MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

September 22, 2009

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on September 22, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairman Chuck Nelson, Commissioners Robin Fisher, Trudie Infantini, Mary Bolin, and Andy Anderson, Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten, and County Attorney Scott Knox. 

 

Invocation was given by Dr. Fred Fourie, Cocoa Beach Community Church, Cocoa Beach, Florida. 

 

Commissioner Trudie Infantini led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the letter writing campaign will begin on September 28^th at the Space Forum which will be held at the Florida Space and Solar Center; he would like to get a lot of letters written by October 31^st; and people are being asked to mail the letters rather than email them because of the impact a letter will have versus an email.  He stated he has talked to a lot of the legislative delegates and they are all on board and excited about the campaign; County staff is creating a website called savespace.us, which will have samples of letters, along with the Augustine Report; and the School Board is meeting to solicit the help of teachers in getting kids to write letters also.  He stated the Florida TODAY has agreed to run an advertisement and an editorial for the campaign; and people will also be able to communicate via myspace.com, facebook.com, and twitter.  He stated he would also like to ask the Board’s permission to be able to notify all County employees of the letter writing campaign.

 

Commissioner Anderson advised there is a website called keepamericanspace.com that has a video that anyone can use; and it is an inspiring video in that it highlights what the Board has been discussing.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to appoint Beth Young to the Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District, with term expiring September 30, 2012.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated there has been some mis-information circulating that the County Commissioners set the hours for the libraries, and that the Board has determined that staffing should be cut at the libraries from 60 hours per week to 44 hours; but it is not the County Commissioners who set the hours of operations; the Board sets the dollar budget, and then those resources are allocated however the Library Director sees fit; and whether there are 10 people on a 40-hour shift, or five people on for two, 40-hour shifts, that is at the discretion of the Library Director.  She stated she wanted to set the record straight because she has had people calling her asking her why she was cutting the libraries’ hours; and she will take responsibility for setting the dollar amount that will be allocated, but not for setting the hours.  She stated she thinks if everyone works together, they can re-allocate the manpower and staffing so the hours of operation can be longer. 

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson advised last Friday he attended the 23^rd Annual POW MIA recognition program at the Veterans Memorial Center; the event is hosted every year by the Vietnam Veterans, and other veterans of Brevard County; and it is a very touching ceremony in remembrance of all the MIA’s.  He stated he would encourage others to attend next year’s program.

 

 

 

Commissioner Bolin advised Frank DiBello is now the President of Space Florida; and he will be a friend to the whole State, as well as Brevard County.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he would like the Board to approve the Agreement with the EDC; his concern is that the Board has no more meetings before the Contract expires; and that is why he placed it on the Agenda.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she is not comfortable going out for another three-year Contract, especially in the current economic times; the proposed Contract calls for a six-month period to cancel; so if the Board did not want to go forward next year and renew it, it would have to decide that within six months; she does not think that is a sufficient amount of time; and she would rather approve a one-year contract with a renewal option.  She stated future County Manager Howard Tipton had stated during the interview process that if the Board is limiting the budget, he would rather cut spending, as he would want to save reserves for an emergency; and because Brevard County is on the coast, there could be a true emergency rather than an emergency due to lack of planning.  

 

Commissioner Anderson stated three-year contracts for any organization make him nervous because the Board does not know what the future holds, especially in the realm of economic development; and he would like to discuss the possibility of a one-year contract. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Contract depends on budget issues every year during the budget cycle; and inquired even though it is a three-year Contract, does the Board not make a decision during every budget cycle whether the EDC gets funding or not.  Chairman Nelson advised that is correct; it is basically a six-month Contract because at any point, the Board has a six-month option to opt out; and even though the length of the Contract may be through three-years, it is really only six months.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated in reading the Contract she was pleased to see some changes because the Board is going to make decisions based on the goals, priorities, and progress, and will have a measurable amount that will be reported back to the Board each year, she feels comfortable that the Board will be able to monitor the Contract closely to make sure it is getting the results it wants; she has no idea if the EDC will meet the performance measures; and she is comfortable with a three-year Contract. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated the amount the Board contributes to the EDC is twice as much as Orange County contributes; she does not know that Brevard County has the same tax base as Orange County, but Orange County is providing approximately $750,000 to its EDC; and Orange County cut its budget this year by 10 percent.  She stated now is not the time to enter into a three-year, $1.5 million contract; it is not fair to do that to the new County Manager; and the Board can extend it when he is in office. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated to clarify, the Board is not using reserves for the EDC; the funds were previously budgeted dollars.  Commissioner Infantini stated the Board is operating out of the reserves in the General Fund for a lot of things; if, specifically, this is not coming out of reserves, then something else is coming out of reserves as a result; and she thinks it would be prudent to hold off on a three-year Contract. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated his view is that it is basically a six-month Contract; the EDC needs a certain level of stability and understanding that the Board supports their efforts; the EDC has done a remarkable job over the last couple of years in particular in ramping up the space issues; and now is not the time to send a mixed message that it is purely a money issue. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve Agreement with the Economic Development Commission of Florida’s Space Coast for Economic Development Services, with term from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2012.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Infantini and Anderson voted nay. 

 

 

Thomas Rosenberg, Budget Director, advised the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 aggregate tentative millage of 5.4720 mills represents a 13.68 percent decrease over the aggregate rolled back rate of 6.3389 mills, and a zero percent decrease over the aggregate current rate of 5.4720 mills.

 

 

 

Scott Ellis, Clerk of Courts, stated as far as taxable value, in 2000 the Board was at $16 billion; the peak was $41 billion; the Board is now down to $33 billion; and the Board may go as far as $20 billion.  He stated the numbers he is providing to the Board could apply to any city or county government in the State; everybody seems to think everything was built in the last decade, but that is not the case; the fact is that the majority of the construction was 50 years prior, and every bit of land that was built on in the last 10 years already had tax going in; stated he warned prior Boards that the County was in a massive speculative housing bubble, and revenues were short-term windfall revenues; and the spending continued un-abated.  He stated the bubble may have popped at the end of 2005, but State and local governments have failed to grasp what has happened in the last decade; stated just because a function is a core function of government does not mean it must have an unlimited budget; there are core functions of government that are needed, but the County cannot afford to fund them at the levels risen during the bubble decade; there is not a single function in Brevard County government that should be funded now at higher levels than 2007; and as time marches on, that date will go backwards until the Board is funding at 2002 levels.  He advised next year will be worse than this year; in 2007 he told the Board that it would be the best year of the bad years; and that is where the Board is currently.  He noted each year that seems like a bad year will be followed by another bad year that will be even worse; and yet, the Board is still spending the last of its savings in a deep recession with impending waves of layoffs at KSC.  He stated that is beyond reckless; it is fiscal suicide; rather than perform a triage on government functions, the Board is choosing to spend many millions of dollars on the two most egregious local rackets in Brevard County, which are the EDC and the Community Redevelopment Agencies, as cuts are made in critical functions while continuing to build tens of millions in parks that the County cannot afford to staff in order to keep open.   He stated in 2004-2005, the Board was warned of the reliance on bubble-related property value generated windfall revenues; in 2006, the Clerk’s Office read a report based on the affect of falling property values on tax revenue; in 2007 he again explained the magnitude of the impending fall and the steps needed to be prepared in the aftermath; and nothing was done in the past, and nothing will be done currently.  He stated without another $10 million in savings to cushion revenues this year, next year the Board will be required to reduce occurring expenses by $30 million or more; when the Board meets again to discuss the budget for next year, with the savings depleted and the revenue in further decline, it may finally recognize the fiscal folly of the entire decade, and at last come to grips that the bubble era has not simply ended, but it is gone forever.

