1:00 PM Meeting called to order on August 12, 2010 at Florida Room, Florida Room, Viera, FL.

Attendee Name	Title	Status	Arrived
Robin Fisher	Vice Chairman/ Commissioner District 1	Present
Chuck Nelson	Commissioner District 2	Present
Trudie Infantini	Commissioner District 3	Present
Mary Bolin	Chairman / Commissioner District 4	Present
Andy Anderson	Commissioner District 5	Present

.

 

REPORT, RE:  EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 678

 

Howard Tipton, County Manager, advised before the Board is a request from the Office of Human Resources to schedule an Executive Session on August 26th, regarding the status of negotiations with the Laborer's International Union.

 

The Board approved scheduling an executive (closed) session with the County Manager and appropriate staff to discuss the ongoing negotiations with the Laborers' International Union, Local 678, to be held at the end of the Board meeting on August 26, 2010.

 

.

REPORT, RE:  REQUEST EXECUTIVE SESSION:  NEWFOUND LAND AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO. v. BREVARD COUNTY, CASE NO. 05-2008-AP-010016-XXXX-XX AND NEWFOUND LAND AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO. v. BREVARD COUNTY, CASE NOS. 05-2007-CA-029597-XXXX-XX AND 05-2008-CA-066272-XXX-XX (CONSOLIDATED)

 

Howard Tipton, County Manager, stated the Item is a request from the County Attorney's Office, for an Executive Session regarding Newfound Land and Property Management Co. v. Brevard County, which would be scheduled for September 7th. 

 

The Board approved the cost of advertising for, and the scheduling of a private session on September 7, 2010, at 11:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Florida Statute, in the case of Newfound Land and Property Management Co. v. Brevard County Case No. 05-2008-AP-010016-XXXX-XX; and Newfound Land and Property Management Co. v. Brevard County Case Nos. 05-2007-CA-029597-XXXX-XX and 05-2008-CA-066272-XXXX-XX (consolidated).

 

.

RESOLUTION, RE:  CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 2, 2010

 

Scott Knox, County Attorney, advised he received a letter from School Board Attorney Harold Bistline, requesting the Board of County Commissioners call a special election on the question as to whether the District School Board should be authorized by annual super majority vote for 2011-2012, and 2012-2013, to continue to levy .25 mills for critical operating needs.  He stated the Board needs to adopt a resolution to accomplish the special election. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated if it is considered a special election, but on the November ballot, there will not be any additional cost incurred by the Supervisor of Elections.  Attorney Knox stated that is correct; but if there is any additional cost, the School Board would have to pay for it. 

 

The Board adopted Resolution No. 10-133, calling for a special election on the question as to whether the District School Board should be authorized by an annual super majority vote for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 fiscal years, to continue to levy the 0.25 mills for critical operating needs.

 

.

 

REPORT, RE:  DAVE McCOY, DAVE McCOY ELECTRIC (PERMITTING)

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he met with a constituent a couple of days ago about his concerns with the County's permitting and how it affects him; and because of the Sunshine Law, he will let Mr. McCoy explain his concerns to the Board.

 

Dave McCoy stated he is a small, independent electrical contractor; he does a lot of small work in Brevard County; and he has an example for the Board of a job he did for a lady to run an air conditioner circuit, which is simple.  He stated the total price of the job is $525; it cost him $75 to get a permit to do a job that costs $525, which is almost 20 percent of the job, before he even starts the job; and it seems unreasonable for people that are doing small work to have to pay the same $75 as a larger job.  He stated the City of Melbourne can give him a permit in five minutes for $25; he does not understand why it takes over two hours and $75 to get the same thing from the County; and he does not understand why it costs three times as much in Brevard County than in Melbourne. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated the Board has run into this situation before; the Board realizes that permitting is self-supporting with the permitting fees; he has always wondered if there is a way to charge for permits by scale; and inquired if there is a way to accommodate that, or is it something that has been looked at in the past. 

 

Mel Scott, Assistant County Manager, stated the long and short of the cost comparisons between the County and the City of Melbourne is that the City of Melbourne subsidizes its fee structure in General Fund, whereas the County does not; the County could have a $45 fee if it decided it was going to infuse the Building Department with a certain degree of General Fund dollars; but the County is not doing that.  He stated as far as the sliding scale, the County has a minimum cost that is in the $75 range; after that, there is a component to the fee that is based on the value of the job; he knows it hurts the smaller jobs when they come up on the minimum fee of $75, but that also includes a trip to the site to verify the work; and the County is not making costs on that, as it is still hoping for volume to make the numbers to support the people it has and to keep their licenses.  He stated he recognizes that on those small jobs it looks like a high percentage of that job is permit fee; and from the consumer's perspective, having the inspection on the public side is another part of the consideration, as far as making sure there is another set of eyes and making sure the health and safety of the job is ensured. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he believes the County is losing revenue; someone like Mr. McCoy could opt not to get a permit and just go ahead and do the job; the County would never know, especially if the work is done behind a privacy fence in someone's back yard; he is assuming that happens hundreds of times per day in the County; that is why he is asking if there is a way to reduce that permitting; and maybe in the end, the County could generate more revenue for the smaller jobs.  He noted he does not begrudge the County for enforcing permits, but he believes there are a lot more people not getting permits than are getting permits because they are operating small businesses. 

 

Mr. Scott stated it is something staff can look into.   Commissioner Anderson stated he may be wrong, but he would assume there would be more volume if the permits were more reasonable.  He stated he would appreciate any input from the Board to staff; and he is just trying to help the smaller businesses.

.

 

REPORT, RE:  CONGRATULATING PALM BAY EAST LITTLE LEAGUE

 

Commissioner Anderson congratulated Palm Bay East Little League, which is currently in the Little League World Series; and he is sure Commissioner Infantini will present the team with a resolution when they return.

.

 

REPORT, RE:  CONGRATULATING VIERA/SUNTREE LITTLE LEAGUE

Chairman Bolin stated the Viera/Suntree Little League won their game last night; tomorrow will be the next game; and hopefully, they will follow suit and continue on with a win. 

 

ZVONIMIR MATOVIC AND RADOVAN CVETKOVIC

 

Chairman Bolin called for a public hearing to consider Zvonimir Matkovic and Radovan Cvetkovic's request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption (beer & wine only) in a BU-2 Zoning classification, located on the north side of Sea Ray Dr., approximately 150 feet west of N. Banana River Drive, which was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

Robin Sobrino, Planning and Development Director, stated the application was before the Board last week, on August 5th; the Board had some concerns regarding the nature of the use; and staff was directed to come up with some conditions that might limit the scope.  She stated as the Board recalls, the representation of the applicant is that the establishment is to serve the employees of the cruise business; the applicant had a very limited scope of customer base and very limited hours of operation; and the County Attorney's Office offered  to come up with some language that would crystallize those operational limitations if the Board is inclined to approve the request. 

 

Scott Knox, County Attorney, stated he will get the language to the Board before the meeting is over.

 

Radovan Cvetkovic stated he is the owner of the Last Chance Cafe on Merritt Island; the proposed resolution is perfectly okay with him except for the hours of operation; he has a schedule of when the ships come into port that he would like to submit to the Board; and he would like the Board to change the hours of operation to those of the ships when they are in the port. 

 

Chairman Bolin inquired what are the hours that Mr. Cvetkovic is seeking.  Mr. Cvetkovic replied some ships are in port until 10:30 p.m.; but 10:00 p.m. would be fine with him.  Attorney Knox advised the way the order was prepared, it was 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and there was some discussion about the limitation of operation that Mr. Cvetkovic had engaged in prior times.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he knows there are not many ships that come in to port and stay as late as 10:00 p.m.; keeping the establishment open until 10:00 p.m. will attract traffic; the Norwegian Jewell is the only ship out of the entire fleet that comes and goes only once per week at late hours; and it is outbound at 10:30 p.m.   Mr. Cvetkovic stated there is another ship that stays in port until 7:00 p.m. or 7:30 p.m.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if the crew does not have to be back onboard the ships at a certain time.  Mr. Cvetkovic responded the ships come into the port as ports of call, which means they stay longer than scheduled because passengers are going to Orlando to the tourist attractions; and the ships are not always on a certain schedule.  

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired what other ship Mr. Cvetkovic is referring to, as he only sees one ship on the chart he was given.  Mr. Cvetkovic replied the other ship is the Carnival Pride.   Commissioner Anderson noted the Carnival Pride stays in port until 7:00 p.m. 

 

Chairman Bolin inquired what time the crews have to be back onboard.  Mr. Cvetkovic replied for the ship that leaves at 10:30 p.m., the crew has to be onboard by 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Anderson noted the crew would have to leave Mr. Cvetkovic's establishment by 9:30 p.m. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated it seems to her, Mr. Cvetkovic has done an excellent job of trying to turn a profit in the eight months he has been in business.  She stated these are some of the issues she has been trying to bring out, which is that Brevard County is not business friendly; and if the Board would bend the rules one customer at a time, perhaps it would see more economic development instead of trying to shut down each person who comes before it.  She stated the property is adjacent to S.R. 528; she is trying to ascertain who the establishment would present a traffic issue to, because the patrons would be coming on and off of S.R. 528; traffic would be free flowing; and it does not impact the neighborhood on the south side of S.R. 528.  She stated rather than find a way to not help Mr. Cvetkovic succeed, she would like to find a way to help him succeed, even if it means extending his hours to 9:30 p.m. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated Mr. Cvetkovic already has been granted a series of waivers; he should have asked for the CUP at the time he was asking for the waivers; the reality is that Mr. Cvetkovic has only about 50 percent of the required parking, which is huge; so he has already gotten one benefit that was based on a level of usage that did not include alcohol; and now the Board is going to extend the establishment's hours to 10:00 p.m. across-the-board for the one ship that comes to port one time per week.  He stated he agrees the Board can be business friendly, but it also has to look at land uses to make sure it is not creating problems, because the only alternative Mr. Cvetkovic will have will be parking on the right-of-way everywhere; and he asked Commissioner Infantini to imagine if there was a similar establishment along A1A, in which people were parking along the right-of-way.  Commissioner Infantini stated the proposed location is not along A1A; it is an isolated parking lot; if someone did park on the right-of-way it does not appear it would cause any interruption to the general traffic flow; it is not a densely populated area; and she thinks too many rules were in place in the beginning that Mr. Cvetkovic had to have so many waivers. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the County has rules for a reason; Mr. Cvetkovic has already gotten a waiver to the parking rule by 50 percent, which is pretty substantial; but he would like to hear what he has to say about his hours.  Mr. Cvetkovic stated if there is a problem with parking he will take full responsibility; the moment there is overflow parking he will ask the Board to revoke his Conditional Use Permit; and he knows that area is not congested with any traffic at all.  He noted at the last meeting, the Board wanted him to ask another property owner to use his/her property for parking; the property next door is a vacated building with many parking spaces; if the Board allows, he will ask permission to use that property; and he can assure the Board there will never be an overflow of vehicles.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated some of the parking over-restriction deals with marinas, which is not Mr. Cvetkovic's problem, but she has run into the same issue with another constituent in which the County's regulations on the parking standards are overly restrictive compared to other counties and municipalities; and Mr. Cvetkovic's first  restriction waiver of the eight parking spaces was probably based on an over-regulated rule that should not exist, or is over regulated.  Commissioner Nelson stated there is no indication that that is the case; that may be Commissioner Infantini's opinion, but at this moment in time that is all it is; he knows the parking spaces in the City of Melbourne are wider than the County's; and inquired if the County should match the City of Melbourne's.  He stated if Commissioner Infantini wants to look at that issue she can do the research and bring it forward to the Board.  He stated he is concerned with the fact that there is the potential for a bar just off of S.R. 528; he realizes Commissioner Infantini believes anyone can run a bar anywhere they want to; but there is a community standard that is different from that; all the Board is asking Mr. Cvetkovic to do is meet regulations in order to get his permit; but Mr. Cvetkovic cannot do that; and now the Board is looking to bend the rules further.  He stated the Board is approaching no regulation on some things.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired how often the ship that stays in port until 10:30 p.m. sails.  Mr. Cvetkovic responded every week; and there are two or three more ships coming to the Port next year, but he does not yet know those schedules.  Commissioner Fisher inquired what is the current schedule.  Mr. Cvetkovic replied there is one ship that stays until 10:30 p.m. once per week; there is another ship that stays in port until 7:00 p.m. once per week; and other ships are in the Port every day until 5:00 p.m. or 5:30 p.m.  Commissioner Fisher inquired what day of the week does the ship stay until 10:30 p.m..  Mr. Cvetkovic stated it is Monday. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the parking issue gets out of hand, does staff have the ability to revisit the issue.  Attorney Knox advised the order he has prepared states if parking occurs in areas other than where approved, the Board can rescind the order.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if that occurs after a Code Enforcement violation or complaint.  Ms. Sobrino advised staff will bring the issue back to the Board similar to the way any Zoning application is brought forward; the request would be to rescind rather than to confer rights.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if there are heightened legal responsibilities on the part of the Board to go through the rescinding part.  Attorney Knox replied the only thing the Board would have to do is give the holder of the permit the notice and give him the opportunity to come before the Board to explain why it happened.  Mel Scott, Assistant County Manager, noted there would be some investigative costs the County would incur in building the case. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if the chart Mr. Cvetkovic supplied the Board is an official release from the Port Authority.  Howard Tipton, County Manager, stated the chart was provided by Brad Gallant, Managing Member, Ambassador Services.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if there is any other notification by the Port Authority that is official that lists what ships come in and out and at what times; and inquired if the Board could model the CUP to be based on the hours of operation that the ships are in and out of the Port; but in order to do that, there would have to be some kind of official communication from the Port Authority.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he would not have a problem with what Commissioner Anderson suggested; but staying open until 10:00 p.m. because of one ship once per week is not acceptable.  Chairman Bolin inquired if the stipulation can read, "Except for Monday"; but Commissioner Anderson's idea would be more fluid.  Commissioner Anderson stated he is trying to prevent the applicant from coming back to the Board every time the cruise schedule changes.  Commissioner Fisher stated he would consider allowing the hours of operation to extend to 10:00 p.m. on Monday only; and stated he would also like the caveat that if the parking gets out of control, that the issue can come back to the Board.  Commissioner Anderson stated he would also like the applicant to come back to the Board if he is running operations when there is not a ship in port.  Attorney Knox advised the Board can do that if it can obtain a schedule from Port Canaveral.  Mr. Tipton noted he is confident staff can obtain a schedule.  Mr. Cvetkovic stated the schedule he has is the official schedule he obtained from Port Canaveral. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he would be comfortable approving the resolution with the modified hours as discussed by the Board, and that the Board follow the Ambassador and/or Port Authority cruise schedule.

 

The Board adopted a Resolution No. 10-134, for a Conditional Use Permit for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption (Beer & Wine Only) in a BU-2 Zoning Classification, with conditions, to Zvonimir Matkovic and Radovan Cvetkovic.

 

.

.

CHARTER OFFICE PRESENTATIONS

 

Howard Tipton, County Manager, advised there are two Charter Officers present, the Clerk of Courts and the Supervisor of Elections; after the Board hears the presentations there will be public comment; and then the Board will hear from Board departments that are remaining or leftover from the workshop of July 22nd.  He stated at the end of the workshop, the Board will be asked for some general discussion and direction about the next steps.

.

CLERK OF THE COURT, SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

 

Scott Ellis, Clerk of Courts, stated the Clerk of Courts is well below the 2001 numbers; what little functions his Office has left that are paid for by the Board, are mandated by Statute to be done; and he is extremely displeased with how the Board did its budget process this year.  He stated he was sent a letter from the County Manager in which all of the Charter Officers were requested to cut 15 percent of their budgets; his Office had a 10 percent cut, which allowed for the insurance increase; after cutting 10 percent, he explained to the County staff that he was not doing furlough days, and that what his Office was doing was five percent pay cuts because he could not do furlough days; but two weeks later, he received a letter from the Budget Office stating his Office would be cut an additional five percent for the furlough days.  He stated his Office contributed the most cuts of any Charter Office; then his Office took the biggest secondary cut of any Charter Office; that is pretty much they way things have been done with the whole process; the departments that have had the smallest growth during the decade are all taking the biggest cuts; and all the people that did not benefit from the CODY study are the ones that are taking all the cuts right now.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she is also not comfortable with the way the budget was put together; the Board was not consulted on how the budget was put together; and she does not understand why the Board is going back to the same well with the Clerk of Courts and asking for more, when Mr. Ellis's Office has already made so many cuts in the past.  She inquired why it is not required that the County go back to pre-CODY; the Clerk of Courts did not get pay raises during the CODY study; and only half of the County received pay raises. 

 

Mr. Ellis stated everything his Office does has to be done; his Office pays the bills, pays the employees, audits the funds and accounts, and it keeps the Board minutes; the Clerk's Office is not a superfluous organization that the Board can do away with; if the Board does away with County Finance, it will shut down; and he does not understand where the priorities were set in the budget, because a lot of the things the Board would like to do did not get touched and got increases, but the things the Board must do seem to be taking the cuts.  He stated he inquired about the second five percent cut, but he did not get a response from anybody; he was clear in his meeting with County staff that his Office would not take the furlough days, and that his Office would do pay cuts; and in fact, the pay cuts were represented in the budget he submitted.  He stated it is absolutely asinine to shut down one day per month for furloughs; his Office has gone through furlough days and still maintained services; and the County could stagger its furlough days, but shutting down operations one day per month does not make any sense at all.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated it was his understanding that the suggestion for the Constitutional Officers to take furlough days was just a suggestion, and not mandatory. 

