July 25, 2002

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on July 25, 2002, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Truman Scarborough, Commissioners Randy O’Brien, Nancy Higgs, Susan Carlson and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

EXECUTIVE SESSION, RE: LABOR AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS WITH LABORERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 678

Chairman Scarborough announced the Board has an Executive Session at the conclusion of today’s special meeting concerning Labor Agreement negotiations with Laborers International Union, Local 678.

DISCUSSION, RE: SPEAKER CARDS

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board wants to take speaker cards at today’s meeting; stated normally it does as it is a budget workshop; and unless the Board wants to do otherwise, he will allow speakers to be heard.

Commissioner O’Brien suggested there be a three-minute limit for the speakers.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING BREVARD COUNTY CLOWN WEEK

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution proclaiming August 1st through 7th, 2002 as Brevard County Clown Week.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution proclaiming August 1st through 7th, 2002 as Brevard County Clown Week. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 02-176.)

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to the clowns representing Clown Smart.

A clown representing Clown Smart expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution; stated Clown Smart tries to promote making clowning a more noble and obvious art; and presented long-stem noses and short-stem roses to the Board.

DISCUSSION, RE: LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX

Commissioner Carlson stated last week the Board talked about the Local Option Gas Tax (LOGT) and how it is being distributed; the County Manager commented that the County was having a problem with LOGT that the Board was going to have to deal with sooner or later; in looking at LOGT expenditures and anticipated receipts, the County is still spending approximately $1.2 million more than it is taking in; and it suggests that the Board needs to have a fuller understanding overall of transportation funding to see if there are adjustments that need to be made. She requested staff provide additional detail to the Board.

DISCUSSION, RE: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)

Commissioner Carlson stated the County has made tremendous progress with all the work that has been done over the last couple of years with the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Strategic Planning; and congratulated the staff for their hard work. She noted she would like to see it continue and the Board have a workshop to discuss the next steps; the County was trying to connect the dots between the Strategic Plan and trying to identify priorities with the budget; since it is going to continue to work with tight budgets through the coming years, the only way the Board has to insure that it is funding the highest priorities is to go forward in that method; and she would like the County to continue on to try to do more in terms of prioritization.

DISCUSSION, RE: BUDGET PRESENTATIONS

Charter Officers

Clerk of the Circuit Court

Budget Director Dennis Rogero stated the Clerk of the Circuit Courts’ preliminary budget for next year has been reduced by reallocating some Information Systems’ charges from the Clerk’s budget back into the General Government Services’ budget; it is consistent with what the County does with other General Fund agencies; the Clerk has also redistributed some internal charges resulting in savings to the General Fund; and the preliminary budget includes funding for 14 of 20 new positions added in the current fiscal year. He noted additional funds were included for salaries, health insurance increases, and indirect cost allocations.

Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis stated his Office took a $200,000 hit with what it received back from the Budget Office; his Office had $600,000 passed to it in additional cost; there are things involved, such as insurance, retirement, etc.; in return, his Office had a $300,000 increase and asked that the Information Systems’ charges, which were going from under $200,000 to almost $300,000, be removed; so the Clerk’s Office had turned in an original increase of approximately $300,000, which was decreased by $178,000 and leaves his Office with an overall increase of .7%. He noted his Office cannot move the $85,000 in fees over to cover the overhead; the issue was discussed at the Board’s last budget workshop when Commissioner O’Brien asked about the animal shelter; the $30,000 in operating cost is money that is being used from all the different fee offices to be transferred to the General Fund; and the Clerk’s Office had approximately an $85,000 allocation, which will be used for County Court.

Commissioner O’Brien stated prior to Mr. Ellis taking office, Sandy Crawford appropriated approximately $1 million for a new computer program, which did not work; he also appropriated more funding for a person to get the key to repair the program; and inquired has the program been accomplished. Mr. Ellis responded the program works, but the performance issue is still the biggest problem; the biggest expense for Mr. Crawford was not the software itself, but the overtime associated with the conversion; and the software was approximately $300,000. Commissioner O’Brien noted the software has been installed; and it is not a recurring expense. Mr. Ellis responded that is incorrect; there are licensing fees that need to be paid every year; such fees are probably greater than $300,000; and there are Tiburon maintenance and licensing fees, and fees for the database. Commissioner O’Brien stated the Company went belly up and inquired why is the Clerk paying licensing fees to a Company that no longer exists; with Mr. Ellis responding because another company picked up the assets and now has the product.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how much is the ongoing cost; with Mr. Ellis responding there are line items to Informix for the database and Tiburon for maintenance and licensing. Commissioner O’Brien stated the Clerk paid licensing fees before that for a different program; with Mr. Ellis responding that is not correct. Mr. Ellis advised the program the Clerk had before was written by in-house programmers so there were no licensing fees; when Mr. Crawford went to the Child Support, initially he had a four or five-year free ride on Informix charges; last summer, the Clerk’s Office received a bill in the amount of $200,000 from Informix; and Mr. Crawford had not put it in the budget; so there are recurring licensing fees. Commissioner O’Brien stated he would like to know what the recurring costs are compared to the cost that Mr. Crawford came to the Board about, which was approximately $1 million; it may have been the cost of the program and cost of the labor to install it; and one does not buy a program and spend more on licensing fees than the program. Mr. Ellis responded that is not correct; his Office is moving money to the County to pay for a Microsoft Licensing Agreement; and by the time it gets through with such Agreement over a three-year period, it is going to pay more for the Agreement than it paid for the Personal Computer (PC) purchased for $1,000. Commissioner O’Brien stated some employees may have certain programs on their computer and never use them, but the County is paying the licensing fees; and such programs could be removed from certain computers to eliminate paying such fees. Mr. Ellis responded he agrees with Commissioner O’Brien; only certain individuals have SAP licenses, which is the County’s financial system; but all his employees have a Microsoft PC and probably all County employees do also. Commissioner O’Brien stated there may be employees in Titusville and Viera who have SAP usage on their computers and never use them. Commissioner Ellis responded it is difficult to get an SAP license; his Office gives one SAP license up from one employee and transfers it to another individual; as far as the FACTS system, it is an unlimited seat license; and he pays a fixed fee every year and everyone has access to it.

Mike McDaniel, Clerk’s Finance, stated FACTS is approximately $90,000 a year; other software licenses in the budget are approximately $145,000; and there are others, but they are not identifiable in the budget. Mr. Ellis noted there is the licensing, maintenance, and Informix. Mr. McDaniel stated he does not have those figures with him, but can provide that information for the Board. Mr. Ellis stated the recurring costs are equal to the original cost.

Commissioner O’Brien inquired does the Clerk use his own employees or County employees for computer maintenance, repair, and installation; with Mr. Ellis responding he has programmers on staff. Commissioner O’Brien inquired could the Clerk use the County’s programmers instead of having his own; with Mr. Ellis responding the job would probably not get done. Commissioner O’Brien inquired how many programmers does Mr. Ellis have; with Mr. Ellis responding eight. Commissioner Carlson inquired who hires the programmers; with Mr. Ellis responding he does.

Commissioner O’Brien stated he is looking at other departments or other outside offices that mirror what the County has on board. Mr. Ellis stated someone cannot say that everyone is a generic programmer; he has done software for 20 years; he has a number of programmers who do crystal reports that are constantly being asked for from Court Administration and the State; he has a database administrator; and almost every individual who does software has some type of specialty. Commissioner O’Brien inquired how many programmers does the County have; with Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responding eight. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised each Charter Officer has their own Information Systems; with Commissioner O’Brien responding that is the point he is trying to make. Commissioner O’Brien stated the County could start cutting down some of the costs to operate Countywide; the taxpayers talk about waste in government; this might be an example of redundancy that is not necessary; and the assets could be shared with each other to cut the cost to operate government. He noted there are a lot of people who work for the County who do programming; the County has a department that does that; and the resources and information are not being shared. Commissioner Ellis inquired does the County’s Information Systems Department have idle time to handle the needs of eight software people. Commissioner Carlson requested staff provide a report to the Board on the issue; stated she agrees that there may be some cross fertilization that could occur there; the Clerk does not know what the County has and the County does not know what the Clerk’s needs are; and it would be nice to see if there is any consolidation or anything that could be reviewed. She noted the County has been talking about making sure that software and hardware are consistent across County lines to potentially go paperless; she is not sure how much stride has been made to go forward with it; but it would be good to understand what everybody does and if there is any way to reduce the cost. Commissioner O’Brien inquired if Mr. Ellis’ programmers have any idle time; with Mr. Ellis responding negatively. Commissioner Carlson inquired how many programmers has Mr. Ellis hired since he has been in office; with Mr. Ellis responding he hired two programmers and eliminated the position of the Information Systems Director. Mr. Ellis stated he had two programmers who were cheaper than one director; the director resigned and he did not replace him; he instead added two programming technicians, who are AS Degree programmers; and it does not require someone with a four-year computer science degree to do crystal reports.

Commissioner Colon stated the questions are quite complex as it deals with fees and different kinds of programming; when Mr. Ellis came on board, he realized there was a need for two more programmers; he did not hire them because he just wanted two more programmers; it was because there was a need in his Office; and his job is to make sure that it is run correctly. She noted it is unfair for the Board to ask Mr. Ellis questions offhand; and she would advise the rest of the Charter Officers to have the information handy as the questions may be asked. Mr. Ellis stated he does not have a problem answering the questions; and there was more of a need to get the job done with two programmers than one director. Commissioner O’Brien noted it is the Board’s job to ask the questions; and if it does not start asking some questions, it may never find the source to cut the budget down to size. Commissioner Colon stated she does not expect to rubberstamp anything; but the questions in regard to programming are more complex; County staff still does not have the data and has not given the Board the information it requested last week; and the Board needs to be fair to the Charter Officers also.

Commissioner Colon inquired about the memorandum dated July 19, 2002 concerning auditing. Mr. Ellis responded it is on the traffic ticket issue; it is $75,000 to audit the traffic tickets, which the Clerk’s Office is going to pay for; there are only two sources of revenue, General Fund and fees; and his Office is going to use the fees to pay for the audit. He noted when the Clerk’s Office runs a surplus at the end of each year, the excess fees are given back to the Board; anything the fees are used for during the fiscal year that was not budgeted at the beginning of the year is going to be a reduction in excess fees at the end of the year; and the only other alternative would be to ask for a special appropriation from the Board for $75,000 in General Fund, which does not make sense.

Commissioner O’Brien stated when Mr. Ellis took office there were approximately 16 or 17 part-time workers trying to load the data in from tickets from court orders and everything else that had been backlogged by the previous Clerk. Mr. Ellis responded there were approximately 60 or 65 part-time individuals. Commissioner O’Brien inquired is the task completed; with Mr. Ellis responding negatively. Commissioner O’Brien inquired when will it be completed; with Mr. Ellis responding when the performance comes up on the system. Commissioner Carlson inquired is it an expectation; with Mr. Ellis responding affirmatively. Mr. Ellis stated his Office has been dealing with the performance issue and is looking at changing out the hardware; it has done a lot of work with the hardware to get more performance from it; he does not have a lot of control over getting more performance from the software; and it is under the control of Tiburon, which picked up the body of PSI. Commissioner Carlson inquired is performance going to be measured through the hardware and not the software; with Mr. Ellis responding negatively. Mr. Ellis stated the performance is measured by the response time at the terminal; there are two ways to get a better response time, one is better software and one is better hardware; hardware is under his Office’s control and software is under Tiburon’s control; and the Clerk’s Office is working with the hardware. He noted his Office currently has Silicon Graphics, which is like a mainframe; it is going to replace that with two high-powered IBM servers; one will handle the internal users and one will handle the external users; and it will run parallel so they will each have a copy of the same database. He stated if his Office can take the external users and have them on their own machine, it would give better performance on the other machine for people who work in the office; currently there is one machine handling both internal and external users; that is what can be done on the hardware side; and on the software side, Tiburon needs to re-write their database to get a more efficient setup.

