July 19, 2001

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on July 19, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Susan Carlson, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

APPROVAL TO PURCHASE, RE: VALKARIA/GRANT FIRE STATION SITE

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the County has been looking for a location to place a permanent fire station in the Valkaria area; a piece of property that had not been on the market previously came on the market; it is highly desirable property; and it was subdivided into parcels and such parcels are going quickly. He requested the Board authorize staff to purchase approximately 3.5 acres of property located on the north side of Valkaria Road, south of Henderson Drive; negotiate a purchase price, not to exceed $15,000 per acre; waive the appraisal requirements; authorize the Chairman to execute the necessary contracts, subject to the County Attorney's review; and authorize staff to obtain environmental services, surveys, etc. to complete the purchase and make all the necessary budgetary adjustments. Mr. Jenkins stated it appears to be an acceptable location for the fire station; and staff found it necessary to bring the issue to the Board's attention today since the parcels are being purchased quickly.

Chairman Carlson inquired is it an acceptable location for the people that are having problems with the fire station there. Mr. Jenkins responded there is not a perfect place, but the proposed location appears to be the best of the locations.

Commissioner Higgs stated staff has touched base with the homeowners' groups, including the Valkaria Neighborhood Association and the homeowners who had raised objections to the Board; the pilot group wants it on the Airport property because of the revenue issue; but the homeowners' groups have been contacted and seem supportive.

Chairman Carlson stated there was a safety issue that was brought up because the last parcel was near the curve. Commissioner Higgs noted the parcel is not on the curve and is surrounded on one side by GML and Planned Business Park on the other side.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to purchase approximately 3.5 acres of property located on the north side of Valkaria Road, south of Henderson Drive, located in Section 18, Township 29 South, Range 38 East for the Valkaria/Grant Fire Station; authorize staff to negotiate a purchase price, not to exceed $15,000 per acre and waive the appraisal requirements; authorize the Chairman to execute the necessary Contracts; and authorize staff to obtain environmental services, survey, etc. to complete the purchase, and to make all necessary budgetary adjustments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: COMMISSIONER O'BRIEN'S SURGERY

Chairman Carlson welcomed Commissioner O'Brien back from his surgery.

Commissioner O'Brien stated his surgery went well, he is still recovering, but he is back today to go to work.

REPORT, RE: UPCOMING BUDGET AND SALES TAX DISCUSSION

Commissioner Colon stated when she had mentioned Florida TODAY having the partnership concerning the upcoming budget and sales tax discussions, her friends from Brevard News Network and WMMB Radio Station said they had already started working on it; and thanked Michelle Murillo for already bringing the message out about what the County wants to do. She noted Brevard News Network and WMMB Radio Station indicated it would open its doors to any Commissioner who would like to speak to the upcoming budget and sales tax discussion issues on the radio; and expressed appreciation to the media.

REPORT, RE: SOUTH BEACH RESTORATION

Chairman Carlson stated at the Board's meeting on Tuesday, the Board requested the County Manager and Virginia Barker to come up with a plan to get the South Beach Restoration money restored in Congress; and inquired are there any suggestions.

County Manager Tom Jenkins responded he had a brief conversation with Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer, who had one suggestion; he has other suggestions; and staff could bring such suggestions to the Board at its next Tuesday's meeting. He stated Ms. Barker had one idea, but he does not know that it is the best one; her thought was to put an insert in the Florida TODAY at a cost of $6,000, which is basically a sample letter that people could send; he is not sure that is what the Board wants to do; so he wanted Mr. Peffer to look at other options.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired did the City of Satellite Beach raise money for Save the Beaches by selling license plates; with Commissioner Higgs responding affirmatively. Commissioner O'Brien stated it has funding in its City and could help get out the call for letters to the Senators. Chairman Carlson noted it has its own municipal initiatives to do that; and a lot of it was grant money.

DISCUSSION, RE: BUDGET OVERVIEW

Chairman Carlson stated the paperwork before the Board includes a history of millages for each District; and inquired is there data included that the Board requested at its last meeting on cost of living.

County Manager Tom Jenkins responded the information is included as part of the package. Chairman Carlson inquired is the budget workshop on July 26, 2001 canceled; with Mr. Jenkins responding it depends on whether or not the Board finishes today. Mr. Jenkins noted the Board has the opportunity to finish today; if it does, it does not have to have such workshop; and it needs to wait until the end of today's meeting to make that decision. Chairman Carlson stated the question was posed by the Sheriff's Office as it had a presentation for the July 26, 2001 workshop in case it was needed; and if the Board wants to listen to the presentation today, such Office is ready to present it.

Mr. Jenkins stated staff will provide an overview of the budget in its total; it would like to finish those agencies that are non-ad valorem funded that the Board did not discuss at its last workshop; and the Board can recap its issues, priorities, and all the things it discussed previously so staff can move forward from this point. He noted the Board may or may not get all of that done today; and if it does, the extra workshop will not be necessary.

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten showed a slide presentation to the Board and audience of an overview of the proposed budget and financial indicators. He stated the preliminary FY 2001-2002 budget totals $720.1 million, which represents a .88% increase from the current amended budget; the ad valorem funded portion is $145.6 million; and the General Funded Agency portion totals $110.4 million. He noted the Countywide budget by fund type includes General Fund of $163,648,230; Special Revenue Fund of $196,106,776; Enterprise Fund of $177,467,842; Internal Service Fund of $52,716,659; Capital Project Fund of $95,859,555; and Debt Service Fund of $34,361,820.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the chart shows debt service as being 4.77%; only 4.77% of the Countywide total budget pays down debt; and inquired what is an average debt service payment by a county. Mr. Whitten stated he does not know the number percentage wise, but would guess that Brevard County is below the average. Mr. Jenkins stated staff checked it approximately two years ago for the Charter Review Commission; the County was significantly below the industry norm; and its debt service was well below what most other local governments carry.

Budget Manager Dennis Rogero noted the average debt service is 7%. Commissioner O'Brien stated a lot of people are concerned about how much debt the County has and their taxes are paying the interest; the 4.77% is low compared to other counties; and Brevard County is doing a good job.

Mr. Whitten stated the next slide shows the General Fund budget by Agency, which includes the Sheriff's Office at $41,640,251; Board Agencies at $33,469,379; Charter Officers at $15,386,175; Parks and Recreation Department at $11,671,882; and Judicial Services at $8,205,868. Mr. Whitten stated the next slide shows the major items impacting the expenditures for the FY 2001-2001 budget, which include eight additional Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) deputy sheriffs at $730,000; five additional court deputies at $276,000; Sheriff's Office grant match of $335,000 for eight additional school resource officers/deputies, new vehicle theft investigator and technician, four new crime victim advocates, prisoner transport staff, and fire medic safety incentives at $1,208,141.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired was the fire medic salary incentives of $1,208,141 approved by referendum; with Chairman Carlson responding negatively, as it was for competitive purposes.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired did the Board approve the new vehicle theft investigator last year; with Mr. Whitten responding affirmatively. Commissioner O'Brien inquired has the $335,000 expenditure already been approved by the Board; with Mr. Jenkins responding affirmatively.

Mr. Whitten stated other major items impacting expenditures in the FY 2001-2002 budget include the increase in court costs of $524,000; new Melbourne Beach Library books and partial year of operations at $206,000; Parks General Fund cost increases at $950,000; new Property Appraiser/Tax Collector property software at $200,000; full year costs of FY 2000-2001 employee salary increases and FY 2001-2002 salary increases in the General Fund of $4.3 million; and employer health insurance cost increases in the General Fund of $1.1 million.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired does the increase in court costs of $524,000 include the memorandum dated July 18, 2001 from Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts Scott Ellis saying he is going to have an increase of costs for new judges' positions of $150,000 and upgrading the Courthouse of $130,000; with Mr. Jenkins responding negatively. Mr. Whitten stated the $524,000 is primarily as a result of loss of funding on Article V and court reporting. Mr. Jenkins advised the State of Florida is reducing the amount of money it is giving the County next year. Commissioner O'Brien stated there is not one total number; and inquired what is the total increase in costs to the courts and why is there such an increase. Mr. Jenkins responded staff can provide the information by the agency involved; the State Attorney, Public Defender, Clerk of Courts, and Court Administration all impact the courts; and staff can provide a total number for the Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated $1 million in increased court costs is the tip of the iceberg; the County still has to build the courthouse; the County will be incurring other costs in the future; and it needs to start planning a budget for three years from now so that other agencies may know that three years from now the money is not going to be there for them. He requested staff provide a comprehensive review of the overall cost increase to the courts of Brevard County, including the Public Defender and State Attorney Offices; and what costs the County incurs. He noted the County needs to see the broader picture of what its costs are and why there is a $1 million increase in one year. Mr. Jenkins stated staff can provide the requested information to the Board.

Mr. Whitten stated other major items impacting expenditures include general liability insurance cost increases to the General Fund of $625,000; increases in redevelopment agency tax increment payments of $148,000; Alzheimer's Foundation Facility of $134,000; full funding of telephone charges of $388,000; and full funding of facilities maintenance upgrades, including custodial, landscaping, and Florida Power and Light (FP&L) Company increases of $420,000.

