April 19, 2005

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on April 19, 2005 at 9:05 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Ron Pritchard, D.P.A., Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Helen Voltz, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

REPORT, RE: APPOINTMENT TO MYREGION

Commissioner Scarborough stated Chairman Pritchard makes certain appointments to certain boards; one of them is to MyRegion; the Board, Brevard Tomorrow, and MyRegion may be better served by having the same Commissioner involved in both MyRegion and Brevard Tomorrow, which would be Commissioner Carlson; and she has already been attending MyRegion meetings. He noted there may be a better opportunity to capture the information that is flowing from the two agencies. Commissioner Carlson stated that is fine; she has an update that she will bring to the Board; she has been going over to the MyRegion Board of Directors meetings as they have been asking Brevard Tomorrow to do some presentations; and it has been received very well. Chairman Pritchard stated Commissioner Carlson can be his appointment to MyRegion.

The Board reached consensus to appoint Commissioner Susan Carlson to replace Commissioner Truman Scarborough as the Board’s liaison representative to MyRegion.

REPORT, RE: RECOGNIZING NEW JAIL COMMANDER

Commissioner Voltz recognized and congratulated Susan Jeter, the new Jail Commander.

REPORT, RE: APPRECIATION TO FIREFIGHTERS

Commissioner Voltz expressed appreciation to Brevard County, Palm Bay, and Malabar firefighters for their efforts in Valkaria and Palm Bay.

REPORT, RE: VIETNAM VETERANS WALL

Commissioner Colon stated the Vietnam Veterans Wall is at Wickham Park; yesterday was the opening and it was a wonderful moving ceremony; and invited the community to see it and the names displayed of the men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. She noted the community can show its respect and support for the troops by going to Wickham Park.

Commissioner Carlson inquired did it work okay with the park construction that is taking place; with Commissioner Colon responding yes. Commissioner Colon stated next year the veterans are going to have their own wall; they are in the process now of building their own wall so they do not have to deal with all of the red tape of trying to get it here on the same date and same time; someone is building the wall locally; and there is also going to be a lot of fund raising for it. She noted it would be great if the Board would support it. Commissioner Carlson stated she was under the impression that the wall would be put near the pavilion. Commissioner Colon stated she does not believe the wall is going to be permanent and will be movable; and it is great that it is happening locally and being embraced by a lot of folks.

Chairman Pritchard stated the Vietnam Wall is more than just a moving memorial; those that lived the era can relate to it; his graduating high school class of 1962 was the beginning of it; and those who went to college and got out in 1966 went into service then. He noted he was in the Air Force from 1962 to 1966; his tour of duty did not include going to Vietnam; he missed it by a three-month cutoff; and he had nine months left and his unit went. He stated if he had 12 months left, he would have gone; but there were people he knew that went and did not come back; and he looks at the Wall and there are names of people he knew, including men he was in the service with and went to high school with.

Commissioner Colon stated the Gryphon Group trains Special Forces in the community; it graduates folks once a week; she had an opportunity to thank them on behalf of the community and country; and she shared with them that the community prays for them and their families. She noted the next day she was called and the Marines gave her a special coin, which is special to her; one individual told her they do not know if they are appreciated by their own country; it was mind-boggling to her to think that the men and women do not feel such appreciation; and it is the media doing it. She stated whether someone is for or against the war, the men and women are protecting our country; she was very emotional to hear that from Special Forces; and inquired where are the yellow ribbons. She stated the country is in the middle of a war; and requested people take time to see the Wall so the Veterans can see that the country appreciates the sacrifices they did. She noted the troops travel down U.S. 1 and come from Fort Bragg and all over the country to train in Brevard County; and inquired what is on U.S. 1 that says, “We Support You, We Appreciate You”, and what can be put there, such as a billboard. Commissioner Carlson stated the EDC has done a good job with the “We Love Our Military” billboards and bumper stickers. Commissioner Colon stated the billboards are in Commissioner Carlson’s District; she will talk with Duwayne Lundgren; and it is important for Brevard County to show its support for the military.

REPORT, RE: HOUSE BILLS 1701 AND 1703

Chairman Pritchard stated he and the County Manager have talked about House Bills 1701 and 1703; he is still trying to figure out the benefit of losing $700,000 in revenue and how it is supposed to come back to the County in terms of benefit; it is a $700,000 hit in sales tax revenue that comes out of Canaveral Air Force Station and Kennedy Space Center, and the potential for getting millions more in the future, as explained to him by Representative Allen in the future; however, it is not something that is guaranteed because the benefit could be in Sarasota, Jacksonville, Pensacola, or someplace else, but Brevard County takes the hit. He noted it is coming to the table with its money and it may not derive the benefit from it; and he read through it all and nowhere does it say that the County is going to recover the $700,000. Chairman Pritchard read House Bill 1703, as follows: “House Bill 1703 creates the Florida Aerospace Infrastructure Trust Fund within the Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development and the Executive Office of the Governor. The purpose of the Trust Fund is to provide capital assistance under the Florida Aerospace Infrastructure Program created in House Bill 1701. The Trust Fund revenues are derived from all sales tax on tangible personal property, admissions, and leasing or licensing of real property generated by dealers conducting business at the Kennedy Space Center and the Canaveral Air Force Station. The Revenue Estimating Conference has determined that this Bill will have a negative fiscal impact of .7 million to local government in Fiscal Year 2005-06 and .7 million to local government in Fiscal Year 06-07.” Chairman Pritchard stated it does not say where the return on investment is going to be; it has passed in all of the subcommittees; Sharon Luba spoke to Theda Roberts and asked her where it says the County is going to get a return; and Ms. Roberts indicated it does not say it and she needs to find out more about it. He noted he spoke to John Thrasher, who is looking into the issue; he wants to be sure that the County’s investment of $700,000 is going to give it a guaranteed return; if Pensacola wants to invest $700,000 of its money, that is fine; but this is his money and he wants to know what his return on investment is going to be. He stated if it is not forthcoming in some sort of guaranteed fashion, then he is not too sure that the County can be in a position to support it; and he spoke to Representative Allen, who told him this is directly related to the potential for the County to lose several hundred jobs in the next four to five years due to what may happen with the space program and the demise of the shuttle and Atlas.

Commissioner Carlson inquired who sponsored the Bill; with Chairman Pritchard responding Representative Allen. Chairman Pritchard stated it leads him to think it is most likely something beneficial to Brevard County, sponsored by its local Legislator, but he does not see any guarantees. Commissioner Carlson stated it is $1.4 million over two years that the County is losing in sales tax. Chairman Pritchard noted it is all sales tax derived.

Commissioner Scarborough stated last year the Board allocated $140,000 to the EDC so it could get involved in some of the issues; Lynda Weatherman has two gentlemen who have been putting a lot of time in it; Jim Kennedy told the County it had about $2 million to $3 million to get the service center in Florida, and Alabama and Mississippi came up with $25 million; and Marshall Heard, with Boeing, said when the State of Washington was about to lose Boeing, it put $800 million on the table. He noted the State of Florida has never gotten to these numbers; in looking at data, Brevard County is extremely unique in the State; it has wealthy people who are retired and have a lot of income coming in; and of the entire United States there are more fully employed people in Central Florida without health care than any other place in the nation, and Florida is the highest as a State. He stated the educational system was analyzed also in the sense that people could not pay their rents on their condos; they were moving from condo to condo; the children, who did not speak English as a native language, were further disrupted because of lack of income; and the EDC put out a figure recently that the average manufacturing/tech job earns something around $54,000 and the hospitality industry job is $14,000. He noted the County is looking at the potential changing of the nature of the community; there are a lot of things that cannot be stopped and are inevitable, but there is a profound difference between the ending of a program and a disaster; it is becoming tremendously cost-oriented; and the Center itself has an operating cost and there has to be a program to carry the operating costs. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County has heard numbers of 7,000 and 8,000 reduction in workforce at the Space Center in a five-year period; 7,000 and 8,000 far exceeds anything the EDC has brought into the community over the life of that program; he is not suggesting that Representative Allen has the answer because certainly the $700,000 and the State sales tax that would be applied are not of the measure that the County will need to attract; and suggested each Commissioner be briefed by Lee Solid and Marshall Heard, who both spent their entire careers in the aerospace industry. He noted they have a great deal of credibility and will tell the County what it needs to know; the Commissioners need to visit with them; they can tell them things that are quite concerning; and whether Representative Allen has the answer or not, he will leave for the Commissioners to judge. He requested the Board consider the comments of Messrs. Solid and Heard as it moves forward; stated he does not think in his history of putting some money into something that it was better spent than the $140,000 the County put in to get Ms. Weatherman the ability to have those people on board; the impact to the nature of the community is going to be profound, regardless of what the County does; and $700,000 is big and he wishes he had an answer, but prefers each Commissioner pursue it directly with Messrs. Solid and Heard.

