July 20, 1995 (workshop)
Jul 20 1995
The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in workshop session on July 20, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Multi-purpose Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Mark Cook, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.
DISCUSSION, RE: PUBLIC COMMENT
Commissioner Scarborough stated he has been asked when public comments will be taken; the County Attorney advised the Board is not legally required to do so; and he thinks comments should be heard before the tentative millage is set. Chairman Higgs and Commissioner O'Brien indicated agreement. Chairman Higgs stated the Board will accept public comments. She recognized the Chairman of the Citizen Budget Committee, Bob Linn, who indicated he did not wish to address the Board at this point.
Commissioner O'Brien recommended changing the schedule to provide for a break at 10:30 a.m. The Board reached consensus to revise the schedule.
BUDGET PRESENTATIONS
Assistant County Manager for Environmental Services Steve Peffer outlined the five departments and offices comprising the Environmental Services Group and their funding sources. He stated Environmental Services had a net reduction in staff of 6.5 full-time equivalents; and in each agency, the operating budget is less. He stated the Agriculture and Extension Office budget is the same as last year; there is no change in the total number of personnel; and there are no requested program changes. He noted in Natural Resources, staff has been cut by 10% or three positions; and the General Fund transfer has been reduced by 26%. He advised the Water Quality Monitoring Program has been transferred from Natural Resources to the Surface Water Division, which was funding that previously; and they are picking up the Landscape Review Program from Land Development at one position. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised that was formerly four positions, and is being reduced to one position.
Chairman Higgs inquired if that staff will be able to adequately handle that program; with Mr. Peffer responding no. Mr. Jenkins stated he made the reduction; he does not know that the County has to have individual inspectors for every function; and there may be a more efficient way to do field inspections with existing resources. Mr. Peffer concurred the answer is to find more efficient ways to share the responsibilities. Chairman Higgs inquired if other staff will be doing the inspections; with Mr. Jenkins responding he will have to determine exactly how it will be done, but there are enough inspectors between Road and Bridge, Building, and Land Development. Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Jenkins is confident the program can be covered using existing resources; with Mr. Jenkins responding affirmatively. Mr. Jenkins stated he also expects to see some streamlining of the program; with Chairman Higgs responding that is the direction the Board indicated it was comfortable with.
Mr. Peffer stated in Mosquito Control, the ad valorem millage has been reduced by 4.79%. He stated a herbicide program is now being funded; so the General Fund transfer for those programs has been reduced by 100% to reduce the overall budget by 10% from the current year; and there are no requested program changes. He advised there are no fee increases in Solid Waste; no changes in assessment are being proposed; and no increase in staffing is being proposed. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the budget for Mosquito Control is being cut; with Mr. Peffer responding the overall budget will be reduced by 10% from the current year. Mr. Jenkins noted that is without disrupting service. Mr. Peffer stated no increase in rates or fees is being proposed for Water Resources; and there is a net decrease in staff of 3.5 positions.
Agriculture and Extension Services Director Dan Schrader explained the history, makeup, and purpose of the Agriculture and Extension Services. He advised the funding is 20% from USDA, 40% from the State of Florida through the University of Florida, and 40% from the County; there are two agents who work for the County, but are not in the County; and the University of Florida provided a down-link satellite dish a month ago. He explained the programs offered by the Office of Agriculture and Extension Services. He stated there are three offices; staff is at the same level it was ten years ago; and he does not anticipate an increase, although he will be making major changes by moving staff. He outlined moves that have already taken place to move agents to the south area of the County.
Commissioner Cook inquired how will this affect people in the north end of the County; with Mr. Schrader responding there are offices in Titusville and Cocoa, and everything is available to everyone through the phone system. Commissioner Cook inquired if people will be moved from central to south; with Mr. Schrader explaining the planned moves. Mr. Peffer stated Mr. Schrader has looked for opportunities to more efficiently utilize the staff; and the change with the telephones has allowed for backup.
Chairman Higgs inquired about marine/agriculture activities; with Mr. Schrader responding the net ban situation was dropped on him; the County was the first county to fund a marine agent; and they are part of the educational program. He noted the marine agent also works in the area of aquatics and aquaculture. Chairman Higgs expressed interest in helping marine resource people produce and sell more. Mr. Jenkins stated there is a goal to increase profitability of commercial marine industries by 10%.
Commissioner Ellis inquired how are salaries handled. Mr. Schrader stated the 20% from the federal government is sent directly to the University of Florida; and outlined the things that are provided. He stated his salary is 50% from the University of Florida and 50% from the County; and some agents may have a different percentage, but they get two checks. Commissioner Cook stated the Board only sees the County side, and should see all sides; with Commissioner Scarborough agreeing. Commissioner Ellis inquired how that works for benefits; with Mr. Schrader explaining how it is handled. Chairman Higgs inquired who pays retirement; with Mr. Schrader responding the County pays a percentage. Chairman Higgs inquired who pays for health insurance; with Mr. Schrader responding his health insurance is paid by the State at his request. Commissioner Ellis inquired about the other employees; with Mr. Schrader responding it is determined when they are hired and he does not know how everyone is broken out. Commissioner Ellis expressed concern about duplication of insurance. Chairman Higgs requested Mr. Schrader check that there is no duplication; with Mr. Schrader assuring the Board there is no duplication. Discussion ensued on how benefits are provided. Chairman Higgs expressed concern that employees are being paid with two checks; with Mr. Schrader advising he will look into the issue.
Commissioner O'Brien inquired what the home economics agents do; with Mr. Schrader responding one of the agents is a registered dietician who works with other agencies in terms of proper diet and teaches classes. Commissioner O'Brien inquired who attends the classes; with Mr. Schrader responding citizens. Mr. Schrader explained the programs. Commissioner O'Brien stated the public schools already have a home economics teacher; and inquired why is the process being repeated. Mr. Schrader advised it gets a lot of people who are middle-aged and older who have dietary needs that did not exist when they took home economics. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why is the County paying for it rather than the Board of Education; with Mr. Schrader responding this is an item funded in the Extension Service through the University, and there are no ties with the School Board. Mr. Peffer noted the program reaches out to a large number of people; and the concept is that this group extends the knowledge base and the resources of the University of Florida.
Commissioner Scarborough inquired about information on new citrus varieties; with Mr. Schrader responding he can only provide what the University sends, but they get information more quickly through the computer system. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be great to be able to get horticulture information on the Internet. Discussion ensued on the use of computers by the Agriculture and Extension Office, and the possibilities to disperse information. Assistant County Manager Joan Madden advised starting in August, 1995 the library system will come up on Internet. Commissioner Scarborough advised of the importance of computers to the public. Ms. Madden stated this is in the embryonic stage; it takes money, time, and training of staff; and by September, 1995, it will be up and running. Mr. Peffer stated progress is being made; Mr. Schrader has brought good ideas to the program; and advised of things which are now being done differently.
Commissioner Cook advised of his experience on the Soil and Water Conservation Board; and stated his concern is to maintain the level of service of the Agriculture and Extension Service.
Mr. Schrader stated he would like to move programs and people around to make them more efficient; and hopefully money can be saved or services increased.
Commissioner Ellis stated as the Board moves things next year, it may find space available elsewhere. Mr. Jenkins agreed the Minton Road site is not the most desirable facility. Mr. Schrader advised he is still looking for locations. Commissioner Ellis advised there are modulars at the courthouse. Mr. Schrader advised of the lack of classrooms in the South Brevard area; and stated that is where a lot of the people are. Mr. Peffer stated they have also looked at the possibility of the old Meadowlane School.
Commissioner O'Brien stated there already is a public school system in place; there is already a Brevard Community College system in place; the University of Florida and University of Central Florida have a presence at the colleges; and he is concerned this is another form of school which the County is paying for. Commissioner O'Brien noted when people want to go to the University of Florida at night school, they have to pay tuition; but extension service is free. He stated it gives him heartburn to go around the other systems to provide another system of education for specific people; and expressed concern about duplication of services by Social Services and HRS. Commissioner Cook stated it is necessary to look at the totality of everything to avoid duplication. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Agriculture and Extension Office wants to teach these classes, they should contract with the University of Florida or Brevard Community College rather than creating another layer of classrooms and teachers. He noted Brevard County taxpayers are paying for 40%; with Chairman Higgs noting 40% is from the University of Florida. Commissioner O'Brien stated he can see 4-H being a priority; but he cannot see the philosophy of providing another layer of education. Chairman Higgs stated the principle of extension is the extension of the knowledge for the industry or for the consumer; the information is being extended; and the knowledge of the University of Florida is what is being used. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why is it not taught at BCC. Mr. Peffer advised one fundamental difference is the other services are classroom oriented; but the Extension Office is more like the library where people go for just one thing or question. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is specifically talking about teaching classes, such as in nutrition, which should be under Social Services. Commissioner Ellis stated from a budget point of view, Mr. Schrader would have to identify all his employees and what each ones mission is; and the Board would have to decide whether it wants to fund all of them or a portion of them. Commissioner O'Brien stated it gives him heartburn to think that again the County has stepped outside the realm of the educational system. Commissioner Scarborough stated he agrees sometimes there is redundancy; but some of the things being discussed are historical roles for the Agriculture Center, such as family and consumer sciences. He noted some of these definitions are statewide and national; and while he agrees there is some redundancy, some of these things are beyond the capacity of the County to move. Commissioner Ellis reiterated Mr. Schrader can identify all the employees and what they do, and the County can decide whether it wants or does not want each of the programs. Mr. Jenkins stated the issue which they will check is whether there are any overlapping educational services with other institutions. Commissioner O'Brien explained how programs expand and become outrageous. Commissioner Cook advised of his experience working at BCC to survey the community to find out what new programs could be offered to meet the community needs; and Mr. Jenkins will be checking areas of duplication. He suggested BCC or the School Board could be brought in to address programs. Mr. Peffer stated the Natural Resources Division had a reduction in staff from 30 to 27 positions; the landscape review function was added with transfer of one position; and they consolidated the enforcement effort of environmental Ordinances by bringing a Code Enforcement Officer into a vacant Compliance Review position.
Chairman Higgs noted none of the Natural Resources positions are part-time; and the Board discussed yesterday increasing the percentage.
Mr. Peffer stated Natural Resources reduced its dependency on General Fund transfers by 26%; and there was also a reduction in capital expenditures.
Commissioner Scarborough inquired to what extent do reductions in the budget affect programs. Mr. Peffer responded the major program change is transfer of surface water quality monitoring to the Surface Water Division, which funded that program; but they are hopeful that will not result in any change in terms of services. He stated one of the places that it will be necessary to be more efficient in order to maintain the level of service is in Conrad White's area of management and monitoring; one of the positions eliminated was a Social Environmental Specialist who would have spent time toward implementing Comprehensive Plan pieces and developing land development regulations and ordinances to implement the Comprehensive Plan; and there is a backload of work. He stated in the workshops, the Board has become aware that the Comprehensive Plan is very ambitious; a lot of things that were put on staff to develop have been mentioned; and there is a 25 man-year backlog of work, so it will take longer to accomplish those things. Commissioner Ellis stated he brought up the issue of eliminating some of the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Peffer stated this is a dynamic process; and the Board will take a look at it in doing the EAR report.
Chairman Higgs stated in the DRI for Viera West, a management plan for the St. Johns was unanimous; and inquired if that is getting plugged into the Natural Resources plan. Mr. Peffer stated that would be added to the workload of the same group. Commissioner Cook stated the applicant was supposed to play a big role in that. Chairman Higgs stated the applicant agreed to work with the County, but it will take the County initiating some things. Commissioner Cook stated his understanding was the applicant would be a large participant in assisting the County. Mr. Peffer stated he will provide some of the support services previously provided by the Director; and he expects more focus on organizational work groups, depending more on supervisors. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not know to what extent and how things will be streamlined; and it is difficult to budget something when the Board does not know what it is going to be. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the EAR process comes in 1996; with Mr. Peffer responding staff has started working on that. Mr. Jenkins stated the transmittal comes to the Board before the 1996 election; and the approval comes back after the 1996 election. Commissioner Ellis stated changes will have to be made before then. Mr. Jenkins stated sixty days ago, he sent a memo that identified a number of Ordinances that were being reviewed to evaluate whether they were achieving what they were intended to achieve. Commissioner Ellis stated at the workshop on the Comprehensive Plan, the Board asked for a search for all the "shalls"; and inquired if staff has been working on that; with Mr. Jenkins responding staff is looking at the things that have been done and can be taken out, the things that are mentioned in multiple places, things that are duplicate and redundant, and the "shalls" as the Board requested. Mr. Peffer outlined the four major program areas of Natural Resources, specifically Environmental Remediation and Compliance, Consistency Review, Environmentally Endangered Lands, and Environmental Management and Monitoring. He noted there are only a few people available to take on projects that come up; and explained a proposed program relating to a St. Johns management plan would have few people to manage it in addition to their other duties. Mr. Jenkins stated part of the challenge is to look at areas where resources are currently being expended and evaluate whether that is the best use of the resources.
Commissioner Ellis stated there were eight people doing monitoring and management last year; two people transferred to Stormwater; and inquired if it would go from 8 to 6 rather than 8 to 7. Mr. Peffer advised the number that should be on page 11 for full-time positions should be 10. Discussion ensued on the figures. Commissioner Ellis stated the numbers do not match because there have been program shifts. Mr. Peffer stated the recommended budgeted full-time positions is 7; the right and middle columns are correct; and the left hand column should be changed. Budget Director Kathy Wall advised there was an extra position approved for grant funded purposes during the fiscal year. Chairman Higgs inquired what was the grant funded position; with Ms. Wall responding she is not sure. Commissioner Ellis stated on the amended budget for FY 1994-95, it shows 30 not 26; with Chairman Higgs agreeing. Discussion resumed on the number of employees. Mr. Peffer advised the number 30 is correct. Budget Analyst Julia Prokic advised she can research the number and double check the figures for the current year, if the Board desires; with Chairman Higgs requesting that be done. Mr. Peffer stated to his knowledge, only one position was added; the one that Ms. Wall mentioned was related to the Comprehensive Plan; and explained the net change of three. Commissioner Ellis stated compared to the numbers from last year's budget, something is wrong. Special Projects Coordinator III Duane DeFreese noted the secretary position from last year is still unfilled. Mr. Jenkins stated staff will check the figures.
Commissioner O'Brien stated if the budget last year was $25 million, and the recommended budget this year is $12 million, the budget has been cut in half. He stated there are three full-time positions for land acquisition for EELS; but $2 million is being spent to spend $50 million across the next ten years on acquired land. Mr. Peffer advised the $2 million is projected as capital expenditures for the EELS Program; and the document shows how it was projected to be spent on development of sanctuaries. Commissioner O'Brien inquired about operating expenses and salaries; and stated he assumes the employees are making $40,000 each plus benefits. Dr. DeFreese explained the change in the way the money is accounted for; stated the $2 million is projected revenue from CARL reimbursements; EELS is out of money to buy land; and it will be operating with reimbursements from the State. He noted the $2 million is capital revenue for land acquisition or capital improvements on the lands. Commissioner O'Brien stated that question has not been answered by the AGO. Dr. DeFreese stated the question is not on capital improvements, but on operation and management. Commissioner O'Brien questioned the amount of operating expenses; stated CARL money can be used to acquire other kinds of lands such as for the scrub jay; and inquired if this Department would be working on that land. Dr. DeFreese stated the only acquisitions being done now are current CARL list acquisitions; there is one at Crane Creek that has been in the works for three years; so the only properties being acquired with EELS funds are those identified in the CARL list or identified by the Selection Committee; and some includes scrub as part of the CARL Project. Commissioner Cook stated his office has gotten comments that a substantial amount of the EELS funds have been spent in South Brevard; the land has been designated as endangered; most of the money is coming from outside of where the money is being spent; and people from Cocoa or Mims would have quite a drive to get to the properties they are paying for. Dr. DeFreese stated there actually is a good distribution of properties; there are more available natural lands to the extreme north and south; but in Central Brevard which has built up, there is a smaller amount of available good properties. Commissioner Cook stated in North Brevard, there has only been one purchase. Dr. DeFreese advised staff has been working on the Turnbull property, but has been unable to close the deal. Commissioner Cook stated now the program is out of money unless there is another bond issue. Dr. DeFreese stated EELS is trying to effectively and efficiently use the money the State has; the State owes the County $11 million in reimbursement funds; it is a slow process; and the County has been waiting over two years for reimbursement on the Enchanted Forest which makes it difficult to buy land. Commissioner Cook inquired if there have been no reimbursements at all from the State; with Dr. DeFreese responding only $100. Dr. DeFreese advised reimbursement is expected on the Enchanted Forest, most of Coconut Point and a couple of others within the next six months. Commissioner Cook inquired if EELS is buying in areas that have the cheapest property to preserve the most land, or is it trying to buy in lands to inhibit development densities. Dr. DeFreese stated EELS has been trying to buy where the risk was the highest and where appreciation is expected to be the greatest; and some of the important endangered lands happen to be in the high end districts along the South Beaches; but that is where the risk was, and if it was not bought now, it would be lost or cost much more because the lands are appreciating at greater rates.
Mr. Peffer stated an overall office summary is included on page 11; and inquired if it is useful to go through all the items. Commissioner Scarborough noted he has questions about expenditures. Commissioner O'Brien stated six people are assigned to the LUST (Leaking Underground Storage Tanks) Program, which is a State-mandated program; and inquired what is the State funding for that program; with Mr. Peffer responding it is 100%. Commissioner O'Brien expressed his opinion that it is a waste of money. Mr. Peffer stated the Board has discussed whether the County could function as the St. Johns River Water Management District as a local program; and in the case of LUST, the County is functioning as the State. Chairman Higgs stated it is frustrating that the County is doing all the research, and then there is no money for the fix.
Commissioner Ellis inquired why Natural Resources reviews site/subdivision plans, and why can that not be done by Engineering. Mr. Peffer stated the area of consistency review which relates to the environmental Ordinances has been done in Natural Resources because that is where the expertise was concentrated. Commissioner Ellis inquired what is staff looking at when it is looking at a site plan or subdivision plan. Mr. Peffer responded whether or not the proposal would meet all the requirements of the Ordinance; and staff does a lot of pre-development consultations. Environmental Section Supervisor Debbie Coles stated she types a review for each of the Ordinances which Natural Resources administers; all of the employees are trained in the specific fields; and the engineers do not have that training. Commissioner Ellis stated that would be an on-site inspection. Ms. Coles advised they coordinate the plan with the on-site inspection to make sure all the lines are correct, and that the proper soil types are documented; and they assist a lot of developers with getting that information to put on the plan. Commissioner Ellis inquired if staff walks the site on site plan and subdivision plans; with Ms. Coles responding yes. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the other groups walk the site; with Ms. Coles responding yes, but they are typically there to look at the issues they administer. Chairman Higgs stated they are in the review stage. Commissioner Cook inquired if this is just for subdivisions or other site plans; with Ms. Coles responding for site plans, commercial and residential. Chairman Higgs stated staff does not go to single family; with Ms. Coles responding not all of them, but when the applicant requests. Mr. Peffer advised staff also provides support to the one-stop process. Commissioner Cook stated that is a lot of site inspections. Commissioner Ellis stated if Natural Resources staff is already doing subdivision site plans, including landscape would not be that big a deal. Ms. Coles stated staff is hoping to consolidate the site inspection process. Commissioner Ellis stated that would eliminate one set of plans; with Ms. Coles advising now there are thirteen sets, and there will be twelve. Mr. Jenkins noted in the near future it will be done with a hard disk and one set. Chairman Higgs stated when the plan is submitted, the response has to come back in a certain period of time. Commissioner Ellis stated if someone is running behind, they will put a couple of red lines on, and put it back in the hopper. Mr. Jenkins stated on the new system, the designer will see the red lines on the computer immediately and deal with them; and the reason it was put over there was to merge the functions. Discussion ensued on the process.
Commissioner Cook inquired if all the on-site inspections are necessary, and how many agencies inspect a subdivision; with Ms. Coles responding there are thirteen sets of plans, and there are slightly fewer people going out. Commissioner O'Brien suggested if staff has to go out to review a site, they could use a bus for all the people at one time. Commissioner Cook inquired how many people have to assess what is wetlands; stated this is being driven by what the Board has done; and this is an enormous amount of staff time to implement this. Chairman Higgs stated staff is driven by the law which is in place. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board needs to go after the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jenkins stated there could be some overlapping in some of the inspections; and staff is looking for ways to consolidate some of those. He stated a building inspector should be able to look at landscaping; and he will provide more information. Commissioner Cook stated if the County can rely on other agencies, it will not need to eat up staff time. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how the GIS system would help. Mr. Jenkins stated GIS will help the process. Commissioner Ellis stated the wetlands are already mapped out.
The meeting recessed at 10:30 a.m. and reconvened at 10:50 a.m.
Commissioner Scarborough read aloud the recommended budget figures given on page 11; and inquired where they came from. Commissioner Scarborough stated operating expenses are down $1.1 million. Mr. Peffer stated the primary reason for the $1 million decrease has to do with the decrease in the State funding of the pass-through to operate the petroleum clean-up program; and there will be corresponding decrease in the intergovernmental revenues. Commissioner Scarborough stated there was a $6.9 million decrease in capital improvement; with Mr. Peffer responding through the course of this year, the dollars which were in reserve from the last bond were spent down; the future of EELS is in terms of reimbursements from the State; and any future decision the Board may care to make is not budgeted. Commissioner Scarborough stated reserves operating is increased by $2.6 million; with Mr. Peffer advising it should be $500,169. Ms. Prokic explained the figures shown in the Natural Resources budget. Commissioner Cook inquired why this was not pointed out at the beginning; with Ms. Prokic advising they were just getting to that. Chairman Higgs inquired if total expenditures is correct; with Ms. Prokic responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated the total shows a decrease of $1 million; with Mr. Peffer advising that is related to what they spoke of before. Commissioner Cook inquired if the petroleum clean-up program was just ended by the State. Mr. Peffer stated the program is under evaluation to determine the most efficient way to achieve the objective. Environmental Section Supervisor Doug Divers explained why the program is under review. Ms. Prokic advised part of the reduction in the reserves is from the money outstanding from the CARL Program.
Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not always understand the terms in the budget; with Ms. Wall responding staff has tried to remain consistent throughout the document; and the primary reason for restricted reserves on the EELS Program is because of the debt service reserves. Commissioner Scarborough stated the programs that are under each budgetary area vary; and inquired what is being talked about. Mr. Jenkins explained the document. Ms. Wall explained the reserve accounts. Mr. Jenkins stated Commissioner Scarborough is requesting a notation explaining any time there is a significant change in numbers. Commissioner Scarborough stated yesterday he inquired if any reductions will affect next year's budget and how will they affect the County in five years; some of them are long range ways the County is going to do business; and it is important to know if the County is fundamentally changing the way it does business.
Chairman Higgs inquired about the helicopter; with Mr. Hunt responding a private contractor did all the herbicide work by air, and the Department will be doing that now. Chairman Higgs inquired if there is one helicopter; with Mr. Hunt advising there are two helicopters and staff will be assuming that responsibility.
Mr. Hunt advised capital is down by $61,000. Commissioner Cook inquired if the millage rate is being reduced by 4.79%; with Mr. Hunt responding affirmatively. Commissioner Ellis inquired about land acquisition; with Mr. Hunt responding it has not been cut back. Chairman Higgs inquired about the helicopter replacement; with Mr. Hunt responding there is a CIP program for next year's purchase of a helicopter. Chairman Higgs inquired if capital reserves are being set aside for that; with Mr. Hunt responding $400,000 is set aside toward a total cost of $700,000. Commissioner Cook inquired if that will give the Department three helicopters; with Mr. Hunt responding no, one will be traded in or sold. Chairman Higgs inquired if money will still be set aside even though the millage is being reduced; with Mr. Hunt responding affirmatively.
Commissioner Cook requested Mr. Hunt explain what happens if someone calls complaining about mosquitos; with Mr. Hunt explaining the procedure. Commissioner Cook advised it would be nice for the complainant to know the County took action. Mr. Jenkins suggested it would be efficient to hang a flyer on the doorknob to advise the County was there to address the problem; with Commissioner Cook agreeing anything like that would be good. Commissioner Cook inquired if spraying with trucks ever occurs anymore; with Mr. Hunt responding affirmatively.
Commissioner Scarborough stated it appears the operating expenditures have been reduced by $125,000; and inquired what was the savings. Mr. Hunt responded that was a reduction in the SWIM program; it was St. Johns River Water Management District money, and it was a reduction in the CDP charge because the County is doing herbicide work now. Mr. Jenkins advised there is no cut in services. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the reduction in capital outlay; with Mr. Hunt responding there were two big one-time items before the County. Commissioner Scarborough noted the capital improvement program is reduced by approximately a quarter of a million dollars; with Mr. Hunt explaining the reduction.
Commissioner Ellis inquired about the herbicide program; with Mr. Hunt advising Mosquito Control pays for everything. Commissioner Ellis stated that was a big part of the budget last year, and to have Mosquito Control do that is a savings. Mr. Jenkins stated it allows the people to be used both ways; with Mr. Hunt advising there is cross training so all mosquito people can do the weed work and vice versa.
