MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

August 17, 2006

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special/workshop session on August 17, 2006, at 1:02 p.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chair Helen Voltz, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, and Susan Carlson, and County Manager Peggy Busacca.  Absent were:  *Commissioner Jackie Colon and County Attorney Scott Knox.

 

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the County has received a letter from the State appropriating $500,000 to Emergency Management to use at the EOC; and the County must send a letter accepting the funding and advising the County will complete any use of the funds within three years. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize the Chair to sign a letter to the State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management to accept fund offering for the Emergency Operations Center in the amount of $500,000 for FY 2006-07, with the completion timeframe of three years.

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there is an identified allocation for the $500,000; with Ms. Busacca responding it is intended to be used for improvements or for purchase of a new EOC.  Ms. Busacca stated representatives of the State visited the EOC; they did not realize it was necessary to activate every time there is a launch and thought it was only used for hurricanes; and there was a feeling there was need for improvement.  Commissioner Pritchard stated when they come up with a plan to use the $500,000; he would like to see it. 

 

Emergency Management Director Robert Lay stated there is already a plan that the Board approved to replace the air conditioners and a few other things; the money has to be used to repair damage and infrastructure; and it is going to be used for that purpose.  He stated it will be used also to bring the building partially into ADA compliance; there is additional air conditioning work that needs to be done; and there is some stormwater work that needs to be done in the parking area.  He stated that consumes the $500,000 very quickly. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired about the status of bringing the EOC, Sheriff, Traffic Engineering, and the Sign Shop together in one building.  Mr. Lay responded there was an engineering study done on the building; and commented on the $10 million cost to bring the building up to standard and building a new building for less.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is not on the table anymore; with Mr. Lay responding no.  Mr. Lay advised of the requirements for spending the $500,000, length of time to tear down the building and begin rebuilding process, and $10 million cost being too much. 

 

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

 

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the second item she would like to bring up is fire assessment funding; last week the Board received a memorandum concerning the direction to staff to explore the possibility of providing assistance to low income property owners who had been affected by the funding methodology for the fire assessment; and she is bringing this up today with the hope that if they come up with a plan, they can make people aware and on August 22, 2006, the people would have their issues addressed.  She stated they are proposing to utilize money to pay the difference in the assessment where the people had been hurt for those people who qualify for some level of financial assistance; and a table has been provided as an example.  She advised if an individual would be paying $94.97 more in total assessments and ad valorem taxes, they would propose, if the property owner qualified for an exemption, the $94.97 would be forgiven. 

 

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

 

Chair Voltz inquired if that is for every year; with Commissioner Carlson responding unless they qualify for senior homestead exemption. 

 

Ms. Busacca stated that is the Board’s choice; this year they can make a loan they can use; they estimate it to be approximately $1.5 million; and next year the Board could reconsider how it wanted to pay for it.  She stated of the 90,000 households that were notified, she estimates 10,000 may meet the low income amount; if they take the amount and redistribute it among other people who may have more ability to pay, it would increase the average property owner’s assessment by approximately $10; and that is one alternative.  She stated the question is going to be what exemption would the Board like it to meet; and for those people who have a zero taxable value, this would be an increase for them of the entire assessment because they are not paying anything for fire right now in their ad valorem taxes. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired why they would be paying nothing right now; with Ms. Busacca responding because they have zero taxable value and fire is being paid out of ad valorem taxes.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is after all the homestead exemptions; with Ms. Busacca responding that is correct. 

 

Discussion ensued on exemptions and having zero taxable value. 

 

Ms. Busacca stated if the Board wants simply to address the people who have zero taxable value, the cost would be $400,000; and if the Board wants to go to taxable value of $50,000 or less, the amount would be $5.4 million.  She noted just because someone has a taxable value of $50,000 or less does not mean they are necessarily low income, and they could have owned their home for a substantial number of years; so this is an approach the Board could take to address the fact that the County would assist people who have low income; and that could be a determination by the Board as to what it wanted to use. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired where did the $1.5 million come from; with Ms. Busacca responding staff took the number of people who currently have the senior or disability exemption and multiplied that by the total amount of money staff believes they would be reimbursed; and they estimated that to be approximately $1.5 million.  She inquired if Chief Farmer has a better explanation; with Fire Rescue Chief William Farmer responding no.  Chief Farmer advised they are having to
make some assumption that if people are exempted under certain programs, they are probably people with low income issues; but he doubts that it would be a higher number than the estimate. 

 

Commissioner Carlson commented on the senior exemption and hardship.

 

Chair Voltz stated staff figured it out at $50,000; and inquired about $25,000; with Chief Farmer responding staff did not run those numbers.  Chair Voltz stated $25,000 is more likely to be the realm of those in her District in Barefoot Bay and Snug Harbor; and requested those numbers be run.  Chief Farmer advised he will try to run the numbers before the meeting is over.  Ms. Busacca advised the people who would be a part would also be in the 7,000 people included within the low-income group. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Ms. Busacca is saying that if the Board comes to some agreement as to a methodology, it will be explained to the people before the meeting on Tuesday; with Ms. Busacca responding a news release will be put together as soon as possible.  Commissioner Scarborough stated if he was sitting in the audience, his first question would be where he stands; and inquired if that is something that can be readily answered.  Chair Voltz suggested having someone in the back of the room with a computer.  Commissioner Scarborough stated that would be wonderful to have a place so that people could come in and staff could analyze where they stand.  Ms. Busacca stated Chief Farmer has already set that up.  Chief Farmer stated staff is trying to set up a system where people will be able to find out what their impact will be; and if the Board develops a methodology that says people will get humanitarian aid, staff should be able to tell them that on the spot. 

 

Ms. Busacca stated there may be a lot of people who, once they find out what this means in their proposed tax bill, will find this is not a hardship on them and will be satisfied.  Commissioner Scarborough stated some of the people who are being impacted are those least able to handle it; some of the people being impacted favorably can handle it best; and it is like stealing from the poor to give to the rich; with Chair Voltz advising that is exactly what it is.  Commissioner Scarborough stated that is what the Board needs to explain; they need to back out of the end result; and the only way to do that is to implement something else and allow people to come and discuss their individual situations.  Chief Farmer stated as long as it is tied to income, it is something they can do; and his home may have a taxable value of $50,000 because he has owned it for fifteen years but he doubts anyone would say he deserves humanitarian aid.  Ms. Busacca stated one of the reasons they had to do the revenue flip this way was because of the 10% revenue cap; next year there will be a little wiggle room, so they may be able to put more back into the ad valorem and further reduce the assessment, which would modify things.  She advised of the need to get through the first year; with Chair Voltz responding they knew it was going to be a problem the first year.  Ms. Busacca stated she does not think anyone thought it would be quite this difficult.  Chief Farmer stated there have been people yelling at staff about the change even though they saved money; people resist change; and commented on incidents involving change in New York.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated when he talked at the last meeting about making it revenue neutral, what he proposed and thought the Board agreed to was if someone paid $1,200 last year, they would pay $1,200 this year; there would be no increase; and it was not based on the
amount of money someone earned; but it was based on the value of the property and the
numbers that staff ran.  Ms. Busacca stated there is a problem with that; and perhaps staff was not clear at the last meeting.  She stated it will be a yes or no question on August 22, 2006; yes will mean funding Fire Rescue in the way that has been shown and no will mean the Board  is
not going to do that; and there is no ability to change the formula on Tuesday, so there is no way to make it value neutral for every person.  Commissioner Pritchard stated what they talked about was the formula would remain because they cannot change it, but that there would be a reimbursement mechanism built into it to provide those that were paying more some type of reimbursement to take them back to revenue neutral and tax neutral; with Ms. Busacca responding that would cost in excess of $5.4 million.  Ms. Busacca stated there is no other way to get that money; if the Board desires, it will happen, but the people who got the reduction this year will see a very large increase next year; and the Board will be going through the assessment discussion again.  Commissioner Carlson stated there is no way to do it.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the County is not only charging on ad valorem, which in this case has given a decrease to some, but the fire fee proposal is charging for docks, parking spaces, and all those things that were never charged for before; commercial properties are going from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars; and big increases and sticker shock have hit.  He stated he is getting lots of calls; he has come up with a letter he is sending to constituents to help explain what happened and what the net effect will be; and he has not had anyone call to say they appreciate what is going on.  Chair Voltz advised she did get an email from someone expressing thanks for the fire assessment.  Commissioner Pritchard commented on calls he received objecting to the concept. 

 

Discussion ensued on the fire assessment. 

 

Chief Farmer stated Commissioner Pritchard’s office asked for some clarification; staff sent a synopsis to each office; and this issue was discussed in that document.  He stated it addressed going from a valuation to a flat assessment and the impact for those who had zero taxable values.  He stated it might be something Commissioner Pritchard would want to add to his letters.  Commissioner Pritchard stated there was also confusion as to what is considered improved agricultural land; with Chief Farmer responding that has been clarified.  Chief Farmer stated they are trying to do something they have not done with any other assessment, which is to tailor it to property usages; for Solid Waste, everyone pays the assessment regardless of income level; and by trying to do something that has not been done anywhere else in the County, it is making it complicated.  He commented on making it so it makes sense to people, docks, concepts applied to the assessment, and following public policy.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the folks who are receiving the bill mind very much what they are receiving; condominium owners are getting a bill for their parking space as well as their unit; and people are getting bills for their docks.  Chief Farmer stated if someone has a dock of any kind, right now they are getting a bill; and commented on responding to fires on docks with a clubhouse and electricity and detached garages on separate parcels.  He stated if the Board wants to move away from the response process, staff is fine with that; but what they were discussing in February was paying for what was done; and if there is a realistic potential for fire, then they need to assess that potential.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired what about single-family residential; and advised he could have a house, a detached garage, a parking spot, and a dock, but pay one fee.  Chief Farmer agreed that is the case as long as it is on one parcel; and stated the data that is available to staff is from the Property Appraiser’s office.  Commissioner Pritchard
stated if he has a condominium, townhouse, or any sort of multifamily and is paying individually for the unit, the parking spot, the dock, and all the other features that are encompassed into one, that is where the fairness issue comes into play; and this is a concern that has been expressed even by those who are paying less because they know that there will be a way one
day that they will end up paying more because it will be ad valorem, which Ms. Busacca alluded to.  Ms. Busacca stated this is different from EMS where the assessment paid approximately half the cost and individuals were sent a bill; the County does not send a bill when it goes to a fire, which is the reason that people are seeing a difference between a $57 assessment and a $200 assessment.  She commented on it being the same amount of money to provide the service and discrepancy in the amounts paid by those in the incorporated and unincorporated areas; and stated on Tuesday, the Board has the right to either approve or not approve the assessment, but there is no additional time to approve any other assessment.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he understands; and commented on user fees.  He stated he objected to a lot of the service fees the County charges across the board with a variety of ways to fund departments without going to ad valorem; and inquired if Ms. Busacca said in order to make it tax neutral for those would be paying more this year, it would be approximately $5.5 million; with Ms. Busacca responding it would be in excess of that.  Ms. Busacca stated $5.4 million is an assessment of $50,000; the break-even in District 2 is approximately $100,000; and she does not assume there is a linear progression between the 50 and the 100, so it could be triple or quadruple.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if this is all based on the assumption of the 10% millage; with Chair Voltz responding the Board tentatively approved it.  Commissioner Pritchard stated it went from 6.26 mills up to 10.28 mills; and inquired if the entire budget is based on that; with Ms. Busacca responding affirmatively.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired what if it went down to where it was last year; with Ms. Busacca advising it would not change the assessment.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired what does it do on the ad valorem side; with Ms. Busacca responding it would reduce it.  Commissioner Pritchard stated that still leaves the people who do not pay anything because their property is being assessed at $25,000 or $50,000 but are being hit by $212; with Ms. Busacca responding yes, it does not change that at all.  Commissioner Pritchard stated people have told him those people should pay who have been getting a free ride; but he disagrees with that because the folks who fall into that category are having a tough time getting by.  He stated the Board had this discussion concerning the Solid Waste fund two years ago; they were only talking about $30 at the time, but it is hard to dismiss the impact that $30 or $100 has on people who do not have the wherewithal even to get take-out occasionally.  Ms. Busacca advised that is why they were trying to address this on income level and not house valuation because she does not think those are always the same.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not agree with that; everybody likes a tax they do not pay; but if they get hit with $5 or $20 or whatever, they are not happy about it and are looking for a way to get back to where they were; and the Board  needs to make it that if they paid $1,200 last year, they will pay $1,200 next year.  Ms. Busacca stated there is no way to do that because the Board cannot increase the assessment; TRIM notices have already been sent out; and the Board has already set the maximum millage.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Ms. Busacca is saying there is no way to go through to find out who is paying more and reimburse them in some fashion; with Ms. Busacca responding they can do that for 90,000 people if they put a whole new staff on.  Ms. Busacca noted most of the people will have a number different from what they have this year; with Commissioner Pritchard advising half will have a number that is less.  Ms. Busacca stated Commissioner Pritchard said if they were paying $1,200 last year, they should be paying $1,200 this year.  Commissioner Pritchard commented on the analysis, $120,000 house at neutral, and
developing a program to show difference between this year’s tax and next year’s tax and the dollar value.  He stated the Board had to do this because of litigation that it lost; it realizes it has an impact; and it should show what it is going to do to mitigate the impact.  He stated he does
not like the idea of a loan to Fire Rescue because it is something that will have to be paid back.  Ms. Busacca stated Fire Rescue does not have addition money in its budget; and Commissioner Pritchard is talking about in excess of $5.4 million.  Commissioner Pritchard stated they are already more than $3 million less than last year; with Chief Farmer advising if they applied the 2.2035 to the taxable value now, they would have generated $3.5 million more.  Commissioner Pritchard stated that is a little different than he recalls; and commented on generating revenue and costs of operations.  Chief Farmer advised if they did not do the flip, but did the 2.2035, it would have generated $3.5 million more.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the way he heard it was that the County was actually going to received less, but Chief Farmer is saying the County will be receiving less because it did not do something different; with Chief Farmer advising that is correct.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired where will the budget for Fire Rescue be compared to last year; with Chief Farmer responding it is going up 24%.  Commissioner Pritchard stated it would have gone up x percent more if they had put the other $3.4 million in; with Chief Farmer responding affirmatively.  Chief Farmer stated the revenue flip has not caused an increase to the budget; if it was kept at the MSTU for fire and at an assessment for EMS, there would still be expenditures; staff ran the numbers; and if the Board  approved the budget as is showing the bad debt and putting on the extra rescue with the IAFF, it would increase the assessment to approximately $72 and $75 on the EMS side.  He stated the increase has nothing to do with the revenue flip, but it is the price of parts and fuel, the same as people are experiencing in their personal lives. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the $4 million that the County currently does as a write-off is only going to be an issue this year, and next year it will not be.  Chief Farmer responded he does not know that; he does not think anyone fully understands how the bad debt has affected EMS statewide; and advised of Osceola County’s increase that has been continuing.  Chair Voltz stated she thought the County was accounting for it in a different method this year.  Chief Farmer stated there is not a different method of accounting; and it is just that real numbers are being applied.  Ms. Busacca stated in the past there have been real numbers negative cash balance forward to make the books balance, which kept the debt going.  Chair Voltz stated that is not going to happen; and inquired if a motion is necessary.  Ms. Busacca stated if the Board wants to have information available for people to see this approach, she would like to know that; but otherwise staff will just have the information available based on the assessment and the ad valorem.   