Commissioner Higgs stated it was her understanding, in talking with city officials, that there might be an interest by the cities in not having the County cover the additional costs for redevelopment agency tax increment payments. Mr. Jenkins noted that is the tax abatement, which is a separate issue; the numbers are based on the fact that the redevelopment occurring in those areas is increasing the property values; therefore, more money must be rebated as it is based on the baseline from three or four years ago. Commissioner Higgs inquired would the number that the cities desire not to see the County penalized for not affect the $148,000; with Mr. Jenkins responding it could affect it some. Mr. Jenkins stated staff will be meeting with the cities to discuss how to fix that problem on tax abatement; but it is primarily based on the incremental increases in values.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board adopts an abatement ordinance, would the City of Melbourne have the option to opt out. Mr. Jenkins responded he is going to have a meeting with the city managers; his preliminary discussions are that they do not want to see the County take a double hit on tax abatements in the redevelopment districts; and the city managers are prepared to recommend to their city councils that they get the money back. Commissioner O'Brien noted the cities have the option to opt out of the ordinance; and they do not have to participate in the abatement. Mr. Jenkins stated the cities have their own ordinance. Commissioner O'Brien requested staff provide the results to the Board.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired are the FPL increases charged to the County for electricity; with Mr. Whitten responding affirmatively. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the cost of fuel has decreased, should the costs for electricity also decrease. Mr. Jenkins responded it is regulated by the Public Service Commission (PSC) and may be an issue the Board would like to address to the PSC.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to report back to the Board with additional information at the July 24, 2001 regular meeting concerning Florida Power and Light (FP&L) Company electricity increases to the County, with a letter for the Chairman's signature to be sent to the Public Service Commission (PSC).

Commissioner O'Brien noted the letter can include that energy costs have been reduced in the past 60 days; there has been a rush to increase the cost for electricity and other energy to the County for the past six months; and now it is time to reverse that process. Commissioner Scarborough noted the County needs to substantiate with a lot of data. Chairman Carlson stated the issue can be brought back to the Board at the July 24, 2001 meeting with the appropriate information.

Mr. Whitten explained the financial indicators; stated most of the indicators are used by the majority of Florida counties to show their financial health and well-being; and the next chart shows Brevard County's population growth from 1993 through 2000.

Chairman Carlson inquired what is the exact census number for population growth; with Mr. Whitten responding 476,230, and the estimated population in 1991 was 409,370. Mr. Whitten stated the next charts show the personal income per capita from 1991 through 1999 and revenues per capita adjusted for inflation. Mr. Jenkins noted these are County government revenues. Mr. Whitten stated the revenues per capita have remained fairly flat; the next chart shows expenditures per capita, adjusted for inflation, from 1993 through 2000. Mr. Jenkins stated per capita is the total dollar amount divided by the population.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired the expenditures per capita are whose expenditures; with Mr. Jenkins responding County government. Commissioner O'Brien noted the chart shows what County government is spending per citizen. Mr. Whitten noted it is revenues per capita Countywide. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what number is used to adjust for inflation. Mr. Whitten responded staff uses the published Consumer Price Index (CPI) number for the particular fiscal year.

Commissioner Scarborough stated sometimes the CPI accurately reflects inflation and sometimes it does not; the CPI for a county may be different than a CPI for a young person or elderly individual; the cost of buying County buildings may have substantially increased much more than the CPI; and the cost of replacing Sheriff's vehicles may have increased more. He noted he is not trying to say that the CPI is not good, but sometimes it blurs the actuality; and to be at the same level, one has to be spending more revenues.

Mr. Whitten stated the next chart represents the aggregate millages, adjusted for voter-approved, from FY 1993-1994 through FY 2001-2002; and the proposed aggregate millage for FY 2001-2002 is actually lower than the FY 1993-1994 aggregate millage. He noted the next chart represents the General-Countywide tax revenues in millions of dollars, adjusted for inflation, from 1993 through 2000; and explained the General Fund tax revenue as a percentage of the total County budget chart from the FY 1995-1996 Final Budget to the FY 2001-2002 Preliminary Budget. He stated the next chart shows General Funds as a percentage of the total County budget from the FY 1995-1996 Final Budget to the FY 2001-2002 Preliminary Budget. Mr. Whitten stated the FY 2001-2002 budget development schedule includes July 31, 2001 for the tentative millage, August 16, 2001 for the Melbourne-Tillman budget hearing, September 12, 2001 for the first budget hearing, and September 25, 2001 for the final budget hearing.

Commissioner Colon requested staff provide a chart showing the County's actual budget and what is unfunded, and compare it for the last 10 years.

Commissioner Higgs stated on the first page of the County Manager's memorandum to the Board dated July 16, 2001, Mr. Jenkins is proposing a 2.99% aggregate millage rate increase; the Charter speaks in terms of percentage revenue increases; and inquired if the County were to go to the cap-it figure of 3% revenue, what would be the additional revenue generated versus the 2.99% millage. Mr. Jenkins responded conservatively approximately $2 million. Commissioner Higgs requested staff represent a millage increase that would equate to the cap-it revenue increase. Mr. Jenkins responded the percentage would be a little less than 2% additional; $1.1 million equates to a 1% millage increase; and if it was $2 million it would be a little less than an additional 2%. Commissioner Higgs stated a millage increase of approximately 4.25% would equal the increase defined in the Charter by cap-it. Mr. Jenkins noted it would be closer to a 5% millage increase over the current millage, which would add approximately $2 million.

DISCUSSION, RE: BUDGET PRESENTATIONS

Budget Manager Dennis Rogero stated the Clerk of Courts' self-sustaining programs reflect an increase of 9.45%, due in large part from increases in compensation and benefits; there are some decreases in operating expenditures and an increase in capital expenditures; and the increase in compensation and benefits is primarily due to the funded pay raises approved by the Board in the current year. He noted the Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District represents a decrease of 1.80%, despite some built-in increases of compensation and benefits, operating expenses, and some reserves.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the decrease in; with Mr. Jenkins responding capital and debt service. Mr. Jenkins advised the Board will have a special hearing for the District. Commissioner Higgs stated the water picture in Brevard County is changing, so the Board needs to ensure the District is adequately funding what it needs to be funding, as it covers most of South Brevard.

Mr. Rogero stated the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency (MIRA) represents a decrease in its budget of 8.43%; and in the built-in expense column, there is a decrease in capital improvements. He noted the next agency is the Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority (TICO), which represents an increase of $51,831; the millage rate is at rollback in the preliminary budget; and it reflects a 4.2% increase. He stated the Fleet Services Agency reflects a 13.75% increase in its budget, primarily attributable to an increase in operating expenses, which includes fuel price increases. Mr. Rogero noted the Human Resources Department reflects a slight decrease at 0.37%; and a reduction in reserves is almost entirely countered by an increase in operating expenses. He stated the next agency is Mosquito Control that is not General funded, which represents a slight decrease of 1.71%; and it is primarily attributable to a decrease in capital improvements and offset slightly by an increase in reserves, and compensation and benefits built-in increases as approved by the Board in the current year. Mr. Rogero stated the Office of Natural Resources Management is the next Agency, reflecting a decrease of 13.58%, primarily attributable to a decrease in operating reserves. He noted the Road and Bridge Program of the Public Works Department reflects a decrease of 13.95% primarily due to completion of capital improvements in the current year and a decrease in operating expenses, partially offset by increases in built-in compensation and benefits as approved by the Board. Mr. Rogero stated the Regional Stormwater Utility Department is the next Agency, reflecting a decrease of approximately 25%, primarily attributable to a decrease in reserves as it begins expending reserve funding on projects. Mr. Jenkins advised staff is proposing to separate it out from the Public Works Department and create a new department; there is no additional costs to do that; the reason for such new department is span and control; and as the Stormwater Program becomes more regional in nature, a number of cities will be brought into the Program. She noted staff felt it was advantageous for the department to have its own identity as a separate entity since a number of the cities are contracting with the County to provide that service.

Mr. Rogero stated the Solid Waste Management Department reflects an increase of nearly 23%, primarily attributable to capital improvement projects for next year and reserves for capital improvement projects in future years. He noted the Tourism Development Office (TDC) reflects a decrease of 28.20%, primarily associated to operating expense decreases.

A representative of TDC stated the decrease in operating expenses is attributed to the cost of the Beach Renourishment Project the Office funded this past fiscal year. Commissioner Higgs inquired is it a transfer and the project is completed; with the TDC representative responding the first phase is completed. Commissioner Higgs stated there is a decrease of $2.9 million for monitoring equipment and street sweeper; and requested staff provide an explanation.

Surface Water Improvement Director Ron Jones advised the $2.9 million is a decrease in reserves, which is a result of projects that have been completed; and the monitoring equipment is a program change. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the County took money out of the reserves, built the projects, and completed them; with Mr. Jones responding affirmatively.

Mr. Rogero stated the Transit Services Department reflects a slight decrease of 1.39%; and it is attributable to decreases in capital outlay expenditures, a decrease in reserves, and a slight decrease in transfers. He noted the Transportation Planning Office reflects a decrease of 15.37%, primarily associated with a decrease in operating expenses.

Chairman Carlson inquired what is the decrease based on. Transportation Planning Director Bob Kamm responded the County received supplemental grant funds to complete the long-range transportation plan and purchase bicycle helmets; such grants are being closed out; operating expenses are calculated as a percentage of the budget; and with the closeout of those, the operating expenses will go down. He noted it is completion of programs that the County had supplemental funding for.

Mr. Rogero stated Valkaria Airport is the next Agency, which reflects a decrease of 38% attributable to a decrease in reserves, transfers, and capital expenditures. He stated the Water Resources Department is the final Agency; and it reflects a decrease of $6.4 million, primarily associated with capital improvements completed in the current year and reserve utilization for such capital improvements.

Mr. Jenkins requested Frank Abbate address proposed issues pertaining to insurance. He stated the County has encountered cost increases in health insurance; it has taken a number of steps to address it; and monies were moved from the Workers' Compensation Reserve to the General Liability Reserve in order to improve the overall financial condition of the General Liability Reserve. He stated the County used the General Liability Reserve Fund to settle the Pinter litigation, in which it acquired some land; and it was done with the understanding that staff would be seeking another funding source for the actual land acquisition portion of the settlement. He noted the budget is predicated on finding the funding source; and staff has applications into the St. Johns River Water Management District and State of Florida.

Human Resources Director Frank Abbate stated the budget contains a proposed increase in the employer contribution rate of 11% for the Group Health Insurance Program; the County is partners with the School Board in the various group health insurance plans offered to employees; and the 11% increase, coupled with a corresponding increase to the employees for their dependents and retiree increases, was approved by the Insurance Committee, which will address the Board in a couple of weeks. He stated it will provide the County with the opportunity to grow its insurance reserve from approximately $3.2 million to $3.3 million; the County needs to have approximately $4.1 million, based on its anticipated expenditures; but it is looking at a multi-year approach to complete it. Mr. Abbate advised the County is in a good financial condition compared to the School Board, which has significantly more challenges in its funding of the Program. He stated the County and School Board need to keep their plan benefit designs as identical as possible because of the confusion it would create with physician groups, third-party administrators, hospitals, etc.; and County staff is working with the School Board.

Commissioner O'Brien requested Mr. Abbate explain the plan benefit designs. Mr. Abbate stated it is co-payments for office visits, specialists' visits, primary care visits, and whether or not there is any type of co-payment for an MRI, outpatient surgery, etc.

Mr. Jenkins stated the County's employees get the insurance program at a considerably lower cost than School Board employees; there has been significant across-the-board increases in the cost of health care; and Mr. Abbate and his staff have done an outstanding job of managing those costs, and lessened the cost impact to the County. He noted Orange County increased its rates 30% and 40%; Brevard County has been able to contain its rates at less than that; but it is still dramatic. He noted staff had to look at expanding the employees share of the costs of providing insurance; the County is not proposing that employees pay for their own coverage, but dependency coverage and some of the specific issues; the Board is assuming an additional 12% increase in premium costs it is paying for employees, which also subsidizes the cost of dependents and retirees' coverage; and there has been some expanded cost sharing with employees. Mr. Jenkins stated the County is working concurrently with the School Board to try to get it to do something similar in order to have the plan match up.

Commissioner O'Brien commended Mr. Abbate for the outstanding job he and his staff have done with the County's health insurance program.

Mr. Abbate stated the changes that are being proposed would be an increase in the co-payments for specialty care from $15 to $35; with out-patient, there is currently no co-payment and the increase would be $50; and MRI's and similar types of diagnostic procedures would have a $50 co-payment as well. He noted the School Board is pushing for a $100 co-payment per admission to the hospital in order to fund its program; and those are the ones he anticipates.

Commissioner Higgs inquired about the increase on dependent care. Mr. Abbate responding dependent care for the HMO is approximately $82.50; it would increase to about $86 or $87; he does not have specific numbers; but it is a 17% increase.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County gave employees salary increases last year; and inquired are there any employees where there is a no net gain or a minus because of the increase in the health insurance program. Mr. Jenkins responded the insurance percentage increase is considerably less than the percentage increase in salaries, so there could not be a net loss for anybody.

Mr. Jenkins stated the amount of money the County is contributing per employee also covers a portion of the cost of the dependent coverage and a portion of the cost of retirees who are covered under the Program. He noted staff did an analysis of the Worker's Compensation Fund; it found excess dollars in the Reserve Account; the General Liability Insurance rates have already increased significantly; but to avoid them increasing any further, staff is proposing to move $400,000 from the Worker's Compensation Reserve to the General Liability Reserve.

The meeting recessed at 10:45 a.m. and reconvened at 11:05 a.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: COURT OPERATIONS' PROGRAM CHANGES

Court Administrator Mark Van Bever explained information provided to the Board from Court Administration, including funds that the courts have worked on with the State Legislature to provide for the Board through Administrative Order. He stated $500,000 goes toward the debt service of the Justice Center, and almost another $1 million goes toward court renovations or future courthouse construction; Family Court Resource Assistance helps individuals that have mostly child-support collection needs; and the Batterers Intervention Program is for those who have been involved with domestic violence and need education to break the cycle. He stated the Traffic Hearing Officer Program is also funded by the State; Court Facilities is $341,000, which could be used for renovation or capital, etc.; Drug Court is $360,000, which is in the State budget, but to be passed to the Board; and there is a Drug Court position that Court Alternatives has on loan from Court Administration to help with Drug Court. Mr. Van Bever advised the total is approximately $2,500,000, which exceeds Court Administration's total budget; and Judge Jacobus will talk to the Board briefly concerning a couple of unfunded program changes in the budget.

Judge Bruce Jacobus stated unfunded program changes include the addition for temporary Judicial Assistant (JA) time and the court evaluator; there are three court evaluators now in Brevard County; they are similar to child protection investigators in the Family Division; and half of the cases in Civil Court are family cases. He noted in such Division, court evaluators are probably the most important people; and another one is necessary.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the cost for such position; with Judge Jacobus responding $47,054.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it is wonderful that Judge Jacobus was able to get funding from the State and bring into Brevard County $2.4 million; and congratulated him for a job well done. Judge Jacobus noted he has only been on the job 19 days, so his predecessor deserves some credit. Commissioner O'Brien expressed concern with the increase of court costs of $524,000; stated he requested staff try to combine some of the numbers for the Board to review to see the big picture; the Clerk of Courts wants to upgrade the courthouse at $130,000; there is a cost of $150,000 for the new judges; and some other costs equal approximately $1.7 million. He reiterated his concerns with the drastic increase in Court Administration's already $8.3 million total budget. Mr. Van Bever stated the costs Commissioner O'Brien is speaking of are outside of Court Administration's budget, but it is willing to assist the Board in any way to try to hold those costs down; and the costs mentioned are in the Clerk's, County's Fine and Forfeiture, State Attorney, or Public Defender's budgets.

Judge Jacobus stated the Legislature granted $470,000 to Brevard County for a model dependency court; it was tried last year in other circuits; it involves eight people, four in Seminole County and four in Brevard County; the hearing master will be used to try to move dependency cases forward; and there are pluses and minuses to it, as the County would need a hearing officer and a room for the hearings.

Mr. Van Bever stated Court Administration is also going to implement a collections docket in County Court; it is hoping the collections that come in are significantly higher than the rate they are coming in now; and it estimates at least $200,000 of increased revenue.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if the court evaluator position is not funded, does Court Administration contract the service out at a higher cost. Mr. Van Bever responded if it has to perform those evaluations and does not have the staff to do it, it would have to contract it, which would be at a much higher cost; and the psychologists and psychiatrists who would do these kinds of home studies are going to charge in excess of $100 an hour.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired is any of this an overlay to Health and Family Services or other social agencies, and is there a coordination between Court Administration's evaluators, the State's Children and Family Services, and the Sheriff's Office deputies who may be specially trained. Judge Jacobus stated they may be investigating the same thing; but all those people may be looking for a different result; the court evaluators are invaluable; if he had to pick the people he needed to do his job in the Family Division, it would be such evaluators; and what the court evaluators do does not overlay with anybody.

Commissioner Colon inquired is Judge Jacobus the only judge who deals with those kinds of cases; with Judge Jacobus responding negatively. Judge Jacobus stated there are five judges who hear Family and Civil cases; they share the three court evaluators; there are support services that are shared among the judges; and such judges are careful of how they use the evaluators as they are a limited resource. Mr. Van Bever advised with the exception of each judges' own judicial assistant, everything else is shared among the judges. Commissioner Colon stated the reason the position is critical is because it influences where the child goes; it is a tremendous decision that needs to be made; and if the Board is able to fund the position, it would greatly assist.

Commissioner Higgs inquired does Judge Jacobus feel comfortable that he could revise his revenue predictions from $200,000 to $250,000; with Judge Jacobus responding affirmatively.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to include the Court Operations requested positions in the revised revenue stream. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS' BUDGET

Supervisor of Elections Fred Galey stated on the National and State levels, they are giving priorities and indicating that the election budget should have a higher priority; when it comes time to counting votes, he cannot shut down in the middle of it; he has a couple of unfunded positions, including the individual he requested to run the software to do the redistricting; and the Board chose to hire a consultant to do it for the County, but it still leaves him without a person to draw the precincts. He noted the other position is for voter education, which has been given a high priority on the National and State levels; the Supervisor of Elections has to submit plans to the State on the things that will be done for voter education; requested an individual be assigned full-time to such position; and stated he programmed in some pay raises. Mr. Galey stated it was brought up in another county that they might go to shifts and have two sets of poll workers; he is totally against it as it would double the cost of the election; and it has to be funded on a local level. He noted elections are the front door and he has to be able to operate; and Brevard County was a step ahead in the last election because the Board agreed to buy the new equipment.