Chairman Higgs inquired which airport does Mosquito Control fly out of; with Mr. Hunt responding Valkaria and Tico. Chairman Higgs inquired if they fly out of Valkaria at night; with Mr. Hunt responding no, and the big twin engine has to come from Tico to do all of Palm Bay. Discussion ensued on the feasibility of flying out of Valkaria at night. Commissioner Cook requested information on how much it would cost to get the equipment at Valkaria to make it possible to use it at night. Chairman Higgs stated she has that figure but wants to know if the lights were there, what would be the savings to Mosquito Control, noting there is considerable resistance to lighting Valkaria. Commissioner O'Brien noted it takes one-half hour to fly from Tico to Palm Bay. Commissioner Ellis noted a helicopter has a expense per hour just like any aircraft. Chairman Higgs inquired if Mosquito Control flies the helicopter at night out of Valkaria; with Mr. Hunt responding no, everything at night comes out of Tico. Commissioner Cook stated the only benefit would be if there was a helicopter or airplane stationed at Valkaria. Mr. Hunt explained where the aircraft are stationed. Commissioner O'Brien advised of the need to have a refilling station at Valkaria; with Mr. Hunt responding they have that capability. Chairman Higgs noted the airplane and helicopter are flown during the day from Valkaria; and they have all the facilities at Valkaria, but the lights. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff knows how much lights cost; with Chairman Higgs responding it is a considerable amount, and is an ongoing issue. Mr. Jenkins inquired what drives the cost to make it so expensive; with Chairman Higgs responding she does not know. Discussion ensued on lighting. Commissioner Cook noted Tico gets some large grants; with Commissioner Scarborough advising Tico gets a tremendous amount of federal money. Chairman Higgs noted it is not an issue of money, but of a major war over the lights.
Chairman Higgs stated the Board usually reviews the budget of the Water Control District of South Brevard; and inquired if it is included. Ms. Wall advised it is included under Outside Agencies.
Solid Waste Management Director Richard Rabon introduced Operations Director Charlie Hunter and Finance Manager Euri Rodriguez. Mr. Rabon advised the Solid Waste Department provides three programs, disposal, collection, and recycling; it handles all the solid waste for the entire County, including the cities and the unincorporated areas; and last year processed approximately 650,000 tons of waste. He stated last year the State's mandated 30% recycling goal was exceeded; and the County was in the top ten counties in the State. He stated the collection and curbside recycling programs are in the unincorporated areas only; it is provided to approximately 65,000 single-family and multi-family homes; and the recycling program includes some of the areas that were included in previous budget in the disposal budget, but they are now broken out. He advised the requested budget is $72.3 million; and explained a pie chart showing how the budget is split. He stated it is an increase of 8.6% from the amended budget from last year; and explained various charts.
Commissioner Scarborough inquired how are impact fees an expenditure. Mr. Rabon stated it is the amount of money used from impact fees on construction. Mr. Rodriguez explained the figures. Mr. Rabon stated it may not represent all of the revenue in the impact fee fund. He explained the pie chart on page 4 showing the five-year program. He stated the expansion reserve has increased at a greater rate than was projected.
Commissioner Ellis inquired if that is a reason to lower impact fees. Mr. Rabon responded that is a Board decision, but it could be.
Mr. Rabon explained the pie chart showing the collection program. He stated the majority of the money goes to the haulers, Western Waste and Harris Sanitation for curbside collection; it is a contracted pass-through; and the amount is set annually by the Board in a rate resolution which comes to the Board in late August. He noted no increase is anticipated.
Commissioner Ellis inquired if that is mandated by the State; with Mr. Rabon responding curbside recycling is not mandated, but the percentage is mandated, and there is a corollary which says you will recycle. Commissioner Cook stated Brevard County is one of the few which made the 30%. Mr. Rabon stated all the bigger counties made it; a lot of smaller counties did not make it and were exempt; and some were close, even though they did not make it. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the County would make it if it did not have curbside collection; with Mr. Rabon responding the County would not have made it if it did not have curbside recycling according to the formula. Mr. Rabon explained the formula. Commissioner Cook stated he understands that nothing happened to the ones that made it or did not make it. Commissioner Ellis stated the County spent a lot on curbside recycling, but did not get a lot of benefit. Chairman Higgs inquired how much was spent; with Mr. Rabon responding $4.6 million.
Mr. Rabon explained the chart showing the recycling program; and advised Western Waste and Harris were paid $1.44 million for curbside pickup which represents one-third of what the County as a whole spent. Commissioner Cook inquired if they pick it up and recycle it; with Mr. Rabon responding they sell it to recyclers. Commissioner Cook inquired what is their revenue from selling it; with Mr. Rabon responding the County splits the revenue with them 50/50; and it has gone from a low of $20,000 to $30,000, to a high of $100,000 now. Commissioner Ellis stated that is quite an investment; with Mr. Rabon noting the County gets back less than ten cents on a dollar from sale of the materials. Chairman Higgs inquired if that includes yard trash recycling; with Mr. Rabon responding no, the program includes it, but the revenue does not. Chairman Higgs inquired what does the County get from selling yard waste; with Mr. Rabon responding the County does not make money from yard composting or mulch, but it is not paying the landfill. He stated looking at the avoided cost of lined landfill space, the County is saving a lot of money. Commissioner Scarborough stated it will be necessary to create a new central landfill which will have major impacts. Mr. Rabon agreed the return is in the future although the expense is now. Commissioner Ellis stated in volume of landfill space saved, the yard waste beats the curbside pickup ten to one; with Mr. Rabon agreeing. Mr. Rabon stated the separation program would be a benefit in that regard. Commissioner Ellis stated if the County did not spend $1.5 to pay Harris to go out to pick up the newspapers, it would not have as big an effect on the volume in the landfill, and taxpayers would save $1.5 million. Commissioner Cook inquired how much is the County getting for the recycling; with Mr. Rabon responding approximately $100,000. Commissioner Cook inquired how that is determined; with Mr. Rabon responding there is a contractual formula. Commissioner Cook inquired where does the information come from; with Mr. Rabon responding it comes from the recycler. Mr. Rabon explained the procedure. Commissioner Ellis stated there are tremendous expenses; curbside pickup is a large expense for residents; and the yard waste pickup is good, but there are other County costs involved for the mulching facility. Commissioner Cook stated the policy decision is whether it is worth $1.5 million to have the curbside done. Commissioner Ellis stated the question is whether it is worth the money spent on the mulching facilities versus digging a hole and dumping it in. Chairman Higgs inquired how much is the value of the recycling of the yard waste, and does staff know the space that is being deferred. Mr. Rabon responded he has not done a cost/benefit analysis, but the space saved is tremendous on yard waste. Commissioner Ellis noted yard waste does not have to be put in a lined landfill; with Mr. Rabon agreeing. Commissioner Ellis stated by having it picked up on separate trucks, the County could dig a borrow pit, sell the dirt, and then fill the borrow pit back up. Commissioner Cook stated there was some private interest in that. Mr. Rabon stated this will be part of the discussion for the workshop next week. Chairman Higgs requested staff provide a figure for the amount of deferred yard waste. Commissioner Cook stated the two big things to consider is $1.5 million for curbside service and the fact that there were counties that did not make it, and no one cares, but Brevard County did this based on state mandate. Mr. Rabon cautioned the Board on dealing with just dollars; and stated the program is positive with the public. Discussion ensued on the program. Chairman Higgs inquired what is the alleged consequence of not reaching the 30%; with Mr. Rabon responding he does not know if it has ever been accurately defined. Commissioner Cook stated in counties that did not meet the goal, it meant nothing. Chairman Higgs inquired if they have no answer to the alleged consequences; with Mr. Rabon responding the State just speaks in terms of what it might do, not what it will do. Commissioner Ellis stated there is an economic incentive for separating yard waste; but the question is whether to go the next step with mulch or dump it in the hole. Commissioner Cook stated that is an issue for the workshop.
Chairman Higgs inquired what is the County's contract with Harris Sanitation and Western Waste in regard to the recycling; with Mr. Rabon responding there is a contract through October, 1998 at $1.75 per month per home or $21 a year per house for curbside recycling. Chairman Higgs inquired is the Board tied until 1998; with Mr. Rabon responding he will have to research the termination provisions, but does not believe there is a termination for convenience clause included. He noted the yard waste was an addition of 85 cents per month per home to separate out the yard waste.
Mr. Rabon stated the mobile equipment reserve shows how it has enabled the County to replace equipment at the end of useful life without having swings on rates; and interest income from the account is used to offset. He stated the big reserve account, the expansion reserve is included; the graph is a summary of the CIP; and it shows how the money is planned to be used. He noted this will be the subject of the discussion at the workshop; but the bulk of the money was to be used for the South County site; and if it is not to be developed, the money is there. He advised of options for the Board to use the funds.
Commissioner Ellis inquired if all the land for the Sarno facility has been purchased; with Mr. Rabon responding they bought all they will be able to use; there is some land between Sarno Road and the facility; and there are some wetlands in there. Mr. Rabon stated from a buffer standpoint, that might be something to be considered; but as far as expanding it, they have all the land they can use; and they will be going up to whatever permit height will allow. Discussion ensued on the project. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the stormwater system is being installed; with Mr. Rabon responding affirmatively. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the fill will be used for cover; with Mr. Rabon advising of the progress. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is a specific height restriction; with Mr. Rabon responding at Sarno it is 105 feet because of the airport being there. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there will be future use after closure; with Mr. Rabon responding there has been discussion, but nothing defined.
Commissioner Cook stated all the travel but one is inside the State.
Commissioner O'Brien inquired who put together the budget; with Mr. Rabon responding Mr. Rodriguez primarily.
Discussion ensued on possible uses for the site.
Commissioner Cook inquired about the cost of the trip to Naples. Mr. Rabon stated it is the Southeast Symposium, and three people will be going. He noted there is a summary sheet of the travel which shows which is required training, etc.
Chairman Higgs stated the other issue that stands out is there are no part-time positions in Solid Waste Management.
Discussion ensued on the schedule. The Board reached consensus to hear the presentation of Water Resources, Code Compliance, and if there is time, Growth Management; and Public Works has been deferred to Wednesday.
The meeting recessed at 11:50 a.m. and reconvened at 12:20 p.m.
Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the reduction in capital expenditures program; with Mr. Martens responding it is primarily due to the finishing of the water plant and the current reuse projects, and prior to the startup of the expansion of the South-Central Plant. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the increase in capital reserves; with Finance Director Jim Helmer responding the entire reserve cash forward includes funding for restricted reserves for debt service purposes; and all of the remaining reserves are earmarked for future CIP expenditures. Mr. Helmer explained how the fund works. Commissioner Cook inquired if all the funds are earmarked for things currently in the CIP; with Mr. Helmer responding affirmatively. Commissioner Scarborough stated the CIP was reduced by $6 million, but the reserves for capital were increased. Budget Analyst Julia Prokic advised there is an unfunded $7 million project. Mr. Martens advised if the County was required to abandon the South Beaches Well, the cost of replacing that effluent disposal exceeds the amount of reserves available; and so in the last year's CIP that was listed as an unfunded project, but with a potential funding source. Commissioner Cook inquired what other items are listed in the same category; with Mr. Martens responding that is the only one. Commissioner Cook noted there has not been a commitment to the project. Mr. Martens stated staff has identified a possible need for the project so it will not come as a surprise to a future Board.
Commissioner O'Brien inquired how is the County going to get the water reuse system on Merritt Island. Mr. Martens stated staff is preparing potential funding sources for Merritt Island and the South Beaches; costs are being compared of revenue bonds; the total cost of building a significant reclaimed water system is going to be $25 million to $30 million; and there are not reserves to fund that. He advised of potential funding mechanisms; and stated numbers are being run to determine the impact on current rates. He stated staff is in the final stages of working with the consultants on a planning document that outlines various effluent disposal options; and he will be bringing those two issues to the Board over the next four to six weeks for policy decisions. He noted the two are tied together; and the County will end up with a low cost treatment plant and capital reserves that will go a long way to helping finance a reclaimed water system. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the reuse systems are put on South Beaches and Merritt Island, would that substantially reduce the impact on the wells and possibly save them; with Mr. Martens responding yes, it is possible. Mr. Martens stated that is a topic which has been discussed with the regulatory agency; and the bottom line is there is no guarantee that the reduction in the amount of water being injected down the well would have any impact on the problems. He stated they think it will help, but not solve the problem. Commissioner O'Brien inquired even if the County draws back out of the well for reuse; with Mr. Martens responding the wells were designed to dispose of the water; and there is a much lower percent recovery of water than from aquifer storage and recovery wells. Mr. Martens explained how the two wells function; and advised while aquifer storage wells have an 80% recovery rate, the recovery rate on the deep wells is 20%.
Chairman Higgs inquired if the South Beaches plant serves everything south of the Pineda Causeway; with Mr. Martens responding yes.
Commissioner Cook inquired if there have been any new deep wells permitted in the last several years. Mr. Martens responded he does not believe so, but there has been more discussion about using aquifer storage and recovery on the reclaimed water. He advised on the west coast there is a project starting to go through the process, which will have to meet the same deep well permitting requirements, and it will be considered an injection well.
Commissioner O'Brien stated if 100% recycled water could be attained, a well would no longer be required. Mr. Martens advised the feasibility of doing that is small; and explained the problems involved. Commissioner Cook stated reuse costs are out of sight. Mr. Martens stated in the discussion of effluent disposal options for the South Central plant, the issues of reclaimed water from effluent disposal, what you do when it rains, and alternate methods will be the key. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what would happen if the budget was not reduced and the money was set aside, and would that be sufficient funding to put in the recycling. Commissioner Cook and Commissioner Ellis advised that could not be done. Mr. Jenkins stated the problem is if the budget is not reduced, the rates have to be raised. Mr. Martens stated the total budget is up 1.5%. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the rates were not changed and operating expenses were reduced, there would be some money which could be set aside for future use rather than borrow money through a bond issue. Mr. Martens stated currently they are banking $2 million a year. Chairman Higgs inquired if there is $20 million in reserves; with Mr. Martens responding yes, with all of that committed over the next five years in the CIP. Mr. Martens advised if they end up with a low cost effluent disposal system at the South Central plant, there would be between $5 million and $7 million that could be used to fund a reclaimed water system. Chairman Higgs inquired if a number has ever been run for the number on a flange to flange feasibility for getting permitting of customers that potentially would come onto the system and the revenue stream; with Mr. Martens responding all they have done is a budget estimate of the construction costs of the flange to flange which was $22 million. Discussion ensued on the feasibility of such a plan and various options.
Commissioner Cook stated there are serious questions about the money spent and the benefits gained for reclaimed water systems. Commissioner O'Brien agreed Commissioner Cook is right to some extent. The Board discussed the advantages and disadvantages of a reuse system. Mr. Martens advised the participation rate is an important variable in the cash flow analysis of funding a reuse system.
Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the charges for services. Mr. Martens advised there was a clerical error in the entry of numbers; and explained what was done to correct the error. Mr. Martens advised last year was a good year; and if growth continues, that will be another factor in how much of the reuse system the County can afford to build without a rate increase or reduction. Commissioner Cook reiterated his concerns about reuse systems. Mr. Martens noted it is a controversial issue.
Discussion ensued on coordinating tours of the Melbourne plant.
Chairman Higgs stated with regard to water supply, enormous resources are being flushed; and wastewater and water producers need to be brought together. Commissioner Ellis advised of the situation in Palm Bay.
Mr. Jenkins advised three positions are being eliminated in Code Enforcement; and outlined which positions will be eliminated.
Chairman Higgs inquired about the elimination of positions in the central cashier program; noted the Property Appraiser, Clerk of Courts, Tax Collector and Supervisor of Elections are in four locations; and inquired whether there is a better way of collecting those fees. Mr. Jenkins inquired if Chairman Higgs is suggesting the County approach the appropriate Constitutional Officer to ask if his staff could be trained to collect the County's fees. Chairman Higgs stated that might be a possibility or there may be a way to better utilize each other. Mr. Jenkins noted the Constitutional Officers are everywhere the County is; and what Chairman Higgs is suggesting will require the voluntary participation of the Constitutional Officers. Chairman Higgs stated the Clerk's budget showed decreases which she is sure he is not happy about; and it may be possible to work with the Clerk. Mr. Jenkins noted the Clerk's Office is not in all locations and does not have the same service delivery system. Chairman Higgs suggested the Clerk may be able to change his delivery system; she does not know how to do it; but for all these people to be out there collecting money and for the County to be there too is crazy. Commissioner O'Brien suggested electronic transfer of funds. Chairman Higgs stated she does not know the solution. Discussion ensued on the problem of duplication of services and possible solutions.
Commissioner Ellis inquired about Contractor Licensing. Mr. Jenkins advised Contractor Licensing will be located in the same area as the Building Division, but have its own funding mechanism; and the approach to Contractor Licensing over the last few years has reduced the number of inspectors. He stated just like the Tax Collector purchases occupational license enforcement from Code Enforcement, Contractor Licensing is purchasing enforcement services from Code Enforcement; and there is a core staff in Contractor Licensing of two employees who do issuance of licenses and a supervisor who coordinates the program. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is a possibility in the next year there will be less people in Code Enforcement. Mr. Jenkins stated two officers and a director are being eliminated in this budget. Commissioner Ellis stated he would like to see more positions eliminated through attrition and transition to other positions. Mr. Jenkins stated that is an option if the Board desires further reductions; and the other thing which will be investigated will be duplicate inspections. Commissioner Ellis inquired how the Board feels about the size of Code Enforcement; and stated he thinks it is too large and would like to see people transitioned to other Departments as they open up. Commissioner Cook stated the County Manager's plan has made a good start to reduce staff; and it is worthwhile to see if some of the inspections can be combined.
Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the $185,000 reduction in charges for services. Mr. Sternagel stated that is directly tied to loss of revenue because the landscape program will move to Natural Resources. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the County gets $185,000 from landscape permits; with Mr. Sternagel responding $160,000. Mr. Jenkins noted there were four people doing it. Mr. Sternagel advised the $160,000 will show up as revenue in the Natural Resources budget.
Commissioner O'Brien stated Code Enforcement officers are a necessary evil of society; and gave examples. Commissioner Ellis stated that might be true in Merritt Island, but where he lives the cities take care of that function; Code Enforcement is funded by the General Fund; the citizens of Palm Bay and Melbourne are paying for two Code Enforcements; and the Code Enforcement funding needs to be reduced. Chairman Higgs stated the County needs to insure it is properly allocating; and inquired about the breakdown between municipalities and non-municipalities. Mr. Jenkins stated this year in the proposed budget, it has been moved to the Fund 2 which is the unincorporated area General Fund. Ms. Wall stated that fund is strictly revenues derived from the unincorporated area. Mr. Jenkins noted this is the first time it has been done this way; staff looked at the issue of double taxation; and those things which were formerly Countywide have been moved to Fund 1 and those things that are unincorporated area are in Fund 020. Commissioner Cook stated Code Compliance is needed; and he assumes that it will be an ongoing thing. Commissioner Ellis inquired how many people are needed. Commissioner Cook stated if there are too many, that is the thing to look at. Commissioner Ellis stated in the case Commissioner O'Brien related, Code Enforcement should be able to take care of it. Commissioner O'Brien advised it is much more complicated than that. Commissioner Ellis stated Code Enforcement is not the Sheriff's Department. Commissioner O'Brien stated they do not pretend to be jack-booted thugs; but there is a human element; and related an example. Commissioner Scarborough advised of his experiences with the Code Board in Titusville; and stated it is an over allocation of resources. He stated the Code Enforcement officers have assumed too much responsibility on simplistic things; and it continues to get bigger. He stated he would prefer to run through it; and then there will be a determination by the Code Board and it will be over. Commissioner O'Brien stated there has been an effort on the part of Code Enforcement not to bring someone before the Board unless they are obstinate. Discussion ensued on the issue. Commissioner Cook stated Code Enforcement must work to some extent because he gets very few complaints about it. Commissioner Scarborough stated failure to bring it before the Code Board is what is aggravating the issue; and one of the things the judicial system does is bring things to a conclusion. Commissioner Scarborough stated humans disagree; someone has to make the decision; and the sooner you get a decision, the less aggravating it is for society. Mr. Jenkins stated clearly the direction Code Enforcement has received has been to try and achieve compliance through mediation; more recently Code Enforcement has been directed to not make capital projects out of simple violations; and there is an effort for Code Enforcement to deal with what it sees. He stated if the Board wants to take the traffic ticket approach, it should provide direction to do so. Commissioner Ellis expressed support for one-shot mediation. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has no problem with mediation, but wants there to be a final determination when there is no agreement. Commissioner O'Brien stated most cases are being worked out; and related an example. Mr. Jenkins stated a schedule was implemented; and people are given a deadline to correct the problem or they are cited. Chairman Higgs stated this is a bigger issue than the budget; and it should be approached as an agenda or workshop item. Commissioner Ellis stated if there are less people, it has to be streamlined.
Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct that in the next budget year, there is an attempt to move three of the Code Enforcement positions into other positions in the Code Compliance Department. Motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioners Scarborough, Cook and O'Brien stated they cannot support the motion. Commissioner Cook stated a better way to go would be let the County Manager take a look and see if there are too many officers. Chairman Higgs stated there is not a second to do that, but there is interest in looking at the system and how it works. Commissioner Cook stated he is not uncomfortable with what the County Manager said because it has recently been changed; and the Board should give it a year to see what happens.
Growth Management Director Susan Hann advised the Growth Management Department includes a program for comprehensive planning and zoning, the Brevard MPO which is a grant funded, mandated program, and completing the Scrub Habitat Conservation Plan. She stated no new positions have been added; the Board has already been apprised of changes to the Department structure; staff is being upgraded through training and use of technology; and provided examples of retraining. She stated she anticipates using a team approach to major projects; and she intends to look at cross training in the one-stop areas so they can be used more efficiently. She stated she anticipates increased use of automation to improve efficiency and cost effectiveness in service to the public; and provided examples. She stated they are moving toward an electronic filing system for ease of access and security of records.
Commissioner O'Brien inquired about electronic filing and how it will be accomplished. Ms. Hann advised the system they are looking at will be on tape. Commissioner O'Brien noted tape deteriorates in fifteen years. Ms. Hann stated they are also looking at using on-line technology so the public can access the Code and the Comprehensive Plan through computers; they hope to use interactive technology for public participation; and they plan to pilot that with the transportation programs so the public can comment on transportation planning activities. She stated one of the more important tasks is streamlining regulatory documents; and they are working toward making them more user friendly and less burdensome. She stated they are working toward a new attitude in the Comprehensive Plan which will reflect the community values which will be obtained through the visioning process, the Board's direction, and the Departments plans and programs.
Commissioner Cook stated the Board was told the change in the GIS would decrease the County's cost for that program by 8%; and inquired has staff verified that. Chairman Higgs stated that would be in the Property Appraiser's budget.
Commissioner Scarborough inquired are all Departments coordinating their activities so people will have access to all the programs; with Management Services Director Michael Managan responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough requested staff prepare a report on all that will be going onto the Internet.
Commissioner Scarborough inquired about expenditures. Mr. Jenkins advised this Department will be difficult to do because of the significant restructuring that has occurred. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about reductions in operating expenditures. Mr. Jenkins reiterated it is hard to compare to prior years. Ms. Wall advised in the mission statement, all the changes were indicated with bullets. Ms. Hann advised there have not been any radical changes to either the MPO or Planning and Zoning. Mr. Jenkins stated the components that have been moved to the Growth Management Department are spending like amounts as prior years.
Commissioner Ellis inquired if the changes to the Comprehensive Plan and the EAR will be coming to the Board in the next year rather than trying to address everything in one shot; with Ms. Hann responding affirmatively. Assistant Growth Management Director Peggy Busacca stated the analysis of duplicative policies will come to the Board as part of the 1995B amendment process; and that will remove approximately 70 pages of duplicative policy; and then it will be brought to the Board one part at a time. Commissioner Ellis requested Ms. Hann take things out of the plan which do not need to be there so the Board does not get its hands tied by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jenkins stated Commissioner Ellis inquired about the list of "shalls." Ms. Busacca stated staff will provide that. Commissioner Ellis stated a lot of things that are factual should be decisions made by the engineering field not by the Comprehensive Plan staff. Ms. Hann stated staff will look at taking out a majority of the engineering related and development regulation standards and putting them into another type of document. Commissioner Scarborough stated when the Board started the Comprehensive Plan, it was the first in the State; and inquired if staff has copies of all the comprehensive plans that have been filed in the State; with Ms. Busacca responding no. Commissioner Scarborough requested staff get copies of all the comprehensive plans in the State; with Ms. Busacca responding she would not have room to keep them. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to know which plans of counties of comparable size were smaller, and would like to read through some of the plans. Commissioner Ellis suggested getting the plans of ten comparable counties. Chairman Higgs stated the Board can look at plans of ten or fifteen counties, some a little bigger and some a little smaller. Ms. Busacca advised staff has a number of the plans, but not all 487 plans; and she can get the plans of the five counties on each side of Brevard County. Commissioner Scarborough stated that would be great. Commissioner Cook stated he would like to see the top ten counties and others that are comparable. Discussion ensued on which plans the Board would like to review. Consensus was reached to review the top fifteen counties.
Commissioner Cook inquired about the travel expenditures shown on page 43; and stated the Board needs to take a hard look at travel. He stated with today's access to information, he is baffled why this much travel is necessary to get information. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board is going to adopt a policy that there will be no travel outside the state. Chairman Higgs stated the Board should not adopt it as a policy, but it should be limited. Commissioner Scarborough suggested having the Board specifically authorize any out-of-state travel. Chairman Higgs recommended setting aside a certain amount of money. Commissioner Ellis recommended the discretion be left with the County Manager. Commissioner Cook stated there is an enormous amount of money spent on travel; that is taxpayers' money; and he is concerned that some of the conferences are junkets. He reiterated the Board needs to take a hard look at travel. Chairman Higgs suggested this be discussed in next week's workshop.
Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m
ATTEST:
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
( S E A L )
NANCY N. HIGGS, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA