July 22, 2004 (Special)
Jul 22 2004
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
July 22, 2004
The Board of County Commissioners of
REPORT, RE: CITIZENS BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Commissioner Pritchard stated he asked Jack Callinan to appear this morning and briefly go over the Citizens Budget Review Committee (CBRC) recommendations; he is asking that Mr. Callinan be able to do this at the beginning of the agenda because the Committee has several recommendations and they are diverse; and Mr. Callinan can present the brief summary and the Board can consider it as it goes through the presentations today.
Chair Higgs stated when the Board gets to the budget review item it can recognize Mr. Callinan. Commissioner Pritchard noted that is fine.
REPORT, RE: REPRESENTATIVE THAD ALTMAN’S DAUGHTER
Commissioner Colon stated she is happy to report that Thad Altman’s daughter is coming home from the hospital this week; it is wonderful news; and thanked everyone for their prayers and support for the Altman family.
REPORT, RE: APPOINTMENT TO TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
Chair Higgs requested the Board appoint Commissioner Pritchard to serve on the Tourist Development Council (TDC) next Wednesday as she will be out of town on that afternoon.
Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to appoint Commissioner Pritchard to serve on the Tourist Development Council (TDC) next Wednesday, July 28, 2004 as Chair Higgs will be out of town. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
REPORT, RE: RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING ACHIEVEMENTS OF CHRISTA ROGELL
Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution recognizing Christa Rogell for achieving the highest award in Girl Scouts, The Gold Award.
Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution recognizing the achievements of Christa Rogell for achieving the highest award in Girl Scouts,
REPORT, RE: RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING ACHIEVEMENTS OF CHRISTA ROGELL
(CONTINUED)
The Gold Award, and recommending that all citizens of
Christa Rogell stated Girl Scouts has been amazing; she has learned so many things, including leadership and friendship; there are a lot of skills she will carry on for the rest of her life; for her Girl Scout Gold Award she decided to work with the girls at Hacienda Girls Ranch; and her heart went out to the girls. She noted she made 36 closet curtains for the rooms the girls stay in; she refurbished one of the meeting rooms, placing tables and tablecloths; she put together some care packages for some of the girls who are moving out and a baby package for one of the girls; and she arranged for Mary Kay Cosmetics to give the girls makeup lessons and to have dinner out.
Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Ms. Rogell.
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: PROGRAM CHANGES AND DISCUSSION ON BUDGET
Jack Callinan, Citizens Budget Review Committee (CBRC), stated Dale Young and Kim Zarillo expressed their regrets for not being able to be here today, but they had previous commitments; Bob Kraus is leaving the group because he is taking care of his wife who is ill; and it would be nice if something could come from the Board thanking Mr. Kraus for his efforts.
Chair Higgs stated Mr. Kraus represents District 3 and she will thank him and recognize him with a resolution.
Mr. Callinan stated the first recommendation is that cost/participant be utilized as measurement by the employee benefits department with a goal of being average relative to the surrounding communities; there is an attachment; the measurement is good and gives a good incline of how costs are and how things are going relative to the health care budget; and Frank Abbate did a study and was able to come up with the cost per participant. He noted Brevard County is the third highest on the list; if it was average, it would probably cut costs by about $2 million or $2.5 million; it is something Mr. Abbate can use as a way of controlling costs to try to get down to an average for the County. He stated the second recommendation is Return on Investment (ROI); it is relative to the Economic Development Committee; it has used ROI in a number of its presentations; and the CBRC’s recommendation is that ROI be used as a measure of that group and how it is performing. He noted not only is it used as a measurement to take a five-year average, but based on the performance against such average, the funding is either increased or decreased; it is a good measurement and a good way of doing it; it should be able to perform and give incentive to do a better job; and the current five-year average gives a good indication how it is performing. He stated recommendation three is a new committee to handle the health care benefits; it is necessary because the existing people looking at health care are looking at it today and attempting to solve the problem as they go along as opposed to taking the long view; the long view is where the policy decisions are made; and the committee should be comprised
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: PROGRAM CHANGES AND DISCUSSION ON BUDGET
(CONTINUED)
of the Board, a consultant, a secretary, and somebody from the County to answer questions. He noted he has a list of questions he came up with relative to health care, as follows: (1) Are steps being taken to reduce the cost/participant ratio to bring it in line with surrounding counties; (2) Would it cost less to buy a Medicare eligible seniors policy for Medicare eligible seniors than the current policy; (3) Is it unreasonable to ask non-Medicare eligible retirees to pay $325 per person for health insurance; (4) Are retiree dependents entitled to the same financial subsidies that their spouses receive; (5) What is our cost per participant ratio for Medicare eligible retirees; (6) How much is the County subsidizing Medicare eligible retirees; (7) What is the cost per participant ratio for non-Medicare eligible retirees; (8) How much is the County subsidizing its non-Medicare eligible retirees; (9) Are non-Medicare eligible retirees receiving twice as much of a subsidy of Medicare eligible retirees; (10) How many of the surrounding counties subsidize retirees; (11) Why should a rertired resident with fixed income be asked to pay for the County retiree subsidies; (12) Should the insurance plan be open to all retired County residents; and (13) Should questions of retiree subsidies be placed on a referendum. Mr. Callinan stated there are a lot of policy decisions that have to be made; the committee the CBRC is recommending is the right place for those decisions to be made; elected officials are the ones who should make policy decisions; and he does not believe the way it is currently constructed that this particular group is able to think outside the box. He noted this is something Commissioner Carlson has harped on many times and she should be very supportive of it. He noted recommendation 4 is purchase order process upgrade; the Board discussed the purchase order process; it is basically a paper system; there is no purchase order process that is on the computer; and it is a manual system. He stated at the last minute the sheets are brought in and they are entered into the computer; so there is a manual system with paper flowing all over; it was the right way for the County to approach what it did; and the CBRC took a look at it using Parks and Recreation Department and found that about 20 processing steps were taken with the existing process, which would be cut by 10 if it was automated. He noted indications to him are that it would save upwards of $200,000 a year and cost about $100,000 to do; his recommendation is to go with detailed specifications; any savings the County receives could go to the
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: PROGRAM CHANGES AND DISCUSSION ON BUDGET
(CONTINUED)
somebody do a quick analysis to find out whether or not it could install coils and attach them to counters; it could keep track of the number of cars going in and out of the parks; and it is not expensive. He requested the Board address the previous recommendation from the CBRC, which was shifting employees to an 80/65 PPO Program to reduce costs by 16% and elimination of subsidies to retirees.
Commissioner Scarborough stated some of these are shifts that could not be brought into this budget; some of them are long-term discussions; and inquired which items would Mr. Callinan see are capable of being integrated into the conversation about this year’s budget. Mr. Callinan responded the addressing of the purchase order portion; the County has earmarked $100,000; the next phase is to do a detailed study on it; and the other item would be the counters, which is not a hard thing to do. He noted most of the other recommendations are long range; the committee the CBRC is proposing would have to make the decisions; and the Board should probably not be addressing the long range recommendations, such as the PPO Program and elimination of subsidies to retirees until it has all the answers and feels very comfortable with its decision.
Commissioner Colon inquired how long does Mr. Callinan think the new committee should meet for and how soon; with Mr. Callinan responding the sooner the better as the County is talking about millions of dollars. Mr. Callinan stated he does not believe the process is hard; it is pretty cut and dry; the questions are more important than anything else; and once the Board gets its answers, it will know what it has to do. He noted it may take two or three meetings in the beginning and then meet every year thereafter. Commissioner Colon inquired would it be like a task force where the Board would assign it to answer some of the questions or would it be a committee that needs to be part of the same process as the CBRC is.
Chair Higgs stated she thought Mr. Callinan said his perception was that the Board needs to lead the committee. Mr. Callinan noted the Board has to do it and cannot delegate out; it is about making decisions that affect how much money people are going to pay; it is a serious subject and is not something that can be done casually; and the Board needs to address it as it is a policy decision. Chair Higgs stated the Board may want to schedule a workshop to be thoroughly briefed before it makes a decision as to how it is going to proceed; maybe it can come to agreement to establish the workshop and direct staff to set it up with the current consultant, looking at the issues Mr. Callinan has brought before the Board so it can structure the workshop based on those questions that the CBRC has given; and from there it can determine the course it wants to take. Mr. Callinan stated he made up a list of questions and suggested the Board and staff add to it. Commissioner Colon stated she does not understand the issue of the new committee; with Mr. Callinan responding the Board is the committee. Commissioner Colon noted it is just putting workshops together, which is totally different than forming a new committee. Mr. Callinan stated he is not sure how the Board operates. Commissioner Carlson stated it is philosophically different than the way the County has been doing business; the Board can evaluate the issues; and it needs to handle it.
Commissioner Pritchard inquired when is the appropriate time to hold the workshop; with Chair Higgs responding it is going to take at least 30 days to get the consultant scheduled and
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: PROGRAM CHANGES AND DISCUSSION ON BUDGET
(CONTINUED)
structure the questions. Commissioner Scarborough stated he hopes the Board will extract those things that can be discussed about the budget and look at policy issues separately; he has been having conversations with some people; the City of
Chair Higgs stated the concept of having a workshop to deal with the health care issues that have been raised, as well as others that staff and the consultant for health care would raise, is worthy of a single workshop; others things may be scheduled as the County sees them; the Board should spend hours on health care; and it has spent hours on things that are far less significant.
Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to schedule a workshop in approximately 30 days to discuss medical insurance issues.
Commissioner Carlson inquired if anyone who has additional questions or ideas should be brought into the picture at the first workshop so everything is on the table. Chair Higgs responded the County will always have public comment; she assumes there will be some comment at the workshop; the Board needs to get a thorough briefing as to where it is, where it is going, and what its options are; and it needs to get to that level.
Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: CHARTER OFFICERS
Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts
Commissioner Pritchard inquired how is the Clerk’s Office doing on the software programs that have been implemented and has it caught up with the backlog it faced when Scott Ellis entered into the Office.
Clerk of the Courts Scott Ellis responded the backlog is pretty well caught up; currently his Office is waiting for some other vendor to come up with a courts package to purchase that is an all-in-one courts package; it is pointless to buy another system that is under development and go through the same situation all over again; and his Office has looked at some recording packages that are good and being used in other counties. He noted that is the real test; if someone tells him their product is going to get there he needs to go to a
Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the affect of Article V on the Clerk’s operation. Mr. Ellis responded it is a big difference for the Clerk's Office; it is one of the 39 deficit counties; it has a stipend that comes from the State, which is supposed to come from the surplus Clerk’s Offices; and he does not know how long that is going to carry on. He noted his Office is trying to adjust its budget back; it is comparable in costs to Volusia, Polk, and
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: CHARTER OFFICERS (CONTINUED)
been unsuccessful to have all the criminal cases at Viera; there would be operational savings for the Sheriff; and he only transports to one place. He stated the felony and misdemeanor cases, and all the probation intake could be done at Viera; from a security point of view, Viera is the most secure of the three courthouses; there is a whole list of things that can be done if people change the way they think; and throwing money is not the solution until operational analysis is done on how to run things.
Commissioner Carlson inquired where does Mr. Ellis see the big stumbling blocks over the last three years he has been trying to get some of these things done. Mr. Ellis responded it is change; and the biggest thing is people do not want to change how they do business. Commissioner Carlson inquired when Mr. Ellis says people who is he referring to; with Mr. Ellis responding one of the big ones is the judiciary. Mr. Ellis stated he does not mean that individually as individually all the judges are easy to work with; but they have a tendency not to make a decision unless every single judge is in agreement; it never happens and at some point someone has to pick up the ball and say this is how some things are going to be done; and they need to try and make it work. He noted it was like putting all the criminal court at Viera, which meant County Court would be done in the branches and Family, Civil, and Traffic Courts and evictions could be done in Melbourne and Titusville; the State Attorney and Public Defender could concentrate their people in Viera; there could be the probation office there as the whole first floor is open; and he has talked to the State and it would be glad to come in as well and bring its felony probation intake. He stated that is the way it is done in Bartow; everything criminal sits in that 12-story courthouse;
Chair Higgs inquired are those issues going to be discussed as part of the Carter Goble study. Commissioner Pritchard responded he believes they will if Mr. Ellis will provide a list; this is the first he has heard of this; and if Mr. Ellis can provide a list to him, he will see that Carter Goble receives it; and anything the County can do to address the way it is performing an operation that will improve not only the operation but the cost of doing it is something that needs to be addressed. Chair Higgs stated that is the intention the Board had when it proceeded with the study through the Public Safety Coordinating Council to have everybody have a chance for input; and requested Mr. Ellis provide his input to Commissioner Pritchard. Mr. Ellis stated about 10 years ago, the Council met with the State Attorney, Public Defender, and Sheriff; and they discussed a lot of the different issues. Chair Higgs noted that is what the Council and Carter Goble study is in the process of doing; and Commissioner Pritchard can make sure Mr. Ellis’ input is on the table. Mr. Ellis stated he will put together a list and send it in. Commissioner Pritchard noted the consultant is coming back for five meetings before the final presentation beginning the middle of August 2004. Commissioner Carlson stated if the Clerk is at the meeting, then someone from the judiciary needs to be in attendance also. Chair Higgs noted the Council is the body that brings all those folks together.
Mr. Ellis stated he met earlier with Messrs. Dennis Rogero and Stockton Whitten on the Information Systems issue for next year; his belief is that it is probably unlikely that the $400,000 will be needed; things have been going fairly well through the summer on the
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: CHARTER OFFICERS (CONTINUED)
recording issue; and even if it tapers off, it will not be seen until November or December 1994, or January 1995.
Commissioner Colon stated it was important for the State and Department of Corrections to be part of the Council. Mr. Ellis noted they are a big part as there are felony probation and misdemeanor probation; one is handled by the County and one is handled by the State; it needs to be more coordinated if possible; and reiterated the bottom floor at Viera is open and set up for office space when built out, and it would be ideal to do that.
Supervisor of Elections
Commissioner Carlson requested the Supervisor of Elections explain what the County has increased the budget for based on legislation, what it is going to do to benefit the community, and what it may or may not do.
Supervisor of Elections Fred Galey stated the increase is due to the Help America Vote Act, which is a requirement to allow the disabled of the community to be able to vote unassisted at the polls; it will require his Office to put a touch screen or some other device in the precincts; it would allow having the ballot read in a different language and allow it to be blown up large enough if people have a vision problem; and it will cost about $1 million or more. He noted he did not suggest the County buy the equipment immediately; one vendor offered to sell the equipment at a discount if the County purchased it before the end of the month; it is a DRE piece of equipment; and such equipment is under controversy now and decertified in the State of
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: CHARTER OFFICERS (CONTINUED)
about the secrecy of its ballot from the time it goes from the Automark machine to the ballot box. Mr. Galey stated the Automark is big; it has some maintenance problems in the contract; not only did Automark increase the price of the machine once it became exclusive in Florida, but it increased the annual maintenance cost; if there is a two-sided ballot on the Automark, it turns the ballot over; and there have been a lot of jamming problems. He noted someone has to be there to take the ballot out, and there is then no secrecy; it is like a copier machine; his Office has to have the system by 2006; and he wants to take time to review the systems and get demonstrations for the Board since it will be purchasing the machines. He stated he wished the County did not have to purchase such a system as the old absentee ballot voting at home process has always worked well.
Commissioner Pritchard inquired where does Mr. Galey’s Office stand in terms of making sure it has professional responsible elections in the Primary and General. Mr. Galey responded his Office is ready right now; the voting machines work well and count votes accurately; as long as the voter marks the ballot the machines will read it; and if the ballots are not marked properly the machines kick the ballots out. He stated there may be some problems with absentee ballots, but those that do not get marked properly, come to the Canvassing Board for review; and
Commissioner Carlson stated she thinks the issues that came up in 2000 will not surface again because the legislative issues have been fixed.