Commissioner Carlson stated she understands Commissioner Scarborough’s perspective and has had a couple of conversations with Mr. Solid recently for the quarterly report; Brevard County is doing the trust fund, yet the space industry affects everyone; if the County loses that segment, it is going to affect the whole State; and it is not just job creation here in its own backyard. She inquired if it is supposed to be a trust fund, why is it not matched by the State or something like that. Commissioner Scarborough stated the State sales tax is going there as well; the County is paying only a portion of the large amount; as the State receives sales tax, a certain portion comes back to Brevard County; and it would be losing its portion, but it is the State sales tax that is being escrowed. Commissioner Carlson stated the State should put more money that represents it, not just Brevard County, into the Trust Fund. Commissioner Scarborough noted it is just the State sales tax period that is collected from a particular entity

Chairman Pritchard stated the information says $3.3 million to the State General Fund; $700,000 is the County’s portion; he brought it up because today is a budget workshop; he has been trying to get answers, but has not been very successful; and he has not spoken to Messrs. Solid or Marshall. Commissioner Colon stated it also says the Bill will have a positive fiscal impact to the Florida Aerospace Investment Trust Fund of $4 million for FY 2005-2006. Chairman Pritchard stated if he is going to sit at the table and use $700,000 of taxpayer money, then the County is going to have to figure how it is going to get by in its budget year; he wants to have some sort of assurance that this is in the best interest of the community; and listening to Commissioner Scarborough’s comments it is now beginning to sound like it is a wise investment. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would leave that up to Chairman Pritchard to judge further rather than drawing a conclusion at this time. Chairman Pritchard stated he will make more inroads and perhaps at the Board’s next meeting there will be more information; perhaps the other Commissioners can do the same; he would like for all of the Commissioners to be on the same page; and it is a lot of money and is not like the Board is saying it will invest $10,000. He advised $700,000 is a significant hit. Commissioner Carlson stated this is not the only bill out there that is going to be a significant hit for the County; there are several bills out there that could be detrimental in the long run; and all the bills need to be brought back for the Board to review. Chairman Pritchard stated this bill is moving fairly quickly, which was another reason to bring it up and have this discussion; he is not one to raise red flags and try to derail the train; and it is more of a concern that he has that Brevard is going to get a return on its investment.

REPORT, RE: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ON VARIOUS ISSUES

Chairman Pritchard stated one newspaper article says that three-fourths of Floridians believe the State should spend more to address choking traffic congestion, but when given the options of paying higher taxes they all vote no; another article indicates that Florida has windfall of $2.2 billion, but it does not look like the money will be spent in Brevard County; the Governor has a Growth Management Plan that is going to compare apples to apples; and the County is going to have to contribute in order to get money from the State. He advised the County Manager sent an email saying it looks like an impact fee may be necessary in order for the County to come to the table with its portion if it wants to have a road built and to get the State’s contribution; he does not know where the finality of all of this is going; the issue of rising home prices was in Sunday’s newspaper, including a teacher among those hunting for an affordable Brevard house; and the teacher makes $30,000 a year and her loan officer qualified her for up to $170,000 mortgage. He stated the teacher indicated it is a bit of a stretch doing that and trying to buy groceries will be a little tight; and it gets back to the $300,000 mortgage that the firefighter/teacher couple could qualify for with gross pay of about $75,000.

Commissioner Carlson stated the couple may qualify, but they would not want to do that because they would not be able to buy groceries. Chairman Pritchard noted that is correct; it is qualifying, but then couples cannot eat; the Governor says if the County wants to come to the table, it has to bring up its money; and inquired where is it going to get the money to come up with its money to be part of the ante to get State money. He stated if the County raises the price of these things to points where people cannot afford homes, because according to the article the median home price now is $192,500, then there is a dynamic going on. Commissioner Carlson stated it is a Catch 22; there are things happening on impact fees, affordability of taxes, Save Our Homes, and other things; and all of this long-term or short-term may potentially cripple the County from doing exactly what the State wants it to do, which is to come up with local revenue sources to augment what tax base the County has without possibly raising taxes and trying to come to the table with a discreet amount of money that will not make things happen any quicker than they are happening now.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is one interesting observation that the increase in the price of a home actually makes someone poorer rather than wealthier; a lot of people are saying their house is worth so much more; but if they sold it, they would just basically buy another house; and they could not afford the taxes. He noted if the teacher qualifies for a much nicer home and wants to get that commitment for the larger house, there is less disposable income, so to a great extent the community becomes poorer as the price of houses increases; and it is pervasive. Commissioner Carlson stated it would lead one to not want to have taxes increased on real property, but look at other revenue streams to pay for growth as it comes; and there has to be a distribution. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not the taxes that have driven up the price; it is the market; when there are prices increasing at the level they are, it is market-driven; the problem is that the County is still affordable against many markets; and therefore, there is the potential for people to move from even higher markets into the County’s market and find it advantageous. Commissioner Carlson noted the gaps of affordability are growing. Chairman Pritchard stated it is hurting the people that live here; it is not hurting the people that move here; they are moving here because it is cheaper here; and the teacher indicated she has driven by homes listed for $130,000, but declined to tour the inside because of the exterior condition. Commissioner Voltz stated she and her husband have spent the last couple of weeks looking for a house for their son; he recently graduated with his four-year degree; they are having their house appraised today so they can take out some money to give to their son to buy a house; and there is nothing out there that her son can afford. She noted it is unbelievable; vacant lots in Palm Bay are $60,000; and it is incredible.

Commissioner Colon stated elected officials need to look at the entire picture; when she gets something in her office she immediately sends the information to everyone in her District; the information they are getting they are not liking; but she is not making up the rules and they are State Statutes in regard to concurrency and capacity. She noted some people are looking at the Board like it is the one changing the rules in the middle of the game; she is the first one to say she does not appreciate the rules being changed in the middle of the game; and the rules have been in effect for a long time, and rightfully so, to protect everyone from this kind of growth. She stated more education from the County needs to be given to the municipalities, the landowners, and developers; if one person gives out misinformation, it completely stops the communication between the County and municipalities; if there is a lack of communication from the County and misinformation, it has to be stopped immediately; and the only one that can do it is the Board. She noted when the Commissioners get information, they are going to have to filter it to whatever Districts they represent, whether it is Titusville or Cocoa; she has been noticing in the last week that there is he said/ she said going on when everyone needs to be pulling together; if a developer thinks it is only the problem of the County to four-lane a road, then he or she is highly mistaken if there is a community that is annexing; and the County is trying to do smart growth. Commissioner Colon stated the Board is talking about budgets and the discussions have to happen now; she does not want to find out how much a street is going to cost and discuss it in ten years; she wants to know how much now it is going to cost to four-lane a community and who is going to be providing the services; and the cities need to protect the citizens in the community regarding fire and police protection, and all the things that are crucial. She noted it is happening throughout the entire County; the communication is going to have to be constant; the citizens need to know how the Governor is looking at the County in regard to the dollars; and it is going to affect the municipalities also.

APPOINTMENT, RE: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COALITION

Chairman Pritchard inquired is the Growth Management Coalition going anywhere; with Commissioner Voltz responding no. Commissioner Carlson noted there was not a quorum yesterday; and she was not able to attend because of personal reasons. Commissioner Voltz stated it is a waste of time as nothing has been done. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board
should let the session happen because as growth management comes out of this session, a lot of what the Coalition is discussing is also being discussed at the State level; it would be nice to have some State direction so the County would not be going through all the hoops with annexation; certainly the Board can talk about JPA’s and how it can strengthen those; and she had a conversation the other day with the City Manager of the City of Melbourne and one of the Councilman regarding the issue of the Home Depot that has been discussed at the MPO and Board levels. She noted the City is concerned about what to do next and whether Home Depot comes to Wickham Road or not; it has to show it is doing some form of improvement to the Road because once the last driveway permit is given the Road is closed for business; there are a lot of people out there who are expecting to get a return on their investment with the property they own on the parts that are still open; and there are things that are still in the hopper from the City that it is expecting to be able to get permits on. Commissioner Carlson stated there is an interest, but Melbourne has been one of those cities that has been out front there with the JPA’s; annexation issues like that are all important and everyone needs to sit down and talk about it; previous discussions were good; but the Coalition lost its chairperson and there was not a quorum. She noted the County needs to keep the Coalition going and keep an eye on what is happening at the State level to see how it is going to translate down to the County, if anything happens.

