MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

February 15, 2007

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special/workshop session on February 15, 2007, at 9:05 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairman Jackie Colon,  Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Chuck Nelson, Helen Voltz, and Mary Bolin, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

 

 

 

William Ferrell requested the Board’s assistance in the matter of the road system, in particular the St. Johns Heritage Parkway; they need vital connectors to different parts of the County for the purpose of health, safety, and evacuation; they are faced with gridlock; and they need viable roadway connectors.  He stated in this case I-95 is a natural barrier; it blocks off much of the ability to travel naturally from place to place; and that is why the people need another carrier roadway west of I-95.  He stated it would be an evacuation connector or work if I-95 was blocked; and commented on accidents on I-95.  He commented on alleviating trips, saving road dollars, and working with Melbourne Airport.  He advised Palm Bay had a visioning meeting two weeks ago; and all the cities seem to be supportive of the St. Johns Heritage Parkway, so he hopes money can be found to build the roadway system.  He stated working on a transportation system is a priority of the voters; and commented on quality of life, overcrowded roadways, commuter times, and need for a more efficient road system.  He stated he is working with many landowners throughout the County as well as municipalities and the Melbourne Airport Authority to try to make this happen. 

 

Commissioner Voltz expressed appreciation to Mr. Ferrell for his input; and stated she does not think the Board has held a transportation workshop without Mr. Ferrell being present in support.

 

Mr. Ferrell advised he worked to get U.S. 192 four-laned; and thanked the Board for its help on that project.

 

 

 

Chief Judge Tonya Rainwater stated she is in favor of expending funds for the courthouse expansion; the number of judges in the County has increased significantly and will continue to increase because of the population increases; and they formulated a stakeholders’ group consisting of judges, Brevard County representatives, State Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, Clerk of Courts, attorneys from the private sector representing north, central, and south Brevard, and the Court Administrator.  She stated the group has met at least three or four times in the last six months; they have agreed unanimously that it is necessary to proceed immediately to have space available for the expanding number of judges; and the space needs to be available by 2009.  She stated funding needs to be committed now in order to have the facility available
by 2009; and they agree the Board needs to look forward to another facility in South Brevard within the next six to ten years.  Judge Rainwater stated clearly the growth is in the south and they need to be moving in that direction; but the immediate need in order to be accomplished and satisfied can be done with an expansion at the Moore Justice Center.  She requested the Board move forward with committing funds to completing an expansion at the Moore Justice Center; they are in favor of combining that with the needs of the State Attorney, Public Defender, Clerk, and the Sheriff, if it can be done appropriately in terms of security; and they need it to move forward immediately.  She stated she has expressed strongly to staff and to each of the Commissioners that parking is critical; if at all possible they would like to have parking dealt with earlier than two years from now; and commented on parking difficulties.  She stated it is crucial that the court needs be met. 

 

 

 

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated the Board has a special guest, Quinton Hayes, who is a senior at Rockledge High School and is interested in government; and he is present to observe the meeting. 

 

 

 

Sheriff Jack Parker stated he is present to advise of some of the needs of his office; and he hopes they can work together to resolve all issues.  He stated the first need is Criminal Investigations and lab needs; when the Government complex was created, Building E was designed as the Sheriff’s office building with the lower floor to be the West Precinct, and the upper floor to be the Investigations Division; and that is what happened when it first started.  He stated in 1997 a decision was made that the Public Defender’s office would take over the upper floor of the Sheriff’s building and move out Investigations; and so Investigations was squeezed back into existing precincts with a vision that there would be a permanent facility built for that unit in the not too distant future, but that never happened.  He stated they are in desperate need of approximately 20,000 square feet for the Investigations Division and the Crime Lab; and there are several options to fix that.  He stated the Public Defender is present to speak about additional space for his office; the space he is in right now is not big enough; and the ideal option would be to return that building to the Sheriff’s Office for use as originally intended, and additional space be granted to the Public Defender to relocate.  He stated that would allow him to bring all of the Investigations staff back to the building as it was originally designed; and if that happens, he would not have to build or buy another facility for Investigations.  He stated he is in desperate need of a North Precinct; it is currently operating out of a modular; and commented on the age and condition of the modular.  He expressed frustration that North Brevard has this modular; stated he would like to see North Brevard have the same thing as the other areas of the County; and that would be a decent law enforcement precinct.  He stated if they can reclaim the space in Building E for operations, they could take money they were going to dedicate toward building or buying a facility for Investigations and divert approximately $250,000 a year toward building a facility in the north end of the County.  He stated the last objective is to deal with the next phase of jail construction; that is not a popular thing to talk about; they are better today than they were a couple of years ago; and they will be better in the next year than they
are today.  Sheriff Parker stated when they started two years ago, they had 1,000 beds; currently they have a little over 1,300 operating beds; and they have a fourth tent that has been constructed, and as soon as there is staff for it, it will bring it up to 1,400 beds.  He stated there is an additional pod that is under construction now; when that is done, it will bring the jail up to 1,700 beds, so they have gone from 1,000 beds to 1,700 in a two and one-half year period; and the Board deserves credit for that.  He advised they have an inmate population of close to 1,900, and by the time the construction project is finished, it will probably be 2,100.  He stated a county the size of Brevard County deserves and should have a jail equivalent to 2,500 beds; and suggested they start thinking about the next phase of jail construction.  He stated they would like to keep that as economical as possible; and they propose another tent be built for female inmates, which would provide another 100 beds.  He stated they would also like to see a 500-bed medium security facility built on the same complex; it would most likely be self-contained, connected to the jail but with its own kitchen; and it would have ability to be expanded.  He stated they have to envision building for the future; that would give them 2,300 beds; they would be able to meet the near future needs of the jail population at that level; but cautioned it would only be a short period of time before they would be back again.  He stated they have to be vigilant and keep an eye on it; if they do not deal with it, it results in being in crisis mode; and they do not want to be in that position again because it is expensive to dig out of that hole.  He recommended the Board start thinking about the next phase and do everything possible to keep it as inexpensive as possible. 

 

Chairperson Colon inquired if that amount will be in the millions; with Sheriff Parker responding any time they are building 600 jail beds, it is going to be in the millions.  Sheriff Parker stated County staff along with some jail consultants would have to figure out exactly what the cost would be; but jail construction typically is $500 to $550 a square foot for high risk inmates; and that is why they do not want to build high risk if they do not need it.  He stated a lot of times when people pitch for jails, they pitch for high custody type housing so they can use it for everything; but in this case, there is no money for that so they need to look at alternatives to try to get the construction cost down to hopefully under $200 a square foot for medium security type housing.  He stated it is an expensive endeavor and that is why it takes planning and forethought; it would not open all at once; it could open in sections; and he is ready to partner with the Board to find the most economical way to meet the need of the situation in a way that is financial responsible.  Chairperson Colon inquired what year is Sheriff Parker targeting; with Sheriff Parker responding they need to start discussions now about the next phase; and groundbreaking could be as early as 2008.  He stated the tent is part of the longer range vision for the female inmates; they are redoing the jail annex to make it the women’s incarceration facility; and they will have just enough beds when it is done.  He stated the tent is more visionary than the medium security facility is; and there is an immediate need for at least half of the 500 beds in the very near future. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated Sheriff Parker said he needed 20,000 square feet for Criminal Investigations and labs; and inquired how many people will that involve; with Sheriff Parker responding approximately 80 people.  Commissioner Voltz inquired how many employees would normally occupy that square footage; with Mr. Whitten responding there are space standards, but he is not sure the County is meeting the strict requirements for space standards.  Commissioner Voltz inquired what is the requirement; with Mr. Whitten responding it depends on the classification and function of the position.  A representative of the Sheriff’s office
indicated they followed the County’s space study and came up with 22,000 square feet.  Sheriff Parker stated this is not just for 80 offices; it is a law enforcement operation so there will be investigation rooms, interview rooms, and the crime lab.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if there is an issue with hiring people for the jail; with Sheriff Parker responding they are close to a waiting list for certified corrections personnel for the jail; there are several vacancies; it is more difficult to hire corrections officers than it is to hire deputies; but they are working to close the gap, so almost all the positions are filled.  He stated they still have a handful of civilian correctional positions that need to be filled; but they are a little more difficult because the pay does not attract people to want to work in a jail facility.  He stated 21 vacancies were converted to 16 correctional officers to staff the tents; and while they had 30 vacancies a short time ago, most were converted to corrections officers and they have been hired.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if the need for jail space is because there are more criminals or because the Sheriff is doing a great job of putting them in jail; with Sheriff Parker responding the consultant thought they would be at 1,600 inmates, but they are at 1,850 inmates on average.  He stated there are several dynamics as to why that is happening; they have made a lot of arrests; there is a lot of reported crime; citizen confidence is climbing; and they are solving crimes, arresting people, and putting them in jail.  He stated they also have taken an aggressive stance on warrants; when he came to office there were 25,417 warrants; they have been trying to serve warrants at as fast a rate as possible; they get an additional 21,000 warrants a year; and they are down now to 18,000 warrants.  He stated that has an effect because a lot of people who have a warrant for their arrest have a failure to appear in their history; and when they get before a judge they are not the easiest people to release.  He stated there are several other impacts; the State of Florida is taking a zero tolerance to probation violations; and as a result they are spending a longer time in the jail before they go back to prison.  He stated all of those things are having an effect of a jail population that is rising at a relatively high level; and he knows it is expensive; but it is good for the community and quality of life.  He stated if they do not get the bad guys off the street and keep them off the street, they will continue to have repeat crime and victims, so the fact that the jail population is growing is the best dollar spent. 

 

Chairperson Colon commented on the domino effect; stated Brevard County is growing; with that come the good and the bad; and it is part of what happens to a growing community.  She stated this is not unique to Brevard County; it is happening all over Florida; judges are asking for expansions of courthouses and for more courthouses to be build; and that is because more people are going into jails, and therefore more have to go before judges. 

 

Sheriff Parker stated they are slightly below average when compared with the rest of the State; in Brevard County, for every 1,000 citizens, there are 3.5 citizens in jail; the State average is 3.6; but Orange County is at 4.5 or 4.6.  He stated they have had such a small jail for such a long period of time, but they are now starting to catch up. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired what is the square footage of Building E, the first floor.  Ms. Busacca distributed paperwork containing the square footage figures.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Orange County always takes exception to that number because it is based on population; but Orange County also has a large tourism faction that is not taken into account, so it does not believe its people have a great propensity for crime.  He stated when Commissioner Voltz was Chair, she brought together different groups to look at the
issue in a holistic sense; and he was briefed recently about drug court; 85% of the cases in drug court are not drug related, but based on a drug abuse problem.  Commissioner Scarborough stated that leads to the issue of recidivism within the jail; there was a very vocal mental health issue that the Commission has tried to respond to; and Sheriff Parker is well situated to work with the Chief Judge and others.  He stated once a person is before the court, it is empowered to do things that society could not do; the court system can work within the judicial system to reduce recidivism; and reduction in recidivism frees up money to best apply to where it is most needed.  He encouraged Sheriff Parker to continue those efforts. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated today the Board is talking about facilities; but it is bigger than that; and she is glad that was brought up.  She stated it is frustrating when the Board just talks about facilities; the folks at home are disappointed because all they hear about is increasing the jails; the County, by law, has to provide those facilities; but the question becomes looking at the bigger picture in making sure people do not end up in jail.  She stated that is the part that is sad; the County does not get support at the State level to make sure folks have a place to rehab; and these are things that are crucial to the community.  She stated the Board is talking about facilities, which is important; but inquired at what point will the Board have discussions at a workshop to look at the bigger picture, which is to make sure people do not end up in jail.  She commented on various groups that work with young people; stated when young people turn 18, they go into the jail system; and she wants the people at home to realize that the Board is looking at the bigger picture, it works closely with different not-for-profit groups, and it wants to find help for families that need it. 

 

Sheriff Parker stated his experience in the community is that the public is very supportive of additional jail space, providing two things are met; one is that it is very efficiently built; and the other is that there are not people in the jail who should not be there, like someone coming in for misdemeanor crime, getting forgotten by the system, and doing 65 days in the jail.  He stated as long as County staff is vigilant in watching that does not happen; the State Attorney’s office and the Public Defender’s office work hard to make sure that does not happen; and the Judges work hard to make sure that people do not fall through the cracks.  He stated as long as those two things happen, there will be a lot of public confidence in building the needed jail space because it is a direct impact on quality of life.  He stated nothing is worse than having someone break into your home repeatedly, but having that person let out of jail because the jail is too crowded; and there are a lot of people in the community who have had that experience.  He stated they cannot let that happen; they have to make sure there is a jail that is adequate for the population; it is difficult to tackle; but insuring the safety of citizens is one of the most important things they can do. 

 

Commissioner Voltz advised of having a meeting with Judge Atkins, Jim Whitaker of Circles of Care, and Dr. Hensel about the potential of a residential place for those people who are just over 18 years of age and have no place to go.  She stated there is nothing for that age group; and commented on getting jobs, learning life skills, and keeping that age group out of jail.  She stated she will update the Board on what the group is doing.

 

Chairperson Colon stated it goes back to throwing money at a problem; the County has no choice; but it also goes back to what life skills are being taught in high school, so the School Board has to be a partner.  She commented on wisdom coming to 18-year olds, young girls
having children, young boys who father these children but have no skills, and society having to support those individuals.  Chairperson Colon stated it is good to hear Circles of Care, Judges, County Commissioners, and others are trying to tackle this huge problem.

 

 

 

Bob Vitto, Brevard County Health Department, stated they are requesting $6.6 million in the upcoming budget year to complete a building project that already had $10 million in State funding; the intent of the new Central Brevard County Health Department building is to expand and consolidate all clinical and public health services in the central part of the County; and those services are now scattered in four locations, two locations in Rockledge, one in Cocoa, and one in Merritt Island.  He stated the scope of the building project is 68,000 square feet for a cost of $16.6 million; and with the $10 million already in the bank from the State, it would be possible to only build 44,000 square feet of the building, including the second floor as a shell.  He stated there are advantages to the current request for funds; every County in Florida has a county health department, which is a joint partnership between the State and the county; the State, through the Florida Department of Health, provides all of the employees who work at the Health Department; and they have 400 employees who generate a payroll of approximately $17 million a year, which is funded through the State.  He stated all the doctors and nurses are covered by the State’s sovereign immunity, which relieves the County of medical liability issues.  He stated the County’s responsibility is to provide the facilities; the County has done that very well so far; and they appreciate it.  He stated the new building is a $16.6 million project; they already have $10 million; and the timetable for the building is quick.  He stated at 11:00 a.m. today, there will be a pre-bid conference meeting for the contractors; what is being bid is a condensed version of 44,000 square feet; and the remaining 24,000 square feet will be built when the additional $6.6 million is obtained.  He stated groundbreaking is scheduled for June 2007; and it would be most cost effective if the $6.6 million were allocated while the core of the building is being built and the contractors, builders, and architects are already mobilized onsite rather than waiting a year or two and having to remobilize and pay higher construction costs.  He stated if the $6.6 million is allocated, then the 43,000 square feet that the Health Department currently occupies in the four locations in Central Brevard would be available for the County to use for whatever services or programs it needs; and by consolidating the four sites, the Health Department will be able to operate more efficiently and effectively, with larger clinical services.      

 

Chairperson Colon inquired if one of the biggest complaints from the community has been concerning making facilities closer to the people; and stated she has seen more not-for-profit groups putting out satellite facilities so the services are available to the community.  She stated a lot of people do not have transportation; and there are pros and cons to having a centralized facility with a community that is 72 miles long.  Mr. Vitto stated they have clinical buildings in Titusville and Melbourne that are going to remain there; those two sites will not be affected; and the only site that will be impacted will be the one on Cedar Street in Rockledge.  He stated they already have a commitment from the Space Coast Area Transit to bring bus lines to the front of the Health Department building, which will be in Viera, to assist those residents who do not have a car.  He advised community members do not come to the site in Cocoa; in Cocoa, they go to people’s houses and to different areas of the County, so it is primarily outreach and education at
that site.  Mr. Vitto stated in Merritt Island, they have administrative services; so it is only the clinical services in Rockledge that are going to impact the community; and with the new flyover that is being built over I-95, the Viera site will be much closer to the old site. 

 

 

 

James R. Russo, Public Defender, stated for the last two years, he has been before at least three Commissioners concerning the issue of facility needs for the Public Defender’s office; and he appreciates that the Board has a grasp that this is more than just a facilities issue and that the facilities issue affects the whole operation of the system.  He advised of Publix wanting to treat its customers better by getting them out of the store more quickly, needing checkout lines to do that, and needing people to man the checkout lines; and stated right now for the criminal justice system, the manning of those checkout lines would be by the State Attorney, Public Defender, and the judges.  He stated all the checkout lines can be built, but unless there are people to staff them, it will not do any good.  He stated there are almost 1,200 people at the jail awaiting felony trials; a lot of people are needed to process 1,200 people through the court system; it is not possible without the people, and they cannot have the people unless there is space to put them in.  He stated that is where his office is now; there are vacant positions they would like to fill, but they cannot be filled because there is no space for those people; and advised unless they can man the checkout lines, they are not going to be able to move people through the criminal justice system in the manner that they need to be moved to have their cases disposed of judiciously and effectively.  He stated he supports the courts and their need for more courtrooms; he is not in opposition to the Sheriff and his needs for space; but they also need space for State Attorneys and Public Defenders to process the cases.  He stated he is also present in support of the facilities space options that staff has provided; in that document one of the recommendation is that the Public Defender take over all of Building E; that would be the quickest way to handle things; and in that case, the Sheriff would move to another location.  He stated he likes that option; the needs are immediate; and that option would take care of the situation for the next ten years. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated when he was being briefed, they tried to figure out how to move the judicial things around; they are looking at 60,000 square feet for the new facility, and if they reconfigure, it could be even greater; and he understands that Mr. Russo finds it to be a problem for his clients to be in a facility that is collocated with the court system because of the security component.  He inquired if Mr. Russo needs to have something separate but nearby so the attorneys can get to court quickly but his clients do not have to go through security.

 

Mr. Russo stated he does not know that it is an absolute requirement, but it is one of his personal concerns.  He stated his office needs to be either in the courthouse or located close to the courthouse in order to operate in an effective manner; and to put the office in a building that is further than walking distance is not appropriate.  He stated with respect to the security issue, someone coming into the courthouse has to be searched; and he finds it repugnant to ask people to give up their Fourth Amendment rights in order to exercise their Sixth Amendment rights to an attorney.  He stated that is his personal feeling; if there is no other option but for his clients to go through a security facility to see their lawyer, that is the way it is; and he does not want his personal preferences to get in the way of County issues. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Russo currently has 17,000 square feet on the first floor; the second floor is an additional 19,000 square feet; and inquired if Mr. Russo needs to double his space.  Mr. Russo noted his office is on the second floor and the Sheriff is on the first; but in terms of doubling his space, he does not believe there is a need to do that tomorrow, but his office could probably fill the whole building within ten years.  He stated if he is being asked what he needs today, he could be satisfied with taking a portion of the first floor right away. 

 

 

 

Attorney Doug Beam stated he is present to address the courthouse issue; there are about 45 lawyers who wanted to be present but could not because they are working; and he was before Judge Turner at 8:15 a.m., after driving 21 miles to get to the courthouse.  He commented on making the 21-mile drive back and forth from his office to the courthouse, schematics not showing anything in Melbourne, voluntary Bar Association, and the north, south, and central issue.  He stated he worked hard with the lawyers to get a facility in Viera; and it is not the Taj Mahal, but it works.  He stated that was in 1994-95; he was 37 at the time and is now 49; and they still do not have Circuit Judges in Melbourne.  He commented on his fellow attorneys, having to go to Viera for everything being time consuming and costly for clients, witnesses having to go to Titusville for civil cases, and access issues.  He stated in 1994-95, the courthouse went up, and it was at capacity; Judge Rainwater allowed him to address the stakeholders’ meeting; and it was unanimous that there was a need for space.  He advised he is not on the Committee, but Judge Rainwater allowed him to speak; and at that meeting it was not unanimous to have everything at Viera.  He stated no schematics show anything in South Brevard; from 1994 to 2007, there are still no Circuit Court Judges in South Brevard.  He stated he appreciates what Commissioner Scarborough has done; and all they are asking for is what Titusville has, which is two Circuit Court Judges and two County Court Judges.  He stated Titusville has a modest facility, but it works; and commented on parking in Melbourne, The Viera Company building a parking garage, getting something started in South Brevard, retaining felony cases in Viera, and moving to take felony cases out of Titusville.  He commented on Sanford’s criminal justice center; and reiterated his request for two Circuit Court Judges in South Brevard.  He advised in 2004, they provided the Board  with a petition signed by 80 to 100 lawyers from all over the County, asking for two Circuit Court Judges to sit daily in the Melbourne Courthouse.  He stated at the stakeholders meeting Judge Maxwell advised he would be willing to work out of a hut in South Brevard; and he would go to that hut with his clients.  He commented on taking Sheriff Parker’s space, using a tent, access issues, Judge Chance’s order, whether the Board is meeting the legislative mandate regarding access; and preferring to work amicably.  He advised he has worked with the South Brevard NAACP, Lipscomb Street Park Association, various municipal elected officials, Caribbean American community, the Hispanic American community, and Melbourne-Palm Bay Chamber of Commerce; and stated it is a hard decision, but it is doable.  He advised of being a prosecutor in the 1980’s and trying the first DNA case in the Melbourne Courthouse; stated it is the same courthouse they have now with two Circuit Court Judges and two County Court Judges; and the only difference is since that time the State Attorney and Public Defender have taken a separate story.  He commented on Judge Maxwell and Judge Barlow using the Special Master’s courtroom at the Melbourne Courthouse; and stated it made it very nice for lawyers from South Brevard.  He stated family law cases have to come to Viera; and if there is a personal injury
case where the person is injured in Grant, the case has to go to Titusville.  Mr. Beam stated a year ago the Board approved $4 million; Commissioner Voltz acknowledged their petition; and Judge Evander indicated the next expansion would be south; and requested the Board do that.

 

Chairperson Colon requested Mr. Beam make sure that all Commissioners have a copy of the petition.  Mr. Beam stated they will be visiting all the Commissioners. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired how many judges are in the Melbourne Courthouse; with Mr. Beam responding two County Court judges.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if they moved two Circuit Court judges from Viera to Melbourne, what kind of difference would that make in Viera; with Mr. Beam responding it would be tremendous in terms of access for the citizens.  Mr. Beam commented on the past when there were Circuit Court and County Court judges at the Melbourne Courthouse; and advised they can get volunteers.  Judge Rainwater stated if they take two judges out of Viera and put them in the Melbourne Courthouse, it will cause other space issues; the Public Defender and the State Attorney also have space at the Melbourne Courthouse; there were Circuit Judges at Melbourne when they had the modulars there; and commented on the difficulties of holding court at that location due to the proximity of trains and planes.  She stated the stakeholders agree that new space is needed ready to be occupied by 2009; and if the Board could have space available in South Brevard, ready to be occupied in two years, the Stakeholders Committee would be fully in favor of that.  Commissioner Voltz stated Judge Rainwater mentioned something about six to ten years.  Judge Rainwater stated wherever it is added, they will need the additional space within six years; and commented on going further to Palm Bay with access off I-95, having County judges in peripheral areas because it is high volume, having County judges in Melbourne, consolidating Circuit judges at the Moore Justice Center, Circuit judges at Titusville Courthouse, and benefits of having judges collocated and benefit to the public of having satellite courtrooms.  She stated if the Board can build a facility within two years in South Brevard, the Stakeholders Committee think that is great because the space is needed within two years.  Commissioner Voltz inquired how many ancillary personnel would be needed with two Circuit judges; with Court Administrator Mark Van Bever responding 16 positions including the two judges, the two judicial assistants, and the personnel for the State Attorney, Public Defender, the Clerk, and the Sheriff.   

 

Phil Crews stated he is a proponent of a South Brevard courthouse; that area is the largest population center in the County; and he has not heard a lot of objection to having a courthouse in that location.  He stated Judge Rainwater has put the facts together for the Board that there is an immediate need for space; if that can be done more quickly by building at Viera rather than South Brevard, that would be the appropriate, and perhaps the only option; but ultimately a South Brevard courthouse would be in the best interest of everyone.  He stated he identified a parcel of land off Valkaria Road that is owned by the County; it is approximately 18 acres, centrally located off the U.S. 1 corridor, making it equidistant from the beaches and the Palm Bay area; but there may be other land opportunities owned by the County or otherwise.  He stated the issue is how quickly something can be put together for South Brevard either with temporary structures while something is being built or with a permanent structure; and his primary purpose in being present is to keep this issue before the Board.  He stated there is a strong sentiment in South Brevard that the area has been neglected for a lot of years and that it needs a courthouse; and it is the right thing to do. 

 

 

 

Ralph McCoig stated with him today is Keith Brockhouse who is one of several owners of the building located at 340 Gus Hipp Boulevard; and he and Mr. Brockhouse are also partners in 14 acres that are adjoining that building.  He thanked the Board and staff for evaluating and considering the property as one that would meet the short-term and long-range goals of the County in terms of facilities needs.    

 

 

 

Attorney Jack Platt stated he echoes Judge Rainwater’s comments that it is a necessity for the County to have additional facilities for at least two new Circuit Court judges and additional County Court judges within the next two years; and commented on need for additional space, manpower, and judicial bodies.  He stated he is speaking in support of the South Brevard facility either being expanded, moved, or a new facility being built; it is imperative to do that within two years; and he thinks it can be done.  He stated it was interesting that Chairperson Colon was concerned about the consolidation of the Health Department in one building rather than having satellite facilities because the same thing exists in the court system.  He stated people in Palm Bay, Melbourne, and the rest of South Brevard have to travel to Viera or Titusville for court; in the situation with the County being 72 miles long, he has clients who travel from south of Palm Bay all the way to Titusville for cases; and people should not have to do that just to exercise their rights to utilize the court system.  He stated a South Brevard facility would alleviate parking and traffic problems all over Viera; it would help having two Circuit Court judges in Melbourne or South Brevard; and whether it ends up being in Palm Bay or Melbourne does not matter to him, although he would rather have it in Melbourne.

 

 

 

Debbie Rehder, representing State Attorney Norman Wolfinger, stated Mr. Whitten has already handed out something that spells out the needs for the State Attorney’s office; they currently have seven vacant positions for which they have no available space; they anticipate in this Legislative Session their workload formula will give them eight additional positions; and as judges come online, they will be granted positions through the Legislature with that as well.  She stated the Board has a difficult decision before it; and expressed appreciation to Facilities for its creativity in managing to find unique spaces in hallways and lobby areas to create office space.  She advised the State Attorney is one of the stakeholders on the committee that Judge Rainwater chairs; and he supports the space recommendations.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the State Attorney currently has Building D, which has 50,000 square feet of space; and inquired how much space is needed immediately.  Ms. Rehder responded right now there is a need for seven people that need an office; by July 1, there will be an additional eight people for a total of 15; and they assume they will continue to grow.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he wrote down the shortfall was 14, but he had forgotten whether that was immediate or projected for growth.  Assistant Facilities Director Teresa Camarata advised according to State standards, currently the State Attorney needs 60,000 square feet, but they are squeezed into 50,000 square feet.  Ms. Rehder advised they actually have 48,000 square feet of usable space.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired how much will
be needed in 2009 when there will be additional judges; with Ms. Camarata responding 66,000 square feet.  Commissioner Scarborough stated rather than duplicating the footprint of the current Judicial Center, there was talk about a new configuration; listening to the figures, they are approaching 100,000 square feet within the new facility; and inquired if it is possible to have a new configuration with 100,000 square feet within the Judicial Facility; with Facilities Director Steve Quickel responding they believe so.  Mr. Quickel stated they looked at the site and have pretty much ruled out going six stories high because of height restrictions; however, they do feel there is enough space on the site to go with four floors at approximately 25,000 square feet per floor to meet the 100,000 square-foot need.  Commissioner Scarborough noted that would open up Building D; and inquired if staff has gone into time or cost of doing something of that nature.  Mr. Quickel stated most of the scenarios will be presented today; they are based on approximately the same cost per square foot; so without having detailed plans or any specifics to price from, they have excellent budgetary figures at this time that they can work with.  Commissioner Scarborough commented on inside preparation and mobilizing contractors; and stated rather than building four sites, if they build one, the cost per square-foot would be less.  Mr. Quickel stated there are opportunities for economies with different concepts. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the height restrictions are the County’s or the DRI’s; with Mr. Quickel responding the current requirement within most of the buildings at the Government Center is 55 feet; but when they go out, they can go to 65 feet.  County Manager Peggy Busacca advised those are the requirements of the County’s Zoning Code.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if it is possible to change those requirements or would they be heading in the wrong direction; with Ms. Busacca responding that would have a Countywide impact.  Chairperson Colon stated the Board will come back to the issue because the Board had MIRA and other areas where it considered thinking outside the box, so where there is a will, there is a way.

 

 

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE:  HYDRO ALUMINUM BUILDING  (CONTINUED)

 

Keith Brockhouse stated he is the owner of the Hydro Aluminum Office Building, and also president of CDMA; and as someone who paid $250,000 in real estate taxes last November, he is at the Board’s disposal to help spend as little of those taxes as possible. 

 

 

The meeting recessed at 10:20 a.m. and reconvened at 10:39 a.m.

 

 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the Board has heard public comments; it discussed the transportation and facilities issue with the speakers; Ms. Busacca and Mr. Whitten will provide an update on the facilities space options; and after that discussion they will have the Clerk of Courts report on Environmentally Endangered Lands Program and will accept public comment at that point on that issue.    

 

 

 

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated he made an error in the report; and he has provided a revised Agenda Report.  He stated the debt limitation should be $22,220,435; and the figure is correct in the proposed resolution. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution amending the County’s debt ceiling as provide by County Charter and Ordinance No. 02-65 to $22,220,435.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated the Board also received a revised matrix, which highlights all the needs regarding the different agencies, the Charter officers, and their facility needs; and staff tried to provide a status and some possible options.  He advised some of the options are included in the report, but some are not because they are longer term in nature; it is a work in progress; staff will continue to revise the matrix; and staff tried to include all of the space issues that it is aware of.  He stated Stottler Stagg and Associates will be giving a PowerPoint presentation; there are charts that outlined the ten or eleven options; and the Commissioners have also been given a bound copy of the options.  He stated the Board just approved an increase to the debt ceiling to $20,220,435; the report is based on the Board taking that action; and those are the dollars the board will have available.  He stated the report presents a number of scenarios, the biggest of which addresses the courthouse expansion; and the Board requested staff explore three things, utilization of the unallocated funding to address facility needs and requests that were presented at the December 14, 2006 workshop, the feasibility of building into open courtyard space, and the viability of leasing office space through a developer who would finance that space.  He stated the first option was the Building E scenario; the Public Defender would occupy the entire Building E; that would meet his needs for the next ten years; and the estimated cost to renovate the first floor to meet the Public Defender’s needs is $700,000. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Russo does not need all of Building E; Mr. Russo said he would be willing, if the State Attorney was moved from Building D, to look at taking one floor in that building if it was reconfigured; but there is not a need for him to currently occupy 36,000 square feet; and he can live with approximately 26,000 square feet, which would leave another 10,000 square feet that would be available for other purposes.  Mr. Whitten inquired if the Public Defender is willing to wait for that space to become available; with Commissioner Scarborough advising of the proposed scenario that would move the Public Defender to Building D.  County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the hope is to have this done by 2009; and inquired if Mr. Russo is willing to wait until 2009.  Mr. Russo responded he cannot wait any longer. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the dilemma is going to be making sure the Charter officers are not upset. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated there are going to be a hundred different scenarios; they are looking long-range, and then they are also looking at the Band-aid for right now; and inquired if it would be possible to lease space for Mr. Russo off campus as a Band-aid.  Mr. Whitten stated there is
space out there that would accommodate eight people; but he does not believe Mr. Russo would be in favor of that.  Mr. Russo stated even when an office is divided 50/50, there are a lot of duplicate costs; but to stick eight people off somewhere when there are 65 or 70 in another location would be a deplorable situation.  Commissioner Bolin inquired about using part of the first floor; with Mr. Russo responding they do not need all of the first  floor in Building E; they need part of Building E; and that way they would all be together.  He stated he can work with that; but getting back to the original question about moving eight people to leased space, that would not work. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated when he met with Ms. Busacca and Mr. Whitten, it was clear that the Board  was not going to make a lot of decisions today because as the Board talks about moving one person to a location, that bumps someone else; and the Board  then has to figure out what is going to happen there.  He stated the Board needs to create a process; Ms. Busacca and Mr. Whitten have been meeting with representatives of the Charter officers on the Board’s behalf; but he thinks they should get Mr. Russo, the Sheriff, and a County Commissioner involved to start having conversations because staff is at a disadvantage dealing with a Charter officer.  He stated the Charter officers carry weight; staff is uncomfortable saying something is a good idea or bad idea; and having a Commissioner involved in the process would be beneficial. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated she agrees; usually the person bringing the idea is the one that is appointed; Commissioner Nelson is very knowledgeable about how complex the issue is; and inquired if Commissioner Nelson would be willing to help; with Commissioner Nelson responding he would be happy to sit in on those discussions.  Chairperson Colon inquired who else needs to be part the discussion.  Mr. Whitten advised there was a meeting; they invited all the Charter officers and representatives from the courts, State Attorney, and Public Defender; and they all have space needs requests.  Chairperson Colon stated there are more options that have to come to the table; and commented on compromise, not making a decision today, and looking at options. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize Commissioner Nelson to meet with the Charter Officers, representatives of the courts, State Attorney, Public Defender, and staff to discuss space needs.   

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated each Commissioner needs to be engaged because it is going to be difficult; everything is at the cost of something else; there is a report from Stottler Stagg and the potential for future sites; so there is a lot of information that the Board  will be gathering. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated it is also good for them to know the kind of dollars that the Board  is working with; if the County does not have the dollars, then nothing is going to happen; and the Board needs to say these are the available dollars and then try to move ahead.  She stated if there is a team approach, they are going to be able to get things done; it is not going to be perfect; everybody is already uncomfortable with the fact that they may be moving and so forth; and there will have to be a lot of compromising. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired about the timeframe for meetings and Mr. Russo’s perspective on having another meeting.  Mr. Russo responded they are past that; and while he is never beyond wanting to talk about the problem, if they had another meeting, they would just come back to where they are today with what staff has prepared for the Board.  He reiterated he is not beyond talking about it some more, but his needs are now; and he does not think a meeting is going to progress them any further.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board’s problem is that it has more than just Mr. Russo’s needs; with Mr. Russo responding he understands that.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board understands Mr. Russo’s need is immediate; the judicial system is a 2009 need; the whole County is growing; and there are future needs.  He stated there is a question of whether they should begin to split the court system again, and if so, where should it be in South Brevard; there are multiple questions; and Mr. Russo can walk away from this meeting with no problems, but the Board  is still going to be fighting many different issues up and own the County.  He commented on Commissioner Nelson structuring something for immediate needs and 2009 needs; and stated what scares him is it is possible to find the cheap answer that works and is within the budget, but it may begin to fundamentally change the way the County does business; and commented on functionality and keeping government functions intact so employees do not have to drive.  He stated the Board may handle Mr. Russo’s question immediately, but that does not mean the issue will go away for the Board.  Mr. Russo stated he agrees; he is more than willing to continue to sit down for discussions; but he is pessimistic that they will get past where they are today. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated at this point, the solution seems to reflect around another Charter office; just as soon as Mr. Russo sits down, he is sure the Sheriff will be running in to ask what the Board just did to him; and that is the dilemma the Board is faced with.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she seriously doubts the Board is going to get any further with the tough decisions; one Commissioner is not going to be able to put together the timeline; the Board  has a dilemma; and it has to make a decision, which is not going to be easy.  She stated not everybody is going to be happy; but it is incumbent on the Board to decide what the issues are.  She stated it is all laid out in front of the Board; it is just putting off the inevitable; and whether the Board makes the decision today or next month, somebody is not going to be happy.  She stated if the Board puts it off and has just one Commissioner looking at doing a timeline in terms of who needs what, where, and when, it is going to be a mistake because the Board is going to be right back having to do it all over again. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the Board is ready to make the hard decisions; today there was a height question; but that pertains to some of the options that have been given to the Board, so the Board  is willing to make those decisions; but it comes down to dollars and sense.  She stated when all is said and done, not everybody is going to be happy; that is called compromising; and it is important to be able to have a Commissioner in the middle of those meetings.  She stated she has found that when they sit at a meeting, they are able to see who is willing to compromise and who is not; and that is very important with this problem.  She commented on the importance of having a Commissioner to witness the meetings, compromise, and options; and stated the Board made it perfectly clear at the last workshop that it would not be making a decision today.  She stated today was about bringing options to the Board  and massaging all that; not everybody is going to be happy, but the Board should try to get to a point  where it can have more options and for everyone to hear what the other needs are; and right
now it seems that everyone thinks they are the only ones with a problem, but that is not the case.  Chairperson Colon stated the Board has not even begun to touch the fact that the County needs facilities; it has desperate needs; and it is trying to figure out where the dollars are going to come from.  She stated she is not saying the discussion will not continue this morning; the Board wants to hear what the report says; the Board would like to give direction about other meetings; and it is frustrating for everyone, but no one is more important than another. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired what Mr. Russo thought they were going to do today versus what could be potentially accomplished with another few meetings; and inquired if he can wait.  She noted she knows there is a potential lawsuit from Mr. Russo.  Mr. Russo stated it was his hope the Board was going to discuss options that are in the report, and that after discussion the Board would schedule a meeting to make a decision based upon those options.  He thought a decision would be forthcoming quickly based on the Board’s discussion today. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated if the Board gives the entire Building E to the Public Defender, the report proposes either relocating the Sheriff’s West Precinct to lease space that is available in the community or building a smaller structure on the campus.  He stated currently Building E, first floor is approximately 17,000 square feet; and the proposal is for a 12,000 square foot stand-alone building that would be of a flex-space office space.  He stated he does not know if the Board  is interested in seeing available property in the community, but staff shot some footage of those properties. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it is Commissioner Nelson’s desire to broach all subjects or just the Public Defender’s needs; and stated Commissioner Voltz is correct that this just mushrooms out into all kinds of concepts.  He stated if Commissioner Nelson took the Public Defender’s issue to discuss and negotiate an immediate solution, that would leave the larger issues; and commented on Stottler Stagg’s report, things in the community, and one Commissioner taking charge and returning to the Board  with something.  He noted his motion is still on the floor. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she is asking for a timeline; the Public Defender and the Sheriff are both involved; and inquired where is this going. 

 

Sheriff Parker stated he likes Commissioner Nelson’s idea; but he also understands the frustration of Mr. Russo.  He stated they need to make some decisions; he does not think it is a lost cause; and if they had a tight timeline and Commissioner Nelson facilitates the meeting with Mr. Russo, Mr. Wolfinger, a representative of Facilities, and him in attendance, they can flesh out some of the options.  He stated there are some options presented in the staff report that are not his first and best choice; but there are other options; and the option that was fleshed out today of possibly building the State Attorney a building attached to the courthouse or at least in that compound is one he would support as it is deserving of consideration.  He stated the building occupied by the State Attorney would go to the Public Defender; and his office would get Building E, so that is a very reasonable potential option.  He stated it could happen depending on cost and how everyone feels about it; Mr. Wolfinger is not present to speak to the issue; and having a meeting to discuss it would be a viable alternative.  He commented on the meeting, a short timeline, and working with the State Attorney and Public Defender. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board would be deferring only the question of the Public Defender’s office; the meeting would be just with the State Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, Commissioner Nelson, and staff; and there would be a turnaround time for a report.  He stated there is a meeting on March 6, 2007; and it should be limited to see if they can get an answer.  He stated they can come back to the Stottler Stagg report and the larger picture; Mr. Russo is getting very frustrated with the conversation; and inquired if handling this makes sense. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated it will not solve anybody else’s problem; but the Sheriff and the Public Defender seem to be a major immediate issue.  She stated there are a number of options on the table; if the Board does not have those options solved when Commissioner Nelson has the meeting, she is not sure the meeting will go anyplace; and the Board is here today to solve or at least look at all the issues together.  She commented on options for the Board. 

 

Ms. Busacca inquired if it would be useful to back into how much money there is to solve the problem of the Public Defender’s office or is the Board going to say that is all of the $20 million knowing that by 2009 the courts will have needs.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the money is going to ultimately drive this; and commented on only looking at the money without considering functionality.  He stated if he just looks at the numbers, he cannot go for wise decisions; and it is all part of the big picture. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated it is good to get all the information this morning; and the Board is continuing to hear different options.  She stated there is x amount of dollars the Board has to work with; if there is anything above that after the discussions, the Board  can look at that; the Board  is going to be hearing about leasing versus building; and there are all kinds of options available.  She stated it is good for everyone to hear the options because they might provide some feedback.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he would not presume to know where the Board is going to go on this issue overall; but what the Board is trying to structure is a process that listens to everything so the Board can look at the big picture, focus on the immediate needs, and bring that back to continue to work on the rest of the needs.  He stated some of the solutions that Stottler Stagg has may be part of that solution; and ultimately the ideal circumstance will be for the Sheriff, Public Defender, and State Attorney to say it works.  He stated it appears to be in the direction the Board has given in terms of dollars, so there are some options to look at; and it is worth a shot.  He stated they will do it as timely as possible; and if it appears to be falling apart, he will come back to the Board immediately.  He stated he wants to be able to say to the Board  this is what he heard from the Charter officers as opposed to saying this is what the Board said to do because that is not how he sees that role. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if staff looked at the potential of a third story on Buildings B, D, and E; with Mr. Quickel responding there is a lot involved with that; the existing foundations probably were not designed for an additional floor; and it would be very expensive.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if Mr. Quickel knows that for sure; with Mr. Quickel responding there is little to no likelihood that that buildings were built for expansion; the buildings were built with a very specific purpose and use in mind; it was not for expansion; and so it would have been economically infeasible to provide for growth to go up.  He advised footings can be beefed up, and they can  
get additional height; however, it is very expensive to do that; and there are height restrictions.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if Building A was expanded; with Ms. Busacca responding it was built out, not up, and some of the alternatives would include building additional space out.  Mr. Quickel commented on the problems involved with adding onto a building with people in it; and stated with money one can do anything, but it would not be economically feasible.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if that was a planning issue when Viera was built; with Mr. Quickel responding that was before his time.  Ms. Busacca stated originally, the State Attorney’s office was going to be in the courthouse and Human Resources was in Building D; but as they began to expand, people were moved off campus and into different buildings.  She stated as needs have progressed and money has not been available, the Board has done a good job of using what it has; and now it has probably put as much into the facility as it can without construction.  Commissioner Voltz stated that is why planning is important. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated the proposal for Building E is for the Public Defender to occupy the entire building; the Sheriff would have a new smaller West Precinct built on the campus or moved into the community; and staff shot footage of available facilities, which can be shown now, or copies of the DVD can be made and sent to each Commissioner.  Commissioner Voltz inquired how long is it; with Mr. Whitten responding 11 minutes.  He requested SCGTV begin the DVD presentation showing the listed buildings; and stated the first is the Excel Building, which is 41,415 square feet, and the list shows the lease and purchase options.  He stated staff has an appraisal on the building; the asking price is $6 million; and the appraisal is from $3.4 to $4.4  million.  He advised the building is in Rockledge at the corner of U.S. 1 and Barnes Boulevard.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if that would increase the traffic on Barnes Boulevard; with Mr. Whitten responding yes.  Commissioner Voltz advised if there was an issue with traffic when the building was previously occupied; with Ms. Busacca responding that end of Barnes Boulevard does not see as much traffic as the western end does, between Murrell Road and I-95. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated the next facility is Haverty Court; it is where the EDC is located; the building has 17,000 square feet; and it is in Rockledge, right off Murrell Road.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if the property is for lease only; with Mr. Whitten responding it is lease only.  Mr. Whitten described the office space and parking.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if it is a metal building. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated the next building is the Hydro Aluminum Administration building; it is in Rockledge on Gus Hipp Boulevard; and it is approximately 20,400 square feet.  He stated there are fourteen additional acres on the site; the existing building is on four or five acres; and the lease and purchase options are listed on Attachment B.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if it is a new building; with Mr. Whitten responding it was built in 2005.  Mr. Whitten described the building and the area.  Commissioner Voltz inquired about the traffic count on Gus Hipp Boulevard; with Mr. Whitten responding it can be accessed from Murrell Road and U.S. 1.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if the additional acreage is available for purchase; with Mr. Whitten responding it is available for purchase or under a lease/design/build scenario; and the additional acreage is for sale at $3.5 million. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated the next building is the old K-Mart building in Rockledge on Barton Boulevard; it is approximately 40,000 square feet; there is plenty of parking; and it would require
the most modification or renovation because it is open retail space.  Commissioner Bolin stated it is a lease only; with Mr. Whitten concurring it is lease only.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if the redevelopment on Barton Boulevard will affect the ability to get in and out of that area; with Mr. Whitten responding he is not sure what the redevelopment plan is like or the extent to which this facility would be affected.

 

Mr. Whitten stated the next building is the Sofas Direct building on U.S. 1 in Rockledge; it is approximately 30,000 square feet; and it is a purchase only option.  He stated it is warehouse space with loading docks.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if the building is currently occupied; with Mr. Whitten responding yes.  Commissioner Voltz inquired what would it take to redo the inside of the building; with Mr. Whitten responding the same as K-Mart as it is open space so it would probably take more than other sites to renovate and modify. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated the last site is right off Murrell Road; it is the Spyglass complex; it is approximately 9,000 square feet; and it is new and never occupied, so it is the highest in terms of a lease arrangement.  He stated he does not think there is a purchase option; with Ms. Camarata advising there is, but she does not have the information on it; however, it is an office condominium so there would be common area maintenance expenses. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not have a problem moving some functions off the Viera campus with the thought they could move back subsequently; but unless there is a reason for some functions to be in a different location, they will be moving in directions that will be very hard.  He stated the judicial system is a different dynamic; within every department there are functions that need to be in the field; but there are potentials to cluster.  He stated if the County leases for a period of time, making the current Justice Center work until they can move to the other scenarios, that is acceptable; but he has a problem breaking up County government again unless there is a real justification; with Commissioner Bolin noting unless it was a Constitutional office in a satellite compound.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be all right if it served the Constitutional Officer’s purpose; Tax Collector Rod Northcutt has talked about taking some of his offices closer to the people; but some Constitutional Officers have a need to have centralized facilities.  He stated he wants to go beyond how cheap it is to whether the people are well served by what the Board is creating. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired how necessary is it for the criminal lab and investigators to be at Viera, and could they be better served by having a separate facility.  Sheriff Parker stated it is not an absolute need; he does not want to be the root cause of having to create new facilities unnecessarily; and if he does not compromise, it could be a very expensive situation for some of the options.  He stated they have looked at the Hydro Aluminum facility on Gus Hipp Boulevard; it is a very good, very well built facility; and he likes the way it is laid out.  He stated it would be a perfect facility for the investigations and lab; and they do not necessarily want to leave Building E, but if they had to move the West Precinct out of Building E to make room for the Public Defender, they would prefer a relatively small 12,000 square-foot building with excellent access for the citizens.  He commented on access, public service, caring for the citizens, and good visibility and accessibility; and stated they do not need to be in Building E, but being part of the complex could serve the purpose.  He commented on compromise, taking advantage of small one-time revenue source, trying to get all needs met, and North Precinct; and stated one of the major concerns is that the citizens of North Brevard deserve a good North Precinct, hopefully
located on a County parcel and not in a modular that is falling apart.  Sheriff Parker suggested making the decision to build a small West Precinct on the Viera campus, accessible to the citizens, purchase the Hydro Aluminum building for Criminal Investigations and the lab, and use the $250,000 revenue to fund the construction project for the North Precinct.  He stated hopefully it will be on a County-owned parcel; he will work with Commissioner Scarborough to find the perfect location; and that will fix the Public Defender’s issue; but they still have the issue of timing because Mr. Russo needs something immediately, and it may take a while to build the West Precinct. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Sheriff could temporarily locate the West Precinct in the Hydro Aluminum building until all this is done; with Sheriff Parker responding he knows Mr. Russo has incredible space needs, but he does not want to disrupt unnecessarily the West Precinct personnel and service.  He inquired if he would need to move personnel and then move them again in a 16-month period or as long as Mr. Russo knows there is light at the end of the tunnel and the building will be vacated, are there other options that will not require him to move his staff twice.

 

Public Defender J. R. Russo stated he did not understand everything the Sheriff said about the North Precinct, but he liked his idea; he understands Sheriff Parker’s desire to have a presence at Viera; and perhaps part of that could be solved in the short term by his office taking part of Building E and  the Sheriff maintaining his presence there for the time being while the other building is constructed.  He stated that would allow him to have space in Building E now, but still allow the Sheriff to  have a presence there; the other building could be purchases; in the meantime, the Sheriff’s other building for the West Precinct could be built; and that could possibly work. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated in the report, the estimate for the West Precinct is $2.5 million; that is a County cost of construction; the Hydro Aluminum building purchase is an item on the Agenda; and inquired if that would be a County cost or is the Sheriff proposing to fund the acquisition of that building.  Sheriff Parker responded one of the Commissioners used the word compromise; and that is what he threw out.  He stated there are just a limited number of funds; and he wants to ensure that the needs of the citizens of North Brevard are met.  He stated some of the options are $8 million to $12 million; the option he threw on the table of a 12,000 square-foot  to 15,000 square-foot building for the West Precinct is as reasonable as possible at $2.5 million; and the purchase of Hydro Aluminum is $3.6 million.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated if they take $3 million, that leaves $17 million; that will limit what can be done on the Viera campus; and inquired if the Board can get into leases, but not leases with options to purchase; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding yes.  Commissioner Voltz stated that does not mean that after a year, the County could not purchase.  Commissioner Scarborough stated a lease option would not tie up the County’s bonding capacity and would give more money to spend on the Viera campus; it is not a matter of having enough cash flow to amortize the debt; but there is a debt ceiling that the Board just increased.  He stated by the Sheriff taking $3 million, it has done a disservice because it has limited what the Board can do if it wanted to do something creative with an expanded judiciary; and he wishes the Board could work around it somehow.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if the County leases the building for a year or two and then buys it, would that be a problem; with Mr. Knox
responding it will depend on how it is structured, and he will need to look at it more carefully.  Commissioner Voltz stated the Board is looking for space, and lease space is cheaper than building.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the County could take an option to purchase in a separate contract and pay separate consideration for that; the lease would be a separate contract; there would be two separate contracts with the owner of the property; and inquired if it is the linking of the two that is the problem or just that the two exist.  He noted the Board is going to need the $3 million.  Mr. Knox sated he does not think that is beyond the realm of possibility; and the Charter provision is there to stop using a lease purchase as a financing arrangement like a mortgage. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated one of the questions she has been asked is in regard to philosophy, whether the Board wants to stay at the Viera site or go outside the area; commented on convenience and what is good for the County as a whole; and inquired what are the other options.  Mr. Whitten responded it boils down to whether the Board decides to buy or lease under the Sheriff’s scenario; if it does a West Precinct at $2.5 million and purchases the Hydro Aluminum building at $3.6 million, amortized over 20 years, that would be approximately $500,000 a year, so that capacity is removed from the $20 million; but if the Board chooses to lease, it would be somewhat better off.  He stated the question would then become the definition of a project and whether it is going to be deemed the purchase of three separate buildings or two separate buildings or will it be the same project, which gets back to the Charter issue.  He stated the Board could do it; and it is a matter of whether it leases one building, constructs the other, and finances it. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to know that by moving off the Viera site, the functionality has not been diminished; Sheriff Parker had said having his criminal lab off-campus is irrelevant; but he does not know that he would come to that conclusion in every case until he talks with the Departments heads and the Constitutional Officers. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated at that point the Board would have to see if it agrees with them; it would be a matter of what they feel is appropriate; but it also comes down to what kind of compelling argument anyone is going to make.  She stated it comes down to whether it is a matter of convenience or is it critical; and that is something that the Board as a whole would have to figure out. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated if they do not move the West Precinct out of the present building, there would be no need for a new building, and that would save $2.5 million.  Sheriff Parker advised he is not asking to move the West Precinct as they are content where they are; but seeing the big picture, it is the lesser of two evils, spending $2.5 million to move a precinct or spending $8 or $9 million for a new building for the Public Defender’s office and possibly the same for the State Attorney.  He stated that is why he offered the compromise; and the only thing he would ask is the precinct be accessible to the citizens. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the building on Gus Hipp Boulevard is close to U.S. 1, and so would be accessible to the public.  Sheriff Parker stated the building is suitable in terms of square footage for investigations and lab.  Commissioner Voltz inquired what the cost would be to build there; and stated there is plenty of room to expand on the site.  Sheriff Parker responded it would be more expensive there because the County would have to buy property; it would be  
less expensive to build on-campus; and commented on the advantages of having the Sheriff’s Office at the County Government Complex.  Commissioner Voltz stated if the Health Department builds a 44,000 square-foot facility, there would be 43,000 square feet available elsewhere; she does not know if that is a potential; and inquired where those buildings are.  Mr. Whitten responded there is a cost to do that; there is space in the Merritt Island Service Center and the building beside the EOC in Rockledge; and there are two rental spots in Byrd Plaza and Haverty Court.  He stated the rental spots would just go away; but there would be space at Merritt Island Service Complex and beside the EOC in Rockledge.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it is possible to structure with two separate contracts; with Mr. Knox responding the Charter stops the Board from using lease purchases as financing arrangements to buy real property, but the Board could have a straight lease and in a separate contract a straight option.  Commissioner Voltz stated they still need 20,000 square feet.  Commissioner Scarborough stated his point is the Board could get the 20,000 square feet and have the full $20 million to spend; and with a separate contract, the Board would have the right to purchase, so if the Sheriff went there and did not want to stay, the Board would not be locked in.  He stated assuming the Sheriff did like the space, the County could purchase once the bonding capacity goes back up, so the Board would have both worlds to play in.  He stated it would work, and if it is okay with the Sheriff, it is a viable option.  Ms. Busacca advised it does not address the West Precinct.  Commissioner Voltz stated the Board will still have to look at something else.  Ms. Busacca advised the Board  has not addressed the most immediate need, which is the Public Defender, so she does not know if the Board is ready to spend money before addressing immediate needs.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not a matter of lack of cash flow, but a matter of bonding capacity; the Board could find 20,000 square feet that does not adversely affect a Constitutional Officers’ activities by just spending some rent money; and it is only part of the picture, but it is the first bright light he has seen today.     

 

Mr. Whitten stated the Sheriff suggested a building on-campus for the West Precinct and allowing him to put a Crime Lab and Criminal Investigative Unit in Rockledge, which would allow the Public Defender to occupy all of Building E. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the West Precinct was a total new dimension, and the Board has not solved that yet.  Ms. Busacca inquired about spending the $250,000 plus the necessary debt service for $20 million.  Mr. Whitten stated the $250,000 was originally going to be used to relocate Traffic Operations; and it would reduce the amount that the County could bond out, so perhaps it would be $18 million instead of $20 million.  Commissioner Scarborough stated originally it was going to go to $22 million; and inquired how much cash flow would they have to amortize.  Mr. Whitten stated $2.1 million would get the Board to the Charter limit; and so whether that was more than the $22 million, the limitation would really be the Charter debt amount and not the cash flow to amortize.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired how much could be borrowed with no Charter limit; with Mr. Whitten responding it came to $23.5 million.  Mr. Whitten stated he is not sure where the Board is because they were talking about a purchase or lease in Rockledge, but there is also talk about building onsite.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not know if the Board has gone that far yet; with Commissioner Bolin agreeing the Board is not there at all.  Ms. Busacca stated if they take the amount of money to lease the Rockledge site, the Board will still have enough debt service to pay for the $20 million.  Mr. Whitten directed the Board to page 2; and stated the second bullet point says
debt service in the amount of $2.1 million for 20 years would yield $27 million and debt service in the amount of $1.9 million would yield $23 million, so if the Board allows utilization of the $250,000 and limits itself to $1.9 million, it could probably finance close to 20 million.  Ms. Busacca stated she wanted to be sure the Board knew it still had whatever it has left.  Mr. Whitten advised he will double-check that.  Commissioner Scarborough stated later Mr. Whitten will tell the Board there is other money; with Ms. Busacca advising anything the Board does not want to put on roads, it can put into facilities.                          

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the Sheriff has 17,000 square feet now that he is going to vacate, and part of that is to build another 15,000 square feet on-campus, so in effect he is replacing like with like.  He stated the Sheriff is also moving to the Hydro Aluminum building and getting another 20,000 square feet; with Sheriff Parker responding that is an additional 20,000 square feet.  Sheriff Parker noted Ms. Busacca said the Board had not handled the most pressing need; but the laboratory and investigative unit are a pressing need and have been since 1997.  Commissioner Nelson stated he does not disagree, but this is doing apples and oranges.  He stated the Board is talking about the Public Defender’s space; and outlined the proposal to build a 15,000 square-foot building and have Mr. Russo get the bottom floor of the existing building.  He stated Hydro Aluminum is not part of the discussion; the compromise brought in additional space needs that are not part of the discussion; and he wants to be sure the Board understands that. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the Board understood that; and she cannot blame the Sheriff for trying. 

 

Sheriff Parker stated he has not been standing on a table screaming, but he knows the squeaky wheel gets the grease; probably the County’s most pressing issue behind jails is investigations; he is not trying to be dramatic; but it is not a good situation.  He stated the Government Center was built for a purpose; the citizens were told what the building was going to be used for; and it is not for that purpose.  He stated he has been trying to address investigations for the last 18 months; this is not something new; he is not taking advantage of the situation; and he likes where Commissioner Scarborough is headed on this because it fixes that need.  He stated it is a separate issue as far as moving the West Precinct and allowing Mr. Russo to take that space; but it is one of the most important needs the Board is facing; and the fact that he is not screaming does not detract from its importance.

 

Chairperson Colon stated screaming does not impress anybody; and everybody can get in line to sue the Board, but that does not impress her at all.  She stated the problem is huge and she would not like it to be piecemealed; and the team approach is critical because it is not only Mr. Russo who has a problem.  She stated they need to look at a facility that will be able to accommodate all of this; and it is important to know what dollars the Board has to work with.  She stated this has been a dilemma that was going on even when Tom Jenkins was in charge; it is not anything new; and the Board is sympathetic and feels everyone’s pain, but it has to look at what everybody’s needs are.  She inquired where are they in terms of some of the other options that the Board can look at. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the Sheriff said he needed a 20,000 square-foot building for investigations and the criminal lab; and inquired how far down the road is that need; with Sheriff
Parker responding the need is today.  Sheriff Parker advised of doing a space study, needing 22,000 square feet today, currently operating in 7,500 square feet, small offices with six people assigned to them, and condition of the laboratory.  He stated it is a need that has to be addressed; that is why they have been working to address it over the past 18-month period; there are not many properties available that will satisfy the needs of the community; and they are not the only ones interested in some of the buildings.  He stated if the building is purchased, it is one less option they have; so when he hears some decisions can be made to fix some problems, he is open to it.  He stated he is not a proponent of leases; he does not like to get into a place where he is dependent on the owner of the property not to inflate the cost; and if they are in a place and the price doubles or triples, they have no choice but to pay it to stay or spend more money to move.  He stated based on what the County Attorney said, they can protect themselves against that and have a type of lease purchase agreement where the purchase is locked in at a reasonable rate; and if they decide to purchase in several years when the debt ceiling allows them to do that, it makes sense.  He commented on moving the West Precinct and fixing the Public Defender’s issues; and stated the Board could make a decision today and get the ball rolling while the options are available.  Sheriff Parker stated the North Precinct is not registering as a top priority item, but it should be because the citizens of North Brevard deserve the same things as the citizens of Central and South Brevard; and if he can make that work using inmate telephone revenues to pay for that facility, it is a winner.  He stated there is expense, but they are handling many needs from the Public Defender’s office and his office at the same time with minimal impact.  Commissioner Voltz stated the Sheriff has done a great job with the finances he has received from the County thus far; he has always been conservative and cognizant of the taxpayers’ dollars; and she appreciates that. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated he will move to the Justice Center scenario; the contractor who is currently completing the shell space and who completed the first expansion has estimated to do an identical expansion of four stories would be $13.1 million; and that is recommended and would meet the 2009 needs of the judges.  He advised there is a spreadsheet from Court Administrator Mark Van Bever showing the space needs associated with 2009; with one felony judge and one misdemeanor judge, it is necessary to add 34 staff positions including judges’ staff, State Attorney, Public Defender, Clerk of Courts office, and the Sheriff’s office; and the space required to add two judges and associated staff is 20,466 square feet.  He stated the courthouse expansion at four stories would be 60,000 square feet; and if that was done at a cost of $13.1 million, those space needs could be met.  He stated a portion of the first and second floor space could be allocated for the State Attorney, and the Public Defender may be able to take some of the space vacated by the State Attorney; but the recommendation of the scenario is in regards to doing the next expansion of the Moore Justice Center at a cost proposed at $13.1 million. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the space needs for 2009 at 27,000-plus square feet and for 2025 it is 39,000 square feet; and inquired if that is additional; with Mr. Whitten responding it is additional. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Whitten elaborate a bit; stated this is taking and replicating; but when he was briefed, there was also discussion of a further option of maximizing the square footage. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated the discussion centered around building as much as possible whether the space is finished or not; the height restrictions will limit it to four stories; but they may be able to achieve some economies of scale by mobilizing once and doing it all at one time.  He stated originally the thought was to do six stories; now they are looking at doing four and attaching some other space; but they want to achieve some economy of scale by building as much as they can now at today’s dollars with some of it being shell space for future needs. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated if they wanted to build it out, it could be utilized to move the State Attorney’s office totally over there; the Board is going to hear proposals from Stottler Stagg shortly; but this is not a proposal that will be presented; and he wanted the Board to know there is another option.

 

Mr. Quickel stated option 12 is included, but the Board does not need to go to that now; it was discussed when the budget was prepared last year; they looked at the additional space requirements that were anticipated, and came up with approximately 100,000 square feet of needed space; and staff put together a scenario of 100,000 square feet at a cost of x number of dollars.  He commented on coming up with options without having a specific end in mind; putting precision into something with no basis to do it, need for more court space and more support space, deficits within the Public Defender’s and State Attorney’s offices, and addressing the identified need without putting specifics.  He stated to get the biggest bang for the buck it would be a single building that would meet the concept of the last expansion; and they would build the shell, complete the floors that are needed immediately, and leave the other floors vacant for expansion.     

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated they also talked about the ability to finish it and make Building D available by moving the State Attorney; it is a further option; Building D could be reconfigured; and maybe the Public Defender or other departments may move. 

 

 

The meeting recessed for lunch at 12:05 p.m. and reconvened at 1:05 p.m.

 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the Board is discussing facilities and transportation needs; and the Clerk of the Courts will report on EELS.  She stated they knew they would have all these subjects; and they will be covering all the items on the Agenda. 

 

Mr. Quickel advised as a result of Board direction several weeks ago to investigate the possibility of building a structure in the location of the pool and other concepts, they brought in a professional firm, Stottler Stagg and Associates to come up with some ideas of what might be a solution for additional space in the compound.  He stated he is impressed that Stottler Stagg and Associates came up with 11 concepts when staff thought there were only three or four options; and commented on creativity and looking forward to the design.  He stated Stottler Stagg and Associates is a problem solver; and the County’s best utilization is to present the needs to the company and let it come up with a design to best meet the needs.  He stated staff set the parameters of approximately 100,000 square feet of additional space to take care of the current and future growth needs of the State Attorney and Public Defender; and working from the original 100,000 square feet Stottler Stagg and Associates came up with a lot of scenarios. 
Mr. Quickel stated they also looked at a duplication of the last build-out, which was 64,000 square feet of courtrooms and supporting office space; what has come to light recently is they may need to look at building as much as they can within one building at or near the Justice Center; and they have some dialogue in the options for that.  He stated they do not have a layout; but it is something that is viable and needs to be pursued because they can build the courtroom space, leave parts of the building unfinished, and then complete them as they need more space.  He stated they have the money so they have a lot of flexibility with that; and once the Board zeros in on exactly what it needs and how to approach it, that can become a viable alternative.  He introduced Bino Campanini, Chief Executive Officer of Stottler Stagg and Associates; and stated Mr. Campanini will take them through the presentation of the 11 options as summarized in the brochure that was handed out earlier.  He advised these are planning numbers; and there is nothing predicated on a specific design.  

 

Mr. Campanini stated having listened to the facility needs and problems, he is probably one of the few in the audience who is happy to hear about the needs and looking forward to all the new projects coming from the County.  He introduced Michael Kelly who is the principal architect for Stottler Stagg and Associates.  He stated Stottler Stagg and Associates was the design/architect for the addition to Building A; and commented on creation of the galleria walk-through to keep the building in operation during the construction.  He advised of working with Sheriff Parker on the expansion of the jail and the tents; and stated they are very cognizant of the needs for expansion facilities and utilization of the spaces the County has.  He stated this is obviously something the Board has been looking at for a long while; Stottler Stagg and Associates has been on this a little over three and a half weeks; and they have not come with a magic bullet.  He stated they looked at spaces on the existing campus; and someone mentioned South Melbourne, but they specifically looked at how to meet the square footage needs within the confines of the campus, making sure that Codes, requirements, and parking needs are met.  He stated Mr. Kelley will talk about each concept; each concept builds on another; and rather than come in with just three ideas, they decided to come in with many ideas and the Board can decide if there are one or two that it likes. 

 

Michael Kelley stated a handout has been distributed going through concepts 1 through 12; and they started with a basic expansion that least impacts the campus and does not involve a lot of renovation work from a Code standpoint.  He commented on the layout of the handout; and stated the first concept is expanding Building E by 55,700 square feet to the north and west; it would be done similar to the expansion of Building A with a galleria; and that would allow Building E to remain operational while the expansion is taking place.  He noted each of the concepts builds off other concepts and there are also hybrids of each one.  He stated the next one is concept 2, which is similar to concept 1 except is it a two-story 45,000 square-foot separate building to the south of Building D; and that would give a total added square footage of 107,000 square feet.  He advised that is a two-story expansion on Building E and another two-story expansion south of Building D.  He stated at the end of each narrative, they have included some costs and a schedule; and most of the work is estimated at 18 to 24 months.  He stated he will also talk about ways to condense the schedule and cost savings; and the figures are generalized.  He stated for concept 3 there was some discussion about filling in the fountain area and doing a three-story building to match Building C; for Code and separation reasons they show an expansion to Building E; and it would be approximately 95,400 square feet.  He stated concept 4 is similar to concept 3; it adds a new two-story building to the south of Building D; and
that would be 45,000 square feet, for a total square footage of 140,400 square feet.  Mr. Kelley stated concept 5 is a hybrid of concept 2, but instead of a two-story building south of Building D, it would be a three-story building; and the total square footage of the concept would be 123,200 square feet added.  He stated concept 6 is similar to concept 4; it has a three-story building to the south of Building D; and the total square footage of the concept is 162,900 square feet.  He stated concept 7 is a three-sided wraparound of Building E; it is borderline of going into a different type of construction, Type 2-B, which would require a one-hour rating and mean more extensive renovation work to the existing building; and commented on the required renovation. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if that is all in addition to the price that is given or does the price include all the renovations that will be done.  Mr. Kelley responded on the schedules where they are adding onto an existing structure, he has added a renovation cost; and commented on necessary actions to add onto a building.  He stated with concept 7, he increased the square-foot costs of renovation to be on the conservative side.  He stated concept 8 is the same as concept 7 except with a separate building to the south of Building D; it would be a two-story structure; and the total square footage would be 135,400 square feet.  He stated concept 9 is similar to 8 but instead of a two story building south of Building D, there would be a three-story; and the total square footage of concept 8 would be 157,900 square feet.  He stated concept 10 is utilizing the new land the County is going to be acquiring to the east; it is putting a separate building there of somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 square feet; it could be a two-story or three-story building; and to handle the parking, it would be necessary to put a parking garage at a cost of $6,000 per parking space versus paved areas that are generally $2,000 to $3,000 per space. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated additional square footage is added in the prior proposals without any parking component; but in this concept a parking component is being added at additional expense.  He stated he assumes if there is additional space, they are contemplating parking, but it is not part of the cost.  Mr. Kelley stated it is part of the site work and permitting.  Commissioner Scarborough stated they may not need garage parking, but if they are adding space, they will need parking.  Mr. Kelley responded that is correct; in each of the narratives, there is discussion about how many additional parking spaces would be required; and he put in a cost of site work of approximately $500,000 to cover it.  He noted the site work for Building A was very minimal.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated it says they will meet the parking requirement by reducing the requirement; it is not building new parking; and what they are doing is saying the County has the ability to reduce its parking requirements by a certain percentage; and in effect, they are going to build new space but not new parking.  Ms. Busacca stated that is not what Mr. Kelley said.  Commissioner Nelson stated it is not shown; and what Commissioner Scarborough is saying is there is no shown additional parking on the first plans.  Commissioner Scarborough commented on only one concept showing parking.  Mr. Kelley advised on each of the sketches it shows area for future parking expansion; but they did not come up with a parking design.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there would be additional parking; with Mr. Kelley responding it would expand to the east.  Mr. Kelley stated in each of the narratives it says how many additional parking spaces would be required; when it goes over a certain amount, there is a reduction factor; but essentially it is expanding to the east and would be paved parking versus a parking garage.  He stated if the Board decides to put a building to the east, it would be necessary to do
a parking garage to accommodate the additional parking required because of the reduction in the area.  Mr. Kelley stated what would be good about that concept would be the parking garage would be built first; and they would stage for building the building in the existing parking area.  He advised parking garages are simple and easy to build as they are all pre-cast panels and things like that.               

 

Commissioner Bolin requested Mr. Kelley review the pricing of the parking garage; with Mr. Kelley responding the cost for a parking garage is approximately $6,000 per parking space versus $2,000 to $3,000 per space for just paved parking.

 

Mr. Kelley advised concept 11 came out of a meeting that was held on Monday; they would pull the Sheriff’s Department out; 10,000 square feet was the number used on Monday, but 12,000 was used today; but it could be any size that is needed.  He stated they have not done any programming as part of this study; it was also discussed about putting it closer to Judge Fran Jamieson Way; and commented on putting the facility more in the public eye by putting it upfront.  He stated if they pulled that out and expanded around Building E on three sides, it would be close to 100,000 square feet on that addition.  He stated he prefers not to fill in where the fountain is; and suggested turning that area into a green space.  He stated the last concept is a new building across the street onto the Justice Center; and displayed sketches of the proposal.  He advised the sketches were done by Facilities a while back; it is a kind of mirror image of what is at the Justice Center now; and there are benefits to moving the State Attorney, Public Defender, and possibly the Sheriff’s Department over.  He commented on the safety issue of crossing over the four-lane highway, better proximity, and gaining close to 76,000 square feet of open office area.  He stated he does not see a reason why the Public Defender, State Attorney, and Sheriff cannot be in one building; and commented on ways to deal with controlling the interaction.  He stated aesthetically it would be great to see another building similar to what is there; and it would be good from the standpoint of having the Government Center with a mass of buildings and then another complex across the street.  He stated according to the Zoning Code, the building can be 60 feet provided the property abuts against multifamily at 15 units or more per acre, higher business such as PIP or PBP, or IU or TU zoning classifications; and they will have to verify what is to the south of the Justice Center.  He stated he is sure if they were able to build a four-story building, they will be able to put a four-story addition.  He stated to the south there is a BU parcel, and then a PUD; and if the density is less than 15 units per acre, it would be necessary to drop down to 35 feet.  Ms. Camarata advised the zoning to the south of the Justice Center is commercial, so they can go to 60 feet.  Mr. Kelley stated to get a better bang for the buck as far as construction, they can shell it out; it may sit for a couple of months or maybe a year; and advised of doing that at the BCC-Palm Bay campus.  He stated the safety aspect of crossing back and forth over a four-lane highway is something the Board should consider.   

 

Chairperson Colon inquired what is going to happen there as far as slowing the traffic once the flyover is done.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if there is a proposed walkover; with Mr. Whitten responding no.  Ms. Busacca inquired if they are talking about the tunnel by the school; with Chairperson Colon responding no, she is talking about the overpass and what will happen when the road is four-laned.  Mr. Quickel stated he received a letter from the State Attorney this morning addressing some maintenance needs; and one of the concerns raised was crossing that highway.  He stated the State Attorney has requested desire to have some type of
crossover signal there; and commented on watching the situation from his window and fearing someone will be hit.  Mr. Quickel stated he hears horns honking and things like that; and four-laning the road is going to increase the traffic flow; and he has a very strong safety concern for anyone walking across the road.  He stated if there are people hauling books and files and talking business on the way to the courts, it is not a good situation; and that is why he felt it would be good to move with that concept now to get operations closer together.  He stated one of the best advantages of that is that it frees up Building D and the second floor of Building E, and puts it back within the Board’s discretion as to what can be done with those facilities.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired which concept Mr. Quickel is looking at; with Mr. Quickel responding the one that adds the mirror image of the existing Justice Center or even adding another multi-story building on this side of the Justice Center; but the desire is to get the facility on the same side of the road as the Justice Center.  Commissioner Voltz stated there is no cost on that; with Mr. Quickel responding it is concept 12, which was passed around.  Mr. Quickel commented on other configurations that could be constructed, provisions for parking, and cutting down on all the traffic factors. 

 

Mr. Kelley stated the goal now is 100,000 square feet; but it could also be planned for expansion in ten or twenty years.  He stated the configurations to build across the street free up space at the Government Center but ten years from now, there might be a need to do an add-on similar to some of the concepts; and the Board will have that freedom to do it.  He stated there may be a little less cost in dealing with a clean site versus having to work on an existing site; staging for some of the concepts would be difficult; and the contractor might have to have some kind of agreement with the owners to the south.  He commented on difficulties in staging the expansion of Building A, and potential difficulties in staging some of the concepts.  He stated that is why they used $150 a square foot for new construction; and advised of building a two-story, 60,000 square-foot school in Orange County almost two years ago at $125 a square-foot.  He stated that was classroom space; it was not open office area; and open office area might be a little less.  He stated they are competing with the School Board, which is putting out $100 million worth of work every year for the next five years; and commented on the expansion of Titusville High School, which was budgeted at $18 million but came in at close to $30 million.  He stated some people think construction has slowed and prices have come down; that is true for the residential market; but right now there is a lot of growth, and facilities and infrastructure are having to be upgraded, so the shift is going toward commercial.  He stated he does not think prices are going to come down; the Board should anticipate a 2% to 5% increase per year; the longer it delays this, the more the cost is going to go up; and recommended the Board also have contingency.  He stated the dollar figures shown in the report reflect architectural and engineering fees; it may be possible to reduce the cost if there are open office layouts; and the Board may go with a different construction method, using a design-build scenario.  He stated that is what the School Board is doing now; the reason they like it because they get the contractor on board with designers; they work together and come up with the most economical building system; and they save from two to five months of time, and time is dollars.  He stated right now the cost for general conditions of construction is approximately $100,000 a month; and if the Board can save two to four months by going with a different construction delivery system, that equates to money. 

Commissioner Voltz stated on concept 12 the first part is $17 million up to $34 million; if they start at $17 million they do not know where it will end up; and inquired if that is the assumption. 
Ms. Busacca responded it depends on how much the Board wants to build, and there are two options.  Mr. Kelley advised there is a range.  Commissioner Voltz stated the range is between 100,000 square feet and 200,000 square feet; there are other options that are approximately 100,000 square feet; and they are probably that amount too.  Mr. Kelley stated that is correct; and concept 12 will be a bit higher because there will be more site work and permitting involved and they will have to do the full parking, retention, and things like that.  Commissioner Voltz stated even if they do one of the other options, the County will still have the land; the dollars are limited now; but the Board will still have the option to do that down the road.  Mr. Quickel responded the property will be there; and if the Board chooses to build in one area, it will still have the other area for expansion.  He stated the range for concept 12 is the same unit cost per square foot; if they build 100,000 square feet, it would come in at $17 million; and if they build 200,000 square feet, it would come in at $34 million.  Mr. Kelley advised that is correct; concept 12 is close to $171 a square foot; and that is one of the lower square-foot costs in the projections.  He stated even though there is added site work, it is a little cheaper because they do not have to do renovation work, and they are going to alleviate some parking issues.  Commissioner Voltz inquired what is the square footage of the entire Courthouse; with Ms. Camarata responding 204,000 square feet. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board replicates, he came up with 60,000 square feet; this is moving beyond the 60,000 to 100,000 square feet; and half of that would be used for 2009 judicial needs.  He stated the State Attorney would need 64,000 square feet if that office was moved over completely; and as they move into the numbers, they are immediately moving beyond just replicating to having to get a new architectural plan that contemplates something more than 60,000 square feet.  He stated he has heard from builders that as one moves from a basic footprint to a larger footprint, the additional square footage does not cost as much; however, the additional 100,000 square feet is running $171 a square foot; and inquired why is that the case.  Mr. Kelly stated there is some truth in what Commissioner Scarborough is saying; the bigger the project, the better price they will get; but the cost of steel is the cost of steel and the cost of concrete is the cost of concrete.  Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Quickel talked about shelling the building and finishing at a later time; and inquired how much savings would there be per square foot if they did that; with Mr. Kelley responding just shelling a space would probably cut the cost in half.  Commissioner Scarborough stated that is substantial; what he is hearing is that after 2009 there will be additional needs; and commented on having additional square footage at a reasonable price.  Mr. Quickel stated they will have the space defined, but it will not be completed as far as being built out; with Commissioner Scarborough advising the Board will have locked in the cost per square foot for the shell.  Mr. Quickel recommended the Board use caution; and stated when they get into construction, it is voodoo magic.  He stated when the County built the original Courthouse or the expansions, it did not complete the construction; construction costs continued to escalate; but using today’s dollars, it is still more economically sensible to build the space and then finish it out; and that is how the Orange County Courthouse was done.  He stated it makes more sense to do it now; while Mr. Kelley said it would be approximately half the cost just to build the shell, it is not really going to be usable and the Board will not realize the total cost until it does the build out, so it is going to pay now or pay later; and the more that can be done now in preparation, the cheaper it will be.  Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Whitten has given the Board a number of $20 million;
and he does not know where all that is going to go, but there is going to be a ceiling.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he is hearing the judiciary and the State Attorney could be accommodated and they would have Building D available; and anything above that they could pick up at the $80 to $90 a square-foot cost, so Mr. Quickel may want to push the Board to shell a bit more.  He inquired if that is what he is hearing from staff; with Mr. Quickel responding yes. 

 

Chairperson Colon inquired how much was the Government Complex that is in Palm Bay; with Mr. Whitten responding approximately $1.3 million and it was 15,000 square feet.  Chairperson Colon stated eventually the County would have to expand; and inquired if it would be wiser to bite the bullet now because it would be more expensive in the future.  She stated she does not know if Commissioner Voltz has been in touch with Ben Jefferies and those folks who were interested in having the courthouse in that area; and that is where there is a Government Center now with three Constitutional Officers, the Clerk of Court, Property Appraiser, and Tax Collector.  Commissioner Voltz stated Mr. Jefferies is considering purchase that back from the County and giving up the larger parcel to build something on.  Mr. Whitten stated there are two proposals on the table; the Intersil proposal is to donate land on its current site at Conlon and Palm Bay Road; and the discussion regarding Bayside Lakes concerns reacquiring the facility that was built and swapping that with some land that will be developed further south.  He noted he is not sure Bayside Lakes is going to buy the property back from the County and also give land or whether it will have the County buy something from it, so they need to have clarification on that.  Ms. Busacca advised when it comes to meeting the needs of 2009 for the judicial system, the southerly property owned by Bayside Lakes will not be ready to develop in time to have something constructed in 2009.  Chairperson Colon stated that depends on how slow the County goes; with Ms. Busacca advising the property is not even platted.  Chairperson Colon stated the Intersil property is available now; with Ms. Busacca concurring.  Chairperson Colon inquired about the size of the property; with Mr. Whitten responding the Intersil site is huge; but it is a Superfund site with whatever issues are associated with that.  Mr. Whitten advised the proposal is the building and land; the buildings were not built as courthouses, but as office buildings; and there would have to be a lot of consideration regarding that.  He stated there are 12 acres at the Palm Bay Service Facility; but it would be difficult to wait as it would have to be designed and developed, which cannot be done in two years.  He stated with the south proposal from Bayside Lakes, they will not start developing until at least two years from now.  Chairperson Colon inquired if the land Bayside Lakes was originally interested in is no longer part of the equation; with Mr. Whitten responding they are looking further south into developing a town center concept; and he does not recall the number of acres they would be willing to donate, sell, or swap with the County, but they believed it would be enough to do a South Brevard courthouse.  He stated he is not sure if it was more than the 12 acres the County has at its Service Center; but the proposal was that Bayside Lakes would buy the Service Center, including the building and land, turn it into an office complex, and the County would either acquire through purchase or donation a parcel, which would be developed as the town center,

south of the current Service Center location.       

