July 15, 2004
Jul 15 2004
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
July 15, 2004
The Board of County Commissioners of
REPORT, RE: THE GREAT OUTDOORS
Chair Higgs requested a report from County Attorney Scott Knox regarding The Great Outdoors.
County Attorney Scott Knox advised there are a few glitches to work out in the Agreements, and they would like to spend time in the conference room to try to work out the details while the Board is in the Budget Workshop. He stated Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson will take over while he is gone.
REPORT, RE: ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR TEN CORRECTIONS TECHNICIANS
Chair Higgs advised she sent the Board the item regarding the allocation of funds for ten corrections technicians to be funded by the Contingency Fund so the Board can get going on the additional coverage at the jail; Commander Futch is present today; the Board has the cost before it; and it will be open for discussion and questions the Board may have.
Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is included in what has already been budgeted in the existing Budget through staff; with Chair Higgs responding it was her assumption that those ten corrections technicians would be part of whatever was allocated in the regular Budget, but they would go forward immediately to get those people to work. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it will be part of a number that is incorporated in 2004-05 Budget. County Manager Tom Jenkins responded it will require funding from the Contingency Fund this year. Chair Higgs stated it is her assumption the ten corrections technicians will come out of this year’s Contingency Fund, but hopes the Board will fund new people in the new Budget. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board wants to discuss this separately; with Chair Higgs responding she will do it either way the Board wants to do it. Commissioner Scarborough advised it will be better for his thought process to raise the issue as part of the overall conversation. Chair Higgs noted the Charter Officers are up early in the discussion, so it will be fine to discuss it then. Commissioner Pritchard advised the entire Board met with Commander Futch last week, and he gave it the recommended post. Chair Higgs advised she did not meet with Commander Futch but prior to that. Commissioner Pritchard stated the staffing plan calls for replacing sworn deputies with civilian personnel and put civilians throughout the detention facility. He stated it last week, makes a lot of sense because there is a significant savings. He stated to add what Commissioner Scarborough said, in the Sheriff’s program change justifications under unfunded,
REPORT, RE: ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR TEN CORRECTINS TECHNICIANS
(CONTINUED)
there are nine civilian personnel listed, and the request calls for ten. Chair Higgs stated she thought the number the Board was dealing with was different than nine. County Manager Tom Jenkins said the initial request was for 45 and 44 civilians for a total of 99 civilians and 18 sworn officers; and in the Budget there is 56 correctional technicians and 18 correctional officers. Commissioner Pritchard advised there is a bit of confusion because on the page he is looking at it says nine civilian personnel. Mr. Jenkins advised the Sheriff asked for more than what they gave him.
Commissioner Scarborough stated when he and the
Commissioner Scarborough stated as to the $3.4 million, if the Board was to take action in that regard, the State must be notified by September 1, 2004; it is on a short timeframe; and the Board needs to get a report back to it. He stated it may be prepared and could possibly be discussed at Tuesday’s meeting under the
REPORT, RE: AMENDMENT TO PARTICIPATING ENTITY AGREEMENT
Chair Higgs advised the item she wanted to speak about is the Amendment to Participating Entity Agreement to allow Community Based Care, Inc. to use County internal services; and inquired if the Board has any questions. She passed the gavel to Vice Chair Pritchard.
Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize execution of Amendment to Participating Entity Agreement to allow Community Based Care, Inc. to use County internal services.
REPORT, RE: AMENDEMENT TO PARTICIPATING ENTITY AGREEMENT (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Carlson inquired what other times has the Board executed an agreement such as this; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding he does not have that information at his fingertips, but he does know it has been done with other non-profits. Mr. Jenkins advised the County sells fuel to a number of non-profit organizations; and he can go back and do some research. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Economic Development Council (EDC) has a similar agreement.
Vice Chair Pritchard called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioner Colon voted nay.
DISCUSSION, RE: BUDGET OVERVIEW
County Manager Tom Jenkins advised he will go out of order and begin with the two issues Commissioner Scarborough brought up earlier; the first one is the renewal of the Florida Power & Light (FPL) Franchise Agreement; he sent a letter to FPL asking if it would be willing to enter into early negotiations on the renewal of the FPL Franchise Agreement with the understanding the Board has the potential to increase the revenue source based on new terms and conditions; and the City of Palm Bay recently did that and came out for the better as a result of having done that. He stated he is not certain what the benefit will be; the City of Palm Bay advised him they accumulated an additional $200,000 a year in revenues; Commissioner Carlson believes it will be significantly great than that; he does not know what the benefit will be yet; and they have contacted FPL. He stated it is something that can be done before October 1, 2004; and it is something the County is exploring. He advised the second issue Commissioner Scarborough has raised is the Local Communications Service Tax; it is a State authorized multi-communications services tax that is applied by every county in
Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there would be a trickle down that would be an additional cost to the consumer; with Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responding the communications services tax is a tax applied to long distance, local phone services, and cable TV. Mr. Whitten advised the 1.6% is on a $50 bill will be $.83; the statutory maximum is 5.1%; and that would be $2.50 on a $50 monthly bill. Commissioner Pritchard inquired who pays the
DISCUSSION, RE: BUDGET OVERVIEW (CONTINUED)
$50 bill. Mr. Whitten responded it is a bill to the consumer for telecommunications services, such as cable and telephone. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the tax is increased on $50 the consumer pays. Mr. Whitten responded yes. Commissioner Pritchard advised his point is it will cost the end user more money and be another revenue stream for the County; the public will be paying the additional tax to provide a revenue stream; and he wants provided in the report what the effects will be on the end user, which is the taxpayer.
Chair Higgs inquired what is required to enact the telecommunications tax; and inquired if the Board considers doing it, is it by September 1, 2004. Mr. Whitten responded the notification can come in the form of permission to advertise; staff can bring back to the Board a report or permission to advertise an amendment to the current Ordinance on July 27, 2004, notify the State the Board is considering whatever way it chooses to go, and notify the State of the intent to go to a different rate by September 1, 2004. Mr. Whitten advised the Board can do permission to advertise on July 27, 2004, and consider it sometime during August. Chair Higgs inquired if it takes an extraordinary vote; with Mr. Whitten responding just a simple majority. Mr. Jenkins advised those monies could be used to reduce property taxes as well.
Mr. Jenkins stated the tentative budget for the next fiscal year total $781,828,446, which represents a 4.2% decrease from the amended current year budget, and a 4.28% increase from the October 1 adopted budget. He stated the tentative aggregate operating millage property tax rate is reduced 5.74% from the current tax rate, and all five districts will enjoy a reduction in the current tax rate with this tentative budget. He stated including voter approved property tax increases, the tentative aggregate tax rate is 3% above the rollback rate; the fire rescue referendum of 1998 and the Parks and Recreation referendum of 2000 voted millages continue to be included in the aggregate operating millage; and the millages total .8357 mill in the current year, representing 5.3% of the aggregate operating millage. He stated the voted millages limit the Board’s discretion in setting the overall millage and the allocation of funding because a part of its discretionary spending has been allocated for it through the voted referendums. Chair Higgs inquired why it limits the Board. Mr. Jenkins responded if the Board goes by the theory it will keep the tax aggregate increase to 3% over rollback, a percentage of that 3% is already consumed by those voted millages; and instead of having 3% it has 1.8%. Chair Higgs inquired if there really is a limit by law; with Mr. Jenkins responding it is a self-limited action. Chair Higgs inquired why staff included voted in there as opposed as to going with the Charter. Mr. Jenkins responded staff wrestled with that; the Charter used to say if the voters approve to go above the CPI it is acceptable; and in both cases the voters did vote to do that. Mr. Whitten advised it is included because TRIM law does not distinguish between voted and non-voted; and it is an interpreted issue in terms of CAPIT, which formerly stated if it was voted it is not included. He stated it was previously voted, so from year-to-year the Board needs to make the interpretation that it is either in or out. Mr. Jenkins advised it is up to the Board. Chair Higgs advised there is Beach and Riverfront, EELS, Parks and Recreation, and Fire Rescue that has been voted for, so staff is making the assumption somewhat contrary to CAPIT to include that in the aggregate. Mr. Whitten stated Beach and Riverfront is a debt millage rate.
DISCUSSION, RE: BUDGET OVERVIEW (CONTINUED)
Chair Higgs advised it was voted for by the public. Mr. Whitten advised it was voted but it is not included in the aggregate operating millage rate calculation. Mr. Jenkins inquired about the
Beach and Riverfront funds being sent over to Parks and Recreation. Mr. Whitten advised staff has increased the aggregate operating millage rate for Parks and Recreation referendum items; and it has a effect of $1.1 million in the budget proposal. Mr. Jenkins noted it is a conflict; there has always been a conflict between the language of TRIM, which is the State legislation, and what is formerly CAPIT; there are different terminologies; and there have been some conflicts. He stated the fiscal year 2004-05 tentative operating capital budget establishes the general Countywide property tax rate of 4.1348 mills, which is a reduction of 6.76% from the current year adopted millages; the tentative budget for fiscal year 2004-05, out of necessity, focuses on maintaining core services without expansion of discretionary spending; in consultation with the Assistant County Managers and Agency Directors a total of 17 full time and part time positions are being eliminated within 12 Board Agencies; and minimal reductions are also being proposed with the various contracted agencies for which the Board purchases services. He stated included in the information provided to the Board prior to the meeting was a chart that listed the millages for each of the taxing authorities; it also shows the impact of tentative budget on each District; each District does receive a tax reduction; and there is a reduction in both the aggregate millage of 5.74% as well as the General Fund, which is more significant than that. He stated the reason staff could do that is there is an increase in assessed values of property; as part of the rollback calculation that is taken into consideration; and the tax rate is reduced accordingly to reflect the increase in assessed values.
Commissioner Scarborough stated some people do not understand the requirements of Truth in Millage; he wants to walk through his understanding of it; and staff can correct him if he is wrong. He stated all property is looked at as how much revenue it produces from one year to the next; if the value goes up, the millage is rolled back; the amount of revenue flowing as a whole to the County remains the same; but that excludes new construction. He stated if there is an increase in values, it drives a rollback in the millage; it is from the rollback in the millage that the Board discussed its percentage increase in millage; and that is the actual increase as a whole in the amount of money flowing to the County. He advised a person has to look at the revenue as a whole to the County to see how it impacts a rollback in the millage. He stated individual properties may have had increases or decreases significantly different than the overall average; a person can have more taxes or less taxes; but as a whole it works out with the same revenue after the rollback, excluding new construction, and then the Board talks about the big increases. He stated the TRIM notice is one of the few notices that is sent out to everyone in
Commissioner Carlson stated it is good to reflect back on the sheet that speaks about the millage with the 2003-04 millages of Countywide General Revenue and there is a millage of 4.4 mills, rollback is 4.05 mills, the projected millage is 4.13 mills, so the difference between the 4.05 rollback millage and the projected millage is 1.93% increase. She advised people do not
DISCUSSION, RE: BUDGET OVERVIEW (CONTINUED)
realize the County will provide the same services for less dollars. She inquired what the dollar value is in the difference between 4.4 mills and 4.13 mills. Mr. Jenkins responded by looking at the numbers it is $97,000,000 versus $101,000,000. Mr. Whitten advised the $101,000,000 is the rollback revenues; the projected revenues are the $103,000,000; as compared to what would have been received at rollback, which is $101,000,000, and compared to what is received this year, which is $97,000,000. Mr. Jenkins stated by increasing the rollback rate by 3% the County picks up a little under $2,000,000; and the tax rates are going down because there has been a greater increase in assessed values. Mr. Whitten advised if a person lives in his home and makes no modifications to the Save Our Homes, his assessment can go up 3%. Mr. Jenkins stated if a person sells his home, moves into a new home, he would not be covered under Save Our Homes.
Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it the assessment or the amount a person pays that increases by 3%; with Mr. Whitten responding the assessed value is a multiplier on the millage rate, or the millage rate is a multiplier on the assessed value. Commissioner Pritchard stated the confusion is there because there is a 14% across-the-board average increase in assessments. Mr. Jenkins stated assessments is not a correct term if a person is protected under the Save Our Homes 3%. Commissioner Pritchard advised there has been an assessment increase in terms of property value of 14%. Mr. Whitten advised it includes new construction. Commissioner Pritchard stated the discussion revolves around how the County’s property appraised values have increased; and there is more money available because the price of homes have increased. Mr. Jenkins stated because that has occurred, staff has lowered the millage rate; because the property values have gone up, it means the County would get more money; but the millage rates have been lowered; and the County will not get that money. Mr. Jenkins stated it has been increased 3% in the aggregate; and the General Fund it Is 1.9% above the rollback rate. He stated because more revenues were coming in because property values went up, tax rates were reduced. He advised staff did not take it down to the absolute neutral, they took it to 1.9% over rollback for the General Fund; they took it to 3% in the aggregate, including Mosquito Control, Libraries, and other taxing funds the County has; and the Parks & Recreation Referendum was over 1% of that 3%. He noted the property values have gone up but the millage rate has been shrunk, so the same amount of money is there as the previous year except staff is saying to increase the General Fund revenues next year by 1.9%; and in addition to that, there will be new construction dollars. Chair Higgs inquired if it is 14% increase in total property values or in taxable values. Mr. Whitten responded it is total taxable property values, which includes new construction and reassessments. Commissioner Pritchard stated the bottom line is what the cost is to the public. Mr. Jenkins stated in the General Fund it is 1.9%; on County library funds it is 3% increase of what the County got the current year; and next year the County will get 3% more aggregate in terms of property values, plus new construction. Chair Higgs stated to clarify for the people who are listening, is Mr. Jenkins speaking of the proposed budget at this point, not a budget passed by the Board of County Commissioners.
DISCUSSION, BUDGET OVERVIEW (CONTINUED)
Mr. Jenkins stated he would like to go over the goals set by the Board in the budget workshops. He advised one was to seek solutions to the Detention Center overcrowding problem; there is a consultant doing a study of the jail; the results are expected to be forthcoming in the near future; and the Board will need to act on that. He stated the second goal is improve the safety of the
Budget Director Dennis Rogero advised the first item to be covered is Ad Valorem Revenue; and under that title is the General – Countywide revenue increase in the tentative budget compared to last year; it is a total of $5.8 million; and $4,000,000 of that is new construction. He stated a little over $1.7 million is due to the fact the millage has been increased 1.9% above the rollback rate; so by going above the rollback rate staff has recognized the $1.7 million. He noted the next item is all of the other ad valorem taxing districts and MSTU’s; they have increase $5.9 million; and as the Board can see below that to the right is $3,000,000 due to new construction. Mr. Rogero stated some of those individual millages are below rollback, but as Mr.
DISCUSSION, BUDGET OVERVIEW (CONTINUED)
Jenkins mentioned Mosquito Control and Parks and Recreation have been increased above the rollback rate. He stated the next item is charges for internal services, which is part of the County’s cost allocation plan where it distributes many of the costs of the General Fund agencies to those agencies who receive revenue other than from the General Fund; and it is about $775,000 more. He stated it almost exactly offsets the reduction projected for excess fees from the Charter Officers at $725,000. He stated the balance forward is being reduced primarily due to the quarter million dollars being set aside for potential over expenditures due to Article V, and what is anticipated to be an approximate $700,000 over expenditure in Medicaid in this current year; but that is different from the almost million dollars being allocated for Medicaid next year.
Mr. Jenkins advised the Board asked how Medicaid was going to be paid for; as Mr. Rogero is estimated the cash forward for next year, he reduced it by that amount of money because he knows the State bill to the County has gone up by $700,000 more than anticipated; and there will be less money left over at the end of the year.
Mr. Rogero stated in total the major revenues identified bring in almost $11,000,000 in additional revenue compared to last fiscal year. He stated below that is the major expenditure impacts; the first item is $1.2 million that is in parenthesis; and it is a savings staff anticipates from the 17 full and part-time position reductions contained in the tentative budget. He stated some of the items Mr. Jenkins has already mentioned such as the Supervisor of Elections ADA renovations at $300,000; and the
Commissioner Carlson stated in her briefing she understood health insurance and health care costs had gone up significantly more than $1.8 million. Mr. Jenkins advised it is for departments funded by ad valorem taxes and does not include Wastewater and Solid Waste. Chair Higgs stated it is the overall sharing of the increased cost with the people who use insurance.