Chairman Scarborough stated a tragic mistake was made; Mr. Crawford should have run parallel; however, if it is not going to work, the Clerk needs to make a system work sooner or later and not struggle with it; and inquired how many outside individuals does Mr. Ellis have working for him now. Mr. McDaniel responded there are 32 part-time employees for this fiscal year. Mr. Ellis stated the system works, but the performance is the issue; there is not another comprehensive system yet in the State of Florida that his Office can buy, but there are some companies working on it; the Clerk’s Office is not going to go through the development process again with another vendor; and from 1999 to 2000, the employees did not do 100% of the work that came into the Office. He noted there was over $1 million in overtime and they still did not get all of the work done that came in; they have been constantly going through backlog to get caught up; they went through traffic letters and are working on suspensions; they had criminal dispositions; and it has been issue after issue of getting through backlog. Chairman Scarborough inquired if there was not a backlog and with changes in the hardware systems, would Mr. Ellis have a functioning system that he would be happy with; with Mr. Ellis responding negatively. Mr. Ellis noted if there was not a backlog, he would have fewer people on board. Chairman Scarborough inquired what would occur to make Mr. Ellis happy and have a system that is functioning the way he would like it to be; with Mr. Ellis responding he needs faster response time. Mr. Ellis noted the database needs to be redesigned and the software reworked; if Tiburon cannot achieve that, then probably two to three years from now his Office will be looking at buying another system; but he does not want to buy another system unless it is already in operation in another Florida urban county; he wants to ask the employees who use the system how well it works; and presently there is not another system. He stated there are a lot of counties that are throwing away a lot of money on this; Orange County had $2 million in its system; and it junked it and started over again. Commissioner Carlson noted the point Chairman Scarborough is making is when does one cut their losses. Mr. Ellis stated one cannot cut their losses until they have something else to go to; with Commissioner Carlson responding she understands. Mr. Ellis noted his Office looked at a recording system that works out of Sanford; it is a tremendous system, but the biggest problem still sits on the court side; the ideal system, if someone got their court system running properly, would team up with the recording and the official files out of Sanford and put together a complete package for courts; but nobody has that right now. He stated he would rather deal with the known problem than a whole bunch of unknown problems; the Clerk’s Office a few years ago was dealing with unknown problems with vendor software; unfortunately, it did a straight cutover; the company turned the old system off and turned the new system on; for two weeks, no work was done; and from then on, it was bits and pieces getting done. He noted it just about killed the people in the Office.

Commissioner Carlson inquired does Mr. Ellis have the ability to isolate the systems that are giving him the most problem, or is everything completely connected. Mr. Ellis responded it is within the database; staff has been able to isolate some of the problems and then it sends it back to Tiburon; there was a problem working the general ledger; and it got to the point where running a single day’s receipts was six and seven hours. He noted staff found a change it made in one of the indexes and the job went from seven hours to 30 minutes; it was frustrating as there were three shifts to try to process everything; the second and third shifts were doing the processing and the day shift was doing the cleanup; once there was the breakthrough, only the second shift was needed; and the first and third shifts were put back on days. Mr. Ellis stated part of the cleanup of the general ledger is why the Clerk’s Finance budget has increased; the first six months it was in operation, it had no computerized accounting system; and everything was paper receipts. Commissioner Carlson inquired is Tiburon looking at redoing its database; with Mr. Ellis responding it claims it is. Commissioner Carlson inquired is there a date when it will be completed. Mr. Ellis responded a few months ago Tiburon had a new release; it was tested in Marion County, but has yet to come to Brevard County; one of the things his Office needs is a new version of the Informix database; the old version of the database has become obsolete, which another part of the problem; and he wants to get a complete package. He stated it is not worth the risk to try to jump out of this system until a good system is running in another Florida county where employees are comfortable with the system. Chairman Scarborough stated if another county said it had a super system running beautiful, Mr. Ellis would be willing to take the risk; but until he finds a Florida county of Brevard County’s size or larger that is singing the praises, he is not ready to go there. Mr. Ellis noted if such a county is comparable to Brevard County and the system is running great, there is not that much of a risk; and there would be a transition period for the data conversion.

Commissioner Colon stated at the July 18, 2002 budget workshop, there were several questions asked by Mr. Ellis; County staff and Mr. Ellis were going to discuss the issues; and inquired is everything straightened out. Mr. Ellis responded there had been a statement made that the revenue collected on the Fine and Forfeiture Fund was down by $1.4 million and is at $1.1 million; in reality it is not down at all; he received an unusual memorandum from the Budget Director yesterday afternoon that made no sense; and the point of Mr. Jenkins’ memorandum was that the traffic fine revenue was down by $1.1 million, which is not correct. He noted it is $1.4 million under budget because the budget increased from $4 million to $5.5 million for traffic revenue; for some reason the amount of revenue budgeted increased; the other thing that was brought up in Mr. Rogero’s memorandum has nothing to do with the Clerk’s Office; there is $250,000 in court costs, which has to do with paying expert witnesses who come in for the Public Defender and State Attorney; and there is no revenue involved with his Office on the refunds of bonds.

Mr. Whitten stated the issue was whether or not the revenues were coming in at what was budgeted, and they are not; and the revenues are $1.4 million under what was budgeted. Mr. Ellis noted he agrees with Mr. Whitten that the revenues are $1.4 million under what was budgeted; however, the budgeted amount was not set by the Clerk’s Office.

Commissioner Carlson stated the memorandum dated July 23, 2002 from Mr. Rogero to Mr. Ellis says, “On June 19, 2002, the Budget Office staff received revenue actuals from County Finance that were significantly different from the figures that were presented to the Board at the workshop.” Mr. Ellis responded although the memorandum says July 23, 2002, it was faxed to his Office yesterday at 2:30 p.m.; Mr. Rogero left off the rest of 2002; all two and one-half years were reconciled in one shot just like it was done with the cities; and the bond forfeitures showed up with a large amount in 2002. He noted it ended up being approximately $18,000 one way or the other with the County; it has nothing to do with current year’s revenue from the Fine and Forfeiture Fund; he does not know why those numbers are out there; and it is clear in the memorandum his Office received that the issue was such Fund. He stated actual collections reported are $4 million; the County budgeted them at $5.4 million; it is difficult to comprehend when there is a decline in revenue; and the Clerk’s accounting system is correctly reporting those costs. Mr. Ellis stated the memorandum received by his Office on July 10, 2002 talks about the fine and forfeiture revenue for this fiscal year; and concerning the FP&L Company franchise fee revenue, it comes from the County budget.

Commissioner Higgs inquired are those the budgeted amounts in the 2001-2002 Fiscal Year; with Mr. Rogero responding affirmatively. Mr. Rogero stated the County has a budgeted amount in the current fiscal year; staff wanted to get with the Clerk’s Office to figure out the methodology it is using to project a $2 million excess of budget; County staff is not projecting that with its methodology; and it would like to reconcile that. Mr. Ellis noted the County is projecting that as his Office has the projections; the County has a budgeted amount and actuals for nine months; it recently received the third quarter financial reports on the actuals; it projects the next three months’ actuals based on that; and it is running $2 million to $2.5 million ahead of budgeted amount in this year. Commissioner Higgs noted the County should come out of this budgeted year with a cash forward in those two funds of $2 million; and inquired is Mr. Ellis projecting that. Mr. Ellis responded unless the County has spent its cushions ahead of time, it should have that amount. Commissioner Higgs stated the County has not allocated the $2 million. Mr. Rogero noted it has programmed an excess amount into the balance forward revenue calculations for next year; but it is not as high as the Clerk is projecting; he is not disputing it either; and the County has approximately $900,000 in excess funds that are projected in the current year to be carried forward into the balance forward for next year. Commissioner Higgs stated the actuals plus the projection for three months are $2 million instead of $900,000; and that is an additional $1 million in revenue. Mr. Rogero responded that is correct.

Mr. Ellis advised by law the County cannot budget the 5%; that is where the Budget Office’s numbers are coming from; it is folding the 5% in that, by law, the County is supposed to bring out for each budget per fund; and it budgets at 95% of expected revenue. He stated based on 95% of budgeted revenue, it is approximately $2.7 million over on franchise fees and sales tax. Mr. Rogero noted he is not disputing it; he wanted to look at the Clerk’s methodology; and perhaps the Budget Office can correct its methodology. Mr. Ellis stated there is no methodology; and it is actuals. Mr. Whitten noted County staff is willing to sit down and review it; he does not want to be $1.1 million wrong; and it will review how the Clerk’s Office and the County do their projections, and reconcile the two. Commissioner Higgs stated it may be a meaningful figure that could help the County in this budget year. Commissioner Ellis reiterated the Budget Office staff is folding in the 5%, which is the difference between the $1 million and $2.5 million of the projected sales tax and franchise fees.

Mr. Jenkins stated the Budget Office’s history of making projections has been fairly accurate over the years, so it is not as if it is out in left field somewhere; it has a good track record if one looks at what the Office has projected and where the County has been; and it has been pretty much on target and closer than it has been in prior years. Mr. Ellis noted the Clerk’s Office is not debating that.

Commissioner Higgs stated in September 2001 the County was trying to be conservative in terms of projection, particularly of sales tax revenues as it did not know what was going to happen; now that it has the actuals, it reflects a little differently than the conservative projections; and the County wanted conservative going into the budget due to the situation in the country and the world. Mr. Ellis stated the County has the 5% cushion, which normally will be collected; County Finance sent the Board the third quarter financial reports; such reports indicate that the franchise fees, sales tax, and gas tax are all running ahead; and the State revenue sharing was down a little bit.

Chairman Scarborough stated item c is revenue overview; the Board wanted to go to revenue as a separate issue; he has some issues on it; and it would be nice to have Mr. Ellis’ staff available at that time. Mr. Ellis noted Finance Director Stephen Burdett is present.

Commissioner Higgs stated Clerk’s Finance does the accounting and paying of bills; and the Budget Office is charged with the projection. Mr. Rogero responded that is correct; his Office frequently has dialogue and interacts with the Finance Department in the estimations; as Mr. Jenkins indicated, the Budget Office has a good track record; and he cannot say that it has a good track record entirely without the assistance of the Finance Department. Mr. Ellis noted he is not saying that the Budget Office’s projections are out of line as they are not; and it gets down to a difference of how the 5% is interpreted that is supposed to be held back and not budgeted.

Commissioner O’Brien requested Mr. Ellis provide a memorandum on the total amount of revenues in traffic tickets for the years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, including a breakdown by city. Mr. Ellis stated the numbers his Office provided are strictly the County’s share; the memorandum has the numbers broken down by year; such memorandum includes actuals; and traffic fines went to Brevard County of $750,000 in the year 2000, $1,265,000 in 2001, and $1,334,000 in 2002. Commissioner O’Brien noted that traffic revenues have stayed flat; with Mr. Ellis responding they have increased this year because based on the computer problems, a number of receipts that were taken in the year 2000 were put into the system in 2001. Mr. Ellis noted there is a tremendous decrease in the year 2000; it is not realistic; those two numbers should be averaged; and 2002 had an increase in traffic collections. He stated such collections are not up as much as they should be; there is still the problem going back and forth with Department of Motor Vehicles to get the suspensions in place; he understands Commissioner O’Brien’s concern; but his Office did strictly County numbers and did not fold the cities into it. Chairman Scarborough requested Mr. Ellis provide the cities’ portion to Commissioner O’Brien. Mr. Ellis noted his Office can provide copies of the spreadsheets to the Board which were prepared in April, 2002, and a breakdown on the traffic tickets for the County and cities for the past four years.

Commissioner O’Brien inquired how many vehicles did the Clerk’s Office own four years ago, how many does it own today, how many vehicles were purchased last year, and how many vehicles will be purchased this year. Mr. Ellis responded one vehicle was purchased last year and two vehicles were purchased this year. Mr. McDaniel noted the Office has approximately 11 vehicles. Commissioner O’Brien inquired can the Office justify 11 vehicles. Mr. Ellis responded such vehicles are used to move the files, and the Lumina is used by the Clerk to the Board and Injunction Clerks; one Blazer is used for Court Clerks and another one is used to handle the mail; and with the Injunction Clerks, it becomes an issue with their personal insurance if they use their private car on a regular basis to do their job. Commissioner O’Brien noted their insurance would increase. Mr. Ellis stated the issue was discussed by the Board many years ago about how it would be cheaper to allow people to use their own cars and pay them mileage; it was cheaper for the County and more money for the employees using their vehicles; but there was an insurance issue with it. Commissioner O’Brien requested a memorandum from Mr. Ellis’ Office projecting when it believes it will be caught up with the backlog of files, fines and forfeitures, etc.; and noted he wants to know what the goal is.