Chairman Carlson inquired how does the contractor who is handling the redistricting, coordinate with Mr. Galey's Office. Mr. Jenkins responded the contractor is currently being paid to draw districts; once the districts are drawn, Mr. Galey has to do precincts; what Mr. Galey is referring to is the individual precincts within the districts; and he is looking for a person to run Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to do that. Chairman Carlson inquired if Mr. Galey has anyone in his Office who can handle that now; with Mr. Galey responding not full-time. Mr. Galey stated they can work it part-time, but he needs somebody to work it full-time, as his Office has found some streets that have been wrong for several years; and they are slowly but surely getting them corrected.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County does not need to have three people doing the same job; and what would be beneficial is to get Mr. Galey together with Property Appraiser Jim Ford and the consultant regarding precinct and district boundary lines. He stated the County is not all the way home until the precincts are drawn; and he would feel more comfortable understanding that conversation has taken place.

Mr. Galey stated his Office works closely with the Property Appraiser's Office now; he has an intern from Florida Institute of Technology (FIT) who is studying GIS and working on a contract basis; but he needs someone full-time who can keep it polished, because every time the cities annex and cross boundaries, his Office has to be on top of it.

Commissioner Colon inquired what is the total amount requested for the positions; with Mr. Galey responding one position is $49,000 and the other position is $44,600.

Commissioner O'Brien stated due to the number of people who work GIS, there has to be somebody there who can offer "x" amount of hours per day or week until the precinct problem is resolved; and inquired how often are the precincts updated; with Mr. Galey responding it depends on the changes his Office receives. Mr. Galey stated once the precincts are updated, his Office is in pretty good shape; but it is a matter of what priorities are going to be given to him by whoever has the GIS operator; and it is especially critical every time there is a new census. He noted next year his Office has to have the Board and School Board Districts done by December, 2002; it will then get into the precincts; the State Senate is going to draw its lines; and next year is critically important to be sure it is done on time and correctly. Commissioner O'Brien requested Mr. Galey provide the projected number of hours it would take to draw the precincts.

Chairman Carlson stated the Board could request the use of one of the Property Appraiser's GIS people dedicated to this particular effort since it is a one-time thing and a short period of time; and there might be a dual capacity there.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board wants to see the precinct and district boundary lines work well; if the County has great district lines and fouled up precincts, people are going to be mad; he wants to make sure it is coordinated; and Mr. Jenkins and his staff cut the cost of the consultant enormously by bringing Mr. Ford's Office in. He noted to say the County is going to do redistricting and not get Mr. Galey's input is crazy; and requested additional information from Mr. Galey on how it is done and how it is designed. Mr. Galey stated the Board had discussions concerning a new fire station; and requested the County build a room on it big enough so it can be used as a polling place, and keep in mind the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Galey has any vacant positions he can reclassify; with Mr. Galey responding not at the current time.

Chairman Carlson stated she agrees that the voter and student education needs to be done; she does not know at this time that she can support it until the Board looks at the big picture of what it can afford to fund; but it is crucial, given all the positive publicity the County received because it did the right things at the right time. She noted trying to get better turnout and educating the population is essential to making sure they know how to use the County's system.

Mr. Galey stated voter education may help with the turnout; he realizes turnout is the responsibility of the candidates; but he was disappointed with the 12% turnout for the special election to elect the new State Senator.

DISCUSSION, RE: CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT AND COUNTY COURTS FEE BUDGET

Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts Scott Ellis stated his memorandum includes questions that came up last Wednesday when the Board was talking about the millages; it shows where the items are increasing in the budget, including health and liability insurances; this current year his Office had approximately $300,000 in software licenses that were not in the budget; and last year's pay increase, which his Office took a reduced increase from the Board, is still about a $200,000 addition when paid over 12 months instead of eight months. He noted the temporary positions had not been in the budget; there are new positions for two additional judges; and the Courthouses need to be rewired, including upgrade of the wiring in Melbourne, Brevard County Government Complex North (BCGCN) in Titusville, Viera, and possibly the Historic Courthouse.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired is rewiring a Clerk's cost or Facilities Management's cost. Mr. Ellis responded in the past the Clerk has been in an excess fees position and took such cost; and he was under the impression it would come from the Courthouse Facility Maintenance Fund.

Mr. Jenkins noted generally it is an Information Systems cost, as typically they are the ones who do the wiring; the Clerk has changed out hardware and software on several occasions in the last 10 years; so they may have done some wiring when they were changing systems. Mr. Ellis stated it is an ongoing expense.

Commissioner Higgs stated it does not matter where it goes in the budget; the Clerk has $130,000 to upgrade the wiring; it can be put in the right spot; and it is irrelevant where it goes. Mr. Ellis noted it is quite relevant because it depends on the priority; and it is probably a higher priority for the Clerk's Office than it is for County Information Systems.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired would anyone besides the Clerk's Office benefit from the $130,000; with Mr. Ellis responding he cannot say for sure. Commissioner Scarborough inquired beyond new wiring, what does the community receive; with Mr. Ellis responding faster response time as more data entry items can be done per hour, and it is a productivity issue. Mr. Ellis stated if there was no benefit, the Clerk's Office would not rewire the facility; and two weeks ago the computer system was down for two days in Melbourne and employees were being paid to sit. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the County had spent the $130,000 last year, would the Clerk's computer system have been down in Melbourne; with Mr. Ellis responding he does not believe it would have.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired is it a capital cost; stated if the County has major wiring problems, he would like staff to speak to it; and if it is going to create a better system, the County could go to commercial paper and fund a capital cost over time as it is foolish to have people not working if the facilities need to be upgraded. Mr. Jenkins responded it would be a capital cost; and Messrs. Gino Butto and Joe Lamers need to address the issue. Commissioner Scarborough requested staff provide a report to the Board concerning the wiring problems Countywide.

Mr. Ellis stated the Clerk's Office received a good response increase when some of the employees came back to Titusville; and a lot of it was due to the lines from Viera to Titusville being overloaded. Commissioner Scarborough noted the County may need to analyze lines beyond just the Clerk's needs and look at capital expenditures under the Commercial Paper Program to make the whole system work.

Mr. Jenkins stated the County has an unfunded budget request from Information/Communications Systems for $200,000; it basically says the network equipment in BCGCN has exceeded its normal life; the equipment is no longer supportable and must be replaced with electronic equipment which can handle the high speeds and increased volume of modern communications; and personnel on all six floors are experiencing frequent and serious slow down and/or total interruption of network services, resulting in work stoppages. He stated the Clerk of Courts' areas and networks had been upgraded during the move to the BCGCN in 1999; however, the rest of the Charter Officers and agencies are experiencing severe problems.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Clerk needs more capacity; with Mr. Ellis responding affirmatively. Mr. Ellis stated in Titusville there is a problem with how many work stations can be hooked up; the response time was slow from Viera to Titusville; it was supposed to improve with the ATM network that the County has put in; and the Clerk wants to be able to tie into it.

Commissioner Colon inquired about the uncollected debt of approximately $50 million; and stated she wants to make sure the County is going to be able to help the Clerk with any temporary or permanent positions. Mr. Ellis responded the initial plan is to go after the traffic ticket money and drivers license suspensions; he hopes to start it in late August, 2001; to make that happen, the automated phone system needs to be working and Internet payments need to be acceptable; and the Information Center needs to be open 10 hours per day. He stated the first 1,000 letters will be sent in early August, 2001, to see what kind of feedback will be received; once it gets moving, 2,500 letters will be sent per week; there are 80,000 letters that need to be sent; and it will take approximately one year. He noted after the first few months of doing the traffic, his Office will proceed to do the fines; the same letter will be sent; and individuals will have 30 days before being turned over to the collection agency. Mr. Ellis stated the Board has a contract with a collection agency; in the past, the Clerk could not provide the data to them; and the goal is to provide such data.

Mr. Jenkins inquired can Mr. Ellis anticipate additional revenues as a result of those efforts and can those revenues be put into the Clerk's budget. Mr. Ellis responded when his Office begins doing letters for traffic there should be additional revenues coming in; when it begins doing the debt, more revenue will probably come in; but it needs to be treated as a one-time revenue source. Mr. Jenkins stated the County has the potential to look at the delinquent fines as a means to fund the wiring if the Board wants to do that.

Chairman Carlson inquired has the Clerk's Office done any estimation on what the letter process is going to bring in; with Mr. Ellis responding not for the bad debt. Commissioner Higgs inquired can Mr. Giles give the Board an estimate on the increased revenue that would come to the County so the Board can look at the needs he has identified and an additional source of funding. Chief Deputy Clerk Jim Giles responded the Clerk's Office does not currently have an estimate; but the percentage collection is for typical traffic tickets; and it is approximately 71%. He noted the Clerk's Office does not have any historical information for the delinquent ones to give the guide and percentage; but it can tell the Board how much is out there. Mr. Ellis stated there is over $5 million in traffic tickets sitting there.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County has always had extra money at mid-year; the problem is that it has to do a balanced budget; he is not concerned about not having the money; and in putting the budget together, it is a lot easier to do it this way rather than further impacting the ad valorem tax millage, which is the other way. Mr. Giles stated the Clerk's Office can come back to the Board with an estimate.

Mr. Ellis stated the traffic fines are going to have the highest return in dollar value when a person receives a letter in the mail that says they have 30 days to pay or their license will be suspended; if they fail to heed that, the Department of Motor Vehicles will send them a letter telling them their license has been suspended; and it will get their attention.