Mr. Galey stated another part of the budget includes the polling places; his Office was required and did a survey on all the polling places to meet ADA requirements; those that did not meet 100% of the requirements have been sent to the State; and his Office received waivers for some and has to either get the others fixed or move to another polling place. He noted his Office wanted to use to the maximum some of the parking places that are not paved, but the State did not like it; his Office deferred to the State as it will get more money from the federal government; and if the parking lots are paved, his Office is going to try to get the individual places to pave their own parking lots, but the County may have to do it. He stated his Office is going to work the issue to make all the polling places meet all the ADA requirements; every county in the State had some problems; and his Office can get it done, but it can be very expensive depending on what it eventually has to do. He noted on voting machine and polling place compliance his Office will get some trickle down from the federal government, but not as much as he would like to have; and the last time the reimbursement for voting machines was per precinct.
Commissioner Carlson inquired is it required for Mr. Galey to program the dollars in this year’s budget or can he do it in a two-year period. Mr. Galey responded he needs to have it in place by January 2006; if it is not done, now it will be too late; he is hoping the requirement will be delayed due to the controversy over the voter verifiable paper receipt; and to rush to judgment could be expensive. He stated his Office will keep its feet to the ground, review the machines, and make a choice; it will have to look at the Automark or the DRE; the County was involved in the testing of DRE equipment to be certified in the State; and it is compatible with the County’s equipment so that electronic portion could be put together. He noted
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: CHARTER OFFICERS (CONTINUED)
run a complete election, input ballots, and do the counting, tabulation, and coordination; the State was here and the equipment was certified; and a lot of people worry about security issues on the ballot machines and DRE’s. He stated on the County’s machines there is no security issue as during the day they are being used for voting, there is no outside connection to anything; it is the same for the DRE’s as there is no outside connection to them during the day; they are thoroughly tested; and when the logic and accuracy test is done ahead of time, people are invited in and they can add numbers into it to see how it changes, etc. Mr. Galey noted the procedures have changed on what can be done for early voting; throughout the State and in the County they would set up ballot boxes in the offices; people could come in ahead of time and vote; and it can only be done 15 days in advance. He stated the 15th day is on a Saturday; his Office is going to be open two Saturdays prior to the election; on election day people cannot come into the office, get a ballot, vote it, and slide it into the ballot box; and if people decide to vote on election day it is going to be like absentee where they will fill out the paperwork, get their ballot and mark it, put it in the envelope, and sign the envelope. He noted it is then brought to the Canvassing Board for review; and his Office would like everybody to vote in the days prior to election day.
Commissioner Scarborough stated voters can still get an absentee ballot; they do not have to have a reason to get such a ballot; and inquired do people need to have a reason to vote early. Mr. Galey responded no. Commissioner Scarborough inquired where will Mr. Galey’s Offices be open early; with Mr. Galey responding at all five locations. Mr. Galey stated a witness is no longer required on the absentee ballot; and staff is checking the signature of every voter.
Chair Higgs stated the Primary Election is on August 31, 2004; the General Election is in November 2004; some people seem to be confused about who will be able to vote in the Primary; and there are some races that are a little different than they have been in the past. She noted the District 1 Primary is Republican candidates and everyone can vote; and inquired are there any others that everyone can vote in. Mr. Galey responded there is only one universal Primary and that is if there is opposition; if there is a Democrat, Republican, write-in, or anything else would go to the General Election; and as long as in the Primary there is no opposition party then everybody is eligible to vote. Chair Higgs stated all parties and independents can vote in the District 1 Primary, regardless of party; there is a County judge seat; and inquired about the School Board seat. Mr. Galey responded they are non-partisan; everybody will be able to vote for those races; a Primary is for the two major political parties to choose their candidate to go forward to the November election; and for the Sheriff’s race, there are two candidates for Sheriff and also two Democratic candidates for Sheriff, so it is a closed Primary. He stated there is also a write-in candidate for Sheriff. Chair Higgs stated the Independents, Democrats, and Republicans would look to the Primary on August 31, 2004 for several different candidates; the School Board,
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: CHARTER OFFICERS (CONTINUED)
August 31, 2004 and the two weeks prior to that since everybody can vote during that time. Mr. Galey stated he has a great staff as they keep him out of trouble.
Commissioner Carlson inquired about the Tax Collector’s Office.
County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the Tax Collector’s budget is predicated by the amount of money he brings in; the Board does not control it; the Property Appraiser’s budget is approved by the Department of Revenue; and the Property Appraiser does not have any program changes this year.
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: OUTSIDE AGENCIES
Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District
Al Pennell, Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District, stated the public hearing on the District’s budget will be held on August 17, 2004 at the City of West Melbourne City Hall; the District is reducing the request for user fee increases that is in the publication; the State reduced the fees required for the Florida Retirement System; and as the request is tied to the addition of new staff, the District can pay them less and their benefits will be less. He noted Veronica Autrey was a District Board member for many years and recently passed away; in the statements Ms. Autrey’s family made at her services, they were very cognizant of and appreciative of her years of service with the District; and they expressed their appreciation to the Board of County Commissioners for its recognition of her by adopting a Resolution three years ago. Mr. Pennell stated the District’s request is for 67 cents per year increase for the typical residential family; the increase for commercial would be $1.30 and agricultural would be 23 cents; and the total revenue increase is $58,000.
Chair Higgs stated the District will advertise the public hearing so people who want to attend can do so. Mr. Pennell advised the District has to advertise prior to the August 17, 2004 meeting and again for the meeting in September 2004.
*Commissioner Colon’s absence was noted at this time.
Other Outside Agencies
Heidi Brandow, representing Technological Research and Development Authority (TRDA), stated she is present to answer any additional questions the Board may have regarding the Incubator Project; the Palm Bay Chamber of Commerce does not have any immediate plans for an incubation program; however, the TRDA and Chamber have agreed to meet and discuss perhaps partnering on the project and bringing the Chamber into the fold in the next couple of weeks. She stated there are also plans to meet with the City of Palm Bay to give it an update and opportunity to get involved in the project; the TRDA hopes to reach out to BCC in Palm Bay and do some type of satellite program in the facility; she has a pie chart showing a breakdown on how the funding is leveraged for the project; in following up with UCF and
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: OUTSIDE AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
Florida Tech, Commissioner Carlson had asked specifically what their dollars were; and UCF is putting out $116,000 toward the project. She noted Florida Tech has an $800,000 commitment it has made; $600,000 of it will be monies it is going to expend to produce its programs, including the Florida Tech Start and the Map ROI Program, which is a small business contracting; and it is not physically giving TRDA a check, but it is writing checks to pay people for programs, supplies, etc. She stated the pie chart shows $4,166,000 with the County’s $200,000 commitment; there is a breakdown by percentages, TRDA being 48%, EDA 24%, Florida Tech 14%, City of
Chair Higgs inquired is the $200,000 a five-year number or an annual number; with Ms. Brandow responding annual. Commissioner Pritchard inquired are the other numbers annual or five years; with Ms. Brandow responding annual numbers. Commissioner Pritchard stated TRDA will put in $2 million annually. Ms. Brandow responded initially for the project startup; beyond that it may be different; UCF and Florida Tech reported to her their amounts are annual commitments; the City of Melbourne has the initial $250,000 commitment; and she is not sure if the City will renew it or not.
Frank Kinney, representing TRDA, stated the chart is a combination of capital expenditures and operating expenditures; the $2 million TRDA is putting in is funding it received from NASA, which is bricks and mortar money; the EDA funds are $1 million, which is also bricks and mortar money; and the Florida Tech money will be operational dollars, along with some capital equipment it will be bringing into the facility. Chair Higgs inquired is it Florida Tech’s total commitment; with Mr. Kinney responding for the initial one year of the project. Mr. Kinney stated the City of
Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the anticipated cost of the bricks and mortar in total; with Mr. Kinney responding the TRDA is still waiting, but has good indications from EDA that the TRDA is going to have the additional $1 million; but it is about $4 million on the total construction cost to the facility, which will be about 35,000 square feet.
Economic Development Commission
Gene McCarthy, Economic Development Commission (EDC), explained the leveraging of grant funds and what the EDC has done to bring in grants in the last year; stated Enterprise Florida, Inc.’s Community Defense Grant for Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB) is $148,000; the total value is $212,000; and significant dollars are coming in on grants. He noted the EDC has also secured $408,752 this year through State Defense Infrastructure Grants for PAFB projects; explained the timeline for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Initiatives; stated several Board members attended the meetings in Washington in June 2004; and guidelines for the BRAC Initiatives and keeping PAFB and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station are outlined.
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: OUTSIDE AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
He stated key dates include March 15, 2005 when the President forms a new BRAC Commission and sends nominees to the Senate, and May 26, 2005 when the Secretary of Defense sends the closure/realignment list to the Commission and Defense Committees; the EDC is working actively and has taken a role in this to make sure PAFB and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station remain in Brevard County; the BRAC Initiatives include to continue to protect and enhance installations, which is a very competitive environment now; and a lot of states are trying to do the same thing the EDC is doing. He showed group photos taken in front of the Pentagon; stated the EDC met with Senator Nelson and Congressman Weldon and his colleagues who were involved in military installation in Florida; there is a public awareness/education campaign to show what the military means to everyone; and BrightHouse also supports the campaign. Mr. McCarthy stated there are proven results in what the EDC has done over the past year; there have been various headlines in the newspapers that the EDC has enjoyed in the past few months; it is what the EDC works for and wants to see; and one new investment was Avidyne Corporation, which added 180 new jobs with an average annual wage of $75,000. He noted $7 million will go into construction improvements; it represents about $1.5 million in new personal property by the employees; there is over a $20 million economic impact from new payroll; and the EDC worked on the project for about 18 months. He noted last night the EDC had its quarterly meeting; Commissioners Pritchard and Carlson were present; comments were made by Ed Rensing from Renco Electronics; and it was apparent that the EDC worked hand in glove with the Company over the past five years to make sure it considered
Commissioner Scarborough stated back when Brevard County moved to the Shuttle Program, it was supposed to get about $1.6 billion annually for the manned Space Program; because of certain things occurring in Houston, the County was dropped to around $800 million; the County has never taken the aggressive stand that other states in other areas have with the Space Program; and the absence of a comment on the Space Program and the role the EDC should
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: OUTSIDE AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
be playing does not bode well with him and the EDC needs to address it. Mr. McCarthy stated the EDC will do so.
Commissioner Carlson stated earlier today Mr. Callinan asked about return on investment over a five-year period and looking at things for incentive purposes; as the return is increased there should be incentives to go along with that; and requested the EDC provide the Board with the last five years of return on investment. Mr. McCarthy noted it will do that; the first three years it was 35:1 and the last two years have been 38:1; and the EDC would like to have performance based funding.
County Manager Tom Jenkins stated there are no program changes proposed for Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority.
Commissioner Pritchard stated the TiCo Airport Authority Board voted to not increase the millage; and inquired why did it take that position.
A representative of TiCo Airport Authority responded the Authority was able to make it happen without an increase; the Airport is safe and provides customer service; it does not have any capital improvement, which requires federal and State matching grants; and it has enough funds in reserves and is in good shape this year. Commissioner Pritchard stated there was a move several years ago to take TiCo completely off the tax roll; and inquired is the Airport still working toward that. The representative responded since he has been on the TiCo Board he has been working toward a business plan that will hopefully get it there; he is just beginning a process and understands it is a historical issue; there are challenges there; and it is not quite as easy as he thought it would be to try to put something together. He noted he is working toward a business plan generally to produce capital improvements that are revenue generating, such as T-hangars, etc.; and it is not complete and is probably going to be several months before it is.
Commissioner Pritchard stated over the course of the past 10 years the Airport’s revenue from the taxing district has dropped from about $800,000 to $170,000. The representative stated the revenue is decreasing over the long run. Commissioner Pritchard stated it seems the Authority has a good plan going and the County looks forward to having it reduce the millage further. The representative stated he will do his best.
Leadership Brevard/Brevard Tomorrow
Suzanne Sparling, representing Leadership Brevard/Brevard Tomorrow, expressed appreciation to the Board for its past support of the Brevard Tomorrow initiative and its parent organization Leadership Brevard; stated without the Board’s vision, they would not be where they are today; Brevard Tomorrow as an initiative is about possibilities and what Brevard County can be in the future; and it urges the Board as the leadership of the community to help Brevard Tomorrow
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: OUTSIDE AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
continue to lead positive change. She noted the task Brevard Tomorrow accepted as an organization two years ago has been challenging, but is critical; the issues the community faces continue to be daunting; a plan for success is in place; and Brevard Tomorrow needs the Board’s continued commitment of resources to make that vision a reality. She stated one of the most valuable components that has come out of the Brevard Tomorrow initiative has been the opportunity to provide a neutral ground for discussion, dialogue, relationship building, and debate among various groups within the community; there are five focus areas that volunteers are deriving outcomes from; they include civic infrastructure, economy, governance, education in workforce, and land use and growth; within the civic infrastructure, Brevard Tomorrow has successfully been piloting a citizens academy in partnership with United Way of Brevard, which has one of its priorities as increasing civic involvement; and 111 people have already gone through that. Ms. Sparling noted Brevard Tomorrow anticipates doing a citizens academy every six weeks through the remainder of this year; into the Spring of next year there are two more planned; one is being hosted by the City of Titusville and the other will be with the faith community at Suntree United Methodist Church; and Brevard Tomorrow is also planning a student version during FCAT season in the Spring of 2005. She stated juniors and seniors at local high schools have a period of time where they do not have much to do if they have already passed the test; Dr. DiPatri has been amenable to Brevard Tomorrow bringing that to the local high schools and having students participate; the Bureau of Labor and Statistics predicts that by 2006 for every two baby boomers that retire only one new worker will enter the workforce; and attracting and maintaining good talent is at the top of every major employer’s list of concerns. She noted having a good job is not enough for the next generation; three out of four educated young professionals say that a cool community is as important to them as a good job; young professionals are clustering in those cool communities and companies who need them are following; so Brevard Tomorrow promises to work with next generation consulting to develop a benchmark for Brevard County. She stated comparing the County with other communities there are seven indicators that are looked at to tell where a county is on the cool community scale and what can be done to change the outlook; according to the young professionals, it is not so much about what they do but where they live; in moving forward in the economy, Brevard Tomorrow has been doing its homework working with the EDC and recently completed an economic development provider survey; and it received almost a 100% response rate. Ms. Sparling noted the goal is to develop a seamless and coordinated economic development plan for the community; the education and workforce group has also been doing some research around career development and curriculum that would be needed to enhance students abilities and employment skills; research was recently conducted via survey with teachers, administrators, and students at local high schools; and once the data has been compiled, a group will get together and refine a presentation to parents on preparing their children for success in the job market and creating a marketing plan to take the program to the streets. She stated in the governance area, Brevard Tomorrow has identified public information officers at local municipalities and within the County; it has worked with the Florida Public Relations Association to help give it training; there were 43 attendees that were public information officers; and there were 50 total attendees at the training. She noted a lot of it was due to the results of Brevard Tomorrow volunteers; an interlocal agreement database is an inventory of service delivery agreements among governmental agencies in Brevard County; it provides a snapshot of intergovernmental cooperation that is currently on hand and being undertaken; the document is also a preliminary record that can be expanded upon to include information and additional
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: OUTSIDE AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
details about the potential for other cooperative agreements and partnerships that can produce cost savings and decreased duplication of services; and by the end of this month it is going to go to an Oracle database format, which will make it more user friendly for all groups. Ms. Sparling stated land use and growth has been a bragging point for Brevard Tomorrow; she has been in Brevard County for all but the first 18 months of her life and always heard about the municipalities battling with themselves and the County; and for the first time having local municipalities and the County sitting down and partnering on something like smart growth is phenomenal. She noted there have been 88 people attend forums throughout the County; Brevard Tomorrow is working to schedule more; Leadership Brevard is a responsible and accountable steward of funds received on behalf of the Brevard Tomorrow initiative; and after two years as a program of Leadership Brevard, it has achieved nearly a 100% renewal rate from all of its supporters indicating a high level of confidence in its accomplishments in the future of this initiative. She stated Brevard Tomorrow has maintained and increased its preferred ratio of public versus private sector funding; it has developed unique relationships with the Florida Public Relations Association; it has leveraged its cash funds at a rate of 3:1 with regard to things like media exposure and the relationships it has built with Florida TODAY and BrightHouse networks; and Brevard Tomorrow is in the process of producing a video with Harris Corporation to help afford Brevard Tomorrow more exposure to the residents of Brevard County. Ms. Sparling stated noting the work that has been accomplished and the plans the County will see for 2005, Brevard Tomorrow hopes it can count on the County for continued support; the original request was for $50,000; she understands the Board has a daunting task with an infinite amount of requests and a finite amount of money; and Brevard Tomorrow respects that. She noted the vision started with the County; it has been a successful visioning process and is building momentum; she knows Brevard Tomorrow can count on the Board; and expressed appreciation to the Board on behalf of Leadership Brevard Board of Directors and the hundreds of volunteers that are driving the outcomes from Brevard Tomorrow.