Mr. Ellis stated the goal is to be current; the Criminal Division is pretty well caught up; Civil Division is almost completed; and Traffic Division is probably the furthest behind due to technical problems. He noted once the link is made with the suspensions in Tallahassee and it starts accepting the data, it will not be a big problem to send. Commissioner Higgs inquired is Tallahassee not accepting suspensions now. Mr. Ellis responded it sent the last file back and another file was sent yesterday, which staff believes will meet the expectations; and within one month all the suspensions could be sent to Tallahassee if such expectations are met. Mr. Ellis stated his Office will provide the Board with a memorandum on the backlog and estimated completion date. Commissioner O’Brien stated there are “x” amount of employees in the Clerk’s Office working specifically on this task; and inquired when the task is complete, will the budget remain the same. Mr. Ellis responded if his Office did not have the $500,000 passed to it from the County, his budget would have decreased this year; and his overall budget is up .7%.

Mr. Jenkins stated the Clerk’s General Fund transfer increased 1.7%; the County took $250,000 of data processing charges out of the Clerk’s budget and the General Fund is picking those up; and if the Clerk had received the General Fund revenues as he received the current year, there would have been a 4% increase. Mr. Ellis responded the reason it increased was because the County arbitrarily increased it. Mr. Jenkins noted the point is that the Clerk’s Office has a 4% increase when including the $250,000 that the County took out of the budget; money can be removed from the budget and put somewhere else; and the Clerk’s budget is not decreasing, but increasing. He inquired if the Clerk requested 20 positions and the County provided 14 new positions. Mr. Ellis responded his staff provided the list to County staff; his Office is still keeping up with County Court, which the Board chooses to fund at one level; he does not find that is enough money to fund County Court and supplements it with the fee budget; the agreement was that the County would pay 100% of County Court, but there is a disagreement; and he respects the Board that it funds at the level it believes is adequate. He stated his Office funds at the level it believes is adequate if the fees are available; if they are not available, then it cannot fund it; the 20 positions on the list do not include $50,000 or $60,000 for managers; and his Office hired people at $7.00 and $8.00 per hour. Mr. Jenkins noted the Clerk added 20 positions last year and 20 positions this year for a total of 40 new positions; with Mr. Ellis responding that is not correct. Mr. Ellis advised the list his Office provided was the 20 positions that had been added since February or March 2001; and he is not adding any positions this year. Mr. Jenkins stated in terms of what the Budget Office used to project traffic revenues for the current fiscal year’s budget, it took the numbers from 1998 and increased them by 3% a year due to the fact that there have not been accurate numbers since then; the two prior years where the system was working, the traffic fines increased 60% and 15%; and the current year when staff projected a 3% increase per year, it seemed reasonable. He noted for this year’s budget at the end of the negotiations this current year, $189,000 was added in projected traffic fine revenues in order to fund additional budget requests of the Clerk for hardware improvements in the computer system; part of the reason the Board felt comfortable in adding the $189,000 was that the Clerk told the County he would be issuing delinquency letters in August 2001, so there was some level of comfort that it would be getting additional monies; however, the letters have been delayed. Mr. Ellis responded the letters went out and the money came in; the County’s budget in 1998 showed the traffic fines of $791,000; its budget for 2002 was $1.9 million; and going from $791,000 to $1.9 million in four years is more than 3% increase in one year. He stated the County’s actuals in 1998 are $1.36 million; its actuals this year are $1.33 million; he agrees that is not as much as 1998; but it is not $1.4 million under. He noted the County cannot be $1.4 million under on traffic as it has never collected that amount in one year. Mr. Jenkins stated he does not believe the issue is going to be resolved today, but he wanted to make the Board aware of what County staff did. Mr. Ellis noted during the discussions County staff comes out with numbers that are totally incorrect; and as soon as the Clerk’s Office shows the numbers are incorrect, Mr. Jenkins is ready to take the discussion offline. Mr. Jenkins noted it happens with Mr. Ellis’ Office; with Mr. Ellis responding it happens to his Office all the time. Mr. Ellis stated he gets memoranda from Mr. Jenkins’ Office the afternoon before the meeting, if he receives it at all; many times memoranda goes to the Board, but he does not see them even though the Board specifically told Mr. Jenkins at the budget hearings last year that if he does a memorandum that concerns the Clerk’s Office that it should receive a copy of it; his Office does not always receive same; and he receives memoranda from Mr. Whitten, but does not always receive them from Mr. Jenkins or other County departments. He noted generally the memoranda have to do with the Sarno Landfill issue and the Clerk’s Office; however, his Office does not get copies of them.

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board wants to make sure that people communicate; there is nothing wrong with that; and everyone needs to provide copies of the information. Mr. Ellis noted he provides copies of every memoranda to the Board pertaining to it and County issues.

The meeting recessed at 10:10 a.m.

The meeting reconvened at 10:20 a.m.

Sheriff’s Office

Sheriff Philip Williams stated he will present facts and figures to the Board and an update on the Sheriff’s Office and what it has been doing, which will lead into the issues of the budget requests and details to discuss. He noted his staff and County staff have worked hard to get to the bottom line on some things; and he is grateful for the cooperation and good working relationship. He showed a picture of Bence, a K-9 bomb dog who was put to sleep because he was worn out by the Sheriff’s Office; stated the dog was born in 1996 and was put to sleep in 2002; he worked with the Office from 1999; and after the September 11, 2001 incident, Bence worked every day. He noted Bence is a good representation of the Sheriff’s vehicles, deputies, radios, and jail; he is not advocating euthanizing any employees of the human kind; unfortunately, it tells his Office’s story for the last ten months; and he is requesting salary increases for his employees. Sheriff Williams stated there is no other entity, other than the fire departments that go 24/7; the starting salary for deputies is $28,000 a year; his Office tries to recruit good prospective deputies; and it competes against the City of Palm Bay, which pays $600 a year more and the City of Melbourne, which pays $900 a year more. He noted the City of Cocoa pays its police officers $29,365 a year; Orange County’s starting salary for deputies is $30,000; the City of Titusville’s police officers are paid $30,000; and Osceola County’s deputies starting salary is $32,000. He stated it explains why he is requesting a pay increase for his employees.

Commissioner Higgs requested Sheriff Williams compare the entire package of health insurance and other things; and inquired is it a comparable. Sheriff Williams responded his Office has paid the health package almost across-the-board; it is comparable with other sheriff’s offices; but he is not sure about the Cities of Titusville and Melbourne. Commissioner Higgs noted it is a significant dollar amount; and requested the Sheriff’s Office provide the information to the Board.

Sheriff Williams stated last year he discussed that a deputy had approximately three to four minutes of unencumbered time per hour that he or she was not going to a call, handling a call, in training, etc.; this past year, the hour is 68 minutes long; every deputy in his Office is working eight minutes overtime per hour; and it also speaks to the Detention Center. He noted he will be asking before the close of this budget year to increase the overtime amount; bomb responses have increased over 175%, missing persons have increased 140%, and suicide attempts have increased over 85%. He stated Ordinance arrests, drownings, fraud, suspicious incidents, and 911 hang ups have increased over last year; it has been an explosive year in demands for services; and other incidents include retail thefts, narcotics, gambling, suspicious vehicles, shootings, traffic stops, business burglaries, residential burglaries, civil disputes, Marchman and Baker Acts, dive team responses, warrants arrests, harassing phone calls, misdemeanors, stolen vehicles, and assaults and batteries. Sheriff Williams stated what has yet to be funded in the General Fund are vehicles; and 50% of the vehicles have over 75,000 miles on them, 23% of them have 75,000 to 100,000 miles, 23% have between 100,000 and 125,000 miles, and 4% have over 125,000 miles. He noted the bomb truck that the Board added last budget year has approximately 80,000 miles on it.

Commissioner Higgs requested Sheriff Williams clarify how his Office responds inside the cities and out of what funds. Sheriff Williams responded the General Fund pays for the K-9’s, bomb squad, agents, Intelligence Unit, and those things that are shared resources; he will get to the statistics to show the Board the demand on his Office from other law enforcement agencies; there is a tremendous increase; and municipalities have four vehicles for every square mile, but his Office has one-half vehicle per square mile. He stated the calls for services are skyrocketing; the population of Brevard County has increased in the unincorporated area much faster than the incorporated areas; there are 205,000 people in the unincorporated area of the County and 145 funded positions; and that is one-half deputy for every 1,000 people. He noted his Office removed Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB), and any federal enclave from the square mileage formula as the special deputies are paid by KSC on its property and the same for PAFB; it magnifies the increase in call mode; the same thing is happening in the Detention Center; and pending before the Board are $500,000 worth of medical contracts which are unfunded. Sheriff Williams stated there is also a food increase; in 1987, the County built the jail for 384 people; since he has been in office, he has the jail up to where it can house 934 people; and in October 2000 there were 1,133 inmates, June 2001 had 1,200 inmates, and May 2002 had 1,200 inmates. He noted the more inmates there are, the more food that needs to be provided for them; they come in with all kinds of needs; the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States governs Brevard County to provide for the serious medical needs of the inmates; and the Contract has increased due to the jail population increase.

Chairman Scarborough inquired why is the inmate population in the jail lower in the winter; with Sheriff Williams responding he does not know. Sheriff Williams noted with respect to the Judiciary, it is hard not to lower the bond before Christmas. Chairman Scarborough noted the cycle runs into February and March to some extent as well. Sheriff Williams responded when individuals are let out on bond, they do not come back; and his Office usually catches them again in May, June, and July when the inmate population in the jail reaches over 1,200.

Commissioner Higgs inquired where is the County with this year’s Medical Contract; with Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responding it is funded in the preliminary budget and the Board also funded an increase at mid-year this year.

Deborah Barker, Finance Manager for Sheriff’s Office, stated her records indicate that part of the increase has been funded; but she is not showing the whole amount, which would be $1.1 million for this Fiscal Year; and only about one half of that amount is in there. County Manager Tom Jenkins responded the entire $1.1 million is funded. Ms. Barker stated it is a $1.1 million increase for FY 02-03; with Mr. Jenkins responding affirmatively. Mr. Jenkins noted the change was $600,000 projected next year; with Ms. Barker responding as long as the increase from the current year was included. Ms. Barker inquired does the budget show the increase in the $60,000 for food and is it funded; with Mr. Rogero responding negatively. Commissioner Colon inquired does the Sheriff have the information on the number of offenders that keep coming back; stated the State Department of Corrections (DOC) sends a lot of offenders to the jails, which causes a great impact to counties; and there may be more preventative measures with the DOC to try to stop offenders from coming into the counties’ jails. Sheriff Williams responded county jails are the catchall of everybody’s problem; if the arrest is made in Palm Bay for a first-time offense for a felony, they are taken to the County jail; a person with no contact with the system will be at least jailed for 24 hours or until they see a judge at the bond hearing; and if someone is arrested in Palm Bay who is on County probation, they have to go to jail and cannot post bond until they see a judge. He noted if someone is on felony probation from the DOC and is arrested, he or she has to go to jail; the hearing will not be until 45 days after the arrest; if he fails to appear, he has to come back and is usually held; so there is a State prisoner held in a County jail. Sheriff Williams stated the County has a lot of offenders in its jail who are not technically within Brevard County’s control; they are not a misdemeanant who is arrested by a local agency and seen by a local judge; he has a breakdown of the classifications of each inmate; but the portion of small time criminals who have not been sentenced awaiting trial is low. He noted most of the people in jail are very bad or they did not show up for court; and either way, it costs the taxpayers.

Sheriff Williams showed a picture of Port Canaveral; stated at 2:00 p.m. today, the USS Cole that was suicide-bombed in Yemen will dock at Cape Canaveral for the weekend; with that comes a lot of potential attendant problems; and it is a shore leave issue. He noted all of the sailors from the USS Cole will be welcomed into the community; they will spend money, have a good time, and try to take a sabbatical from the war; but with that come some local concerns. He stated a lot of things that have happened this year, including payouts and people who have reached retirement age, are costing his Office money; overtime has been a big issue; his Office has saved the taxpayers $23 million since 1997 with inmate charges for food, medical, etc. and grants; and there needs to be a pay increase for the employees. Sheriff Williams noted there are fiscal constraints on Brevard County and he recognizes it; he will come to the table and work with the County on the percentage; there are 205,000 people in the unincorporated area of the County and approximately 480,000 people in Brevard County; and it is the ninth largest County in the State of Florida. He stated a corrections officer in Brevard County is responsible for 7.5 inmates, the highest ratio in the State of Florida; that is why he had to send four corrections officers to the hospital the other night; and the County has to feed the inmates, tend to their medical needs, and make some space for them. He noted if the County wants to continue to control its own destiny and not have the federal court come to Brevard County and dictate to it what it is going to do, it needs to get a grip on it; it is a public safety issue and so is the number of calls for service; he is proud of his deputies; they have to now wear biological suits, gas masks, and duct tape to tape their gloves to their wrists; and it is a whole different ballgame than what it used to be. Sheriff Williams stated the Board has realized it and helped his Office; he has realized it and so has the public; and he is present to negotiate with the Board what can be done for the community and law enforcement agencies within the confines of the budget structure.