Mr. Jenkins stated item one in the Clerk's memorandum is the insurance costs; the County has funded same in the preliminary budget; last year's pay increase has also been funded in such budget; and next year's salary increases have been funded in the preliminary budget. He noted what is not funded are the software license, temporary positions costs of $300,000, the new positions for the two additional judges, which are mandatory, and upgrading the Courthouse, which staff is going to try to get out of additional revenues.

Mr. Ellis inquired where is the health insurance increase funded; with Mr. Rogero responding it is part of the compensation and benefits. Mr. Ellis stated he is looking at County Court for the 2002 Budget, which shows a 6% decrease over 2001. Mr. Rogero stated there is an amended budget of $5,587,000 and a preliminary budget of $5,247,000; and it is a decrease, but takes into account the reduction in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) savings. Mr. Ellis inquired is Mr. Rogero saying that the reduction in FRS more than compensates for the insurance increase; with Mr. Rogero responding he is saying it is part of mitigating the insurance increase. Mr. Giles stated the retirement and insurance reductions, and offset to the liability is not included in the document the Clerk's Office has.

Mr. Whitten inquired is Mr. Ellis saying that there is not a sufficient amount of funds to fund the insurance according to the particular line item in the budget; with Mr. Ellis responding he is saying he does not believe the insurance increase was funded. Mr. Ellis stated under the Unfunded Program Changes, it lists the increase in health insurance as an unfunded program change. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is the Board's intention to fund the health insurance for the Clerk; and if it is incorrect, it will be corrected.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve that the items listed be fully funded for the Clerk, and in no way the Clerk's budget be adversely affected by the funding of such items.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is not ready to vote on the motion as she wants to see exactly how the numbers are since various numbers are being bounced around. Commissioner Colon stated the Board has funded the increase in health insurance for the other Charter Officers; and it should do the same for the Clerk of Courts.

Mr. Whitten stated what is represented on the page as unfunded are the insurance costs for the conversion of the 19 positions; last week there seemed to be some misunderstanding as to such positions and the costs associated with them; and it is representing health insurance costs for the permanent employees, but not for the 19 positions. Mr. Jenkins noted County staff funded those costs for everything but the 19 positions, which is still a matter of discussion by the Board.

Mr. Ellis inquired if the Board is agreeing to pay for the health insurance; and stated the budget he is looking at, including the General Fund Revenue transfer, is a $2.5% increase. Chairman Carlson noted if there is a discrepancy, staff is going to work it out; with Mr. Rogero responding affirmatively. Mr. Jenkins advised the Board has been consistent in funding each agencies' insurance increases, as well as the current year salary increases.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the wiring of the Courthouse and increase in health insurance costs are going to be taken care of; and inquired about the software license issue. Mr. Ellis responded the software license has to be paid for; and it is not like a standard capital item. Chairman Carlson inquired is it mandatory; with Mr. Ellis responding absolutely, as everything is shut off if such license is not paid for.

Mr. Jenkins stated it is a cost the Clerk is going to incur next year that was not budgeted previously; and the Board either needs to fund it or the Clerk would have to make $180,000 worth of reductions in his County Court operations to pay it. Commissioner Colon inquired does the Clerk have the $180,000 or 40% on the Circuit Court side for funding; and stated the County pays the 60%. Mr. Ellis responded a lot of the Circuit Court is funded through recording fees; and it can fund the $180,000.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board is unable to fund the $1.2 million, what would be the reductions in services. Mr. Ellis stated the Board passed the Clerk an increase in insurance costs of $400,000; if it is not going to fund it, then the Clerk is not going to pay it; the same would be for liability of $200,000; the Clerk would cut $200,000 in overtime; and if court ran over on Tuesday and Wednesday, then the court clerks would leave at lunch time on Friday. He noted the Clerk would not supply staff for the new judges; one programmer recently left the Clerk's Office to work at Kennedy Space Center; he is currently acting as Information Systems Director; and he would delete both of those positions from the budget and would continue to do the Information Systems himself. He stated he would wait approximately six months on the software person; he would request the wiring be done through traffic ticket monies; there is a traffic ticket surcharge for court facilities; and he would forego approximately $100,000 worth of work with the software company.

Commissioner Higgs inquired was the Clerk able to identify new revenues that could help the County so the needs could be met. Mr. Ellis responded his Office attached with his memorandum what the Board had asked for at the last meeting, which was if filing fees were increased; there are numbers for both County and Circuit Court; staff did a good job of getting the number of cases and looking at what they believe would be the maximum increase; and the County Attorney's Office would still need to review it. Commissioner Higgs inquired is the allowable increase figure what the Board is able to increase it to; with Mr. Ellis responding the Clerk's Office believes legally that is what the Board is able to increase it to, but it would be pointless to increase County Court fees to that level, as individuals would quit filing cases. He noted one would not pay $200 to file a small claims case for under $500.

Mr. Giles advised the Florida Association of Court Clerks (FACC) has been doing a study on the cost of each of the services and associated fees; the study includes its recommended increases; and it is reworking it for the Florida Legislature. Commissioner Higgs stated such study would be interesting for the Board to have; and requested the information be provided to each Commissioner. Mr. Ellis stated it is along the lines of the changes in Article V funding; and the FACC is trying to determine where to set the fees to be totally independent.

Commissioner Colon expressed concern with the temporary positions costs; stated Mr. Ellis explained to the Board how it was necessary for him to be able to continue the level of service; and inquired does Mr. Ellis see those positions becoming permanent in the future. Mr. Ellis responded they will be permanent temporaries. Chairman Carlson inquired do the temporaries have any association with the ones Mr. Ellis wants to make permanent in the 19 new positions. Mr. Ellis responded it is based on full-time equivalence which is not necessarily 19 full-time employees with benefits; there are 50 temporary positions right now; students out of school during the summer are putting in 35 hours a week working on the backlog; with school starting shortly, such students will be working 15 to 20 hours per week; and the goal has been to drive the overtime numbers down.

Mr. Jenkins inquired about the new positions for the judges and are they strictly County Court or Circuit and County Courts; with Mr. Ellis responding it is a combination. Mr. Jenkins stated it would be helpful if the Clerk's Office can provide the County Court numbers as opposed to the total, since the Board would be paying the County Court costs for the new positions for the judges. He stated the Board does not have a choice, and either has to fund them or Mr. Ellis has to make cuts somewhere else; and the question is which ones are the County's and which ones belong to Circuit Court. Mr. Giles stated they are detailed in the budget that was submitted on May 1, 2001. Mr. Ellis noted for County Court it is going to be approximately $100,000 for four employees plus benefits.

Commissioner Higgs inquired when court costs are evaluated and set after a hearing, are those costs inclusive of the Clerk. Titusville Office Manager Pattie Smith responded the court costs and filing fees are set by Florida Statutes and County Ordinances adopted by the Board; $10.00 of the small claims filing fee is applied to the docket, which is in turn given back to the County; $7.00 goes to the State; and the Law Library, Legal Aid, and Court Education Trust Fund are also funded. Ms. Smith advised the court costs in a civil case belong to the parties; and court costs the Board receives are from the initial filing fee. Mr. Ellis stated since County Court is a budget, all the revenues that come in through the Clerk's Office for County Court are returned to the Board.

Chairman Carlson stated some clarification is needed of the percentages the County will be required to provide to the Clerk for some of the items; and requested the numbers be provided after lunch.

Commissioner Higgs stated many of the fees have not been addressed since 1990; the Board has the opportunity, in a reasonable way, to cover the costs of the requested services; the Courts need to be operated on Friday afternoon; and she cannot imagine them being shut down. She noted such fees need to be reviewed; it seems reasonable to adjust them based on 1990, which is 11 years ago; and the Board can fund those things that are unfunded in the request.

Mr. Ellis stated if things work out well, the Clerk's Office should be refunding excess fees back to the Board; and his Office would be more than happy to convert to a budget office, which eliminates any discussion about where the fees are being shuffled around. Commissioner Higgs noted she is trying to come up with a reasonable way to fund the needs of the system and keep it going efficiently. Mr. Ellis stated for the Clerk's Office to operate as a budget office is a lot easier than a fee office. Commissioner Scarborough noted there is an ability to see this through; and there will be more answers as the County gets into the budget process.

Mr. Ellis stated his staff will meet with Mr. Rogero; and inquired when do they need to report back to the Board. Mr. Jenkins responded the next milestone is setting the tentative millage; based on what he heard today, he does not believe setting the millage is going to be impacted by this as there are alternative funding mechanisms, i.e. filing and delinquent fees; and there is time between now and the budget hearings to work those out with the Clerk. He stated the most critical decisions are anything that is going to affect the ad valorem millage; and this does not appear to do that. Mr. Ellis stated one issue that was not covered is the total amount escrowed for fees and fines that is waiting to be handed out; it includes $1.7 million; and when the fee books run, the money will be divided between the cities and the County. He noted based on the letter he sent the Board approximately one month ago, on the County side there was $250,000 that was spent in error last fiscal year that will not be there. Mr. Jenkins advised the County has increased it by 3% in the budget, which includes the County's distribution from the Clerk; the Clerk is giving the County 1999 numbers; it could have increased easily 3% a year each year; and conservatively, the County took 3% over a three-year period.

Commissioner Ellis stated concerning the Clerk's computer system, his Office set up an independent server to run the jobs on such server instead of the regular origin; his Office has made significant progress; and dealing with software vendors has been very difficult.

