it is the regular student stations based on the historical trends of the four prototype schools that Brevard County School Board gave them. Commissioner Carlson inquired if any of the prototype schools included special schools that have special outlay for therapy pools, and things like that; with Mr. Wallace responding he is not sure and perhaps the School administration can answer that.

Assistant Superintendent Ed Curry advised all of the schools have some kind of ESE component in them; it is different by school; and when they design a new school, they build in a certain number of classrooms to deal with special students. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is included in the aggregate; with Mr. Curry responding it should be included in the aggregate except for the therapy pool they have at one of the schools. Commissioner Carlson stated there are a couple of schools that have therapy pools; that can be a big capital cost; Eau Gallie High School has 100 extra exceptional education students the school did not know what to do with; and it has to have classroom sizes of a specific size. She stated it is overcrowded considering the exceptional education and not regular education.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has a question with the way the consultants came up with the cost per student station; and inquired if they took the total capital cost of building one of the prototype schools and divided that by the current student population, proposed student population, or the population mandated by smaller class sizes. Mr. Wallace stated they used the average student population projected over the five-year capital improvement program as the basis for coming up with the average cost per student, broken out based on current population statistics by elementary, middle, and high school. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there were more students in school, would it be less cost per student station; with Mr. Wallace responding it would be adjusted by the utilization factor; elementary and middle schools operating at 85% have excess capacity, which actually drives the fee up; and overcrowding of schools drives the fee down; but it is based on the current utilization rates of the averages for elementary, middle, and high schools. Commissioner Pritchard stated School Board Member Larry Hughes wrote a letter saying he encourages every mechanism available to reduce costs and raise revenues; and inquired if every mechanism has been used by the School Board to reduce costs to the best of Mr. Wallace’s knowledge; with Mr. Wallace responding he did not conduct any operational audit of the School Board and how it operates; but he will say he was surprised to find the construction costs of Brevard County school system for capital facilities are less than the State average. Mr. Wallace stated in other communities they have done impact fees for, they found the average construction costs to be a little higher; so however Brevard County is developing the specifications, design of the schools, bidding them out, etc. it is doing it at about 15% less than what the State average is for the allocation of funds; so from that perspective, he would say, at least on the construction side, it is doing very well. Commissioner Pritchard inquired, since the impact fee is a capital use fee, if a developer of a subdivision paid for a school, how will that affect the calculation; with Mr. Wallace responding it would probably provide a credit. Mr. Wallace stated if the school is going to be a public school built by the developer, the developer would get the credit against the impact fee per unit for his development; that would have to be reviewed and approved through a development agreement with the County and School Board in order to execute that action; but that could be accommodated. He stated the credit would probably be applied based on the current rates for residential uses the developer would be building. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how would year-round schools affect the overall calculation of an impact fee if less students were attending per semester and they could have more students in the system without having to build new schools; with Mr. Wallace responding if they were able to do that, he would assume the number of student stations the School Board has in its five-year work program would be adjusted accordingly because it would need less student stations due to double sessions or having students attend school year round. He stated that analysis or calculation was not part of any they looked at. Commissioner Pritchard stated he was just wondering because it could be part of every mechanism available to reduce costs, but it does not sound like it has been considered. He stated another concern is capital cost; there was a parcel of land available for $3 million; but because of mitigation, it went up to $9 million; and inquired if the fee study took into consideration the cost of mitigation of property; with Mr. Wallace responding they received information on the cost of land that was purchased for a number of schools and used that information in the calculation; and he is not sure whether that cost included mitigation costs associated with the purchase of the land, but he can check on that. He stated if they find it was not the case, those costs could be added to the calculation; and that would slightly increase the fee depending on the magnitude of any mitigation costs. He stated they were given costs associated with three of the four new schools; one of the schools did not have land purchase; and they could have assumed a value of the land on which that school was built and added that to the impact fee calculations, but chose to be more conservative and did not include a valuation of the land that was not purchased. He stated he could ask the School Board if the land costs they received had any attended costs associated with the purchase of the land that could be included in the calculation that were not included. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the bus cost per student dealt with replacement, operation, and maintenance of a school bus; with Mr. Wallace responding no, only capital cost associated with providing new portions of facilities or new buses to serve the 10% anticipated cost associated with new growth.

Commissioner Colon stated in the presentation, Mr. Wallace stated the two mills serve as credit; Brevard County is at 35.4% that is used for capital expansion; and inquired if the balance of the two mills is used for maintenance; with Mr. Wallace responding no, the $14.9 million on the slide is the amount of capital; the capital portion of the two mills that is used for school expansion only; it is the increment; and the total value over five years of the two mills is about $42 million per year of which about 35% or $15 million goes for capital expansion for additional classrooms. He stated the balance of that revenue does not go for maintenance; those funds can only be used for capital; capital by definition includes capital maintenance such as new air conditioning systems, portable classrooms, renovations, roof replacements, etc.; so they only used that portion of the two mills in the credit side that actually builds new capacity. Commissioner Colon stated based on the formula, Mr. Wallace mentioned the school system numbers look good as well as the percentage; with Mr. Wallace responding what he mentioned was probably the difference of Osceola County and some others that are a little higher; if he were to go back and look at that, there might be 15 to 20% difference in the construction costs because those are probably at the State level, which is allowed; and his guess is he will find that the credit side of those counties has a lot less of the two mills or other sources of revenue being used for capital expansion and is being used for renovation, replacement, and upgrades.

Chair Higgs inquired how many school impact fee studies has Tindale-Oliver done and for what jurisdictions; with Mr. Wallace responding they are doing school impact fees for Collier, Citrus, and Brevard Counties; there are about 18 of them in the State; and they have been involved in about 30% of those. Chair Higgs inquired if they have been to court on any of those studies; with Mr. Wallace responding no impact fee of any kind that their firm has done has ever been challenged in court, whether it is schools, transportation, parks and recreation, correctional facilities, or any of them. Chair Higgs inquired what previous studies did they do for Brevard County; with Mr. Wallace responding transportation, correctional facilities, parks and recreation, fire, EMS, and libraries; and none of those have gone to court.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if they have done impact fee studies for schools that run on a different system than Brevard County schools; with Mr. Wallace responding no, because most of them are pretty much mandated to do the five-year work program and follow State guidelines. He stated they get the same funding formulas for their ECO and CODS revenues; they have adopted some portion or all of the two mills; and the differences are how they allocate those funds for either capital expansion or renovation and replacement, but they have not seen any real differences. He stated one of the things they were asked to look at in one community is the impact of charter schools in reviewing potential impact fees that could be developed; but that is a different situation than public schools. Commissioner Carlson stated she was talking more along the year-round school or utilizing facilities in a greater way than just on a seasonal basis; with Mr. Wallace responding of the ones they have done, that has not been the case; and they have been the traditional operating system like Brevard County. Commissioner Carlson inquired if they have done any studies outside of the State; with Mr. Wallace responding other folks on their team have, but he does not remember where they were; but there are probably 10 to 15 that have been done through Chris Nelson or Frederick Lightner of their law firm.

Chair Higgs inquired what impact fee studies has Tindale-Oliver done for other counties that Brevard County is not currently levying; with Mr. Wallace responding solid waste in Flagler County was done many years ago; parks and recreation for Brevard County that it chose not to go forward with; and government buildings. He stated they are doing government buildings and assets studies now for communities including communications equipment and technology associated with those, and developed an impact fee per capita usually based on square footage of service per capita much like the libraries. He stated there are probably eight or nine of those in the State; and they are doing four right now. Chair Higgs inquired if the Board could get further information on that; with Mr. Wallace responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Colon stated when charter schools come in, they are basically on their own when it comes to capital construction of buildings; and inquired if that is correct; with Mr. Wallace responding to some degree yes, there is some subsidy that occurs, but there are also charges that they get and other sources of funds that are used for funding those schools. Commissioner Colon inquired if the subsidy is from the State or local government; with Mr. Wallace responding local. Chair Higgs stated they get State funds as well. Mr. Wallace stated they get State funds; there are cities that moved into management of charter school systems; Kissimmee is one and Lake Wales is looking at that; and there are a few others across the State. He stated they have not looked at the impact those schools might or might not have on the public school system or reducing and shifting some of the burden to the charter school system. Commissioner Colon stated there are a lot of charter schools going up in Brevard County; and there are two that she knows of this year in South Brevard, not including the ones that are already there that went up last year. She inquired if the Board decides to levy an impact fee for schools, how does that play into the equation.

Chair Higgs inquired if in many of those cases the operating costs of the charter schools, which would include their facilities, are rolled into what they receive; with Mr. Wallace responding he thinks so, but this study is a public school impact fee for public schools only. He stated he assumes the School Board, in developing its projections of needs for new student stations, made adjustments or considered the effect of potential charter schools; but that is another area that could be looked at. Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Curry could provide additional information subsequent to the Board deciding which way to go, and if the Board wants to hear from Mr. Curry now or just get additional information; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he would prefer to get additional information as it is a complex issue.

Commissioner Scarborough stated to him it would seem they have two effects; the current population, which may be moving over to charter schools, and the capacity of charter schools; so there are really two questions; and inquired how those things are running, not only in Brevard County but within the region and the State, so the Board can pick up some trends. Mr. Wallace stated they can look at that. Commissioner Pritchard suggested that home school be looked at also. Mr. Wallace stated they can look at all those things, but the key is how the School Board has already considered the effects of those. Mr. Wallace stated they can look at what other counties are doing as well; but they need to make sure they have appropriately addressed that in terms of how the School Board has already considered the effects in its needs and standards for developing new schools. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is the point; if it has already been considered and incorporated in the numbers Mr. Wallace got from the School Board, that answers the question; and if not, the Board would like to ask them to look at that.

Commissioner Carlson requested information of anything that goes along with any other sort of layout for how to apply the year-round schools, etc., which she thinks the School Board addressed, but is not sure any of the members supported it. She stated that has always been bantered around as a cost effective way to use capital.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board can ask Mr. Curry that question because it is not appropriate for the Board of County Commissioners to get into School Board policies; stated there are a lot of dynamics in year-round schools; and he knows very little about it, so he will not go there. He inquired how many counties in the State have year-round schools. Mr. Curry stated he does not keep that database, but Brevard County has two schools that operate year-round. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was asking in a broader sense within the State; and inquired if Mr. Curry could find that out for the Board because what Commissioner Pritchard is referring to is not just a few schools, but the entire school system moving into that; and there is a lot of dynamics in doing that, which reaches beyond any decision of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Curry stated he can explore that for the Board. Commissioner Scarborough stated if it is not really an effective methodology because the School Board has some real conflicts in making things work, the whole system has worked in the last five years that may prove it wrong. Mr. Curry stated he will try to get the Board some data.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not think it is a problem with having year-round schools; people have adjusted their lives to having their children off during the summer; the difference would be instead of having group vacations in June or July, they would be able to vacation whenever; and accommodations could be made for their children so that they would all follow the same sequence. He stated he is also concerned about teachers’ salaries; the Board is always hearing that teachers are not paid enough; but they are in essence working ten months and are paid on a twelve-month basis; and if they were paid for twelve months, they would have an increase in salary and would not be looking for summertime employment; so there are a lot of benefits that could be derived from year-round schools. He stated it falls in line with Mr. Hughes’ comment about every mechanism available to reduce costs; he does not think the School Board has addressed it to the point where it has really considered it; and perhaps it might not be popular with those that are employed who like the current schedule, but he is not one to throw money at something because it is alleged that is the only way to fix it. He stated if there are other ways to fix a problem, they should be addressed before the Board starts impacting other people because of something the School Board chose not to address and fix.

Commissioner Colon stated she is not on the School Board and has no intention of criticizing the School Board or pointing fingers; what today’s discussion is about is how does she as a County Commissioner by her vote allow development in the community, and how she is affecting the impact to the schools; and that is what she wants to stay focused on this morning and try and get some ideas of what other municipalities are doing, especially just coming from a meeting yesterday thinking regionally about the discussion on water. She stated she wants Brevard County to think outside the box; year-round schools that Commissioner Pritchard mentioned is one option; but she wants to be able to look at some others; and inquired if Mr. Wallace said the charter schools are run by the City of Kissimmee; with Mr. Wallace responding yes. Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Wallace also mentioned Lake City; with Mr. Wallace responding Lake Wales is also looking at possibly assessing impact fees for its charter school system; he does not know much about that because it is another proposal that is being looked at right now; but he can find some information. Chair Higgs stated there is also a city in South Florida; with Mr. Knox responding Pembroke Pines. Chair Higgs stated Pembroke Pines operates a couple of charter schools and has interesting partnerships with the library system as well as the community college. Commissioner Colon stated the reason she is asking is because she knows there is a municipality in South Brevard that started to look at potentially starting its own charter school system; so if it is possible to get that feedback regarding Kissimmee and Lake Wales, she would like to figure out how the partnership in Osceola County works economically. She stated she mentioned that a year ago and invited the Superintendent to attend a meeting that she was going to in Osceola County to look at a development and the partnership of the County, City, YMCA, and the developer; and inquired if Mr. Wallace heard of that kind of partnership; with Mr. Wallace responding he lives in Lake Nona and knows exactly what Commissioner Colon is talking about; it is basically a tri-party agreement with the City of Orlando, Orange County, and the School Board; and they are doing it in Orange County in a number of locations where they are building multi-use facilities with the YMCA. He stated it is a 750 elementary school used during the day and has facilities for the YMCA; it is one building and has a joint agreement among the three parties; and there are probably three or four of those now in Orange County that have used the same prototype design and facilities where the development community basically donates the land for the facilities and through the tri-party agreement set the timeframes and standards for that to occur. Commissioner Colon stated the Board should really look at what kind of impact that would have and how it would benefit Brevard County. She stated she took a busload of people and was excited to see that kind of partnership because they were talking about leveraging dollars; and she wants to see if that kind of partnership could work in Brevard County. She stated the Superintendent was excited about it; they came back and talked about where they were going to put in sites and so forth; there was a bit of lack of communication of exactly what is happening in the neighboring county; and she would like to see if the Board could encourage or at least bring that information back to see if it wants to consider charter schools.