Commissioner Higgs requested the Budget Office compare numbers of funded positions that the Sheriff has requested versus the number that is currently in the recommendations. Mr. Rogero responded the Sheriff requested 20 new deputies for the MSTU road patrol in the preliminary budget; and the Board funded 10 deputies in the MSTU for road patrol at a staggered rate—five deputies effective October 1 and five deputies halfway through next fiscal year. Ms. Barker stated the Sheriff requested 32 total positions with 20 of those positions for MSTU road deputies. Commissioner Higgs inquired about the corrections officers. Sheriff Williams responded he has not made any recommendations this year; the Board has convened a Mental Health Commission that is looking at the jail and its population, and whether additional corrections officers are needed; he is sure the report will include a recommendation for additional officers; but he deferred to the Commission. He noted he is requesting pay increases and overtime to pay the corrections officers presently at the jail.

Mr. Jenkins stated the Board is not 100% funding those deputies; and the Sheriff’s Office was able to get a grant, which pays for approximately half of them. Ms. Barker stated such grant is from the U.S. Department of Justice; the Sheriff’s Office is encouraging the Board to take advantage of the funding while it is still available; the need is never going to go away for additional deputies; and that is the reason the Sheriff is requesting 20 additional deputies for the best economic impact to help offset the cost. She noted it is $75,000 per deputy over a three-year period; and the taxpayers would have to absorb the full cost of the deputy in the fourth year and the matching amount each year.

Chairman Scarborough inquired is it possible that the Sheriff’s Office will have other opportunities in the forthcoming budgetary year to get other grants to make things happen. Sheriff Williams responded his Office is off-sync with the federal government and its budgetary process in the Homeland Security package that is anticipated to be signed; one victory to celebrate is with the FBI; and his Office has signed a Memorandum of Understanding that if it is funded for its burden of overtime on local law enforcement, it will be reimbursing local law enforcement.

Chairman Scarborough stated when the grants come up mid-year it impacts cash reserves and other things that could occur; the County needs to anticipate where it needs to be; what the Sheriff is dealing with is dynamic and there are opportunities and risks, not only at budget time but throughout the years; and Brevard County has a great burden. He noted not only does it have the Port, but KSC; there is a high risk launch that has received international press as to terrorist risk; and inquired is the County being supported at the local level for the burden of local law enforcement and how does the Board become proactive in making sure those funds are forthcoming. Sheriff Williams stated Brevard County is a community the Vice President wants to visit; it has the only space shuttle in the world; it has the second largest passenger port in the country; and it also has KSC and Air Force Base. He noted it has industry located throughout the County that deals with defense-related issues and contracts; those are jobs for Brevard County; Harris Corporation and all of these things are significantly more important than they were a year ago; and the country is dependent on these corporations to put the best equipment out there. He stated the County is an interesting place; there might be somebody in another county in the central part of the State that wishes they had Brevard County’s population, beaches, etc.; with that comes the attendant problems; it is hard on a day-to-day basis to draw the line where something is a federal issue; and his Office has helped the community and the federal level as well. Sheriff Williams noted 37 out of every 1,000 residents in the unincorporated area of Brevard County this past year could expect to be a victim of a serious crime; in 1996, 42 of 1,000 residents could be expected to be a victim of a serious crime; although the crime rate percentage has increased, residents are less likely to be a victim of a serious crime now than five or six years ago; and the response time for deputies is now 19 minutes compared to 22 minutes three years ago. He stated there are some good things going on considering that the County is participating with federal law enforcement and still serving the community well. Chairman Scarborough noted the Board is trying to get the Sheriff funding; and if there is any way it can be more proactive at the federal level in extracting monies due to Brevard’s uniqueness, it is interested.

Commissioner Higgs inquired is the funding that was allocated mid-year for the eight inspectors and detectives continued through this budget year and are those individuals devoted to the big picture issues. Sheriff Williams responded the Intelligence Unit has forced some cooperative efforts on local issues as well; not only has it processed over 40,000 terrorist-related leads, but it has handled bank-related issues as well; there have been significant arrests; and the Unit is more than paying for itself with success stories. Commissioner Higgs inquired when the County has a visit from someone such as the Vice President, does the federal government cover the overtime activities; with Sheriff Williams responding negatively. Sheriff Williams advised he contacted Sheriff Kevin Beary in Orlando and told him he needed some motorcycles; Sheriff Beary provide 20 motorcycles and the deputies; there is a minimum staffing requirement for those type of visits for the Secret Service; and it is a huge expense. He noted he had 35 deputies handling the event for 48 hours, plus 20 deputies from Orlando; there were also 15 or 16 Secret Service men; and local law enforcement has to handle the visits. Ms. Barker stated the burden has shifted from the federal level to the local level; the only assistance the County has seen is by way of the federal grants; the federal subsidization is for more deputies to offer front-line road patrol; and the Board worked with the Sheriff’s Office on a federal grant to help the crime scene unit. She noted the resources at Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and the federal level are being shifted; and the Sheriff’s Office is going to have more responsibility for processing crimes at its own level.

Sheriff Williams stated the grant people have anticipation of the Homeland Security package turning more toward assistance to local law enforcement for homeland security; four years ago it was community-oriented police grants; his Office has outlined what a unique County Brevard is, its assets, and what disproportionate burden it pays not only to the State of Florida, but to the nation in critical assets; therefore, it could use 100% funding for many of the things it needs. He noted his Office is going to go after the funding with a vengeance and is anticipating its argument.

Commissioner Higgs inquired are all of the road deputies that are in the current MSTU budget in place; with Sheriff Williams responding no, there are six vacancies. Sheriff Williams stated there are applications for review on his desk; and individuals will be hired and brought in as early as next week to begin the 17-week field training officer phase. Commissioner Higgs inquired how long have the positions been vacant. Ms. Barker responded the six vacancies are related to current turnover; all the road deputies were hired; the vacancies are either turnover or promotions; and the Sheriff’s Office had hired and placed all of the 16 deputies it received funding for within the year. Commissioner Higgs requested the Sheriff provide the Board with data on how long the vacancies exist; with Sheriff Williams responding affirmatively. Sheriff Williams stated the fairest thing to do is look at the average daily MSTU vacancy.

Commissioner Carlson stated a few years ago Sheriff William came to the Board with a strategic plan of 20 deputies per year for “x” number of years; at that point he gave a statistic of .7 deputy per thousand; and inquired how has it improved since the Board has been supporting additional deputies. Sheriff Williams responded the outcome is stagnant; the Board funded as many deputies as it could; people still came to Brevard County to live; and there has been an 11% increase in population in the unincorporated area and an 11% increase in deputies. Commissioner Carlson noted the September 11, 2001 event changed the strategy; and inquired has the Sheriff done anything on paper that says what he is going to do based on the issues of September 11, 2001. Sheriff Williams stated his Office has engaged different units and they are in working progress now on alteration of a strategic plan; it has a new heightened responsibility as it relates to terrorism; and there will be additional requests for shifting of personnel in certain programs. Commissioner Carlson requested Sheriff Williams provide the Board with a copy of his strategy now that it has changed to help it understand the priorities. Sheriff Williams responded his Office will provide a preliminary draft and then the final strategy to the Board; and the concerned parties will be working on it August 8 through 10, 2002. Commissioner Carlson stated Page SO-2, Trends and Issues, says “The increasing demands placed upon Sheriff’s Office resources will force us to evaluate and distinguish our civil and criminal law enforcement responses, with an eye toward curtailing or eliminating civil law enforcement response(s). Specifics concerning these issues and trends are readily available and will be provided upon request, as they are too detailed to provide within the confines of this document”; and requested Sheriff Williams explain it. Sheriff Williams responded sheriffs in Florida have a unique responsibility as they are law enforcement, corrections, and serve process in Civil issues with the court system; if they can look in areas where they can privatize and curtail some of it, those resources could be devoted to other areas. Commissioner Carlson noted there is justification for doing the shifting; with Sheriff Williams responding affirmatively. Sheriff Williams stated the issue he is most concerned about is the civil side, which is an income generator; and if a deputy has to make the choice between a burglary and standing by at a property sale, he will go to the burglary. Commissioner Carlson requested Sheriff Williams provide the Board with an executive summary of the document. Commissioner Carlson stated Page SO-6 includes the overall response time for service of 19.44 minutes projected in FY 01-02 and 18.46 minutes projected in FY 02-03; and inquired what improvements are being added to justify the decrease. Sheriff Williams responded the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) that is going to be replaced will heighten the response; the mobile data terminals allow the dispatcher to transmit the location of particular crimes; it will be enhanced once the CAD system is replaced; and shifting available resources to areas where the calls for service are generated has reduced the response time. Commissioner Carlson noted the Sheriff’s Office has created efficiencies in the system. Sheriff Williams stated it takes 10 minutes to arrest somebody and three hours for a deputy to haul the individual around the County; and his Office has come up with a way to handle that. Commissioner Carlson stated Page SO-15 shows unfunded 135 replacement vehicles, all of which are over five years old and/or have greater than 100,000 miles; it is $3.2 million; and inquired is there anything in the budget for that. Mr. Rogero responded there are some vehicles in the MSTU Program, but none in the Law Enforcement Program. Ms. Barker advised the MSTU Program includes the cars that are built-in with new deputies and there is no replacement capital in the MSTU. Commissioner Carlson stated Page SO-16 talks about the mobile command post vehicle, which is unfunded. Mr. Jenkins responded the Board recently approved it; it was a grant; and the County provided a match for it.

Sheriff Williams noted vehicles and dogs share one thing in common—they can both be worn out; the vehicles are General Fund patrol vehicles; the Sheriff’s Office had a replacement plan but had to abandon it due to budget constraints over the last two or three years; it has caught up with the Office at this time; and such plan has always been there, but has not been able to be funded. He stated his Office needs to fix the vehicles it has and also purchase new vehicles; Ms. Barker can work with the Budget Office; his Office will provide its fleet list to see if it can come up with the bare minimum; but at least 30 replacement cars out of General Fund is a minimum this year.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if Sheriff Williams has investigated leasing; with Sheriff Williams responding affirmatively. Sheriff William stated the best information he was able to obtain is that it was not an economically attractive option due to the mileage factor. Commissioner Carlson inquired does any other county do it differently than Brevard County; with Sheriff Williams responding negatively. Ms. Barker stated the Sheriff’s Office explored a number of options, which she will share with County staff; the Meers and Ford leasing has approximately a 23% interest rate; commercial paper is approximately 2%; but she did not show that it was any kind of a good business decision.

Commissioner Colon inquired about the strategy for the eight school resource officers; stated she supported the level that the officers were going to be working closely with the community, which is critical; and requested a report on what such officers are doing and how they fit into a new strategy after September 11, 2001.

Commissioner Colon provided an update to Sheriff Williams concerning the Homeless Ordinance; and stated the Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC) will be discussed today at 11:00 a.m.

Sheriff Williams stated the JAC concept is a brilliant one; there has been nobody more supportive of the JAC than the Sheriff’s Office; the detention, supervision, and processing of juvenile offenders is a State obligation; and the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) in Tallahassee has a huge budget and staff. He noted over time when a deal is made with any State agency, it starts retreating from its initial obligation and shifting the burden to local government; he has tried to do everything he can to keep Brevard County from assuming the obligation of the DJJ; the last time he checked Florida Statutes, the DJJ was responsible for juveniles; so Brevard County has to be careful. He stated DJJ wants to force the JAC on the County; Brevard County needs to manage it as it is a local issue; but he is skeptical of dealing with the DJJ at the Tallahassee level and expecting it to live up to its end of the bargain. Commissioner Colon stated a lot of cuts have been made by the State, but the children are at risk in Brevard County; if the County waits for the State to provide funding, it is going to be waiting a long time; it is not waiting for the State and is trying to do something on the local level; and it is a comprehensive plan of how the JAC is serving the citizens. She noted the job that the Sheriff’s Office is now doing with Homeland Security was the federal government’s job, not Brevard County; whether the County likes it or not, it has to do it; the same thing holds true with juveniles; and inquired if the monies are not there, what happens to the children. Commissioner Colon stated Brevard County was only one out of three counties in the State of Florida that received funding for the JAC; and the County cannot wait for the State. Sheriff Williams stated he agrees with Commissioner Colon that the County needs to take care of business; the federal government was not in Brevard County doing Homeland Security, abandoning it, and dumping it on the County; it just happened and the County had to assume the role; and he is not waiting for the State to bail Brevard County out. He noted he is saying that the State got in the deal four years ago and it needs to live up to the bargain it made at that time; it needs to come to the table percentage-wise in 2002 like it did when it was happy-go-lucky in 1998; it needs to go to the State coffers in its own budget; and he is not saying he is waiting for the State, as it was already here and has retreated from its original agreement. He stated he agrees that the children and Brevard County community must be addressed and taken care of; the JAC is going to have to be paid for by somebody; and he is not sure that the DJJ has heard the last from him about it living up to its end of the bargain. Commissioner Colon noted the delegation is present; it made it perfectly clear that the funding was not promised to the County on a permanent basis; meanwhile there is a program that is saving children and giving them a second chance; and while elected officials are playing games, the children are at risk. Commissioner O’Brien stated the viability of the JAC Program has been questioned closely. Commissioner Colon stated when she met with the Sheriff’s Office, she discussed Homeland Security and that the County would be picking up a tremendous bill; and inquired if Sheriff Williams met with the Space Coast League of Cities concerning unfunded mandates. She noted Congressman Dave Weldon needs to have the data on what is happening in Brevard County and the demands on it; and inquired is there a price tag on the overtime since September 11, 2001 until now.

Ms. Barker advised Chief Bob Sarver has met with the Florida League of Cities twice and expressed interest and concerns on the financial issues; and he has been in touch with Congressman Weldon’s Office twice. She stated the Sheriff’s Office is expecting an excess of overtime directly related to the current events associated with September 11, 2001 of approximately $200,000 and $300,000 for this year; the Office has applied immediate resources by the County working with it on the front end and giving it some needed resources; it has kept some of the costs down, even though overtime for existing personnel has increased; and they are doing the best they can to keep citizens safe.

Commissioner Higgs stated prior to September 11, 2001, the Sheriff’s Office had done a special project and the Board supported it in terms of traffic enforcement; and inquired is the Office continuing to do that and has it set aside in the budget the opportunity to do such enforcement that was successful in terms of paying for itself. Sheriff Williams responded his Office can use that if he has the people available; he would like to do it again; but he does not know if it is a line item in the budget. Ms. Barker advised staff did not include the additional overtime for traffic control enforcement; the Sheriff absorbed partial funding for it last year to get it through the end of the year with retirement savings; the Sheriff’s Office was subsidized at mid-year this year; and it is something such Office is continuing to do as the Sheriff has operational ability to do it. She noted staff will work with the Budget Office on the issue. Commissioner Higgs noted the project more than pays for itself; and it needs to be included as it has been successful. Sheriff Williams stated his Office is going to do it every time it has the chance.

Commissioner Carlson stated Page SO-24 says, “The Aviation Unit has expanded its hours to cover 95% of a seven-day week”; and inquired how is the Sheriff’s Office working with the municipalities where those particular incidents occur and do they pay some share of the cost of utilizing the helicopter. Sheriff Williams responded the helicopter is a General Fund unit; incorporated and unincorporated areas are paying for it; approximately 40% of the helicopter call-ups are from the municipality areas; and it was the municipalities’ request to go up to 95% time coverage as it has helped on a lot of issues. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the cost for the Sheriff's Office to respond to a call with the helicopter; with Sheriff Williams responding the operating cost of the helicopters approximately one year ago was $88.00 per hour.

Chairman Scarborough inquired what is the percentage of taxable property value in the incorporated and unincorporated areas Countywide; with Finance Director Stephen Burdett responding staff can provide that information for the Board.

Commissioner O’Brien stated Page SO-7 includes unfunded program changes; the salary increase personnel line item is $294,499; and requested staff explain the item. Mr. Whitten responded a 5% raise is budgeted for sworn officers and dispatchers; the Sheriff’s Office requested 7%; and $294,499 is the difference between the 7% and 5%. Commissioner O’Brien stated Page SO-8 shows full-time equivalent personnel; in the final budget of FY 2000-2001, it shows 343.50 positions; the FY 2001-2002 amended budget shows 368.50 positions, which is an increase of 25 people; and he presumes the 25 positions are 20 new deputies, but not MSTU deputies, plus five new guards for the jail. Ms. Barker responded the Law Enforcement Program would not include the MSTU; the positions would include the domestic violence agents, grant-supported victims advocates agents, the Intel positions, three EOD positions, one K-9 position, and five court deputies; the SRO’s would be in the MSTU with the road deputies; and there are five corrections officers. She noted there are a variety of General Fund law enforcement positions. Commissioner O’Brien stated the County is looking at 20 sworn deputies and 24 MSTU sworn deputies, with a total of 44 deputies; with Sheriff Williams responding that is correct. Ms. Barker noted there are five deputies for the judges. Commissioner O’Brien stated there are three new personnel for contracted services on Page SO-59; with Ms. Barker responding the Board does not pay for such positions as they are negotiated with the City of Cape Canaveral and the Port. Sheriff Williams noted there is no question that there are 44 deputies; the issue is who is getting the services; the unincorporated citizens pay a tax for road patrol, otherwise, they would not have one; they pay a General Fund tax; and when a benefit is gained, everybody pays for it. He noted the Intel agents are General Fund agents and help everybody; and road patrol deputies means one thing and contracted services means another.

Commissioner O’Brien stated the summary sheet includes the increase in personnel; the final budget for FY 2001 was 820 personnel; and inquired does it include the MSTU deputies. Ms. Barker responded affirmatively; and advised the summary sheet includes everything, including contracted services and MSTU. Commissioner O’Brien noted the amended budget shows an increase of 61 personnel overall; 44 of those are deputies; and inquired what are the other positions. Ms. Barker responded staff will provide a list of those positions, but they were previously discussed.

Mr. Jenkins stated Commissioner O’Brien went through each section of the budget and asked staff to explain where the increases were; and taking all of that includes those positions. Ms. Barker noted the grant positions are also included.

Commissioner O’Brien inquired about the tasks of the SRO’s in the junior and senior high schools.

Deputy Linda Morose stated she has been working with the Sheriff’s Office since 1997; she works at the Mims and Pinewood Elementary Schools; her day starts at about 7:20 a.m.; and one of her first tasks is traffic control at the Schools. She noted after the first bell rings, she assists the front office in handling the children who are tardy; tardiness and truancy in the school system is a big problem; she also takes care of problems at the bus stops; and she tries to find out why the children are truant. She stated the parents are not getting the children to school, which is in violation of the law; she knocks on the parents’ doors and tell them they need to have their children in school unless there are certain circumstances; she also teaches drug and violence prevention programs; and she started a safety program which includes bicycle safety, gun safety, and seatbelt safety. Ms. Morose stated her second graders received bicycle helmets this year if they did not have them, which was a grant from the Department of Transportation; occasionally she eats lunch with the children in the cafeteria; she had students tell her about domestic violence situations that are happening; and two children who made threats to bring guns to school were immediately expelled. She noted the benefits of having the SRO’s in the elementary schools have been tremendous; and if crimes can be prevented in elementary schools, the students may not commit them in junior or senior high schools.

Commissioner O’Brien inquired what did Deputy Morose do in the months of June and July 2002. Deputy Morose responded she worked road patrol for awhile at North Precinct, handled paper crimes, worked undercover prostitution stings, and worked at Camp Chance. Commissioner O’Brien inquired will there be some form of accountability concerning the truancy issue and will the numbers decrease due to the work of the SRO’s; with Sheriff Williams responding affirmatively. Sheriff Williams stated the SRO’s took 265 case reports in the elementary schools and made four arrests for felonies, four arrests for misdemeanors, three battery felonies on a school official, five warrants, and seized one razor blade, one bullet, and two knives; there were 69 traffic tickets issued, three truancy investigations with children missing longer than five days, and $162 worth of stolen property seized on school grounds; there were 172 guest lectures at the school; 3,580 student contacts, 82 DARE lectures; and 1,560 children were individually counseled, and parents counseled 194 times. He advised those numbers were for a three-month time period; and the truancy, crime problem, and traffic-related issues at the schools will be reduced next year.

Commissioner O’Brien inquired what is Sheriff William’s comment about the Florida TODAY article that indicated Brevard County’s schools and its teenagers have the largest drug problem in the State of Florida. Sheriff Williams responded the article was based on a student/drug survey that was conducted; it is feedback from the students; and they may have the largest drug problem. Commissioner O’Brien stated the SRO’s have been in the junior and senior high schools for years now; and inquired is the system a failure or what is it. Sheriff Williams responded he does not know; there are studies that show the DARE Program works and studies that say it does not; such Program has been in existence for a number of years and has been taught on a consistent basis for the past four years to fifth and sixth graders; and there needs to be accountability. He noted he is the first one to abandon an issue if it is not working or replace a mousetrap with a better mousetrap if one comes along. Commissioner O’Brien stated it was a terrible report that Florida TODAY hung around Brevard County’s necks; SRO’s have been in the junior and senior high schools for four and one-half years; inquired could it be indicative that the SRO Program and anti-drug education are not working; and stated something is broken. Sheriff Williams stated the article was a scathing commentary on the community; he is not ready to put a sword in the program until he knows they are not working; and the dialogue needs to continue. Commissioner O’Brien noted he would like to find out if the programs are successful or not; and if not, the tactic needs to be changed. Sheriff Williams stated he is not afraid to change the tactic or abandon the program if it is not working; but there is not enough information yet. Commissioner O’Brien noted he does not want to abandon the programs.

Commissioner Higgs stated she would agree that it is a disturbing statistic; however, the County should not assess a community issue, such as drug use in children, and compare it as a causal factor to look at SRO’s in the schools as drug abuse among young people is a complicated issue.

Sheriff Williams stated he did not take Commissioner O’Brien’s focus that SRO’s are not doing their job and, therefore, there is a drug problem; Brevard County has a big drug problem and he is not going to hide and say it does not; prevention, education, and enforcement are about all that the human species can come up with thus far to deal with drug problems; and this is an enforcement and provision program that has yet to run its course.

Commissioner Higgs stated the whole Together In Partnership (TIP) process to analyze juvenile crime is geared toward early prevention and families, etc. that later result in the problem that has been seen in the survey; she would be careful to point a finger at anything; she is pleased to hear some of the success stories; and she was not enthusiastic about SRO’s in elementary schools, but she is pleased to hear the results that have taken place. Commissioner O’Brien stated he is not pointing a finger at anyone; the article in the newspaper is not the Sheriff or SRO’s fault; but perhaps there is a failure in the system with the SRO’s that the drugs are not being detected or picked up by such officers in the schools who are working directly with the children. Commissioner Higgs stated there is a failure by the community as a whole if the problem exists; she has no reason to question the survey, which was a valid one done Statewide; the County should be concerned about measuring the accountability and effect of every program; it has looked at it comprehensively with TIP; and the whole focus is on the prevention of crimes by young people.

Chairman Scarborough stated he has a problem when there is only one piece of data; multiple layers of data need to be integrated into an analysis; there is a danger in taking one piece of data; and there are multiple reasons why there is drug abuse. He noted to say that having the Sheriff’s Office not involved with the school system is not a benefit in solving the problems then somebody does not understand such problems; bringing law enforcement and the school system together has to achieve a positive communication between both of them to better understand the problems; such problems have not been resolved; but he cannot tell anyone that it is not getting closer to being resolved. He stated the data is not conclusive; and the solution is to have the communication. Commissioner O’Brien stated perhaps the study should be done again to find out if the numbers decreased; maybe the SRO’s in the junior and senior high schools are being effective and maybe they are not; and his concern is that if SRO’s are not being effective, then something needs to be done.

Deputy Morose stated she believes the SRO’s will make a difference with drug use, juvenile crime, and domestic violence situations; SRO’s are teaching the students from four through twelve years old; and they build trust and rapport with the children.

Sheriff Williams stated drug abuse and drug prevention are important roles of the SRO’s; there are also safety, domestic violence, and truancy issues; and houses are being broken into when the students are not in school. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board and Sheriff Williams are concerned about utilizing this resource to define new ways to handle the problem.

Commissioner Colon stated she and Commissioner Higgs sit on various boards and see the information; they do not like what they hear, but the data is there; as elected officials, they have to figure out what to do; and the Board gave Sheriff Williams the tools to move forward. She noted instead of individuals criticizing the system, they need to attend the meetings and be part of the solution and not part of the problem; the problem is complex; and it is not going to be taken care of overnight. She stated the community is thankful to the Board for what it has done on focusing its information and providing the necessary tools; expressed appreciation to the SRO’s for their assistance as they are going to make a difference; and noted their hard work is going to pay off.

Discussion ensued concerning increased bomb threats, anthrax, explosives, and building search responses, chemical biological issues, cross-training, equipment and manpower, increased drownings, reduction in homicides, increased drunk driving arrests, road checkpoints, the DUI Unit, decrease in alcohol-related crashes, careless driving, various traffic citations, stolen vehicle unit, and accountability issues, including the SRO Program.

Commissioner O’Brien requested Sheriff Williams provide a spreadsheet and actual figures on child drownings; stated Florida probably has the highest death rate of children dying in pools in the entire nation; and there may need to be an education and outreach program to educate parents.

Ms. Barker requested the Board consider revisiting the Sheriff’s request for 20 deputies; stated the Sheriff appreciates the 10 deputies that are phased in within the budget; the car issue also needs to be addressed; and there are significant issues regarding the 800 megahertz radios that are in need of replacement. She noted the Sheriff’s Office is appreciative of the pay raise that the Board is considering; and some items that are not funded that the Board needs to consider include the disc storage upgrade, aviation overtime and engine, crime scene technicians, and dispatchers. Ms. Barker stated those are some of the concerns the Office has; requested the Board consider funding the items; noted the Sheriff’s Office understands the restrictions within the budget; and it appreciates working with the Board and Budget Office.

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board will be discussing the overall budget; and inquired what is the total amount it can go for the legal maximum. Mr. Whitten responded it is $4.7 million. Mr. Jenkins noted it is a 3% revenue increase in the operating budget. Chairman Scarborough noted there is some latitude if the Board wants to go for additional tax increases.

The meeting recessed at 12:40 p.m. and reconvened at 12:50 p.m.

Juvenile Assessment Center

Community Revitalization Programs Director J. B. Kenna stated staff was directed to obtain a cost benefit analysis on the Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC) and bring it back to the Board for discussion; it obtained technical assistance through the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and hired or selected Randy Thomas of Neco and Associates in Kentucky to conduct the analysis; staff provided the Board a copy of Mr. Thomas’ final report on the JAC, which includes several options and recommendations for Board consideration; and this independent report was at no cost to the Board. He noted the JAC Advisory Board has also included its recommendations in the report; staff has provided the consultant’s analysis; members of the JAC Advisory Board are present today; and Cass Scapino, Program Director for Crosswinds, prepared a short presentation on its response to the consultant’s analysis.

Teresa Ponchak, representing JAC, advised the League of Women Voters’ Justice Committee were present to support the JAC, but had to leave.

Cass Scapino, Program Director for Crosswinds, provided a packet of information to the Board concerning the JAC; stated juvenile assessment centers were created by the Florida Legislature, Florida Statute 985.209, to service central intake and screening facilities for youth referred to the Department of Juvenile Justice; two of the Statewide JAC goals include to fulfill all required legal and social interventions for youth in one location and to allow law enforcement to quickly and easily drop off youth at the JAC and return to their duties; and previously, law enforcement personnel were required to book and process youth themselves. She noted when the JAC is processing youth, there are certain functions that take place, including screening, in-depth assessment, if appropriate, and referrals for youth and families through appropriate services; the preliminary screening collects legally required information, as well as information needed to determine if youth should be placed in detention or released to a parent; if indicated, a more in-depth assessment will be done to determine substance abuse or mental health issues; and the collected information from the screening allows a State Attorney recommendation to be prepared within 24 hours, which helps insure that a youth, who would benefit from diversion programs, does not take up valuable court time. Ms. Scapino stated the JAC is comprised of the Detention Screening Unit, Task Assessment Services, Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) Intake Unit, Truancy Center, Intensive Delinquency Diversion Services, Crosswinds Counseling Services, and Domestic Violence Diversion Program; all of the programs work together to provide a one-stop center for services for youth and families; and presented a chart to the Board showing that JAC served 5,665 youth. She showed the funding provided for JAC; noted such funding is broken down by services; funding for the screening unit is 21% of the funding; 14% of the funding is for secure custody for correctional officers; 5% is the lease space of approximately $80,000; and the Intake Unit is 19%. She noted the next chart shows funding by source; 64% of JAC’s funding comes from the DJJ, which is $1,108,977; the County provides 19%, which is $234,094; and 5% of in-kind funding is approximately $85,000. She stated 12% comes to the JAC from Department of Children and Families (DCF) for the assessments; 3% of the funding is from the School Board, which is $50,000 for the Truancy Center; 2% is federal money; and explained the law enforcement utilization chart of the JAC. Ms. Scapino stated the cost benefit analysis was prepared by Randy Thomas; his recommendations and options for the JAC are included in the information packet; he recommends continued support for the JAC operations; increased support to allow the JAC to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week; increase availability of additional support services; move the JAC to the Brevard Regional Detention Center in Sharpes; and provide JAC services in Melbourne and the Detention Center, or withdraw support for the JAC in Melbourne and have all intake services take place at the Detention Center. She noted the recommendation of the cost benefit analysis is that the County should make every attempt to keep the JAC operational; the County should develop a strategic and long-term plan to expand the JAC into a full-time facility; the JAC Advisory Board should develop a plan of action that includes a clearly articulated vision and mission statement, measurable goals and objectives, recommended research-based interventions, and provide for the production of outcome data tied to the mission and goals of the JAC; and the Board should continue funding at the current level for the next fiscal year. She stated the JAC Advisory Board should develop a marketing strategy to better inform the community of the purpose, activities, and outcomes of the JAC; the JAC Advisory Board and the Board should agree to a 12-month timeline of activities to complete a long-range plan for the JAC; and the JAC Advisory Board should gather further information to be able to better reflect the cost benefits for local police departments. Ms. Scapino noted the JAC

Advisory Board took the report and has developed some goals and outcomes; it is clear that the JAC needs to be accountable; Goal 1 is to insure that Brevard County maintains an assessment center; the JAC Advisory Board will facilitate the development of a strategic plan for funding, marketing, and service delivery; and Crosswinds has stepped up as the lead agency in this effort, will be exploring additional funding for the JAC, and will be submitting it to the Advisory Board by March 2003. She stated the Advisory Board will be setting up various committees, such as marketing and transportation, and developing a strategic plan to propose; Goal 2 is to provide quantitative evidence that outcomes at the JAC are of benefit to the residents of Brevard County; the outcome is to measure reduced recidivism rates by a minimum of 10% by next year; and the JAC wants to assess and insure that the services the youth and families are provided are appropriate and that they are being referred to the right services for their needs. Ms. Scapino stated the JAC is looking to decrease the amount of time incurred by law enforcement in regard to juvenile offenders; it is going to gather baseline data and make sure law enforcement maintains a maximum 15-minute officer downtime rate while at the Center; and it will decrease the interval of time between screening and time of assessment and increase utilization of the JAC by law enforcement agencies within the County. She noted the last objective is to insure that every juvenile processed at the JAC receives a comprehensive screening; and there are a number of desired outcomes under the measure. She stated the desired outcomes will not happen if the JAC closes; if the Center closes, all screenings will be done at the Detention Center; only youth with the most serious offenses will be screened, reducing the possibility of early prevention and intervention; families would not have easy access to needed services; and law enforcement personnel would spend more time processing and transporting delinquent youth. Ms. Scapino noted delinquency referrals in Brevard County from 1997-1998, when the JAC opened, to 2001 reduced by 10%; the overall crime rate has decreased for juvenile crime; and the JAC Advisory Board requests that the JAC continue at its current level of functioning at 16 hours a day, five days a week; the cost for correctional staff continue to be included in the County budget for FY 2002-2003; the Board extend the lease on the JAC until September 2003; and the JAC be assigned to a department within County government in order to facilitate long-term planning and problem solving with all the partners. She advised the JAC is dedicated to the prevention and reduction of juvenile crime through a partnership with youth and families by offering a multi-agency approach to early intervention and assessment services in Brevard County.

Commissioner O’Brien requested JAC explain what happens if a juvenile is brought in for battery. Teresa Ponchak, representing JAC, explained the process to the Board; stated the JAC came because the community wanted it; children need immediate consequences and interventions; and many children who come through the JAC are not wanted by their parents. She noted everyone who works at the JAC comes to help keep families together; there is a passion for what they do; they are trying to do the best for the citizens of Brevard County; and the JAC would like to stay operational. She noted Randy Thomas’ report was good in that there need to be outcomes and measures; the JAC does not disagree with that; the report includes a comment that every year the JAC Advisory Board has worried more about keeping the JAC alive; and it has piecemealed how it has kept the operation going. She stated the Advisory Board came to the recommendation that it would like to see the JAC in a County department; the JAC needs a clear group of people who are going to work with it; and the JAC, County staff, and the Board have worked well together.

Commissioner Colon requested staff respond to the recommendation of the JAC Advisory Board that the JAC be assigned to a department within County government to facilitate long-term planning.

Assistant County Manager Don Lusk responded over the years County staff has been handling a lot of the problems that have come up; the JAC has had no administrative oversight from any one particular department; whenever there was a problem to resolve, Housing and Human Services Department has been involved; and he is confident if that is the direction the Board wants to go, then County staff can handle it.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve recommendation of the Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC) Advisory Board that the JAC be assigned to a department within County government to facilitate long-term planning; and direct staff to report back to the Board concerning a formalized arrangement and management of contracts. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs inquired does the Board need to deal with the budget issue of approximately $80,000 that is not funded. Mr. Lusk responded the dollar figure in the agenda report is $89,674; he understands it is the Sheriff’s increase based on some raise that he was hoping to get; and he does not understand why it is not included with all the Sheriff’s other personnel.

Ms. Ponchak stated the JAC was told that there would be an increase to have the correctional officers; the cost would have to be provided to the Board by the Sheriff’s Office; and the Advisory Board was trying to give an honest attempt at what it might cost for such officers.

Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board were to allocate the approximately $200,000 that is in the budget today, the Advisory Board and others would have to look at what kind of operational changes or other things would have to happen as a result of not having that. Ms. Ponchak stated the Advisory Board would have to work with the Sheriff’s Office.

Commissioner O’Brien stated he commends the program, but he looks at other things as well as it could become very costly; and the JAC is open 16 hours a day, five days a week Monday through Friday, but not on Saturday. Ms. Ponchak stated screening services for detention are required 24 hours a day, seven days a week; but she does not have the numbers with her. Chairman Scarborough requested Ms. Ponchak get back to the Board with those numbers. Commissioner O’Brien stated the County is talking about approximately $300,000 of taxpayers’ money that the Board is responsible for. Chairman Scarborough noted the Board does not have to make a decision at this moment. Commissioner Higgs stated she has the report and met with staff and the Advisory Board; and she feels comfortable with what she knows about the program. Chairman Scarborough noted the ability to screen benefits the court system and the capacity to run the right people through the jail; the County has talked about segregating out the mentally ill in the jail system; by screening, it is saving itself money; and there is a tremendous ability to screen and go smart with the money as it is using the resources wisely. He stated if the County runs people through the system that should not be going in one place and should be going somewhere else, it is wasting taxpayers’ money; he is satisfied with proceeding with the JAC; if the Board wants to get additional data and discuss the issues further, that is fine; but Commissioner O’Brien needs to get the information, work with JAC, and bring it back. Chairman Scarborough advised he is prepared to proceed with the JAC as it is spending money wisely; it is a great program; and the Board needs to support it. Commissioner O’Brien noted he is not saying the JAC is not a great program; but if there are savings, he would like to know where they are. Commissioner Higgs stated the most telling dollar figure the County potentially could see would be the amount of time that law enforcement stays off the road; it looked at the number of cases and where they are; it could estimate what it would take to go from Sarno Road to Sharpes and back, and for the officer to do the processing; and requested staff provide an estimate on the dollar value of it.

The meeting recessed at 1:35 p.m. and reconvened at 2:10 p.m.

Supervisor of Elections Office

Supervisor of Elections Fred Galey stated his Office has worked well with the Budget Office staff; the only item the County has not approved was a voter education coordinator; the State passed a law that says he must run voter education programs; and he is doing that, but could do a better job if he had a person doing it full-time. He requested the Board approve the coordinator position, but stated he understands how tight the budget is. He noted there are almost 300,000 registered voters in Brevard County; there are 215 precincts; his budget is straightforward; and the elections will be on September 10, 2002 and November 2002, which will be a busy time. He stated all the precinct boundary lines have been redrawn; the maps are being printed; new voter identification cards are being mailed to the voters; and attached to the cards are education packages. Mr. Galey noted touch screen voting is now available; Brevard County may eventually be required to get same under the John McCain Bill; and the cost would be $850,000, which the State would have to fund. He stated the County may also eventually have to deal with the language situation; it is not required to print any ballots in Spanish or anything else; but many other counties have gone to that. He noted the County may have to spend some extra money as the State changed the rules, Constitutional Amendment No.1 is going to take one entire column, and there may be two ballot cards.

Commissioner Colon inquired what is the savings since there will not be a second primary; with Mr. Galey responding approximately $210,000. Commissioner Colon inquired about availability of the precinct maps. Mr. Galey responded such maps are at the printers in Fort Lauderdale; and the maps are available on the Internet.

Commissioner Carlson stated the County has a large percentage of military presence; in the year 2000 there was a lot of debate over counting overseas absentee ballots; and inquired what has changed in the law to make it an easier process. Mr. Galey responded the law is more cut and dry with the dates on the envelope; but other than that, not a lot has changed; and the law is pretty much the same as it was previously. He noted the State did not eliminate the 10-day rule; the County is going to count those absentee ballots one way or the other as long as the individual will take time to sign and notarize it; and the dates and postmarks can be worked. Commissioner Carlson stated she has received a lot of feedback; a lot of military are disenfranchised because there are those who would like to use the military vote and issue for political gain; when she sat on the Canvassing Board in the year 2000 as the Chairman, it made a call based on the law; and that interpretation, along with other counties that had the same interpretation of the law, was brought up to the Supreme Court. She noted the ruling was to use some flexibility; therefore, the Canvassing Board brought the ballots back in and counted them, even though postmarks were incorrect, etc.; it would be nice to send the message to the military community overseas that every vote was counted; and it is important. Mr. Galey stated the votes will be counted as long as those overseas advise his Office where they are located. Commissioner Carlson stated the County needs to make sure it is following the law. Mr. Galey noted as long as the voters are in substantial compliance, the Canvassing Board is there to count the votes and not look for a technical reason not to. Commissioner Carlson stated her fear was that if those votes were counted illegally that they would have been thrown out at the end; and it would have been a huge disservice to the military. Mr. Galey reiterated his request for a voter education coordinator; and stated if it is not possible, the voter education program will still get done.

Tax Collector

Mr. Jenkins advised the Tax Collector’s budget is not officially received until August 1, 2002; and the County only has an estimate.

Property Appraiser

Mr. Jenkins stated the Property Appraiser’s budget is a 2.98% increase; and staff provided the Board with copies of the State budget, as well as the County document.

Bea Polk stated Property Appraiser Jim Ford should attend the budget workshops to tell the Board where his money goes; it is taxpayers’ money and not State money; she has talked to the State, which indicated the Board can appeal the Property Appraiser’s budget; however, the Board has never appealed any of said budget. She inquired what happened to the audit of Mr. Ford’s books and who is he accountable to for what he spends; stated the Attorney General has his opinion, and inquired what is the court’s opinion; stated this is a laugh in Brevard County; and inquired is the Board going to have an audit of Mr. Ford’s books. She stated the Property Appraiser’s Attorney does not put down his hours of work and only the dates; he gives the County a lot of bills for his services; the paperwork needs to be checked; and thousands of dollars have been wasted. Ms. Polk stated the Board owes it to the taxpayers to pay for an audit; if it cannot get the funds, she will take up a collection; and she knows people who are willing to give a donation to see if the books are correct. She noted individuals working Mr. Ford’s campaign received over $5,000 in pay raises; some employees received pay raises of over $11,000, $10,000 and $7,000; inquired do the County employees receive these kinds of pay raises and is it fair to the public.

Ms. Polk noted there are secretaries in Mr. Ford’s Office who make $54,000 and $74,000; she does not see those kinds of salaries in other offices, including secretaries at Kennedy Space Center; the Tax Collector’s employees’ salaries are in line with the County employees’ salaries; and the Supervisor of Elections’ employees’ salaries are the same also. She stated Mr. Ford is accountable to no one; when she asked the State why it approved Mr. Ford’s budget, its response was that Mr. Ford needed it; and when she asked it how does it know that, its response was because Mr. Ford said he did. She requested the Board give Mr. Ford 1.5% increase instead of 2.98% increase; stated the Board questions the Sheriff’s and Clerk’s Offices, but never questions the Property Appraiser’s Office; the public wants to know why; and it is time that the County has some control.

Chairman Scarborough stated the County asked for an Attorney General’s opinion. County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Attorney General does not believe the Board has the authority to audit the Constitutional Officers; and the Attorney General did not give a reason why he feels that way. Chairman Scarborough stated Orange County has a comptroller; the Clerk is able to give the Board an independent analysis of what is being done in the County, although it has a Budget Office; the County is funding the Constitutional Officers; however, they run their own books and records; and the comptroller would do what the Clerk does for the County right now. He noted the comptroller would be independent from the County; he or she would have a singular job for all the agencies; and everything would be verified by the comptroller. Commissioner Higgs noted perhaps the County could review Orange County’s Charter. She stated under the Public Records Act, an individual may request all the information that could substantially do an audit; and that is the law. Attorney Knox noted he does not know how the Attorney General came to his opinion; Florida Statutes also give the authority to audit county officers; and the Attorney General did not address the Statutes. Commissioner Carlson inquired how does the Board get a second opinion; with Attorney Knox responding staff tried to do that, but the Attorney General’s Office would not reconsider it.

Ms. Polk stated the agenda for today’s workshop was given to her two days ago from the Clerk’s Office and County Commissioner’s Office; the Property Appraiser’s Office was on said agenda; today the agenda did not have the Property Appraiser’s Office listed on it; and inquired who removed it from the agenda. Mr. Jenkins responded if there were no significant changes in certain budgets, the Board has not been discussing those; the budgets put on the agenda are those with significant changes; the Property Appraiser’s budget is on the agenda under “Other Charter Officers”; and he was not aware that the agenda Ms. Polk is referring to had been handed out.

Ms. Polk stated something is fishy about the Property Appraiser’s budget; and reiterated there needs to be an audit of his books.

Chairman Scarborough stated the County is trying to move forward with the greater utilization of SAP; there was an issue where things were not balancing and a large number was wiped off; and inquired was the amount approximately $15 million.

Finance Director Stephen Burdett responded it was the discrepancy in the property records versus what was on the financial records; it all came to light when the County moved into the new SAP system. Chairman Scarborough noted there were imbalances; everything should be accounted for; and all of the systems should be running so anybody at anytime can have that data. He stated there can be many requests, but if the County does not have systems that can draw it forward and know what it is, it is going to have an irresponsible system; an irresponsible system may not be necessarily something fraudulent or evil, but it may be just improper utilizing of the people’s property, moving it, and understanding what is there; part of the problem is just having a good system; and a good system would be inclusive of all of the places the monies go so there is a handle on it. Mr. Burdett advised the Clerk, the Board, and Supervisor of Elections use the SAP. Chairman Scarborough stated the Clerk has indicated to him that he has no problem with the Board proceeding with the comptroller and relinquishing that function from the Clerk’s Office under the Charter.

Commissioner Higgs inquired are there registered lobbyists for any of the other Constitutional Officers or departments other than the lobbyist registered for Brevard County; with Mr. Jenkins responding the Property Appraiser has employed a consultant, but he is not aware of anybody else. Commissioner Higgs requested staff provide the information to the Board; and stated she is interested in what the dollar amount is.

Chairman Scarborough stated the taxable County property is 56 cents for incorporated and 44 cents for unincorporated; and the municipalities are subsidizing the Sheriff’s helicopter in the County, as opposed to what may have been thought of this morning. Mr. Burdett noted another way to look at it is that he assumes the Sheriff is using the helicopter for Countywide types of law enforcement purposes.

Commissioner Higgs inquired is the County mandated by State Statute to run a jail Countywide; with Attorney Knox responding affirmatively.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to provide a report to the Board defining what the comptroller does, including the duties of Orange County’s comptroller; and review what other charters and surrounding counties do. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Property Appraiser’s secretary makes $54,000, which is approximately $20,000 more than the highest paid secretary in the County; and inquired does Mr. Jenkins see where the County would ever pay a secretary $54,000. Mr. Jenkins stated the County does not have a secretary making that amount of money; it depends on what the individual’s role is; and the Property Appraiser’s secretary has been with the County for many years.

Chairman Scarborough stated there is a tremendous amount of discretion in a charter officer; the Board approves a budget; and the charter officer is able to redefine how they function efficiently.

Ms. Polk stated the Board is responsible for how much extra money it is giving the Property Appraiser’s Office for these kinds of salaries; and reiterated her request for an audit of Mr. Ford’s books. She noted the Board can go to court to find out if the County can do such an audit.

Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District

Al Pennell, Manager for Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District, stated the District Board is requesting the Board’s consideration of a user fee increase of 84 cents for the typical single-family residential homeowner; the District is requesting one new staff position in the aquatic herbicide application; and by filling the position, he can leave the existing personnel for mowing and gate maintenance. He noted the two largest areas of complaint from the public are that the District does not mow enough and there are too many people using the rights-of-way with ATV’s and motorized vehicles; if the position is not approved, the District will continue to operate the same way, but will have to continue to use personnel from other areas to get the water treatment done; there is also an indirect cost assessment imposed by the County, which is a new charge for the District; and the District has no objection to it. Mr. Pennell stated the District has extraordinary increases in insurance costs; there is a loss of interest in revenues from interest income; and reiterated the District is looking for an 84-cent annual charge increase.

Commissioner Higgs stated the budget document includes over 81% of the billable parcels; and inquired is the 81% single-family; with Mr. Pennell responding that is correct. Mr. Pennell advised the residential income represents approximately 92% of the budget; and 81% of the total parcels are single-family. Mr. Pennell noted the District’s first budget hearing is held in the Melbourne-Tillman District; and the meeting will be held in the City of West Melbourne’s Council Chambers.

Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority

David Edwards, Executive Director of Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority, stated the Authority is requesting a 100% increase in the current ad valorem millage rate; the Authority supports the community in several ways, including the Civil Air Patrol flights, Search and Rescue missions from the airports, and staging areas for emergency disasters; the Sheriff’s operation is at Merritt Island; that airport is used heavily by the Sheriff’s Office for its operation; and Mosquito Control uses Space Coast Regional Airport. He noted the Coast Guard, Air Care, and Holmes Regional Medical Center use the airports for various rescue efforts; the Authority is self-sustaining from a day-to-day operating standpoint; its intention in the future is to become fully self-sustaining, not only from a daily standpoint, but from a capital expenditure and capital improvement standpoint as well; and in the Legislation, the Authority can request up to one-half mill be imposed in taxing authority. He stated if the Board were to grant it, it would generate approximately $4.2 million a year in annual tax revenue; the Authority is only asking for 10% of that; the Florida Today recognized that Brevard County has one of the lowest millage rates Statewide; and his concern is that the Authority’s facilities are continuing to deteriorate due to lack of revenue and funding. Mr. Edwards noted over the last three years the Authority, with the Board’s blessing, did seek a loan from the Commercial Paper Bonding Program in order to be able to do some of the capital and renovation work that had to be done to airfield infrastructure, aprons, taxiways, and runways; as a result of doing that work, the Authority has a debt of approximately $2.5 million and an annual debt service amount of approximately $219,000 a year; and the unfunded portion of the budget and what the Authority is requesting is an additional millage rate to fund the debt service to free up the money to continue to rehabilitate existing facilities on the Airport. He stated if such facilities are not rehabilitated soon, they will become in such a deteriorated state and disrepair that they will continue to generate no revenue for the Airport and will need to be demolished; and the Authority needs the County’s assistance.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board discussed the decrease in the millage for Ti-Co Airport Authority and getting the Authority off of the tax roll; and it is doing a total reversal of that direction it was going. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board took the Authority off of the tax roll entirely one year because of some discussions that were going on with the past Authority director. Commissioner Higgs noted there was a commitment by the Authority to bring it off the tax roll; and the Authority Board today is saying that is no longer its commitment. Mr. Edwards stated the commitment is there; due to the fact of being completely removed from the tax rolls and losing $850,000 in taxing authority in one year, it was impossible to continue to support the Airport to provide the various capital improvements; the Airport’s facilities may continue to deteriorate to a point that they cannot be leased; and the revenue stream continues to fall away.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Budget Office has recommended the increase; with Mr. Rogero responding negatively and it is not included in the preliminary budget as funded. Mr. Rogero stated the needs staff identified in other areas were seen as a higher priority. Mr. Jenkins noted it would not fit in the millage calculation trying to stay at 3%. Commissioner Higgs inquired does the millage increase the Authority is requesting affect the whole County; with Mr. Rogero responding affirmatively. Mr. Jenkins noted the County is not against the Airport or its development, but staff could not get the request in the millage rate. Chairman Scarborough suggested County staff meet with the Authority Board to explain the complications that the Board works under. Mr. Edwards stated the Authority Board would understand the position that the Board is in; and the question is what does the Authority do for the future. Chairman Scarborough requested the Budget Office prepare a memorandum to the Board explaining to it under its cap the limitations and its capacity to accommodate the Authority’s request. Mr. Edwards stated the unfunded request is the $219,000; and if there can be any consideration given to any potential increase in order to help the Authority in this effort, it would be greatly appreciated.

Commissioner Colon stated all County departments have to watch their budgets and cut back, so it is not something that only pertains to the Authority; and Mr. Edwards needs to relate that to the Airport Board. Mr. Edwards stated the Authority has been trying to reduce its ad valorem taxing request; and it is only asking for 10% of its overall enabling legislation authorized amount. He inquired does the Authority assume at this point that the preliminary budget that has been submitted by the Budget Office is the budget that will be forwarded or will there be additional discussions during the budget hearings. Mr. Jenkins responded it is hard to say and the Board has not made that decision yet.

Economic Development Commission

Mr. Jenkins stated the Economic Development Commission is not present today as it is not making a change in its budget.

Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency

Mr. Jenkins advised that the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency does not have any significant changes in its budget.

The meeting recessed at 3:15 p.m. and reconvened at 3:25 p.m.

Revenue Overview

Mr. Rogero stated the preliminary budget for FY 2002-2003 totals $732 million; it is a 5.51% decrease from the FY 2001-2002 amended budget; it is a slight decrease of 0.68% from the October 1, 2001 adopted budget; and the ad valorem funded portion totals $163.3 million. He noted the Countywide budget by fund type includes $181,026,707 for General Fund, $208,072,110 for Special Revenue Funds, $34,027,972 for Debt Service Funds, $93,133,640 for Capital Project Funds, $154,146,008 for Enterprise Funds, and $61,646,765 for Internal Service Funds; and explained the Countywide budget comparison by fund type between the amended budget of FY 2001-2002 and the preliminary budget of FY 2002-2003; and stated all but the General Funds and the Internal Service Funds decrease from this year to next year. Mr. Rogero explained the General Fund Revenues between the amended budget for FY 2001-2002 and preliminary budget for FY 2002-2003, including balance forward from $19,482,791 to $17,039,876; 5% statutory reduction from $7,488,645 to $8,012,189; taxes from $85,683,763 to $96,797,413; licenses and permits from $5,779,529 to $6,408,001; and intergovernmental revenue from $37,710,341 to $35,813,157.

Commissioner Carlson inquired about the 5% statutory reduction and the Clerk advising that the County was using the 5% when it should not have been; stated it was the difference between one budget and the other budget; and based on what she is hearing, it does not sound like the County had the authority to do it anyway. Mr. Rogero responded he has not fully researched where the Clerk was coming from.

Mr. Burdett stated in the quarterly reports he presented to the Board on the revenues, the half-cent sales tax number under intergovernmental has 5% off of said number as it is technically what the Board is going to be spending; and it is how much of that half-cent sales tax the Board is budgeted to spend, and the amount that is being collected. He noted the difference between the number that the Clerk is talking about and what Mr. Rogero is referring to is the 5%; it is not like there is money missing; every dollar collected is being carried forward into next year; but the way he presents it he wants the Board to see the real financial position. He stated the Budget Office is showing a cushion and it is being carried over into next year.

Mr. Rogero stated charges for services is from $17,339,436 to $17,307,076; miscellaneous revenue is from $3,882,880 to $3,293,124; General Fund transfer is from $17,158,950 to $17,996,676; and other transfers is from $8,921,721 to $10,623,937. He noted the Special Revenue Fund revenues for the FY 2001-2002 amended budget and FY 2002-2003 preliminary budget include balance forward from $24,547,980 to $15,661,761; balance forward for capital from $55,159,816 to $52,157,324; 5% statutory reduction from $6,648,669 to $6,964,390; taxes from $67,159,940 to $70,714,239; intergovernmental revenue from $22,861,159 to $22,189,103; charges for services from $20,619,816 to $23,678,564; miscellaneous revenue from $22,697,960 to $21,961,824; General Fund transfer from $5,455,819 to $6,030,139; and other sources from $4,491,000 to $240,000. He noted Capital Project Fund revenues for the FY 2001-2002 amended budget and FY 2002-2003 preliminary budget include balance forward from $2,150,111 to $2,826,376; balance forward for capital from $79,375,262 to $76,957,222; intergovernmental revenue from $6,120,511 to $5,150,479; other transfers from $7,765,935 to $4,600,765; and other sources from $15,942,574 to $1,050,000. Mr. Rogero explained the Debt Service Fund revenues for the FY 2001-2002 amended budget and FY 2002-2003 preliminary budget, including balance forward from $445,802 to $440,780; balance forward for restricted purposes from $9,173,540 to $5,852,041; taxes from $17,886,391 to $19,102,079; miscellaneous revenue from $721,161 to $690,769; General Fund transfers from $5,396,436 to $6,208,249; and other transfers from $2,371,993 to $2,224,047. He stated the Internal Service Fund revenues for the FY 2001-2002 amended budget and FY 2002-2003 preliminary budget include balance forward for restricted purposes from $21,429,550 to $20,397,841; charges for services from $36,895,422 to $40,320,563; and miscellaneous revenue from $905,546 to $928,361. Mr. Rogero stated the Enterprise Fund Revenues for the FY 2001-2002 amended budget and FY 2002-2003 preliminary budget include balance forward from $18,645,755 to $18,978,756; balance forward for restricted purposes from $30,871,232 to $31,700,348; balance forward for capital from $43,167,400 to $23,481,925; intergovernmental revenue from $9,124,143 to $9,517,708; charges for services from $57,380,734 to $58,638,519; miscellaneous revenue from $10,464,500 to $9,927,686; and General Fund transfer from $1,572,752 to $1,683,463. He noted the FY 2002-2003 budget development schedule includes July 30, 2002 for the tentative millage, August 20, 2002 for the Melbourne-Tillman budget hearing, September 11, 2002 for the first budget hearing, and September 26, 2002 for the final budget hearing.

Chairman Scarborough requested staff provide information on State revenue sharing, local half-cent sales tax collection, FP&L franchise fees, gas taxes, TDC comparatives, ad valorem taxes, and the new construction.

Commissioner Higgs stated the millage that is currently being projected is a 3% increase; with Mr. Jenkins responding it is 3% over the current aggregate rate. Commissioner Higgs noted the computed aggregate includes the voted millage; with Mr. Rogero responding it includes the operating and maintenance portion of the voted millage.

Commissioner Higgs stated if the County were to take out the voted millages, which was part of the formula that she had last year when the Board was trying to figure out what the 3% meant, staff is recommending at this point a millage increase of approximately 3.2%. Mr. Jenkins noted if the Board were to remove the voted operation and maintenance millages, it would be a 3.2% increase; however, he is not aware of any language in the CAPIT that addresses voted operating millages not being part of it. He stated the County did not remove the voted-operating millage as staff did not see anything in CAPIT that specifically referenced it, so it was included. Commissioner Higgs stated she has a memo with her calculations; she has difficulty with how the County might handle the voted millages; in her estimations and calculations, it should not be part of the 3% as people had already voted on it; and she will send her memo to the Board members.

Chairman Scarborough inquired what is the significance of the 3% cap; with Mr. Jenkins responding there is no legal bearing to the 3%. Mr. Jenkins stated in reading the language in CAPIT, it refers to revenues; for the current year staff multiplied 3% times revenues to give a range to set the budget in; however, if one were to take it upon himself or herself to interpret what voters intended to vote on, one could interpret that the voters intended to vote on 3% tax rate increase. He noted when staff did the budget, it used the 3% tax rate increase as its first goal; and the Board reserves the right to go anywhere above or below that within the other legal constraints. Chairman Scarborough stated Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten indicated there was the capacity to discuss an additional source of revenue of $4.7 million; and it does not violate any provisions under the law. Mr. Whitten stated he was referencing Florida Law; and Florida Law, Chapter 74-430 is more restrictive than CAPIT. Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board feels compelled to see some things funded, Mr. Whitten is saying it has breathing room of $4.7 million. Mr. Jenkins noted the language in the CAPIT says 3% revenue and not 3% tax rate; what he was operating off of as the County formulated the preliminary budget was 3% over the current aggregate rate; there was no discussion about excluding voter-approved; and the voter-approved operating millage that is used for parks and recreation was included in the calculations. He stated if the Board decides to take it out, there is a 3.2% budget increase instead of a 3% budget increase; and the County would need to cut or find additional revenues of approximately $250,000.

Chairman Scarborough stated last year the Clerk raised the issue dealing with revenue and whether the County counted certain things as revenue. Mr. Jenkins responded the Clerk was arguing that the Board should go 3% over rollback, apply it to the tax rate, and not count the word “revenue”. Chairman Scarborough noted one of the arguments was what was to be included; the question was whether to go to the rate or revenue; and if the County goes to the revenue, there is a margin of almost $5 million and the strict interpretation would be a cut of $200,000. Commissioner Higgs stated there was a consensus last year that the 3% did not apply to the rollback millage rate.

Discussion ensued concerning fines and forfeitures, half-cent sales tax, traffic fines, requests by the Sheriff, and insurance reserves.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the County’s reserve; with Mr. Rogero responding the General Fund reserves in the preliminary budget are approximately $6.5 million, which is about 5% of the general operating revenue.

Chairman Scarborough inquired does the Board want to give the County Manager a read on how the County is going to interpret 3%; and stated he is comfortable with including the voter-approved.

Chairman Scarborough passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Colon.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to use the interpretation of 3% including voter approved for the purpose of discussing that particular requirement. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Scarborough and Carlson voted aye, Commissioners O’Brien, Higgs, and Colon voted nay.

Vice Chairman Colon passed the gavel to Chairman Scarborough.

Motion by Commissioner O’Brien, that the Board not raise taxes. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner O’Brien stated the County could save money by not funding the JAC and not giving the Sheriff 20 new deputies; the Board needs to start saying no instead of yes to everything; all County employees could receive their raises as they certainly deserve; and the County could pay the health insurance. He noted people need to live within their means; and if the Board keeps raising taxes, people who are living on the edge will not be able to live within their means anymore. Commissioner Higgs noted the millage rate, even with the 3% increase, still is close to what it was in 1992, if not below. Mr. Rogero stated he does not have the information in front of him. Commissioner Higgs stated she would like to know what the 3% means to the average household.

Commissioner O’Brien requested staff provide the numbers if the Board gives all its employees raises and pays the health insurance, compared to the amount of revenue raised by the increased construction in Brevard County and increase in property values. Mr. Jenkins stated staff can do that, but he does not know how much significance it will have as there are other impacts on the General Fund that the Board does not have a control over at this point in time; the Board increased the amount of jail contract to provide medical services of $1 million; he does not know what can be done about that, short of shutting the jail down or not providing medical care; and the County was getting a payment of $1 million plus from Solid Waste Management Department to repay for real estate it used. He noted that has been discontinued; the County implemented something to offset some of that, but it lost approximately $500,000 there; it consumed money this year out of its reserve and did not get cash forward this year to replenish; and he has given $5 million worth of reductions in revenues that the Board cannot alter at this point. Mr. Jenkins stated if the Board is going to do what is being suggested, there are some built-in increases that have to be included or it will not be a meaningful exercise; it does not mean that the Board could not eliminate all the other program changes and is something it could do; but some of them the Board has committed to this year; and it is obligated to do them, unless it does a complete reversal.

Commissioner O’Brien stated the Board may have to do a complete reversal; and there was a terrible event that happened last Fall that affected all the revenues.

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board has an Executive Session at this time.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

ATTEST: __________________________________
TRUMAN SCARBOROUGH, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)