The meeting recessed at 12:45 p.m. and reconvened at 1:50 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: SHERIFF'S OFFICE'S BUDGET

Chief Deputy Sheriff Bob Sarver stated the County needs to plan for tomorrow and not today; Sheriff Williams has been before the Board for four years with a budget submittal; each and every year those budget submittals contained an increase in manpower; his Office appreciates the efforts the Board and its staff have made this year with the preliminary budget increase; and the needs the Office has will still be there, whether or not the Board makes the decision to fund completely what the Sheriff's requests are. He noted the Sheriff's Office has submitted five-year plans; this year's submittal is not much different than the prior year's submittal; each year it has requested an increase in staff, anywhere from 10 to 16 personnel; and this year, the preliminary budget contains funding for eight Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) personnel, which is about half of the sworn personnel, including the road call-responding deputies that are needed. Mr. Sarver explained a graph demonstrating the Sheriff's Office's calls for services, the workload, and what has to be done every year; stated it is not going down and will not go down; and this year so far, there is a 6% increase in the calls that have been answered from last year. He noted if it continues, there will be a consistent call increase of approximately 13% next year; the main people who perform this work are deputies; in an hour block of time in every deputies' daily work day, 45 minutes of it involves dealing with calls for service; the average driving time is eight minutes out of every hour, once the deputy receives the call, to get to the location; and every deputy and employee goes on vacation, and they also get sick. He stated there is also training, which is a minimum of 40 hours mandated by the State; there is 4.7 minutes that every deputy Countywide has per hour all year long that is not allocated in doing some of these basic functions; and it takes a good percentage of the 4.7 minutes of unallocated time for a deputy to figure out how to get to the next thing he needs to go to as he cannot drive and read the map book at the same time.

Mr. Sarver explained a graph showing the Sheriff's Office MSTU staffing level, which are the individuals who answer the calls; stated the workload continues to increase; the Sheriff's Office does not expect it to minimize; and the individuals cannot keep up with the work they are expected to do. He showed a graph comparing the number of people in the Brevard County Jail to the number of correctional officers who are there to maintain care, custody, and control of such prisoners; and stated the average daily population as of the first six months of the year is approximately 1,230 inmates. He stated the Board is aware of the situation at the Jail; correctional officers are in the same situation as deputies on the road; and everything such officers are expected to do has increased, but the staffing has not increased. Mr. Sarver advised the last chart explains what correctional officers do; 72% of their time involves care, custody, and direct control of inmates; the Sheriff's Office personnel have been pushed to the limit of their ability to perform work; they cannot do any more; and he does not know how they have been able to do what they have been asked to do up to now, other than they are a great group of people. He stated the Sheriff's Office appreciates the efforts the Board has made up to now in trying to fund the budget needs; what remains unfunded at this point are eight MSTU deputies; such deputies are needed; and if they are not funded, there are some things he can suggest to the Sheriff that he quit doing as there is no longer the capacity to do them any more. Mr. Sarver stated six telecommunicators also remain unfunded; they answer the approximately 300,000 calls every year; they are the front line; and if they do not relay the message to the deputy on the street, nothing ever happens. He noted telecommunicators' workload increases significantly and almost parallel with deputies and correctional officers' workloads; four domestic violence agents are also unfunded; such agents are actual criminal investigators; 26 people between 1996 and 1999 died as a result of domestic violence in Brevard County; and 483 people were the victims of sexual assault or sexual battery as a result of domestic violence. He stated 11,465 people were the victims of assault in domestic violence incidents; combining all those numbers has a ratio of how many times those types of things occur per 1,000 residents; and one in every 50 people in Brevard County was a victim of a domestic violence-related event from 1996 through 1999. Mr. Sarver stated the Sheriff's Office is the largest law enforcement agency in the County; it has no specifically-trained people to deal with domestic violence issues; the EOD deputy is still unfunded; and calls for services of the bomb unit have increased over 100% from last year. He noted the Sheriff's Office has one full-time dedicated bomb technician who serves every citizen in Brevard County; the request for crime scene and civil warrants technicians are unfunded; the population has increased in the County; and the capacity has been reached in those units to handle the work that needs to be done. Mr. Sarver stated there are three unfunded court deputies; there is going to be a scramble to cover the new courtrooms; and dispatch consoles are also unfunded.

Chairman Carlson inquired are the dispatch consoles backups in case ones break. Mr. Sarver responded they are replacements of ones that the Sheriff's Office can no longer get parts for; and if they break, the Office has to do without them. He noted 125 800-megahertz radios are also unfunded; 1/50th of the radios are under six years old; the vast majority of the radios used by deputies and correctional officers are old pieces of equipment that are apt to fail; and when one's life depends on being able to summon help, they want it to work. Mr. Sarver reiterated his appreciation to the Board for the efforts that have been made to this point; and stated he appreciates the opportunity to explain to the Board why these things are important.

Linda Gerber, Division Chief for the Domestic Violence Unit of the State Attorney's Office, advised she has a letter in support of the Sheriff's investigators for domestic violence from State Attorney Norman Wolfinger; and provided such letter to the Board. She stated the State Attorney's Office receives monthly between 300 and 400 domestic violence cases; last year, it received 4,192 domestic violence cases for Brevard County; 40% of those cases came from the Sheriff's Office, which is a significant number; and the Sheriff currently does not have follow-up investigators for domestic violence, which is a crucial thing for the State Attorney's Office in order to be able to effectively prosecute the cases. Ms. Gerber stated a domestic violence case needs to be investigated like a homicide; a large majority of victims become uncooperative and recant their stories after initially calling the police and having the police respond; there are various issues involved with why they do that; and the case from the very beginning needs to be treated as if the victim will not be there, which involves follow-up photographs of bruising that may or may not show up on the date of the offense, and talking with neighbors, children, and people who may have information concerning the case. She noted 22% of Brevard County's homicides over the last five years have been domestic violence related; she has been fortunate enough to visit with the Orange County Sheriff's Office Investigative Unit specifically designated for domestic violence; and over the last five years, since it initiated its program, there has been a significant decrease in its domestic violence related homicides. Ms. Gerber stated things that are important in domestic violence cases are the children and addressing intervention, not only for the perpetrator or the batterer, but for all of the family members, as everyone is involved in that cycle of violence.

Commissioner Colon inquired how many municipalities in Brevard County have started focusing more on domestic violence and assigning officers. Ms. Gerber responded each department is doing it differently; there are two local departments that specifically have a domestic violence detective or investigator, Cocoa Beach and Melbourne Police Departments; Palm Bay Police Department does not have a specific investigator at this time, but it has a specific Victim Advocate Program that focuses solely on domestic violence; the City of Cape Canaveral is now looking at implementing a domestic violence investigator with its precinct; and Indian Harbour Beach has a detective who works on the City's domestic violence cases. She stated the City of Satellite Beach has a victim advocate, but she does all of the City's victim advocacy work and not only domestic violence. Commissioner Colon stated it is important for the officers working in this field to have the necessary training.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired out of 4,000 arrests, how many made it to trial; with Ms. Gerber responding she does not have the exact numbers with her, but out of the 4,000 arrests, the State Attorney's Office filed on 35% of those. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what happened with the other 65%; with Ms. Gerber responding her Office could not file on them as it did not have the evidence or the victim cooperation. Commissioner O'Brien inquired of the 35% that were filed, how many made it to trial; with Ms. Gerber responding she does not have that information, but a majority of them pleaded or had to be dropped because the victim was not cooperative. Ms. Gerber noted she can provide those numbers requested by Commissioner O'Brien for the Board's review.

Commissioner O'Brien stated after the budgetary hearings, the Board may want to look at the broader picture of domestic violence; and it needs to take a serious look at forming a Brevard County commission on domestic violence and see if it gets factual numbers, including what kind of programs are available, how they are utilized, and demographically and financially who is having the largest impact on the courts and the intervention courses. He inquired why is it that only those who cannot afford the program are in it; and why is there such a small number of minority people in the program. He noted there is 84% recidivism within the program itself; the program is not working, the courts are not working, and everything the County has is not working; there is something wrong in the formula; and it needs to be reviewed, including the global problem of domestic violence.

Chairman Carlson inquired what was the reasoning behind forming the Domestic Violence Task Force. Michael Fitgerald stated this year there was a new law passed by the Florida Legislature, which now requires a 26-week class; people who have financial means cannot buy their way out of it with a good attorney; the Board has also funded a batterers intervention class for indigent people; and the money is used to help those individuals who do not have the funds and the means to get into the classes. He noted the Task Force has seen that the Board is doing many things to assist people in domestic violence situations; it funds shelters, pays for batterers intervention classes, and gives money for victim advocates; the judges also have domestic violence court; and the State Attorney's Office has a specific domestic violence unit. He stated it all comes to a bottleneck because 65% of all the cases are being dismissed; it has been learned through experience that if domestic violence is not taken care of up front, it escalates into more violence; and when statistics point out that 26% of homicides are domestic violence-related, it shows that something needs to be changed. Mr. Fitzgerald stated until the Sheriff's Office is able to get investigators to follow through with the information needed for the prosecutor's office, the situation will continue. Chairman Carlson inquired what are the advantages of having the officer versus the advocate, and how are they intertwined. Mr. Fitgerald stated if there is not a domestic violence investigator, it is harder to keep the victims in the case as they feel they are not safe. Mr. Sarver stated there is the criminal aspect and the advocate process; and the advocate deals more with the needs of the victim and things that are beyond the criminal process. Chairman Carlson inquired do the advocates work hand-in-hand with the officers; with Mr. Sarver responding affirmatively. Mr. Sarver stated a big part of the advocates' job will be made very difficult, if not impossible, for them to complete if they do not have the criminal investigator to work with them.