 

Howard Tipton, County Manager, stated as staff presented, as part of the budget discussion, there was an invitation to the Constitutional Officers to participate in furlough days; stated he has no authority to require the Constitutional Officers to do anything; and it was only an invitation.  He noted the Budget Office moved forward and reserved those funds as if the Constitutional Officers were going to participate; but it is outside of his purview to actually make that decision. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated one of the challenges of the budget is that probably 50 percent of the organization has taken most of the cuts.  Mr. Ellis stated he agrees 100 percent with Commissioner Fisher.  Commissioner Fisher stated that is the disadvantage for the agencies in that 50 percent because public safety definitely been indicated by the Board as primary concern; but he agrees that of all the Constitutional Officers, Mr. Ellis has been pretty aggressive in his effort in cutting costs; and he thinks the Board should try to figure out how to handle the furlough days for him.  Mr. Ellis stated it is very frustrating that his Office held the line for the entire decade, when everybody else took advantage; when the Board asked for 15 percent, his Office gave 10 percent; in the past, the insurance costs were a little over $5,000 per employee, but now it is $10,000 per employee; it is all absorbed fin what his Office has taken from the Board; and then no one from County staff has the backbone to contact him directly to tell him his Office is getting cut again.  Commissioner Fisher stated the Clerks Office provides a huge service, and he is okay with funding it.  Mr. Ellis noted it is beyond service, as it is something the Board has to do.  Commissioner Fisher stated he understands, but the Board also has to patrol the streets and pave the roads, among other things.  Mr. Ellis stated there are laws on the books about how fast the County has to pay its bills, and how to fund its accounts, and how the minutes have to be done.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Clerk's Office does not take the furlough days, how much will the Board have to be concerned with.  Mr. Tipton replied the furlough days have been taken off for each of the Constitutional Officers because of the indication that it was impossible, or unlikely, they were going to participate; and those have been pulled back from the budget projections.  Mr. Ellis stated he has not heard anything about that.

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if staff made Mr. Ellis aware that the furlough days were being taken away.  Alphonso Jefferson, Budget Director, replied the Budget Office is pulling back the furlough days for the Constitutional Officers; and that equates to approximately $1.2 million.  He stated as staff goes through the discussions, every party, every stakeholder, that was associated with the budget process, will be personally contacted on the changes that have been made, but staff has not contacted the Clerk, the Supervisor of Elections, or the Tax Collector at this point; but it was decided to pull back the furloughs from the Constitutional Officers; and it equates to $1.2 million.

 

Mr. Ellis stated of that $1.2 million, the Clerk's Office represents approximately $800,000; and that is the second cut his Office took.  Commissioner Nelson stated he thought the Clerk's Office was already doing furloughs; and inquired if that was only on the Court side.  Mr. Ellis stated his Office has done furloughs on the court side, but it is not fair to impose it on one just because the Board is the cost center.  He advised a furlough is a tool to be used when limping into the end of the fiscal year, when trying to finish the fourth quarter; and so the furlough is an emergency tool to use to make it through the end of the fiscal year.  He stated for example, the State cut his Office two or three times last year, including during the year and retroactively, so he had to figure out how much he had to save to get through the end of the fiscal year; and then how much he could afford the following fiscal year.  He noted the net result was that he had about 50 furloughs the entire summer to get to the end of the year; he had almost 50 layoffs because there was not going to be enough money to pay for them beginning the next fiscal year.  He stated his Office started staggering pay cuts; $40,000 and above was a five percent pay cut; at $18 per hour, it was a four percent pay cut; at $16 per hour it was a three percent pay cut; at $14 per hour it was a two percent pay cut; at $12 per hour it was a one percent pay cut; and below $12 per hour had no pay cuts.  He stated his Office did stagger pay cuts because something had to give; it was either pay cuts or layoffs; and everybody in his Office has been made aware of that.  He stated his Office has to reduce payroll one way or the other, either by reducing pay or reducing people; he had a certain number of people he felt the Office needed in order to get work done, and he was not going to cut any more people; therefore, it came back to the pay cuts; and the pay cuts saved approximately 12 jobs.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the Board fully funds the Clerk's Office with the General Fund.  Mr. Ellis stated that is correct, on the Finance side.   Commissioner Nelson stated when Mr. Ellis creates savings, he is not using it on the court side; and inquired if that money is being made available for helping next year.  Mr. Ellis replied no, by law his Office cannot carry money forward; and all of the Constitutional Officers must return their money.  He noted the County charges his Office $160,000 per year for liability insurance; in the course of 10 years his Office has had a total of $10,000 in claims; his Office averages $1,000 per year in claims, but it is billed $160,000 for that insurance because the County refuses to do any kind of a risk pool with the departments and the agencies that are constantly getting sued and paying out; and again, the people who do things right are the ones that are punished.  He advised his Office takes the painful way of doing things correct in Human Resources so that when he has to terminate people, or when he has to lay off people, his Office does not get sued; stated his Office takes the time to do things right; and it is reflected when looking at the liability claims.  He noted other Charter Officers are constantly being sued; the County is constantly paying out for those Charter Officers; and they are billed less than his Office is.  He stated when there is money left over, it all goes back to the Board; his Office is trying to deal with the County's insurance staff right now, because when his Office sent money back four or five years ago, County staff did not pick up on it; and it ended up getting dumped in the General Fund.

 

Frank Abbate, Human Resources Director, stated staff has had discussions with Mr. Ellis; as recently as a couple of months ago, Mr. Ellis was invited to look at outside group health insurance; County staff took the initiative to go out and look for insurance for Mr. Ellis, as a separate entity, to go out and purchase general liability insurance; and stated Mr. Ellis cannot find it for a cheaper price on the outside, neither in the commercial market, nor anywhere else.  He stated staff provided Mr. Ellis with some general information relative to some private commercial markets that were available; and County staff tried to not only get it with the current backed program, but Mr. Ellis as a stand alone as an independent because he has had good experience.  He stated the County also offered Mr. Ellis the opportunity, that if he is willing to assume the risk as the Clerk, the County could look at a lower premium for him; and if Mr. Ellis had claims, then he would be responsible for those higher deductibles and the County would lower the premium; but that was not an attractive alternative to Mr. Ellis either.

 

Mr. Ellis stated Mr. Abbate is correct, but the assumed risk really does not work for anybody because the bottom line is that the Clerk's Office is still a County organization; and if he paid for no liability insurance and ended up getting sued, the County would pay for it in the end.  Mr. Abbate noted Mr. Ellis has 400 employee who are State employees; and they are not actually the Board's risk, but they are covered by the insurance premium.  Mr. Ellis pointed out that they are not State employees, they are County employees who are State funded; just like the County has employees who are federally funded through grants they are County employees; and if those employee screw up, the County has the liability for them.  He stated if he decided to stiff the Board out of the liability insurance, and then ended up getting sued for firing 15 to 20 people, the County would have the liability in the end to pay off the claims; but he has a fiduciary responsibility to the Board not to go out there and live like that; and not everybody thinks like that.  He stated the County has to be more flexible and learn how to do risk pools when it comes to liability; the County cannot seem to break out of that mode; and that is what is killing the Board as its budget goes downhill.  He stated he has discussed with Mr. Abbate before about how he is billed $10,000 per year, per employee, of the employees that do not take the insurance.

 

Mr. Abbate stated the Board will hear later in his presentation that the County ended up entering into Interlocal Agreements with each Charter Officer who chose to participate in the program; the Clerk was invited to look at other alternatives in 2008; Mr. Ellis could have gone to a different program at whatever cost he thought was appropriate; but Mr. Ellis chose to sign the Interlocal Agreement two years ago and pay the Board's fee; and that is were they are today.  Mr. Ellis stated from a financial point of view, all of the Board funded agencies do not care what the County is charged for insurance because the County gives them the money and they give it back; the Clerk's Office is not totally a Board funded agency; the Board only funds 10 percent of the Clerk's Office; 90 percent of his budget is funded by fees and from the State; and so, the Clerk's Office is not Board funded.

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if the allocation for liability for the high risk departments and areas are based the same way as the Clerk; and stated he is sure the Sheriff's Office gets sued more than any other because of that line of work.  Mr. Abbate stated the Sheriff's Department does not participate in the general liability program, as it has its own; the other Charter Officers participate; and as is common throughout the industry, general liability costs and premiums are spread across based on payroll.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if the Board can decide how it is allocated; and can the Board allocate that one Constitutional Officer pay more than another based on claim history.  Mr. Abbate responded affirmatively; staff went to the current program and asked if the Charter Officers could be segregated and charged separately, but they were not willing to do that.  He mentioned staff is currently looking for a new general liability provided; and also being explored is the question of whether the County Attorney can participate in the defense costs for certain items.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated there have been Constitutional Officers that have been sued, and are still in a current suit; that means the Clerk is paying for those; and he has a lot of heartache with other Constitutional Officers picking up the tab when someone else is being responsible and creating lawsuits.  Commissioner Infantini stated it is not just other Constitutional Officers, it is other departments; and she does not understand how the County can charge somebody for something they are not consuming.  Mr. Abbate advised the reason there are certain costs and the employer pays a certain percentage; and it is allocated as such that the Board still needs the same amount of dollars.  He stated approximately 10 percent of the employees opt out of the different programs; and that is already calculated in the rates that are established for every full-time employee. Mr. Ellis stated he had wanted to pay employees not to take the insurance if they had insurance somewhere else; but as it turned out, he would have been billed the full rate no matter what he did; and if his entire Office opted out of the insurance program, he would still be billed $1 million per year for insurance.  Mr. Abbate stated the County did not force the Clerk into that program.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated it is clear that it benefits everybody to be part of the same cost pool because everyone will arrive at a better rate, collectively; the problem she has is assigning a cost not based on consumption; and she would like to have a re-calculation on what the cost would be per person if it was based on consumption, as opposed to every single person having an allocation to them. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the Board is getting caught up in accounting, and not in terms of the total bill; and the end of the day, the Board is responsible to the taxpayers of the County to, in effect, bill them through their taxes to provide the service; and the question is what is the lowest one can get that level of service.  He stated right now, Mr. Ellis has the option to either participate or not participate because he has a section of funding that is not associated with the Board and not associated with property tax; right now, it works in the Board's favor; the Board benefits from having Mr. Ellis participate; and the bottom line is that the average taxpayer benefits from the Board having Mr. Ellis participate.  Mr. Ellis inquired if Commissioner Anderson is referring to the liability insurance or the health insurance.  Commissioner Nelson replied, in the end, the Board has a total responsibility; it is divided among all the agencies; there is some good and not so good; but for right now it works because the County is getting the best deal.  He stated the Clerk's Office is that rarity in which his funds come from somewhere else; and if Mr. Ellis pulls out of that program and goes his own way, which is his ability to do so, he may or may not get a better price. He stated the Board is using a simpler model of allocating; but the reality for the Board is that the cost at the end of the day is the same either way.  Mr. Ellis stated if the County Attorney's Office was the office being sued all the time and constantly paying out, and Attorney Knox finds out he is going to have to pay a higher share of liability insurance, it is going to cost him two staff members; and then maybe his Office will take the time to learn how to be more precise. Commissioner Nelson stated the Board only funds Mr. Ellis for the pieces of work that he does for the County; that is the Board's basic responsibility; Mr. Ellis can participate with the Board using his other funds or not; and if he does not get a good deal, then he has every right to go somewhere else.  He stated the program looks out for the greatest good; and it may individually not be fair, because Mr. Ellis has a different source of money.  Mr. Ellis stated it is critical that the Board properly allocate its costs and expenses; the money is not pouring in like it was in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, and the Board has to really know what its costs are in these departments; and if it does not know that, then it is flying blind.   He stated a big part of what his Office pays for insurance is due to subsidies for retirees insurance; and the Board needs to have a more precise way of doing its billing.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the whole theory of insurance is spreading the risk; the problem is that it is not known who is going to have a claim; and so the County has to spread the risk over people to come out with a fair rate. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated in a group policy, the members of the group are actual participants; to be charging everybody based on people, as opposed to consumption, is not an equitable distribution; and while the Board has Mr. Ellis between a rock and a hard place, that is not the way the Board should be operating as a County.  She stated the Board has to start rethinking the way the County does business; with the liability, costs have to be assigned to the departments causing them; and stated she does not think fairness plays a role at all.

 

Mr. Abbate stated he knows the Commissioners have strong feelings about the private sector and trying to do things appropriately; the Clerk has a very good liability insurance; if Mr. Ellis goes into the private market today, he cannot get it for better than what it is doing; the Clerk's Office does not have to stay with the County; and if the County could help Mr. Ellis find a cheaper alternative in the private sector or through public trusts, staff would do that for him; but staff has not been successful in identifying that yet, nor does he believe Mr. Ellis's Office has been.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated what the Board has created is its own Citizens coverage, and it is reasonably priced; if Mr. Ellis wants a different kind of coverage, it is going to cost him more somewhere else; Mr. Ellis knows what the County charges him; Mr. Ellis has seen what the other costs are; and maybe at some point that will change; but for the time being, it is still a better deal than trying to get it individually.  Mr. Ellis stated it does not take much to understand that if everybody is charged the same rate, whether it be high risk or low risk, the high risk people are not going to change their behavior.

.

Commissioner Nelson inquired in terms of meeting Mr. Ellis's State responsibilities for the Board's services, what is the number. 

 

Steve Burdett, County Finance Director, advised the Board departments have to follow the Prompt Payment Act, which is approximately 45 days from when the invoice is received; County Finance coordinates with departments on when they receive the invoices and when they are sent to County Finance; when the invoices are sent to Finance, staff sends them out within seven to 10 days, depending on what day of the week they are received; but they are sent out promptly.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he did not ask his question well; the Clerk's budget for Board departments is $1.9 million; and inquired what is the budget that meets that requirement.  He stated what he is hearing is that the Board has cut the Clerk beyond where he can meet that requirement.  Mr. Ellis stated he is saying he does not know what the Board has cut him to because his office has never been there before; currently, the Clerk's Office meets all the parameters for paying bills timely; the more people are cut in Finance the less timely the bills are paid; therefore, that becomes a Board decision; if the Board wants its bills to be paid in 25 to 30 days instead of seven to 10 days, then he will reduce positions in accounts payable.  He stated with the fund accountants, that work has to be done; the Board has said it wants the CAFR earlier in the year, but the more fund accountants that are cut, the slower the CAFR comes out, if the time can be met for it; the same is true with the Board minutes; and stated in order for the Board to meet, someone has to be present to take the minutes.  He stated it is up to the Board; if the Board wants to back things out and pay slower, then it can be done; if the Clerk to the Board Office is cut too much, the Board will not be meeting; and if the Board does not want to meet as often, that would solve that problem because if there is no one to take the minutes for the Board meetings, it cannot meet legally.  He noted the same thing is true for payroll; if the Board does not mind paychecks coming a day late every now and then, then payroll can be cut.

 

Commissioner Anderson noted the City of Palm Bay has gone to a contracted service that handles its meeting minutes because the Clerk's Office in the City of Palm Bay was getting backed up; and inquired if that is something that has been entertained, or is it even legal under State Statute.  Mr. Ellis stated he does not know if it is legal or not.  Commissioner Anderson stated he was curious to see if there was a way to make it more efficient. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired how much of the Clerk's budget goes to Board minutes.  Mr. Ellis responded approximately 20 percent, or $300,000, for five employees.  He noted the Clerk to the Board Office also does more than prepare the minutes; for example, if the Board wants to cut Clerk to the Board, it can do that, but it would need to have someone on its staff prepare the packages.  Commissioner Anderson stated it would not be a savings because the Board would still need someone to prepare the packages.  Mr. Ellis stated the packages still have to be prepared; what would happen is the Board's staff would prepare all the packages and give the Clerk's Office the finished product.  Commissioner Anderson stated he is not trying to reduce Mr. Ellis's staffing; he always looks to technology; the staff can be maintained, but he is just looking for a more efficient way to handle it. He stated he is sure the Clerk to the Board employees were paid overtime at the workshop that lasted until 3:00 a.m.  Mr. Ellis advised, no, there is not much money for overtime; the employees are hourly, but they comp their time during the week; but if they cannot comp within the week, then it would be overtime.  Commissioner Anderson stated he is just looking for ways to find technologies that help with efficiency.  Mr. Ellis noted technology has helped because now there are fewer people doing minutes than there used to be; the minutes do not need to be done to the exact detail they used to be four or five years ago because the videos of the meetings are online; and the minutes are not a full verbatim.  He reiterated, technology has actually saved some money; the same thing is true in County Finance; some people have been dropped in Finance, but the more the SAP system is mastered, the less people are needed to make it work. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated if Mr. Ellis adds back in the approximately $80,000 from the furlough days, it would take his budget back up to $2 million; so it is a $300,000 cut at that point in time; and inquired what is the impact of the $300,000.  Mr. Ellis stated the Clerk to the Board Office is okay; Tamara Ricard is retiring at the end of the year, and that position will not be replaced; Finance is down by one accountant, and that position will not be replaced either; the VAB is eating his office alive; he is assigning people who used to be in Clerk to the Board to VAB because with 4,000 to 5,000 positions per year it is a full-time job; and he thinks it will be a few years before that wears off.  He stated at $80,000 he would lose two more accounts payable personnel; if two more positions are lost, then the Board will be back to having its bills paid within 12 to 15 days instead of seven to 10 days; he agrees that is a Board decision, as it determines how fast it wants its bills paid; but that is only until the Board runs into a State Statute. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated what is being discussed today is where the Clerk's Office is today versus where it will be after a $300,000 cut, and trying to get somewhere between those two numbers.  Mr. Ellis stated the first cut he submitted, along with a five percent pay cut, is also reflected as part of that reduction; it is not just positions, because the five percent pay cut also reduces that amount; however, the additional $80,000 was two more positions; he is not going to cut pay again; and he does not think it is fair for his office to take furlough days if it is taking pay cuts.   He stated if the Board wants to save jobs, it either has to do furloughs or pay cuts; and he personally thinks the pay cuts are there because furloughs should be used as an emergency.

.

 

SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, LORI SCOTT

 

Lori Scott, Supervisor of Elections stated she would like to reiterate a lot of what Mr. Ellis said; she feels like her office and her staff has stepped up and really tried to contribute; in the 19 months she has been in office, her office has cut salaries 14.3 percent; and she did not receive notice that another five percent was going to come out of her budget.  She inquired why she would want to take five percent on the front end and take her staff and budget down to the bare minimum to do her fiscal responsibility for the citizens of the County and to help the County as a whole to, then on top of that, without being communicated to, have another five percent taken when she has no place to cut from.  She stated she is down from a staff of 32 to a staff of 26, with a 13 percent increase in registered voters over the last eight years; Brevard County is the eighth largest county in the state for voter rolls; her office has an amazing reputation; and a lot of that reputation comes from her predecessors and the Board's predecessors who did some good things on the front end that protected the office and did it on behalf of the voters.  She stated she has met with every one of the Commissioners concerning space issues; in 2008, the legislature started mandating that the Supervisor of Elections perform audits after every election; her office is responsible for maintaining the ballots on site and having them accessible throughout the auditing process; and she does not think having a U-Haul outside polling sites is secure.  She noted the County is going to the first, two-page ballot that the County has ever had since going to the optical scan units in the November general election; there are six constitutional amendments that will be on the ballot; and she knows the Board has received a referendum issue from the School Board that will also be on the ballot in November.  She stated the Supervisor of Elections escaped a possible $1 million hit for at least another four years when the Association worked very hard to lobby the legislature to get an extension on the touch screen mandated replacement of the touch screen units; and that gave her office a reprieve; but she is present to share some bad news with the Board.  She stated she applauds the Board's effort to get back to the core functions of government and what that means for the County and its citizens; but she would like to remind the Board that the elections process is not only a core function of government, it is the core function of government, and the basis of democracy; 99 percent of all voters in the County vote on optical scanners; in 2008, the legislature changed the law, and the touch screen units are now only for handicapped voters, which is approximately one percent of the voters in the County; and by law, those units will have to be replaced in 2016.  She stated the reality is that those touch screen units are certified at a 2002 federal certification level; the units stopped being manufactured in 2006; and she has been informed by the new vendor that they will no longer have the parts to repair the machines past next year.  She stated her office is looking at a $1 million purchase, which has been in the five-year budget, and currently in the 2012-2013 cycle at a $2 million price tag; the good news is that it is going to cost approximately $1 million, but it is going to happen a year earlier; and she hates to share that with the Board when it is looking at tough budget times.  She stated she has a constitutional duty to perform to make sure that everyone who is elected is elected fairly and quickly, and honestly, and with the transparency that the voters deserve.  She stated the Board has her commitment that she will continue do everything she can to be a good fiscal keeper of the general revenue dollars that are required to fund her office from the hard working taxpayers of Brevard County; but she shares the frustration with Mr, Ellis, Clerk of Court, that there be better communication between the Board and the Constitutional Officers; historically, the Supervisor of Elections has funded all special elections on the front end; the days are gone that she can fund those and wait for the dollars to come back; as the Board discussed, there is no carry forward; when special elections were done for the State, those dollars have been taken by the Commission and is gone; and that buffer is gone.  She stated her office has been using a temp agency in order to keep overhead down; to have a staff of 26 employees for 354,000 voters, six offices, 126 polling locations, and a responsibility to train 1,700 poll workers is huge; and her staff does an amazing job.  She stated her absentee ballot staff has been cut in half; in 2002, the Supervisor of Elections Office mailed out 5,490 ballots; as of this morning, for the 2010 Primary, her office has mailed out 41,482 ballots; and she went from a staff of four, to a staff of two.  She reiterated she is doing everything she can, above and beyond; she does not know of any other offices that have taken a 14.3 percent pay cut of staff in the last 19 months; and to ask her staff to take another five percent cut is a slap in the face. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if Ms. Scott's staff took an actual pay cut to get the salaries down to 14 percent. Ms. Scott replied she laid off four employees six weeks after taking office; there were also some long-standing employees who retired and have been replaced with new hires that are not making anywhere near the same pay scale; and she has been using a lot of temps.  Commissioner Fisher clarified that Ms. Scott brought in her new hires at a lower salary than those of the retired employees who had experience and had been with the office for many years. 

 

Chairman Bolin stated she knows Ms. Scott has combined a lot of the polling locations; and hearing the figures on the absentee ballots being so strong, does Ms. Scott think the population increase in Brevard County is going to keep the current precinct locations strong enough, or will she have to combine again.  Ms. Scott responded she will look at the issue again after the 2012 cycle when the legislature re-draws the district lines; originally, her thought was to wait until after the re-districting to do that, but by doing it two years early, it saves $45,000 every general election cycle, and it saves $160,000 in equipment replacement; and she will look at it again in two years. 

 

Chairman Bolin inquired what the hours will be at the polling locations for the primary election on August 24th.  Ms. Scott replied the hours are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; the governor can extend the hours through executive order; but statutorily, polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated if anyone has ever been in the Supervisor of Elections Office in the morning hours, when the morning sun is beating on the windows, it is very warm; there could be some type of cost savings realized if shutters were put up, or reflective screening; the cost to cool down that office must be enormous; the temperature of that wall reaches 103 degrees; to get the temperature down to 80 degrees would cost a decent penny; and it would behoove the County to put up some type of protective screening.  Ms. Scott stated she is sure the same thing is true of other offices.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Facilities Department would have to budget for protective screening; with Howard Tipton, County Manager, responding affirmatively, the County would be responsible.  Mr. Tipton noted there is currently reflective tint on the windows, but it has aged and is not as efficient as it used to be.  Commissioner Fisher stated there is some value in not ignoring things. 

 

Ms. Scott stated she listened as the Board discussed with the Clerk of Court that the furlough days have been removed; her office is statutorily required to be open certain days; closing her office one day per week is not an option for her office; the five percent reduction that appeared was news to her until she pulled it after the Board's budget workshop on July 22nd; and the reduction needs to be replaced and put back in the budget.

 

Mr. Tipton apologized to Ms. Scott and Mr. Ellis; the responsibility is his in terms of communication; and if there were surprises to them, then that is his responsibility.  Commissioner Nelson inquired what was the furlough amount for the Supervisor of Elections Office; with Alphonso Jefferson, Budget Director, responding he does not have that information, but he can get it for the Board.  Ms. Scott advised it is approximately $70,000.  Mr. Tipton stated in terms of the large scope of things, for most everything outside of the Sheriff's Office, it is small numbers.

 

Ms. Scott stated when you have constitutional officers, when she has worked to turn in a 14.3 percent reduction in staffing, and then have another five percent on top of it, that is what hurts; if it is communicated on the front end, the Board has her commitment to always submit the leanest budget she can submit, but to have her submit it that lean and then have a cut on top of it, and tell her she still has to perform all the duties and anything else that comes from the feds and the State that govern what she does, it becomes an impossible situation. 

 

Mr. Tipton stated staff tried to find savings at every turn; the reason the Board would look at closing some of the facilities was because there was some energy savings projected at $100,000, which is worth three positions; the other thing it does is when there is  such a skeleton crew, is setting up for failure to say those furloughs will be taken over the course of a week or a month, because there will be very limited staff to get the job done; there are a number of different ways to approach this; there is no one right formula; everybody's situation is going to be different; and either way, it is a tough call. 

 

Ms. Scott stated she has spoken to Mr. Tipton and the Commissioners about how she inherited five administrative offices and a warehouse, so she has six offices spread over 72 miles; before the motor-voter bill, those offices certainly needed to be where they are because the largest percentage of voters voted that way; but 65 percent of voters register now through the drivers license office; and she would love to look at consolidation of her offices, also with her warehouse, as it would be a cost savings.  She stated she also inherited a staff of 32, four of which were south of Pineda Causeway, where two-thirds of the population live, and 28 north of Pineda Causeway; it does not make sense to her to have it that way; her office has outgrown its facility with the 13 percent growth it has seen in eight years for the voter base; a lot of it is because the square footage is broken out through six offices; and she thinks the voters would be better served if that space can be consolidated. 

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

Robert Brown stated he is the Captain of Enforcement for Brevard County Animal Services and Enforcement (BASE); and he would like to share some thoughts with the Board.  He stated in 1947 the first ever rabid raccoon in the United States was found in Brevard County; in 1996, the first ever rabid ferret in the United States was found in Brevard County; the Health Department issued a rabies alert two weeks ago for South Brevard County; and BASE has been instrumental in keeping the disease in check.  He stated BASE handles anywhere from 1,700 to 1,800 animal bites per year; that includes the 10-day quarantining, the capturing, and the specimen shipping; it is a big number, but it is also a number that is given to the Health Department to give to whatever agency it sees fit; it has to be done; and if BASE can no longer do it, it would have to fall to another agency; and most State Statutes indicate it must fall to law enforcement or animal control.  He advised BASE handles approximately 2,000 cruelty and neglect investigations per year; those can be something small, such as a lack of shelter, or large things, such as 200 dead animals in a trailer somewhere; and those investigations can be a two hour visit, or a four-day effort; but if BASE cannot do it, it will fall to the Sheriff's Office.  He stated Brevard County has a good animal enforcement operation in the area; BASE makes over 34,000 direct contacts per year through the activities that are generated through calls; that is also an educational process because during the 34,000 contacts, people are being educated; he believes in the no-kill shelter; but there cannot be a no-kill shelter unless there is a no-kill community; and getting the community turned to the direction of no-kill is the trick.  He stated BASE is looking at a 30 percent reduction; he is going to lose four to five animal control officers off the road; that will severely impact BASE's ability to keep Brevard County safe; and he believes BASE is public safety officers; and he believes there is a public safety goal that has to be addressed.  He stated there are as many animals in the County as there are people; and they still need to be taken care of. 

 

Randal Agostini stated he believes the purpose of County government is not for an autonomous, philanthropic Board to spend the hard earned money of its residents; the Board serves at the pleasure of the people to promote necessary services for the County residents; and he is voicing his opinion in light of the recent report of the increasing millage rates, which will increase taxes at a time when people cannot afford it.  He stated he would like the Board to establish a budget that is commensurate with property values and learn to live within that budget; and inquired why the Board is unable to get a County budget before the beginning of the financial year.

 

Paul Schlueb stated he does not envy the Board's position, but it is doing a great job; there are some tough decisions to be made; and he would like to speak on behalf of the Environmentally Endangered Lands Program (EEL).  He stated he has been an EEL volunteer for 15 years; the EEL flagship building is in the Enchanted Forest, which is in Titusville; the Enchanted Forest was the first purchase for EEL when it began; it was under 300 acres at the time; and he has watched it grow to over 470 acres, with additional purchases.  He stated he would like enough EEL land set aside for the children in the years to come; the EEL Program has been a real success; and it has been voted on by the voters of Brevard County.

 

Kay Burk stated her family has lived in Brevard County since the 1960's, paying property taxes throughout that time; she has been in Brevard through the boom times, as well as the bust times; and in the worst of times and in the best of times.  She stated she is retired and on a fixed income; she understands what it is right now to have to cut her budget; but she also understands that the economy will not turn around if there is not a good quality of life to help draw new businesses to help turn the economy around; and when people try to move a new business to a community they want good quality of life issues, such as good libraries.  She stated many people have come to the Board to discuss libraries; people have also discussed with the Board good parks, and other things that are meaningful to people who already live in Brevard, and will be meaningful to people who want to come to Brevard; people need to be drawn to Brevard County if it ever hopes to turn the community around; and the fact must be faced that people are going to have to make tough decisions. She stated the Board must make decisions based on sound reasoning; and it must also make decisions based on what the people who live in the community want and need.  She stated the people have come to the Board to make their case; 9,000 petitions or more have been given to the Board seeking library services continued, not cut back any further than they have already been cut; and she would like to ask the Board to continue to make good, sound judgments. 

 

 

AGENCY PRESENTATION, RE:  SPACECOAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, LYNDA WEATHERMAN

 

Lynda Weatherman, President, Economic Development Commission of the Space Coast, stated she would like to talk to the Board about a project, but before she gets into the presentation, she would like to talk about the nature of economic development.  She in traditional economic development, practitioners work to enhance the economic development base; that means working with an existing company to expand, or with a company to relocate; the EDC works to enhance the economic base; and the EDC has never had the opportunity to transform a base.  She explained in the past, the Board can see where the EDC has enhanced the aviation base through Embraer; through the CEV the County played a major role, and it went from an operations site to an assembly site, but it was a diversification from within an existing cluster, which is the space cluster; and today she would like to talk to the Board about an opportunity than can transform an economy.  She stated when she talks about a transformation of an economy, she thinks about four characteristics; the first is a high-growth industry; early stage development; price point; and having the right players at the table.  She stated Brevard County has an opportunity to become the leading research and development hub for the Photovoltaic Industry by establishing the United States Photovoltaic Manufacturing Consortium; and that Consortium's name is SEMATECH.  

 

She stated in any journal, whether it be a news journal or business journal, something is always addressed about the growth and opportunity for the demand of renewable energies; of the three renewable energies that will grow in Florida are biomas, turbine, and solar; and solar happens to create the biggest share of the jobs that are projected in the area.  She stated from 2002-2005, global PV (photovoltaic) industry averages an annual growth rate of more than 40 percent; it is one of the fastest growing industries in the world; the photovoltaic market is expected to reach $1 million by 2014; PV modules are projected to create over three million jobs over the next decade; 50 percent of the jobs will be high-tech, high-paying manufacturing jobs; the balance of the jobs will be technical installation and trade skills; and PV development can be a welcome antidote to the loss of manufacturing jobs.  She stated SEMATECH is a consortium of private sector companies looking to team with local, regional, and state entities to establish the U.S. Photovoltaic Consortium in Brevard County by winning the Department of Energy Grant; in essence, the EDC is looking to team with a consortium that will come to the table and establish a research and development hub in Brevard County; the competition is not with another site, but is between Brevard and other universities, private sector companies, or other consortiums that want a part of the DOE contract; and the DOE contract is a part of a five-year, $1.5 million U.S. road map of solar technology.  She stated Palm Bay would become the leading research and development hub for the photovoltaic of achieving grid parody in five years; SEMATECH is to establish a U.S. PV Manufacturing Consortium at the former Intersil facility in Palm Bay; it will be comprised of national labs, universities, research organizations, integrators, and energy companies; the goal is to achieve grid parity in five years; some of the things that will go on at the consortium in Palm Bay include development, testing, certification, and manufacturing of advanced PV technologies; and use of existing and new facilities to commercialize new technology and incubate companies. 

 

She stated SEMATECH was formed in 1987; from 1980 to the mid-1980s, the United States had 50 percent of the market share of semiconductors; the country progressively lost market share; SEMATECH was formed and did the job it set out to do; and SEMATECH is a consortium of semiconductor companies pooling together their money, talent, and focus to address the U.S. market share for achieving back the share for the U.S. market.  She advised when SEMATECH was formed in 1987 with the original 14 companies establishing themselves and developing research and development, a phenomena was created in recognition of Austin, Texas; in 2002, more than 200 semiconductor and related companies employed over 24,000; high-tech employment increased by 79 percent; and total employment jumped in Austin by 35.5 percent.  She noted  the Angelou Economics Report is a well-respected economic analysis company that said SEMATECH helped contribute to the creation of 80,000 high-tech wage jobs and $12 billion in capital investment; in 1991, Applied Materials built a manufacturing center; in 1996, Samsung Electronics chose Austin for its first semiconductor plant outside South Korea; and in the late 1990's, Motorola Semiconductor and Advanced Micro Devices built plants.  She noted SEMATECH also approached Albany with a joint venture in 2002; in Albany, SEMATECH focused on nanotechnology and thin film lithography; and it is completely different than the product she is talking to the Board about today.  She read some quotes about SEMATECH from Site Selection magazine, and New York Governor George Pataki. 

