January 15, 2004

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on January 15, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. in the Brevard County Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chair Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and *Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

APPROVAL, RE: LETTER TO FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated he has the draft letter to the Vice President of Operations of Florida Gas Transmission Company regarding the issue Commissioner Scarborough raised at Tuesday’s meeting.

Chair Higgs inquired if Commissioner Scarborough has seen the letter; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes and it looks fine to him.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Chair to sign a letter to Rick Craig of Florida Gas Transmission Company requesting the Company give the sampling and analysis protocol of landfill gas the urgency it deserves and allow the sampling and analysis to proceed as soon as possible. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Letter.)

Chair Higgs stated the County needs to go a little further potentially and look at the Public Service Commission or the Federal Regulatory Commission.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct the County Manager to contact a lobbyist or other experts in the area to see if there are avenues that may be pursued with State and federal regulatory agencies concerning the Florida Gas Transmission Company issue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR INDIAN
RIVER LAGOON PRESERVE STATE PARK

Chair Higgs stated she has one item of public notice that she has been asked to make by the Indian River Lagoon Preserve State Park; Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Land Management Plan group will be holding a public hearing on January 29, 2004 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Melbourne Beach Library on Ocean Avenue to receive input from the public regarding the proposed management plan for the Indian River Lagoon Preserve State Park; and the public can get a copy of it either through the State Park, main library on Fee Avenue, Melbourne Beach Library, or Sebastian Beach Buffer Preserve.

REPORT, RE: BILL REGARDING TRANSMISSION LINE SITING AND POWER PLANT
SITING

Commissioner Carlson stated there was a request from Florida Association of Counties (FAC) to get the County’s input on a bill that is being introduced concerning transmission line siting and power plant siting; the question is in regard to the status of local government authority as it applies to the new bill; the concept talks about electric utilities needing reasonable certainty that when a needed electrical infrastructure facility is planned and designed it can be constructed and put into service on schedule; and one of the items under that particular objective is that the statutorily specified local government criteria would be in lieu of subjecting power plants and substations to the less certain processes of local comprehensive planning and zoning. She requested the County look into it; stated if the Board would like to provide some commentary, it has until January 26, 2004; and requested staff review it, unless the County Manager has already done it.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated he knows about the issue and believes the County Attorney is aware of it.

Commissioner Carlson stated the potential of usurping some local government control is an issue; and the County should look into it more thoroughly and find out how it could affect the County in the future.

Chair Higgs stated not only is it usurping local government control, it is taking away the input of the public to influence those; there are a number of initiatives Statewide that are talking about the initiative of the public to change zoning; and here there is a very interesting twist on it in where local input is being taken away. Commissioner Carlson stated a report is fine.

REPORT, RE: 19TH ANNUAL PEACE MARCH

Commissioner Colon stated Monday is the Martin Luther King holiday; every year she and Chair Higgs walk in the march; and invited everyone to join them. She noted this year is the 19th Annual Peace March at 9:30 a.m. at Dr. Martin Luther King Community Public Library located at 955 East University Boulevard in Melbourne; the march will take place down Babcock Street to the Melbourne Civic Auditorium; it is a wonderful celebration with guest speakers; and encouraged everyone to be there to show the unity and diversity of the community in Brevard County.

PRESENTATION BY HANK FISHKIND, RE: THE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS MODEL

Dr. Hank Fishkind stated he will give a brief presentation about the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model and the project, including where it started, where it has gone, where it is at, features of the model, and characteristics; he will show the Board some of the results that have been obtained with the model based on calibrations specifically for Brevard County; and expressed appreciation to Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer and Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott for their cooperation and collegial attitude. He noted the fiscal impact analysis was started by Governor Bush; he said back in 1999 with the Growth Management Study Commission that he wanted to improve land use decision making; the idea was to integrate the land use decision making with the comprehensive fiscal modeling and financial impacts; and he wanted to have a model that would be comprehensive in its scope and easy to use. He stated the fundamental goal is to make the fiscal impact model a routine part of land use decision making; boards make decisions about all types of land uses on a regular basis; traffic, environment, and other issues are discussed, but the cost of revenue implications of land use decisions are not; and the idea was to add that component to the mix. He noted the project was initiated and the final report was turned in in December 2001; the first conference was held in May 2003; there were 23 users in the group; and he has met with the Secretary on a couple of occasions and has briefed the Governor. Dr. Fishkind stated the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model will be part of the Governor’s growth management package that will be submitted to the Legislature, along with his budget next week; he does not know the full parameters of it because he has not seen the proposal; he is continuing to work with the department and is up to Diversion 5 in the model; and a housing component will be added in a more detailed analysis on the environmental side. He noted there are a number of communities that actively use the model; they are using the model because they need to use it for some specific things in their communities; the model fills that need because there is not a comprehensive model similar in type and nature; and Collier County picked up the model at first because it had a sector rural lands area in the Everglades area and was going to transfer development rights. He stated such County wanted to know the financial, economic, and environmental consequences of the special program for its overlay area of 250,000 acres; it decided to use the model for that and found utility for all kinds of other things; Hollywood is a built-out city; and it was wondering why it was getting all of this wonderful development at its beach and CRA area. Dr. Fishkind noted Hollywood kept having to raise the millage, despite the fact it was getting millions and millions of dollars of development; the answers were found in part of the model because the money in the CRA stayed in the CRA; general government was having to subsidize that; and the whole point of the story is every community has its own story as to why it is using the model. He stated in Hollywood, it is CRA and land use planning; Miramar has the last thousand acres of undeveloped land in Broward County; such County is going to be built out and it wanted to be careful as it plans the land in terms of what the fiscal consequences would be; and Sarasota is the sector plan. He noted Sarasota decided all of the land east of I-75 could be developed under certain terms and conditions; it changed Sarasota’s whole urban services concept; it wanted to show that it did not have to raise the millage rate to subsidize the development and that the growth paid its own way; and in Miami it is redevelopment. He stated Miami is being approached by all types of developers saying they can build wonderful things if the City gives them “x”; there are millions and millions of dollars of incentives that are being requested; the City naturally wanted to know how much tax revenue it would get, how much it would cost it to service the things built, and if the projects would pay for themselves after consideration of the incentives; and Sunrise is not a city built-out, but it was offering development incentives to DHL, which launched a competition for its worldwide headquarters. He noted it is 5,000 jobs; St. Johns County has a sector plan; all of the land north of St. Augustine to the County line is within a sector; the County requires a fiscal test for every single land use change in the area; and it is using the model for that purpose. Dr. Fishkind stated the City of Port St. Lucie was an old time city and had tremendous growth problems; it decided to annex all of the developable land remaining in St. Lucie County; and having done that, it said perhaps it should be careful about what it is going to cost to put in the infrastructure. He stated in Bay County, 75,000 acres came into land use change from a corporation requesting to move the airport; Bay County has very low fees and is a relatively rural county with no impact fees; and there were huge issues about what the cost in revenues of that development would be in that remote location. He stated he finished a project in Monroe County that was somewhat similar to some of the issues Brevard County is concerned about; the State of Florida and federal government for many years controlled the building permit process in Monroe County because such County could not control itself; and the State created an area of critical state concern more than 15 years ago. He stated today the State and federal government have decided to purchase roughly half of the remaining developable in such County; they are going to take the other half and put TDR’s on it so it may not be developed; they want to push the remaining development to be redevelopment in the urban areas; and the question asked was what would be cost in revenues consequential to those things. Dr. Fishkind stated they have their own measure of what they believe the environmental benefit would be; the model was completed and a special GIS data acquisition module was built that is being used Statewide; land use decision making is probably the most emotional difficult thing that local governments have to do; and it is a terribly difficult job. He noted a lot of different factors are weighed on a regular basis, including environmental, political, and social; there is not much information on what are the economic consequences from the land use decisions made and what are the cost in revenue implications both short and long-term; he is hopeful the model developed with the State of Florida can add more information to the mix of things the County has to balance; and the model does not make land use decisions and the Board has to do it. He stated such model adds a small bit of additional information, but it is useful information; he would not make a land use decision without thinking of the environmental consequences and if there are transportation and social issues; it is useful to have the economic and fiscal implications as well; and the model provides the linkage between the land uses and the budgets, just as the traffic model provides the linkage between the land uses and the trips. Dr. Fishkind stated many years ago the Department of Transportation (DOT) said it was tired of fighting about how many trips are going to come from the land uses; now at least there is agreement on how to measure the trips; it has been a benefit; and he hopes the fiscal modeling project he has been working on with the State will provide the same framework and be useful not only in land use decision making, but the budgetary process. He noted if the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model is calibrated for all land uses as they exist today and the budget implications can be replicated, then five years from now it is going to be relative to the budget; most of what will drive the budget is land uses; communities are increasingly using the Model, not only in their land use but to assist them in making some budget projections in the three to five-year range. He reiterated there is a model structure developed with the State which has been applied now in over 30 different communities; they are very different; Hollywood is completely built out compared to Panama City Beach, which is not built out and does not have any ad valorem tax; malls have been built in Palm Beach and Bay Counties; and there is one model structure that works well in each of those communities because they are working in the State of Florida so the legal structure is the same, and the accounting and budgetary structures are also basically the same. Dr. Fishkind stated people want to use these models to look at big things like their comprehensive plans, sector plans, and specific projects as they come in and review the individual fiscal impacts; there is a model that is sensitive to location because it is obvious that the impacts of an identical unit of growth will change depending on where in the community that the unit of growth may occur; both capital and operating costs need to be examined; and unfortunately, a number of the off-the-shelf models before he started building the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model did not look at capital costs, which is important. He noted the model not only looks at the impacts, but compares the level of service to what is being provided on the ground; it found in Florida that many of the plans have level of service standards, but are not necessarily the same as the level of service delivered on the ground; some communities may say they are going to have one patrol officer for 1,500 people, but they may be delivering one patrol officer per 2,000 people; and the difference between that standard of 1,500 and the reality on the ground is a way to measure backlog. He stated the same is done for roadway systems; there are level of service standards for the roads which are supposed to accommodate a certain volume of trips; some know what the volume of trips is today and it is often times not consistent with the level of service standard; and one can begin to measure what it would cost in terms of backlog to bring the systems to standard. Dr. Fishkind stated a model is needed that not only estimates the short-term and initial impacts, but also what are the long-range consequences of the land use decisions made; a single-family house with homestead exemption over time cannot have an increase in its ad valorem assessments of greater than 2 ½% or the rate of inflation, whichever is less; ad valorem revenues are the largest source of revenues for local governments in the State of Florida; yet there is no such restriction of 2 ½% or the rate of inflation, whichever is less, that affects many of the cost drivers in the budgets, such as police and fire protection. He noted it is very important to look at the initial impacts; some of the budget pressures the County feels every day are a consequence of land use decisions made 10 and 20 years ago; one thing for sure is that a land use decision made today will be with the County a long time; and he wanted to make a model that was easy to update at reasonable cost. He stated it involves some tradeoffs in terms of what the ultimate structure might be; but if there is not something that is easy to update then people will not use it; he has updated the model in two rounds of updates; some things were changed a little bit to make it easier; and it is easy to update. Dr. Fishkind noted there is one model structure that can be used around the State, although the calibrations in every community are different; the revenue structure of Brevard County is different than the revenue structure in Orange County, even though they have the same kinds of components; Brevard County does not have impact fees for schools right now; and different communities rely more or less on property taxes, fees, and special assessments. He stated it has dramatic implications for those communities; a model is needed that is reasonable to train people to use; it does not do any good if the only person who can use it is him; and a model is needed to train staff. He noted land uses are very particular at each place; his philosophy was to build a model that would replicate the averages and then be a structure so that professional staff could look at the particularities of each of the land use decisions, make the appropriate adjustments, and then do sensitivity analysis to determine if the results are being driven by assumptions, and if so, by how much; and that is part of the scientific method. Dr. Fishkind stated the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model estimates the cost in revenues and projects the budgets; the workbook is built with data from the County’s budget, demographic data, and land uses from the community; it is, in essence, a robust framework in which to try and estimate the cost and revenues of land use decisions; and it is not the answer, but a tool to explore the potentials. He noted he spent a lot of time looking at roads, water, police, fire, emergency medical, and solid waste, and approaching it using a capacity approach similar to the one for impact fees; each unit of growth needs to provide the funding for its incremental capital; if it does not do that, then one needs to be aware of it; it does not mean every land use should pay for itself; but the County needs to be aware of the consequences. He stated the cost of providing general government services is more driven by the number of people and the volume of growth; it is not particularly sensitive to locations of the growth; the model was created to handle most any kind of locational category and different places have different kinds of things; and a common geographic organization is the urban core area of a county or city. He noted there are communities, such as Hollywood, that have a downtown CRA, a beach CRA, and the rest of the city; there is the ability to handle various kinds of geographies; he is working with County staff now on that component of the modeling structure and how it should be put together to be the most meaningful; and the budget data is driven from the Division of Banking. Dr. Fishkind stated the Florida Department of Banking requires every local government to submit its budget in a standard chart of accounts; it has required that for more than 10 years; his company accessed 10 years of the County’s budget data in a consistent framework; and from that it can begin to estimate what kinds of inflation factors have occurred in the County with its specific budgets over time. He noted it also allows the company to update the models very easily because each year every local government has to submit its budget to the State in exactly the same format; the company developed a methodology to estimate tourists for every county and city in the State; there are revenues generated from all the different components; and the company takes levels of service and call data from police and fire departments locally. He stated the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) provides the projection base for future population; as the company calibrates for the comprehensive review, it will use the MPO projections as the best community estimate of where population would be geographically within the County; the whole purpose of it is the design model that is based on data collected on a routine basis or other purposes; and there is nothing here except the tourism data that his company has had to develop. He noted that is what makes it easy to update and is why over the last two years his company has been able to update the models put into the field; with land use data, the inventory comes from the Property Appraiser’s data; he took the 1999 Department of Revenue (DOR) codes; the Property Appraiser updates his database; and the company takes the data for the land use. Dr. Fishkind stated the average price for a single-family home is approximately $190,000; and explained the summary of results for a single-family home and the fiscal model that produces the results.

Chair Higgs inquired did Dr. Fishkind say $190,000 is the break even number; with Dr. Fishkind responding it is the break even number for a single-family home with the County’s 2002 budget.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Dr. Fishkind earlier indicated the County has limitations on the increase in millage, and inquired did the calculation take into effect that there are increasing operational costs and limited increases in assessed value; with Dr. Fishkind responding yes. Mr. Fishkind stated he froze the millage rate and the assessed value was only allowed to increase at 2%; the last few years there have been dramatic increases in the costs for police and fire protection after the September 11, 2001 incident in every local government in the State; his estimate of the net impact is negative on the Article V changes for large counties like Brevard, Sarasota, and Palm Beach Counties as more revenue is taken than expenses; and he factored those things in for the next few years and drove the inflation off of the actual inflation rates Brevard County has experienced over the last 10 years.