 

Helen Voltz introduced Yvonne Minus, and advised, in conjunction with what Commissioner Fisher is doing in the north County on crime, and the Crime Workshop being held on October 8^th; stated she and Ms. Minus have what is called a Youth Development Workshop on October 31^st between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., it is a series of group sessions; and she would like to work closely with the Board.  She advised if anyone knows of any youth between the ages of eight and 19, they are encouraged to attend.

 

Thomas Snyder stated he represents a group of approximately 600 people who are also concerned about what it going on politically and economically; generally speaking, government is not cutting back like it needs to; and there is a perception that the trouble is in the past; but it is not.  He stated he has been an investor for many years; he was CEO and Chairman of a publically held company; and he has a broad background.  He stated he is sure that no one has seen the bad times yet; there are going to be so many bank closures that the FDIC will not be able to bail them out; and he is here to urge the Board to be very cost cutting for what is going to happen.  He stated apparently the taxes on his home are going to go up because of what is happening.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the article in the newspaper was misleading because those who were protected by Save Our Homes, there was a one-tenth of one percent increase in the assessed value; that is the recapture rule; normally it has been approximately three percent; but this year it was one-tenth of one percent.  He noted the Board did not increase taxes this year; the Board has held the same millage rate as last year; it is a broken system in the State of Florida related to tax law; and if someone just moved here or owns a business, then they are a donor to the problem.  He stated the Board has not raised taxes; it is misleading to say that; the Board has cut $40 million out of the budget; it can be argued that that is not enough; but $40 million is still real numbers. 

 

Mr. Young inquired what percentage did the Board cut; with Chairman Nelson responding approximately 18 percent or 19 percent.  Chairman Nelson stated it is his and Commissioner Bolin’s third year of cuts.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated Mr. Ellis made a reference to cutting back to the levels of 2007; and inquired if departments other than Public Safety are also cutting back to 2007 levels.  Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, advised departments are back closer to 2004-2005 levels in terms of the tax sheet. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated three Commissioners voted to hold the millage rates where they were; stated what Mr. Young is trying to address is that the spending has not decreased to 2007 levels; and while the Board may have a budget that goes to 2007 levels, it has not cut its spending back to what was actually cut in 2007.

 

Buddy Spakes stated the budget has millions of dollars that come from non-ad valorem special assessments; there is a Taxpayer Bill of Rights that guarantees that the rights, privacy, and property of the taxpayers of the State are adequately safeguarded during tax levy assessment and collection, and enforcement; that handout he gave the Board states the right to be mailed notice of proposed property taxes and proposed, or adopted, non-ad valorem assessments; and the notice must also inform the taxpayer that the final tax bill may contain additional non-ad valorem assessments.  He stated the second page of the handout is State Statute 197.3632, specifically paragraph six, and it states, “If the non-ad valorem assessment is to be collected for a period of more than one year, or is to be amortized over a number of years, the local governing board shall so specify and shall not be required to annually adopt a non-ad valorem assessment roll and shall not be required to provide individual notices to each taxpayer unless the provisions of Subsection IV apply.  Notice of an assessment other than that, which is required under Subsection IV, may be provided by including the assessment in the Property Appraiser’s notice of proposed property taxes and proposed, or adopted, non-ad valorem assessments.”  He stated in 2003, the House Representatives House Bill 127 saw there was  a  problem and  decided to  clear it up; the sponsor of the Bill stated, “This Bill is intended to clarify existing laws and thereby remove the need to provide, at considerable expense, individual notice of multi-year assessments after such notice is given.”  He advised the next page states, “After the initial notice of the assessment, the assessment notice by First Class mail, as required by State Statute 197.3632(4)(b), may be accomplished by including in the Property Appraiser’s notice of proposed taxes.”  He stated the sponsor of the Bill further indicated, “This Bill is intended to clarify the law with regard to property owners notices of non-ad valorem assessment, specifically with respect to multi-year assessments.  State Statute 197.3632(4)(b) requires that annual notice be given to each person owning property subject to the assessment by First Class United States Mail, and that the notice provided and the property owner has the right to appear at a public hearing at which the tax roll is adopted.  This notice can be expensive and appears to be inconsistent with the language of State Statute 197.3632, which provides that local governing boards are not required to annually adopt non-ad valorem tax roll.  This Bill is intended to make clear that if property notice is initially provided, no further individual First Class Mail notices would be required.”  He stated the Bill was unanimously passed by the House of Representatives and went to the Florida Senate; the title of the Bill states, “Prescribing a method for notice of non-ad valorem assessments collected for more than one year.”; and the Senate summary states, “Authorize subsequent notice of non-ad valorem assessments that are collected for more than one year to be given by inclusion in the Property Appraiser’s notice of proposed property taxes and proposed, or adopted, non-ad valorem assessments.”  He noted it unanimously passed the Florida Senate.  He advised there is case law from the City of Port St. Lucie which states, “The court held that the challenging parties were entitled to a retroactive refund of their assessment for all years in which inadequate notice of assessment have been given.”; stated the Board did not give its citizens notice at all during the current year; most of the assessments have had no notice at all; and the only ones that are valid are the ones the Board did properly notice.  He stated the total impact works out to be hundreds of millions of dollars; the Board has done it wrong; in 2003, the issue was cleared up by the House of Representatives and the State Senate; he expects the Board to fix it, and also to fix whatever caused this error to the taxpayers; and noted it is a total disgrace the way the Board has treated the taxpayers.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the question about notice came up during Fire Assessment; and inquired if County Attorney Scott Knox prepared a response to the question.  Attorney Knox advised yes, he did; his office concluded the Board did not have to give out the written notice to the individuals, especially the 1,800 people that were sent the notice of the zero assessment in 2008; and that was primarily what the opinion was focused on.   Chairman Nelson inquired if Attorney Knox could provide the Board, and Mr. Spakes, a copy of that opinion. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if what Mr. Spakes has provided is incorrect from the Florida Senate, that the Board does not have to provide notice of the non-ad valorem assessments that are collected for more than one year and included on the property tax bills.  Attorney Knox advised, the way the Statute reads, as it was enacted, is discretionary with the Board whether it wants to do that or not; and advised he will send Commissioner Infantini an email with the Statute language.