 

Ms. Weatherman reiterated SEMATECH is seeking to establish U.S. a Photovoltaic Manufacturing Consortium at the former Intersil facility in Palm Bay; SEMATECH projects 300 direct research and development and related jobs in approximately two years; it is also projecting $10 million in capital investment to modify the building, which will create construction and trade jobs in the first year; and Angelou Economics projects 4,200 jobs to be created around the labs in within the five-year economic impact analysis.  She reiterated SEMATECH is trying to obtain a grant; the goal is to have a minimum target of $70 million; what is being looked at for contribution and investment by Brevard County is $500,000 for five years, for a total of $2.5 million; and later tonight, she will be before the Palm Bay City Council to ask for a balance of the same share.  She explained the goal is to get a minimum of $70 million of State and local match, and match it to the U.S. Department of Energy grant of $50 million; and as a team, state, region, and community, partnering with SEMATECH, submitting a $120 million grant.  She noted Brevard County's share of the $120 million grant would be two percent; that is what she is looking for today; but it will be four percent when Palm Bay joins in the effort; and the burden is on the rest of the team members and herself to address the $70 million, for which there is a deadline of October 5th.  She advised two weeks ago, the City of Winter Springs contributed $15 million to the project, because in three years SEMATECH will develop a manufacturing site where it will do testing.  She stated Brevard County has the Florida Solar Energy Center that is well known throughout the world, which is one of the reasons SEMATECH is interested in Brevard County; and the County also has the FPL Space Coast Next Generation Solar Energy Center.  She stated she can guarantee the Board that just by the way the County is recognized around the world through the work it does in space and the work that Harris does, SEMATECH will put Brevard on the map internationally for being the leader in research and development.  She stated getting a company to located in Brevard County is important and competitive, but once in a generation economic developments turn where there is an opportunity for a community, and this is it; and she will never see it again in her career.

 

M.J. Soileau stated he works at the University of Central Florida, and his portfolio includes the management of the Florida Solar Energy Center and the management of the Intersil facility in Palm Bay.  He stated the EDC is at this point today because of a call made to the Florida Solar Energy Center, which is a major player in the project, as well as the Palm Bay facility; Florida is the third or fourth largest consumer of electricity in the country; and another major partner in the project is Florida Power and Light Company.  He stated the thing that excited him about the project was the call from SEMATECH; he has watched the transformation of SEMATECH over the past 23 years; the Board saw the numbers of worldwide photovoltaic growth, which is good news; the bad news is that while the total market is growing, the U.S. market share is decreasing; and that happens often, in which the research and development is done in the U.S., but someone else does the manufacturing.  He advised the goal of the project is first grid parity within five years, so that photovoltaic is no longer alternative energy, but now it is sustainable energy; and the other part of the goal is to establish the United States as a manufacturer of photovoltaic's.  He stated the research lab in Palm Bay will be a pilot manufacturing line; the lab itself is a production line; and the research that goes on is the research on the production line.  He stated in the next five years, there will be grid parity somewhere; he wants it to be in Brevard County, because where a grid parity happens, there will be explosive growth of the industry; and he wants Florida to get its share.  He stated in the last few years, the University of Central Florida has had a 30 percent draw down on its base budget, and an increase of 10,000 in the student body; and he knows the Board is facing difficult budget decisions, but he is asking for its support in this project.  He emphasized it is a very competitive situation; it is a great opportunity; and he needs the Board's help because to get State investment, there has to be local commitment to the project. 

 

Bill Cunningham, Chairman, Economic Development Commission, stated in 1987 Austin, Texas invested $68 million; two decades later, Austin had 80,000 new jobs and $12 billion of added capital invested by corporations; in 2003, Albany, New York invested $300 million; Albany has created 2,500 jobs; and Albany was able to leverage its investment into $3.2 billion of corporate investment in the area.  He noted Angelou Economics estimates 4,200 jobs to be created around the labs in the next five year, from the County's and Palm Bay's combined $5 million investment; and the U.S. Department of Labor and the Tax Watch have both indicated that the spinoff potential to be virtually unlimited, meaning this investment could leverage significant corporate capital in addition to those 4,200 jobs.  He stated as the Board knows, the goal of the EDC is all geared to create economic development; well paying jobs need to be brought to Brevard County, such as jobs that are going to use the high technology base that is offered in the County, and jobs that are going to create further growth in the County, and an economic growth that will continue to make Brevard County even more competitive for the future; and this opportunity means every one of those demands placed on the EDC will go away.  He stated he would like to applaud Lynda Weatherman, her staff at the EDC, Mr. Soileau and the entire UCF team, and all the partners that have brought this opportunity to the table; this opportunity is a game changer; an opportunity like this rarely happens in a community's lifetime; Brevard County can be grateful just to get the opportunity, because most communities never will; and it is an opportunity that has to be seized.

 

Peter Panousis, Ph.D., Dean, College of Sciences, University of Central Florida, stated he has spent most of his career in Bell Labs at AT&T and Lucent Technologies; he was also involved in microchip manufacturing; and he was subsequently appointed presidency of Cirent Semiconductor, which was a Lucent spinoff in Orlando, and has more than 2,000 employees, and produced more than $1 billion of product per year.  He stated he would like to describe his experience with SEMATECH and his direct observation of the economic impact that SEMATECH had in Austin, Texas.  He advised he was involved with SEMATECH from the very initial planning meetings in California as the AT&T representative to the selection of the site in Austin, and even through the creation of International SEMATECH; a number of states were competing with Texas for the site; Texas put together a very good program together; and Austin eventually won that competition.  He explained the University of Texas had contributed land and a building to be the beginning of the site of SEMATECH; there was nothing else around; it was just a big field; if one visits today, he or she will see little companies and large companies all over the area.  He advised he was a member of the technical advisory board, and later the board of directors representing AT&T and Lucent Technologies; and he really got to see SEMATECH up close and personal, from the very beginning to a very successful period.  He stated the semiconductor industry in the early 1980's was troubled; market share was being lost to Japan very quickly; the government panicked, along with companies that were making semiconductor devices; and that discussion led to the consortium that was called SEMATECH and was made up of 14 large U.S. manufacturers. He advised the companies committed a five-year plan to put in $500 million over a five-year period; the U.S. Government agreed to match the $500 million; and the program began with $1 billion to be able to improve the situation with respect to Japan and the microchip business.  He stated at the time SEMATECH began, there were some questions; one question was if the large, very competitive companies really work together; another question was if the U.S. Government would keep its fingers out of it; there were also concerns about monopoly rules with regard to the large companies sharing information; another question was if the industry could really be turned around; and the answers to all of the questions was yes.  He noted SEMATECH was so successful in improving the market share that many International companies wanted to become members; in fact, SEMATECH grew and became an International company; however, it required the International members to have a significant manufacturing presence in the U.S. to be a member of SEMATECH.  He noted SEMATECH had an incredible boon in the Austin economy; chip manufacturing companies wanted to be close to the action to learn firsthand what was going on and to be close to suppliers and customers; and in fact, Austin became known as silicone hill.  He noted every time he visited Austin he continued to be amazed at the companies that were popping up; every time he visited he would see another company starting up; and there were several billion dollar companies that either expanded their operations in Austin, or located operations in Austin because of SEMATECH's presence.  He stated it is clear that the community in which the SEMATECH R&D center is located cannot help but be part of the success. 

 

Lynda Weatherman stated what the EDC is asking the Board for today is a vote to commit so it can contribute its share of Brevard County to the contract; the contract has a deadline for submission; in October there will be an announcement; and hopefully the grant will be awarded in December.

 

Howard Tipton, County Manager, reminded the Board that in his original budget message he talked about the need for the County to be prepared to pay to play; at that time, he was not in a position to talk specifically about the company that he was referring to; but after working with Ms. Weatherman over the last couple of months on this particular project, he was convinced it was important enough to put $500,000 into the current budget for the next year in support of this program; and obviously, it is a recurring cost over the next five years, but the budget that was submitted includes $500,000 for the project. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he supports the project; it is a big deal for Palm Bay; however, he wants to make sure it is communicated to the public that Brevard County is competing; it is not necessarily going to happen; and he is very optimistic, but also cautious.  He inquired when the $500,000 would be due in the process.  Mr. Tipton replied, once staff gets the go-ahead, and based on the nature of the terms of the agreement, it would be an annual payment.  Mr. Soileau noted the Department of Energy has said it will make a decision by the end of December; then the award will be made in early January; the first block of funds will be used in the repurposing of the Palm Bay facility; and in subsequent years, the money will be used in support of the research. 

 

Chairman Bolin inquired if there will be immediate construction jobs available in the south part of the county to remodel the Intersil building.  Mr. Soileau replied yes, the Intersil building is a semi-conductor fab facility; it was designed and built to put millions of circuits to make one circuit on millions of chips; and there is work to be done, but the good news is it is connected to the Intersil infrastructure.  He advised it is estimated to cost $10 million to repurpose the Intersil building. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired how far behind the Intersil building is it anticipated the Seminole County building would be up and running.  Mr. Soileau replied it would take at least two years; the project, as scoped out, requires 200,000 square feet of space; and the Intersil facility is 100,000 square feet of space.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if Brevard County does not get SEMATECH and it goes somewhere else, does Mr. Tipton anticipate still holding the $500,000 out for future projects.  Mr. Tipton replied affirmatively; he believes the project is going to happen; the Board probably needs to put some additional dollars aside for additional economic development opportunities; but it would be his recommendation that the first $500,000 be used for economic development, either now or later. 

 

Chairman Bolin stated if the Board approves the allocation of $500,000 and moves forward with the commitment of $2.5 million, she would like to be able to take at least  $1 million and put it in reserves now, so that the Board knows it is covered for the next three years, because the first year is going to be used for construction, which will mean immediate jobs, but then they are going to have the rev up time for the second year; she would like to be able to say the Board has the money for the first, second, and third year; and at the time of the fourth year, there would be enough income coming in from the companies to be able to assist with the 4th and 5th year of the Board's commitment.  

 

Commissioner Fisher stated his recommendation would be to go ahead and commit to the $500,000, and then come back later and figure out how to fund the $2 million as the Board goes through the budget cycle. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if the Intersil building is being donated to UCF.  Mr. Soileau replied the building has been donated and it is UCF's intention to make the facility available as part of its contribution to the project.  Commissioner Nelson stated the key point is that it is in public ownership and these dollars are going into a building that is publicly owned; and the Board is not funding a private company.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if there are two different buildings.  Mr. Soileau responded the building in question is one building in Palm Bay, which is owned by the Research Foundation of the University of Central Florida, and it is available to the consortium for the project. 

 

Milo Zonka stated the City of Palm Bay City Council will be hearing the request this evening; and he would like to talk about transparency, because he knows that is an issue that has been kicked around by the Board many times, and repeated throughout the community.  He stated he would like to be clear that he is the City's liaison to the EDC for the project, as has Chairman Bolin has been for the Board, as well as County Manager Tipton and City Manager Feldman; everyone has worked together with the EDC; there is full disclosure for the public; every elected official has been briefed; and based on the requirements of the deal, he does not know if that will be seen every time, but it is here this time, and it is very important to emphasize that.  He stated the City of Palm Bay cannot say enough about Intersil's generous donation to making the project happen; the County may not be in the running if it not for the Intersil building; and that is reflected in the difference in contributions between the Board, Palm Bay, and Seminole County.

 

The Board approved the allocation of $500,000 annually for five years, for a total of $2.5 million, to the Economic Development Commission of Florida's Space Coast, for the United States Photovoltaic Manufacturing Consortium, SEMATECH. 

 

MOVER:             Robin Fisher, Vice Chairman/ Commissioner District 1

SECONDER:     Andy Anderson, Commissioner District 5

AYES:                 Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson

 

 

LIBRARY SERVICES

 

Cathy Schweinsberg, Library Services Director, stated Library Services operates 17 libraries throughout the County; the main purpose of the libraries is to check out materials to those with valid library cards; the libraries provide reference services, including research, readers' advisory, computer training, and assistance; the libraries also have programming, story hours, book clubs, summer reading, and lectures; and the libraries also offer meeting room usage for the public, which is becoming increasingly important.  She stated as she listened to the Constitutional Officers she remembered some other things that libraries do, which include taking voter registration applications for the Supervisor of Elections, providing polling locations, and selling SCAT bus passes.   She stated for fiscal year 2011, Library Services will see an 11 percent decrease in operating expenditures, which is the tax portion of the budget; the non-operating expenditures, which is made up of reserves, debt service, transfers to the Tax Collector and Property Appraiser, is down nearly four percent; Library Services has no capital improvement program; and the FTE count will go down to 210, with the loss of 6.23 positions this year.  She stated the revenue trend since 2007 is a downward trend; it is a 37 percent decrease from 2007; the other portion of the Library Services budget includes balance forward, the State Aid Grant, fines and fees, and interest income; State Aid has been reduced 60 percent since 2000; Library Services has lost over $300,000 since 2007; and that is why there are decreases in the budget.  She advised the number of full-time equivalent employees in 2007 was just over 281; and in 2011 there will be 210, or a 25-percent decrease in staff.  She noted there will be some service level impacts; since 2008, budget reductions have resulted in the need to decrease staffing levels from 281 to 210; 6.23 full-time equivalent positions are being eliminated in 2011 because of the loss of the other revenue; and the hours of operation were reduced 20 percent in 2010, but will not be further reduced in 2011.  She stated through attrition, vacant Library Director positions will be eliminated; each position will be looked at as it comes open; currently, the directors have been doing double duty by managing additional libraries; but there will be service impacts, as there will be managers that will have to work public service desks; and when the staffing level is reduced, the managers will need to be checking out books or answering research questions.  she advised the furlough days will be staggered so that there will be no further reduction in hours that the libraries are open; each employee will take different furlough days throughout the year; and she did not want to see the furlough days impact the public.  She stated in 2000, the libraries checked out 3.6 million items; in 2009, that number was 5.1 million; in 2000, 2.4 million people visited the libraries; in 2009, that number was 3.5 million; in 2000, the number of reference questions answered was 586,000; and in 2009, over 2 million questions were answered.  She stated the budget reductions have resulted in the need to decrease funding for books and other materials by $1.4 million in the last two years; this has caused the number of items that are able to be purchased to decrease by 60 percent; the budget for tax funded materials purchases has been reduced from $731,426 to zero for 2011; and this leaves only minor funding sources, such as approximately $75,000 in donations available for the purchase of materials.  She noted more money will be put into the budget for tax funded materials; the Friends of the Library and the Foundation have committed to fund raising so that the libraries can have new materials; and it is critical to the libraries to keep up-to-date materials on the shelves. She noted there are still some continuing issues; the elimination of tax funded books other materials purchases challenges Library Services' ability to provide up-to-date information to the public; the libraries' capacity to meet increasing demand for services at the same time that its revenues and staff are decreasing; and funding of major maintenance projects, such as roof and air conditioning replacements, continues to be an ongoing issue.  She noted during the past year, the roof of the Titusville Library was replaced at a cost of nearly $500,000; currently, in the tax revenue part of the budget, there is only $100,000 available for 17 libraries to fund major maintenance; where the maintenance cost is taken from is the fines and fees; and if the libraries do not collect fines and fees, then there will not be money available to repair buildings.

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired how it is determined what services the patrons are using.  Ms. Schweinsberg replied the libraries have an automatic door count; but it is not known what the patrons are doing when they are in the libraries.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if Ms. Schweinsberg has seen any kind of emergence with Kindle's or E-books; and inquired if there is a way for the libraries to obtain something like that; and stated it would reduce staffing costs.  Ms. Schweinsberg replied staff is reviewing the purchase of downloadable e-books; the libraries were only recently asked about the new technology; the Kindle's have come down in cost, resulting in more people having them; but it does cost the libraries to have the e-books available to download.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if there is another vendor that comes in to install the equipment.  Ms. Schweinsberg responded yes, but she has to make sure the County gets the best price. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if Ms. Schweinsberg has any kind of projection on the facility needs in the next three to four years; and inquired if the air conditioning systems have been replaced in the last few years, and if the roofs have been replaced.  Ms. Schweinsberg replied a study needs to be done; and some air conditioning systems have been replaced, but some have not.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if there are any more $500,000 roof replacements in the future; with Ms. Schweinsberg responding not in the upcoming year unless there is major wind damage.  Stockton Whitten, Assistant County Manager, noted there are no facilities assessments and condition reports for each of the County buildings; while Ms. Schweinsberg does not anticipate a major repair occurring during the next fiscal year, not all 17 of the library buildings are new; and so it can be anticipated that there will be some capital needs throughout the year. 

 

SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT

 

Euri Rodriguez, Solid Waste Management Director, stated the purpose statement of Solid Waste is to protect the public health by providing an efficient and environmentally sound Solid Waste Management System for the County's citizens.  He stated in the operating expenses, the department-wide projection reduction is almost three percent; when speaking about the department, he is talking about two major programs: the disposal program and the collection program; and he will talk about them separately, but he wanted to make sure the numbers reflect the department, which in turn reflect both sides.  He stated on the non-operating expenditures there will be an increase of 10 percent; the vast majority of that regarding reserves; on the capital improvements there will be a decrease of 40 percent; the capital improvements go up and down depending on the needs of the department, and depending on how far along it is with the permitting facilities; and there will be a reduction of one person.   He advised the funding sources Solid Waste receives are mainly reserves; the disposal assessment is $22 million; the collection assessment is almost $12 million; there is another $1.2 million for gate charges, derived mainly from construction and demolition; and this year, there is over $100,000 in gas sales, but projected for next year is $240,000.  He stated the vast majority of the reserves are held in escrow, at $28.7 million; explained escrow's are mandated reserves for the entities that run landfills; in order to run a landfill there has to be some kind of mechanism in order for the State to know landfills are going to close properly and that the facility will be maintained for the next 30 years; and there are a couple of factors that make that number go up and down.  He explained as air space gets consumed, more money has to be put in to make sure there is enough money to close down; as landfills close, that amount of money gets reduced; then the formula is plugged in, which is by State Statue; and that is what the department has to deposit.  He stated the reserve for CIP is approximately $19 million; Solid Waste has been operating on a cash basis for the last 10 years; and the last bond movement was a refinance in 2002, but the department has not gone out for a bond since the early 1990's, as there has not been a need for it.   He advised as the Cocoa landfill reaches its end of life, it is going to require replacement; there is always a residual on it, for example, with incineration there is a residual from 80 percent of the mass gets burned; and the other 20 percent has to go in a landfill.  He noted during the hurricanes, the Board decided to start generating a reserve instead of trying to catch-up after the fact, for future disasters; currently, there is $6.1 million on the collection side; once the term of the contract is up in 2013, there will no longer be any need for any additional funding for that, as it will have reached where it was projected; and the next time the department goes out for assessments, depending on which contract it has, it will not have to take that reserve into consideration, as it will already have the money for it.  He advised like all operating revenue from the rest of the County, Solid Waste's operating revenue has gone down; there was a rise in 2008 because of Tropical Storm Fay, along with some remnants from the 2004 revenues that were coming on board; later they can be seen on the collection side also; but other than that, there is a downward trend.   He stated the gate revenue comes mainly from construction and demolition; there are other things that have an impact on it, such as tires and asbestos, but as the economy and the new construction went down, the gate revenue went down with it.  He pointed out that several months ago the County conducted a survey of 37 counties regarding fees; Brevard County was the lowest County in what it charges at the gate for garbage; and there is no intention of raising it for next year.  He stated non-operating expenditures are coming down; non-operating expenditures are basically the sale of recyclable and also interest rates; and as the interest rates went down, that went down also.

 

Mr. Rodriguez stated the actual annual tonnage coming into the facilities has gone down, along with everything else; there is a difference between the handled and the land filled; the tonnage handled is what comes into the facility; the land filled is what gets buried; as things progress with the recycling goal that number is going to change; and there will be a bigger gap because less things will be land filled, and more will be recycled. He stated with the new recycling goal, the department is being mandated to recycle 40 percent of the waste by 2012; 50 percent of the waste by 2015; by 2016, 60 percent of the waste stream; by the year 2018, 70 percent; and by the year 2020, 75 percent of the waste stream.  He stated he does not anticipate major concerns at the beginning; the current recycling rate is 31 percent, adjusted, and 39 percent unadjusted; and the department is not far from the 40 percent goal by 2012, but from then on, the department is going to have to wait until the FDEP comes out with its rules.  He stated realizing the revenue was going down, there was no other option except to adjust the expenditures; volume went down; revenue went down; and expenditures have to tighten up to go along with the trend.  He stated with the non-operating expenditures, which is bond payments, the last bond was paid off this year; next year there should be no additional non-operating expenditures; he does not expect to go out for bonds next year; and there are other factors that will affect when the department has to go out for bonds.  He noted the CIP goes up and down depending on the year and how far away the department is on the permitting.  He stated there is also the collection and recycling program; the program is pretty much all contracted out; there are no employees or operating expenses in the program; but there are payments to Waste Management, the Tax Collector, and Property Appraiser; in 2008, the Board approved a new Contract that went into effect in 2009; and from that point on, the only upward trend is because of new homes being built.  

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired when the Board will renew that Contract.  Mr. Rodriguez responded, in 2013; next year, he will come back to the Board asking if it wants him to negotiate or go out for RFP; and depending on the feedback from the Board, he will proceed from that point. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez stated in 2008 there were payments for Tropical Storm Fay; other than that, the non-operating revenues have gone down; in 2010, it reached a low because the Board voted to go to single-stream instead of relying on whether the market went up or down; and that is why it is projected to go up in 2011.  He noted the Department has made some investments in technology and efficiencies that have started to payoff; in 2004, the Department started with an operating capital of $43 per capita; in 2010, it is $32 per capita; and in 2011, it is projected to be $30 per capita, which is an increase in efficiency of around 25 percent in five years. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez stated there is approximately $19 million in reserves for Capital Improvements; and the major items are the Sarno Footprint Expansion, the Sarno Household Hazardous Waste Facility, the 192 Class III Landfill, the South County Transfer Station Land Purchase, and the Central Disposal Facility Southeast Expansion.  He stated staffing and cost reductions follow the reduction in volume; he does not anticipate a significant impact on operations; and stated strategic investments in equipment and technology will provide better control over the utilization of landfill space, save staff time, as well as the citizens' time through more efficient operations of household hazardous waste. He noted the strategic investment initiatives Solid Waste has taken has resulted in reductions in cost and increases in efficiency; the resulting effect on the public is the department's ability to keep assessments and rates low and stable; in 1991, the rate was $61 per home; and in 2010, the rate is $57 per home. He stated one of the Department's biggest partnerships is the Landfill Gas to Energy; landfills produce gas, which has a value to it; the County gets rent for the facility, along with a portion of the sales; and enough electricity is being produced to light up all the homes in Cocoa. 

 

He stated Solid Waste invested in the CAES system two years ago; the Department has already gotten a pay back on the $250,000 investment; it has increased the efficiency; and the more that can be packed in it, the more efficient it is.  He noted Solid Waste has received awards through the years; the department received an award in 2004 for the Sarno Transfer Station, for construction; it also received the American Forest and Paper Association Award for recycling; and it also received the Household Hazardous Waste Award.  He summarized, the revenues have gone down; the tonnage has gone down; the expenditures have gone down; Solid Waste has done everything it can to match the downtrend in the economy; and he does not expect any impacts to the citizens.

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired what is the status of the sludge rate discussions.  Mr. Rodriguez replied currently, sludge is at $29.50 per ton; and Solid Waste is proposing to bring that down to $25 per ton, and then make it up in volume.  He noted the cities came to the County requesting it to happen; the rules are changing; and right now, a lot of it is being land spread, which will not be allowed to happen in the near future.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if the sludge accelerates the methane gas production.  Mr. Rodriguez replied yes, it accelerates the decomposition of the sludge, which accelerates the methane production; and there is a benefit value to it; but it has to be handled carefully, as it has to be handled quickly in order to keep the odor down.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if the Utility Services Department will be hauling sludge to Solid Waste.  Mr. Rodriguez responded, Utility Services has a Contract that determines where it takes its sludge; it is a Transportation and Disposal Contract; the winner of that contract determines where to take it; but Solid Waste is not counting on all of it coming to it.

 

Dick Martens, Utility Services Director, advised he anticipates that the cost reduction will divert the County's waste stream to the landfill, keeping the County's money in the County; and instead of shipping to another landfill, it will be kept in house.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if land spreading for agricultural purposes is also prohibited.  Mr. Martens advised it has not been prohibited, but it is getting more stringent as urban areas have expanded into agricultural areas; there are more and more complaints from new subdivisions about bordering agricultural operations; and if it is not done properly it can be problematic.  He noted there is also a big push on nutrients in the Kissimmee River and the St. Johns basin; nutrient control is becoming a factor; many of the utilities are concerned about further restrictions on land application; some cities have been impacted; and the expectation is that it will become more difficult to recycle the sludge. 

 

UTILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENT

 

Dick Martens, Utility Services Director, advised Utility Services is having challenges along with other County departments; Utility Services is not tax supported, as other agencies are; but that does not mean the Department has not been impacted by the economy; and the strategy for Utility Services is more along the lines of belt tightening, and not hacking and slashing at essential services.  He stated Utility Services provides for the protection of the public health through the operation and maintenance of publicly owned water and wastewater systems; it provides water to 8,400 residences, and sewer services to 70,000 residences; the Department operates and maintains six water reclamation facilities and two public water supply facilities; and the department repairs and maintains 290 remote pumping stations and 1,272 miles of pipeline.  He stated over five years, the revenue trend has not had a big increase; the impacts on Utility Services is not so much the total number, but the location of those revenues; particularly, it has been the housing market and the financial situation the County is in; and the reduction in collection fees that are collected from new houses is now driving the budget calculations.  He advised Utility Services has 30-year revenue bonds on its utilities; those bonds will be paid off in 2014; for the last 25 years, the rates have been controlled by the service fee test; and there is a second test which has to do with the total revenue.  He noted when collection fee revenue falls below $1.9 million per year, that revenue has to be supplemented from some other source; service fee revenue is the only place to get that revenue, or else the department has to reduce its expenses; and the only place to reduce expenses is through personnel.  He stated the five-year connection fee trend shows $2,833,745 as the long-term average over 20 years, which is well above the $1.9 million; in 2006 it was $6.5 million; in 2009, 2010, and 2011, the numbers are below what was budgeted; and the department had to make that up by chasing down the revenue number by lowering expenses.  He pointed out there has been a 10 percent reduction in full-time equivalent (FTE) employees in the last two years; the five-year expenditure trend is an issue of the new housing market, the reduction in connection fee revenue; and the strategy is to defer renewal and replacement until 2014 when the bonds are retired; but the department is not without risk.  He noted in 2009 there was a significant drop in the expenditure trend, which is where the department cut back on its renewal and replacement program; the department re-prioritized its projects; and the goal is to spend down the unrestricted reserves over the next three years to a minimum level that right now is established as a 60-day operating reserve.  He stated after employees, electricity is the biggest cost; there is projected to be a $90,000 savings next year, which is reflected in this year's budget; but the department is already pushing the limits on repair supplies, operating supplies, and those types of things; and when it comes to trimming back, it comes down to people, which is half of the budget.  He stated the 10 percent reduction includes three management positions, four office positions, and 11 field positions; of the field positions, two were engineering; staffing has been reduced at treatment plants to a minimum; most of the cuts were through attrition; and that means the department is spreading overtime coverage and vacation relief over a smaller amount of people.  He advised Utility Services has approximately 290 pump stations; they are virtually all developer-donated, as new subdivisions are built out; the pump stations drive the work load; the work load does not go down because revenues are down; and there is 1,300 miles of pipe in the ground, which generates the chances of leaks and pipe failures.

 

He stated the big issue for Utility Services is aging equipment, resulting in increasing failure rates, down time, and repair expenses, increased amount of after hours response from remaining employees, reduced hurricane recovery capability; and deferring of low priority maintenance.  He stated Utility Services will defer repair and replacement until the debt retirement in 2014; the department will limit priority repair and replacement projects; some things that will be done include the Barefoot Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant, treatment plant component replacements in Mims, South Beaches, and Barefoot Bay, Merritt Island and Satellite Beach Pump Stations, and South Beaches inflow and infiltration.  He noted the South Beaches inflow and infiltration is the number one liability and long-term priority; many millions of dollars can be spent on the project for many years and still not solve the problem; and when the bonds are paid off it is imperative that $1 million per year is invested for a number of years for fixing leaking sewer pipes. He stated the department's challenges are on the bond test; it was very close in 2009 for a couple of reasons; primarily because of the continuing reduction in connection fees from new construction; there has also been a reduction in service fee income; but there has certainly been a reduction in the projections; and some of it is from water conservation, as well as vacancies on foreclosures.  He noted in the second test, the net revenue must exceed 125 percent of debt service; it is a specific calculation; the department cannot budget to meet that number exactly; there has to be a safety factor, or amount of margin; and the way the budget stands right now, the budgeted net revenue exceeds the minimum requirement by only $810,965. He advised, the challenge is that the bond test is very close; when they are that close there is a risk of technical default which will have impacts to County Finance far beyond Utility Services, as it will impact all future County bond issues; and the decreasing revenue can only be offset with personnel reductions or rate increases.  He stated he will continue to watch the numbers; if he sees there is a problem for 2011 he will come back to the Board with one of two solutions; but for now, it does not look like anything else needs to be done as the budget currently stands.  He concluded by saying that as the system ages the workload will increase; and there will be manpower limitations that will require deferral of some infrastructure and landscape maintenance. 

 

The Board recessed at 4:53 p.m. and reconvened at 5:07 p.m.

.

  

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

 

Ernie Brown, Natural Resources Management Office Director, stated Natural Resources Management is focused on providing sound stewardship of shared natural resources for public health and safety and the economic vitality of Brevard County.  He noted in next year's budget proposal the balance forward is actually a savings account, which is approximately 56 percent of the budget; in the stormwater program of Natural Resources, there is a pay as you go program in which the Department accumulates the revenues and then when there is an opportunity to build a project, the Department pays in cash; Natural Resources does not have a bonding mechanism for stormwater, so it builds up; if there is a $5 million project, the Department has to get $5 million before it can build the project; and that is why there is 56 percent of the budget in the savings account. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if Mr. Brown will be able to use the stormwater assessments for the improvements being made on Merritt Island, in which the Board purchased the Pulte Homes property and dug out the sludge.  Mr. Brown replied yes, a portion of those monies are dedicated to the development of that stormwater project. 

 

Mr. Brown stated Natural Resources has $3.6 million in grants, $3.4 million in stormwater assessments, $763,000 in user fees, and $335,212 in General Fund transfer.  He stated the operating expenditures, non-operating expenditures, and capital improvement are seeing a decrease in the upcoming budget ranging between approximately 20 percent, 18 percent, and five percent; and he will discuss those aspects as he goes through the presentation.  He advised he has broken the five-year position trend into General Fund positions and fee positions; in the General Fund and permit fee positions there has been a 40 percent reduction since the 2006-2007 fiscal year; that is where the revenues have fallen off; and that is where certain areas have ceased to operate, such as the Wildlife and Endangered Species Program.  He stated the non-General Fund, which is the stormwater and environmental remediation, is referred to as the Tanks Program; the Beach and Coastal Management have not seen a significant change; those funding sources remain steady, and continue to remain steady; and it is staffed at a level that is necessary.  He stated he did the recurring General Fund trend over a 10-year period because it tells a better story about where Natural Resources was in the 1999-2000 budget; there was a large peak in 2005-2006, a lot of which was linked to the storms of 2004, and the building boom; and from that point, in the proposed budget, the Department has taken a 57 percent decrease in the General Fund.  He noted the 57 percent decrease places the Department over $50,000 below the 1999 General Fund transfer for the Department; and the Department is below the 1999 levels as proposed for the General Fund. He stated the five-year revenue and expenditure trends slide shows a large revenue line and a short expenditure line; at the beginning of the presentation he explained that 50 percent of the department's budget is its savings account; it is budgeted every year and not spent; it stays in savings and moves to the next year as revenues continue to accumulate; and the department is able to buy-down that as it builds stormwater projects.  He advised last year, the department spent more on projects; this year, it spent the same amount on projects; next year, a lot of those projects will be on the street and building; and the budget as a whole will decrease after next year, but that is predominantly because those projects were built out and spent down the savings account.  He stated the stormwater program responsibilities, as far as being required by mandates, there are three basic areas including flood control, water quality improvements, and the NPDES compliance; NPDES is a federal law, which is the Natural Pollution Discharge Elimination System, which is a permit Natural Resources is obligated to have as it relates to water quality; and out of the $3.4 million, the three programs are funded.  He advised, some of the projects that are funded through the stormwater assessments include Lamplighter Village; after Tropical Storm Fay, the Governor was instrumental in helping the County get match money to move rapidly to address the flooding problem; over $451,000 in assessment fees were applied to that to get approximately $1.3 million in grants; the project is now complete; and Lamplighter Village is in a much better posture going into this hurricane season than it was after Tropical Storm Fay.  He stated another example is the West Cocoa Flood Control Project; the project is proposed, permits are near completion, and applications are in place; there will be approximately $400,000 in stormwater assessment fees to get approximately $4.5 million in grants, to address one of the most significant flood areas; the Lake Drive and Range Road culverts were installed and completed at the beginning of the year; and it provided six inches of flood relief for the area.

 

Mr. Brown stated with regard to stormwater improvements leveraging,  Natural Resources has made an extraordinary effort to try to find resources to augment the limited resources; since 1991, leveraging has not been as stellar as he would have hoped; and there has been approximately $22 million spent to date.  He stated this year's leveraging is a much better picture; the County contribution is 52 percent, with 48 percent in leveraged funds; and next year, there will be 40 percent contributed by the County, and 60 percent will be leveraged.  He noted Natural Resources works with several local municipalities on stormwater assessment administration, assists with mandated NPDES Permit Compliance, and mandated NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Permit) training and outreach.  He stated another big ticket item for the County is Beach Management; Beach Management focuses on two primary things, which are public safety and economic vitality; there are 71 miles of beaches in Brevard County; and over 38 miles of them are actively managed, whether it is a full nourishment project or emergency berm construction.  He advised the management of the beaches provides for public safety, whether it is the protection of private residents, commercial operators, or public infrastructure, and it is also a conduit for one of the County's major economic engines, which is tourism; and the Tourism Development Council is a major player.  He explained, for the federal shore protection projects, the County contributes 20 to 21 percent of the total projects, which is a fairly high leveraging, but it is even more of a leveraging opportunity for the emergency projects in which the County contributes less than 10 percent of the total projects. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if that includes the TDC funds; with Mr. Brown responding affirmatively.  Mr. Brown noted for the North Reach Construction, which is Patrick Air Force Base and north, the TDC contributed $4.4 million for that; State and federal leveraging was almost $19 million; it is a huge economic benefit to the residents of Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral; and it is also protection of private and public property. He explained the South Reach Construction, which is the Indialantic area, is a similar story to the North Reach Construction; the TDC contributed $6.2 million towards that; and the leveraging was approximately $22 million in State and federal contributions.  He displayed before and after pictures of The Breakers Condominium and Beach Tropics Motel.  He stated for the beach and dune emergency projects the leveraging is far greater, as it is where FEMA comes into play; the County contributed approximately $4 million, and the State and federal was $42 million; the two primary areas where the emergency dune work was performed was the Mid Reach and the South Beaches; and the takeaway on all the beach issues is that there was a State study that was done that reported that for every $1 that local communities invest in beach management, there is a $9.8 return into the communities. 

 

He stated the Environmental Remediation and Compliance Program is more of a public health and public drinking water focus; the primary job is to address underground leaky storage tanks, hazardous waste, disposal, and things of that nature; it is not a General Fund program, as it is supported by mainly grants and user fees; since its inception in 1985, it has removed or replaced nearly 5,000 vulnerable underground storage tanks; the Program performed over 15,000 installs, removals, closures, and discharge inspections since 1988; and it has cleaned up and remediated 232 contaminated sites within the County. Commissioner Infantini inquired how many of those were done in the past 12 months.  Mr. Brown replied the projects are episodic; the County had over 1,000 projects done in the past year and a half because of the federal law requiring double-walled tanks; and he can give the Board the annual breakdown, but it is episodic and spread out.  He noted when talking about drinking water, groundwater contaminates migrate over a period of time; and it has to be looked at in the bigger picture because it has a long-term impact.  He stated the Clean Water Act requires the County to deal with underground leaky storage tanks; and recently, it was the law that required gas stations to upgrade their tanks to double-walled tanks so there would be a collection system.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the gas stations pay for the tanks, and then the County just monitors the permitting.  Mr. Brown responded affirmatively; the County is an extension of the State in that regard because it is able to work directly with the community, as opposed to working out of Tallahassee; and there is some State funding that provide some funding for older, pre-law, tanks.

 

Mr. Brown stated the Environmental Resources Program is the area that houses the environmental compliance as it relates to wetlands and trees; currently, it is dealing with the Surface Water Comprehensive Plan, which will be coming back to the Board for adoption in the near future; and there are working groups dealing with the Floodplain and Wetlands Comprehensive Plan.  He advised there are three other areas of the program that are actively involved and linked to State and federal requirements; the Program now provides services to other departments to meet their regulatory requirements; if Public Works has an environmental permit that needs to be obtained, the Environmental Resource Program will assist in acquiring that; and the last two areas of the Program include maintenance of navigational aids, marine facilities and access assessments.  He noted another example of one of the many projects the Environmental Resources Program has help other departments with is the Rich Grissom Memorial Wetlands, which is actually a Utility Services project; the ERP assisted in the mitigation monitoring and reporting, as well as invasive species removal and management; and as a result, significant savings accrued to the Utility Services Department by contracting internally as opposed to going outside.  He stated as far as Channel Markers, the Environmental Resources Program is responsible for more than 160 of them, which have two signs each; and over 140 signs have been repaired over the last two years.  He advised another element Natural Resources deals with is derelict vessel removal; after the storms of 2004, derelict vessels became a very prolific issue, and a significant hazard to navigation on the County's waterways; there were a number of incidents of boaters hitting submerged, or near submerged, derelict vessels; and since 2007, over 125 derelict vessels have been removed from the waterways, which equates to over 400 tons of debris and over 300 gallons of oil and fuel. 

 

He stated the challenge for Natural Resources Management deals specifically with sustainability and if it can continue to do what it is required to do; there is a great need to accelerate flood mitigation projects; and trying to find ways to accelerate that is a real challenge that comes down to finding additional funding.  He noted there is funding available to complete approximately 18 projects that are on the books right now; but those resources will be expended in two years.  Commissioner Infantini inquired how much it would cost to fix the flooding in Cocoa, which had a huge flooding problem; it seems that for the most part it has been fixed with the drainage; and inquired how much it would cost to fix the situation in Cocoa.  Mr. Brown replied that is a big question, because it is not known how much protection is going to be provided for a 25-year storm event or a 100-year storm event; and protection from a 100-year storm event would cost over $100 million, but that cannot be designed unless creating a New Orleans phenomena where everything is diked and pumped out.  He stated currently, what Natural Resources is looking at for the fixes that are proposed is approximately a $10 million proposition; there is $5 million that is coming to the table that the department is going to be able to deal with, but it is still short; the $5 million will go a long way to address the majority of the problem; but the full spectrum is a $10 million project.  Commissioner Infantini inquired since the area with the flooding problem is more of a current problem, would it not be prudent to work to correct the flooding rather than being so forward thinking to fix the stormwater retention on the Pulte property.  Mr. Brown advised that is a balanced approach because it is very difficult to say one person's house is more important than another's; there are flooding issues across the County; and he would hate to tell the residents of Kingsmill that they are not as important as somebody else.  He stated Natural Resources tries to move forward with the resources it has to address the needs as equitably as it can; but he agrees it is a challenge.  Commissioner Infantini stated she is not talking about prioritizing between flooding areas because the Department is constrained by the revenue that is collected within those areas; there stormwater retention area on the Pulte property is for future development so that in the future the Merritt Island area can be developed; and inquired if those funds were diverted to fix a current problem, would it not be a better approach for the people of Cocoa.  Mr. Brown stated that would be a good point if it were strictly for redevelopment; there are areas that are flooded in that particular area of Cocoa; there is an older neighborhood that floods in a 25-year storm event; and this would alleviate that.  Commissioner Nelson stated it would be great if there was full Board support on changing the Ordinance to allow Natural Resources to bond dollars to get the improvements made now when they can benefit and protect the citizens.  Mr. Brown stated Natural Resources would like to entertain the conversation of how to seek sustainability in the stormwater world before there is nothing to work with.

 

Mr. Brown advised the stormwater quality issue is a mandate from both State and federal; there are over 2,000 outfalls that  discharge in the Indian River Lagoon that Natural Resources has responsibility for; there are over 1,000 acres of watershed that is just in the unincorporated area and does not include the cities; more than $625 million in cost estimates over the next 15 years Countywide to meet State and federal quality mandates; and reiterated there is funding available to complete 18 more projects over the next two years.  He stated the NPDES requirements affect not only stormwater, but all departments in the County and municipalities that deal with discharges; it also deals with car washes, industrial operators, commercial operators, and anybody who has a discharge; and it is very holistic issues that many people will be part of.  He stated the last concern he has relating to sustainability is the Comprehensive Plan compliance; this year, the department moved into a non-recurring funding source, which was the Arbor Fund; it reduced one and a half positions, which reduced the General Fund by 28 percent; but that funding mechanism expires in two years; and a more sustainable solution to address the requirements under the comprehensive plan and associated ordinance will need to be addressed at that point in time, otherwise there will not be the staffing resources to accommodate that.  He noted he is not asking the Board for a solution today, as the department has found a temporary fix, but it is not a solution.  He summarized, the major outstanding issues for Natural Resources Management are flood mitigations projects, the Indian River Lagoon system and St. Johns River Water quality attainment, and Comprehensive Plan compliance.

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired when the Princess Grace will be moved, which is the big, white former Coast Guard vessel sitting in the middle of the Indian River between S.R. 528 and S.R. 520.  Mr. Brown advised he will make a phone call in the morning to the United State Coast Guard Marine Safety in Port Canaveral and get an answer for Commissioner Nelson. 

 

CENTRAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

 

Steve Stultz, Central Services Department Director, stated he would like to describe all of the different programs that are included within the Central Services Department; and each one provides support services to various departments and offices that are essential in enabling each of them to fulfill their individual missions and provide the direct services to the citizens of the County.  He stated Asset Management maintains the official record of the County's tangible assets, buildings, and land; those assets total in excess of 30,000 items; staff also conducts an annual physical inventory of the tangible personal property, which amounts to 24,000 total items; and both of those activities are required by Florida Statute.  He noted Asset Management also oversees the sale and disposal of surplus and obsolete County property and items that are no longer useful to the County; the method of the sale, or disposal, of the tangible and real property is defined by Florida Statute; revenues from the sales are returned to the General Fund or the Enterprise Funds, depending on where the asset was originally acquired; and as a return on investment, the revenues collected from the sales have brought back more revenues than the program costs have been.  He advised Central Fleet Services is another program within Central Services that maintains a diverse range of vehicles and equipment for the majority of the Board departments, consisting mainly of passenger vehicles, work vehicles and other equipment; there are approximately 700 vehicles predominantly under one ton; Fleet Services does not routinely maintain heavy equipment; but it maintains 140 emergency generators, both stationary and portable; and those are located all over the County.  He stated in addition, Fleet Services operates nine fuel sites located throughout the County; the fuel sites provide departments with approximately one million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually; the fuel supply is of critical importance during storm events; the Emergency Management Office desires most entities to have a 10-day fuel supply in reserve; and the County's capacity for its nine fuel sites is 94,000 gallons of unleaded fuel, and 72,000 gallons of diesel fuel.  He further noted that Fleet Services also provides fuel and/or services to some of the municipalities located within the County, and a number of non-profit agencies; the municipalities include predominantly the South Beaches area; and the non-profits include such agencies and the American Red Cross, the Brevard Alzheimer's Foundation, Childcare Association, Coastal Health Systems, Project Response, Senior Care, and Keep Brevard Beautiful.  He stated the third program within Central Services is Purchasing Services; the function of that program is to develop and monitor centralized purchasing procedures and coordinate those procurements from advertisement to notice of award, and ensure the advertisements and competitive bids are conducted and awarded in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local laws and policies; there are fair and consistent bidding procedures to help achieve best value awards and realize cost avoidances that may not otherwise be present without a formal competitive bid process; and the current year cost avoidances are projected to be $25 million; but while those are not additional revenue dollars, they are potential costs that are avoided as a result of the bidding processes that are designed to maximize the competition.  He advised another component of Purchasing Services is the position of the Clerk to the Special Magistrate; the position provides clerical support to the Special Magistrate hearings, which primarily involve Code and unlicensed contractor violations, and applications for Vested Rights; among the Clerk's responsibilities are recording the hearings, maintaining the minutes of the hearings and then completing and recording the Special Magistrate's findings; and the Clerk to the Special Magistrate also serves as an independent impartial liaison and communication link between the Special Magistrate, respondents, and applicants involved in the cases. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if the Clerk to the Special Magistrate position has always been under Central Services; with Mr. Stultz responding affirmatively.  Mr. Stultz explained the reason the position is located under Central Services is because it does not participate in the hearings, so it is an independent and impartial spot to place that position. 

 

Mr. Stultz stated in reviewing the budget for Central Services, he would like to point out that of the proposed budget, 84 percent is funded by fees for services, which is in the area of Fleet Services; the remaining 16 percent that funds the Purchasing and Asset Management Programs are strictly funded by General Fund transfers; 94 percent of the cost of Purchasing and Asset Management is for personnel; when tasked with making reductions to the General Fund, the only place to consider any reductions in Purchasing and Asset Management involve staff; and those two programs provide services mandated either by Statute or the rules of the Chief Financial Officer of the State.  He advised when looking at the revenue and expenditure trends, it is apparent that Fleet Services is a major factor; it is all fees for services; and General Fund transfers are the sole funding source of Purchasing, Asset Management, and the Clerk to the Special Magistrate.  He stated the major component of the expenditures is Fleet Services; of the Fleet Services expenditures, the major factor is fuel, which comprises 54 percent of the total combined Central Services budget; and when separated into Fleet Services, it is 64 percent of that program's budget.  He noted Mr. Denninghoff mentioned the impact of increased fuel costs at a previous workshop; each department providing direct services to the public has to factor the fuel costs into their service delivery costs; and when considering the trend in the fuel costs since 2000, the cost has increased approximately 102 percent for diesel, and 93 percent for unleaded gasoline. 

 

Chairman Bolin stated at one point, the Board discussed partnerships with municipalities and the School Board to be able to have bulk fuel; and inquired if that is still being pursued.  Mr. Stultz advised for a number of years, the fuel contract has been a cooperative bid; the School Board is the lead agency on that, but almost all of the municipalities that have fuel sites are involved in that; and so there are a number of agencies and entities that are doing a cooperative bid.

 

Mr. Stultz stated as for the five-year position trend, Central Fleet Services face a reduction this year in the charges for services through the fleet cost allocation plan; factoring in those reductions and the reductions related to the furloughs, the Central Service Department staffing will have declined 14 percent since 2007, to the currently budgeted level of 2011; those reductions include the consolidation of the supervision in parts and store keeping staff for Fleet Services and the Public Works Road and Bridge Equipment Maintenance Program; that actually involves the elimination of the Fleet System Supervisor position, and the two Operation Support Specialists, which are the parts and store keeping positions; and those functions will be combined with Road and Bridge.  He advised also involved in those reductions is a reduction of the full-time Central Services Administrative Assistant position reduced to 32 hours per week; the full-time Clerk to the Special Magistrate position will be reduced to 27 hours per week; and as a result of those reductions it is anticipated that there will be service level impacts.  He stated in the reductions impacting the clerical and administrative support areas, the service levels will primarily be impacted in the service delivery times in the areas of purchasing, the Special Magistrate, and Fleet Services; procurement cycles for bids and proposals will be lengthened due to additional limits on staff availability for document development and evaluation activities resulting from the reduced man hours for furloughs and the reduction of available clerical support; and in essence, the four purchasing agent positions that conduct all the purchasing activity will be forced to perform their own clerical duties for those bids that they are assigned. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if Mr. Stultz has a chart that shows how many bids are issued.  Mr. Stultz replied he does not have a chart with that information, but he knows there are approximately 200, which are the formal solicitations that are done in the office.  Commissioner Anderson stated he would like Mr. Stultz to get that information for him.

 

Mr. Stultz stated other trickle down impacts are delays in the receipt of goods and services; project starts may be delayed; there is also the potential for equipment down times while waiting for parts and services; and as the support positions are also responsible for processing vendor invoices for payments, reductions may negatively impact the timely processing of those invoices, which may affect the vendors' cash flows.  He advised on the Fleet Services side, while departments have reduced their numbers of vehicles, it is expected that increased age and delayed replacements will increase the number of work orders for non-routine repairs due to unexpected failures; the unexpected failures will not only be for small part failures, but for major repairs; and as a result, it is expected that the vehicle and equipment down times will increase.  He stated the reduction in hours for the Clerk to the Special Magistrate will result in an increase in time for the processing and filing of records and documents related to the cases heard by the Special Magistrate, and also the input of the case information into the County's database, which is actually the minutes that the Clerk is responsible for; there will be an increased response time to information requests; and there is the potential for delays in the scheduling of special hearings.  He stated current activities for the consolidation of Fleet Services involves combining the supervisor and parts/storekeeper staff for Fleet Services and Road and Bridge; consolidating will eliminate one Supervisor and two Operation Support Specialists; but there will also be efficiencies gained by consolidating.  He stated the Purchasing staff has been pursuing opportunities for the formation of a purchasing cooperative, which would be comprised of agencies and municipalities located within the County; the goal of such a cooperative would be the creation of opportunities to achieve further cost reductions by identifying those commonly used items and combining their estimated quantities into one bid for all participating entities; and while that is not feasible for each and every commodity or services the County uses, there are a number of commodities that multiple entities utilize and may be targets for a cooperative bid.  He noted there is a working group comprised of some of the representatives from the cities, the School Board, and the Port Canaveral Port Authority; those discussions have all been positive; and currently, there are activities involving development of an interlocal agreement that each member can take back to their respective councils and boards for approval to participate.

 

HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE

 

Frank Abbate, Human Resources Director, advised the Office of Human Resources provides services in the areas of, Personnel and payroll  record administration; employee, supervisory, and leadership training; counseling on personnel issues, grievance handling and collective bargaining negotiations; and insurance and benefits administration for the Board of County Commissioners and other County agencies.  He stated in looking at the five-year revenue trend, the General Fund allocation area is extremely small compared to the total of funding, revenue, and expenses that are in the program; the second largest portion is property and casualty; and the largest area is the group health insurance program.  He noted for the group health insurance, the revenues are made up of not only employer contributions from the Board of County Commissioners, but from other participating agencies, as well as all the revenues generated from retirees  and employees, and employee dependents that participate in the program; and that has changed significantly in the last couple of years as the County has moved toward reducing the Board's subsidy for both dependents and retirees.  He stated in the five-year General Fund revenue trend, there is a drop from $914,000 in 2007 down to $575,000 in the proposed budget for the coming year; and the 10-year trend shows that the trend for 2011 is significantly below where it was 10 years ago.  He stated for funded positions in Human Resources, 24.2 positions will be lost, which is up from 3.4 positions two years ago; and the positions lost include half of a personnel officer position, three-quarters of an office assistant position, one risk manager position, half of a personnel officer funded through cost allocation to Fire Rescue, half of a special projects coordinator II, and a special projects coordinator IV funded through Information Technology.  He advised eliminating the Receptionist position results in the remaining staff to answer telephone and answer questions from the public and employees; the reductions will also negatively impact the Department's ability to process personnel transactions and records, and respond to public records requests in a timely manner; and staff will continue to make a best effort, but there will be some degradation in the service levels that are provided.  He stated reducing the centralized recruitment is going to impact efforts in competitive hiring; there will be one personnel officer serving all of the County departments; and there will be an impact to compliance oversight, and increasing potential exposure related to employment practice claims; and the other potential impact is the time processing for advertising requests for filling positions. 