Chair Higgs stated a single-family home valued average at $190,000 breaks even for government services; and inquired over what period of time and what does break even means. Dr. Fishkind responded it is a 20-year horizon, and he went out through year 2022. Chair Higgs inquired does the $110,000 mean the County subsidizes the development. Dr. Fishkind responded yes, and it also means that a substantial portion of the existing built homes are not paying their total costs in terms of the County’s budget. Chair Higgs inquired does it mean that less than a $190,000 home is not paying. Dr. Fishkind responded the capital is there; if the County has to deal with the backlog, then the home under $190,000 existing today is in part why the roads are congested; it is to say the roads are not congested because of the new growth; and the road structure is congested due to the existing growth that has occurred already with the installed amount of capital roadway the County currently has, which is no different than 66 other counties. Chair Higgs inquired what is the average in Brevard County; with Dr. Fishkind responding the average home value on an assessed value basis is about $145,000 or $150,000. Chair Higgs inquired what does that mean. Dr. Fishkind responded there was a backlog of unmet capital needs that have yet to be funded; and on an operating basis, those homes are probably carrying their operating expenditures but not their capital expenditures. Chair Higgs noted so the backlog is the difference; with Dr. Fishkind responding yes.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired normally do commercial and industrial carry the residentials in most communities, except for the very affluent; with Dr. Fishkind responding as a general kind of proposition that is true, although there are certain kinds of commercial activities that generate so many trips that even they create a negative. Dr. Fishkind stated the cost implications, not only for the capital, but sometimes for the operating are so large that it offsets their positive effects. Chair Higgs stated the evaluation of the commercial is critical to the residentials’ tax rate; with Dr. Fishkind responding yes. Dr. Fishkind stated a mix of land uses is critical because no one would want to have no affordable housing; there is a terrible problem with affordable housing all across the State; and it is the mix and balancing of the land uses that is the most important thing. Chair Higgs noted on the residential side, Dr. Fishkind indicated the assessed values are about at 90%. Dr. Fishkind stated that is for new housing. Chair Higgs inquired what is the figure if the commercial side was looked at; with Dr. Fishkind responding on the commercial side for new it is about 90%, but for existing commercial or existing residential it is significantly less than that. Chair Higgs inquired what does significantly less mean and can Dr. Fishkind break it down between commercial and residential. Dr. Fishkind responded he can certainly do that with staff. Chair Higgs inquired if new is at 90%, what is existing at; with Dr. Fishkind responding compared to what he thinks true market value is, it is probably at 70% or 80% at best, which would not be any different than any other county. Dr. Fishkind stated there is nothing that the Property Appraiser is doing that is improper or incorrect.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired did the Save Our Homes amendment have anything to do with the deficit the County currently has in revenues. Dr. Fishkind responded it has had an effect on every county and city as it has retarded the growth in assessed value for homesteaded properties, and thereby reduced the rate of growth of revenues to local governments; most local governments over the last five years have reduced their millage rates; and the impact of Save Our Homes has been overwhelmed by the massive growth in development that has occurred. Commissioner Pritchard stated Dr. Fishkind’s earlier comment that the 90% rate for new construction has been significantly offset by existing homes and the infrastructure and a lack thereof of enhanced infrastructure because the tax base has not been here to support it. Dr. Fishkind stated that is one way to look at it or alternatively one could say as growth scaled up, someone did not recognize the impacts on infrastructure as they were occurring; and the historic revenue structure did not generate sufficient capital revenues to allow providing levels of service standards that is now desired throughout the State.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated another aspect of the model is the local communities’ ability to identify what the level of service standard deems to be acceptance; so theoretically, growth could pay for itself for the model if the County were to accept, as an acceptable level of service, complete gridlock, 20% response times, etc.; so it is also a function of individual communities’ identification of their quality of life they desire.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the interesting dilemma is under Save Our Homes because of the limitation that taxes can increase; and there are some properties that perhaps should be paying $7,000 a year in taxes that are paying $4,000 a year because they have had the privilege of being under Save Our Homes for “x” number of years, whereas the new construction comes in and pays $7,000. Dr. Fishkind stated the $7,000 is paid at first; that is why the long-term view is important because of the peculiarity in the taxes. Commissioner Pritchard noted on the other side of the issue, there are people who are moving into a fixed income; they cannot afford the massive increase because the surrounding neighborhoods are increasing in value; and there is a dilemma. Dr. Fishkind stated it is a terrible dilemma; it is what it is and that is why communities begin to look to fees, assessment, and other things so their revenue structure is less dependent on ad valorem taxes. Commissioner Pritchard gave an example of someone having a piece of valuable riverfront property he or she has had in the family for 40 years; stated they are able to afford to live on the property because it has a very old home; it is a very large piece of valuable property, but under Save Our Homes, the individual is able to afford what he or she has; but the neighbor next door has a multi-million dollar piece of property. He noted the individual living on the family-owned property could not afford what the taxes would be if he or she fell into the same category; and the person would literally be forced off of the land. Dr. Fishkind stated that was the constitutional basis for Save Our Homes and the political imperative to pass it. Commissioner Pritchard inquired are there any suggestions. Dr. Fishkind responded it is what it is; he does not believe Save Our Homes is going away, nor should it; but it does create distortions in the revenue structure; it tends to like systems that are less dependent on ad valorem and are more dependent on assessments of various types; and many communities have gone to municipal service benefit units to fund fire protection, libraries, or other things that heretofore were in their general funds, thereby making the use of the service more congruent with assessment that pays for it with less pressure on the general fund. Commissioner Pritchard stated the only problem with that is it becomes a tax that is focused and becomes much more of an increase in taxable payment versus income; if everyone had to pay $1,000, for those who make $100,000 a year, it would be 1%; the issue becomes where does the County draw the line in terms of fairness; and he knows of a few properties where the individuals pay in excess of $42,000 in property taxes a year. He noted those people receive little service for what they are paying; and other people pay hardly anything and generate the majority of need for service. Dr. Fishkind stated it is interesting to look at individual properties, but from a policy perspective, it is more useful to look at the Comprehensive Plan, the balance of what has been built already because it is what it is and the County will deal with it for the next five or 10 years, regardless of what it does today; all of the distortions identified exist; and it is salutary to recognize them, but it is also useful to make some budget projections out three to five years, including reviewing alternative revenue structures and policies. He noted the County may find that it can come to some strategies it is comfortable with that are equitable and will mitigate the consequences of the land uses that have been inherited. Commissioner Pritchard expressed concern regarding impact fees; and stated a flat impact fee is a higher percent of income or payment. Chair Higgs noted an impact fee does not address income; with Commissioner Pritchard responding it affects his income. Commissioner Pritchard stated if he is going to buy a house and he is being charged $8,000 for an impact fee, the house is going to cost him $8,000 more; if he is making $20,000 a year, that is a significant amount of money; and inquired has there ever been any consideration to make an impact fee a percentage, similar to an ad valorem tax. Dr. Fishkind responded it would be illegal under Florida law; and impact fees have to relate to the cost of the service impact that the unit creates and cannot be related to the value of the unit. Commissioner Pritchard stated the dilemma is if the house is $150,000 with an $8,000 impact fee, it might price someone out of the housing market, whereas, if it is a $300,000 house, $8,000 may not make the decision between home ownership or being a tenant. Dr. Fishkind noted that is true; most impact fee structures set the impact fee the same no matter where the location is; if the impact fee and levels of service standards are the same everywhere, one tends to encourage growth to sprawl out to the periphery, with the consequential cost on the community that entails by contrast; and if the impact fees were higher in the rural area, lower in the core, and perhaps in the middle for the urban service area, the impact fee structure and pricing that it generates would be congruent with the planning structure and desires for land uses. He stated impact fees can be a powerful tool used in that fashion; some communities are beginning to think about that; it is obvious to him as he has been working on the models that it is certainly the case; and it is not just for roads, but for all of the capital facilities.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of his observations is it is much less expensive to put infrastructure in a rural area than it is to go back and retrofit in an urban area; therefore, as counties or cities hit the level of services, they have to acquire land; if water or sewer lines are at capacity, cities or counties have to go back and retrofit; and the retrofitting is extremely expensive. He noted to some extent his observation is the reverse that the cost to the community is greater for infill once certain thresholds are hit than it is to go into a rural area; the County does not want to have urban sprawl because sooner or later it will be the urban area with the same problems; to some extent it becomes more expensive as a community builds out to handle additional growth because the planning process is flawed and there is not the infrastructure that is needed; and when certain thresholds are hit, the cost to the County has been immense when it has tried to get properties. He stated the Pineda area has been a terrible nightmare; and it is a simple concept, but terribly expensive to accomplish. Dr. Fishkind stated it is very difficult politically to be able to resist the permitting of land in rural areas; it is hard for communities all across the State; in part, that is why some communities have gone to sector plans and why they have begun to differentiate the impact fees and other development charges to be able to shape the growth, whether they want it in the rural area or an urban area; but at least they have some pricing system that assists the community and encourages the growth where they wanted it to occur. He noted giving no signals allows the private market to take the signals.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Fort Lauderdale is facing serious financial problems; it really needs to save $25,000 a day; it is talking layoffs in order to salvage the City; and Fort Lauderdale is a good example of a city that had sprawl and people moved out of the downtown area. He noted the downtown in the 1970’s was, for the most part, plowed over and it became a very large field for a couple of years; since then, it has had a lot of growth; now it is having a tremendous amount of growth downtown building 30 and 40-story buildings with multi-level parking garages, retail shopping, offices, and residential above it; and the tax value of the property must be incredible, but the City is still facing serious revenue problems. He inquired how could something like this happen that there would be people move out, the downtown deteriorate and sell properties, and build huge structures; stated the tax base has to be increasing significantly; but there are still revenue stream problems that the City faces. Dr. Fishkind stated in part it relates to the redevelopment area that is in downtown. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the money is staying in the downtown area. Dr. Fishkind stated it stays in the CRA, so the ad valorem revenue increases and stays in the entity called the CRA; and even though the City controls the CRA, it is not in the General Fund. Commissioner Pritchard stated the reason the City has the CRA was for encouragement of the development. Dr. Fishkind noted it is questionable whether the City would need to still have that; he is on the Board of Summit Properties; it is building one of the huge apartment projects in downtown Fort Lauderdale; and it did not build such project because it was getting any incentives. He stated CRA’s can serve a purpose at certain points in time; they outlive their utility to the fostering government rather quickly; but unfortunately, they tend to still be present and do not seem to ever die. Commissioner Pritchard inquired does Dr. Fishkind have a threshold when a CRA should cease to exist. Dr. Fishkind responded it is probably community specific since the sizes and areas are so different; once they become self-generating and whatever the initial redevelopment impetus goal is that they had, once they get enough tax increment revenue to fund the infrastructure or the incentives, then it is time for the CRA’s to melt away; unfortunately, they do not; and the City of Hollywood has the most unbelievable situation where the CRA has so much money it is looking for projects and at the same time, the City has to raise the millage to serve the Diplomat Hotel; and it does not make a whole lot of sense.

Commissioner Carlson stated Dr. Fishkind indicated his analysis model is going to be put into the growth management package in the Governor’s budget proposal; she is assuming it will be accepted; she is wondering how it is going to filter down to the planning councils in the State and how, when they are evaluating DRI’s, such as Viera, it will potentially be used as a tool to assist local communities; and how would Dr. Fishkind envision that evolving and being utilized to help the County, or does it have to direct that kind of analysis itself without assistance of the Council.

Dr. Fishkind stated under current State law, comprehensive plans are supposed to be economically and fiscally feasible; the State of Florida never had a tool to measure it, but it approved the plans; and the State is going to say, during the EAR process when the County tells it about its Comprehensive Plan update, it also wants the County to show that it can afford the land uses that are in the Plan and that there is a fiscal plan. He noted the State is also going to enforce the Statute that says amendments to Comprehensive Plans must not cause the Plans to come out of economic feasibility; it is also a current Statute; but again, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has never enforced it; and if there was a land use amendment required for a rural area and it did not have the right land use map designation, to change such designation would require a fiscal analysis. He stated he has been pushing DCA very hard to not allow changes to land use maps without PUD’s or some development plan; if there is not a change in the land use map, local governments have begun to adopt the fiscal model for their own use and they have begun to say they are not going to entertain large scale projects; they set a threshold without a demonstration that they will not burden the community, or if they do, it needs to be understood, maybe for affordable housing or some other meritorious use; and it can be approved. Dr. Fishkind stated in places like Collier, Sarasota, and St. Johns’ Counties they also require fiscal monitoring of the projects; some counties have fallen down somewhat in their land use approval process by not having reasonable fiscal monitoring; and the monitoring programs can be made to work on a practical level.

Commissioner Colon stated the County is looking at the Significant Environmental Areas (SEA) ordinance, which is already becoming quite controversial; and inquired what happens with the people who own land and the way they are going to be compensated, and how does the community show the balance. Dr. Fishkind responded different communities have dealt with it in different ways, some effectively and some ineffectively; one tool the County may want to consider is some type of sector plan; there are some good models for that; and special areas are created where urban services will be provided under special terms and conditions, and communities require significant performance standards, such as urban form standard, fiscal performance standard, or environmental standard. He stated the County will decide what it wants the standards to be and set them for the area; and for the areas that are not so designated, there are very stringent requirements and restrictions placed on them for that is not where the community wishes to encourage its growth and to focus its resources because there are only so many resources. Commissioner Colon inquired how does government compensate those people who have had properties in their families forever and maybe some day want to potentially sell it for residential development; and does it fall under condemnation where government tells them they cannot build there anymore. Dr. Fishkind responded no; it would say these are the terms and conditions; under State law, simply because one has a land use plan designation does not give one the right to build; so people may think they have all kinds of rights, but there is a big difference between thinking that they do and the reality of having them; and it is a political issue and another set of things the County needs to deal with. He stated the State of Florida decided it was going to buy land use rights in the Keys; and the County could decide to create a sector plan and those outside the sector plan would be compensated.

Mr. Scott stated the County is considering an ordinance, which would seek to preserve the most critical of scrub habitats; the proposal would be that 50% of the property would be preserved for scrub; without rezoning, lot size could be reduced as a matter of right to preserve the lot yield, plus 10%; and that is an attempt to preserve lot yield in the face of the Bert Harris Act and also accomplish a community goal in environmental preservation. He noted the model does not include opportunity cost analysis for environmental preservation as opposed to the fiscal impact analysis model, which identifies the cost in revenues associated with development.

Dr. Fishkind stated with a large purchase of land in the Keys, a scenario was developed with the kind of growth that would roll out over time; and to compare it to the program alternative, including review of cost revenues, jobs, and income created under each of the alternatives, is a way to generate the information.

Mr. Scott stated the model does not give community information with regard to the environmental value per se; the model would be able to take the lot yield projections and identify the fiscal impact analysis; and it is going to be a policy decision whether or not it is a product that the community will consume.

Chair Higgs stated the fiscal impact analysis the model performs is the cost of development to a community over 20 years; it does not analyze the cost or the income to a piece of land, and implications to the land owner of a zoning, non-zoning, or regulation; and it is simply this is what it costs the community over 20 years. She inquired what should the Board direct staff to do and how does it use the model, either in zoning or land use decisions or both. Dr. Fishkind suggested the model be added as a portion of the package the Board sees for land use zoning or land use plan changes above a certain threshold; some communities use one acre and some use 100 acres; somewhere in there communities have said to their staffs this is a good tool and part of a land use package for rezonings or land use plan amendments they wish to see as a regular part of the other information as well. Chair Higgs stated it includes analysis of the cost of roads, schools, sewer, water, solid waste, fire and police services, and jail. Dr. Fishkind stated that is correct; he gives the County line item by line item estimates and also estimates for capital; he does it by budget types as there are General Fund, Special Revenue Fund, and Debt Service Fund; and they cannot be intermingled. He noted things have to balance across a number of fund types as well. Chair Higgs inquired could the Board have a practice run for its February 2004 zoning meeting; with Dr. Fishkind responding affirmatively. Dr. Fishkind stated the County could pick two or three items; it is a proper way to proceed if the Board has interest; and it is how other communities have done it. Chair Higgs noted the software and hardware are available now; the County can use the data; the State has paid for the model; and inquired about the cost to use it. Dr. Fishkind responded it is the calibration cost, which is $5,000 or $7,000; the County has contracted with his Company; it refuses to bill until it gets all the Comprehensive Plan pieces built and the County is satisfied; and when it is, he will send the bill. He noted it is a couple thousand dollars a year if the County wants his Company to maintain it; since there is going to be a complete land use database, the County could identify those parcels for the scrub jay program among the geographies; and they could be reviewed separately. Chair Higgs stated the ordinance shifts those units over to another part and allows flexibility; on one side is the argument the County is not taking away values and on the other side is the argument the County is taking away flexibility and someone’s property rights; and it is not addressed in the model.

Commissioner Scarborough stated a lot of people he talks to indicate the whole conversation of the State of Florida today is development reactions; environmental and transportation concerns consume most of the conversations; there is a danger in reducing everything to dollars and cents; and he is not saying it is not good to have, but in the real world there are measures when someone or something is succeeding or not. He noted the model is a good product; inquired is a person purely concerned about having asphalt on the road and moving from Point A to Point B in two minutes less, or does he or she want it to be a more pleasant experience and prefer to take five minutes longer and have it landscaped; and advised the issue goes beyond just functionality, and becomes the whole experience. He stated life is limited; some day the State needs to move to the holistic thing and get beyond just development and response to development; the question is what does it mean to the average human being to live in the State of Florida; and if the County does not go there ultimately, it is going to be lost. Dr. Fishkind noted what Commissioner Scarborough says is true; what can be done with the model is limited; he does not want to oversell; and the model is useful, but is just a small piece of the big puzzle. Commissioner Carlson noted the model is a tool.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the dilemmas a community faces is when it wants to become built out; Broward County has attained that; Brevard County’s vision may be that it is built out now; and it may say it does not want any more development. He noted it would be trying to support what it has by increasing its revenue streams in some fashion or it may say it is going to become built out over time; that time could be 20 years and it could do that through a variety of growth management restraints; and inquired what affect does taking property off the tax roll have, making it State/County-owned property. He stated many of the properties are desirable for developers to put up whatever they are looking to put up; if the value is $200,000, he is assuming $10,000 of it becomes part of a revenue stream; if there is a valuable piece of property and it is sold into the EEL Program and deeded to the State, it is now off the tax roll; and the affect it has on the revenue stream, assuming the property and units therein are worth in excess of $190,000, would generate revenue that would compensate for the units that are valued at less than that. Dr. Fishkind noted that is true and was exactly the issue addressed in the Keys; the scenario is quantifiable; there may be some equilibrium level of purchases in EELS the County would want to think about; and it may want to think about maybe no more than a certain amount because of the consequential affects described. He stated the point Commissioner Pritchard is making is one of the things the Board may want to ask staff to investigate; and he can assist also.

Chair Higgs stated what is the effect of open space on abutting properties would be a second question to follow up on; and if the open space results in the net positive value, then there is a revenue producer. Dr. Fishkind stated there is the hypothesis that it may be high value growth, but in a location that has very high costs; there are a number of moving parts; and the scenarios can be constructed carefully to try to provide information to craft the policies the County is interested in. Chair Higgs stated a point that needs to be kept in mind is adding things to the tax roll; building the tax base may or may not be a positive factor; and it is a negative factor, depending on how the County deals with the costs, and what value and all the other things are in the model.

Commissioner Pritchard stated if high value properties are not brought in, commercial or residential, then the lower value properties are going to have to absorb a cost of doing business. Dr. Fishkind noted Commissioner Pritchard is correct; there are a number of examples of that in the State where counties are at the eight-mill level and rising; there are more than a dozen counties that have hit the ten-mill cap because of the kinds of issues Commissioner Pritchard raised; so those are real issues. Commissioner Pritchard stated the County has a choice as to when it wants to be built out. Chair Higgs stated if supply and demand applies, which is does in real estate, if the County’s supply of available land to be developed is so high and the demand does not meet that then the price would go down; and it does not get close to the break even point of carrying the costs. Dr. Fishkind noted except the beach areas, where the supply of beach is limited; and decisions the County makes concerning its land use policies have substantial implications for the land value markets, the kind of development that occurs, and where. Chair Higgs stated if the County allows a huge supply as a result of its land use decisions, it cannot keep up the demand most likely, the price goes down, and it does not get to break even. Dr. Fishkind noted it depends on where the price goes, but that is the tendency; and communities that have flooded their market places, and do not have capital improvement programs and high enough impact fees have deleterious consequences. Chair Higgs stated government is involved in that supply and demand part of the market very clearly.

Commissioner Carlson stated when an area defines where it can grow, the area that can grow is going to go up in terms of wherever the demand is; there is limited supply; and the cost of doing business is going to increase. Dr. Fishkind stated Collier County had a rural fringe area that allowed the transfer of development rights so that the prospective restrictions were offset by the ability of a landowner in a certain area to sell his development rights to the more urbanized area where the county wanted to encourage the growth; and the process is beginning to work now. Commissioner Carlson inquired as Dr. Fishkind calculates the impact to existing homeowners of growth, how does he assess the individual who has been homesteaded, living in a house for 30 years, and their tax assessment is quite low compared to their neighbor who just moved in, and whose assessment is probably three times as much; and how does he deal with that economically in terms of balancing the impact of the growth that is coming in to all citizens. Dr. Fishkind responded he calculates what the impacts are; there is no balancing and no explaining the equity of the situation; it is a terrible political issue; and from an economic and modeling perspective, he knows what the homestead properties are and what the new growth has been. He stated he can track it from the Property Appraiser’s records and calibrate properly to try to project where the budget is going to be this year, next year, and five years from now; but it does not resolve it; and he can calculate it.

Mr. Scott stated as Dr. Fishkind indicated, it is what it is; and the model allows the County to look at where it is going from this point forward.

Commissioner Colon stated most of the subdivisions being built have homes averaging $300,000, $350,000, and $400,000; individuals have indicated they are paying their fair share; people do not mind paying an impact fee as they are able to include it in the home price; but they are concerned that a $320,000 home outside of the subdivision would probably pay $3,000 a year in taxes, but taxes on such a home located in a subdivision would be about $6,000 or $7,000. Commissioner Carlson stated the only time the value changes is when the person moves; and unless everybody moves around a lot, there is not the balance in the tax base that one would hope to get from the individual.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he sees the model being used and communities wanting to embrace it saying they want to have only $200,000-plus homes, the social factor; not everybody is as well off as others; and inquired how does the County balance the social needs of the community with the economics of where it has to protect the solvency. Dr. Fishkind responded that was one of the things that the Secretary is having his Company work on this year in Version 5, which is an affordable housing analysis; it is true that all land uses do not pay their own way, nor should fiscal impact be the only basis on which anyone would make a land use decision; a mix of land uses is a framework to be reviewed; and there were a couple of actions he suggested the State take. He noted his Company is building the affordable housing module because the State needs to take care of providing the appropriate level of housing and services for all of the people who work in the communities, as well as the people who happen to have enough money to live in a house that would cost more than $190,000; he hopes the State will put some policies and programs in place to say to communities it does not want them using the State fiscal model to deny affordable housing because it does not pay its own way; he is hopeful the State will incorporate a training and licensure program; and cities and counties would know what weight to give the evidence that came before them.

Chair Higgs stated one way the State, federal government, and the County address the issue of affordable housing and other components is whether some of the tax credits, subsidies, and those things are available; and the projects that bring those things to the table and provides its own infrastructure is the way the issue can be addressed. Dr. Fishkind stated it could be directly addressed in the context of the model; there are a couple of different approaches to affordable housing; one is what is the balance; and Collier County has exported the problem to Lee County with deleterious consequences on Lee County. He noted a second way is the infrastructure approach; affordable housing is part of infrastructure, like roads; and every community needs to have some. Chair Higgs stated Monroe County is wrestling with that as well.

Commissioner Scarborough noted a retired school teacher may not want to put all of his or her money into a home; all the individual wants is a $100,000 condominium somewhere; he or she is not really qualifying for affordable housing because they are not impoverished, but yet they are not wanting to spend $300,000 plus on a house; and he does not know the social implications of it yet, and it concerns him. Dr. Fishkind stated he does not understand the social implications either; it is a legitimate concern; and the $100,000 condominium is probably in an urban area with very low capital costs. Commissioner Scarborough noted maybe it works. Dr. Fishkind stated it may be okay; those are real issues; abuse can happen with any tool; and he appreciates Commissioner Scarborough bringing it up again as he was trying to be sensitive to it. Chair Higgs stated the model is one of many tools the County should use; it gives more information factually and economically in making decisions long-term for the community; but it is not the only tool.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired does the model address the opportunity cost of not developing a property to its highest and best use; with Dr. Fishkind responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard stated there is the potential for a subdivision to increase in value that abuts an area that is going to remain rural; and inquired would the increase in value tax-wise equal what the property that has not been developed would increase to if it had been developed to its highest and best use. Dr. Fishkind responded sometimes yes and sometimes no; it is not just value, it is also costs; the unbuilt upon property may confer value to the built upon property; but the unbuilt upon property does not generate trips either. He stated a couple of communities are doing some transfers of development rights for greenways and other things; so if one had an area that was very meritorious, one might say by right he or she could get one unit per five acres; and someone could transfer five increments of development rights if he or she put a conservation easement on the property and preserved it forever. Chair Higgs noted it is not too different from the tool Commissioner Colon was talking about in regard to how to preserve scrub. Chair Higgs requested staff provide examples applying the model to parcels at the February 5, 2004 zoning meeting. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to see an application. Chair Higgs stated staff can identify what will be the most appropriate and give it to the Board as part of the information. Mr. Jenkins noted in terms of legality and fairness, it is not something the Board can use to base a decision on as it cannot use it for two items and not use it for the other 30 items.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated it is a demo. Chair Higgs stated if the Board is getting the information and it is available to the public and for discussion, it will play into the thought process. Mr. Jenkins inquired is it fair to do the analysis on two items and not the other 30 items; with Chair Higgs responding staff can do it on all the items. Mr. Jenkins stated staff does not have time to do all of them. Commissioner Pritchard noted he wants to see how it works before he is going to consider applying it; he does not know how much identification staff would need to give to the property; and he would like to see how the methodology applies to real life. Attorney Knox stated the decision has to be made on substantial competent evidence; suggested when the Board uses the information that it base its decision on substantial competent evidence; and the Board cannot treat one application different from another application. Chair Higgs stated in February 2004, the County will demo it and make a decision. Commissioner Carlson requested the Board receive a copy of the Power Point and supportive data from Dr. Fishkind for review before the February 2004 zoning meeting. Commissioner Pritchard stated generally someone does something because they are sure they have something to market and can make a profit; if somebody is going to develop a golf course community, the assumption is that the lots and houses would be of certain sizes, and the value would be of such a value; the SEA ordinance seems to take a lot of that away in that there are smaller lots, but there may be more benefit to the developer by being able to put in 10% more housing; and there are a lot of other factors built into that. He noted the incentive with the SEA ordinance might not be the same as the golf course development; and inquired is there any way to compare those two in that one golf course is driven by the market and what the developer thinks he is able to do, and the other would be mandated by government as what someone is going to do, and half is going to be set aside and one can deal with the other half and potentially find clients to purchase the property. Dr. Fishkind stated the model will calculate the fiscal impacts of whatever the scenarios are; and the analysis of two alternative market studies for the property certainly can be done, but is outside the ambit of the model. Chair Higgs inquired if Commissioner Pritchard would like the Board to request and fund an analysis from Dr. Fishkind on the implications of the ordinance. She inquired if Dr. Fishkind would have time between now and the end of February 2004 to do a review; with Dr. Fishkind responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to request Dr. Fishkind perform an analysis on the proposed SEA ordinance and report to the Board; and direct staff to find funding for the analysis. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 10:35 a.m. and reconvened at 10:50 a.m.

*Commissioner Colon’s absence was noted at this time.

DISCUSSION, RE: MYREGION

Commissioner Scarborough stated Rick Blucker, Lynn Weaver, Kay Burk, and Duane DeFreese each represent a separate capacity and sat on the Executive Committee; they attended many meetings and have been a part of the whole process; he asked them to give their perspective from where they are as to why regional discussions are critical to advancing their particular interest; and the Board has gotten the big picture, but not the component concept

Rick Blucker, Director of Plans and Programs of the 45th Space Wing at Kennedy Space Center, stated he has been with MyRegion for three years since the beginning of the Executive Committee; the reason MyRegion is important to the Air Force is because there is a military reservation in the County with two launch rockets that support NASA and the commercial industry; it is not an island to itself and requires a lot of support from the community like any Air Force Base does; and for the 45th Space Wing to do its mission and do it well, it depends on a lot of support from the community, everything from health care systems to transportation systems to education. He noted the support system is larger than the County; it is from a regional point of view; his time working on the project has been good; and he has brought a lot of issues back to the 45th Space Wing. He stated the military people are interested in how they are going to support their families, how their health care benefits are going to work, how their children are going to do in school, and how the transportation systems are going to work; it is total support; and it helps the 45th Space Wing do its mission better; and it is important to launching rockets for the nation. Mr. Blucker stated he brought some perspective to some of the members about what the Air Force is all about; there are about 15,000 people working at NASA and the Air Force, all having to participate in a mission; it is very important to the 45th Space Wing; and he is going to continue to be involved in the process.

Dr. Lynn Weaver, Past President of FIT, stated there is a wave of new technology coming and the question is if the County wants to ride the wave or sink; if it wants to ride the wave, it needs to do the planning necessary to be competitive in international markets; and inquired does Brevard County want to participate in the endeavor. He noted it is going to take the alliances with other entities within the entire region for the County to be competitive in international markets; he is talking about the bio-technologies and hydrogen technologies that are the future of the nation; alliances have to be made with other units within the region; MyRegion.org provides the vehicles through which to do that; and there is no question that impasse is going to be severe in some cases. He stated he is a proponent of the hydrogen economy; there is no doubt in his mind that there is going to be a very serious energy problem facing the nation and the world in the next 10 to 15 years because there are pollution, population, and petroleum issues that are going to face the world; the United States does not control its destiny with petroleum as 60% of the oil is imported and 25% is from the Middle East; and the supply is not going to last forever. He noted as the production diminishes, the price is going to increase; the impact on the economy is going to be severe; and there needs to be a plan now in order to be able to provide the energy needed to the nation and world. Dr. Weaver stated the planning and research must be done; a lot of the money will be spent in that one particular technology, besides the bio-technology; it takes a relationship between the universities, government, and the industrial sector to put together a plan that will take the region and County, and be competitive in the markets in the 21st century; and MyRegion.org can play a major role in making that happen. He noted it is not an easy task, but a very complex one; and it can be accomplished if everyone works together and participates fully.

Kay Burk, President and CEO of Brevard Cultural Alliance, stated her role was on the Executive Committee where she co-chaired culture under a regional priority, quality of life; quality of life is all everyone does when they get up in the morning and walk out the door; they encounter quality of life, everything they see, everything they touch, everything they smell; and when people get on the road, travel, and look around, they are encountering quality of life. She noted it includes arts and culture; it also includes the designs and aesthetics of the community, the roadways, and what people see when they drive to work; it was an interesting group to work with; arts and culture are entwined in everything people do and see; and everything people see in the room has some aspect of that. She stated the group was lively and interesting; her Board of Directors agreed to allow her to take her time as the organization is private and non-profit; MyRegion included sectors from the non-profit world, the business world, and government; there were private citizens, people of all ages, and diverse cultures involved in the process; and that is a part of what she liked about being involved in MyRegion and why she has participated in Phase 2 of MyRegion. Ms. Burk noted it is important to continue to participate in the process; quality of life, while focused on arts and culture as her role did, gave an opportunity to allow Brevard’s arts and cultural groups to be included and incorporated into the regional plan and have people be aware that the arts and cultural groups had quality and diversity as much as the groups in Central Florida, the Orlando area, and Seminole, Volusia, Lake, Osceola, and Polk Counties; the Board has a wonderful book and regional agenda before it; and such book has been distributed broadly in the State and has been recognized at national levels as well. She stated the process has given Brevard County an opportunity to showcase itself in the business world, government world, and in education; while people primarily associate the Cultural Alliance with arts and culture, it is also involved in education; and in tying its programs to get support it often goes to the business world. She noted the book shows how all the things are tied together; it also shows how the counties are tied together to support one another in a regional agenda and global marketplace; if they do not work together educationally, in the business world, in transportation, in water quality, and through the environment, they will not achieve their place in the global marketplace; and one may not think that someone involved in arts and culture might have an understanding of that, but they do. Ms. Burk stated if communities are not growing in the business world and not bringing in the right businesses, and the arts and cultural community is not growing incrementally with that, communities cannot hold the right quality employees here; they cannot grow in the dynamic way they need to, to build an environment that helps achieve the goals needed in the region; the research centers need to be drawn into Central Florida; and dynamic businesses need to be coming to Central Florida so that it can have the economy it needs to sustain it in the future. She noted the population is growing in Central Florida; if communities do not plan for the future, by 2050 the broad region is going to have a population resembling Los Angeles; it all takes someone with broad vision; and everyone needs to put on their artistic thinking caps and paint a picture of what the community is going to look like in the future. She stated being involved in regional planning and in MyRegion is important.

Dr. Duane DeFreese, Vice President of Research for Hubbs-Sea World and Research Institute; stated he served on the Executive Committee of MyRegion and had the pleasure of working on Phase 1 very actively with Brevard Tomorrow; he has brought a unique perspective and personal agenda to the regional discussion points on environment; and there were clear trends, both in Brevard County and in the seven-county regional process. He noted the public is very engaged, aware of, and supportive of quality of life issues; environment is right at the top; water was an issue that was discussed; and there were thousands of inputs collectively, both through the Internet and a number of workshops. He stated part of his personal agenda in sharing with the group was trying to take the environmental discussions to a new level and looking as much at the esoteric quality of life issues as the economic issues; the discussions this morning were very relevant and germane to some of the findings and directives of MyRegion and the environmental issues; clearly there is a lot to do in protecting environment, whether it is potable water, air, or land use issues; and there are a lot of economic, social, and governmental leadership considerations and equity issues when looking at land use planning. He noted environmental assets in Brevard County and in the region have global significance; they are beginning now to see the attraction of an option economy; every county in the State is looking at nature heritage cultural tourism as a way to diversify the tourism economy; and there is development looking at water constraints as a major implication. Dr. DeFreese stated two days ago he had a discussion with a national leader who brought up some major concerns about the ocean fisheries; so much of the seafood is being imported from third world countries; some of those countries may support terrorism; there is a trade deficit in seafood; and there are some homeland defense issues that are all of a sudden now falling in the purview of marine science, something he would not have thought about nine months ago. He noted MyRegion is working on the unique model for growth management in Central Florida; there have been profound growth and profound economic diversification; the region has weathered some tough times with great prosperity; but one of the things that needs to be done from the environmental side, as well as all of the other essential activity sectors, whether it is in education, development, health care, the heritage and cultural side, is to find the leadership points where immediate actions can resolve some of the critical questions that local government faces every day. Dr. DeFreese stated Linda Chapin at University of Central Florida (UCF) looked at the programs, such as the EELS Program and said there is great expertise in science, land use, and economics, and suggested bringing land acquisition for conservation in a regional perspective as MyRegion is beginning to develop a guidance for the second phase, which will be more implementation. He stated several meetings have been held; what he sees emerging on a factual basis is a much bigger view of where the region will go in conservation; and one area he hopes to see in a short amount of time will be a set of maps that say this is what is needed, such as for scrub jays, and address, on a regional perspective with shared resources, a scrub jay conservation plan that literally gets all other properties off the radar screen for regulation and the next step be taken where conservation land acquisition generates regulatory relief. He noted fair market value would be paid; cash goes into the economy; he believes it could happen within a year; and whether or not there is the political will or financial capability to buy the lands is still a question that cannot be answered. He stated if there is not the vision for what could be and then movement toward the vision with a very clear, social, and economic strategy, it will not happen; when looking at water, regional land use issues, and endangered species, hopefully Brevard County is doing a lot that will support the regional perspective that will have national implications; not only is he encouraged by what he has seen, but the synergies among the different units are going to evolve into something that has never been perceived before; and a major incentive package was recently reviewed for the Scripps Research Institute. Dr. DeFreese noted he understands Brevard County was consulted as a possible location; Orlando and Central Florida were quite disturbed that they were not the chosen location; he spoke to the leadership as the Institute has its home office in San Diego where his Institute is; he asked them what drove the decision besides the economic incentive package; and they indicated it was a quality of life issue. He stated they looked for an area that met the demands of the scientists who are used to living in an urbanized San Diego type environment with cultural, quality of life, amenity aspects, and vibrant economy; and West Palm Beach met that. He stated he told them they made a mistake and should have been in Brevard County, but there was a lot of consideration there; he has been questioned by a number of people about the source book; he has used such book in the last 60 days to not only attract grant money, but to attract a senior professional development officer to Hubbs-Sea World who could probably be making quite a lot more money with somebody other than a non-profit organization; and the challenge now is to look at Brevard Tomorrow and the considerations on the big growth management and economic issues. Dr. DeFreese noted people are constantly talking about doing more for less; the real critical issue is where to find the leveraging points to gain not only in the environment, economy, and educational structure, but where a couple of leadership decisions catalyze change in a broad base area; it is a tough challenge and he does not have any answers for it; but it is clearly going to be both Brevard Tomorrow’s and MyRegion’s challenge in Phase 2. He stated some of the challenges in education and health care are national issues that are going to be hard to get everyone’s arms around; he is encouraged and has signed on for Phase 2; he is going to continue to help Brevard Tomorrow; but the region is at a crossroads where there are great opportunities for leadership and to see profound change in the community in a global and national level if the right decisions are made.

Shelley Lauten, Project Director for MyRegion, Orlando Regional Chamber of Commerce, stated an incredible amount of data was gathered; Polk County was included in MyRegion and will bring about 250,000 people over the next 25 years; the participants looked at the region in a new and different way; the information was gathered to try and understand what the region has and what it does not have; and it is the critical summation of the project. She noted MyRegion now knows some assets in the region that it can collectively share and work on together; the key aspect of it is a group of regional leaders who can begin to think about how to take leadership action in solving some issues that are no longer local; transportation, the environment, and educational issues impact the seven counties; and leaders are needed in government, the civic sector, and private business who will come together around the table. She stated it is going to take everyone coming together and being involved; there is a regional agenda to begin working on; there is regional leadership ready and poised for action; and she can think of no better example than what happened with the announcement by President Bush that there is an opportunity in the region to come together politically and economically for a whole new adventure in space travel. She noted it is exciting; there are six other counties raising their hands and asking what they can do to assist; My Region is there and ready to go; and it has the leadership infrastructure to start moving things forward very rapidly, not only on the technology side, but also for educational systems. Ms. Lauten stated the leaders need to be thinking about how to move the educational system to a place where a million new jobs can be supported; and it is an awesome task.

Commissioner Scarborough expressed appreciation to Ms. Lauten; and stated Ms. Lauten lived in Melbourne and graduated from Melbourne High School. Ms. Lauten noted she is truly a regional steward. Chair Higgs stated Ms. Lauten has the tie to Brevard County, which makes it regionally in the County’s perspective. Ms. Lauten stated Dr. DeFreese was not on the Brevard County list; his address for work is Orange County, but he lives in Brevard County; she lives in Orange County, but her heart is in Brevard County; the connections are interesting; and Chair Higgs grew up in her neighborhood in Brevard County.

DISCUSSION, RE: BREVARD TOMORROW WORK PLAN

Commissioner Carlson stated Kristen Bocke and other members of the Brevard Tomorrow Project Team will provide an overview of what has been accomplished to date for the first year action plan as part of the implementation piece to Brevard Tomorrow.

Kristen Bocke, President and CEO of Leadership Brevard and Program Initiative Brevard Tomorrow, stated she appreciates the comments of Ms. Lauten and the team members of MyRegion about the relationships between the two organizations as they are valuable; leadership is about trying things and engaging people in pursuits of things that are bigger than they are and things that may not have an immediate payoff, but are valuable because they improve the lives of people in the community; and Brevard Tomorrow is such a pursuit. She noted in this era of busy personal and professional lives, there is not a single individual who is responsible or the keeper of the flame, as it were, for the future of the County; today it is done collectively; there is locally a community initiative of over 125 volunteers and organizations implementing the preferred future strategic plan, known as Brevard Tomorrow; the key words in the plan are partnership, collaboration, and shared goals; and Brevard Tomorrow is about solutions and preserving what people love about Brevard County and making sure those things are still here for persons who come later to enjoy. She stated Brevard Tomorrow is about making hard decisions and not leaving the table until the decision is made; the success is measured in increments and Brevard Tomorrow is not waiting until the end of the community journey or the end of multiple years to applaud those successes; and it can cite some of those now, which is what the Project Team representatives will do this morning. She stated some challenges have been experienced and Brevard Tomorrow anticipates there will be more; however, the ultimate success of Brevard Tomorrow is as much in the journey as it is at journey’s end. Ms. Bocke stated Brevard Tomorrow will reach its vision; getting there requires a concerted community effort; Brevard Tomorrow does not belong to Leadership Brevard nor to any one individual; it belongs to the entire Brevard community; and it will take representation from the entire community to translate the vision into reality. She noted the future will be one that benefits from focused planning or it could continue to suffer the consequences of too much talk and too little action; Brevard Tomorrow is about action; its support to date includes over 140 businesses and organizations, more than 300 volunteers contributing over 3,200 volunteer hours, cash investments of just over $300,000 and in-kind investments from support of other organizations and persons in the community roughly doubles that; media partnerships and exposure are included in the presentation; and there are five alliance partners.

Teresa Monroe, Project Director for Brevard Tomorrow, stated the journey is continuing; most of the Board members are aware of how much planning has gone into Brevard Tomorrow; Commissioner Carlson is keenly aware of it as one of the champions for Brevard Tomorrow; and the organization is about action and getting into the nitty-gritty of what is going on with it and why it did all this planning several years ago. She explained the issue areas for Brevard Tomorrow; stated Florida TODAY newspaper is a strategic partner; it has given Brevard Tomorrow one-half page worth of space in the newspaper each month; and the organization uses the space in two quarter-page ads. She noted at the top of each presentation is the ad that goes to the project team and explains what is taking place; the next slide shows how the preferred future strategic plan correlates and connects to the County’s Strategic Plan; there are similarities in what the County wants to accomplish in the community and what Brevard Tomorrow wants to accomplish as well; and she is not here to talk in general about Brevard Tomorrow, but to speak on behalf of the economy project team and what such team is doing. She stated the goal this year selected for the team is to develop a comprehensive, coordinated and seamless economic development plan; the year one initiative, which begins in June and ends in May, is to develop the plan to bring the professionals together in economic development and other individuals to talk about the economy of Brevard County and how to make it better; as far as successes on the team, it has come up with a definition for economic development, which is the process of developing and maintaining suitable economic, social, and political environments in which balanced growth may be realized, increasing the wealth of the community; and the team is knee-deep in trying to plan surveys and is working with a survey provider. Ms. Monroe stated one of the partners, through the Brevard County Extension Office, is the University of Florida; it is going to be working with Brevard Tomorrow to develop surveys for the economic development providers in the County to find out what are the services where gaps exist, including a business survey, which is a client survey; the business community survey will be a joint one with the education and workforce team; and Brevard Tomorrow is trying to be frugal in what it has financially and voluntarily. She noted any time it can combine resources, accomplish something, and still have valid information, it wants to do that; it is crossing teams; it also has a survey subcommittee and best practices subcommittee on the economy team; and the committees are trying to uncover some of those wonderful things that other communities are doing that maybe they can take for themselves. She stated one of the very important things the economy team has charged best practices with is to go out and find other communities that have multiple economic development organizations and if they are working together and how; and on all the project teams there are multiple people across the spectrum of Brevard County who are serving on the teams, giving hours of their time and many of whom served on the work groups that decided which of the goals would be worked on this year.

Jan Weigold Bryant, Executive Director for American Red Cross-Space Coast Chapter, and Team Leader for the Education and Workforce Project Team, stated one of the things the Team found very interesting is that when it chose the goal of strengthening and supporting the education and workforce systems, it came into a lot of different things; it needed to define the first year initiative it felt was achievable, measurable, and could be worked on as a group; the year one initiative was to survey the 9th through 12th graders and assess their understanding as to what skills they needed to have a job and what they would need to have a living wage or to get into high-wage jobs; there are youth on the Team; and they do not know what is needed. She noted the youth indicated they could flip hamburgers and would be able to buy a Cadillac; the disconnect needs to be worked on to educate the children as to what it takes to really make a living; Brevard Tomorrow is very fortunate to work with Brevard Job Link to get the partnership as it has good programs; and it also needs to work with the businesses to see what they need in order to get the youth there. She stated the Team is going to review the issues to drive the curriculum and work with business presentations to students and parent audiences; all of the children cannot go to college; the Team has volunteers from a lot of companies, school systems, and profit and non-profit areas; and it is a diverse group that has come together to understand things. Ms. Weigold Bryant stated the Team does not really know what is out there; the businesses do not know what educational programs are out there; the education system does not realize what already is there; no one wants to reinvent the wheel; so one of the successes of the Team is that it is inventorying all the programs and educational things that people can use in the schools. She stated there is someone from Boeing who has a program already developed; and they will go into the school systems to teach children and help the guidance counselors in what is needed in the business world. She noted understanding what is already out there is a success; the Team is continuing on that success to work with Job Link and all of the groups to find out what there is and how to access the information; another issue is to survey the students as to what their understanding is and what they need; and a joint survey is being done for the students and businesses. She stated the next step is to also include working with the parents and making sure that self-sufficiency is important; there are three subcommittees; one subcommittee works with the students, one works with the parents, and one works with the companies to see what is needed; the subcommittees get together every other month to bring the groups together to find out where they are, where they need to go, and what they need to do; and she appreciates having the opportunity to work on the Team.

Cheryl Lawson-Young, Program Manager for PREVENT! of Brevard, and Governance Project Team Leader, stated the Board has identified some strategic plans that fall into the governance concept; the Team’s goal is to identify and promote cooperation and communication within the government structure; that means working together and talking about it in order to make it happen; and it will provide some savings in resources and increase efficiency. She noted that is what governance is all about; it is a win-win situation for government, as well as the residents; the Team has set some initiatives in the first year; and one is to establish a clearinghouse for existing and new collaborations and partner agreements between the 15 municipalities and the eight unincorporated areas within the County. She stated the Team also wants to begin to build a communication network of government information systems; it needs to talk more to see what is out there; it is proud and excited to say it has had some successes; and it has been able to draw in 26 volunteers from about 25 community businesses and organizations. Ms. Lawson-Young noted the Team has also had the opportunity to discover that there are some municipalities and governmental entities that are already collaborating; an example of that is Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral who are sharing a bucket truck situation, which has allowed savings in resources; the State requested the collection of data to develop a database of all shared services; and in being a partner with Brevard County, there is a dynamic team of staff that has been working with the Team, including Jason Becker and Leslie Singleton, under the guidance of Leigh Holt. She stated the Team is excited as it is going to save it a lot of work when it comes to duplicating efforts; discussion is also underway for Brevard Tomorrow to partner with Florida Public Relations Association to achieve communication network objectives; governance is very unique; and the Team will work hard on gathering data and making sure it communicates such data so that others can learn from it.

Jim Fletcher, Agriculture and Extension Services Director, and Land Use and Growth Project Team Leader, stated the Team’s goal in the first year is to educate and reach consensus on growth issues; some of the issues the Board discussed this morning, the Team is trying to attempt to tackle to see if it can get resolution to some of them; there is a very diverse group of people with diverse interests; and bringing those people together into one room and listening to them has been interesting. He noted everyone has been willing to sit and listen to each other; the Team is continuing to go through that process; it is trying to define its smart growth principles for the County; and it has made some leaps and came up with a definition for land use and growth, which is to make it possible for communities to grow in ways that support economic development and jobs, create strong neighborhoods with a range of housing, commercial, and transportation options, and achieve healthy communities that provide families with a clean environment. He stated it is broad based; the Team touches a lot of the other Teams in what it is doing; in the first year the Team has nine core elements for smart growth issues; and those elements are economics and land use, growth management, environment, community involvement, mixed use, housing, community, responsive government, and jobs. Mr. Fletcher noted once the Team gets the policies put in place, it will go out to the public and test the policies and get public input to determine if it is the way the community wants to grow; some of the successes the Team had include 42 volunteers who represent 39 community businesses; one of the biggest successes was getting the opposing views to the table; and working through those issues has been a time-consuming process, but is one that has to take place. He stated if the input is not received, there will be nay-sayers going away from the table; it has been important and a process that is being worked on; the Team is currently working on each of the definitions and implementation strategies; it has worked through five of them now; and there is a definition for Brevard County and policies for implementation of the principles. He noted the Team is working on the last four at this time; he hopes within the next two meetings it will have them completed; it will compile the information to the public for review; and the Team wants to make sure it gets community input in the process. Mr. Fletcher stated the Team is looking at trying to have six meetings across Brevard County; one of the other challenges discussed today is Brevard County is 72 miles long; it is hard to gather input in one or two regional areas; and it is proposing to have the six meetings, and compile the information for Brevard Tomorrow and the Board. He noted the Team is the largest one; there was a lot of interest in it; there is a wide diverse group of people representing businesses, developers, agricultural interests, and environmentalists; and they have taken the task to heart and are doing an excellent job.

Chris Stagman, Civic Infrastructure/Citizens Academy Design Team Coordinator, and Director of Community Building of United Way of Brevard County, stated when the Civic Infrastructure Work Group met, one of the things the process needed was grassroots support; it needed to get citizens active and involved, not only in the community volunteering and voting, etc., but also pushing Brevard Tomorrow; the Group not only looked at what it could do to increase citizen pride and involvement in the community, but also what could be done at the grassroots level to begin to get Brevard Tomorrow out there; and the Group came up with a citizens academy design team short course. He noted such course would be one day; within a year’s time, 200 or 300 people could get through to begin to look at how to get involved in the community, how to volunteer, are they registered to vote and do they vote, etc.; and expressed appreciation to the County Manager and his staff who came together and helped with the curriculum design of the project. He stated United Way is committed to the process; 25% of his time this year in United Way is designated to this process and getting it off the ground; the Team is going to be out there hitting the line hard on the project and trying to get citizens as involved as possible; and it has two pilots it has done in the community, including one at Satellite High School with youth. Mr. Stagman noted Senator Mike Haridopolos was present; he talked to the students about the attributes of a good citizen, his perspective from being a public official, and how he uses citizens’ input in making decisions in Tallahassee; some of the input and feedback from the pilots has been very instrumental in moving forward with how to launch things out in the community; and when the students were given the voting patterns and trends as to how many registered voters there are in Brevard County of about 300,000 based on 494,000 citizens, they were shocked that not that many people are registered to vote. He stated the students were also surprised that most people do not participate in elections as there was about 63% turnout in the last election period; from a young person’s perspective, it was an eye opener to them; one of the other things done in the curriculum is to look at exactly what County services are available; those are the types of things the Team is trying to teach and engage to demystify government as people think about it as a big bureaucracy; but there are services that people want, need, and the County should do, such as Mosquito Control. He noted another issue that was discussed was Waste Management; the Team broke it down to $12.00 per month for someone to have trash picked up and recycled at three or four times per week; one could not drive trash to the dump for that cost; and the Team wants to point out to people that some things government does are good things. Mr. Stagman stated the whole premise of the citizens academy is to increase citizen involvement and pride in the community; it wants to show people opportunities to volunteer; voter registration cards are in the packets; and the Team wants to show people how to be good citizens and have everyone work together to move forward.

Ms. Bocke expressed appreciation to the dedicated volunteers who are making the initiative a reality in Brevard County; stated Brevard Tomorrow also appreciates the opportunity to be here this morning to be part of the County’s planning process; the work Brevard Tomorrow is engaged in is going to impact the County and has regional implications as well; and the initiative and resulting changes to the community will help continue to keep Brevard as a community of choice, one with a high quality of life that can serve as a model for other Florida communities and perhaps other national models. She stated while Brevard Tomorrow is a unique part of Florida with treasures found nowhere else in the State, what it does here correctly to address the challenges it faces in the community and still maintain the distinct characteristics can certainly work elsewhere; it recognizes the Board’s commitment to Brevard County and the fact that it cares about the future; she is optimistic that the presentations have helped the Board understand this morning why so many other Brevard citizens are committed to and care about Brevard Tomorrow as well; and Florida TODAY’s editorial of December 31, 2003 said in part, “Our community is growing rapidly, creating challenges that must be met honestly by citizens and public servants alike if the Space Coast is to develop in a manageable way, prosper, and meet its full potential.” Ms. Bocke noted the final slide showcases one more of the collaborations, an ad that will appear in the EDC’s 2004 expansion guide, evidence of its support of the community journey and a message to CEO’s across the country that the community is addressing the challenges of the future. She stated Brevard Tomorrow applauds and values the Board’s leadership in supporting the community initiative; and requested the Board continue to include Brevard Tomorrow in its plan for next year and beyond as it is a priority for the community.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired has the County extracted from other communities work products and certain processes.

County Manager Tom Jenkins responded at the very beginning of the process, Consultant Mack Holiday was hired; he was the same kind of a person that helped MyRegion; he took all of his years of experience in working on these types of activities around the southeastern United States predominantly and recreated in a sense the structure, direction, and format; and the County had a big assembly of people who came in and had a chance to give input into the process. He noted Mr. Holiday was used as the consultant to develop the framework, which has evolved over a period of two years.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the things the County is going to find as it proceeds is it has this format; MyRegion is moving into its secondary phase; there is the Silicon Valley format; and it would be interesting for some examination of processed formats that are being used throughout the country. He noted he is pleased with where Brevard Tomorrow is going and is not criticizing it, but it is always an evolution; and inquired are there other formats and processes out there that could be examined that could further augment; stated if the format and process is not set forth, it may look exactly like the ones Mr. Holiday did before; and it is a visual depiction of a region in a global sense, which is what the County wanted and received. Commissioner Carlson stated Commissioner Scarborough’s suggestion is evolving through the project team groups; as they acknowledge the different issues in the community, there is going to come a point where they are going to have to see how certain things are remedied potentially; and it may not be where Commissioner Scarborough is going, and he is talking from a higher level process. Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Carlson is talking about the remedies and he is talking about what other processes have been for discussion, objectives, and depiction of the ideas; this is a completely different depiction than what he is describing, and it is perfectly okay; Brevard Tomorrow has different objectives and different discussions; but as it is matured, it needs to understand who else is out there. He noted one of the things he read on the Internet recently is that with the development of EU zoning, regions are becoming multi-national in the European context; they are economically driven as opposed to nationally driven; it is seen in certain areas; and the capacity to think in these terms is probably not just a phenomena that is occurring within the United States, but is maybe even more dynamic in Europe. He stated he wants the County not to just sit and follow the same process, but always challenge. Commissioner Carlson stated that is what the task of Leadership Brevard is, with the subtask of Brevard Tomorrow, to always be aware of those things that are coming down the pipe and evolving in other communities, and how to live from them and things that could apply to the County; she feels very comfortable; and it is her hope that as the Strategic Plan and action plans evolve, there is going to be that flexibility and tweaking of potentially changing a process and how it works or is being looked at. She noted it is quite appropriate on a regional perspective, but may not lend itself to what is being done on a community perspective. Commissioner Scarborough stated where the County goes with Phase 2 is going to be of a different nature than where it was in Phase 1; the process is evolving constantly; and as it matures, it finds that the level of sophistication becomes much more in depth. Commissioner Carlson noted she agrees fully; as a team, Leadership Brevard is going to be doing that over time as the County consistently goes through the Strategic Plan; she does not know what that plan is going to look like, even though there is a book and it says these are the goals the County would like to see; and the community is going to change and may change because of MyRegion and vice versa, but no one knows that yet. She stated Brevard Tomorrow will have to continue to reevaluate the processes and things that go into the strategic planning efforts; and requested the Board embrace, as it did last year, the whole process of Brevard Tomorrow and all the time and talent that have gone in to date with all the leadership and all the things heard today, in the strategic thoughts. She noted last year when the County had the departmental strategies, Brevard Tomorrow’s recommendations were incorporated into such strategies; the essence of Brevard Tomorrow and the strategic elements of it are already incorporated; it does not mean there are any dollars connected to what Brevard Tomorrow is doing, but the philosophy and what the community wants are there; and how the County evolves it and continues to embrace what is being done today is the key. Commissioner Carlson requested however it comes up with its strategic plan for this year and tweaks it should incorporate MyRegion and embraces those things that have occurred; Brevard Tomorrow and MyRegion go hand in hand; it will allow the community to progress into the global community; and she appreciates the journey so far as it has been educational.

Leigh Holt, Strategic Planning, stated when the departments were working on their strategic plans, staff pulled out the information that was relevant to each department and asked them to review it and include it as they were developing department plans.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board periodically has allowed programming on SCGTV for educational purposes when it has to do with the communities good, governmental services, etc.; and inquired if the Board would allow Brevard Tomorrow to do some programming on SCGTV in an educational manner and to show the things it is doing in hopes it will bring additional attention to the concept of what it is doing with the community journey. She stated people could understand and get involved when it comes to any of the project groups; it would keep the community up-to-date on what is going on; in civic infrastructure, one of the key pieces to making sure something like Brevard Tomorrow or My Region is successful is bringing the general public to be a part of it or to understand what it is all about; and hopefully there could be a better understanding of what is wanted as a community and get more leadership coming forward to assist and help government. She noted it is critical; and the short course academy process could be key to making sure people understand what government is all about and take away the shroud of misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to provide some air time for Brevard Tomorrow and MyRegion, if it desires, as far as educational time on television for people in the community to learn more about what is being done strategically through the community-based Brevard Tomorrow and the regionally-based MyRegion.

Chair Higgs stated she does not remember the Policy the Board has in regard to SCGTV; and inquired if the item can be held until after lunch as she wants to be sure the motion is consistent. She noted if the Board allows one group then it has to go to the other side; and she would like to see the Policy. Commissioner Carlson stated that is fine; and she talked with Mr. Jenkins about the Policy as she wanted to make sure the Board was not going to be overstepping any policy decisions it made previously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is of the opinion that the County wants to enable the critic to be the creator as opposed to toot its own horn. Chair Higgs stated the item will come back after lunch.

Commissioner Pritchard stated in addition to Brevard Tomorrow and MyRegion, there is also the Brevard Water Supply Board and East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC); there are a lot of activities that individuals or groups are involved with; if opportunity is there to show what the entities are all about then it is a good idea to provide the opportunity for the public to see them on television; and he is sure the County has the space within the broadcast schedule in order to put the time in. He noted a lot of people ask what is going to happen with water, etc.; and anything the County can do that is going to provide information to the public is a good idea. Chair Higgs stated information is good; both the Brevard Water Supply Board and ECFRPC are governmental bodies; it is governmental television; the County has tried to be very careful in crafting the policies; and it has a policy group that deals with that and she wants to be sure it is okay.

The meeting recessed at 12:10 p.m. and reconvened at 1:00 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: EFFICIENCY REVIEW OPTIONS

Chair Higgs stated she sent out a potential vendor in the group for the Board to review in terms of PFM, who is the County’s current financial advisor, as a component; and it is an option for the Board to review.

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated at the last workshop, the Board directed staff to go out to the marketplace and report back regarding the use of an outside agency to review County departments to provide possible cost savings and the cost of such an agency; in the report, staff has provided responses it has received from three agencies and the Sterling Council process; those range in price from $25,000 to $750,000; and he can go over each one or answer questions.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would appreciate getting the philosophical concepts of what the County would get with different types of products; it wants to buy what would work; with government, unfortunately, it does not have the purchaser having an option; and one living in Brevard County is stuck with it good, bad, or different. He noted he or she could go through a time and motion study; at a seafood restaurant it does not work and customers walk away; the critical thing in his mind is if someone goes to a library, it becomes a library service function; and while time and motion are very critical in cutting costs, it should be a library function. He stated in Road and Bridge it is a different type of function because moving heavy equipment around up and down the County and sharing equipment could be viewed in a separate sense; and starting with that premise, he feels most comfortable with taking a level of expertise and integrating it into the County for an ongoing process, as opposed to having somebody walk away with $500,000 of County taxpayers’ money, and then hearing from County employees that the people did not understand the operation and it is making it more difficult rather than easier because there is not the capacity to judge the same time and way as the private industry. He inquired if he was to accomplish that, is there one particular process that would be favored and staff would recommend where the County could integrate it as an ongoing process and have each year the department heads report back to the Board on how they are implementing it within their own confines, and how they are not sacrificing the quality of service to the community in the process. Mr. Whitten responded starting with that premise the Board should probably discuss the Sterling Award.

Chair Higgs stated she understands the process issue and the financial side of this, integrating what the County’s financial advisor is advising it in regard to various things and its expertise; it already knows what is there as it is under Contract with the County; it may be a combination of that with the PFM expertise; and it has been heavily involved in Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and the City of Miami. She noted if the County integrates it with the ongoing process it may be the combination that gets it where it wants, which is an efficient, effective, quality government; and both things may get it there.

Leigh Holt, Strategic Planning, stated the Florida Sterling Council is a State-funded organization which comes from the Governor’s Office; it is a performance excellence system based on the Baldrige criteria, which is an international performance system; the strengths of Sterling are that it is an internal process; and it permeates all levels of the organization. She noted the Sterling organization provides training, mentoring, and assessment; there is the internal involvement Commissioner Scarborough is talking about; and there is the opportunity to have experts from around the State to come in and provide technical expertise and an objective assessment of what is going on in the organization. She stated the Sterling process has been effectively applied to government, both in the Cities of Coral Springs and Jacksonville; such Cities have successfully implemented the Sterling process and have won State awards; and other governments have implemented it, but have not gone all the way to the award level.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is key if the County teaches internally the process then one is always performing a quality level; it has not looked at the performance side of things; it has talked about financial audits, but not performance audits; and they are two different animals. She noted the two could be combined to make sure the County is using every dollar appropriately and on the right things; it needs to be in a quality process that does not duplicate or cost additional dollars where it is not necessary; individuals who will be utilizing the system on an ongoing basis could be trained and eventually work toward an award some day; and they would be able to have the Sterling knowledge.

Chair Higgs inquired is the Sterling process another name for a Total Quality Management (TQM) process; with Ms. Holt responding no. Ms. Holt stated the Sterling process focuses on a lot of different aspects of the organization, starting with self-assessments. Mr. Jenkins stated the Sterling process is an extension and expansion, and specific process; TQM is involved in continuous improvement initiative and using work teams to solve problems, do planning, etc.; to some degree, the County has incorporated TQM into its normal operating methods; and there are a number of principles of TQM that he evaluates the directors on in terms of their implementation of TQM principles. He noted the Sterling process is a very specific process that is a self analysis; the County would go through various processes and steps; it has to go through some training in terms of understanding the process; and Ms. Holt has attended several of the Statewide meetings each year on the Sterling process, so she probably has the highest level of familiarity of any organization. Ms. Holt stated her understanding of TQM is looking at the process and the Sterling process includes the process, customer service, leadership, employee performance, etc.; one of the great things about the Sterling process is that every employee becomes involved at some level; in the City of Jacksonville, every employee has a card with a mission on it and goals of the city council at the top; and also included are department and personal goals. She noted the employees have their merit raises based on accomplishment and performance. Commissioner Carlson stated it is all about performance; it provides the employee with the motivation to do a better job because he or she knows his or her merit increase is based on performance and adding to their job; and instead of just getting an across-the-board 4% increase without any additional real merit, he or she has to work for it.

Chair Higgs inquired if the Board were to express an interest in this today, would it get a more thorough proposal plan and then go to the next step; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes. Mr. Jenkins stated staff would come back with a specific plan on how the County would implement it. Commissioner Scarborough noted he would like to get a presentation and briefing as it is an important step for the County. Chair Higgs stated the financial advisor has some specific recommendations financially for the County and the expertise; and he needs the opportunity to present the Board with the consulting and strategic services he provides. Commissioner Carlson inquired could both individuals get together and converse, and then present the information to the Board of how the issues might interconnect. Commissioner Scarborough noted he would like the information independently as it is for the Board to define how the two issues come together and if they come together. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Sterling representatives know of incidents where they have had other communities like Brevard County asking the same questions; and would the County look at Option 2, which would include the navigator and site team examiners, and a full presentation. Mr. Jenkins noted it would be the full presentation.

Commissioner Pritchard stated years ago Florida Power and Light (FP&L) Company had a program, which dealt with a series of activities and events; it ended up being a very long and lengthy process; the whole result was it was a process; and it did not result in a lot of what people thought it should have resulted in. He noted the program went through a lot of refinements and changes were made; Mr. Whitten mentioned the price range from $25,000 to $750,000; and inquired if there is a dollar attached to PFM, Sterling, or MGT. Mr. Whitten responded the innovations group would be approximately $25,000 to $32,000; and the Sterling Council process, Option 1 with recommendations would be $36,300 and Option 2 would be $32,550. Commissioner Pritchard inquired is there also a management consultant for about $100,000. Commissioner Carlson stated MGT is $500,000; and there were different options that ranged from $150,000 to $750,000. Mr. Whitten stated he gave the price of the Sterling Council process without use of the management consultant. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Whitten has a number for PFM; with Mr. Whitten responding no. Mr. Jenkins stated staff needs to talk to PFM about its approach and cost; it may have certain areas it specializes in, in terms of the kinds of things it looks at; and staff needs additional information about PFM. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is fine; and he is trying to put a handle on the cost. Mr. Jenkins stated in terms of what other organizations have paid for a consultant to come in and do an efficiency review, it would be a minimal of $200,000 and somewhere between $200,000 and $1 million for what other governments have paid over the last several years; it is one thing to come in and do a review of a school system; but the County does so many different things; and it has 75 different major programs. He noted it would be relatively expensive; of all the options, the Sterling Award process is the least expensive; the County could then see what the PFM approach is in terms of what areas it specializes in; staff can come back with additional information; and it may be a little more financial driven, but he is not sure. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what would PFM provide. Chair Higgs stated PFM does many of the same things that the others do in terms of consulting with government, analyzing, and auditing all those kinds of things; PFM is already under contract with the County for financial services; and it knows the County’s budget, has worked with its finances, and handles the investment side. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what would PFM bring to the County that the others do not. Chair Higgs responded of the consulting firms, PFM’s experience is impressive in that it is already under Contract with the County and has a long-term finance plan; her concern is that the County says it wants to have a certain level of performance; all that is well and good; but if it is not financially feasible within the financial goals, it does not get the County very far; and at least listening to what the financial advisor says in regard to what he would bring would be something the County should do. Commissioner Carlson stated in terms of financial aspects of what the County can and cannot do and the capacity to be able to do whatever it wants to do to perform better, there is an obvious marriage there; she would like to explore it and get PFM and the Sterling people here; and the Board can listen to them and ask the questions that are being discussed now to see what they come back with. Chair Higgs noted it may not be in the long run what the County wants; her thought was simply that PFM is already on board with the County and doing certain things; it has done a nice job with the investments and everybody is comfortable with it; and PFM is giving the County some good financial advice in regard to some other things. She stated she wants to at least hear PFM meshing the implementation of the County’s long term financial goals; Commissioner Carlson has talked for years about having a capital plan; all of it needs to be integrated; and suggested the Board listen to what it already has on board. Commissioner Scarborough stated it sounds substantially different than what the County would be getting from the Sterling process. Commissioner Carlson noted from PFM’s standard she does not believe it is going to train the employees to do something on a quality basis, but in the same sense, it will understand the cost of doing the job better if there is a financial overlay on top of the performance. Commissioner Scarborough stated Tuesday the Board made a hard decision with the Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC); some of these things it has not put to the department heads, in addition to bringing new programs, and are there programs that are becoming questionable where the County wants to maintain; some policy decisions that have to come to the Board may be less than attractive as some people are not going to get services; that is what it is all about, moving with the dynamics of the community and resources that are available; and those are hard decisions.

Mr. Jenkins stated staff has four budget workshops scheduled for the coming months; staff is basically going to tell the Board what staff does, how it pays for it, and who benefits from it for every program service that is provided; at the conclusion of the workshops, staff is going to ask the Board to begin to try to give staff some direction in terms of prioritization and which programs are the most important to it; and staff will take the information and put it together as it prepares the proposed budget for next year. He noted staff will have the Board’s perceptions as to which programs the County does that are the most important; but before staff asks the Board to make those choices, it will give a full disclosure of the programs. Commissioner Scarborough stated he lives day to day with programs; it is not like he has to be introduced to them; he has always felt Mosquito Control was one of those things the County had to fund fully; and if staff is asking him to tell it which programs, he is going to be less able to do that than the person sitting at the circulation desk at a library. He noted he would like things to bubble up within the departments, including ideas where there can be changes to department heads and they can circulate it back if it is a managerial function; he will use the library for an example; perhaps a certain library had only three people come in on a Sunday afternoon and it happens habitually; and that is indicating there is not a need to keep the library open and the function needs to be changed. Mr. Jenkins stated that is a very interesting concept; staff will explore it; and it would be valuable for the Board to have that kind of information. Commissioner Carlson stated the County has the departmental strategies; the piece drawn from that was departmental strategies; and how the County did the strategies was to look at what each department head did in his or her particular realm from the bottom up and define what things were good, bad, otherwise, and what they wanted to attain strategically speaking. She noted the County has done some of that already if it looks at last year’s departmental strategies. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how does he deal with a departmental strategy or does he just feel good about programs; stated he may not be in touch with the Suntree Library, but it is the most utilized library in the County; and the danger is to assume that he knows too much and the people at the circulation desk do not know more than he does about obtaining efficiencies. Mr. Jenkins noted it is a good concept and he would like to brainstorm it. Commissioner Carlson stated the foundation of what Commissioner Scarborough is asking has been done; all the department heads were very motivated and inspired by doing it, but there are pieces that are missing; the department heads have the data where they have been able to be visionaries in their own right to say this is what they would like to see occur because they know the community and what the trenches look like; and the County does not want to discount the work that has been done already, and it needs to build on it as it is only a piece of the puzzle.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired since the Board is having this quite intensive budget review process and looking at the entire County operation, does it want to have an outside agency somewhat involved as it goes through this; and stated he is looking for a mesh with the review of County operations and the potential for hiring an outside agency to help redefine County operations. He inquired should they be co-mingled or should one follow the other. Mr. Jenkins stated Commissioner Pritchard’s point is while he is going through the budget workshops, could it be a forum or a vehicle for the outside entity to do some sort of review along with him; and staff will take the idea and discuss it with PFM to get some reactions from a couple of people. Chair Higgs stated if the County’s financial advisor is telling it to do something and here are the financial consequences, that is what he is talking about long term; if something is funded, then the reserves do this and this happens; perhaps the County already has the vehicle on board, but she is not sure; and staff can ask the group that has worked on it. Commissioner Carlson stated it might provide the clarity that some Commissioners have missed through the budget process, especially when it wants to spend on good programs; and they would like to be able to know that maybe there are programs out there that are not working right now and they need to be dispensed of as the Board did with the JAC. Commissioner Pritchard stated there are two members of the Citizens Budget Review Committee (CBRC) here; and inquired what they think about the issue the Board is discussing.

DISCUSSION, RE: CITIZENS BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE

Bob Klaus, representing Citizens Budget Review Committee (CBRC), stated the County could get a lot of bang for the buck and return on investment at $60,000 for the Sterling process; in terms of the financial issue and the kind of analysis the County is talking about, it should have an outside person to do it; and the County does not require an audit, but its support in terms of the self-assessment and its interest.

Jack Callinan, Acting Chair of the CBRC, stated he does not believe the proposals he saw met due diligence requirements; there were four of them; and one talked about comparisons.

Chair Higgs stated they were just examples. Mr. Callinan stated the other proposal had a price tag and did not tell what it did; the MGT proposal went into pretty good detail on what it was trying to accomplish; and the problem he saw with the Sterling process is that cost control is a very focused item. He noted Sterling would be good if it was three to four years ago and the County was not getting into the cost crunch it is into today; the County needs to address the cost control situation; if it is going to do that, it has to be done by an outside firm; and the question he did not ask and did not hear from anybody was how can the County do it cheaper with an outside firm. He stated there are ways the County can address these things and do them cheaper; the first question he asked himself was how much should it cost; he is talking about 10 years ago; and he estimated it would take between two weeks and one month to do the job in each particular department. He noted if he multiplied it by 25, it would be $100,000 to $200,000 to do the job; it is pretty broad spread; but those are the numbers he would have used if he was making the proposal to somebody; and it fits in with MGT. Mr. Callinan stated he looked at what MGT was asking for; it seemed to be pretty responsible; how to save money is to go to the four people who are giving the proposal the County is looking for; and then it makes a laundry list of all the items they expect to get from the County and what they are going to give the County in return, including their recommendations for saving money. He noted the County then takes a look at the laundry list and asks what it can do internally; it then provides the RFP and requests a bid on one department for a certain functionality; the proposer then bids; and the County is trying to learn what the requirements are to get the information it needs to control costs. Mr. Callinan stated that is the approach he would take if he had a proposal and was doing the same kind of job in his own business; he does not like the Sterling process because it is too broad; it has too many different things in it; but the cost control portions are good.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Callinan mentioned a laundry list and specific functionality; and inquired with all the diverse operations the County has, would addressing one operation provide enough guidance so that internally it could address the others. Mr. Callinan responded the County could find out if it liked the organization, whether it seemed to be reputable and doing a good job on it, and whether the County would want to give the organization more; the County may learn enough from the one to do it itself; but it needs the guidance of somebody on the outside to come in who has done this and knows what it is. He stated the names have changed so many times in the last couple of years; and inquired if any of the companies are in the Big 8 accounting firms. Mr. Whitten responded none of these are accounting firms. Mr. Callinan stated most of the accounting firms eight or 10 years ago had subdivisions which focused on this area, were very reputable, and were good at that type of job; so he questioned why he did not see one of those firms included. Chair Higgs stated the Board was unclear about exactly what it was asking for; what it got back were samples of what people might do with this area; she did not assume that they would be a response to an RFP, nor was she ready to make any kind of funding decision; and it was just an example of a spectrum of $750,000 to $60,000 of where the County could go. She noted she is not prepared today to vote on any of those as a funding proposal. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has heard the name Booze Allen related to government work more than the rest. Mr. Callinan noted Booze Allen has a good name. Commissioner Scarborough inquired are there others out there that the County should be touching base with; with Mr. Callinan responding he is not sure. Mr. Callinan stated he is from the private sector, so his knowledge is more private sector; and he is not sure if Booze Allen is one, but it has a good reputation. Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Callinan see if there are others out there; stated the Board has not made a decision yet; it may need to be touching base with others; and requested Mr. Callinan provide the information to Mr. Whitten. Chair Higgs stated the County needs to be sure about the question it wants people to respond to; it had a sampling of things that are out there; and if it wants to know the full gamut, then it will get it back. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has gotten back the full gamut unfortunately; he had hoped the issue was going to come together this year; the County may be bringing it in at the tail end of the budget system as opposed to having staff fully engaged; and the Board may need to instruct staff to proceed with some methodologies simultaneously. He noted he does not want to find out a year later that the County could have obtained another product; that is why he wanted the presentations; and Mr. Callinan may have other ideas.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the concerns he had when he mentioned how the County was going to mesh this year’s budget presentations and department operations with the finding of a firm that is going to help it over the course of the next “x” number of years work on a better organization was the timeliness of it all; he did not see how the County could go through an interview process, select someone, and mesh it in with what is now ongoing beginning next month with what the department operations are; Mr. Callinan brought up a good point of having a trial balloon; and the County could make a selection, but only focus on perhaps one function of County government to see what the firm could produce and if it is something that is good for the County. He noted he does not want to go through another frustrating process like he did, which ended up being a significant waste of employee time developing all of the processes that did not do anything; he wants to develop something that is going to be meaningful; the trial balloon idea of having one operation evaluated by whomever the Board picks at whatever point may not be something that is going to happen this year, but it has set up the premise of it happening next year; and meanwhile, the County could still have department reviews so everyone will have a better understanding of what they are doing and how well they are doing it. Commissioner Scarborough stated there are certain functions, such as with fire and safety; there is time management that can be applied there; there are soft services, such as parks and recreation and libraries; and perhaps there are some departments that lend themselves to different types of analysis, but he may be wrong on that. Commissioner Pritchard noted another thing he did in a former life was not only fire rescue and public safety, but he did resource management studies within the municipality in parks and recreation and police services; all three of those areas were different; the criteria, evaluations, observations, and job interviews all differed; the similarities included going to work and going home; but what happens during that time is there are big differences. He stated if one is measuring tasks, efficiencies, and effectiveness, then there has to be a good understanding of what it is someone is supposed to be doing; Commissioner Scarborough is correct, there are vast differences, which is why he likes the idea of instead of giving out a broad contract for $200,000 to evaluate the County, focusing more on picking a department and something representative and asking what would it cost to look at this; based on the results the County receives, it can make a decision; and then it can look at the rest of the world.

Commissioner Carlson inquired did the City of Jacksonville go department by department under the Sterling process; with Ms. Holt responding Coral Springs went department by department and the City of Jacksonville did it all at once as it was on a fast track to win an award. Commissioner Carlson stated she remembers the hardship it took as it was a very difficult task; in Coral Springs it was well received; she does not have a problem with doing a specific department as it would be nice to get some short-term results from all of the analysis; but whether or not the County gets any results in this year’s budget is hard to say.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to hear from the organizations that the Board might consider to perform the service; Mr. Jenkins was going to discuss with staff in a little more detail as to what the different management companies could provide; the Board would get a recommendation from staff; if Messrs. Callinan and Klaus can produce more names, then they can be evaluated by Mr. Jenkins and the Board; and the County can ask for a presentation by whom it decides might be the top three. Chair Higgs stated when the County starts that way though it is getting into an RFQ and RFP so it is complying. Mr. Jenkins stated staff will provide more information for the Board about the Sterling process; he reviewed the PFM brochure and there is a financial slant to what it does; staff can talk to the company to see what it offers; and staff can also draft an RFP or RFQ with a little more definitive scope of what it is looking for on the premise that it would do one good size agency to do a test and see if it is where the Board is headed. He noted if the Board decides it wants to do one department, staff would have to do an RFQ or RFP and let everyone submit proposals; as pointed out earlier, this was just a quick rush to let the industry tell the County what kind of services they offer; it is nothing close to an RFQ or RFP; and staff could draft one for the Board’s review to decide if it wants to try it with one agency. Commissioner Pritchard requested staff involve the CBRC in the whole process; stated Messrs. Callinan and Klaus have extensive background and knowledge on the issues; other members of the CBRC likewise have such knowledge and background; there is a better product with more involvement; and the level of expertise is there so the County should use it.

Chair Higgs stated staff can get the three items together that Mr. Jenkins mentioned for the Board, including the input and specifics on the issues. Mr. Callinan stated there was mention of a $190,000 house being the break even point; and cautioned the Board on it. He noted Dr. Fishkind is using a 10-year average to generate his estimates in the future; those have been notoriously poor as one can see from the federal government; the Board may want to ask Dr. Fishkind to tell the County what would happen if the budget deficits keep increasing and how it would impact interest rates, what it would do to the housing market, and what a potential negative drop in it would mean to revenue collections, as about $7 million or $8 million comes from there. He stated if the County does a good job on cost control, it might be able to lower those numbers; instead of it being a $190,000 number, maybe the County could drop it to $150,000 or $160,000; and cautioned the Board on the kind of averages being used. He stated it is nothing negative as there are a lot of people who use those numbers in simulators and other things; and there are also weaknesses as far as hanging the hat for 20 years down the pike.

Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Callinan has recommendations for the Board from the CBRC; with Mr. Callinan responding yes. Mr. Callinan stated written material was sent to the Board; the CBRC is recommending the Strategic Plan be amended and revised; and read a letter to the Board from the CBRC, as follows, “The CBRC recommends a couple of modifications to the Strategic Plan. The recommended revisions are shown in italics on the following pages. Revisions are recommended to the fifth goal and the Commissioner’s Plan supporting that goal. In addition to these changes, we also recommend that all departments be asked to amend their plans according to the newly revised language of the goal and Strategic Plan. Departments should present their revised business plans to the Commission during the budget review sessions.” He noted his view is that he would rather get started on this now and make the laundry list up of what departments are going to have to do later on if the County is going to control costs; the departments could start using the material and whatever they are capable of doing in such a short time frame; they would have to prepare for proposals and cost cutting that others are doing; and the information could be put together for the Board to review. He stated the County may want to look for a 5% cut as being a reasonable goal that is not tremendous or outlandish; and it would be an overall goal the Board could set.

Chair Higgs requested Mr. Callinan read the amended goal as recommended by the CBRC. Mr. Callinan stated the goal reads as follows, “Maximizing government performance by improving communications, increasing operating efficiencies to provide cost effective quality services to our citizens.”

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to accept the recommended goal of the CBRC to “maximize government performance by improving communications, increasing operating efficiencies to provide cost effective quality services to our citizens.” Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Callinan stated since the fifth goal has been revised, and a new plan item is required to support the change, as follows, “Commissioners’ Strategic Plan. Departments will establish measurable and achievable goals, with clear criteria, to increase efficient and productive use of resources to achieve cost savings.”

Commissioner Pritchard inquired did the Board discuss, in addition to achieving cost savings, providing optimal level of service or any sort of verbiage like that. Mr. Callinan responded it is in the goal where it says, “effective quality services”; the CBRC did not change that; and the CBRC is saying keep the same quality level, but do it at a better price. Commissioner Pritchard stated the plan is cost savings; and the goal is the level of service. Mr. Callinan stated there are three other items in the plan, which address the other issues; and the CBRC only addressed the issue of cost savings, making it an additional plan item. Commissioner Scarborough stated his problem is the capacity to move from one program and one goal to another; if the County was one entity doing one thing on an assembly line, it would be very simple; but it deals with many different issues and a litany of things; and the complexity of the issue is how to hit points. He noted the Board debated at some length whether it was to its advantage to cut the funding on the senior meals and the Alzheimer’s Foundation; after it reviewed the issue, the impact of the State’s share for Medicaid was tremendous compared to the savings; it takes an assembly line wording to an extremely complex component of government; and it is to be sensitive to those places where there are the biggest points. Commissioner Scarborough noted in other words, one could save $25,000, but it could cost $2 million.

Mr. Callinan noted it would not be cost effective to do that. Commissioner Scarborough stated the trouble is it was brought to the County in a very straight forward manner to cut $25,000; one out of every six beds in the penitentiary is taken by people with mental health problems; the issues become not just within a function or department, but holistically to the quality of life as a community as it plays out through multi-functions; so he has to think about the CBRC’s new plan item before he votes for it.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board supported the change of language on the maximizing verbiage; and the new language is just another box and is what everyone has been talking about. Commissioner Scarborough noted he is going beyond the department to the community as a whole; and it may not be measurable within the County, but could be measurable within some other collateral cost to the community. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board talked about that when it talked about departmental strategies; and some things are measurable and some things are not. Commissioner Scarborough noted a lot of times he can measure if it is measured in a broad enough sense; that is his problem; give him some latitude in measuring; and a particular department may say they can achieve a goal by cutting this and the ricochet effect over here may be enormous on the court system or school system. He stated the County needs to look at the holistic sense; it is not just an assembling line, but a community; and the community needs to be judged and measured as a part of the cost savings. Commissioner Carlson noted the impact of what a department might assess as being achievable or not achievable based on a measurable goal or lack of would come to the Board and it would have to look at the greater picture. Commissioner Scarborough noted he would have to add some additional language before he votes on the item; he is not prepared to vote today; and he will think about it.

Mr. Callinan stated in reviewing the plan overall, the recommendation is only one element; it is not taking away from anything else; and it is just doing what the County has to do to control costs and do things cheaper. Commissioner Scarborough noted he is serious about doing things cheaper; his problem is he can do things cheaper in this little box; County departments tell him they have done a wonderful job and cut costs; but the impact of what they have done has created chaos in another world. He stated the County is not an individual corporate entity that tallies up the profit and loss statement at the end of the day; these things bounce out in different capacities over and over; the County needs to be careful and not judge department heads purely upon a departmental concept; and it needs to draw them out to make them able to participate in the solution of problems in other areas and other departments at perhaps additional costs because it will have a net cost savings across-the-board.

Commissioner Carlson stated that is a lot of what Brevard Tomorrow is doing. Commissioner Scarborough noted he is not disagreeing with that; but this is not where he wants to go right now. Chair Higgs stated what the CBRC suggested is reasonable and works with almost any management system of the organization; whether the goal is to reduce the percentage of people in the jail with mental illness or whatever it is, there needs to be some objective way of measuring; and there need to be some numbers. Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands; if the mentally ill are thrown out of prison, they may become homeless and then victims of crime; it is a complex world because the problems are complex; and government does not create the problems, but tries to solve them. He noted solving problems in a cost effective manner is what the County is here to do; to do it is to empower the departments to look beyond their departments and not to look with only the functionality of their department; and he cannot support the item. Commissioner Carlson stated what Commissioner Scarborough says makes perfect sense and is not inconsistent; and some departments already have community partners. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not comfortable with the language; and it is failing to take a holistic cost saving approach.

Mr. Klaus stated if the Board wants that kind of approach, it fits into the role of the language; it can have such approach to increase quality and save money; the Board has a right to be concerned if a department only has tunnel vision; but it is encouraging departments to cooperate with each other and look at their decision-making.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Klaus hit the nail on the head in terms of cooperation and maybe that is what is missing in the language. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has been involved in government for about 20 years now; everybody in government says they are doing a good job, but something may not be working as a whole; and the County needs to ask if something is working for the community. He noted if someone wants to incorporate the language of a holistic cost savings and incorporate other departments, he is ready to go there; but if the CBRC is driving the other philosophy, there are a lot of his constituents who are going to skin him when he walks out of here.

Mr. Klaus stated he believes the CBRC is talking about the philosophy Commissioner Scarborough is referring to; the language mentioned by Commissioner Scarborough could be included; and it would encourage people who have tunnel vision to open up. Commissioner Scarborough requested the item be tabled and brought back with additional language. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board could extend the language that was proposed. Commissioner Scarborough noted somebody can type the language and bring it back to the Board. Mr. Callinan inquired if the Board wants the CBRC to revise the language and bring it back to the Board; with Chair Higgs responding yes. Mr. Callinan stated another recommendation from the CBRC concerns group health insurance. Chair Higgs noted the Committee has seven recommendations; and one recommendation included asking Human Resources Director Frank Abbate to provide an independent insurance committee to look at seven individual items. Mr. Callinan stated the CBRC asked Mr. Abbate to see what the State limitations are; he is from the private sector and is looking at this as a private sector individual; there are limitations in State regulations; and Mr. Abbate will provide the information. He noted the recommendations from the CBRC include increase per member contributions; right now the County’s health insurance is increasing about 12% or 13%; it means it is going to double if it continues at that rate in the next five to six years; and the County is not going to be talking about $30 million for health insurance, but $60 million. He stated it is a critical item that must be addressed; the CBRC provided some input that may be helpful to the Board in addressing these areas; the CBRC’s recommendation is to have the Insurance Committee or an independent impartial insurance committee review the savings associated with the items recommended by the CBRC so the committee can recommend a course of action to the Board; and some of the areas the CBRC is addressing may be difficult for the County’s insurance committee to make recommendations on. Mr. Callinan noted other recommendations from the CBRC include reduce benefits, eliminate all subsidies to retired personnel, eliminate all subsidies to dependents of retired personnel, eliminate the PPO program, eliminate health care programs which provide normal services outside Brevard County as retirees who reside outside of Brevard County receive subsidies while depriving the community of the tax contribution, and eliminate all insurance programs, except the HF Medicare program for retirees over 65. He stated the PPO program is 75% retirees and about 25% active employees; it is certainly something that seems to be there for the retirees and not for the County itself; if the County gives a subsidy to somebody who is living outside the County, he or she is depriving the County of tax benefits; and it is double dipping. He stated the County pays for social security, health insurance, and FICA so 50% of the items are paid for by the County; there is also a retirement benefit; reiterated when the retiree moves out of the County, he or she deprives the County of tax benefits; and it is not fair to him as a taxpayer to have that situation occur and is one reason why the PPO program needs to go. Mr. Callinan noted the HF Medicare program cost $190 per month; it seems to be just about as strong as any of the other programs the County has; it provides a lot of benefits; and the drug option plan is good. He stated he understands the issues are sensitive to the Board; he would not want to be in its shoes and have 600 people yelling at him; he does not want to hurt anybody; and perhaps the County could fold it into an area where it is not tremendously expensive and where the costs would not double in the next six years, which is what is happening.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Insurance Committee could review the recommendations of the CBRC concerning the insurance issues. Mr. Jenkins noted Mr. Callinan is suggesting a new independent committee. Mr. Callinan stated it is up to the Board, but the committee needs to be impartial, take an honest look at the issues, and provide the Board with recommendations; and he relies on the Board’s judgment. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem with such a review; it will shed some light on where the dollars are going; it is a good idea; and she did not know that 75% of the PPO program was retirees. She noted she is a PPO member because it provides a lot of opportunities for being outside the network. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would prefer to have the Insurance Committee review the recommendations first. Commissioner Carlson inquired who is on such Committee; with Chair Higgs responding each Commissioner and the Constitutional Officers have appointees.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct the recommendations of the CBRC concerning insurance be referred to the Insurance Committee for comment. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: REVIEW OF BUDGET OPERATING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the budget operating performance measurements are in the annual budget document for the Board’s information so it could focus attention on them; these are the kinds of measurements staff generally puts in the budget document; they deal with the performance, efficiency, and cost of County departments; and the second book is the Strategic Community Measurements, which is a snapshot of the community in terms of the economy, health care, crime, and education, and tells how the community is doing in those various areas.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the things he said when the Board had its earlier budget meeting was that he did not think it was time to create any new goal at this point; he thought what the Board had was sufficient; as it goes through the budget process, he would like to have the departments refer to the various goals, objectives, measurable standards, performance measures, etc. to see what they have done in terms of what they say they were supposed to be doing; and if they have not done it, then why does the County have it. He noted he does not want to go through everything and start making decisions at this point about throwing this out or adding that in until he has a much better handle on how the County is doing and why it is doing it.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Strategic Community Measures are just basic measures. Chair Higgs noted the County tries to benchmark where the community is in terms of the big picture; and it is a very good document and helps the County understand where the community is going. Commissioner Carlson stated when the Board started the conversation about community measures, it talked about GAP and some of the things Jacksonville did in terms of setting the goals; if it picks out one measurable item that is covered in the book, such as teenage pregnancy, there is enough data collected to see trends; supposedly the information can be used in various departments or nonprofits that work on certain issues; and potentially the County can set a goal as Jacksonville and other communities have done. She noted the Strategic Community Measures provide the County the trends, but do not provide any benchmark; a benchmark is usually what one is trying to attain; there are goals and certain benchmarks; and she does not see that with the proposed document, although it is good information.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired on what areas did Brevard Tomorrow do comparisons; with Commissioner Carlson responding Colorado Springs; Huntsville, Alabama; and Tacoma, Washington. Commissioner Scarborough stated Rich Crotty, Chairman of the Orange County Commission, did an economic analysis; he compared the counties of the region and the research triangle, including Austin; he would like to pick up three areas, including the Research Triangle, Austin, and Silicon Valley; and when the County starts moving into a dynamic high-tech concept it needs to not judge itself against Polk County in phosphate mining. Commissioner Carlson noted going back to the discussion the Board had earlier about what it looked at when it was starting the Strategic Plan, there was a lot of talk about those three areas. Commissioner Scarborough stated for a lot of things, Brevard County is at the top of the State; the problem is when one is ahead of the pack and wants to run faster, he or she needs to find another pack to follow; the County needs to start following the front runners in the country; and Commissioner Carlson is trying to do that with Brevard Tomorrow. Commissioner Carlson stated when Brevard Tomorrow compared itself to the other three communities, they were based on similarities to the County, not where it wanted to be; and Commissioner Scarborough is talking about the Austin, Silicon Valley, and the Research Triangle. Commissioner Scarborough stated the social problems that exist in the region are not being discussed here, but the County needs to understand the dynamics of who it is comparing itself against. Commissioner Carlson noted even though the County has a good data set of trends, it needs to be able to analyze it and say what does it mean, what can it do about it, and where does it go to find out what it can do about it. Commissioner Scarborough stated when he talks to clubs and organizations he talks about demographics all the time; and unless they understand the community they are not able to set the goals as a community.

Mr. Jenkins stated as a policy maker, the Board can go through the book and key on certain issues it thinks are the highest priority; that is what it could work on; and it obviously cannot address 200 items and have the resources; but it can pick three items, focus on them as priorities, and try to work on them. Commissioner Carlson proposed that each Commissioner go through the book and pick some of those areas so the Board can at least say is this trend acceptable; stated there could be a measurable benchmark or goal; and the County can see what it can do. Commissioner Scarborough stated Linda Chapin with UCF will help the County use the staff at UCF to do the more in-depth analysis of how the currents can come together; if a Commissioner sees something, he or she can give it to Leigh Holt; and she will get Ms. Chapin to get a professor to get involved in trying to do an analysis of the connectivity, which is a wonderful resource. Commissioner Carlson noted that is what her office tried to do with all of the documents it received; it tried to connect the dots between the Strategic Plan at the highest level and the program profiles with the update on performance measures; and then finally connect it to the dollar and the budgetary side of things; and that is what the Board is looking at here. She stated in terms of the profiles, the sheet identifies the goals, objectives, and performance measurements of the different objectives; it also gives actual and projected numbers; there is a mix between outputs and outcomes; and she wants to see outcomes. She noted Page 37, Environmental Review, includes outputs, outcomes, and efficiencies; under Performance Measurements, it includes review of subdivision applications mandated and has number of applications submitted 60; Page 47, Land Development, under Subdivisions and Roadways Mandated, says number of subdivision project reviews 175; and she is not sure what the numbers mean. Commissioner Carlson stated what she found to be difficult was looking at outputs versus outcomes; the County wants to see that the performance measures are a five; it shows what has been done; and the performance measures have all gone through department strategies, so there must be a goal they are trying to achieve; and inquired what is it. Commissioner Pritchard stated these were things he filled out for years that, for the most part, were a nice exercise. Commissioner Carlson noted it is a nice exercise and a lot more information than the Board has received in the past, which is good; but it needs to say to what extent are the departments doing this. Mr. Jenkins stated it is not exactly an exercise because every director has a performance agreement with the County Manager; one of the things the departments are measured on is if they have met the projected performance standards; the directors have to report back to him whether they have or have not; and if they have not, they have to explain why. Commissioner Carlson inquired where are the performance measures. Mr. Jenkins stated what the Board is looking for are goals. Commissioner Carlson stated it is looking what to compare with what it is seeing too, which is not included here. Mr. Jenkins noted the Board wants a standard or benchmark. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the County actually requiring the departments to perform and what level; Mr. Jenkins has set the performance measure of a particular task in an operation; and inquired what is it so the Board knows the numbers. Mr. Jenkins responded the comparison today is an annual comparison from one year to the next; what Commissioner Carlson is suggesting a goal, such as if it cost $2.00 a foot to build a sidewalk, then what is the goal, should it be $2.10 or $1.80; and Commissioner Carlson is looking for something to compare it to. He noted right now the County has an annualized comparison from one year to the next.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired would the goal be number of feet of sidewalk; with Mr. Jenkins responding number of feet and also the cost. Commissioner Pritchard stated the cost may be what it is; and the County may not be able to affect the cost. Mr. Jenkins noted Commissioner Pritchard is correct; it can be either/or; there may be some instances where the cost can be controlled and there may be other instances where the costs are fixed and the County does not have a control; but how much is done per year would be a significant measurement as well. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would not look at the cost as a goal and would look at the cost as the cost; while it be nice to have a lower cost, it may not be something one can affect; but the amount of sidewalk that is laid may, but again, that is dependent on the cost, which there is not a lot of control over as concrete prices increase. Mr. Jenkins stated if the budget stays the same and the cost goes up by 20%, there are going to be less feet of sidewalk; so it is complicated. Commissioner Carlson stated it is complicated; she is looking for various outcomes in certain areas; in some areas, outcomes are self-evident and other areas they are not; but the County cannot mix up output and outcome as they are two totally different things; and output is what one has accomplished and outcome is does one achieve same based on the output. Mr. Jenkins stated the outputs are quantitative and the outcomes are quantitative and qualitative. Commissioner Carlson stated on Page 17, General Government Long-term Debt, Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 1994 and Sales Tax Refunding and Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 2001, the County is looking at payment of that debt with court costs, including court cost facility revenue of approximately $480,000 and court revenue of approximately $370,000, both of which the County does not know if it is going to get; and inquired where is the money going to come from if the County does not get it.

Mr. Jenkins responded the County does not know what is going to be done in Article V; the best case scenario is that while the County loses this revenue, it may have some savings in other areas that will provide the money to pay the debt service on the courthouse; but until the County gets a clear delineation from the Florida Legislature as to what it is going to do to the County with Article V, staff does not know the answer and will not know until the legislative session is completed. He stated it is an issue staff will have to discuss with the Board during the development of next year’s budget, but the answers are not available at this time; and Dr. Fishkind indicated today he believes the County is going to be on the short end of the stick when it comes to Article V. Commissioner Carlson noted all indicators show that. Mr. Jenkins stated he has seen some that indicate perhaps the County may not be on the short end; the possibility will be that it will come out ahead enough in Article V that it can pay the debt service it is currently paying with traffic fee revenues. Chair Higgs stated there is an add-on court fee; Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten noted there are court fees and it is the add-on to either the traffic tickets or court fees.

Commissioner Carlson stated Page 28 is Network Communication Systems; the document does not have the attachment; and it shows $992,000, which she is sure is all the cost associated with upgrading the local area net, etc. Mr. Jenkins stated it is in the budget document; this is not the budget, but a compilation of all of the performance measurements; the information was taken from the budget book; and the attachment is included in the budget book. Commissioner Carlson stated it is a large ticket item the County needs to consider under prioritization; Page 36 is Environmental Remediation and Compliance; there are a number of inspections in Brevard County, which have increased from 575 in 2001 to 740; and inquired do they include Indian River County. Mr. Jenkins responded not this year; and the budget was prepared before the County took on the Indian River County responsibility. Commissioner Carlson inquired where did the additional 200 inspections come from if the County was not doing Indian River County’s too; and stated it seems like a large jump. Commissioner Carlson stated Page 38 deals with parks operations of the north, central, and south areas; in reviewing the average operating cost for each park sector, there is quite a differentiation between the number of acres maintained and the operating cost per acre; and inquired how does the County account for the differences in operating cost in revenues and land maintenance cost between the three areas. Mr. Jenkins responded the primary difference is that the central includes F. Burton Smith Park, which has approximately 1,000 acres that are undeveloped, so it skews the cost; he has spoken to Parks and Recreation Department; it is going to try to come up with a separation of developed sites and the cost of same versus the cost of undeveloped sites; and a good chunk of F. Burton Smith Park will never be developed as it is conservation lands.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it may be more interesting to look at cost comparison between similarly functioning as opposed to location; and it may be a more useful tool.

Commissioner Carlson stated Page 50 is Building Code Compliance; on output and outcome for 2001-2004, the output stays the same over the three-year period, but the outcome decreases dramatically in 2002-2003 and increases dramatically in 2003-2004; and inquired what accounts for such a swing. Mr. Jenkins responded he will get the information for the Board.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired on the schedule for the upcoming budget review for departments, is there going to be enough time to evaluate with some level of comprehension what the departments do, comparing it to the goals and objectives so it is part of their presentation. Mr. Jenkins responded the County will have to try one to find out and adjust the schedule; and if it takes a longer period of time, the schedule will have to be expanded.

Commissioner Carlson stated Page 82 is Law Enforcement; it is probably one of the only profiles that shows objectives that are outcome driven; information in the columns shows how some of the outcomes have been achieved; and inquired how the County can make it fit in some of the other areas that do not have such information. She noted, for example, the objective is reduce overall response time to calls for service by 5%; under performance measures, the overall response time over the trend is 19 minutes, 20 minutes, and 19 minutes; the efficiency is 5% reduction in response time; in 2002-2003 it is 7.61% and minus five percent for 2003-2004; and there is some sort of conclusion to that year’s performance, whereas the other areas do not have that. She stated the measurability is key to seeing how the County is performing.

Chair Higgs stated what she would like to see as a goal is that the Board do a better job of collectively bringing those issues it wants to see action on; it would have some collective sense of what is going on and have an agreement before it sends staff to do things; if the Board can refine what it wants to have done, it can refine what its desires are and do it collectively in meetings; and it can work more effectively and staff can be more effective and efficient. She noted the Board can also get better data from everyone; better data makes a better decision; the Board asked Dr. Fishkind questions today relating to the SEA Ordinance and his economic analysis; and it is going to be good information and data. She stated if the Board, as a collective group, does a better job of making decisions, making them clear, and moving things forward, it is going to get better information; and it will be more effective. She noted the Charter compels the Board to make decisions as a Commission and not as individuals; and it will be more productive in a timely way. Commissioner Pritchard stated he thought that was one of the things the Board had attempted to accomplish by coming forward in the report segment and seeing whether it wanted to bring it back as an agenda item; and inquired is Chair Higgs asking for something more than that. Chair Higgs stated reports to her include if someone is going to meet or Merritt Island High School won the game; and if an action is required, such as a study for Valkaria Airport, she would like to see those items on the agenda so she has a chance to think about it. Commissioner Carlson stated the Commissioners have the option to put an item on the agenda; and they can review it a week ahead of time and hopefully understand what is going on. Chair Higgs noted even as early as noon on Friday for add-ons, if the Commissioners can do that for each other, it helps them think better. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is fine with him; if an item regarding Valkaria Airport was an add-on to the agenda, the Board would table it and bring it back for additional information; when Commissioner Pritchard brought an issue up under his report, there was an assurance if it was all right to put it on the agenda; and staff had assurance to put some time into it. He noted it may have been more problematic if Commissioner Pritchard had put an item on the agenda, a bunch of people showed up for it, and then the Board said it was going to table it.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he likes the idea of bringing an item to a report to see whether the Board wants to address it; it does not tie up the community or staff; and his concern is members of the community showing up and the Board tabling the item for more information. Chair Higgs noted an item on the spur of the moment gives the Board very little time to think about it. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would not want to encourage Commissioner Pritchard to put major items on the agenda when the Board does not know the consensus and staff is not prepared to comment. Chair Higgs stated if the Board does a better job of helping each other know what is going on, what the Commissioners are interested in, what they want to do, and do that as a group, it does not send staff off doing things that may not be the collective will of the Board. Commissioner Pritchard inquired will it be beneficial to send a note out like Commissioner Scarborough does indicating he will be bringing up something under reports; with Chair Higgs responding it would be helpful. Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not want the community spinning its wheels if the Board is not going to move forward. Chair Higgs stated she does not want other people spinning their wheels doing things individually that collectively the Board does not do. Chair Higgs noted the County needs to be careful because there is not an opportunity for the public under reports to speak; the Board’s operating procedures are defined and deal with it; and the Board needs to move as a group.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Board wants to discuss goals, such as the jail; with Commissioner Pritchard responding there is a workshop scheduled for the jail. Chair Higgs stated the jail is a pressing issue that needs to be on top of the Board’s list. Commissioner Pritchard noted there are ways to address what the problem is and how the Board can alleviate it; there are some good suggestions; and he has spoken to Commander Terry Altman, who said some of the suggestions may work and some will not; and the Board definitely has to address the situation and take a very proactive move. Mr. Jenkins stated another issue he and Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten have raised by memo was the proposal to amend the fiscal policies; the cash balance each year is revenue; the reserve is an expenditure; and right now the cash balance/cash forward is at 10% as the goal and the reserve is at 5%. He noted if the County is going to sustain and not have its cash balance or reserve shrink, it needs to have both of those at 10%; it has a fiscal impact of $3 million additional dollars the County would have to come up with in next year’s budget; it may take a couple of years to get there; and it may not be able to afford to do it all in one year. He stated the Board needs to address if it is going to try to begin to protect how much money it has left over at the end of the year and how much it is going to start the year with; and it would need to increase the reserve percentage more than 5%.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not want to be in the position like last year with the County having to borrow money from itself and then paying interest on it because of the reserves and where they were; and it is something that has to be addressed and may have to be phased in.

Chair Higgs stated it may be a two-year proposal; she is not sure if the number is $3 million, $7 million, 10% or 9.2%; but the fund balance issue is a fiscal issue; the Board needs to have a plan and address it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated economies go in cycles; people talk about the current state of the federal economy; it runs in deficits, is reducing taxes, and there is a weakening dollar to sell more abroad, to stop purchasing abroad, and bring jobs home; and one takes the current thought in economics and it is basically situational management. He noted the County is not independent of the greater community, but a part of it; as things improve one has to become more fiscally conservative, and as things deteriorate one becomes more fiscally liberal; with the new construction dollars that are coming on, the County may have increasing costs; but revenue-wise, it is at stronger points. He stated as housing begins to fall off, the economy will improve; the federal government will take a move and the long-term interest rates will move; housing will then back off; and as that occurs, the County will have less new construction and less revenue, although there may be other things occurring that will continue to have an impact. He noted this is a strong good economic time for Brevard County; while the President may have one economic policy that is wise for the country and creating jobs, the County needs to go back to the reserves; and he is prepared to make a motion that staff bring back to the Board options for returning the cash balance and reserve to 10% within a two-year period.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he prefers the Board getting further into the budget process before it makes a commitment; when it adjusts the fund balance, it is taking money from some place; and he would like to know where it is taking the money from. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is trying to give staff some guidelines to put the budget together. Commissioner Pritchard stated they have the guideline, which was to return the cash balance and reserve to 10%. Commissioner Scarborough noted he is saying over a two-year period so there is some measure. Mr. Jenkins stated right now it is 5%; and staff will talk to PFM and discuss the issue with it. Chair Higgs stated PFM has a figure of approximately $7 million.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the County Manager to explore options for returning the cash balance and reserve to 10% and report to the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated maybe two years is too fast, he does not know.

Chair Higgs seconded the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Jenkins stated the County is consuming most of its local option gas tax to fund the operations of roadways and drainage maintenance; the question becomes does it want to try to free up some of the local option gas tax for construction; if it does, it will necessitate that he find the money in the General Fund; and inquired as a goal, does the Board want to try to free up some local option gas tax money that can be used for road construction.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is afraid that the local option gas tax has gone the way of some lotteries or license plate sales; and in other words, the money has been diverted into other operations. Chair Higgs noted it is being used for roads. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is being used for bikepaths and to clean ditches. Mr. Jenkins noted it is used for resurfacing roads also and is used for Road and Bridge, which does those things. Chair Higgs stated the road resurfacing is coming out of the MSBU. Mr. Jenkins stated it is for materials. Commissioner Pritchard stated people are saying the local option gas tax is supposed to be paying for their roads and it is being used for ditches and other ancillary things; it is not helping him drive his car down the road; the County needs to review what the initial direction was for local option gas tax and see where it may have moved off of the hard pan of the road into other functions that fall under roadway maintenance; and if ditches are in that category, which he assumes they are, then staff can review it and see if there are other ways to fund the other ancillary operations. Mr. Jenkins noted that is exactly what he was saying. Chair Higgs stated she does not mind looking at it; she does not see how the County is going to be able to do it, given the other demands; and if it wants to increase the reserves, it is going to be a big hit. Commissioner Pritchard noted it is a question of what are the other demands; and the other demands may not be that demanding. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is hearing a report as opposed to a directive at this moment. Commissioner Pritchard stated the County may have gotten into operations that it does not need to be in; that is where money could come from to do something else; and it is why the County is going through the department reviews.

Chair Higgs stated the reserve and jail issues are a higher priority to her than replacing the local option gas tax this year; she would love to be able to build additional capacity roadways, but when it gets down to the nitty-gritty, her priorities are the jail and the reserve; and those are the tough decisions the Board is going to have to make. Commissioner Scarborough stated he agrees with Chair Higgs; the local option gas tax issue is going to be very complex; when moving to new construction, it is project specific; and it would be moving it out of the general revenue.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board does not want to overlook the fact that because the sales tax referendum failed and the dollars the County was going to incorporate on some existing projects and new projects are not there, that it is going to run a deficit in roadways in the not too distant future; and it needs to deal with it up front. Chair Higgs noted the report can include the dollar number and where the County is with the impact fee on transportation as a percentage of what it was estimated to be. Commissioner Carlson inquired is it possible to get the fiscal health of the Road and Bridge Department based on what the County knows is existing in terms of roadway maintenance and new projects; and then providing the level of service it has been providing. She noted staff could give the Board a snapshot of what the Department looks like now and what it is going to look like next year if it does not do something with it; and it will be more proactive than just ignoring it this year.

Commissioner Pritchard stated these are things that are going to come about as the County goes through the various departments; and it may be able to identify areas within departments that it can say it does not need to do. Commissioner Carlson noted it will not happen soon enough and is going to be a process that takes time when evaluating everything; and she would like it to happen sooner than later. Chair Higgs stated having a plan for the jail is a priority; and the fiscal issues in regard to the fund balance is also a priority. Commissioner Carlson noted she agrees that the Board needs to stay focused on those two items.

Commissioner Carlson stated regarding Brevard Tomorrow broadcasting on SCGTV, Page 2 of the Policy includes Eligible Applicants. Chair Higgs stated it says, “Access to SCGTV is restricted to government entities.” Commissioner Carlson noted it says, . . . “government entities and government-sponsored events, information or instructional programs on various government agencies and government-sponsored services”; and since the County has invested taxpayer dollars on both Brevard Tomorrow and MyRegion, they should qualify.

Chair Higgs inquired does the County have a committee from SCGTV. County Manager Tom Jenkins responded yes; stated the way it is structured is each individual city that participates or the Board can sponsor programs; it has pretty much always been that way; and because the Board is a contributor to and a partner in Brevard Tomorrow, staff felt it was appropriate to use SCGTV for that. He noted the primary reason it thought it might be a good idea is to let a large number of residents know more about it; and the best way to inform them and to solicit their participation is to allow them to go on SCGTV and explain what it is and invite people to participate. Commissioner Carlson stated the Policy talks about local government entities and agencies located in Brevard County for use in connection with official government and government-sponsored activities; and State and federal government agencies for use in connection with their official non-partisan government and/or government-sponsored activities, and MyRegion would probably come under that. She noted from the perspective of MyRegion and Brevard Tomorrow, they are both non-partisan sort of things and have everything to do with government agencies and efficiencies. She inquired from a legal perspective, does the County have the latitude to make a decision based on the language of the Policy.

County Attorney Scott Knox responded the language is broad enough to accomplish both of the organizations.

Chair Higgs stated she needs to think about the issue and wants to be careful. Commissioner Carlson requested an opinion from the County Attorney based on the Board’s current Policy. Attorney Knox stated he will put his opinion in writing.

Commissioner Scarborough stated at this particular moment, somebody can go online and get information on MyRegion; he does not know beyond going online and getting the data and information there that there would be something that would be worth putting on television; there are pictures and graphs online; and having somebody on television is not going to add that much to it. He noted the County needs to challenge the community and draw them out with some more dynamic discussion; and today was great for the Board as it is seeing how Brevard Tomorrow is operating the process. Commissioner Carlson stated it is an interesting perspective of getting the information off the website versus turning on the television; the County gets a lot of viewers watching its programming; it has good programming departmentally speaking, as well as the Board and city meetings, etc.; and Brevard Tomorrow’s programming could be an educational perspective to make sure people understand the dynamic initiative and get involved with it, including providing their input. Commissioner Scarborough noted maybe in a year the County could do with MyRegion what he is suggesting it does with Brevard Tomorrow; the Board is meeting next week to decide how it is going to Phase 2; as that matures, it will be something that can go beyond; and basically all he has are pretty pictures to provide right now. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem going forward with Brevard Tomorrow; and it would be a challenge to it to find out what kind of programming it envisions it could get out there that would make a difference for the community.

Mr. Jenkins stated there are four or five task forces working in Brevard Tomorrow; and inquired what if the County televised some of those task force meetings where people would see the participants. He noted it may be more exciting than what the Board had this morning.

Chair Higgs expressed concern on how the County can determine which groups it contributes to that will be televised; and inquired is it going to televise everybody. Mr. Jenkins stated the State Attorney has had a television show on in the past about TRIAD and Children’s Advocacy Center; those are programs that the Sheriff and State Attorney are involved in; they put on information programs about them; and the Board has to decide. He noted if the Board thinks there is an activity or programming it is intimately involved in, then it is something it would consider, but if it is just any organization that wants to come in and do a show, then that is another story.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is very much in favor of bringing Brevard Tomorrow to the people; it is ready to come to the people to get their comments and understand more; but he wants Brevard Tomorrow to do some thinking on how to format the information in a dynamic way.

Commissioner Carlson stated there is a public relations firm as part of the whole process that could bring that kind of a message. Commissioner Scarborough noted he does not want a public relations firm selling as it scares him.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve allowing Brevard Tomorrow to broadcast one program on SCGTV to educate the public on its function.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if Jim Fletcher’s particular group could organize and have a re-discussion of some of the more important thoughts to be filmed and rebroadcast; and inquired could it be structured to get the community to participate. Agriculture and Extension Services Director Jim Fletcher responded affirmatively.

Commissioner Scarborough noted the land use and growth issues would be one of the more interesting items; and there could be specific invited guests who have different perspectives. Chair Higgs stated the panel is pretty diverse. Commissioner Carlson stated it would be great to have Brevard Tomorrow come back with a plan of attack.

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: THE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS MODEL

County Attorney Scott Knox stated concerning Dr. Fishkind’s report and the methodology the Board is going to use for the next rezoning applications, Mr. Scott came up with a brilliant idea; it eliminates any legal issues that might arise out of using the methodology for two applications as opposed to all the rest; and he suggested the County go back and apply that model to some existing decisions the Board has already made to see how that might have changed them, if at all.

Chair Higgs stated that sounds good and the Board likes it. Commissioners Scarborough and Pritchard stated that is fine.

The Board reached consensus that the Fishkind model be applied to existing zoning decisions and a report be provided to the Board as an agenda item, either at a zoning meeting or a regular meeting.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m.

ATTEST:
__________________________________
NANCY HIGGS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)