 

Commissioner Scarborough commented on going the full measure and people who can least afford it being impacted; and stated they need to start sending out letters that the Board hears the concerns and understands the injustice.  He requested the Board direct Ms. Busacca to put this together so the Board can advise this is not where it wants to be and it would have preferred to have everything the same with no changes, but it cannot.  He stated he thinks this is the right thing to do, or otherwise, it is going to be a lot of sad stories.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board wants to have someone at the back of the room at the meeting to let people know what their taxes are really going to be.  Chair Voltz stated she thinks they will have that. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are two issues; and he would like the Board to adopt the County Manager’s proposal and have it presented at the outset of the meeting that the Board took this action.  He stated if people could see if they could find relief even though they
are negatively impacted, the Board could help with that situation; and it is not going to make everybody happy; but at least the Board will have indicated that it thinks with its heard as well as with the finances.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt the County Manager’s proposal to provide assistance to low income property owners who would be adversely affected by the change in funding methodology for the fire assessment; direct that information to be available to homeowners at the August 22, 2006 Board meeting regarding this approach to determine if they meet the requirements.               

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is not going to support the motion because there is unfairness in the way it is being applied; he does not like the commercial application; he does not like the separate delineation for a dock or parking space; and he does not like the format and how it is set up. 

 

Chair Voltz stated that is something the Board can address for next year, and once people get their tax bills, they are going to realize.  Chief Farmer stated the Board has made it clear that it would like some adjustment to the assessment; he does not know of an assessment that was put together in eight or nine months; most take several years; and this is something that staff did in-house as a direct result of a lawsuit.  He stated he would appreciate the understanding that staff will work on that issue for the Board; the Board and Commissioner Pritchard have made their thoughts clear; but he does not see any other solution to fund Fire Rescue based on the limitations the County has been given vial the class law and the lawsuit. 

 

Chair Voltz called for a vote on the motion.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

 

 

Chief Farmer stated the program is set up for single-family only; it is not set up for multifamily or commercial; and he does not want to leave the Board with any misconceptions.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired what if it falls within the classifications of being impoverished; and stated those persons are not going to find any relief.  Chief Farmer stated he is talking about the program they are going to have the workshops on so someone can come in, give his or her tax identification number, and staff can tell them what is going to happen with their taxes; but that program is only set up for single-family.  Ms. Busacca inquired if the Board wants it to say if someone meets a certain income and owns a business; with Commissioner Carlson responding Commissioner Scarborough was just talking about multifamily.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if someone is living in a multifamily residence and comes in, is staff going to say it is not able to talk to them; with Chief Farmer responding staff will not be able to talk to them; and he doubts that staff can make a program that will address multifamily between now and Tuesday; but staff can take down the people’s tax information and get them an answer.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if single-family residences include condominiums; with Chief Farmer responding no.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board’s actions would give relief
to anyone who falls within the parameters; with Ms. Busacca advising that is the case for residential.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that is true for those living in multifamily; with Ms. Busacca responding yes.  Chief Farmer stated the humanitarian issue will be applied across the board for residential.

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated Brighthouse Network has donated $15 million, $1 million a year for 15 years to name the new University of Central Florida Stadium, Brighthouse Stadium; and inquired if there is anything the Board can do in that regard with its stadium. 

 

Discussion ensued on marketing the County’s assets. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he had a response from Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones, which said she researched the question whether the County may sell naming rights to a park in exchange for a sponsorship or contribution and found no legal prohibition.  He stated it can be done; someone may like to have a park named after him or her for x amount of money; and the money should be used specifically for the named entity.

 

 

 

Chair Voltz stated the newspaper says that FEMA still owes the County $11 million; and inquired what is the status and why is it taking so long. 

 

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated part of the issue with regard to reimbursements involves the insurant part and the reimbursable part; the $10 million does not become obligated until after they have done the work and submitted for reimbursement; so the majority of the $10 million that is left is for work that is either in the process or needs to be completed before the County can submit.  He stated they are cleaning up in terms of obligations to rebuilt or renovate the projects; and after that, they sill submit for the additional reimbursements. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there was a FEMA agent who came down to help.  Mr. Whitten stated they have gone back and forth with project managers; they have come and gone; and they worked through that process so it is not the holdup.  He advised Ms. Swanke will provide clarification. 

 

Elizabeth Swanke of the Budget Office, stated they are in the process of reimbursement; the $11 million that still has not been paid to the County is the result of projects that are not completed; and the County had difficulty getting all the construction completed; but FEMA has been very helpful.  She stated they ran into some luck with good project managers this year; and now they are going back through projects that were not awarded money to see if FEMA can give more money. 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what was the result of the revisit to Waterway Park; with Mr. Whitten responding the FEMA person offered to revise the project scope for mitigation dollars, so that is moving forward; Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar is involved somewhat in it; and the County received some funding for the original damage to that property.  Commissioner Pritchard stated it was not enough; what they are proposing is to reconstruct the boardwalk and dock and have a baffle built underneath to prevent wave action from damaging the boards; the integrity of the dock is dependent on the structural members; and having a baffle underneath would prevent the upward surge so the boards would stay in place.  Mr. Whitten stated the rewrite is in progress; and it is a somewhat different funding and application process
than normal storm damage reimbursement because that is to improve it and make it better so it does not happen again.  Commissioner Pritchard stated this is right on the S.R. 520 causeway; there has been yellow tape there for almost a year; the docks are leaning and in disrepair; and this needs to move forward because it is really an eyesore.  He stated what held it up was FEMA revisiting because if they did anything, FEMA would have a problem; and recommended motivating FEMA to cut the check so they can rebuild and reconstruct the project.    

 

Chair Voltz requested a list of the projects that are not completed yet so they know what is holding them up.  She stated the Port Authority chips in for beach restoration; advised of funding sources; and inquired where the $80,000 County contribution comes from.  County Manager Peggy Busacca stated she does not know but will ask Mr. Brown.  Chair Voltz stated with the Grant-Valkaria incorporation the County is not going to be getting as much in taxes; with Ms. Busacca responding that will be covered in the workshop.

 

 

        

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve submittal of application for HMGP grants to Department of Community Affairs, Florida Division of Emergency Management for hurricane season of 2004; and authorize the Chair to execute the grant application and County Manager or designee to execute all other forms and documents associated with the 2004 season HMGP grants under this program.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to award Proposal
#P-3-06-27 to Waste Services of Florida, Inc. for South County waste disposal services; appoint a Negotiating Committee consisting of Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn, Solid Waste Management Director Euripides Rodriguez, and Deputy County Attorney Eden Bentley; and authorize the Chair to execute the negotiated Contract.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                       for Contract.)

 

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the first proposed change is for Fire Rescue; last year during the ad valorem tax, information was provided to the Tax Collector, but there were some properties that were miscoded and not charged sufficient money; and the County has the right to collect that money up to three years later.  She stated when the Tax Collector was asked to re-send the bills when he sends other corrected bills, he chose not to do so because the lawsuit was pending, so the County is approximately $1 million short because that was not collected.  She stated the Tax Collector has offered to provide the County with $1 million to offset that due to anticipated excess he will have in FY 2006-2007.

 

Chair Voltz inquired if the Tax Collector will then send out those bills; with Ms. Busacca responding no, because it has now been found unconstitutional.  Fire Rescue Chief William Farmer stated the reason the units were not billed is because an electronic file was lost in transfer; and nobody realized that until staff started going over the numbers to check the revenue.  He noted it was both residential and commercial.  Ms. Busacca stated this will not cause any problem with funding, but she wanted the Board to know what was happening.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the excess that the Tax Collector sends to the County is collected because he charges to collect.  Ms. Busacca stated under State law, he is given a percentage.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Tax Collector does not need all that the State law allows him to collect; therefore, the County gets the excess back; and if he is applying it to the EMS shortfall, he assumes that will be coming out the excess the County would have gotten at the mid-year budget adjustment; with Ms. Busacca advising that is correct. 

 

Ms. Busacca stated if the Board chooses to go to the full 10% revenue cap, it will generate an additional $6.5 million in ad valorem revenue; and in additional staff has identified an additional $585,000 in balance forward and there is a decrease shown in Board contingency.  Budget Director Dennis Rogero advised in the tentative budget, contingency was increased from $400,000 to $750,000; but if that amount is lowered to $400,000, the Board will be able to reallocate $350,000.  Ms. Busacca stated the Board has tentatively discussed an additional $489,000 for the EDC and $428,000 for Transit to increase evening and weekend services, and  there is a loss of $350,000 due to the Grant-Valkaria incorporation. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if any of the $350,000 loss will be recovered if the County provides the service it is losing tax dollars for; with Ms. Busacca responding yes, but they have not figured out how that will work.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the loss is based on Grant-Valkaria’s ability to provide Public Safety, Engineering, Code Enforcement, and all of the other services currently provided by the County.  Mr. Rogero advised in addition it is a share of revenues the County would normally be entitled to, like the State-shared revenues.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he assumes that Grant-Valkaria will not have the ability to provide the services needed, and will be electing a council, locating a place to have an operation, and probably paying a city clerk.  Ms. Busacca stated Grant-Valkaria will have to pay an attorney; it will have to have a manager; it will need to buy a comprehensive plan because it has to have one done within a certain amount of time; and she would guess the town will be planning to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars.  Commissioner Pritchard stated out of the $350,000, the County might get it all back, so he does not want to look at it as a total loss.  Ms. Busacca advised staff has not identified that yet, so it is the fiscal impact.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired how long is the transition expected to take; with Ms. Busacca responding there will not be a body with a significant amount of authority until after the November election, and the transition will probably take at least to the end of this year.  Commissioner Colon inquired why are some things immediate and others not, and is it based on Statutes or is the County picking and choosing.  Ms. Busacca responded a road could be dedicated to the public, in which case it now belongs to Grant-Valkaria or it could have been dedicated to the County, in which case it would belong to the County, so there are some roads the County may have to continue to maintain until the Town tells the County otherwise.  She stated if the roads were dedicated to the Town, the people of the Town have paid their Road
and Bridge MSTU through December 2006, so they should continue to have that service.  Commissioner Colon noted unfortunately they also paid to support Planning and Zoning, but there is no legal authority by which the County can do Planning and Zoning for Grant-Valkaria, so what the County tried to do is give the people of Grant-Valkaria all of the services they have paid for, which they can be legally given.  Commissioner Colon inquired at what point does it become a wash, because there is no way they can run a town with $350,000.  Ms. Busacca responded it depends on the funding source; and inquired if the sales tax, Local Option Gas Tax (LOGT), and FP&L funds were going to be provided on October 1.  Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responded there are a lot of start dates for revenue collection; LOGT begins collections in August, so there will be some August receipts; and it does not affect the County because it is at its minimum contribution on a receipt level, so the cities will lose in that proposition.  He stated the half-cent and municipal revenue sharing begin in December; and there are different start dates for different categories.  He noted there is no revenue under a franchise agreement until there is such an agreement; FP&L is working on that; and the County may lose some revenue in that proposition, but Grant-Valkaria will not gain until it enters into an agreement with FP&L.  He stated Grant-Valkaria will have to establish an ordinance to levy the communications service tax, so the County may lose under that scenario, but Grant-Valkaria is not going to gain revenue until it has a body that can draft the ordinance to establish the tax.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if the County has ever been in this position before; and suggested asking other counties that have experienced something similar to the Grant-Valkaria incorporation.  She stated she is positive there is something the Board has not looked at, and it will affect the budget because the Town will come to the County to bail it out.  She stated she is concerned about the County’s budget; and inquired if there is money set aside and has staff contacted other counties that have experienced this kind of incorporation.

 

Chair Voltz inquired if Malabar was the last incorporation and when did it happen; with Ms. Busacca responding in the late 1980’s.  Ms. Busacca advised Mr. Whitten has been in contact with Broward County, which recently has been through this, and Leigh Holt has been coordinating as well with the Florida Association of Counties and the League of Cities.  She stated they have been given draft interlocal agreements and all kinds of things to help with the transition. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated former Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott used to talk about enjoying the zoning one has; and he thinks Grant-Valkaria is going to be enjoying its incorporation. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated these people have been a part of the County; they had a right to do what they did under Florida law; and the Board needs to act for the good of the order.  He stated the number is $350,000; the County has a budget of over a billion dollars; and many of the things are already a part of department methodology so they understand the needs and the problems.  . 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve supporting a smooth transition of the Grant-Valkaria incorporation and that the financial considerations become secondary to be addressed once the Town of Grant-Valkaria is established. 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated that will allow staff to understand that the County is not going to try to cut the town off at the legs if something needs to be done; Florida law created the hiatus rather than ill intent or failure on the part of anyone; and the County needs to be a good neighbor. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated there also comes responsibility when something is put on a referendum and folks are told there will not be a tax increase; she has no intention to have the rest of the County pay for anything; she is in favor of helping temporarily for the transition; but the Board needs to be careful not to cross the line where the rest of the County would be subsidizing.  She inquired at what point is it transition where the County must help and be part of it; and stated that is where her concern is. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated to clarify his motion, his intent was not that the County continue to provide all the services because it was implicit that Grant-Valkaria was going to pay its own way. 

 

Chair Voltz advised of a meeting that will be held in her office in the next week to discuss the finances with Grant-Valkaria; and she will bring back a report to the Board as to what decisions have been made. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated his motion was just showing support.

 

Commissioner Colon recommended the interim group from Grant-Valkaria have a town meeting with the constituency to explain the process and prepare for the frustration that is going to happen when it comes to Code Enforcement.  She stated the people should be told what is about to happen; the Board  is always being accused of not communicating very well; and it should be reported that they are trying to make the transition the least painful it can be, but that it is not as smooth as some folks had claimed it was going to be.  She commented on being patient, jurisdictions, and things that need to be done as soon as possible.  She stated it is important for everyone to know they are all in this together; but it is not the Board’s responsibility at this point; and encouraged the interim council to take action. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the meeting Chair Voltz referenced is with the interim council; with Chair Voltz responding she is meeting with the interim mayor.  Commissioner Carlson recommended Chair Voltz suggest the group have a transition plan to provide to the community. 

Chair Voltz stated she had a meeting with them several weeks ago; and they talked about having interlocal agreements set in place so when the council takes over, it will be able to enact those immediately.  Commissioner Carlson stated that is part of the transition plan.  Chair Voltz stated she assumes they are in the process of doing that now.  Ms. Busacca commented on the County not providing Code Enforcement services to Grant-Valkaria at this time, discussions in the Grant-Valkaria on the Code Enforcement issues, and a series of meetings.  Chair Voltz advised of the weekly meetings. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated Commissioner Scarborough’s point is that during the interim the County should do all that it can to see that there is a transition; but he agrees with Commissioner Colon that there is a point where it stops.  He stated if the County is involved in the interim during the transition, it should be paid for that interim work; and once Grant-Valkaria
gets to the point where it has an interlocal agreement or creates its own fire or police, etc., then it gets the money it is otherwise entitled to.  Ms. Busacca stated they preliminarily outlined that for them a couple of weeks ago.  Commissioner Pritchard stated Malabar was incorporated in 1985; the County is now talking about having Malabar pay for Sheriff’s protection, but the other municipalities have been paying for protection; and he does not want Grant-Valkaria to think the County is not aware. 

 

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

 

 

Ms. Busacca stated the next page is a continuation of the list and includes the discussions that the Board had previously for such things as the Historic Commission position, the FEMA position for Budget, and Lead Brevard, which bring it to a total of $5.6 million.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he met with Lynda Weatherman on several occasions; it is a substantial increase; and the Board has indicated it felt comfortable with a portion.  He stated he may be going full measure; at this point he cannot say; but at this point he does not understand enough to say he is there yet.  He commented on meeting with representatives of the EDC to talk about the dynamics of different programs; and stated he needs more time because it is a sizable amount and a very important program.  He stated the Board has the ability to appropriate or not, but it should understand what it is being appropriated for and if it is being appropriated correctly.  He commented on the program with Lee Solid and Marshall Heard, the Board’s concern about having a viable space center, and need to ask questions.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated last week he was at Kennedy Space Center; they talked about the new industrial park that will be build; there were quite a few folks from out of State who are looking toward coming and being part of the industrial park; and the EDC will play a major role in this.  He stated the industrial park will be on the south side of Nasa Causeway and west side of Courtenay Parkway where the new road goes through; Marshall Heard and Lee Solid were there as well as many people from the community; and the EDC will play an active role. 

 

Chair Voltz stated last year the Board requested Brevard Cultural Alliance (BCA) reduce the amount of paperwork for grants; yesterday she attended an Honor America meeting; Honor America put in a request; and the application this year was bigger than last year.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if they are working off the latest version; with Chair Voltz responding
affirmatively.  Commissioner Carlson stated the BCA process was streamlined tremendously; but it does not sound like it has been enough.  Chair Voltz noted the application was 94 pages for a $15,000 request; and she is wondering if BCA did what the Board asked.  Discussion ensued on the Board’s request to BCA to reduce the paperwork.

 

Chair Voltz stated she received a call asking to incorporate into this the $200,000 for TRDA.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if representatives of TRDA are present; and stated suggested to the TRDA people that it might be helpful to come before the Board at the workshop to explain the request.  Chair Voltz stated the request last year was for $200,000 for the schools to come in and not have to pay; but TRDA is asking for the same thing this year for the same amount; and she would like some information on the money it received last year versus the money being requested this year. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the Board made the commitment last year; but she does not want to give $200,000 every year, so she will not be in support even if TRDA makes a wonderful presentation and shows that it is totally different.  She stated this year the Board is trying to allocate more dollars to the EDC because of the priorities. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has not drawn any conclusion; he is excited that there will be a new presence next to the Melbourne Airport; there are opportunities; and the Board should give them full consideration.  He stated he cannot say yea or nay, but he is willing to listen to the presentations. 

 

Chair Voltz stated TRDA can come back and provide information. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the Family Court Resource Assistance Program that is managed by Joyce Grant; with Ms. Busacca responding it is part of the budget, the money is there, but the contract has not been signed. 

 

Commissioner Colon inquired about the veterans’ wall, which was supposed to be $80,000; with Ms. Busacca responding they only need $39,000.    

 

Chair Voltz stated she brought up the possibility of $10,000 a year to Honor America; the group gets $10,000 from the City of Melbourne; and it has to raise funds for everything else.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he is willing to look at it. 

 

Ms. Busacca stated the Charter limits the bondable amount from $19.1 million; there is no limit on the amount of Local Option Gas Tax that can be bonded; and to put more money into transportation, they have split the amount of money that would be available for the Board to bond in two pieces.  He stated the General Fund ad valorem could offset LOGT by $4.1 million; and on page 4, it show the amount that, if bonded, could be utilized for transportation projects only.  She stated on page 5 is an additional $3 million above that; and the Board can see what the proceeds would be, with the only caveat being that the projects would have to be split into no more than $19.1 million.  She noted this is an issue that is currently in court; the County won at the first court; but this is going to appeal, so in an abundance of caution, staff felt the Board should be aware of this.  She stated on page 6, transportation projects have been identified; it is a small list; but the first project is St. Johns Parkway, from Palm Bay city limits to Ellis Road,
and would include engineering and right-of-way.  She stated the second is studies that have already been completed and roads could be done within 18 to 24 months, including Sisson Road, from S.R. 405 to S.R. 50.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the studies have not been done on those.  Ms. Busacca stated Commissioner Scarborough is correct; for Sisson Road, the studies could be done, and would take 18 to 24 months; and for the Washingtonia Extension, they could finish preliminary engineering, if the Board desired.  She stated the first money could be $23 million in total for construction, which could be complete in three years; and those include the Grissom Parkway intersection improvements, North Banana River Drive curve realignment, and partial reconstruction of Barnes Boulevard, from Fiske to Murrell Roads.  She stated for County roads that are within municipalities, currently there is no funding source for maintenance and improvements that need to be done; staff estimates $9 million would be required to maintain those roads, which in some cases would require reconstruction and culvert
replacements.  She commented on the failure of the culvert on Stadium Parkway; and advised there are approximately $5 million in culverts that if they failed, would cause major problems in transportation. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired would culverts, weir dams, or stormwater catch basins be transportation or stormwater; with Ms. Busacca responding they are considered transportation because they involve roads, so LOGT could be utilized.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if anything is set aside for that; with Ms. Busacca responding no, and LOGT can only be used for road-associated stormwater.  Ms. Busacca stated if it not road-associated stormwater, then it could not be done with LOGT.  Commissioner Pritchard stated that is what he is looking at because the first inch of rain takes all the material on the road and washes it into the lagoon.  Ms. Busacca stated the Board could do that; and what staff was trying to do was show the variety of projects that could be used if the Board chose to go to the maximum of 10% revenue and then bond it. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the purchase of a street sweeper; and advised it will pick up the debris from the road so it does not wash into the water bodies.  Commissioner Carlson stated she does not know the cost, but it is a small piece of capital to debt out for 20 years.  Discussion ensued on use of LOGT bond proceeds to purchase the street sweeper, funding not including driver or training, preventing material from being deposited into the lagoon, ad spending a nickel to save a dollar.  Commissioner Pritchard stated if the Board can put a few more street sweepers on the road and prevent a million dollars worth of pollution repair, that is money well spent.  Ms. Busacca stated the Board could include that; and as she said earlier, these are only examples because she does not think the Board is ready to say exactly what it wants. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated resurfacing and reconstruction of County roads within municipalities is $9 million; culvert replacements are $5 million; and inquired if those are just generic terms or have they identified streets and culverts yet.  Road and Bridge Director Billy Osborne responded they have identified roads within each of the municipalities that are maintained by the County and culverts under roadways in each District that are close to failing in the near future and need to be replaced.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if this was previously discussed or is it a product that will be brought to the Board; with Mr. Osborne responding it came about because of the collapse of the culvert at Stadium Parkway last October.  Ms. Busacca noted the Board received a memorandum.  Commissioner Scarborough
stated when they bonded out the LOGT last year, they had roads within municipalities; with Ms. Busacca advising there were a few.  Commissioner Scarborough stated there were a couple in District 1; with Mr. Osborne responding Sisson Road, Barna Avenue, and U.S. 1.  Mr. Denninghoff advised those were resurfacing projects. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated they had the same within District 2 with an Agreement with Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral that they would then take over the road, and they are still working with Cocoa.  He stated Dixon Boulevard will get resurfaced; and the question was whether Cocoa would accept the road with a resurfacing versus the boulevard it wanted.  Chair Voltz stated she thought that was part of the reason it was being done; with Commissioner Pritchard responding it was, however, what some in Cocoa wanted was an $11 million boulevard, but what the County is able to afford is a $1.5 million resurfacing, realigning,
drainage and intersection improvements, lighting, crosswalks, etc.  Commissioner Pritchard stated in effect, it will be a new road; but it has become a sticky wicket with the Cocoa Commission.  He inquired when the project will start; with Mr. Osborne responding mid-September.  He stated right now work is being done on Michigan; and he does not know if Cocoa is going to accept it, but the job needs to be done regardless. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not see a line item for County roads outside of municipalities; people will assume the Board is only going to be looking at resurfacing and reconstruction within municipalities, which could cause difficulties with constituents; and suggested rewording.  Ms. Busacca advised that can be done.  

 

Commissioner Carlson stated there was discussion about asset management systems; but she does not see any on the list; and inquired does that mean it is no longer there or was it already funded.  Ms. Busacca stated it has not been funded; it is still in the budget; but she does not think it could be bonded.  Commissioner Carlson inquired why not; with Mr. Denninghoff responding there would be a problem with bonding a non-infrastructure item.  Commissioner Carlson stated it would have to be taken away from the bottom line; with Ms. Busacca responding staff will do that when it gets to other options.

 

Chair Voltz requested Mr. Burdett address the issue.  Finance Director Steve Burdett stated as far as bonding, the rule as far as the U.S. Treasury is the life of the asset has to be within 80% of the average life of the bonds; he does not know what the life of the system would be; but it is looked at in the aggregate, so the Board is going to be doing roads and buying equipment, which is all collectively looked at in addition to the systems, if the Board chooses to buy.  Ms. Busacca stated the majority of the money is the actual work to go out and determine the status of the roadway; it is an inordinate amount of staff or engineering time; and asset management is not a capital issue.  Mr. Denninghoff stated it empowers or enables staff to better maintain capital assets.  Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten inquired if the system will be built in-house; and stated it is not a piece of software that will be pulled off the shelf.  Mr. Denninghoff stated that is correct; and explained the process where by a consultant produces a database, which is integrated into an existing GIS system.  He advised there will be some software required; they already have the basic software package that helps as far as indicating the streets for asphalt management and being able to plan, schedule, and estimate costs for improvements.  Ms. Busacca stated the million dollars is to hire consultants to do the engineering; with Mr. Denninghoff responding that is correct.  Mr. Denninghoff stated staff
previously estimated a million and a half for the full version; but they think they can get a version for approximately half a million dollars; and they can be up and running with that.  He stated it will require maintenance; it will age over time and the value will go down; and it will be necessary to investigate the roads and verify the deterioration rates.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if that would all be part of a software package; with Mr. Denninghoff responding affirmatively.  Mr. Denninghoff advised it is built into the software package, but somebody will have to go out to look at the roads; and the half million would be to set it up.  Discussion ensued on the system, creating the database, and software cost.  Ms. Busacca stated it is labor intensive because it is necessary to go out and look at every road.  Commissioner Carlson stated she had a different perspective, and could have looked at it differently from the onset if she had known that. 

 

Ms. Busacca stated on page 8, the next series for the Board to consider are projects where construction can be complete within five years; and Minton Road, from U.S. 192 to Malabar would have a cost of a little over $12 million.  She stated the next series are design and right-of-way, which would take two to three years; and Babcock, Hollywood, and Ellis Road could be done for approximately $28 million.  She stated staff has identified a total of $87 million in transportation projects; and that is only a portion of the total amount that has been identified. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that is today’s dollars; with Ms. Busacca responding yes.  Commissioner Pritchard stated it says design and right-of-way at two to three years; with Ms. Busacca advising that is engineering costs.  Commissioner Pritchard stated they are seeing $87 million, but they already know it is going to be more than that; with Ms. Busacca responding it probably will, but that is the best guess.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it would be 10% or 20% more; with Mr. Denninghoff responding average inflation rates for the construction portion of a project are going up at about 8 to 9% per year, which is approximately three and a half times the CPI, so it is a very inflation sensitive area.  Ms. Busacca stated that is identified within the construction of those that are in front of the Board.  Mr. Denninghoff advised there are contingencies built into those that allow for a certain amount of inflation; that is why they update the numbers each year, and the contingency item goes right up along with it; and the problem comes in when the inflation rate goes up higher for a particular item and there is a project that is sensitive to that.  He commented on the Micco Road improvement and sidewalk project, the South Wickham Road project, and how best to handle the problems.  He noted they are not on the list; and he thinks they should be added.  Commissioner Pritchard stated design and right-of-way for Babcock Street at two to three years is $10 million; if it goes up 8%, that is another $800,000 next year; and if it is compounded with another 8%, it is up to $12 million.  He stated the Board is already under-funding what it is talking about; and what is going to happen is Ellis Road may not get done and the money for that may be reallocated toward Babcock and Hollywood.  Mr. Denninghoff stated it is important to understand for years staff was able to plan road improvements much more easily than it can now in terms of cost; and historically they have been able to make up differences with impact fee funds or through transfer of excess funding from one project to another to make things work out; but those days are gone.  He stated the Board will notice on the ones for engineering and right-of-way, it does not necessarily get all the right-of-way; the idea is to be able to identify the right-of-way that is needed to take advantage of opportunities that may arise so they will not be developed between the time a project is designed and when it is built; and it puts the project into suspended animation for a little while
until they can come up with a plan to address the construction costs.  He advised he was the architect of the list, but does not necessarily advocate each project; but the idea was to come up with a scenario where some benefits could be provided on the road quickly, and they could develop a program approach to some projects to they can identify costs better and begin to acquire right-of-way.  He stated it will get the projects out of the very early planning stage and start moving them toward construction; and the expectation would be that additional funding would be needed.  Commissioner Pritchard stated when Mr. Denninghoff says it is going to be $10 million and from Malabar to the County line for Babcock Street, it really is not going to be like because they do not know what the additional cost will be; and provided an analogy to the vehicle replacement plan and finding out a vehicle will be much more expensive to replace.  He stated the forecast needs to be more accurate; if the Board is going to talk about $87 million, it needs to account for inflation; and if it is going to be 8% per year, it should be compounded for two years or five years so the Board will have a more realistic view.  He stated he does not want
a surprise next year or the year after when they find out Babcock Street is not going to be $10 million but $12 million, the County does not have the money, and they have to figure out where to get the other $2 million; and instead of playing catch up, he would rather there was one less line item and more money thrown into the projects so people will realize that Hollywood, Babcock, and Ellis will be done. 

 

Chair Voltz stated she knows the City of Palm Bay is now collecting impact fees; and inquired if part of the fees is specifically for County roads within Palm Bay.  Mr. Denninghoff responded in the case of Palm Bay, the ordinance provides for a future County road impact fee, but that fee has not been levied and there is no description of the mechanism or process whereby the City would provide that funding to the County for use on a County roadway within the City, so it is not a reality, but does anticipate that possibility.  He stated there has not been a study done within the City to determine what the amount would be; and no ordinance to provide for those funds has been approved by the City Council.

 

Bob Wille stated transportation is at a critical time; and commented on additional revenue as a result of growth, increased tax base, homesteaded properties not seeing an increase in taxes, and surplus revenues.  He stated people expect the Board to deal with the transportation needs; this has gone on much too long; and there is an opportunity for the Board to make a start.  He stated Commissioner Pritchard is correct; $87 million will not address the overall problems; he is not present to advocate the projects or how the money is divided; but there is a great need and the Board has the opportunity with some additional revenues to bond those funds and make a start.  He stated however the Board decides to utilize the funds, he sure it will make good decisions; and encouraged the Board to get started. 

 

Jack Hisey, representing the Melbourne-Palm Bay Area Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber represents over 300 business members employing over 30,000 Brevard voters; transportation projects are historically long-term, taking approximately ten years; and the current condition of the transportation infrastructure is of great concern.  He stated of even more concern is the lack of willingness and commitment to identify and acquire the necessary funding resources to plan and construct essential road projects needed over the next ten years.  He stated they understand that the transportation issue is complex; and advised of letters sent to the Commissioners stressing the importance of the issue to the business community and
identifying a comprehensive approach to obtaining the necessary resources to fund the projects.  He stated the approach recognizes that it would require at least a combination of some, if not all, of increased impact fees that the Board recently approved, increasing priority of transportation, committing additional dollars from the General Fund, and increasing the gas and sales taxes; and they are committed to supporting a solution on the issue.  He stated the Chamber looks forward to working with the Board in any way it can to help support and development a resolution to the transportation issues. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if the Board reduces the ad valorem from 2.2 mills down to whatever it is for fire, does mean the total millage will go down by that same amount.  Ms. Busacca responded the reason it was done was because they needed to add millage into the General Fund for the EMS portion, so it is a revenue flip.  Chair Voltz inquired if they are still going to be collecting the same amount above the line, but more below the line; with Ms. Busacca responding they will be collecting just a little more of each because of the amount of increase they would normally have
as a part of additional gas and that sort of thing; but the Fire Rescue budget is approximately equal in terms of EMS and Fire.  Ms. Busacca advised they took the amount that was being generated from EMS below the line and put it into the General fund, and took the majority of the money being generated above the line and moved it down as the assessment.

 

Commissioner Colon stated Parks and Recreation staff came to each of the Commissioners to move the allocated dollars around concerning how they wanted the projects; each Commissioner did his or her best to allocate those dollars; and she does not where there was a lack of communication.  She stated she was focusing on district 5; she did not realize that a million dollars of the senior citizen center were allocated in District 4; and the Board needs to discuss that because she totally does not support that.  She stated the seniors had over a million dollars that was allocated; they worked hard in Districts 3 and 5 to make sure those dollars were there; and it was probably discussed but she does not know how it went over her head to be able to utilize the million dollars for Wickham Park.  She stated they almost had to beg to bring the center to District 4; it would have stayed in District 3 or District 5; and since they are discussing the budget, they need to make sure because that is not something she would support.  She stated it surprised her; she did not follow it closely because she was under the impression the million dollars was not to be touched; and now it seems like it was touched to finish Wickham Park just because it is sitting there.       

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she can clarify; looking at the budgets and where all the red and black numbers were, Viera Regional Park had a debt of $5.6 million that had to be taken from somewhere; so those dollars went to Viera Regional, not Wickham Park.  She stated the million came out of Wickham Park’s budget and was put into Viera Regional; it will be there at some point in the future when they are ready to use it; and they had to finish because they had required costs to pay based on overruns and things like that at Viera Regional.  She stated a big hunk of money came from every one of the little parks in her District to finish Viera Regional; but those dollars will be put back into those projects when the time comes.  She stated someone from Parks and Recreation needs to come to talk to the Board more specifically about how all that movement occurred; she had to agree where they took money from; but those does not mean those projects will not get done in the future.

Commissioner Colon stated if it was not for the fact that the senior center went to Wickham Park in District 4, it would have stayed within the radar of Districts 3 and 5 because they have been working closely with the seniors for years; the second it left their radar, it ended up going to District 4; and over a million dollars is no longer there.  She stated if they were ready to build the center right now, the money is allocated for a different project. 

 

Chair Voltz stated that is the key, they are not ready to build; with Commissioner Carlson agreeing. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated those dollars should not have been moved around the way they were; that decision should not have been made by the District; and the decision to move the dollars should have been made by the entire Board.  Interim Parks and Recreation Director Don Lusk stated he and Commissioner Colon were having a quick discussion in his office, and it is hard for him to have instant recall on what happened; but as soon as she left his office, he remembered what occurred; and he told her inaccurately.  Mr. Lusk stated the seniors know
what is going on.  Commissioner Colon stated it came about because of a meeting that is scheduled for tonight; they are going to have to tell everybody where the dollars went; and they are trying to figure out if they are going to be accurate or not.  Mr. Lusk stated it has been a difficult process trying to find a balance between five Commissioners who are all running out of money, in order to figure out which projects go first, second, third, and fourth; if he goes to five different offices, he gets five different answers; and coming up with what is best for the public while listening to what the Commissioners think is best is probably the most difficult thing he has done in 26 years.  He stated he does not know how to make everybody happy because there is no money; and he has told that to all the Commissioners.  He stated they are working toward solutions; he should have gone back to every office after he put the charts together to show them how it looks, especially in South Brevard, because they are all interrelated; and it is one pot of money.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated they need to distinguish between he and Commissioner Pritchard; he has been blessed because he has projects, money is going to come in, and it is going to work out; but in the south there is a time issue and there are three Commissioners involved.  He stated it is their joint obligation to work through projects; they need to work it out together and make sure it works; and he is not taking sides, but it just trying to think of solutions. 

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if they are still ready to continue the meeting tonight.  Mr. Lusk responded they need to make sure that the Commissioners fully understand what happened and make sure they still agree with what was approved by the Board on the 11^th because he did not go back to each Commissioner to make sure they knew what happened.  He stated that is important so Commissioners are not mad at each other later for what has been done; one of the assumptions they used is they came to the Commissioners with what they thought should happen, which is that engineering should go on for every project that is ongoing so they did not waste time; and the second thing they decided was if project x was still in engineering but there were dollars available, those dollars should be moved to something that is under construction.  He stated in some cases that is not necessarily best for the community; in the case of the senior center, it moved from District to District; and there is probably no harm in moving money from the senior center to another project at this time because they are not going to turn earth at the
senior center for another nine months or so.  He stated if they do not find a way to get this solved, that is not the only project that is going to be hanging out there in terms of not being funded; and apologized to Commissioner Colon for not making it clear. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated tonight there is going to be a meeting with the constituents from District 5; they are going to ask where the dollars are; and it is difficult to show them that it is not just one park, but the entire County that is not getting projects done.  She stated they are going to say the dollars were identified for the senior center; that money is only going to be back if the bonds are approved; but right now they have run out of money. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated what was recommended was what staff suggested; and she went along with that only because she knew there was an obligation to pay for Viera Regional.  Commissioner Colon inquired what about Palm Bay Regional or Rodes Regional; with Commissioner Carlson responding her understand was they already spent the money and were obligated to pay.  Commissioner Carlson stated the real dollars in various pots had to go to Viera Regional, so other projects, such as Wickham Park, the Zoo Trail, or any of the District 4
projects, will not get funded unless they get the $19 million; but the point is they went over budget, there were obligated dollars, and Viera Regional got done.  Commissioner Carlson noted this was long before the senior center came on the radar for Wickham Park. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated District 4 did not have the million dollars; that is where she is confused; and if it was not for the fact that they lobbied to have the senior center at Wickham Park, that would not have been in the District 4 radar.  She stated the million dollars belongs to the ones who worked hard to get it allocated; it should have been split between Districts 3 and 5; but what happened was the million dollars went to District 4 to finish the Viera Regional project; and inquired how is that fair.  She stated she is a team player; but inquired how she should explain to the constituency in District 5 that more than a million dollars left and went to another district.  She stated she knows the funds are all in a big pot; but the people who are building the stables at Wickham Park know the dollars are allocated; and inquired what would happen if she took $800,000 from the stables and gave it to Rodes Park, and how would that be any different.  She stated this is not the way it should be done, unless the rest of the Board thinks there was nothing wrong with it; when the Board discussed it, it made sure that each Commissioner had allocated the dollars as best they could; and she was not paying attention to District 4 because Commissioner Carlson could allocate the dollars as she saw fit.  She stated the million dollars was not from Wickham Park; it just came into the picture three months ago; and commented on moving the senior center to Wickham Park.  She stated she does not want to be territorial, but the dollars were supposed to have stayed in the area that had worked so hard for them; she and Chair Voltz had needs in their Districts; and the Board will discuss it on Tuesday.  She stated she does not think they are ready to have a meeting tonight; it is a shame to cancel it at the last minute because the people are going to want to know how the funds left in that way; and inquired how can she tell them the Board is trying to act as a team. 

 

Commissioner Carlson suggested leaving it to staff to continue the meeting conversation; and stated otherwise there will be a lot of folks at next Tuesday’s meeting.  She stated Commissioner Colon can choose to explain what happened and get staff’s assistance in that explanation to make it look like it will hopefully succeed and be in a positive mode, or they can all come to the meeting on Tuesday and the Board  can discuss it then. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the people in South Brevard have been desperate for a boat ramp, but the money for the ramp went to South Beach Community Park because it is going to be a year before they get permits for the ramp and the park needed to be completed because there were contracts; and while she is not happy about it, they had to do it.  She inquired what would happen if they did not complete their projects and contracts; with Deputy County Attorney Shannon Wilson responding the County would be sued, and it would end up dealing with delay damages, and potentially loss of profit.  Commissioner Colon stated every District has that problem. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated that is the position they are in with the equestrian items; those things had to be ironed out; and she agrees that if Commissioners Voltz and Colon were working with the seniors, they should have looked hard at the things the Board passed on the 11^th.  She stated staff probably need to provide a better explanation of what happened. 

 

Chair Voltz stated she understood what was happening; everyone had all the information for all the Districts; and it was not a surprise, but just something that had to happen, whether the Board  liked it or not. 

 

Mr. Lusk stated this conversation is his nightmare; this is not what staff wanted to happen; and apologized for staff’s contribution to the problem and lack of explanation to Commissioner Colon.  He stated what is being brought to the Board at this time is what has been happening behind the scenes; that is how it was chosen to be managed; and now they are at the end of the rope; and it is no longer a staff decision because there is no more money to juggle around.  He stated the original Agenda Report lists the principles or assumptions at the beginning that are important; one is that engineering should go on so when they get the bonds or win the court case, they will not lose any time because the engineering will be done; but for anything that is not close to being to the end of construction, they wanted to move money around; and any place they have done that with the permission of the Commissioner, that means the project might be short if the County loses in the end.  He stated he may not have made that clear enough; and the only thing planned for Tuesday is for the County Attorney to come back with language about the referendum, if the Board does it. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated they owe the City of Melbourne a community center; that is one of the reasons there is a community center in the park; and they are adding the senior center.  She stated she tried to accommodate both in the early discussions with the idea of bringing it into Wickham Park to do it in a cost effective basis; but the bottom line is a million dollars is not going to build a senior center or even a quarter of the center, so if the Board cannot get the $19 million, it is not going to have any community center in the park.  She stated the only reason they are doing the equestrian stuff first is because they are so far down the road with it and there is a lawsuit, so there are extra issues to be sorted out.  She stated if Commissioner Colon is going to talk to the seniors tonight, she needs to be sure they understand that it will take
$4 million to $7 million to build a center, and the County does not have that.  She stated it was not in the budget to begin with; and the original amount was approximately $400,000 for a refurbishment. 

 

Commissioner Colon requested the other Commissioners put themselves in her shoes; stated she never had this happen to her in the six years she has been on the Board; and if the rest of
the Commissioners are comfortable with this, they should be ashamed because she could use the million dollars in Palm Bay Regional Park to finish her community center.  She stated the dollars were supposed to stay within the District that they came from; she would never have thought they were going to use those dollars; she had to beg for the senior center to have a place; and then the million dollars was taken from her, which is completely wrong and not fair.  She stated Viera Regional Park is no more a priority than the District 5 parks; she is $10 million in the hole in her District; she could have used the funds for Rodes Park, Palm Bay Regional Park, or for Indian Harbour Beach; but those funds left her District.  She inquired how did that happen; and stated obviously nobody has a problem with it. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board should reconsider; he was relying no a consensus; and it is not his desire to rubber stamp anything, but to listen to people’s concerns.  He stated if Commissioner Colon wants to move for reconsideration, it can be put on the agenda for discussion.  Commissioner Colon stated she is totally disappointed. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve adding the South Area Interim Parks Referendum Project Plan for Districts 3, 4, and 5 and funding allocations for period of time while the Board is waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on the additional bonds approved by the Board in January 2006 to the August 22, 2006 Board meeting for reconsideration. 

 

 

Chair Voltz stated the unfortunate thing is the pot of money was for all three Districts; and inquired if it was strictly on individual parks.  Commissioner Colon stated the Board would have had that discussion.  Commissioner Carlson stated it was just one of many projects on the list for the South Area Referendum; and if someone wants to talk about Districts, they can, but they were all on the list and all the Commissioners have ownership because they all have needs for seniors.  She stated when the City of Melbourne came out and supported the referendum, it said it needed a community center; and the City sent a letter saying it did not want the senior center in Wickham Park because it does not serve the need in the south area.  She commented on considering the City’s request, finding property for the senior center, and lack of money to purchase property; and stated she is comfortable with the way it is.  She stated she is trying to be optimistic that the Board is going to get the money to complete some of the projects.  Chair Voltz stated she would like information from Mr. Lusk on Tuesday concerning how much the project for the community center is in the hold, how much is needed to complete it, and when it would be ready to complete versus when they could potentially get the money.  She stated it is going to be ready in two months, but they may not get the money for ten months, then there may be something the Board needs to look at; but it may not be ready for a year, and they may get the money in nine months to complete it.  Commissioner Carlson suggested staff provide a report that outlines all the costs.  

 

Commissioner Colon requested the Commissioners not insult her intelligence; with Chair Voltz responding they are not doing that.  Commissioner Colon stated this is a done deal; she sees where it is going; and they should not waste each other’s time.  She stated everybody seems perfectly happy; and inquired what do they want to reconsider, and are they going to explain that the senior center is not going to be ready.  She noted all of the parks are not going to be ready.  Commissioner Carlson stated everyone agrees on that.  Commissioner Colon stated had she known, she would not have asked her seniors to bring the center to Wickham Park; and
it would have stayed at Rodes Park where it could be on the south end, near U.S. 192.  Commissioner Carlson stated she would be happy to give it back if Commissioner Colon wants; with Commissioner Colon responding if they give her the million dollars, she will be happy to take it back.  Commissioner Carlson stated the Board would have to reconsider because the idea was that part of the $5.6 million would pay for Viera Regional, and they would have to find it some place else.

 

Mr. Lusk stated if they had done this differently, explained the whole thing to every Commissioner, and identified that they were not holding the money for that project, it may or may not have made a difference with the problem.  He stated they could have laid out a different scenario; but the Commissioners would have been able to make that choice.  He stated he is willing to bring it back on Tuesday; he will have to talk to the Commissioners very quickly about what they might want to change; and if it had been done differently, they would not be in this spot.   

 

Chair Voltz stated it was based on where it was in the process of being completed and whether or not the County was going to be sued; and unfortunately, they had to take that into consideration. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated at the meeting it was brought out that Commissioner Scarborough has his park issue, he has his park issue, and the south end has its park issues; and Commissioner Scarborough has his plan.  He stated he developed a plan with staff and others to take all of the District 2 referendum park projects and divide them into the two areas, Mitchell Ellington Park and all others; they would complete all others and divide Mitchell Ellington Park into two phases; and they would be able to do Phase 1, but Phase 2 would require additional funding, bonding, and otherwise.  He stated the south end was also presented; he does not recall any disagreement or real discussion; and he just recalls this is what was considered to be implemented and the Board passed on the plans.  He stated if there is a problem with that part of the plan, he agrees with Commissioner Scarborough that it should be reconsidered; and the only way to evaluate what may or may not have happened is to support a motion to reconsider. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated it is up to the Board; she does not have any problem; staff tried diligently to look at five Commissioners and all the projects to try and distribute the needs as they were indicated by the Commissioners; and based on what was already conditionally set out, there were obligations and things that were farther along than anything else.  Chair Voltz stated that was prioritized.  Commissioner Carlson stated she thinks they did a good job trying to do that; but the Board can open it up again, get a lot of people at the meeting on Tuesday, listen to everybody, and hopefully make a more educated guess on what to do; but she is not sure how much it is going to accomplish.    

 

Chairperson Voltz called for a vote on the motion.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.    

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was a favorable editorial in the newspaper about Chair Voltz’s suggestion; the money is there; but the problem is that the money is there in the future.  He stated the issue becomes whether the future money can be brought into the current to
complete the project at today’s prices; everybody understands that costs are going up; and commented on Mr. Denninghoff’s report on project prices going up.  He stated the cash flow will come in; the problem is it is future dollars that have not been bonded; and where his area is different is that his projects are in a slower methodology so he cannot build them now.  He stated without bonding the funds, he can do the projects because by the time he is ready to do them, the cash flow will be there; but other areas have projects that need to be done today.  He stated they are not asking the folks for any more money; all they want to do is complete projects at today’s prices; and the newspaper says that is wisdom at its highest.  He stated they will get the parks so the people can enjoy them; and commented on voting for a non-tax event, getting parks sooner, negative comments, escalation in costs, and bonding process simultaneous with the referendum passing.  He stated there is nothing to stop the Board from getting that process started; and if the referendum does not pass, he will not understand why.

 

Chair Voltz stated that is an excellent idea; the Board will wait for Mr. Knox to bring it back on Tuesday to find out exactly what the referendum language will be to explain that there will be no
increase in taxes.  Commissioner Scarborough reiterated they will do the parks at today’s prices rather than the higher prices. 

 

Ms. Busacca advised the next projects identified are a list of facilities projects including everything from a building for the Public Defender and State Attorney to building renovations from one end of the County to the other; and a total of $52 million worth of facilities needs have been identified.  She stated staff identified mosquito impoundments that could be utilized; it is possible the Board would not have to purchase this property as there are other options such as mitigation banks that could be set up; and the issue was included because the Board previously discussed, but there may be better options than spending the County’s money on that.  She stated the 800 MHz system is a $15 million project; and finally there are other options.  She stated the Board may choose instead of bonding all the money to take, for instance, $42.5 million for commercial paper for six years for the Mid Reach project; the Board  would reduce the bond proceeds with the understanding that six years from now after the commercial paper has been paid off, those would be available to bond again; and so there could be bond proceeds coming forward from that.    

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the Mid Reach project.  Ms. Busacca advised there is one other option the Board may choose, and that is to take some money, not bond it all, and use it for current projects that are not bondable, such as the infrastructure management system.  Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown advised on July 25, the Board directed staff to pursue the Mid Reach restoration project; option 2 was the full renourishment of 1.1 miles of beach and the remainder as intensified truck haul, all of which would be dredge material; staff is continue to pursue permits with the Corps of Engineers and the State; and the amount shown is what is proposed as the local cost share portion of the total project.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much of this might be destroyed with storm surges or end up at Sebastian Inlet; with Mr. Brown responding that is a wide open question, and is dependent on the nature of storms.  Mr. Brown advised nor’easters can create gradual but persistent erosion; a hurricane can take a large potion of it away; but in that case FEMA would likely compensate for the reconstruction.  He stated the County fared very well as far as the full renourishment projects on the South Reach and North Reach, so there is a low loss rate; but it is a moving dynamic.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he has a problem bonding something that
may wash away with the tide.  Mr. Brown stated that is why this is a six-year commercial paper; technically it cannot be bonded; and six years is about as far as one can say the project is going to last, barring any unforeseen catastrophic disaster.  He stated it is a short-term project; the $2.5 million per year for six years would be used to buy down the commercial paper for the life of the project; and then that $2.5 million allocation could be reused for construction projects or whatever.  Commissioner Pritchard stated it may not be a bond, but it is still borrowing; they are borrowing $13.2 million but paying back $15 million; and inquired if they are committed to $2.5 million a year to pay for this; with Mr. Brown responding yes, for six years.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the concern is having it wash away with the tide; and inquired if Mr. Brown is saying he is somewhat assured, based on previous experience, that this is a good investment.  Mr. Brown advised he did not say that; the challenge with any kind of beach project is that it is a not a cheap proposition; they try to find the most economically viable, ecologically sustainable solution; but the terms “cheap” and “beach management” do not coexist.  He stated the reality the Board is stuck with is the tough decision of how to manage the beaches; there is a 7.6-mile segment of the Mid Reach that has not enjoyed the full renourishment  that the north and south
beaches have, primarily due to environmental concerns; in 1996 they were pulled out and they have put Band-aids on them at least twice; and those measures have worked to protect a great deal of infrastructure during the storms.  Mr. Brown stated this is more than a Band-aid and will last longer than a berm fill or a dune project; it is bigger than that; but it is not known how it will work.  He stated if they build a road, they know it will be there for an extended period of time; however, Mother Nature does not play that way, so there is a bit of risk; and that is why they are proposing a six-year commercial paper short-term because it is not realistic to bond a project that is going to be so dynamic.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if included in the project would be the potential protection of S.R. A1A so it would not be eroded away; with Mr. Brown responding yes.  Commissioner Pritchard stated this is more than just putting sand on the beach as it is protecting resources such as S.R. A1A.  Mr. Brown stated what they are hoping to do is have a parallel process going on with the Corps of Engineers called the General Evaluation Report; the Corps is still standing on construction beginning in 2009; and they are hoping the project will get them to a point that a larger federally funded or federal cost share project would step in to fill the gap essentially.  Mr. Brown advised the $80,000 that was addressed in the paper is TDC money that the Board, the TDC, and the Beach Committee approved almost three years ago; and it is already allocated and ready to roll.  Chair Voltz stated that is not the Board; with Mr. Brown responding no. 

 

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated Robin Sobrino is present if the Board wishes to discuss the GIS Analyst for Planning and Zoning. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the cost; with Commissioner Pritchard responding $63,295.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can consider that as part of the list; with Ms. Busacca responding it will be put on the  list. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the funded vacant positions are now allocated in some fashion; and inquired if they are filled; with Ms. Busacca responding, by definition, if they are vacant, they are not filled.  Commissioner Pritchard stated they got into the definition of allocated versus filled, vacant, funded, or whatever.  Ms. Busacca stated those vacant positions have not been included within cash forward so that makes them a part of the budget the Board is seeing.  Chair Voltz stated the Board can decide on all those things.  Commissioner Pritchard stated his point is the $63,295 can come from that pot; with Budget Director Dennis Roger responding that position is included in the tentative budget.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired did the funding come from new sources or from the funded vacant positions that have been allocated; with Mr. Rogero responding it comes from the General Fund.  Commissioner Pritchard advised that includes the funded vacant positions that have been allocated; with Mr. Rogero responding that is correct.  Commissioner Pritchard stated it is not new money; with Mr. Rogero responding it is included in the General Fund with all of the balances forward.  Commissioner Pritchard stated they are talking new money; he has funded vacant positions that have been allocated but not filled; and the $63,295 should come from that because he would rather see $63,295 put into resurfacing a half-mile of road.  He stated he has not gotten an answer; with Commissioner

Carlson advising staff gave the answer.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the answer was General Fund; but what he wants is to have it specifically come from an amount of money that is currently listed as funded vacant positions that have been allocated.  Chair Voltz stated that money was carried forward, so Commissioner Pritchard can assume it was taken out of that money.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired can he assume that; with Ms. Busacca responding it is a big pot, and Commissioner Pritchard can assume that.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired which position has been eliminated and transferred over to fund this one; with Mr. Rogero responding he will have to research that.  Commissioner Pritchard requested Mr. Rogero provide that information at next Tuesday’s meeting. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated that brings the Board to the $100 million it is trying to bond.  Ms. Busacca stated more has been identified than the County’s capacity, so the Board will have to pick and choose.  Commissioner Colon inquired about the full capacity; and stated she recalls the maximum was approximately $100 million.  Ms. Busacca advised it is $106 million for 30 years and at 20 years, it would be $87 million.  Commissioner Colon inquired even with the $100 million, what will still be unfunded or will they be able to cover everything.  Ms. Busacca responded it will not fund all of the transportation or facilities projects.  Chair Voltz advised the Board will have to pick and choose.  Ms. Busacca stated they have identified over $130 million, not including the $15 million for the 800 MHz system; and whatever the Board wants to do with the Mid Reach will reduce the amount available to bond.  Commissioner Colon stated she kept saying they had to put their votes where their mouths were; the Mid Reach is extremely important to her; they need sand in Satellite Beach and Indian Harbour Beach; and all this mess was over the worm rock.  She stated the reason she gave that conservative cushion was to make sure the sand would be there for the Mid Reach; and she wants to be perfectly clear that is important and needs to be a part of it.  Chair Voltz stated that is not something she would like to take out of the budget.  Commissioner Colon inquired once it is all said and done, how much will be allocated to roads.  Ms. Busacca stated it would be helpful to have Board direction on the Mid Reach because once they have the Mid Reach, they will know how much is left; the Mid Reach is a significant chunk of the $6.2 million; and if the Board wants to go with the Mid Reach, it will allow in six years for them to use it to bond for whatever number of years the
Board wants.  Commissioner Colon stated she does not want any guessing; she will not be supporting the 10% if the Mid Reach dollars are not there; they will not get her vote if the money is not there; and she had to learn how everybody works these things.  She stated it is extremely important so there can be a balance; they have to stretch the dollars as much as they can; but she does not know if that is how the rest of the Board feels.  She stated she does not want to send staff on a wild goose chase if that is not the support from the majority of the Board, so she would like to know if the Board thinks it is feasible to go after those dollars as she does not want any surprises.  Ms. Busacca stated even with that allocation to the Mid Reach, if the Board were to bond for 20 years, it would have over $50 million for transportation and if it bonded for 30 years, it would have over $61 million for transportation; and without the Mid Reach, transportation would stay the same but what would change is the amount that could be used for facilities and other projects like the 800 MHz system.  Commissioner Colon stated they would get $1 million for roads; the Board is in a unique position to get that done; and it is desperately needed in the community. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she supports the Mid Reach dollars in the budget; but she would like to go back to discussion of the GIS person for Planning and Zoning.  She stated at the
Zoning meeting it was evident that staff did not realize that money was in the budget; with Ms. Busacca advising neither did she, but it is there.  Commissioner Carlson noted there are no new dollars required.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the comments he gets most frequently is that they need more roads; he asks what road people are having a problem with; and if they say they are having a problem with A1A, he asks if building a new road in Viera would eliminate the problem.  He stated the question is where to build a new road that is going to alleviate the problems; but there is no answer.  He stated they need to look at what they can do within the infrastructure to make the drive a little more pleasant; they do not have a plan; and commented on various roads in Merritt Island.  He stated U.S. 1 will be widened, which will help; but for the most part, the north/south corridors are a tremendous problem.  He commented on enhancements to Wickham Road, making drives more enjoyable, landscaping, traffic calmers, and intersection improvements; and advised the issue is not lack of roads, but improving the roads the County has.  Commissioner Carlson stated they need to introduce more transit.  Commissioner Pritchard stated more transit is good; it is a six-hour ordeal to get from Trinity Towers to the Government Center; and that is not good.  Commissioner Carlson stated more buses are needed; with Commissioner Pritchard agreeing.  Commissioner Pritchard commented on people’s unwillingness to give up their cars for mass transit; and stated the only time people tend to take mass transit is when they cannot find parking.  He stated his point is the Board keeps talking about more roads, but that is not the issue; the issue is what is the Board going to do with what it has to make them better; and the Board needs to start looking at its transportation design and what it is going to do in-house to see that it can be made better.        

 

Chair Voltz stated there was a conversation regarding not bonding but doing a line of credit because it takes so long to build a road; and therefore, if the County bonds, it will be paying back, but has not even done the roads for a couple of years yet.  Finance Director Steve Burdett stated it would involve scheduling the different projects; some may involve acquisitions of right-of-way; as Ms. Busacca inferred that is really more cash sensitive and the funds are needed right away; but if the County is going to be doing a road that is not going to get started for three
years, it could structure the financing to where it would pull the money down at that point.  He stated there are ways of doing it; but as Commissioner Pritchard has discussed, it is necessary to plan what roads and improvements will be done and the scheduling so they can structure the financing.  Chair Voltz stated that is the best way to go; that is going to save taxpayers more than if the Board bonds out $30 million and pays back $50 million; and inquired if there is some way to do that.  Ms. Busacca responded that is what staff had intended; but they did not want to do that until they knew that the money was going to be available. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the interest rate on a line of credit as opposed to a bond; with Ms. Busacca responding they would need to go to the bond counsel and bond financial advisor for help with structuring something based on when the projects would be started.  Mr. Burdett stated that is pretty much true; if the County wanted to do a $60 million transportation project, it could authorize issuing bonds of that amount, and at the time the money was needed, it would actually go out and issue it.  He stated they do not have to issue $60 million today; they could do it in three-year increments; it just depends on what the Board’s action is; and as Ms. Busacca inferred, the Board needs to commit those funds.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if they commit to $60 million and do it in three-year increments, would the
interest rate for the second $20 million and the third $20 million be the same as the first $20 million; with Commissioner Carlson responding not necessarily.  Mr. Burdett advised it depends on what happens to the market, and market rates go up and down.  Commissioner Pritchard stated it is not like it is a fixed bondable amount at $60 million; it is just an assumption of how they are going to use the money; and at some time he would like to see an analysis of what a bond would run compared to a line of credit for a certain amount like $10 million.  Mr. Burdett stated the Board does not want to use a line of credit unless it feels it is going to be a short project; if it is a project like a road that the Board knows it wants to do, but is not sure how quickly the money is going to be spent, it can use a line of credit; but when the time comes that they are doing construction and need the money, they will bond it out; and it is just part of planning the financing.  Commissioner Pritchard commented on the bonding level; with Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responding the debt figure as a percentage of taxable value is less than 1%. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated today has been a difficult day; the City of Palm Bay has sued the County; and the County is in the mess that it is assessing its constituents because Palm Bay is suing and so forth.  She commented on Mr. Burdett’s boss suing the Board, not being able to finish projects, and the residents getting the short end of the stick.  She stated they are discussing bonds right now; they are trying to figure out if they are able to use the dollars from the General Fund and bond them or whether that is something the Board will be sued for; and inquired if there has been that discussion.  She inquired is that something the Board can look at; stated the Board can do whatever it feels it is able to do, and inquired if there is anything the Clerk of Courts thinks the Board should be doing but is not doing.  She inquired how the board is supposed to come up with $27 million to finish the projects; and advised the Board was trying to figure out the best way of doing it.  Mr. Burdett responded Mr. Ellis stated the Board could go out and issue $19.1 million for projects; that bond would need to be paid from the sales tax; he has a problem paying for it from the voted millage; and it would probably be wise to do it that way until the litigation is resolved.  Chair Voltz stated the millage was voted to pay for the projects; with Mr. Burdett advising he is not arguing with Chair Voltz.  Commissioner Colon inquired if the judge says no, the Board cannot use the excess for the bonds, what does the
Clerk of Courts think the Board should be doing to finish the projects.  Mr. Burdett responded what he heard is the Board should go to the voters again; and if the voters approve, the Clerk would be content.  Commissioner Colon stated the Board is confused; and inquired how the Board expects the public to understand what is going on.  She stated when the public sees a referendum, the first thing they think is where the Board thinks it can get those dollars.  Mr. Burdett stated this is something he should discuss with Ms. Busacca; and he would prefer not to put himself in a predicament with Mr. Ellis.  Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Burdett has given the Board awesome feedback; but she wants to have this honest discussion.  She stated the projects are right now; the funding ends at the end of this year; and no other project could proceed because of the litigation the County is under right now, so she is trying to figure out how to pay for the projects.  She stated the Board decided it would be comfortable using dollars from the General Fund; and requested Mr. Burdett provide some options to fix the problem.  She stated the Board did not create this problem; everyone needs to put their heads together instead of doing what is going on now, which is ugly in regards to lawsuits; the taxpayers end up losing; and if Mr. Burdett feels that is something he cannot discuss now, she would still like him to advise of options the Board has not looked at.  She stated maybe other folks could help the Board out; she does not claim to have all the answers; this is a difficult subject with all the park
projects coming to a halt; and it is a easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but this is a difficult issue.  Commissioner Colon stated if anyone wants to bring forward options, the Board would be willing to look at them; it is not a decision that is going to be popular or one the Board wants to make; but it is the right thing to do.  Mr. Burdett advised he is available. 

 

 

The meeting recessed at 3:50 p.m. and reconvened at 4:05 p.m.

 

 

*County Manager Peggy Busacca and Deputy County Attorney Shannon Wilson’s absence and Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn and Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore’s presence were noted at this time. 

 

 

 

Solid Waste Management Director Euripides Rodriguez stated he is present to talk about the Sarno Road Landfill, and its capacity or lack of capacity in the south area; and later he will provide an update on the negotiations for renewal of the contract with Waste Management.  He stated staff hopes to get some direction as far as what to do with Class 3 disposal in the south area, additional direction regarding the negotiation with Waste Management in terms of collection, and any other directions the Board may wish to give.  He stated the Sarno Road Landfill handles Class 3 materials, which includes construction and demolition material, furniture, and basically non-rotting materials.  He stated they take in tires at that landfill, and sell them or ship to another location; and they take care of mulch, metals, and white goods at that facility.  He displayed a slide outlining the projection for the next 25 years; stated the amount of debris is only going to increase; and displayed a map showing the landfill, roads, transfer station, expansion areas, lakes, and boundaries.  Mr. Rodriguez pointed out various uses on the property; and advised it is a constantly changing environment.  He stated he does not have any other place to do most of the activities; and that is why they are constantly moving the activities around. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired with the removal of the island in the south lake, could the north lake be filled and used for debris; with Mr. Rodriguez responding that is correct. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez displayed a slide showing the entrance to the facility and how the facility currently looks; and stated they are at 78 to 84 feet in height right now.  He noted the height limitation on the landfill is 104 feet; that is a DEP requirement as well as an FAA requirement because of the proximity to the airport; and when they reach 90 feet, they will have to stop doing certain activities.  He stated the Board can see from the pieces of equipment, that they would protrude quite a bit into the air space beyond the 104 feet. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they cannot go to the full height because the equipment intrudes into air space; with Mr. Rodriguez responding he will be allowed to do that to finish up, but not constantly.

 

Mr. Rodriguez displayed slides showing activities that are going on and a normal day at the Sarno Landfill.  He stated they normally do 1,200 tons a day, six tons of tires, 373 tons of yard waste, and 350 vehicles or one vehicle every two minutes that goes into that portion of the County’s facility.  He stated it rivals the Central Disposal Facility in activity; and at one time during the hurricanes it was more active.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the 1,200 tons a day includes tires and yard waste; with Mr. Rodriguez responding affirmatively.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the balance; with Mr. Rodriguez responding white goods and construction and demolition materials.  Mr. Rodriguez advised the majority is construction and demolition materials, roofing, renovation materials, lumber and normal construction materials.  He stated every year they do a projection of the life expectancy of the facilities; there are a lot of variations, including population, wealth of the citizens, and natural disasters; and the main impact lately has been from natural disasters and the recent construction boom.  He stated the 2004 calculation was made right before the hurricanes; there was 12 years of capacity left; but the next year only seven years of capacity was left.  He stated now they are talking about three years of capacity if they fill it up all the way to the top; and that means they will have to stop doing certain activities even before they reach the top.  He stated Sarno Landfill is going to reach the end of its capacity in 2009 according to the projections unless the north lake is expanded; and then the capacity is supposed to reach 2013. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the 2009 date is based on no storm events; with Mr. Rodriguez responding yes, no major storm events.  He stated a storm event could make the capacity disappear quickly. 

 

Discussion ensued on storm events and decreasing capacity of the landfill.

 

Mr. Rodriguez stated the advantage the Board has at this point in time is it just approved an RFP that will permit them to ship most of the construction and demolition debris that is picked up off the street to the JED facility. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Carlson inquired about a storm event which from 2005 to 2006 reduced by a larger measure; and inquired how many years were lost in the one storm event; with Mr. Rodriguez responding five years.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they had a major storm event would there be no Sarno this year; with Mr. Rodriguez
responding that is correct.  Chair Voltz stated that is the case unless the Board does something; but even than that, it is going to go from 2009 to 2013, which is only four years; and there is not much more than that left, so the County would still be out one or two years.  Mr. Rodriguez responded that is why he is going to be proposing a combination of options; if the Board sticks with one option, it might run into problems quickly with just one storm; and if it continues on the route it is going without any expansions, shipping, or anything, it is going to reach capacity in 2009.  He stated the landfill will have to stop receiving tires in one or two years just because of the height limitation; it will have to stop accepting yard waste and metals; and there is no other place in the south end of the County that takes these activities that the Board has possession over.  He noted there is a private facility next door that does take some land clearing debris, but it entails paying them for it. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if the tires can be shredded for use in playgrounds and those kinds of things; with Mr. Rodriguez responding right now the bid the County has pays for them to be taken to Willabrator; the County pays $85 a ton currently; but there is a new business that was established in Rockledge that will be grinding the tires and converting them to playground materials and such.

 

Discussion ensued on the Rockledge company, bidding on tire disposal, who pays for tire disposal, profit of the recycling company, and company getting free raw products.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated all recycling is based on the same concept; the County provides the raw materials; and it is lucky if it gets a pittance back. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez stated there is a problem with disposing of tires; they are a different animal; and advised of a company that takes concrete for free, makes aggregate out of it, and sells it.  He stated it may be the tire company has not reached that point. 

 

Commissioner Carlson suggested finding out how that company operates.  Mr. Rodriguez stated the impact that they had for taking concrete for free is that there is less clean concrete coming to the County facility.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if that means the individual brings the cement to the company or does the County bring it; with Mr. Rodriguez responding it never arrives at the County facility.

 

Chair Voltz stated the Board really has non idea how much it is missing as far as materials are concerned; with Mr. Rodriguez responding no, because of the variations.  He stated it happened at the same time as the hurricanes and the construction boom, so it is hard to isolate, but he knows the County reduced its fee for clean concrete to $6 a ton and still is not receiving any, which means it pays to take it to Rockledge.  He displayed a slide showing options for construction and demolition debris and another showing options for yard waste, tires, and metal goods; and stated they are not mutually exclusive.  He stated one of the first options is to use all of Sarno Landfill as it exists right now without expansion; after that the County would have to direct all the waste up to a central disposal facility until a U.S. 192 site is opened; and advised the County does not have the means to transport unless it buys a separate fleet for that.  He stated the other option is to expand the Sarno Road Landfill to the north lake, but not using the
northeast or southern expansion; that would require them to sit down with the City of Melbourne and make sure the County had appropriate permits if it is not grandfathered in; and that would
probably be relatively inexpensive, around $800,000 for that addition.  He stated the other alternative is, when Sarno Landfill is filled up, to have the Board declare an emergency and start shipping out to JED; and that option is very expensive at $30 a ton or close to $900,000 a month.  He stated the timing on this is delicate in order to get this running; and if they are not able to do that, one of the other options would be to use the south expansion area.  He advised in the 1950’s the south expansion was used as a landfill by the City of Melbourne or Eau Gallie; and described how landfills were operated in the 1950’s.  He stated they could use the northeast expansion for yard waste, tires, and white goods, but he is not in favor of that; the land has a lot of value; and he does not want to detract from that value for possible resale; and another option would be to direct all waste to the Central Disposal Facility.  He stated the capacity at the Sarno Landfill goes to 2009; before that there is activity that has to be stopped; and he would appreciate direction from the Board. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Rodriguez has evaluated what it would cost if the Board directed all waste to the Central Disposal Facility and how long that facility would last.  Mr. Rodriguez stated it would probably involve $500,000 of equipment and adding at least another eight drivers; and it would probably cut the life of the facility in half.  Commissioner Carlson
inquired what is the current life expectancy; with Mr. Rodriguez responding the current slurry wall is 11 years plus the expansion area that would give another 16 years, for a total of 28 years.  Commissioner Carlson stated the contract the Board just approved dealt with emergency purposes; and that will be triggered by a storm event; with Mr. Rodriguez responding that is the purpose, to divert the waste in emergency situations.  Commissioner Carlson stated since the Board has the emergency contract where it can ship out to JED during emergency events, it might not be the same scenario; but there is still a problem with capacity based on standard construction and the while cycle.  Mr. Rodriguez stated there is also what the residents bring in themselves and reconstruction after a hurricane. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired what kind of motion is needed from the Board to do what is needed; and stated the most viable option would be expanding the footprint of the Sarno Road Landfill.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board  wants to take the issues one at a time; and advised Option 2 is to go into the North Lake.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve expanding the footprint of the Sarno Road Landfill ( North Lake). 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Rodriguez is suggesting all three options.  Mr. Rodriguez stated there is construction lag time, permit lag time, and all these things, so he is not positive they will not reach the point where they will have to move those activities out.  He stated what he would like to have is the flexibility of shipping a portion of it out as finances permit while they are pursuing the North Lake and continue with the U.S. 192 site.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant flexibility to ship a portion of the waste out as finances permit while pursuing the North Lake Expansion and continuing with the U.S. 192 site.

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated before the Board moves on individual items, it has two or three other entities that have sites.  Chair Voltz inquired if, instead of shipping to JED, the Board will solicit RFP’s for this because there are other sites.  Mr. Rodriguez stated there are other sites; the purpose of the RFP was for emergency purposes; but if the Board wants to go out for RFP just for this portion, he would caution that depending on the finances, the County cannot guarantee a certain waste stream and he will have to balance out what to keep and what to ship in order to not break the bank.  Commissioner Pritchard stated his point is maybe the County should not be in the trash storage business; maybe other entities that have the sites should be doing it; and maybe the County should phase out Sarno in the next year or so.  He stated hopefully the County could then sell some of the parcels for other purposes as long as it has a comparable rate structure as other providers; and expressed concern about a motion and vote on certain line items.  He stated he would like to hear from all others before the Board starts voting on line items. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem with doing it that way if the cost is similar to the cost of the emergency scenario.  Mr. Rodriguez stated the price of $900,000 for shipping all the material out was based on the RFP at $30 a ton.  Commissioner Carlson stated
there was only one response to the RFP and it was $30 a ton; with Mr. Rodriguez responding that includes transportation.  Commissioner Carlson requested commented from the JED representative. 

 

Chair Voltz advised the Board will hold off on making motions. 

 

Fred Hawkins, representing JED Facility that is operated by Waste Services, Inc. of Florida, stated it was a pleasure working with County staff on the RFP; and expressed appreciation for the Board’s favorable vote.  He stated the money that Mr. Rodriguez spoke of that would be spent to ship to the JED facility would come not only from the increase, but from the money already being accepted there for disposal; it would not take up any more of the County’s air space; but at the same time the County would be allowed to reserve that money toward closure of Sarno Road landfill in the future.  He stated they are willing to work with Mr. Rodriguez and staff on this; they did a day of test runs, which was approximately 200 tons; and it went well.  He stated they are working with Mr. Rodriguez on a couple of options; they have said they can do the loading at the facility to their trucks and ship over to the JED facility; but he is present to answer the Board’s questions.          

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the cost to ship the debris would be the same as the option they are looking at now, which is $30 a ton.  Mr. Rodriguez advised that was used for purposes of calculation.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if it would be equivalent; with Mr. Hawkins responding they used that number; but being a private entity, they are volume driven.  He commented on the workshop in February, volume prices being subject to change, negotiation with staff, and being told at the pre-bid meeting that it may also be for emergency purposes related to Sarno’s capacity. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the number today based on the pilot is still $30 a ton; with Mr. Hawkins responding yes, depending on volume.  Mr. Hawkins stated they can work with that; but right now in the meetings, there were two scenarios; one was using the U.S. 192 site if
it came to hurricanes to haul out to JED.  He stated that transportation number was different; but for the Sarno site it was $10 for transportation and $20 for disposal.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that would include Mr. Hawkins’ company operating the transfer station; with Mr. Hawkins responding no, it is just for loading to their trucks.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired why the County is in this business and would it be in the County’s best interest to have a company pick up the debris and trash, take it to a transfer station, and have another company take it to their landfill; with Mr. Rodriguez responding in the mid-1990’s, the County received an unsolicited proposal to run the disposal facility; but the County was doing it cheaper than the proposal.  He stated he also looked at the transportation issue because of problems getting CDL drivers; the County is doing it cheaper than a private company; and that is probably because the County does not make a profit, and that savings is delivered to the citizens. 

 

George Geletko, representing Waste Management, Inc., stated if the County is looking to transport on a permanent basis, his company would like to have an opportunity to bid on that; they currently have three DEP-permitted C&D and Class 3 landfills in the local area, two in Orange County and one in Volusia County; and he believes his company could be extremely competitive on the tonnage and transportation. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if there is any reason there would not be some competition; with Mr. Rodriguez responding not to his knowledge, but they already put out the RFP.  Mr. Geletko clarified he is not talking about emergency management; he is talking about a permanent situation; and if the County is going to transport out other than for hurricanes, his company would like to have an opportunity.  He stated they missed the RFP for the hurricanes; he did go to the pre-bid meeting for the collection portion; and at that time, he asked Mr. Rodriguez if the disposal was going to go out and he said yes, but he somehow missed it.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if Waste Management would have been interested in the emergency RFP; with Mr. Geletko responding yes.  Commissioner Carlson stated she was curious why there were no other proposals; with Mr. Geletko responding he just missed it; he does not know why; and they competed for that business in 1995. 

 

Mr. Hawkins stated in the pre-bid meeting, it was explained that this would be possibly used for the Sarno Landfill; his company followed every instruction given by staff; and he understands if it is to be a permanent solution, there would be another RFP, but in the meantime as an emergency, his company did everything right.  Chair Voltz advised the Board has no problem with that.  Commissioner Carlson stated it went legitimately the way it went; and Mr. Hawkins’ company was the only one submitting a proposal. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated after the February workshop Mr. Hawkins and two others visited with him and said the numbers were not correct.  Mr. Hawkins responded they were given the number $23.05 for disposal; it is $20; and no volume was given to generate that number.  Commissioner Pritchard stated it is now $30; with Mr. Hawkins advising that includes transportation.  Mr. Hawkins stated staff has expressed it does not want any part of transportation; the trucks his company uses are tipper trucks; and those would be available upon a call from staff to start handling.  Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Rodriguez said the County does not operate at a profit; and inquired is the County always going to be cheaper than a private entity.  Chair Voltz stated that is something the Board needs to look at on a regular
basis.  Mr. Rodriguez advised that is true in most cases; and provided an example showing why it is more cost effective to have the mulching done by a private entity.  He stated he runs Solid Waste Management like a business even though it is a County Department; and he takes care to make sure that they do not spend unnecessary money, which is why they have been able to keep the rates as they have the last few years.  He advised some of the things the County can do better because there are no profits, and some they cannot do better.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Rodriguez is looking for a blend; and commented on service and price.  Mr. Rodriguez stated he is looking for a blend; he still has space available at Sarno; there is potential of increasing that space; and if that potential realizes itself, he will have to ship out less stuff, but if it does not realize itself, then he will have to come back to the Board  to advise he has a problem for the next five years, and needs to find a solution until they get to the U.S. 192 site.  Commissioner Pritchard advised that is if the County goes to the U.S. 192 site; with Mr. Rodriguez conceding that is not a given.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he has heard from some folks that it would be horrible to go to the U.S. 192 site in terms of the impact it would have on the land; but that is more emotion than fact.  Commissioner Pritchard stated they are looking at the year 2013 at Sarno if they fill in the north lake; when 2013 comes, the County needs to have plans B, C, and D in effect; and the blend that Mr. Rodriguez is looking for at that point may get the County to where it is not in that business any longer, so service and price may start changing.  He stated it may be that service and price will be higher because the private providers are in the business to make a profit; the County will not have an option; it will not have any area where it can take things to unless it is able to take it to the Central Disposal facility; and inquired if that is the plan; with Mr. Rodriguez responding yes.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board wants to move the options for C&D out of the three bullets that are suggested; and will this entail a rate increase.  Mr. Rodriguez advised this will entail a rate increase at the gate fee, not the assessment level; and advised of current fees being charge.  He stated he is asking for a price to go from $14 to $22 to make this work and will also be spending some of the reserves; and he will know in six months to a year whether they can expand to the north lake or not.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the JED facility, which is the third bullet point.  Chair Voltz stated they should be going out for bid on that as this is not just for emergencies.  Mr. Rodriguez stated if the Board declares an emergency, it is short-term; but if it becomes long-term because they are running out of space, they are going to go out for RFP.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if this is talking about emergencies or starting to ship wastes; with Mr. Rodriguez responding he is talking about starting to ship some to buy more time.  Commissioner Pritchard stated that is not an emergency; with Mr. Rodriguez responding in Solid Waste anything less than five years is an emergency.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board does not consider that an emergency; with Mr. Rodriguez advising he is just providing his perspective so the Board will know.  Commissioner Pritchard stated an emergency would be taking care of hurricane debris; Waste Management has made a request; he does not know what the price is at JED; and he does not want to start shipping to one without knowing what the other is.  He reiterated he is looking for price and service.  Mr. Rodriguez suggested he stop pursing the option of possible expansion to the north lake, and if that does not work in six months, they can have a more permanent solution for the next five years until there is a yea or nay on the U.S. 192 site.  Commissioner Pritchard stated with what was paid for Sarno, the
County needs to maximize the investment; that would include options one and two, using Sarno until all space is utilized and expanding the footprint; and whether U.S. 192 site comes in or whether it is JED or who knows where, that is something that will be developed as they progress.  Chair Voltz stated what Mr. Rodriguez is looking at is not using that land and selling it.  Commissioner Pritchard stated that is not what the first two bullets say.  Mr. Rodriguez explained he is pursuing the U.S. 192 site currently; he needs space; the north lake will give him that space to buy time until there is a decision on U.S. 192.  He stated if the U.S. 192 is a yes, then the northeast property can be sold to finance the construction of the U.S. 192 site; and that is why he does not want to touch that expansion in the short-term.  He stated the southern expansion is more iffy because it has garbage in it at this time, but if he can use the northeast expansion to finance  and not have to go out for bonds for the U.S. 192 site, that is fine.  He stated if the U.S. 192 site fails, then he will come to the Board and ask to sell the U.S. 192 site and review other property that is available.  Commissioner Pritchard commented on selling the northeast section, putting the property on the tax roll, and long-term benefit of deriving ad valorem from the property over the next 100 years; and stated he would like to have a handle on what the potential revenue would be from that site versus making Mount Trashmore. 

 

Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn stated Mr. Rodriguez said he might want to start shipping some portion out; and inquired at what point would an RFP be done.  Mr. Rodriguez responded if he pursues the north lake and is successful, he does not need to start shipping anything, but if he is not successful, he will be back to inform the Board that he needs another option that will last five years.  Chair Voltz inquired if they get the ability to do the north lake and the U.S. 192 site, do they have to worry about shipping anywhere; with Mr. Rodriguez responding only under emergency conditions such as hurricanes.  Chair Voltz inquired how long is it going to take to find out about the U.S. 192 site, advising Mr. Rodriguez mentioned six years; with Mr. Rodriguez responding six years is including construction.  Chair Voltz inquired if in the meantime the north lake expansion will get them there; with Mr. Rodriguez responding yes, for the four years. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated they are buying time; and inquired about a State agency visiting the Adamson Road site last week and whether assurances were given that it could be expanded.  Mr. Rodriguez stated he already has an expansion area in the Central Disposal facility ready to receive waste, but it does not have permits; there is another area where they need to move some facilities; and DEP came to look at the wetlands in order to make a determination.  He stated he is sure that soon the County will be receiving something from DEP that will let him know how much usable space there is without mitigating for the wetlands.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired what type of material would be put there; with Mr. Rodriguez responding yard waste, metal goods, tires, a new scale house, and that type of activity.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that buys more time; with Mr. Rodriguez responding no, but it will be more efficient.  Mr. Rodriguez stated staff will have to run the numbers to see whether it is worth mitigating for that area to expand; it is possible; but he does not have an answer at this point, although they will probably be looking at that in 20 years.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is doing the right thing in moving forward with Mr. Rodriguez’ suggestion; and commented on asking for studies, meetings, and landfills needing to
be closed.  He stated what Mr. Rodriguez is telling the Board about Sarno is not good news; but they are doing things intelligently; and the Board, probably more than any other one, understands there are decisions that need to be made. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired what decisions need to be made; with Commissioner Carlson responding the first two options.  Mr. Rodriguez stated he is seeing permission to pursue option two. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve option two, expanding the footprint of the Sarno Road landfill by using the North Lake to increase its capacity to the year 2013.

 

 

Mr. Rodriguez stated that is all fully permitted space; and none of the other expansion areas are permitted.  Chair Voltz inquired about the northeast expansion area; with Mr. Rodriguez responding that has local permits but not State permits.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is wrong with option one; with Mr. Rodriguez responding he would like to avoid having to transport debris over to Cocoa; and option two will give him the possibility of not having to transport to Cocoa.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he sees them as two separate items; option one is to fill in the lake and option two is to use all permitted space at Sarno, so he does not understand the transfer part.  Mr. Rodriguez stated if there is no expansion of the footprint of the Sarno landfill, in three years they will have to start shipping some of the waste to Cocoa or somewhere; and transport will probably be done privately because the County would not want to invest in a fleet of trucks that would only be used for two or three years, when they will move over to the U.S. 192 site.  He stated the assumption is the U.S. 192 site will get a permit.  Commissioner Pritchard stated it says to use Sarno until all permitted space is utilized; and inquired if that is not what they want to do. 

 

Discussion ensued on the first option. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez advised the first option is not doing anything as far as the expansion until they ran out of space.   

 

 

 

Solid Waste Management Director Euri Rodriguez stated staff has been having meetings with Waste Management regarding the negotiations to continue the Contracts beyond their current years; the current Contracts expire October 1, 2008; and the Board directed staff to negotiate with Waste Management.  He stated they have brought up several points with Waste Management; and the Board may wish to add or subtract points.  He displayed a slide showing the north and south districts; stated the Contracts are still in the names of Western Waste and Harris Sanitation, but both are now Waste Management.  He stated they have discussed clam trucks, the routing, creating performance standards for the clam trucks in order to increase the service to the citizens; and they have also discussed recycling, proceeds from recycling, and potential changes in the way recyclables are collected.  He stated nothing has come to fruition, but they are debating the issues; they can continue the way they have; but there is another
option called single-stream recycling, which has efficiencies in the collection but potential contamination because of the commingling of the recyclables.  Mr. Rodriguez stated it would be increasing the number of recyclables so it all might weigh out; they are not sure how they will do it; but it is getting more difficult to get drivers, so the easier they can make things for the drivers, the easier it will be to recruit them. 

 

Chair Voltz stated Commissioner Carlson went to observe.  Commissioner Carlson stated she was impressed with the overall function of single-stream recycling; it is a cost effective way of doing business; and the Board will be discussing it in the future.  She stated it is undergoing a test on the beachside; and the City of Melbourne is also looking to be a test site for the large containers.  Chair Voltz stated that is not the recycling.  Mr. Geletko of Waste Management, Inc. explained the single-stream recycling test is taking place in four cities. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez stated one of the items they are talking about is liquidated damages; his understanding is they have been the same amount since the 1980’s; he knows that since 1993 when he came on board the liquidated damages have not changes; and he would like to see them increased.  He commented on companies merging; stated the County ended up instead of having two different contractors, only having one; and he would like to avoid that kind of situation without concurrence of the Board for the change in ownership.  He stated they are also looking at the automated collection, which is a cart system; and they are currently testing it on the beaches with 96-gallon and 64-gallon containers.  He commented on things they have learned during the testing; and stated this is probably the future of the solid waste collection regardless of who the contractor is because it increases efficiency of the collection.  He advised it is necessary to increase capital expenditures initially but it would result in having one person per truck versus two or three people per truck; the person does not have to get out of the truck; and there is no muscle involved, so there are fewer Workers’ Compensation cases.

 

Chair Voltz inquired how is that program going; with Mr. Rodriguez responding he has received only one complaint in three months and that was someone wanted a different size cart, not because of the service.

 

Mr. Rodriguez stated currently his employees are having to work all holidays except two; they have Thanksgiving and Christmas off; and for Thanksgiving Waste Management collects restaurant garbage because it is a long weekend, so the County accommodates that by opening a half day, resulting in his employees actually only having a day and a half off every year.  He stated Mr. Geletko has the same problem; and they could attract more people if they had more holidays.  He stated they looked at floating holidays; other holidays are pegged either to Monday or Friday; and the advantage of the floating holiday is that it moves so it does not affect the same population segment every year, while the ones that are pegged to Monday would generally affect a bigger portion of the population.  He provided an example using the Fourth of July; and commented on receiving less garbage on holidays, paying time and a half for holiday work, and lack of efficiency in paying more to process less garbage. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the Board talked about Memorial Day and Labor Day, which always fall on Monday; they save $30,000 every day they do not open the landfill; and Mr. Geletko also saves money.  Mr. Rodriguez stated for every holiday they open, it is $30,000 from the disposal budget; and on the Fourth of July and New Year’s Day, they are open.

 

Discussion ensued on holiday, County employees not all getting the same holidays, increase in service days in the mid-1990’s at request of the Board, and difficulty in hiring people. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she assumes they get vacation and sick leave; with Mr. Rodriguez advising they do, but the problem is in some cases if someone goes on vacation, someone has to be called in on overtime. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not think people expect to have their garbage picked up on holidays.  Discussion ensued on holiday pickups, uniformity of holidays for employees, and costs.

 

Mr. Rodriguez advised the holidays for County employees are New Year’s Day; Martin Luther King’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving and the day after, and Christmas Eve and Christmas.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if that would create a hardship for the Solid Waste Department.  Mr. Rodriguez noted there are several things to consider; and Christmas holiday is seven days before New Year’s Eve, so they might be missing the same people twice in a row. 

 

Discussion resumed on holiday pickups, amount picked up, and recyclables.

 

Mr. Rodriguez stated he would like to increase the number of holidays; but he wants to be careful which ones are increased so there is not an unnecessary impact on the residents.  Chair Voltz suggested trying it to see how it works.  Commissioner Pritchard suggested Mr. Rodriguez come back with a report on the volume at Christmas and New Year’s, and whether there would be any hardship on the part of the property owners who will have boxes and holiday wrappings.  Mr. Rodriguez stated the ones he analyzed were floating holidays.  Chair Voltz inquired what are the floating holidays; with Mr. Rodriguez responding Independence Day and Veterans Day; and they do not work on Christmas.  Commissioner Pritchard suggested looking at the volume for Christmas and New Year’s; stated the Fourth of July and others would not affect the homeowner; but Christmas and New Year’s might because of the proximity and volume.  Chair Voltz stated Labor Day and Memorial Day should be included.  Mr. Rodriguez stated every day the Board can give his employees off is great and appreciated.  Chair Voltz stated they need to look at the same schedule that the County employees have; with Commissioner Scarborough cautioning that is unless Mr. Rodriguez has a good reason not do so. 

 

Discussion ensued on Christmas and New Year’s holidays, volume of pickup, other employees who have to work on holidays, costs, and situation during the hurricanes; and stated he would like to see a comparison between Solid Waste staff and others.  Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Washburn is going to do that.

 

Mr. Rodriguez stated Waste Management has requested minor modifications to the Solid Waste Code regarding tree trimmers and landscapers; what is occurring now is that under the contract if a tree trimmer comes in, takes down a tree, and puts it by the curb, Waste Management is not required to pick it up; but that is not reflected in the Code, and there is nothing that Code Enforcement can use to enforce it. 

 

Chair Voltz stated there were huge piles of tree stumps, etc. on Minton Road south of the overpass; they are blocking the drainage; and she told Mr. Geletko about it yesterday, but does not know if he has had a chance to see it yet. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez stated if the Board wishes to give any direction as far as negotiations or any other item regarding Waste Management, he would appreciate it.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has no problem with what Mr. Rodriguez says; and commented on degrees of difference in responses under the old Western Waste and Harris Sanitation companies, which have now merged into Waste Management, Inc.  He stated Mr. Rodriguez gave him numbers regarding the number of complaints from March 1 through July 31; and requested Mr. Rodriguez share that with the Board.  He advised the north area includes part of District 2 as well as a portion of District 4.  Mr. Rodriguez stated during the period of March 1, 2006 through July 31, 2006, there were 452 complaints received in the north area resulting in liquidated damages of $3,480; and in the same period in the south area, there were 83 complaints.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he finds significant that only a portion of District 4 is in the north area, so essentially there is one-fifth the number of complaints in the south; and there is a problem.  He inquired when was the last time this went out for RFP; with Mr. Rodriguez responding he cannot recall the last time, and it may be never.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he is going to have to vote against the contract; there was some measure when there were two separate contractors; and he does not know how Commissioners Carlson and Pritchard feel, but Mr. Rodriguez has indicated if it is okay with the Board, they could put out an RFP.  He stated Waste Management can respond to the RFP; and he would be able to tell people this is the best; but with the disparity he is not comfortable voting for something that has never been out for RFP and is getting the level of complaints. 

 

Chair Voltz stated it is her understanding that in June, Waste Management, Inc. was given 30 days to do something to comply, but that did not happen; she knows it was discussed; and inquired if it could not be done in 30 days, what is the possibility of doing something different or making sure everything is done within 90 days.  Mr. Geletko responded they met with Commissioner Pritchard and have gotten a commitment from upper management; they collect yard waste in the north area five days a week; and the bulky waste is collected on a different day.  Chair Voltz inquired what is bulky waste; with Mr. Geletko responding those are the large piles that the clamshell trucks collect; they have the clamshell working in conjunction with the rear load trucks; and before any trucks come in, the Supervisor has to sign off that all the yard waste has been picked up.  He stated the other portion is if it is an illegal pile, which they cannot collect; and they take pictures of it and get it to Solid Waste immediately for Code Enforcement action.  Chair Voltz stated the issue is still with the 30 days; in June, Mr. Geletko promised to make corrections in 30 days; and inquired what happened.  Mr. Geletko stated he thought they were making some progress, but it is too little, too late. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Geletko said earlier that it was because of the hurricanes, and he is sure the hurricanes impacted; however, he has dealt with waste collection over almost eighteen years; and commented on prior dealings with Western Waste that resulted in keeping the company under contract and speaking with Mr. Geletko but not getting response. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not one single event, but multiple events; if the Board desires, he can have people come to the Board and explain their complaints; and inquired if it is
unfair to have one Commissioner take just his area and go out for RFP.  Commissioner Scarborough commented on degree of comparison, Waste Management responding to the RFP, making the least painful choice, and desire of persons to come and explain their concerns about voting to continue a contract that has never been out on the street.   

 

Mr. Geletko stated he understands where Commissioner Scarborough is coming from and respects that; but since 1999 there have been five hurricanes, two of them Category 3 hurricanes; and once the storm debris contractors stop, that does not stop the debris from coming in the next nine to twelve months.  He stated in the north area the average household generates 110 pounds of yard waste a month; in the south, the average household generates 92 pounds per month; and that is because in the north there are homes sitting on acreage and larger lots, but in the south it is more urbanized.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Geletko is a gentleman who has been wonderful to deal with, but he has heard this before; when he gets complaints, Waste Management has to deliver; and he has been unable to deliver what the constituents want, so they now want to come talk to the Board about their list of problems.  Mr. Geletko stated prior to 1999, they had zero clamshell trucks in the north area; in the south area they had clamshells starting in 1990; when they took over the contract in 2000, they put one clamshell truck in the north, in 2003, they put an additional three, and in 2006, they added two more, so there are six now running in the north area and six in the south, even though there are fewer homes in the north than in the south. 

 

Chair Voltz stated if they run a clamshell and a rear loader at the same time every day, that should take care of the problem; and she does not know at this time if they are going out for RFP.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board  does not take this action, his constituents will be coming in asking why they are using the same contractor; and if the Board would like, he can schedule it so he Board  can understand.  He stated to have Mr. Geletko speak to one or two items and not let the people voice their concerns is not the way the Board deals with things.

 

Chair Voltz inquired when is the contract up and when would the Board has to decide to go out for RFP.  Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Rodriguez would like some indication of where the Board wants to go with this; it is not new because he mentioned in the beginning he would like this option; and it seemed the Board was willing to listen.  He inquired if the Board wants to take this information further; and stated the Board can have people come in and tell their individual stories. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the Board had residents come in before; they should be careful what they wish for because other competitors cannot guarantee better service; and that is the problem when dealing in bulk.  She stated she is concerned over the issues in the north part of the County to the point where they have questioned whether all the supervisors should be fired; what is happening in the north is not happening in the south to the same degree; but they are both being served by the same company, so it is very frustrating.  She commented on going out for RFP, not being held hostage, another company not being able to guarantee the manpower, length of time for transition, and chaos of having those discussions.  She stated it is a hard call; she feels for what Commissioner Scarborough is going through; but the next company could
look good on paper but have a transition that is incredible.  She stated on the other hand the Board does not want a company to feel cocky because it has the contract or think it is just a matter of keeping the price low.  Commissioner Colon stated it is a matter of service; and cautioned the Board to not open a Pandora’s box.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the complaints in his district and in Commissioner Scarborough’s district are the same; he met with Mr. Geletko and his boss on Tuesday and went through the litany of problems they are having; his office staff related the problems the citizens are having; and at the time he asked Mr. Geletko about redistributing the clamshell trucks based on tonnage picked up rather than an even division been north and south.  He stated there is a problem in the north end of the County; and he told Mr. Geletko he is going to support going out for an RFP to bring in another company to see what is going to be necessary to fix the problem.  He commented on service and price, fixing the problem, competition, performance measures as part of the contract, and comparing apples to apples.  He stated he needs to know the cost; he needs to know more about single-stream recycling; they have discussed having a pilot program in District 2 similar to what is being done on the beaches; and he does not see how they are going to deal with the problem unless they go out for an RFP for North Brevard that identifies the performance measures, the cost, and the penalties if the company does not live up to expectations. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Geletko has been making an issue of the clamshell trucks; but as she looks at the complaints there are 121 about yard waste, which is about the clamshell trucks; but there are more complaints on the recycling side, so there is an issue in all the numbers.  She inquired why Waste Management would not move resources around to accommodate the needs of one area versus another area; if the company always needed six trucks in the south, and when it needed extra trucks in the north, was that not something over which the company had control.  Mr. Geletko stated it is a matter of growth hitting over a period of time; and commented on heavy growth in Viera, Titusville, and Palm Bay.  He stated this is the reason they are promoting the one-sort system, which is a much more efficient way to collect materials and increase customer service; right now they are recycling with a six-sort system; and described how the collection takes place.  Commissioner Carlson inquired about the ability to adjust things when there is a bigger need in one area instead of just saying they need to buy another truck; and stated it is an operational issue.  Mr. Geletko stated they could do that on a yearly basis; this year they got six new residential collection trucks; they made some route adjustments; and they have moved a truck or two to the north area and a couple in the south just to balance out the routes where the growth is. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough commented on horror stories about bringing in a new waste collector that cannot do the job, he has talked to Mr. Rodriguez about the need for an RFP that clearly defines initial responsibility so they will know they have viable people responding, having meetings with the contractor and no resulting improvement, and questioning whether Waste Management really wants the business.  He stated if he was in the position of getting business, he would be prompt and call and check on things, but that is not happening; and that is what concerns him.  He commented on structuring a good RFP and getting control and comparison.  He stated if there is a new contractor in the north providing superior service with better methodologies, the County will be able to go after Waste Management with that information.  He noted Waste Management is a huge corporation; the County is small in comparison; and it
would be prudent to proceed to see what else is out there.  He stated Mr. Geletko can respond to the RFP so the County can compare; and the community deserves the opportunity so see what else may be there. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to prepare an RFP for a waste management contract for North Brevard.    

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she shares the concern; but she still does not see it as a thing of the Board being able to go out for RFP; and inquired if Waste Management has been able to identify what the problem is, whether it needs more trucks or more people.  She stated if they go out for RFP, which she is against, the Board  will need to compare apples to apples; whoever comes in will provide the same amount of trucks and say they will be able to hire the people; and inquired how can they guarantee that the service is going to be better.  Mr. Geletko stated through the negotiations this is why they are looking to invest $17 million in equipment such as containers to start up the new contract; they know with the pilot program on the beach that the fully-automated cart system is the way to go; and even though there is a huge initial capital investment, over the long period of time, service is going to be much improved.  He stated efficiencies help contain costs; and commented on recent RFP figures, the disposal component, and full-service contracts.  Commissioner Colon inquired about the issue with the north part of the County; with Mr. Geletko responding they are working hard on that; he put two trucks there; he thinks it will work; and as far as the employment issue, his district manager can address that.  He stated they are 95% there; they have a CDL trainer who is training helpers to get them qualified; they are working hard in that area and in the recycling end; and if they go with the one-sort and the cart system, he cannot see any complaints coming down the pike because they will be moving from 1980 technology to 2000 technology.  Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Geletko has spoken to the folks in the trenches to ask what they need; with Mr. Geletko responding they need water and air conditioning; and commented on heat and humidity wearing people down quickly.  Commissioner Colon advised they have the same thing in the south area, but they are not having problems; and she is trying to identify whey they cannot deliver the same service in the north area.  Chair Voltz inquired if it is the volume; with Mr. Geletko responding it is the volume of yard waste; and they are correcting the problem. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated even the garbage complaints are multiple; in the south there are 22 complaints, and in the north there are 71; with each element there are multiples; so it is more than yard waste.  Mr. Geletko advised they do six collections a week, two garbage, one recycling, one yard waste, one bulky yard waste, and white goods with tires; so looking at 200,000 homes and multiplying that times how many collections there would be, that is over a million collections per months in Brevard County.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated there are half the households in the north end and quadruple the complaints; with Mr. Geletko responding it is basically yard waste complaints.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not think so.  Commissioner Pritchard stated it is 71 garbage complaints compared to 22 and 121 yard waste complaints compared to 33.  Commissioner Scarborough stated only certain people complain; there are always other people who will just haul their garbage back in; and the Commission may not support the motion but at least two Commissioners are interested in going out for RFP.  He stated the Board needs to let
Mr. Rodriguez know where it is headed; he has concern about how to structure the RFP; and they need to work on it to get something in the north.  He stated it is an uncomfortable decision and he wishes he did not have to make the motion.

 

Commissioner Carlson requested clarification; and inquired is the motion to go out for RFP only in the north; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes.  Commissioner Scarborough stated they could redraw the line so all of District 4 would be in the south area so there would not be a split between two contractors; with Commissioner Carlson responding she probably would not have a problem with that. 

 

Commissioner Colon inquired how does the economy of scale work.  Commissioner Carlson stated that is a corporate decision.  Commissioner Colon inquired how it works; with Commissioner Carlson responding it is a business decision by Waste Management how it will provide service.  Commissioner Carlson stated Waste Management is not doing as good a job in the north as it is doing in the south; and if they go out for RFP in the north for Districts 1 and 2 and come back with a solution, Waste Management may have the contract again.  She commented on corporate decisions and number of complaints.  Commissioner Scarborough commented on the comparison of the number of complaints in the north and in the south.  Commissioner Colon stated instead of going down the road of RFP, the Board can give Waste Management a deadline for when it wants changes.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired when would the Board need to have an RFP; and stated they cannot wait until the last moment to do this because they will run out of time.  Chair Voltz noted the contract is up in 2008.  Mr. Rodriguez advised the contract is up in 2008; but it is necessary to allow time to go out for RFP, for the person winning the contract to acquire a place of business in the County, acquire the equipment and all that; and they were shooting for two years, but obviously that is not going to happen; but he would be uncomfortable with anything less than a year, assuming they start doing their homework behind the scenes as far as preparation of an RFP.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he is willing to work on this; and nothing would make him happier than if everything worked out.  Mr. Rodriguez advised both things can be done at the same time.  Commissioner Scarborough stated they can work on the RFP but not actually go out with it until March 2007; that will give Mr. Geletko until March; and if they find that the District 1 and District 2 offices in the interim have received only four complaints, that will be fine; but it is a long way from 99 to four.  He stated he knows it is not going to happen tomorrow no matter how many clamshell trucks Mr. Geletko has or what the problem is; Waste Management controls the problem; the company has been hired by the County to take care of the problem; and the County has to go to the company for the solution.  Commissioner Pritchard stated it works for him; he met with Mr. Geletko and told him whether it was a labor or a truck problem, it was Waste Management’s problem; and the only thing he is concerned with is whether the trash is picked up.  He stated that is the bottom line.  Chair Voltz stated a lady came by her office to say Waste Management provided the best service in the world and that she cannot understand why they would go out for RFP.  Commissioner Pritchard suggested Chair Voltz show the lady some of the complaints he has received.        

 

Motion restated by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct the Solid Waste Management Director to prepare an RFP it will come back to us whether we go out with the RFP at the first commission meeting in march; and at that same meeting we will have a report and will decide whether to go out.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Chair Voltz stated when the Board talked earlier about the budget and transportation needs, she asked Mr. Burdett if he was going to work with Mr. Denninghoff on a list of projects the County could potentially do versus how it would fund them; Mr. Burdett inquired if she wished him to meet with Mr. Denninghoff; and she would like to be sure the Board wants to go down that road. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he was not comfortable with everything Mr. Burdett was advising the Board to do; the comment was made that when they get into paper the rates varies; but when there is a decreasing rate mode and interest rates are decreasing, they would go into paper, and then subsequently go into bonds; but when they are moving into a situation where they are going to find the rates going up, it may be better to borrow.  He stated after they borrow the money, they can invest it; they cannot make money off that because there is a federal rule that they cannot borrow the money at their rate and invest at a higher rate; that is called positive arbitrage; but all they are required to do is rebate to the federal government any positive arbitrage or get into investments that follow the rate so there is no net gain or loss.  He stated if they are getting into increasing interest rates, he would disagree with Mr. Burdett’s advice; and he should have said something earlier because it is inappropriate to go into paper.  He stated they know they are going to do the projects; and they should go ahead and lock in the lower interest rates, which will allow them to borrow more.

 

Chair Voltz stated she understands that; that is a problem; and that is why she wants to get it straightened out with Mr. Burdett, what that would look like in the end and what it would cost the County down the road, one versus the other. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the interest rates are going up, he can show that it is going to cost more by going into paper before going into bonds.

 

Chair Voltz stated that was the basis of her saying they would go back and let them know what it is going to be; she is thinking that it takes a long time to do a road; and if they bond out the money, they would be paying interest, but the money may not be used for three or four years. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated they would be able to invest what they borrow and get interest on it; they cannot make a profit, but they can break even, so they will end up not paying the interest because the money they borrowed is paying at least the amount of interest because they would borrow at a lower rate because people do not pay income taxes when they buy this type of bonds.  He stated he disagrees with Mr. Burdett’s comments; and he wanted that to be on the record. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to recess the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners and convene as the Governing Board of the Brevard Mosquito Control District.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize a temporary loan from insurance reserves, authorize the immediate payment of all legal fees and
expanses associated with the Blasky Impoundment Case; and approve all budget actions as required.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adjourn as the Governing Board of the Brevard Mosquito Control District and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

 

 

 

                                                                        _____________________________________

HELEN VOLTZ, CHAIR

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ATTEST:                                                         BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

 

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

   

          (S E A L)