July 26, 1995 (spe)
Jul 26 1995
The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on July 26, 1995, at 9:05 a.m. in the Government Center Multipurpose Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Mark Cook and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox. BUDGET PRESENTATIONS
Court Administrator Mark Van Bever introduced Chief Judge John Dean Moxley and Beth Blankenship. He advised the Court Administration budget is part of a judicial branch which is a separate branch of government; its functions are mandated by the State Constitution; its mission is to promote an efficient, timely and cost-effective legal mechanism; and it has attempted to do that for continuous improvement in customer service. He noted the budget has no program changes; there are the same number of positions requested in next year's budget as in the current budget; although case loads are increasing, Court Administration is not requesting additional funding; and it is its intent to do what it can to absorb those kinds of increases through productivity gains. He stated there are three primary reasons for budget changes between FY 1994-1995 budget and the budget being reviewed now; in the current year budget, the Board gave a mid-year cost-of-living adjustment, increasing salaries for part of the year; in next year's budget, those salaries will be at that increased level for a whole year; last year, there was a vacant law clerk attorney position; during the budget process, Court Administration agreed to hold that open for several months to help the Board with its budget last year; and that position is in the budget for 100% of next year's budget. Mr. Van Bever advised there is a civil traffic infraction hearing officer program which has been approved by the Board that is in next year's budget; and those are the three primary reasons for the budget change from one year to the next.
Chairman Higgs inquired how much is the traffic hearing officer going to cost; with Mr. Van Bever responding $25,200 for the Court Administration side and then the Clerk's budget would also have a piece of it. Chairman Higgs stated there is $413,000 established for new furniture and things when Court Administration goes into the Justice Center. Mr. Van Bever responded that is Fund 47, the Judicial Branch budget; Fund 35 includes court costs; and the $413,000 is put aside in the capital reserve for needs associated with the move, capital and local area network, etc. in the new courthouse. He stated that budget receives no Board funding; it is completely self-supporting; and there is a court facilities filing fee.
County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Court Administration has been saving that money over a period of several years in anticipation of moving to the new facility. Chairman Higgs inquired how much is in the traffic budget for judicial; with Mr. Van Bever responding approximately $13,000. Chairman Higgs inquired how much is A, B and C; with Mr. Van Bever responding A and B are $13,000, and C is $10,000. He stated $9,500 is for mileage and $500 is for Class C meals. Chairman Higgs noted it is $23,000 total; with Mr. Van Bever responding affirmatively.
Commissioner Scarborough stated Facilities Management is going to be moving people; and inquired can the Board get a big picture rather than piecemeal on how much it is going to cost and what is entailed. He noted the Board needs to receive a big picture breakdown of all costs for moving.
Mr. Van Bever stated none of the budget on Page K-29 relates to the physical pick up and move. Commissioner Scarborough noted the Board needs to understand it as it is a one-time activity; and it needs to segregate one-time activities.
Chairman Higgs inquired does the Board have a listing of the equipment and furniture going in the new Judicial Center that will be paid for out of the $431,000; with Mr. Van Bever responding no. Mr. Van Bever stated Court Administration knows the types of areas that are going to require expenditure, but it has not come up with a detailed list of the equipment; this is money that has been saved; it has not been a detailed list adding up to $431,000; it will be for equipment, furniture and modifications to the structure itself; one County Court judge wants a counter in front of the judicial assistant area; and there will be some changes to the actual structure that were not in the original plan. He stated there could be something associated with local area network; it will be computers; Court Administration does not have a detailed list that adds up to $431,000, but it has earmarked areas that have said the furniture is old and needs to be replaced it; it is waiting to make sure it goes with the new courthouse; but it has not come up with exactly what is required. Chairman Higgs inquired is Court Administration going to move in with the old furniture and then purchase new furniture.
Judge John Dean Moxley responded they are going to use what is usable; beginning September, 1995, they are going to have several meetings strategically to plan who is going to do what, where, when and how; and part of the use of the Court Facilities fund is going to be that consideration, who is going to do what on what floor, what is required, and things of that nature. He noted they are at the beginning of the planning function; and they will be able to detail during the course of that planning function what needs exists.
Commissioner Cook inquired can the Board receive a breakdown of where the savings came from; stated the budget document indicates General Fund; and staff indicated this was accumulated over a period of years. He stated the Board needs a breakdown on what fund it is coming from and how this has accumulated. Judge Moxley stated traditionally the Court Facilities fund has been used to finance capital improvements, library expansions, and a lot of things the judges did not come to the Board for.
Commissioner Ellis inquired would the fund be used for computers in the courthouse; with Mr. Van Bever responding it could be. Commissioner Ellis inquired about automated courtrooms. Mr. Van Bever responded if a judge requested a computer at the bench for the judge, that would the Court Administration's expenditure; if the court clerk has a computer, even if it is in support of the judge, it would be the Clerk's expense; if a bailiff wants a computer in the court room, that would be a Sheriff's expense; but the computer for the judge in the court room or chambers would be an expense paid for out of his budget; and it is a judicial branch court facilities budget.