Commissioner Carlson stated smart growth is not just about land use but everything in the community; the Smart Growth document is wonderful and a lot of hard work went into it; this is one of the major priorities; and there is a lot of momentum for what is good growth management. She noted getting to smart growth is a lot like quality of life; everybody has a different definition; every community that deals with smart growth is defining it differently; and requested the Commissioners read through the document. She stated in the meeting she had regionally with MyRegion.org she submitted the Smart Growth document; it is looking for the same sort of information of how to go about doing that regionally; Leadership Brevard/Brevard Tomorrow has done an excellent job; what has leaped out from the whole effort is the huge gaps in communication; and those gaps have been lessened considerably through the process. She noted it has been a great effort and worthy of support.
Commissioner Pritchard stated the presentation was a good one; and inquired when are all the meetings, comments, and paper coming to fruition and implementation. Ms. Sparling responded some of those issues are already being worked on with the Citizens Academy; it is out there, educating and motivating people to get involved; the Smart Growth document is also another outcome from that; and as Brevard Tomorrow gets to the point where there are reasons to come before the Board for its support on various issues, it will be seeing those within the next 12 to 18 months. Commissioner Pritchard stated if anything is primary within Brevard
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: OUTSIDE AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
County, it is how does it handle what is happening; the County talks about height and density; managing growth has become almost an acronym for how to say no; and that is not what it is about. He noted he is interested in seeing where the County goes from here and how does it make this work; there is a group of people throughout the community that are part of this; he has had some issues and comments with the level of participation; and if he wants to find out how well a social program is working, he would much rather talk to the person living under the bridge than someone who is in the upper echelon of the social service organizations. He stated issues like how does the County grow are so important; it needs to take a real effective and proactive action as quickly as possible; it has been a long time in the process; and it is time to start bringing it forward to see how it is going to be implemented.
Commissioner Carlson stated it is a great idea and she understands the Smart Growth document is out for public hearing; there are some public forums being done; she would like the document to come back to the Board in a workshop or city/county forum to present it to everyone; and it is critical to get the ideas they have been working on over the last year to the public. She noted the other piece she thought was critical was in governance; one of the key issues is a database that shows all of the use agreements between all the cities and how the officials are saving money for the taxpayer by the usage of equipment, etc.; but the public relations is not out to the community saying this is what is being done and it is saving money because one city works cooperatively with another city or the County; and those are things that were missing from the beginning that a lot of the leadership has tied together, which has been great.
Chair Higgs noted Commissioner Carlson can agenda the item since she is heavily involved in the issue; and she can bring specific action steps the Board would use to implement.
Commissioner Scarborough stated the words “smart growth” are not understood from Joe citizen; it lends itself to many different definitions; with the region, the word “quality” was added with the word “smart”; it has an inherent problem in clearly communicating; and if it is not clearly communicated, there is an immediate disconnect and a lot of dialogue. Commissioner Carlson noted even though it is entitled, “Getting to Smart Growth”, the content is such that it clarifies to most people what the concept of smart growth is. Commissioner Scarborough noted the word itself does not lend itself easily and it is comprehensive.
Steve Gilmore, representing Harris Corporation, stated the Corporation supports Brevard Tomorrow as it believes a better, more vibrant, and diverse community will result from the blueprint it is creating for the future of Brevard County; it believes strongly that County leadership must unite across traditional boundaries to unleash the vast potential in the community; Brevard is already a good place to live, work, and raise families; and with a little more cooperation, it can be a great place that offers current and prospective citizens expanded opportunities for work, education, cultural, civic, and leisure activities. He noted a better Brevard is clearly within reach; Brevard Tomorrow is the catalyst for the additional cooperation that is needed in the community; it provides a forum in which community leaders can bring their individual perspectives to the table and the neutral ground in which everyone can work together on solutions for the many challenges that face a community that is growing and will continue to grow; and Brevard Tomorrow is an excellent conduit for improved communications. He stated
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: OUTSIDE AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
Harris Corporation has been on board since Brevard Tomorrow’s visioning process began in 2001, with key leadership at the time coming from the Board; the Corporation remains encouraged by the direction and progress being made; and encourages County government and all those with a stake in the future of the community to continue to support the efforts of Brevard Tomorrow.
Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Gilmore has helped the whole effort as he deals with changed management; and requested Mr. Gilmore explain his job at Harris Corporation, how he works with management, how he improves their perspective on how change occurs, and how they can deal with it and adapt to it. Mr. Gilmore responded his role with the Corporation is at the high level corporatewide to work on all the cultural issues of taking amalgamation of acquired companies and forming them into a cohesive focused shared goal-oriented organization; and he works with top management on down to assembly workers on the line to help make sure people are focused on a common set of goals and there is a derived benefit for all the constituents.
The meeting recessed at 10:40 a.m. and reconvened at 10:50 a.m.
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: COURT OPERATIONS
Judicial Support
Public Defender’s Office
Public Defender James Russo stated the Article V transition has been challenging, moving from County funding to State funding; and expressed appreciation to staff for being understanding and helpful in the transition. He advised as a member of the Judiciary, he has a concern; one of the most difficult times he has ever experienced in his almost 24 years in office was standing before the Board last winter or early Spring to ask it to fund continuing contracts regarding conflict cases in a guise to save it money; one thing he sees in the budget today troubles him; and it deals with court funding. He stated he is specifically referring to items the Board is no longer mandated and required to fund, but yet it is choosing to do so; it deals in court innovation areas and Model Dependency Court, Mental Health Court, and Family Resource Center; the Board is also not required to fund the Juvenile Assessment Center and Juvenile Alternative Sanctions, which the Judiciary has asked it to fund; and these are good programs and serve a great purpose, but if the Board continues to do this several things are going to happen. He noted if the Board continues to fund things in the court system that it is no longer required to fund, it is never going to get the State to assume the burden; it is going to continue to encourage the Judiciary to ask next year and years after to fund more programs; and
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: COURT OPERATIONS (CONTINUED)
reiterated the Board is not required to fund them. Mr. Russo stated if the Board funds the programs, it is going to be in the same mess it was before the Revision 7 Budget Amendment passed; and 20 years from now the Board will have a ballooning judiciary budget based on a bunch of programs it is not mandated to fund anymore.
Chair Higgs stated there are a number of things that the Board is not mandated to do, whether in the Judicial side or other things, but believes they are critical to the quality of the community; and inquired is Mr. Russo suggesting if he was sitting in her chair, that he would not fund those items. Mr. Russo responded he would not fund them as the County will never get the State to pick up the responsibility in the future; and inquired if the Board and boards throughout the State continue to fund programs that are State responsibilities, why would the State want to fund programs that the counties have already voluntarily funded. He stated next year there will be another program that is critical to the quality of life to people in the County that the Judiciary will come before the Board and say it is needed; it will put the Board in a difficult spot; at some point, boards need to say no to judiciaries; he does not know what it is about judiciaries and county commissions, but when judiciaries waltz before county commissions and ask for things, they seem to get them. He noted he was a member of the Judiciary and understands the quality of life and critical need for all the programs; but he also understands it was just voted to have the County not fund these programs; and the State was going to pick up the responsibility, but the Board is here this morning talking about a number of programs that are good and it is choosing to fund.
Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like a list of the programs Mr. Russo is talking about; and inquired if the program is not funded this year, will the State pick it up or will the program go away. Mr. Russo responded the State obviously is not going to pick it up; that is why the Judiciary is before the Board to have it funded; and apparently it will go away. He noted perhaps someone will advise the Legislature next year about how critical the programs are and it will fund them. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the programs are not funded now and the Board does not fund them, and the State says it is not going to address the funding this year, how does one build the bridge if the program is critical and necessary so that it receives funding from the right component. Mr. Russo responded maybe it is not so critical. Commissioner Pritchard stated it may not be critical to the State because it seems to have a habit of dumping unfunded mandates on counties without the revenue stream; and Joyce Grant’s program is a good one, but is not mandated. He inquired how does the County get the State, who is not going to fund it, to fund it if it is not something that is high on its list. Mr. Russo responded he understands the dilemma, but he also understands if the Board continues to fund it, the State does not have an incentive to fund it. Commissioner Pritchard inquired to create the incentive and if there is going to be a gap and the program is cut, what happens to the participants in the program. Mr. Russo responded maybe one experiences the gap and goes before the Legislature next year and explains what a tragedy it was that the programs were lost; and maybe the State will then fund them. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what would the cost be of doing that, and if Ms. Grant was bringing in a couple of million dollars for the $50,000 she was paid; stated Ms. Grant was the hub of the wheel, making sure the people came in; he saw the operation and thought it was operating pretty good with a return on investment; and inquired how does the County say to the Joyce Grants of the world that their $55,000 is not going to be funded because it wants the State to be held to the higher standard of having to pay
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: COURT OPERATIONS (CONTINUED)
for the service that the community believes is necessary. Mr. Russo responded he does not have an answer to that and perhaps Commissioner Pritchard has a good point.
Commissioner Scarborough stated he has talked to members of the Legislative Delegation about some of the concerns of shifting costs down; one of the comments he gets continually is the County is losing every time it runs to the State; the best thing to do is not throw it to the State, do it locally, and keep the Delegation members out of the loop; and the County will be dollars ahead. He noted the bottom line is how much it cost Joe citizen of Brevard County to get “x” services; the Delegation members tell him it is cheaper not to try to run to Tallahassee; he would be remiss if he did not share the information with Mr. Russo; and some of the delegates have come to the conclusion that Tallahassee has not moved Central Florida to a win position, and he is talking from here to Tampa and Pinellas. He stated that loop is where 40% of all the people moving in the State move to; it is the most dynamic area and is basically subsidizing the rest of the State; and it does not have the political clout to take control of the situation in
Mr. Russo stated he understands the difficulty there, but in years to come the Board will have another court program before it that is critical and the State is not going to fund; five years later there will be another program; and he is ringing a warning bell.
County Manager Tom Jenkins stated he is not disputing the point that Mr. Russo is making; there are some additional requests the Board is saying no to; a number of these programs are at least partially being funded by the $65.00 surcharge the Board recently adopted in public hearing; and Mr. Whitten is looking for the report that spells it out. He noted a significant portion of those dollars are coming from the $65.00 surcharge; however, there are some General Fund additional dollars going to that.
Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not want to throw the baby out with the bath water; anytime the County can not involve itself from the next layer it is probably in a better position; but he does not like all of the unfunded items that keep trickling down to the County and then it becomes its problem; and it needs to heavily lobby, speak with its Delegation, and tell it that there are things that need to be addressed at the local level. He noted the County just entered into a lawsuit as part of the Florida Association of Counties because the legislators overstepped their bounds by not having a two-thirds majority; they need to be addressed; it is his tax money that is going to Tallahassee and everyone one else’s; and the legislators need to be more responsible.
Chair Higgs stated there is the technical issue that the County join the other counties in questioning the way it was done; she agrees with the philosophy that if the County can do it at this level that it is less likely to be a donor County than it is if it sends its money to Tallahassee; this points out that there are no simple answers to very difficult problems; and it is not going to be solved today. She noted the point that as long as the County does it somebody else is not going to do it is very valid; she appreciates Mr. Russo bringing it up; whether the County wants to continue to do it or not is a decision the Board will have to make; but the principle that if the County does it there is going to be a continual asking for more to do it, it may be less expensive if the County does it. Chair Higgs stated maybe why the mandates are sent down is because
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: COURT OPERATIONS (CONTINUED)
local governments have not stepped up; it is a complicated problem; and there are no simple answers.
Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees with Mr. Russo a lot and trying to put more pressure on the Legislature; the Legislature changes every two years; it is hard to get consistent perspective from the legislative branches sometimes when there are needs in the community; and the County needs to look at the return on investment for them as well as anybody else. She noted she knows the investments are good as the County has already seen them; with Model Dependency Court, she thought the County was a model and the State was going to distribute it throughout the State; but nothing like that happened; the County was a model, created a great program, and wants to see it continue; and it will fall flat if the County expects the State to take it over. She stated the County would regress if it took that avenue; but in the same sense, it also needs to look at the return.
Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to have a more in-depth discussion about the various programs and validity of the programs in terms of are they really necessary; he has some insight into Joyce Grant’s program as he has sat, listened, and observed; when looking at a return such as that then it is worth the investment; but he is talking a small investment of $50,000 in the scope of things. He noted it is a small amount when talking about millions that come back because of this; Mr. Russo’s point is very well taken; he does not like the idea of being beat upon because someone else does not want to fund what was at one point a necessary and perhaps critical program; but he does not want to hold some program hostage while the County waits for the bridge to get built. He stated that is the dilemma the County is in; and any time Mr. Russo would like to visit with him so he has the list he can go by or come before the Board in a workshop format, he would be interested in hearing what the focus of the program should be and who should pay for it.
State Attorney’s Office
Beth Rossman, representing State Attorney’s Office, introduced Finance Director Patty Green; stated with Article V, the Office absorbed all of the Witness Coordination as far as calling witnesses on and off for court; it was a County-funded program and is now a State-funded program; and with Article V, the State still mandated that the County pay for subpoena service. She noted it is one position that was in the Witness Coordination item that purely does nothing but get the subpoenas together, print them, get all the programming put into them, and get them to the Sheriff’s Office for service; the Office handles about 54,000 subpoenas a year; and now more subpoenas can be mailed as there was a change in the Statute that allows the Office to do it. She stated the Office is requesting a part-time position as one individual cannot take on any more than what she is doing right now; such position would be 20 hours a week to help with the 9,000 more subpoenas that can be mailed out per year; it will keep the Sheriff’s Office from having to hand serve them; so it is going to be a savings to be able to do that. She noted before Article V, the Office was sending all of its Pretrial Intervention money to the County, which is about $250 per case of any felony that can be sent through Pretrial Intervention; it helped fund Witness Coordination; the Office is going to continue to do that even though it is now funding
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: COURT OPERATIONS (CONTINUED)
Witness Coordination; and it is about $50,000 a year on average. Ms. Rossman stated the Office is hoping the part-time position is funded through the Pretrial Intervention money, with excess still coming to the County; so it should not cost the County any more money for the position.
Commissioner Pritchard stated Ms. Rossman mentioned the cost of the part-time position would be a savings; and inquired would it be a savings by having less deputy time. Ms. Rossman responded eventually it would be less deputy time having to serve subpoenas; taking anywhere from 5,000 to 8,000 subpoenas out of their hands and mailing them instead of deputies having to serve them, it is going to save time; and it should be a savings cost through the Sheriff’s budget. Chair Higgs stated the Board will tell the Sheriff that when he is here.
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES
Chair Higgs stated the Board needs to decide how it wants to proceed; all the Board agencies are present; and the Board needs to discuss where it wants to go in terms of direction to staff concerning the millage on Tuesday.
Commissioner
Permitting and Enforcement Department
Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Washburn stated the Department includes Building Code, Land Development, Licensing and Regulation, and Code Enforcement; the first three agencies are self-supporting through fees; Code Enforcement gets 43% of its funding from Solid Waste; and 57% of Code Enforcement is funded from ad valorem taxes. He noted there are no significant program changes; staff believes the budget will increase by approximately 5%; and it is due primarily to anticipated increases in residential and commercial building activity. He stated there is one unfunded program change, which is a vehicle for Code Enforcement; and cost savings will be approximately $214,000 this year, which is laid out under the goals and objectives.
Chair Higgs stated the County has done a better job in looking at the costs that are being allocated to Code Enforcement when it sees the cost of a Code enforcement action and when the Board is being asked to reduce it; given that the County is not replacing a vehicle or is not
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
able to in this budget, it needs to be sure it is fully allocating the cost of those items that come before the Board.
Mr. Washburn stated staff is striving to do a better job at allocating the cost when it brings somebody before the special master.
Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the Permitting side of the operation; with Mr. Washburn responding Building Code and Land Development. Commissioner Pritchard inquired does Permitting and Enforcement staff the one-stop shop; with Mr. Washburn responding no. Mr. Washburn advised it is staffed by different agencies that have Ordinances, which control either a building permit or site plan; the one-stop section is within the Building Code; but it is staffed by other agencies. Commissioner Pritchard inquired when would someone visit the Permitting side of the operation; with Mr. Washburn responding if he or she wanted to do a subdivision, a site plan, or unpaved road. Mr. Washburn noted those are primarily the things that are done through Land Development; and if someone wanted to get a building permit, he or she would go through the Building Code. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is the Permitting side that is entirely self-sufficient. Mr. Washburn noted Land Development, Building Code, and Licensing and Regulation are all self-supporting. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the County was to work toward reducing the double impact it is having on people that come for permits, what impact would it have on the overall tax structure for the rest of the community. Mr. Washburn responding he does not know that he can answer that fully, but only 57% of Code Enforcement’s budget is supported by ad valorem taxes; the remainder is user fees; and if the County was to reduce the user fees, then the dependency would have to come from ad valorem taxes or some other source. Commissioner Pritchard stated in that case the County reduces the user fee when it reduces fines; in many cases the fines have reached epidemic proportions; someone will have $15,000 in fines because he or she has allowed them to accrue; and then it goes back before a special master who will say lets take it down to maybe the cost of enforcement and others costs. He inquired if someone has generated that amount of a fine because of non-compliance, is the County being unfair to the rest of the community by letting them off the hook for $2,200.
Chair Higgs responded when a special master has made a recommendation, there are two things there, one is the fine and the other is the cost; her question previous to this was the question about whether or not the County is doing a full allocation of the costs to enforcement; then there are the accumulating fines; and it needs to have a difference. She stated she agrees with Commissioner Pritchard’s question, but she wants to be sure the County is defining those two things. Commissioner Pritchard stated it was not his intent to define the two things; it was his intent to look at the potential revenue stream by someone who is violating the Code and has taken the violations up to one, two, and five years where they have not complied; the neighbors have had to deal with this issue that has been in non-compliance; and then the Board reduces the fine. He inquired by reducing the fine, is the County doing a disservice to the rest of the community. Mr. Washburn responded it may be, but the Board sometimes looks at the ability of the person to pay; it is like putting a lien on somebody’s property to get money; but if the County is not able to get the money, it does not do a lot of good to do that; if there was a $60,000 fine, the Board does not reduce the cost for processing it; but it looks at reducing the fine; and it looks at the ability of collecting anything.
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Pritchard stated when there is a fine of $250 a day, it is an exorbitant amount that eventually someone is not going to pay; he or she is only going to pay the enforcing side of it, not the fine side of it; and inquired why is it $250 a day when it is not doing any good. Mr. Washburn responded there is no threat to some people if it is only $25.00 day. Mr. Washburn stated there is no threat if it is $250 a day and the County reduces the fine five years later. Mr. Jenkins stated it is a policy call on the Board’s part.
Commissioner Scarborough stated there used to be Code-type things prosecuted in municipal courts; when Article V first came in municipal courts were abolished; there was a hiatus when there was a difficulty getting the county courts to take these types of fines; and the Legislature enacted this philosophy. He noted if one reads the Statute, the purpose is not criminal or punitive in nature; it is to bring the person into compliance; it is actually against the property to bring into compliance; and some of these things actually occur where the County takes the drastic reductions and the person realizes they have to sell or get rid of the property. He stated it is with the transition of the property that someone comes in and acts constructively, and the County has accomplished its purpose; he agrees with Mr. Washburn that some people see the fines mounting and have an opposite reaction, and will clean up the property; other people do not; and the Board has the final discretion case-by-case to take the special master’s opinion and go either way with it. He noted the County is given a lot of discretion under the Statute; if someone is walking away and they should be paying, he will support a Commissioner every time not to waive the fine or reduce it; the cost is not being waived; and it is case-by-case and he is happy doing it that way. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is always case specific in the bottom line, including has the County brought them into compliance, what are the circumstances in which they came into compliance, is there a capacity to pay, or will the County serve the community more moving the case forward by getting compliance. He noted it is not always an easy decision, but it is an individual decision on each case.
Chair Higgs noted the County has not had many big reductions this year. Mr. Washburn stated when the officer talks to the person, he or she tells them the goal is not to fine the person but to get them into compliance; there are individuals who do not want to do anything; and it is a policy call each time. Commissioner Pritchard stated the problem he sees is if someone drags it out for three or five years and the neighbors are having to put up with it; at the end of it the County has a tendency to say someone cannot afford $82,000 or whatever the fine has accrued to; so it looks at the special master’s recommendation, which is $4,500. Mr. Jenkins stated typically someone will say their father was physically incapacitated or their mother was mentally incapacitated and could not make repairs; the person is trying to buy the property, clean it up, and get it back on the tax roll, but cannot buy it if he or she has a $60,000 lien; and those are the kinds of stories the County gets. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not unusual to have other indications of unusual behavior; so the County is not dealing with the normal, but the more bizarre; and it always has the option if it gets to be critical for the health and safety of the neighborhood to take action through the courts. Commissioner Pritchard noted the problem is the amount of time it takes; meanwhile, the neighborhood is having to tolerate it; there was an issue in a neighborhood that was full of statues and junk; and the person who owned the property was mentally incapacitated. He stated it took a few years to clean it up; and riding by the house was a real thrill for the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Jenkins stated he has one
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
across the street as his neighbor has disappeared; the person has been gone for one year and nobody can find her; the roof is falling in and the yard does not get cut; and it is a disaster. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is looking for ways to maintain the neighborhood; and inquired is there some other type of action that Code Enforcement can take to resolve the problem, and if necessary, lien the property. Mr. Washburn responded if it is a homestead, the problem is the money is not collected until the person sells the property.
Planning and Zoning Office
County Manager Tom Jenkins stated staff is looking at the whole process to determine if there are any current reviews being done that are duplicative or can be done away with; it is examining all of the processes; it would save people both time and money; and staff hopes to have a report on it in the near future.
Commissioner Pritchard inquired would staff also be looking at the ability of someone in Natural Resources Management Office being able to do one of the engineering reviews; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Ms. Busacca stated cross-training has begun on fence permits; one person handles all of the fence permit reviews and the different types of reviews because it is a relatively minor permit; and fence permits are moving more quickly through the system and are not stopping the review of the more difficult permits by other staff. Commissioner Pritchard noted it would also be nice if in the one stop shop there were fewer stops by combining the discipline so that someone who has the plumbing experience could look at something that would have to do with anything that would be related so it does not have to go to the next desk for that type of review; frequently the next desk might not be occupied at that point; and then there is a holdup on permits. Ms. Busacca stated staff is looking at the whole system.
Commissioner Scarborough inquired does elimination of the position have program implications; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Ms. Busacca stated currently the position is in charge of the neighborhood planning effort; neighborhood plans have come from a variety of communities, including Mims; there is one ongoing in West Canaveral Groves; and that type of program would cease. She noted the monitoring of existing programs would be transferred to another department, but there would not be a person who would be looking at that specific item; the particular planner has been very helpful and is the only person in the Planning and Zoning Office that helps with design issues; this person has spent a great deal of time assisting with Bert Harris claims; and the ability to respond to those types of things will be reduced by the Office. She stated the Open Space Ordinance is also a responsibility; although it will continue
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
to be utilized, there will not be as much ability from staff to assist in the design of it; and there will be more responsibility put on the people who come in to utilize the Ordinance.
Chair Higgs inquired what is the dollar figure; with Ms. Busacca responding $64,000.
Commissioner Scarborough stated the particular individual Ms. Busacca is referring to is well received in certain areas of his District with his work; and going out and working with the communities is good for the County.
Commissioner Pritchard inquired why was this position identified. Ms. Busacca responded when she and Mel Scott discussed the issue, there was a need to reduce a significant amount of General Fund subsidy to the Office; if a position of general planner was reduced, all that would happen is the Office would have the same level of service expected of a fewer number of staff; the Board continues to ask for reports and ordinances continue to be generated; and all that would happen is that it would take longer to do that. She stated if an identified program has been reduced, then the Board can understand that program no longer exists; and the level of service is understood by all of the people in the community that it is extinct and directed. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what was the program; with Ms. Busacca responding the Neighborhood Planning Program. Commissioner Pritchard inquired is there only one person handling it; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Ms. Busacca stated the individual coordinates with other staff members, but it is this individual’s responsibility to assist the community and the other staff members to develop neighborhood plans. Commissioner Pritchard noted if the County does not have the position, it does not have a facilitated neighborhood plan. Ms. Busacca commented that is correct. Commissioner Pritchard inquired would the outcome be no more neighborhood plans; with Ms. Busacca responding that is the anticipated outcome. Commissioner Pritchard stated this is not like the County would have to cut public safety or close libraries; the position identified was not identified because it was a very valuable position; and inquired was it identified because it was considered in the scheme of operation to be the lesser value out of all the other positions in the Office. Ms. Busacca responded it was not the position, but the Program; the Comprehensive Plan is mandated by the State; the Land Development Regulations, to be consistent with the Plan, are mandated by the State; and the zoning is mandated by the State. She stated staff looked at what it believed was a non-mandated program; perhaps to some people in the community the value of the neighborhood plan is more important than the Comprehensive Plan because it is what they see for their community; and staff looked at mandated versus non-mandated programs. Commissioner Pritchard stated a lot of people expect to see things in their neighborhood and believe that is what they are paying their taxes for.
Public Safety Department
Public Safety Director Jack Parker stated the first change deals with a 911 ambulance staff he would like to add to the Department; several years ago, the Board approved a five-year corrective action plan to add one additional ambulance or rescue unit to the public safety system each year for five years; three ambulances have been added and are in service at this time; and this is the fourth year in the plan. He noted if the request is approved, it will approve
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
the fourth ambulance that will be added; it will be a fully functional fire rescue ambulance that will operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day; it will be assigned to the north area of the County; and it was in the five-year plan projected for the fourth ambulance, so it is right on track. He stated it will bring the total number of 911 ambulances from 25 to 26 Countywide; it is needed and justified; and recommended continuation of the five-year plan. He noted in order to fund the ambulance it will require a $2.60 increase to the EMS assessment for residential and commercial in the County; the next major program change is the First Responder Program; the Space Coast Fire Chiefs Association and fire chiefs of municipalities are asking for an additional increase to the first responder funding that the County provides to them; and they are requesting a 3% increase. Mr. Parker stated it would also result in an EMS increase of residential and commercial properties of 22 cents; staff is recommending the Board support the request; the money is utilized to enhance and maintain a high level of first responder services; and these are the personnel that respond initially to car crashes and situations where people are hurt, and attend to the victims and prepare them for transport in the ambulances. He noted when the County comes in with its ambulances, the patients have had good care in the meantime while the ambulances have been on route; another major program is construction of the fire station in Scottsmoor; staff is on target with its planning on it; and it wants to build the Scottmoor Fire Station in the next fiscal year. He stated the following fiscal year staff will be addressing the Valkaria Fire Station; the particular program change is shown as unfunded, but technically it will be funded in the next year as staff seeks permission from the Board for a commercial paper loan to pay for the Fire Station; the County is paying its last year of the commercial paper loan on the original amount of money it borrowed to renovate the existing fire station per the referendum; and it will afford the ability to make another debt service payment and build the Scottsmoor Fire Station without a tax increase.
Commissioner
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Carlson inquired is there any county in the State that combines public safety with the sheriff’s department; with Mr. Parker responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired are there any models in the State that work that way; with Mr. Parker responding there is a model in South Florida right now that is currently under way and the transition is taking place. Mr. Parker stated he knows of no models that currently exist that have encompassed at the county level the public safety system; there are municipalities throughout the State of Florida that have public safety services which serve fire rescue, police services, and public safety officers who are triple certified fire fighters, paramedics, and law enforcement officers; and those are normally in the smaller jurisdictions. Commissioner Carlson inquired did
Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the problems is ending up with a police officer with fire fighting gear in the trunk of his car, but he has nothing to extinguish a fire; then he is supposed to put on his bunker gear and wait until a fire engine arrives; then he is hot and sweaty, and needs to clean up before he can get his uniform on; and it sounds like a good idea, but the operational side of it is not good. He noted the administrative side of it is something that, dependent on the functions of government, may or may not work; he would be interested in hearing the results of this; he has a feeling like so many other public safety studies before that it is a political decision that is made and the application does not always work; and in fact, it does not work.
Mr. Jenkins stated
Chair Higgs noted the County is separately dispatching from separate locations; and inquired how is it doing on that. Mr. Parker responded it is a bigger issue than simply the Sheriff’s Office and Brevard County Fire Rescue to have non-separate dispatch centers; there are different cities dispatching within their areas; Chief Bill Farmer’s group dispatches all of the 911 ambulances and rescue; so the County interfaces with all of the groups. He stated there has been a lot of discussion among the chiefs lately to consider and look forward to try and work together to do some things; it is very possible that the Sheriff’s Office and Fire Rescue could be the catalyst to that relationship in creating a co-located dispatch center; there is some discussion that having one single dispatch center could present a danger if a terrorist threat or a natural disaster takes out the one dispatch center; and dispatching would be lost for the entire County, so to have more than one dispatch center is not necessarily a bad thing and is one of the reasons the County was told by the Sheriff’s Office initially that it was not supportive of co-locating the dispatch center. He noted it is a good reason and something worthy of consideration, but the County and Sheriff’s Office need to work together to see if it is at all
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
possible to try to pull some of these groups together and save money on dispatching, but more importantly, provide a better service to the citizens. Chair Higgs stated the County should continue to look at that as it talked about it for a number of years.
Regional Stormwater Utility Department
Chair Higgs congratulated Ron Jones on completion of the
Regional Stormwater Utility Director Ron Jones stated next year’s budget for his Department basically remains unchanged; program services are self-supporting through utility fees; and the budget includes about $1.4 million in grant funds that the Department has been successful in attracting, helping to leverage the utility fees.
Chair Higgs inquired how long has it been since the County has looked at the stormwater utility fee; with Mr. Jones responding such fee was put in place in 1990 and 1991, depending on the district, and the fee structure has not been altered within that timeframe. Chair Higgs inquired how is the County spending money now percentage-wise between the water quality and water quantity issues staff deals with. Mr. Jones responded staff has been operating under a previous Board direction; it spends about 50% of the utility fee revenue on flood control-type projects and 50% on water quality improvement projects. Chair Higgs stated it is safe to say that most people in the community want the Lagoon to be enhanced in health; and inquired if there was more money going in, would people see improvements in water quality in the Lagoon. Mr. Jones responded yes; basically all of the development that occurred during the timeframe when the Space Center was booming took place without any type of stormwater treatment; staff is cautious and expeditiously using the funds, trying to get the biggest bang for the buck; but the magnitude of the issue versus the size of the funding source is a little bit out of kilter. Chair Higgs inquired would it be safe to say that the Department has a backlog of projects waiting to be funded; with Mr. Jones responding yes.
Commissioner Pritchard stated there are not enough catch basins for the volume of stormwater that comes off of the roadways and is directly deposited into the canals or Lagoon; it is one of the projects the County has talked about continuously; maybe it can find some of the money for catch basins by looking at the effect it is having in terms of other projects it is having to do because it does not have a catch basin at a certain location; and inquired is it something the County can review. Mr. Jones responded source control is the answer to many issues; in his Department’s budget, staff identifies on an annual basis a certain number of projects that are associated with more sediment and suspended solid removals; it varies from District to District; in District 2 there is a lot of older development that is piped directly to the river; and the areas are small and completely developed. He noted putting in ponds is difficult to try and accomplish; in those areas, staff tries to tailor toward those projects; in other areas of the County where it is looking at more large scale drainage systems or canals, the larger more regional projects are probably more appropriate; and staff reviews those on an annual basis. He stated in District 2 there are more sediment control baffle box inlet control device
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
projects; staff tracks and logs the continued maintenance associated with those; and it can provide the information to Commissioner Pritchard.
Commissioner Carlson expressed appreciation to Mr. Jones for the Wickham ponds; stated they look great and will become an amenity to the Park; they will be catching all of the water coming in from
Commissioner Scarborough stated the County started stormwater with the concept of preserving the Lagoon and quality of the waters; while those waters are important, the County is also getting into more critical concern about the capacity to have groundwater for other usages; as it moves from the wet to the dry cycle it moves from hating water to loving water; and this is difficult to deal with. He inquired how many inches of rainfall is in a typical area of
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
is a considerable amount and yet the County has a concern that people have restrictions on shallow wells; Alex Chamberlain wanted to talk about not moving the stormwater closer to the Lagoon where it becomes more expensive, but keeping it upland; there are some advantages and more undulation of the land in Merritt Island; so this is some potential. He noted when getting to the areas along U.S. 1 it becomes more expensive; there is the question of taking away commercial property for development; if staff comes back with new fees, he would like to see some type of benefits for those people who develop upland properties and do not in any way impact the overall discharge; and it has a dual benefit as it does not cost more down by the Lagoon to build the retention, it recharges aquifer, the shallow wells run, and the potable water is not used. He stated when he was with the City of Titusville it used to have a doubling of the amount of potable water in the month of June; if it did not have a few dry weeks in the month of June, it could have worked with about one-half of the water capacity; it is almost like a power plant and electricity; and there has to be the capacity to produce power for the peak load. He noted the County ends up paying for things when it does not moderate the water; if the water is kept in the soil, the people are able to use the shallow wells; the potable water is not needed for usage; and it reduces overall costs. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is well worth the County’s effort if it could structure some of those ideas; and it would almost be worthwhile for the Board to get people throughout the County like Alex Chamberlain to restructure a philosophy and go beyond just protection of the Lagoon, to a whole concept of how water operates in an extreme wet/dry cycle.
Chair Higgs inquired is Commissioner Scarborough talking about a recharge credit; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes. Chair Higgs inquired is anybody doing that in the State of
Roadways and Landscaping Department
Roadways and Landscaping Director Billy Osborne stated overall the Department’s budget is decreasing 9.62% this year or approximately $2.5 million; this decrease is mainly due to the expenditure of balance forward funds for completion of CIP projects in the previous year and
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
the replacement of long-term employees throughout the Department; the Department eliminated funding for two MSBU positions for savings to the General Fund of $96,000; and there are three program changes, one is funded and two are currently unfunded. He noted the funded program change is for elimination of the installation of speed humps for a savings of $125,000 in all five MSTU Districts; this change has been reflected in the proposed FY 04 budget; and each MSTU millage rate has been reduced accordingly. He stated the two unfunded program changes are community beautification and infrastructure management system; community beautification is for the allocation of $100,000 to each MSTU District for the purchase, installation, and maintenance of landscaping on County-maintained roads within the city limits; staff continues to receive complaints from municipalities about participation in the beautification of major County roadways; and since MSTU funds cannot be used within the city limits, the program change would identify an alternative source that could be used at the Board’s discretion. Mr. Osborne noted staff has included it in the proposed budgets for the past couple of years; the infrastructure management system is for the acquisition and installation of a system that would enable the management to create a detailed inventory of existing infrastructure and continually add items, plan for future maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement, and estimate future needs based on previous maintenance condition and level of service desired; and the estimated cost of the system is $1.5 million.
Commissioner Scarborough inquired if by taking action within the MSTU’s for speed humps there will not be any speed humps brought before the Board; with Mr. Osborne responding that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough inquired is it more of a policy rather than a monetary decision; with Mr. Jenkins responding it is a policy issue, but it has a monetary consequence. Commissioner Scarborough stated within the MSTU there are a lot of variables from District to District; he never knows when he is going to get something where some child has been killed going to school, the whole neighborhood is at a meeting, and he hates to say the Board made that as a budgetary decision; it need to be done on a case-by-case basis; and he hates to see the Board as a matter of budgeting say it does not care about speed humps.
Chair Higgs stated the County could always fund speed humps; and what the consequence of the action would be is that it is not setting aside specific monies within the MSTU. Commissioner Scarborough noted he does not mind that; he was under the assumption the County was not going to look at speed humps; and that is something different. Mr. Jenkins stated that is what he said, but if the Board wants to take a different course, it can; and if it does the other, what it is basically saying is the MSTU’s are going to have $125,000 less collectively. Chair Higgs inquired is the County reducing the millage in the MSTU; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes, in order to achieve $125,000 savings. Chair Higgs noted it is $25,000 per District; and each District is not spending $25,000 in speed humps. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has a lot of requests for speed humps. He inquired is the Board making program decisions or is it basically cutting a budget and having to live with a cut budget. Mr. Jenkins responded they are tied together. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is his understanding if the County gets to push-come-to-shove with the speed humps, it has the ability as policy to come back in and look at the issue again. Mr. Jenkins noted that is correct; the way it was submitted to the Board for its consideration was it would not do speed humps with elimination of a program; however, as policy makers, it still has to make that decision.
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Scarborough inquired how much does a speed hump normally cost; with Finance Manager Greg Pelham responding the average cost is between $2,000 and $2,500 per speed hump. Commissioner Pritchard inquired do most neighborhoods on a street have two speed humps; with Mr. Osborne responding some have one, some have two, and some have three, but typically there are two speed humps. Commissioner Pritchard stated for two speed humps it would cost $5,000 per request; and inquired where would the money come from if the request was made for a speed hump. Mr. Jenkins responded either the Board would not do it or it would come from the remaining dollars in the MSTU. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is anticipating requests and the requests for speed humps will come; when they do, it is a question of where does the money come from; the MSTU money out of District 2 goes to a variety of sources; and inquired if the $25,000 is identified as the speed hump component of that and he has a request for speed humps, where could the money come from if approved. Mr. Jenkins responded it would have to come from the District 2 MSTU. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to see more of that money put into dredging; he has a tremendous amount of canals and some of them have silted because of the stormwater problems; and people are not able to access some of the canals any longer. Mr. Jenkins stated one of the things the County tried to do was not to ask Mr. Osborne to maintain more miles of roads every year and give less money to do it; if it was necessary to make a reduction, it had to identify a specific thing that it was going to eliminate; if the majority of the Board concludes that it thinks speed humps are important and it does not want to see those reduced, then staff will have to put the money back in; and the County is asking Roadways and Landscaping to maintain more roads every year, so he cannot be shrinking its budget across-the-board. He noted something needs to be eliminated in order to cut the budget; and that is what staff was trying to do.
Chair Higgs stated in the requested budget for the District 3 MSTU there is $751,000 in taxes; there is a balance forward of $514,622; Commissioner Pritchard’s balance forward is $1 million; so the County is not spending everything. She noted she understands how important balance forward is; she is assuming the County plans to do big projects coming up; and the District 1 MSTU has $512,000 in balance forward. Mr. Pelham stated between $200,000 and $300,000 of balance forward in each District are reserves that are carried forward; because the taxes do not start rolling in until late November or early December, the County needs to withhold some of the money from the current year to carry forward to the new year to pay for operations; there are also monies set aside for reserves to cover disasters in case of hurricanes; so approximately half of the money is reserves that are carried forward. Chair Higgs stated on a $1,222,000 budgeted amount, the County is carrying forward into this budget year $514,000. Mr. Pelham noted about one half of that are reserves to carry forward for emergencies, disasters, and the first quarter of operations. Mr. Jenkins inquired are some of the reserves set aside for projects; with Mr. Pelham responding yes. Chair Higgs noted there is some flexibility in the MSTU budgets if the County has people coming forward on speed humps that are compelling. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has a problem when there are hundreds of millions of dollars in a budget and the County is going to have maybe Kay Burk come up with all these people on $15,000; if he had $5.00 in his pocket, the penny on his dresser in relationship is less to the $5.00 than the $15,000 to make it work; the County is making profound policy decisions on how it is and how it is viewed and not impacting a budget; and it is frustrating for him because he would like to say he is doing something, but he is not doing a thing. He noted this is a process where the County has to go to the minutia of monetary matters that are making
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
major policy matters and that is not what this is about; this is trying to make the most the County can of making it the most it can be; saving $15,000 by not giving it to Ms. Burk is not going to impact the County’s budget; and it is going to give a profound signal to people who want to make arts work. He noted if he saves $5,000 on two speed humps on a street, he will never know he saved it as it becomes irrelevant; but it is profoundly significant if someone calls and the Board made a decision not to do speed humps; and he is not going to make that decision. Chair Higgs stated the County can still do speed humps; there is money in the MSTU; it does not have to say it is not going to do speed humps; and it can analyze road width. She noted the County has residential streets with very few cars that are 22 feet wide and it is going to repave them 22 feet wide; Mr. Osborne does not agree with her and that is okay; there has to be a way to put down less asphalt; and there is a way to have less pavement. She stated the other thing is to have some medians; if the County is not going to cut down the width of the street, have less asphalt, and less costs, then medians do the same thing that speed humps do; they are traffic calming devices; and it seems to make sense. She noted she is not ready to take all the speed humps out, but there are other alternatives as well that the County should look at. Commissioner Pritchard stated Roadways and Landscaping is also asking for $100,000 to be added to each MSTU for community beautification. Mr. Jenkins stated the Department would prefer to get $625,000 if the Board can afford it; and it did not ask to lose the $125,000. Commissioner Pritchard noted his point is the balancing act; he is facing the same dilemma Commissioner Scarborough is; eliminating the speed hump program is going to have more of an effect on the community; and in the scope of things, $125,000 is $25,000 per District. Mr. Jenkins stated if it is the Board’s desire, staff will eliminate the verbiage there that relates to speed humps and the millage has been reduced by that amount; and there will be no reference to speed humps. Chair Higgs stated the Board will talk about what it is doing with the millage at the end of the discussion and figure out how to do the millage.
Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the purpose of reducing the millage; with Mr. Jenkins responding to balance the budget. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board wants a balanced budget; it told him to not go more than 3% over rollback and that is what he did; and adding $40,000 here and $50,000 there added together comes up to $4 million or $5 million. He noted he has balanced the Board’s budget with 3% over rollback. Chair Higgs stated Mr. Jenkins did exactly what the Board asked him to do; it needs to analyze that and how Mr. Jenkins is calculating it; she and Mr. Jenkins had discussions about the voted millages and how they are calculated; the rollback rate is a long ways back; and the Board needs to see if there is a consensus to not be at the rollback rate but some place at less millage. She noted there are other options; and that is the discussion she wants to get to. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board will get to it; and overall the budget has increased. Chair Higgs noted the budget has increased; and the millage rate has gone down considerably. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is the multiplier and the bottom line is still the bottom line. Chair Higgs stated if one says voted is not part of it, then there is a significant voted impact on the millage rate and on the calculation of next year’s revenue; and if voted is really a part of the Charter, which it is, then the Board has to look at it.
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
Information Technology Department
Information Technology Director Gino Butto stated there are a few program changes that were funded; a couple of changes impact the public safety arena, particularly the emergency radio receiver replacements for EOC; for a relatively small amount it gets the Department some upgrade and stability at under $12,000; and upgrades for the Public Safety Center are approximately $15,000. He noted there is light area connectivity to some key locations; the Department has been waiting for a few years now to expand it to the Public Safety Center; each year it becomes more critical; and the South Mainland Service Complex and Public Safety Center need to be considered as they are rapidly approaching a capacity issue. He stated they do a lot of high-tech things; staff is trying to keep up with their demands on the network; the Department has been working for a couple of years now with the docket and management system; and the County Attorney’s Office has been the pilot for quite some time and some delays have been attributed to having to go to a second vendor after staff initially selected one. He noted there were some genuine challenges with the County Attorney’s Office as it is probably the most unique user of the system between the type of indexing it uses and the criticality of any kind of problems; so the Department needed to make sure the Office was very stable before it looked at expanding. Mr. Butto stated a number of other agencies are waiting for that type of capability, particularly the departments that have a lot of paper volume; some of them have expressed willingness and ability to contribute to that type of purchase; however, it was important to wait until there was general consensus on a philosophy in terms of technology and Board approval. He noted recently staff fine-tuned the numbers; it had put in approximately $3 million over the course of several years to do this Countywide; it has been working with those agencies and with some of the key vendors to get a more realistic number; and staff believes for approximately $1.5 million spread over three to five years that it can expand the system to most of the key departments that are looking for this. He stated some of them have ways to help with funding; some are unable to and may be more critical users; and staff is requesting the Board step up to some of the differences there.
Chair Higgs inquired does the Department need $1.5 or is it including agency contributions; with Mr. Butto responding it includes their potential contributions, but they do not have anything that says they can take the money they have available today to apply to this, carry it over to the future rather than losing some of it, or if they can spend the money in this area. Mr. Butto stated if staff can get a buy-in from the Board that this is a worthwhile direction for a potential of this amount of money, then it would pursue it and come with more specific numbers; but it has not received that indication yet from the Board that it is an area it wants to go into for this kind of money. He noted on the 911 side there is a logging recorder issue, which the County addressed a while back; through some of the recognition of the Board there were some issues with the process that was used and the vendor selected based on the specifications; staff went back and worked on it; and unfortunately, some anomalies have taken place since then, one being that the funding in 911 has dropped faster than staff anticipated due to the discontinued use of landlines, the regular telephone line that everybody used to have. He stated the County gets a much bigger contribution from those than it does from cell phones; people are disconnecting telephones, whether they are using cell phones instead or using other technology for the Internet at a much faster pace than 911; so there is a bind in the 911 funding; and
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
staff has been addressing it with the 911 community, the public safety answering points, and their representatives on how to mitigate that going forward. Mr. Butto stated as far as allowing a recorder is concerned, staff believes there is still an opportunity based on the expensive rate for maintaining the old technology that over the course of the next few years there is an opportunity to use the same amount of money and purchase something new; it is not going to happen in a one-shot deal like the County had money for last year; the other anomaly that took place is while staff was maintaining the older system it was much more expensive to keep going than a new system would have been; so some of the money that was available was used up in the process. He noted those are the key program changes that are unfunded.
Commissioner Carlson stated last year the County had all the ducks in a row and it was going to go forward with local area network and replace things; Mr. Butto had been saving those dollars over a few years; and inquired is he saying he cannot do it due to cost issues. Mr. Butto responded no; the local area network is taking place; staff recently got a vendor on board to help with the design of the product; and the monies are available for it. Commissioner Carlson noted the County is going to be in the position to upgrade the local area network. Mr. Butto stated that is correct; the vendor is going to help staff with the solution, what products it should use, and how it should configure it; and monies are available to follow up after that with the actual purchase and replacement of the network for email, shared services, etc. Commissioner Carlson stated wide area connectivity is the connection between the various facilities; and inquired was it in the plan to begin with. Mr. Butto responded it is not part of the replacement of the network; it is more to give the facilities a larger pipe so they can perform at a faster rate now that they have expanded the number of users and the types of technologies they are using; it does not impede the County’s ability to replace the email and other network services; and it impedes their ability to access it quickly. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the difference between what the Department had in the budget last year and what it now has in the budget this year for the program Mr. Butto is referring to. Mr. Whitten responded the two things staff indicated it had money saved up to fund were the network and SAP upgrade; the upgrade item will be brought to the Board at the first meeting in August 2004; so staff has the dollars and needs the Board to approve going forward with the SAP upgrade; and it is about $1.2 million and the network is going to be about $400,000. Mr. Butto stated a lot of the reductions the Department has are for funding it has accumulated and will be spending, so it is a reduction because the Department is actually spending some of the money it has saved; and it is not a reduction in programs or services.
Chair Higgs inquired in looking at the 911 issue and $400,000 in capital, if staff took the cost over five years, is it a way to fund that item; with Mr. Whitten responding yes. Mr. Whitten stated it would fit into the requirements for commercial paper funding. Chair Higgs noted it is clearly capital and is going to function for a number of years; and staff needs to review it as the recorders are very important in terms of public safety. Mr. Whitten stated the 911 money has decreased to the extent where he is not sure the County has a debt service payment it can leverage; and it would have to leverage it out for a number of years. Chair Higgs inquired is the County able to do the 911 issue through statutory permission; with Mr. Whitten responding yes. Mr. Butto responded it is State regulation; there are mandates on how the funds can or cannot be spent; the issue of commercial paper is one that had the question been asked last year he would have said yes; and it was the perfect solution. He noted unfortunately, staff is not sure if
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
it can commit to it based on the revenue stream it now sees. Chair Higgs inquired is there discussion ongoing about getting some revenue from the cell phones; with Mr. Butto responding yes, at the legislative level and staff is supporting it. Mr. Butto stated there are representatives working with other organizations within the State; one of the biggest ways local agencies are getting short-changed is there is a cap on the number of telephone lines that can be charged the 50 cents; if there are more than 25 telephones, they can no longer charge the 50 cents per phone line; in some cases it is reasonable as there may be a bank of phones that have never dialed 911; and on the other hand, there are others where it is pooled service. He noted if the amount of doubled, it would be a significant benefit.
Commissioner Scarborough stated there has been a lot of discussion about how the County got so far behind with roads; there was an opportunity for the Board to extend the gas tax; the votes were not there to continue to extend the tax; and it deferred borrowing and set back projects. He noted everybody says do not borrow, but the County is going to be around 100 or 200 years; the Historical Courthouse was built in the 1800’s and the County is still using the facility; and the Brevard County Government Center North is one of the nicer buildings in the County. He stated the County borrows at substantially lower rates than anybody can imagine; it many times has streams of income that it walks away from and it did it with the roads; he has not gone back and done the calculation; and it is easier to get ahead of a problem and inflation is moving faster than interest rates. He noted these are not radical extreme ideas; it is sound financial management; there are few people living in Brevard County today who could have saved the money to buy their home; and inquired how many people would never have bought a home if they had to collect the money first. He stated he does not want to push Mr. Butto or anybody to the limit; but this is sound fiscal management to get ahead of inflation with an interest rate that is lower than inflation, and have the problem taken care of; if there is the sub-service decline, there is a seven-fold increase in the cost; and yet it is considered to be radical. He noted he guesses he is a radical and apologizes. Chair Higgs stated she was radical by not voting for the gas tax; all she wanted the Board to do was to have a funding commitment to look at the supply and demands; the County was supplying roads, but not controlling demand; and nobody wanted to talk about that then.
Tourism and Development Office
Tourism and Development Director Rob Varley stated the Tourist Development Council (TDC) is projecting about a 3% increase in the resort tax this coming year; there will be some reductions in spending regarding beaches, etc. as the County recently paid off a major portion of the South Reach Project; there is a beach committee recommendation going forward to the TDC on the issue; and the Board will be hearing the recommendation soon. He noted basically the programs are unchanged; the Office continues to move forward in its strategic planning; the company the County has hired has come forward; and there is some measuring of the hotel industry and views of customers. He stated the Office is continuing to do some conversion studies; it has taken all of its inquiries from this past year; the TDC is going to conduct a major conversion study on all of the inquiries; and staff did one study with the Internet. He noted it took 12 individuals who signed up to receive the E-deals and did a conversion study on it; the return on it was about 4 ½% from the study; it showed almost 74% of those people came to
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
Brevard County within the last year; and they stayed an average of six days. Mr. Varley stated looking at those numbers alone generated almost 54,000 room nights; and staff is excited about continuing the studies to measure effectiveness.
Chair Higgs inquired what percentage of the dollars collected go to cultural activities; with Mr. Varley responding the entire collection is about 3.07%. Chair Higgs stated it has been established in the Code and they are getting the maximum amount by the current Code. Mr. Varley noted that is correct. Chair Higgs stated the Tourist Development Statute allows the County to expend monies for all kinds of activities, including cultural activities. Mr. Varley noted that is correct. Chair Higgs inquired what does it take to amend the Code; with Mr. Varley responding a super majority. Mr. Varley advised tourism is doing great; it is about 8% ahead of last year; the County has had seven months in a row of record numbers for the hotels and occupancies; and collections are up as well. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the difference in dollars; with Mr. Varley responding $300,000-plus.
Mr. Jenkins stated staff moved the historical markers over to tourist tax funding as the Board requested. Chair Higgs inquired how much was it; with Mr. Jenkins responding $10,000. Mr. Jenkins stated staff took $3,000 of the $10,000 and used it for the NASA photo sleeves for the Historical Commission; but now Mr. Varley is picking up the 10 historical markers. Chair Higgs inquired is staff going to reflect the additional revenue as cash forward in this year’s budget; with Mr. Varley responding yes. Mr. Varley stated staff did a mid-year reallocation earlier on; it generally looks at its cash carry forward about mid-year and readjusts the current budget; so anything beyond that will go into the next year’s budget.
Transit Services Department
Transit Services Director Jim Liesenfelt stated the Department’s budget has basically stayed the course; there are no program changes; and the program changes the Department suggested were all unfunded.
Chair Higgs inquired how much is the ridership up this year; with Mr. Liesenfelt responding the fixed route ridership as of the end of June 2004 is up 32%.
Commissioner Pritchard inquired does the State reduction in paratransit funds mean decreased services for medically-needed citizens. Mr. Liesenfelt responded there is not really a true reduction; the reduction the County is getting is through the Medicaid service; the Department had to switch some of its paratransit funds it receives from one program to the other; but the true reduction from the State is for Medicaid and it is not going to affect the Department’s budget this year. Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the unfunded requests is $88,000 for extension of Saturday bus services; and inquired has there been much request for that. Mr. Liesenfelt responded when staff does passenger surveys it does ridership counts and talks to passengers; and the two biggest requests are for more service running later into the evening and Saturday service. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what would be the net cost; with Mr. Liesenfelt responding about $225,000 per year for the first two years. Mr. Liesenfelt stated the County could apply to the State and probably have a good chance of getting 50% of the cost
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
funded from the State for the first two years, with the idea being at the end of two years the County analyzes it as the local government agency; if it decides to continue it, then it picks up the full cost; it is the same grant the County uses with the trolley service; and it has had it for three years and is just now ending it. He noted it has been successful enough and staff has been able to find the funds, so the County is going to pick up the extra 50% cost; and it is called service development. Commissioner Pritchard inquired are fares $1.00 per ride; with Mr. Liesenfelt responding yes, and half fare for seniors, disabled, and students. Mr. Liesenfelt stated during the summer the students ride free; and there are various ride passes and monthly bus passes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired would the $225,000 be after all of the dollars for ridership; with Mr. Liesenfelt responding no, it includes the dollars for ridership. Mr. Liesenfelt stated the County is probably looking at about $25,000 in fares; 10% to 15% of the cost of fixed routes are covered by fares; so the County is probably looking at $25,000 to help fund the $225,000. Commissioner Pritchard noted the net cost to the County would be $225,000. Mr. Liesenfelt stated that is correct. Commissioner Pritchard inquired is the Department able to keep up with the gas prices; and stated it looks now like they will be coming down and probably leveling out. Mr. Liesenfelt responded this year the Department has been able to keep up with it; the County does not pay State and federal taxes on fuel costs; staff budgeted about $1.40 a gallon this year; February and March 2004 it was peaking up about $1.37 a gallon; so the Department is okay. He noted three or four years ago the Department was paying 90 cents a gallon, so it has taken a big chunk. Commissioner Pritchard inquired does next year’s budget reflect $1.40 a gallon again; with Mr. Liesenfelt responding yes. Mr. Liesenfelt stated in the Maintenance Contract, Ryder provides the fuel; it is not going to charge the County a surcharge under the new bid; so fuel costs are going to decrease by 3% or 6% next year.
Transportation Engineering Department
Chair Higgs stated she appreciated the report on the gas tax as it was very thorough.
Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated the Department has four major program areas; it has divided one of the programs into two; formally it had Engineering Services, which included Surveying and Mapping; and they are now divided into two programs. He noted Engineering Services include flood zones, the CRS Program, and design/drafting function; Surveying and Mapping is self explanatory; and there are the Traffic Engineering and Road Construction Programs. He stated operating and salary expenses are down slightly from last year; Surveying and Mapping has included in it equipment and vehicles necessary to achieve the goals and objectives; one of those vehicles is a replacement vehicle; Traffic Engineering has the biggest program changes; and staff wants to acquire some equipment that is necessary to efficiently and effectively analyze and repair signals, which have had problems in the past. He noted it is an efficiency and level of service issue to have that; and it will save money in the long run. He noted the second program change is elimination of Traffic Operations Supervisor, which will save approximately $70,000 per year out of the General Fund; this position has served in the past to improve efficiency in the Traffic Operations Center, which is sometimes called the Sign and Signal Shop; and the Department will adjust the elimination of that position, but it will be a bit of a test for it. Mr. Denninghoff stated the
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
Department operates in a variety of measures for levels of service or performance as low as 10% in some categories, such as signal replacement and rehabilitation, and as high as 75% in preventative maintenance programs; and staff attempts to maintain those levels of services.
Commissioner Carlson inquired on the LOGT report from 2003, is the transfer $5.1 million from LOGT to Road and Bridge; with Mr. Pelham responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired if half of that transfer was not there, what kind of dollars does staff see for projects if the County bonded those dollars. Mr. Pelham responded the County could get between $20 million and $25 million in bond proceeds to use for projects, which would be bonded over a 20-year period.
Chair Higgs inquired was the gas tax extended 20 years; with Mr. Pelham responding it was extended in 1999 to August 31, 2021.
Commissioner Pritchard stated he has the same concern as Commissioner Scarborough about elimination of the community development position; his office has received a lot of positive comments about the performance and function of the Traffic Operations Supervisor position; he is concerned that removing this position is going to create a bottleneck and perhaps not the same level of community service and response as in the past; and he is not sure it would be $70,000 well saved, or that the projects would be handled properly and the public served properly. Mr. Denninghoff stated there is no doubt that there were improvements in the Traffic Operations Center by adding that position in the past; however, he believes the Department can adjust; he is not going to try to tell the Board that the loss of the position is going to result in improvement in level of service; but when looking at reductions in General Fund, Traffic Engineering is the largest program as far as General Fund; and the Department has to look at some place to do that. He noted it is not going to be comfortable to make the adjustments; but that is the Department’s job and it will do it. Commissioner Pritchard stated the person who is in this position at this time is going to be transferred to another area within the County. Mr. Denninghoff noted that is correct. Commissioner Pritchard inquired can the other area within the County get by without having that position and maintain the position in Traffic Operations. Mr. Jenkins responded the individual is going to Solid Waste Department, which is not funded by ad valorem; Solid Waste had a vacant position, so the person is going there; and the position is funded by a different pot of money. Commissioner Pritchard inquired is there a way to transfer that funding; with Mr. Jenkins responding no. Commissioner Pritchard stated the dilemma he faces is the majority of comments he receives from the public deal with roads, transportation, the ability of getting from here to there, and signalization; he has been told that the traffic signals are synchronized but not optimized; and he cannot help but think that elimination of the Traffic Operations Supervisor might not be in the best interest.
Commissioner Scarborough stated the gas tax goes to 2021, so it is premature to talk about extending it and bonding out the additional stream of revenue; and inquired has revenue increased that much to justify that discussion. He noted when the gas tax is extended out, there is an additional stream of income and an increase in income because there are more gas savings; those two increases and the stream of income would normally allow additional money to pledge and bring money forward for road projects; and inquired is the County to a point yet where that discussion comes into play. He expressed concern with interest rate increases and
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
that the Board may not be offered these rates six months to a year from now; and stated it may be something staff wants to review. Chair Higgs inquired have the gas tax revenues increased at on a pace that staff thought it would over the years. Mr. Pelham responded the County has experienced between 1 ½% and 2% increases in gas tax collections over the last three or four years; and it is not a drastic number in an increase. Commissioner Scarborough stated bondable capacity is there if the County extended the gas tax out to 2024 as opposed to 2021; but it is not there to make it worth the discussion; and reiterated it seems premature. Mr. Jenkins stated the County would not have much, but maybe $200,000 a year. Commissioner Scarborough noted when one discounts back to present dollars, it eliminates a whole lot of the activity of the value of the additional stream for three years; so he knows all the dynamics of it. Mr. Denninghoff stated the major advantage the bonding presents in today’s environment is the County can build improvements with today’s dollars and avoid some of the inflation affects. Commissioner Scarborough noted with land acquisition it is even wilder than normal inflation. Mr. Denninghoff stated that is correct; inflation rates in this industry right now are at a level that are unprecedented. Commissioner Scarborough inquired is there a stream of income that could be reanalyzed; with Mr. Jenkins responding no. Mr. Jenkins stated there are other issues out there; he mentioned at a prior meeting the renegotiation of the FP&L Company franchise; and it is going to have a positive impact and could potentially provide money that could either be used to free up LOGT or bond out and do some construction. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is more than just freeing up, and inquired is it a stream of income that can be bonded; with Mr. Jenkins responding he believes it is both.
Utility Services Department
Utility Services Director Dick Martens stated all of the services provided by the Utility Services Department are funded through fees collected from services, so it has no contribution from taxes collected; the Department is requesting a full-time equivalent position to increase efforts in the South Beaches Wastewater System on the infiltration and inflow problem, and a full-time equivalent position in the Solid Waste Transfer System; and the Department can save a certain amount of money by reducing overtime based on existing transfer loads. He noted the Department is also anticipating possible increases in those loads when it opens the Sarno Transfer Station; the two Sections are also purchasing various operational equipment, most significantly for Water and Wastewater, a new vehicle and a new sewer cleaning machine; on the revenue side, the Department has lost a State grant for tire recycling; the Contract charge for disposing of the tires is increasing; and staff is requesting $5.00 per ton tire gate charge increase, from $80.00 a ton to $85.00 a ton to make up for the increased cost and reduced grant. Mr. Martens stated the Countywide Collection Contract with Waste Management includes an inflation escalator; that calculated out for this year to be 2.3%; it is strictly a pass-through for the Department; and the last program change is a request for 2.3% increase in the collection assessment.
Commissioner Pritchard inquired does the 2.3% equate to the $230,000; with Mr. Martens responding it equates to about $2.44 per household per year, which will be paid for by those people in the unincorporated area of the County who pay their garbage bill through the assessment.
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Carlson stated staff is aware of the big private sector rubber tire recycler who is coming to Rockledge; that operation sounds like it is going to be very positive for the community; Rockledge is doing everything it can to accommodate its land use needs and such; but it is going to be a very clean operation, and it is going to be recycling tires and creating the product, which it is then going to ship off on railroad. She noted the company is also going to be doing recycling of wire and things like that; and as it evolves and gets established she is sure the County is going to open up some lines of communication with the company.
Solid Waste Management Director Euripides Rodriguez stated staff will be looking at how the business develops and the cost for the County to potentially do business with it; if there is an opportunity of reducing the County’s fees, it will certainly do so if it is a viable option. Commissioner Carlson stated the company has a lot of interesting ideas on energy consumption and reducing cost across-the-board; and hopefully staff will keep on tap with the company.
Commissioner Pritchard stated he received a presentation in his office from a company that is currently in Hawaii and moving here; it is looking at a way to dispose of medical waste; it can expand it to disposing of all of the ingredients that are in the landfill using a plasma-driven operation; and that has the dramatic ability of providing two services, fuel for the County’s vehicles and reducing the size of the landfills. He noted he understands it has nothing to do with the collection side of it; but if the County looks at reducing the size of the landfills and transfer stations, the majority of operations it currently has if it goes to another type of disposal system are something everyone needs to be aware of and look into; and if there is a way to do things better, then he is sure Messrs. Martens and Rodriguez will be there to encourage participation at a trial level.
Mr. Jenkins stated he and Mr. Rodriguez were approached by another vendor. Mr. Rodriguez stated he has a meeting with the vendor on Friday; such vendor is proposing a different way of handling garbage and coming out with a product that could be used for building material, such as concrete block, lumber, and any kind of building material that needs to last a long time; and staff is in preliminary discussions with the company in order to get a better understanding of the technology involved, any kind of byproducts, and to compare it with the County’s current system. He noted staff is constantly looking for this kind of technology to see if there is a viable option to not use landfills in the future, diminish the County’s use of the landfill, and potentially push off expansion of the landfill. Commissioner Pritchard stated there are many benefits to this innovative technology; the way it was explained there could be a smaller system with a fueling system out front where the trash would be taken and converted into fuel; the pumping facility could be out front; and it is a clean industry as there is no discharge. He noted everything is consumed; and it is in the County’s best interest to be looking at these types of programs.
Chair Higgs stated there were people a few years back who wanted the County to build huge plants to burn everything; and most of those folks have gone by the wayside, so technology needs to be examined very carefully. She noted staff indicates the revenues are sufficient next year to cover costs on the water and sewer side. Mr. Martens stated the revenues in place at this time are sufficient to cover all the operations. Chair Higgs inquired is it both in the Countywide and Barefoot Bay system; with Mr. Martens responding yes.
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD AGENCIES (CONTINUED)
Mr. Jenkins inquired during the last Solid Waste workshop, was any decision made on liquidating a portion of the Deseret property; with Mr. Rodriguez responding no. Mr. Jenkins inquired what is the status; with Mr. Rodriguez responding staff was putting it on hold for any future needs that the system had. Mr. Rodriguez stated the only caveat is if the County disposes of the property, the proceeds from the sale would have to go to pay off the bonds. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board talked about not necessarily selling the whole parcel, which was 3,000 acres, but perhaps selling a portion of it; and that is an option that is always out there. Mr. Rodriguez noted when four-laning S.R. 192 in front of the property is done, such property will become more valuable; and the outparcels can act as a buffer in case the County has a landfill there. Commissioner Pritchard noted it could be an investment in the future; Mr. Jenkins brought up a good point about surplus property sales; and inquired how much property does the County have that it does not need. He stated he has one commercial piece the County has discussed many times that needs to be sold and a structure erected; there is already a ramshackle building on it that could come down and something that would be a real enhancement to the tax roll could be put on the property; and the County needs to start progressively looking at surplus property it owns and selling it for the highest value it can so it can go on the tax roll. Chair Higgs stated the Deseret property is going to be enhanced by the four-lane road. Mr. Jenkins stated the question is how the County wants to see the property used, for agricultural or something else; and if it is trying to preserve agriculture in the community, it is a prime agricultural site. Chair Higgs noted the County needs to be careful with the timing, etc. when it sells the property.
Valkaria Airport
Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised there are no changes to the Valkaria Airport budget.
The Board recessed at 1:05 p.m. and reconvened at 1:15 p.m.
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD DISCUSSION
Commissioner Carlson stated she would like to maximize the Communications Service Tax (CST) to bring in the number of dollars the County can since all the communities have maximized it; the County is at 1.6% and the cities are at 5.2%; the Local CST estimates for 03-04 talk about all the places throughout the State; and Indialantic is at 6.2%, but she does not understand it based on the law. She stated Indian Harbour Beach is 5.2%, Malabar is 5.2%, Melbourne is 6.09%, Melbourne Beach is 5.2%, Melbourne Village is 5.2%, Palm Bay is 5.2%, Palm Shores is 4.8%, Rockledge is 5.2%, Satellite Beach is 5.2%, Titusville is 5.4%, and West Melbourne is 5.5%; the County is lagging quite a bit; and the potential for bringing in dollars in that regard to hopefully fund some of the deficits might be a positive thing.
Chair Higgs inquired how much would that generate if the County went to the 5.22%; with Commissioner Carlson responding about $3.4 million.
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)
Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated if the County went to a 5.22% rate, the General Fund increase would be $3.1 million; and Roadways and Landscaping would be an additional $247,000. Chair Higgs noted the total generated would be $3.1 million, and inquired is staff allocating it; with Mr. Whitten responding no, he is giving the Board the increase from what it is receiving right now. Commissioner Scarborough noted it is an additional $3.1 million and not the total; and it is a substantial number when the County starts worrying about a speed hump at $2,500. Chair Higgs stated the CST is allocated to those funds statutorily. Mr. Whitten advised it is by Ordinance; it is a General Fund revenue source; it is at the Board’s discretion what it chooses to do with those revenues; Roadways and Landscaping receives funding because it is no longer receiving revenues for permit fees for right-of-way access for telecommunications companies; so the County was holding them harmless with the revenues that were previously received. He noted the County is currently allocating $2.1 million; and if it were to go from 1.66% rate to a rate of 5.22%, there will be an additional $3.1 million for the General Fund.
County Manager Tom Jenkins stated because Roadways and Landscaping Department has lost its permit fees, the additional money was directed toward the Department; the County has been wanting to buy a preventative maintenance roadway system; and if it uses commercial paper, it could use the revenues to buy the system.
Commissioner Scarborough stated everything has to be both an income and an expenditure discussion; the whole context is where the picture would be if the County had the additional monies there; he heard Chair Higgs say she would like to see going to the full measure that Commander Futch wanted to go with the personnel at the jail; and there are some things he is interested in. He noted it has to be a dual consensus, not only to increase, but to increase for what purpose; and it would be a part of coming together with a consensus. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board is looking at the communications tax and franchise dollars; potentially it could be looking at $6 million, if it did what was suggested; and there is a high likelihood that the County is going to get the franchise agreement early, which could provide up to $10 million over three years. Chair Higgs inquired what has to happen to do that. Mr. Jenkins responded he is expecting a draft proposed agreement from Florida Power & Light (FPL) Company in the next week or so; he will have to have it reviewed by the County Attorney; and staff would put the agreement on the agenda. Chair Higgs noted FPL is willing to do this. Mr. Jenkins stated it appears as such; it is not going to increase the costs to consumers; the percentage goes from 6% to 5.9%; so it is a reduction for consumers, but an increase for the County because consumers are going to start paying taxes on all the property they own in Brevard County. Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board looked at the potential of those two things coming to fruition, she has a sorted out plan for either one if it gets them or if it does not get any of them; and she is interested in all the things the Board has discussed priority-wise, including the jail.
Commissioner Scarborough stated September 1, 2004 is the date the County needs to get something into the State on this item, but the franchise thing could follow the actual setting of the millage. Mr. Jenkins stated it is possible staff can have it done by the second budget hearing, but it is not totally in its hands. Chair Higgs noted the County is not going to have it by the time the Board sets the tentative millage next week. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board sets the final millage on September 21, 2004. Commissioner Carlson noted she holds
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)
the same concerns as Chair Higgs and some of the rest of the Commissioners in terms of making sure the reserves get some money, the jail gets the money it needs to go forward as it is the high priority of the year, and the County brings back the dollars into LOGT; she asked the question to Mr. Denninghoff if the County had $2 million in LOGT, what would it bond out; and it is about $20 million, which would make a big bite into some of the road projects as a preliminary start, especially those that have been sitting on the shelf that the County has already spent millions of dollars on. She stated there are other positions she would like to see refilled and not cut; and reiterated the major issues she is looking at are diverting some dollars back to LOGT, the jail, the reserves, and keeping some of the jobs that the County is currently considering cutting.
Chair Higgs stated in keeping the County’s budget this year at 3% increase in revenue or the CPI, whichever comes first, it would use in the calculation the increase in the voter-approved millage for parks and recreation. Mr. Jenkins noted it is factored into the calculation. Chair Higgs stated since the Charter is very specific, she does not understand why the County is including it. Mr. Jenkins stated it is not in the Charter anymore. Chair Higgs noted it was and is something that has been thrown at the Board a number of times; and if staff is calculating a voter-approved millage in there, she does not see it. Mr. Jenkins stated there is nothing in writing that says it has to be in the calculation; the Charter used to say to the effect that if the County wants to go above the CPI or 3%, it must go to referendum; in prior years, it did go to referendum; and the people voted for it. Chair Higgs noted she does not understand why staff calculated it in. Commissioner Carlson inquired can the County do a calculation without it; with Mr. Jenkins responding it would net $1.2 million. Mr. Jenkins stated Parks and Recreation is the one that is being increased next year; and the referendum-approved operating cost millage is increasing by $1.2 million. Mr. Whitten noted it includes fire and parks and recreation. Chair Higgs stated both of those were voter-approved. Mr. Jenkins noted that is correct.
Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to see not going to the full measure on the millage; Mr. Jenkins indicated the County has 3% over the rollback calculated the way it has the voter-approved issue included; it would be nice to have multiple wins of the jail, reserves, reduction in millage, keeping key positions, and road projects; and rather having a singular this or that, a blended picture of the County being able to move forward with multiple things would be good. He noted he does not know how it all comes together as there are five Commissioners who are going to be part of the discussion; the Board can go to any measure and does not have to increase all the way up to get $3.1; and if it decides not to go there it could go less.
Chair Higgs inquired does Commissioner Scarborough think the County should calculate in the voter-approved issue; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he would go beyond that and if the County has the potential to bring in $6 million, it may have the ability not to have to increase the millage as much as been proposed. Commissioner Carlson inquired is Commissioner Scarborough taking into consideration the increase from the rollback number. Commissioner Scarborough responded Mr. Jenkins indicated in his memo he wants to increase 3% over rollback; Mr. Jenkins is using the voter-approved millage as a part of it; rather than increasing 3%, the Board may want to increase 2%; and there could be a blend of a number
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)
of different things together. He stated there are a lot of things the County can blend together as an overall picture of where it wants to be. Chair Higgs stated if the Board goes way back on rollback, what is going to hit it next year is how to fund both construction and operating costs of a new facility at the jail; and if the Board goes all the way to rollback, then it is going to face a very difficult problem moving forward. Commissioner Scarborough noted he understands the dynamics; and there are a lot of ways to put the baby together if the Board wants to go there. Mr. Jenkins stated staff is projecting to staff the jail next year is going to cost $1.9 million; $1.9 million is in the budget this year, which does not fully fund everything the Sheriff’s Office asked for; but the $1.9 million will probably be $3.5 million next year because the Sheriff has phased in the hiring; and the Board needs to understand it is going to be $1 million in the hole the following year as it is not funding full impact. Chair Higgs stated as of right now the County is funding at $1.9 million 56 of the positions as opposed to the 107 position the Sheriff requested; so to go to the full number the County needs another $1.1 million for phased hiring; next year it becomes a higher number; and it does not take into consideration that the County is likely to need additional facilities, and such facilities may have operating costs attached. She reiterated her concern of going way back on rollback.
Commissioner Pritchard stated when the CBRC spoke this morning it talked about ways to save a considerable amount of money; at one point it was several million dollars by doing things a little differently; if the County is able to affect those types of changes during the course of the next budget year, then it can address some of the potential shortfalls it might have; and the concern he has about the CST is it is a tax paid for by the public and it is paid on all of their telecommunication bills. He noted if the County went to 5.22% from 1.66%, it is roughly a 4% increase people would be paying in addition to their monthly telecommunication bill; the County talked about $2.60 a year for trash, which is not much on an annual basis; but if someone is paying another 4% and he or she has a bill of $100.00, it is another $4.00 a month or $48.00 a year; and they are also looking at the increase in what their taxes are going to go to because their property has increased in value. He stated regardless of if the Board keeps the millage as what is being proposed, most people are going to be looking at a tax increase on their property; when adding it all together, the County is looking at the increase in tax that people are going to pay through a variety of revenue sources; and it needs to address more the way it can provide the same or better level of service for less money, instead of focusing on getting more money to spend on more things.
Chair Higgs inquired does Commissioner Pritchard have particular things he wants to suggest or cut. Commissioner Pritchard responded the CBRC brought up some good points, including one about insurance; and the way the County handles purchasing orders, it was mentioned it could save about $200,000. Mr. Jenkins stated in all due respect, Mr. Callinan did not document how that is going to occur; and inquired when he says there is going to be efficiency, does it mean that Parks and Recreation is going to be able to eliminate a position or does it mean that a percentage of an existing person’s day will be spent differently. He noted before the Board assumes it is going to get $200,000 in cash, the CBRC needs to support the assertion; if he came to the Board and made a statement that he could save $200,000, it would want to see how he is going to save it; the CBRC did not tell the Board how it is going to save it; and what Mr. Callinan may mean is that instead of taking ten minutes to do a purchase
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)
requisition it might take four minutes to do a purchase requisition. He stated he does not know if that is going to mean that Chuck Nelson is going to have one fewer person or if it means that person does something else; in terms of health insurance, it is easy to say in this empty room that the Board is going to increase the contribution of retirees by 50% to 75%; but it better be ready to rent the King Center so the retirees can show up and provide the Board testimony on that issue. Mr. Jenkins noted the Board needs to be cautious as it starts changing contribution rates on health insurance; Frank Abbate and Jerry Visco are experts in the health insurance industry; they manage the County’s health insurance extremely aggressively; the County uses a consultant to embellish their knowledge and expertise; and this year, it has asked its employees and retirees to take a 20% increase in their rates already this year. Chair Higgs stated the Board has not said it is going to do anything; it was alleged the County could save considerably; she is not ready to agree to it, but she is ready to agree that the Board should aggressively discuss all the aspects; and having read about health insurance and studied some of it, she is not optimistic that it is either possible or easy, but it needs to be aggressively reviewed. She noted she wants to do the study as a Board, but she is not ready to say it is going to save $2 million. Mr. Jenkins stated he is happy to have staff explain to the Board what is going on; staff is extremely active in the health care coalitions; it is on the cutting edge of information that is coming out; and what staff is being told is that the County has a very small percentage of its insured employees who are creating the biggest impact on its expense. He noted the masses are not driving up the cost, it is a smaller group of individuals who are very sick that are driving up the cost; staff is seeing in the next two or three years, HMO’s are going to go back to being what they used to be, which is the straight indemnity plans; they are going to focus their cost controls on the people who are spending $500,000 a year on major illness; and it is not him going to the doctor for a checkup that is costing all the money, it is the people who are critically ill that are costing all the money. He stated staff perceives a major change in how HMO’s and the insurance industry are structured in the next two years based on what is driving the cost increases; the Board getting up-to-date information about health insurance is a good use of its time; but it should not underestimate the insight and management that is already occurring. Chair Higgs stated she is not underestimating the quality of the people who are looking into this; the County has made over a long series of years decisions in regard to what it is paying, not paying, and how it is doing the plan; those are decisions that impact the cost; the Board needs to look at those and see what decisions it has to make; and it may make none of them, but the CBRC it accurate that as a huge cost to the County, it has to look at that. She noted she wants the Board to do that; she eagerly endorses it looking at that and making those decisions; but whether it will get the County $2 million she does not know.
Commissioner Carlson stated this morning the Board agreed it would workshop the issues. Chair Higgs noted the Board is not making any decisions yet and is talking about it and reviewing it. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board is talking about revenue streams; it is not talking about a way to cut the amounts; it needs to talk about both sides of the issue; and the idea of saying the County will have a communications services tax is talking about the public’s pockets. He noted all of the revenue streams go right back to the public; one way or the other they are the ones who are going to pay for it; and that is his point. Chair Higgs stated if such tax is considered and levied, it is only on the people in unincorporated Brevard County; and the residents of the incorporated areas are paying it. Commissioner Carlson noted it is a fair
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)
distribution; it is calculated to be a 95-cent per month increase, to go from 1.6% to 5.2%; and it is ridiculous to think the County can make that kind of impression on overall status and quality of life stuff for 95 cents a month. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is more than $1.00 a month; the people need to know what the Board is talking about when it says a franchise fee; it is not the company that pays but the public that pays; and that is his point. Chair Higgs stated there is not an impact to the ratepayers on the FPL franchise fee. Commissioner Pritchard noted he is talking about the communications services tax. Chair Higgs stated the Board is talking about two separate streams.
Commissioner Scarborough stated he would have liked to have the franchise fee be a certainty when he goes to the meeting next Tuesday, and not have a September 2004 deadline; it is almost like he has given the wrong decisions in the wrong sequence; if he knew he had another $3 million, he could go into the budget and not have Commissioner Pritchard’s concerns to deal with; but anytime the County increases a fee to the people it needs to fully explain the methodology of why it is to their benefit. He noted it could be to their benefit in multiple ways; there needs to be a picture of why; and laying that out within a three-day period is a challenge or the Board keeps the millage as is. Commissioner Pritchard stated most people do not mind someone else paying the fee, but they do not want to pay; there is no regulation that is too regulatory as long as it does not regulate someone else; that is how most people operate; and there are people who object to having Save Our Homes apply to them but not to someone else because he or she just moved in. He noted it is always the “me” syndrome; it becomes most interesting because the same folks that will argue one side of an issue so vocally will argue the other side of the issue once it becomes personal; the County gets it all the time in a variety of complaints; and when it looks at the variety of revenue streams, while the amount of it may seem small to some people, the Board is going to hear about it. He stated Habitat for Humanity wants to be excluded from an impact fee for schools; they have children who attend school; and inquired where does the County draw the line on what is personal and what is not. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board should not only be looking at the ability to derive more revenue streams, but it needs to also focus on the ability to provide a better level of service for less money. Commissioner Carlson noted the Board is attempting to do that.
Chair Higgs stated the current proposal before the Board would show an approximately $26.00 decrease in the average home according to Mr. Jenkins’ proposed budget. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how does staff base the decrease. Budget Director Dennis Rogero responded it takes a valuation of $100,000, $25,000 off for the homestead exemption, and puts the tax rate up against it. Commissioner Pritchard noted that is assuming he had a $100,000 home last year and $100,000 home next year; and the information says the valuations increased 14%. Mr. Jenkins stated staff takes all of the increases and puts them into a pool; some increased 14%, some increased 3%, and some decreased, but not many; it is all put together in one pool; and staff reduces the tax rate by 6 ½% in order to offset the 14% increase to property values. He noted the tax rate has increased 3% in a sense and the County has neutralized the increase in the collected value of property. Commissioner Pritchard stated he will be interested in seeing the bottom line when the tax bill comes in; and he is talking about based on the 14%; and not because he put in a shed. Chair Higgs noted it cannot increase 14%. Mr. Whitten stated it is Countywide, including commercial and new construction; under
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)
the budget proposed, on $100,000 if someone was under the Save Our Homes cap increase, he or she would still experience a decrease from the Board; if the value was constant from year to year he or she would receive a decrease; but if they were under the Save Our Homes 3% increase, the rate was lower to such an extent that they would still experience the decrease. Commissioner Pritchard noted according to Florida TODAY, the County is going to get $13 million in additional revenue with 14% increase in property values. Mr. Jenkins stated if staff had not reduced the millage the County would have received that, but because it reduced the millage by 6 ½% it is not getting the benefit of that; the Florida TODAY article was misleading and gave people the impression the County had a big windfall; what the article did not say is the County Manager submitted a budget that reduced the millage; and the County is getting a 3% increase in revenue from the current year, not 14%. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the message to the $100,000 homeowner; with Chair Higgs responding he or she is going to pay $26.00 less unless the value of their home increased more than 3%. Mr. Jenkins noted it would only be if the homeowner was not protected by Save Our Homes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what if a homeowner is protected by Save Our Homes; with Mr. Whitten responding he or she would still experience a decrease in their tax. Mr. Whitten stated in District 2 if someone has a $100,000 home, he or she would experience a reduction of $10.53; and if the home increased 3%, it would be $7.25. Mr. Jenkins noted staff should run the numbers at $150,000 or $175,000. Chair Higgs stated the average taxable value on a home is not $150,000; and it is much less than that.
Chair Higgs requested staff provide the average taxable values by city and unincorporated to the Board. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the County gives the EDC $25,000, Cultural Arts $15,000, and Brevard Tomorrow $10,000, they are minimal numbers; the Board needs to get outside of those issues or otherwise he knows what the public hearings are going to be; the EDC and Cultural Arts people will be there; and he wants to get those items past the Board and say it is not going to go there. He noted otherwise the Board will be taking a lot of good quality time and listening to some good people who have to come out of the community on some minimal issues; even if the Board saved $100,000 on those items, the budget is not a good budget or a bad budget; it is a blend like the penny on his dresser; and if it stays there a month or goes in his pocket, it is still just a penny.
Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve that the Board will not consider reducing $25,000 for the EDC, $15,000 for Brevard Cultural Alliance, $25,000 for Community Based Organization, $10,000 for Brevard Tomorrow, $64,000 for Planning and Zoning Office, $70,000 for Traffic Operations Manager, and $50,926 for an Outreach Coordinator for Natural Resources Management Office.
Chair Higgs stated she can support the motion if the County can include a way to shift money from the gas tax to General Revenue so it can get some capacity projects done. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not talking about specific items, but the dynamics of a meeting; the Board would basically surrender the meeting to concerned citizens; and it will not spend enough time on issues it wants to address if those items are not included for funding. Chair Higgs noted she is not unwilling to try to do that; but to get three Commissioners to vote for the budget she needs to know where the County is going to get the money.
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Scarborough stated the County would have to increase the CST in such a small measure that it would be two points past the decimal; it can make it work; that is not a problem; and if the County gets the franchise fee renegotiated, it will be back into the discussion. He noted if Chair Higgs wants to have a good budget discussion, the Board needs to handle the items he mentioned now because if it does not, Chair Higgs is not going to control the meeting; the organizations will be present; and the Board will have to listen to them first. Chair Higgs stated she will go along with the motion now, but she is assuming it will all come together. Commissioner Scarborough noted it will work this time.
Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.
Chair Higgs stated the Board has to set the tentative millage on Tuesday; and Mr. Jenkins has rolled it back and then gone up 3%, which is equivalent to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Mr. Jenkins noted it is slightly below the CPI. Chair Higgs inquired is that what the Board wants to give staff direction to do and is it comfortable with it there or somewhere in between.
PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 30, CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board proceeds with that millage, it is only tentative millage; and it needs to come to a conclusion rapidly on Commissioner Carlson’s request of 5.22% for the CST. Chair Higgs stated the public hearing to consider the ordinance would have to be advertised first. Commissioner Scarborough noted it is a fast turnaround; and inquired does staff only need to advertise the public hearing to consider the ordinance one time. Mr. Whitten responded that is correct.
Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider ordinance amending Chapter 30, Code of Ordinances, regarding an increase in the Communications Services Tax rate and amending Resolution No. 01-254.
Commissioner Scarborough stated as the franchise issue works forward there will be more questions as to where the monies are spent; and as the monies are brought in, the County needs to go through a full analysis on why. Mr. Jenkins noted for jails and roads. Commissioner Carlson stated it is crucial that the public relations comes out of Mr. Jenkins’ office in a very positive sense so the newspaper does not twist it into something it is not; and the County needs to make sure the facts are out. Commissioner Scarborough noted it is up to the Board to delineate the projects so Mr. Jenkins has them. Mr. Jenkins stated he needs $259,926 to pay for the things the Board just put back in; and it wants to do roads and the jail. Commissioner Carlson noted it also wants reserves. Mr. Jenkins advised he has $1 million going into reserves; and inquired does the Board want to put more than $1 million into it.
PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 30, CABLE COMMUNICATIONS (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Carlson stated it needs to discuss that issue more; and she believes the County is behind on reserves.
Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board sent the millage forward and at the same time it advertises the public hearing to consider the ordinance for the CST rate, it can increase or decrease the rate based on how the franchise discussion moves; there are three streams of income the County is talking about, multiple projects, and how it all comes together; but the Board is not going to know by Tuesday. He noted he has a better feeling about discussion of the budget going to these major issues rather than talking about $15,000 for the arts.
Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to advertise the ordinance at the maximum rate.
Commissioner Pritchard stated it implies that he might be in favor of the maximum rate. Commissioner Scarborough noted it advises people of the potential that it could come in at the maximum rate.
Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson stated the County cannot advertise something less and then go back up; and it would probably have to readvertise. Commissioner Pritchard inquired will the advertisement in plain English say how much money that could be on a monthly telecommunications bill; with Commissioner Carlson responding no. Attorney Wilson stated the advertisement would include the title to the ordinance and meet legal requirements of the Statute. Chair Higgs stated the County could not tell somebody how much it is going to be as it would vary. Attorney Wilson noted it would be a matter of public relations.
Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)
Budget Director Dennis Rogero stated once the Board sets the tentative millages Tuesday, it can adopt those rates or something less than those rates in September 2004; but if it goes over, it would be difficult and expensive.
Chair Higgs stated what concerns her is if the Board gets to public hearing and the other funding streams do not seem to be there; it is going to have to go back to the $259,000 and cut, go to the reserves, and not fund the Sheriff or other things; and her biggest concern in the budget is funding the jail. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a high probability now in listening to the dialogue and the streams of income, that is going to happen; and his concern is having the discussion hijacked by trivia. Chair Higgs noted if the Board finds there are not
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)
three Commissioners who would vote for the CST or FPL franchise, then it is in trouble; and if it goes with the rollback millage plus 3%, the revenue is not there.
Commissioner Scarborough inquired how much does the Board have to increase the CST if the only thing it had to do was get $300,000; with Mr. Jenkins responding one-third of 1%. Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board sets the tentative millage, it cannot increase it; and inquired if the aggregate millage rate identified for the 3% rule does not include Parks and Recreation or those items that are voter-approved, then why can the Board not set the tentative rate at that amount, which does not include that. Chair Higgs responded she does not think it is included. Commissioner Carlson stated it is included right now and is $1.2 million. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board is setting the millage; and if it is going to make that decision, it would have to raise the millage now to generate $1.1 million more. Commissioner Carlson noted if the Board sets the millage high, it can always bring it down if other things do not pan out; but it puts the Board in a bind if the franchise fee and CST do not work.
Mr. Jenkins stated the Board needs to resolve the issues in early August 2004 as that was its direction. Chair Higgs stated she is concerned if the Board goes so far down on advertising the millage that it is left with decisions it does not want if it is going to fund things that are important; and that is her concern. Commissioner Carlson noted her concern is if the Board truly wants to save the $300,000 worth of the incidental stuff that makes all the noise and takes funds from the reserves, making it worse off. Chair Higgs stated she will not support funding those items if the County does not have adequate people at the jail. Commissioner Carlson noted the point is the County takes the funds from someplace else, which is going to be Contingency. Chair Higgs stated she feels strongly that the Board has not fully staffed the jail. Commissioner Scarborough noted he knows that, but he is looking at $6.5 million; and to say the County has a problem, he has to ask why. Chair Higgs stated the County may not have a problem. Commissioner Scarborough noted he is not going to advertise anything more than 3% that Mr. Jenkins suggested. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Scarborough wants to keep using the aggregate; with Commissioner Scarborough responding absolutely and he does not see why the Board needs to get into this morass of complex discussions. Chair Higgs stated the Board will try not to go there, but if it goes down on the millage, it is not thinking about year after next in the funding and it is in a rut next Tuesday. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is in great shape. Commissioner Carlson noted the Board is trying to open up all the possibilities to make sure it does not bind itself too much and put itself in a position that if it does not get any of the $6.5 million, it is left with a big goose egg for the jail and everything else; and then it is left with potential malfeasance because there are not three Commissioners who want to vote for the budget.
Mr. Jenkins stated he cannot predict the future, but he believes the FPL franchise is painless because it is going to be a percentage reduction from what people are currently paying. Chair Higgs noted she can attest to it as long as staff can bring her the contract. Mr. Jenkins stated it is on its way.
Chair Higgs inquired does Commissioner Scarborough want to make a motion to direct staff to come Tuesday with 3% above rollback; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board
BUDGET REVIEW, RE: BOARD DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)
does not have to do anything as it is what Mr. Jenkins brought to it. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board can leave it and visit it on Tuesday. Chair Higgs stated if everything comes together, Commissioner Scarborough is right, the Board is in great shape.
Commissioner Pritchard stated the voters were adamant about the one-cent sales tax; he wants to be clear that they are not put in a position of having something somewhat slipped in because they do not have the full understanding of what it means to them, whether it is a franchise fee, telecommunications fee, the millage, etc.; and the voters need to fully understand. Commissioner Scarborough noted Mr. Jenkins indicated on the franchise fee no people would pay. Commissioner Carlson stated the point Commissioner Pritchard is making is to make sure the newspaper reports accurately what the County is trying to do. Chair Higgs noted the increase on the CST would be only to people in unincorporated; and it would bring those people in unincorporated up to the same level as the cities’ residents are paying. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is like saying people in Orange County pay more for something, so Brevard County should; the majority of his constituents are in unincorporated areas; and inquired is he going to say they should pay the same as a city. Chair Higgs responded he can say that or say here is the actual calculation the County has based on the bill. Commissioner Pritchard stated he needs to say this is what it is going to cost if someone has a $100 bill; he or she is going to pay this much more per month if it is approved; and this is what will be provided for that.
PERMISSION TO SCHEDULE WORKSHOP, RE: SMART GROWTH ISSUES
Commissioner Carlson requested staff put together in October 2004 a city/County summit to specifically discuss the smart growth issues that Brevard Tomorrow came up with today.
Chair Higgs stated she does not want to go to a meeting just to sit around if she does not know exactly what is going to be achieved; and requested Commissioner Carlson give her what she thinks the outcomes could be.
County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the mayors of all the cities would be present; there would be a presentation on the principles of smart growth as defined by Brevard Tomorrow; and the Board would ask the mayors to take the principles back to their individual city councils to begin to implement those practices.
Commissioner Scarborough inquired does it have to be in a workshop setting; with Mr. Jenkins responding the summit would be one way of getting everybody in a room. Commissioner Carlson stated it could be council by council to try to promote the smart growth issues. Commissioner Scarborough stated it may be better to have Brevard Tomorrow go individually to each of the city councils and workshop the issues. Chair Higgs requested Commissioner Carlson provide her additional information. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is very difficult to get two words in at a summit as there are so many people in attendance. Commissioner Carlson noted she will see if there is another mechanism to make things happen. Commissioner Scarborough inquired is the Board going to workshop the smart growth issues here before having the summit; with Commissioner Carlson responding it is an alternative.
PERMISSION TO SCHEDULE WORKSHOP, RE: SMART GROWTH ISSUES (CONTINUED)
Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to schedule a workshop in October 2004 to discuss the “Smart Growth” issues. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m.
ATTEST: __________________________________
NANCY HIGGS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK
(S E A L)