 

Marlene  Adams  stated  Subsection (1) of  State  Statute states, “The right to be  mailed Notice of Proposed Property Taxes and Proposed or Adopted Non-Ad Valorem Assessments.”  She stated “or adopted” means they have already been adopted and the residents have already received their letters and attended a hearing; the Statute says the taxpayers have a right to be noticed in advance of the tax bill; and Paragraph VI states, “Notice of an assessment other than that which is required under Subsection (4), may be provided by including the assessment in the Property Appraiser’s notice of proposed property taxes.”; and stated the whole purpose of those House and Senate Bills was to provide the local government with an easier way to notice taxpayers of the other assessments, or adopted assessments, so the County would not have to go through the expense of postage and letters and individual notices every year. 

 

She stated she received an email from the Department of Revenue confirming that if a local authority chooses to use the uniform method of collecting a non-ad valorem assessment, notice of the assessment must be provided to the taxpayer; and the email further stated, “Usually, this notice can be accomplished by including the non-ad valorem assessment in the TRIM notice or by providing a separate notice of non-ad valorem assessments.”  She stated she checked with other counties in the State, and every county she found that is doing non-ad valorem assessments put them on the TRIM bill, such as Broward, Orange, Charlotte, Counties.  She noted on May 6, 2008, the issue of putting the non-ad valorems on the TRIM notices; and if the Board knew what the Bill meant in 2003, it would have known that it should have been putting it on the TRIM notices because instead, the Board would have been going to great expense to notify the taxpayers by mail.  She advised the minutes from the Board meeting of May 6, 2008, state, “Mr. Knox cautioned the Board can do that, but to increase it above the amount that was advertised, the Board would have to send out a notice again.”; on September 16^th Attorney Knox sent her an email stated the Board does not have to send out letters of the 1,800 properties that were noticed “zero”, but will now be getting $16.44; and inquired which is correct.  She stated she has an email from Attorney Knox to Attorney Allen Watts stating that any deficiency in the notice would preclude the Board from putting assessments on the tax bill; but now Attorney Knox is saying the Board does not have to give notice; and inquired how the Board can make a decision without knowing what is right in the information being given by the same person all in one year.  She advised Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten told her at the August 27, 2009, Budget Workshop that she has been getting answers, she just did not like the answers; stated no, she did not like the answers because they were wrong; and inquired how the Board can make any intelligent, legal decisions with what it is handed as information.  She stated there is approximately $1 million in salaries and benefits to the people involved in non-ad valorem assessments; and for two years, she has worked for nothing.  She stated she cannot believe that for over 20 years, the taxpayers have not been getting a prior notice of non-ad valorem assessments except for the one initial year; she does not know where that came from, but she would like to see something that proves it over and above what she and Mr. Spakes just presented; and it is the taxpayers’ guaranteed right to be noticed of proposed taxes and proposed or adopted non-ad valorem.  She stated she did not get one letter in 2009; but she is going to get $350 in assessments added to her tax bill, which will double her total taxes; and there is something wrong with that.  She stated common sense should tell the Board that the taxpayers should be getting notice of the non-ad valorem as well, either by letter, hearing, or the TRIM notice. 

 

She advised Skidmore Mobile Home Park was assessed $408 in 2008; and it will be assessed $408 again in 2009.  She stated according to the County’s rates, a mobile home park of its size is $408; but a nice home on the river is included in the mobile home park property which is being assessed nothing; there is also a large bait shop on the property that is not being charged anything, yet it is all on the same property; and she pointed it out to the Board one year ago, but it has still not been corrected.  She stated the County’s tax roll is supposed to be free of errors and omissions before it is certified to the Tax Collector; it is in the Statute; and it is the Board’s responsibility, not anyone else’s.  She noted she has provided the Board details of two mobile home parks; the different uses are listed, as well as the rates and what was actually charged; between the two properties, they should have been charged almost $4,000 in a fire assessment, but they are only being charged $1,500; and inquired who is subsidizing the properties.  She stated the next example she gave the Board is of a 4,500 square-foot house on the river that is being charged $311, which is correct for that size of a home; but a retail store on U.S. 1 is included in that $311 and therefore is not being charged anything; and inquired how many errors and omissions it will take for the Board to realize that there are problems.  She stated there is a church that she will report to the Tax Collector that the Board has been charging all along, and it amounts to $8,000 per year; yet the same church owns the commercial property, which is not paying anything for the fire assessment; and stated she does not see how the Board can do anything with those assessments with the problems that it has.  She stated the Board certainly cannot depend on its staff; and inquired who made the decision not to re-notice the 1,800 properties. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she thought Mr. Whitten advised the Board at one of the budget meetings that the prior Board had voted to not notice the 1,800 property owners; and inquired if that was incorrect.  Mr. Whitten replied he does not recall saying that; the issue of the assessment has been before the Board a number of times; there was no direction to staff to re-notice those 1,800 parcels to recoup the assessments that were not gained last year; and so Mrs. Adams’ contention is that no one told staff not to go forward, but also no one told staff to not go back and recoup those assessments.  He stated he does not recall actually saying that the Board told staff not to go back; on May 6^th and May 20^th, the Board actually talked about assessments on the TRIM notice; but there was never an occasion where the Board gave staff direction to go back and re-notice those properties; and that issue was brought before the Board on two separate occasions.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if the Board needs to notify staff to go forward and to notice the 1,800 properties that they will be billed a dollar amount other than zero.  Mr. Whitten advised the 1,800 properties are in the database and are part of the assessment; the issue is whether the Board is going to assess them for the 2008/2009 fiscal year, not the 2009/2010 fiscal year; and in essence, those owners would get a bill for two fiscal years, so the Board would be two fiscal years away from the actual issue at hand.   Attorney Knox stated it has already been opined that the Board does not have to send notice to the 1,800 people; if the Board chooses to do that, it is fine, but it is nothing it has to do; and the reason the Board does not have to send the notices is because they were sent notices the first time around.  Commissioner Infantini stated those notices said zero.  Attorney Knox noted the proposed assessment was zero.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if the Board does not have to tell the owners if it is increasing the assessment.  Attorney Knox replied it is not an increase because it is proposed; and what was adopted was not zero, it was $16.44.  He advised the property owners received notice of a public hearing that was going to be held on the assessments; there was a published list of what the assessments were, and none of them were zero; the most was $16.44; the Board is required to hold a public hearing; and if the Board holds a public hearing it has the right to increase or decrease whatever the assessment schedule is that the Board proposed; but the Board is not bound to adopt whatever it sees at that hearing, otherwise there would be no point in the public hearing. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated to clarify, the Board sent public notice to homeowners saying there was going to be a public hearing for a proposed assessment of zero.  Attorney Knox advised no, the Board sent written notice to thousands of people, 1,800 of which received a notice saying the proposed assessment was zero; but there was more information than that contained in the assessment.  Commissioner Anderson stated he would not show up to a hearing if his proposed notice was zero; and that is where he is bothered.  He stated somehow, the Board has to fix the problem; he does not know how it got away from previous Boards; he understands what Attorney Knox is saying about there being a public hearing notice; but no one would show up if they were being assessed zero; and he looks to staff to figure out how to fix the problem. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated to clarify, staff has caught the 1,800, and it is resolved at this time; and the question is, does the Board go back after those folks.  He inquired what would happen if another one is found five years down the road; and inquired if there are any statute of limitations.  Attorney Knox advised that argument was had in the Palm Bay case; and the judge ruled there was a 60-day statute of limitations. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated the issue is that the bills, or notices, that should have gone out last summer with a $16.44 assessment on them had a zero on them for the 1,800 parcels, which amounted to $29,000, which is .0013 percent of the total collection; and the question now is, in addition to receiving their bill for the next fiscal year, does the Board send them some notice saying their bill from a year and a half ago was incorrect, and as opposed to reading zero, it should have read $16.44, and they are now obligated to pay $16.44. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired when is the Board going to actually step up and recognize it has a problem; there is either a problem with management, a problem with legal, or a problem with oversight; if it is just the 1,800 parcels, that is not the point; it is not the $16.44 to each person, the point is the Board has a problem; and it has taken two taxpayers two years to get the Board to start saying it should do something about it.  She inquired if she needs direct staff to notice those people and also to look at the other mistakes; Ms. Adams and Mr. Spakes are only asking for respect from the Board to recognize that they have fought for two years to get the Board to listen; and inquired what is the Board going to do to fix the problem.  She inquired what staff needs from her in order to fix the problem so that going forward, everyone is assessed correctly.  Mr. Whitten advised there are approximately 148 accounts in the assessment; 1,800 of them, through  some  error in  coding, did not receive  the  proper bill; stated Ms. Adams’ non-ad valorem assessment did not go up to account for the $16.44 that did not get collected from those 1,800 parcels; the whole assessment was built with the collection of those parcels, but her assessment was not predicated on not receiving those; he does not know if the Board considers that a problem; and he does not know how that can be characterized as a problem of management.  He stated it is a human error; the parcel owners should have been billed, but they were not billed; it does not in-validate the assessment; and it is .0013 percent of the entire amount.