Chair Higgs inquired how has that partnership affected the way Orange County’s impact fees are used and assessed when a developer builds a building or gives the building to the School Board, and how they do the calculation on the impact fee; with Mr. Wallace responding he does not know the specifics of how that was calculated and would assume that the donation of land was a form of credit against future development, but he is not positive of that.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired why is there a price difference for single-family detached, residential attached, and manufactured homes; with Mr. Wallace responding the calculation of student generation per home and how they approached it, which is the generally accepted practice in terms of calculating the number of students per home, is that there is about a 40% increase in the number of students per single-family detached as opposed to residential attached and manufactured home. He stated there are more children of student age in a single-family detached home than there are in a condominium, townhouse, or multifamily unit; a lot of the retired population occupy attached residential units, which drives the student generation rate down for that particular use; and similarly manufactured homes probably have less students per home than a single-family detached home. He stated that is also documented through the Census data and is a general trend; he has seen that trend in all the studies where the detached unit has less students than the attached unit; this difference is a little larger than what he has seen in some other studies, but not to the point where he was uncomfortable with the data. He stated when they looked at the student populations of all the uses and calculated it out from the Census data and Property Appraiser’s data, it came out to those numbers of students per land use. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Board were to go with the recommended $4,445 as the proposed impact fee, it would affect all three uses the same, yet two uses have fewer students per household; with Mr. Wallace responding no, what they are recommending for attached and manufactured home is significantly less than for single-family detached or about $1,800 less; and that is because of the student generation rate for each of those uses being only about 60% of the single-family detached. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if a student station costs x amount of money, why should someone who lives in a residential attached or manufactured home pay less than that amount; with Mr. Wallace responding because on the average the data shows there are less students per home so they are consuming less new student stations than a single-family detached home, which has a greater number of students per home. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Board should implement the same formula with ad valorem taxes; with Mr. Wallace responding he is not sure how the Board would do that. Commissioner Pritchard stated approximately half of a tax bill, regardless of what people live in, goes towards the school system. Mr. Wallace stated that is based on a different valuation methodology, which is assessment of the value of a home; this is based on how many students live in a detached home, attached home, or manufactured home; and it is a different methodology and different technique, which he does not think can be mixed together. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is where he is going; and inquired what if the impact fee was based on a percentage of the value of a home, condominium, or manufactured unit instead of a flat fee and 1 or 2% of the sale price of the property; with Mr. Wallace responding he would have a difficult time creating the nexus to charge the impact fee based on what is not consuming capacity; a home does not consume capacity; and the average number of students per home is what consumes capacity and generates the cost associated with the impact fee, not the value of the home or the millage rate assessed for the home. He stated it is the demand for capacity based on the number of students per home; and he would have a difficult time tying that to a millage rate, and is not sure it could be done. Commissioner Pritchard stated he has no students in his home; his five-house cul-de-sac has one house with two students and another house with one student; the other three houses have none; and inquired if there is a fairness issue; with Mr. Wallace responding no, and in fact the courts have upheld countywide impact fees in St. Johns County charged to all residential development across-the-board. Mr. Wallace stated deed-restricted over fifty-five communities with no permanent children under a certain age could be looked at as far as exempting them from having to pay a school impact fee because they are deed-restricted, will never have students, and never generate student station costs; and that could be considered in terms of developing the ordinance. He noted there is not a lot of communities that have done that, but it is another option that could be looked at. Commissioner Pritchard stated approximately half of what people pay in ad valorem taxes goes towards the school system; based on the formula used for number of students per home charges more to somebody who buys a house and who may not have students, while somebody who buys a condo may have three children and would pay less; he stated he does not see the corresponding fairness. Mr. Wallace stated he understands Commissioner Pritchard’s concern, but it is based on averages; and the data across-the-board shows that there are less students on the average in attached and manufactured homes. He stated the average is .22 student per attached and manufactured household as opposed to .35 student for detached residential. He stated when calculating the item, they looked at the total inventory of single-family attached, detached, and manufactured homes, regardless of whether or not they had children in them; and if they are going to look at exemptions for certain types of deed-restricted communities, they would need to go back and adjust the inventory of all the homes and remove those from the inventory, which will have the effect of increasing the fee on the rest of the available homes in all three classes. He stated theoretically they are charging the fee at a cost to recoup what it costs to provide a student station from a capital perspective for schools; and if they exempt a portion of those units, then they have to reduce the revenue streams for those units and remove those from the inventory, so when they calculate the cost per unit, they are calculating a true cost. He noted it becomes a lot more complicated, but that could be looked at; what they have provided is a legally defensible methodology that they are comfortable with; but he is not saying they could not look at other options; however, the courts have held that they do not need to do that. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is not looking for a legally defensible position; he is looking for something that is fair and right; if a piece of property is built on, the increase in taxes is substantial; it may be $600 as vacant land and $3,600 as developed land; and if half of that $3,000 is taken for schools, amortized over 20 years, it is a substantial amount of money that is contributed to the school system. He inquired if the consultants factored any of that in; with Mr. Wallace responding absolutely. Mr. Wallace stated the effect of the two mills that is used for capital expansion was factored in exactly in the manner Commissioner Pritchard described; it was looked at as a recurring revenue stream over a 20-year period and brought back to the present value that created the $2,270 credit; and that was included and used to reduce the impact fee. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if half of the $3,000 increases every year by $1,500, where is the rest of the money going; with Mr. Wallace responding the rest of the money is going for renovations, rehabilitation, and other capital maintenance that do not add capacity to the school system; but it cannot be used for operating expenses. Steve Swanke stated the taxes are used for operating and salaries; with Mr. Wallace responding Mr. Swanke may be right, but he is talking about the two-mill capital tax the School Board gets. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Swanke had a comment that this was in response to Mr. Hughes’ letter; if the impact fee calculations are based on the level of service not currently provided, then they can be easily overturned in court; so his assumption is the impact fee calculations are not based on a level of service. Mr. Swanke stated at the School Board meeting last night, they responded to Mr. Hughes and told him that since their five-year work program included high school BBB with 1,798 student stations, but they had not yet put the funding in place for that, and also the fact that the high schools in Brevard County are above 100% utilization, and to include them in the rate calculation would create the impression that they are funding or setting a rate to correct existing deficiencies that exist in the school system, they cannot legally do that; so those numbers were excluded. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Swanke said if they have more than 100%, they are not counting the overage; with Mr. Swanke responding not if the facility is not funded in the work program; and in this case it is not. He stated they could recalculate the fee after the School Board secures the funding and defer implementation, but they cannot include it at this point. Mr. Wallace stated they had discussions with the School Board representatives; Mr. Swanke is correct; the utilization factor of the high school is 1.02; it is over capacity and in fact reduces the cost because the School Board is not building enough schools funded in its program; and if those student stations were included and the cost associated with those, they would be charging at a rate to correct an existing deficiency, which is not legal and not legally defensible for an impact fee. Mr. Wallace stated they cannot charge new growth at a level that is higher than what they would otherwise have to pay; and in this case, if they were to include that in the calculations, they would be charging at a level to correct an existing deficiency. He stated that is why they pulled that out of the calculations and told the School Board representative that if that school, during the process, were to become funded and included in the capital improvements program and DBT service, and calculations for that were provided to use, they could add that school and recalculate the impact fee accordingly. He stated absent that information, the ability to include the cost and effect the credit, which would go up as well because that implies the School Board has additional funding that is being used from other sources to fund the school, cannot be included. He stated it is an intricate process; he left the door open for that to occur; but for right now, from a defensible position, he did not feel comfortable putting that school into the calculations. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the class size for a high school; with Mr. Wallace responding he forgot the exact number and does not have that information with him. Chair Higgs stated Mr. Curry may know the class size of high schools established by the Constitution.

Mr. Curry stated they are trying to understand that number today; the class size reduction law that was put in place in the last session has mandated that they get to 18 students for pre-K to third grade, 22 students for 4th to 8th grade, and 25 students for 9th to 12th grade; but that law has some serious impacts on the capacity of the schools; and if the Board wants him to share that information with it, he will do that very quickly. Mr. Curry stated they are changing their student accommodation planning process this year; and because they know that eventually the Florida Inventory of Schoolhouse database is going to be reduced to deal with the class size reduction legislation, they are using the reduced numbers that were published by the Department of Education this year. He stated in the Fische database district-wide, they have 82,168 permanent student stations on the books; when they calculated at the class size reduction numbers, which they are using now for their planning process for next year, that number was reduced to 70,972 student stations; so in effect they will lose 11,000 permanent student stations in the District on paper. He stated they are planning now to deal with the lower number because they will still have to educate the children at the class size reduction numbers. He stated they will get funding for teachers to do that, but he has a problem finding places for teachers to teach based on the reduction; so they are going back to portable classrooms for next year.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the 25 students is for high school; with Mr. Curry responding that is the mandated class size over the next seven years. Commissioner Pritchard inquired where did the 25 come from; with Mr. Curry responding from the Legislature. Commissioner Pritchard inquired who recommended it; with Mr. Curry responding he has no idea. Commissioner Pritchard inquired was the class size reduction mandated because of the inability of teachers to teach 30 students or a disciplinary issue; with Mr. Curry responding he does not know how the Legislature came up with its wisdom to define class sizes. Chair Higgs stated the numbers were adopted by the voters when they voted for the Constitutional Amendment. Mr. Curry stated that is what the voters adopted. Commissioner Pritchard stated they also voted for pregnant pigs. Chair Higgs stated she understands that, but the numbers were not established by the Legislature, but by the people who voted for it. Commissioner Pritchard stated the numbers were created so they could appear on the ballot and people could vote for it; so the question is who lobbied to get to 25 and why not 30, because if it was 30, they would have less classrooms to build at less cost. He inquired if they can provide education for 30 students in one classroom, then why are the numbers 25, 22, and 18. He stated when he was in school, they had more students in a classroom and did not have a problem; and now they have fewer students and more needs to fix the problem with money.

Commissioner Colon stated the Board needs to be perfectly clear of exactly what it is discussing because there is some misconception that the Board of County Commissioners is trying to pay for some of the things the School Board is having difficulty paying for; and that is not the case. She stated the 55 and older community is a perfect example; the Board has approved developments for 55 and older residents with BDP’s to address that issue; therefore, they were allowed to build; she wants to make sure the Board keeps those two things totally focused and what this discussion is about; and she likes the idea of making sure that it is something that is defensible because if the Board approved an impact fee that gave room for it being taken to court, that would not be very wise. She stated the Board has to learn from what other counties experienced; therefore, she wants to make sure she is in a position that is defensible. Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Wallace said some areas exempted communities of 55 and older residents; and inquired what areas are they; with Mr. Wallace responding he does not remember specifically what communities they are, but can look those up. Mr. Wallace stated he also said that they are comfortable with the defensibility of what is proposed here; it has been tested in the courts in St. Johns County; they are also comfortable if the Board wants to pursue looking at other options that would exclude the 55 and older communities with appropriate deed restrictions and covenants that would guarantee they would not generate students and not place a demand on the school system. He stated they could look at that, but that is not factored into the calculations at this time. Commissioner Colon stated as one of the options, the Board would not know that until it crosses that bridge; the homeowners in those developments are going to pay their fair share in taxes; they will be paying a percentage for emergency service, libraries, roads, and things like that; and they will be paying taxes for schools. She stated the discussion is specifically about those who are going to impact the schools; therefore, she wants to stay focused on targeting those folks who will not; and the defensibility part is what the Board needs.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised there is a relatively recent case where the appellate court held that school impact fees applied to an over 55 community was unconstitutional, so that issue would have to be addressed in the ordinance.

Chair Higgs inquired in which county; with Mr. Knox responding it is one of the District courts, but he cannot remember where. Chair Higgs inquired if it was in Florida; with Mr. Knox responding yes. He stated the school impact fee as applied to an over 55 community is invalid so the Board cannot do that; and any ordinance that would adopt a school impact fee would have to take that into account. Chair Higgs inquired if it is an age deal, and they know there is a trend of grandparents having children in a home, how can they get to that position; with Mr. Knox responding that is what the court said; and whether it is right or wrong he does not know. Chair Higgs inquired if it is under appeal; with Mr. Knox responding he does not think so. Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Knox is saying the Board cannot exempt 55 and over communities; with Mr. Knox responding it is just the opposite. Chair Higgs inquired if there are conflicting opinions; with Mr. Knox responding no.

Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board is going to apply an impact fee for schools, it would be a great incentive to live in a 55 and older community; and if that is what they want, that is great. She stated what the Board always tried to acknowledge is a diversification of those communities; and inquired if the court addressed that scenario; with Mr. Knox responding no. Commissioner Carlson stated she has a question to clarify on Mr. Curry’s statement on the class size amendment; and inquired is it safe to say that the impact fee analysis does not include the evaluation of what that amendment would do; with Mr. Curry responding no, because they cannot assume that the class size reduction legislation will be in place. Commissioner Carlson stated in the event it does come to pass and is put into practice, what are they looking at in terms of the impact fee and do they come back and readdress the fee; with Mr. Curry responding he would think they would have to; and the latest information from the State is there may not be a decision on the issue until 2006, so the Board could readdress it. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board would address the current situation at this point and then readdress it at that point; with Mr. Curry responding he would think so.

Chair Higgs inquired if the Board does not impose a school impact fee on the 55 and over community, would that raise the fee per unit on the others; with Mr. Wallace responding he is not sure, but there are two ways they can look at that. He stated on the conservative side, they can leave the calculations as they are and exclude them or they can go back and attempt to quantify the rough number of 55 and over units that have been or would qualify for exemption of what the historical trend is in their database right now and back it out, which would increase the impact fee. Chair Higgs inquired why is it 55 years of age and not 65; with Commissioner Carlson responding because the court said so. Mr. Knox stated it is a particular circumstance that was a 55 and older community, which is the basis for the federal law.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that can be linked, because there are people who are 55 with children in school; stated there are grandparents who can also be linked because the Board has linked it to the age restriction; and that is where it should go. He stated it is a very dynamic thing; it is best not to go back and redo it; and it is very dangerous. He stated they cannot come back with an impact fee and retroactively correct a mistake; so if they do recalculation, they have a greater overcrowding because of small school sizes that cannot be corrected; prospectively, if in the past they were able to figure 30 students to a classroom and all of a sudden they can only put 18 in a classroom, the cost goes up for a student station. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is where they have the dynamic situation because they cannot use it to correct what the Legislature and the Constitution is giving the school system, but they have to calculate it prospectively because the cost per student station is going to increase since they will have less people paying for it. Mr. Wallace stated the cost would go up, but the utilization factors they used would probably also go up and approach 100% or 105%, which has an effect of reducing the cost. Mr. Wallace stated if they were able to begin changing the percentage of millage that went to capital expansion, then other revenue sources could be used to begin correcting part of the existing deficiencies and that would allow the utilization factors to remain closer to what they are today. He stated the utilization factors are used to temper the effect of the classroom size; so the next time the Board does this calculation in 2006 and those were the numbers but now it costs $18 to $19 million to build for 1,000 students instead of $15 million because they have 20 new classrooms in that school, then the cost side would go up in the impact fee; and unless they were able to correct the deficiencies, the utilization factors would also go up, which has the effect of reducing the fee. He stated if they have excess capacity they are building, the fee goes up; and if they are short capacity, the fee goes down.

Commissioner Pritchard stated a cost should be associated with any amendment to the Constitution so people will know what it is going to be. He stated 55 and older communities were mentioned; and inquired how does that reflect on a 55 and older household and why should a community be exempt but not a household; with Mr. Knox responding in this case, it was a 55 and older community, it was not 55 and older households spread out throughout the county; they were looking at the school impact fee applied specifically to that community; and they were able to show there was no impact derived from that community because of the nature of the people living there. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised a 55 and older community is a permanent condition and nobody under 55 can live there; however, a person over 55 can sell his or her house tomorrow and 14 children could move in the house that is not in a 55 and older community.

Mr. Wallace stated the community needs to have deed restrictions that prohibits that to occur; it is a good idea to test and review the court case, but if they decided to do that, he would make sure that they put appropriate language in there as far as testing that community for deed restrictions and making sure that it does comply with some tests to insure they are not giving an exemption to someone and a loophole where they can have children in the community and those children could be driven to school or impose capacity from that development when they are supposedly exempt. He stated they need to put safeguards in the ordinance to make sure the exemption is carried forward in a correct manner.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired where does the Board go from here; with Chair Higgs responding it needs to decide if it is going to move forward to develop an ordinance then have a public hearing.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he wants to make sure all the mechanisms available to reduce costs are in place; he would like to have the School Board address year-round schools and other issues that would save money; he is not ready to throw money into something because that is the only way it can be fixed; and he is not too sure about that. He stated he happens to think the year-round program would be one way of reducing costs significantly and also increase teachers’ pay, so it would be a win for the community and teachers, and better utilization of facilities. He stated before he throws money into something, he wants to make sure it is being spent right.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the School Board members asked her to relay their concerns and thoughts to the Board even though they could not vote as a group. She stated at the discussion last night, Bea Fowler suggested 100% rate be adopted and said she believes it should be a countywide impact fee and she did not care whether it was four or five benefit districts that it would be subdivided into. She stated Larry Hughes said he believed that the County either had to manage the growth or have it pay the full cost of growth; and that he would ask for the 100% impact fee and five benefit districts. She noted Robert Jordan stated he believes it should be a 100% impact fee, but did not comment on the number of benefit districts; and Rich Wilson also said 100% impact fee. She stated Janice Kershaw said she was uncomfortable making a decision, but her concern was affordable housing.

Commissioner Colon stated she is in support of the impact fee, but does not think the Board is at the point where it should draft an ordinance; there is a lot more discussion that needs to take place; the Board has given the consultant a lot of homework that needs to come back at another workshop so the Board can look at it; and she wants it to be on the record that she is not doing this to stall it but to make sure the Board feels comfortable and that the community understands. She stated she wants to be on record in support of the impact fee, but to make sure it is fair, there is a good balance, and to get more feedback from the community it is going to impact. She stated she would like to have another workshop to discuss the issues, but not draft an ordinance at this point.

Commissioner Carlson inquired how long would it take to bring back the additional information; with Mr. Wallace responding he would like to have at least a month to get answers to some questions that need information from the School Board; and some issues will require additional research on their part and contact with a couple of communities to understand how their programs are structured. Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board started the ball rolling with drafting an ordinance, would it be altered to plug in numbers and things like that; with Mr. Wallace responding it is set up so it is relatively easy to make adjustments to any components if they find there are certain changes that need to be made in the calculations or policy issues relative to things like the 55 and over exemption. He stated some are policy issues that could be moved forward immediately in consideration of an ordinance and some will require additional research on both their part and the School Board’s part.