Commissioner Scarborough inquired how much latitude is there within Court Administration to move funds. Mr. Jenkins advised after the Board approves the budget, he has the authority to reallocate up to $25,000 within a department; and if there is a desire to move money from one department to another department, then it has to come to the Board. He noted he can go up to $25,000; then he is required to notify the Board within a short period of time of any transfers within $25,000; and trips come to the Board unless it is an emergency. Chairman Higgs requested Court Administration provide a breakdown on the out-of-state travel versus the in-state travel.
Commissioner Ellis stated the $431,000 would be General Fund money that is not tied to facilities for the judiciary; some of that money could be used for computers for the Clerk's Office; the money in Fund 35 is tied to a specific purpose; but the other cash forward has been put into Fund 35 and did not originate there; and they could be used for something else. Commissioner Ellis inquired in Court Administration, is it totally financed out of filing fees; with Mr. Van Bever responding Court Administration is 95 to 99% funded General Fund. Commissioner Ellis stated if there is cash forward for Court Administration which is funded by the General Fund, then those cash forward General Fund dollars are put into Fund 35; and the Board also supplements the Clerk with the General Fund dollars for County Court operations. Mr. Van Bever stated none of Fund 47 cash forward has been put into Fund 35; and it was before the year was over, before cash forward was generated technically that the savings were put in the capital reserve in Fund 35, knowing that expenditures were coming related to the courthouse. Commissioner Ellis inquired where are the savings from; with Mr. Van Bever responding Court Administration budget. Mr. Jenkins stated technically it was not done as part of cash forward; it happened prior to cash forward; but the source is the same; it is the same pot of money; it is a matter of saying when it was done and not where it came from; and it was done in advance of the cash forward process, but it is still the same source of money.
Commissioner Cook inquired was part of it savings from the general operating budget; with Mr. Van Bever responding yes. Mr. Van Bever stated through the supplemental budget process, Court Administration asked to put that in a capital reserve associated with its needs in the new courthouse as opposed to spending it then and finding out it does not go with what is designed later. Commissioner Ellis noted he understands that; his point is that that money, if it is not generated by filing fees, it is not specifically tied to any expenditure; and it could be used for the Clerk's computers in the courthouse.
Judge Moxley stated it could be done; money could be moved out of that for the Clerk's computers; but if there are capital expenses required for more furniture or something of that nature, there is still a problem with that. Commissioner Ellis stated he understands; and then you get down to a decision between furniture and computers. Judge Moxley stated before the County goes to an all electronic courtroom, it probably needs to investigate how much expense that might be and weigh the cost benefit analysis. Commissioner Ellis noted that is what the Board is trying to do right now; it is in the middle of that decision now for the new courthouse about the costs of automating the courtrooms; the Board needs to know how critical that is; and if it is critical, there is money in Fund 35 that can also be applied to automating the courtrooms.
Chairman Higgs inquired is there anything that would keep the Board from taking savings either in the Contingency or Art in Public Places to do the kind of upgrades being discussed with equipment for the courtrooms. Mr. Jenkins inquired is Chairman Higgs asking if the County can use the bond proceeds from the courthouse to buy computers; with Chairman Higgs responding yes. Mr. Jenkins advised the things the County spends bond proceeds on must have a life expectancy and a permanency to it versus something that wears out in a matter of several years. Commissioner Scarborough stated there are things people put in a structure that are bonded out and do not last the life expectancy. Commissioner Ellis stated the County needs an opinion if it gets in the Courthouse and there is money left in Contingency that it wants to spend on facilities for such Courthouse, what it can be used for. Chairman Higgs noted the Board needs an analysis from Court Administration on what it is going to need and its plans for the $431,000; the County needs an overall picture of the Clerk's needs in terms of automation and Court Administration's needs; and that can be put together to know what may be funded. Commissioner Cook stated the County may not be able to fund everything. Chairman Higgs noted the Board needs to know and prioritize the needs. Mr. Jenkins stated the counters Court Administration wants to build, wiring for computers, and permanent things of that nature would be eligible; and staff can provide the Board with information. Chairman Higgs noted the Board needs to understand all the needs of Court Administration and the Clerk. Commissioner Ellis stated it needs to know how critical the automation is; with Chairman Higgs responding that is going to be a matter of judgment. Commissioner Ellis noted perhaps Judge Moxley and Mr. Van Bever can meet with the Clerk about the issue. Judge Moxley stated they do not need all the courtrooms to be electronic as it is a waste; but certainly that is the future. Commissioner Ellis noted they do not want to preclude that when the courthouse is wired.