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if it would be near the new I-95 interchange; with Ms. Busacca responding it is going to be west of that, but would have access onto it, which is why there is some interest.  Ms. Busacca stated the issue is timing; there were also comments that perhaps there was property available on U.S. 1; and an attorney talked about some County-owned property in Valkaria.  Commissioner Nelson advised that is Road and Bridge property. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the Board discussed this issue approximately three years ago; the Board was seriously considering where to put a facility in South Brevard; and then it completely fell off the radar.  She stated there is still that need in that area; and expressed concern that things are getting more expensive as the Board talks about this.  She stated the actions keep being a Band-aid; and she wonders what would have happened if the Board had handled this three years ago.  She stated land is going quickly; identifying a piece of property has to be addressed by the Board; and then at least everyone will know the future location of the courthouse.  Mr. Kelley advised that is a service Stottler Stagg and Associates could help with as it does a lot of studies for different entities.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the need is there, but she is not sure the money is there. 

 

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated currently the plan for the widening of Stadium Parkway calls for signalization of the intersection with Judge Fran Jamieson Way; that would make a very suitable crossing except it is at the corner of the intersection; and the tendency is to take the shortest route on the south side of Building A and straight across the street onto the north side of the courthouse, which puts people in the turn lanes that are going to be for the new widened intersection.  He stated the next option would be; to create a mid-block crossing further to the south; those can be done in a relatively safe manner; but people will still have to walk across traffic.  He stated another alternative would be an elevated pedestrian crossing between buildings; that would be substantially more costly; and he doubts if the alternative was included in any of the cost projects up to this point.  He stated the one he was involved with most recently cost upwards of $1 million; that included a building on either side; and in this case, it might not be necessary to do that.  He advised that would not solve all the problems; people on the first floor do not want to go to the second floor to go across and then go back down to the first floor, so they tend to cross the street anyway at the intersection; and it is possible to cross very suitably at that location. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated in other words, the County is not going to do anything and the people are on their own.  Mr. Denninghoff advised people would want to pay attention any time they cross the street whether it is at the signalized intersection or not. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired about a flashing yellow light; with Mr. Denninghoff responding there are pedestrian crossing signals; the only one he is familiar with is on Merritt Island at Divine Mercy School; and it is only activated when someone pushes the button.  Commissioner Scarborough advised there is one in front of the six-story North Brevard Government Center.  Mr. Denninghoff stated those are very effective; at this location, it might be a suitable thing to do although it would be unusual to have it that close to another traffic signal; and the cost would be approximately $200,000. 

 

Commissioner Colon expressed concern about crossing Stadium Parkway; and recommended the Board consider fixing the problem because it is serious.  She stated if the Board is talking about connecting the two campuses, it is even more of a problem; Mr. Denninghoff would like the Board to take a serious look at it; it all comes down to dollars; and it would be very wise for the Board to invest in it as it does not want someone to get hit.  Mr. Denninghoff stated it would be a clear advantage if the Public Defender and State Attorney were located across the street.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if Sheriff Parker’s employees cross that road often; with Sheriff Parker responding not very often.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated in the analysis of concept 12, it proposes moving the existing Sheriff’s Department and the Public Defender’s office over to the Moore Justice Center site; she does not see the Sheriff’s Department identified, although the State Attorney and Public Defender are on there; and there are two courthouses, but nothing identified as the Sheriff.  Mr. Kelley advised those are older sketches that were done by the Facilities Department a while back; in discussions within the last two weeks, they came up with some ideas; but the Sheriff’s Department does not have to go over there; and it is up to the Board.  Commissioner Voltz inquired how many square feet is each building for the State Attorney and Public Defender; with Mr. Kelley responding they have not done any programming, and they are just concepts showing how the Board could add on or put new buildings on the property it has now.  Commissioner Voltz inquired would it include the Sheriff’s need for 12,000 to 15,000 square feet; with Mr. Whitten responding no, Stottler Stagg and Associates was not charged with looking at that.  Mr. Whitten stated they started discussing that issue the other day; the two plans were already existing; and inquired if Mr. Kelley came up with those or was it Facilities; with Mr. Kelley responding staff already had those.  Mr. Whitten stated it shows how the buildings could be laid out on the current site; but Mr. Kelley was not asked to look at relocating both of those offices and the Sheriff across the road. 

 

Sheriff Parker stated he does not see an advantage to moving over to that area; it will be an unnecessary additional bill; and as far as the West Precinct, they could stay where they are if that kind of construction is taking place.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if the 20,000 square feet would not be necessary then; with Sheriff Parker responding he was talking about the West Precinct; and the 20,000 square feet for Criminal Investigation and the lab still needs to be addressed.  Sheriff Parker stated he understands the ceiling the Board is trying to live with; his biggest need is investigations and the crime lab; he will pledge the inmate telephone revenue, which is approximately $250,000 a year to the debt payment for the Hydro Aluminum facility; and he prefers to purchase rather than lease.  He stated pledging that revenue would take it out of the framework of some of the things the Board is trying to deal with; it provides a revenue source and would get the major need of the Sheriff’s office off the Board’s back without having to come up with a revenue source; and if that is amenable to the Board, it can review the Agenda report and direct staff to go forward with appraisals for the property.  He stated he was hopeful the funding could be used for other projects; but with everything the Board has on its plate, he does not see that as a possibility.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired how many square feet would that free up in the building the Sheriff is currently in; with Sheriff Parker responding none because it is a totally separate group of people.  Commissioner Voltz inquired where are they now; with Sheriff Parker responding they are scattered throughout the County; most are located in the East Precinct; a lot of them work out of their cars; the crime lab needs to be 6,000 to 7,000 square feet; and it is very small now, so those are the kinds of things they are trying to fix with the Hydro Aluminum facility.  Commissioner Voltz inquired about compromising investigations.  Sheriff Parker commented on solving homicides and robberies quickly, having excellent staff, need for professional work environment, design of Building E for efficient operations, and opportunity to fix that major component with the expense covered by revenue pledged from the Sheriff’s office.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if it is not going to cost the Board anything; with Sheriff Parker responding his office will pay the debt payment; but there are a lot of hurdles to be jumped such as appraisals coming in and price having to be negotiated.  He stated they will set up a payment
schedule that hopefully his office can afford to do without assistance from the Board; the $250,000 revenue will go a long way towards that; and there are some renovations and creation of the crime lab inside the facility that would have some expense;  but there is some residual phone money that can be tapped for that.  Sheriff Parker stated probably the biggest concern for the Board is that the facility would be a County facility in terms of maintenance and utilities; but it is a good facility, so he does not believe there will be a lot of maintenance concerns.  Commissioner Voltz inquired how old is the building; with Ms. Camarata responding it was built in 2005. 

 

Chairperson Colon inquired if that is the same discussion as this morning because as of this morning the Sheriff was willing to move the West Precinct to the Rockledge area; with Sheriff Parker responding he was never willing to do that.  Sheriff Parker stated his preference is for the West Precinct to stay where it is; but if the Board needs him to do so, he would move out to give the Public Defender more space; and that is a separate issue. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated that is a compromise; and inquired if the Sheriff has looked at other buildings that are available, and is the Hydro Aluminum facility the one that best meets the need.  Sheriff Parker responded they looked at other buildings; the Excel building is a wonderful building with a lot of space; but it is more than is needed, is at a cost he cannot afford, and would required partnership with the Board to come up with the additional dollars.  He stated the Hydro Aluminum building is in a price range that is manageable with the revenue sources; it is the right size at a little over 20,000 square feet; it has back-up generators and is well-built so they will not have to pull out during hurricanes; so there are a lot of plusses to that particular building.  Commissioner Nelson stated he has seen Sheriff Parker’s staff and the area they are operating out of; it is a miserable location; and he appreciates that they show up every day and do a good job. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize staff to obtain two appraisals of the Hydro Aluminum Building at 340 Gus Hipp Boulevard in Rockledge for potential relocation of the Sheriff’s Criminal Investigations Unit and Crime Scene Investigation Laboratory.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Sheriff Parker stated he has another compromise; Commissioner Bolin asked if he would consider giving up the holding cell area, which they are currently renovating for needed space for the West Precinct, as a stopgap measure for Mr. Russo; and while he does not want to speak for Mr. Russo, it is a doable thing.  He stated they park in the back; there would have to be some access for Mr. Russo to that area; and it would be a temporary stopgap for the 16 to 18 months it would take to get the next step built.  He stated eventually the Public Defender’s office would leave that area and the Sheriff’s office would take the space back for the West Precinct; and the compromise was looking at the holding cell area, which is approximately 2,800 square feet.  Commissioner Bolin inquired about use of the training room; with Sheriff Parker responding the training room is next door; it is set up for meetings; and with some coordination, the Public Defender could have access to that room.  He stated they would want to make sure that works for Mr. Russo because that is the Sheriff’s access point into the facility from where the deputies park in back; they would not want to interrupt Mr. Russo; but they would work with him to coordinate that. 

 

Chairperson Colon inquired if that would be sufficient for Mr. Russo. 

 

Ms. Busacca inquired if the Board is going to build additional space for the Public Defender, what would happen to the second floor of Building E.  Sheriff Parker responded that depends on the end plan for the Public Defender’s office; if a new building is constructed near the Courthouse and that all becomes available, they would not have a need for the second floor because they would be at the facility on Gus Hipp Boulevard in Rockledge; but they would like to expand out to the full first floor for the West Precinct.  Ms. Busacca inquired if it would be easier to have the investigative unit on the second floor so everything would be together; with Sheriff Parker responding that is a possibility.  Sheriff Parker advised it is probably a little less square footage; the preference of the investigators would probably be the Gus Hipp Boulevard location; and they need some rapid corrective action on this.  Commissioner Bolin stated in two years it can be reevaluated; with Sheriff Parker agreeing.  Sheriff Parker stated in two years the County will have an asset at Gus Hipp Boulevard; it will own that facility; his office will be paying the debt service payment; and if there is a decision that investigations will move to the second floor of Building E, that building will become available for other County uses.  He stated there will be some investment with the crime lab and things of that nature; but they can cross that bridge when they get there; and the major issue is they would like the office to Mr. Russo to be as temporary as possible. 

 

Chairperson Colon inquired if that sounds like it would be a good fit at least temporarily until the Board is able to come up with something permanent.  Mr. Kelley advised Mr. Russo mentioned he had eight people.  Mr. Whitten advised Mr. Russo has eight vacancies that he is not filling because of space; Mr. Russo has expressed a desire to utilize more of the space on the first floor; and he is hoping he will see the proposal as a good interim solution. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated some of the conversation this morning was that Mr. Russo would be able to take half of Building D immediately; the second floor is 19,000 square feet; and he would have a need for an additional 5,000 to 6,000 square feet.  He stated Mr. Russo also indicated he does not want to have his office broken apart, which is another issue the Board will have to deal with; and if they do have to be broken apart, they would need additional space because there is a need for some redundancy in functions when they are not all together.  Commissioner Bolin stated he was referring to being moved to Rockledge.  Commissioner Scarborough stated even on the campus, breaking up the office between different buildings is a problem.  Ms. Busacca stated Commissioner Scarborough is correct; staff had suggested using the Tourism Development Office when that office moves to Cocoa, and Mr. Russo said no, that he would need the redundant support staff.  Commissioner Voltz inquired how many square feet are there at the TDC facility; with Ms. Camarata responding 2,000 square feet.  Chairperson Colon inquired about the square footage of the training room; with Ms. Camarata responding it is approximately 1,000 square feet.  Chairperson Colon inquired how fast could that be done.  Ms. Busacca stated they were talking about the holding cell.  Sheriff Parker stated he was just talking about the holding cell; the training room is indispensable to the West Precinct operations as it is where they plot all logistics; and so he has a bit of concern.  He stated he knows that Mr. Quickel will make those concerns go away; he would want the wall separating the training room and the Public Defender’s office to be soundproofed; and there would be no problem with the Public Defender being able to access that room; but it would have to be highly coordinated.  Mr. Whitten stated assuming the Public Defender is going to come over, he would like to talk in
terms of sharing the space because he is not sure that moving the Public Defender from his entrance all the way down to the holding cells is the best way; and suggested moving the training room down and allowing the Public Defender to have the space to the south of there.  Mr. Whitten stated if they could get the Sheriff and the Public Defender together to renovate the best layout, they would be better served. 

 

Sheriff Parker stated he would hate to waste money unnecessarily; this is a short term situation that Mr. Russo would have to live with for a period of time; and they would make it as suitable as they could for him; but he would hate to put a lot of money into renovating it for the Public Defender’s purposes when he will be leaving it in 16 months.  He stated if his office is going to be the long-term occupant there, it should be designed for his needs and the Public Defender should try to make the best of it; but there may be a way to do both; and he is open-minded about getting together to talk about it.

 

Mr. Whitten stated the last item the Board requested staff explore was the possibility of leasing; the owners of the Gus Hipp properties are willing to explore that; and he has laid out a couple of considerations for the Board concerning the term of the lease and whether there is an option to buy the property if the Board does not renew the lease.  He noted the County Attorney addressed the Charter question earlier with regard to the option to buy; and the best way to do a cost comparison is have an RFP to explore that option and compare the option against a traditional lease or purchase.  He stated all of this assumes that during the mid-year budget, there will be excess funds available to take care of the deficits on the current detention center expansion project; they are currently in the second of a three-phase project; and the second phase is underfunded by approximately $1 million.  He stated the third phase is estimated to be between $3 million and $4 million; and he is assuming that at mid-year there will be some dollars to address the deficits.  He stated what the Board has set aside will finance more than $20 million; but the Charter limits to a project limit of $20,220,435; and he made some deductions based on the recommendation in the report, but they are working primarily with $20.2 million.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Sheriff Parker wants to borrow to buy the building and has the funds to pay; and inquired if that would be knock down the County’s borrowing capacity.  He commented on the figures given, being over borrowing capacity, moving the State Attorney, Public Defender, and judiciary, and impact on the County. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated if it is commercial paper that would not affect it.  Mr. Whitten stated if the Sheriff is paying for it, they will go to the Commercial Paper Loan Program, so it is not going to impact the County. 

 

Sheriff Parker stated what they are looking at is the renovation of the holding cell area for office space for the next 16 to 18 months until the project is done; Mr. Russo would have that space and access to the training room, which they would probably have to share; and they would have to figure out some type of access, making sure there is access to the stairwell.  He stated he would guess it is approximately 2,800 square feet; and inquired if that would help Mr. Russo. 

 

Chairperson Colon state the key word is “temporary.”  Mr. Russo stated he does not know how he would integrate that into the rest of his office; and inquired how he would get back and forth
from upstairs; with Sheriff Parker pointing out the stairwell.  Chairperson Colon reiterated this is just temporary; and if folks need to use the stairs temporarily, that is not too bad an idea.  Sheriff Parker stated there could be an outside entrance as well, separate and apart from the Sheriff’s entrance.  Mr. Russo inquired if the Sheriff is talking about outside into the grass; with Sheriff Parker responding it could be into the back parking lot.  Mr. Russo inquired if the Sheriff is going to have his squad cars there; with Sheriff Parker responding if they are going to share a facility, he will do his best to help, but he cannot say he is going to get rid of the squad cars.  Mr. Russo stated he likes the idea of going downstairs; but it would be easier to integrate if he had the front part of the building.  Sheriff Parker advised that is where his offices are.  Mr. Russo stated he knows the Sheriff wants a presence there; but the Sheriff is getting a building and his presence, while his office is going to take the holding cell area and the back of the building.  Sheriff Parker stated he is actually losing his presence because this was the West Precinct; he is offering a piece of that until Mr. Russo gets the building he deserves; but he and the citizens deserve to have a presence there.  Mr. Russo stated it would work if he had the front of the building. 

 

Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Russo wants this on a temporary basis; with Mr. Russo responding no.  Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Russo will wait two more years; with Mr. Russo responding yes, or they will settle it in some other manner.

 

Sheriff Parker stated if they were going to build a new building, it would be 18 months to two years; and inquired if Mr. Russo is saying the only solution is to have something now and later.  Mr. Russo stated it depends on how long they want to take care of the situation. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated they want to build a new building to accommodate those needs; and the question is how to deal with the personnel Mr. ‘Russo has who currently need space.  Mr. Russo inquired if the building is going to be done in 18 months; stated he is very skeptical of that happening; and it would mean his office would be in the holding cell area two or three years. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated they were going to work out some sharing of the space in the holding cell or closer to the elevators, which can be worked out; but the proposal was going to be not to move the Public Defender out, but build the building for the West Precinct.  Commissioner Bolin stated they are beyond that.  Mr. Russo stated he will be coming back in 18 months because he will need more space. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated Mr. Russo is at a disadvantage because the Board was discussing this for ten minutes; the Board wants to make sure Mr. Russo has permanent quarters; but because Mr. Russo keeps saying time is of the essence, the Board is trying to figure out if it can give something temporarily until it gets permanent space for Mr. Russo.  She stated the Board is very cooperative; Mr. Russo is at a disadvantage because he did not hear what the Board was trying to accomplish; and the Sheriff’s proposal helps Mr. Russo immediately.  She noted she does not speak for the rest of the Board, but in terms of suing the County, Mr. Russo can go right ahead; the Board has shown good faith; and threats are unnecessary.  She stated this is an opportunity to help Mr. Russo until space is found; the Board is heading in that direction to find something permanent; they are trying to compromise; and she was shocked when there was a comment about having to use the stairs, so she does not understand where Mr. Russo is coming from.  Mr. Russo stated for two years, he has been talking about this particular issue
with three of the present Commissioners; he does not want to sue the County; but one of the reasons they are here today discussing the issue is because of his pending lawsuit.  Mr. Russo stated he waited quite a bit of time for something to happen on this particular issue, and it did not happen; the County left no other opportunity other than to do what he has been doing; he has been willing to compromise to take care of the problem, but it did not get taken care of; and the County has put him in the position of having to do a distasteful thing.  Chairperson Colon stated when Mr. Russo brings up the fact that because he has brought litigation against the County, they are here in discussion, he is incorrect; and she made that comment this morning.  She stated the Board has to find a facility for Mr. Russo, for the State Attorney, for the Sheriff, and for everybody in the County; and it is not just for Mr. Russo; and if Mr. Russo is under the impression that by taking the Board of County Commissioners to court, he is making it work faster, she is surprised because that is not happening.  She commented on teamwork, space needs, and limited funding.  Mr. Russo stated he understands all of that; but he is going to give himself some credit for everyone being present this morning because of his talk about bringing a lawsuit.  Chairperson Colon stated Mr. Russo can give himself credit for that; and inquired if Mr. Russo’s answer is that what is offered is not good to help him for the next 18 months until the Board figures out exactly where it is.  She advised the issue is coming to the Board in March 2007.  Mr. Russo stated the proposal can work for him, but it is not what he wants; he does not know how he is going to integrate his office other than going up and down the stairs; there are elevators in the middle of the building; and suggested giving him the area from the elevators back or from the elevators forward. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated there is a hallway; and something can be worked out if Mr. Russo does not want to go up and down the steps.  Mr. Russo advised that would be perfect.  Commissioner Bolin stated she has two options; earlier today she talked to Mr. Russo about another location in the County and he said that would not work; but they either have to work out a compromise within the building or Mr. Russo’s office has to be packed up and moved to a satellite operation, which is going to cause a problem for him because he needs to be at the courthouse.  Mr. Russo stated he is not beyond working something out, but he is not sure giving him the holding cells for his office for however long it takes to finish the building is going to work.  He stated if he can be given some sort of access like the hallway so he can integrate his office, that may work.  Commissioner Bolin stated the Board can massage the plan and it will not have to start all over in a new space.  Mr. Russo stated they can continue on the path; he does not think they need to move; but voiced objection to the Board telling the Sheriff he can have the whole front three-quarters of the building, sticking the Public Defender’s office in the holding cells, and telling him he has to go up and down stairs to integrate the rest of his office.  He stated if the Board can massage what the Sheriff is talking about and give him part of Building E, he will be willing to do that.  Commissioner Bolin stated the front half is not going to work because that is where the Sheriff has office space, which is already set up with phones and desks.  Mr. Russo suggested giving him the back half; with Commissioner Bolin responding it is the back half they are looking at.  Sheriff Parker stated the back half consists of the evidence and interview rooms, which are essential; he takes exception to the statement that the Board is giving the Sheriff three-quarters of the building as the whole building was the Sheriff’s when the Board gave half of the upstairs to the Public Defender; and outlined further actions which took space from his office.  He stated he respects the fact that the Public Defender needs space; commented on a reverse in situation where he would ask for some of the Public Defender’s space as that is a State office and he is a County Sheriff; and advised he would not do that.  Mr.
Russo stated he understands; he has been listening to this all morning; when he moved into the second floor of Building E, the Sheriff’s Department was hardly using any of it, which is why his office moved there; with Sheriff Parker advising he takes offense to that.  Mr. Russo stated he will move into the bottom of Building E and massage that plan; but if the Board is giving him the holding cells and telling him to go up and down the stairs, he can do it if it is all the Board can provide, but it is not appropriate. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she does not want this to be adversarial between the Sheriff and the Public Defender because they have to work together; it is not fair to either of them; and the Board has to provide facilities under Article V.  Mr. Russo advised that is correct.  Commissioner Voltz stated the Board needs to provide the facilities; and if it needs to give Mr. Russo temporary space with access to the elevator to the second floor, it will try to move as expeditiously as possible to get the building done so he will have the space he needs.  She commented on responsibility, request for workshop, facilities needs, requirements under Article V, and supporting provision of adequate space.      

 

Chairperson Colon stated she thinks everybody supports providing adequate space; but the Board has not made a decision on whether it is going to build a new building or lease space, so when Commissioner Voltz says the Board is building a building, she does not know where that is coming from   She stated the Board has to provide a facility; it may be that what was said is how one Commissioner feels because of Article V, but all of the Commissioners are in this together; and inquired if all the options have been presented.  She stated the Board needs to see which direction it wants to go; Commissioner Scarborough stated he would prefer to have it close by; but there are others who would not mind if it went to Rockledge. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated what he heard was the desire to put the Public Defender in close proximity to the courts because of the crossing issue; and option 12 discussed those parameters.  He stated if the Sheriff is able to accomplish his lab needs without impacting the County’s borrowing capacity, the Board can explore further option 12, which was the least explored.  He stated it will be 30,000 square feet for the judicial, 65,000 square feet for the State Attorney, and 25,000 square feet for the Public Defender, and they can shell out some additional space for expansion; they do not have the answers; but those entities will be across the street together so there is a cost advantage.  He stated that will allow the Government Center side of the campus to be totally unbuilt and allow them to push another 200,000 square feet with a parking garage.  He stated he has heard from certain Commissioners and the community in South Brevard that as soon as this is built out, the Board needs to find locations in South Brevard for the next judicial complex; so there are immediate needs, 2009 needs, and future needs.  He stated the Board can set a course of action and enter into agreements with property owners in South Brevard to locate properties; the Board needs to ensure it has adequate properties because it knows it will have more judges; and the question is where to go next.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated when Commissioner Scarborough talks about the South County complex not being done until everything is built out, she does not think that is what they want.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Voltz wants to do that complex instead of building at the Justice Center; with Commissioner Voltz responding no, but there is a need in South Brevard also and she does not want to ignore the need until the entire Viera site is built
out.  Commissioner Scarborough stated there is borrowing capacity of $20 million; the court
needs seem to be driving all the other needs; and if the Board is able to answer the court needs, it gets the dividend of getting Building D back.  Commissioner Voltz stated she agrees; but questioned waiting until the facility is totally built out with an additional 200,000 square feet.  Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board wanted to expand the governmental function rather than the court function, it would still have that capability.  Commissioner Voltz stated she is just looking at the money issue.  Commissioner Scarborough stated his point is that in 20 or 30 years as things expand, the County will have the ability to expand at the Government Center; if the Board tried to put facilities for the Public Defender and State Attorney at the Government Center rather than the Justice Center, it would use $200,000 or  more with the crossing and put those offices further away from the court function; putting those offices at the Justice Center seems to be prudent; and the Government Center campus could go back to general governmental services, if and when it is needed in future decades. 

 

Discussion ensued on building out the Government Center, putting a courthouse in South Brevard, support of the judiciary and Bar Association for South Brevard facility, potential of 200,000 square-feet at the Government Center, and addition at the Justice Center.

 

Commissioner Scarborough advised in the 1970’s the law library, all the court systems, and all the Constitutional officers were housed in the six-story building in Titusville; when the Board moved to the Government Center, there was space; and it is incredible how much space is needed.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she agrees with Commissioner Scarborough on the issue of building as much as possible with the money for the addition to the Courthouse; they can move everybody that needs to be across the road and use that space to the maximum; as soon as the Board gets all those plans lined up, it will have free space on the Government Center side of the campus; and then it should look towards the south for the next courthouse.  She stated all the options are wonderful; they have the capability of adding onto the campus of the Government Center; and inquired if a parking garage has been included on the other side of the road.  Mr. Whitten advised they are adding some overflow parking with the last build out of shell space; but it is not much parking; and the direction he is hearing is to take the $20 million and build as much space on the Justice Center campus as possible for courts, Public Defender and State Attorney.  He stated he is not sure that will get all of those functions off the Government Center side of the road; but that is the Board direction, through some proposal, to ask for as much space as possible on the other side of the road. 

 

Chairperson Colon inquired if that is realistic with only that amount of money.  Mr. Whitten stated the Board will get a lot of promises now; but it will not know until it actually puts something on the street and has proposals come back. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Chief Judge has indicated judicial facilities need to be available January 2009; and inquired if it is realistic, even with design build, to have it completed in a timely manner.  Michael Kelley stated the School Board uses a lot of reuse designs.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that is a yes or no; with Mr. Kelley responding the Board could easily have it done.  Bino Campanini stated this is not private commercial work; it is government; and advised of the process involved with government projects.  Commissioner
Scarborough inquired if Mr. Campanini is saying no; with Mr. Campanini responding he is saying it is an easy thing to do; but the Board needs to look at the process.  Mr. Campanini responded with a design build process, the Board is looking at 18 months; and the question becomes how quickly the County can get someone to start the work.  He stated it is March, so they would be talking about January 2008, which is less than 20 months, so it is tight.  He stated it would be like they did at the jail; and the Board would have to have a determination.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Campanini is saying for 18 months, the Board would have to be under contract for the design build in several months, and is that feasible; with Mr. Campanini responding affirmatively.   Commissioner Scarborough inquired what would the Board have to do to make it happen; with Mr. Campanini responding come up with some kind of design criteria package for the design builder; and for a building the size the Board is considering, it would take several months.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it would be several months until the County could go out on RFP; with Mr. Campanini responding the only project he has seen that was ahead of schedule was the jail, which was done under emergency measures so the job did not go through the process.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired how long would it take for Stottler Stagg and Associates to come back and provide a brief synopsis of what the Board needs to do to meet the deadlines to have the building completed by January 2009; with Mr. Campanini responding a week to ten days.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board should get that answer because if it does not work by 2009, the Board has another problem.     

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to extend the Contract with Stottler Stagg and Associates for a week to ten days to allow the company to provide a synopsis of what the County would have to do to meet the January 2009 for provision of facilities.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Ms. Busacca stated the next Board meeting is the March 1, 2007 Zoning meeting; and inquired if the Board wants to come an hour before that meeting to discuss the issue; with Commissioner Scarborough responding affirmatively.  Chairperson Colon stated the meeting will start at 3:30 p.m. on March 1, 2007.  She inquired what facilities are included in the concept the Board is discussing; with Mr. Whitten responding option 12 talks about 100,000 to 200,000 square feet, and probably it would be 100,000 square feet of additional space across the road.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he was looking at 120,000 square feet because he wants the State Attorney to have 65,000 square feet and the Public Defender up to 25,000 square feet.  Ms. Busacca stated those figures do not get any courtroom space; with Commissioner Scarborough responding there were 30,000 square feet for courtrooms.  Commissioner Scarborough commented on running numbers from 110,000 square feet to 130,000 square feet, timeframe, and finishing courtrooms and shelling out the remainder.  Chairperson Colon stated the Board is trying to get figures on 120,000 square feet, which will include the State Attorney, Public Defender, and expansion of the Courthouse. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he would hate to move everyone across the street, meet today’s capacity, finish the building, and then find there is a need for additional space.  Mr. Whitten stated of the 120,000 square feet, the 2009 court space needs are approximately 27,000 square feet, and the balance of the space goes to the Public Defender and State Attorney; in the current CIP is a proposal for a 100,000 square-foot building to meet current and future needs;
so the Board is falling a little short of meeting what it has in the CIP in terms of square footage
to meet future needs.  Ms. Busacca stated the Board direction could be to meet the 2009 needs of the State Attorney, Public Defender, and the court system; staff will figure out what the square footage is and come back to the Board with the amount of money required to do it in a timely manner; and if additional money is necessary, staff will tell the Board about options, if there are any. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated each need builds upon another; if there are no more judges, there will not be a need for any more State Attorneys; and if there is a move to South Brevard, that is where they will be building the ancillary facilities. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated a motion needs to be made today to identify a piece of land and have discussions with folks in South Brevard, so the Board can say it is working toward that; the truth of the matter is that even if they are busting at the seams, there is nothing they are going to be able to do about it because that would be  waste of taxpayers’ money at that point; and enough is enough.  She stated three years ago they should have been in the south end, but it put expansions; and the second the building was finished, it was at full capacity, which is where they are right now.  She stated they are making it clear that there is not going to be any more room for judges or the whole package that comes with them.  Ms. Busacca stated the Board can make a motion that there is a presumption in 2012, there will be a move going south; that will be the direction for the budget as well because the Board will have to start talking as early as the 2008 budget about what kind of money will have to be put aside to meet debt payment; and if that is the Board direction, they can head in that direction. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired how many square feet does Mr. Russo need; with Mr. Russo responding he does not know, and is Commissioner Voltz inquiring about now or in the future.  Commissioner Voltz advised Mr. Russo has 19,000 now; they are only talking about going to 25,000 square feet, which is an additional 6,000 square feet; and inquired if that will be enough to meet the current needs; with Mr. Russo responding yes, but he can give a projection of what he will have five and ten years from now in terms of personnel.  Commissioner Voltz requested Mr. Russo send that information to the Board. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the truth of the matter is that once the County builds this building, it does not intend to expand it; it is a totally different equation with the judges down in South Brevard; and it would be necessary to match everything that is there now.  She stated the direction the Board is giving today is identifying for the State Attorney, Public Defender, and expansion of the court; and the Board does not want to limit them to 120,000 square feet.  Ms. Busacca advised they want the 2009 needs.  Commissioner Scarborough stated they need to know what Mr. Russo needs after he is servicing more judges, which may be more than he needs today.  Ms. Busacca stated the assumption is that they are talking about a build out of the 12 acres, which will meet the 2009 needs, with the next step being to the south, which will be looked at as part of the Board’s planning. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve for planning purposes the build out of 12 acres to meet the 2009 needs of the State Attorney, Public Defender, and Court system, with the next step being to South Brevard.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chairperson Colon stated if Mr. Russo leaves today, he will regret the fact that he did not take advantage of at least helping himself for the next 20 months; she knows the space will be a little tight and difficult; and they will try to work with the holding cells to get by because Mr. Russo’s personnel cannot  afford to be in the conditions they are today.  She noted this was a suggestion from the Sheriff, not from the Board ; and the Sheriff was trying to help the Public Defender.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if Mr. Russo agreed to do that.  Commissioner Nelson advised the Board is not talking about the Public Defender’s personnel working out of the holding cells; and there will be modifications for their benefit.  Chairperson Colon stated it is a win/win for the Sheriff too; and they will be working on those modifications immediately. 

 

 

 

Chairperson Colon announced the Board will take a five-minute break and then will start on the EEL’s issue. 

 

Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis advised he cannot do the EEL’s item.  Chairperson Colon inquired why; with Mr. Ellis advising he has to leave at 3:30 p.m.  Commissioner Voltz stated it is too late.  Chairperson Colon stated it is part of the workshop.  Mr. Ellis stated it was scheduled for 1:00 p.m.; it was moved to 9:00 a.m.; it is now 3:00 p.m.; and he is out of time.  Chairperson Colon inquired where does Mr. Ellis have to be; and advised there will be people who wish to speak in regard to the issue.  Mr. Ellis stated that is fine; but the item has been moved three times; and it is too late for him to change something that is scheduled for 4:30 p.m.  Chairperson Colon stated she was not aware that there was a time set for each issue.  Mr. Ellis reiterated originally the item was set for 1:00 p.m. and facilities was to be discussed at 9:00 a.m.; two days ago, he was told his issue was moved to 9:00 a.m.; he has been present all day; and it is now 3:00 p.m.  Chairperson Colon stated the people who are present will be allowed to speak; with Mr. Ellis responding that is fine, he cannot do anything about that because the Board has pushed him on the item around the clock, and he is finally pushed into a corner.  Chairperson Colon stated the Board did not change the time; with Mr. Ellis advising it was not him. 

 

Commissioner Voltz suggested the Board not get into this discussion as this is not the place for that.

 

Chairperson Colon stated she wants to be clear that the Board did not change the time for this item; and apologized if there was any confusion.  She stated she does not know where the change came; citizens are present and will be allowed to speak; and she is sorry there has been confusion but it was not the fault of the Board.  She stated Mr. Ellis has made accusations that the Board intentionally did things, but it did not; and she wants to make sure Mr. Ellis is clear on that.  Mr. Ellis stated he understands, but someone moved the time, and it was not him. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if Ms. Busacca knows anything about it.  County Manager Peggy Busacca advised typically all meetings are advertised starting at 9:00 a.m. so if one finishes early, the Board has the opportunity to go on; and she was not aware that Mr. Ellis was notified there was any different time.  Chairperson Colon stated obviously someone told Mr. Ellis; with Mr. Ellis advising he was told 1:00 p.m.  Commissioner Voltz stated that is how it is on her
schedule; with Ms. Busacca advising that is what it says on the Board’s schedule.  Mr. Ellis advised the Agenda that came out two days ago did not have his issue at 1:00 p.m., but had everything starting at 9:00 a.m.  Ms. Busacca advised the Board directed that workshops be advertised that way so if it wants to do something, it can move things around; she was not aware that Mr. Ellis was notified; and she is sorry. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated Mr. Ellis said he had to be somewhere at 4:30 p.m.; and inquired how long is his presentation; with Mr. Ellis responding it will probably take an hour to an hour and a half to discuss the item.  Chairperson Colon stated she was talking about Mr. Ellis’ presentation to the Board; with Mr. Ellis reiterating it was a one-hour presentation.  Mr. Ellis stated that is why he was asked to move it from the Commission meeting to a workshop environment; he had no problem going to the workshop environment; and commented on the time changes.  He stated he is backed in and there is nothing he can to at this point. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board made the change so it could discuss the issue; and Commissioner Voltz said it should be done in workshop rather than at the regular meeting; but it appears that is not going to be accomplished.  He stated when people are present, the Board affords them the right to speak; and it is important to the community that the Board understands, so it can reschedule a workshop to talk about it.  Mr. Ellis noted he is not the only one backed up as there are many people present for the transportation issue as well.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands that; the previous issue was more complex than any of the Commissioners imagined; and apologized to anyone who had to come, leave, or what have you.  He stated the Board wants to listen to everybody’s comments; there may be people on both sides who had to leave; and the Board can hear whomever it can and then reschedule to discuss it fully. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the folks that are here will be given an opportunity to speak; with Mr. Ellis responding that is fine.  Mr. Ellis sated there is a long list of issues in the audit and the white paper; they require full discussion, which would be an hour to an hour and a half; and that is why it was moved to the workshop format.  He stated the Board has been here all day; it is going to wear down and cut this short; and it was not set to be in conjunction with everything else, but ended up being in conjunction with a very lengthy facilities workshop.  He stated if the Board had known it was going to go this long, it could have told the people this morning, but nobody knew; people have been present all day; it is late in the afternoon; and by the time the Board reconvenes it will be 3:30 p.m.  Chairperson Colon stated ten minutes were spent talking about this; it is obvious the Board did not do anything intentionally; she does not know what happened; but it is important enough that people have been present since 9:00 a.m. and are ready to discuss it.  Mr. Ellis stated he was ready today; commented on the time changes; and advised if he had been told yesterday that this was going to be late, he could have change his appointment, but as he is finding out now, he cannot do it.  He noted he has accommodated every change the Board asked for; and he cannot make the change at this point.               

           

Commissioner Voltz inquired when the next available workshop is; with Ms. Busacca responding there is a workshop scheduled on March 8, 2007.  Commissioner Voltz stated she meant one with nothing scheduled; with Ms. Busacca responding in May.  Commissioner Voltz stated this cannot wait until May; with Ms. Busacca responding they will have to come up with a new date. 

 

Chairperson Colon reiterated she wants to be sure it is clear that the Board did not do this intentionally; she would never create any kind of chaos like this; and she is going to allow those who are present to speak.  Mr. Ellis stated they can speak; when they come back, the people can speak again; but it would make more sense for them to speak after the information is presented.  Chairperson Colon stated it is important enough to the people that they are here.  Mr. Ellis stated it is important enough to him that he has been here six hours today.  Chairperson Colon stated Mr. Ellis’ time is not any more valuable than anybody else in the room; people have taken time out to be here, so it is important to them too; and apologizes that Mr. Ellis feels that way.  Mr. Ellis stated the people present were not told it was at 9:00 a.m.; Chairperson Colon stated she does not know what they were told. 

 

Mary Hillberg stated all contributions to the EEL’s Program and collaboration between every area are important; and she is fully in support like most of the community is.             

 

Wayne Mozo distributed letters to the Commissioners and County Manager; and stated he is on the Environmentally Endangered Lands Procedures Committee and is a former employee of the Clerk’s office, where he worked for approximately 20 years, and for Mr. Ellis for approximately 2.5 years.  He noted he is speaking as a private citizens, not representing the Committee; but because of his experience on the Committee, he has some unique perspectives to share.  He stated he researched some of the documentation surrounding the audits the Clerk has done of the EEL’s Program; and he is seeing a bit of redundancy between what the Clerk has done and what the County’s contracted auditors have done.  He stated on October 8, 2004, Hoyman Dobson notified the EEL’s Program that it would begin conducting an audit; and that audit will be released on May 4, 2007.  He stated on May 18, 2006 an internal review and analysis of the EEL’s purchase of the Parrish Holder property was begun by the Clerk of Courts; and advised the terms audit and internal review and analysis are interchangeable.  He stated the audit was delivered to the Clerk of Courts auditor on June 15, 2006; the May 18, 2006 audit that was begun by the Clerk’s office was targeted to the Parrish Holder acquisition; the January 8 internal review and analysis was for the EEL’s land acquisition policies; and it was delivered to the Clerk on January 18 by the same auditor, who is am employee of the Clerk and a  public accountant.  He stated based on his interpretation of some email messages between Mike Knight and the auditor, he does not believe that EEL’s knew the second audit was being done; and inquired if that is correct; with EEL’s Program Manager Mike Knight responding that is correct.  Mr. Mozo stated on January 31, the Clerk’s auditor who conducted the two audits, sent an email message to Mr. Knight advising she told Mr. Knight during a meeting with Commissioner Voltz that another audit would be generated if EEL’s proceeded to purchase property owned by AG Ventures; and there is some documentation in the packets he distributed to that effect.  He stated it is unusual for one agency to say if an entity does something, it is going to do something; and it was troubling to see that type of an activity going on.  He stated looking at the timelines, it looks as if something occurred between the audit that was delivered to the Clerk on June 15 on the Parrish Holder property and the January 8 audit; something triggered an additional audit; but he does not know what it was.  He stated Commissioner Voltz may be able to expand on that later from the meeting she had with the Clerk’s auditors and Mr. Knight.  He stated there is something missing in his timeline that he has not been able to put together yet.  He advised on June 24, 2006 the same auditor who performed the two audits for the Clerk’s office submitted an application to the EEL’s Program requesting that property that she and her
husband owned be purchased by EEL’s; while she was conducting the audits, she was also asking that her property be purchased; and this raises some troubling issues.  Mr. Mozo stated in addition to the appearance of conflict and the email that was written to Mr. Knight, there is an issue relative to objectivity with the audits and some type of bias indicated on the part of the auditor.  He stated Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis is ultimately responsible for the audit; and expressed concern about that.  He stated looking over some of the documentation that has been going back and forth between the Clerk’s office and EEL’s, it is apparently that EEL’s staff has spent a significant amount of time and resources responding to the audits; as one was finished relative to the Parrish Holder property, another one came on the overall operation of the Program; there were statements and rebuttal; it keeps going back and forth; and staff cannot do its core business.  He recommended turning the audit findings over to Hoyman Dobson and  instructing EEL’s staff to cease responding to the Clerk’s audits; and stated another concern is the perception that the audits are politically motivated.  He stated there is some ideology behind it relative to the EEL’s Program’s public land buying; and when it gets to that point, the relationship between the Clerk’s auditor, the EEL’s Program, the appraisers, and The Nature Conservancy becomes adversarial.  He stated there does not seem to be anything constructive to continuing the replies and rebuttals; that is why he is recommending turning it over to Hoyman Dobson to review and come back with findings; and if the Board does that, it is going to remove any cloud of bias associated with the audits performed by the Clerk.  He stated the Clerk’s office has a staff of 6.25 people in the Internal Audit Department; the budget for that staff is $371,000; the Board contracts with two public accounting firms to perform departmental audits at a cost of $415,000 per year; Hoyman Dobson and the Clerk are doing the same thing; and this is troubling.  He stated the practice of the Clerk doing audits and the Board doing audits is not productive or a good use of taxpayer money; and something needs to be done as it is a redundant exercise and a waste of funds.  He suggested the Board allow the Clerk to have oversight of the audits; and stated the Board cannot allow the Clerk to use his Internal Audit staff to conduct audits.  He stated a public accounting firm engaged in the audits is not going to have bias or political ideology injected into the audits; and if the Board cannot work this out with the Clerk, it should instruct the County Departments to treat the internal reviews and analyses by the Clerk as public records requests.  He stated there is no need for a County Department to engage in providing information to the Clerk or engage in meetings with the Clerk when such Department may be audited by the County’s auditors.

 

Chairperson Colon advised the Clerk of Court does not answer to the Board of County Commissioners; but she will ask Mr. Ellis these questions.  She stated there has also been a discussion in regard to appraisals of giving the whole process to Land Acquisition because it is not fair to put any Director in a position where they become the expert in having to deal with all that.  She stated the Board has discussed this before; and provided an example involving the Transportation Engineering Department.  Mr. Mozo stated his concern is the fact that Mr. Ellis’ Internal Audit Department is spending $371,000 a year and is doing the same thing the Board’s auditors are doing.  Chairperson Colon stated Mr. Mozo brought up the issue regarding Parrish Holding; that issue stemmed from questions regarding different appraisers; and she wanted to get some feedback on it being under Land Acquisition instead of under the EEL’s Program because Land Acquisition deals with those things on a regular basis.  Mr. Mozo stated his concern is with the objectivity of the audit, which has been called into question because of the actions by the auditor relative to requesting her property be purchased as well as the cryptic message to Mr. Knight.  He stated those are his concerns that the Board  should address; and there is redundancy because the Clerk and the Board are both spending money to do the same thing.  Chairperson Colon stated the Board is trying to find out legally what it can and cannot do and what the Clerk can and cannot do.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired where did Mr. Mozo get the information about $371,000 to pay for 6.25 auditors; with Mr. Mozo responding from the Clerk’s office; and he requested the information from the Finance Director.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if $60,000 a year for CPA’s is a little low; with Mr. Mozo responding they are not all CPA’s.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if Trudie is a CPA; with Mr. Mozo responding yes.  Mr. Mozo stated there is one other employee that he knows is a CPA, but there is another who is not; and he suspects the others are just staff.  He noted he does not work there anymore; he just requested this information and it was provided; and it includes indirect costs.  Commissioner Voltz inquired what position Mr. Mozo held in the Clerk’s office.  Mr. Mozo responded in Titusville he worked in the Land Records office where he was the Business Manager handling fixed assets and purchasing; at the Nieman Avenue office, he was the Branch Manager; and then he was the Manager at the Viera office.

 

Chairperson Colon stated Mr. Ellis is not present; and when they reschedule, she would encourage Mr. Mozo to be present.  Mr. Mozo stated he will provide a copy of his information, but does not know if he can come back; he said what he needed to say; and the Board has it in the letters along with the recommendations.

 

Maureen Rupe stated she saw this in June 2006; there were ten findings; and it looked more like an internal review.  She stated she then saw another one on January 8, which had been expanded to sixteen challenges; and when she picked up the Agenda item today, she saw a rebuttal to the rebuttal to the Recommendation to the Findings.  She advised she has not read this; it is confusing; but she knows a couple of the first findings were valid concerns on the Parrish Holder property, so she is glad the Clerk brought this forward.  She stated she looks at the rest as constructive criticism because everyone can do better in whatever job they are in; and recommended a complete review of the Land Acquisition Manual, which has not been done since 1991 and that the Procedure Committee meet more often than once a year to look at the land.  She stated she should be back when the Clerk comes back to answer some of the findings.  She stated the environmental community wants to see the most critical and important lands acquired; they agree with the responses from the EEL’s Manager; and they want to see the integrity of the EEL’s Program maintained.  She stated the Program does more for quality of life, the aquifer, and air quality than anything else in place; and it also allows endangered and other species to flourish.

 

Chairperson Colon stated she wants to ask Ms. Rupe the same question she asked Mr. Mozo in regards to suggestions; after the incident a few years ago with the landfill, the Board was clear that it wanted every Department to go through the process with the land acquisitions so the Board would know there was a safety net and every measure was taken; but there has been a suggestion that acquisition of EEL’s property should also go under Land Acquisition.  Ms. Rupe stated she will have to think about it. 

 

Laurilee Thompson stated she cannot say she disagrees with some of the findings Mr. Ellis has; and she is glad they were pointed out.  She stated Mr. Knight has done a good job of addressing the findings; and it looks like they will keep the problems from happening in the future.  Ms. Thompson stated she agrees with Ms. Rupe about keeping the EEL’s Program integrity intact; and she hopes the Board does not follow the recommendation to stop acquiring land until the issue is ironed out because this issue is going to go on as nothing will be resolved today.  She stated in the meanwhile the clock is ticking, land values keep going up, and there is less and less land available.  She stated it is the desire of the people to keep land acquisitions going; and she hopes this will not hold up future land acquisitions.    

 

Chairperson Colon stated this is an issue that both the environmental community and the Clerk had concerns over; and she believes the way it was identified was through the Zoning folks.  County Manager Peggy Busacca stated there is a Committee that the Board established under the policy on land acquisition, which reviews every acquisition over a certain threshold amount; that process works; in this case the Committee includes people with zoning experience; and those people mentioned that the PUD issue was problematic.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he had a couple of meetings with individuals from the environmental side and the Clerk in the same room; one of the questions that came up was why it occurred the day before the Board was supposed to see it as opposed to the appraisers verifying their assumptions with staff; and he agrees with Ms. Thompson and Ms. Rupe.  He stated while there is a lot of contention, he has a feeling there will be good that comes from the discussion in that everybody agrees there is a limited amount of money and a valuable asset to preserve; and the best way to do that is to work together to accomplish the purpose.  He stated when both sides left, they at least agreed on that; he left with some questions procedurally; and if key players were brought into the process at key moments, they would not have had crises occurring.  Ms. Busacca stated she agrees; but it was not the day before the Board was to see the item.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it was pulled the day before the Board was to hear it, and that is why the assumption from the community was that the decision was made at that time.  Ms. Busacca stated she agrees that the information should have been discussed and reviewed sooner rather than later.  EEL’s Program Manager Mike Knight stated the PUD issue came up quite a bit earlier in the process, so staff was aware of it; and the issues raised at the Acquisition Review Committee level were different, so it was a different consideration of legal issues as to open space requirements and risk to the County, which did not have anything to do with the value at the appraisal level.  Ms. Busacca stated there may not have been anyone at the Acquisition Committee with background in zoning; and one way to resolve that may be for zoning staff to go to the Committee for the discussion.  Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a great desire to have an accounting firm look at this; on his part, he has a greater desire for the Selection and Management Committee and the Procedural Committee to take the information, take a good bite at the apple, and identify the things they recommend.  He stated they could follow all the correct accounting procedures and yet buy the wrong piece of property.

 

Chairperson Colon inquired how much money is left for acquiring EEL’s property, how many properties have been identified, and where are they in that process.  Mr. Knight stated he does not know the exact number; the total, if bonded out, would be between $73 million and $76 million; but ultimately he does not know exactly what that amount is until it is done.  He stated his understanding is bonded funds that are available to use are in the $40 million to $45 million range; and the status of the existing acquisitions is currently looking at the availability of willing sellers that have come to the Program and submitted willing seller applications, which according to estimates would exceed the total amount of the referendum, so there is significant activity and interest in submitting land for consideration.  Chairperson Colon inquired how long will it take; stated the citizens voted on this and supported it; and Mr. Knight will have to let the Board know how it can help.  She inquired how much longer will it be; how many projects have been identified that are pending; and stated these are taxpayers’ dollars so the people want to know where they are in the process and how much money is left.  She stated Mr. Knight said $45 million; and inquired how soon they will be able to see more acquisitions.  Mr. Knight responded there are a number of acquisitions in the pipeline now that are going through appraisals; it is a tough number to put one’s finger on, but there may be approximately 30; and he can provide a spreadsheet so the Board  will know exactly where each one is in the process.  He stated there are probably 30 to 40 different properties; they are going to be quite expensive; and they are at the point where they are having to make some hard decisions about some that might be at the stage of negotiation now but might have to be set on the back burner because there are much higher priority properties coming from willing sellers.

 

Chairperson Colon stated land is going very quickly; and inquired out of those 30 properties that have been identified, how fast would the $45 million go.  Mr. Knight responded it is impossible to say; when they started down this road in 2004, the Committee estimated it had a five-year window to get the land acquired; at that time there was a market that was going up quickly; but the market has idled out, so there is probably a bit more time to play with, but they are still working on the five-year timeframe.  He noted the bonded monies have to be spent within the five-year timeframe, or it will be necessary to pay back the interest that is being earned on those funds. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated Mr. Mozo had a question about a meeting held in her office with Trudie and Mr. Knight; and if she understood the question correctly, Mr. Mozo wanted to know about the next audit and if they proceeded to purchase the property or another property.  Mr. Mozo stated he questioned what triggered the second audit; and commented on the Parrish Holder audit, the second audit, the email message concerning purchase of the AG Venture properties, and the email referencing the meeting with Commissioner Voltz.  He stated he did not know what transpired and wondered if Commissioner Voltz could expand on the meeting or advise if something happened that triggered the second audit.  Commissioner Voltz responded it was somewhat contentious; but she will let Mr. Knight respond to the question.  Mr. Knight stated his recollection of the meeting was there was considerable disagreement over the issues; but his understanding was that they were there to review responses and rebuttals.  He stated he raised a concern that there was not adequate time to review the issues prior to it being scheduled to go to the Board; the auditor mentioned she had indicated at the meeting the same information she indicated in the email, that the Clerk’s office was not planning to move forward with the audit, but that they were preparing some other report; but he does not recall hearing that, so the first information he had was when he received the email.  He stated a week or so later he was asked to meet with the auditor to review the final rebuttals and preparation; that was when he first heard there was going to be a workshop on February 15, 2007; and he heard it from the auditor.  He stated the meeting with the auditor at the Justice Center was to review the rebuttals; they spent approximately an hour and a half reviewing the rebuttals, which he understood were to be the subject of today’s workshop; and on January 30, 2007 he received the email that was referred to because he asked if it was a new audit because there were sixteen findings and they were different.  He stated he was told an audit would not come forward

unless they were going to be moving forward with the purchase of the AG Ventures property, so it was confusing; and he does not know what the source was.  Commissioner Voltz stated the auditor did indicate that if that purchase moved forward, she was going to do another audit; with Mr. Knight advising that is correct.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if it is correct that the auditor said she was not sure if she was going to give Mr. Knight a copy; with Mr. Knight responding yes.  Commissioner Voltz stated evidently Ms. Rupe had a copy; she has not seen it yet; but she has all the responses Mr. Knight made, although she has not seen the Clerk’s response to Mr. Knight’s response.  Commissioner Voltz stated it gets confusing; with Mr. Knight responding it is very confusing; and he agrees that there was mentioned that there could be an additional audit, but he did not understand that the existing audit that had been worked on for ten months was not going to go through this process.  Commissioner Voltz stated it was her understanding that today the Board was going to be looking at the original audit with ten or eleven findings; then Mr. Ellis said he had a white paper of some sort; and she has looked through all of those, but many are different from the original eleven.  She stated many are duplicated; but it was her understanding the Board was not going to talk about those sixteen today; and when she got the Agenda, she thought the Board was just going to talk about the original eleven or twelve.  Mr. Knight stated his primary concern is all the time and energy that were spent; if there were valid concerns in the original Parrish Holder audit, then they should come forward and be reviewed fully; and his recommendation all along has been that if there are concerns over objectivity, the easy solution is just to work through the internal audit process to allow them to review all the concerns that have been brought forth to make sure they were looked at fairly.  Commissioner Voltz stated Mr. Ellis brought up a number of issues; and inquired if Mr. Ellis would automatically go to Mr. Knight concerning an issue or to Ms. Busacca.  She inquired how many times has Mr. Knight met with Mr. Ellis before all this; with Mr. Knight responding never.  Ms. Busacca stated it is her understanding that Mr. Ellis believes there are certain issues that need to be reviewed that come to him through actions that he sees at the Board  level or through concerns of private citizens; to her knowledge they have not been advised, nor do they go through the same formal process as with the County’s internal auditors, where they discuss what they are going to do and ask about concerns or areas that they should look at.  She stated they then go through a formal process; at the end they are allowed to talk to the auditors about management concerns; and then they go to the Audit Committee.  She stated Mr. Lusk has attempted to discuss this with Mr. Ellis to see if they can get a formalized process put together.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if there is a process of trying to get this information and get something accomplished; with Ms. Busacca responding they do not have one yet.  Ms. Busacca commented on receiving an outline from Mr. Ellis of the way the process should work, not following that process, and confusion.  She stated Mr. Lusk received some information on January 26 from Mr. Ellis about the process adopted by the Clerk’s Internal Audit Department; but they were somewhat confused because on January 8, Mr. Ellis provided a document, now referred to as a white paper, which said they had conducted an internal review and analysis of the land acquisition policies; and they do not understand the difference between the white paper and the audit.  She advised they do know the white paper did not follow the process outlined in the document, so staff does not understand how the audits are chosen or when an audit is done because sometimes all the questions seem to be answered and the Clerk comes back with a different set of issues.  She stated this is not being conducted in the way the internal auditors conduct it; and staff is confused about the whole issue.

 

Chairperson Colon stated she fully supports checks and balances and accountability, as does the community; and what she is hearing is the concern if there is a certain procedure that has to be followed.  She stated she would like to get from the State level a job description for the Clerk of the Court to make sure there are no boundaries that are being overstepped and to ensure that the Board is clear on what the Clerk is allowed to do; and it is a two-way street.  She stated when Mr. Mozo spoke, she was under the impression the Clerk is a Constitutional officer, and therefore the Board does not oversee what he does; but by the same token, she would like to know what he is not supposed to be able to do.  She stated she loves supervision; she loves to make sure there is observation; but she is reading that audits are selected by the Clerk of the Courts based on observations of actions by the Board, by news reports, or by tips from citizens; and inquired if the Board is able to know who those citizens are who are providing the tips.  She inquired if that is public information; stated everything is supposed to be in the sunshine; and they should know which citizens are tipping and so forth.  She inquired who would the Board go to in order to make sure it is not overstepping and vice versa so they can have a good working relationship and not be criticizing or saying it is political or whatever the case may be.  She stated if the Clerk is doing his job, the Board has no choice but to say that is acceptable; and inquired if it can be challenged and to whom.  She stated she has been hearing all kinds of questions being asked; and inquired if Mr. Knox has any feedback. 

 

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Clerk has designated duties under the Constitution, which includes the duty as auditor; there is a Supreme Court case that says that means he is the pre-auditor, meaning he checks whatever checks the Board is going to write to make sure there is money to do it and that the expenditure is legal; and he knows there is a District Court of Appeals case that did not go to the Supreme Court that says he is also the internal auditor of the County.  He stated there is some authority, and he thinks it is the Supreme Court case, that says the Clerk acts in that capacity unless the County has hired an independent auditor; and that may be the issue the Board needs to look at a little more closely.  He stated he does not remember how that plays out; but he will have to look at it and get the Board some opinion on the issue.  He stated the only question in his mind is whether or not hiring an independent auditor cuts off the Clerk’s ability to be the internal auditor.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if Mr. Knox can find out by next Tuesday; with Mr. Knox responding affirmatively. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated by next Tuesday the Board should have some feedback in regards to whether it would pertain if the County hired an independent auditor and the audit process.  She noted she is talking about every Clerk of Courts in the State and whether they are able to come up with any audit process they like, whether there are certain things that can and cannot be done, and at what point is the Board of County Commissioners able to say it has concerns about how this is happening.  She stated some Departments are feeling that they have been targeted; it is very uncomfortable; but that might not be the case, and it may be a coincidence.  She stated it is the Board’s responsibility to take care of this immediately so there is a better working relationship because the Board cannot keep allowing this to happen.

 

Mr. Knox stated he does not know of any legal requirements as far as the procedures the Clerk needs to follow as internal auditor, if that is the function he occupies and it is not cut off by the independent audit, so the Clerk can establish whatever procedures he wants; however, he does not know of any legal authority that requires the Departments to follow whatever procedures the Clerk sets up because they are operating independently.  Mr. Knox stated it requires cooperation on the part of both parties if the county is going to try to cooperate with the Clerk’s auditing.  He stated not all counties do that; there is a lot of dispute and strife over these issues in other counties; and there is a lawsuit in Collier County over this issue, so it is not always a get-along type of atmosphere between the Clerk as the internal auditor and the County Commission; but it has been known to be cooperative too, so it depends on the personalities involved.

 

Chairperson Colon stated she does not think they have a problem; she has not heard from any Commissioners regarding there being a procedure; and she wants to be a sure a copy of the meeting is provided to the Clerk so he will see some of the things that are being discussed.  She stated the Board would have loved to have the Clerk as part of this discussion, but he needed to be somewhere else by 4:30 p.m., the Clerk felt that the time that was identified today was not appropriate and he had been sitting here too long; but the Board  chose to continue because there are residents who have taken time out to be present.  She inquired if any Commissioner has anything more to give; and inquired at what point does the Board of County Commissioners say enough is enough, can it do that, and what are the boundaries.  Mr. Knox stated he will get the answer concerning the internal auditor question by Tuesday; but Chairperson Colon’s question is going to require more in-depth research.  He stated he may have to call Collier County to see what the issues are; he has not looked up what their fight is about other than in general terms; and the issue the Board is bringing up is where to draw the line. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if County policy has been followed in all the things that were done; with Mr. Knight responding that is correct.  Commissioner Voltz stated if County policy was followed, she does not understand what the major issue is; the Board makes the policy; and if somebody does not like the policy, they can ask for it to be changed; but if they are not following the wrong policy or doing something illegal, she does not know what the major issue is.  Mr. Knox responded the internal auditor, even if it was an independent auditor, would be responsible for checking to see what the Board’s policy was and making sure it is being followed internally; the Board is paying to make sure everybody is doing what they are supposed to be doing and following the policies that the Board has set.  He stated if an internal auditor does not like the Board’s policy, that is beyond the scope of what the auditor is supposed to be doing; it is the Board’s job to set policy; if such policy was illegal, he would advise the Board it was illegal; but beyond that, auditors just check to make sure whatever the Board has set out as policy is being followed.                

 

Ms. Busacca stated she will have to disagree slightly; sometimes it appears something is a good policy, but they find out it is not; and it takes people from the outside to see that.  She stated today the citizens made several recommendations about things that the Board and staff thought were okay; it is a wonderful idea for people to be watching to make sure staff is not too close to the process; and that kind of input is very valuable.  She stated she would like to figure out a way to obtain that input in a way that is positive; but because this has not been sorted out, this has turned out not to be positive yet.  Commissioner Voltz stated that is what she was saying; if the Board has a policy and someone does not like it, they need to bring it before the Board; and if it is something the Board is doing wrong, then it needs to change its policy.  Ms. Busacca stated someone needs to say they have a better idea.  Commissioner Voltz advised the Board  is open to those kinds of things; but if it is following policy and sees no problem with the policy, that is a different issue.  Mr. Knox stated he and Ms. Busacca are saying the same thing, but in a different way; and the bottom line is the Board has the final decision on what Board policy is going to be.  He noted if somebody does not like the policy, the Board may agreed and change it, but the Board has the final call. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated they can have beautiful audits and go bankrupt; there can be great appraisals, but they can buy the wrong environmental property; and the question is whether the County is buying the most valuable environmental property with the limited resources it has.  He stated all the audits and appraisals are to assist the Selection and Management Committee, the Procedural Committee, and staff to do the right thing; and to the extent they help in that long-range objective, it is good.  He stated some things are confusing; and commented on a database spreadsheet that prioritizes potential sites and an example showing the possible purchase of one of two potential sites.  He stated it is a dynamic process; if they put an accounting firm, an appraisal process, or anything in front of Ross Hinkle and Kim Zarillo and the procedure, the Board is making a mistake; he compliments staff for pointing out they were buying half a PUD and the ramifications involved; they stopped that, so it worked; and he things there are a lot of things that can work better.  He stated Ms. Rupe and Ms. Thompson had good ideas; and recommended giving the suggestions to the Committee and to staff, and thanking the Clerk for his good efforts.  He stated the Clerk can come back with additional reports; but 70% of the people want the EEL’s Program to succeed; and if the comments can be used in a positive sense, that is great.  He stated if Ms. Thompson needed to expand her space for parking at Dixie Crossroads, she may have to pay a lot for a strip of land behind the restaurant, but buying a lot three blocks away because it is less expansive is not any good because people are not going to walk to the restaurant; and it is likewise with the EEL’s properties.  He commented on the selection and management process, appraisal process not looking at environmental value, not paying more than market value, staff review, locking in properties, other properties becoming available, and other dynamics;  He stated the Board should not have the Clerk’s or the County’s auditors running its business.  

 

Chairperson Colon stated staff reviewed the memorandum that was dated January 26, 2007 from the Clerk of Court; and inquired if staff sees anything that is a problem.  She stated one of the questions was how it is going to be from now on; there seems to be confusion as to exactly what kind of audit it was going to be, when it would end, and the procedure; and inquired if Ms. Busacca has spoken to Mr. Ellis and asked if this is effective from January 26 on or whether there will be a change.  Ms. Busacca stated she has not discussed this in detail with Mr. Ellis; and inquired if Mr. Lusk has; with Mr. Lusk responding no.  Chairperson Colon inquired if there is any feedback in regard to anything, and does staff have a problem with anything.  Ms. Busacca stated they begin to talk about one issue, but then at some point it becomes another issue; and instead of going down a straight trail, they end up going down some very circuitous routes.  She stated that could be covered by the language “additional records will likely be requested during this process”; but when the internal audit is done through the other mechanism, staff understands very clearly what the issues are, what date the field investigations are being conducted, and what date the audit will end.  She stated in this case, it seems to be very open-ended; and those are staff’s issues with the document. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated she would have thought staff would have called and said it had questions because the Board was going to be discussing it today; this does not just pertain to the EEL’s Program; and it is happening to other Departments.  She stated she wants to be sure folks understand that; it is not just an issue with Mr. Knight’s Department; it is really just the process in general; and that is where there needs to be discussion.  She stated they could either have a workshop or give direction to Ms. Busacca to say that the Board needs to be clear what the expectations are and at what point the audits will end.    

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the point earlier was well taken about the limits of the Clerk’s authority related to this; and expressed concern about having two audit processes.  He stated the Clerk is a member of the Audit Committee; and inquired why the Clerk cannot go to the Committee, advise of issues he has seen, and ask the auditor to deal with them; and why is there a separate audit function going on with the auditor being asked to review the audit.  Ms. Busacca advised the Clerk is no longer a member of the Audit Committee and the Committee has been restructured.  Commissioner Nelson stated the Clerk could go to the Audit Committee and come to the Board; with Ms. Busacca advising he could.  Commissioner Nelson inquired who audits the other Charter officers; and stated the Board gives them money, which could expose them to audits.  Mr. Knox stated there was a big argument about this two years ago; it is his opinion that the Statutes allow the County Commission to conduct audits of other offices including Constitutional Officers; but the Constitutional Officers do not agree with that.  Mr. Knox stated there is a Statute that says the County Commission has a right to have audits conducted of all other officers.  Commissioner Nelson stated before the Board  answers the question about how it feels about this, it needs to know what the limits of authority are.  He stated the policy the Board has in place is more stringent than State law; a lot of people do not understand that what the EEL’s Program follows is more stringent than what the State requires; and it also sets it up for failure because just as they talked about the database and looking at the sheets, that is not the way land acquisition works.  He stated it is a moving target; it is not possible to finish one acquisition before going to the next because things are constantly changing; and the Board  has created a policy and an audit finding, which is unfortunate because staff is doing the work as it has to be done, the policy does not reflect that, and it should be changed to make it work in the real world of the acquisition process. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated staff will be bringing that information back as soon as possible; and requested when the workshop is held, someone of authority from the State be invited to attend.  She stated she can see the debate between the Clerk and the County Attorney; and she would like to be able to have someone from the State to help determine what everybody’s role is.  She stated whatever it is, the Board would be more than happy to follow it because that would be the law. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if The Nature Conservancy is represented today.  Keith Fountain of The Nature Conservancy indicated his presence. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated in regard to the land acquisition part, she would like to get some feedback and some suggestions on how it would work and if it is something that would be able to be fit in; and she does not think it is fair to put directors under such a level of scrutiny because they do not deal with that on a regular basis. 

 

The meeting recessed at 4:20 p.m. and reconvened at 4:30 p.m.

 

 

 

Attorney Allan Whitehead, representing the Platt Ranch, stated he is present to discuss the parkway; and there have been meetings with staff regarding the parkway and the Platt Ranch’s desire to shift the portion of the parkway that traverses through the Platt Ranch to the west and the benefits that will be seen with the western shifting.  He stated he forwarded correspondence to each of the Commissioners outlining the Platt Ranch and Platt family position regarding the shifting of the alignment to the west; there are three primary benefits to the shifting; and there has been a lot of discussion as they sat through the meeting today regarding money and the availability of funds.  He stated they believe a shift to the west will result in a substantial savings on the construction of the parkway and the acquisition costs associated with purchasing that portion of the property that will need to be purchased from the Platt family and the Platt Ranch.  He stated the second benefit would be a time saving factor; and it will result in substantial time savings and the road will be built quicker if the alignment is shifted to the west because it will reduce the amount of time that it will take to acquire that portion of the property that is made up of the Platt Ranch property.  He stated if the County continues to pursue the selected alignment, it will have a devastating impact on the Ranch, and the Platt family will have no recourse but to resist the taking of the property, which will result in substantial time being lost in litigation.  He stated one of the primary stated objectives is to reduce traffic congestion in South Brevard; and the third benefit to the County from the shifting to a western alignment would be that a more limited access roadway to the west would meet that objective.  He stated the current proposed route, with the encouragement of development along the route, will not meet that objective as well as the more western alignment; and the fourth benefit would be to preserve the Platt Ranch and the benefits the County gleans from the Ranch in terms of heritage, tradition, character, and ecological benefit associated with the Ranch remaining intact.  He stated there have been some discussions with staff; they made this presentation to staff; and the Board may hear the words “stick and carrot” in that it appears the Platts are wielding a stick associated with litigation; however, that is not their purpose.  He stated the Platt family has cooperated with the County for decades and the family wishes to continue to do so; but what they are trying to emphasize today and through the documentation is the carrot or the benefits that the County will receive from a shifting of the western alignment, which will also provide the benefit of preserving the Platt Ranch. 

 

Tuck Ferrell stated he has property that is affected; and he would like to work with the County and the Platts.  He stated in the mid-1990’s the alignment was set; unfortunately he is way down the road with planning a new community, which is planned around the parkway; they have been working with the County to do dedications and build a substantial part of the parkway; and now to see it moved at this time is a huge surprise.  He advised he has not seen the plan to see what the impacts are; but he understood this would not happen because of environmental issues.  He stated he thought the alignment was set; the engineering and PD&E study were done; and he planned his whole project around it.  He stated they just dedicated a mile and a half of land to the County just below Viera on one of their other ranches; what they were working with now is a little short of a mile of property; it involves his property and another property; and he would like to accommodate other people, but at this late stage, it is difficult to deal with this situation.  He commented on planning the roadway, working with the County, planning a pedestrian-friendly self-contained community that will be an asset to the County, and being so far down the road
that it will be a problem to wait and see what happens with the parkway.  Mr. Ferrell stated the proposed change throws a big monkey wrench into everything he is doing; they are ready to move ahead on their project; they have been meeting with the County to finalize everything; and this comes as a big surprise today.  He stated they are trying to bring in a community that is going to bring in synergies and wonderful things to the County; it is all oriented around the parkway; it would have great benefits; and explained that a self-contained community means that people will avoid urban sprawl, have affordable housing, and not require a lot of trips on the roads because there would be retail places in the community to shop.  He stated there is a lot of talk about smart growth; he has been going to smart growth meetings around the State promoted by myregion.com; and this is a smart growth-type community that would help eliminate a lot of problems that are associated with sprawl and more housing on the farmlands.  He commented on the planned community, the roads, substantial change in alignment of the parkway, and not knowing if his project can be done with the change. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the Board is not going to be making any major decisions today; she would like to get feedback from Mr. Kamm regarding how long it took the MPO to come to the conclusion of the alignment. 

 

Transportation Planning Director Bob Kamm stated some of the Commissioners were involved in that process, but some were not; Commissioner Voltz was the chairman of the working group that did most of the evaluation; and he had a chance to read the letter that Mr. Whitehead prepared and did a quick review.  He stated the chronology in the letter is correct; but there are a couple of points he would like to make about the chronology.  He stated the MPO initiated a study in the southwest Brevard areas to look at the transportation issues facing the Palm Bay-West Melbourne area in 1998; from that study, a recommendation was made to move forward with the parkway; and Commissioner Scarborough made the motion that a roadway was needed, designed for high speed.  He stated he thought that was a very good characterization of the sense of the group; from that they then went to Florida Department of Transportation to use federal funds to conduct a study, the Project Development and Environmental or PD&E study, which is necessary to qualify the roadway from Malabar to I-95 for federal funding.  He stated the primary motivation behind the study was to minimize environmental impact; and the alignment the Board is dealing with from that point until today is largely based on the findings of the study that was done under the federal criteria to minimize environmental impacts.  He advised a technical team was established that looked at a dozen different alignments, one of which was the alignment the Platt family preferred; but because of environmental impacts, costs, and a number of other factors, that alignment along with 11 or 12 others were put aside, and a preferred alignment was taken forward and approved by the Federal Highway Administration as being eligible for federal funds.  He stated if the Board  or the MPO do not want to pursue federal funds, there is a lot more flexibility in the alignment; but if it does want to pursue federal funds, then it needs to pay close attention to the recommendation that came out of the federal study because that is the first hurdle that has to be jumped in any road project that will use federal funds.  He stated it was an environmental impact study for the project; and if there is a decision to make a substantial change in the alignment, that would present problems with future qualifications for federal funds.  He advised Mr. Whitehead’s chronology is good; but it does make the statement that it would appear that the alignment desired by the Platt family was not given consideration during the study; and that was not the case. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated she wants it to be perfectly clear that the landowners gave input of what they would like to see; it was a process that was difficult and took years; and she is not exaggerating when she says there were hundreds of meetings because this has been going on since she was on the Palm Bay City Council in the mid-1990’s. 

 

Mr. Kamm advised Mr. Ferrell’s project and property were also considered at the same time so he has been a party to the long process; and it was not just the Platts, but others too. 

 

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated at the December 14, 2006 workshop the Board gave approval for a group of projects; staff was asked to prioritize the remaining projects; and that has been done.  He stated the first grouping of projects on the list are those that were approved in mid-December; they total $35 million to almost $36 million; and the remainder of the items on list number one are those items which staff prioritized and reviewed with the Commissioners individually.  He advised Commissioner Bolin caught an error on the capacity projects; the Wickham Road ITS system is listed twice; but the dollar figure should be the combined total so it would be $600,000 total.  He stated the Sisson Road project is a project they need to look at for widening purposes; the City of Titusville indicated a willingness to partner with the County for the construction through the Impact Fee Program; and suggested before the Board gets a consultant on board to do that project that it formalize an agreement with the City regarding its participation.  He stated the City indicated it has a couple of projects in which it is interested in addition to the Sisson Road project; so the City is willing to participate in the Sisson Road project, but there are competing interests; and so they will meet with the City’s staff and chart a course to follow based on anticipated revenue streams associated with the impact fees. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Sisson Road is a connector road between Highway 50 and S.R. 405 that goes to the Space Center; commented on use of the road; and advised the road has more than a city purpose.  He stated the problem is there are hundreds of residential units springing up all over that area within the City; for a long time the City was not involved in the same impact fee that the County was; but since then the County has worked closer with the City; and it is critical to tie the City into helping with the funding.  He stated the easiest way to do that is with front-end money with a commitment that the City is buying into this; and it is not building, but just permitting the road.  He commented on the condition of the road and fatal accidents on the road.  He stated he would be comfortable only if the County allocated contingent upon an interlocal agreement with the City of Titusville, because it is going to be responsible for making this work.         

 

Mr. Denninghoff stated they are calling for additional funds toward the design effort associated with Babcock Street; the previous bond issuance that the Board approved was only partial funding for that effort; a firm has been selected but they have not negotiated a contract yet; but they are close to being able to fund that.  He stated one of the purposes of the study is to identify a fair share contribution associated with the City and development interests associated with increasing traffic on Babcock Street; that is an important issue; and they need to identify that in order to be able to identify those who should help pay for the construction.  He stated the next road listed is Hollywood Boulevard; there is an opportunity to work with a developer who is going to be willing to enter into a development agreement with the County to not only address his needs on the capacity aspects of Hollywood Boulevard, but also the future needs; and they
will four-lane the road in front of the Wal-mart down to Palm Bay Road.  Mr. Denninghoff stated it will be between a quarter and a half-mile of roadway; they may be able to work more than that; the million dollars that is listed may completely fund the portion of the project that would not be the developer’s responsibility; and the advantage is that it would bring that portion of the project in for the benefit of the public at a much earlier date than if the County tried to fund it, so this is a prudent opportunity.  He stated if it does not work out that way, he will come back to the Board to determine how best to spend the funds; but there are a lot of opportunities on Hollywood Boulevard.  He stated they are short on right-of-way; they will be under design shortly; and it is going to need quite a bit of funding still.  He stated the next item is the ITS; the reason they need another $600,000 on ITS is that State standards for wind load requirements on power poles have been stiffened; and as a result the County is not allowed to attach the fiber optic cable to the poles.  He stated the County either has to put up its own pole system or go underground; and it would cost less to go underground than to start up a new pole system, so costs were increased to accommodate that.  He advised the City of Melbourne is participating in that project at the $500,000 level.  He stated the next item is the Washingtonia Extension; previously the Board approved funding for the St. Johns Heritage Parkway and the Washingtonia Extension was incorporated into that project; but the Board never approved any funding for the Washingtonia Extension itself.  He requested the Board approve the funding so they can get started with the design process association with that project.  He stated in terms of Ellis Road, he recently had discussions with the City Manager of Melbourne and the Melbourne Airport Executive Director who have tentatively agreed, subject to all of the policy making bodies’ approval, to participate as equal partners in the funding for the engineering associated with the Ellis Road widening; the cost is estimated at approximately $1.5 million; it is critical to the interchange idea at the north end of the Parkway; and it is also important to the Airport.  He stated the Melbourne City Council took action to approve the $500,000 for its portion of that; and he anticipates the City would also share in the cost of the construction as well so it moves the project forward, which is ultimately important for the Parkway.  He stated resurfacing and culvert replacement projects were included at a reduced level from what was originally submitted; staff prioritized those; and staff believes it got the ones that are the worst and have the highest risk associated with them in terms of how long the road would be closed if there was a failure and how serious it would impact the transportation network.  He stated the list is based on staff’s best judgment regarding the condition that it has been able to assess without actually digging up pipes; and there would still be an unpleasant surprise, such as what the City of West Melbourne is currently dealing with.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, to approve moving forward with the transportation projects on Lists 1 and 2. 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz commented on the projects list; and inquired about the highlighted items.  Mr. Denninghoff stated those were items that were previously approved by the Board in December; and they total just under $36 million.  Commissioner Voltz inquired how much do they have; with Mr. Denninghoff responding the total is $49,299,933.  Commissioner Voltz stated they are not doing every single project on the list; with Ms. Busacca advising they will if the Board says to move forward.

 

Commissioner Voltz seconded the motion; and stated she was trying to separate the ones that were done before versus the ones for now. 

 

Mr. Denninghoff stated that would be List 2, the highlighted portions; List 1 categorizes by project; and it is the first grouping of projects on List 1.  He noted there is a $10 error on List 2, which will be corrected. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated out of the County’s road program of $450 million, 5% is in District 2; and FDOT kicked all of his road improvements into out years or out of the program entirely; at the same time Palm Bay Road got kicked out, the six-laning of U.S. 1 through Cocoa was lost; he supports the reconstruction of Palm Bay Road; but he hopes the Board will be fiscally conservative this year and when the second wave of bonds comes up, he hopes they can move ahead with additional projects.  He stated yesterday he and Mr. Denninghoff met with Councilman Charlie Love of Cocoa; and they worked out an arrangement so they can cost-share the funding of the design work on Dixon Boulevard.  He stated he has enough money with the Local Option Gas Tax dollars as well as the City’s grant dollars to get the design done; for the next wave, he will not be as kind; Dixon Boulevard is an important road; it is one of the few in the District 2 area; and he is going to work with the MPO on the FDOT roads.  He stated he appreciates the work that Mr. Denninghoff and his staff did.          

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board  talked at one of the last workshops about the issue with Crosswinds.  Commissioner Nelson advised he cannot use MSTU dollars because it is in the City of Cocoa.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if there is any other money; with Commissioner Nelson responding he is going to bring that back.  Chairperson Colon stated the Board wants to be careful; if this is approved, there will be the next one in line to ask for money; and the Board will have to figure it out. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough requested the maker and seconder of the motion to include as a friendly amendment the language as to the $2 million for Sisson Road; stated the City is impacting the road; and the Board needs to have an interlocal agreement before it spends the $2 million it is committing to.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if that is an additional $2 million; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no, and it will not be spent unless the City enters into an interlocal agreement to help with the construction. 

 

Commissioner Voltz and Commissioner Bolin accepted the amendment as part of the motion. 

 

 

Mr. Denninghoff stated the funding for the $49 million is based on a thirty-year bond program from the Local Option Gas Tax fund that are available; the Board cannot do anything with those monies until it determines the financing mechanism; and the current Local Option Gas Tax Ordinance only goes to 2021 or 2022, so it will have to be extended in order to do this.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if a motion is needed today; with Ms. Busacca responding yes, to direct staff to move forward with the documents. 

 

Chairperson Colon called for the vote on the motion to approve moving forward with the projects on Lists 1 and 2, with the Sisson Road project on page 2 to include language providing that the project is contingent upon there being an interlocal agreement with the City of Titusville for funding participation.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to authorize staff to move forward on documents to extend the Local Option Gas Tax.

 

 

Mr. Denninghoff stated as far as the financing, he does not know how long it will take; there was discussion as to whether they would use commercial paper or bond it; and if there is no decision, that is really a statement regarding the matter.  He stated if he happens to get a contract ready to go to the Board to acquire land, there will not be money to be able to do that unless that mechanism is sorted out.  Ms. Busacca stated the Board indicated it was asking for commercial paper until the bond is sold.  Commissioner Nelson stated that has been done for other issues. 

 

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion to move forward on documents to extend the Local Option Gas Tax.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Mr. Whitten stated the motion would be to go ahead with bonding or commercial paper financing; and if the Board is going to bond it, commercial paper financing would be the interim measure until the bond proceeds come in. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve proceeding with bonding for a 30-year term or commercial paper financing as appropriate, with the potential of using commercial paper as an interim measure until bond proceeds come in.   Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Mr. Denninghoff stated there will be some budget changes that are necessary in order to accommodate some of the expenditures; and requested the Board approve those actions that are necessary to make the projects move forward as contemplated. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired where is that included in the paperwork.  Ms. Busacca inquired what kind of actions is Mr. Denninghoff talking about.  Mr. Denninghoff advised in order to spend the funds, they have to be incorporated into the budget, whether there is money or not.  Mr. Whitten suggested approving all necessary budget amendments. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve budget amendments as necessary for the projects.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated based on the earlier discussion, he does not think that there is any reason to have the meeting with Sheriff Parker and Public Defender Russo.  Commissioner Voltz advised the Board  never voted on a motion to do that.

 

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Board did wonderful work today; it got through some very difficult issues and got a lot of things moving; and it is a pleasure to work with the Board. 

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m.

 

 

 

                                                                        _____________________________________

JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ATTEST:                                                         BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

 

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

   

          (S E A L)