DISCUSSION, RE: BUDGET OVERVIEW (CONTINUED)
Mr. Rogero stated there has been a tremendous amount of movement among revenues and expenditures in Article V, so he highlighted the three primary impacts. He advised staff has recognized $2.6 million in all the various moving of expenditures and revenues associated with Article V; there is a State revenue sharing freeze that includes the State shared revenue and the local half-cent sales tax; staff anticipates losing about $1.2 million next year on that; and it is specifically because of the Article V legislation. He stated the State has passed housing of pre-trial youth offenders or pre-disposition of juveniles expense to all counties;
Mr. Jenkins stated the next item in the package is a list of the tentative budget program reduction summaries; he will not go through each one of those unless the Board had an opportunity to look at them and has any questions. He stated the Board will have an opportunity to talk about those in detail as it goes through the budget’ but it would be helpful to the Board to have a list. He stated he wanted to distribute a list of ad valorem property tax funded agencies; if the Board has an interest in changing anything in the tentative budget about ad valorem property taxes, this is where it has to look to as it relates to revenues or reductions. He stated those are the agencies that operate off of ad valorem taxes; and there is very little the County can do in the Wastewater Department or the Tourist Development Office because they do not get ad valorem funds. He stated in terms of the format for the budget review, the Board spent four workshops going through each departmental budget over a period of several months; and he does not know if the Board wants to go through it in that same fashion, or if it wants to focus on one book that lists the various changes occurring in the budget. He advised by focusing on the various changes, it gives the Board a sense of what is different in the proposed next year’s budget versus what is in this year’s budget; and while looking at those changes, the Board will have an opportunity to ask questions about any information in the budget books.
Commissioner Scarborough stated the paper talked about the 18 employees being laid off, which is not really true if the County can pick up the folks at the jail. He inquired where are the positions and what programs would be impacted by the elimination of the positions. Mr. Jenkins responded an Assistant County Manager’s position has been eliminated in the
Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the
DISCUSSION, RE: BUDGET OVERVIEW (CONTINUED)
position is eliminated in Planning and Zoning office, it will reduce the neighborhood planning program; and that person also works on open space planning. He noted a special projects coordinator has been eliminated in Mosquito Control; and that person was the supervisor of Weed Control Operations. He advised there have been three positions eliminated in Facilities Construction; most of that was primarily due to workload; and as the workload decreased, the department was downsized. He stated the Operations Manager in Traffic Engineering has been eliminated; it is basically removing a layer of supervision at the Merritt Island Sign Shop; and there is a lower level supervisor there who will be supervised by Dick Thompson or the Staff Engineer. He noted the cashier’s position has been eliminated in Criminal Justice Services at the Public Safety building; and the other secretaries will have to absorb the workload. He stated the Outreach Coordinator for Natural Resources has been eliminated; it is the individual who does the community information education; and grants writing will be significantly reduced. He stated the Soil and Water Conservation Engineering Technician from Extension Services has been eliminated; and that position is used to support the Soil and Conservation Service in such areas as land management, drainage, and best practices. He advised three part-time recreation workers were eliminated, which will impact delivery of some of the recreation program throughout the County; two part-time positions have been eliminated in Talking Books; the Talking Books Program has not been eliminated; but the library staff at the branch libraries will have to assume those additional duties. He stated in the Public Safety Department Criminal Justice Services a Mediation Coordinator has been eliminated; the County will no longer be coordinating the process for County Court Civil cases that go into mediation; funding has been reduced to the Economic Development Commission by $25,000; and the Brevard Cultural Alliance Grants Programs has been reduced by $15,000. He stated the Community Based Organization grants have been reduced by $25,000; the request from Brevard Tomorrow has been reduced by $10,000; speed humps have been eliminated; and the Board does not have to worry about speed humps because the money is being taken out of MSTU’s. He stated the
Commissioner Colon inquired with the amount of construction that is going on, how does losing a person in Planning and Zoning affect the department; how does losing the Facilities Construction person affect the County if there is going to be expansion to the jail; were the dollars for Parks and Recreation not in Referendum; and which parks would be affected. She inquired if the Mediation Coordinator is critical and what effect would there have and even though the State is asking the County to match a certain amount of dollars regarding Kids Care, does it mean less kids will be able to have insurance. She stated she needs to know the
DISCUSSION, RE: BUDGET OVERVIEW (CONTINUED)
numbers of children that would not have health insurance; and just because the State is giving less money does not mean it is less of a priority to the Board. She advised the questions do not have to be answered today, but she would like some feedback.
Commissioner Pritchard stated he has many questions regarding what the
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005
Judicial Branch Administration
Chair Higgs advised there are people present from the Courts, the Chief Judge and Administrator; it is the next item on the Agenda; and inquired if the Courts personnel would like to make comments.
Trial Court Administrator Mark Van Bever stated the Courts have been able to obtain State funding for the Mediation Coordinator; that position is now in the Courts budget; and it is one of the items that the Legislature, through Revision 7, said that the Courts should fund that position. He advised the last 12 months has been very trying for the Courts; a year ago it learned 16 Brevard County funded positions were in jeopardy of layoffs; it began to place employees with other agencies; it held vacant positions open; and it prioritized the employees into the most critical jobs. He stated the Courts current budget has 34 funded positions; in the request before the Board there are 12 positions; and it is a reduction of 22 positions. He stated through County funding, State funding, attrition, and planning he is please to report no employees will need to be laid off; and thanked the Board for its help in that regard. He advised the budget request does not include everything the Courts had historically; and yet it gives the Courts enough to go on productively. He stated Judge Kerry Evander, Tim Hamilton, and he would like to thank
the Board,
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Chair Higgs inquired if all other costs regarding Judges are paid by the State, but the State will not pay professional dues or life and dental insurances. Mr. Van Bever responded at this point the State will not pay for those expenses; they are trying to work something to see if, from what the Courts have been allotted by the Legislature, the Legislature will allow that type of expenditure; but they are not hopeful this fiscal year. Commissioner Scarborough stated a person would think the Legislature would think it is worthwhile for Judges to have good vision so they could read; and that does not seem very farsighted. Mr. Van Bever advised the real cost is the supplemental life insurance. Chair Higgs stated the dues for the Bar Association are important. Mr. Van Bever advised the world is not nearly as pleasant under primarily State funding. Mr. Jenkins stated the dental and vision are insurance premiums actually paid by the Judges; and the Board could authorize that since the Judges pay it, and take life insurance under advisement.
Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize payment of vision and dental insurance premiums for the Judges. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Commissioner Scarborough inquired if an employee gets life insurance equal to their salary. Mr. Jenkins responded yes, and a person can buy additional if they choose to. Commissioner
Scarborough inquired if there is a package for the judges that they could get the same insurance. Circuit Judge Kerry Evander responded they have a similar type package through the State; but it is something traditionally done by the County in addition to that.
Commissioner Colon stated Article V is one of those things of being careful what you wish for; but she is glad a year later the County was able to survive. She inquired what is the status of
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
new judges and jail overcrowding. Judge Evander responded there is no real interest in changing sentencing decisions or bond decisions, which could have an adverse effect on the safety of the community; but they have created two time tracks for second and third degree felonies and misdemeanors. He stated in the past, if a person is arrested and cannot bond out of jail, the person would have the next court appearance the same as someone who bonded out; and the next docket sounding would be at the same pace as someone who bonded out. He advised they created a quicker time track for people in custody, so the people out of custody may get their cases resolved a little slower than it has in the past; and the people in custody will get their cases resolved a little quicker. He stated if it is plea and they go to prison, a trial with a guilty verdict, or a trial with a not guilty verdict, the goal is to reduce the jail population by moving cases quicker. He advised he gathered the jail numbers yesterday, and since the start of doing this from June 1st there were 70 fewer inmates; June 15th there were 130; July 1st there were 150; and by July 12 it was down to 115. He stated they are down 100 inmates a day, which is $135 a day savings. He advised they will try to schedule the visiting judge for five weeks in October and November; that person will be assigned only to felony cases for people who have been in jail for a considerable amount of time; so they are working to address the jail overcrowding without having any adverse affect on the safety of the community. He stated there are a lot of factors regarding the jail population; he thinks the numbers can be maintained; but it depends on how many people get arrested; but the change of having two time tracks is having a positive effect. He stated as far as new judges, three of the last four years the Legislature has not funded any new judges for the State of Florida; the last study shows Florida is 30% to 35% above the national average in cases per judge; next year they are hopeful to get some funding for judges; there is a need for at least three judges; and even if they get the funding next year, the person would not begin until January 1, 2006. He stated he appreciates the support of the Board for Dependency Court; and it has not only had a dramatic effect on helping children in need by reducing the amount of time they are in limbo, but it has given the additional manpower; and by having a master in Dependency Court, they have been better able to address the jail situation. He stated regarding judicial assistant training, in the court system they deal with people who come in usually in a stressful situation, whether they have just had a child removed from the home, a probate case where there was a death in the family, in disparate need of child support, going through a divorce, or facing a criminal charge; and the training really goes to help judicial assistants beyond just typing the calendar and dealing with people in that situation. He stated they are bound by the ethics that apply to judges; and that training is very helpful in that regard. He extended his thanks to the Board for all its support. He stated it is his understanding over the past year when people left, they have not filled the positions; if it is a lower priority position it is not filled; and if it is a higher priority position, they found someone who is qualified to handle those situations.
Commissioner Colon stated she is glad to hear some of the things the Courts are doing. She stated the State Department of Corrections’ zero tolerance has really filled the jails even more; and inquired how can the Board help alleviate some of the folks who are sitting there
so the process is even faster; and can the Board actually pay for a judge or does it strictly have to come from the State. Mr. Van Bever responded they looked into that situation and only the
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
State can hire a judge. Commissioner Colon inquired if Judge Evander sees the zero tolerance has actually increased the jail population; with Judge Evander responding it has. Judge Evander stated it is an early resolution to bring in people who have been arrested, particularly on a violation of probation case, and get them in quicker and get the cases resolve; the positive of zero tolerance is it reduces the jail population; but the negative is it is a slower time track for people who are not in jail awaiting for their criminal charges to be resolved. He advised there are the same number of judges who hear the cases.
Chair Higgs advised she does not know how the Board wants to handle the requests that have not been put in the
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Sheriff’s Office
Chair Higgs advised the next item is the Sheriff’s budget; and Sheriff Williams and Commander Futch is present. She stated the item that is most on the Board’s mind is how it will deal with the jail; she has had some conversations with the Sheriff; and she is glad the Sheriff could make it to the workshop.
Sheriff Philip Williams stated one of the things the State Legislature was looking at last session that got caught in the personality conflicts between the House and the Senate was the crime mapping GPS monitoring Statewide initiative; and
He advised Commander Futch has come up with a way to use some existing corrections officers who have been traditionally for years fulfilling jobs that could be civilianized; that will allow him to transfer trained individuals to a post position to where they can help the corrections officer on the cell block, on the floor, and supervision of individuals. Sheriff Williams stated the
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
second part will be the impact on the overtime that is now mandatory by dropping in significant numbers; if no one calls in sick, it could be worked out where overtime could possibly be
extinguished; but it will be an up front investment of civilian employees to replace those and augment that. He stated while that is being done, every possible avenue must be looked at to reduce the population of those in the jail that do not need to be there. He stated due to Article V dilemma, all you have to do read the headlines of jail overcrowding and referendums rejected by the taxpayers; it is the same song all over the country; and the
Commander Futch stated it was important for the Board to see the jail to understand how the jail works. He stated the Criminal Justice Solutions Study done a year and a half ago was the benchmark as far as trying to determine positions; the original study only looked at the main facility and did not include the North Annex; and it did not include a lot of relief factors necessary for filling in for vacations, sick time, and other specialized functions that normally deplete the jail staff, such as securing inmates at hospitals. He stated the original study had a recommendation for 60 officers and nine civilians; the group that did the study was essentially trying to follow the historical staffing patterns; and that number was what was necessary to get the main jail to operational levels in terms of staffing. He stated when they looked at it they realized there were a number of positions in the jail that were historically staffed by certified officers that could be staffed with civilian personnel; that is the trend or has been the trend for the last ten years; and most of the county jails are staffing many positions with civilians because hiring and retaining certified officers is difficult. He stated with that in mind they tried to look at how they could make civilian positions out of as many as possible, and realized 50 officers already on staff could be offset and be put on the floor to provide direct security for inmates; in order to do that they needed 89 civilians to offset those 50 officers; the reason the numbers are different is because they need to put two people in the control rooms as opposed to one; and when the Commissioners did the tour there as only one in the control room. He stated the 89 civilian positions are to offset the 50 officers; and the 18 additional corrections officers asked for in the proposal are to get the Sheriff’s office up to where it needs to be, including the North Annex and
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
the relief factors. He stated the Sheriff and his Finance Director were kind enough to find funding within the budget to fund seven additional positions not included in the Board’s proposal, which would give an additional 25 officers plus the 50 officers.
Sheriff’s Office Finance Director Deborah Barker stated the success to adequately bring the jail up to staffing level is to implement the plan as proposed in one year; it cannot be implemented in any other phase due to the way the positions kick in, training schedule, and timing schedule; and those figures are not constant.
Chair Higgs stated Commander Futch told her about estimates regarding what this year will be expending in overtime costs because of the staffing; and inquired how much is estimated to be saved if the Board fully funds the plan. Commander Futch responded he will defer to Ms. Barker on the actual cost; what is budgeted for overtime does not come near what is typically used; the reality of it will be after the one-year phase in; and in year two, the overtime savings will be dramatic. He advised most of what overtime is being used for is essentially to staff the jail to a critical level; on average three to five people per shift are being called in on overtime; and there is not enough people to staff those shifts to a minimal level. Chair Higgs inquired if $900,000 or $1,000,000 is a realistic cost for this year in overtime. Commander Futch responded they are on track for a million dollars. Ms. Barker stated there will be a million dollars of expense by year end; they are already $667,000; and they are averaging over $80,000 a month in overtime. Chair Higgs inquired if the Board funds the full staffing would it offset and probably cut down the overtime significantly. Ms. Barker responded after it is implemented, everyone is trained, and all the new deputies are on Board after one full year, the Board should be able to recognize the savings.
Sheriff Williams advised he received a call from a lawyer who wanted an inmate who was involved in a litigation of some other issue brought to a mediation; he advised the lawyer he would have to pay for the transportation, mileage, and hourly fee; but to have an availability of a corrections officer who is not working that particular day to fill the off duty job is difficult for the Sheriff’s office to do. He stated if there is an arrest made by Melbourne Police Department and the prisoner is injured; they will guard him or her at the hospital; but once he or she comes to the jail, if there are complications from an injury or he or she becomes ill, it is the jail staff that provides 24/7 security guards. He stated there are only a certain number of corrections officers that are dual certified as deputies and corrections officers; if it is a female, it would reduce the pool of corrections officers to watch a female; and it is just daily instances like that of what happens that it puts their backs against the wall.
Ms. Barker advised training is always an overtime cost; and it will be lessened in the plan because a lot of training under the plan can now be accomplished within regularly scheduled shifts with the exception of range training, which is off site.
Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has a proposal, but there is a difference between what has been requested; and inquired how much more would it cost the Board to fund the full
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
request. Ms. Barker responded $1,066,000. Chair Higgs inquired if the plan is fully implemented this year and will not have $1,000,000 in overtime cost, can the number be refined with some new number that recognizes the overtime costs that have come out of the Sheriff’s budget. Sheriff Williams responded they are budgeted over $2,000,000 a year for overtime; they take overtime for other entities such as sex crime investigations and homicides where they pull overtime from any general fund overtime pot they can find other than MSTU; if they end up with $1,000,000 overtime and take $200,000 from pockets of overtime, and they still should budget for over $250,000 a year in overtime. He stated there should be a $500,000 savings once they get down the road on the plan. Chair Higgs inquired if it is this budget year; with Sheriff Williams responding if the Board hires 102 civilians and 18 corrections officers and the population stays the same at the jail, on paper there is no overtime; but for the transition time between adding people and reducing overtime, he cannot give the Board an actual savings figure. He advised it will save money; but it depends on how fast the plan gets up and running. Mr. Jenkins advised the new staffing is being phased over a period of 12 months, so it will take a year to begin to achieve the savings; and the Board may realize some of it initially. Chair Higgs stated there must be some estimate of some overtime savings that would be meaningful. Mr. Jenkins stated in the Sheriff’s defense, staff has not given them anything else in terms of inflationary cost increases in the budget; if they are fortunate enough to generate some savings, there will be other cost impacts during the year in terms of food and healthcare; so they do not have a lot of cushion because the Board has not funded anything other than additional staff. Sheriff Williams stated he understands what the Board is saying; but the idea of the plan is to do a better job than they have been doing. He advised the civilian jobs are less expensive in the benefits, retirement contributions, and all of those.