 

Mr. Abbate stated the second largest area Human Resources deals with is Property/Casualty; in terms of revenue collections, in 2007, the Department was at $12.16 million; and projected revenues for the coming fiscal year are $8.8 million.  He explained each year, Human Resources has an actuarial analysis that is reviewed with County Finance; an independent actuary is used who provides a report based on what they project the expenses to be, and projected expenses over the lifetime for that year's worth of claims, and other related expenses; and for 2011, the actuary is recommending a minimum funding of $11.2 million; but the Department will not be funding at that level.  He noted in past years, Human Resources has had rebates going back to agencies because every year when the actuarial analysis comes in, if there are excess fees it goes back to the participating departments and the General Fund; and this year there is $3.7 million that will go back to the various participating agencies through a variety of sources. 

 

He stated staff looked at the actuary recommended expense projections for all the Property/Casualty programs, and you have to compare that to where the department was with its funding for 2009-2010...what we believe the funding actually is this current year is $9.8 million; that $9.8 million actually resulted this year, and the actuary is saying the department had enough money to give back $1.2 million; so you can see that the actuary's funding level has been even as far as last year, over projected by $1 million; over the last five years, it has happened on three separate occasions.  He stated staff looked at what the actuary recommended; what staff knew that the actuary did not know is that positions would be lost this year as well; and there will be less workers comp costs when there are less employees. 

 

He stated staff was able to put together a funding scenario for this year in which we are trying to squeeze as far as we reasonably can and go below what the actuary has recommended; and in doing that, we have taken into consideration the staffing cuts, and past year over projections by the actuary; and that is why there is an overall revenue reduction in the coming year of 10 percent below where the department was in the current year, and 21 percent below the recommended minimum actuary funding level.  He noted the minimum funding is based on a 75 percent confidence level that there will be enough funds to pay, which is what the actuary is recommending; and that is a fairly good comfortable level, but it is nowhere near where the Department used to be 10 years ago, but he believes it is an appropriate and sustainable funding level. 

 

He advised the biggest part of what Human Resources is dealing with is the group health insurance program; the reserves for the group health insurance program was $17.9 million as of October 1, 2009; and the actuary has said the County needs $12 million in the reserve.  He explained, GASB 45 is a rule that came into play a couple of years ago which deals with other post-employment benefit costs, and requires an actuarial analysis that says, over time, what those costs will be for the current employees and retirees; the County is not required to fund it, and the Board has not chosen to fund it, but an actuarial analysis has to be done to go into the Board's financial statement.  The plan liability in 2008 was $141 million; it was known in 2005 that the GASB rule was going to go into effect, so staff started making changes back then, but the first analysis that was required was in 2008; the Board's portion of the $141 million plan liability was $81 million; and all the other participating members have a $60 million liability, which is broken down by each particular agency.  He stated staff is projecting a medical trend for the next year to be at 6.7 percent; the national medical trend is between nine and 11 percent; and the 6.7 percent is an average of the prior 12 months. 

 

He stated in the group health plan for fiscal year 2009-2010 there was a significant decrease in the premiums that the employer was paying; that was because the Board made substantial changes in the program by going to a high deductible, which 70 percent of the employees went to.  He stated in 2009, the Board and/or participating employers contributed $48.4 million; the member premium contribution was $6 million; the out of pocket expenses was $5.67 million; for 2010, the employer contribution dropped to $39.9 million; the member premium contribution rose to $7 million; the member out-of-pocket expenses rose to $12.1 million; for 2011 the employer contribution is projected to be $41.9 million; the member contribution is projected to be $8 million; and the member out-of-pocket expenses is projected to be $12.9 million. 

 

He stated from 2002 to 2006, the employer contribution increased an average of 9.67 percent per year; the national medical trend was 12.7 percent; the Board had a healthy employer contribution increase during that five-year period; and it was an informed decision by the Commissioners at that time in terms of what they wanted to do. He stated in the last few years, there has been more direct attention toward what are the subsidies that are being  given, if they should be reduced, and if they need to be reduced to keep the program sustainable.  He noted in 2009, the employer increase was nearly the lowest additional increase the County has had since 2002, at six percent, but in 2010 the employer contribution was reduced by 13.61 percent. 

 

He stated everyone is facing the rising cost of healthcare; the national trend is between nine percent and 11 percent; in the region, the trend is three percent below the national trend; there is also an impact of national healthcare initiatives; and there is an impact of the Mental Health Parity Act and newly mandated health care coverage.  He noted other group health plan challenges are accurately forecasting the impact of a new plan design changes and the GASB 45 liability funding.  He stated the Board has had a partnership with the School Board that started in 1999 and continues today; under the mental health and EAP fully-insured carve-outs, there was $287,000 worth of savings over what there will be in the future, because in the future, the County has to be self-insured, and no one will fully insure it because of the changes in the Mental Health and Parity Act, and there cannot be separate co-pays for mental health visits; additionally, autism is something that is mandated on a State level that the County has to cover; and there are questions as to how much that increased cost will be; but based on what he has been told by insurance carriers, it is anticipated it might be an additional $287,000 per year.  He stated in 2005 it was known the County would go to the GASB 45, for what is called OPEB (Post-Employment Benefits); the Board initiated retiree premium year of service model, which said if an employee was with the County for six years and was vested, then whatever subsidy the Board gave, they enjoyed the full benefit of that no matter how many years of services was given; and that changed in 2006 for everyone hired from that point forward, and if there is any subsidy that the Board approves, an employee who retires only gets four percent of whatever that subsidy may be for every year of service.  He stated in 2008 and 2009 additional health and wellness initiatives were introduced; that initiative has been very successful; and there is also a weight management and smoking cessation programs that have been implemented.    He stated the Board has expressed its desire to, on an incremental basis, reduce dependent and retiree subsidies for the health insurance program; that has been done on an incremental basis when the Board has agreed to premium changes that employees, dependents, and retirees have; last year there was a 15 percent increase; and that has impacted the subsidies.  He advised the Board also adopted plan design changes, the most significant one being the HRA that went into place; 70 percent of the employees paid on it; and it is a very high deductible plan, so there are a lot more out of pocket expenses. 

 

He stated in 2008, the Board solidified how it collected premiums and how each of the member agencies participate, and made it clear that if retirees pull out of the group they take it with them; it is not a Board liability in the future; the retirees take their OPEB liability with them; for example, if any one of the other agencies chose to leave, they would take whatever the liability is, and whatever retirees have would be taken into the new program and not leave them with the Board so that it would be stuck funding them.  Commissioner Infantini inquired how much of a change there would be if the Board stopped subsidizing retirees.  Mr. Abbate stated he cannot answer that with 100 percent certainty; the Board will always have that liability because the liability includes all the current employees that are projected to retire one day; there is always a built-in subsidy by Florida Statute for retirees; and retirees cannot be charged the full cost of them as a group. 

 

He stated in the last two to three years the Board has initiated a Working Spouse Premium Surcharge; 301 spouses left the program when that surcharge took effect; and that has resulted in an annual savings to the program of $1.8 million per year.  He stated additionally, last year staff conducted prescription RFP and introduced a variety of cost containment in the prescription program; co-pays in the prescription program were also raised; and the program realized a $3 million savings.  He stated also last year, the Board implemented the high-deductible, consumer driven, health plan model, which saved $6.5 million; and stop-loss insurance was also eliminated.  Commissioner Anderson inquired what was the cost of the stop loss insurance; with Mr. Abbate responding the actual premium was $550,000; however, before the first dollar would be paid on a claim, the County had to pay the first $250,000 beyond the claim that reached the threshold for re-insurance; and so actually, the Board's cost was $750,000.  He stated in the lifetime caps, the regulations do not clearly state yet whether or not there can be an annual cap of $1 million; the problem is that the County had some high-cost years in which there were those claims; but last year there the County did not have any claims that even came close, yet not only did the premium raise, but the aggregate from $100,000 to $200,000, is now up to $750,000 in a year in which the County is trying to keep costs down.  Commissioner Anderson inquired when will that portion of the Health Care Act be implemented.  Mr. Abbate replied 2014.  Mr. Visco stated staff will know what the marketplace will do by 2014; and if everybody is going to be looking at unlimited exposure, he would expect the stop loss market to respond in kind.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the employee base is aging, causing the costs to go up.  Mr. Abbate replied yes, that has been the case over the years.  He advised what has really grown over time is some reduced retiree participation and retirees over 65 looking at the Medicare Supplement Health First Plan; and there have been a lot of people shifting to that, which is advantageous not only for the retirees, but for the Board as well.  He noted he does not know where that will go in the future because Medicare is going to cut rates on October 1st; as the retiree rates go up, some people are dropping out or going to a more cost effective plan.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board compensates retirees who drop out of the program.  Mr. Abbate responded affirmatively; but the cost the Board is funding was to encourage people to go into the fully-insured where there is no additional risk relative to what the HRA and PPO programs are. 

 

Mr. Abbate stated the 2010 cost containment strategies the Board already implemented include pharmacy cost containment strategies, pharmacy RFP impact, additional pharmacy co-pay charges, and HRA/PPO net savings; and the total achieved cost containment is $9,735,393.  He stated the 2009 employer allocation is $48.4 million, with the member allocation $11.7 million; the projected 2010 employer allocation is $39.9 million, with the member allocation $19 million; and the projected 2011 employer allocation is $41.9 million, with the member allocation $20.9 million. 

 

He advised the recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 group health plan include member premium increases that are one and a half to two times the medical inflation rate, which continues the policy of incrementally increasing member planned contributions by $1.8 million while reducing employer subsidy for dependents and retirees; fiscal year 2011 employer increases by 5 percent; closely monitor all program expenses on a monthly basis; and in partnership with the School Board, conduct an RFP of group health insurance programs.  He stated if the Board is comfortable continuing the incremental increases for dependent and retiree rates, and increases in the employee rates as well, that are one and a half to two times the medical inflation rate, another $1.8 million would be generated, which would provide for a sustainable program going into the next year.  He advised what that would mean for an employee only would be a $5 increase, per employee, per month; for an employee and family in the HRA, it would be an annual increase of $234 dollars; for retirees under age 65 it would be an increase of $600 annually; and for a retiree over age 65 it would be an increase of $339 annually.  He stated during the month of September, staff needs to be publishing the rates and preparing for open enrollment; and staff is seeking guidance from the Board as to whether or not it feels it is following the right path.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Employee Advisory Committee had any recommendations.  Mr. Abbate responded there has not been a formal vote yet; the Committee was very concerned about the employees picking up the full boat this year; the Committee was also very concerned about moving more money into the out-of-pocket expenses because there was such a big hit last year; the Committee has not discussed the specific numbers, but he thinks it will be comfortable with incremental increases as he has described; and the Committee will be meeting next week.  Commissioner Anderson stated the ultimate trade off is that jobs will be saved over all.  Mr. Visco stated historically, the Committee has been very sensitive to that; the Committee has been more conservative than previous Boards have been in recommending changes; and the Committee is keyed into the consequences of how the funding affects the Board.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if there is a higher out-of-pocket expense, or if by keeping it at five percent  there is not a higher out-of-pocket expense.  Mr. Abbate replied yes, there is an increase; it is not that the out of pocket expenses will be raised, but when the medical trend goes up, it means what is being charged; most people never reach their out of pocket; whatever the medical inflation rate is, people will see increased out of pocket expenses before they reach their maximum out of pocket expenses in what they pay in deductibles and co-pays.  Commissioner Infantini inquired if the Board will still be funding the HRA's; with Mr. Abbate responding affirmatively.  Commissioner Infantini noted that will help to offset costs.  Mr. Abbate advised 46 percent of HRA dollars have been utilized as of today.  Commissioner Anderson stated there will be a lot of people carrying money over into next year.  Mr. Visco and Mr. Abbate agreed that it is not known yet what will be carried over to the next year. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired what percentage of increase will there be for retirees.  Mr. Abbate replied it will be a 15 percent increase; it has to be above medical trend in order to reduce the subsidy and impact positively the OPEB liability in the future.  Commissioner Fisher inquired how many retirees are in the system.  Mr. Abbate replied there are 900 retirees, two-thirds of which are over age 65. 

 

The Board recessed at 6:58 p.m. and reconvened at 7:04 p.m.

 

 

Mr. Abbate stated staff is looking to see if the Board is comfortable with the strategy that has been outlined in terms of continuing to incrementally reduce the subsidy the Board provides for both retirees and dependents.  Commissioner Anderson stated they are difficult recommendations, but he does not see that the Board has much choice but to agree to them.  Chairman Bolin stated staff has direction from the Board to move forward with the recommendations.

 

FACILITIES DEPARTMENT

 

Steve Quickel, Facilities Department Director, stated the purpose of the Facilities Department is to maintain and operate the County buildings, build new structures, manage utilities and services contracts essential for daily operations of government business.  He stated the budget for Facilities has gone down again this year, which is a horrible trend for the Department; $12.7 million for roofs and HVAC systems, and $20.17 million would help the Department get back to where it needs to be over a period of years; it is not a one-year fix; and that gives the Board the magnitude of the problems Facilities has.  He stated in five years, the Department has lost 23 positions; as the Board knows, Facilities is a very labor intensive process; without staff, not much work can be done; and the cuts in the positions have been across the board, including management, maintenance, and administrative personnel. He advised the maintenance and operations budgets have been cut 20 percent from the funding in 2006-2007; the square footage of facilities that the Department is responsible for has climbed; and the parameters have been working opposed to what they should be.  He stated some of the significant reductions are the major building system repairs, which are the HVAC systems, roofing systems, and other large systems that need to be replaced; that area of Facilities is being reduced by 70 percent, which is substantial; and it will be nearly impossible to do any major repair work or projects.  He noted the annual roofing replacement program has been eliminated entirely; five years ago when it rained, there were multiple buildings that were leaking; staff worked hard and money was diverted to the roofing program to get the roofs fixed so that staff is not called out every time it rains; and the loss of money is going to set the Department back, and all of the headway that was made will be for not in a few years when roofs are leaking again.  He stated the routine maintenance is being reduced by 30 percent; and staff response time to routine repairs will be impacted as a result of the reduction.  He stated if the Palm Bay County Service Complex is eliminated some utility costs will also be eliminated; the Facilities Department is also looking at furloughs; service contracts will be reduced, which will hurt the department; offices are being consolidated, forcing staff to drive further in older vehicles, which will also slow response time to repairs; and there is still an additional need for a three percent cut within some of the projects as a result of making an assumption on other areas that were cut, and have since found out that it cannot be done, but the money is already in the budget, so it has to be identified as another cut. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired how Mr. Quickel determined to vacate the County Service Complex in Palm Bay.  Commissioner Anderson advised Mr. Quickel is referring to the Minton Road Complex.  Mr. Quickel clarified that he is referring to the Palm Bay Service Complex; it is a closure of facilities with the hope and expectation that what is going on down there can be incorporated into existing facilities that are being underutilized from a square footage standpoint; there are vacant spaces in the Viera and Melbourne Complexes; and the desire would be to shut down the Palm Bay building and incorporate those employees in existing facilities.  He noted the decision to close the Palm Bay Complex or not is an option that has been identified that perhaps could be done.  Commissioner Infantini inquired how the Palm Bay Complex was chosen.  Mr. Quickel replied the building is not in a good location; it is not as accessed as much as some of the other areas; the recommendation is based on a combination of things over a period of years, in which if a facility needed to be closed down to save money, the most likely facility would be the one in Palm Bay; there is an opportunity to move the Palm Bay employees into space that is currently vacant because of either a reduction in the workforce, or other offices consolidating operations in different locations; and the decision to close Palm Bay or not is strictly up to the Board, but if it is not a viable option then it will be taken off of the table for consideration.  He advised staff does not have the ability to count the foot traffic, but the Palm Bay Complex is a small building that is in a neighborhood; staffs observation is that it is not a highly accessed facility; and it is not nearly accessed as much as Viera, Melbourne, Titusville, or Merritt Island.

 

Howard Tipton, County Manager, stated he thought he had reviewed all of the department presentations; stated he has taken the closure of the Palm Bay Complex off the table; if something like that is going to be done, staff needs to look at a much more comprehensive look at all of the facility issues; but it is a savings, and at the time, staff was just trying to find a way for Mr. Quickel to reduce the square footage that he is responsible for, given the reductions his department is facing.  Commissioner Anderson stated there is a local business owner interested in Minton/Malabar facility; and inquired if staff is still pursuing that option.  Mr. Tipton replied yes, staff is in the process of putting it up for surplus; and it will not benefit the Facilities Department, as it was originally purchased by Road and Bridge.  Mr. Quickel noted the facility was his Department's south area shop, which has had to close down because there is not adequate staff to keep it going; there are also some other locations that his Department may be able to get rid of as well, but they are nothing of the magnitude of what is needed to recover any money.

 

Mr. Quickel stated service level impacts for the Facilities Department include an increased likelihood of major building systems and equipment failures; increased potential for life and safety issues, including ailments resulting from poor indoor air quality; reduced energy efficiency; slower response times; and accelerated building deterioration.  He further stated the roofing budget is being reduced by $560,000; roofs are the most critical element in a building; when roofs fail and water comes into a building, everything else goes out the door; and roofing has been pursued with a passion over the years because of the complaints of living with the inconvenience of a roof leak.  He stated Facilities has a plan that shows the County Service Complex in Titusville and the Detention and Administration building were two projects the Department planned on doing in the upcoming year, but now will be delayed; following those two facilities are the Melbourne Courthouse, and the Viera Complex; the key point about the buildings at Viera is that they are 21 years old; the expected life on a roof that is taken care of and maintained is approximately 20 years; and so that means more money is being spent on repairs that is only buying a little bit of time.  He noted thousands of dollars have been spent on spot-repairing the roofs in Viera to buy some time until 2013, but they have to be replaced; and the same is true for the Moore Justice Center.  He stated the Facilities Department provides and essential role in minimizing losses and continuing operations after unforeseen events; and there are plumbing problems, along with HVAC leaks from clogged condensate lines, and a loss of water pressure.   He stated Facilities does not have the ability to do preventative maintenance and annual inspections to prevent damage from happening, so when it happens it is catastrophic; it is catastrophic when a County building has to be closed down because the public cannot access it; and the public should not expect public buildings to not be accessible.  He stated Facilities is currently receiving approximately $2.6 million for repair and maintenance; the gap for the best maintained and the worst maintained facilities falls between two percent and four percent of the replacement cost of the buildings; and Facilities is getting half of the minimum for the buildings that are best maintained and do not need anything.  He stated the outstanding issues for Facilities is that currently there is $10.5 million worth of absolute essential maintenance that needs to be done on the buildings; other projects include the Sheriff's North Precinct, the Palm Bay Agricultural Center, the County Records Management Facility, and the ADA modifications at the courthouses.  He noted the County Records and Management Facility's lease at Byrd Plaza expires at the end of next year; something has to be done; there is the Cedar Street address, which is the vacated Health Department, that can be repaired and used as a records management facility; and it cannot be ignored, or else it will become infested with rodents and become a health issue.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if the second floor of the Cedar Street address will hold records.  Mr. Quickel replied there are load restrictions on every building, but that building is sufficient to put a lot of records in it; it cannot be stacked floor to ceiling and wall to wall; but the engineer has said it is suitable for a records management facility; and the heavier records would be warehoused on the first floor, leaving the second floor available for records that turn over more quickly. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if a lot of the records could be scanned and entered into the data management system.  Mr. Quickel replied, from the Board's perspective and the records that are being stored, the records are minimal; and Facilities also has to store records for the Public Defender and the State Attorney, which is where the majority of the records come from at the Byrd Plaza location.  Mr. Quickel stated his office has encouraged the scanning of records, but for some records, a paper copy must be kept, or the originals must be kept; it is not up to the determination of the Facilities Department, as the records belong to the State Attorney and Public Defender; and some of the requirements for the keeping of those records are State mandated.

 

Stockton Whitten, Assistant County Manager, stated the issue would be that the Board would have to spend money on taking care of the records management issue; whether it is $2 million to make the necessary repairs to the Cedar Street building, or spending money on electronic storage, the issue is going to be that the Board will have to spend some dollars; and system in place now is a system that is not built to handle the Countywide record storage electronically.  He noted there are a lot of component pieces that go with that; there would need to be some investment in technology to get there; and the issue is whether the Board spends that money renovating a building, or does it go into full-blown records management.  Commissioner Infantini stated she believes electronic is the way to go; early on in the budget discussions she mentioned the IT Department is underfunded; the County needs to start moving towards technology; and in the long run, the Board will save a great deal of money because it will not have to store paper copies.  Mr. Whitten stated he agrees with Commissioner Infantini, but it is a matter of resources. 

 

Mr. Quickel summarized that continuing to defer maintenance of County buildings will have an adverse impact on health and safety of the employees and the public, administration of government services, and long-term value of County buildings; and noted the cost of ownership will continue to climb regardless of available funding. 

 

OTHER BUSINESS, RE:  REFINANCING OF BONDS

 

Stockton Whitten, Assistant County Manager, advised the Board has an opportunity to refund, or refinance, some sales tax bonds; the Board's policy says that whenever there is an opportunity to achieve a net present value savings of approximately four percent, that it should go ahead and attempt that; and right now, the market is 4.24 percent, which is an annual savings of the Board's debt payment of $317,000; and staff is asking the Board's permission to prepare a deal for final approval at a subsequent Board meeting.  He stated when refinancing, staff merely takes advantage of the lower interest rate; staff does not extend the term, nor does it add to it unless the Board agrees to add additional dollars; and it is simply a strict refinancing to take advantage of a lower interest rate. 

 

The Board approved the refinancing of sales tax bonds at a rate of 4.24 percent, which will equate to an annual savings of $317,000. 

 

MOVER:             Robin Fisher, Vice Chairman/ Commissioner District 1

SECONDER:     Andy Anderson, Commissioner District 5

AYES:                 Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson

 

 

OTHER BUSINESS, RECONSTRUCTED BUDGET

 

Howard Tipton, County Manager, stated next week he is scheduled to meet with all of the Departments to go back and restructure some of the budgets that are severely impacted; he would like to give the Board his recommended reconstruction on August 23rd, for Board consideration at the August 26th meeting; and he would like to dedicate the afternoon of the 26th for a budget discussion.  He noted September 7th is a follow-up Board meeting in which it can finalize the budget discussions that are needed before going into the two public hearings on September 14th and 28th. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated her problem with that is if Mr. Tipton is moving forward with the full roll forward, or rollback rate so that he will be able to utilize all of the tax increase; of the budget prepared, she does not know how many elements of it are public safety, although the Board said it wanted public safety, roads, and economic development; the Board needs to get back to priorities; and she wants to know if Mr. Tipton is going to go forward using every dime from the roll forward.  Mr. Tipton stated the Board is at a point where next year it has Embraer's payment of $1.8 million coming out of reserves; he would strongly recommend that the money be replaced with some of these dollars; the reserves are at a very low level; and he would like to see some additional dollars go into reserves.  He stated the Board has discussed fiscal integrity issues in terms of making sure the cash brought forward is going to be down approximately 21 percent going forward into the next year; that is an issue; and having reserves available for that is important.  He stated the budget is still short on a number of areas, including roads, facilities, economic development, and others; there is any number of ways it can be split and shared; and he is willing to take some direction from the Board right now.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated the Road and Bridge issue needs to get healthy over some period of time, whether it is four years or five years; and he does not think anyone will disagree with that.  He noted obviously, Facilities is the other area that needs to be healthy. 

 

Chairman Bolin stated she would like to see a minimum of at least $3 million go into reserves.  Commissioner Infantini stated she thinks that is wonderful, except last year when she tried not to use the reserves she was out voted 4:1; she does not think this year the Board will be able to find the way to finance the reserves; but what could be done is payoff some of the debt, such as the North Merritt Island and South referendum projects; and the Board could not build the community centers at Wickham Park and Mitchell Ellington Park.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if the community center at Rodes Park should not be built either.  Commissioner Infantini noted that community center is already completed.  She stated the entire millage from the north area is going to payoff debt service; not a penny is going to fund it; and that is why she said it was a big lie, because the County could never operate them and payoff the debt service. Commissioner Nelson stated the Merritt Island referendum fixed up 14 parks; they were already being maintained to some level; the maintenance needs there are not equivalent to the nine or 10 additional that were built brand new in the south; and Merritt Island does not have the same kind of issues that Commissioner Infantini has in the south.  He added, Commissioner Infantini's constituents are not paying for his parks, and his constituents are not paying for hers.  Commissioner Infantini stated the millage being collected is only going to pay for the debt service.  Commissioner Nelson stated there was already funding in place for the maintenance of those parks; and what was done was basically a rehab on those parks on Merritt Island. Commissioner Infantini stated she does not think there are nine or 10 new community centers in the south part of the County.  Commissioner Nelson pointed out there are nine or 10 new parks in the south part of the County.  Commissioner Infantini stated if the Board had not mismanaged the money in the first referendum, it would not need to have this discussion today; going forward, the Board has to cut its losses; the Board cannot keep spending money it does not have; and there has to be some logic on the Board somewhere.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he is more concerned about crumbling roads; the Board will have a discussion on the defeasance of the $15 million roads bond; if it gives the Board $650,000 more per year to put towards road maintenance, then he is okay with that; if the Board does not defease the bond it still has to come up with $1 million to $2 million more per year towards road maintenance; and he is not asking his fellow Commissioners for input on that right now, but he needs some input before the 26th.  He stated he just wants to increase the Road and Bridge funding to get the department back to where it was. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the Board knows that model it has had up until this point was built on growth; the growth and the society has changed; it is not anyone's fault, but everyone wants to blame the situation on previous Commissioners; and that is not the scenario.  He stated one thing that bothers him is that the reason people have distrust in government is because it says it is going to do one thing but does something different; revenue has been collected in Districts 2 and 4 for community centers, and everyone had centers built except Districts 3 and 5; people are going to realize they have been paying taxes from the referendum; and he feels bad that the Commission has said it is going to do something but has not done it.  He stated as the other Commissioners know, he has been involved in the YMCA for 20 years; during those 20 years he has been in a lot of different partnerships in the Orlando area as well as Brevard County for the YMCA; one partnership was with Blanchard Park in Orlando, which has a community center with a YMCA in the middle of it; and the YMCA runs the center and operates it.  He advised when Brevard Community College was talking about closing down its gym and pool a few years ago he got heavily involved with the BCC Board; instead of closing down the facility, there is now a YMCA operating at the Cocoa BCC campus; and he would like to know if the Board would at least entertain the concept to create a partnership with the YMCA so that the community centers can operate. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he supports Commissioner Fisher's idea 100 percent; he has been interested in the same concept for the Palm Bay Aquatic Center; Parks and Recreation approached the Aquatic Center, but they did not seem interested; but he would more than welcome partnering with the YMCA.  Commissioner Fisher stated with the Sunshine Law, the Board is going to have to think outside the box; the YMCA has a lot of experience with partnerships with the public and private sector; one of the challenges to a community center is that if the County builds it, then it does not have the ability to operate it because the funding is not available; and inquired if the community wins if the YMCA operates and runs community centers.  He stated he has talked to Mr. Tipton and Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten about the idea; he has also mentioned it to the YMCA; and he would encourage discussion among the Board, and perhaps hold a workshop on the subject with the representatives of the YMCA. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he has talked to the YMCA representatives at various times in the past; the concern has been that the YMCA could run one or two community centers, but the County has multiple community centers; there are some community centers the YMCA is not interested in; and while he agrees the Board needs to have the discussion, he does not want everyone to think that is the absolute solution because the YMCA does not have the resources to come in and take over a public agency.  He stated he has also had discussions with the Boys and Girls Club of America; Gibson Center in Titusville is actually run by the Police Athletic League; and so the Board has done that sort of partnerships, but it has been on a case-by-case basis. 

 

Chairman Bolin stated she is on the board of the Boys and Girls Club of America, which is considering a partnership in the Cocoa/Rockledge area.  Commissioner Fisher stated he is just interested in partnerships; and he did not know if the Board would be open to the idea.  Commissioner Nelson stated Mr. Tipton has a huge challenge ahead of him with the budget and with what the Board has already approved; he knows there are cuts that can be made in the budget that the Board should take advantage of; for example, Mosquito Control had a bump in its millage a few years ago, and so there are some dollars there that could keep it from going to the full roll up; but those will be ferreted out as the Board goes through the process; and it will be easier for the Board to have the discussion about making those final adjustments to pull things out, as opposed to being at the bottom and trying to put things back in. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated as leaders, the Board cannot mislead the public on what it would mean to go to full rollback; a constituent called his office to complain about the rollback, so he ran the numbers on 10 houses in the  Fawn Lake subdivision to see what it would mean to those residents if there is a full rollback; one house actually had a $191 decrease, which is 11 percent; another house had a $137 increase; and the bottom line is that eight out of 10 of those houses had a decrease.  He stated the public thinks, and what Commissioner Infantini wrote in her blog, is that everyone was getting a 19 percent increase on their tax bill; and that is not true.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she did not say everybody is getting a 19 percent increase; stated she said effectively, there could be a 19 percent increase with the approximately 16 percent millage increase; if a house is homesteaded, or if someone bought before 2001 or 2003, they will see a three percent increase in the taxable value, and then added to that is the 16 percent; and three percent plus 16 percent is a 19 percent increase in the tax bill.  She noted not everybody is going to have that increase; she researched one property in which a citizen went from $70,000 down to $62,000; but a lot of people are suffering; and she cannot support a tax increase.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated by law it is not a tax increase; it is not called a tax decrease when there is a rollback; every year, during the boom, the previous Boards would rollback the millage; and they had to by law, or else it is an increase; but it is not called a decrease.  Commissioner Infantini stated the previous Boards did not roll it back to generate the same revenue, they came out many dollars ahead.  Commissioner Nelson stated anything above the rollback has to be called an increase; and it is advertised that way. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated what Commissioner Infantini said in her blog is that citizens are receiving a 16 percent tax increase from Commissioners Fisher, Bolin, and Nelson; and the properties he researched did not receive a 16 percent tax increase.  Commissioner Infantini stated many people did receive a tax increase.  She stated Commissioner Fisher has taken her comments in her blog out of context; she does not think she started her blog by saying people received a 16 percent tax increase; and stated what she said is that the County Manager was tasked with preparing a balanced budget based on the current millage rate, and he did just that. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the Clerk of Courts, Scott Ellis, told the Board he has cut staff and salaries; and the Supervisor of Elections, Lori Scott, told the Board she has cut salaries by 14 percent.  Commissioner Infantini pointed out that Ms. Scott cut her total payroll, but did not say she cut individual employees' salaries; and stated if Commissioner Fisher would like to question why her staff is closer to being paid what other Commission Offices employees are being paid, she would be glad to address it.  Commissioner Fisher inquired why Commissioner Infantini is giving her staff a 58 percent pay raise.  Commissioner Infantini stated her staff went from earning $41,000 to earning $49,000; she knows other staffs of Commissioners are earning comparable salaries.  Commissioner Fisher stated Commissioner Infantini's staff started at $19,000; stated one of Commissioner Infantini's employees was working at the Clerk's Office earning $19,700; Commissioner Infantini hired that employee at $31,000; and inquired if that is true.  Commissioner Infantini replied she is not having a cross examination by Commissioner Fisher; and if Commissioner Fisher is saying that her employees are not worth the same amount of money as his employees, then she will say they are.  Commissioner Fisher stated he just wants the public to understand.  Commissioner Infantini stated her staff is entitled to exactly what Commissioner Fisher's staff is entitled to.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if Commissioner Infantini's staff has worked as long as his staff.  Commissioner Infantini stated it does not matter how long her staff has been in their positions.  Commission Fisher inquired if college degrees and experience does not matter.  Commissioner Infantini stated no, it does not matter because at some point in time they have the entirely same skill set as Commissioner Fisher's staff; her staff has been underpaid for the last year and a half, but now they are up to the exact same speed as all of the other Commissioners; and stated her staff is being penalized for being paid based on their skill set when they were first hired and raising them to their current skill set.  Commissioner Fisher stated Commissioner Infantini's staff went from $19,000 to $31,000, which he does not fault at all; three months later their salaries went from $31,000 to $41,000; and one year and a half after that, their salaries went from $41,000 to $49,000.  He stated he is not saying that employee is not worth that salary, but he is saying that in the current environment, a 58 percent increase does not look favorable.  Commissioner Infantini stated people can know that her staff was underpaid for the first year and a half; and Commissioner Fisher has an employee that is paid $59,000; her staff does exactly the same job for 50 percent less than Commissioner Fisher's staff.  She stated at some point, an employee masters the entire skill set and should not keep getting a higher pay; and stated five of the other Commission Offices staff members are paid more than her staff.  Commissioner Fisher stated Commissioner Infantini did a Infantini Study instead of a Cody Study.  Commissioner Infantini stated yes, she did, based on the skill set of her employees.  Commissioner Fisher stated that is what the Cody Study did.  Commissioner Infantini stated no, the Cody Study gave raises based on the fact of some kind of random job description. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the Board is trying to be transparent and act like it is conservative, but for whatever reason Commissioner Infantini made the decision to pay her staff what she wants to pay; since he has been a Commissioner his staff has not received one raise; he kept the exact same employees as the previous Commissioner at the exact same rate; he did not hire his friends; and he has not made any changes. Commissioner Infantini stated this is not a personal dialogue between herself and Commissioner Fisher; and she will dismiss herself from the meeting.  Commissioner Fisher stated it became personal when Commissioner Infantini wrote her blog.  He read aloud a portion of Commissioner Infantini's blog, accusing him of costing the taxpayers $310,000.  Commissioner Infantini stated it is true that Commissioner Fisher cost the taxpayers $310,000, when her office was running at $260,000 in 2009; stated Commissioner Fisher spent $50,000 last year more than her office; and in 2008 Commissioner Voltz only had two staff members compared to everyone else's three staff members, but in 2007 her budget was $206,000.  She inquired if Chairman Bolin would like to adjourn the meeting.

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

.

 

 

ATTEST:                                                                                                                                

                                                                        MARY BOLIN, CHAIRMAN

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                    _                                  BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK