February 26, 2004

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special workshop session on February 26, 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.

RESOLUTION, RE: WELCOMING BEACH BOYS IN CONCERT AT COCOA BEACH PIER

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Beach Boys are coming in concert tomorrow at Cocoa Beach Pier; and requested the Board adopt a resolution welcoming the Beach Boys. He stated he will be proud to present the resolution to the Beach Boys tomorrow night.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution welcoming the Beach Boys in concert at the Cocoa Beach Pier Friday, February 27, 2004, officially kicking off the Brevard County Beach Season. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-047.)

DISCUSSION, RE: BUDGET WORKSHOP

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the Board has scheduled four budget workshops; the purpose of the workshops is to provide the Board and public in-depth information about the operations and funding of each department; it is necessary to use the current year’s budget for the review as next year’s budget data has not been received yet; and provided information to the Board, which included issues it will have to deal with in next year’s budget. He noted the General Fund jail cost increase could be as much as $3 million; the basis of the cost would be adding 50 correctional officers needed for the minimum security facility that is being built, as well as additional correctional officers for the jail annex, which is being upgraded to medium security; there are some repairs that need to be made in the existing jail; and staff is not yet certain as to the extent of the equipment needs, which will have to be paid for out of the General Fund. He stated the Board has set a goal of trying to increase the General Fund Reserve; if it does that over two years, staff is projecting it to be an approximately $2 million impact; the Board gave employee salary increases this year over a 10-month period, so there is a two-month lapse; and staff is expecting approximately $500,000. Mr. Jenkins stated staff has not yet calculated the Florida State Retirement rate increases put on the County by the State of Florida, but it will be an impact; and it is reasonable to expect an increase in the State’s Medicaid charges to counties to fund Medicaid throughout the State. He stated other issues the Board has mentioned is using the Local Option Gas Tax (LOGT) funding of roadway maintenance, and whether or not the County wants to begin to replenish some of that to have some road construction dollars; and the issue of salary increases has to be resolved by the Board as to what it is going to do next year for general employees, Laborers International Union (LIU), and International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). He noted the sheriff deputies have voted to unionize, but the County does not know what the impact of that is going to be; those are issues that need to be addressed; health insurance costs continue to increase each year; and there has to be some balancing between how much the Board pays and how much it asks employees to pay. He stated the State budget is proposing at this point that the pre-detention of State juveniles’ cost be transferred from the State to the County; if it occurs, it has a $2.2 million impact; the other big variable is the Article V impact; and the County does not know if it is going to come out ahead or lose money. He noted those are some of the issues the County is going to have to deal with as it does the budget; there is a high probability that reductions in current spending may have to occur; to accomplish this, staff would benefit from receiving Board input on its priorities as it goes through the budget process; and staff can take the input it receives from the Board to identify areas it can reduce spending in if it becomes necessary. Mr. Jenkins stated the process that has been effectively used by State government is where the Board tries to define what its mission is and determine which programs and services it can afford to provide or not provide; the County needs to continue to seek to be more efficient and more cost-effective in how it operates County government; there may be other approaches the Board may want to consider; and staff has prepared a listing by department of all of the programs and services the County provides, which are ad valorem or assessment funded. He noted the Board has an option of ranking them in terms of priority one through five, with five being the highest priority and one being the lowest; it may or may not be an option the Board wants to utilize, but it is a concept staff put together that it thought might be useful; the Board may have other ideas or approaches it would prefer to use; and requested it continue to think about the best way to provide input if it becomes necessary to make reductions. He further requested the Board think in terms of what the County can afford to provide and can some other public or private agency provide the service, and is it cost effective in terms of the number of customers served; there is a full schedule today; several other workshops are also scheduled; and perhaps the most efficient way to get through the schedule is to have the Board’s questions at the end of each departmental presentation.

Commissioner Colon inquired why are the Constitutional Officers on the agenda when the Board does not have much to say when it comes to the kinds of programs, etc. Mr. Jenkins responded the Sheriff has the right to appeal to the Florida Cabinet if the Board has a dispute over his budget; the Supervisor of Elections is basically under the jurisdiction of the Board, so it controls his budget; it is primarily the Tax Collector and Property Appraiser that have a different funding mechanism; and the Tax Collector’s budget is done by formula based on the amount of money he collects. He noted the Property Appraiser’s budget is approved by the Department of Revenue (DOR); the County has the right to appeal to the DOR if it disagrees with the Property Appraiser’s budget; but the Constitutional Officers on the agenda are the ones the Board has some control over.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what does Mr. Jenkins suggest in terms of ranking, based on each level or the department in and of itself. Mr. Jenkins responded at minimal, the Board could do it at the program level; some are broken down into services; there is a program-based budget; and there are the departments, programs within the departments, and different services. He noted some of them are federal and state mandated, which is out of the County’s control; some of the other programs are simply quality of life or may be programs and services that are provided because the County has an Ordinance that requires it to do so; if it is a local Ordinance, it can change such Ordinance and has control over it; but what the federal and State government tells the County it has to do, it does not have a choice of whether it does or does not provide it, but has a choice in some instances and to some degree as to what level a service it provides. He stated the County must do certain things, such as provide animal services/rabies control, but to what level does it provide that service is its choice; reiterated at minimal, the Board should do the program level; and it could take it to the service level if it chose to.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it is a great idea; it is going to give a good overview of the County’s operations; it will give Mr. Jenkins a perspective as to what the Board feels is important or not important; and inquired is there a time frame when Mr. Jenkins would like the ranking returned. Mr. Jenkins responded the Board needs to go through all four workshops first to get all the information presented.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the things he has noticed over the years is the County can spend a tremendous amount of time talking about a minor portion of the budget; there was extensive discussion on the benefits of funding some programs; he recalls the issues over the Meals on Wheels and Alzheimer’s Foundation concerning additional State funding or the Medicaid Program; and the County needs to be conscience that it could have cuts that actually have negative impacts. Mr. Jenkins stated staff is going to cover that in each of the presentations. Commissioner Scarborough noted the County could concentrate on the larger areas. Mr. Jenkins stated Permitting and Enforcement Department gets little General Fund dollars; it is almost all permit and inspection fees; and all that information will come out. Commissioner Scarborough noted the Board needs to know that and it needs to be incorporated in the discussion; he remembers when the County got into severe budget cutting and had a hiring and wage freeze; he is not suggesting those things; but structurally, it becomes difficult to affect some of those things because the County is a service institution; and perhaps hiring freezes and other methodologies need to be part of the discussion as well.

Chair Higgs stated the General Fund cost for the jail is $3 million; it is unlikely it will be on line until late in the year; and inquired is it anticipated in FY 04-05. Mr. Jenkins noted Commander Terry Altman of the Sheriff’s Office indicated he wanted to start hiring by the first of October 2004; there is a period of time to train officers even after they have graduated from correctional officer school to get them on board; and the numbers are not fixed, but potential numbers.

Commissioner Colon inquired how soon can the Board get the actual dollar amounts. Mr. Jenkins responded staff will provide them today with the handouts; the numbers show where the revenues are coming from, what the money is being spent on, and who it serves; and the presentations are informative. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be beneficial to put the numbers budgeted for each of the services; he wants to start with the big numbers and get into more than just the issue of a total program; and as time goes on, the Board may want to meet with staff to further determine internally restructuring other programs as well as just ranking one through five. Mr. Jenkins stated staff can include the budget numbers for the Board.

Planning and Zoning Office

Chair Higgs congratulated Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott on the birth of his daughter, Veronica. Mr. Scott stated everyone is doing well; getting sleep in two-hour increments is wonderful; and it is a pleasure to be back to work. He noted Veronica weighed in at 7 pounds, three ounces; her fighting height is 19 inches; she is very healthy; and his family is blessed. He expressed appreciation to the Board for its thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Scott stated his goal is to briefly go over the basic programs and services his Office provides to the public with cost and revenues of each service included; he will also briefly touch on the trends and issues that are affecting the programs and services; the net impact to such programs and services to the General Fund is roughly one percent; and the statistic is based upon the total General Fund budget as compared to the contribution that the General Fund makes to his Office after revenues are subtracted out. He noted his Office delivers six main programs and services to the public; the first three services are State mandated and the last service is locally mandated; and all of the programs represent the minimum that a county of this size should maintain if it is to operate and be viewed by the business and homestead interests of the County as a community that is committed to excellence and sustaining its quality of life. He stated the two biggest trends he can attribute to the hectic pace of a typical work day in his Office are population growth and local construction growth; legislative-base services include the drafting and consideration of changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; and it has been his observation that as the County’s population continues to increase, the communities desire to massage and modify these two governing documents has also increased. Mr. Scott noted community discussions attempt to respond to an ever-changing built and natural environment, as well as the realization that as more people call Brevard County home, the greater care the County must take in providing needed services, maintaining integrated open spaces amidst newly-constructed neighborhoods, and planning for the future; and the Planning and Zoning Office is typically an active participant in those discussions with the Board’s direct involvement. He stated the second trend is the construction boom; it is like no other that the County has ever seen, yet his Office has met the demand placed upon it with no increase in personnel; this boom is about five years in running; and it is 25%. He noted while primarily driven by low interest rates and a stock market that has made real estate investment more attractive, this trend shows no signs of letting up at the local level; permits run the gamut from a fairly straight forward variety to the permitting of an entire lifestyle center; regardless of their complexity or value, the pressure to perform precise reviews is coupled with the clients wish that the County perform timely reviews; and between the years 1995 and 2003, Brevard County’s housing industry increased its annual rooftop construction by 58%; and his Office has met this demand for permit review with no increases in personnel. Mr. Scott stated since 1995, his Office also contained the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) staff, which consisted at the time of seven employees; the core Planning and Zoning Office staff has decreased from 26 to 24; it has done this by working harder and smarter; and the Office’s success should be squarely attributed to the people who work in its trenches each day as it takes a special kind of person who succeeds under pressure. He noted to illustrate the point of his Office’s increasing workload and the legislative arena of his Office, the graph shows the Ordinance totals for the past several years; the customer contact number was compiled over a non-deadline week on the low end of a 12-month calendar; it is typical for the construction industry to hit its peak during the spring and summer months, with winter being the slowest; and fairly representing the number to the Board, he instructed his staff to tally all customer contacts, excluding intra-office ones. He stated there are seven main revenue streams; the pie chart represents that the previous slide’s revenues go into the General Fund, which then comes back to the Planning and Zoning Office to cover expenses; the breakdown between the General Fund subsidy and fees collected is roughly 60-40; about $800,000 is from the General Fund, which is offset this year by about $668,000 in fees collected; and the Office’s number one investment is human resources. Mr. Scott noted his Office operates without vehicles, cameras, and the like; it is a bare bones operation; the operating cost of the Office covers advertisements, office supplies, such as paper stock, copy machine maintenance, and a sundry of maintenance and insurance costs; and such Office is proud to have kept the expenses flat, even in the midst of ever increasing demands. He stated a State-mandated portion of the Office, Comprehensive Planning, focuses on the long-range planning activities of the County; the activities include, but are not limited to, corridor studies such as the ones being prepared and acted upon by the Board for U.S. 1; small area plans such as the recently directed South Mainland, or the ones the Board will be reviewing next month, including Tropical Park, Mims, and West Cocoa; and Comprehensive Plan updates and city annexation reviews are also covered under the Program. He noted Comprehensive Planning is handled with just over six employees or Full-time Equivalents (FTEs); the Program for salaries and benefits is $354,000; the Program brings in about $101,000 in fees; and it is a community-based General Fund substantiated Program. Mr. Scott stated most Comprehensive Plan amendments are Board-generated; the Zoning Office is State-mandated; it runs the Board of Adjustment and Planning and Zoning Board functions, as well as numerous other critical jobs; Thomas Jefferson once said, “Democracy’s laboratory is the local branch of government”; truer words have never been spoken; and so it is during the Board’s public hearings at zoning meetings. He noted such hearings act in a sense as a form for ad hoc neighborhood planning, which is debated and ultimately decided upon by the Board; the Zoning Office consists of just over 11.75 FTEs, which is $659,000 in salaries and benefits, offset by about $324,000 in fees; Concurrency is State-mandated; and it provides the infrastructure accounting for the County by ensuring that the public services are available concurrent with impacts that new development will have on roads, solid waste, potable water, stormwater drainage, sanitary sewer, parks and recreation, public libraries (advisory), fire protection (advisory), public schools (advisory), law enforcement (advisory), and correctional facilities (advisory). He stated the front counter concurrency evaluations pre-building permit reviews are just over 2,800; preliminary concurrency calculations at the site plan stage are also done; Concurrency is just over 1.33 FTEs; and it is about $62,000 in salaries and benefits. Mr. Scott noted about $100,000 in revenues are brought in for the Program; and the balance goes to maintain the Concurrency database, computer maintenance, and Comprehensive Plan support due to the fact that Concurrency is a critical part of the State-mandated planning program. He stated Graphics Production/Demographic Research runs like a professional publishing company; it maintains the official zoning and future land use maps; and produces monthly packets for the Planning and Zoning Board and Board of County Commissioners rezoning meetings. He stated there is a wide array of customers that cross both private and public sector lines through Graphics/Demographic Research; there is $183,000 in salaries and benefits for just over 4.25 FTEs; there are only about $22,000 in fees generated; and the lion’s share of the Program’s duties support the Board’s public hearings and community-based mapping needs. He noted while map reproduction fees cover copy costs, the General Fund supports the effort to create the maps, which are public documents and derive public benefit. He stated the Impact Fee Program is a locally-mandated Program; such Program is done with just under 1 FTE; and the cost of the Program is covered by a 5% administrative fee that is retained from collections. Mr. Scott stated the local Ordinance allows the County to go up to 8%; it has typically expended anywhere from 2% to 3%; this year, staff is proposing to increase it a little more to increase reserves; and there is about $46,000 in salaries and benefits dedicated to the Program, and about $95,000 in revenue last year within the 5% cushion. He noted the reserves have increased and help pay for studies and maintaining the front counter service for the fee collections; it is the Planning and Zoning Office’s goal to have the County continue to view the Office as one that can be counted on to get the job done, to treat customers fairly and courteously, and to meet the demands placed on it.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired is there one person dedicated to one-stop permitting review or more than one individual. Mr. Scott responded there is more than one person; one individual receives the flow; and due to the Office experiencing on some days in excess of 200 customers, it has cross-trained people and have dedicated probably three to four people handling the work, in addition to their other jobs. Commissioner Pritchard inquired is the Office experiencing a backlog at this point; with Mr. Scott responding affirmatively. Mr. Scott stated the number can range from 200 customers down to less than 100 customers; it is important to recognize that the Office is trying to keep a focus on the timeliness of the turnarounds; some of the more complex reviews take more time; and as long as the customer understands that the issues are being worked on together, even though there is a backlog, he is hoping the Office is touching on all of those permits. He noted the next presentation will include what kind of turnarounds there are; and his Office is hoping to start the ball rolling within a couple of days.

Chair Higgs inquired what impact fees are collected around the State that Brevard County does not use. Planner Steve Swanke responded law enforcement and general government buildings. Commissioner Carlson noted parks and recreation is also one. Chair Higgs inquired would the law enforcement impact fee pay for cars and equipment for each deputy; with Mr. Swanke responding yes. Mr. Jenkins stated it is only for growth; with Chair Higgs responding she understands. Mr. Scott stated conceptually a consultant would tell the County that if it can identify a rational nexus between a service and the current revenues that are generated to provide that service, any backlog created by the newcomers coming in, an impact fee could be created. Chair Higgs inquired has Mr. Scott heard discussions of any others that are not included under law enforcement, general government, or parks that the Board may find interesting. Mr. Scott responded staff would be happy to go through the database to see what kind of impact fees are being used around the State. Chair Higgs inquired are there some impact fees conceptually that staff may have heard somebody talk about that are not currently being collected; with Mr. Scott responding not above and beyond those staff has identified. Chair Higgs inquired how much would it cost the County to get Tindale-Oliver to do the law enforcement assessment; with Mr. Scott responding staff could enter those discussions with the consultant and report back to the Board. Chair Higgs stated she is interested in knowing what the study would cost.

Commissioner Colon inquired did the Board give Tindale-Oliver the kind of research to look into all of the impact fees; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes. Chair Higgs stated she does not remember going to the general government item; and requested staff find out what the study would cost on each of the items.

Mr. Jenkins stated the general revenue monies that go into the Planning and Zoning Office come from the unincorporated area; and it is not a Countywide revenue source.

Permitting and Enforcement Department

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Permitting and Enforcement Department includes Building Code Compliance, Central Cashier, Code Enforcement, Land Development, and Licensing Regulation and Enforcement; the operating expenditures are largely compensation and benefits; the operating revenue of the entire Department is $7 million; and approximately 10% of it comes from General Fund, which is .39% of the total General Fund Countywide that is used in the Department. She noted Land Development includes the review of site plans, subdivision and unpaved roads, engineering review, engineering inspection, and change of use review; there are 16 full-time employees, for an annual operating budget of $1,190,296; it is a totally fee supported agency; the revenues include reviews for site plans, subdivisions, and inspections; and there are no General Fund dollars. She stated the Land Development issues and trends include that there may be a loss of approximately $100,000 in site plan and subdivision reviews as fewer properties are rezoned; expected increase in the number of change of use reviews and unpaved roads will generate approximately $20,000 in additional revenue; and online review and permitting is proposed within the next 12 to 15 months. Ms. Busacca noted Building Code is a State-mandated Program; the number of residential and commercial permits issued increased 4% or by 479 permits in FY 2003; the number of new construction inspections increased 9% or by 4,408 inspections in FY 2003; all of the inspectors in Building Code are licensed by the State; and the County has to make sure it hires people who are either licensed or can be licensed within a relatively short period of time, and are able to go out and do the inspections. She stated the continued hiring and maintenance of these people is becoming a challenge; there is a large amount of other communities that would like to hire experienced and qualified people; the number of address filed updates and site plans and subdivisions reviewed increased 5% or by 252 updates in FY 2003; and building permits have increased 58% since FY 1996. She noted the County can continue to expect a steady increase in building permits in the future, but it is not sure how long it will last; the commercial building permits increased 32% over the past five years, with a 26% growth rate in the last three years; and the County anticipates the number of commercial permits in FY 2004 to remain relatively flat. She stated Building Code Compliance has 46 full-time employees and four part-time employees. Ms. Busacca stated there has been no increase in permanent positions since 2001-2002, until a mid-year budget the Board just approved, which allowed four additional employees; those positions were filled by temporary employees, and this will make them permanent; and there are seven plans examiners, 18 permit technicians, and five administrative support. She noted last week the County received well over 200 applications, which has been the average number received per week; the Building Code revenues have no General Fund support; the revenues all come from permitting fees, re-inspection fees, and a surcharge which goes to the State; and the total operating revenues for the Building Department have increased 10% over the last year. She stated it is a Special Revenue Fund; under State law, the fees are required to stay in Building Code Compliance; and the issues and trends identified is to ensure proper staffing for the one-stop area in order to expedite permitting. She noted not only has the increase in development been substantial, but the County now issues permits for more different types of development than it used to, such as fence permits; it has increased the workload substantially; the County would like to expand permitting functions at branch courthouses; currently building permit personnel are staffed at the Merritt Island Tax Collector’s Office; and there are plans to expand one additional office in Titusville by July 2004. Ms. Busacca stated additional locations may be added in 2005; staff considers this to be improved customer service; expansion of online permitting is continuing to allow additional types of permits; and currently re-applications for re-roofs, HVAC change out, and pool resurfaces are available online. She noted fence permits, electrical upgrades, and garage door replacements are hoped to be added in the future; the total cost of this web-based program is anticipated to be approximately $800,000 over the next five years, to be paid fully out of the funds that are generated by the permit fees; the vendor bid is going out in April 2004; and staff intends to make other improvements, including to allow the review of permit and site plan status, fee information to make payments using credit cards or debit cards, to obtain official approval for building permits and site plans, schedule inspections, verify inspection results and field Code violation complaints, apply for a new or to renew a contractor licensing, which would be permitted to occur 24 hours a day, seven days a week as it would be web-based. Ms. Busacca stated the program is part of the five-year Capital Improvements Project and the Department’s Strategic Plan to increase efficiency and access to information; Code Enforcement is a County-mandated service, which includes zoning investigations, solid waste investigations, adult entertainment licensing and inspection, marine turtle lighting, and right-of-way violations; 65% of the revenues is General Fund; and it is the largest amount of General Fund that is given to the Permitting and Enforcement Department. She noted solid waste fees are 32% of the revenue; fines, licenses and permits are 3%; Solid Waste contributes toward salaries and benefits; however, it is reimbursed based on actual operating expenses; and Code Enforcement returns money to Solid Waste each year. She stated Code Enforcement includes 15 full-time employees, including eight enforcement officers; over the years, the number of violations have increased from an average of 591 violations per inspector in FY 1999-2000 to a total of 801 in FY 2002-2003; staff expects that violations are going to increase in the future as the population increases; and the issues and trends identified for Code Enforcement include that new ordinances adopted by the Board usually require additional enforcement activities, and the new State requirement, effective July 1, 2004, of a $200 filing fee for citations may increase the case load for the Code Enforcement Special Master process. Ms. Busacca stated Licensing Regulation and Enforcement includes contractor licensing certification, investigation of unlicensed contractors, and occupational license compliance; there are eight full-time employees, for an annual operating budget of $734,000; the agency is totally fee-supported; and any unexpended monies are passed along the following year. She noted the majority of the revenues come from the licensing; the number of contractor licenses that have been issued for the past two years has increased slightly; the increase is a small number because currently the State has grandfathered in a large number of new trades; and last year there were nine new trades that were being licensed. She stated the State grandfathered the existing people who were doing that; however, if the grandfathering clause does not expire in August 2004, which the State Legislature can extend, then staff expects to see the number of contractors licensed increase significantly. She noted the number of contractor complaints has increased 12% from 2001 to 2002; occupational license inspections has increased also; in the issues and trends, new State legislation regarding workers’ compensation benefits may stimulate more unlicensed contracting activities; continued building boom requires more enforcement activity; and continued discussions are ongoing with municipalities with respect to interlocal agreements for licensing enforcement. Ms. Busacca stated the Central Cashier includes development fee collections and assessment of impact fees; there are four full-time employees; the revenues include charges for services; and it is a locally mandated program. She noted there has been a 25% increase in the number of fees processed and collected with a 2% reduction in cost per transaction; and there has been a 67% increase in impact fee assessments with a 26% reduction in cost per transaction. She stated the Board recently approved the point and pay system; and previously when someone used a credit card, a 3% processing fee was charged to the County; however, it is now charged to the individual. She stated it is expected to save the County between $40,000 and $50,000 in FY 2003-2004. She stated Permitting and Enforcement Department is the only department that reviews, permits, and enforces development and construction in the unincorporated areas; and consolidation of staff and programs, streamlining of procedures, cross-training, individual and organizational development are all part of its strategic plan, goals and objectives.

Chair Higgs inquired in looking at the costs of the departments that are covering themselves through fees, is staff assessing the administrative cost that comes from the County Manager’s or County Attorney’s Offices as part of covering the cost; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Chair Higgs noted there are indirect costs covered by the fees as well; with Ms. Busacca responding that is correct.

Commissioner Scarborough stated page 10 shows the single-family building permit activity; FY 2003 shows 2,300; the commercial building activity on page 11 shows 12,341 in FY 2003; he finds it unusual with a six-fold larger amount in commercial building permits than in single-family; and inquired why. Ms. Busacca responded commercial building permits include multi-family and commercial/industrial. Commissioner Scarborough requested staff provide a breakdown of the information.

Commissioner Colon inquired is the number new growth or the commercial permits due to the Ordinance put in place for change of use. Ms. Busacca responded there would be some permits required for change of use; it is a relatively small number; and she would be happy to find out what the change of use is.

Mr. Jenkins stated it could be renovations and expansions. Ms. Busacca stated it does not mean there have been 12,341 new businesses in Brevard County.

Commissioner Carlson stated page 6 includes issues and trends; and inquired how long will it take for the $100,000 loss.

Gwen Heller, Land Development Specialist III, stated staff has realized the boom in the construction activity; unless someone is pulling a building permit, all the development starts in the Land Development Section; there has been a downturn this past year in the number of subdivisions and site plans submitted for review; and there were 58 subdivisions in 2002 and 31 subdivisions in 2003. She noted approximately 1,600 less acres were developed; there were 81 site plans in 2002 and 70 in 2003; normally it takes about nine to 12 months before the downturn would hit the Building Department; and staff reassesses the fees every year to see that they cover the cost of reviews.

Commissioner Carlson inquired are the housing permits and building boom in the cities versus the County; with Ms. Heller responding no. Ms. Heller stated staff has seen an increase in building permits in the County also; now it is slowing down in the subdivision reviews and number of acres; and it could affect the Building Department within the next year. Ms. Busacca stated the County has recognized the number of large annexations that have occurred recently; staff is continuing to see a trend where properties are being annexed into cities; and those subdivisions are being reviewed in the cities. Chair Higgs stated on Tuesday’s agenda are thousands of acres being proposed for annexation in South Brevard. Commissioner Carlson stated staff is consolidating and streamlining things for the Department; and inquired is it taken into account that as the County reduces the number of permits, etc. it is downsizing the Department. Ms. Busacca responded yes, and eventually it will need less bodies if there are less permits to review. Commissioner Carlson stated the County has done fee increases over the last few years; and inquired has staff seen any correlation between the increases in fees and the number of permits coming through, and is there any deterrent by increasing fees. Ms. Busacca responded there has been a 58% increase in building activity; any effect that increased fees has had has been relatively minor; and staff does not have the test case that says if there were no fees, there would have been more building activity. Commissioner Carlson inquired has it slowed anything down by increasing the fees over the years; with Ms. Busacca responded staff has more permits than it can handle today. Commissioner Carlson inquired is there a constitutional cap on fees; with Ms. Busacca responding not that she is aware of. Ms. Busacca stated staff has done a good job of covering the costs in the Department; most of the funds taken from the General Fund are related to Code Enforcement, which is not fee-generating; and of the $700,000 from General Fund, $570,000 of it goes to the Code Enforcement Office. Mr. Jenkins stated there is a legal precedent that the fees have to cover the costs and cannot make a profit.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Slide 13 shows a $25,000 revenue for miscellaneous; and inquired what is miscellaneous.

Diane Curran, Permitting and Enforcement Department, responded it is special events, bingo licenses, and miscellaneous permits of that nature. Commissioner Pritchard stated Slide 14 includes expanding permitting functions at branch courthouses; and inquired would it add employees. Ms. Busacca responded no; and employees have been moved to those offices because they are taking a certain amount of the workload from the Viera Office to another office. Commissioner Pritchard inquired has staff noticed people utilizing online permitting; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Ms. Busacca stated staff has requests to expand it as it is helpful, such as for a re-roof, to be able to enter it online and get the permit quickly; people are pleased with the service; when staff started the one-stop shop about 11 years ago, it took 48 hours to review a permit; and today the permit process is about 10 to 15 days. She noted some of it is because of the larger number of permits that are reviewed; the fence permits are now in the system as well; it makes the system slow down; and part of it is the larger number of reviews that are required. Commissioner Pritchard stated Slide 18 includes Code Enforcement issues and trends; Ms. Busacca indicated with the increase in population, there is an increase in enforcement; the County could have a huge increase in enforcement now if it enforced all of the Codes it has; and the County needs to review the Codes and perhaps modify some of the restrictions therein so it does not create work that has lost its focus as to what the intent was when the law was written 10, 15, or 20 years ago. Ms. Busacca stated staff does that on an ongoing basis; when a problem comes to staff’s attention, it brings it to the Board; on Tuesday the Board had an opportunity to look at the Floodplain Ordinance; and staff brought it to the Board saying it is not working. She noted there are probably a lot more problems out there that someone brings to the County’s attention as well; and it is a team effort. Commissioner Pritchard stated there are commercial operations now that are running 24 hours a day; the delivery vehicles are coming in the morning and perhaps staying overnight because they are loading and unloading; when the Code was written it said there could not be any overnight parking; but it was before these type of operations came in. He requested when staff reviews it, they also look into what has happened; stated it is doing online permitting and 24-hour operations; businesses that used to close on Sunday are now open on that day; and there have been a lot of changes in the commercial community. He noted the County needs to come up to speed to reduce the workload; it is having a problem with anonymous complaints where people are calling in and ratting on a neighbor or an activity for something when it is more vindictive than it is appropriate; it is tying Code Enforcement’s hands responding to those complaints; and about 67% of the responses are somewhat baseless. Commissioner Pritchard stated when Code Enforcement responds to the call, it finds something else that it can cite someone for; it becomes neighbor pitted against neighbor for some reason and it ties up Code Enforcement for what is a community feud; and he is having that problem with commercial applications and overnight parking. He noted the anonymous complaint has become an issue and needs to be addressed; and inquired are there goals to eliminate duplicative and redundant services. He stated the information states the Permitting and Enforcement Department is the only department that reviews permits and enforces development and construction in the unincorporated areas; and consolidation of staff and programs, streamlining of procedures, cross-training, individual and organizational development are all part of its strategic plan, goals, and objectives. Ms. Busacca stated staff recently had a matrix of all the permits that are reviewed by the 13 reviewing agencies in the one-stop program; it has been systematically going to each department and asking why they need to look at the permit; staff is going through that review to make sure it does not have people that are reviewing things that do not need to be reviewed; and it has so much work that it does not want to do anymore than it needs to and is trying to cut it down. Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the concerns the employees had in the Department was that they were interviewed, but did not get any feedback on the interview; it was an older memo; and perhaps they have received that feedback by now. Ms. Busacca responded the Building Department staff met with Mr. Washburn, Mr. Brown, and herself in a mandatory meeting; and there have been several meetings since that time to not only tell staff what they have heard about the issues, but what changes will be made. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is his understanding that Office of Natural Resources Management may not have a sufficient number of people to handle the one-stop permitting function. Ms. Busacca stated the Office has hired two additional people; they are currently being trained; there was a person who was moved from the Building Department to assist such Office; and it has made significant increases in the rate at which it is reviewing permits.

Mr. Jenkins noted Office of Natural Resources Management is no longer the furthest behind; there are other agencies that have larger backlogs than such Office; State health and septic tanks are way behind; and he wrote to Dr. Heshmati this week asking him to try to solve that. He stated the Fire Department has had some illnesses and got backed up, but it brought in some part-time people; and it is trying to get caught up as well.

Chair Higgs inquired has the Environmental Health Department reduced its personnel since it transferred back. Ms. Busacca responded the Department has had significant problems keeping people because the State has not kept pace with the salaries; and the Department has lost a number of people through attrition. Chair Higgs requested staff provide the numbers; and stated she had a conversation with someone who was having difficulty getting a permit. Ms. Busacca stated one of the other groups that has been falling behind recently has been Building Permit Review; and it will be coming in this weekend for the third Saturday since Christmas to work all day.

Commissioner Pritchard stated probably one of the most important things the County does is provide the permit review service so that people can get on with whatever it is they want to do; when it gets hung up because somebody is out sick, they do not have enough staff, or the volume has become such that additional people are needed, then corrective action needs to be taken; and he is pleased to hear it is being done. He noted the turnaround time in some cases he has heard has been six weeks for something that should not have taken that long; it holds up getting it on the tax roll, which brings in more money; and the impact fee that is currently charged is not paid until the person obtains the Certificate of Occupancy (CO). He inquired does the individual pay the permit fee up front; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired why is the impact fee not up front; with Chair Higgs responding because the impact comes at the time the person occupies the house. Commissioner Pritchard noted not in Broward County. Chair Higgs stated in reality the impact does not come on line until the person actually occupies the house. Commissioner Pritchard noted if the County could assess properly at the start of construction, it might have a more agreeable payer than at the end of the process. Ms. Busacca stated staff can bring the information to the Board; it is a policy call; the majority of people who come in for a single-family building permit do so with a homebuilder; and the County sees relatively a small number of owner/builders. She noted the homebuilders said they do not want to put all of the money up front because they only get a certain pull from the bank; they want to be able to do that when they get their final pull; it gives them more money to pay the subs and buy materials; and staff can bring that forward and discuss it as part of the impact fees at the next impact fee workshop. Mr. Jenkins stated Ms. Busacca is correct that the issue was negotiated when the County started the impact fees; and it was a compromise at that time when it implemented impact fees. Chair Higgs noted the impact is when the person moves in at the CO. Commissioner Pritchard stated other counties do it the other way. He noted under Department Goal B, modify the building permit and payment process to increase efficiency and access to information, there are a variety of objectives and strategies; and inquired how is the County doing with such goal. Ms. Busacca responded the objectives include implementing a web-based computer program for permitting and payments; staff has currently implemented the web-based permitting for the simplest permits, which included HVAC, re-roof, etc.; in April 2004, the County will be putting out an RFP to continue to do that; and the project will be about $800,000. She noted staff is anticipating it will have to ask for commercial paper to do that; staff is moving forward and hopes to have it fully implemented within 12 to 18 months; it is an aggressive goal; but it has been established. She stated the software test conversion was completed in April 2002; in-depth training with staff prior to the final conversion was also completed at that time; the County has completed the customer education for that part of the web it currently allows permitting for; and as new permits go on line, staff has to assist customers to utilize it. Commissioner Pritchard stated if the County is going to have goals, objectives, and strategies, he would like to make sure they are not only realistic, but moving forward within the projected time frame; one of the issues discussed was to be more user friendly, including creating the badge recall; and inquired what is the status. Mr. Jenkins responded it is being implemented; he sent a memorandum to the departments last week; the Office of Human Resources has the ability to produce the badges in-house; and all offices that interact with the public will have badges that says, “Brevard County staff, how may I help you.” Commissioner Pritchard noted it takes the picture and employee’s name off of the badge; with Mr. Jenkins responding that is correct. Mr. Jenkins stated employees will still have an identification badge they will carry on their person during emergencies, etc.; but this is more of a customer service badge. Ms. Busacca stated the Building Department has identified an ombudsman, so that if someone has a problem with a building permit there is a single point of contact.

Chair Higgs stated the County discussed law enforcement as a potential component of the impact fee program; and requested staff consider the Code Enforcement and Animal Control law enforcement pieces as potential parts. She noted those are critical parts of law enforcement in Brevard County.

Transportation Planning Office

Transportation Planning Director Bob Kamm stated the Transportation Planning Office has two Programs, Concurrency Review and Transportation Planning; the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is an independent office under the Board; it is a federally-mandated program; and it is mandated that an area maintain a transportation planning program in order to be eligible to received federal transportation planning funds. He noted as part of this mandated Program, the MPO produces a long-range transportation plan and annual project priorities for expenditure of State and federal funds; the County has an active and highly regarded Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Education Program; and at the MPO’s request, the Office has moved into greenways and trails master planning. He stated the Office is grant funded; unexpended funds can carry over from year to year; and there is a staff of seven. He noted performance measures for the Transportation Improvement Program include one adopted program, three corridor studies, and 65 rodeo/training programs for the Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Program; the revenues received include highway grants and transit grants, which have to be matched; and local option gas tax proceeds are used to match the grants. Mr. Kamm stated there is about $515,000 in aggregate; on the expenditure side, almost two-thirds are salary and benefits, with 20% for consulting services; the Office is in the process of developing its long-range transportation plan now; and there are fixed expenses and program operations. He noted fixed expenses include things such as rent; the Office pays $30,000 a year to the County in rent for space; program operations include postage, paper, etc.; and for the past several years, the expenditures have exceeded the grant revenue. He stated the Office has been spending down the carryover it managed to accumulate in previous years; such Office used to be part of the Growth Management Department and Engineering Department; there was cost savings in terms of sharing staff and other resources; and the Office was made independent in 1998 and had to pick up more expenses directly out of the grant program, which spared the General Fund, but caused it to spend down the carryover accumulated in prior years. He noted under trends and issues, grant revenue has not kept up with costs; the Office has maintained the program by spending down its reserves; the reserves are depleted; and it is not in a position to absorb major new activities or cost increases. Mr. Kamm stated grant-funded agencies are facing similar budget issues comparable to General Fund agencies; Congress is in the process of considering reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Act; there are discussions under way to increase the amount of funds that go into transportation planning as requirements have increased substantially over the years; and the County will see how that plays out over the next few months. He noted the Concurrency Support Program is State-mandated; the new user fee was authorized beginning in January 2004 to cover the Transportation Planning Office’s support of concurrency; and it will generate about $43,000 a year. Mr. Kamm stated the last Strategic Plan update that was developed identified the concurrency fee as an area that needed to be reviewed; staff took it to the Board and initiated it in January 2004; the MPO is involved now in developing its long-range transportation plan; and it is in the process of a community vision survey. He noted a number of workshops are going on; there is another one tonight; various focus groups will hold meetings about transportation issues and the public’s perception of what the priorities for transportation should be; and he would anticipate using that information to refine and review the Office’s Strategic Plan, and look at what funding may be available.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was some discussion at the last MPO meeting about the County not providing the service to the MPO; he does not know if that discussion has gone any further; and inquired what are the fiscal implications to the County if that occurred. Mr. Kamm responded there is some discussion at the Legislative level in Tallahassee about modifying substantially the way transportation planning occurs in Florida, as well as the funding side, and what the State and federal funds are used for; this will work its way through the Legislative process; one of the proposals is to require MPO’s to be totally and completely separate from any other local governmental entity, free-standing organizations, and prohibiting them from contracting services with other local governments; and the Brevard MPO has a Contract with the County for services. He noted it would be prohibited under this proposal; it would have a significant financial impact on the Office; if any additional funds were to come from Congress, he could see those funds being largely consumed in overhead to operate an independent office; and the MPO’s across the State are arguing it is not a practical or cost-effective way to go, but it lies in the hands of the Legislature. Commissioner Scarborough inquired has the MPO taken a position on the issue; with Mr. Kamm responding yes, in opposition to that and a number of other features with the proposed legislation.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to advise the members of the Delegation and Lobbyist of the Board’s opposition regarding modifying the way transportation planning occurs in Florida, including the funding side and what the State and federal funds are used for; and requiring Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s) to be completely separate from any other local governmental entity and prohibiting them from contracting services with other local governments, as it may have a significant financial impact on the County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Slide 5 is expenditures and Slide 8 indicates grant revenue has not kept up with costs; and inquired what is plan B. Mr. Kamm responded staff does not like to think of plan B when Congress is dangling potentially more money as an option; there is a high likelihood there will be more money coming to MPO’s; the Senate and House bills both include additional funding for planning functions across the country; and if that does not come to pass, the one program the County provides that is not required is the Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Program. He noted about 20% of the resources go into bicycle/pedestrian safety education in cooperation with schools and others; the County may be faced with the prospect of significantly diminishing a program that the MPO has received national recognition for; and the kind of tradeoff the County would be faced with is scaling back a program it has won national awards on in order to meet budget limitations. Commissioner Pritchard inquired are there any other operations or consultant services the County could cut back on; with Mr. Kamm responding the other choice would be to approach the Department of Transportation (DOT) about potential supplemental funding. Mr. Kamm stated if additional funding does not come from Congress, then the burden will fall on many MPO’s across the State to go to DOT to seek supplemental funding. Commissioner Pritchard stated consultant services is 19% of the $550,000 overall budget, which is a significant amount of money. Mr. Kamm responded the County is receiving some supplemental funding from DOT for the long-range plan; it is largely being covered through that; he did not include it in the revenue chart; and staff was debating whether to include one-time special appropriation as a revenue and give the Board the impression it is something that is received all the time, but it is not. He noted the County receives $200,000 from DOT for the Long-range Transportation Plan; it is being used to fund the consultants; and it is all coming out of general grant funds.

Mr. Kamm responded there are some ongoing contracted services, including the Traffic Count Program and annual State-of-the-system Report; it represents the 19%; it is not the Long-range Plan; the one-time special activity was not included as part of the numbers; and to reduce that would mean a reduction in services again. He noted the County provides the traffic counts that the County and cities use for numerous functions; it is on the order of $65,000 a year; such counts are used for the Concurrency Program and monitoring of traffic conditions so that the Board and elected officials can make appropriate decisions about where improvements are needed; and it can be scaled back with the consequence of reducing information used for decision-making.

Mr. Jenkins inquired how much is the printed newsletter; with Mr. Kamm responding about $3,000. Mr. Kamm stated the County also has obligations at the federal level for public involvement to tell the world what it is doing. Mr. Jenkins inquired could the newsletter be done electronically. Mr. Kamm responded staff is moving in that direction and has a separate e-mail list for distribution of the newsletter; and it is growing every month.

The meeting recessed at 10:35 a.m. and reconvened at 10:45 a.m.

Jack Callinan, Citizens Budget Review Committee, stated Mr. Kamm mentioned some work is being done for the cities; and inquired are such cities being charged for the work. Mr. Kamm responded the MPO is a Countywide intergovernmental organization; the federal grants received are for intergovernmental planning activities; and part of the obligations with the money is to conduct a Countywide program that covers the entire transportation system.

Mr. Jenkins stated the cities do not pay; it is federal dollars only, except the County is making a small contribution because Mr. Kamm does some specific County transportation work that is just for the unincorporated areas or County responsibilities; and so it pays a modest amount.

Mr. Callinan inquired if the County was looking for money from the General Fund, would the cities pay a pro rata share. Mr. Jenkins responded if the County had to, that would be the fair way to do it; if it had to start paying more for that Office to operate, it would be fair that a pro rata formula be proposed; based on a city’s population it would pay a proportionate share; but he does not know that is going to happen. Mr. Kamm stated other MPO’s have a local fee they assess to the member municipalities to help pay for their operations; but it has not been done in Brevard County since the MPO began in the late 1970’s. Mr. Callinan stated consultant services shows 19%; and inquired could the County consider delaying some of the items to reduce that amount. Mr. Kamm responded the consulting services that are part of the pie chart are for annual reporting functions, Traffic Count Program, compilation of monitoring data, and State-of-the-system Report; those are done annually; going bi-annually would involve a major change in the program; but the County could entertain that at some point.

Transportation Engineering Department

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated the major services in Transportation Engineering Department include Engineering Services, Survey and Mapping Services, Traffic Engineering Services, and Road Construction Services. He stated Engineering Services include the FEMA Flood Insurance Program, Community Rating System (CRS) Program, and Engineering Design and Review; the FEMA Flood Insurance Program is federally-mandated; and if someone obtains a mortgage on property in a flood hazard area, he or she must have flood insurance. He noted the CRS Program goes hand-in-hand with the Flood Insurance Program; by having it one is eligible for discounted flood insurance premium rates within the unincorporated area of the County; and it translates for the insurance payers within the County a savings of $450,000 annually. He stated Engineering Design and Review function includes reviews for finished floor elevation waiver requests, which is mandated by County Ordinance; it also performs design and feasibility analysis; and a great deal of support is provided for the Flood Program. Mr. Denninghoff noted Engineering Services has four full-time employees; the annual budget is $291,803; and reiterated the Program results in a $450,000 savings to taxpayers annually through lowered insurance premiums. He stated revenues include charges for services of about $38,053; most of those are engineering services that are charged to other agencies within the County; and the remainder of the budget comes from the General Fund in the amount of $253,750. He noted Engineering Services typically receives 5,000 requests for flood zone related assistance and about 50 finished floor waiver requests each year; the County flood zone rating classification is currently an eight; this is as good or better than 79% of the counties in Florida; and the better a county is, the more the discount is on insurance premiums paid. He stated Surveying/Mapping processes all vacating requests for public rights-of-way and easements; it is mandated by Florida Statute; it also provides review of all new development, particularly site plans and subdivisions; and it is a State mandated function. Mr. Denninghoff noted Surveying/Mapping provides survey construction services for public projects; control network is used by all surveyors in the County; Surveying/Mapping also supports other County agencies, and scanning and map reproduction services; and there are 14 full-time employees, with an annual operating budget of $919,568. He stated the revenues include surveying fees of $173,401, mapping fees of $38,000, vacating fees of $31,920, General Fund transfer of $554,951, and Local Option Gas Tax transfer of $121,296. He stated vacating petitions are requiring more staff services; about 42 petitions are processed per year; the Data Management System is outdated; and County Ordinances could be amended to enhance the existing survey network at little or no cost when new development occurs, which would ultimately improve both public and private sector survey efficiency. He advised Traffic Engineering Services include sign/signal/markings operations, traffic data collection and analysis, streetlights, accident records management, and site plan, subdivision, and driveway review; it maintains 236 County signals and 78 school flashers, and 113 city signals and 44 school flashers, which is State mandated; it manufactures and installs about 8,000 traffic operations signs each year for the County road system, 2,300 signs for other departments, and 4,600 School Board, city, federal, and State signs; and it is a federal and State mandate. Mr. Denninghoff stated Traffic Engineering participates in development of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program with FDOT and Emergency Management; it performs engineering studies for signs/signals/markings, which is State mandated; it averages about 12,000 streetlights throughout the County that it is responsible for; and it maintains the accident records throughout the County, which is a State mandated function. He noted Traffic Engineering also performs engineering reviews for every subdivision and commercial site plan in unincorporated Brevard County; there are 25 full-time employees; the actual operating budget is $2,306,000; and $326,100 is for capital improvements and $1,817,873 is for Countywide streetlights. He noted revenues include $1,817,873 of Florida Power & Light (FP&L) Company franchise fees, which pays streetlight costs; charges for services is $156,750; $1,699,851 is General Fund transfers; and $775,680 is transfer from Local Option Gas Tax. He stated the Signal Preventive Maintenance Program has matured rapidly and is at 75% of the goal; the County is rehabilitating about two to three signals per year or about 10% of the goal, based on industry standards; it re-timed 38 traffic signals or 56% of the goal last year; and budget constraints will not allow for any re-timings this year. Mr. Denninghoff stated issues and trends also include coordinating with FDOT in the rapid development of an ITS Program to facilitate emergency management purposes; the County has begun by investing $100,000 for infrastructure over the most recent two years; and it is about 12% of the goal. He noted traffic data collection and analysis includes an average 60 to 90-day turnaround on studies and some less critical requests as much as five to six months; it is 60% of the goal; under the Streetlight Program, the County is increasing the number of streetlights by about 180 per year; and it is the single largest component of Traffic Engineering’s budget. He stated Road Construction Services include Construction Management, Contracts Administration, and Land Acquisition; there are 13 continuing contracts for appraisals, design, surveying, and geotechnical services; it administers the contracts and manages the design and construction of capital improvement projects; and it responds to public right-of-way information requests and provides for the necessary land acquisition for construction projects. Mr. Denninghoff stated Road Construction Services has 14 full-time employees; the actual operating budget is $1.1 million; and the budget for the service area includes $36.89 million for road-related capital improvements, $5.1 million for road maintenance, $1.76 million in transfers to other County agencies, and $3.2 million for transportation-related drainage improvements. He noted issues and trends associated with road construction services include traffic volume trend; and explained the depiction of congestion ratio trends. He stated a congestion ratio is the existing volume of traffic on a road divided by the maximum volume that the road is able to handle without going below an acceptable level of service; the ratio as it approaches number one means there is more congestion and is about to trip across an unacceptable level of service; five years ago the average segments of roadway was about .75; today it is about .85; and some of them are approaching the one area. He noted a particular segment of roadway in 1998 might have a congestion ratio of .5; different segments have different volumes of traffic on them and different conditions on the roads; the maximum acceptable level of traffic volume on that portion of the road varies from one segment to the next; and the light green line is Minton Road.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what does the purple line represent; with Mr. Denninghoff responding Palm Bay Road. Ms. Busacca inquired is it based on the improvements that were made to Palm Bay Road; with Mr. Denninghoff responding yes, there were some improvements made which helped the congestion situation, but it was a short-term fix.

Commissioner Colon stated short-term fix are the key words; and it is one of the things she has been trying to explain to everyone.

Mr. Denninghoff stated a majority of those roads are in South Brevard; over a five-year period, the County has seen a significant increase in congestion; in projecting another five years, the congestion is headed in a very undesirable location; and the time to implement major improvements to the transportation system is about five years. He noted five years is considered quite good, seven years is average, and ten years is not unheard of; there is a time lag between when the County decides to do a project and when it can actually see the results of the effort; traditionally, the local option gas tax has been utilized heavily to deal with major transportation improvements; and explained the historical information with local option gas tax expenses. He stated the red bar on the chart is the funds from such tax, which are being expended on maintenance activities; the bulk of it is transferred to Roadways and Landscaping; the light green bar is actual transportation improvements; and it goes from about $3.7 million to currently zero. He noted the purple bar is cash reserves in the local option gas tax fund from about $2.2 million to about $300,000; the constitutional gas tax is bonded through the year 2020; and it is the bulk of the capital improvements funding that is available today. Mr. Denninghoff stated the planned improvements will be completed in two to three years; and the time to complete the projects takes about five years. He noted impact fees are the final source of revenue; they are important and have helped the County get through inflationary periods; it has been able to stop gap its Transportation Improvement Program; however, for the most part, impact fees are a reactionary sort of result. He stated the private sector can build houses and demands on the County’s transportation system faster than the County can build improvements to deal with it if it relies solely on impact fees; impact fees are also volatile and unreliable; as annexations take place, those cities typically would collect the impact fees to deal with their transportation issues; and a County road that may be servicing that city would not receive the benefit of those impact fees. He noted the County has had some success and cooperative adventures with a couple of cities; and the County appreciates it. He stated congestion is getting worse; resolution of the congestion when doing good is only five years; there is no true dedicated revenue stream to take care of those issues, other than the constitutional gas tax, which is bonded; and inflation for transportation construction is at a much higher than the general inflation rate for the economy. Mr. Denninghoff noted FDOT typically uses a number that is about double what the actual general economy inflationary rate is; the Transportation Engineering Department addresses a broad range of services to the public with its Engineering Services, Surveying, Traffic Engineering, and Road Construction Programs; it is doing a good job with the resources it has; but Traffic Engineering cannot meet industry standards due to budgetary constraints; and the Road Construction Program cannot meet tomorrow’s needs due to revenue constraints.

Chair Higgs stated in looking at the revenues that have come from the local option gas tax, they seem to be about flat over the years, and yet the costs and number of cars on the roadway have increased. Mr. Denninghoff stated there are a number of things that go into that; he does not know that it is actually flat, but it is definitely flatter than the inflation rate is; even with all the SUV’s on the roads today, the vehicles are still more efficient than they have been in the past; and vehicles are making shorter trips on the roads, which means they are expending less gasoline in the process of driving, but they are having a tremendous impact on the road system. Chair Higgs noted the number of gallons of gasoline being sold in Brevard County is relatively the same as it was 10 years ago. Mr. Denninghoff stated he does not have the statistics on it, but it has not increased as fast as it has traditionally. Chair Higgs noted $2 million for a penny is what the County has had for a standard for a long time.

Finance Manager Greg Pelham stated over the last 10 years, the County’s portion of the local option gas tax that is split with the cities has decreased from about 55% 10 years ago to 47% now. Chair Higgs noted the County is still seeing the one-cent generating about $2.1 million or $2.3 million; it has maintained that same level; and staff is indicating the sale of gasoline per gallon has been about the same for 10 years. Mr. Denninghoff stated the cities are getting more of the money than they used to get. Mr. Jenkins stated Chair Higgs is saying the total for the one penny has gone from roughly $2 million to about $2.3 million; that is what the State is giving the County if it collects it; the County does not collect it; and that is what the State returns to the County. Chair Higgs noted she finds it questionable what one penny would generate and the 9th-cent could come totally to the County; she finds it hard to believe there is not an increase in the revenue; the County does not levy the 9th-cent; but it would be the cent it could get. She requested staff do research on how that has maintained the same level for so long.

Commissioner Carlson stated the County is talking about indexing local option gas tax at the State level. Mr. Denninghoff noted there has been discussion about that, but it has not been implemented yet; and it is an option that is available. Commissioner Carlson requested staff explain why it is being pursued. Mr. Denninghoff stated the indexing would allow for an escalation in the tax level, not based on purely one penny per gallon, but the percentage of the overall cost of the gallon; and it is a way of increasing the revenue stream. Commissioner Carlson noted it is indexing based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), so there is growth in that number versus staying stagnant. Mr. Denninghoff stated it would be a way of realizing the tax revenue stream that adjusts itself relative to the cost of living.

Commissioner Colon stated during every budget workshop she has expressed her concerns consistently in regard to the reserves, which have been decreasing every year; she was a rookie when she first asked questions about the reserves; such questions were not answered and brushed aside; and she has been watching the reserves decreasing every year. She noted her greatest concern is that some of the money is being used for operational issues; she has asked the questions and given the data; every year she has asked the same question about what happens after the reserves are depleted; and she cannot support a budget when she does not approve of how the County is spending its money or allocating it. She inquired what does the County intend to do once the reserves decrease to zero and how the operations will be paid for; stated it is not a question Mr. Denninghoff can answer because he is not the individual who created the issue; the Board for years has supported this way of paying it; and this will be another year where her question again will be passed over, but she intends to ask every year the same question since she started here. Mr. Denninghoff stated previous to the five-year period he showed on the chart, there were years where the reserves were as low as zero for the use of local option gas tax on maintenance functions; but the reserves fluctuated over years and did not escalate to the point where it is now until the five-year period he indicated.

Commissioner Carlson stated in the presentation Mr. Denninghoff did a lot on the revenue side, but she does not see anything in operating expenditures; there are no pie charts or anything to compare one thing to another; and requested he provide additional overviews. She noted she does not see anything on cost of salaries, benefits, or fixed expenses. Mr. Denninghoff stated the budgetary expenses he showed are primarily the salaries and benefits; he can provide the chart; and there have not been any position increases in the last four years. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the total number of employees in the Transportation Engineering Department; with Mr. Denninghoff responding 49 employees. Commissioner Carlson requested a pie chart of all the expenditures and revenues; with Mr. Denninghoff responding he will provide such chart for the entire Department.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it was mentioned that the County’s share of the local option gas tax has been decreased from about 55% to 47%; and inquired has the cities share increased. Mr. Pelham responded that is correct; the formula for dividing the local option gas tax between the cities and the County is based on 50% weighted for transportation expenditures and 50% weighted for population; there are also Interlocal Agreements in place that state once the County’s portion of the formula reaches 47.14% it will go no lower; so the County is at the bottom portion by Interlocal Agreement with all the cities of what it would get from the local option gas tax collection. Commissioner Pritchard noted it has nothing to do with whether a gas station is located in the city; with Mr. Pelham responding that is correct. Mr. Pelham stated when a gallon of gasoline is sold, where it is sold does not come into play. Commissioner Pritchard stated the handout lists a little over $5 million in projected expenditures in the different districts. Chair Higgs noted those are the ad valorem revenues projected for FY 04-05. Commissioner Pritchard stated as revenues they are going to be expended. Chair Higgs noted it is projected budget. Commissioner Pritchard noted there is $5.1 million projected ad valorem revenue; there are estimates for what is currently unlevied; one is the 9th-cent fuel tax for $2.3 million; and there is another $2.1 million on local option fuel tax. Chair Higgs stated that is correct; and that is why she was asking about the revenues. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how many dollars in projects does the County have that are currently unfunded or under funded and how much can it help to reduce that by looking at the 9th-cent and the one to five-cent local option fuel tax. Mr. Denninghoff responded the referendum list for the transportation portion was about $142 million in transportation improvements. Commissioner Pritchard inquired does it all fall within the five-year crucial period of things that really need to be done. Mr. Denninghoff responded most of it the County would need to get started on; and probably 70% of the funding level needs to get under way if the County is going to stay ahead of the curve. Commissioner Pritchard inquired of the $100 million plus, if the County is looking at 70% that needs to get done, how much of it needs to be funded this year, next year, and through the completion of the projects. He noted if the County were to do a 9th-cent fuel tax and generate another $2 million, and even went to a five-cent fuel tax, it would be $10 million; and approximately $12 million to $13 million would be generated per year. Mr. Pelham noted the County would not get all of the funds, but would receive all of the 9th-cent fuel tax or $2.3 million; and it would get about one-half of the other five cents. Commissioner Pritchard stated the County is looking at $8 million a year in additional revenue by increasing fuel taxes, but it would not put a dent in the transportation projects. Mr. Denninghoff noted the initial cost associated with the transportation projects is the design phase; staff has done a preliminary engineering study on many of the projects; they are starting to get a little bit fuzzy at this point as they are getting age on them; but staff could go into the design, which is typically going to be around 10% to 15% of the overall costs. He stated the County only wants to go into design if it knows it is going to have the revenue stream to move forward to construction; otherwise, it ends up re-designing again and spends the money all over again; initially if the number was $100 million, ultimately the County would need about $10 million to $15 million to get started; and about a year and a half to two years later it will need much larger dollars to secure right-of-way and begin to implement construction. Commissioner Pritchard inquired where would the significant amount of funds come from for acquisitions; with Mr. Jenkins responding the County would have to do a bond issue. Commissioner Pritchard stated probably fuel taxes are the least offensive to him only because he cannot keep track of how much gas cost; and he is wondering how offensive an increase in the local option gas tax and the 9th-cent fuel tax would be to the public, and what the result is going to be in terms of actually getting projects completed or under way. He requested staff provide for a future meeting the breakdown of the local option gas tax and how it is being used; and stated he understands portions of it are being used to clean and maintain ditches and other uses that were not necessarily the intended use when the gas tax was initially approved. Mr. Jenkins stated Space Coast Area Transit is getting $845,000 to operate the bus system; road construction services are almost $1.2 million; and inquired what is it. Mr. Denninghoff responded it is the portion of the local option gas tax that supports the Road Construction Program. Mr. Jenkins inquired is the cost for road construction the staff; with Mr. Denninghoff responding it is mostly staff. Mr. Jenkins stated it is the staff in Mr. Denninghoff’s Department to design roads and oversee construction; the Survey section under Mr. Denninghoff’s Department is getting almost $121,000; the MPO is getting over $59,000; and Traffic Engineering Department is getting $775,000. He noted the County has paid out $273,000 to Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad as it redoes the crossings; roadway maintenance is $5.1 million; and there is $367,000 in reserves. Commissioner Pritchard stated roadway maintenance is probably the broad category where ditches and other things have come in; when the tax was initiated the intent behind it was supposed to be to build roads and maintain them; it has probably evolved into a lot of other areas because of whatever reasons; and he would like to know what the history of the local option gas tax is, when it started, what the intent was, and how it has metamorphosed into what it is today. He requested a copy of the list Mr. Jenkins read, as well as a breakdown, specifically the $5.1 million under roads.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he read an article in the Brevard Business News that Titusville last year had 350 building permits and there are 4,000 permits in process; he did some math and if two people moved in each home that is 8,000 people; and it is going to impact the roads. He stated for road services and special municipal taxing services, staff indicated there may be a change in the formula in the local option gas tax and the distribution of impact fees; around and maybe through municipalities are County roads; Sisson Road is a County road that is being impacted by City building permits; and he needs to get a handle on those things as there may be a disproportionate burden on the County without revenues to meet the burden. He noted maybe because it is coming from many different pots and different ways there are multiple answers to the question; and requested staff put a memo together to provide the information to each Commissioner and particularly the problem areas.

Commissioner Pritchard expressed concern that the cities are annexing and leaving the roads; stated the cities are taking from the County’s tax base but not roads because it would be costly to them; but they want the revenue of what is on either side of the road. He stated the County needs to address it in some fashion that changes State Legislation or whatever so that if the cities are going to take the neighborhood, they are going to take the road with it so the tax base can help pay for it. He noted the County is getting strapped with a burden and not being offered the revenue base to pay for it.

Chair Higgs stated the Board will be looking at annexations on South Babcock Street; and inquired is there any plan for Palm Bay to take Babcock Street; with Mr. Denninghoff responding not that he is aware of. Chair Higgs stated it is about a mile square of 1,200 or 1,400 acres between Babcock Street and I-95, south of Palm Bay. Mr. Denninghoff noted he is familiar with what Chair Higgs is referencing; but by State law, cities are not required to take the roads. Chair Higgs stated in 1998 or 1999 when the five-year period started, the Board made a conscious decision not to increase property taxes, but to use gas tax to take care of some of the maintenance; it was a policy decision by the Board to do that; and it made a decision to use gas tax revenues legitimately for roadway-related needs to not have to increase property taxes to keep a level of maintenance the County believed to be needed at the time. She reiterated the Board made a decision that it did not want to increase property taxes in regard to MSTU’s to take care of roadways and functions related to roadways and particularly some areas that the roads were flooding and deteriorating; and it made a decision to use gas tax that way as opposed to property taxes.

Commissioner Colon stated it is important as elected officials to see the kind of policies the Board puts in place; she totally disagrees with the policy and the way the County has been spending the money; she has been saying it and has asked the question; and today is the first time people are asking for memos and trying to say exactly when something happened, who did it, and under whose watch it happened. She noted that is why she is concerned and will never support a gas tax increase; the citizens trust the County and give it money; if it has been taking money out of the reserves, the deficit is going to increase; business will be as usual; and once again, there will be no money for roads. She stated she has been trying to say that for years; the County has to be careful and do the right thing by telling the citizens this is where every single penny is going; policy decisions should not be made in midstream; and that is what she is afraid of.

Chair Higgs stated the County was using the $2 million in revenue; it is a policy decision the Commissioners may differ on; but she does not believe it took it out of a reserve. Commissioner Carlson stated the County used the local option gas tax. Mr. Jenkins stated staff will get the history.

Chair Higgs stated there is an executive session at 11:30 a.m.

Glenda Busick stated she loses her train of thought if she is not able to ask questions after each of the presentations and has to wait until the end.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to allow Glenda Busick to ask her questions at this time until waiting toward the end of the meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Busick inquired were the tax dollars from new construction. Chair Higgs responded there have been allocations that would have gone into new construction that the County was using for maintenance of the road system. Ms. Busick noted it was done so the County would not raise property taxes; a majority of the Board did not have the guts to raise impact fees to the level the study said; part of the impact fee only pays 30%; and 70% is unfunded. Mr. Jenkins stated 30% of the eligible impact fee is being levied. Ms. Busick stated 70% is not being levied on growth and the people who are causing the problem; it is not correct for the County to say it is not raising property taxes to subsidize growth problems; and the ball lays in the County’s court that it makes who is causing the problem to pay for it. She noted the County should not be taking money and using it for maintenance; inquired how long has it waited to make the cities correct the problems of growth and the roads they dump on the County, and what is it going to do to make impact fees pay for growth. Chair Higgs responded she would be happy to levy the full impact fee on transportation if there are two other votes to do it. Commissioners Scarborough and Carlson stated they support the full impact fee for transportation. Ms. Busick inquired if the item can be put on the agenda next week. Commissioner Scarborough noted it is there. Commissioner Colon stated the Board had a workshop on impact fees. Ms. Busick noted it did not do anything. Commissioner Colon stated the Board is not supposed to do anything fast in one workshop; it discussed the impact fees; and she supports them, but not when the information is received up front, as it needs to be studied, done fairly, and balanced. Ms. Busick stated the graphs show over five, six, and 10 years of misspending money and no impact fees. Chair Higgs noted the workshop was primarily on school impact fees, so it is a different issue; three Commissioners have indicated they are willing to revisit the transportation impact fee; the Board increased such fee the last time and indexed it on the CPI; but it did not go to the full cost. Ms. Busick stated she will be back.

Jack Callinan, representing Citizens Budget Review Committee, stated Mr. Denninghoff mentioned the data management system is outdated and money is being spent on it; and inquired how much money is being spent, and why is the system outdated, because the software is outdated, the hardware is outdated, or the application no longer meets the needs. Commissioner Carlson responded all of the above. Chair Higgs stated staff will provide the answers for Mr. Callinan.

The meeting recessed at 11:40 a.m. and reconvened at 1:05 p.m.

Roadways and Landscaping Department

Roadways and Landscaping Director Billy Osborne stated the Roadways and Landscaping Department has three Programs, Roadway Operations, Landscape Operations, and MSBU/Special Assessments; the Roadway Operations Program includes all of the road and drainage maintenance activities; these activities are subject to federal, State, and local regulations and mandates; and Landscape Operations was established in response to direction received from the Board relative to landscape enhancements throughout the County. He noted an MSBU or special assessment program is subject to State regulation and County Ordinance No. 97-07; the Roadways and Landscaping Department has an annual budget of $21,599,134 for FY 03-04; it represents a 6.58% decrease from the FY 02-03 budget; and explained a chart illustrating the overall Department budget. He stated Roadway Operations consumes the largest part of the budget and has an annual operating budget of $20,569,024; it includes road and drainage maintenance; roadway maintenance includes three field offices in the north, central, and south parts of the County; and last year, the Roadways and Landscaping Permitting Section processed more than 4,000 right-of-way use permits. Mr. Osborne noted Construction is a revenue-generating program, which generated approximately $2.8 million last year; currently it is working on the four-laning of Murrell Road; aside from Board-approved cost-of-living adjustments and merit increases, the overall Roadways and Landscaping budget has not increased substantially in more than three years; and it is despite the fact that the County receives an average of ten additional miles of roads per year for maintenance. He stated in an effort to hold the line on budget increases, it has been necessary to reduce services; the revenues for Roadway Operations include MSTU’s, which are the ad valorem taxes collected within each Road and Bridge MSTU District; intergovernmental includes 20% of the Constitutional Gas Tax, the County’s 7-cent gas tax, and the motor fuel tax rebates; charges for services include permit and inspection fees, construction revenue, and interest revenue; and the balance forward includes the CIP projects carried forward from the previous year within MSTU’s, and the emergency and operating reserves of the MSTUs. Mr. Osborne stated the local option gas tax transfers are $4,850,487; the Roadway Operations Program includes 171 full-time employees and 10 part-time employees; the breakdown is 124 maintenance employees, 10 bridge tenders, 22 construction employees, six regulatory and inspection employees, 12 administration employees, and seven mechanics; and in FY 02-03, Roadway Operations maintained 1,199 miles of roadway and 2,398 of drainage systems. He noted in FY 03-04, the miles of roads are anticipated to increase to 1,211 miles; the drainage systems are projected to increase to 2,413 miles; it is Roadway Operations’ goal to minimize the potential of flooding by keeping the drainage systems open and functioning; and in FY 02-03, Regulatory Permitting and Inspection reviewed and processed over 4,700 permits, with 95% being processed within the Department’s goal of seven to 10 working days. He stated in FY 03-04, permit requests and reviews are projected to exceed 4,700; roadways and landscaping, and permitting and inspection services are tied to the efforts to maintain the safety of the public; Regulatory Permitting and Inspection works to insure that any items constructed in the public right-of-way meet County and FDOT regulations and do not result in hazards or safety issues; and in FY 02-03, the construction crew completed $2.8 million in billable projects. Mr. Osborne noted in FY 03-04, the construction crew is projected to complete $3.4 million in projects, including the final widening of Murrell Road from two to four lanes; the construction crew also constructs drainage improvements for the Regional Stormwater Utility Department, as well as improvements to Parks and Recreation and library facilities; on average, Roadways and Landscaping Department resurfaces 32 miles of roadways annually; based on the current average, it will take approximately 36.5 years to resurface all of the roads in the County system; and the average life expectancy of a road is 20 years. He stated indirect costs, including insurance and retirement costs, have continued to increase; without a corresponding increase in revenues, Roadway Operations has had to absorb additional costs through reduction in services; it remains reliant on gas tax revenues; and it continues its efforts to establish an infrastructure management system, to include preventative maintenance. He noted such system was part of the Strategic Plan; Roadway Operations is continuing its efforts toward that endeavor; however, funds have not been identified for the program. Mr. Osborne advised Landscape Operations includes landscape installation; and S.R. 405 is an excellent example of the landscape operations project, which has been accomplished in phases and runs from S.R. 407 to the entrance of Kennedy Space Center. He stated other examples of the roadway landscape and irrigation maintenance are S.R. 520 in Cocoa and the Wickham Road Corridor in South Brevard; last year, Landscape Operations began monitoring the contracts for landscape, maintenance, and irrigation of County buildings, including libraries, which had previously been under the purview of the Facilities and Library Services Departments; Landscape Operations has an annual operating budget of $787,940; and the chart provides a breakdown of the revenues, including charges for services of $192,739, transfers from General Fund of $180,000, transfers from libraries of $91,765, and transfers from the local option gas tax of $323,436. He noted Landscape Operations has seven full-time employees, which includes the Landscape Manager; the facility is located at the Agricultural Center on Lake Drive in Cocoa; in FY 02-03, Landscape Operations maintained 20.5 miles of roadway landscaping; and in FY 03-04, it is projected to increase to 21 miles. Mr. Osborne stated in FY 02-03, Landscape Operations maintained the grounds and landscaping associated with 32 County facilities; in FY 03-04, it is anticipated to increase to 33; the Government Center is among the facilities that have been transferred to Landscape Operations for maintenance; in FY 02-03, Landscape Operations completed nine new installation projects; and in FY 03-04, it is anticipated to complete 15 such projects. He noted the Board recognizes the need for enhanced landscaping of County roadways and facilities; Roadways and Landscaping Department has centralized existing funding sources, and has undertaken new construction landscaping projects; MSBU/Special Assessments provides a mechanism by which property owners within existing subdivisions can finance the installation of infrastructure improvements such as dirt road paving, potable water, and sanitary sewer lines; and the annual operating budget is $242,170. He stated the revenues include charges for services of $22,800, which are administrative fees for assessments paid by property owners; interest revenue of $28,880 earned on capital funds, $87,000 of capital funds carried forward from previous years for approved projects that have not been completed, $7,100 of restricted funds carried forward for debt service projects, and transfers from General Fund of $96,390. Mr. Osborne noted MSBU includes two full-time employees; in FY 02-03, MSBU completed Lakemont Road Waterline, Treasure Lane Phase I Dirt Road Paving, and Woodlands Waterline; in FY 03-04, it is anticipated to complete as many as four projects, including Rio Lindo Canal Dredging, Toby Lane Dirt Road Paving, and Treasure Lane Phase II Dirt Road Paving; and the MSBU Program is not self-supporting. He stated due to change in the property systems maintained by the Tax Collector and Property Appraiser, Roadways and Landscaping is proposing that the MSBU Program be restructured by reducing the number of employees and reallocating the work involved, especially in regard to its billing and collection services, to existing employees; and if it proves to be successful and feasible, it is possible that Roadways and Landscaping Department could reduce the General Fund subsidy from this area in FY 03-04. He stated material costs continue to increase, while revenues remain constant; the cost of asphalt has increased 32% over the past five years; and the cost to resurface one mile of road has increased $10,000 or 32% over the past five years. He noted the cost of paving one mile of dirt road is more than $20,000 or 18% over the past five years; maintenance responsibilities increase annually; the total number of roads have increased by approximately 10 miles per year; and on average, Roadways and Landscaping Department resurfaces 32.24 miles of road per year for the past five years. Mr. Osborne stated based on the current average, it will take approximately 36 ½ years to resurface all the roads in the County system; the average life expectancy of a road is 20 years; for each mile of roadway added to the maintenance responsibility, there are corresponding drainage structures that also must be maintained; and to date, there has been no corresponding increase in staff or funding to balance those increases. He noted although landscaping installation costs can be forecasted with relative accuracy, the costs associated with the long-term maintenance of those improvements can fluctuate dramatically; and replacement of damaged and/or exhausted plant materials can result in unexpected costs.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the items Mr. Osborne mentioned dealt with all of the roads that require maintenance; it would take 36 years in order to perform the maintenance; there is a 20-year life expectancy of a road; and there would be about 16 years out on the repair of a road before the County could get back to it. Mr. Osborne noted that is correct; the County is resurfacing probably 50% of the roadways at this time; and by the time it has done all of the roads in 36 ½ years, it is still 16 years out.

Commissioner Carlson stated there is approximately $800,000 in landscaping; and inquired are those dollars usable for other road projects.

Finance Manager Greg Pelham stated the dollars are all part of road projects; the new installations are associated with roads; the billable projects that Landscape Operations charges out for the Parks and Recreation and Library Services Departments, and other facilities are expenses that are incurred and billed to those Departments; and the transfer from the gas tax that is used to maintain the road-related landscaping could be used in other road-related projects. Commissioner Carlson noted if the County allows it not to be maintained, then there are significant problems later in terms of the aesthetics and things of that nature; and requested staff provide the expenditure charts. She stated Slide 7 shows a $4.3 million balance forward; and inquired how much of it is committed to other projects and is there any reserve. Mr. Pelham responded approximately $3 million is committed to projects right now; and the balance is reserves in the MSTU for operational and disaster needs. Commissioner Carlson inquired is $1.3 million for reserve; with Mr. Pelham responding affirmatively. Commissioner Carlson stated Slide 9 shows 124 workers maintaining about 3,600 miles of roads and drainage, which equates to 29 miles per person per year; and inquired does staff classify it as good output and are there performance standards for this kind of maintenance. Mr. Osborne responded there is no performance standard or industry standard; compared to FDOT, the County does probably half of what FDOT is doing. Mr. Pelham stated FDOT has about twice as many people working on the same amount of roadways. Commissioner Carlson noted the County is more efficient. Commissioner Carlson stated Slide 10 shows 22 construction people doing $2.8 million in billable projects; and inquired if the County expects $3.4 million next year, will it mean additional employees will be needed. Mr. Osborne responded the Department already has the people, as the Board approved the addition of four people.

Commissioner Carlson requested staff describe what happens if roads are not resurfaced at the proper time, what additional costs are involved, and if there is an increased deterioration and the same level of service at a higher cost. She inquired will the problem grow worse exponentially. Mr. Osborne responded if the County continues at the same rate it is going and it takes 36 ½ years to pave all the roads, it will reach a point where it will no longer be feasible to patch the road or resurface the road; it will become necessary to reconstruct the road in its entirety; and it will substantially increase in cost.

Mr. Jenkins stated the County discussed the option of taking some of the excess revenues that the construction crew was generating and setting some of that money aside to purchase the software and do the condition assessment of all the roads to initiate the infrastructure management system; staff had begun to try to accumulate some dollars; but it received a bill from FEC Railroad for $300,000; and the County has to find the money somewhere. He noted the first place to look is to dip into the reserve it is trying to accumulate to get into preventative maintenance; there are constant challenges of how to do it; and the County had an objective of trying to set some of the excess revenues aside for that purpose, but it is a struggle. Commissioner Carlson stated without the program to help the County evaluate the future as far as the maintenance program, the prognosis for determining the overall cost and impact is not known; the County cannot tell how long the dollars are going to last before they start running out and have to look for additional cuts some place or for more new money; it has no way of determining how long it can survive on the current budget before it needs an infusion of new dollars; and inquired does staff have any clue at all. She noted based on the numbers staff has provided, it does not look like there is much time left because the County is just compounding the problem. Mr. Pelham stated it is difficult at this time to say how much longer the County is going to be able to operate in this particular manner; staff is doing its best to try and prolong it, but it is getting more difficult each year; as Mr. Denninghoff stated earlier, his transportation-related construction costs are increasing at such a significant rate higher than the regular CPI; and it is making it very difficult to estimate when the County needs a new infusion of revenue and how much it needs. He noted the infrastructure management system would be a great tool as it could be set up on a road-by-road basis and could tell staff, if it wants to maintain a road to a certain level, it needs to be doing something on a regular basis.

Ms. Busacca stated she has been told that when a road is no longer black and becomes gray, at that point it should be resurfaced. Mr. Denninghoff stated there are earlier forms of roadway maintenance that can be done besides resurfacing; if the County waits until the road gets too aged, the only recourse it has is to either resurface or continue to let the road fall apart to the point it is actually necessary to reconstruct it; there comes a time when that is the most economical way to approach it; and long before any of that happens, there are other things the County can do to the roadway to help it maintain its youth and make it last a good deal longer. He noted every study that has been done on this indicates it is the most economical way to maintain a high level of service on the roadway; however, the County can do the opposite approach, which is essentially what is done today and is referred to as the worst first approach, because it takes the worst road and resurface it. He stated that mechanism has a lower level of service over the whole transportation system and is a more expensive way to do it; and the County gets a lower level of service at a higher cost.

Commissioner Carlson inquired does staff have the percentage difference between keeping a maintained road in a high-quality state versus reconstructing it. Mr. Denninghoff responded the cost of reconstruction is generally estimated to be about seven times that of resurfacing on a per mile basis; new construction costs 13 or 14 times what resurfacing costs; the other treatments one can do in advance of resurfacing reduces the resurfacing cost; and it is generally thought to be the most advantageous way of doing it. He noted staff cannot put a finger on how much money it would cost to maintain at a particular level of service as it does not have the information available with which to make that sort of determination; and the infrastructure management system is what is needed to do that. Commissioner Carlson inquired how much is the unfunded system; with Mr. Denninghoff responding approximately $1.5 million. Mr. Denninghoff stated to his knowledge, there is no community that has taken the approach simultaneously to do a complete inventory and condition assessment for its entire inventory at the same time; it has always been done in two separate steps; so the County does not have a good way to estimate it. Commissioner Carlson noted the $1.5 million price tag includes the assessment and software that would be installed. Mr. Denninghoff stated staff’s estimate to get the system up and running and a complete system in place is about $1.5 million; and it will require maintenance over time because it is not a one-time thing.

Commissioner Pritchard requested staff explain the meeting that will be held on Monday with a company and the process it has. Mr. Osborne stated he does not know a whole lot about the company, but on Monday, Commissioner Pritchard, himself, and a member of his staff are going to meet with a company out of Cocoa that does some type of road rejuvenation to save the pavement over the years. Commissioner Pritchard noted the County is going to find out more about the company; but apparently, it has a process that rejuvenates the surface, lays it down, and provides much more extended wear at much less cost; such company has done a major project in Orange County; and it is very interesting. He stated if it is a way Brevard County can get more done for less money and have it last longer, then it needs to be reviewed. Mr. Denninghoff noted there is more than one process that can be used; the County applied a rejuvenating product to some of its roads about one year ago; and staff is observing it to see how it performs. He stated it has been done on new roads, older roads, and in between roads to see how well it performs; the seller of the product makes lots of claims; staff is a little bit skeptical; and the County is hoping there is a product out there that will function well. He noted the product staff did the test with is one that has been around for a long time and has been used in a wide spectrum of areas; it is used in Orlando quite a bit; it seems to do a good job; and there are high hopes it will be a light at the end of the tunnel that is not a train. Commissioner Pritchard inquired is Landscape Operations performed in-house less expensive than if the County contracted with the private sector. Mr. Pelham responded it is a fairly new program that has been started; it seems to be pointing to the direction that the County can do it better; it still contracts out a lot of the mowing; but the new installations and maintenance of the landscape beds the County seems to be able to do a better job of maintaining them as it can respond to it quicker. He stated there are less complaints about dead vegetation with County staff handling it than when it was contracted previously.

Mr. Jenkins stated the County used to contract almost all of it out; it had a real problem with performance; it used to have to fire landscape companies all the time; and now the companies are basically being used for cutting grass, edging, etc. He noted Landscape Operations is doing a lot of the planning and so forth.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County was fortunate enough to be able to landscape Fay Boulevard through Port St. John; there were a number of landscape companies that came in; for some reason they would take the job; and Henry Minneboo would go out there, and it was taking staff time. He noted the County would go through the process of firing people; it would bring someone else on; it wasted the County’s top employees on something they should not be fooling with; and firing a landscape contractor, no matter how small the job is, can be a pain. He stated he has been most pleased with the current operation; there is hidden cost in going that direction; for some reason, a lot of people bid on projects they really cannot handle; and it was a disgrace to the County.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what does staff mean when it says the MSBU Program is not self-supporting. Mr. Pelham responded currently each assessment that is done includes a 10% administrative fee that is split nine percent between Roadways and Landscaping Department that runs it and one percent with the Finance Department that handles the payments, receipts, and repayment of the debt; that 10% comes in on an annual basis as the assessment can be paid over 10 years; that equates to about $24,000 a year for all of the outstanding MSBU’s that are currently in place; and it is a two-person operation that costs approximately $100,000 a year to run it. He noted the General Fund is subsidizing about 75% of the cost of the Program; the Board approved the ability to put the MSBU bills on the tax bills; the County in the past sent a separate bill; and it had to maintain a separate system, produce the bills, and mail them out. He stated all those costs are going to go away now, which will drastically reduce the amount of work the County does in administering, processing, paying, and collecting on the programs; and it may give the ability to possibly eliminate two positions. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the MSBU Program will then become self-supporting; with Mr. Pelham responding affirmatively.

Chair Higgs inquired how many people are in Land Acquisition; with Mr. Denninghoff responding there are three Land Acquisition agents, including the supervisor, and one secretary for a total of four people. Chair Higgs inquired are the agents certified real estate people; with Mr. Denninghoff responding yes. Mr. Denninghoff stated the individuals have all been trained and gone through right-of-way acquisition training of various sorts; and there is no official certification process, but they go through training that the County provides for them. Chair Higgs inquired are the agents licensed; with Mr. Denninghoff responding most of them have real estate licenses. Mr. Denninghoff stated they are on an inactive status and are not allowed to actively pursue real estate transactions while they are doing land acquisitions due to the possibility of conflict of interest.

Regional Stormwater Utility Department

Regional Stormwater Utility Director Ron Jones stated the Regional Stormwater Utility Program was originally developed as a result of a challenge to the Comprehensive Plan by an outside party; that constitutes a local mandate associated with the continued operation of the Program; the recently obtained National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Stormwater System Permit is required per federal law, which also requires the continued operation of the Stormwater Management Program and a dedicated funding source; and to date, the Department has constructed approximately $23 million in projects. He noted the projects have been constructed by the use of assessment funds; the non-ad valorem assessment methodology associated with the stormwater utility fee structure supplies the funds for that; grants have also been leveraged utilizing those funds in order to provide for an increased cost benefit; and the implementation of the Utilities Capital Improvement Program supports the Strategic Plan goals of preserving water quality and creating cooperative partnerships to achieve the goal. He stated a number of water quality enhancement projects are currently under way; the Department is currently working with many other agencies and municipalities on water quality improvement projects throughout the County; it is particularly proud of the Chain of Lakes Project, in which it has been successful in having a number of different organizations, such as Titusville, St. Johns River Water Management District, Brevard Community College, Parrish Medical Center, and Parks and Recreation Department, partner with it; and the County provides somewhat of a unique approach in attempting to bridge some of the gaps, as stormwater management issues do not recognize political boundaries. Mr. Jones noted the Department is continuing its management role of the Stormwater Utility Program for West Melbourne and Malabar; a number of private partnerships are under way, resulting in enhanced cost benefit of project implementation; the Department has two primary services associated with the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) implementation and permitting and compliance support; and Capital Improvements Support Services provide planning, design, management, inspection, and maintenance of projects. He stated in addition to salaries and benefits of $1.4 million, approximately $650,000 is in actual salaries and benefits associated with operation of the service; the budget for the service includes funding of maintenance projects, operating supplies and equipment, engineering and surveying services, and payment for services by other County agencies; Permitting and Compliance Support Services deals primarily with regulatory agencies and issues regarding the County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit compliance; and staff reviews proposed site plans and subdivisions, and other land development activities. He noted staff has provided approximately two full-time equivalent employees toward land development activity review; sometimes it is extremely busy and other times the activity decreases; staff is hoping to reallocate some of those full-time equivalents back to other program responsibilities as land development review and subdivision review drops off; and the Department is staffed with a total of 15 employees. Mr. Jones stated 10 employees are associated directly with CIP support, with the remaining five employees associated with land development review, and permitting and compliance associated with the NPDES Program; there has been an increase in staffing levels as a result of the additional responsibilities the Department has undertaken; staffing has increased from 11 to 15 employees; and management of the utilities of Melbourne, West Melbourne, and Malabar has resulted in a slight increase in staff; however, those costs are recouped through fees that are charged back to the municipalities, so it does not result in an additional cost to the County.

He noted the bulk of the revenues for the Stormwater Utility Program is assessment revenue; it is a self-supported Program; there are no General Fund dollars associated with its operation; and staff has been successful in terms of grants and leveraging stormwater utility dollars toward federal and state grant programs. He stated there is a one-time contribution on the part of the Constitutional Gas Tax bond proceeds toward transportation-related drainage improvements; the largest component of the expenditure budget is dedicated to construction of projects within the CIP; the County has been operating at approximately a 10% to 15% reserve; this is necessary as a result of dollars moving from year to year as projects may start in one year and end in another year; and there needs to be sufficient funds allocated and budgeted in a previous year in order to be able to make those continued project payments. Mr. Jones stated the support services components include primarily capital improvement-related support services; there is a $20,243,997 five-year CIP; the primary functions are management and inspection services associated with ongoing construction projects, maintenance of projects associated with the program, and water quality monitoring support, as well as the oversight of consultants; and it does little in-house design and primarily works within the private sector in terms of consulting engineering. He noted the permitting compliance support services component includes coordination and assistance with County departments; a few of the services provided are public outreach, which has been expanded as a result of the NPDES permitting process, and land development review functions; grants totaling $1,429,306 are budgeted in FY 03-04; and staff has been successful in attracting about $3 million in grants over the past 10 years. He stated staff is encouraged by the larger pro-rata share of grant funding; the Department has been accumulating funds over a couple of years in order to implement several large scale projects; it has been in an intensive mode of doing analysis as a result of several large watershed projects; and it projects 6,000 acres in FY 03-04 for watershed analysis, which is expected to decline each year as funding is shifted to master plan implementation. Mr. Jones noted the two major trends and issues include NPDES and total maximum daily loads; the County obtained the NPDES permit coverage in July 2003; and it requires a host of different activities and improvement in County operations in terms of potential for discharges to stormwater systems and a great deal of emphasis on public outreach. He stated the funding for many of the permit elements is currently being met through the stormwater utility at no additional impact to the General Fund; not only has the County been successful in moving forward in obtaining the permit and bearing those costs without impact to the General Fund, but also a number of the program elements that were developed in order to satisfy the NPDES permitting requirements are also going to be borne by the stormwater utility. He noted the costs borne by the utility are estimated to be about $200,000 per year over the four-year implementation period of the permit; the Board may wish to consider an increase in the stormwater utility fee in order to offset the costs, as the expense is reducing available funding for project construction; the construction costs associated with ongoing operations are accelerating at a faster rate than the revenue is increasing; and the County is getting a little bit further behind each year in terms of actual project construction ability as a result of the inflationary factor. He stated an increase of about 50 cents per month generates about $500,000 in revenue; the fee has not been increased in its history over about a 10 to 11-year period; some impacts to the General Fund may occur associated with programs that deal with equipment or vehicle maintenance associated with the NPDES permit; there are going to be some additional housekeeping measures that have to be implemented; and in some instances, it is going to require some operations, such as roadways and landscaping or fleet maintenance to provide for additional types of activities, such as enhanced or improved vehicle washing facilities. Mr. Jones noted Roadways and Landscaping Department has to provide a different mechanism to handle its materials so that the potential for materials being deposited in the stormwater system is eliminated; there is most likely going to be some increased construction inspection and enforcement costs; staff is working closely with Land Development staff in order to develop additional provisions for control of erosion and sediment transport in the stormwater system; and the other major issue is total maximum daily loads. He stated the Clean Water Act mandated that for water bodies that were impaired, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will set total maximum daily loads; it is moving forward in setting total maximum daily loads for two segments of the St. Johns River and the Lagoon; the mandate from a federal perspective is going to result in the County’s need to increase the amount of construction of retrofit projects in order to reduce the entire load from the watersheds to receiving water bodies; and the Board at some point in the near future may wish to consider redirection of some of the stormwater utility funds that are currently being utilized for flood control back to water quality improvements. He noted under the Total Maximum Daily Load Program each new development which occurs is only about 80% effective in removing pollutant loadings, so with each new development, there is a slight increase in the amount of pollutant load that is going to receiving water bodies; and this is what drives the need to do these retrofit projects. He stated in some communities, the lack of ability to reduce those total loadings has resulted in a mandate that new development could not occur; and this is a trend staff has to carefully watch, including looking at the stormwater and drainage network associated with County operations in a holistic manner. Mr. Jones stated the Department has no duplicative or redundant services; it is the only one that is in the process of constructing water quality improvement projects to address older developments; it frequently partners with the State or federal agencies; they are not out there actively trying to make up for some of the issues that have been created by the past development practices; and the Department is the only program that is funding large-scale capital improvement projects on the County-maintained drainage system. He noted the Department also has the only program that responds to citizen inquiries regarding water quality issues; and it is the only program coordinating with State and federal governments on the NPDES and total maximum daily load issues. He stated the Board originally identified $7.5 million in Constitutional Gas Tax bond proceeds toward transportation-related drainage improvements; it also reallocated $4 million of that to land acquisition for the Pineda Extension; the program has been very successful with respect to leveraging the dollars on the assessment side; and as a result, the County has been able to eliminate the need for the $4 million. He noted there are some additional factors that have come into play; the City of Melbourne has elected not to participate in one of the large projects that was associated with the Crane Creek study; due to the fact that a good portion of the project was associated with re-plumbing some of the Melbourne system, it has also led to lack of the need to reallocate the $4 million; and staff is going to continue working with West Melbourne towards providing projects within the Crane Creek basin. Mr. Jones stated staff also had some interesting discussions with the Florida Institute of Technology (FIT) regarding its moving forward in terms of a master drainage plan for the entire campus and the possibility of doing a large scale retrofit project for the basin in which West Melbourne and the County could participate in.

Commissioner Pritchard requested Mr. Jones explain total maximum daily loads. Mr. Jones responded the primary issues in both the Indian River Lagoon and St. Johns River are excess nutrients and suspended solids; those are the primary targets; a lot of that has been created by uncontrolled development, which occurred over a long period of time; a lot of drainage canals were constructed without any type of stormwater treatment; and a lot of development occurred, especially in the boom period during the time Kennedy Space Center was getting geared up. He noted it basically has no stormwater management; in order for the pollutant loads to be reduced, and the nutrients and suspended solids are the targets that have been selected, the County is required to reduce the loading to what has been identified as healthy for the system; and currently, there is an unhealthy amount of pollutant load going into the St. Johns River and the Indian River Lagoon. He stated in order to meet the regulatory target that the federal government is proposing, the County will have to reduce the loading from existing development.

Chair Higgs inquired if the County went from the 80% cleanup to 90%, in terms of the size of a pond or the pre-post regulations, would it go to two inches or one and a half inches. Mr. Jones responded for new development activities, it is likely to result in an increase in pond sizes of about 15% to 20%; and it would also go a long way toward helping to offset some of the additional volumes of water that new development is discharging and bring the County back in balance from a quantity perspective as well. Chair Higgs inquired when would the County see that kind of issue. Mr. Jones responded right now under a stipulated settlement to a federal suit brought by EPA, it has been required by the federal court system to propose those load reductions; it has met its timeline and requirement of the federal lawsuit and proposed such load reductions; County staff, as well as the staffs of many municipalities, have been active in discussing with EPA on the proposed loads; and the latest thing the County has heard from EPA is that it has received significant comment. He stated there was a provision in the federal settlement that if significant comment was received, the EPA may defer implementation; since the State of Florida and EPA have negotiated an agreement with respect to how total maximum daily loads will be set in Florida, and since the State identified the issue as being for the Lagoon, the State may inherit back the responsibility; and the County will have about a four-year period to participate in the setting of daily loads.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if a new development comes in and does everything according to the requirements, it only handles 80% of the problem; the more that is developed, the further behind the County gets; it does not collect enough transportation fees; and inquired is there a way the County can bring about things so the impact will not be such that it is moving backwards. He noted if there is, perhaps it would be wise for Mr. Jones to put it into memorandum form for the Board; it is going beyond the budget, but is a budget issue; somehow developers are coming in and able to sell a product to somebody from out-of-state at a lower price; and the people of Brevard County have a degradation of their quality of life or increased cost. Mr. Jones stated he will provide a memorandum to the Board; and part of the problem with getting 100% reduction is technology-based. Commissioner Scarborough suggested not going 100%, but what is cost-effective. Chair Higgs noted forward steps in the 10% and 15%, getting toward the 100% is where the County can go.

Commissioner Carlson stated what Commissioner Scarborough is talking about is preventative. Commissioner Scarborough noted the County finds that as development occurs, it becomes more and more of a problem to handle it; it becomes more costly; the County buys the most expensive land along the Lagoon trying to capture the water; and the best place to hold the water and handle the problem is on the development. He stated it is the cheapest and most effective way; and it also has the greatest potential to recharge the groundwater, which helps in times of drought by recharging shallow wells and letting people irrigate.

Chair Higgs inquired is it a 15% to 20% increase in the size of retention ponds. Mr. Jones responded that increase is probably going to result in the cost benefit breakpoint; and he will provide the information in a memorandum to the Board.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much of the whole problem throughout the County is caused by new or existing construction. Mr. Jones responded the biggest issue in the County is all of the development that occurred back when Kennedy Space Center was gearing up; it occurred at a time when there was not a lot of regulation to control; and although new development has a small percentage of the increase, the biggest issue and the biggest degradation has occurred due to uncontrolled development during the boom days. Commissioner Pritchard stated there has been discussion on stormwater catch basins; there are huge pipes that are draining the rain runoff directly into the canals; and inquired is there ever going to be a program in place that will have a catch basin, weir, or something that will stop the pollutants from running directly off the highways. Mr. Jones responded the County has encouraged DOT to actively pursue a more aggressive sediment control program; many of the outfalls in Commissioner Pritchard’s District are DOT outfalls; the Stormwater Utility Program has an active sediment control device implementation program; and staff has implemented some 300 sediment control devices and operates a full-time truck, which periodically services those devices. He stated sediment control is not the total issue; in terms of the Lagoon, there are suspended solids and nutrient loads, which block light penetration; in District 2, sediment control is a big issue; and there are so many short runs of improved rights-of-way or properties directly to receiving water bodies. He noted the County’s program in that area has been a lot more significant. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is not always the new kid on the block creating the problem; the old stuff is creating probably in excess of 90% of the problem; the homeowners with the fertilizers and grass clippings are all contributing; and everyone needs to realize what they are doing is increasing the maximum daily loads. He noted Mr. Jones used a term “unhealthy pollution”; and inquired does that imply there is healthy pollution. Mr. Jones responded there is a certain load that any one of the receiving water bodies can assimilate; even runoff from undeveloped property has a certain nutrient load; unfortunately, the activities that mankind undertakes on a day-in and day-out basis have impact; and in terms of an unhealthy load, a better way to say that is above the load that the water body can withstand. Commissioner Pritchard stated Department Goal D, “Improve water quality in the Indian River Lagoon and St. Johns River”, and the various objectives and strategies included dates of July and September, 2003; another example was, “Complete stormwater inventories for unincorporated Brevard and identify and screen stormwater outfalls for elicit discharges, etc.”; and inquired have they been completed. Mr. Jones responded all of those are multi-year projects; the County has an active elicit discharge screening program and structure inventory program; it is about 75% complete on the major inventory structures; and it has developed a program to monitor over a three-year period all of the discharges to receiving water bodies for illicit controls. Commissioner Pritchard stated concerning the issue of what the County is doing to the environment through its neglect and ignorance, having a new development put in a retention pond is going to be good for that; and inquired what is it going to do about the existing problems it has, including leaching septic tanks and drainage canals that are running straight into the river. He noted if it is 90% of the problem, then the County needs to start addressing it aggressively, if it means providing an incentive for someone to change out a septic tank because there is no sewer available and buying into it; and inquired have any of these programs been reviewed and implemented. Mr. Jones responded the stormwater utility fee structure is set up with a credit program; the program is associated with a recognition that there is a continued cost associated with the ongoing maintenance and operation of a stormwater management system; credits are automatically issued to newer developments; and staff sees that as an incentive basis. He stated the County learned long ago that much of the agricultural discharges are primarily pasture land; they are very low intensity; rather than trying to build projects to resolve those issues, the County has heavily encouraged the agricultural industry to work within the NRCS Program to proactively limit and reduce pollutant loadings through good management practices on the land; and in terms of the septic tank system issues, stormwater treatment methodologies to date have not been extremely successful in terms of bacterial-type issues. He noted the County is starting to see some ozonation-type treatment in areas that are problematic from a bacterial prospective; from a nutrient perspective, if the County has areas where long ago septic tank permits were issued where it would not today, some proactive program could help in that regard; there has not been a clear linkage made through the Department of Health or through the efforts that St. Johns River Water Management District has undertaken associated with the level of the problem with septic tanks; and on Merritt Island, there are multiple streets, which are bordered on each side by canals. Mr. Jones stated some of the streets are sewered and some of them are not, even though sewer has been available in the area for a long period of time; there is opportunity for the County to selectively pick out those areas and try to fix some of the older problems; and it is probably where the biggest bang for the buck would come.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired when did the County implement stormwater fees; with Mr. Jones responding approximately 1990 or 1991 in two Districts, and 1991 or 1992 in the other three Districts. Commissioner Scarborough noted the County has put in a number of projects; with Mr. Jones responding approximately $23 million worth of projects. Commissioner Scarborough inquired has Mr. Jones seen any improvement in the Lagoon due to the expenditure of those funds. Mr. Jones responded without question there has been an improvement due to those projects; in the Sykes Creek area, the County has seen dramatic improvements in water quality; part of it has been as a result of the cessation of discharge of wastewater; and staff has implemented a lot of stormwater management projects in the basin, but the County does not get an immediate cause and effect result because of the size of the water body. Commissioner Scarborough stated this is something that is not new; the County is beginning to see favorable movement; even though it had some uncontrolled development when the space program was young, due to the Stormwater Management Program, the County has at least stopped the deterioration; and there are signs of improvements, which indicates there are methodologies that work, and he finds it encouraging.

He noted whether the County can tweak it and make it better, that is what it is here to do.

Chair Higgs stated during the Hurricane Erin period there was extensive flooding in Crane Creek and a real concentration of activity and concern about improving the outfalls; and Mr. Jones indicated the County is not moving forward with Melbourne, but West Melbourne. Mr. Jones noted staff had previously been requested to revisit the overall Crane Creek study; it implemented one project, which was probably the most significant flood control project in the basin; the country club bridge was a joint project between Melbourne and the County; but the City of Melbourne has elected not to participate in one of the projects that were identified within the Crane Creek basin. He stated the project was in the Hickory ditch portion of the overall watershed; and it was about a $3 million project and included acquisition of about 15 acres. Chair Higgs requested staff provide additional information to the Board on the issue; stated the County did a lot of study in regard to Crane Creek; there are a number of components to it; and she was not aware that staff was not going to proceed with the Hickory ditch. Mr. Jones noted it only recently became aware of that also. Chair Higgs stated the Board needs to be updated on the issue as the project is important in both Districts 3 and 5.

Glenda Busick stated she was here in 1990 and 1991 when the first stormwater impact fee was put in place; and inquired what was the purpose of such fee. Mr. Jones responded the primary purpose of the utility and where the majority of the funds have been spent are in retrofit projects associated with older development. Ms. Busick stated how the people were sold on it was to help clean up the water off of property. Mr. Jones noted that is what he means by retrofit projects. Ms. Busick inquired what about the flooding that occurs with existing and old projects; stated when the fee was put on, she did not think it was to fix flooding in communities; and it was only for normal stormwater runoff. She inquired why is the money being spent for flood control, and is there a way for the people who live in those areas to be told they need to pay a fee to fix the flooding in their areas since they bought in a certain community that has concrete and the water cannot flow off correctly. She noted it is not her problem and development did it; and inquired how much money goes toward flood control. Mr. Jones responded when the program was first adopted, he was not here; the material he has seen identified flood control and water quality improvements; there was an emphasis on water quality improvements; and the Board directed staff that one-half of the stormwater utility fund revenues would be utilized for flood control and one-half would be used for water quality improvements. Ms. Busick stated that is the opposite of what she was told.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was a major flooding event in North Brevard; a lot of people there supported using the revenues to control flooding; the County hoped to combine the two; and it is dealing with water in a holistic sense. Ms. Busick inquired is there any way the Board could deal with existing communities having flood problems; stated she could not understand the budget, as it started out for three people and now there are 15 people; and inquired has the program just blown up and taken on more duties than the people thought.

Chair Higgs stated Ms. Busick is correct in saying there was an assumption of more of the water quality issues initially; she was not on the Board at the time the County shifted to a more balanced approach to it; and in about 1995, it shifted to do more in response to the water quantity issues as opposed to quality. She noted the County is still in a good balance overall; the Board, by policy, could shift more into the area of emphasis on quality; she remembers the discussion and will be happy to show Ms. Busick the minutes of the meetings in 1995; and there were potentially the votes on the Board to do away with the entire program if it was not going to deal with some of the problems. She stated it was a willingness to move forward in a more balanced approach because the majority of the Board would have done away with the entire program at the time; and there was a compromise by some Commissioners, and she was one of them, to take a balanced approach in dealing with both quantity and quality. Ms. Busick stated now that the County does not have dollars, it has a problem with revenues. Chair Higgs responded the dollars are still there. Ms. Busick noted the County could do more retrofit. Chair Higgs stated it is doing primarily retrofit; but it deals with both quality and quantity of the water problems. Mr. Jones stated it is hard to divorce the two; the County will always have a combination; it is a natural fit; and in the future, as the other challenges, including total maximum daily loads, become more immediate, the Board may need to reprioritize those funds again.

Commissioner Carlson stated one catastrophic event will erase all stormwater capabilities anyway, so if the County does not handle quantity, it does not get the quality it is looking for; that is probably why the balance needed to occur; and it probably needs to go more into the quantity because from quantity, the County will get quality in the future. She noted the prospect of having Hurricane Floyd hit the County’s coast would have been an annihilation of all the projects; and it would have put it back to zero regarding inputs into the Lagoon, river, etc.

The meeting recessed at 2:30 p.m. and reconvened at 2:40 p.m.

Valkaria Airport

Valkaria Airport Manager Jim Shimkus stated Valkaria Airport is operated by three part-time personnel; they receive no benefits, other than being involved in the Florida Retirement System; such personnel provide management and maintenance oversight of all Airport facilities and assets seven days a week; the Airport is closed three days out of the year, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s Day; and the personnel provides Unicom radio airport advisory service to pilots. He noted the employees make sure that any Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) that have been approved are completed; most of the CIP require matching funds; and such employees insure that all federal, State, and local operational and environmental compliance inspections continue to be passed. He stated Valkaria Airport does not receive any ad-valorem tax revenue; because the Airport is designated as Fund 0020, it is listed as part of the General Fund; however, it operates as an independent Enterprise Fund with several revenue sources. He noted the largest revenues are grants; with $230,000 worth of grants, the Airport only provides $4,000 worth of local match money; it is because of a one-time special thing the Legislature has done where the Airport received 100% funding for security enhancements; and other revenues include fuel sales, T-hangar lease rents, and tie downs. Mr. Shimkus stated Mosquito Control Department contributes to the Airport, as does Habitat Golf Course; since the Airport operates as an Enterprise Fund, it gets to keep its balance forward; in this particular year, it is transferring out $10,000 back into the General Fund for prior year indirect costs; and in day-to-day operations, the largest expenditure is the compensation and retirement benefit. He noted capital expenditures are a large part of the overall budget of $550,000; those monies do not contribute to running the Airport and are dedicated to capital projects; over the last five years, the Airport has completed nine capital projects and has contributed $102,000 toward such projects; and it contributes $18,000 to the County for indirect costs. He stated the Airport has debt service; the Airport summary page in the budget shows a balanced budget, but it does not tell the whole story of what is going on at the Airport; and it is running in the deficit. He noted from the revenue side of the chart, the grants are eliminated as they do not contribute anything to every day operations. He stated he is required to buy fuel to sell it; he spends $100,000 to obtain $125,000 in revenues; so he gets a net toward the operations of $25,000. He stated the same concept goes with the T-hangars; they are to be self-supporting; in looking at what they contribute to the operation daily of the Airport, the debt service is deducted; and the balance available is $38,900. Mr. Shimkus noted the other revenue sources contribute 100%; there are $143,000 worth of revenues available to run the Airport on a day-to-day basis; the only thing the Airport has to contribute this year to capital expenditures is $4,000 for one project; and the aviation fuel purchases have been eliminated on the revenue side, as has the debt service. He stated net expenses are up to $158,000; the Airport is $15,000 in the red; but it does not show up on the printed budget page. He noted for the last four years, the Airport has been contributing $10,000 a year into the General Fund for prior work that was accomplished at the Airport by Parks and Recreation Department and Road and Bridge, and for indirect costs; the current fiscal year is the last year of those payments; so there will be an extra $10,000 worth of revenue available from the Airport budget; however, staff projects due to rising costs, that the Airport is still going to be about $8,000 a year short. He stated the shortage gets made up from the cash that rolls forward every year; rolling into next year is a nice number of $107,000; the reason it is so big is because this year the Airport is getting a one-time reimbursement from the State of Florida for revenues lost as a result of the September 11, 2001 event of $47,000; so it is doubling what its normal cash forward would have been. Mr. Shimkus stated it is going to put the Airport in good shape; however, since expenditures exceed revenues and will continue, any grant-matching funds and any unplanned or catastrophic maintenance is going to have to be paid from cash forward. He stated without additional revenues, the Airport is eventually going to run out of money; and how long it takes depends on the demands on cash forward.

Chair Higgs inquired where is the Airport in regard to the cost of its T-hangars compared to other airports, and has the County increased the rental rates. Mr. Shimkus responded the rental rates increased from $165 per month to $175 per month, effective October 1 this fiscal year; it was the recommendation made by the Valkaria Airport Advisory Board; it felt that dollar amount was appropriate for the type of airport Valkaria Airport is and the services it provides, as compared to other airports in the local area; and a $10.00 a year increase equates to about $3,100 annually.

Ms. Busacca stated Mr. Shimkus has identified ways that Valkaria Airport could make more money to make the shortfall. Mr. Shimkus noted the Airport would have to increase the fees for tie downs and T-hangars, but the rents from Mosquito Control Department and Habitat Golf Course are fixed by the leases the Board has generated; the Airport has been approached by some small commercial operations; a driving school wanted to lease some land on the north side of the Airport for use a couple days a week; and those would be commercial operations. He stated when staff brought those to the Advisory Board for discussion, it was felt that it was not in the line of the Policy that the Board of County Commissioners had directed for the Airport that there would be no commercial development. Ms. Busacca inquired about the option of additional T-hangars. Mr. Shimkus responded staff is investigating the construction of additional T-hangars, brought about by the interest of a private corporation wanting to lease land and build hangars; if that option were to come through, the Airport would get revenues off of the land leases; for the County to build more hangars would provide a substantial amount of revenue, almost doubling what is there; and it is about $38,000 a year now. He noted the State of Florida has answered staff’s request for an 80% grant for T-hangars and indicated it was only funding them at 50%; it also put in a caveat that it would only approve grants for projects that were approved in a master plan or an approved airport layout plan; and there are no T-hangar projects on any of those documents at this time.

Chair Higgs inquired how does the cash flow work on a 50% grant if the State were to fund it. Mr. Shimkus responded the project is for approximately 20 T-hangars, with a total project cost of about $600,000; the grant from the Department of Transportation would be a 50% reimbursable grant; the County, Airport, or whomever would have to come up with the other 50% or $300,000; and it actually has to come up with the entire $600,000 to build the project. Chair Higgs inquired if the County borrowed $300,000 to match at 50%, how would it work in terms of the cash flow and amortizing over a 20-year payback, and has staff run the numbers. Mr. Shimkus responded it is basically what the Airport is doing with the existing hangars; it provides revenue for the Airport; and net dollars toward the Airport operation is about $38,000 a year. Ms. Busacca stated staff would expect a net of about $38,000 a year.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired has staff done a comparison on the gas prices and the ability to bring in more revenue. Mr. Shimkus responded staff does a survey from Vero Beach to Arthur Dunn Airport; Valkaria Airport’s budget is 50 cents a gallon markup on fuel; the price just increased with fuel delivery; and it had to increase its price by almost 10 cents to get the 50-cent markup. Commissioner Scarborough inquired within the market, is Valkaria Airport in the middle of it, higher, or lower. Mr. Shimkus responded it is at the low end. Commissioner Scarborough inquired does staff want to increase it to bring in more revenue. Mr. Shimkus responded being on the low end, the word gets out that Valkaria Airport has lower fuel costs. Commissioner Scarborough noted then the Airport sells more fuel. Mr. Shimkus noted there is a tradeoff; and where the balance point is there is trial and error. Chair Higgs inquired has staff tried that trial and error exercise. Mr. Shimkus responded when the cost of Valkaria Airport’s fuel has been low, at times the Airport has been making 65 cents a gallon; the price was at $2.35 and everybody was happy with it; sometimes the Airport was making 49 cents a gallon and sometimes it was making 65 cents; and in the long run it was probably beating its 50 cents a gallon.

Chair Higgs requested staff provide the analysis on the T-hangar issue. Commissioner Pritchard stated the report indicates $2.35 a gallon for Valkaria Airport; Merritt Island is $2.65 a gallon and Space Coast is $2.70; and inquired does that sound right in today’s market. Mr. Shimkus noted the Airport had to raise the fuel cost to $2.45 per gallon. Commissioner Pritchard stated in April 2001, there was a memo about the CIP for Valkaria Airport and it listed acknowledging receipt of the Program and authorizing moving forward with a variety of things, all without requesting Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) money; and inquired why was it without requesting FAA money. Mr. Shimkus responded it was a policy decision made by the Board. Commissioner Pritchard inquired why was it without requesting FAA money. Ms. Busacca responded there were certain provisions required as part of the grant funding that the Board did not feel comfortable with; it felt it provided too much federal oversight and restrictions; so it chose not to accept the money. Commissioner Pritchard stated there are three part-time personnel at Valkaria Airport and it is open seven days a week; Merritt Island Airport runs five or six days a week; and inquired why Valkaria Airport does not have two full-time people and a five-day a week airport operation. Ms. Busacca responded the reason the Airport does not have full-time people is because it does not have to pay benefits; the part-time people are less expensive; the Airport Manager also functions as the fixed-based operator; and in the past when the County had an airport manager before Mr. Shimkus, there was a presence at the Airport because the fixed-based operator worked on Saturdays and Sundays. She noted the County has taken the revenue source that the fixed-based operator used to make that profit; now the Airport makes that profit; but in addition, it has to have a presence there seven days a week because of the fixed-based operator. Commissioner Pritchard inquired does staff find that the Airport is able to generate more revenue doing it this way; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Ms. Busacca stated the Airport was making substantially less money with a fixed-based operator.

Tourism Development Office

Bonnie King, representing Tourism Development Office (TDO), stated Rob Varley is in Washington, D.C. attending a TIA Conference; the Local Option Tourist Tax was approved by the voters of Brevard County in November 1986; the tax originally added two cents onto the bill paid by tourists for overnight stays; and visitors who rent accommodations for up to six months pay the tax. She noted the initial two cents went into effect in December 1986; in December 1989, the tax rate was raised three cents by the Board; in June 1994, the tax was raised an additional one cent to four cents; Brevard County Code allocates specific uses for the 4% tourist tax authorized by Florida Statutes; and the State allows only certain uses of the tourist tax. She stated no County budget or property tax dollars go into the TDO budget; the monies come directly from the visitor; the first two cents approved by Brevard County voters divided the revenues with 45% to promotion and advertising, 35% to beach improvement, 7.5% to capital facilities and visitor information centers, and 5% to cultural events; and the third cent is allocated by 55% to promotion and advertising, 25% to beach improvement, 15% to the Brevard Zoo, and 5% to cultural events. She stated the full fourth cent goes to the baseball stadium; the tourist tax collections were affected by the September 11, 2001 event; there was a decrease of 5.1% in 2002 and the County is now recovering; however, for each of the years, the TDO met or exceeded its budgeted revenues. Ms. King noted the Tourist Development Council (TDC) is an advisory council established by Brevard County Code; and the TDC is composed of nine members appointed by the Board. She stated the TDC’s mission statement is to promote growth, development, and quality of tourism in the County; to encourage participation by both visitors and residents in tourism-related activities; and to act as the primary body to determine direction, goals, and policy for use of the tourism tax. She noted the TDO is the staff that implements and carries out the programs to promote tourism on a national and international level; there are eight full-time employees and one part-time employee; and it seeks interns who are majoring in the hospitality industry to earn college credits while they get their on-the-job training with the TDO. She stated the TDO’s personnel costs represent $460,000 or 9.3% of the budget; and compared to a 2003 research from the Travel Industry Association showing other destination marketing organizations like the TDO with the same size budget as the TDO, they average 38% for personnel and 62% for program costs. She noted looking at TDO’s program services, it shows how staff works to implement marketing and public relations, beach improvement, capital facilities, cultural events, and visitor information center; the TDO advertises and promotes the Space Coast within the State of Florida, nationally, and internationally; it does research to find out who the customer is; and it develops a media plan and secure co-op partners. Ms. King stated the TDO positions Florida Space Coast as Orlando’s closest beaches; it places ads and tracks responses; and in 2003, it did a conversion study on select ads and got a 6.5% response rate, showing that 32% of those who responded to the advertising actually came and visited the Space Coast. She stated TDO works with the Zimmerman Agency in Tallahassee to garner publicity for the area; media missions and familiarization tours of the area are offered to travel riders; and partnerships with radio and TV stations are pursued. She noted last year, the ratio of added public relations value was 21:1; in-house, staff is responsible for a bi-monthly newsletter, maintaining a photo library, and updating marketing videos and press releases; the TDO conducts its own familiarization tours with travel agents, tour operators, and travel riders; and it promotes National Tourism Week in May, where it works with the tourism industry to select the Hospitality Specialist of the Year and the Annual Bill Solomon Portrait of Excellence Award. She stated TDO’s collateral is targeted to the markets it pursues; staff updates the official vacation planner and calendar of events, which is mailed to all who respond to the advertisements; it has collateral for the meeting planning, a production guide for the entertainment industry, nature brochures, fishing guides, and educational brochures for student groups; and it also creates itineraries that highlight the attractions, such as Lost in Space, It’s Not Nice to Fool Mother Nature, and The Big One That Got Away. Ms. King noted staff oversees the Contract with its 24-hour, toll-free answering service and its fulfillment house that mails out all requests; staff does in-house mailings as well for requests from its own toll-free line, from its website, and in-house response to its trade shows; staff attends numerous trade shows, tourism conventions, and educational seminars by themselves and with co-op partners; and it plans sales missions to reach the travel trade. She stated staff edits the Space Coast website; it seeks special e-deals from the hotel industry; it works with award vacations to package hotels with attractions; and it maintains an e-mail database. She noted it recently did a conversion study with the e-mail database and found that 66.5% visited the Space Coast; the TDO markets the film and television entertainment industry; it is one of the niche markets it pursues; and the Space Coast Film Commission provides full service to production companies with location scouting, acting as the liaison with government agencies, and stocks a photo library for location destinations. She stated staff also oversees the Contract with the Space Coast Sports Commission; it markets the Space Coast as a sports location destination; it seeks and recruits events, hosts State, national, and international sports events; and it creates new events. Ms. King stated for 2004, staff’s goal is to increase the number of inquiries generated by advertising and website by 3%, increase public relations and promotions media value by 5%, increase co-op advertising dollars by 10%, and increase visitor information center inquiries by 3%. She noted the County’s number one natural resource is the beach; staff facilitates and manages a Countywide Beach Clean-up Grant Program; it also facilitates and manages a Capital Facilities Grant Program; and staff oversees the operation of the Visitor Information Center at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex, and is currently upgrading the booth and moving its location, which will be ready in May 2004. She stated it also provides information at visitor centers throughout the State of Florida; staff works with the Brevard Cultural Alliance to fund tourist-oriented special events; and the TDO funds the debt service on the bonds issued to finance construction of Space Coast Stadium. She noted the TDO oversees the Contract with the Brevard Zoo as it finances the design and construction of the $2.5 million Africa project; it also tracks trends and issues that could affect tourism travel, world events, like SARS and the war, the economy, natural disasters, local events, and competition; and they all play a vital role when it comes to tourist travel. Ms. King stated trends in tourism direct how the TDO markets the tourism product; last minute planning and booking will continue to be the norm; people want to stay close to home; travelers are desiring to experience history and culture; baby boomers continue to generate the highest travel volume and are the most affluent; and travelers feel it is important that their visits not damage the environment, which is good news for Brevard County, as the Board is purchasing river and oceanfront properties, thus avoiding the concrete jungle-look of South Florida. She noted since September 11, 2001, the County has maintained hotel occupancy between 2002 and 2003, while Central Florida saw a decrease of 2.5% in occupancy; the County’s hotel average daily rates saw an increase of 1.7%; Central Florida saw a significant 4.5% decrease; and the TDO holding the line is due to its co-op partnership and campaign with local hotels, promoting niche markets with the diverse tourism product, and targeting the drive market, enabling the traveler that if something should happen, he or she can easily get home. She stated competition is tough; the marketing budgets of the surrounding competitors loom over the County; Daytona Beach is $1.7 million for advertising, Orlando has $7 million, Kissimmee has $10 million, and the Space Coast has $655,000; yet the outlook for tourism is bright and optimistic; and there are positive signs of recovery in the economies. Ms. King noted there is a moderation of conflicts; people want to return to normal and want to travel again; domestic leisure is estimated to grow 3.2% in 2004; and international leisure is estimated to grow 5% annually in 2004 and 2005. She stated the Space Coast has seen a recovery in the small meetings and convention business; domestic travel should improve by 4.2% over 2003; the cruise market continues to grow; and there are new market opportunities that will open this spring when A+ Tours and Tour America package the Space Coast and promote it to Hong Kong and Taiwan. She noted tourism is the County’s second largest employer; it creates a workforce of over 35,000 people; more than one person out of every six someone meets works in the tourism industry; visitors generate jobs and revenue; and there were 1.8 million overnight visitors last year, and 2.6 million day visitors. She stated they stimulated the economy with a total impact of $2 billion; the tourists helped to pay the taxes on motor fuel and gas; they paid 31% of taxes on restaurant sales; and Brevard County hotels and motels paid over $8 million in property taxes, and over $2 million in taxes to the school budget. She noted without these tourism dollars, Brevard County residents would either have to pay higher taxes or have less money for schools; over 50% of the tourist tax is invested directly in improvements along the Space Coast; over $1.5 million in capital facilities grants have been rewarded to upgrade parks, sports facilities, and performing arts centers; and $1.4 million has been used for grants for cultural events and Brevard Cultural Alliance. Ms. King stated $2.5 million was used for the initial construction of the Brevard Zoo; another $2.5 million has been committed for the construction and expansion of Expedition Africa; $15.4 million has been used for beach improvement, renourishment, and cleanup; and $8.3 million has been used to construct and improve Space Coast Stadium. She noted it is the Brevard County residents that enjoy the benefits of the tourism dollars; visitors enjoy the County’s lifestyle once a year when they are on vacation; but the residents live it, use it, and enjoy it year-round; so the next time someone runs into a visitor, he or she can thank the person for coming and improving the quality of life on Florida’s Space Coast.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what happened to eco-tourism, and where does geo-tourism come from. Ms. King responded eco-tourism is still a word nature-based, but geo-tourism is not wanting to damage the environment; and it is a good thing.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired who goes on vacation to damage or chop down a tree. Ms. King responded people like to come to Brevard County for the green affect and enjoy the beauty of an area. Commissioner Carlson requested staff provide pie charts showing the revenues and expenditures, including what has been spent and what the funds have been spent on. She stated one chart showed marketing dollars spent by other TDO’s, etc.; and inquired did staff obtain information on return on investment for those marketing dollars, and did it prove that more dollars put in equated to more tourists coming that justifies increasing marketing dollars. Ms. King responded staff can provide that information for the Board. Commissioner Carlson stated there was a lot of communication with Disney, but she did not hear anything about Disney partnerships; and inquired what has happened with all the conversations the County had with Disney. She noted it was very interested in partnering with the County and doing some things on a minimal level. Ms. King stated the County is working with Disney, especially when it comes to some media fans and things of that nature, and sharing things together; it also recently did a port-o-call video with Port Canaveral; Disney allowed the County to use it in that as well; and it is getting ready to market that. She stated the County has been asked for 2,500 of those to be issued to the top travel agents that are using Port Canaveral to be able to send those out; TDO is in the process of getting approval from Disney so its name can be included as well; so the TDO is getting there. She noted it is not where the TDO wanted it to be when it sat in the meetings a year or two ago; but there is something happening there. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the TDO is leveraging marketing dollars with the Port; with Ms. King responding affirmatively. Ms. King stated the Port is a strong partner with the County.

Water Resources Department

Water Resources Director Richard Martens stated the Department’s Strategic Plan includes a couple of issues linking new growth, which is sustainability of water resources and managing water resources to insure an adequate drinking water supply; the Department coordinates with the cities, St. Johns River Water Management District, and Brevard Water Supply Board, and has identified future supply of the drinking water for Brevard County. He stated the issue for the Department becomes having treatment facilities online to supply the needs of new growth; and the use of reclaimed water is becoming more and more important in the overall management plan. He noted the regulatory agencies, both DEP and St. Johns River Water Management District, are making that more and more of a requirement; the County is ahead of the game as it has an active reclaimed water program; and it fits well. He stated the Water Resources Department provides high quality, dependable water service; it protects public health by safely collecting and transporting wastewater; and it protects the environment with proper wastewater treatment. He noted the Department’s budget contains three programs, including the Countywide Water/Wastewater Program, Barefoot Bay Water/Wastewater Program, and Capital Improvements Program; the combined Water/Wastewater Programs/Services provide water service to about 15,000 people in two different service areas, and wastewater service to about 125,000 people in six service areas; and it is a 24-hour, seven days a week operation of pipelines, pumping stations, and treatment plants. Mr. Martens stated the Capital Program/Services is the cost center for the engineering group that supports the CIP and the system expansion process of subdivision construction and infrastructure dedication; and it is also the account location for the CIP and other financial issues, such as bond payments, capital operating reserves, and utility account deposits. He stated the County involvement in the utility system are discretionary; and a lot of the residents get water and sewer service through wells and septic tanks. He noted there is nothing that requires the County to be in that business; but once it is in the business, it is regulated like all the other utilities by the EPA and the DEP; it is not necessary that the County do this work; and there are examples of private utility ownership, with the most common being the phone company and Florida Power and Light Company. He stated in the water and wastewater business, Port St. John was formally a General Development utility; Palm Bay had a General Development utility; several years ago, the County purchased the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer System from Florida Cities Water Company; and the City of West Melbourne currently contracts the operation of its water and wastewater system to a private contractor. Mr. Martens noted all of the utilities expenses are funded through fees; service fees fund all of the daily operation and maintenance expenses, debt service, and connection fees from the CIP; and all of the unspent revenue transfers into the capital reserves for the future CIP. He explained the cost distribution of the water and wastewater services; stated overall, salaries and benefits account for about 50% of the cost; and operating and maintenance supplies account for the other 50%. He explained the cost distribution of the capital program; stated it is the funding location for the engineering section staff and day-to-day work; it is the accounting locations for the non-operating funds; and capital expenditures are the 2004 CIP. He noted the capital reserve is the savings account for future plant expansions and other CIP projects; the restricted reserves include the bond required reserves and utility deposits; those funds cannot be spent and are simply carried forward year after year as reserves; the operating reserve is the income and expense contingency; and there is the account location for the annual debt service payment. He explained the detailed departmental distribution of personnel by function, and the day-to-day functional descriptions of what they do; stated the wastewater performance measures include the FY 2003 column of results; the FY 2004 column reflect projections; and the output is simply the amount of water treated. Mr. Martens stated the first two outcomes are direct measurements of the work that relate to reliability and quality of service; the third outcome is a direct one that may impact customers; the efficiency is simply a measure of what the actual costs are per unit of service or residential unit; and there are measures for the drinking water program. He noted the County measures a lot of individual aspects of the operation, watching primarily the mechanical availability and reliability of the system; if the system is mechanically reliable, the County will be there to provide service when needed; most of the customers have enjoyed long-term stable rates in the system; and in general, increases in the revenue due to growth have kept pace with the increases and expenses due to both growth and inflation. He explained a chart of the Countywide rate projection model; stated it assumes some conservative financial situations or scenarios, including a $15 million plant expansion in 2008; where the two lines cross, a rate increase is indicated; and the model predicts a rate increase in 2009. He noted the reliability of the five-year projections is not quite as good as the reliability of one year; staff is keeping an eye on the long-term rate implications; it is the same model for the Barefoot Bay system; and it is a conservative service fee, including the operation and maintenance expense rate projections. Mr. Martens stated the model projects a rate increase for 2007; staff has watched this projected rate increase shift from 2005 to 2006, and then to 2007 over the last 18 months; it keeps the model conservative to make sure it is not surprised in the short-term; and as it gets good news over either revenues or expenses, it tends to shift the model. He noted everyone has been talking about the accelerated growth lately; the chart shows the impacts of that surge in home construction; the FY 2001 bar is representative of the growth the County has seen in the late 1990’s; and it was running at about 1,000 units per year in the Suntree-Viera area and about 1,500 units overall. He stated this rate of housing construction has prompted the County to initiate the planning of expansion of the South-Central facility sooner than planned; if growth continues at this rate, the County will have to have new treatment capacity online by 2009; FY 2004 is the projection from the actual year-to-date connections staff has processed so far this year; and it is not sure if the decrease in connections will actually pan out, or if it is some anomaly in the cycling of construction projects. He noted in order to avoid a wastewater concurrency moratorium, plant capacity must be in place before growth gets there; staff is planning it in the models and are launching them; reclaimed effluent water disposal is financially important because traditional wastewater disposal methods are no longer generally available; and the regulatory community is pushing hard to reuse and recycle as much reclaimed water as possible. Mr. Martens stated in the dry season, reclaimed water use, especially in the Suntree-Viera area, outpaces the supply; in the upcoming 2005 budget process, he is planning on proposing converting from the flat rate reclaimed water fee to a metered reclaimed water fee to help control the excessive use; reducing inflow and infiltration into the older sewer systems is staff’s primary maintenance goal and has been for several years; and it is to avoid sewer overflows during heavy rainfall events and to recover treatment plant capacity. He noted there is no redundancy or duplication in services; along the boundaries of the service areas, municipal systems are close by; new developments might have a choice of future service providers; but once the utility is in the area, there is only one utility there; so there is no one else that can reasonably provide the service. He stated the Water Resources Department is moving water 24/7.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Martens reviewed the reserves and indicated restricted reserves could not be touched and keep compounding year after year; and inquired is there anything they can be used on. Mr. Martens responded the County earns interest on such reserves; the revenue slide shows interest; staff watches the interest markets like everyone else; as interest rates increase, it goes into the rate formula and helps stabilize rates; and as the rates go down, it hurts. Commissioner Carlson noted it is like a trust fund; and the Department deals with it on an income-producing basis and does not consider using it on anything. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Martens discussed performance measurements; and inquired has staff done any comparison with Melbourne and Cocoa in terms of how well the County is doing. Mr. Martens responded staff has not done any comparisons on these types of measures; although it has been several years, staff has done two different benchmarking exercises against local utilities on the actual cost of providing water and wastewater service on a per unit basis; on the wastewater side, the County has always compared favorably; and the operation and maintenance cost per customer served was lower than all of the municipalities. He stated there are a lot of things that affect that; the County is the largest wastewater utility in Brevard; there is a certain economy of scale that is built into that; and there are eight different facilities. He noted staff has not reviewed the internal work-related performance measures with the other cities. Commissioner Carlson inquired was there any downside to not having an increase over the last 10 years in sewer rates; with Mr. Martens responding no. Mr. Martens stated the rates need to pay the salaries, electric bill, chemicals, and those types of things year in and year out; in the capital program, impact fees fund the growth; and the Department has met the needs on those accounts. Commissioner Carlson noted reclaimed water is a big deal; going to the metering issue to balance that out is great; and inquired has staff reviewed all avenues in terms of whether it is efficiencies or different techniques to produce as much reclaimed water as possible. Mr. Martens responded all of the County’s treatment plants produce reclaimed water; the South Beaches plant does not have filtration for its full capacity; one of the future projects that has been in and out of the long-term CIP planning at the South Beaches is to increase the filtering capacity to get to 100% reclaimed water; but in places like the South Beaches and Merritt Island, where most of the customers are in existing neighborhoods, the problem is that the cost of retrofitting reclaimed water lines in neighborhoods is high and prohibitive. He stated although staff has done several surveys, it has never had an approval for a reclaimed water MSBU to retrofit reclaimed water.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the problem the County also has with reclaimed water is it takes five sewer users to produce one user for reclaimed water. Mr. Martens stated it is in the dry season of April and May; in August and September it is raining and people are not using much water, so the County has water it needs to deal with; in April and May, temperatures go to 90 degrees; and the County gets virtually zero rain. He noted irrigation demand literally triples; as the County sizes its system to dispose of the water in the wet season, it does not have enough to go around for the dry season; in the dry season, his numbers are in the five to six range; and it is a significant issue the County is facing. He stated the metering of the reclaimed water primarily is to bring people back in line and keep the dry season use reasonable so there is more to go around in the dry season. Commissioner Pritchard noted he is sure a lot of people irrigate too much; the recommendation is one-half inch on one type of lawn, maybe Bermuda grass, and one inch for St. Augustine grass; and people have a tendency to flood the area and waste the water, or they use it during the day when it evaporates before it can penetrate.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is there any way to stockpile in the wet season; with Mr. Martens responding no. Mr. Martens stated it is called “seasonal storage”, saving it from September to May; the emerging technology that seems to be the best hope for this is something called “aquifer storage and recovery”, which is what the City of Cocoa is doing right now with its drinking water; in the wet season, it continues pumping water and treat it to drinking water standards; and it puts such water down into a salt water aquifer. He noted in the dry season, it pulls the water back up; reiterated the water is already treated; and chlorine is added and the water is sent out. He stated surface water storage and reclaimed water does not work very well as it tends to grow algae and needs to have significant treatment; the aquifer storage and recovery technology is something that will ultimately help the County; the City of Cocoa is pursuing a pilot project to do that with its reclaimed water; and he would like the City to be the guinea pig on doing this locally. He noted if it is successful for the City, the County will look at doing it.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the things the County hears a lot about is that it is running out of water, and by 2020 it will not have any water; the message is it will not have any cheap water; it will never run out of water as long as there is the ocean and desalinization plans; and the County currently pays about $1.75 for 1,000 gallons of water. He noted it may increase to $3.00 if the County used desalinized water; he can see a benefit to using such water as it is not going to disrupt the water table and may encourage people to be more frugal and ecology-minded; and requested Mr. Martens give his perspective on desalinization plans and projects, and the potential for having the power plants on the Indian River using their water as it is discharged because the warmer water will desalinize easier than ambient water. Mr. Martens responded the St. Johns River Water Management District has identified both Reliant Energy and Florida Power and Light (FP&L) Company plants in Port St. John as a potential source for up to 60 million gallons a day of drinking water desalinated from the Indian River Lagoon; that is about equal to the total County freshwater demand right now; there are some technical reasons to co-locate desalinization plants with power plants; and the efficiency of desalinization to reverse osmosis is higher. He noted if the water is a little bit warmer, the County can use it as a marketing campaign that is preheated the water to the water heater; the issue of the concentrate disposal or leftover salt after reverse osmosis is more easily handled when it is being blended with the huge quantities of thermal discharge from the power plants; there is considerable skepticism among the local technical community that the Indian River Lagoon can support that type of withdrawal; and through the Water Supply Board, the County is just starting the process now of facilitating a mass balance study on low salinity projects. He stated the Water Supply Board is going to be involved in it; before anything else is done on the power plant desalinization issue, the local technical community wanted the question resolved of is there enough water in the Indian River Lagoon to support those type of withdrawals; certainly there is some amount of water that could consistently be withdrawn from the Lagoon for public water supply; and 60 million seems like a large number. He noted the question comes down to at what point would the yield make the project not be worthwhile. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Martens mentioned the excess salt that would be extracted from the process; and inquired would there be the potential for marketing the salt and using it for water softeners or that type of product. Mr. Martens responded no as it is still mostly water; just removing the water would be a tremendous cost; all the communities along Florida’s coast are looking at the same problem; and if there was a way to dry it and it became a product, everyone would have it and the supply would be tremendous.

Commissioner Colon stated it is important to have cooperation with the Water Supply Board; it is crucial for the entire County to be part of it; the only time it seems people are coming together is when there is a controversy; and it is a shame. She noted she brought numbers to the Board last week that were scary when she went to the meeting in Orlando; Apopka is a community that is growing fast like Palm Bay; it has 225,000 people using 13 million gallons of water per day; and inquired who is focusing on the education part. Mr. Martens responded the Conservation Committee is made up of representatives from all five of the County’s water producers, partnered with the St. Johns River Water Management District; it made a presentation on its local water conservation efforts; it sponsors the Florida Friendly landscape seminars and shower head exchange programs for low-volume shower heads; and it has done poster campaigns on water conservation, and produced a 15-minute video aimed at school children on water conservation. He stated the County also partners with St. Johns River Water Management District every year on the water conservation commercials on television; the City of Cocoa and several of the local utilities also contribute to it; the Conservation Committee is ongoing; and next week, he, one of his representatives, and some of the cities will be attending a meeting in Port Orange where the St. Johns River Water Management District is considering some new water conservation program that it is interested in getting input on. He noted the District is serious about it; the big area where the County has to save water is irrigation practices in the dry season; April and May irrigation demands on the potable water system always spike; and probably the most potable water can be saved by education on how to properly take care of lawns.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many inches of rainfall are typically at Viera annually; with Mr. Martens responding 45 or 50 inches. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County does not lack for water; it is how it manages water; at an East Central Florida Regional Planning Council meeting, there was discussion about a lake going dry in Lake County; it was going to have a golf course; and the golf course had the potential of destroying a lake. He noted it was not the development, it was the golf course; a lot of these things have some tremendous impacts; he believes a part of the problem is the County fights itself; and in the wet season it gets rid of the water, and in the dry season it uses its drinking water to water golf courses, etc. He stated it basically has created the dynamics; and inquired how much of a spike does the County get at one of its water plants from the wet season usage of potable water to a very hot dry day like in May. Mr. Martens responded at the Mims system, the annual average is around 750,000 gallons of water per day; in May there are days that go to 1.1 and 1.2 million gallons; it does not work that way in Barefoot Bay as there are a lot of people who go up north in the summer; and they leave before then. Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is a system is bought and designed for a few hot dry days to be able to water plants; while there are a lot of objections to utilizing the shallow aquifer, every inch is getting four feet of water a year; and if the County does not move it to Mr. Jones’ expensive system to the Lagoon and try to capture it by buying land rights along U.S. 1, but contains the water where it can go back into the aquifer, some of these problems would not exist as the County could move people into using the shallow aquifer for irrigation and get them off primary systems. He noted he has had people call him about desalinization and there is a lot of concern; the Lagoon itself is a body of water that vacillates greatly in its salinity; Laurilee Thompson told him there are some places near Kennedy Space Center with super saline when the Lagoon dries up as there is not body movement; and the danger is the Lagoon in that particular area does not have any tidal flow. He stated there is a constant build up; it can hit a dramatic peak when there is a particular dry season; the Lagoon is almost like a lake as sometimes when there is a lot of rain, the salinity decreases and docks will almost go under water; and over a period of time, through evaporation and the movement out to Haulover Canal to the north, down the Lagoon, and finally through Sebastian, it dissipates, but very slowly. He stated there is the potential of degradation to the point of an environment that no seagrass lives; it is the study that is going to be taken place; such study, unfortunately, is how big the plant can be; so it is not a question of whether the Lagoon is going to be damaged, but what can be forced on the Lagoon; and that philosophy concerns him. Commissioner Scarborough noted $20 million is being spent to keep stormwater from going to the Lagoon and protecting it; the County had a desire to get freshwater from Osceola County; it was told it was its water and the County could not go there; and it fought it. He stated finally the Legislature abolished the authority; the City of Cocoa many years ago went to Orange County; Jake Barnes, an attorney in Tallahassee, suggested the County keep the desalinization on the coast and give Cocoa the water facility in Orlando; and his thought was now the Lagoon is going to be destroyed, the County has the potential of buying the more expensive desalinized water, and the Cocoa system is being acquired. He requested the County watch it as the verdict is still out; and stated sometimes regionalization can stink.

Chair Higgs stated the County sent her to Orlando to the first Water Summit; it showed the lines coming from the County and going to Orlando; the irony of them coming for the County’s water and what it went through in the early 1980’s with the Board talking to Osceola County about getting water, was too much; and she is in favor of being cooperative, but not to the point of degrading the County’s resources and quality of life to be a friendly neighbor. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to be fully engaged on the issue; the County is proceeding slowly; there is a lot of public participation and discussion; and it wants to make sure it is not just a fast-track for somebody to come to Brevard County. Chair Higgs requested staff keep the Board informed so it is kept up-to-speed as the issue is an important one. Mr. Martens stated as staff develops the RFP, he will see that the County clarifies it is not trying to determine how much can it force on the Lagoon, but what is the safe yield of a reverse osmosis system without impacting the Lagoon. Chair Higgs stated that is the measure. Mr. Martens noted staff will make sure it comes out loud and clear in the scope of work to the study.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the discussions indicated that Brevard County was going to have a significant water problem around the years 2020 or 2025. Mr. Martens stated the Greater East Central Florida area and the Greater Orlando area has its reliance on the groundwater in Orange and Seminole Counties; Brevard County is lucky it has the St. Johns River and has accepted it as a source, which the people in Orlando have not; they consider it a yuck factor with drinking river water; and the County’s danger and long-term water supply is that someday in the future the yuck factor will go away and those Greater areas will come over to their eastern boundary and want to develop a large St. Johns River water supply that might impact the County’s ability or water it had planned on for its future. Commissioner Pritchard stated it was either Orange County or Orlando that talked about putting a water main all the way to the Atlantic Ocean; and the comments were “our Ocean.” He noted Hillsborough County and Tampa Bay have a huge desalinization plant; the issue that Brevard County is going to be out of drinking water is not really an issue; the issue is it is going to be running out of cheap drinking water; so it is a question of how well it manages the resource.

Chair Higgs stated Central Florida is running out of water; the County is in fairly decent shape; and Central Florida is under pressure. Commissioner Pritchard noted Central Florida is under tremendous pressure; and Brevard County has an issue and needs to address it. Mr. Martens stated it is true for everybody; and water conservation and saving the drinking water for drinking purposes is the underlying issue that everyone needs to remember.

Ms. Busick stated a person can put a septic tank on one-quarter of an acre and it is State law; she is concerned about septic tanks affecting the groundwater supply; and inquired can the Board increase the lot size to one-half acre so there are not so many septic tanks. She noted it also needs to address the problem with growth about so many houses being built. Mr. Martens advised currently septic tanks are regulated by Florida Department of Health; it will allow a septic tank on one-quarter acre lot; the minimum space is 10,400 square feet, if public water is available; and it is one-half acre lot if it is on a well. He inquired could the Board adopt an ordinance that would increase the area requirements.

County Attorney Scott Knox responded the general rule is the County could be more restrictive, so the Board could probably adopt such an ordinance. Mr. Martens stated most of the places in the County where septic tanks are going in now, the lot sizes are already big, such as the Micco area, Valkaria, Scottsmoor, and Mims; but Port St. John and Palm Bay are developing on the minimum size lots. Chair Higgs stated Palm Bay is doing it based on its Agreement with DEP over 20 years ago. Ms. Busick inquired can it be changed; with Chair Higgs responding it is an Agreement that was made years ago. Commissioner Pritchard stated there are at least two types of septic systems, aerobic and anti-aerobic; an aerobic system has a bacteria that is much more coefficient filtering the waste; and it produces a cleaner effluent. Ms. Busick stated people are selling water and making money on it; it is no problem for them to try and pipe water in; and inquired do they have to have water before they can get a septic tank permit. Mr. Martens responded it has to do with lot size; and if someone has city water or a public water supply, he or she can put a septic tank on a smaller size lot. Ms. Busick stated she would like to know where each Commissioner stands on the issue; the water deal is not just in her lifetime, but the County has to look out for more than its lifetime in the future about water; some people can say the County has water or does not have it; and if the cost of the water could be increased, then people will use it less. She recommended the cost of water be increased; and inquired how can the Board do that. Commissioner Scarborough responded one of the theories is to have a base rate so the average person is not hit; but if someone uses an extraordinary amount, the rate could be increased; it is like a penalty; and the Board has discussed the issue from time to time. Mr. Martens stated in 2002, the Mims water rate system was a four-tiered conservation rate that kept the price per thousand gallons for the average user at a reasonable rate; the more water used, the higher the unit cost increased; and if one uses the drinking water system to water the lawn in April and May, he or she will see it on their water bill. Commissioner Carlson inquired can it be done system-wide; with Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer responding there are only two water systems and the other system is Barefoot Bay. Commissioner Scarborough stated this came out of a citizens committee; and it is the community that agreed to put it on themselves, which was good to see. Ms. Busick stated water is one of the biggest deals; and inquired how does the County protect its water. Chair Higgs responded it is an interesting question; the County went through a lot of discussion about that; St. Johns River Water Management District has a certain function in regard to consumptive use; and the County felt it had some function in regard to its facilities. Attorney Knox stated the County had not control over the right to withdraw water; it is something the St. Johns River Water Management District has governed; however, the County enacted a Special District Ordinance that covers the entire unincorporated area of the County and allows the Board, sitting as the District Board, to consent to any expansion of facilities of the water or sewer variety in the County. He noted if anybody were to try to come into Brevard County with new lines or new wells, the Board would have to approve it.

Chair Higgs stated the Board has no control over what comes out of the ground; the St. Johns River Water Management District sets the consumptive use permit for any user; in the unincorporated area of Brevard County, if someone wants to come in and put in a facility, the Board has a Water/Sewer District and an Ordinance established that it has the right to make decisions in regard to the facility; but it cannot control the consumption, only the infrastructure. Ms. Busick inquired could the Board say no to the facility; with Commissioner Pritchard responding affirmatively. Chair Higgs stated that is in the unincorporated area; and within the cities, most of the cities have a water and sewer district of their own. Commissioner Carlson stated as an authority, it is not mutually exclusive, it is inclusive, with the County and cities sitting at the same table; so if a facility were to be brought up, everyone would sit at the table. Chair Higgs noted that is not correct; in the unincorporated, the Board sits as the Board of the Water/Sewer District in the unincorporated area; and it is not inclusive. Commissioner Carlson inquired what if a facility comes into the incorporated area; with Chair Higgs responding that is the city councils’ responsibilities. Commissioner Carlson inquired where does the Water/Sewer District have any leverage; with Chair Higgs responding in the unincorporated area only.

Mr. Jenkins stated the largest water utility in Brevard County is getting its water in Orange County and shipping it over here; and it is an issue it has to remember.

PERMISSION TO SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE SESSION, RE: COURTNEY ROBERTS AND
CAROL ROBERTS V. BREVARD COUNTY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to schedule an executive session on March 2, 2004 at 11:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, for the Courtney Roberts and Carol Roberts v. Brevard County case. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO OBTAIN INFORMATION, RE: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to provide information to the Board concerning the full fare on the transportation impact fee. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: BUDGET WORKSHOP (CONTINUED)

Chair Higgs stated there are four groups left that are scheduled to give presentations; and inquired does the Board want them to come back at a later budget workshop. Commissioner Pritchard suggested such groups come back and be scheduled first on the agenda for the next budget workshop.

Kim Zarillo stated the largest cost is labor; job sharing is something to think about, as well as shared positions between departments; Office of Natural Resources Management and Regional Stormwater Utility Departments overlap in several areas; and such Office is often looked upon as something that is expendable, but it is very important to the County and under-utilized. She noted it could be used more; energy cost and alternative sources of energy need to be considered; in some County departments, energy cost are increasing; one alternative source of energy includes solar energy; and FP&L Company is embracing it. She stated under progress energy, it asks if someone wants to participate; for every $9.75 and 10,000 people it can put together a solar plant; the Florida Solar Energy Center is here; and it is done in other parts of the country and is not new technology. She noted it can decrease cost considerably; there are State-matching incentive programs; she has a photovoltaic system on her home; and it works quite well. Ms. Zarillo noted Parks and Recreation Department has a lot of energy increased cost; with continued construction as part of the referendum, the County is going to see that more; and looking at the issue is quite feasible. She stated the up-front expense may be more; labor and operating expenses continue to grow; the County has landscaping in several Departments and is working at cross-purposes; and with a landscaping program, where it may seem attractive to the uninformed observer, the County is setting up a situation where maintenance costs will increase because it is using material that is more expensive as it is imported to the area, and also using water. She noted it should be minimized; and the landscaping should cost less in maintenance rather than more.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Ms. Zarillo mentioned she has a solar system for her home. Ms. Zarillo advised she has a photovoltaic system and solar hot water. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what does it power; with Ms. Zarillo responding it could power about 50% of the energy needs in the home. Ms. Zarillo stated her lowest bill was $19.00 for about 3,400 square feet.

Ms. Busick stated the presentations and answers were great and she is glad the Board is doing this; she did not hear where the County can perhaps cut expenses; and inquired can there be a list of all travel expenses that each department has and the total of all publication costs by department. She noted the County has Space Coast Government Television and e-mail to communicate; and inquired why does it need publications, and is there a standard on when a vehicle is repaired and do they reach 150,000 miles before a new one is purchased. She inquired how often does the County replace computers versus putting a new part in, and what about the County’s cell phones. She stated she could not find the funding for the Economic Development Commission (EDC) anywhere; TDO mentioned it funds the debt service on the Stadium; and inquired how much is owed on the Stadium and can the tourist dollars pay for all of the Stadium. Mr. Jenkins stated the tourist dollars do pay for the Stadium. Ms. Busick inquired when is the school impact fee issue coming back before the Board. Mr. Jenkins responded there will be another workshop; the County’s consultant indicated he needed about 30 days to get the Board the information it requested; and it may need a week or so to digest such information. Commissioner Colon stated the issue should be back the first week in April 2004.

Commissioner Pritchard thanked Ms. Busick for her suggestions; and inquired what about professional and social memberships. Ms. Busick noted that is true; and inquired what does the County pay for them. Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Jenkins has been proactive in regard to travel for the departments; and the County has addressed the issue.

Chair Higgs stated the Board appreciates the presentations and will hold another budget workshop on March 11, 2004.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.

ATTEST:
__________________________________
NANCY HIGGS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
______________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)