Commissioner Pritchard stated there are other costs that could be reduced; that would be insurance costs because of excess sick leave; and when it is lumped together, there will be significant savings. He stated the plan makes sense, but it is a question of when it can be implemented in terms of the dollars. He inquired if the staffing level the Sheriff proposed is based on current level of inmates. Commander Futch responded it is based on the facilities design; inmates create a more difficult task; but staffing has to be looked at in terms of the way the facilities are designed. Commander Futch advised it will not affect staffing quite as much except for movement of inmates such as visiting with families and court dates. He stated relief factors allow the Sheriff to accommodate people on leave and specialized functions that deplete the staff; it allows training on duty as opposed to calling in people for simple training initiatives; it is important to understand that in an ideal situation where everyone shows up for shift; but even if everyone does not come, in there needs to be enough to do all necessary functions and not call in people for overtime. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there will be a reduction in the current jail staffing to accommodate the staffing needed at the facility when the 256 bed facility is built. Commander Futch responded whatever facility the County ends up building, it will have to be staffed separately. Commissioner Pritchard stated if some of the criteria for staffing is based on the amount of inmates who need to be accompanied when being moved from A to B; and inquired if there are fewer inmates in one section, could the level of staffing then be reduced. Commander Futch responded with a lower population there may be less inmate
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
movement; but every time an inmate is moved out of the cell, an officer has to escort him or her to wherever he or she is going. He advised if a second jail or annex is built, and it is designed in terms of direct supervision type of setting where an inmate does not have to move around, then less staffing would be needed. He stated it is a matter of facility design that dictates how it is staffed. Commissioner Pritchard advised a consultant has been hired by the County to look at this as well as other issues; and he is concerned with acting on something premature to what the consultant may come back and tell the Board. Sheriff Williams stated there are some safe things to assume from the study because it has been studied to death by citizens groups, professionals, and so forth; it will not say ten more people are needed and a maximum security facility; but what is there is a maximum security facility since two control operators are needed. He stated by studying the population as to who is in jail, there are more minimum security type people there. Commissioner Pritchard stated a consultant will make a presentation to the Public Safety Coordinating Council, but it does not happen until August. Commander Futch advised there is a meeting coming up where there will be a preliminary report given; the scope of the study with Carter Goble had two components, (1) to study the criminal justice process and how the whole process impacts jail population, and (2) projections on necessary beds five to twenty years down the road. He stated he does not believe, as part of the scope, they were doing anything in terms of staffing; he did present his proposal to Mr. Carter for his review; and he would welcome a report back on it. Commissioner Pritchard stated the consultants will come back with a report; included in the report will be some comments on staffing; and how far it will go is up to the consultant. He stated hiring ten additional civilian personnel to help with the problem at the jail now makes a lot of sense; hiring those folks will help with the overtime; and he wants to wait to make a decision until the consultant is part of the decision making package and wants to hear what he has to say. Sheriff Williams stated if Carter Goble came back in November and said put the skids on this, that the jail does not need that many people, there will be $850,000 remaining that could be diverted to other projects.
Commissioner Carlson stated the Board is looking at the judicial process, but also thought Carter Goble was looking at basic operations in the jail as well. She requested the Facilities folks work closely with Commander Futch, and that nothing gets done unless it is actually approved by Commander Futch because he understands the makeup of the jail and what the needs are; and it would be better to have a close relationship there. Mr. Jenkins advised he assures the Board staff has a close relationship with Commander Futch.
Commissioner Colon stated she wants to take action on allocation for ten correctional technicians; it is not premature; and it will be on target to give that immediate relief. Chair Higgs expressed appreciation to Commissioner Colon for her support of the item.
Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize hiring ten corrections technicians with funding to come from the General Fund Contingency. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Ms. Barker stated the plan Commander Futch has put forward for consideration brings up the personnel needs to an acceptable level; it does not deal with the other issues; but the Sheriff’s office has operational needs. She stated they have operational needs, insurance, supplies, uniforms, and beds; there was an increase in the mattresses looked at that was funded through the Sheriff’s cash carry forward; the food contract has a balance forward of $248,000 that has not been funded in the prior year; both of the medical and food contracts are out for bid; there are increases in the budget that are based on the estimates of the bid; they will be concluded before the end of the prior year; and there will be firm figures as to what the new food and medical costs will be. Chair Higgs inquired when will those bids be in. Ms. Barker responded the medical proposals are in now and the food is due in August, so there will be solid figures before the close of the September budget hearings. She stated the catastrophic insurance is $95,000 that has not been funded; the Sheriff is looking at the point of stopping it; it is an insurance clause that has put a cap on excess of cost of over $400,000 to $500,000; liability would go to the County; it is for an inmate that has some medical situation and the costs go over the $500,000; and the catastrophic insurance covers it and pays the hospital the balance over. She stated the catastrophic insurance was added several years ago; it has never been funded; it has always been taken it out of their bottom line; and they are at the point where it will either need to be funded or look at stopping it. She stated there are still the infrastructure needs, and operational needs for increases in hygiene supplies that continue to need to be adjusted due to inmate population.
Commissioner Pritchard stated he wants to continue the jail discussion and then move into the rest of the Sheriff’s budget. Ms. Barker requested the Board go to the Detention Center Program profile. Mr. Whitten stated if the Sheriff is going to begin on the unfunded for the Detention it would be on page PCSO54, Volume 3 under the Sheriff’s tab. Ms. Barker stated the Sheriff will be coming forward to the Board with some adjustments before the end of this year trying to wait to see how much it can absorb and how much it can pay for, and how the overtime is doing; but he will need the additional unpaid balance of the food contract that is $248,000. She stated Major Altman had advised he thought the costs would be $300,000 before the end of the year, but there are a few months of the year to see what that will pan out to be; there are budget adjustments that they are looking at to see what they can cover such overtime costs and about $800,000 unfunded payouts; and that issue has been discussed before. She stated the Sheriff’s office has employees who have retired, were fired, or who leave, and the payout is not budgeted; and that is about $800,000 to $1,000,000 that is outstanding on the Sheriff’s side that is not funded. She stated there are some potential budget adjustments that will need to be looked at for the remainder of this year, many of which deal with the jail; and the Sheriff’s office will have those to the Board by August.
Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Sheriff’s office has an enterprise revenue of $270,000 applied towards the food service contract and insurance. Ms. Barker responded the cash carry forward from last year was about $336,000; and in December that was returned to the County. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it has been subtracted from the amount Ms. Barker is speaking of now. Ms. Barker responded the only amount that has been subtracted, if the Board
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
was to still escrow those monies for Sheriff’s use, is the mattresses expense that was done in December of last year, which is $125,000; and there would still be $200,000 plus available out of the amount that was turned back in last year that could go towards the food or any other jail expenses. Commissioner Pritchard stated before the Sheriff gives the Board a dollar value on the increase of food costs, he will subtract out the $200,000 or so; and he recalls it was earmarked so it could be applied towards the increases.
Sheriff Williams stated the scenario without the catastrophic insurance would be that the inmate would look for the County either through a claims bill or through litigation; and there is a realization that $400,000 in a hospital could be three days or something like that. He stated it is a wise investment to have that insurance umbrella; he thinks it kicks in at about $50,000; and they have a lot of $50,000 claims from the jail. Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson inquired if the insurance the Sheriff is speaking of covers negligent actions of the Sheriff and/or the County, or is it just straight healthcare issues for an inmate who ends up having to go into the hospital. Ms. Barker responded it is just healthcare issues and not for liability. Commissioner Scarborough advised $94,000 for this catastrophic insurance is cheap; and with medical care today and the potential for spread of a contagious disease, he can see it being one of the best buys. Ms. Wilson advised there have been people with cancer, pregnancies, kidney issues, and just about everything. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it would cover everything and is there a cap; with Sheriff Williams responding there is a cap. Commissioner Carlson advised it is a mandated requirement. Ms. Wilson advised there are certain circumstances under which the County will have to pay the expense; there is a Florida Statute that sets out who the expenses are recovered from; and there are occasions in which the County ends up being the one who the hospital comes to, to recover that cost. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if any pre-existing condition becomes the County’s problem. Ms. Wilson responded depending on the circumstances. Commissioner Carlson advised there are folks on dialysis in the jail; and inquired if they were on dialysis before they were put in jail. Ms. Barker responded yes.
Chair Higgs stated the Board needs to look at the other parts of the Sheriff’s budget; and inquired if the Sheriff has any comments to make. Sheriff Williams stated the jail is a priority issue in this budget.
Commissioner Scarborough stated he has to leave a little after 3:00 p.m.; and inquired if the Board can order sandwiches and work through lunch it would save an hour of time.
Commissioner Pritchard stated the Sheriff said the jail is his priority, and it is the Board’s priority as well. Ms. Barker stated the cars are outstanding; there are over 100 vehicles that need to be
replaced that have met the criteria of either five years or 100,000; she understands the vehicles are not funded at this time; but she wanted to bring it forward as an issue. Ms. Barker stated the Sheriff’s office may lose programs; commercial paper rates are still low; the County has limited resources; but the cars are still an issue in the amount of approximately $3,000,000. She advised there is a change to the training fund this year; they lost approximately $200,000 in
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
the general fund training funds, which are being replace by a new revenue source, the 250 training fund; she knows the attorneys are working together on that to make sure there is a Florida Statute that the Sheriff will receive the money and that the money is set aside to replace the $200,000 in the general fund that was absorbed. Ms. Wilson advised there are two attorneys in the office who are working on those issues. She stated there are budget adjustments that need to be brought forward before the end of this year; and they are trying to absorb as much costs as possible.
Chair Higgs advised the adequate staffing of the jail is the priority in this year’s budget; her priority and ability to support a budget will be predicated on her feelings if the Board has adequately funded the staffing at the jail; and if the Board gets to that final budget and she does not feel the jail funding is adequate, she will not support the budget.
Commissioner Pritchard stated he has another priority and that is road patrol; more deputies on the road and less administrative; and there are 14 commanders and years ago there were four. He advised there is a change in management style that has taken place at the jail; and there seems to be a lot of upper administrators and fewer people on the roads. He stated going through the budget he found a number of prices for vehicles considered to be police vehicles; under law enforcement vehicles unfunded, 112 vehicles meet the criteria of 100,000 or over five years old; and that comes out to be $23,495 a piece. He stated elsewhere in the budget are cars under MSTU Law Enforcement; and those cars are $31,875 a piece. He stated the outfitting of each vehicle is $4,900, but the numbers do not seem to add up from one section to the next section. Ms. Barker stated per her understanding of that, the $31,000 is for the Crown Victoria and all the things to be added to it; within the general fund staff took some of the Sheriff’s office capital base and took five cars away and took those dollars to fund them; and that is why the cost of the car looks different. Mr. Rogero stated it was not currently reflected in the budget; it was something that was discussed after the book was published; where it shows 37 vehicles at $31,000 is what was provided to the Budget Office; discussion after that was fully-equipped vehicles; so the amount of funding will remain the same but the number of vehicles will be reduced because of fully-equipped vehicles. Ms. Barker stated in MSTU it includes everything, including the stalked radar and in-car video camera; and that is almost $8,000. Commissioner Pritchard stated he cannot make the numbers come up to the $31,875. Ms. Barker advised in general fund it is not just Crown Victorias; and there is a combination of vehicles to be replaced. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is not what it says in the budget. Ms. Barker stated general fund is vehicles; and in MSTU it says Crown Victorias. Sheriff Williams advised in 1997 when he took office there were 97 MSTU deputies on the road now; there are 177 MSTU deputies’ on the road; but the deputies cars that are patrolling the green and whites are the most expensive to get equipped as compared to the general fund vehicles. He stated what the Sheriff’s office does try to do is recycle as many of the attachments as possible. Commissioner Pritchard advised it is not laid out well in the budget; and he focused on cars because it was the easiest to track through the budget. Ms. Barker advised the program profile can be changed. Commissioner Pritchard stated when he cannot make sense
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
out of something, then he becomes suspect that maybe other things are being treated the same way. Ms. Barkers stated everything is in black and white; they all have numbers to back them up; and she has details for every dime on the proposal.
Commissioner Pritchard advised under the Capital Outlay Summary, a marked patrol car that is fully-equipped is $30,125; and that does not correspond with the $31,000. Ms. Barker advised some of the MSTU cars may have a radar that can be replaced and put into the new car; some of them may not have that equipment; while it says we are replacing 30 Crown Victorias, they are a little different; and the Sheriff’s office tries to recycle as much capital equipment as possible. Commissioner Pritchard stated unless the Sheriff’s office identifies what is going into the vehicle and what the cost then becomes, he is questioning the several different amounts listed. Sheriff Williams advised it depends on where it is purchased; and it is difficult to say what pieces of equipment need to be added to new vehicles to get them ready to put out on the streets. He stated the Sheriff’s office tries to give the Board the replacement costs of that whole vehicle, and as they cannibalize the cars and send to auction the other vehicle’s money is saved. He stated he hates to nickel and dime the Board to death. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would prefer the Sheriff’s office give a price for a fully-equipped vehicle with all of the equipment that would be current and up-to-date; a lot of the stuff can be cannibalized; but when the Sheriff’s office buys a vehicle it should be current. Sheriff Williams noted on the general fund side, supervisors will not have in-car cameras or radars; so that drops the vehicle price down.
Commissioner Pritchard stated investigator administrative vehicles are listed at $17,400; administrative cars are $16,000; and it would help if he were to know what the Sheriff’s office was talking about. He stated that is on the sworn side of the operation; and there are a lot of civilians who have vehicles. Ms. Barker advised there is a list of names and they are taxed accordingly under IRS guidelines; and there are probably 12 to 15 vehicles. Commissioner Pritchard stated there are a lot of things occurring in the Sheriff’s office; a lot of information is provided; and he would like to find out if they are all accurate. He stated some of the items are questionable as to why a take home vehicle is necessary; and he has to question why does a administrative person who is not a sworn deputy have a take home vehicle and not just be paid mileage. He stated it seems like an excessive cost or a perk for being in a position; it is not done in the County; and if the list is reviewed of civilians with take-home cars, it could be cut down to next to nothing. Ms. Barker advised she has the current list under IRS guidelines; and she does not know what information Commissioner Pritchard may have. Commissioner Pritchard advised he has one line item that says one person is attending physician assistant school in
Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board would hear the Chief of West Melbourne regarding the Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC).
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Chair Higgs suggested taking a break before speaking with the City of
Meeting recessed at 11:40 a.m. and reconvened at 11:45 a.m.
West Melbourne Police Chief Brian Lott stated he appreciated the opportunity to come before the Board to give it insight from law enforcement’s perspective on the Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC) and the proposal it has seen. He stated he has had the privilege of serving on the JAC Advisory Board for the past couple of years; he is convinced the key to turning the children around is early intervention; and study after study validates that. He advised the monies put towards the JAC program is like the catastrophic health insurance, pay now or pay later; and if the program is viable and has methods and ways of validating its success it is well worth funding. He noted the key issues are concerns of the local law enforcement, particularly in South Brevard; with the proposal it will be a 24-hour seven days a week operation; when it was operational at Sarno it was appreciated but was not a 24-hour seven days a week operation; and it was not used to the extent hoped. He stated as the County grows, the challenges become more; the number one priority is once law enforcement decides it needs to take a juvenile into custody, they need to know where to take the child; and without a JAC, the alternative is to take the child to Sharpes. He stated law enforcement either has to make the decision to turn a blind eye or deal with the child for hours until someone responsible can take over the child. He advised it presents a tremendous challenge for law enforcement, and they look favorably to a process that allows them to take the juvenile within a reasonable time period, and deliver the child to a center that relieves them of that responsibility. He stated long-term is the concept that the child will get the help and intervention he or she truly needs; and if the system is one to help turn around the child, it is a very wise investment.
Vice President for Development at Crosswinds Youth Services Jim Ross thanked the Board for its support over the years for the JAC; stated six months ago the Board made the decision to temporarily suspend the operations of the JAC and challenged the JAC Advisory Board to work with the community to come up with a model that was going to work; and to provide the 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year center really made the difference. He advised the community has responded; the chiefs of police have been heroic in its involvement in the JAC; and the law enforcement community has as well. He stated it is almost unheard of to come up with a model, which not only does what it does for the same amount of money, but it actually provides the tremendous increase in the amount of hours that would be accessible; and of the children arrested, 55% were not assessed. He stated those were the children who were not detained; they were the most highly at risk to going on to commit crimes again; and they were not being assessed. He advised the model provides the opportunity of assessment for that 55% of the children; there will be many children whose lives will be saved; and the children may not end up in prison and go on to have fulfilling lives. He stated it will reduce crime and make the community better; and it is all because of the community support and the Board’s call to the community to come up with the model. Mr. Ross thanked the Department of Juvenile Justice
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
that endorsed the new model and is coming in with its funding at the same levels as before. He stated it is a good news story for the community; and it shows the tremendous commitment to make the County better.
Motion by Commissioner Colon to approve start-up cost of $54,000 for the
Chair Higgs inquired if the Board will make budget decisions today. Commissioner Colon responded she wants the Board to make the decision regarding the JAC because they need the start-up funds that are already sitting there; and it is not like the Board will be impacting the budget. Chair Higgs stated it will impact the budget for next year. Commissioner Colon advised it is monies that have been allocated for the JAC. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised there are two issues; the start-up money, which is approximately $54,000 that is in this year’s budget; and the funding of the program next year that is $234,000. Chair Higgs stated it is next year’s budget decision. Commissioner Carlson stated it is already in the budget. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is not adopting the budget now because there has to be certain notices, but it is appropriate to give direction to the
Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion.
Chair Higgs advised she voted nay on the Alzheimer’s item; it is not because she does not support doing that, but she thought all of the items need to be put in the basket; and then the
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
priorities need to be identified. Commissioner Carlson stated it goes hand-in-hand with the priority of reducing jail overcrowding; keeping juveniles out of jail is a proactive approach; and the Board is trying to fix the problem. Commissioner Scarborough stated maybe a motion can be taken to the effect that although the funds are not identified, it is something the Board wants to identify as one of those the Board wants to move forward with. Commissioner Carlson advised it was earmarked earlier when the Board did not know what was going on with JAC. Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board has not talked about the future budget. Commissioner Carlson stated it is in the County Manager’s budget, which does not mean it cannot be changed if there is sentiment that one of the Commissioners wants to cut JAC out; and with all the work in the Legislature the Board owes everyone who worked so hard on the JAC something. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can talk today and give a positive direction. Chair Higgs stated the Board talked about performance measures; and those are staff generated and agreed to in the contract; the Board does not have a contract, but if it takes action today, it will just allocate some funds; and she expects a contract with performance measures.
Chief Operating Officer of Cross Winds Will Jones stated the JAC Advisory Board in conjunction with Cross Winds has developed proposed outcome and performance measures for the new model; and they will be happy to share them with the Board. Chair Higgs stated it needs to go through the process; and it will come through staff. Commissioner Carlson stated it should have a measurable outcome similar to what the Board does with the Community Based Organization (CBO) dollars. Chair Higgs advised the Board negotiates a contract, it does not just sit there and say there will be measurable outcomes. Commissioner Carlson stated there is no misunderstanding; the Board has to have the performance measures; and it needs an understanding of how it is managing the contract. She stated the Board needs to officially earmark those dollars to be considered in the budget; and she will support it in the budget.
Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the effect of the motion. Commissioner Colon responded just like the Board did an hour ago, it took monies from the Contingency Fund for this year to fund ten correctional technicians; this one is quite unique because the Board has to go back to the dollars of the 2003-2004 budget; take the $54,000 that has been allocated, and let the JAC use it; and then continue to future discussion for the 2004-2005. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not see why the Board cannot vote for that.
Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if the motion included the $54,000 for the renovations out of this year’s budget; not earmarked, but to spend. Chair Higgs advised she wants the contract negotiated before the money is released. Mr. Jenkins stated it is for construction. Chair Higgs noted she does not care what it is for, it should not be released until there is a contract. Commissioner Colon stated absolutely; and inquired who is not going to agree with that. She thanked everyone for all of the hard work.
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Chair Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chair Pritchard.
Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Carlson, to direct the
Vice Chair Pritchard inquired if it was $1,000,000 to fully-fund the jail. Commissioner Carlson advised it is $1,066,000 to do the full request; there is a difference because the Board has already funded part of it; but she does not know what the difference in money is. Commissioner Scarborough stated there are a couple of dynamic things; Commissioner Pritchard brought up the Carter Goble Study; the Board has backed out of the 250-bed facility because of Carter Goble; and instead of putting the money directly into the construction, it dropped it into reserve; and the Board needs to look at the Carter Goble Study before the money is released from the reserves. Commissioner Higgs stated she may be willing to looking at generating additional funds; she may be willing to cut other things that are being funded; but the jail is her priority. Commissioner Scarborough stated until he knows what is being cut and the dynamics of what Carter Goble says, he is not with the Board just yet; but there is some degree of closure with the JAC. Commissioner Higgs stated the 107 corrections technicians is something she wants to fund; she believes it is necessary; and it will be her bottom line. Commissioner Carlson stated as long as the caveat says to reimburse reserves up; she thinks the Board’s financial position has been underminded because of the cash flow problems; and it needs to make sure its reserve is up a little higher. Mr. Jenkins stated staff made cuts to give the Board the budget; he is getting the sense that not everyone is thrilled with the cuts; and the most fundamental way to generate another million dollars is eliminate “x” number of positions; or eliminate a service the County currently provides. He stated he can take one approach that others have described as the peanut butter sandwich approach; and he can tell the Board how many positions it would take to generate a million dollars without identifying positions. He noted when he creates another million dollars worth of cuts, it will be turbulent within the organization; so unless there are three Commissioners willing to make a million dollars worth of cuts somewhere else or willing to increase revenues by a million dollars, it is important that three decide now it wants to do that. He stated he cannot do that without making muscle cuts; it is not easy; and it has been difficult making the cuts he already made. He stated a majority of the Board needs to be serious if it wants to spend another million dollars.
Commissioner Higgs stated the budget is predicated on rollback and the 3% increase over that; her belief is the millage rate is what the Board sets; and rollback is a number set by TRIM so the State identifies it. She advised she is willing to talk about revenue. Vice Chair Pritchard stated at this point the Board will go around in circles; he will not support the motion; if the Board voted now it will be moot; and requested she withdraw the motion.
Commissioner Carlson withdrew her second to Commissioner Higgs’ motion. Motion died for lack of a second.
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board wants to earmark the money for any additional funds that may roll in once the Board finds out about the two other potential revenue sources. Mr. Jenkins stated the $1,900,000 will be over $3,000,000 because the Sheriff is staggering the hiring of the corrections technicians over a 12-month period, so the $2,000,000 impact today will probably have a $3,000,000 impact the following year; and it is a partial payment on the full cost of hiring the corrections technicians. Commissioner Higgs advised if the Board wants to realize the full savings in terms of the enormous overtime costs the program needs to be put in place. Mr. Jenkins stated hopefully the overtime savings will help defer some of the other expenses.
The Board requested County Manager Tom Jenkins identify full funding for 107 corrections technicians being requested at the jail as a Board priority.
Vice Chair Pritchard returned the gavel to Chair Higgs.
Agriculture and Extension Services
Agriculture and Extension Services Director Jim Fletcher stated he was not clear on what the Board wants him to discuss. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised that each Director can go through the program changes. Commissioner Pritchard stated he has a summary prepared for him so he does not need to look at the volume; he knows the Agriculture and Extension Services budget went down 4.11%, which is $36,000; a full-time position was eliminated; but he wants to know what the effect will be on the operation.
Mr. Fletcher advised they did go through and look at the program changes and at the overall program; decided what was best for his department with the least amount of impact; and the office is not large, so anything is a dramatic impact in budget cut. He stated the technician being funded through the Brevard Soil and Water Conservation Board would provide the least amount of impact to the office; and it will be a substantial cut in the services being provided to the County. He stated Mr. Mallard can give the Board what the actual impact of that position is to the County.
Natural Resources Conservation Service Director Dave Mallard stated from his standpoint, they are looking at how many residents receive assistance from what the Agriculture and Extension Services Department does; and there are residents who receive value from what the department does that is not directly assisted by it. He stated it will leave the capability of actual conservation treatment provided by the position, but the residents receiving technical and planning assistance will be reduced by 340; and what is not evaluated by that kind of impact is what the position does. He stated they do provide a service primarily to agricultural landowners, but they are not there to help them in their business operation; and they are there to help protect the natural resource base. He stated the prevention of surface water contamination through chemical applications and so forth is better served than trying to fix the problems afterwards. He stated the other functions is to work as a go-between with regulatory agencies and the
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
landowners; they have difficult requirements to meet to keep their operations going; and what they are able to do is to say here are the restrictions given by natural resources of St. Johns River Water Management District and tell them how to fix the problem. He stated the impact to their office is significant because a lot of things they do is field work; if he loses the person he is working with he cannot do water management surveys; and many things like that cannot be done because he cannot do it himself. He advised in 1994 there was a funded field officer; and in that year it was closed. He stated he is only able to be stationed here for two reasons; the agent at the
Chair Higgs inquired if it is funded out of the general fund. Budget Director Dennis Rogero responded yes. Chair Higgs inquired if it was ever contemplated to be funded out of Stormwater Utilities. Mr. Mallard responded in 1991 the Stormwater Conservation District budget was removed and the Board restored it; the Board replaced $20,000 of the general fund with Stormwater funds; and they currently receive a transfer from Stormwater for $25,000 for the budget. Commissioner Pritchard inquired who made the decision to terminate the position. Mr. Fletcher responded he did. Mr. Jenkins advised it was based on the fact he was asked to eliminate a position. Mr. Fletcher stated when you make a cut to the Agriculture Extension Services Office, since it is a small office, it will impact every program there. He advised in meeting with Mr. Mallard and trying to decide what would be the least amount of impact, that is what he came up with. Mr. Fletcher advised there were some unfunded requests, which are put in the budget year after year; it will continue to be done; part of the goal is to get the department doing educational programs; and in order for those agents to be able to do the jobs, they need portable LCD projectors and laptop computers. Chair Higgs inquired if the State funded Agriculture and Extension Services at the same level as last year. Mr. Fletcher responded yes. He stated a 4-H agent was hired; the State picked up the funding; and some of the operating dollars there was a little more support. Chair Higgs inquired if the State increased some of the funding; with Mr. Fletcher responding yes.
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Fletcher needed to make a decision between the unfunded equipment or the position what would he choose. Mr. Fletcher responded definitely the position as it is critical to the County.
Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Jenkins would ask someone who has the financial information from Stormwater to give the Board some idea of what a 50 cent increase might produce; and inquired how much is the position. Mr. Fletcher responded approximately $45,000. Chair Higgs advised the stormwater fee has remained constant over the years since the late 1980’s. Mr. Jenkins stated Mr. Fletcher needs to come in on that issue because of those permits he has to have; and they have to pay for that, which is getting expensive.
Animal Services and Enforcement
Animal Services and Enforcement Director Craig Engelson stated their budget is looking at a 1.75% increase basically for salaries and such; this year they have looked at decreasing the general fund contribution by increasing the revenues in tag sales; a position has been created from a lieutenant to a part-time animal enforcement officer; and it gives them another officer on the road at better times of the day. He advised the budget will require an increase in tags from $7 to $9; and also adding a differential for spay/neutering of $15 if the animal is not spayed or neutered. He stated they support spay/neutering, and to do that they will give them a break on the tag; those are the only significant program changes. He advised there are several unfunded requests. He stated it is important to include the 800 MHz radios; they have MPD radios and MPA radios; they still work fine as long as they work; once they break, there are no replacement parts available; so it is important to have the 800 MHz radios. He advised two part-time enforcement officers are needed; the only way to get the officers is to buy vehicles and equipment; and it makes it a high price to do that. He stated he wishes to have a part-time veterinarian; what they do now is use a temporary veterinarian; but
they want to make it a part-time position to attract more veterinarians to the position. He stated during a disasters there are no back-up generators at the animal care centers; if they lose power at those centers they also lose water; and the animals really get upset when they do not have the air conditioning. He noted his office has decreased their travel to help cover some of the expenses. Mr. Jenkins advised Mr. Engelson should not get blamed for raising the rates, because he did it.
Chair Higgs inquired in terms of the County’s ability to generate more revenue, what has been the experience in the past few years on licenses and renewal. She stated she understands it is being done by computer; and it has tried to sell the licenses at retail outlets. She inquired how have the tag sales been in the past few years. Mr. Engelson responded his office has been working well with the local veterinarians; over 50% of the tag sales are through the veterinarians; there are several outlets to buy tags; and as of the third quarter, there is a 27% increase in revenue generated over last year. He noted they are on radio shows and television shows on the BCC channel promoting the tags. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Tax Collector sells tags now. Mr. Engelson responded not yet because that is still being negotiated.
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Pritchard inquired what would be the hang up of having the tags available at the Tax Collector’s office. Mr. Engelson responded currently the Tax Collector is opposed to that avenue, but that hope has not been given up on. Commissioner Pritchard advised the whole idea was to consolidate certain services and make it easier for the public; the license plate function was moved from the Service Complex on
but once a person shows interest in adopting a pet at that point it is scheduled for spay/neutering and gets rabies vaccination, basic shots, a veterinarian examination, and given to the person as a new pet.
Chair Higgs advised there are some shelters around the country that give a voucher; a person takes the pet to the veterinarian’s office; and the current law will not allow that. Mr. Engelson stated State law does allow that; a few years ago by ordinance the County decided State law is fine and other agencies such as CVHS can still do the voucher program; and in County-run facilities the animal will be spayed or neutered. Chair Higgs stated the tracking of that program was an issue.
Commissioner Carlson noted there is a sheet in the regular red book the Board has that talks about measurable goals for achieving cost efficiencies; in some of them it shows where the County has become efficient; and others show it is the County’s goal to become more efficient. She stated it is part of a program to try to cut costs through efficient measures; it looks good from what she has seen throughout the budget; but on Animal Services & Enforcement she is
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
not sure she is reading it right. She inquired if they have achieved any of the goals over times.
Mr. Engelson responded it is what goals that have been achieved currently. Mr. Jenkins advised it is prospective as opposed to retroactive. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board will know how efficient to date it has been based on the institution of the program profile, if it could say how efficient it has been, and how much more efficient it wants to become. Mr. Jenkins stated it indicates the measurement is in there in terms of what the reduction is going to be or the savings is going to be.
Chair Higgs inquired if the actual adoption of the increased fees is by resolution. Mr. Jenkins responded it is either by resolution or ordinance. Mr. Engelson stated it is a fee resolution. Chair Higgs inquired when will it be done. Mr. Jenkins responded as soon it is put on the Agenda. Commissioner Carlson stated it has already been programmed into the budget.
Chair Higgs advised it is time for the Board to speak if it does not have consensus on moving forward on this. Commissioner Scarborough stated it amazes him how much people can argue over a couple of dollars. He stated he does not know why someone would drive somewhere else to save $2. Chair Higgs stated staff needs to get that in the process so the Board can deal with it. Mr. Jenkins advised it is in the budget.
Board of
Mr. Jenkins advised there are no changes in the Board of County Commissioners budget. Commissioner Carlson advised some of the Board members have less staff than others; she has one less staff member who is being paid but is on maternity leave; and her office is managing the function even though they have one less person. Chair Higgs stated she
wonders if the Board should consider getting the Commission offices to two people as opposed to three. Mr. Jenkins stated the County can afford going to two staff members, but there is not enough money to cover four staff members. Chair Higgs stated she is talking about going to two staff members; not immediately; but over time evolve into that as positions become open they are not filled. Commissioner Pritchard advised it would create many administrative and operational problems; the Commissioners have to schedule for vacations and occasional sick
leave; the amount of work the District 2 office is generating is more than enough to keep three people busy; and he does not think looking at a cut in that part of the County’s operation will be in the best interest of the public. He stated there are many citizens who call and request items; it is handled timely and efficiently; and the credit goes to the people who work for the Commission office. Chair Higgs stated if the Board expects the other County departments to down size it should begin with the Commission offices; other Commissioners have operated a number of months with two people; and the offices can operate more efficiently. Commissioner Pritchard stated if Chair Higgs wants to run her office with two people, he is in support of that.
Commissioner Scarborough stated sometimes he wakes up his assistant Rene Davis; he called the Commission office and Kathy England picked up at 4:00 a.m.; he asked why she was there;
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
she said she was sick today and the Commissioner had a rough day; and she needed to come in and get it organized. He inquired how many people get up while it is still dark, go to the office because they are sick and they have to go to the doctor. He stated he does not think people realize what wonderful people the Commissioners have working for them; and it is amazing the dedication they have to make things work.
Commissioner Pritchard stated the Commission offices are the clearing house of what gets passed on to the rest of the County; and generally things are handled by the office staff without encumbering the rest of the County.
Chair Higgs stated she will not make a motion; it will be a two to two vote; but she feels it will realize cost savings.
Budget Office
Budget Director Dennis Rogero requested the Board turn to page PC-BO-1 in the Program Change Book. He stated the first item is a funded program change to eliminate a part-time analyst; he has been able to move the individual into a current vacant position; but the budget dictates he is losing a part-time position. He stated the Budget office appreciates the Board’s support over the years; when he was first hired about five years ago the budget was over $450,000,000; it has since almost doubled; and in the course of those five years the amount of analysis, information requests from the Board and County Management has continued to increase, and the office has been operating with the same number of full-time equivalents for some time. He stated as the program change identifies, some of the Budget Office’s services
may decline because of the reduction; and it may translate into taking a little longer to respond to information requires or to do a thorough analysis of varying areas. He advised outside of that position, there are no significant changes in his office. He stated one of the efficiencies he has implemented in the current year, and he mentioned during the budget workshop in May, was to split an existing full-time position into two part-time positions and share the functions of that pre-existing full-time among the two part-time to recognize cost savings as part-time positions do not incur benefit expenses.
Commissioner Carlson stated on the efficiency report there is an estimated savings of $5,000 in actual costs for not doing the printing of the CIP; and inquired how many copies of the CIP are made on an annual basis. Mr. Rogero responded thousands are spent in just the cost of publishing it; and he included staff time in that amount. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Rogero foresees overtime costs associated in getting the job done because of the job cut. Mr. Rogero responded he does see some overtime being required, however they are overtime exempt in terms of staffing. Commissioner Pritchard stated the CIP can be put online; and if someone wants a copy it can be accessed on a disk. He stated the only concern he has if only a dozen copies are produced is, the cost it might be for someone who wanted to print out what is on a disk. He stated if that situation occurred, he would likely publish an additional copy in-
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
house because they are compelled to have the copies available to the public; and they normally do not charge a member of the public for a copy of the budget books. Mr. Jenkins advised it is expensive to make copies of the books; and in the libraries disks can be provided. Commissioner Carlson stated put it online.
Central Services
Central Services Director Steve Stultz stated as far as the Central Services budget and the three programs that comprise Central Services are Fleet Services, Asset Management, and Purchasing Services; and there is one unfunded program change within Asset Management being requested. He stated it is an additional position in Asset Management that is on page PC-CS-1; it has been a request for the past two budget years; it is a result of full implementation of Gatsby Statement 34 requirements concerning the accountability of infrastructure and fixed assets; one other occurrence during that timeframe was the internal audit of Property Control, which has since been named Asset Management; and the recommendations of the internal auditors transferred some of the reconciliation and functions from Finance Department to Asset Management. He noted there are a couple of unfunded operation and maintenance issues concerning rehabilitation of some of the facilities within Fleet Services, dependent upon revenue flow or available revenues generated by Fleet Service; and other than that, there are no more changes unless the Board has questions.
Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the request for $34,000 for an Asset Manager is because of a problem locating the County’s assets. Mr. Stultz responded one of the findings of the internal audit in 2002 was that there was a variance between the consolidated financial statements from
Finance and the asset records; as part of the follow-up on the audit there was a $8.8 million dollar variance between those two documents; to date they have been able to reconcile about $6.5 million dollars of those; it resulted into going back to 1986 and 1987 records; part of that was resulted from annual postings being made in one office and adjustments to the asset records within the Finance Department; and any adjustments are made solely by Asset Management personnel. County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired what Mr. Stultz wants the position for. Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten advised part of the explanation for the position request is there are different accounting standards placed on governments as a result of Gatsby 34; governments are required to track and account on their financial books for
infrastructure, which was never carried on the financial books before; and part of the justification for requesting the position is to do the accounting work that is required as a part of the new accounting standard. Mr. Jenkins stated they have one accountant but need another.
County
Attorney
Commissioner Scarborough inquired if County Attorney Scott Knox will give a status report on The Great Outdoors item before he talks about his budget. County Attorney Scott Knox stated
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
they have agreed 99% on an Agreement; it will hopefully be finished within an hour; and he will bring it back to the Board for its approval. He advised part of the Agreement would be incorporating a release of four permits for land planners and two for people who are not associated with any parties to lawsuits. He stated the homeowners association has to get approval from its board of directors to get approval of the final version of the Agreement; it will hold it up until Tuesday; and there is an arrangement worked out.
Chair Higgs stated the Board wanted to hear the impacts of any program changes that are either funded or unfunded. Mr. Knox stated the only changes that show up in the Board’s version is the deletion of one position; he has operated since 1993 with 15 staff people; the position to be cut is a law clerk; and he wanted to add that back in, as his office cannot operate without a law clerk. He advised fortunately there has been an intern who has been working for three months; and she has helped the
Commissioner Carlson advised that savings is from the paperless system being used in the
their functions. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board can get a report based on what the
County Manager Tom Jenkins stated his office transferred a position; he eliminated an Assistant County Manager position at a significant savings to the County; a Special Projects Coordinator position was reassigned to Space Coast Government Television; and that position will continue to do many of the things they did when working in the County Manager’s office, such as the
Citizens Academy, annual reports, services guide, and a number of those types of things. He stated that person is being trained to assist the staff of Space Coast Government Television; the coverage of the meetings that office does takes an extraordinary number of hours; at one point in time he had suggested they curtail the coverage of some of those meetings; and he received several calls of concern of not broadcasting them. He stated additional staff was needed, so he tried to be creative and took an individual who already had a job trained that person so the skills would be enhanced to assist in operating the equipment. He stated those are the only two changes in the
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Pritchard inquired how many people are assigned to the Space Coast Government Television. Mr. Jenkins responded there are four assigned, but one has other duties as well; there is a person from Information System co-located there who is working on the web page information and trying to link the information between the two mediums. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the person who is co-located came from Gino Butto’s office; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard stated a few years ago there were only two or three people who operated the television operation, and now it has been increased to roughly five. Mr. Jenkins advised two of the five people are not full-time on Space Coast Government Television; they have other duties and responsibilities; and the fifth one from Information Systems is a backup position. He stated several things have happened to increase personnel in that office; more broadcasting of meetings than before; the sophistication of the equipment being used to broadcast the meetings takes three people for video, sound, and typing in the stuff that drifts across the bottom of the screen; and there are many types of meetings being broadcasted. Mr. Jenkins advised the former manager of the Station got burned out and took another job because she got tired of working 75 hours a week. Commissioner Pritchard advised she is still working 75 hours a week. Mr. Jenkins stated it is her nature.
Chair Higgs stated maybe the County is getting to a level of sophistication and thus a demand on people that is not necessary; the Charter Commission was meeting a huge number of hours; and the Board needs to look at that in assessing whether or not to continue to staff up. She stated no one envisioned ABC, NBC, or CBS from Space Coast Government Television; it is doing a great job; but she is not sure it is necessary. Mr. Jenkins stated when he decided not to
broadcast Planning and Zoning meetings and the Board of Adjustment, which is unincorporated area only, the phones start ringing with people complaining of being denied access to the public business. Chair Higgs stated she does not disagree with Mr. Jenkins; because SCGTV has done such a good job, the expectation and access level has gone up; and the Board needs to assess if that is where it wants to go. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has to find out from the people who actually utilize SCGTV; there is a group of people who would watch no matter what; and there are the masses who do not have a clue.
Commissioner Scarborough stated he was having lunch one day after SCGTV began to broadcast the Board meetings; and a young lady came up to him and wanted to know what happened with the
stated the more informed a person is the better off he or she will be in demanding the right things from government. He stated people’s interests are great; their interests allow them to be informed; and their information drives government to be better.
Commissioner Carlson agreed with Commissioner Scarborough. She stated on the basis of what Chair Higgs was saying, if the Board is considering it as a budgetary question, there has to be performance measures; if some sort of a survey is not done on a yearly basis on some of the services the County provides, it does not know if anyone is using those services or not; and the Board assumes it is being utilized. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would ask the
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
question of how many people watch SCGTV Board meetings as opposed to other programs; there is a certain group in the population who find it interesting to know what is going on in their community; and they can impact a change. Chair Higgs advised she is not suggesting SCGTV be taken off the air; they are getting very sophisticated; she saw the split screen TV; and she saw Commissioner Scarborough and Commissioner Carlson at the same time. She stated as SCGTV gets more professional it gets more expensive; and the Board needs to be sure that is what it needs to do. Commissioner Carlson stated it is an assumption that it gets more expensive; maybe there is more talent that was not there before; and they may have gotten smarter. Chair Higgs advised there are three people in SCGTV; and it is nice. Commissioner Pritchard noted it is more than nice, it is professional. He stated he has watched some of the municipalities operating with a single camera; and after about three minutes he needs Dramamine. He stated people have come up to him at the store or gas station; there has been a level of sophistication achieved; and if it is what the County needs to keep it going, he is fine with it. He advised he wanted to justify why there are “x” number of people doing the job. Mr. Jenkins stated it is a good product; it is extraordinary how many people comment to him personally about SCGTV; and people who would normally have no other access or exposure to
Economic and Financial Programs
Chair Higgs inquired if Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten wanted to speak on the Economic and Financial Programs.
Emergency Management Office
County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Emergency Management Director Bob Lay is at a catastrophic management meeting in
Ann Fosberg and Community Coordinator Nancy Smith introduced themselves to the Board. Ms. Fosberg stated she is on loan from the Public Safety Department; and she is not part of Emergency Management. Mr. Jenkins stated Ms. Fosberg is part of the Public Safety Department; they loan her to Emergency Management to take care of their books; and it is a cost savings to the County. Ms. Fosberg stated EM-7 shows the actual operations; the office summary summarizes everything, including the project grants; and the grants change drastically from year-to-year. She stated the office is in great need of the program changes; there are three; one is a full-time operations person; another a part-time financial person; and the third
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
would be a media system that would provide efficiency. She stated Ms. Smith could speak to the operations end of it. Ms. Smith advised they are continually asked to do more with less; and with all of the things going on with terrorism and Department of Homeland Security, they have been asked to do more. She stated when they lost a position a few years ago, everyone has taken on more work. She stated Ms. Fosberg is doing the financial part, but it would help it Emergency Management had someone in the office who could help with grants and finance; they are continually looking for grants and other ways of bringing in extra money to help with program costs; and they are looking at bringing in plasma screens for the EOC and other necessary security measures.
Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is still the homeland security position; with Ms. Smith responding yes, that is filled. Commissioner Carlson inquired about the unfilled position and is it an additional position; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes.
Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the items that he sees is an estimate that the EOC will need replacement in three to four years; and inquired if they mean the bunker facility; with Ms. Smith responding yes. Mr. Jenkins stated several years ago, Mr. Lay was successful in getting a grant to add a wing to the old EOC; that is operating and is in good shape; but the old EOC is a bunker that is covered with dirt; and when it was built 40 or 50 years ago, there was nothing much between the concrete roof, tarpaper, and dirt. He stated they believe the tarpaper is deteriorating so that dirt is on top of concrete and moisture is starting to come into the building
creating air quality issues; and the infrastructure of the old wing is 50 years old; so Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan is doing an assessment of the wing, and will return to the Board with a recommendation as to whether or not it should be replaced or refurbished. Mr. Jenkins advised Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan has committed to helping the County find matching grants to pay for whatever the costs may be; the County is currently waiting for the assessment to come back to know what the problems are and specifically the best solution to the problems; and they will then work to find a funding solution to the problem.
Commissioner Carlson inquired if there are any infrastructure problems in the new portion of the building; with Mr. Jenkins responding no, the structure is fine, but they are continually trying to upgrade the electronics.
Facilities Department
Mr. Whitten advised Hugh Muller and Sam Stanton are present to respond to questions; there are a number of program changes; and the primary needs will be in three areas, roof replacements, ACIAQ issues, and preventative maintenance. He stated the budget has been reduced by 23.89% as a result of the reduction of three positions in Facilities Construction; the workload did not dictate the current staffing level; and it is possible to reduce the three positions. Mr. Jenkins stated that is on the construction side; and some of the savings are being put back into the maintenance side of the budget, which has been running at a deficit. Mr. Whitten stated
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
there are also increased needs, such as energy, commodities, and services, so some of the dollars reduced from construction are being moved to Facilities Maintenance to assist in funding those maintenance needs.
Commissioner Carlson stated some of Commander Futch’s comments lead her to believe there needs to be a closer relationship between Facilities and the Commander. Mr. Whitten stated there is a close relationship; and the Commander and staff worked closely on the million dollar list of renovations and repair projects. Commissioner Carlson stated she is talking about the actual execution of those contractual agreements, such as the cement blocks or replacing windows; with Mr. Whitten advising it is not a problem.
Chair Higgs requested Mr. Whitten tell her about the $4.3 million in changes at the jail that is unfunded. Mr. Whitten inquired if Chair Higgs wants to know the funded changes or the unfunded; with Chair Higgs responding a million dollars is funded but $4.3 million is unfunded. Mr. Whitten stated the $4.3 million that is unfunded is outside of and on top of the $1 million proposed for next year’s budget. Facilities Operations Assistant Director Hugh Muller stated the $4.3 million includes such things as converting a pod at the jail to a higher level of security, replacing some cell door locks, and additional separation for female inmates, and to bring the jail up to State standards and better control. He stated there was also to be additional female inmate monitoring, and separate classifications between male and female, as well as violent and non-violent offenders. He stated they are also working to improve the air quality and temperature of the jail; due to the number of people there, there is a heavy workload on the air conditioning system, which was designed for fewer people; and the unfunded amount is to make some of those improvements to be more efficient and operate better with less concerns for some of the issues of the past. Chair Higgs inquired if the two lists that make up the $5.3 million have been gone over with the Jail Commander, and are those the priorities; with Mr. Whitten responding there is concurrence on the $1 million. Mr. Muller stated he and Commander Futch had several conversations on the list, adjusted priorities; and agreed on the $1 million. Chair Higgs inquired if those items are the most pressing; with Mr. Muller responding they have massaged them a bit within the $1 million, and totally agree that all needed to be done yesterday.
Commissioner Pritchard stated there is quite a list of preventative maintenance; and inquired if they are at the point with some of the maintenance items that if they do not spend $100 now, they may be spending $1,000 next year; with Mr. Muller responding absolutely. Mr. Muller
advised they have been band-aiding the Medical Examiner’s office to keep it operational; the jail’s roof has been leasing since 2001; and as part of the $1 million, it will be $360,000 to repair that roof. He stated typically many of the facilities have been and continue to be band-aided because of economics; although he is sure the citizens and the Board would like to go first class, the County cannot afford that, so they continue to operate as best they can and make 1970 cars run a little longer. He noted he would be happy to inherit some of the Sheriff’s vehicles with only 100,000 miles on them. He stated in Facilities, they have had to make do quite a bit; and they can continue to make do, but they are far from being adequate in their responses to roof leaks and air conditioning challenges.
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Pritchard stated generally when an air conditioner starts not working properly, there is a significant increase in electrical costs; and inquired if staff has weighed any of the costs of not properly repairing in terms of excess electrical expenses. Mr. Muller responded staff does that continually; there is some efficiency in replacing with modern units, etc.; but there is the question of capital dollars. He stated in some cases it would take 20 years to amortize as opposed to seven, which is what they usually like to justify; but a lot of dollars could be spent on making something more energy efficient because the jail and courthouse are going to be around for 100 years; and while it may not pay back in seven years, it probably would in 14 to 20 years; but they have not had the opportunity to get the capital dollars to make those kinds of investments. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there is an estimate of what the cost is of not doing the repairs at this point; with Mr. Muller responding no. Commissioner Pritchard stated something like that would help sway him; and if they had a million dollars to spend on facility repair, improvements, and maintenance rather than trying to come up with ten million dollars next year, it would make sense to try to identify areas where they could generate a little more revenue so the County would not be faced with a major expense. Mr. Muller stated there are several areas where if they had big bucks, they could save big bucks; the
Commissioner Carlson stated it is the same expense the County is going to have with roads eventually; the same argument goes for everything; and if they forestall facilities and roads, it is going to get more expensive and compound itself. She inquired if the million dollars that is programmed is new money or a shift of money from someplace else. Mr. Whitten responded the money for the detention center is commercial paper, new money. Mr. Jenkins advised it is being paid off over three years.
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Scarborough commented on use of buildings for 120 years, doing things on commercial paper, and going beyond three years; and stated on a lot of things, the County is very short-ended in the financing methodology, but interest rates to the County are substantially less. He stated Commissioner Pritchard made the point earlier of moving to profound capital improvements and cutting operating costs; and the Board needs an analysis of that as a matter of policy for how it does its funding. He stated with the MSTU, they were buying equipment with cash; and it could have been justified for longer commercial paper. He stated as Commissioner Carlson said, roads are deteriorating and there can be a sevenfold increase in the cost of doing a road if they pay cash for capital improvements. He stated the County was diverting from things that could have saved money when the interest was not costing much; the comments that Mr. Muller made are profound; and inquired as a matter of policy, if the cost to borrow is little and the cost of doing projects is escalating faster than the interest rates and there is the possibility of longevity, why is the County trying to harm itself in trying to do everything with cash as opposed to spending money right on those projects where it is possible to catch up and eliminate operating cost.
Mr. Jenkins stated he does not disagree with that philosophy; but it has to be put in perspective because there are many pressing needs. He stated in terms of the million dollars for renovations and repairs at the jail, there was debate among he, Mr. Whitten, and Mr. Rogero whether that should pay cash or stretch it out over three years; it is borderline between capital, construction, and maintenance; and the Board does not want to start borrowing money to do routine maintenance because that is dangerous. He stated they felt comfortable that it was enough of a major overhaul to justify paying for it over three years in order to be able to afford it. He stated on the other hand, if someone has a 25-year-old home, the air conditioning, lighting, etc. may not be up to date, but the home would still be usable. He stated there is not a dentist in town who could not make one’s teeth perfect for $20,000; and the question is whether one can afford to spend $20,000 to make them perfect or whether one will spend $2,000 just to keep going. He stated it is a balance; the Facilities staff would like to see everything brought up to 2004 standards; that is their job; but that has to be a balance with the reality of how much the County can afford. He stated there are basic things like roofs and so forth where there is no choice; and those things have to be done or a building could fall in.
Commissioner Scarborough stated his point is the desire to pay cash by the County eliminates its ability to handle more projects sooner; if the sub-base of a road is lost, there is a sevenfold increase in cost; and to do early maintenance on roads in District 1 was well worth buying equipment to replace those that had been around for 15 years over a three-year commercial paper loan. He stated that was a major decision to not pay cash for a piece of equipment; and it does not hurt if there is longevity and multiple projects, to hit the projects that are going to deteriorate in a hurry and the cost is going to escalate; but there is a balance. He stated there is probably no entity in the County that has more of a “spend cash” policy on what could be capital than the
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
General Government Operations
Mr. Rogero stated the first program change is an increase in funding for Brevard Tomorrow of $15,000; it is a reduction of the request for $25,000; and money has been allocated for the Sterling Process next year at $100,000. He stated they do not typically do program change forms for revenue variations; but with the General Government Operations budget, there is also the allocation of the additional million for operating reserves and where the anticipated decrease in State funding of $1.2 million is recognized, which is the result of freezing growth in revenue sources for Article V.
Chair Higgs noted if the County found money, the Sterling Process would not be highest on her list, although it would be useful. Mr. Jenkins noted it was a Board call, and is only there because the Board asked for it.
Commissioner Pritchard stated the Brevard Tomorrow funding is an additional $15,000 or $40,000 as it got $25,000 last year; with Mr. Jenkins advising that is an oversimplification. Mr. Jenkins advised Brevard Tomorrow got a total amount over two years; the group came in at mid-year; and at one point, the County gave it $25,000 in one fiscal year and the next fiscal year; and cumulatively, it was $50,000. Mr. Jenkins stated they were able to space it out over two fiscal years; based on the request, it was a two-year allocation; and this is now trying to coincide with the County’s budget cycle. He stated Brevard Tomorrow asked for $50,000; and the County put $40,000 in the budget. Commissioner Pritchard stated the numbers he has for FY 2001-02 was $25,000; for FY 2002-03 it was $50,000; in 2003-04 it was $25,000; and this year the group asked for $50,000 but it was knocked down to $40,000. Mr. Jenkins stated that sounds correct; and the request came in at one time on the earlier funding years, but the County chose to stagger how it was paid out.
Chair Higgs requested the Board get the same kind of performance factors as it gets from the JAC to give it something to evaluate. Commissioner Carlson stated Brevard Tomorrow sent out a summary of its performance not too long ago; but she will make sure everybody gets a copy. Chair Higgs stated she wants to know exactly what she is getting for this money so the Board can track it, if it is going to fund it.
Historical Commission
Steve Benn introduced Historical Commission Chairman Dr. David Paterno .
Dr. David Paterno stated regarding program changes, there is one that is funded for historical markers at $ 10,710 for seven markers; however, with the State grants-in-aid program, that can probably be extended to 14 markers.
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that was brought about because of the TDC; with Dr. Paterno responding the Historical Commission was ineligible this year; it received funding for the last two years for 50% of the marker costs; each marker is $1,530; but through the State, it can also receive 50% funding. Commissioner Pritchard stated the TDC based the ineligibility on the fact that the use of the money would be within the County and the requirement is that it has to be used outside the County; with Dr. Paterno advising that is correct. Commissioner Pritchard stated that does not make a lot of sense because they cannot put a historical marker in Orange County for something in Cocoa Village; he happens to read historical markers; and there should be designated historical markers so people realize the County did not just spring up as Flagler came to town.
Chair Higgs stated those things could be funded out of the TDC; but the pot of money they have been coming from has been designated for art promotion outside the County; and that is not to say there is no money at the TDC if the Board wanted to designate funds to be used for that use. Commissioner Pritchard stated the TDC says they are ineligible because the marker is used in the County and the funding goes outside the County. Chair Higgs stated that is one pot of money; but the County could say, because it controls the budget, that it wants to fund this.
Commissioner Scarborough requested the Chair take that message to the TDC; and stated the markers slow people down and may keep them here for the evening. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to have this communicated to the TDC. Chair Higgs suggested just changing the budget.
Commissioner Carlson stated she knows the Historical Commission is undermanned and undertooled; but when there was a referendum last year, all the different historical groups came out, each with its own platform; and inquired what has the Historical Commission done to bring those groups together. She stated all the historical groups worked together to chart out a plan for the community to preserve historical things and put markers where they should be; and inquired what has the Historical Commission done. Dr. Paterno stated there is no formal long-range plan as yet; the Historical Commission has talked about a plan that would involve all of the various cultural entities together; and it is doing a lot in the way of preserving. He stated the Cultural Alliance talked to them last night about preserving several buildings that are about to be torn down; many buildings have been torn down, which is why they need a long-range plan for historical preservation; and they are going to formulate a plan for historical preservation. Mr. Benn stated there would be an ordinance and a board; and they are working on it for presentation to the Board at a later date including tax incentives for people to keep property for historical preservation purposes rather than tearing it down. He stated the Building Department sends them notifications of buildings that have been condemned; they look at those buildings to see if there is historical significance; and commented on saving a house in Mims.
Dr. Paterno advised there are several thousand historical sites in the County; the Historical Commission has compiled a master list of all those sites as well as a master list of archeological sites within the County; and they are hoping to re-survey all of those. He stated they will need extra funds for that; but they are going to look to alternative resources for that.
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Carlson stated she has been working with Robert Mitchell who is very interested in making sure there is a database of pictures; even though a lot of historical places are destroyed, there should be pictures and history; but she is not willing to approve a budget unless she sees a plan. She stated she would like to hear that everyone is working together and also working with the Port Authority, which has an interest in creating a maritime museum; a lot of museums are underfunded and in old buildings; and the Port is interested in listening if there is some sort of plan to preserve and work through the TDC to create a multifaceted museum that showcases all of the County. She stated there is so much heritage scattered throughout the County; but there is no real sense of understanding from the individuals who live in the County that there are all these treasures. She stated they are not doing a very good job of preserving them, so she would like to see the Board start working on a plan and work with partnerships. Dr. Paterno stated he could not agree more, and they will formulate a plan. Mr. Benn stated they also have the Brevard Heritage Council located in their offices as well as the Anthropological Society, so they will work together. Commissioner Carlson stated everybody needs to work with their mutual best interests in mind.
Chair Higgs stated in the unfunded programs there is a staff position as well as request for vinyl sleeves for historical photographs at $3,000; and inquired what would that do. Dr. Paterno stated they received a gift from NASA of 30,000 photographs; they are one of three agencies, NASA, the Smithsonian Institute, and the Brevard Historical Commission, that have these photographs; and in addition, they were given 15,000 transparencies. He stated these are the original transparencies that have been seen on the Internet and on television news; they are now being housed in the Historical Commission offices; and they need a way to be able to take the photographs and individually sleeve those. Commissioner Carlson inquired how are they going to preserve them; with Dr. Paterno responding they have guidelines from NASA on how to preserve the photographs; they have a cold room that is maintained at NASA’s parameters; and they have NASA’s curator who has been appointed to the Historical Commission. Dr. Paterno stated the reason for the sleeves is to allow them to be shared with schools, libraries, and various citizen groups around the County; they have put in the budget a simple traveling display frame; and with the sleeves, they will be able to have the photographs viewed and used by the public for research and educational purposes.
Chair Higgs inquired if they want to buy sleeves or are they buying something else; with Mr. Benn responding they are archive quality sleeves that the photos fit in along with binders so they can be categorized for people to use.
Housing and Human Services
Gay Williams, Director of Housing and Human Services, stated with her today is Community Resources Manager Zoila Villaneuva; the budget as submitted for the Housing and Human Services Department, shows an increase in the general revenue transfer that would reflect the impact that the County is experiencing through the mandated programs; and that increase
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
reflects the impact along with the regular health benefits increase for the existing employees. She stated they had seven program changes, six which were funded; and three of those were mandated, including the child protection team. She stated there are also increases and updates as to Medicaid and Baker Act; Legal Aid is now mandated by the Title V statutory provision; and they also have in the requested program change, as funded, the family court resource assistance, which had come before the Board and which impacts the County. She stated they also show a reduction that is funded in the community-based organization; also funded are decreases that are reflected through the Department transfers; and also unfunded would be the Guardian Ad Litem request for the secretary position, which is no longer funded by the Department.
Chair Higgs requested Ms. Williams go back through the expenditures that are reduced for 2004. Ms. Williams advised within the Department are several decreases through grant funding; and that is reflected. She stated there is temporary assistance for needy families and child welfare prevention startup at $750,000. Chair Higgs inquired where did the grant come from; with Ms. Williams responding it came from a one-time prevention grant provided to the Community Based Care for start-up; Housing and Human Services was the fiscal oversight for the grant; and it is no longer coming through the Department this fiscal year. She stated the child welfare prevention grant of $700,000 is not anticipated; that had to do with a match that the Board had initiated through the grant writing process to match and draw down dollars that might have been available through the State; and as it stands now, they do not believe those dollars will be available, and therefore there would be a decrease. She stated the weatherization grants for low-income residents were terminated throughout the State; and that funding is no longer being offered. She stated the last one would be the Guardian Ad Litem program secretary position that was requested; it was funded up to a point by the Board; but it is no longer funded.
Mr. Jenkins stated the County is funding two positions for Guardian Ad Litem even though it is now a State of Florida function; and Ms. Williams is referring to a third position.
Human Resources
Human Resources Director Frank Abbate stated with him is Jerry Visco, the Insurance Director;
the Office of Human Resources’ budget for the upcoming fiscal year has no program changes; it will be operating with the same staff levels as it currently has; and they did make adjustments to that last year. He stated it is a budget of $71 million overall because it includes all the various insurance programs; the biggest impact focuses on the area of the various property and
casualty insurance lines, general liability, etc; and because of the actuarial analysis that is done annually, this year they are seeing a fairly significant reduction in the premiums from where they were in the current budget. Mr. Abbate stated those dollars are offset as part of the budget submitted by the
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
million; and when they anticipate 30% medical increase next year, they assume they will need $3.7 to $3.9 million in order to fund it and add a little to the reserve, which is necessary under State guidelines. He stated where the rest of the money will come from is a decision to be made; they will be submitting something to the Board in terms of the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee recommendations; and in a nutshell, the increase will be borne by employees, retirees, and dependents in the form of premium increases as well as reduction in benefits and additional co-pays. He stated that will be approximately $1.9 million; the literature shows that the current state of affairs in the health insurance market is not sustainable in the long term; the Committee did its own analysis to see where things might be in five years if the current trends continue; and it is not sustainable. He stated the cost increases are six times the rate of inflation; that is how it has been for the last several years; and they do not see much change in it so it is going to demand close attention over time as well as intervention to try to change what they are able to project. He stated they are taking initiatives in a variety of ways to address that, including analysis of where all the costs are; 13% of the members make up 54% of the cost; and a lot of attention is now going to be of great assistance to that part of the population in terms of health and wellness initiatives. He stated the Board will get the first glance at that through partnerships with pharmaceuticals and other organizations at the health fair in the coming fall; they hope to significantly expand what they are able to provide; and those are some of the initiatives. He stated they are also looking from a legislative perspective; they will be coming to the Board to provide some opportunities to look at initiatives to change the retiree program; and there are initiatives that are ongoing with a variety of school boards that are looking for the State to develop a statewide retiree program rather than leaving the burden where it is where FRS employers such as the Board has to offer retirees the same benefit program they offer everyone else. He stated how that is funded is a separate issue; but they are looking at that instead of the health insurance subsidy that is provided by FRS, having it covered in a different way; and they will be coming to the Board with those kinds of initiatives. He stated they will also continue to work with other employers including the Florida Health Care Coalition; they have been involved in sharing data relative to looking at prescription programs and putting out an RFP with a lot of major employers; and they gave the Coalition some of their information to see what could be done on a bigger group level. He stated he believes they will get some significant leverage out of that in terms of an opportunity to work with the current provider to reduce costs as they exist in the current contract; and that would be helpful in curbing significant growth that they continue to anticipate in the group health insurance program.
Mr. Jenkins requested Mr. Abbate touch on the salary increase proposal. Mr. Abbate stated the salary increase proposal that is part of the tentative budget includes a cost of living increase that would be 2% and a merit increase, which would be the average of the average salary in a lump sum dollar amount across-the-board for employees; and that would be in the $300 range. He
stated that is proposed to come up in December 2004. Chair Higgs stated she thought they were talking about 2% and 1%; with Mr. Abbate responding the 1% that has been submitted is a flat dollar across-the-board amount. Chair Higgs stated that is not 1%. Mr. Jenkins advised they are going with 2% and 1%. Chair Higgs stated she thought she heard something a
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
little different. Mr. Jenkins advised they have talked about a lot of options and decided to go with the 2% and 1% for a number of reasons; they have an LIU Contract with blue collar employees that is already guaranteed; and they felt it was important to be consistent as to how the County treats its employees, particularly those categories of employees that are not covered by the LIU Agreement. He stated the County is asking the employees to bear a significant cost; and they felt it was imperative to see that employees would get a modest salary increase. He stated if they give employees a salary increase, it helps with their retirement plan; and even if they have to pay more for insurance, when they retire, they will get the benefit of having a higher salary, so that is why they went with the salary increase.
Commissioner Scarborough inquired if any employees would take home less; with Mr. Jenkins responding he does not think so. Commissioner Scarborough stated their contributions will be more; and one time the School Board had people who got raises but walked away with lower salaries because of health benefits. Commissioner Pritchard noted the same thing happens with income tax; and there were times when he lost money because of a raise.
Chair Higgs stated Mr. Abbate also discussed a $300 flat across-the-board raise. Mr. Jenkins advised that was in lieu of the other. Mr. Abbate stated that was discussed. Chair Higgs inquired what was the cost of that option; with Mr. Abbate responding it was the same. Mr. Jenkins stated there was no real benefit of doing that.