 

Chairman Nelson stated it is his understanding that the problem has been caught and addressed.  Mr. Whitten advised the issue is corrected in the bills that will go out for the next fiscal year.  Commissioner Fisher inquired what is the amount that the owners will pay; with Mr. Whitten responding $16.44.  Commissioner Fisher stated staff fixed the problem once they were aware there was a problem; the issue is that there was a mistake made; the previous Board decided not to accept it as a mistake and not go back and charge the 1,800 parcels $16.44 for an error that was made.  Mr. Whitten stated that is correct.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if this is the first or second year those parcels will have to pay the $16.44.  Mr. Whitten advised this will be the first year they are paying the $16.44 because the methodology was changed last year; and this will be the first year they will pay the $16.44.  Commissioner Fisher stated if he was one of those people who suddenly gets a bill from the County for $16.44 for some taxes that he already thought he paid, he might tell the County where to go.

 

Ms. Adams stated the taxpayers are guaranteed the right of notice; that is what the Board is eliminating; it does not matter that the parcel owners would be mad over $16.44 or .64 cents; the taxpayers have the right to be noticed; and the Board is undermining that tremendously.  Chairman Nelson stated the question is about the 1,800 parcels; and the question is if the Board needs to do a notice for the 1,800, specifically to the problem that occurred.  He stated that is a single issue the Board needs to discuss; and then there is the bigger issue, which is the whole question of notice.  Ms. Adams read a portion of the May 6, 2008, Board minutes, “Mr. Knox cautioned the Board can do that, but to increase it above the amount that was advertised, the Board would have to send out a notice again.”  She stated it is clear that Mr. Knox said that, but now he is saying the Board does not have to send out a notice even though that $16.44 is above what they received notice of last year.

 

Mr. Whitten noted the advertisement was correct.  Attorney Knox advised there are two notices that are sent out; one is sent out by written notice individually to each property owner; the other is a published notice that is advertised; the advertised notice sets forth the schedule of the actual rates being proposed; and if $16.44 is the minimum rate, which it was, and the Board wants to raise it, it would then have to go back out and re-notify everyone; but the Board did not do that.  Commissioner Fisher stated the 1,800 parcel owners were not originally noticed of the $16.44 because of the error.  Attorney Knox stated the proposed actual assessment that was going to be paid by 1,800 property owners was shown as zero on their individual notices; and if they had seen the newspaper article, they would have known it was $16.44.  Commissioner Fisher stated in reality, people do not look at the newspaper legal advertisements.  Attorney Knox stated he understands that; the issue is whether or not legally the Board satisfied the requirements of the law, which it did; and even though the notice said zero, that does not mean those owners are going to pay zero because the rate is set at the public hearing after public hearing, and that is also in the notice.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if everyone is now being notified on an assessment.  Attorney Knox stated Ms. Adams has brought up points about sending out notices annually of the assessment; Statutes allow the Board to do that; the requirement is that the Board get the agreement of the Property Appraiser to do that, if the Board wants to do it; and it is not something the Board can order anyone to do, the Property Appraiser has to agree to it on the TRIM notice. 

 

Matt Nye stated he would like to thank Ms. Adams and Commissioner Infantini for digging into the issue and trying to get to the bottom of it; the bigger point is that the Board is supposed to be noticing, right now, going forward, and it is not doing so; stated Ms. Adams alluded to a Statute that specifically referenced First Class Mail; she also alluded to a letter from DOR that indicated such, and a case in Port St. Lucie; and inquired why the public does not get straight answers.  Attorney Knox replied the public does get straight answers; he has answered the question several times for Ms. Adams; the Statute Ms. Adams read earlier is clearly discretionary with the Board; the Board has to get the Property Appraiser’s approval to put it on the TRIM notice; and the Property Appraiser has to agree to put it on the TRIM notice for next year.  He stated clearly, the Board has no control over whether it is on the notice or not depending on what the Property Appraiser says; and the Port St. Lucie case involved a different portion of the Statute that has absolutely nothing to do with what Ms. Adams read earlier.   Mr. Nye inquired if Attorney Knox is saying the Board is dependent upon the Property Appraiser to give it permission to put it on the TRIM notice; and if the Property Appraiser says no, and the Statute says the Board is required to give notice by First Class Mail, does that not mean the Board needs to make other arrangements.  Attorney Knox advised there are two Statutes Ms. Adams referred to; the first one says the Board may do this; and the second one says it can only do it if it has the Property Appraiser’s approval.  Mr. Nye inquired if Attorney Knox’s answer is that it is discretionary; with Attorney Knox responding affirmatively. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated when the Board talked last year about putting the non-ad valorem assessments on the TRIM notice, it will recall that there are actually 46 items that would meet the definition of a non-ad valorem assessment; and the issue for the previous Board was if it put those on the tax bill and the taxpayer is still not noticed of all of the possible assessments that are out there.  He stated the Board can only authorize those assessments it is responsible for; for instance, there are five stormwater assessments: the County, Indian Harbour Beach, Malabar, Satellite Beach, the City of West Melbourne, and the Town of Melbourne Beach; and the Board would only be responsible for if the Property Appraiser complied with putting on the Board’s assessments.  He stated the taxpayer, in terms of notice, may or may not be any better off because there will still be a number of assessments that the Board has no control over whether or not they go on the tax bill because that is a responsibility of the particular city or municipality. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired what the municipalities are doing.  Mr. Whitten replied to his knowledge there are no assessments on the TRIM notice.  Commissioner Fisher stated the Board is basically complying with what other cities are doing as far as noticing assessments.  Mr. Whitten advised yes, at least with regard to those assessments being on the TRIM notice.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she would like to work with the Property Appraiser’s Office and request that he place the assessments on the TRIM notice; the Property Appraiser may not agree to do that; but at least the Board can request it for the benefit of the taxpayers so they know exactly what to expect in their tax bill each year.  Commissioner Anderson stated the Board needs to request the municipalities do the same; he has five municipalities in his District; and it would be nice if it was all uniform, but he does not know how the Board can force the municipalities to do that.  Chairman Nelson stated it is a cumbersome and almost impossible process because the Board does not control all of the moving parts; and inquired if one of those organizations fail to give the Board the information who is responsible.  He stated the research can be done and then the Board can have further discussion, but there are more moving parts to it than has been discussed tonight.