Chair Higgs stated an interesting way to go forward is by paralleling the accumulation of information with development of the ordinance, so when the Board workshops again, it would be looking at details. She stated some times the details are an important part so staff does not advertise a public hearing without the Board first looking at a proposed ordinance; and that may be a way to flush out the details as well as get the information. Commissioner Scarborough stated he agrees with everything that has been said.

Commissioner Colon stated if the Board goes with an ordinance, she would not be supporting the impact fee because she wants to be able to move slowly on this and be fair; and she wants to be on the record that, if the Board does move towards an ordinance, she would not be supporting the impact fee. She stated she does not want to play hardball, that is not what it is about; but she is not going to move to the next level where it gives a perception in the community without more homework that needs to be done in regard to the issues.

Commissioner Scarborough suggested a workshop with the School Board. Mr. Jenkins stated he contemplated whether or not the Board wanted the School Board to come here today. Commissioner Scarborough stated there were several questions asked today; he does not know at this time whether they would impact what the ordinance would read; he is always concerned about advertising an ordinance and having to go back; and sometimes it is easier, since Commissioner Colon has uncertainties at this point, to schedule another workshop in a month and get all the answers together then proceed to an ordinance. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board wants to invite the School Board; with Commissioner Scarborough responding if the School Board members wish to come to the workshop that is fine; and he is not of the opinion the Board is going to be able to resolve some issues that were brought up about School Board policy that deal with the Constitution, Legislature, and how the dynamics of year-round schools may influence some members’ votes. He stated he does not think the Board is going to resolve the world’s problems, and thinks it will have to proceed more with some degree of doubt; and as it responds to the doubt, it may differ.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board is essentially being asked by the School Board to take a position of creating an additional revenue stream to fix the problem, and he is not too sure about that. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board cannot fix the problem with an impact fee. Commissioner Pritchard stated the problem is having more students and less students per classroom; the Board is asked to build more classrooms and more structures; and the way to build those is to bring in more money. Commissioner Scarborough stated an impact fee has to address the growth and cannot be retroactive regardless of how the problem was created. Commissioner Pritchard stated he understands that, so what is the Board looking at is creating more classrooms; and there are more dollars attached to that. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is being asked to implement a revenue stream; and he would like to have the School Board present to listen to what the Board has to say and to get some of his questions answered before he is ready to move forward on anything other than another workshop.

Chair Higgs advised there are two speakers on the item, Mark Ryan and Franck Kaiser.

City Manager of West Melbourne Mark Ryan advised school impact fee is nothing new in Brevard County; the issue came up in the 1980’s when the County developed the impact fee program; and his recollection is there was a consensus from the School Board and Board of County Commissioners not to implement the impact fee. He stated he did an analysis in his community a couple of years ago and used Lake County as an example; it is a fast growing community just like Brevard County; and had Brevard County instituted the same impact fee for schools like in Lake County, West Melbourne would have generated over $2 million from the late 1980’s to 2001. He stated he updated that information based on the new fee that Lake County adopted; and West Melbourne would have generated another $4 million for a new school. Mr. Ryan advised it costs $11 million to build a school; growth could have helped pay for that; and that is what impact fees are about. He stated another interesting thing is Volusia, Lake, Orange, and Osceola Counties all have school impact fees; and builders are coming from those Counties to Brevard County. He inquired if they are trying to avoid impact fees.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired who pays impact fees; with Mr. Ryan responding the homebuyer. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if an impact fee of $5,000 was amortized over the term of a loan, how much would that become; with Mr. Ryan responding over a 20-year mortgage, probably very little. Commissioner Pritchard inquired about a 30-year mortgage; with Mr. Ryan responding probably even less. Mr. Jenkins stated it would double in 20 years. Commissioner Pritchard stated so it would be $15,000 additional cost to the amount of the home over that period of time; and inquired how many people buy a home and not finance it; with Chair Higgs responding they do not have to finance the impact fee. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is generally part of the purchase price. He stated Ms. Kershaw mentioned a concern, which is the same concern he has; the County has a need for housing in the $120,000 market; if a person has a $300,000 home and pays $4,000 in impact fees, it is a good chunk of change, but it is not going to prevent that person from moving into that home; however, a $120,000 home or condominium at a lesser impact fee might make the difference for someone being able to afford that home with the percent of monthly earnings going towards mortgage payments, down payment, etc.; and it is a concern.

Franck Kaiser, representing the Homebuilders and Contractors Association of Brevard, stated he found the report from Tindale-Oliver interesting and enlightening, but one thing the Board might want to check is the fact that there is a lawsuit in Collier County, and all the school impact fees collected have been in escrow for some time now. He stated there are a few things he would like the Board to take into consideration and look at before the next workshop; charter schools overall do appear to be reducing the impact on public schools; and that should be a consideration. He stated land donated by developers has not been taken into consideration in the calculations for the study that Tindale did; and the school models that were used they had to purchase the land, while in some cases the School Board has received free land and in other cases it was offered free land and decided not to use it and purchased somewhere else; but that would change the formula. He stated a consideration in going forward with an impact fee is perhaps requiring developers to donate a site for a school, which would reduce the cost per student station; and another consideration is that the lower wages across-the-board in Brevard County are the result of lower construction costs. Mr. Kaiser stated year-round schools would definitely result in reducing student station requirements and perhaps no new construction would be required from the studies and conversations he had with a number of people and some members of the School Board; and the School Board could also request the half-cent sales tax be put on the ballot for a referendum vote to fund capital improvements. He stated a broad-based tax is the only thing that would generate enough funding to fund the capital improvements; for instance, if 5,000 houses were built this year at $4,000 each that would generate $20 million dollars, which would build one school; and that is not adequate; so the School Board needs to look at better utilization of school facilities and a broad-based tax. He stated the Fuller Homebuilders Association last year proposed a doc. stamp on all real estate transfers that would have generated $452 billion dollars in the State, which would have satisfied the class size amendment, but it was defeated by the realtors association because they were afraid it would affect affordability; but the broad-based tax is a better solution than impact fees. Mr. Kaiser stated he does not know if it is legal, but if the Board is going to have a school impact fee, perhaps a percentage of the price would be more equitable; and it goes towards affordability. He stated Polk County increased its impact fee and excluded all homes under $145,000; that is toward affordability; so there are alternatives that might be considered, such as a broad-based tax. He stated it would probably be difficult to gather the data, but about 70% of the new homes being build in Brevard County are for existing residents; the majority are in the $300,000 to $700,000 price range; those are move-up homes for existing residents who do not have children impacting the schools; and if the Board would look at all new home construction that would be paying school impact fees, it would be surprised, if it could gather that data or maybe have the builders do a census or something, that there are not that many students impacting schools out of new home construction. He stated the students are coming from existing homes and people moving into resale homes that are not paying impact fees; and inquired where is the demand coming from, new construction or existing homes. He stated he believes they would find out, based on what he heard from builders and the profile of their buyers, it is not coming from new homes; and those are things the Board needs to look at. He stated there was an unofficial moratorium in the last three years on development because the Board would not allow residential development based on school overcrowding; and inquired if the Board implemented a school impact fee, would that lift the unofficial moratorium. He stated the student generation rate does not take into consideration the number of students per new home because of the amount of homes that are being built by existing residents; they need to look at that; he agrees that over 55 communities should not be taxed because their deed restrictions say no children can ever live there; therefore, they would not generate impact on a school district. He stated the bottom line on all impact fees goes to affordability; that is what they are concerned with; a $700,000 home with a $5,900 impact is not going to make a difference whether that person can afford the home; but it is going to make a difference in Palm Bay, Port St. John, Titusville, and other more affordable areas of the County. Mr. Kaiser stated they know for a fact when people own their homes, it is a major way in America today; many families are building net worth by building equity in their homes; and they are not building that net worth when they rent homes or apartments. He stated if they do not do that over a period of time because they cannot afford to buy a home, they cannot afford to save enough for retirement; and that will have a lifelong impact on the community of how it is going to take care of those older people. He stated right now 20% of Brevard County’s population is over 65 years of age; by 2010 it is projected to be quite a bit higher; 17% of the population in Florida is over 65; and only 14% nationwide, so Brevard County is leading those areas. He stated it is the second or third aging county in the State; and that seems to be growing, probably attributed to the attractiveness of the area to the military. He stated there is a large military retirement community here that have people in that age bracket; but there are others who are buying the more expensive homes that are contributing a fair share of taxes to support the school system that have no children in the schools.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Dr. Fishkind, the economist, gave the Board a report a couple of weeks ago; it talked about infrastructure; he does not think schools were a part of that; and Dr. Fishkind said $190,000 was the break even point on new construction for infrastructure. He inquired if Mr. Kaiser’s statement about $145,000 was for any impact fee; with Mr. Kaiser responding it was just for school impact fees. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Kaiser knows what they based that on or can he get that information for the Board; with Mr. Kaiser responding he does not know what they based it on, but will get that information for the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board talked about affordability a whole lot and it was very concerned about impact fees because they have a tendency to be regressive regardless of the value, and because percentage-wise, there are more and more people with less expensive homes; and the Board was advised at that time that it could not do anything in that regard. He inquired if the law changed; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding no; and inquired if he or the impact fee consultants provided that advice. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board went around and around. Chair Higgs stated the Board was doing size. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board discussed square footage of houses and stuff like that the last time it looked at impact fees. Commissioner Scarborough stated there was a discussion on how the Board could in some manner not have the impact become as aggressive because it is regressive against the people that are trying to get into their first home; and it was advised it had extreme limitations of what it could do with that. Mr. Knox stated it is his belief is as long as the Board has a reasonable basis to make a distinction, it could; but he would have to research the issue before giving the Board his final opinion. Commissioner Scarborough stated a reasonable basis is what they could not find. Mr. Knox stated he thinks affordability is pretty reasonable. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Kaiser said people are moving into half-a-million-dollar plus homes, second homes with children gone to college, etc.; but someone moving into something at $145,000 and under is more likely to have a young family with children in elementary school, therefore the impact; and there is no justification or link between the two, and proves to be just the opposite. He inquired if Brevard County could justify that, and how did Polk County justify it. Mr. Knox stated he thinks the answer is yes, the Board can justify it; the question is whether it wants to or not; and legally it can do things that it does not necessarily want to do. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board spent a tremendous amount of time batting around the question; it was told it could not go there; and he would like to have something on what they did, why they did it, and is there an exception. He stated an elderly person will use the roads, but the elderly person buying a more expensive home probably would not use the schools. Mr. Wallace stated what he remembers are two issues the Board talked about in 1999 and 2000; one dealt with the exemption of manufacturing/retail land uses from the impact fee; and their position on that was that whenever the Board exempts any class or group, if the exemption is sufficiently small, that it does not hinder. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is not what he referred to, and he would like to go back and look at the Minutes. Mr. Wallace stated the issue he remembers on affordable housing was they gave a number of options on affordable housing that the Board could implement; and there are communities that have implemented affordable housing exemptions. Commissioner Scarborough stated never once does he recall being given the option based upon the dollar amount of the sale price. Mr. Wallace stated no, that is new and he is very concerned about that. Commissioner Scarborough stated when Mr. Wallace comes back, the Board needs to know about that. Mr. Wallace stated they will also look at that because he would be concerned about the equal protection issue that could be created from a blanket across-the-board exemption such as that; and maybe they have done it, but he does not know.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would also be interested in what Mr. Kaiser said about where is the demand coming from, is it coming from new construction or resales, or is it a mix of both, and how do they derive an impact fee from a resale. He stated a family moves in; it has three children or no children; and inquired where is the balance and why is it they are looking only toward new home construction, which may have the effect of not building any new homes. He stated it is a way of managing growth; and inquired is that the ultimate goal or is the Board trying to fund a school system.

Commissioner Colon stated with 20,000 permits in one municipality in South Brevard, the competition is pretty big; and that is just one municipality. She stated the Board is talking about affordable housing; it cannot get more affordable than Brevard County; it is extremely affordable to live in this community; and it is beautiful because it has such diversity. She stated if someone moves to Brevard County and wants to build a nice home at $100,000 and has two or three children, that person needs to pay his or her fair share; the people who live in Brevard County have already paid their fair share in taxes; and now it would like the folks who are coming into the community and building new homes and causing the impact to pay their fair share. Commissioner Pritchard stated it might not be a new home, as people can move into an existing home; with Commissioner Colon inquiring who is going to be able to get that kind of data; she does not want to go after data that is not going to make a difference; all she knows is there are 20,000 permits waiting for homes to be built in South Brevard; those children are coming to the schools; and inquired what is the Board going to do about it.

Chair Higgs stated the Board is not talking about the people moving into the home, it is talking about the property paying impact fees or taxes and not the individuals who come in; and maybe it can make a little more sense there. She inquired if the Board could get some information for the next workshop that would give it a breakdown on affordable housing in Brevard County, what is the level, what is the supply, and where it is, to give the Board a grasp of that issue. She stated she assumes the Board needs another workshop in about 30 days. Mr. Jenkins stated Mr. Wallace said 30 days to get the information, and he probably wants a week or two to digest it, so perhaps six weeks or somewhere in that timeframe. Chair Higgs inquired if there were any other specific things the Board wanted; with Mr. Jenkins responding he has a list of things. Mr. Wallace stated he will also compare notes and make sure they cover everything. Chair Higgs stated it would be useful to get as much as they can on the front end; she would like to see if they would send out in the packet an example of the ordinance that the Board had on transportation impact fees so they have a refresher of what would be in that; and that is not directing the ordinance be done, but to give the Board the framework it would be dealing with.

Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board is going to table this, t should talk to the School Board; she is not sure if the Board is going to invite the School Board to the next workshop or not or just that it needs feedback from it about its feelings on the half-cent tax because they need to exhaust all avenues.

Chair Higgs instructed Mr. Jenkins to send a letter to the School Board telling it what the Board did today, what it is doing next, and that it is welcome to come to any of the meetings. Mr. Jenkins stated Commissioner Carlson mentioned the half-cent sales tax. Commissioner Carlson stated anything it can exhaust; it is looking at year-round schools, half-cent tax, anything it had discussions on and what has already been gone over and hammered out; and a letter back saying what the School Board’s position is would be nice.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are certain things an impact fee would not take care of and that is where they have begun to fall behind and has deterioration of what it has because of overcrowding. He stated the Board cannot go back and correct that; but there are many people in the community who are saying if new people coming in are going to require their taxes to be increased or the quality of education will deteriorate, then there should be some impact fee so that it does not impact them, and why should they subsidize the guy who moves down here from New Jersey. He stated that is what he hears; it is not that they are going to solve all the problems and maybe they need the half-cent tax to pick up what is behind; but the future is still going to be there; and inquired if they are impacting the schools, why should the people of Brevard County subsidize them. Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees they need both, but it would be nice to hear the position of the School Board as to where it is at.

Chair Higgs stated the Board needs a letter telling it where the School Board is on the issues; no one is saying that the Board wants information; they can individually get information on the issues if they desire; but the letter from the Board should simply tell the School Board what the Board is doing and the date it will have a workshop. She inquired if that is the consensus of the Board. Commissioner Pritchard stated more than a letter, he would like to have the School Board members attend the workshop. Chair Higgs stated the Board will welcome their attendance.

The meeting recessed at 11:02 a.m., and reconvened at 11:15 a.m.

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION, RE: JAIL OVERVIEW

Chair Higgs advised the Board will begin to deal with the top of the jail situation and the actions needed to be taken; and the first topic is the overview. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Commander Terry Altman of the Sheriff’s Office will provide the Board with dates and statistics of the current jail situation.