Commissioner Voltz stated she is accomplishing more with the South County people she is working with than that group. Commissioner Colon stated she is willing to take Commissioner Voltz’s place if she does not want to do it as it is crucial. Commissioner Voltz stated if it accomplishes something, she has no problem doing it, but nothing is being accomplished. Commissioner Carlson stated there has not been any real good discussion; it has been hard trying to get everyone there; the Coalition meets once a month, which may not be enough; and the Coalition is dealing with annexation and issues like that, and trying to come to some sort of understanding of concurrency, but it has not been solidified as yet. Commissioner Voltz stated it is fine with her if Commissioner Colon wants to be on the Coalition.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to appoint Commissioner Jackie Colon to replace Commissioner Helen Voltz as the Board’s representative on the Growth Management Coalition. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated he echoes Commissioner Voltz’s comments; he had a feeling right from the start that the Coalition was going to be a whole lot of nothing; and the County is where Broward County was 30 years ago, and he and Commissioner Voltz were both there at that time and saw what happened. He noted Brevard County is at the perfect place at the perfect time to make something happen; and if Brevard County does not want to see Broward County, then the Coalition has to do something about it.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Growth Management Bill has some momentum, but unfortunately they do not want to put the dollars with the idea, and perhaps the County can take from that an example of what might work and see where it can go with it; it is the best thing that has come out of Tallahassee in a long time in terms of trying to rehab the problems of growth management; she is still hopeful, but being that there are things at the State level that are occurring, it is hard for the County to get a handle on what the effects might be; and since the City is the one that had the idea to bring it together, the County needs to give it its best shot. Commissioner Colon stated she sees the glass half full; a lot of folks did not believe that she could pull off last summer when it was her idea to make sure a study was done in the South Mainland; there were a lot of folks behind the scenes who did not think it could be pulled off; and now Commissioner Voltz is saying what a wonderful idea it was and how it is working. She noted there were a lot of folks who did not think it was going to work; she and Commissioner Voltz have proven that it can work; everyone can sit down and may not agree on everything, but they are going to be able to compromise; and they have proven that. She noted going into a meeting there needs to be a mission; the information Ms. Busacca gave yesterday is a perfect example; the Governor is saying that school boards, counties, and municipalities must work together; and it is right there in black and white. She stated Brevard County is already doing that by trying its best to bring the parties together; whether it likes it or not that is the direction of what it has to do; and it is extremely difficult when there are municipalities trying to get a tax base and annex, and yet the County is trying to protect itself and the unincorporated areas too. She noted the County is dealing with EMS and annexation issues; it is difficult to bring all those players together and get along after they have been in litigation; but it can be done if everyone puts their egos to the side; and the County is going to do well.

Commissioner Voltz stated it has to be the goal because if not, nothing is going to happen; from what she has seen so far, nobody seems to want to participate all that much; and the Coalition is still trying to figure out some bylaws.

Chairman Pritchard stated Commissioner Colon’s point is well taken; he has always said you either lead, follow, or get out of the way; this is not the time to be asking what is in it for me; and if a municipality wants to flex its muscles, this is not the time for that, but it is the time to decide what is best for the County. He noted there needs to be strong leadership and someone who is going to be extremely focused and provide direction for the Coalition; the group has to agree on this direction; and it cannot have somebody with a “what’s in it for me” attitude, trying to run the show because they are only concerned about their corner of the world. He stated the Governor’s proposal is that local governments and school boards would be required to work together to plan for a growing student population caused by new development; educational facilities would need to be available or under construction within three years from approval of development; capacity on roads would need to be available or under construction within three years; and water is another issue for local governments. He advised these are the three key issues in the Governor’s Plan; one of the problems that schools have had is they had to build to today’s standard; it needs to change; and if three years from now they are building toward a growing population, then they need to build to capacity at that point. He noted they should not build to a concrete block facility with six portables when it opens; it is crazy but is how the State does it; hopefully, something good will come from this; and this is the County’s moment in time.

He stated if Brevard County does not want to become Broward County, then it needs to do something about it.

Commissioner Colon stated the County has to leverage its dollars; the Superintendent of Brevard County went to Orange County to see what Lake Nona and those folks were doing; she is happy that the School Board is receptive; and there will be a meeting in two weeks to discuss those kinds of partnerships between the YMCA, Brevard County, and the municipalities, and leveraging the dollars. She noted it took a year and a half to get to this point; all the players are now on board; and it is good news that everyone wants to be part of the project.

REPORT, RE: COLLECTION OF EXISTING IMPACT AND SERVICE FEES FROM CITIES

Chairman Pritchard inquired how is the County doing on collecting existing impact and service fees from the cities that have chosen not to pay for the services the County is providing; stated he understands the Town of Malabar has decided not to pay the County for providing law enforcement services; and Cocoa Beach does not pay for the jail.

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the option the Board has on those specific issues is to move forward in some kind of lawsuit to compel those cities to pay those fees. Chairman Pritchard inquired do all other cities pay the appropriate fee by contractual agreement. Ms. Busacca responded yes, for the jail impact fee. Chairman Pritchard inquired is Malabar the only Town that does not pay. Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responded Malabar is the only Town that does not have its own police force and does not participate via the Law Enforcement MSTU; the Town of Palm Shores had a similar issue and chose to participate via the MSTU; so Malabar is the only Town that does not participate, either through the MSTU or a contracts. Ms. Busacca stated prior to her tenure, the Town of Malabar met with representatives of the County to discuss the issue; the County Attorney was involved in such discussion; and perhaps he can tell the Board what happened.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Town’s position is it does not get anything for any contribution it might make because nobody comes down there unless there is a call. Chairman Pritchard stated it is like an insurance premium and he should not have to pay his premium unless he needs the insurance. Attorney Knox noted the County pointed out the same thing, which is the fact that law enforcement is available and comes when needed; the Town should contribute something; it asked the County to show where the Town is required by law to pay and then it might talk; so that is where it stands right now.

Commissioner Voltz inquired what is the law. Attorney Knox responded there is nothing that says the Town has to participate, but it is his view that it would have an equitable obligation to participate in it because it accepts the service when it needs it. Commissioner Voltz stated she does not believe the residents would not want to have the service and if they knew what was going on, they would be horrified to know that the Town would not pay for it; and inquired what is the amount for the service. Mr. Whitten responded the MSTU figure is a little over $200,000 per year. Commissioner Voltz stated the County needs to move forward on the issue. Chairman Pritchard inquired what about other fees that municipalities may not be paying. Ms. Busacca responded the only other impact fees staff has identified are libraries and schools; they are moving forward to get those interlocal agreements in place and resolve those issues; and they have not gotten far enough along yet to be able to tell the Board if anyone is uncomfortable entering into that interlocal agreement. She advised there have been preliminary discussions with the City of Palm Bay; it wanted to change the interlocal agreement for the schools or libraries; it said it would do the collection rather than the County; and it seems to be contrary to the County’s Ordinance, but not something that it cannot get around, so staff is moving forward with it. She noted everyone else seems to be in the loop and getting there. Commissioner Voltz inquired about the EMS fees; and stated there was an issue about the County not collecting such fees. Ms. Busacca stated the EMS assessment is on the tax roll. Commissioner Voltz noted so everybody pays, but she thought there was an issue with not everyone paying the fee. Chairman Pritchard stated the issue was the methodology.

Attorney Knox stated Commissioner Voltz is referring to the EMS impact fee. Commissioner Carlson stated the EMS and library impact fees were the two issues. Attorney Knox stated Steve Swanke is working on interlocals with the cities to get that accomplished. Commissioner Colon stated the County needs to make sure it does not send the wrong perception; it is not that the municipalities did not want to pay their fair share; and it was that the County did not do its job in following up. Ms. Busacca stated the municipalities have been very cooperative so far. Chairman Pritchard stated the County did not get around to charging the municipalities; and he is looking at the revenue sources it had and did not bother collecting. Ms. Busacca noted staff has had some discussions about transportation impact fees with the City of Palm Bay; it has been looking at an impact fee study on its own; potentially the County’s impact fee would be larger than the City’s; and it might be interested in participating in the County’s impact fee as well. She stated the discussions have been going very well, but she does not know what will happen ultimately. Commissioner Carlson inquired how does it work out for the school impact fees and are all the cities on the same playing level. Ms. Busacca responded it is a Countywide system. Commissioner Carlson noted everyone is cooperatively doing the same thing from the school impact fee perspective; with Attorney Knox agreeing yes. Commissioner Colon stated she asked a month and a half ago if the Board could get something in writing showing it that is the case so it could have peace of mind. Ms. Busacca noted staff will do that.