Commissioner Scarborough stated the County just lost Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott; private industry has the ability to pick off some of the County’s key personnel; and he does not know what the Board is going to do; but if it loses a couple of key people, the County is going to struggle because there are good people with years of experience who know the issues. He stated this will put the County in a bad bind; he knows other County employees who are struggling with decisions; and he does not know how the County can put packages together to keep them; but if the County loses its key employees, it will lose the capacity to move forward. He stated he does not know if there is something other counties are doing; but he is concerned about losing some of these people. Mr. Jenkins stated in the development field, those individuals are highly sought after; but the dilemma is the increases they are receiving. Commissioner Scarborough noted the County cannot match those; with Mr. Jenkins advising they can double their income so it is hard for the County to compete. Commissioner Carlson stated the County cannot compete with the private sector, and never will. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County cannot totally compete; but requested Mr. Jenkins do some evaluations of key employees. He stated a lot of employees have a great desire to stay because they like working in the public environment rather than for a private entity. Mr. Jenkins stated some employees say there is a lot of wear and tear in this profession; and after living in this environment for ten years, they are ready to get away from it and do something else. Commissioner Scarborough stated other counties are doing something imaginative; and
requested staff look at it. Mr. Jenkins advised he is sensitive to the issue; he does what he can within the structure of the County; but there is no way to compete with where, for instance, Mr. Scott is going.
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Pritchard stated the Citizen Budget Review Committee had a recommendation; Mr. Abbate touched on it with the retiree and the health insurance package; and inquired if the State is looking at this. Mr. Abbate stated there is an initiative that is ongoing among school boards throughout the State to try to get the State to look at a Statewide program; they are evaluating right now and will be coming to the Board with something for review and possible inclusion in the legislative package to join in that type of initiative. Mr. Jenkins stated it is for retirees who are in the Florida State Retirement System; and requested Mr. Abbate elaborate. Mr. Abbate stated currently the program that exists in Florida Statutes requires the counties to offer the retirees the same plans that are offered to employees; and how that is funded is a separate issue, as long as it is commingled. He stated by commingling they are looking at the rate they can charge the retiree; they cannot just look at the retiree group, but have to look at the whole group; so, in effect, by Statute there is a built-in subsidy for retirees in the current program. He stated what they are looking at is an initiative where the State would bear the burden of developing a Statewide plan that would be available for retirees to join that would be funded through FRS contribution rates that are charged to employers; and it would be consistent throughout the Florida Retirement System. He stated that dialogue is currently ongoing with FRS and a variety of school boards; it is especially of concern to the County, not only because of the subsidies that are currently being provided and how that impacts the budget as the retiree population continues to grow; but there are also rules that are coming into play in 2006, which say that anything that relates to retirees and the funding on group health insurance has to be fully funded, or it is going to be shown as a negative on financials, which would impact an employer’s ability to bond, etc. He stated that is something that is of great concern to many employers in the public sector because that is going to come into play. Mr. Jenkins inquired what assurance does the County have that it would be more cost effective, and is it because of the volume; with Mr. Abbate responding there is no assurance; and that is what they will be looking at in terms of impact. Mr. Abbate stated they will have to evaluate as they move along; but they are trying to look at different alternatives to make it as effective as it can and still provide some kind of benefit to retirees.
Commissioner Pritchard stated many people seek public employment because it has certain advantages and benefits, and one of them is pension, insurance, tenure, etc.; they will work for less money than they could in the private sector because of the security in the public sector; and the dilemma the County faces as an employer is there can be significant cost savings by eliminating some of the programs, but then they could lose more people. He stated if a person who attains retirement age and is on a fixed income is faced with a huge increase in health insurance, it is a hit to their quality of life; so they need to be able to balance; and one of the best alternatives that has come around lately is looking toward the State plan that makes sense in terms of how much is paid and what is gotten for it. He inquired where does Medicare kick in; and stated there is also a subsidy paid to retirees of approximately $150 a month from the State plan. Mr. Abbate stated the maximum subsidy is $150, and it is $5 for every year of
service. Commissioner Pritchard commented on retirement ages; and stated the whole idea is
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
to create something that people can live on and have a quality of life that they will be able to see a physician and get on with enjoying their retirement.
Mr. Jenkins stated one other benefit is the broader medical network; if someone retires in
Commissioner Carlson stated people leaving the County may have less benefits but higher salaries; a lot of people in the lower age bracket will go for the higher salary now and not worry about retirement and things of that sort; and not paying as much in retirement or benefits might be another option to look at if the Board wants quality here and now. She stated it may cost less in the long-run because the people are going to leave anyway; but the County will have quality while it has it. She stated this is what private industry does all the time; and it probably does not have as much longevity in the workforce as the public workforce.
The meeting recessed at 2:04 p.m. and reconvened at 2:14 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: INSURANCE
Jack Callinan, member of the Citizen Budget Review Committee, stated the Committee made a set of recommendations; and he would like the Board to defer acting on them until the next meeting. He stated they could not get a quorum at their last meeting; the recommendations the Board has are from the Committee; and the one sheet of paper that is showing the five-year outline is something that he put together, but since there was no quorum, he could not get it forward. He stated there is a recommendation for a new committee to be formed and how it should be formed to address the health care situation and cost of insurance; it would function on a five-year basis; and the committee will give a new measurement, which will be cost per participant. He stated the Committee came in once and turned this over to an insurance committee; but they wanted an independent group; he did not do the research he should have; and the group it went to was not an independent group as every member is an employee. He stated he hates to ask Mr. Abbate to make recommendations in certain areas because Mr. Abbate has a self interest in this and it really should go to somebody independent; and he found out that Mr. Abbate was chairman of the committee that it went to. He stated it is entirely his fault as he made the recommendation; the Board followed the recommendation; and he failed to do adequate research to see who it was going to. He stated his concern from the beginning was that the Board is receiving filtered information and not getting the whole story; and Mr. Abbate’s memo failed to include the consultant’s report, which basically recommends what his group is recommending. He stated the consultant also indicated an additional committee to look at the five-year situation, which is why he is saying this should be pushed back. He stated he
PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: INSURANCE (CONTINUED)
provided one sheet of paper because he doubted everybody would go through the five-year numbers and look at all the detail; he tried to put everything on one sheet so it could be scanned to see what it is; and he is very concerned because when he looks five years down the pike and sees what is happening to the cost of insurance, where it is going, and the directions the County is currently taking, the County is going to find itself in a position where it is not addressing things it needs to address. Mr. Callinan stated the Board is not making the decisions although it thinks it is; Mr. Abbate, who is the de facto commission or in this case, is moving it along; and the Board needs to address what it is going to do with the retirees. He stated in terms of the business about the State going with something, IBM was sued 20 years ago for using those kinds of things and saying something was going to happen down the pike without being very specific about it; and they had to sign a consent decree on how it did business. He stated it is not a reasonable approach unless the Board is willing to say three years from now the State is going to provide this; and there is a 60% chance that really has no bearing on anything that goes on. He stated he looked at the issues and there were six options put out; one option said 16% wanted to go PPO only; another option was to reduce the retirement benefits, the subsidies to retirees; and that option was by far the cheapest. He stated using that option, five years from now the lowest level people would be spending approximately $80 on health insurance for a single person; and that frightens him. He stated there are things that were not done in the options when there was a surplus; the surplus was not folded back into the employees; when there was a deficit, the County had to pay it and said the employees could cover the bill; but the Board is not going to let the employees cover the cost, so the Board needs to address how to keep the costs down starting now. He stated the cheapest way the consultant advised was to go with the PPO option; and inquired if that is the cheapest, why is the County not doing that. He stated if that is a cheaper program, that is the one the County should be using; and there are many people who prefer that type of approach; but it is not happening. He stated his concern is the information that goes to the Board is filtered; the Board got a report but some of the things that Mr. Abbate wrote were not 100% true; but in today’s society, it seems a half-truth is just as good as anything else, although when he grew up, a half-truth was a lie. He requested the Board defer consideration of the Committee’s recommendations; stated it has the five-year layout; he is going to make one adjustment to it so the Board can see how much the active employees are going to have to pay five years from now in each of the programs and what the various options do to it; and it is scary. He stated the Board has employees making low incomes; it is not going to charge them and will continue to subsidize people who are already retired who could get Medicare; and it makes no sense. He reiterated his request to defer the considerations; and stated hopefully the Committee will have a quorum next week, will get the rest of the recommendations in, and will look at his recommendations.
AGREEMENT, RE: THE GREAT OUTDOORS RV/GOLF RESORT
County Attorney Scott Knox stated they have come to some kind of agreement on The Great Outdoors cases; they attempted to settle all pending litigation against the County; and it also
AGREEMENT, RE: THE GREAT OUTDOORS RV/GOLF RESORT (CONTINUED)
involves Land Planners and Associates, Inc., as well as The Great Outdoors RV/Golf Resort,
Inc. He stated as a consequence, they have come up with an agreement that is 99% complete; there is some wordsmithing that needs to be done between the Association and The Great Outdoors; and they are very close to finishing, but it is not going to be ready today. He recommended it come back to the Board for approval and execution on Tuesday, July 20, 2004; and in the interim, building permits be released for four lots currently owned by Land Planners and Associates at 240 Addison Street, 257 Addison Street, 220 Addison Street, and 151 Dragonfly Drive as well as for two other lots owned by individuals, one at 263 Plantation Drive and the other owned by Betty Kelly. He stated Ms. Kelly has some health concerns; she has sold her house and is in limbo at this point; and if the Board approves those six permits, this can all be resolved next Tuesday.
Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize issuance of building permits for four lots owned by Land Planners and Associates, at 240 Addison Street, 257 Addison Street, 229 Addison Street, and 151 Dragonfly Drive and lots at 263 Plantation Drive and another owned by Betty Kelley.
Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board was following the Florida Statutes in issuing the building permits; it had to comply with the DRI; and where it is now is a mortgage holder on the other property. He stated if the thing goes backwards, the Board has property; and implicit in the transaction is that the Board would take that property and move forward in place of the developer. He stated they have moved from following statutory law to being a primary guarantor of the completion of the project; he is comfortable with it; and if everyone is comfortable with it, that is fine; but each Commissioner needs to understand the Board is exceeding its responsibility under the law. He stated the Board is being responsible; it is either win/win or lose/lose; everyone’s property has been diminished; if someone has a piece of property, he or she has to disclose that there is a problem with fire prevention, and if they do not disclose it, they would be liable under Florida law, which is a diminishment of property values. He stated they also have the risk of fire; then there are people who want building permits and cannot pull them; they have lost; and these are real human issues. He stated the developer wants to proceed with another phase; it is being held in abeyance, so it is a win/win; but the Board is playing a role it is not required to play under
Commissioner Carlson inquired if a time certain has been set, and is the March date the date for the pass over of the mortgage in case of default. Mr. Knox responded the default would take place if they do not abide by the terms of the agreement; there are specific dates that have to be met in the Agreement; the March 11 date has been put off a little bit further because of the nature of the water tower manufacturing business; and it will take longer to get than March 11. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the date; with Mr. Knox responding the end date is going to be sometime in 2006 before the whole system is working properly; and it will be done in
AGREEMENT, RE: THE GREAT OUTDOORS RV/GOLF RESORT (CONTINUED)
phases. Commissioner Carlson noted that is a lot different than March 2005; and inquired if everybody is okay with this; with Mr. Knox responding everyone understands there are certain
limitations on what they can get. Commissioner Scarborough advised it is not possible to make things move faster than they will move. Commissioner Carlson stated it is curious that someone can stand before the Board and give a date and now it is changed to a year later.
Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Chair Higgs inquired if the any other direction is needed; with Mr. Knox responded just to give direction to staff to issue the permits he mentioned.
Commissioner Scarborough expressed appreciation to all parties for working through the issue.
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Information/Communications Systems Department
Mr. Jenkins advised Mr. Butto is not present; and recommended the Board consider the item at the next meeting.
Law Library
Mr. Jenkins stated there are no changes to the law library other than the funding source, which changes as a result of Article V. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is funded by the County; with Mr. Jenkins responding it is funded by the new assessments and General Fund. Chair Higgs inquired since the board is no longer relevant, does it go away; with Mr. Jenkins responding no. Mr. Jenkins advised the Attorney General has rendered an opinion that Article V has no bearing on the status of board of trustees for law libraries, although it is not a binding opinion.
Library Services
Library Services Director Catherine Schweinsberg stated the budget includes elimination of two positions from the talking books library and three unfunded program changes; the first is to add one new part-time reference librarian at Suntree-Viera Library; the second is to bring a part-time children’s librarian at Palm Bay Library to full-time; and the third is to add five hours to the secretary’s position at the Mims/Scottsmoor Library.
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Mosquito Control
Mosquito Control Director Scott Linkenhoeker stated the budget this year is 22% over last year, excluding capital; more capital has been added for improvements of $629,000; and $21,7675 is
in capital equipment, which includes some trucks and other equipment. He stated there are program changes; they deleted one position, which is a special projects coordinator 4; and that work has been taken up by the administrative staff and some of the field crews. Mr. Linkenhoeker stated the first program change that is funded is to sustain the existing level of service; in the last few years, they have been utilizing reserves; and this year they are out of reserves so the program change is funded and will supply the same level of service in the coming year as this year. He stated the second program change, which is also funded; is for aquatic weeds; it was coming out of general revenue; but it is now moved into the Mosquito Control District taxes, and those funds from the general revenue are moved into that along with the millage rate. He stated the next funded program change is for new equipment under $35,000; one of those pieces of equipment is a Chadwick analyzer, which will be utilized on the aircraft; they have to balance all the rotor blades; the existing unit is very old and does not do a good job; and they have been borrowing a unit from another manufacturer, but that is not available any more. He stated along with that is an air conditioning service to recycle the air conditioning coolant that is inside the new air conditioners; they have nothing right now to do that; and that will also serve for the aircraft. He stated they will use that in two ways; and right now they have to send out the air conditioners to be serviced. He stated next is vehicle transmission flushing center, which is the new technology to change the oil in transmissions; right now they have to physically take the pan off and filter it, and cannot get all the oil out; and that is also funded. He stated the next funded item is replacement of equipment over $35,000; and that includes six pickup trucks and six adulticide nighttime spraying units; they are mostly for the south end of the County; they were originally budgeted several years ago, but they could not afford them so they were deleted from the budget; and they are included in this year’s budget. He stated also funded is replacement equipment under $35,000; that includes some welding equipment that is extremely old; they have an old larvicide tank that is leaking and cannot be used anymore; and it also includes a pressure washer for the equipment. He stated unfunded changes include another pickup truck and another nighttime spray unit as well as replacement of two impoundment pumps; and these are not funded as yet as the millage would have to be increased to fund those. He stated the pumps are approximately $85,000 each to replace; they are old and made out of steel; the new pumps are stainless; and they will have a better life expectancy. He advised the
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Chair Higgs inquired in looking at the equipment purchases, did they look at funding those through commercial paper; with Mr. Jenkins responding he does not think they did. He stated they could look at buying more and paying for it over a couple of years; but Mr. Linkenhoeker will probably be back next year with a list just like this year’s list. Chair Higgs suggested looking at the three-year list as opposed to a one-year list.
Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Linkenhoeker will come back next year with more, but it will be a list that is more; there is less likelihood of a catastrophic issue; and he does not know the impact of something going down and creating an emergency. Mr. Jenkins stated it goes back to Commissioner Pritchard’s plan. Chair Higgs suggested looking at that. Mr. Linkenhoeker advised reserves are at $100,000. Commissioner Scarborough stated things have come up where it has been necessary to throw a lot of money at a particular problem; there have been crisis with health issues where the County Manager has had to stop football games and Halloween; and inquired when they get into the crises, how much money is needed; with Mr. Linkenhoeker responding they have to do more spraying and it depends but could be $200,000 to $250,000. Mr. Jenkins noted they increased the department by five sprayers two years ago; and as a result of the last epidemic a couple of years ago, they did a significant infusion. Mr. Linkenhoeker stated they are in much better shape than they were. Commissioner Scarborough stated maybe it would not be a $250,000 impact with a bad case scenario; with Mr. Jenkins responding it would be a little less because of the increase. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how is it handled financially; with Mr. Jenkins responding if Mr. Linkenhoeker does not have the money, then they would have to go to general fund contingency.
Commissioner Pritchard inquired what about mosquito impoundments. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was thinking of that as well; and it may be necessary to do some extraordinary measures in how they handle things. Mr. Linkenhoeker stated Mosquito Control is a unique department for the public. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not saying there could not be a crisis in the libraries; but with mosquitoes, there are things that are outside of the County’s control. He stated they had a big mosquito problem with mosquitoes blowing across the lagoon from the Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge; it got to be horrific; and the Commissioners will hear from the public if there are mosquitoes. Commissioner Pritchard stated someone from Mosquito Control came by the other morning as he was leaving the neighborhood; two nights before there was spraying; and if there are ever phone calls to be made by the droves, it is when mosquitoes are in season. He stated it is an incredible volume of phone calls when the mosquitoes start coming.
Commissioner Higgs requested staff comment on the additional 260,000 acres that are going to be sprayed by ground and the 54,000 acres that are going to be sprayed by air. Mr. Linkenhoeker stated that is a funded program change; it will get them back to where they are this year; and it is based on the fact that there is fuel involved and also the cost of pesticide per acre. Chair Higgs inquired how did they add 260,000 acres and 54,000 acres; and stated she is assuming they are not sprayed this year. Mr. Linkenhoeker stated they sprayed more than
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
anticipated in 2002 and 2003 because of the
it is 1.8 million acres for ground and 620,000 acres for air, including those numbers in the program change. Chair Higgs inquired if the Board did not fund it, would that acreage be deducted from the spray program; with Mr. Linkenhoeker responding that is correct.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. Jenkins stated the Florida Supreme Court has struck down the homestead exemption referendum issue; and it has been taken from the ballot because it does not do what it was supposed to do. Chair Higgs inquired where do they go with it; with Mr. Jenkins responding he does not know.
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Natural Resources
Natural Resources Interim Director Virginia Barker stated she wants to take a minute to comment on the SCGTV program; the Board talked for some time about the scrolling text at the bottom of the screen; that was something she requested; and explained how being able to watch the Board meeting and see where they are on the agenda helps them to be available when needed. She stated the Natural Resources budget has been reduced by 4.6%, decreasing the general fund transfer by approximately 24% or $94,000; and this is in spite of increases in the remediation and compliance program, which has been expanded to include the leading underground storage cleanup program in
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
alliance to provide science education in schools, provide environmental education at the Field Station, serve on the County’s communications team, and keep the Natural Resources website up to date. She stated the volunteer program has over 75 volunteers who put in over 2,000 hours; and this also includes intergovernmental coordination with other agencies that do environmental outreach and volunteer coordination to help citizens understand the importance of natural resources in the County. She stated this includes the monofilament recovery and recycling program, which Brevard County started and has now spread Statewide and to other
areas of the country, partnering with local tackle shops to recycle fishing line and make it into fishing products, and working with the Florida Entanglement Working Group to save wildlife from entanglement in litter; the position also includes non-native invasive species control, working both on select County lands through grants and also through outreach to the public, helping them to understand the importance of removing non-native invasive species on their lands as well as providing them information what herbicides and work and the proper process to make removal successful. Ms. Barker stated the position also includes grants administration, finding grant opportunities, writing grants, projecting and tracking the budget, reporting to the grant agency, and administering the awarded grants as well as additional special projects as assigned to Natural Resources by the Board. She stated there are also three additional unfunded program changes; one is the purchase of remote sensing imagery that would allow staff to do a land use change analysis; but this is probably the lowest priority. She stated the second most important is the position request in the permitting section; this could be funded through user fees to establish an additional environmental specialist position to improve permitting level of service through decreased turnaround time and increased response on permitting review questions; and the last unfunded program change is to add a clerical position to assist with the central filing system. She stated public records have become a large challenge for the Natural Resources office as well as other offices of the County; they deal with an enormous number of files; and they have been using temporary help this fiscal year to try to establish a central filing system. She stated a full-time position for that purpose would help get there in a much more user friendly way; and it would allow them to have someone paid at the clerical level to do this work instead of having existing professional staff spending time doing filing.
Mr. Jenkins stated Natural Resources consists of three sections, and only one is funded by the general fund; one section is funded by the State of Florida and the other is funded by permit fees; so it is the Resources Management section that is funded by the general fund.
Commissioner Carlson stated not long ago there were seven positions that were vacant because there was a purge in the department; and inquired of those, which were in which sections, and were they all in Natural Resources Management. Ms. Barker responded only one of them was in the management section, four were in permitting, and two were in administration. Commissioner Carlson stated she is concerned that some of the unfunded things may slow down the development process because there are not going to be people to review the development plans, which has been a big complaint in the development community. Ms. Barker advised the position cut is not in the permitting section; all of the positions in the permitting section have now been filled; and the people are coming up to speed.
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Chair Higgs inquired if they are asking for a new position; with Ms. Barker responding there is a new unfunded position in permitting. Mr. Jenkins inquired if there are any revenues to pay for that; with Ms. Barker responding no, they would have to increase user fees by 7% for the permit review tech and by 5% to pay for the clerical position. Chair Higgs inquired if the clerical person supports that division; with Ms. Barker responding yes. Chair Higgs requested information on what the cost would be in user fees to fund the two positions. Sherry Williams responded it would be a 12% increase; with Chair Higgs advising she wants to see real dollars. Ms. Williams advised she will provide a report.
Commissioner Carlson stated the other question is on the cut in the budget that includes the grant writer; and inquired how much that position brought into the department indirectly through grants the person wrote; with Ms. Barker responding for the next fiscal year, $80,000 is already contracted for; there is an additional $31,000 that the Board has approved but they have not finished all the paperwork to get that into the budget yet; so that is between $110,000 to $115,000 worth of grant dollars coming into the County. Ms. Barker advised there are other people in the office who assist with the grants, so the position is not 100% responsible for the grants. Commissioner Carlson stated it sounded like Natural Resources was being cut off from the rest of the world because there would be no person doing PR about what the County does from the environmental perspective; and she is interested in making sure the Board can do something about that because she is concerned about losing a position that is going to curtail educational services.
Chair Higgs inquired if the Board can get the information on what the grants have been for the last couple of years. Commissioner Carlson requested staff add the other parts as she has never seen it in terms of the tasks that one individual does; and it provides a fuller picture.
Commissioner Pritchard inquired is environmental review a mandated program; with Ms. Barker responding Rule 9J-5 mandates the Comprehensive Plan, which leads to regulations that the permitting staff enforces, so it is not directly, but the link is there. Mr. Jenkins stated they do not do the development review; it is mandated by local regulations; and they do not do anything that is not based on
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
Ordinances; and while she agrees in concept, she would say they are already expecting people to be able to understand and apply a lot of Code at once. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the opportunity exists for the same Natural Resources plans reviewer to take on the responsibility of some other discipline in plans review that lends itself toward an engineering review. Mr. Jenkins stated if there was a benefit to be derived, cross training could occur; and the problem is that each section that does review is pretty overburdened to the point where it used to take two weeks to get a permit, but now takes a month; and that is based on volume, so a person in Natural Resources is going as fast as he or she can to simply do what they have; and the person in Zoning is going as fast as he or she can to do the zoning reviews. He stated if those two functions were merged, it would still require the same number of people because of the volume; if it was slower and they had slack time, then the concept would work; but right now the volume is such that they cannot even keep up with their workload. Ms. Barker stated four people come and work a half-day on Saturday to bring the numbers down.
Commissioner Carlson stated they were talking about the SEAS ordinance and bringing the 11 different Ordinances together; efficiencies can be made; and the
Chair Higgs stated she is willing to look at the fee structure in terms of funding an additional person to review plans to insure they are getting a timely and adequate review, and not being rushed to the extent that things are lost or mistakes made. She stated staff will get the Board information on the grants issue and that position; and she shares the concern about education. Mr. Jenkins stated staff was asked to cut a position; and that was the one they chose, but they did not do that voluntarily.
Parks and Recreation Department
Chuck Nelson, Parks and Recreation Director, stated the budget reflects a continuation of the implementation of the parks referendum; and the increases generally are associated with the annualization of parks that came online during the course of the current fiscal year and to some extent the previous fiscal year. He stated those include the
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
August; improvements are being done in the interior of Wickham Park; they are reviewing the bids on the stables and getting ready to proceed; and on the endangered lands side, they are ready to go to bid on the barrier island eco-center in November. He stated they have a lot on their plate; and some will have additional associated personnel in the upcoming budget. He stated they are looking to replace some golf carts this year; they are right on projections for this year; but the Board should not read that they are making money, but that they have not lost more than they thought they would. He stated the golf courses are in the best condition they have ever been in; and he is very pleased with IGM, which stepped up and improved that dramatically. He stated as a result, they are seeing more play and are projecting an increase in the amount of play next year; and on the rate side, the advisory board meets this afternoon and will be discussing the rate structure for golf. He stated in the golf cart area, they expect up to a $2 increase implemented over time; they are still in the market and do not want to chase golfers away; and now they are getting the golfers back.
Chair Higgs inquired if they are looking at the discount of annual fees this year; with Mr. Nelson responding yes, they have talked about it. Mr. Nelson advised this year they would like to continue with the existing rate, but next year they want to address an increase; they are comfortable that the golf course is in good shape; but it takes more than a year to create a trend; so what they would like to do is provide it for a full year and then look at the increase in that specific area because the annual golf card holder is a contentious issue. Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Nelson would rather get a bigger fee increase this year than two smaller ones. Mr. Nelson stated he does not think he has ever gotten away with a big increase at any time in golf; they will probably start an incremental increase; they increased a couple of years ago then slowed it down because golfing leveled off in terms of weather, 9/11, and those kinds of things; but they are starting to improve, and think they will start with a modest increase and see if that continues through the next couple of years. Chair Higgs stated analyzing those costs per round versus any kind of membership situation, the County has the best deal. Mr. Nelson stated looking at the costs per round, specifically at Spessard Holland Golf Course, it is very reasonable; that is also where they have the most annuals so they are focusing on those areas where there is more of an across-the-board approach. He stated the annuals will kick off one golf course; and while that would generate more money, they do not think that is going to necessarily get the most money, although it will certainly get the most aggravation over time. Mr. Jenkins stated Mr. Nelson has a seasoned experienced marketing executive who understands sales, trends, and how to market something; and that is going to have as much impact as anything; with Mr. Nelson advising he is doing an excellent job and previously did marketing for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. Mr. Nelson stated the budget also reflects some continuation of the management efforts and improved management efforts of the environmentally endangered lands. He stated some part-time positions are going to be moving to full-time because they are not able to get to the management issues in a timely fashion; and that is a logical transition. He stated on the other side, they have been presented with three reductions for part-time recreation staff; they are working to see the impact; one vacancy may be at a community center; and they will be moving people around so that community centers are not impacted. He stated the type of programming will be outreach and special event type
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
programs; they will not be able to do as many teen program things that are done offsite; and since they have such a huge capital investment in the centers, they will make sure those continue to be operated. He stated the other area that they are involved in is the Brevard Cultural Alliance; and one of the reductions this year is the $15,000 reduction in the funding for cultural arts grants; it has been a tough couple of years; the State reduced BCA two years ago; and they got a little bit back, but they are still over the last two years at a 40% decrease and donations have dropped off from corporate. He stated it has been a bit of a struggle for BCA; and that will have some impact on the local artist community.
Commissioner Carlson stated in the change it says TDC grants have increased in recent years to cultural providers. Chair Higgs stated last year the TDC funded $30,000 in marketing
for some of the brochures. Mr. Nelson stated that was from a different funding source. Chair Higgs stated the TDC paid for a publication because it was a marketing tool. Mr. Nelson advised Kay Burk apologizes for not being present, but she is in
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
there is sufficient room between the two that they should not impact each other; there is still a fairly heavy vegetative barrier between the two; and they could be done concurrently, but the way the timing is working, they probably will not start until after the first of the year on the community center. He stated they are trying not to have the whole park under construction at the same time because it is still open and there are a lot of activities. Commissioner Carlson stated doing one before the other makes more sense.
Chair Higgs stated Mr. Nelson mentioned the barrier island center; and inquired if that is anticipated to start construction in November; with Mr. Nelson responding they will have bids in November. Mr. Nelson stated he will get the exact date; they are working that timeline out; they were originally going to build in the same footprint as the old Chuck’s Steakhouse; but that was not practical or cost effective; so now they have started over. He stated they took that
information and created a new building; and they have finished review of the design and are now going to the construction drawings. Chair Higgs requested Mr. Nelson send them specific information on bid and construction; stated she was told yesterday that the demolition timeframe was three to four weeks depending on the construction crew from Roadways and Landscaping; and she would like to know if that is still the case. Mr. Nelson stated he will provide the specific timeline; Roadways and Landscaping has done several parks and does an excellent job; and they are great for that kind of project. Chair Higgs inquired if they are doing the Howard Futch project; with Mr. Nelson responding they are doing the site work; but the restrooms are being done by another contractor.
Commissioner Colon stated she wanted to ask Mr. Nelson about three projects; and one of them was the
Chair Higgs inquired is the County doing Ponce Landing site work; with Mr. Nelson responding no, that is a contractor.
Commissioner Pritchard stated the installation of the catch basin in
DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 (CONTINUED)
finished at the end of the month. Mr. Nelson stated they had hoped to have the baffle box quicker; but apparently construction of the baffle box is going to take longer than they said. He noted the City of
DISCUSSION, RE: SPEED HUMPS
Commissioner Carlson stated since the Board got rid of the money for speed humps, she would like to have staff put together a change in policy to make sure all speed humps in the future are funded by Municipal Service Benefit Units (MSBU’s). Mr. Jenkins stated he is not sure that is feasible; and inquired what is the cost of a speed hump; with Chair Higgs responding $2,500 to $3,000. Mr. Jenkins commented on administrative costs. Commissioner Carlson stated she would like to get a report; the Board has thought about doing some speed humps, but in other cases it has not; if people are going to vote on whether they need a speed hump but do not want to pay for it, the County is not using the dollars in the budget. Mr. Jenkins stated the alternative would be to get rid of the policy so there are no speed humps; and if the Board is not going to fund it, it is going to have to get rid of speed humps. Commissioner Carlson stated in certain cases, they would want to have speed humps; she has no problem getting rid of the policy; and requested staff bring back some alternatives to deal with it because if the speed humps come into existence, but the Board and the community do not want to pay for them, there is a clear problem. She stated it is going to come out of some other budget or general funds, so it is going to be paid for one way or the other. Chair Higgs stated it could still come out of the MSTU, but does not have to be set aside for speed humps.
DISCUSSION, RE: DREDGING CAPABILITIES IN DISTRICT 4 BEACHES MSTU
Commissioner Carlson stated the other issue is under the District 4 Beaches MSTU, she would like to add dredging; there are some problems with some of the canals in the Satellite Beach area, but there is no dredging capability; and she would like to at least add that to the beaches MSTU and have staff come back and advise if there is anything in the Mainland MSTU that would be applicable to canals.
DISCUSSION, RE: DREDGING CAPABILITIES IN DISTRICT 4 BEACHES MSTU
(CONTINUED)
Chair Higgs inquired if Commissioner Carlson wants to change the District 4 Beaches Ordinance; with Mr. Jenkins advising it would be just like Districts 2 and 5. Commissioner
Carlson stated she wanted to check to see if the mainland would be applicable; and she is not sure because Commissioner Colon has most of the mainland that she had before redistricting, and is dealing with those now. Chair Higgs inquired if Commissioner Carlson wants to amend the Ordinance; with Commissioner Carlson responding yes, she would like to amend the Beaches Ordinance and then have staff look at the mainland area to see if it is needed there. Chair Higgs inquired if Commissioner Carlson wants to use the MSTU money for dredging; with Commissioner Carlson responding yes, potentially in the beach area. Chair Higgs advised the Rio Lindo area just did an MSBU on top of the MSTU; with Mr. Jenkins agreeing it was a joint effort and Commissioner Carlson is probably looking at that as well. Chair Higgs noted Commissioner Pritchard has all MSTU’s. Commissioner Carlson stated they were looking at the idea of an MSBU, but it may not be applicable; they have certain areas that have more of an impact than other areas because of the
REPORT, RE: SUPREME COURT DECISION
Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson stated with today’s Supreme Court decision, the homestead exemption issue is probably dead for the year. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that is the second $25,000 homestead exemption. Ms. Wilson stated the Supreme Court is upholding the initiative, but struck down the ballot summary. She advised the Court said it was misleading because the verbiage said “provide property tax relief to homeowners by increasing homestead exemption from property assessments from the initial $25,000 by an additional $25,000”; but property taxes are based on assessment and the millage is applied; they looked at the fact that only 15 counties have reached their ten-mill cap by Florida Constitution; and even if given an additional exemption, there are a number of counties that could still raise the
REPORT, RE: SUPREME COURT DECISION (CONTINUED)
millage, so it might not provide any tax relief. She stated for that reason, because the language says it will provide tax relief but it will not in all cases, they have to go back out and start all over again.
Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 3:24 p.m.
ATTEST: _________________________________
NANCY HIGGS, CHAIR
BOARD OF
_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK
( S E A L )