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if it is possible to have staff draft a letter asking the municipalities their ability to be uniform with the County if the Board decides to go in that direction.  Attorney Knox stated staff can certainly ask them to do that, but each municipality has to make their own decision to ask the Property Appraiser. 

 

 

Chairman Nelson called for the public hearing to consider millages and resolution establishing final millages for 2009-2010 for Brevard County.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he would like staff to go over the cuts the Board has made in the Budget; and stated before the Board adopts the millages, he would like to get the other Commissioners’ opinions on where the Board is not cutting, but can. 

 

Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, advised 199 positions were eliminated; 41 were full-time management, or supervisory positions; 79 were full-time non-supervisory positions; and 78 were part-time positions.  He stated there was a reduction in the funding for maintenance and resurfacing because most of those dollars are being dedicated to ditch maintenance; the Library operating hours were reduced by 20 percent; and basically, everyone who is funded on the tax sheet saw their revenues reduced by approximately 13 percent to 14 percent.  He advised there are a number of operating hours reductions for other County departments; there was funding reduction to Community Based Organizations (CBO); for all outside agencies, the funding for capital renewal and replacement was reduced; and travel budgets were reduced an additional 15 percent beyond the original budget submission.  He stated in terms of percentage decrease for the General Fund Transfer for departments, the Agriculture and Extension Office is reduced approximately 12.58 percent; Facilities Department is reduced 10 percent; Fire Rescue is reduced 25 percent; Natural Resources Management Office is reduced  48   percent;  Parks   and   Recreation  is  reduced   17  percent;  Planning  and Development is reduced 13 percent; Public Works is reduced 25 percent; Transit Services is reduced 24 percent; the Clerk to the Board is reduced .61 percent; the Property Appraiser’s Office is reduced 4.35 percent; the Sheriff’s Office is reduced 3.26 percent; the Supervisor of Elections is reduced almost nine percent; and the Tax Collector is reduced five percent.  He stated with the Board’s Article V responsibilities, the Judicial Branch was reduced by 16 percent; Judicial Support is reduced by 44 percent; the EDC is reduced by five percent; Brevard Cultural Alliance is reduced 15 percent; and so in terms of the General Fund request, or reduction, it was reduced by approximately 10 percent.  He stated earlier the Board talked about the Library reductions; staff presented the service hour reductions to the Board; and stated Cathy Schweinsberg, Library Services Director, can talk to the Board about the ability to open the Libraries for those hours that are considered normal hours now.  He noted Ms. Schweinsberg lost on the tax sheet approximately $2 million; and the $2 million necessitated a reduction in every Library’s hours of operations.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired about the difference in the Health Insurance.  Mr. Whitten advised in terms of the shift from the employer to the employee, through cost shifts, deductible shifts, and premium shifts, the Board has reduced its expenses by approximately $10 million; and the employees will have to pick up that amount.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated at the first Budget Meeting, Commissioner Infantini presented charts that made reference to some actuary numbers versus balance numbers, and some ways the Board can save some additional dollars; and inquired if there has been any research done on that to see if there is any savings there that the Board is missing.

 

Mr. Whitten advised each year staff makes a projection on what the Fund Balances are going to be; staff gets concurrence on that projection from County Finance; but there are a number of expenses that are left to be posted.  He noted at the first Budget Hearing, there were three pay periods that were left to be posted, along with a number of expenses within the Departments that are left to be posted; what staff projected as Fund Balances are reasonable, but in terms of anticipated expenses, the Countywide payroll is approximately $6.6 million per payroll period; and there were three of those remaining.  He stated as of today there are 1.8 payroll periods yet to be posted; the $1.8 equates to $11.9 million on a Countywide basis; and those figures do not include Leave payouts to employees whose last days are September 30^th or sooner. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated there has been a lot of discussion in reference to Fund Balances and the use of Reserves; and staff went back to 1996 to give the Board a sense of how those numbers have changed over time, and also to show that the Board has always relied on Fund Balances as a part of development of its annual budget.  He stated since 1997, the Reserves have been up and down; the Board has been as low as $8 million, and as high as $21 million; and next year, it is anticipated there will be some reduction in Reserves but not as much as has been since in at least one prior fiscal year.  He stated the Fund Balances are the remaining actual funding that is left over after the end of the fiscal year after all revenues and expenses have been  applied  and  posted in the financial system; Fund Balances are considered by the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) to be an essential component of a financially sound governmental budget; and GFOA actually recommends that unrestricted Fund Balances be approximately between five percent and 20 percent of the anticipated expenditures.  He noted Florida Statute 129 specifically requires that Fund Balances be included in the County’s balanced budget proposal; it is a Statutory requirement that the Board account for Fund Balances; stated Section 120.0, Subsection II(c)(2) specifically indicates that Fund Balances shall be used to pay expenses until the new fiscal year, until new revenues are received; and Bond Agencies actually grade the County on its Fund Balances in terms of financing, or bonding, ability.  He stated generally, revenues that are received, bond financing, and grants, are only those for one fiscal period; and if they are unspent at the end of the fiscal year, they become Fund Balances.  He stated some of the things funded with Fund Balances are the St. Johns Heritage Parkway with $21.6 million, Rodes Park with $19 million, the future expansion of the South Area Landfill with $8 million, Barnes Boulevard widening with $7.7 million, and stormwater projects with $7.1 million, among others.  He stated there is a misnomer that Fund Balances are excess dollars that are just utilized by the County with no rhyme or reason; and there are substantial projects associated with Fund Balances.  He stated for example, with the St. Johns Heritage Parkway, the Board bonded LOGT, received those bond proceeds, and those bond proceeds were not spent in a single fiscal year; and in subsequent fiscal years, those bond proceeds will be recognized as balances forward and associated with that project. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if there is $21 million for the St. Johns Heritage Parkway, can some of it be allocated to something else.  Mr. Whitten stated ultimately, the Board could do that, but not with general government expenses; the Parkway was originally a Bond deal and had a specific listing of projects; and the Board would have to go back and modify that listing of projects and get concurrence from the folks the Board sold the Bond to.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if some of the projects Mr. Whitten mentioned have already begun.  Mr. Whitten replied some of them have started; but the whole issue with Fund Balances is that projects start and cannot be completed in a single fiscal year, so the dollars have to be rolled over and moved to the next fiscal year. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Board has cut $40 million this year, $20 million last year, and $20 million the year before; the Board has responded to the changing circumstances, whether it is through the State Legislature, the amending of the Constitution, or through the loss of revenue associated with the economy; and the Board will continue to do that; but the Board has made cuts responsibly.  He stated two libraries in his District were built with dollars from his community; other libraries were built at the expense of everyone in Brevard County; and the County is taking its fair share of cuts just like everyone else is, even though it uses its capital dollars from the communities to build those.  He stated he agrees with Mr. Ellis in that next year is going to continue to drop and the Board will be making tough decisions again; he is not expecting a miracle; but the Board will make those tough decisions next year as well.  He stated  when the  Board talks about  utilization  of Reserves, sometimes it gets caught up with Cash Forward; but not all Cash Forward are reserves; and there is a difference there, but it gets confusing.  He stated when looking at the projects, the LOGT has no implication as it relates to the millages; it is solely related to a bonded amount contained in the Board’s budget; the Board sets 27 different millages, less than half of which relate to his District; but the Board will set the millages for all of them; and they include General Fund, Mosquito Control, Parks and Recreation, and EELs.   He stated he did not agree with where the Board went with the budget because he thinks it cut some services beyond levels he was comfortable with; but that was the decision of the Board; and at the last meeting he supported moving forward with it. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated when he was elected, his mandate for his constituents was not to raise taxes, and reduce spending and reduce the size of government; and the Board has done that.  He stated the issue that keeps coming up is about the Reserves; Reserves is what got local government through the hurricanes of 2004 before insurance or FEMA kicked in; the question is if the $15 million allocated in the event of a man-made or natural disaster is enough to get the Board through; and that is what Reserves is for.  He stated he believes Reserves are there temporarily in case of an emergency; he is comfortable with the $15 million figure to get the Board through that time period; the County’s payroll during a hurricane is already budgeted; the overtime that occurs out of a hurricane is not; and that would have to come out of the $15 million, plus other contingencies.  He stated he is comfortable with the $15 million, but he has concerns; however, the Reserves the Board is forecasting is closer to 2005/2006; and they are more than 2004, which is when storms affected Brevard County.  He noted he is comfortable approving the Budget with $15 million in Reserves.

 

Chairman Nelson stated one thing the Board learned from the storms was that besides the fact that the Board had Reserves, it also funded the staffs that were doing the clean-up; in 2004, the Board had $8 million in Reserves, but now it is at almost $16 million, which is significant; and he is comfortable in that regard.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated his concern he was not in favor of a tax increase, but he was in favor of the County getting the same amount of dollars this year as last year; that is different than a tax increase; and that was not made clear in the newspaper.  He stated his real concern is that he was looking out beyond this year; he wanted to make sure that what the Board is doing today was going to also affect it in 2010 and 2011; where the Reserves is $15 million now, he believes the Board is going to tap into more next year than it did this year; and he does not think the Board will go into next year’s budget cycle with $15 million in Reserves.  He stated he loves libraries, but the library issues are not going to go away next year; there are going to be more cuts in libraries and parks and other areas; and what is important to him in his District is the road situation and how the Board is going to maintain the roads.

 

Steve Burdett, County Finance Director, stated his opinion is that the Board is going to be spending $7 million out of its General Fund, which is more than what it is bringing in; next year, the projection is the Board will be spending $12 million more than what it is bringing in; and at some point, the Board is going to run out of cash.  He stated when the Board gets to the end of next year, there will be approximately $15 million or $16 million; it is his opinion that the General Fund needs $16 million of cash in order to make it through to the middle of November when tax dollars come in; and if the Board does not have that cash in there, it will be told it has to borrow money from somewhere so it can disburse funds to the elected officials so that it can make its own payroll.  He stated as long as the Board continues to operate at the current deficits, assuming the property values will come back, at some point it is going to run out of savings.

 

Chairman Nelson stated this is not the first time it has happened over the course of the last 30 years; periodically, where the Board has had similar circumstances, the same thing Mr. Burdett just described has happened; and he does not want people to think this is the first time it has happened.  Mr. Burdett stated Chairman Nelson is correct; and it would be poor judgment on his part if he did not tell the Board what potentially could happen.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated regardless of the fact that it has happened in the past, there are things she has done in the past that she will not do again; and there are things the Board has done in the past that she would not encourage going forward.  She stated she will not approve a budget; she does not know why the Board thinks it did a good job cutting $40 million when it is dipping into savings prior to one of the worst times in economic history in which it may really need the savings.  She stated she has suggested numerous times that everyone across-the-board take a five percent pay cut; at some point in time, the Board has to bite the bullet; and she would rather do it now, before she is told she has to borrow more money.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated the Board does not have to spend the unrealized and unbudgeted revenues that it is forced to allocate for.  Mr. Burdett stated no, the Board does not have to spend them, but it also may not collect them. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated the budget is a proposed budget of how the Board is going to spend its money; the Board has the entire year to work on not spending some of the money also; what the Board is doing tonight is bringing forward an approval on the proposed budget; but that does not mean it has to spend it all at the beginning of the new year. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board is using the $11 million to help balance the budget.  Mr. Whitten advised that is correct, but staff needs to tell the Board where the $11 million is going because it is going to see that it is going to projects such as the Jail expansion and other government projects that were not finished last year. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the Board can make deeper cuts, but it will mean less services.  Mr. Whitten stated in regards to Library Services, Ms. Schweinsberg is self-contained; stated she can only get the taxes that are Special District taxes for the Library; if the Board cuts Ms. Schweinsberg another five percent, she will have to take that hit; and those dollars cannot be redistributed anywhere else.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired why the EEL Program is not self-contained; stated EELs is taking in approximately $2 million and spending $3 million in operating; and she does not understand how one unit is self-contained, but then the other one is not.  Mr. Whitten stated there is a Special Act that says the only revenue Libraries can generate and utilize is that revenue from property taxes associated with the Libraries’ Special District; with regard to EELs, there is a voter-approved referendum, there are Bond documents that dictate where the dollars can be used; and the EELs funding, just like the Libraries’ funding, is not a general government revenue source.  Commissioner Infantini stated when she was looking over the Library budget items, she noticed a lot of usage of purchasing cards being used to purchase things such as videos, periodicals and publications; and if those are being done at a library level, can the Board centralize the purchasing function and take it down from the budgeted $1.3 million the Board has; and instead of having each individual Library Manager using their purchasing card for $2,000 per month, maybe the Board should have it centralized so it knows exactly how much it is spending on videos and books.  She stated if some of those costs can be contained, maybe the Board can keep the libraries open; she looked at staffing at some of the libraries and she does not understand that if there are 10 people on staff, why the library cannot be open for more than 40 hours per week; she has gotten complaints from people who think that she is setting the hours for the library; and she is not setting the hours or allocating the resources within each library. 

 

Mr. Whitten noted the Library Services Director has a limited amount of funds; those funds were reduced by $2 million; and Ms. Schweinsberg can show the Board what the libraries spend on videos and magazines, as well as other expenses.  He stated there have been a lot of rumors with regard to Ms. Schweinsberg being the person who said a certain library would be reduced by 40 hours per week, or 20 hours per week; but that is not true; stated Ms. Schweinsberg has a certain amount of resources that were only stretched so far; and the Board will see that every library, based on the available resources, personnel had to be cut.