Commissioner O'Brien stated $435,000 is budgeted for new furniture and inquired what is wrong with the old furniture; with Mr. Van Bever responding some of the furniture is 20 years old, the drawers do not open properly, and some of the chairs are in disrepair; and there are computers that will not operate with a local area network because they are ancient technology. Commissioner O'Brien stated $431,000 is a lot of furniture and requested a breakdown on it. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County has a good communications office with very good employees who program computers, repair them, etc.; Court Administration may want to consider using the County's services and reimburse it; and inquired is there a problem with that. Mr. Van Bever responded it always tries that first. Commissioner O'Brien suggested Court Administration join the County into a combined system rather than have its own separate system; stated the Clerk and Supervisor of Elections have their own systems; they are not pooling their resources; a large amount of money could be pooled as a resource and probably cut by 25%; and there may be better service and better computers. Mr. Van Bever advised Court Administration uses the County's system and its employees when it can; however, it does not get the response time that a Commissioner would receive. Judge Moxley stated the Supreme Court has opted to give judges an opportunity to get on CD-ROM; and about half of the judges are doing that. Commissioner Ellis inquired is there a contract that County Administration could set up with the CD-ROM purchase to do the installation; with Mr. Van Bever responding the Supreme Court buys the CD-ROM and it also updates the CD's and pays for it. Commissioner Ellis noted perhaps Mr. Van Bever can work with Jim Deuel's office to get it signed over to Information Systems. Mr. Van Bever responded Court Administration has tried that; a couple of years ago it received very good service; but a couple of Mr. Deuel's employees support thousands of people in the County; and it is very hard to get resources when they are supporting that many people. Mr. Jenkins stated that is the area the County has increased staffing.
Commissioner O'Brien stated the court has been ordering translators at $40 per hour; with Mr. Van Bever responding it is probably interpreters for the deaf. Commissioner O'Brien noted it is also for Spanish-English at $40 per hour; if the judge orders from the bench that they can spend $40 an hour, they are going to do that; the going rate may be $12 or $15 an hour or less; the court authorizes $40 an hour for private investigators; and the standard private investigator in Brevard County gets approximately $20 hour. Commissioner Cook stated he talked to Judge Lober about this; the Board was concerned about court costs; in Juvenile Court, Judge Lober signed an administrative order that attorneys would receive $80 an hour flat fee; there might be other areas to look at; and there was a huge range between what the attorneys for juvenile were being paid for the same service. Judge Moxley requested the Board write him a letter on those areas it has concerns with, such as minimum fees, and he will review it. Commissioner O'Brien expressed concern about the costs for transcripts. Mr. Van Bever stated in regard to interpreters, Court Administration is very frugal; on interpreters, there are three sources; there is a pool of people who feel compelled to help their countrymen and their freedom; Court Administration tries them first if it can; the AT&T language line can be used to get an interpreter by telephone; if it is very short, it is cheaper to do the telephone than the interpreter; and if that does not work, then Court Administration goes with the interpreter. He stated it has negotiated rates; the best rate it can get is $20 an hour on a foreign language interpreter and $40 an hour on a deaf interpreter; it has already beat those vendors to death to try to get the costs down; it tries to get the costs down as low as it can, realizing it has been entrusted with the Board's money to run the budget; it appreciates the funding; and it does everything it can to spend that wisely. Commissioner Cook inquired does the purchase of new furniture for Court Administration go out to bid; with Mr. Van Bever responding usually it uses state contract.
Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts Sandy Crawford introduced Chief Deputy Clerk Jim Giles; advised this budget projects an increase in funding needed from the Board of $636,000 or 8.9%; the total increase in the Clerk's budget which is funded by budgeted transfers from the County Commission from fees is $440,900 or 3.6%; this budget includes two accounting positions which are requested for County Finance Department to handle the increased transaction volume and to respond to the financial information needs of the Commission and County Management. He stated for Minutes and Records, a stenographer is needed to record and transcribe Board minutes for its meetings which are projected to increase by 23% this year; there have been some changes in allocations that his Office has attempted to do over the past two and a half years to break down what portion of the Clerk's operation is Circuit and Civil so it could correctly attribute the costs to each one; the Clerk has been spending money from the Circuit area and the fees in the County area for quite some time; it has not been a problem because there have been excess fees; and at the end of the year, such fees have returned to the Commission. Mr. Crawford stated last year, the Clerk's Office had a 33% decrease in recording fees; that amounts to $550,000; this was used to subsidize some of the County Court operations; his Office has been trying to analyze those things and attribute them correctly to the right account; it is getting closer; and there are still some problems it is finding and things it is adjusting to. He noted that is the reason the County budget has increased; he cannot absorb those fees for the County Court in the excess fees that he used to have; he does not have those excess fees this year; and his Office is in a very precarious position in supporting County Court and Circuit Court with the decrease in fee amounts. He stated his Office has taken steps to reduce everything that is possible; it is very frugal in what it is doing; he has moved a lot of things with his people that would normally go to the County to move; there is nothing in the budget for any equipment, furniture or move costs to the new Courthouse; he sent a letter to the Board for the $750,000 which is the amount necessary to properly equip a modern courthouse and the technology that is there and should be usable by the courtrooms today; and his Office is supporting the judicial system extensively.
Mr. Crawford stated the Clerk's network is connected to most of the judicial assistants; it loads its programs on their systems and provides services for them if they have problems loading and using the equipment; there are several terminals and PC's in courtrooms; the jail also has one; and there is a problem in hooking up the judicial assistants in the courtrooms in Titusville because there has not been a communications line run from the six-story building to the Courthouse; so there is not a connection to put in the network. He noted there is network connected in Rockledge and Melbourne; and the Clerk's Office is supporting those terminals with the judges and judicial assistants. He noted his Office is trying to do everything it can to cut costs down; County Finance, where he is requesting two additional people, has not increased its personnel in several years; the amount of bills coming through have increased; there are more bills to pay and more things to check; and the bill folder that consisted of 803 pages took Minutes and Records two and a half hours and six reams of paper to produce for the Board. Mr. Crawford stated with the things the Board proposes, he has to look at ways to reduce what his Office does; he cannot support a 23% increase in the Board's meetings with the same number of people; so he is going to have to figure out some way to handle that. He noted he cannot support a 50% increase in paper costs which he heard about two weeks ago; there are some very serious budget problems; and there are things he will have to do to take care of those. He stated if the fees remain at the levels his Office budgeted and what the County proposes in his budget stays at this level, he will have to make do with less than what he has now and cut services back; and he has no choice. He noted there are a lot of alternatives; he has a real problem with the use of his employees in Minutes and Records after hours and their personal safety; when they are driving back to Titusville at 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m., the area where the Clerk's Office is located is not a safe place to be; and he is taking steps to handle that.
Commissioner Ellis inquired why do the employees have to drive back to the Titusville area after a meeting; with Mr. Crawford responding because they have the Clerk's van with all the equipment and documents. Commissioner Ellis inquired can the employees drive the van home and bring it back in the morning; with Chief Deputy Clerk Jim Giles responding there are usually two employees. Commissioner Ellis noted he does not understand a logistics problem on something like that, and it does not seem like it should be that hard. Mr. Crawford stated there is a cost added if he has to let his employees drive their personal cars to the Government Center; and he is not going to let them take the van home at night. Commissioner Ellis inquired why since it is a safety issue. Mr. Crawford responded his Office is trying to handle it; there are other ways of doing that; one of the ways is that after 4:30 p.m., he and Mr. Giles will come to the Government Center and take the minutes for the meeting and give it to his employees the next morning; he does not want to do that; but he may be forced to. Commissioner Ellis noted the zoning meetings have been at night forever; and inquired if there is a safety issue, why the employees cannot take the Clerk's vehicle home; with Mr. Crawford responding he does not want the Clerk's vehicle sitting at someone's house. Mr. Giles reported there has already been one incident of an employee's car being vandalized while it was parked at night at the Clerk's Office; and what the Clerk's Office is trying to work out now, with the Sheriff's permission, is for the employees to park their cars in the Sheriff's compound at Parkway when there is an evening meeting.
Commissioner O'Brien inquired would it be cheaper for the employees to drive their personal vehicles to the Government Center for a meeting and then drive directly home rather than pay them overtime to drive back to Titusville, change vehicles, and then drive home. Mr. Crawford inquired if Commissioner O'Brien is talking about the employees taking all the documents home with them; with Commissioner O'Brien responding yes. Mr. Crawford noted he does not agree with that; he is responsible for all the documents signed by him and the Chairman; and that is not an acceptable method of operation. He stated one problem is that the Board has increased its meetings by 23%; with Commissioner O'Brien responding he is trying to cut them down. Commissioner Ellis noted that does not have anything to do with the safety issue; with Mr. Crawford responding it is the issue on the person he has requested for Minutes and Records; and if the Board does not allow him that individual, he is going to have to take steps to cover without that person. Commissioner Ellis stated the safety issue is a completely separate issue; with Mr. Crawford responding that is correct. Mr. Crawford stated his Office is taking steps to handle that problem; and it has given the employees a cellular phone to use for emergency situations.
Mr. Crawford noted there are no moving costs to the courthouse included in this budget; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he would like information on all the people that would be affected by the move, including furniture and moving costs, and computer systems. Mr. Crawford stated the County is going to do all the things he needs moved from Rockledge and Melbourne to the courthouse; and he is budgeting nothing for that. Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands on the facilities that the County is responsible for the move.
Commissioner O'Brien inquired would it be cheaper to purchase a scanner and scan every bill on a disk; with Mr. Crawford responding every bill is on a scanner and has been for approximately three and a half years. Mr. Giles stated the Clerk's staff would have to put it on a CD and the Board would have to have a CD reader. Commissioner O'Brien inquired could it be on a 3 1/2" floppy disk; with Mr. Giles responding it is not big enough for scan documents, but the agenda might be. Mr. Crawford stated the cost of producing a CD has dropped significantly; his Office has been looking at bringing one in to try and do minutes and records on CD and distributing them that way; the price is coming down in a reasonable range; and vendors have provided information to his Office on that technology. Mr. Crawford stated the library is going on the Internet; and the Clerk can hook a lot of things into such system and make it available to anyone. Commissioner Scarborough noted that is what he would like to see.
Commissioner Ellis stated the General Fund transfers are more than last year; with Mr. Crawford responding yes. Mr. Crawford advised it is because the Clerk has been allocating Circuit Court funds to County things; staff has been reviewing it very carefully and trying to attribute those to each function; the Clerk has been subsidizing the County Court areas for the foreseeable past; and in today's budget with the drop in recording fees, that is not possible. He stated in the past it did not make any difference because if he subsidized the County Court and had more money from the recording fees, at the end of the year he turned it over to the Board anyhow; so it did not matter whether he used it or did not use it in the County Court area; if the funds he was getting do not come in, then he has to run those operations without the funds; and the only thing he can do is reduce people to do that. Commissioner Ellis noted he understands what Mr. Crawford is saying; but the County would do the same thing in its Enterprise funds; and if revenues decrease, it has to make cuts also. Mr. Crawford stated his Office is doing that; it has cut the Circuit Court side and the Clerk's side; but he cannot cut the side he is subsidizing on County Court. Commissioner Ellis inquired is the Clerk's Information System all funded by Circuit Court or County Court; with Mr. Crawford responding it is allocated based on the number of direct people; and such information is included in the budget information he provided. Mr. Giles explained the summary of the budget for the Clerk, including Circuit and County Court functions and various funding allocations and cost figures related to the budget.
Commissioner Ellis stated the Clerk's FY 1996 request is $12.7 million total for Circuit and County Courts; with Mr. Giles responding affirmatively. Commissioner Ellis requested a good breakdown on what is being charged to County Court and Circuit Court.
Commissioner Scarborough stated the County is under funding Mr. Crawford's budget request by $342,000; and inquired what would he have to cut if the Board proceeds with this budget. Mr. Crawford responded he would have to cut services to the Board, including its support at the Commission Meetings; and he and Mr. Giles would have to attend such meetings at 4:30 p.m. He stated in County Court, he would have to cut one person out of the courtroom; he has two people in each courtroom now when court is in session; he would have to cut the number of people in the courtrooms down; and he would have to cut the service to the public when his Office answers 1,500 to 2,500 calls a day on the telephones. Mr. Crawford noted he has five less employees now than when he came into office; the funds have not gone into extra employees; his Office has increased functions, including the Value Adjustment Board, and the function from the Sheriff where he had all of the bond amounts from the jail; and his Office has increased functions and reduced the number of employees. Commissioner Ellis inquired what kind of pay increases is the Clerk budgeting; with Mr. Giles responding the Clerk's Office was told in the last two years to not submit salary increases as it is something that is determined by the Board in September as to what its policy is.
Chairman Higgs inquired are the Constitutional Officers able in different ways to work together in the multiple locations to provide some of the services; stated they have people all over the County; there may be ways to bring those resources together to have an economy of scale in providing services; there are a lot of people in different locations; and perhaps the Constitutional Officers and County offices can work together. Commissioner Ellis noted the Board needs to find out what the Clerk is going to do if the Board does not approve the total budget request. Commissioner Scarborough requested the Clerk come back to the Board with additional information.
The meeting recessed at 10:30 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 10:40 a.m.
Beth Rossman stated the State Attorney's Office has the Witness Coordination Program and Sexual Assault Victims Services (SAVS) which is the Rape Crisis Program; both of those budgets are status quo; they are basically personnel costs; in the Witness Coordination budget, the Public Defender's Witness Coordinator is added into that; in the SAVS budget, the only increase is every other year which is the expenditure for rape kits used at the hospital for rape victims; and about $6,000 is expended every other year to purchase those.
Commissioner Cook stated the County contacted the State Attorney's Office regarding expert witness fees; and inquired if it is still working on those and monitoring them. Mr. Anliker noted when one of the attorneys has a bill, they now have to send it through the division chief for approval; so there is an oversight in that direction; then they come to the State Attorney's Office; and it tries to scrutinize them the best it can. Commissioner Cook inquired are there efforts initially to try to get in-state expert witnesses; with Mr. Anliker responding it tries to use people in-state at all times whenever possible.
Chairman Higgs inquired does Mr. Russo have any way of keeping the Board advised on the number of cases he is being asked to provide services for, and keeping it up to date so it knows if the effort to relieve his Office of some of those might be working; with Mr. Russo responding affirmatively.
Commissioner Scarborough stated the Public Defender has nothing in his budget relating to moving costs to the judicial facility as he is looking at Facilities Management moving his Office; with Mr. Russo responding that is correct. Chairman Higgs inquired is there any money included in the budget for furniture; with Mr. Russo responding negatively. Mr. Crawford stated regarding the $160,000 for witness fees, it is not Clerk's money; it was never in the Clerk's budget; his Office pays the bills from County funds; and $160,000 was not given to the Clerk. Mr. Giles stated what witnesses are paid is charged to the State Attorney; the witness gets the money and not the Clerk; it is a County expense which is charged to the State Attorney; four or five years ago it was a miscellaneous court function; and the County's Budget Office decided to put it on with the State Attorney's Office because it is somewhat controlled by such Office.
Commissioner Cook stated the GIS was transferred over; and inquired is the County still looking at approximately an 8% savings; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes. Commissioner Cook noted the County is going to end up saving that over the General Fund cost; with Mr. Jenkins responding that is correct.
Chairman Higgs stated the County, Supervisor of Elections, Clerk, Tax Collector, and Property Appraiser all have offices; there has to be a way to coordinate such offices in a more effective manner; and it could save money and still deliver services.
Discussion ensued on the impact of closing various office locations, address correction services, name changes, keeping the data base current, current levels of technology, combining resources, and consolidation of different County functions.
Mr. Galey reiterated his Office is projecting to have 300,000 registered voters by book closing for the November general election; it has to go through the Presidential primary; the primary is the second primary; and his Office is going to have to process all the absentees. He noted he is not going to be able to process those absentees and still do the motor voter functions without burning his people out and doing overtime; and as things increase, the same people cannot do it all.
Commissioner Ellis stated Mr. Galey's Office has a peak busy period around an election such as July to November; from December to June, things get much slower; and inquired can Mr. Galey shift some of his staff functions from full-time to part-time people so he would have 22 people from December to June and 34 people from July to December. He noted it would be something that would happen over time; but perhaps Mr. Galey could replace some of his full-time people as they retire or leave with two part-time people, with both of them coming in during the prime period when his Office is busy. Mr. Galey advised he uses part-time people now and some volunteers on occasion; but part-time people require additional supervision as his Office cannot afford the mistakes and errors.
Office Manager Duwayne Lundgren advised this year, the Supervisor of Elections had over 28,000 transactions from the MBRA process; approximately 21,000 of those are new registrations; that represents a 244% increase this year compared to last year; and it will get at least another 100% increase in 1996.
Commissioner Scarborough stated the Supervisor of Elections is requesting approximately $1.2 million more in his budget than what the County Manager is recommending; with Mr. Galey responding $850,000 of that is his request for the precinct tabulators. Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Galey articulate in writing what items would be impacted if he does not receive the $1.2 million. Mr. Galey advised Brevard County is the last large County that still has the multiple card system; the voters have difficulty every year punching holes in the ballots; it is time for Brevard County to move forward; and other counties are switching to the new system.
Commissioner Ellis requested Mr. Galey present a cost benefit analysis regarding the system to the Board. Mr. Galey stated the County is going to continue to grow; no one worries about election results except him every day of the year; and other people only worry on election day.
Gary Garrison, District Manager of Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District, introduced Rita Hutchinson, Treasurer and Budget Administrator, stated the District handles flood control and water control in the South County; it handles day-to-day operations of over 200 miles of canals with current discharge through Turkey Creek into the Indian River Lagoon; such operations include maintenance reconstruction; and the District's major project is the Western Diversion. He noted the District is working with the Corps of Engineers and St. Johns River Water Management District on determining the flow to the west back into the St. Johns River. Mr. Garrison stated the District is requesting the Board adopt a rate for residential classification of $14.96 per residential unit; that is an annual increase of $1.36 over last year's rate; for agricultural, the rate requested is $5.24 which is an annual increase of 48 cents over last year's rate; and the request for commercial is $29.07 which is an increase of $2.64 over last year's rate.
Commissioner Cook inquired is there a breakdown on percentage; with Mr. Garrison responding it is 10%. Mr. Garrison stated such increase will fund an additional person for the day-to-day maintenance; it will also fund an additional on-going treatment of sonar, with a majority of it going into the Surface Water Management Plan which is very aggressive this year.
Commissioner Ellis inquired about the increase in compensation and benefits when the number of people are still the same; and stated something is not matching up.
Rita Hutchinson stated the District has 15 employees presently; and the request for one additional person would make it 16 employees.
Chairman Higgs noted the sonar would be used to keep the weeds down in the District's canals which will increase the ability of the canals to handle the water flow; with Mr. Garrison responding that is correct.
Commissioner Ellis stated the operating is not up; with Chairman Higgs responding it is down. Commissioner Ellis noted it is about 90 for salaries and 40 for capital. Ms. Hutchinson responded she brought several items up under operating; the equipment is getting old; parts and repairs have come up; the District is holding its own in insurance and workman's compensation, and claims are down; so part of operating is down because of that.
Chairman Higgs requested the District provide such information prior to the August 23, 1995 rate hearing and send specifics on its budget to each Commissioner.
Chas Hoyman, Chairman of the Economic Development Council (EDC), introduced Lynda Weatherman, President of the EDC, and Dan Johnson, past Chairman of the Council. Mr. Hoyman stated over the last few weeks there has been a lot of discussion about the EDC, its accomplishments, and what the Board would like to see as changes. He advised EDC's budget request is $250,000; the Council understands the significant changes going on in Brevard County in reference to jobs and employment; the EDC believes it can mount an effective campaign with the $250,000 contract from the County; however, it can do more with $400,000 or $500,000. He noted the EDC is prepared to work on the issues that were discussed, including office space; the Council is under a current lease; it is prepared to make changes with Board representation; regarding the Chamber Contracts, the Central Chamber has said it will not continue to collect that; and EDC still has to work on the Melbourne Contract. Mr. Hoyman stated the Contract is up as of September 30, 1995; and EDC is prepared to deal with all of the issues.
Commissioner Scarborough stated it is his understanding that Polk County had 20% unemployment; it was devastating; it put money toward the problem; now it has one of the most aggressive best manufacturing jobs; there is an assumption that if you do not spend money, it is still going to work; and it does not necessarily show that. He noted the Board is going to get a report from Polk County to review.
Commissioner Cook stated he is not going to throw money at a problem unless he sees there is a benefit ratio that is going to be the end result; just coming up with some arbitrary figure is not going to suit the purposes here; he wants to see results that the County is producing jobs; that is the key; whatever the County has to spend to do that is something it needs to do; but if there are no results, then that is a problem.
Commissioner Ellis noted in order to build true community support, you have to get other people's nickels in the pot. Commissioner Cook stated there is hardly anything more important than building the economic base of the County and producing jobs for people; maybe a bigger grass roots effort of getting more of the community involved is the way to do it rather than just having the big hitters at the top end; and getting more of a broad base of support in the community is something the County can look at.
Mr. Hoyman stated the EDC has been trying to accomplish that; that was the purpose of the changes over two years ago in reference to the Chambers and their Contracts; they had membership at the $250 and $200 level per member; what has happened is some of those companies that were paying $250 in South Brevard and $200 in Central Brevard, and the multiple members do not do that anymore; they are at a higher level; and that is part of the reason that has changed. He inquired what is the EDC's objective, to raise money or to bring in jobs and how much time and effort does it take to get 100 $300 members. Commissioner Cook noted Mr. Hoyman is missing the point; the EDC is bringing people in the community working for the same goal; if it gets more people involved in the grass roots level, they are all working for economic development and the goal; and Lynda Weatherman cannot do it alone. Commissioner Ellis stated the goal of the EDC was to unify the County; if it had 100 members from Titusville, 200 from Cocoa Beach, and 300 from Melbourne and Palm Bay, it would achieve its goal of unifying the County because of a broad based membership; it does not have to spend money to get money; it could put commission people out there; and they could preach the EDC and get memberships.
Commissioner Scarborough stated the County's obligation is to make sure the EDC gets the return on what the County re-manufactures; and if it does not put any investment in this, there is no way to have a chance. Commissioner Ellis noted he totally disagrees; and he believes the more the County gets involved with the EDC the less effective it is. Commissioner Cook stated the County needs to keep an open mind on this; he is very impressed with Ms. Weatherman's energy and drive; and the County has to make sure it is taking its resources and producing the economic development that it has to have.
Chairman Higgs stated some recommendations that have been made are important; the costs in terms of those that have been expended need to be amended; the Chamber and office space issues are significant improvements; last year there was a significant improvement in terms of contract accountability; and although she is ready to make some changes, she believes the County needs to stay the course longer. She noted if there is a structure that folds the existing organization into the County in a closer manner, that may be the viable option; she would be very careful at this point in Brevard County economic development life of making a total change in the direction and personnel that are performing it; she is still willing to look at the occupational license fee and to use that as a funding mechanism; the County needs to be more careful right now; and the Board is not ready to make a decision.
Commissioner Cook noted the County can ask the cities to be partners; and it is talking about public/private partnerships. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County would be spinning its wheels; the cities have business and the County has business; and inquired why does the County have to do it if it has the capacity to do it correctly and effectively without that involvement. Commissioner Cook stated the more partners there are in economic development the better this is going to work; economic development in Brevard County is not anywhere near what it should be; it has not been for years; he is not averse to funding EDC at a level that it can do the job; Ms. Weatherman has been here 10 months and needs a chance to prove herself; the County needs to get more people involved; and it is not putting forth the effort that it should.
County Manager Tom Jenkins stated Commissioners Scarborough and Cook are making very valid points; there is a conflict in what they are saying, but they are both correct; what Commissioner Scarborough is saying is right now the Countywide residents are paying for the economic development effort; if the city residents paid for it in addition, they would be paying for it twice; and Commissioner Cook's point is the more participation the County gets the better it is going to be for the program. He stated by being a member of the EDC, the cities might become more interested in their development regulations; the solution to what both Commissioners are saying is if the County is going to go to the cities and ask them to financially participate, then the County's contribution should come from the unincorporated area only and not from the General Fund. Commissioner Cook concurred with Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins stated the only source to do that would be to put it on the unincorporated area occupational license. Commissioner Cook stated the County can work out the details; he is not in favor of taxing the cities twice; somehow the County needs to bring the cities into the process; if they are not financially contributing, maybe there are some other ways to make them feel like they are a partner in economic development; and right now he does not see that level of participation.
Ms. Weatherman stated she is starting to outreach the cities; development does not stop at a County line and unincorporated area; she called all the city managers together in January, 1995 to explain what the EDC was doing, why it was doing it, what has happened, and some of the problems; that began the dialogue; and the cities should have a role and responsibility in economic development. She noted she is more than happy to get the area cities and go with the Board's representatives to discuss various issues; and that formal line of communication is starting to develop.
Bill Hutto advised the Authority is requesting a millage of .0354 which is down 46% from last year's request of .0655; and it is a $212,000 request this year compared to $388,000 last year.
Commissioner Cook inquired will the Authority be off the tax rolls within the next couple of years; with Mr. Hutto responding that is the Authority's goal.
Kay Burk, Executive Director of Brevard Cultural Alliance, introduced Kathy Beck, Treasurer and Vice President of BCA Board of Directors, expressed appreciation to the Board for its current and past support; stated it has helped BCA a great deal over the years; and it is grateful for that support and appreciates having office space which eliminates it having to pay rent. She stated there are two components of the budget request; one small component is for BCA itself to provide advisory services, technical assistance, information to the public, and coordinating Art-in-Public Places, the 150th Sesquicentennial, and other similar programs. She stated the second component of the budget request is the County Community Cultural Grants Program; this Program helps fund local arts and cultural organizations that operate independently of BCA; these are private not-for-profit organizations; each has its own Board of Directors, and sets its own missions and its own way of providing programs in the community; and those organizations apply to the County Community Cultural Grants Program. Ms. Burk stated BCA's involvement in that is its role of managing the Grants Program; it has worked to develop a stringent review process; it has provided the Board a copy of the grant guidelines which BCA uses in the application process; it coordinates the panel review meetings, supplies information to all parties participating, works with the cultural organizations to make sure they get appropriate information, and goes through the review process with them; and that is BCA's role in the County Cultural Grants Program. She stated the Program merits funding; BCA desires full funding at $100,000; over the years, BCA has done its share in helping develop and implement this Program and getting it going; it hopes the cultural groups will be positive and educational; and the Program is important to the citizens of Brevard County. Ms. Burk stated BCA would much prefer not to be seeking general revenue funding for this Program year after year; the Program merits support; and perhaps there is some mechanism whereby funding would not have to come out of general revenue.
Chairman Higgs inquired can Ms. Burk tell the Board today which organizations would or would not be funded; with Ms. Burk responding no as it needs to go through the stringent review process.
Commissioner Cook inquired does the School Board run arts programs or has it ever been asked to participate. Ms. Burk responded the school program works in cooperation with BCA on several programs; it helps with very special arts; the School Board works with BCA all through the school year; it contributes fully; and over the years, it has provided more than its share.
The meeting recessed at 12:35 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 12:45 p.m.
Discussion ensued regarding stormwater projects, flooding issues, road and bridge problems, land acquisition issues, cash forward, Capital Improvement Project (CIP), operating expenses, impact fees, capital outlay, out-of-state travel, and permitting processes.
Chairman Higgs requested staff provide a breakdown on the Districts MSTU's.
Mr. Jenkins noted the MSTU's are all at roll back rate; and staff will provide the specific numbers. Chairman Higgs stated if the projects within the Districts can be enumerated, it will be helpful; and she would like to see the District 3 projects.
Chairman Higgs inquired will this budget adequately maintain the County and provide an adequate level of service for road and drainage maintenance so that five years from now it does not look like some of its other governmental counterparts. Mr. Minneboo responded the County's major construction began in this area in the early 70's and late 60's; the majority of work that was done at that period of time dealt with outfall pipes and different types of piping systems; those piping systems originally were designed for 40 or 50 years; a lot of those pipes are now coming to their life expectancy; the County is having problems; and more money is needed.
Commissioner Cook stated the County needs to look at what level of taxation people are willing to accept for what level of service; there may be a slightly lower level of service they are willing to accept because of the beating they are taking at the federal, state and local levels and all the special districts; but at the same time, the County has to have a budget that is going to meet its needs.
Chairman Higgs requested staff provide a district-by-district accounting prior to the preliminary meeting on next Wednesday on those problems it feels are not being addressed and may manifest themselves next year. Commissioner O'Brien stated one can only cut a budget so long before it catches up; rather than take that route, he would rather take a much more moderate route, pre-plan the needs and have an appropriate budget; and that will keep addressing the County's needs. Commissioner Cook responded he does not disagree; and it is something the County needs to look at. Commissioner Ellis noted the Board has not sat down and prioritized where it wants its expenditures, such as number one being safety, number two being infrastructure, and number three being parks. Mr. Jenkins responded the last time the Board discussed that, it said it wanted to receive citizen input first; and staff is in the process of doing that.
Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct the County Manager to communicate with the Constitutional Officers and receive in writing how they plan to handle salaries for their employees and out-of-state travel. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Chairman Higgs stated last year the Board asked the Constitutional Officers for cooperation on budgets, and there was cooperation.
Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m.
ATTEST:
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(S E A L)
NANCY N. HIGGS, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA