The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on April 23, 1996, at 5:01 p.m. in the Government Center Board Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Mark Cook, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O?Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: MID-YEAR SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR FY 1995-96

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider the Mid-year Supplemental/Amendment Budget for FY 1995-96.

Mark Van Bever, Court Administrator, advised the Judicial Branch is requesting two positions, a Court Coordinator for family-related cases and a Special Projects Coordinator; and explained the justification for the positions. He noted the Judicial Branch is a separate branch of government mandated by the State Constitution; Florida Statutes require that funding decisions be approached differently than funding decisions for Board agencies and County Constitutional Officers; and the Statutes declare that counties shall provide all personnel necessary to operate the Circuit and County courts. He noted his experience as the Board?s Financial Officer; and stated he is aware of the Article V issue and the extent to which the Board already funds the courts, as well as strong feelings regarding statutory directives requiring the Board to fund all reasonable expenses of the Circuit and County courts. He advised the Judicial Branch appreciates the funding, and is respectful of Board policy on holding the millage rates. He advised of ideas which originated in the Judicial Branch that have saved the County thousands of dollars. He advised of awards received by the Judicial Branch for instituting annually recurring savings of $145,000, and in 1995 for yearly savings of $28,000. He noted when possible the Judicial Branch streamlines practices, reduces costs, increases productivity, and reduces the number of employees. He stated the Judicial Branch?s commitment to continuous improvement, cost savings, and productivity should lend credibility to the request before the Board; and if the need did not exist, the request would not be made. He advised the Florida Supreme Court and Legislature have placed an emphasis on family court; as a result there are many new programs; and operation of the new programs has strained the administrative and case management staff. He noted to perform the constitutionally mandated responsibilities and support the family court initiative, the two positions are needed. He stated the positions are reasonable and necessary; and requested the Board fund the positions in accordance with the directives of the Florida Statutes.

Commissioner Ellis stated there is cash carry forward for computers; and inquired if much of the cash carry forward came from money which was budgeted in the past. Mr. Van Bever responded cash carry forward related to those expenditures is a different fund not related to the supplemental request before the Board; and explained the difference in the funds. Commissioner Ellis inquired if Fund 35 was partially funded through the General Fund; with Mr. Van Bever responding it is funded from filing fees and money transferred when non-ad valorem revenue is exceeded in the other fund. Mr. Van Bever advised the Judicial Branch gets a grant from the Department of Revenue for child support enforcement; when more money was received than was budgeted, that was transferred to Fund 35 to create a capital reserve; but none of that has to do with the request before the Board today. Commissioner Ellis inquired if any of that money is General Fund; with Mr. Van Bever responding there is a small portion of Fund 35 that resulted from cost savings from Fund 47, but it does not relate to the two positions. Mr. Van Bever advised the two positions are requested from Fund 47, not Fund 35. Commissioner Ellis stated he is looking at the overall appropriation for Court Administration, and Fund 47 is almost all General Fund; with Mr. Van Bever conceding it is approximately 75 to 80% General Fund. Commissioner Ellis stated if the cash carry forward was surplus out of Fund 47, it was General Fund dollars. Mr. Van Bever advised there was not a surplus cash forward in Fund 47; with Ms. Wall responding that is correct during this fiscal year. Commissioner Ellis noted it was in previous fiscal years; with Ms. Wall advising that is correct. Mr. Van Bever advised in past fiscal years, when there was a cash forward, it reduced the General Fund revenue requirement; and if there was a surplus cash forward, 25% of the surplus could be retained, but none of that relates to Fund 35 or the two requested positions. Commissioner Ellis noted last year Fund 47 was increased by approximately $100,000; with Ms. Wall advising there was an increase of 7.4% and approximately $100,000. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there was a new position last year; with Mr. Van Bever responding no. Chairman Cook inquired what happened to the cash carry forward; with Mr. Van Bever responding in the General Fund, there is no carry forward; it all goes to General Revenue and is funded from other sources. Mr. Van Bever stated whatever cash carry forward there was went into one of the Board?s General Funds. He stated there is a possibility the Department of Revenue revenue will be exceeded by approximately $15,000; and that could be applied to the two positions. Commissioner Ellis inquired if someone was just hired to handle Juvenile; with Mr. Van Bever responding the prior fiscal year, money was moved around to create a Civil Coordinator position, but it was not requested as part of last year?s budget. Mr. Van Bever noted the Juvenile Alternatives Sanctions Coordinator was a State-provided position, and this is one of the programs which requires administrative support. He explained that the State has initiated programs; in some cases a position was provided; but the programs require administrative support; and the programs have strained the administrative staff to the point where the administrative position which was given away three years ago needs to be replaced.

Chairman Cook stated an $18 million courthouse is being built to meet the needs; the Board has been forthcoming with regard to its statutory requirements under the Constitution; and he cannot support the new positions. He noted court costs are weighing heavy on the local taxpayer; the burden on the County is enormous; and while there is a statutory responsibility to provide personnel for certain functions, there is a responsibility to make sure that the funds that are expended can be fully justified. He noted one Judge commented that if it takes raising the filing fees to fund the positions, they are not that important.

Mr. Van Bever noted the Judges realize the importance of access to the courts, and are unwilling to raise the filing fees; and requested the Board not take one comment, but listen to the other 124 voices for whom he is speaking. He stated the positions are necessary and critical; the courts are not meeting Supreme Court mandates; and they are behind in the time it takes to process cases and in the ability to adequately support mandated programs.

Chairman Cook noted he is not advocating raising the filing fees, which are too high already.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board has the ability to challenge Mr. Van Bever?s certification that the positions are necessary; with Mr. Van Bever responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Ellis stated he thought there would be personnel savings when everyone moved to the new Justice Center, but it is not working out that way. Mr. Van Bever advised the opposite is true when a mass of judges is brought together; Court Administration is more accessible; and the demands on Court Administration increase. Commissioner Ellis advised the Judges need to set priorities on their use of Court Administration. Chairman Cook stated court expenses are crushing counties; the Legislature should address it; Article V has been in dispute; and those expenses are State responsibilities.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not think Mr. Van Bever would come to the Board unless he honestly needed the positions; but there is no support for funding. He noted Mr. Van Bever does not create the positions; and the problem is created by the community which is utilizing the system.

Chairman Cook advised he does not hear a motion.

Ms. Wall advised this is the final public hearing for the adoption of the Mid-year Budget Supplement and Amendment.

Commissioner O?Brien questioned $431,000 for furniture and office equipment for the Judicial Branch; and inquired how many employees are there. Ms. Wall responded there are 23 funded positions which the County pays for, but there are other positions funded by the State. Commissioner O?Brien stated that is more than $5,000 per person. Discussion ensued on the furniture request, the fact that furniture that was built-in could not be moved, duplication of payment, and excessive cost of furniture per person. Chairman Cook inquired if some of the furniture is for State-funded personnel; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding it would be for the entire judicial system. Commissioner O?Brien read aloud from the list; noted the Board spends a lot of money on offices which are not County Commission offices; the Board gets stuck with their junk; and they are comfortable while the Commissioners are not. Chairman Cook noted Mr. Van Bever has gone and cannot respond. Commissioner O?Brien stated he cannot justify $431,000 for office furniture for the Judicial Branch, because every Judge already has furniture and equipment. Chairman Cook agreed; and stated he is concerned about the amount and the lack of thorough justification.

Commissioner Higgs stated the list which was provided is specific; it speaks to computer software, upgrades for computers, interfaces, printing devices, fax machines, some furniture, and legal publications; and she does not know what more specifically the Board can request. She stated the Board can turn down the request; but the request is very specific, and most of it is equipment not furniture. Chairman Cook noted there is $40,000 for furniture for the Judge?s Offices and the General Masters. Commissioner O?Brien read aloud prices from the list.

Commissioner Ellis stated Mr. Managan and the Clerk have worked with Court Administration on the electronics; and suggested moving the computers and electronics from the list, leaving the furniture behind. Commissioner Ellis stated it is necessary to do the wiring for the electronics, and the furniture can come in after the fact. Management Services Director Michael Managan advised at the next meeting, there will be a proposed BCC policy for the Board?s consideration concerning computer standards; it is proposed that the Clerk will support the Courts with his computer system; and a lot of the computer-related items are necessary for Court Administration to come online with the Clerk?s system. Mr. Jenkins explained the money is included in the capital account for the current fiscal year; and tonight the total amount is being reduced by $32,316. Commissioner Ellis stated when the Board went through the Judicial Branch capital budget last year, there were questions which were supposed to be resolved closer to completion of the Courthouse; and the best thing may be to approve the Budget Change Request, and have this scheduled on the Agenda for the next meeting. Mr. Jenkins advised the action tonight would give them less money to spend in this category. Commissioner O?Brien stated last year the Board improved the budget by $100,000, so reducing it by $32,000 is still an increase of $67,000. Mr. Jenkins stated he was speaking more about the process than the policy decision; and the point is there is $400,000+ in the budget, and the action would reduce it by $32,000. He stated if the Board wishes to discuss the needs in terms of equipment and furniture, that item can be put on the Agenda for discussion.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, to direct that an item be placed on the Agenda for the next regular meeting to discuss the Court Administration acquisitions; and request a better breakdown of the numbers.

Commissioner Higgs noted Mr. Van Bever is present at this time, and the Board can make a decision on this tonight. Mr. Jenkins stated the money is in the currently adopted approved budget; what the Board is being asked to do is to reduce that budget by $32,000; and the issue the Board wishes to discuss in greater detail is whether the specific items are needed, which does not affect the supplemental budget hearing tonight. Commissioner Higgs stated she sees no reason not to vote on the appropriation. Mr. Jenkins reiterated the Board is not voting on the appropriation but on reducing the budget. Chairman Cook inquired what would happen if after review of the items, the Board determined it should be cut by $50,000. Mr. Jenkins advised it could be reduced further. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if at the next meeting, the Board could reduce it by another $250,000 if it wanted to; with Senior Budget Analyst Neil Boynton advising a budget reduction is an amendment which can be done at any Board meeting.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to reduce the Court Administration budget by $32,000. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O?Brien, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated he does not know if the Board has the authority to remove money once it has been placed in the Courts budget, and needs to research it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to reconsider the motion to reduce the Court Administration budget by $32,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to continue the public hearing to consider the Mid-Year Supplemental Budget for FY 1995-96 until May 7, 1996.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the intent is to continue the entire budget item; with Commissioner Scarborough responding affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the hearing will have to be after 5:01 p.m.; with Mr. Knox responding affirmatively.

Mr. Van Bever stated when the budget was put together last year, it was estimated there would be $400,000 in cash forward; that much did not come forward; and it needs to be reduced because Court Administration does not have the $400,000 that it budgeted. He advised the purpose of the item is to bring his budget in line with the money that is existing.

Chairman Cook called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O?Brien, Cook and Ellis vote aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Commissioner Ellis inquired about the Supervisor of Elections. Mr. Jenkins noted it can be discussed tonight or next week.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 5:42 p.m.

MARK COOK, CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

ATTEST:

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK

( S E A L )