 

Cathy Schweinsberg, Library Services Director, advised every Library Director in the system, each with a Masters Degree and a lot of years of experience, along with the Advisory Boards, looked long and hard at the hours the libraries were open; the libraries had a revenue reduction of 13 percent; over the past two years, the libraries took everything that was not staff related out of the budget; it was 20 percent one year, 20 percent the second year, and an additional 13 percent this year; and there was no where else to cut this year.  She stated the Library Directors went back to the Advisory Boards to ask which hours can be cut; the amount of staffing the libraries have is not based on a 40-hour week; the Central Library is open 64 hours per week, seven days per week; it is a three-story building with staffing that is not solely dedicated to the Central Library; there are system-wide people that are housed in the building as well; and the Board cannot look specifically at that staffing.  She stated every library’s hours were studied long and hard; it was done regionally so that somewhere there was library service all over in the region; in the South region, if a library was closed on a particular night, another library in the region would be open so that citizens could have library service; and the  Library  Directors  and Advisory  Boards were  very careful and cognizant of the citizens’ desires to use the library; no one in Library Services wants to close libraries or to limit them; and staff has spent years building up libraries with the support of the Board.  She stated Library Services cut its book budget by 43 percent before it went to having to close libraries; staff did everything possible to not do that; it costs a tremendous amount of money to open the doors of the libraries everyday; the bills have to be paid, as well as the maintenance on the buildings; and she does not have the option of reducing the costs associated with the bills.  She stated the only discretionary items that she had this year to look at was the media budget and staffing; the media budget was cut 43 percent; and the rest was cut in reduced hours.  She stated the Board directed her to decrease the libraries based on the usage statistics; and that is what she did. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she still thinks that some of the libraries could be kept open for a few more hours; some of the people at the Melbourne Beach Library drive 14 miles to get to the Library, as it is the closest Library for them; and the next closest Library is another six miles.  She stated she does not know that that was a good choice to cut those hours because of geographic distance to get to the next closest library, when some people are already traveling 14 miles.  She advised she did a quick analysis of how much staffing the libraries have; she knows the Central Library is a unique library; but some libraries are only being cut by 10 percent; and the Martin Luther King Library is cut 36 percent, and Melbourne Beach is 26 percent. 

 

Ms. Schweinsberg stated those cuts were based on the direction given to her by the Board to cut the libraries based on the usage; and if libraries were not used as much as the others, then they were cut a little more; but each Library Director cut their hours according to what their communities and their Library Advisory Boards could bear.  Commissioner Infantini stated she would like to see the libraries increased a little bit.  Ms. Schweinsberg stated that is not possible, as there is no money.  Commissioner Fisher stated in order to increase the library hours, Ms. Schweinsberg needs more dollars.  Commissioner Infantini inquired if Ms. Schweinsberg can reduce staffing; one person called her office and said all they wanted was for the library to be open so that they could check out books; another person said they wanted the library open to be able to have someone help them with the reference materials; some of the libraries have 21 to seven employees; if the staffing is staggered, then rather than having full service for 40 hours, could there be partial service for 60 hours; because that way, the library is always open; and if there were five people there could be one person checking books in, one person checking books out, and someone to help with reference. 

 

Ms. Schweinsberg advised Library Services runs with 56 percent part-time employees; not all employees are full-time; and that was done to keep the libraries open as much as possible.  She stated she wishes she could tell people that all they can do is check in and check out a book, because they may go to another area of the library to get to a person to help them with whatever they need; and it may leave the children’s section unmanned at times with no one there to help those people who are there specifically to visit the children’s section. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired what Commissioner Infantini wants Ms. Schweinsberg to cut in order to open more libraries.  Commissioner Infantini replied she would like the staffing to be staggered; and it does not save money, but it saves people from moving around; but she will defer to the library experts.

           

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 4.632 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 12.83 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 3.7161 mills; and the millage generates $124,420,411.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the millage for the General Fund at 3.7161 mills, and revenue at $124,420,411.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Library District

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.5067 mills; the percentage change form the rollback rate is a decrease of 12.76 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.4421 mills; and the millage generates $14,902,243.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the millage for the Library District at 0.4421 mills, and revenue at $14,902,243.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Mosquito Control District

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.2094 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 24.12 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.1589 mills; and the millage generates $5,356,178.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the millage for the Mosquito Control District at 0.1589 mills, and revenue at $5,356,178.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Fire Control MSTU

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.6982 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 11.39 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.6187 mills; and the millage generates $9,648,295.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the millage for the Fire Control MSTU at 0.6187 mills, and revenue at $9,648,295.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay.

 

 

            Recreation District 1 MSTU

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.5436; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 14.46 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.4650 mills; and the millage generates $2,045,488.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the millage for the Recreation District 1 MSTU at 0.4650 mills, and revenue at $2,045,488.

 

 

            Recreation District 4 O&M

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.4224; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 11.81 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.3725 mills; and the millage generates $1,353,817.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve the millage for the Recreation District 4 O&M at 0.3725 mills, and revenue at $1,353,817.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            TICO Airport Authority

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.0000 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 0.00 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.00 percent; and the millage generates $0.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the TICO Airport Authority at 0.0000 mills, and revenue at $0.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Law Enforcement MSTU

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 1.0461 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 4.28 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 1.0013 mills; and the millage generates $14,630,276. 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve the Law Enforcement MSTU at 1.0013 mills, and revenue at $14,630,276.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Road and Bridge District 1 MSTU

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.4602 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 12.97 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.4005 mills; and the millage generates $978,524.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to approve the Road and Bridge District 1 MSTU at 0.4005 mills, and revenue at $978,524.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Road and Bridge District 2 MSTU

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.2644 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 10.48 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.2367 mills; and the millage generates $924,024.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the millage for Road and Bridge District 2 MSTU at 0.2367 mills; and the millage generates $924,024.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Road and Bridge District 3 MSTU

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.3776 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 12.03 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.3322 mills; and the millage generates $539,737.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to approve the millage for Road and Bridge District 3 MSTU at 0.3322 mills, and revenue at $539,737.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Road and Bridge District 4 MSTU

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.2952 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 11.32 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.2618 mills; and the millage generates $1,060,779.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the Road and Bridge District 4 MSTU at 0.2618 mills, and revenue at $1,060,779.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Road and Bridge District 5 MSTU

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.4074 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 11.70 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.3597 mills; and the millage generates $486,546.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the Road and Bridge District 5 MSTU at 0.3597 mills, and revenue at $486,546.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.3192 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 10.53 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.2856; and the millage generates $137,716.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the Road and Bridge District 4 North Beaches MSTU at 0.2856 mills, and revenue at $137,716.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Road and Bridge District 4 South Merritt Island MSTU

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.1250 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 1.71 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage 0.1229 mills; and the millage generates $18,288.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to approve the millage for Road and Bridge District 4 South Merritt Island MSTU at 0.1229 mills, and revenue at $18,288.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.0393 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 18.35 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.0321 mills; and the millage generates $1,082,022.  

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the millage for Environmentally Endangered Land (1991) at 0.0321 mills, and revenue at $1,082,022.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Environmentally Endangered Land (2004)

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.0356 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 12.76 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.0311 mills; and the millage generates $1,048,314.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to approve the millage for Environmentally Endangered Land (2004) at 0.0311 mills, and revenue at $1,048,314.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.2029 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 100.00 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.0000 mills; and the millage generates $0.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the millage for PSJ/Canaveral Groves Recreation MSTU at 0.0000 mills, and revenue at $0.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            North Brevard Special Recreation District

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.2393 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 49.85 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.1200 mills; and the millage generates $374,495.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to approve the millage for the North Brevard Special Recreation District at 0.1200 mills, and revenue at $374,495.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Merritt Island Recreation MSTU

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.2007 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 65.43 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.0694 mills; and the millage generates $212,891. 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the millage for the Merritt Island Recreation MSTU at 0.0694 mills, and revenue at $212,891.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            South Brevard Special Recreation District

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.2472 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 15.14 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.2098 mills; and the millage generates $3,989,469. 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve the millage for the South Brevard Special Recreation District at 0.2098 mills, and revenue at $3,989,469.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.0420 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 0.00 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.0420 mills; and the millage generates $1,415,730.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the millage for the Environmentally Endangered Lands (1991) at 0.0420 mills, and revenue at $1,415,730.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Environmentally Endangered Lands (2004) Debt

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.0988 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 0.00 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.0988; and the millage generates $3,330,336. 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin to approve the millage for the Environmentally Endangered Lands (2004) Debt at 0.0988 mills, and revenue at $3,330,336.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            PSJ/Canaveral Groves Recreation Facilities MSTU Debt

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.4713 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 0.00 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.4713 mills; and the millage generates $388,970.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the PSJ/Canaveral Groves Recreation Facility MSTU Debt at 0.4713 mills, and revenue at $388,970.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            North Brevard Special Recreation District Debt

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.6681 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 0.00 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.6681 mills; and the millage generates $2,085,001.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve the North Brevard Special Recreation District Debt at 0.6681 mills, and revenue at $2,085,001.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Merritt Island Recreation MSTU Debt

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.7297 mills; the percentage change from the rollback rate is a decrease of 0.00 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.7297 mills; and the millage generates $2,238,420.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to approve the Merritt Island Recreation MSTU Debt at 0.7297 mills, and revenue at $2,238,420.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

The Budget staff advised the 2009-2010 rolled-back millage is 0.3768 mills; the percentage change form the rollback rate is a decrease of 0.00 percent; the FY 2009-2010 tentative millage is 0.3768 mills; and the millage generates $7,165,070.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the South Brevard Special Recreation District at 0.3768 mills, and revenue at $7,166,070.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

The Budget staff advised the FY 2009-2010 Aggregate Adopted millage of 5.4720 represents a 13.68 percent decrease over the aggregate rollback rate of 6.3389 mills, and a 0.00 percent decrease over the aggregate current rate of 5.4720. 

 

The Budget staff read aloud a resolution adopting final millages pursuant to Chapter 200, Florida Statutes, authorizing the Board of County Commissioners to adopt final millages for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 and providing an effective date. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to adopt Resolution adopting final millages pursuant to Chapter 200, Florida Statutes, authorizing the Board of County Commissioners to adopt final millages for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 and providing an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay. 

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson called for the public hearing to consider a resolution establishing the final budget for FY 2009-2010. 

 

The Budget staff read aloud a resolution adopting the County’s final budget resolution for FY 2009-2010, in the amount of $1,093,543,028.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt Resolution of the County’s final Budget Resolution for FY 2009-2010, in the amount of $1,093,543,028.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay. 

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson called for the public hearing to consider resolutions adopting final millages for Dependent Special Taxing Districts for FY 2009-2010.

 

The Budget staff advised of the final millages and budgets for all the Dependent Special Taxing Districts for FY 2009-2010, as follows:

 

Free Public Library                                                                  0.5067 mill          $14,902,243

Mosquito Control District                                                        0.2094 mill              5,356,178

Recreation Special District 4 O&M                                         0.4224 mill              1,353,817

Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority                                            0.0000 mill                            0

South Brevard Recreation Special District – Operating         0.2472 mill              3,989,469

South Brevard Recreation Special District – Debt                 0.3768 mill              7,165,070

North Brevard Recreation Special District – Operating         0.2393 mill                 374,495

North Brevard Recreation Special District – Debt                  0.6681 mill              2,085,001

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final millage of 0.5067 mill for Free Public Library for FY 2009-2010.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final millage of 0.2094 for the Mosquito Control District for FY 2009-2010.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final millage of 0.4224 for the Recreation Special District 4 O&M for FY 2009-2010.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final millage of 0.0000 for the Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority for FY 2009-2010.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final millage of 0.2472 for the South Brevard Recreation Special District – Operating for FY 2009-2010.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final millage of 0.3768 for the South Brevard Recreation Special District Debt for FY 2009-2010.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final millage of 0.2393 for the North Brevard Recreation Special District – Operating for FY 2009-2010.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final millage of 0.6681 for the North Brevard Recreation Special District – Debt for FY 2009-2010.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson called for the public hearing to consider the final budgets for Dependent Special Districts.

 

Budget Director Thomas Rosenberg read aloud the final budgets for Dependent Special Districts for FY 2009-2010 as follows:

 

Free Public Library District                                                                             $19,585,042

Mosquito Control District                                                                                    9,415,017

Recreation Special District 4 O&M                                                                     5,364,962

Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority                                                                        1,905,885

South Brevard Recreation Special District                                                       26,166,227

North Brevard Recreation Special District                                                         2,307,736

Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency                                                                4,749,698

Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District                                                             7,892,821

Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District                                                          2,587,864

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final budget for Free Public Library at $19,585,042.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final budget for Mosquito Control District at $9,415,017.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final budget for Recreation Special District 4 O&M at $5,364,962.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final budget for Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority at $1,905,885.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final budget for South Brevard Recreation Special District at $26,166,227.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final budget for North Brevard Recreation Special District at $2,307,736.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final budget for Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency at $4,749,698.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay. 

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final budget for Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District at $7,892,821.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution adopting final budget for Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District at $2,587,864.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chairman Nelson called for the public hearing to consider permission to execute TRIM compliance forms.

 

There being no objection heard, motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to authorize the Interim County Manager to execute Department of Revenue Forms DR-487, DR-487V, DR-420, DR-420MM, DR-420-TIF, DR-420DEBT, DR-422, and DR-422DEBT; and direct staff to assemble all components of the TRIM Compliance Package and transmit to the appropriate Department of Revenue authorities.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the Capital Improvements Program for Fiscal Years 2009-2010 through 2013-2014.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve October 8, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. as the date and time for the Crime Prevention Workshop.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:26 p.m.

 

 

 

                                                                        _________________________________

                                                                        CHUCK NELSON, CHAIRMAN

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ATTEST:                                                         BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

 

___________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK 

 

            (SEAL)           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.