Commander Terry Altman advised on behalf of Sheriff Williams and the staff of the Brevard County Detention Center, he wants to thank the Board for the opportunity to speak to it today concerning the conditions of its County jail. He stated the current jail is a result of a 1983 lawsuit of Tilliman-Lanier v. Sheriff Miller; the current jail was officially opened on March 1, 1987; the original design capacity of the jail was for 384 adult inmates to be housed in single-cell occupancy; and prior to opening, it was determined that the design capacity of the facility was inadequate, so permission was obtained from the State Department of Corrections to double-bunk the facility in order to accommodate the inmate population. He stated the facility opened with all but the maximum-security pod double-bunked; due to continued increase in jail population, a jail annex was constructed; however, based on financial constraints, only one quadrant was finished, which increased the bed capacity to 732 inmates. Mr. Altman stated in 1993, the final consent decree from the 1983 lawsuit was reached; one of the provisions of that final consent decree was that Brevard County agreed not to operate the jail in excess of 732 inmates; that was also the total bed capacity of the facility at that time; therefore, the County agreed not to operate the jail in excess of the bed capacity. He stated Brevard County has been in violation of that portion of the consent decree for the last several years; as the population continued to increase, the remaining three quadrants of the jail annex were completed for occupancy in 1997; additionally, the maximum-security pod was double-bunked at that time. He stated in 1998, the construction of a centralized feeding area for those inmates housed in the jail annex was constructed; it made possible the addition of 27 beds at the jail annex for inmates, bringing the total bed capacity of the jail to 1,041; however, during the same timeframe, the facility was experiencing a substantial rise in the juvenile inmate population, which necessitated one of the adult cellblocks to be used as a housing area for juveniles. He stated the bifurcation, which occurred in 2000, resulted in a net loss of 30 beds that could have been occupied by adult offenders, thereby reducing the adult beds to 1,011. Mr. Altman advised the Brevard County jail has seen a tremendous increase in the inmate population in the last several years; the slide gives a comparison of the increase in the average daily population of the jail to the increase of the population of Brevard County; the County population has increased approximately 12% since 1995; and the jail population has increased 75% since 1995. He requested the Board consider the impact upon County government and services had the County’s population increased by 75% in eight short years. He stated the Jail Classification Unit uses a nationally recognized objective classification system taught by the National Institute of Corrections to determine the appropriate classification for each of the inmates; inmates are classified as minimum, medium, and maximum; and the classification system is designed to insure that those inmates who may present a threat to the citizens of Brevard County are securely and safely housed without opportunities for escape. He stated in addition to the objective classification system, a tag system is also used internally to identify those considered to be a more serious risk to inmates and staff; in determining the proper classification, the inmate’s current charges, criminal history, and in-facility conduct are considered; and for those who return to the facility as a result of a violation of probation, not only is the current charge evaluated, but the underlying charge for which the individual was initially placed on probation is also considered. He stated someone may be a convicted sex offender on probation and commit a technical violation; however, in classifying the inmate, they will use the original charge to insure the security of the public; and the majority of the inmates are classified as medium custody. Mr. Altman advised compared to other counties of comparable size, Brevard County is one of the top ten counties in the State population-wise and is leading the way in the use of pretrial and post-trial diversion programs that prevent individuals from being unnecessarily incarcerated; the slide compares the per capita ratio of incarceration for the State for over 1,000 residents, the top ten counties population-wise, and Brevard County; and Brevard County has consistently been below the State average and the average of the top ten populated counties in the State for the last several years. He stated that is made possible by using a variety of diversion programs, from pretrial release review of individual cases upon commitment for evaluation of the need to keep someone incarcerated to review by the Jail Oversight Committee for possible release from confinement and the alternative to incarceration program used by the judiciary. He noted he is sure there are others that he did not cover. He stated the low per capita incarceration rate for Brevard County speaks well of the current programs in place to prevent jail overcrowding. Mr. Altman stated the current staffing is inadequate to provide the required level of security for an institution with a population of that size; they are currently meeting the shortfall by using overtime personnel; and the amount of overtime the personnel are being required to work is affecting the health and welfare of all. He stated the jail is authorized 199 certified officers and 57 civilian support staff to handle the tremendous volume of inmates processed annually; last year 21,521 inmates were processed into the jail and 20,145 were released; with the increase in inmates come a corresponding increase in the workload for the staff assigned to the facility; the population of the facility at the present time is such that in two of the pods he has only three officers responsible for managing in excess of 350 inmates; and the other two housing units contain the females, juvenile inmates, maximum-security inmates, and those suffering from some form of mental illness, both male and female. Mr. Altman advised the additional staff required to support those two populations are well documented; in March 2003, a staffing analysis was completed by a contract agency on the request of the Commission on Mental Health and Community Solutions; the staffing analysis recommended the addition of 56 certified corrections officers and nine civilian positions to the jail staff; and that would have resulted in a staffing level of 255 certified officers and 66 civilian positions. He stated the staffing analysis did not address staffing of several areas of the Detention Center, such as the jail annex and numerous administrative support functions; and the budget request was submitted for the FY 2003-04 budget year. Mr. Altman stated he wants to make sure the Board understands what it takes to hire a corrections officer; as the need for more jail space is evaluated, it is important to understand the length of that process; correctional staff are the most difficult positions to fill within the organization; and all surrounding counties sponsor non-certified personnel through the academy, which means they hire non-certified employees, pay for the school, and pay the employees while they are going to school. He stated the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office also recruits in that manner; it takes ten to twelve months from the time the person applies with the Sheriff’s Office to be employed; and they do a pre-background screening, hold review boards, and conduct a formal background investigation, which takes about four to five months because of the intensive background investigation that is conducted on those persons. He noted recent events at other institutions within the Central Florida region indicate why the background check is so critical; they are people who are in absolute control of people’s lives; they must be 100% above reproach to work within the detention facility; and everyone must be a professional in the greatest degree. He stated they coordinate with Brevard Community College to conduct the corrections academy; the academy is three and a half months long; then people are scheduled to take a State certification test of which they must pass. He stated following that, they have a two-month field training program to go through; so it is important that the Board understands the time that it takes from the time he receives authorization to hire somebody to the time he has that person on the job as a fully-functional corrections officer. Mr. Altman advised the inmate population of Brevard County has grown substantially over the last few years; the numbers represented in green from 1993 through 2003 are actual average daily population numbers taken from the Florida Department of Corrections website as reported for each calendar year; during that ten-year period, Brevard County’s inmate population grew by 92%; between 2002 and 2003, there was a 14% growth in the inmate population; and from October 2003 through January 2004, they have already seen a 13% growth. He stated the Bureau of Justice statistics recently released data that nationally the inmate population within county jails is increasing at a rate of 5.9% annually; and although Brevard County has increased at a much more alarming rate, for the years 2004 through 2012, he has reflected an increase of only 5.9% in inmate population. He stated within two short years, the average daily population of the Brevard County Detention Center is scheduled to be somewhere around 1,550 and will approach 1,750 in four years based on the average daily populations for 2003 and using an average increase of 5.9% each year. He stated the slide projects the male inmate population for each year for each classification out through the year 2020; the forensics population is reflected based on the percentages of inmates that were in the forensics units in 2003; and adding the 5.9% in the year 2020, they are looking at well over 350 forensics inmates and at figures adjusted accordingly in between. Mr. Altman advised the female population was projected to be in excess of 275 inmates in the year 2005; based on the current and projected inmate populations, the Sheriff’s Office makes the following recommendations concerning the need to expand the facilities at the jail; and that could be addressed in two separate recommendations that may be performed simultaneously. He stated the first is a short-range recommendation to construct a 256-bed open dormitory style direct supervision facility for minimum-security inmates; and the 256-bed facility is recommended in an effort not to overbuild a facility for which there would not be sufficient inmates who meet the appropriate classification. Mr. Altman advised yesterday members of the County’s Facilities Department and he visited Marion County and observed a facility that it had built for use by minimum-security inmates; it is believed that a similar facility can be erected for approximately $1.5 to $1.75 million with construction time of nine to twelve months; and the facility can be designed with the anticipation that a second floor could be added at a later date should the minimum custody inmate population dictate such an addition. He stated the second floor can also be used for other classification of inmates if they need to by simply increasing the security of it. He stated a likely source of payment for the facility could be the current correctional impact fee; it may be prudent for the Board to consider raising that impact fee to support the expansion of the jail due to the increase in inmate population; and in an effort to contain the cost of siting the specific facility, they should allow for maximum utilization of the current infrastructure. He stated it is necessary that the facility be co-located adjacent to the current facility in order to maximize the utilization of the current infrastructure as it relates to accessibility, utilization, food service, visitation, medical services, and things of that nature. He stated the farther away from the current facility they get, the more the impact is going to be on the infrastructure of designing for that as well as the need to make those certain services available. He stated the addition of any new facilities will necessitate the addition of staff; the recommended additional staff to support the increase is 26, including certified and civilian staff; that is for the 256-bed minimum custody facility; and upon completion and occupancy of the new facility, it would be prudent to upgrade the security of the current jail annex facility to accommodate a higher classification of inmates. He stated the cost of the security upgrade will have to be determined, as well as the time required to complete it; however, it could begin immediately. He stated changing the jail annex from a housing unit of low-medium and minimum custody inmates to a higher level of medium security inmates will necessitate additional staff to provide the required supervision for the more serious offenders. Mr. Altman stated the placement of high-level custody inmates into open dormitory style facilities will necessitate the implementation of a direct supervision philosophy, which places an officer in the dormitory with the inmates on a 24/7 basis; the jail annex can handle 72 inmates in each dorm; so they would have one officer to 72 inmates ratio. He stated the recommended additional staff to support the upgrade in security, in addition to current officers, is 24 certified officers; and as they move into the second recommendation and look at what facilities they need to house and incarcerate inmates, the Board should give serious consideration to who is actually there on a 24-hour a day, 7 days a week basis. Mr. Altman stated the average stay time in the jail for an inmate is 23.1 days; that is what it was for the year 2002; his staff is in the facility 12 hours a day for one-half of the year; they are on 12-hour shifts and spend one-half of their lives or one-quarter of their lives inside that facility; so as they start talking about the design of the facility and what it is going to take to run it, he would ask the Board to keep that in mind in planning what type of facility it is going to build. He stated the second phase of the recommendations would be that the Board contract with an independent consulting agency to conduct a criminal justice needs assessment as it relates to activities that may affect the jail population, look at the system from arrest to release from the jail, and to determine the correctional philosophy for Brevard County. He stated any expansion of the current facilities must be predicated on the correctional philosophy to be used; that philosophy will dictate the type of design of the facility that the County is going to build; and there are basically two separate philosophies to be considered. He stated first is the current philosophy being used and that is warehousing inmates; that means they do nothing more than bring the people in, stick them in a cell, and when it comes time to let them out, they let them out. He stated they provide literally no educational or training opportunities, or do anything that is of substantial value that may help to reduce recidivism in Brevard County. Mr. Altman stated although initially less expensive, the philosophy does not address the real issues causing incarceration; it sets the stage for increased recidivism; and it results in a higher cost to the community overall, when compared to a philosophy of programs and treatment. He stated inmates incarcerated can be provided worthwhile training and treatment while incarcerated; it would include conducting GED classes for those who lack their high school diplomas; they currently do that with the juvenile population; it is a State mandated to have juvenile education; and the School Board provides a certified teacher who conduct classes for the juveniles, but there is absolutely nothing for the adult population. He stated federal grants can be obtained to support drug and alcohol treatment; during the last calendar year, the opportunity was present for a federal grant to be used to treat drug addiction; however, due to the lack of bed space and facilities to conduct the treatment, Brevard County was not able to meet the requirements of the grand specifications. He stated it would have required that an individual be in residence in the facility for six months; the judge could sentence somebody to serve six months or to go through the program; it would have been paid for almost fully by the federal grant; however, they did not have the space available; therefore, they were not able to apply for that grant. Mr. Altman advised a large number of inmates lack basic life skills and effective parenting skills, both of which could assist in the prevention of recidivism; Brevard County can partner with the Federal Labor Workforce to provide basic job skills such as carpentry, electrical, block masonry, HVAC, etc.; and there are institutions that are currently conducting that type of training through a partnership with the Federal Labor Workforce at no cost to the local taxpayers except for providing the space in which to conduct the classes. He stated he has spoken to and received email from a county facility in Georgia that currently partners with the Federal Labor Workforce; the federal government, through that Workforce, provides money to hire off-duty corrections officers and law enforcement officers to provide security for the inmates; and the only thing the County has to do is provide a building for the training to be conducted in. He stated since they are in partnership with the Federal Labor Workforce, most of those people, approximately 75%, have jobs on the day they are released from the jail; and that is the type of programs he is thinking about and believes Brevard County needs if it is ever going to stem the tide of recidivism. Mr. Altman advised Brevard County can also institute Local Facilities Industries Programs where it manufactures its own uniforms, bed sheets, blankets, recover mattresses, etc.; while in Marion County, they observed the operation and took pictures of the sewing room; they have a room no larger than the Commission Room; and they manufacture all of their uniforms. He stated he pays approximately $11 for a uniform; they manufacture their uniforms for about $2.40 for the pants and less than $3 for the shirt; so they are manufacturing uniforms at 50% of what he is paying for them. He stated they also contacted the local School Board or colleges and have an instructor come in who is teaching sewing to the people who are doing it; when they leave, they are given a certificate of training that says they have those specific skills in seamstress work and things of that nature; and they are then able to take those to local dry cleaners, alteration shops, etc.; and it may assist in getting some of them jobs. He stated the cost of the equipment is paid for out of the inmate welfare fund at no expense to the taxpayers; therefore, the only thing they are looking for is space to conduct those types of programs. He stated the ability to engage in the activity will not only provide training to the inmate population, it will help to reduce disciplinary infractions while they are in the jail and provide a savings to the Brevard County taxpayers as the cost of the items will be reduced. Mr. Altman stated based on the correctional philosophy to be used, coupled with the criminal justice needs assessment, a jail needs assessment could then be determined. He stated the overcrowded conditions of the Brevard County jail create a host of problems and concerns; and there has been an increase in the number of inmate/inmate confrontations, inmate/officer confrontations, spread of disease due to inability to adequately separate those who have some type of illness that has not been diagnosed, the placement of three inmates in a cell designed for one, and placement of multiple inmates in common areas on the floor due to lack of housing space. He stated the number of inmates processed through the facility and the inability to properly segregate those incoming inmates from those who have been incarcerated for a period of time creates a serious health hazard for the Brevard County community in general; with 21,000 individuals entering and leaving the facility annually, they have the potential to carry a host of ailments back into the community from which they came, possibly transmitting diseases to their families who will then move about the community. He stated for the most part, the individuals who come through the Brevard County jail are unknown upon returning to the community and may be the same persons people come in contact with in their every day lives, standing beside them or behind them in the local supermarkets, waiting tables at local restaurants, and may have children in school with others’ children. He stated the overcrowded conditions at the jail are public health hazards; they have contributed to an increase to the health care costs associated with operation of the jail; and more and more inmates are contracting a host of ailments from fellow inmates due to the inability to properly separate those who need to be separated. Mr. Altman stated in addition to the increased medical issues, the sheer volume of inmates make the currently facilities inadequate to properly maintain a safe and secure environment for both inmates and staff working within the facility; overcrowding delays the ability of staff to effectively receive and release inmates into and out of the facility; and that subsequently delays those law enforcement officers who deliver inmates to the facility and prevents them from being able to be on the streets in their communities in hopes of more preventing crime from occurring. He stated the overcrowding also creates a tremendous level of stress for the staff who work at the jail; with the increased level of stress and the exposure to higher than normal levels of infectious disease, there is a significantly higher use of sick leave than normally expected; the average officer working in the Detention Center uses in excess of 100 hours of sick leave a year; and the overcrowding has increased the wear and tear on the facility. Mr. Altman stated the building and its infrastructure are in essence getting three and four times the normal wear and tear for which it was designed; what the Board sees before it on the screen is the population of Brevard County in eight years; if they continue to follow the plan of action that has been used for the last ten years, they are looking at a population in 2012 of 2,322 inmates at the jail designed for 384 inmates. He stated they would like to show the Board a short video that was taped earlier last week showing several improvements made at the facility with funding provided by the Board, and to let the Board know they are extremely grateful for the correctional impact fees; however, there are a number of areas that still need to be addressed; and they will look at the video and show the Board those areas. He explained the property room increase, hanging rack system to secure inmates’ property, segregation of property, extension of the warehouse, improvement to the dishwasher, the forensics area that was recently completed, addition of a bubble area, limitations of the medical area with only five cells to separate inmates who may need to be separated from the rest of the population, the overcrowded conditions the nursing staff work under, office where doctor interviews forensics inmates, and portable bunks. He stated he came to the Board in December, and the Board approved the money to purchase the portable bunks to get the inmates off the floor; it allowed them to bring the inmates who were sleeping on the floor 12 inches off the floor, which is required by the Florida Jail Standards; and he does not see any place else he can stick bunks in the cell block because it is as crowded as it can possibly be, which is prevalent in every one of the cell blocks with exception of the female and maximum-security blocks. He explained the video showing the maximum-security block and how officers go through and check on inmates by raising the flap on the cell door; and stated that was addressed as part of the conditions in the staffing analysis that was done by the Criminal Justice Solutions Group. He stated they did take out one and put in a tinted window; explained the food service area where people were preparing trays in the kitchen; stated the kitchen needs to be expanded; they have the capability of producing 1,800 to 2,000 meals at a time; and if they start going beyond that within the next two to three years, the kitchen facilities are going to have to be expanded. Mr. Altman stated they bought additional equipment for the kitchen that will give them the capability of preparing up to 2,000 meals a day; they are preparing 2,000 meals a day, but not for 2,000 inmates because they have inmates who they prepare meals for that go out to the farm, to court, and everywhere else; so they are not saying they can accommodate up to 2,000 inmates in the facility with the current kitchen trays. He described the video of inmates being fed in the cell block, the minimum security facility, the current minimum security annex, the booking room, and inmates moving from the building to a centralized feeding area. He stated if they put a higher classification of inmates out there, they are will have to be very cautious because they move outside between buildings, so they will require more care. He stated the camera man was cursed at and spit on, and they attempted to bite him, so he was indoctrinated into the life of a corrections officer although he had not been fully trained in that capacity. He stated they have four holding cells to process and receive 21,000 inmates a year; when the booking room was designed, it was on the premise that they were only going to house 384 inmates, which meant they would only receive 20 to 25 a day; and now they are processing six times that amount and releasing the same number. Mr. Altman stated through some renovations they were able to remove or separate the booking room from the releasing area last year; and they appreciate the funds to be able to do that to keep incoming people from co-mingling with outgoing people in hopes of not having somebody trade uniforms and somebody who is being released actually be somebody who is supposed to be staying. He described the holding cells with numerous people in them; stated when his booking crew came on duty Saturday morning, they had over 60 inmates in the four holding cells; and the night shift had processed as many as it could. He stated the same thing happened Sunday morning when the day shift came in at 6:00 a.m.; there were over 50 inmates in those holding cells; and described a picture of a man who could not be handled in any other manner other than being placed in the restraint chair. He stated one of the requirements of putting somebody in a restraint chair is that he must have a minimum of four officers and a supervisor there when it takes place because they want to make sure they cover every avenue to keep from injuring and hurting the individual. He stated that should give the Board some idea of the level of activity that takes place in the booking room; again they process anywhere from 60 to 80 inmates a day in and out of the facility; Wednesday they processed about 68 inmates into the facility and released 98 in a 24-hour period from midnight to midnight; and that is a tremendous amount of work being done by those officers in the booking room with the conditions they have to work with. He requested the Board take the video and slides into consideration as it makes decisions on what it is going to do in relationship to either expanding or renovating the jail and what it is going to do for the officers who work there to make the place that they work in some place that an individual does not regret coming to work at and a place where someone may want to come to work. He stated he will answer any questions the Board may have.

Chair Higgs thanked Mr. Altman for the presentation; and stated it was a very thorough report, and the Board appreciates the input.

Commissioner Colon stated she wants to get an idea of how closely the jail staff works with the Department of Corrections because there is obviously zero tolerance that is happening with the Department of Corrections, which means they have more inmates coming to the jail. She inquired if Mr. Altman has the numbers that show exactly the kind of impact that is causing the jail; with Mr. Altman responding he believes that is what has caused his average daily population to increase. Mr. Altman stated in 2002 the average daily population length of stay was about 21.7 days; it has now increased to 23.1 days; that does not sound like a lot, but when talking about 1,400 inmates, that becomes significant. He stated it has an impact on the jail, but the probation officers are doing a relatively good job of getting some of the probation hearings completed. He stated one of the issues they have is the ability to get the violators before the judges and get the judges to do something about them; and he is not saying the judges are not doing anything about it, but is talking about scheduling. He stated approximately 10% of the jail population right now are violation of probation only; approximately 25 to 27% of the population are violation of probation with new charges; so that means all of those new charges have to be disposed of before the individual can be moved out of the jail. Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Altman could describe the type of inmate classified as medium security; with Mr. Altman responding an individual who might have a bad check charge that has violence in his/her past, and someone who is in on a misdemeanor, but had a violent charge in the last two years. He stated they look not only at the current charges when evaluating the classification of an inmate, but look at the criminal history also; and if they had violence charges in the last two years, then they are not going to be classified as minimum custody, which are the people who are provided the least degree of supervision. He stated the minimum-security inmates are people who are seen working on roadways or on the farm; and they are not going to take a chance with the individual with violence in his history moving back into the community and committing some offense. Commissioner Colon inquired what percentage of inmates are classified as forensics; with Mr. Altman responding 13%. Commissioner Colon requested an example of who is classified as a forensics inmate; with Mr. Altman responding those are people who are on some type of forensics medication; they may be Circles of Care patients prior to being incarcerated; or they may be people who they get word of that have some mental issues. He stated they are examined by the forensics staff, Circles of Care staff, and designated as a forensics inmate. Commissioner Colon inquired about the 28%; with Mr. Altman responding the 28% are minimum custody inmates; those would be people who would have lesser charges and misdemeanors; they may only have a misdemeanor charge and may not meet the criteria to go out to work; but they may be able to be utilized inside the facility. Commissioner Colon stated obviously the 12% are maximum security inmates; with Mr. Altman responding those are the ones who are charged with the most heinous crimes, murder, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, etc., and who are being returned to the facility from State prisons, depending on what their sentences of confinement are as well as their recent charges. He stated he does not know whether they have been moved out yet or not, but they have had two death-row inmates at the facility for about the last two weeks, and two inmates who were brought back off of death row for court hearings in Brevard County. Commissioner Colon stated according to the percentages Mr. Altman has shown the Board, 76% of the inmates are waiting to see a judge; and if the judge puts them back on probation, there is a pretty good chance they will go back to the community. Mr. Altman stated 75% of the people who are in the jail at the present time have not been convicted of the charges for which they are currently incarcerated; pretrial inmates make up approximately 75% of those who are currently at the jail; and the other 25% have been sentenced to do time in the Brevard County jail or are awaiting transfer to the State system or some other jurisdiction. Commissioner Colon stated she wanted to make sure those numbers are clear on the demographics because Mr. Altman talked about a philosophy; the philosophy is crucial for the Board to understand; she would not have been very impressed if he came and told the Board that he just wanted to enlarge the jail; and she wanted to know that he was able to look at the individuals as human beings and the fact that they need help. She stated those are some of the things she would like the Board to focus on to see if partnerships can happen with agencies outside of the jail; she is sure Mr. Altman has thought outside the box, but this is the first time, in the three and a half years that she has been a County Commissioner, that those kinds of examples and philosophy have been brought to her attention at a public forum so that the citizens could understand it. She stated the reason why she wanted to bring that fact up is because she is very close to understanding exactly what goes on in the jails because she has relatives who are in law enforcement; and that is why she talked about the zero tolerance policy. Commissioner Colon inquired what does Mr. Altman see the Board being able to do to help him in the short term, what percentage is the correctional impact fee at, and what percentage is the Board able to approve. Mr. Altman stated he would have to defer that question to County staff as to what current funds are being generated by the correctional facilities impact fee. He stated it is his understanding that they have a half-a-million dollars at the present time; and looking at the growth, hearing Commissioner Colon speak about the tremendous growth in Palm Bay, listening to others talk about the tremendous growth in Brevard County, he anticipates that they may be able to sustain a $400,000 a year income from the correctional facilities impact fee at its current rate. He stated the 256-bed addition could very easily be paid for from the correctional facilities impact fee, but not the operating costs and start-up costs of putting equipment in there. He noted the building itself could be finalized and paid for in three to four years, but the big ticket item will be getting set up and the staff to operate it. Commissioner Colon inquired who pays the correctional facilities impact fee; with Mr. Altman responding new people coming in buying new houses and new construction contribute to the correctional facilities impact fee, which is designed to pay for the growth of the County by those who are making it grow.

Chair Higgs requested Steve Swanke give the Board some information on where it is in terms of percentage on the correctional facilities impact fee and is there room to do any additional raising of that fee or any additional study. Mr. Swanke advised the County is presently imposing the fee at 100% that was calculated in 2000; to raise it above that amount, the Board would have to do a new study; but he assumes that construction cost has risen dramatically in the last four years, so there is probably some room to raise that cost. He stated the bulk of the revenue in correctional facilities impact fee comes from fees imposed on single-family homes; and it is set at $71.99 and is a one-time payment. County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if it is increased 3% a year or by the CPI; with Mr. Swanke responding no, that is just for the transportation impact fee. Chair Higgs inquired if the Board could go back retroactively and calculate the CPI and increase the fee by that or does it have to redo the study; with Mr. Swanke responding it would have to redo the study. Chair Higgs stated if it is figured at a $2,000 inflation rate of 3%, the Board is only looking at a 12% increase on $72; so the Board is not looking at a mass amount of money being generated even if it were to recalculate it. Mr. Swanke stated it is important to recognize that the last three or four years they have seen an increase in construction costs, and inflation related to that could be at a higher rate than 3%. He stated the County will not get to a $4,000 fee from $72, but it might get to $100. Mr. Swanke stated the good thing about the correctional facilities impact fee is that it has 100% participation from the municipalities, so there is a large revenue base; and the other thing the Board may want to consider, although impact fees are not bondable, is it can be used to pay for debt service. He stated if the Board needs to accelerate the construction of those facilities, it has an annual revenue stream at the existing rate of between $300,000 and $400,000 a year. Chair Higgs stated the Board could use a commercial paper philosophy to build the addition and pay it back from the impact fee revenues. Mr. Swanke stated that is correct and in fact the minimum security facility that is currently out there they borrowed some of the shortfall from the Solid Waste Reserve Fund and repaid that with interest.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the jail population report on February 17 shows 97 above the average in total population, 1,432 and an additional cost of almost $4,000 for that day; and inquired where is Mr. Altman getting the extra money because he has been getting those for a long time and the jail is always in excess of the population. Mr. Altman stated that is absolutely correct, and that is why he keeps coming back to the Board at mid-budget year and saying he needs additional money to pay for it, and that is why the per diem rate of Brevard County for maintenance of the inmate population is as low as it is. He stated Brevard County is around $39.50 to $40.50 per day per inmate compared to surrounding counties, the closest is about $47 a day; so they are doing more with less at the jail. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how many inmates are waiting for transportation to a State facility; with Mr. Altman responding around 90 inmates; the report gives the number for that specific date; and it says awaiting DOC. Commissioner Pritchard stated it says 112; with Mr. Altman responding that means those people may have already been sentenced to the Department of Corrections, but still have pending charges in Brevard County, so they cannot be moved out; or they are waiting for transfer to the Department of Corrections. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there are any inmates who are ready to go but the State has not come to pick them up; with Mr. Altman responding they get commitment paperwork from the courts every week and ship them out; last week they shipped out 35 inmates; and that was a big week. He stated they normally ship out 15 to 20 a week to Department of Corrections; and they do not stay more than seven days once they get commitment papers because they are generally shipped out on Fridays. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how many are waiting trial and would the addition of a night court using retired judges alleviate the situation; with Mr. Altman responding he is not sure about holding night court to conduct trials and would have to defer that question to the judiciary, but he has about 75% of the population awaiting trials. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Altman spoke to the judiciary about having night court so that people who are there can be adjudicated and either released or transferred; with Mr. Altman responding everybody who comes in is taken in front of a judge within the first 24 hours; the judge then makes a determination as to whether or not to bind them over or release them from confinement; and that takes place every day at the Brevard County jail. Commissioner Pritchard stated if a substantial number of inmates are awaiting their final day in court and there is not enough courts for them to get to timely, it might be less costly if they had night court so they could be released or moved on. He stated that cost may be substantially less than building more facilities and staffing those facilities. Mr. Altman stated it may be, but he does not know the answer to that.

Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson advised the approval of retired judges is up to the Supreme Court, which certifies so many hours for judges; and staff probably has to get with Court Administration to find out the status of that. She stated there have been rumors at different times about hours being cut or not being funded; but that would be something they have to work through with Court Administration. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to know about that because if the cost is substantially less than building hardened facilities and staffing them, then it would seem like it would be in the best interest of the community to do that. Mr. Altman stated he agrees and will support anything that would reduce the population at the jail. Commissioner Pritchard stated there was also a comment about using the jail annex for misdemeanors and moving the female population elsewhere within the compound as a cost-saving measure; and inquired is that incorporated in the report; with Mr. Altman responding no, there is nothing about moving the female population out of the main facility because the jail annex is not designed to house female inmates; and he would have to maintain facilities in the main jail because he does not have a forensics area, a lock down administrative confinement area, nor the facilities that are required for maximum security at the annex. He stated there are a number of female inmates who meet the criteria for maximum security, so he would have to maintain a forensics element, maximum-security area, and lock down area at the main facility for the female population. Mr. Altman stated changing some of the locks, upgrading some of the locking mechanisms on the doors, and moving medium custody inmates to the jail annex is absolutely a possibility; that is one of the recommendations he made today; and once they activate the 256-bed minimum security facility, they can upgrade the security of the jail annex and transfer medium custody inmates into that facility. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Altman mentioned 26 additional staff for the 256-bed addition and 24 staff for the jail annex; and inquired if those were combined; with Mr. Altman responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that is a total of 50 more people; with Mr. Altman responding a total of 50 staff members and that is not taking into consideration the previous staffing analysis that was done. He stated the staffing analysis said 66 people were needed to operate the facility; his request is 50 staff members to move forward or continue to use overtime. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much does a staff member cost; with Mr. Altman responding a new correctional officer costs about $50,000. Commissioner Pritchard stated one alternative that came up frequently is that the mentally-challenged inmates could be incarcerated at other types of facilities; and inquired if Mr. Altman addressed that and what the cost would be to have them incarcerated elsewhere; with Mr. Altman responding he has not addressed that as it is outside the scope of what the Detention Center or Brevard County Sheriff’s Office would do. He stated they are tasked with keeping those people who are under arrest; and if Commissioner Pritchard is referring to taking people to some type of treatment facility, that would be done outside the scope of their arena. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is just looking for ways to lessen the population of the jail. Mr. Altman stated he agrees a facility of that nature is absolutely needed; a large segment of the population that is forensics inmates are there because they may have committed a crime; but incarceration is not the place for them because they need treatment versus incarceration. Commissioner Pritchard stated later on the Agenda the Board will hear about electronic monitoring; and he would be interested in Mr. Altman’s response to that. He inquired if the laundry room, administration, and training areas could be moved outside the main facility into a building to be constructed nearby that would not be the type of facility required for incarceration; with Mr. Altman responding that could be looked at. Mr. Altman stated the current unit where classification and inmate records are housed is approximately 1,750 square feet; it could probably be converted into 10 to 15 inmate beds, but that is not enough to alleviate the overcrowding; and renovating inside the main secured facility, Facilities Construction could probably tell the Board better than he can that it may wind up costing more than it would to build a new minimum-security facility. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is trying to address ways to reduce the jail population; and he has taken a couple of tours of the jail and has deep respect for the men and women who staff that facility because it is not a very pleasant place. He stated it is not supposed to be that pleasant, but the way it is currently operating has to be addressed and corrected; and thanked Mr. Altman for what he is doing.

Chair Higgs advised Chief Rumbley has to be somewhere else this afternoon; he is here to give the Board a summary of the recommendations from the Commission on Mental Health and Community Solutions; and she will let him speak now, then perhaps take a lunch break. Commissioner Pritchard suggested a 30-minute lunch break.

Chief Paul Rumbley, representing the Commission on Mental Health and Community Solutions, stated he wants to share a couple of things with the Board for a police chief’s perspective; they are kind of the cause of some of the overcrowding at the jail; he represents the police chiefs and Sheriff of the County; they want safety in their communities and want the children safe; and they are going about the business of doing that, but work diligently at various diversion programs in an effort not to impact Commander Altman’s program at the jail. He stated he and Mr. Altman talked about more training so police on the street have a higher level of sensitivity to the kinds of issues that have been presented to the Board; and violence is increasing and arrests are increasing, but they hope the communities are safer. He stated they are fully aware that they are impacting the other end of the spectrum of their colleagues in criminal justice, but it is a reality and is the nature of the business. He stated he lauds Mr. Altman’s presentation and is in agreement with him; his forecasting out eight years is pretty accurate; as long as he is a police chief, they will keep on arresting people; and the trend looks favorable that the increases will impact the jail. He stated that being said, he is really here to represent the Commission on Mental Health and Community Solutions; the Commission spent a lot of time learning about the jail, so the focus of his comments today is not on the Commission’s recommendations that the Board heard him talk about before, but specifically on three aspects of the recommendations as they relate to the jail only. Chief Rumbley stated the number of inmates that have mental illness and substance abuse issues are significant; Tuesday, members of the Commission toured the jail and learned there were about 200 forensic inmates there; some were isolated in designated forensic cells; but less serious mental health inmates are still mixed in with the general population within respective pods. He stated about 1,400 inmates are in the jail today; a sizable percentage is forensics inmates; and since the Commission started its work over two years ago, it made three recommendations as it relates to the jail. He stated the first was to continue enhanced level of forensics services; the other was renovate forensic Pod 100; and lastly, renovate all forensic cells with safety glass in front of the doors. He stated he is happy to report that they have initiated and taken action upon those three recommendations; and February 2000 the Board approved enhancement of the forensic programs at the jail and added two additional forensics specialists and two additional half-day psychiatric coverage. He stated the bar graph on the right depicts the current timeframe, November/December 2003 compared to December 2001; the number of clients on psychiatric medication is up over 50%; and the number of psychiatric contacts has increased 75% as depicted on the bar graph. He stated the Mental Health Commission is excited about that because it is on the right path to reducing the overriding problem they have with jail overcrowding and having the wrong folks in jail cells; and they believe many of the mental health clients need to be somewhere else other than the jail. He stated there has been an increase in family contacts for mentally-ill inmates; with psychiatric treatment, inmates are more stable, which could reduce recidivism; and the number referred to community treatment has grown from 74 referrals in 2001 to 430 referrals in 2003. He noted that is going to correlate back to recidivism rates, which outcomes need to be measured in future meetings. Chief Rumbley stated continuing forensic services is a big issue; and the Commission lauds the Board for what it has done and asks it to keep forensics variables and ideas in mind as it struggles with the real challenge before it today. He stated the second recommendation was to renovate forensic pods; renovation of Pod 100 was completed last month; and he along with other colleagues on the Commission saw it the other day, and looked at the bubble areas and how females and juveniles were separated out. He stated that is definitely enhancement and is on track with what the Commission asked the Board to do; the Board did it, and the Commission appreciates it; however, the bubble areas were just a quick fix and the Commission knew that when it proposed it, but it is a help. He stated inmates spend days and nights on mattresses on the floor; they have no ready access to the back cells where toilets are located without correctional officers actually escorting them, which is tremendously labor intensive; and that is significant when thinking about the staff ratios of three officers to 350 inmates. Chief Rumbley advised the third recommendation, which has not yet been done, and one they want the Board to think about as it considers long-term options for the jail, is installing cell fronts constructed in such a way that one could view inside of the cells in their entirety. He stated what is on the plate right now is a short-term fix; the 256-bed facility is not what the Commission had in mind in terms of safety-glass front; and that is more of a long-term project. He stated two things he wants to comment on has to do with tremendous issues in the Commission’s mission; one is the short-term residential facility, which is the missing piece in the link of mental health services. He stated that is not on the legislative radar this session; but they plan to work on that if the Commission is extended. He stated they also believe much more work needs to be done on the central receiving facility concept; they need to flush out more alternatives; practitioners believe the central receiving facility concept in dealing with mentally-ill clients is a wise course to take that ultimately will positively impact this challenge; therefore, the Commission recommends the Board of County Commissioners specifically entertain extending the life of the Mental Health and Community Solutions Commission for an additional two years.

Chief Rumbley stated the Board put together quite a team that got excited about the potential of making real changes in the County for the good of the community and specifically for the families, loved ones, and clients; and they need to stay in the saddle and stay the course as a Commission to help the Board achieve its goal and vision for a better society in Brevard County as it relates to mental health.

Chair Higgs advised Chief Rumbley that the Board appreciates everything the Commission has done up to this point.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution amending Resolution 03-058, extending the sunset date of the Brevard Commission on Mental Health and Community Solutions to February 28, 2006. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-036.)

Chair Higgs advised she has three speaker cards, and wants to know how the Board wants to proceed; there are short and long-term actions to consider; there is someone here to talk about electronic monitoring; and there are the RFQ’s for the criminal justice system review.

Commissioner Pritchard suggested a 30-minute lunch break, then come back and hear the speakers. Commissioner Colon stated she would prefer to hear from the speakers now in case they have planned their time, but they are also welcomed to come back. Chair Higgs inquired if the speakers could hold off until after the lunch break at 1:05 p.m.; and noted they are okay with waiting until after the lunch break.

The meeting recessed at 12:25 p.m., and reconvened at 1:05 p.m.

Chair Higgs advised the Board will continue its discussions on problems and solutions regarding the correctional facility; and there is someone here regarding electronic monitoring.

Mr. Murray with U.S. Monitoring, Inc. advised the company provides electronic monitoring devices that might help alleviate some of the problems with jail overcrowding; and distributed an ROF bracelet to the Commissioners for review. He stated the bracelet can be placed on the ankle of a person; there is a device that is plugged into the phone line; and it can set the parameters of where the person can go and what he or she can do. He stated it is called house arrest; and if the person goes outside 200 feet, the device will immediately call the monitoring center, which will then notify the proper authorities, officers, probation officers, parole officers, and so forth. He stated they make a similar item called a GPS unit; it gives a satellite tracking of where the party is at all times; law enforcement personnel can look it up on the computer to see who is where at any time; particular areas can be zoned out where the party cannot go; and if he does, authorities are notified immediately through the monitoring center. Mr. Murray stated they have various technologies that will allow the Board to possibly reduce the current inmate population at the jail at no risk to public safety; and encouraged the Board to look at those technologies. He stated they also have an offender self-paid program, where they provide the equipment, install it, and provide monitoring and supervision at no cost to the County or taxpayers because the offender is responsible for the daily monitoring fee of the devices. He stated Florida Statute 948.03, states that the offender will pay the daily monitoring cost for electronic monitoring; so an ROF bracelet, GPS unit, and alcohol monitoring unit are all designed to allow people to go back into the community but supervise them in a safe way. He stated the monitoring center monitors 24 hours a day; if there is any violation of the parameters that are set up, appropriate authorities are notified; and part of the 18th Circuit is already using some of the technologies. Mr. Murray advised Seminole County has been using the GPS units since 2001; Pasco and Pinellas Counties use the devices; and they are utilized across the country to protect the public and reduce overcrowding in prisons. He stated Randy O'Brien would like to talk to the Board about the financial side of the monitoring devices.

Commissioner Colon stated there is a period between where the person appears before the judge, cannot afford a bond, does not belong to the Department of Corrections, and is in the custody of the Sheriff’s Department; and inquired at what point is Mr. Murray saying the program will have the offender pay for his own monitoring. Mr. Murray stated the offender would pay the daily cost of the monitoring. Commissioner Colon stated that will not solve the problem for those who cannot pay the fine. Mr. Murray stated they have a solution for that; and that is what Mr. O'Brien is going to talk about. He stated 75%, according to Commander Altman, are awaiting trial; some of them are probably eligible to be out while they are awaiting trial provided they are properly monitored; and the American Parole and Probation Association has criteria for deciding who qualifies to be put on the program. He stated that is the criteria they use to decide whether somebody should be electronically monitored.

Randy O'Brien advised 75% of the inmates in the jail are pretrial inmates; just because they are pretrial does not mean they are eligible to walk the streets; some are very violent, some are there for murder, and some are there for other crimes; and 25% are minimum security. He stated Commander Altman said the cost today to house an inmate is between $36 and $40 a day; the question Commissioner Colon brought up is that some people cannot afford to pay a bond so how could they afford to pay the monitoring fee; and there is a solution to that issue. He stated if the electronic monitoring can reduce the jail population by 100 inmates at $36 a day per inmate, that means the cost is reduced by $3,600 per day; after ten days, the County would have saved $36,000; in 30 days, it would have saved $108,000; and in 12 months, it would have saved $1,296,000. He stated the bracelet costs $10 a day to monitor; and if there are 100 bracelets utilized at $1,000 a day, the Board could pay for the monitoring for indigents and still reduce the cost to operate the jail by $2,600 per day. He stated if the courts release 200 pretrial and after trial inmates, or those on probation to be monitored electronically, the savings would double; and the Board would reduce the jail population in a manner that still creates a safety factor for the public. Mr. O'Brien stated the offender self-pay program allows inmates who can afford to pay the fee not to have to sit in jail for ten days waiting for help, and could be released with a bracelet; and there is a further reduction to the cost of the jail if that starts to occur. He stated the cost savings could be used to upgrade the jail; if the population is reduced by 200, and the Board is looking at $1.5 million to build a pod, plus money for equipment and to increase staffing, it may not need staffing to the level proposed or estimated. He stated the Board should take the lead and work with the judiciary, State Attorney, and Public Defender to help make the change that could effectively move some numbers around where a tax increase may not be required. He noted the Board has gone to the public three times and asked for a special tax to expand the jail and all three times it was turned down; and here is a methodology that may result in savings, which can be put into a special account to pay for bracelets for indigents and increase the jail size and staffing.

Commissioner Colon inquired if the $36 per day is the contract between Mr. O'Brien’s company and the inmate; with Mr. O'Brien responding the $36 is what it costs the County at this time to incarcerate one person, and $10 a day would be the cost to bracelet someone and monitor that person on the GPS. Commissioner Colon inquired if the County would pay for the monitoring or is the contract with the client; with Mr. O'Brien responding it would depend on how the County wants to handle the indigent inmates. Mr. O'Brien stated if a person cannot pay for it, by reduction of the jail population, the Board could pay for the monitoring and have money left over from the present budget. Commissioner Colon inquired about the contract with a person who can afford to pay for the monitoring; with Mr. O'Brien responding that is privatization. Commissioner Colon inquired if the person does not pay, would that be between the person and Mr. O'Brien’s company; with Mr. O'Brien responding yes, it is between the person who is supposed to wear a bracelet and his company; and if the person decides not to pay the bill, they would turn off the bracelet and notify the parole officer, judge, defender, etc., and it ends up back in the courts. He stated with indigent persons, the contract would be between the County and the company; or the Board could go out for bids for the number of bracelets it wants to utilize a month, depending on what the judiciary does. He stated there is a format that a judge would look at and determine if it is or is not an appropriate use for the equipment.

Commissioner Carlson inquired about the bracelet; with Mr. O'Brien responding the ROF is generally used for house arrests only; with the GPS unit the person can go to work and during the day it is monitored; it can show a person’s position within plus or minus two feet; and they look at a map and a star comes up just like on a computer showing where the person is at all times. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. O'Brien has statistics from other communities that have utilized the devices; with Mr. O'Brien responding the growing use of GPS monitoring is phenomenal; Seminole County has used it for over three years; and Pasco County also uses it. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is anything documented that the Board can look at; with Mr. O'Brien responding they have some documents, especially of court cases. He stated a judge can order a person to use a GPS bracelet because he wants to know if the person is going back to the neighborhood to buy drugs; or if a person is mandated not to go near another person, the GPS unit can be given to that other person, which will alarm him or her if the person is in close proximity; so there are a lot of advantages to the use of the devices. He stated sexual predators can be monitored with a GPS bracelet 24 hours a day seven days a week; if all those persons had GPS monitors and there was a sexual crime in Titusville, within 15 minutes the Sheriff’s Department could find out who was in close proximity of the crime through the GPS system; and that would eliminate a lot of suspects immediately.

Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Knight of Brevard County House Arrest is here to speak; with Mr. Knight responding no, he is just observing. Chair Higgs stated the Board has Mr. Knight’s note on the services he provides.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be something the judges would determine, not the jail commander; the judge determines whether a person goes out on his or her own recognizance, signature bond, security bond, etc.; so that would be a situation with the judiciary. He stated Brevard County is in the 18th Judicial Circuit; Norm Wolfinger is the State Attorney; and inquired if the issue has been discussed with Mr. Wolfinger; with Mr. Altman responding he has not discussed it with Mr. Wolfinger, but he is familiar with the fact that Seminole County is utilizing the bracelets. Commissioner Scarborough stated Brevard County has the same State Attorney as Seminole County; if the State Attorney recommends it, it is very easy for the judiciary to accept it; somebody needs to broach the subject with Mr. Wolfinger and see what his thoughts are because he would be the one to say it is a good idea or it has not worked. He stated apparently it is working or they would be objecting to it in Seminole County. Mr. Altman advised Seminole County uses a program called crime tracks, which is essentially the same type of program; he is not sure how many people they have on the system, but based on his conversations with personnel in Seminole County, they use it primarily for post-trial versus pretrial. He stated his understanding, having talked to a number of different people, is that there is very limited use in a pretrial mode; and most of it is being utilized in a post-trial mode. Commissioner Scarborough suggested Mr. Altman and Assistant County Attorney Wilson meet with Mr. Wolfinger and bring back a report on the use of electronic monitoring so the Board will know what the judiciary is doing in Seminole County.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Altman has any idea how many inmates who are currently in the jail might be eligible for the program; with Mr. Altman responding he has no idea because he does not know what criteria the judge would set to release someone into that program. Mr. Altman stated the judiciary would have to make that decision; the person would have to meet specific criteria in order to be eligible for release under the program; and he has no idea what the judiciary would set as the criteria. Commissioner Pritchard suggested when Mr. Altman speaks with Seminole County, he find out what its criteria is and then apply it to the inmates and give the Board a ballpark figure. Mr. Altman stated as he said earlier, it is his understanding Seminole County is using it in a post-trial capacity and that would be trying to compare apples with oranges.

Chair Higgs inquired if it is something the Public Safety Coordinating Council could take up as an issue; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding the Council had a presentation of the devices at its last meeting. Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Wolfinger was there; with Mr. Jenkins responding Wayne Holmes, his Chief Deputy was there. Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Wolfinger is fully aware of the program; with Mr. Jenkins responding staff will talk to him. Mr. Jenkins stated the only participation the Board would have is if it is willing to set up an indigent fund to pay for those people who are declared indigent; and it appears to be less expensive than putting someone in jail. Commissioner Scarborough stated absolutely, as it would save $26 a day. Mr. O'Brien stated the present cost per person incarcerated in the Brevard County jail is about $36 a day; the cost for a bracelet is about $10 a day; the difference is a savings to the County, which it can use for other purposes, especially increasing the jail staff, better training, better meals, etc. Commissioner Scarborough commented the next time the Board meets it needs to have lunch served by Mr. Altman from the jail so the Commissioners can critique the food. Chair Higgs noted she has three more cards from the public.

Bob Striffler of Melbourne stated he has a lot to say and knows he will have more to say after his five minutes, but would have to find a different forum for that; and inquired if he could ask Mr. Altman a question. Chair Higgs advised Mr. Striffler he is here to talk to the Board and can give it questions that it can redirect. Mr. Striffler stated Mr. Altman showed some statistics; he is in a quandary about the source of those statistics; and inquired if one of the companies putting in bids to build the jail or maybe a consulting company might have been paid for that. He stated his statistics are from the FBI Crime Index, the Justice Department, the Census Bureau, Florida Abstracts Statistical Charts, etc.; there were a couple of news articles from probably some leftist newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times that discuss crime offenses in Florida being on the rise; but his statistics show a decline from 1994 to 2000
of over 21%. He stated Mr. Altman’s statistics showed that crime was rising according to the increase in population; the rate he was using was per thousand; his statistics are per 100,000; and the crime rate stayed the same even with showing that more people are moving here. He stated the statistics are nationwide as well as Florida; the jail space and increasing the jail is relevant; it is very simple to get the information; it can be obtained from the public library; and he can quote the numbers for the Board if he can get the right paperwork.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Striffler would mind having staff make copies of his documents after his presentation so the Commissioners will be able to review them; with Mr. Striffler responding it would seem like the Board would have already had those documents. Commissioner Scarborough stated what Mr. Striffler is referring to is much easier if they have it assembled; so if he does not mind staff making copies of his documents, then the Board will have it. Mr. Striffler stated okay, but they are very shocking.

Mr. Striffler stated he has the statistics on less crime offenses, more prison space, more jail space; last year there was actually almost 14 million people arrested in the United States; the United States has 25% of the world’s prison population; the fastest growing industry involves bailiffs, court reporters, etc.; but what is really important is to find out exactly why the jail would be so overcrowded with the crime rates dropping as they are; and inquired what are people being put in jail for. He stated according to the statistics, Florida has the second highest crime rate of all the states except Washington, D.C.; it has the second highest prison population of all the States; and it has 13% of the country’s convicted felons who lose their righs to vote, own a gun, or travel. He stated he has done years and years of research on this issue, and will be doing years more; people in the State are convicted of things that would be ticketable offenses in other states; and people in other states, for some of the offenses that become felonies in Florida, get protective custody. He stated he would like to know where the number of $36 a day came from; maybe that is what the County pays, but the taxpayers in general pay quite a bit more to keep somebody in jail in Sharpes because for the cost of keeping somebody in jail for four months for an open container, which is a ticketable offense, the Board could send that man to college. Mr. Striffler stated he has plenty of statistics; he has 110 pages written so far backing up documents; and the Board would be appalled at some of the things people are put in jail for. He stated when he was a child he learned about Nazi Germany and about the Russians, and the Soviet Union and how they get pulled over and asked for their papers; there are people being jailed here for not having a correct address on their driver’s license; so he would like to know the source of Mr. Altman’s numbers because he has sources himself and what he knows and what he is going to do his damnedest to let other people know, is exactly what is going on. He stated with his allegations will come forth soon, after he documents evidence, tape recordings, and the like, about how people end up in Sharpes.

Commissioner Colon stated there is always a place where there has to be a forum of who someone wants to talk to; today the Board is talking about the jail; Mr. Striffler’s suggestions would be exactly the offenses that are happening; but the Commander is not the person who puts people in jail; so it is almost like do not shoot the messenger. She stated she would like to get feedback from folks like Mr. Striffler, who do so much data research and things like that of what a community does; and one of the things they talked about today was the philosophy of the jail, not just locking people up, but helping them with GED, getting them things that are crucial and important; and she is interested in knowing more about that. She inquired if those are things that Mr. Striffler sees as other suggestions he might offer or is he strictly talking about offenses of why people are going to jail. Mr. Striffler stated he holds nothing against the jailers or the guards; but he read one of the presentations, which basically are bids of $15 million plus. He stated he read different pages; and page 28 speaks to time trial, effectiveness of booking, arraignment, bond processes, impact on detention numbers, time to trial and its effect on detention levels being assessed. Commissioner Colon stated the Board did not put that item together. Mr. Striffler stated some of his grievances do not belong in a forum here because the Commissioners are not judges and attorneys, but he assumes there are some judges and attorneys here or there should be; maybe a prosecuting attorney or public defender, because he could certainly ask some questions if the Board would let him and would like to hear their answers. He stated there are checks and balances all through the judiciary; American jurisprudence allows certain things that are fundamental; within the legal and judicial communities there is self-regulation; and there is Supreme Court rulings in regards to absolute immunity. He stated the forums are judicial review boards; they can go to the Senate Commission for Oversight for senate or congress on both the State and federal levels; and many people have done that. He stated he can go through a forum in the newspaper, but what is happening is, like the other day, he read about the jail almost like it is a done deal and they are listening to the sales presentations when the fact of the matter is it is pretty shocking what he has come up with. He stated he already knows that the oversight for lawyers and judges is not there.

Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Altman can address the source of the statistics he presented to the Board; with Mr. Altman responding Mr. Striffler is referring to crimes committed; and the data he provided has no relevance to crimes committed and is strictly the numbers of inmates who have been incarcerated in the Brevard County jail, and the increase in that incarceration rate. He stated the data he presented came from the Florida Department of Corrections’ website as the number of inmates that were incarcerated in the Brevard County jail since 1993.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has sat in on some regional boards; and like Mr. Striffler indicated, Florida’s rates are way out there; and inquired if Floridians have a higher tendency to commit crimes than other people. He stated the State gets about 42 million visitors a year; the population of the State is less than that; Kansas does not have 42 million visitors; and one of the things he would be interested in, if Mr. Altman can put his hands on it, is the national incarceration rate. He stated the State incarcerates 20% to 30% more than Brevard County does; and he would like to know how many of them are non-Floridians in the State and in Brevard County. He stated that can warp the figures if it is run through a massive population number; and they discussed that at length at one of the regional meetings. Chair Higgs stated that would be interesting to know.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if people are being arrested or jailed for having an incorrect address on their driver’s license; with Mr. Altman responding he is not aware of that, but does not look at the specifics of why a person is arrested. He stated they can pull the information and see if a person was arrested for that and if that was the only charge or if there were other charges that accompanied it. Mr. Altman stated he can pull the data off the national database to see what the incarceration rate per 1,000 residents is in specific states and see how Florida compares; he has done the comparison of the State of Florida and the top ten counties in the State with Brevard County; he could make some type of comparison as to how Brevard County ranks nationally as well; but as far as being able to tell how many people were arrested who had out-of-state addresses or were not residents of the State, there is no way he can pull that information out of his computer. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board really needs to know that; Orlando is a tourist attraction; its crime rate is way up they say; it is almost a self-defeating thing because they have a lot of tourists coming in and a population that is constantly not just local by the census; and the dilemma is the tourist industry, which gives a totally different perspective. Mr. Altman stated he understands and is a firm believer that a problem cannot be resolved if it cannot be analyzed; he cannot analyze that problem if he cannot gather statistical data needed to analyze it; and that is one of the issues with the current jail management system, the inability to adequately analyze data. He stated if he cannot analyze the problem, he cannot find out where there might be a trend or where there might be a problem; and the procurement of an adequate jail management system for the facility is critical because there may be some things they can do if they could properly analyze that data.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to know what the threshold is for arrests; and inquired is it something as simple as an incorrect address on a driver’s license; with Mr. Altman responding there are arrestable offenses and non-arrestable offenses. Mr. Altman stated he could give five examples of things that might not be arrestable offenses and ten of things that would be; but he has no way of telling whether or not they have people who were arrested on that offense. He stated there is a lot of discretion left to the law enforcement officer on the street as to whether or not to arrest someone for a specific offense. Commissioner Pritchard stated if someone had an incorrect address on his or her license and had an attitude, that person could be arrested; with Mr. Altman responding he could not say whether or not that is an arrestable offense that mandates an arrest or whether it is a citation and release issue; he is not a certified law enforcement officer, but is a certified corrections officer; so he would not be qualified to answer that question.

Commissioner Scarborough stated that is beyond what Mr. Altman does; when an officer arrests someone, the next dynamics is the judicial system, which is backed up; they have judges who are trying to get a handle on the cases; Mr. Wolfinger has a number of cases he can handle; so the dynamics is a bottleneck in other places in the system of how many cases Mr. Wolfinger can prosecute, where he wants to put his resources, and the judiciary not having the ability to handle everything. He suggested the Board have the Chief Judge and State Attorney at the next meeting who could perhaps define some of the bottleneck.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the things the Commander brought out was the number of people they process in and out of the jail; and if they are bringing people in who may not have an arrestable offense, but have an attitude, that is clogging the system. Mr. Altman stated he does not disagree; and in his recommendation, the first point was to do a criminal justice systems needs analysis as it relates to the jail overcrowding and the number of people being put in jail. He stated a lot of questions being asked could be answered by conducting that needs analysis; it will tell if there are bottlenecks in the Public Defender’s Office, State Attorney’s Office, the court system, what people are being arrested for and not being arrested for, etc.; so a lot of the questions would be answered by moving forward with the criminal justice systems analysis of what is happening in Brevard County.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if a person comes in during the evening and is being processed, how long would it take before that person goes before a judge; with Mr. Altman responding 24 hours. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that judge is the one who determines whether the person gets out on his own recognizance, cash bond, etc. or incarcerated to appear in court; with Mr. Altman responding hypothetically, if someone is brought in, not having a driver’s license in possession or not having a correct address on his driver’s license, and that is the only charge, that person is going to appear in front of a judge at what they call initial appearance generally within the first 24 hours. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the arrest is bogus, Mr. Altman could still end up with that person, not because of the officer, but because a judge made the determination that he wants him incarcerated to appear in court. Mr. Altman stated that is correct; the person will appear before a judge within 24 hours, and the judge is going to make a decision based on the charge to either release the person or bind the person over for court appearance. He stated it is not a decision he makes or the arresting officer makes as to how long that person is going to be in the jail; and it does have a serious impact on the numbers of people they process. He noted someone meeting the criteria would generally be released after the initial appearance.

Ms. Wilson stated when a defendant goes before a judge within the 24 hours, the judge has to make a determination that there is probable cause that an offense has been committed; and he has documentation before him usually from the arresting officer or from other sources. She stated if there is no probable cause at that point, the court can either make a decision to release the person or give the State Attorney’s office so much time to establish additional information to make the probable cause finding; and then there are other protections in terms of certain types of offenses if charges are not filed. She noted there are additional probable cause hearings that a defendant can assert.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the population worksheet includes people who are in for the first 24 hours until they have their opportunity in front of a judge; with Mr. Altman responding no, it is the activity of inmates received and released in 24 hours from midnight to midnight. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if they are counted as population; with Mr. Altman responding no, but pretrial release would interview the inmate and make a determination as to whether or not the person could be released and can order the person’s release before he ever goes to first appearance; so there are safeguards built into the system.

Pastor David Dunn of Special Gatherings and Traveling Worship Ministry in Rockledge advised he has been a Brevard County resident since 1966 and has seen the demographics of the County change dramatically; he commends the Commander and his staff for a job no one would really want to have; and he wants to talk primarily about the forensic inmates. He stated he serves seven congregations that are made up of adults that have mental illness, are considered disabled, and are mentally challenged; three of the congregations are in Brevard County; and he also serves in Vero Beach, Daytona Beach, and in McClenney, Florida, which is where the North Florida State Hospital is at. He stated when he goes to the State Hospital, he has to have keys to go through every door either way; there are 563 residents there that are locked up for their own benefit and for the benefit of the citizens; but the conditions at the jail, when it comes to people who are diagnosed with mental illness, is incredibly difficult for them. He stated the staff is doing the best job they can do with the resources they have available; but a lot of the inmates who are there are placed into the general population and need more attention than the staff can give them, which makes it a danger for those inmates and in some cases the inmates they come in contact with. He stated those people require a little extra attention to protect them and the people they come in contact with; he is a strong advocate of the need to change conditions at the jail; and staffing should be one of the primary concerns. Pastor Dunn stated listening to the corrections officers having to work the types of shifts they do and in an environment that would challenge anyone, it is amazing that Mr. Altman is able to retain who he does; staffing needs to become a priority; and he also agrees with expansion of the jail to give the Commander and his team an opportunity to give more attention to individual inmates who need it. He noted it is going to be a safer environment for everybody who is there; people who go through the jail sometimes become an inmate; they will be going back into the community eventually; and rehabilitation is very difficult at the jail. He stated not everybody who goes into the jail system are career criminals; there are people who go into that system and the State hospital system who hopefully are going to be rehabilitated and come back into the community and be productive members; they need to do whatever they can to get those tools in the hands of the professionals who need them to help those members return to society; and not all of them who are there need to stay there. Pastor Dunn stated there are a lot of people who go through the system at the jail; the Board could make a difference in facilities and staffing and make it better for those people who have to work in that system; so he is very supportive of the recommendations made and the recommendations of the Commander. He stated there have been improvements, but there are many more that are available and there are funding sources that are presently there that can help with them; he wishes the Board would consider that and think about those members of society because the public by and large is ignorant of a lot of the facts they have bantered around here today; and if they did know, they would have a better insight of what is going on in the jail and what is going on with a different variety of inmates there, particularly those who are in the forensic status.

Edie Chickonski of Cocoa advised she is a fourth generation Floridian; her great grandfather was the Mayor of Winter Park; the jail is deplorable; the inmates are not getting good treatment, lack medical treatment, and suicides are going on there; and the Board has to do something. She stated the Board needs to get the judges to turn people loose who are in for violation of probation, whether it be the electronic monitors or house arrest; it has to empty that jail out; and the Humane Society is run better than the County jail. She stated she held a picket at the jail Friday night; there was an article in the newspaper on it Sunday; there are a lot of people in the jail; it is overcrowded; and she feels sorry for the people who have to work there. Ms. Chickonski stated people with nonviolent crimes should be able to go home; the Board has to get to the judges and tell them to let those people go home because not only is it costing the taxpayers to support them in the jail, the families of those inmates have to apply for welfare; so the taxpayers are supporting them twice. She stated the smart thing to do is get those men and women home, because if it is a woman, the State has taken her children and placed them with DCF; and inquired what is going to happen in the long-term if they do not do something now. She stated the Board has to get those judges to turn people loose who have nonviolent crimes so they can be home and go to work.

Chair Higgs requested staff summarize the RFQ’s regarding a criminal justice systems study.

Mr. Jenkins advised based on discussions of multiple parties, they have concluded it would be beneficial to the County to get a criminal justice consultant to look at the issues of managing the jail population from the time of arrest through the entire process and assess the system to see if there are additional steps or measures that can be taken to reduce the jail population. He stated the second component is constructing a 256-bed dormitory; and that is obviously not going to fix the system,; so they need to identify and come up with a plan for future jail facilities, not only in terms of what type of facilities, but how big they need to be. He stated the corrections staffing costs can sometimes be greater than the construction costs; they need to design facilities that are efficient to operate; he and Mr. Altman talked to several different consultants and think if they can get an extra set of eyes or experts to come in and look at the system, they have a high probability of improving the system plus coming up with a very definitive plan as to what to do for the future. He stated it is both trying to reduce jail population and identify what the facilities are going to be in the future.

Chair Higgs stated staff’s recommendation is to build the 256-bed open dormitory style direct supervision facility; and inquired if they need to have a consultant on board before then; with Mr. Jenkins responding no, staff is suggesting to go forward with building the facility because they are convinced they can fill it and use it immediately; as proposed, it has capacity to be expanded to a second floor; and they believe they can build it in-house, using Facilities Construction staff to supervise the construction, which will save significant amounts of dollars. He stated that needs to be a separate action. Mr. Jenkins stated the second component is to get a consultant, which will take about 90 days to come in and look at the jail, the criminal justice process, and ways to reduce the population as well as a plan for the future.

Chair Higgs inquired if the County has on-board a design consultant or an architect and engineering firm on continuing contract that can do that; with Mr. Jenkins responding there are several firms on contract at the present time, but those are up to $1 million projects; they expect the jail project to be $1.5 to $1.75 million; so the Board can change the current policy as it relates to architects on retainage, then staff could interview those four architects and pick one that has the most related experience, or do a quick RFP and select an architect they know is experienced in jail construction.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the estimated cost to do the assessment; with Mr. Jenkins responding about $90,000, which can be paid for by the correctional impact fees. Chair Higgs stated and so can the construction of the addition; with Mr. Jenkins agreeing.

Chair Higgs stated the problem with moving forward with one of the existing architects may be they do not have specific experience in terms of jails and they also will hit the threshold established; so the Board has to decide if it wants to change its policy. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board could make an exception to its threshold for the project to avoid an RFP or could expedite an RFP in a fairly quick timeframe. Chair Higgs stated it should be someone who has jail expertise.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Jenkins, Chair Higgs, Commander Altman and Sam Stanton went to Marion County and found that is where they want to go and what they want to do; rather than go out and get another architect with different plans when they have already seen the work and Mr. Altman knows it is going to work for him, and Mr. Stanton knows it is going to work for him construction-wise, the Board could get the Marion County architect if that does not violate the law. Ms. Wilson stated it depends on what the cost is; and chances are the Board will be required to go out for an RFP. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if he knows he wants to build a house by the one he saw designed by a particular architect, why should he look at 12 different architects, knowing that is the one he wants to get in the end. Mr. Jenkins stated it would probably be cost effective for the design because it would be a cookie-cutter. Ms. Wilson stated the Competitive Consultants Negotiation Act may require the Board to go out for an RFP; and she will look at that to make sure the Board complies with the law. She noted the Board can make sure that person gets an invitation to submit a proposal. Mr. Jenkins stated he believes there is a provision for an emergency; the question is does the jail addition qualify as an emergency as it relates to that law. Ms. Wilson stated there are probably a lot of corrections officers and others who believe it is an emergency; and she has to look at that to see if there is anything that interprets what emergency means in that law.

Chair Higgs inquired if there is discussion in regard to the proposal. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is in favor of the proposal and would make a motion to move forward with it.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to move forward with the proposal to build a 256-bed dormitory style facility at the Brevard County Detention Center.

Chair Higgs inquired if the motion would be to direct staff to get back to the Board at the next meeting so it would know if it has to go out for an RFP and the funding mechanism that would be used. Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants to get a report back.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what would it take to use Marion County’s plans; with Mr. Stanton responding normally they would have to pay a reuse fee. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it would be substantially less than bidding the project.

Chair Higgs stated the Board needs to know what it can do legally; the motion is to move forward to build the 256-bed dormitory style facility and for staff to come back with details of how it will be implemented in an expeditious manner. She called for a second to the motion.

Commissioner Scarborough seconded the motion.

Commissioner Colon inquired if it is based on correctional impact fee and going out for commercial paper; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes. Chair Higgs stated the Board can use commercial paper or another mechanism and the impact fee could pay for it in a few years.

Commissioner Carlson inquired how is the Board going to assess the staffing requirements; is it going to go back and look at the cost for sick leave and overtime and translate that into new staffing or is it over and above what they are dealing with; with Mr. Jenkins responding right now the Board is dealing with the construction only; there will be an operating cost impact, which Mr. Altman is going to submit to the County later. Mr. Altman stated he hopes to give the Board a startup cost for operational equipment within the next 30 days; and as far as staffing is concerned, based on the timeline he gave earlier in his presentation, it takes ten to twelve months from the time he has authorization to hire until he has a fully-functional corrections officer. He stated the last thing he would like to see is to build the facility and not have the staff to put in there so they cannot open it; so he will be looking at mid-year budget adjustments this year with a request for staff recognizing it takes four to five months to be able to hire the personnel. He stated if he could get some kind of commitment from the Board to say yes on the request for mid-year budget adjustment and approval of x number of corrections officers with a hire date no earlier than October 1, 2004 that would put it into the next budget cycle, he would be appreciative of something of that nature so he can start the hiring process, because they are talking about a substantial number of people. Chair Higgs stated the Board needs to know the projected construction costs, projected operation costs, and a timeframe for those
so it can make an educated decision on what it really can do. Mr. Altman stated he will try to put together a startup cost for all the equipment and everything he will need for the facility, as well as a three to five-year operational cost plan within the next 30 to 45 days. Chair Higgs stated the Board needs all of that in one package so it can make the final decisions. She stated if the Board needs to do a selection process on the consultant, design engineer, or architect, it needs to know specifically the committees it needs to appoint, and how it needs to go forward.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board also needs to know the consultant that would do the analysis of the operation; and that should be part of the return report so the Board knows how many detention officers will be needed to staff the jail. He stated several months ago the Board funded 12 detention deputies and a couple of months later it asked whether they had been hired. Commissioner Carlson stated it was five officers. Mr. Altman stated the Board approved 12 road deputies in 2001 or 2002, and five corrections officers. Commissioner Carlson inquired if they were actually hired; with Mr. Altman responding yes, he currently has six vacancies out of 200 corrections officers because they have a tremendous turnover.

Commissioner Colon inquired if the project is focusing on the forensics group or others who are in the medium security range; with Mr. Altman responding there are a couple of options for the 256-bed facility; one is to occupy it with inmates who are classified minimum custody, thereby freeing up jail space and maybe allowing him to reduce staff in some areas and redirect them into some of the forensic units where he needs better coverage. He stated another option is to occupy three of the four cellblocks with 64 inmates each and use the last one as a forensics dorm. He stated in looking at the population this morning, he has 30 to 35 forensic inmates who meet the criteria and could be moved into the open dormitory; that would be better living conditions than the individual cells in the areas they are living in now; and those are two options and things they will look at from an operational aspect.

Chair Higgs stated that is an operational decision the Sheriff’s Office will make or that the Board will discuss later on, but it does not have to be made today; however, it addresses to forensic question. Mr. Altman stated it would give them the option of moving some of the low-level misdemeanor forensic inmates into that housing unit.

Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Altman said about 35 forensic inmates, but she was under the impression it was 125 to 200 at any time; with Mr. Altman responding at the present time there are 35 forensic inmates who meet the minimum security requirements, but as an average, he probably has 150 to 180 forensic inmates in the facility at any given time. He stated they would be able to deal with part of that population, but not all of them. Commissioner Colon stated she would not support the motion; she feels the Board should strictly focus on the forensic inmates as far as giving an area where they are able to house them; and the Board needs to really be more aggressive than just having some of the folks meet. She stated the Board needs to take an aggressive role in meeting with the Chief Judge on some of the issues, such as the bracelets and some things that have been mentioned today because there is an immediate need. She stated it is an emergency; having 256 more beds is not going to resolve part of the emergency; it should also be for forensic inmates and special needs persons; and there are inmates hurting corrections officers because they are not equipped to control those kinds of folks and because of the lack of medicine they need to take. She stated that it is what the Board should be looking at; she will not support it today; but if it comes back and it is the direction the Board wants to go, she would support it then.

Ms. Wilson suggested staff go back to Marion County and determine who owns the plans for its jail facility. She stated sometimes they negotiate contracts and actually take ownership of plans; staff may be able to do something there if the architect has not retained control; so they should look at that as soon as possible. Chair Higgs inquired if staff could potentially negotiate with Marion County; with Ms. Wilson responding there may be some other issues to deal with. Mr. Stanton stated Marion County is sending him a complete set of drawings; and from what he understands, it has them all, so it may have ownership.

Chair Higgs advised the motion before the Board is the construction of the 256-bed dormitory facility, and staff come back with specifics on funding and the implementation plan. She stated it does not preclude other things, but that is the motion at this time. She inquired if there is further discussion on the motion; and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Colon voted nay.

Commissioner Scarborough stated staff needs to handle the thing about the architectural plans, so the Board can get a report back on the whole picture; with Chair Higgs responding yes, and the Board needs to further discuss the long-range recommendation. She stated the second short-range recommendation is to upgrade security of the current jail annex to accommodate an increased security level of inmates.

Commissioner Carlson inquired at what point does Mr. Altman expect the Board to discuss the philosophy in terms of the jail; with Mr. Altman responding it is not a decision he is asking the Board to make; but he is asking the Board to take the options of those philosophies into consideration as it figures out how it is going to design any type of jail expansion. He stated if the Board decides it is going to only build cells and not provide space for training classes and other things, then the Board in essence has handed its philosophy to the Sheriff’s Office, because if they do not have the facilities to conduct training, workshops, etc., they would only be able to warehouse inmates. He stated if the Board chooses to provide facilities to conduct training, etc., he is all for moving forward with the training and rehabilitation programs philosophy; but the important thing is the philosophy dictates what type of facility the Board is going to give the Sheriff. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board is going to get information to deal with a treatment center or warehousing and the cost to start it up. Mr. Jenkins stated that is what the Board would ask the consultant; with Commissioner Carlson responding she knows, but it is being done in parallel. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board has not made a motion on that. Commissioner Carlson stated if they do an assessment and the assessment comes back and says do x, then the Board is already assuming it is working in parallel with that assessment. Mr. Jenkins stated the assessment will come back with options and indications of the costs of those options; and that is why the Board needs to hire a consultant to show it what is available and what is state-of-the-art, etc. Commissioner Carlson inquired how best could the Board use the 256-bed facility; with Mr. Jenkins responding Mr. Altman is going to fill that one up on his own. Mr. Altman stated if the 256-bed facility were to exist today, he would transfer 256 inmates into that facility and have it fully functional tomorrow morning; so that is an absolute immediate need to reduce overcrowded conditions that currently exist. He stated he would think the options that would be brought back from the consulting firm would be where does Brevard County want to be in the year 2005 and 2010, what type of facilities does it need at that point, what can it do to keep the inmate population from continuing to increase, and if it does increase, how many beds is it going to need.

Chair Higgs advised the second short-term recommendation is to upgrade security at the current jail annex; and inquired if Mr. Altman wants to talk about that, specific costs, and what the Board needs to do to bring that to some kind of decision. Mr. Altman stated the cost associated with that is going to be minimal, but he does not have an exact dollar amount. He stated it would involve changing locks to bring the facility up to standards that would meet medium custody facilities; and the big item would be moving medium custody inmates out to it. He stated as shown in the video, the people in yellow were moving medium custody inmates from a second building across open courtyard into a centralized feeding area; that may not be a major concern and an issue in the summertime when they have daylight savings time, but in the winter months with short days, they have to move those people during the hours of darkness; and that is an ideal time for somebody to try and escape. He stated in fact, the only escape they had from the jail annex was by someone who did just that; he waited until they were moving back from the meal, skirted around the side of the building, waited until it was dark, and went over the fence; so the staffing is going to be the key for that particular facility. He stated that is why he needs the additional 24 staff members to be able to put an officer in each of the dorms with 72 inmates. He stated with 288 inmates in the dorm, they would need four officers involved, which is not a bad ratio; however, the design of the facility is also going to dictate the number of control room officers. He stated the key to that particular facility will be staffing to make sure they provide the adequate level of security. Chair Higgs advised at $50,000 per correctional officer, it would cost $1.2 million a year. Mr. Altman stated that would be for the particular facility only; for the other facility they are looking at about $1.3 million; and to get 50 corrections officers, will be about $2.5 million per year.

Commissioner Pritchard advised Public Safety Director Jack Parker was the former jail commander; and he would like to get Mr. Parker’s perspective on what they are talking about. He stated if the Board is going to provide a scope of work to the consultants, and he wants to know that it is covering all the bases.

Public Safety Director Jack Parker advised the Public Safety Department proposed a similar plan a while back as a low cost alternative that was practical because the jail was in a crisis situation; from the last report he got, 40 officers were put in the hospital over the last year; so they came up with using correctional impact fees in a way that was never thought of before, which was to fund a correctional facility expansion and create a low-cost alternative; and that was proposed in the referendum. He stated the plan was a little different; it was basically building a 500-bed minimum-security facility adjacent to the minimum-security facility that exists today, converting that minimum-security facility into a female incarceration facility, moving out the 200 plus females from the main jail into that facility, and freeing up about 400 beds inside the main jail. Mr. Parker stated Commander Altman’s plan is sound, especially the component that the minimum-security facility he is proposing has an expansion component and can actually expand at relatively low cost to double the size in the future when needed. He stated staff thinks it is affordable and that there are revenues that are available to pay for it; he does not believe the correctional facilities impact fee would have to be increased in order to pay for what Commander Altman is pursuing; so it is fiscally sound and a prudent decision for the Board to make. He stated there is no doubt in his mind that it is just the beginning of addressing the situation, but he does not believe that the Board would look back after approving it and say it was a bad decision. He stated the facility will be used well.

Chair Higgs stated the question the Board still has is how to address the issue of forensic inmates; and requested Mr. Altman address that issue because it is of concern to Commissioner Colon and the rest of the Board, and bring that back when the Board talks about the jail again.

Commissioner Carlson stated since there is the potential of creating the 256-bed dormitory and it will have the capacity to double in size, the Board needs to bring back those numbers because doing it now versus waiting until later is going to be a lot more effective use of the dollars. She requested those numbers be brought back to the Board; and stated it may be prudent to proceed with the two stories now to double the capacity. Chair Higgs stated the operations costs will also go up. Commissioner Carlson stated maybe they do and maybe they do not, she does not know.

Mr. Altman stated they are talking about building a minimum-security facility downstairs; as the population increases, they could build two minimum-security facilities; but there may not be an inmate population that is classified to occupy that space, and the second story will wind up sitting empty. He stated if the minimum-security population increases, then they could add the second story perhaps five years from now, but design the building now for that purpose. He stated the primary concern is the inmate population that will meet the criteria to go into that facility. Commissioner Carlson stated she knows it is a short-term recommendation, but looking long-term it would be more cost effective. Ms. Wilson stated as a point of reference, when the County originally built the jail annex, it built that all at once; it only opened one quadrant at a time and kept the rest of it as a shell when needed; and it is now built out. Mr. Altman stated to shell out the second floor is a good option. Commissioner Carlson requested Mr. Altman bring back some numbers that would reflect that option to the Board.

Commissioner Pritchard suggested building the downstairs to Code for incarceration, leaving the upstairs open, but have the building there. He inquired if someone is going to address night court or additional court with the Chief Judge to get the inmates in and out sooner and reduce the jail population; with Mr. Altman responding that information will be addressed in the staffing and needs assessment; the people coming in will address the judiciary issues with the judiciary; and that can be one of the things that is put in the plan for the needs assessment personnel to look at. Commissioner Pritchard stated he mentioned using retired judges and believes Ms. Wilson said it would take the Supreme Court to give them that authority; with Chair Higgs responding no, it was to give them the money. Ms. Wilson stated the Supreme Court actually approves the money and the hours of retired judges; she tried to contact Court Administration over the break and was not successful; but she can pursue that and find out what they understand the circumstances to be for the future.

Chair Higgs inquired if there is a motion regarding the jail needs assessment. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to do that, but when they put the parameters of the scope of service together, he would like to bring the community into it. He stated there are a lot of people who talked about forensics; it is important that they feel they are part of defining the scope of services; and they need to be part of the overall discussion as they can bring a lot to the table to help the Board. Chair Higgs inquired if the Board wants to see an RFQ come back and the Board look at the scope then at a selection committee. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board should let those persons who put so much time in looking at the process be involved; and they do not necessarily have to have them at public hearings, but for Mr. Jenkins to make sure those people who may have insight are involved. Mr. Jenkins stated the scope of services is fairly limited at this moment in the sense it is to examine the system and the jail; and what Commissioner Scarborough is suggesting is that the community come forward with options and have an opportunity to provide them.

Commissioner Scarborough stated recidivism is a key issue; health problems are risks to the jail personnel and prisoners; capacity to operate with the lowest amount of operating costs and all those things are components of different people who have spoken to the Board; and what he does not want to do is get a report back that precludes some of those things. He stated if the Board is running a smarter jail, and running people through the system less, the police officers are not going back out and picking up the same guys, and the judges are not having the same persons. He stated the Board needs to be smart in all capacities and have the whole community involved because that is what the community has never really understood, at least in his conversations with people. He stated it is not about spending money, it is about spending money wisely; getting the community involved is going to make it happen; and he wants them to be part of it. Mr. Jenkins stated staff has done an RFQ and received six responses. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that is ready to be handed out to the community; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes, they actually gave each Commissioner copies of all the responses.

Chair Higgs inquired if there is a motion to appoint the selection committee, and if Mr. Jenkins sent out a scope of services when he sent out the RFQ; with Mr. Jenkins responding it had a scope of services and actually specifically referenced what Commissioner Scarborough was talking about with recidivism and alternative programs and services that are available and are being used elsewhere. Mr. Jenkins stated they talked to one consultant in particular and all the things being described are the very things they would look at; the Board has two options today; apparently not all the Commissioners had a chance to look at those responses and may not be in a position to make a choice; so the Board can either pick one today or set up a selection committee to come back with a recommendation. The Commissioners agreed on a selection committee. Chair Higgs stated she would like to serve on the selection committee.

Commissioner Colon stated one Commissioner can represent the Board. Mr. Jenkins recommended Commissioner Higgs, Commander Altman, Facilities Director Sam Stanton, himself, and a representative from the Commission on Mental Health and Community Solutions.

Chair Higgs asked for a motion to appoint the selection committee. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Jenkins made the motion and he will second it. Chair Higgs advised Commissioner Scarborough made the motion; with Commissioner Scarborough responding Mr. Jenkins made the motion.

Commissioner Colon inquired at what point is the Department of Corrections and the judicial system part of the process. Mr. Jenkins stated it is not a State facility. Commissioner Colon stated the Department of Corrections is putting plenty of people in the Brevard County jail; and it is a daily fight in the Colon family, so she knows that is true. Mr. Jenkins inquired if Commissioner Colon is talking about someone from Public Safety or Criminal Justice; with Commissioner Colon responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard suggested Jack Parker. Chair Higgs stated she thinks it is loading the committee up with County staff. Mr. Jenkins stated he will come off and let Mr. Parker on the committee. Commissioner Colon inquired if she is clear that she is talking about State probation.

Chair Higgs stated she has a motion and a second; and called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

ATTEST: ___________________________________
NANCY HIGGS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)