Deborah Barker, Finance Manager for the Sheriff's Office, stated in the proposed funding request the Sheriff's Office submitted, the Law Enforcement MSTU has $100,000 listed as built-in increases and is proposed as funding; it is payment to the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency (MIRA); and inquired what is the purpose of it. Mr. Jenkins responded it is an incremental tax rebate that goes to MIRA, which reflects the increase in property values from the time the MIRA was created until the present time; and it is a redevelopment agency authorized by the State of Florida to redevelop blighted areas on Merritt Island. Mr. Sarver stated such cost is equivalent of a deputy and car; and it is confusing to him that the Sheriff's Office is being taxed to pay for deputies to service a redevelopment agency. Commissioner Colon inquired where is money going. Mr. Jenkins responded in the case of MIRA, it is making improvements and removing the blight along S.R. 520; Melbourne has one and is making improvements on Babcock Street and downtown Melbourne; and legally every ad valorem taxing authority has to pay the redevelopment amount. Ms. Barker inquired is it going to be a recurring cost; with Mr. Jenkins responding as long as the Redevelopment Agency is in existence. Ms. Barker stated the Sheriff's Office has not paid it in the past. County Attorney Scott Knox stated it was brought up as an audit criticism of MIRA; it requested a legal opinion and he researched it; that is the decision he came to; and the Sheriff's Office had not paid it up to last year.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired is there a way the Board can overrule Attorney Knox's legal opinion. Attorney Knox stated there is an exemption for special districts, but an MSTU is not a special district; that is the key difference; and MIRA is capable of entering into an interlocal agreement to improve the services that the Charter provides in that area. Commissioner Higgs noted MIRA may decide to grant it back to the County. Commissioner Scarborough stated in reviewing the budgetary needs, why should other areas of the County suffer this loss; why should somebody living in Suntree have less law enforcement; and it should be borne by Merritt Island. Mr. Jenkins stated if the Board is going to do that, it needs to be done for the Fire Department as it also needs money.

Commissioner Scarborough stated his continued favorable actions dealing with MIRA will be dependent upon how it responds to the Sheriff; he hopes it responds favorably; and continuation of the tax increments created in one area means a disproportionate distribution of revenues.

Commissioner Higgs stated one of the reasons a redevelopment agency is done is due to problems in the community; certain areas in the MIRA had high crime rates; it was one of the public purposes for making concessions on some things; and it would not want to be without law enforcement. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is certain that MIRA did not expect this to occur; and now it is trying to find a solution.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to send a letter to the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency (MIRA) requesting it enter into interlocal agreements with various agencies concerning the Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTU's), and return the funds or do not accept them. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Barker stated in the proposed budget that was sent back to her from the County Budget Office, she did not see a funded mechanism for the salaries; and inquired what is the County proposing for merit increases next year for Sheriff's employees, both sworn and civilian. Mr. Jenkins responded it is 4% COLA, 1 or 2% merit, and senior managers a maximum of 4% for 22 pay periods. Ms. Barker inquired does it come up to 6%; with Mr. Jenkins responding it averages out less than that, as it is not done on the first day of the fiscal year. Mr. Sarver noted it is approximately 5 ½%. Ms. Barker stated concerning the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) budget that was reviewed on Tuesday, $1.5 million is funded for the Sheriff's Office Communications enhancement; and inquired is it the Sheriff's 800-megahertz radios or its tower. Mr. Whitten responded it may be the radios, but County staff will provide the specific information to Ms. Barker. Ms. Barker stated concerning the Sheriff's Office long-term plan for vehicle replacements, this year's current budget did not include funding for vehicles; there is no funding for any types of replacements for next year; at some point, the Office will be looking at the integrity of the fleet; and acknowledging the fact that the fleet requests come in very high, which are over $1 million, she wanted to see what the Board's thoughts were long-term. She noted the County cannot continue to not fund those; and the Sheriff's Office is looking at best practices. Mr. Jenkins inquired is it in the Sheriff's Office's Strategic Plan; with Ms. Barker responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if any vehicles were replaced last year; with Ms. Barker responding negatively. Commissioner Higgs inquired about the usage of the vehicles; with Ms. Barker responding they are marked patrol cars and unmarked for the investigator-type positions. Commissioner Higgs inquired how many vehicles are there; with Ms. Barker responding proposed in this year's budget is 40 to 50 for replacement. Commissioner Higgs inquired how many total cars are in the General Fund; with Ms. Barker responding there are 23 marked vehicles, 25 unmarked for investigators, etc., three trucks, and three undercover vehicles.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the total amount in the fleet; with Mr. Sarver responding he can get that information to the Board broken down by General Fund and MSTU. Commissioner Higgs inquired how many correctional officers are requested in the budget; with Mr. Sarver responding five. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the cost; with Chairman Carlson responding $264,000. Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Sarver provide historical information for the Board in terms of the number of correctional officers in past years. Mr. Sarver responded in Fiscal Year 1992-1992, there were 163 officers; and this year there are 184, which is an increase of 16 over eight or nine years. Commissioner Higgs inquired what was the population of the Jail in 1992; with Mr. Sarver responding there were approximately 600 or 700 inmates in 1993. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there are 1,200 inmates now; with Mr. Sarver responding the average population has been 1,220 or 1,230 for the last three months.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what percentage of the General Fund goes to the Sheriff; with Mr. Whitten responding 37.73%. Commissioner O'Brien requested a comparison of the Sheriff's budget from 1994 through 2000; with Ms. Barker responding the information has previously been provided to the Board.

Commissioner Colon inquired about vacancies or if any civilian employees have been moved around in different positions, including correctional officers. Mr. Sarver responded if the Sheriff's Office had sworn personnel assume civilian duties, he is not aware of any of it occurring; and there are some ongoing vacancies that occur in the correctional officer position, but he does not know the exact numbers. Commissioner Colon requested Mr. Sarver provide the information to her; and stated there needs to be accountability if the Board is going to give the Sheriff's Office additional manpower.

Ms. Barker stated concerning the telecommunicator positions, it is the second time the Sheriff has brought the request before the Board; six of the dispatch people have been historically funded in the last several years through monies that have been paid from the Contracts, including Cities of Cape Canaveral and West Melbourne, Canaveral Port Authority, and Town of Melbourne Village; historically, the positions have been funded on those fees dedicated in a trust fund to pay for such positions; and the City of Cape Canaveral and Canaveral Port Authority monies were put into the Sheriff's General Fund in an effort to offset the amount of appropriation needed to be received from the Board each year. She noted monies have been used, which were dedicated toward dispatch fees from the Contracts; this is the last year that she has enough cash carry forward to pay for the six telecommunicators; and if the six telecommunicator positions are not funded, the Sheriff's Office is going to lose the funding positions for the six positions. Ms. Barker stated the Sheriff's Office is bringing in $168,000 in the Contracts; the cost of the six positions is $210,000; it is not a completely unfunded issue; and the Sheriff's Office is bringing in revenues to offset the cost.

Chairman Carlson inquired what is the actual impact of losing the six positions; with Ms. Barker responding the Sheriff's Office would decrease telecommunicators from 29 to 23.

Commissioner Higgs requested Ms. Barker provide information on how much money is being spent on overtime for corrections officers at the Jail for the current year. Mr. Sarver stated for the past six months the overall total, which includes civilian employees, has been approximately $40,000 or $50,000 a pay period, which is 28 days. Commissioner O'Brien inquired does the Sheriff's Office have a specific officer assigned for DUI duty; with Ms. Barker responding affirmatively. Mr. Sarver advised there is a DUI Task Force with five deputies assigned to it. Commissioner O'Brien inquired is there a sergeant who coordinates the efforts; with Mr. Sarver responding affirmatively. Mr. Sarver noted the sergeant was obtained through a DUI Grant from the State Department of Transportation (FDOT). Commissioner O'Brien requested information on how much overtime was paid to officers in that Unit; with Ms. Barker responding she can look at it, but the entire Unit is grant funded. Commissioner Higgs requested Ms. Barker provide insight into the impact on the overtime figure if the Board were to fund the requested correctional officers.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Ms. Barker visit his office concerning further information and detail on some of the requests in the Sheriff's budget.

The meeting recessed at 3:05 p.m. and reconvened at 3:30 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: PROPERTY APPRAISER'S BUDGET

Mr. Jenkins stated staff provided the Board with copies of a letter dated July 17, 2001, which he received from Property Appraiser Jim Ford; the preliminary budget for the Property Appraiser, including next year's salary increases for his employees, is a 6.51% increase; there were a total of $784,655 in unfunded program changes requested by the Property Appraiser; and the budget Mr. Ford submitted, including the $784,655, which is not in the preliminary budget, has already been approved by the Florida Department of Revenue (DOR). He advised on July 10, 2001, staff received a copy of a letter from FDOR which says that the Board has until August 15, 2001, to provide any additional information or testimony concerning the Property Appraiser's budget to the FDOR; on one prior occasion, the County attempted to reduce the Property Appraiser's budget by approximately $50,000; and the FDOR approved it anyway.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the percentage increase for the Property Appraiser's budget; with Mr. Jenkins responding approximately 20%.

Commissioner Higgs inquired is Mr. Jenkins indicating the Board has no appeal on what it needs to do. Mr. Jenkins responded the Board has until August 15, 2001 to provide the testimony to FDOR if it does not wish to fund the $784,655. Chairman Carlson noted the Board has no authority to do anything, so it is forced to approve it. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board could appeal, but Mr. Jenkins is indicating not to hold its breath. Mr. Jenkins noted there is a whole lot of difference between $784,655 and $30,000; the last time the Board appealed it, it tried to cut $30,000 or $40,000; and the Board can say no to whatever it deems appropriate, but it needs to convince the FDOR. He requested Attorney Knox explain what takes place after that; with Attorney Knox responding there is an appeal process. Mr. Jenkins stated Attorney Knox needs to tell the Board legally what its options are; the FDOR has the ultimate approval over the Property Appraiser's budget; the question then becomes what rights does the Board have after the FDOR has approved such budget. Attorney Knox stated he needs to research the information, but FDOR has the final right to say what the budget is going to be for the Property Appraiser; and whether or not it bases its decision on something the Board can appeal or not is something the County will not know until that happens.

Chairman Carlson inquired how does the Property Appraiser justify to the FDOR, does it submit its budget, and the FDOR says it is fine; with Attorney Knox responding affirmatively. Attorney Knox stated if the Board wants to decrease the Property Appraiser's budget, it needs to go to the FDOR and prove to it why such budget needs to be reduced.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board could direct Mr. Jenkins and appropriate County staff to personally contact the reviewer of the budgets for FDOR, and make an appointment to meet with that person to see if the FDOR is going to approve something the Board finds may be inappropriate.

Commissioner Scarborough stated operating expenses is listed at $105,000 and other operating expenses are $336,000; in excess of $400,000 is ambiguous; and requested County staff meet with the Property Appraiser to have all questions answered. He noted after there are answers, the more intelligently the Board can approach the situation in a factual sense; and additional information is needed for the Board. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board has a meeting scheduled for July 31, 2001 for the budget; and the millage needs to be set at that meeting. Commissioner Higgs noted the Board has another workshop scheduled for July 26, 2001. Commissioner O'Brien stated hopefully Mr. Jenkins and the Budget Office can have the additional information for the Board at the workshop. Commissioner Scarborough requested detailed information on the $400,000. Commissioner Higgs requested appropriate County staff travel to Tallahassee to meet with the FDOR to understand its criteria for reviewing any appeal; and stated someone from the County Attorney's Office may need to go to understand the appeal procedure.

The Board authorized staff to contact the Property Appraiser and request additional information and budgetary details on his operating expense increases and any unfunded items; and appropriate staff to travel to Tallahassee to meet with the Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR) regarding the Property Appraiser's budget and FDOR's criteria for reviewing any appeal.

DISCUSSION, RE: BUDGET REVIEW

Mr. Rogero explained the aggregate millages in District 1 from FY 1988-1989 through preliminary FY 2001-2002. He stated they are millages that apply only to District 1 or are Countywide and apply to everybody.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has always had a problem with millages; in District 1, there are certain things that apply to Port St. John, Titusville does not have some MSTU's, and there are different areas; when staff puts everything under District 1, his Office has difficulty explaining it; and he prefers to have District 1 broken into sub-districts. He stated the area south of Port St. John has not fallen into any of the special Parks and Recreation Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTU) referendums; and it would help his Office if the Budget staff could do sub-districts for District 1.

Chairman Carlson stated the County is operating at a lower millage than what it operated at in 1990-1991; and the population has grown by approximately 80,000. Commissioner Higgs stated she is interested in being able to compare the tentative millage that is proposed to what it has been historically.

Chairman Carlson inquired when is the last time the County reviewed the Development Review fees; and stated it is remarkable how low the fees are for doing business in Brevard County in terms of site plan and subdivision reviews compared to surrounding counties and cities.

Permitting and Enforcement Director Billy Osborne stated the last time staff reviewed the fees was approximately 1998; some of the fees were increased at that time and others were not; and it has been since 1991 that the County has done an actual increase of all the fees. He noted the second page of the handout for such fees shows the dates the fees were adjusted.

Chairman Carlson stated under Subdivision Review, it lists $30,000 in Volusia County and $13,000 for Brevard County; Volusia County has $4,000 on a development order, but Brevard County charges nothing for it; and inquired how can Volusia County charge three times what Brevard County charges. Development Engineer Bruce Moia responded it would depend on the service Volusia County provides and the cost of doing business there. Mr. Moia stated some of the fees Volusia County has are similar to Brevard County's fee structure; and staff classified actual revenue and how Volusia County classified it based on each review. Chairman Carlson stated some of the surrounding cities have higher fees for subdivision review. Commissioner Higgs stated the inspection fees are also interesting. Chairman Carlson inquired is there a maximum fee schedule that the County can legally charge, where do some of the numbers come from, and where is the capability of increasing them so high come from. Mr. Jenkins responded the County could only do it to recover its cost and could not make a profit. Chairman Carlson inquired how does the County recover full cost of some of the inspections and has it ever analyzed it. Mr. Moia stated if the Board wanted to cover the cost of everything in Land Development, it would double all the fees; and there would be zero reliance on the General Fund. Mr. Jenkins stated the budget shows a 10% increase. Commissioner Higgs inquired where does the money that is not generated through the fees that developers pay come from; with Mr. Jenkins responding General Fund. Commissioner Higgs stated the County is subsidizing the developers; it is the cost of doing business to apply the proper laws and be inspected; and it would seem logical that the County, over the next time period, recover full cost of providing services to businesses.

Commissioner Colon stated she is dumbfounded concerning the information about the City of Palm Bay; and it shows the City of Titusville at $18,000 for subdivision review, $20,000 for City of Rockledge, $15,000 for the City of Melbourne, $18,000 for City of West Melbourne, and $650 for City of Palm Bay. Chairman Carlson noted they are not paying for growth; and it would be nice to understand the full cost of doing the process so the County can compare numbers, including what it is not charging that it should be to pay for such process.

Mr. Osborne stated an analysis is included on the last page of the information provided to the Board; and staff included the figures for 10%, 20%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% increases in the fees. Mr. Moia noted it is for the Land Development Section only; there are up to 13 agencies that provide services in the plan review process; and if they chose to cover their cost to provide that service, the fees would be increased more. Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants to make sure if the inspection is the element that needs to be covered, that is where the fee goes; an inspection may increase substantially more than the pre-application; and he wants to see in each component part that it is what makes the final answer work.

Chairman Carlson inquired are there any reviews that are not included that the County should be charging a fee for. Mr. Moia responded the only thing that is not included is reviews by other agencies outside of Land Development, such as Zoning, Office of Natural Resources, Public Safety, etc.; and they are not reflected in these costs. Mr. Jenkins stated if the Board is going to have another budget workshop, staff can bring the information back to the Board.

Commissioner Higgs requested staff also bring back to the Board the court fees which were discussed earlier this morning. Commissioner Scarborough stated one issue that came up was somebody would not file a suit for $50 if he/she had to spend $200 for the filing fee; and inquired how much is it costing the Clerk's Office. He noted it becomes a matter of fairness; and the County is not there to make a profit, but to cover the cost so that the taxpayer does not have to subsidize. Mr. Jenkins stated the court fees are limited by Florida Statutes; and he doubts the County will ever be able to get cost recovery for them. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the cost is $50, he does not want to charge somebody $100; and he wants to make sure nobody can say the County is making money off of them.

Chairman Carlson stated it would be interesting to note the areas where the County does not charge anything, such as for stormwater review. Mr. Moia responded it is incorporated in one of the sections and is not a separate fee.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he continues to receive telephone calls concerning mosquitoes; and inquired what does he need to do to handle the problem. He noted until the number of phone calls begin to diminish, he has not taken care of the mosquito problem. Commissioner Higgs stated one thing that may be helpful in reducing the number of phone calls and the overall comfort level of people is if the County could proceed with the acquisition of an additional helicopter; there are funds set aside; such helicopter is approximately $1.2 or $1.3 million; and there is $300,000 in capital improvement. She noted the County could use commercial paper or some other funding mechanism; it is a major capital expenditure that makes sense; and the County can enhance its delivery of the product without a millage or tax increase. Mr. Jenkins stated County staff will focus on what can be done to get results and to what level they can take it in order to achieve outcomes; and if it is not going to achieve outcomes, then the County is wasting its money.

Chairman Carlson inquired are the items on the list prepared by staff in prioritization order; with Mr. Whitten responding affirmatively.

Chairman Carlson inquired is staff going to gather all the information discussed today and propose the different items requested by the various County agencies to come up with some number that might reach the conservative $2 million flexibility possibility. Mr. Jenkins responded the Board needs to tell staff what it wants to include because all it heard today were the Charter Officers; they need approximately an 80% increase in the budget; the Board needs to tell staff how it wants to do the budget; and staff will go back and calculate all of it and give the Board a tentative millage by July 31, 2001. Chairman Carlson noted the Board will discuss it at the July 26, 2001 budget workshop. Commissioner Higgs requested staff have a figure concerning the impact of some of the fee increases, including the dollar figure that is the maximum cap-it figure, so the Board has it to review against the 2.99% increase, as well as other numbers.

Chairman Carlson inquired is staff going to review any other fee schedules; with Mr. Jenkins responding affirmatively, including Planning and Zoning Office, Office of Natural Resources Management, Public Works, Engineering, Library, and Parks and Recreation Departments. Chairman Carlson stated whatever County staff can find, it needs to do so.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.

ATTEST: __________________________________
SUSAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)