Chairman Pritchard stated if it is a couple of thousand dollars that Malabar is choosing not to pay, then the Board has an interest on behalf of the taxpayers to collect that money; if Cocoa Beach does not wish to pay its fair share of the jail, it can house its own prisoners; and the County is not in the business of running a club, but is running a business. Commissioner Voltz stated the citizens in Malabar would never expect to get a phone call that the County is not going to respond; it is not going to happen; and the only other route the County needs to go through is the Town Manager and try to work it out in some form or fashion.

Commissioner Carlson inquired does this have a chance of succeeding and has this been done before. Attorney Knox responded it has never been an issue that has ever come up that he can find; and it is something new. Commissioner Carlson stated it is a credible issue to provide service; and she assumes the Town is not denying service unless it has an idea it is going to create its own police force down there and do it themselves. Commissioner Voltz stated there is a substation for the Town Hall; and inquired does the County pay for it and does the Town provide the space for the County or what. Commissioner Carlson stated the County has a history of providing the service automatically.

Mr. Whitten stated part of the Town’s counterargument was that it was providing the space at no cost to the Sheriff’s Office or County; the issue in regard to law enforcement services is active patrol as opposed to reactive with General Fund resources; there are some Countywide services that are provided through the General Fund via the Sheriff’s Office; and the issue for Malabar is it is getting active patrol and not paying for that service.

Chairman Pritchard inquired how does it compare to Cape Canaveral; with Mr. Whitten responding the City pays through a Contract for its active patrol. Chairman Pritchard inquired does Cape Canaveral provide the facility for the substation; with Mr. Whitten responding it may and if it does, it is paying for its own resources or through contracted dollars. Chairman Pritchard stated he met with Mayor Randels yesterday; and the City is in the process of constructing a $3 million public safety building to house the Sheriff’s deputy that it is contracting services with. Commissioner Colon suggested the County Manager get in touch with the Town Manager of Malabar and communicate with all the Town’s elected officials; stated people make the mistake of dealing directly with a city manager or county manager, and the elected officials, who are the ones who are elected to protect the citizens, are in the dark; and it would be good to let them know that these are some of the concerns. She noted no one knows what is being communicated from the Town Manager to the elected officials; and she had a lot of that kind of experience in the past where the one who was knowledgeable of everything was the city manager and the information did not get filtered up.

Commissioner Voltz stated she would like to work with Ms. Busacca on it; and a presentation may need to be made to the Town. Commissioner Colon stated the Sheriff’s Office may need to be involved also as it has the information. Commissioner Carlson stated the best way for Ms. Busacca to use her time is to do something in front of a board versus on a one-to-one basis. Attorney Knox stated the Board can also initiate a dispute resolution if it desires; it requires it to be done within certain timeframes; and if a city or town does not respond in the way the County would choose, then there is a joint meeting, etc. Commissioner Voltz inquired does Attorney Knox set up the timeframes; with Attorney Knox responding it is in the Statute and the County sends out letters. Commissioner Voltz inquired does the County Attorney want to wait until after staff meets with the Town; with Attorney Knox responding that is what was done the last time, and if the Board wants to do it, then now is a good time to initiate it. Commissioner Colon stated litigation is not the way to go. Commissioner Voltz stated she does not want to go to litigation right now; staff needs to meet with the Town first and talk to the Town Council to see what can be done; and if the Town does not want to deal with the County, then the dispute resolution is the alternative, and litigation is last.

Attorney Knox stated one other alternative that might exist is a charter amendment, if the Board wants to sponsor it, requiring payment in those kinds of circumstances. Commissioner Voltz inquired would it have to go out for referendum; with Attorney Knox responding yes.

Commissioner Carlson stated the County is dealing with a lot of philosophical stuff that it is not agreeing with at the State level; there is some good stuff and some ugly stuff; the Board is trying to set a budget and look at strategic planning; and it is hard when the Commissioners feel one arm is strapped behind their back. Chairman Pritchard stated Brevard County is a population of 500,000; and inquired where does it want to go, how many people does it want, and how many roads is it going to build. He noted the Coalition needs to make that decision; and it needs to figure out where it is going to go and what is Brevard going to become. Commissioner Colon stated the population alone for Palm Bay has the potential for 250,000 people; and construction is taking place there. Chairman Pritchard stated Mayor Mazziotti told the Board about a month ago that the City issued more building permits last year than Brevard County.

The meeting recessed at 10:05 a.m. and reconvened at 10:20 a.m.

REPORT, RE: HOUSE BILL 1173, LIMITING IMPACT FEES

Commissioner Carlson stated House Bill 1173 is the Impact Fee Bill; it shows what the Bill will be limiting as far as how it will be tying the County’s hands; there are about eight points included in terms of how it is going to impact counties; and it limits how impact fees are calculated, how impact fees may be collected, where impact fees may be expended, who can receive a refund of unspent impact fees, and requires counties to wait six months between the imposition or increase of an impact fee and collection of the fee. She noted it goes on and on as far as the impacts; it is going to the Government Committee tomorrow at 10:30 a.m.; she assumes staff has alerted John Thrasher on the issue; and the Board can get a report at its next meeting on what the outcome was. She stated she does not know how many more meetings the issue will be discussed because it seems to be one of those that is picking up steam; it may be truly limiting and there may not be a reason to have impact fees if they are going to limit the County to this extent; and it does not make a lot of sense to provide the County with the revenue source, which the County has applied, and now the State is going to take it away. He noted the School Board has put it into its budget for new schools.

Commissioner Voltz stated she met with a group yesterday and they indicated the Impact Fee Bill was dead. Commissioner Carlson stated the information says the Florida League of Cities has not taken a position against the Bill, but instead has used the Bill as an opportunity to increase the city bargaining power over the expenditure of impact fees collected Countywide, such as for schools and the County road system. Commissioner Voltz stated the message yesterday was that the Bill was dead. Commissioner Carlson stated there are certain Bills that are gaining a lot of momentum and are cruising; once they get going one cannot stop them very easily; and she is thankful the County has Mr. Thrasher on board as he has a lot of impact in that regard.

BUDGET PRESENTATION, RE: STORMWATER UTILITY FOR FY 2005-2006

Stormwater Utility Director Ron Jones stated the Stormwater Utility Department is an agency which is funded solely by non-ad valorem assessment; it does not impact General Fund; in fact, probably if it does impact General Fund, it is in a positive fashion in that the Department picked up quite a few different programs associated with providing support services to other departments, such as Roadways and Landscaping Department, as well as other functions, such as Land Development Review and other things that historically have some level of General Fund input; and the program has identified almost all of the expenditures currently to date associated with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Requirements of the Federal and State governments. He noted although there will be some impacts as time goes on over the five-year implementation period, which will affect other departments, his Department has borne the cost for that; and it has saved the General Fund from having those expenditures. He stated the program is primarily capital improvements driven; it builds stormwater improvement projects; it has a total staff of 16 full-time equivalents; and major programs include support services for capital improvements, which would involve managing, design, consultant contracts, maintenance activities, property billing, and database management. He noted the Department manages about 106,000 parcels in terms of the non-ad valorem stormwater utility fee; public outreach and education, which is a mandated program per the NPDS permit requirements; and water quality monitoring, which serves two functions, first, to primarily identify new locations and the best expenditures from a cost benefit perspective for new projects, and second, to test periodically within the stormwater system and provide for a mechanism to make sure that if there is an illicit or illegal discharge of non-stormwater materials, such as industrial or commercial type activities, that can be ceased. Mr. Jones stated the program in the last two years has also started doing development review; the Department is in the process of reviewing virtually all of the site plans and subdivisions, as well as a host of additional projects; the personnel side of that budget is just over $1 million; and the capital improvement side makes up the bulk of the program. He noted currently a revenue of about $3 million a year is generated with the $36.00 per equivalent residential unit fee; the Department is in the process of implementing a number of large projects, including the Chain of Lakes project, North Merritt Island improvements, and some additional projects in District 3, including the Wheeler property, which is along the San Sebastian Canal; and the Department has recently completed a few other large projects in District 3. He noted it is in the process of final implementation of the Upper Eau Gallie Stormwater Management Master Plan, as well as a portion of the Crane Creek Master Plan; in this budget presentation there is a fairly significant dollar amount in terms of the capital side of approximately $8 million; of that, about $6.7 million is associated with those projects that are ready to be constructed that he just mentioned; and the Department has recently had some changeovers in personnel. He stated it has eliminated an assistant director position; such position previously had been associated with both administrative side and functioned as the Department’s finance manager; concerning the finance management component, the Department is proposing to split a finance manager with another department; and it feels comfortable that with the personnel in the Department that it could share that resource. He noted it has been trying to target General Fund agencies so there might be some cost savings back to a General Fund agency to split the position; the Department has taken the step to eliminate the assistant department director position in favor of having a partially-funded finance manager; one of the 16 fulltime equivalent positions has been filled with a permanent part-time employee, which has worked extremely well; and it also generates internal savings. Mr. Jones explained the trends and issues affecting the Department; stated concerning NPDES permit compliance the County is in its second year of that Federal and State mandated program; it is managing it acceptably at this point; and there may be in the future the need to add a staff member in order to take care of some of the associated field work that is required. He stated the Department intends in the next upcoming fiscal year to absorb that and try and get through that period, and reevaluate it as time goes on; a number of different programs will be necessary to be implemented; however, the primary one that is a fiscal impact to the Department is screening of illicit stormwater systems. He advised the Department is taking an approach using test-tip based sampling in order to not incur large laboratory fees and is doing a screening level analysis; if it finds things, then it is going to go back and do actual physical laboratory analysis; it is the difference between spending about $20.00 per sampling versus about $600 or $800 for a full sweep with laboratory analysis; and the Department is also going to, and has included in its annual report this year to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), breaking the County into multiple segments so it can, over a five-year period as opposed to trying to get it all done in one year, target those different stormwater systems and do sampling in those specific areas. He stated the State has responded favorably, which also presents a spreading of the impact; within the Permitting and Compliance Department there is going to be the need to add an additional staff member associated with field work; this is primarily associated with more significant control of erosion and sediment management; and in the upcoming months staff will be bringing back to the Board some proposed Code changes that will strengthen enforcement associated with managing erosion on properties. Mr. Jones noted it is more specific to construction activities than anything else; it will also be associated with the single-family lot contracting basis; staff intends to work closely with the Homebuilders Association and BCAC; and it will be bringing back information and permission to move forward in that regard. He stated in terms of revenue enhancement opportunities, staff sought two different ones; over the past several years the Board has fairly late in the process asked questions about raising the stormwater utility fee; the fee is based on $36.00 per equivalent residential unit or one house and has not been raised since 1991; and the current revenues are a little over $3.1 million. He noted for each dollar in terms of the annual rate increase there is about a corresponding $100,000 in revenue; breaking it out on a monthly basis it is about $3.00 per house per month; that $1.00 figure that raises the $100,000 is on the $36.00; and if the Board were to want to move forward with increasing the stormwater utility, basically there would need to be a public mail-out to comply with the statutory requirements and notification of public hearing. He stated if the County looked at what it currently identified in terms of unfunded projects, it is probably somewhere in excess of 40 years to get those projects funded with the current revenue stream; the unfunded listed in the last budget cycle was $111 million; these projects, especially on the water quality side of things, are going to be critical in the upcoming years because the State is moving forward in its agreement with EPA and implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL); and as part of setting those TMDL, it is taking all of the different segments of the Lagoon and identifying what the Lagoon can absorb without additional adverse impact. Mr. Jones stated the State is then going to be requiring actual reductions in nutrient levels, as well as a couple of other elements, in order to achieve the maximum daily load; in several basins within the County, specifically Crane Creek Basin and Eau Gallie River Basin, which are the two worst within Brevard County in terms of pollutant discharge, the loading rates will force local governments to look at development approvals; over about the next four to five years there is likely to be a much higher mandate in terms of local government needing to move forward and construct additional water quality improvement projects in order to allow continued development to occur as well; and it is kind of a balance or offset to meet that TMDL. Mr. Jones noted staff had taken on the responsibility of doing development review associated with new construction-type activities; one staff member was added at that time; the Department has been varying between one and a half fulltime equivalents and two fulltime equivalents in terms of getting that work done with the current rate of development activities and applications that are being processed; and staff identified a potential revenue enhancement opportunity of recovering a portion or the majority of that cost through an increase in the development review fees. He stated he has some additional information should the Board wish to discuss either increasing the stormwater utility fee or consideration of development review fee increases.

Commissioner Carlson inquired has there been an actual effect on the water quality for the Lagoon since those particular ponds drain most of North Melbourne; stated she does not know if there has been enough time to assess that or not; when talking about increasing fees, which she supports since the County has not increased them since 1990 and the cost of doing business has increased in the last 15 years, it is incredible the County can function on $3 million generated from that fee and get all the projects done that need to be done; and inquired how does Mr. Jones deal with the outcomes. Mr. Jones responded the program has been very active in implementing projects, both for the St. Johns River and Indian River Lagoon; in terms of measuring impact, historically the County had been participating in a larger scale overall ambient water quality monitoring program for the Lagoon; it is very difficult to attribute a sample in the middle of an eight-mile stretch of water in terms of improvement; and typically what staff sees is the improvement being more localized at the outfall source and it does not sample each and every project, but it samples a representative selection of projects. He advised it measures water quality going into and exiting the newly constructed facility; staff has a great deal of information in terms of what it is actually accomplishing; each project, based on the type of project it is, whether it be a pond system or more of a sediment type device, has a different standard or measure; and the County has clearly demonstrated significant increases in water quality being discharged. He noted it is also highly dependent on whether or not an adequately sized facility can be placed; staff frequently struggles with that cost benefit thought process of where is the biggest bang for the buck; when it has the size of the project versus the size of the watershed issues to deal with it has to frequently ask itself the question, although it cannot get to today’s treatment standards as though it is a new development entity, is it better to get an improvement even if it is not the improvement it would like to get; staff does a lot of balancing; and it is a tough thing to actively select projects because much of it is land driven. Mr. Jones stated land is becoming more and more difficult to lock down; and some of the County’s biggest challenges have been with the Crane Creek Basin where the properties in the lower reaches of the Basin are moving quicker than the County is able to keep up in terms of trying to acquire. Commissioner Carlson inquired has Mr. Jones ever done an analysis for strategic purposes on a priority list and based it on what kind of a rate increase it would require to do the top three priority projects; stated the $111 million is too much to chew on and is not going to happen through a rate increase today; and inquired how does the County compare as there are many stormwater utilities throughout the State and is it keeping up with the cost of doing business. She noted she has been here for seven years and knows the projects that have been accomplished in her District; from the Wickham Road perspective, that is the County’s land and it was a great deal; it is pretty much all it has left in the north end of the County in that section; and if it had not purchased the property, it would not have a filtering pond that would have helped the Lagoon.

Mr. Jones stated in everyday practice staff is making those kinds of evaluations; one of the unusual things about the Stormwater Utility Program is it is somewhat opportunistic; staff frequently has tried to acquire different parcels and property and has been unsuccessful in actually getting them acquired; and several years later expectations or other conditions have changed. He noted in terms of trying to balance radically different projects from a cost benefit perspective, staff has been trying to focus its project expenditures in the areas that have the highest pollutant load and where the County has opportunity to have the most significant impact; it is usually land driven; there are some 2,000 outfalls to the Indian River Lagoon; and the size of the task versus the funding that is available is somewhat out of kilter in terms of trying to get many of those outfalls treated quickly. Commissioner Carlson inquired can Mr. Jones compare the County to any other utility and would it make any sense in terms of other stormwater utilities along the Indian River Lagoon; stated the Lagoon is under a mandate to get cleaned up because of its significance; there are five counties involved; and inquired what is the County doing compared to other counties and is it being more successful or less successful. Mr. Jones stated for a fairly small group it is very diverse; there are opportunities that the County could work with other utilities to try and develop some level of measures; different utilities are doing different things; and staff can strive and work in that regard. Commissioner Carlson noted the St. Johns River Water Management District is supposed to be overseeing all that occurs in terms of the TMDL’s and all of that; and inquired would it be the District’s choice to get the five counties together to make sure each one of them are doing something that will be a positive effect to the Lagoon. Mr. Jones responded there are quarterly meetings of the Stormwater Work Group; it helped to initiate that process and asked the District from a regional perspective if it would take on that task; the Group meets with Indian River County; and Volusia County is not currently actively participating. He stated Brevard County also participates actively in the annual processes associated with the Surface Water Improvement Management Program, as well as the National Estuary Program; it provides reports to those different agencies and they in turn take and couple all of that information and provide a report; the County’s program is probably one of the most successful programs within the State of Florida; and it has a broad base in terms of attempting to accomplish not just through accomplished water quality improvement and project construction, but also from an active public outreach and public education perspective. He noted staff can try to come up with some form of measures that are more comparative with other utilities; it is tough to get its hands around; it has always struggled; and he and Mr. Rogero have had many conversations back and forth regarding budget and how to measure. He stated it is not a response time issue and is a little more nebulous than that unfortunately.

Commissioner Carlson stated the County wants to be able to fund it with as much money as it can possibly afford because it knows how important the Lagoon is; she sits on the Indian River Lagoon Advisory Board and there needs to be some sort of plan of attack; not all the players are at the table; and it is the District’s call because it is the one that has been given requirements.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Titusville has an environmental committee; the County has historically looked at the impact to the Lagoon and St. Johns River; a part of the issue is the capacity to maintain groundwater; and groundwater not only is what people may drink, but it also provides the shallow well alternative for those persons who are not on a municipal service and allows for people to have shallow wells for irrigation, which does not impact potable water during the critical months. He noted Alex Chamberlain did an extensive examination inside the City of Titusville where there was a historical basin that should be a recharge area; two postures are accomplished in doing this; one is when going into the purchase of stormwater at the Lagoon, along U.S. 1 is the most expensive property; and it is the most difficult point in which to treat the water because it is at the moment before it hits the Lagoon. He stated the more holistic concept that the County has the desire to retain groundwater is an interesting thing; every time he talks about it he becomes more interested in it; at no time has the County charged staff to see how it could begin to structure some of these thought processes rather than buying the expensive property and buying the less expensive property upstream where it has the benefit of capturing; and there are the dry and wet seasons. He noted during the dry season he has been told by people that are knowledgeable in the building trade that there is bleeding of groundwater; ditches will flow into the Lagoon even in the dry season because they are so deep; there are ways to prevent that with some methodologies; and before he votes for more money, he would like to go into more of a holistic mode and see if some of these concepts that have been shared periodically without a response could be pursued. He stated perhaps a two-page report could come back to the Board from Mr. Jones on some of the methodologies so all the Commissioners can know about it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct the Stormwater Utility Director to provide a brief report on methodologies of preventing bleeding off of groundwater during dry seasons, getting into a more holistic mode, and seeing if some of the concepts that have been shared periodically could be pursued to address groundwater and water quality improvement projects. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Colon inquired is there anything else Mr. Jones feels should be included in the report. Mr. Jones responded in terms of addressing groundwater and water quality-type improvement projects, it is a balance; the areas that have the highest recharge are typically the highest areas; staff has not moved forward because it has current encumbrances on several large projects; and it is trying to balance rather than having a treatment system at the very end of the system and having multiple ponds throughout the basin, trying to get some of that recharge activity occurring.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the City of Titusville has a capture basin, which is a historical one; it could be reactivated, preventing runoff to the Lagoon; it is currently undeveloped property; and it takes a methodology of how to accomplish that without flooding people. He noted the thought is different places require different things and some places will still be bought along the Lagoon; and a brief report will be good.

Commissioner Voltz stated in looking through Mr. Jones’ budget he identified three or four fulltime people that he could potentially need. Mr. Jones stated staff identified one fulltime equivalent within Code Compliance Department; it is not going to be asking for additional staffing associated with the program; part of the NPDES requirements may require additional field staffing within the Department; and staff intends to try and work through the next fiscal year and get a better assessment of what that impact is going to be prior to trying to add a person. He noted historically he has tried to keep the staff fairly small and more focused on consultant and construction management-type activities as opposed to in-house design activities. Commissioner Voltz stated page 4 says implement land development and review fees; and inquired if anybody else that has a stormwater utility fee does that. Mr. Jones responded historically there were a group of engineers within the land development agency; as time has gone on and budgets have been constrained and crunched, those positions have gradually moved back among different departments; throughout the State there are a number of stormwater utilities that actively review and participate in the land development review process; and in some instances the utility funds that 100% and in other instances they are receiving a pro rata back from land development application fees. Commissioner Voltz inquired is Mr. Jones looking at any particular dollar amount. Mr. Jones responded staff tried to assess on an hourly basis since most of the reviews are done by registered professional engineers; it tried to provide an assessment of how many hours are spent and what kind of costs are involved; in looking through the document he passed out, by far the largest hit from a manpower perspective is probably review of subdivisions; and they tend to be more complex. He stated staff identified about $500.00 per subdivision in terms of the actual fiscal expenditure of time that it puts into a review; on average for a site plan, which are highly variable in terms of complexity, staff identified $350.00 for a site; each subdivision is going to be different; and like many of the other review fees that are currently in place, there is usually a base fee and a per acre-type charge to make a recognition of that differential in size. Commissioner Voltz stated one column says proposed stormwater review fee increase, but she does not know what the other ones are on the other column. Mr. Jones stated the first column is the current approved land development application fees; and the second column is a proposed dollar amount for the different development review activities associated with the stormwater review component. Commissioner Voltz inquired if there is a small development going in of 100 homes, how much would somebody expect to pay. Mr. Jones responded currently the majority of the development review fees associated with a subdivision that is over 50 acres would be in the neighborhood currently of about $3,300; and the County would be looking at a proposed increase of about $500. Ms. Busacca stated it is not just for land development.

Commissioner Voltz stated the County does a lot of work so that the Indian River Lagoon stays healthy; and inquired is there a possibility of staff working closer together with Natural Resources Management Office so that they do not duplicate some of the services.

Mr. Jones responded he does not believe there is a duplication of efforts; staff shares resources and participates actively together; the only area he can think of is in public outreach where they actively participate together, attend events, and those types of things; and his Department has preliminarily talked with Mr. Brown about the possibility of sharing a finance manager, which is one of the things that probably would be of significant benefit to the General Fund.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Jones gets advice from Mr. Brown’s office on the land his Department is pursuing to have things occur; it goes through a whole evaluation process through such office; and staff works together on that level too. Mr. Jones noted that is correct; and his Department also provides support services for Mr. Brown’s office associated with development review activities.

Commissioner Voltz noted the current rate has not been increased since 1991; and inquired is Mr. Jones looking at any specific amount that he would need at this point. Mr. Jones responded the current rate is probably a little behind what the average State rate would be; he can provide additional information on it; there are utilities that charge less and some that charge more; and where the County is looking at a rate increase would be primarily associated, should the Board wish to pursue it, with trying to reconcile where it was 10 or 12 years ago to where it is today in terms of the increased cost of doing business. He noted he does not believe the Board could ever implement a fee that would adequately address the need in a short timeframe, so staff would not be proposing anything like doubling the fee or anything to that affect. Commissioner Voltz inquired is staff looking at raising the fee to $40.00 or $50.00; with Mr. Jones responding yes. Mr. Jones stated the sheet he provided the Board shows the types of revenues that are generated based on a $45.00 fee; in last year’s budget discussions there was a discussion about raising the fee by 50 cents per year; the cost to go through the process to raise the fee may not validate that kind of a fee increase; and for each house in Brevard County it is $3.00 per month. He noted if the County went to $48.00, it would be $4.00 per month; it is less than $1.00 per month in terms of actual fiscal impact; the revenue generation numbers are as the Board sees; staff has not specifically identified a target; and should the Board wish to move forward and have additional projects constructed and try and achieve those benefits a little quicker, staff can provide specific detailed information.

Commissioner Voltz inquired why is it that Districts 3 and 5 do not have any money. Mr. Jones responded each Commission District constitutes a benefit area; and those Commission Districts that do not have a large incorporated area generate more funding. Commissioner Carlson stated some of the cities have been part of the stormwater utility and have split from the County. Mr. Jones stated the County still currently manages the Town of Malabar and City of West Melbourne; the City of Melbourne has split; in those Districts staff tries to find cooperative funding projects with those programs to try and achieve the same level of benefits; and in Rockledge the County participated in a number of excellent projects that have been jointly funded by Rockledge, Cocoa, and the County. Commissioner Carlson inquired does Palm Bay have a stormwater utility; with Mr. Jones responding no. Mr. Jones stated the City has some difficulties with the road fee and specific Charter issues it would have to overcome in order to be able to implement any type of non-ad valorem assessments.

Commissioner Voltz stated in the past the City voted to have one; it spent hundreds and thousands of dollars on all the prep work, etc.; the next council said it was not a good idea; and it went by the wayside at that point. Commissioner Carlson inquired how does the City get by with not having some sort of utility based on the population growth it has, the TMDL issues, and all the other regulatory issues that the County has to cope with; and how can a city that large not have something like that. Mr. Jones responded the City has a very large and active Drainage District, that being Melbourne-Tillman, which handles a great number of its water quantity type issues; the City, Melbourne-Tillman Drainage District, and St. Johns River Water Management District have worked to some level and extent, and been successful in doing some grant projects; and those municipalities that do not have some form of established fee structure or mechanism of generating revenue to address stormwater issues, which do not compete well with other types of issues, are getting to the point where they are going to be up against a wall. Commissioner Carlson stated the waters that are coming out of the District are not being treated; Mr. Jones said quantity is great but not quality; and the County is dealing with all quality projects. Commissioner Voltz stated the District cannot do it without going to the people to vote on it. Commissioner Carlson stated it should go to the people and vote on it; the hurricane was a perfect example, although she does not know where land is available down there to allow proper filtering to occur; it is a huge amount of water; and she does not know how to stop 6,000 cubic feet of water coming. She noted when the gates have to be opened it must be done; she is not sure if a quality project would work because the canal is so big; and it is a huge issue. Mr. Jones stated when dealing with water quality issues it is a little different; with a large storm event the initial runoff is where there is a pollutant load; after that it is fairly clean; and it may not be good in terms of dissolved oxygen and suspended solids, but the types of projects that are implemented to have the most impact are for smaller rainfall events, those that occur on a routine basis, and are washing those pollutants off that are collecting. He noted in terms of how Palm Bay is going to address State and Federal mandates it is tough for him to answer.

Commissioner Voltz inquired how much of Crane Creek is in Melbourne versus in the unincorporated areas of the County. Mr. Jones responded the number changes daily; approximately one-third of the area is within the unincorporated County, although it is getting smaller and smaller primarily as a result of annexation from both West Melbourne and Melbourne; whenever a drainage district is abolished the County automatically inherits the right-of-way, but it does not make it ultimately responsible for the pollutant loads that are being discharged to it; and Crane Creek is a good example of a system where, much like when annexations occur around a road and it remains in the County’s maintenance responsibility, as more and more of such Creek has been annexed, there has not been a significant amount of the responsibility absorbed by the cities. Commissioner Voltz stated even though it is in the City of Melbourne it is not responsible for maintenance of Crane Creek. Mr. Jones responded that is correct; Roadways and Landscaping Department does not collect any fees from West Melbourne, Melbourne, or Melbourne Village to offset fiscal impacts associated with maintenance; there have been cooperative projects that have been implemented to improve drainage; and he would not paint a completely bleak picture. Commissioner Voltz inquired can the County work with the City of Melbourne to try to see that the project is somewhat funded and does staff have any idea how much it would cost. Mr. Jones responded staff received word yesterday from the president of FIT campus that it is very interested in moving forward and working within the canal right-of-way and adjacent properties for a project; it is going to be moving forward toward preliminary discussions with the Water Management District as there are some surface water and potentially wetland impacts associated with it; staff is going to try to balance those two different issues; and in terms of working with the City of Melbourne, staff previously identified a $2.4 million project that was identified both in the CIP of West Melbourne and Melbourne. He noted when it came down to implementing the project and acquiring property, Melbourne decided it did not wish to participate any further; a significant amount of resources, both fiscal and staff time, had been spent on that effort; and the Board would need to enter into any kind of a cooperative agreement regarding project implementation in Crane Creek Basin very cautiously and in writing. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board needs to work with the City of Melbourne’s elected officials and City Manager on the whole thing.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County is charging to review the site plans and things; the capacity to store upstream would appear that as staff goes through a site plan, if there was some manner in which to acquire rights to store water, that it is coming in from offsite rather than drive it downstream at the point development is occurring, and there is some cost advantage; the cost advantage is once there is mobilized construction it is much cheaper than going in, acquiring, and doing it; and Mr. Jones may want to address the capacity to enter into discussions with developers where they can be part of the concept of maintaining to address the groundwater issue by maintaining it upstream.

Chairman Pritchard stated all of the revenue is fee-based and not General Fund; and inquired if Mr. Jones was to be successful in getting all of the proposed increases he is seeking in the fees and increasing his revenue stream to permit and review, rate increases, and everything to say $8.00 per year, from $36.00 and to the amount he is proposing here, how much money would he generate. Mr. Jones responded at $48.00 the County would be looking at about $1.2 million in terms of annual revenue generation; it would be split among the Districts in a pro rata share; to a large extent it is tough to answer the question 100% without doing a fairly detailed calculation because there are commercial and residential; and in terms of land development review fees it is basically trying to offset the impact that the program has absorbed associated with salaries and benefits for that position and a half. Chairman Pritchard stated the increase Mr. Jones would be seeking in fees would somewhat pay for the cost of doing business based at the current level of providing service, as well as a couple of the other items that were in here; if the Board wanted to do additional things, then it is looking at a utility rate increase; one of the things it discussed many times is baffle boxes; and it is probably the least expensive way of dealing with runoff from the streets, which probably has a more direct contribution toward polluting waterways because of the oils and other contaminants there, and as soon as it rains they end up in the Indian River Lagoon. He inquired what is the cost of a baffle box. Mr. Jones responded it varies, but on average the cost of installation of a baffle box type system is probably on the order of about $50,000 to $60,000. Chairman Pritchard inquired how much would maintenance run per year. Mr. Jones responded each one is highly variable, but on average it is probably $2,000 per year. Chairman Pritchard stated Mr. Jones has been successful in acquiring the property off of Fortenberry Road so the County can finally do something about managing stormwater runoff from the large parking lot at Merritt Square Mall; it is going to help considerably; one of the concerns he has is the County is not doing enough; and he is getting a little anxious reading stories about critters in the Indian River Lagoon with lesions, tumors, etc. He noted it is attributable to something; whether it is fertilizers, runoffs, or general unhealthy conditions, he is not too sure it has been pinpointed; anything the County can do that is going to promote water quality is going to be a benefit to all; and he wants to meet with Mr. Jones in the next week or so to discuss baffle boxes, where they can be placed, and what the cost will be so he can get a better handle where he may be going toward increasing fees and rates with the installations so the County can finally do something. He stated it not only relates to that, it relates to the dredging costs because all the sand, silt, and whatever that falls in and comes in from the roads ends up having to be dredged out; there is an associated cost with it; the installation of a baffle box, even though it sounds like a lot of money, ends up in the long run saving a lot of money because the County is not having to dredge and do other types of associated costs all because it is better able to manage the water and materials prior to their getting distributed throughout the Lagoon; and Mr. Jones mentioned sharing his Department Finance Manager with Natural Resources Management Office. Mr. Jones stated it is one opportunity staff preliminarily discussed. Chairman Pritchard inquired what is the benefit of having a department finance manager. Mr. Jones responded there are a number of different functions that position fills, including preparation of the budget, and the day-in, day-out activities associated with operations; the budget is not a big deal as he has done it himself for years; the day-in, day-out activities, however, are fairly onerous; the Board can imagine with a several million dollar per year construction activity the number of transactions that physically occur, both through management and consultant contracts, as well as for park construction contracts; and if there are 40 or 50 different projects working simultaneously at some level it becomes perhaps the best expenditure of his time.

Ms. Busacca stated staff has identified that finance managers are something that started with one department, people saw them, they said it looks like this is working out well, and the other departments wanted to do it; she and several Directors have met with the ACM’s and talked about whether or not all of the finance managers are needed and whether they are being utilized appropriately; there were a couple of specific issues and then the broad issue; and she has asked Mr. Whitten and Budget Director Dennis Rogero to come up with a general plan of where they think finance managers are helping staff and where there may be opportunity for either sharing those managers or whether they may not be as helpful as they thought. She noted staff has identified this as one area that it wants to review and see what kind of efficiencies it can get; the Board had a department come to it last week that talked about a loan of $700,000; it took a while to sort out that the money was necessary because it is a very intricate budget with lots of moving parts; and without someone there watching the day-to-day information, that department had not become aware of that in time and would have had to cut back services because it was not able to foresee those types of things.

Chairman Pritchard stated Roadways and Landscaping, and Transportation Engineering Departments mentioned a program that they felt necessary so they could measure the roadways in the 30-year life expectancy; they cannot get around to them for 40 years, so there is obviously something wrong with that picture; and inquired can a finance manager help in that type of situation. Ms. Busacca responded a finance manager may indeed be able to help think that issue through because it is the same type of thought process that is looked at with the budgets, recurring costs, and what are the long-term issues; she is not sure that a finance manager will take the place of the large computer database that is necessary or the engineering work that has to go into every single road getting a boring, which is what she understands the engineers do to find out what the base of the road is and that kind of information; and it is pretty clear what has happened now is those agencies, which either do not have adequate finance managers or for which there is no finance manager, are turning to the Budget Office to serve as that function. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is his point; Emergency Management Director Bob Lay indicated the County may get some grants and may need a finance manager; and inquired does he wait until he gets the grants. He noted he would like to see if maybe by having a couple additional people in finance there could be a pool to draw because conceivably one time during the year maybe Mr. Jones needs a finance manager and another time Mr. Lay needs one; there is no reason to have people sitting there waiting for something to happen; and inquired if it is an option will staff look at it. Ms. Busacca responded yes; there are some departments that have a limited need for one but not for the entire year; and it would be better to share those resources.

Commissioner Carlson stated there is a Finance Director; when the Charter issues came up one of the key questions was should the County look at having an elected or selected individual who would be like a finance manager for it but would sit as an objective person and have oversight; he or she would provide services; when adding up all the County finance managers throughout, it would be one good salaried employee and they could have a couple of others with the resources pooled in one place but accessible to the County; and it is getting big enough that the discussion needs to take place, seeing there are issues in the different departments. She noted she hates duplicating finance mentalities throughout the departments; there is the Budget Office but the missing piece is Finance; when the Board has questions it calls Steve Burdett for his perspective; but it may not be looked at as being the best perspective or whatever. Commissioner Scarborough stated Clerk’s Finance has the accountant function, which is whether or not the County is following proper procedures and does it have certain things that are occurring that may jeopardize its bond rating; the County has to do projections of where it wants to go programwise; it has been discussing not just funding but funding of programs and the shifting of priorities between programs; and whether or not the County moves in the idea of Clerk’s Finance for all the Constitutional Officers, it is still going to need within the Board the capacity to analyze the costs of taking advantage of opportunities and the perspective of where does it go in a futuristic sense as opposed to looking at whether the County has done things correctly and met the legal requirements. He stated this is something more that would still be internal to Mr. Whitten or the departments even if the County shifted over to having it all encompassing a finance officer. Commissioner Carlson stated it seems like there is duplication here although she understands the need, but the County should be doing it more efficiently. Commissioner Scarborough stated when he first same on the Commission it did not have a function like Mr. Whitten’s; it was one of the most horrific things; the Board received a stack of printouts and staff said the Commissioners could go by the codes and figure out what everything is; and nobody had any idea. He noted Clerk’s Finance told the Board it had $2 million more, but there was no way for the Commissioners to figure it out; it was about to finalize the budget and had to cut $2 million; there is a substantial difference in what the Board is receiving today; and Clerk’s Finance would say here is the old budget. He inquired does that help when the Board is trying to analyze programs, streams of incomes, and where the County is going to be tomorrow.

Commissioner Carlson stated the departments are looking for more in-depth analysis from a financial perspective, not just budget; there is budget and finance; there has to be the financial acumen to understand where the money goes and how it should be accounted for, etc.; and one takes what he or she understands to be that and then applies the budget to it. She noted they are different functions and the County is limited with the financial side of the budget.

Chairman Pritchard stated the County is going to be at a $1 billion budget in about a year and a half; it is not a club, it is a business; he and Ms. Busacca had this discussion about a week and a half ago because they are going to have a meeting; Mr. Burdett will be at the meeting; and this budget issue will be discussed. He noted he is used to having a finance director who was the CPA or CFO; he directed bonds and was finance management; there was also the budget office that was part of the city manager’s office; and the city finance director was there but not really part of the city management, no more than the city attorney. He stated that is how he sees the operation of the Finance Director; it alludes to what Commissioner Carlson is saying; when the County is running a business that has $1 billion in revenue, then it has to start looking at it as a multifaceted business and how it is going to do it most efficiently and effectively; and he does not want to go back to green bar budgets.

Commissioner Carlson stated there is a bill but she does not know what the number is; she has received mostly negative and little positive feedback on it; it is defining the high water mark in the St. Johns River; and inquired is it going to promote development and what is it going to do. She noted she has talked to Senator Bill Posey, who was the sponsor of the bill, and he indicated it has been there forever and after 100 years it is being put into law. She noted Attorney General Charlie Crist, Save the River, and various groups said this is not a good thing and this is what it might do; she would like to know what the real skinny is on it so the Board knows where to go; she sits as the Chairperson for the St. Johns River Alliance, which is the regional group that is made up of 11 counties; and it is coming from one of the Delegation members and she would like to understand what it means. She requested Mr. Jones provide the Board a report so it knows where it is in the process, if it is through a committee and has any hope of doing anything, or if it is dead. Mr. Jones advised staff will track it.

BUDGET PRESENTATION, RE: SCGTV FOR FY 2005-2006

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated Space Coast Government Television (SCGTV) is a small operation with a big impact on what the Board does; it has two primary functions or services; one is the presentation of live and recorded meetings and programs through the public; and there are approximately 3.5 fulltime equivalents with a General Fund budget of $253,887. He noted the second function is the communications Internet web page development and oversight function primarily consisting of a part time or one-half FTE; the function of that service is to inform and educate the public and media on County programs and services; the funding source for the entire office is General Fund; and efficiency opportunities identified include to conduct a survey of citizens and SCGTV viewers to determine what their programming interests are to help better align programming on the government channel. He noted the survey could cost approximately $2,500, which is an upper end figure; the survey can be done electronically or some other means other than simple mailouts; another efficiency opportunity identified is the ability for the government channel to telecast from the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) during natural disasters and other emergencies; and it requires funding a fiber feed from the EOC to the local cable company or Government Center. Mr. Whitten stated the County has to shut down the Government Center because it is not hurricane rated so it does not have an ability to telecast on the government channel during emergencies from the EOC; the initiative would cost approximately $100,000 to $200,000; trends and issues include the increased need for programs that are aired on SCGTV; and part of the complication is that there are three people who are devoted entirely to the SCGTV side of the house and it does not have the staff capacity to do onsite programming or more programming that is not geared toward just televising and recording meetings. He noted SCGTV only has one handheld camera; the small staff size does not permit doing additional programs beyond what they are doing right now; the one handheld camera is in repair right now; and there is the need for replacement of equipment. He stated a lot of the equipment was already old when the County purchased it; over the next couple of years there is going to be a critical need to replace a lot of equipment that is being used now; if the County replaced the entire complement of equipment, it would cost more than the program cost annually; and it is a cost of about $407,000.

Commissioner Carlson stated on Channels 1 and 99 the County also plays other council meetings and such; and inquired does the Agreement deal with the School Board in terms of live broadcasts and what is the current Agreement in terms of live broadcasts. Mr. Whitten responded the Agreement in terms of the station is that it is owned by the County and the cities; the cities can provide programming through the station; the School Board last year developed its own station; and it is airing its own programming through BCC through an Agreement. He stated from time to time the County would air the School Board’s programming through SCGTV, but it is on its own now. Commissioner Carlson inquired is the School Board on Channel 1 or 99; with Mr. Whitten responding no, it is on a different station. Commissioner Carlson stated folks who have been used to seeing it on the County’s station need to be informed it is on a different station. Mr. Whitten noted they have been informed and it has been about seven months ago. Commissioner Carlson inquired is there an agreement to pay for any of the costs of broadcasting other than what the County pays for itself to keep the station going; with Mr. Whitten responding no. Mr. Whitten stated the SCGTV Council consists of representatives from the cities; and the Board is providing 100% of the funding for the station. Commissioner Carlson stated if the County wants to upgrade the equipment, it is $500,000; there should be some equity in the whole thing; it always seems the County foots the bill for things but does not get the contributions even though others are getting the benefits; and the County deals with all constituencies. She noted the cities should be forthcoming in their contributions to make sure the County maintains SCGTV because the citizens have gotten used to that service, which is a great one.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County gets General Revenue funds from cities; the Board is elected by citizens of the County and cities; there is a lot of feeling on the other side that they are paying double taxation and the County is always coming back to them; and there are pretty powerful discussions with the JPA’s. He noted he would like to say SCGTV is a function the County is pleased to offer as part of the General Revenue collected from all the citizens of Brevard County. Mr. Whitten stated it would be the cities’ counterargument to the County asking them for contributions. Chairman Pritchard stated the cities are contributing to the tax base every now and then. Commissioner Voltz stated the citizens provide tapes for copies of the meetings; and all the County is doing is airing it.

Ms. Busacca stated a grant will be placed on the April 26, 2005 agenda as an add-on from Emergency Management Office regarding homeland security; and it will increase the County’s ability to provide information on SCGTV during emergencies.

Chairman Pritchard inquired does the County have a CIP that includes any of the equipment and does it meet the criteria for the CIP in terms of dollars. Mr. Whitten responded in terms of dollars it is capital outlay; staff has not included it in the CIP because these are more capital outlay expenses; those are submitted as requests within the proposed budgets; and they have been in there, but the County has been unable to fund the requests.

Commissioner Voltz stated if at the end of the year the County realizes with the State having $2.2 billion extra and if it gets anything extra, this may be one of those items it can use with extra money; and 2-1-1 is vitally important so Mr. Lay can monitor what is going on.

Chairman Pritchard inquired why would the survey cost $2,500. Mr. Whitten responded it would be 33 cents per postcard; $2,500 is the maximum cost; and staff will try to do the survey online. Chairman Pritchard stated he thought this was a survey to be done on the television by asking the citizens to write to the County or something like that. Mr. Whitten noted staff can do it through the Internet; and it was an estimate of the outside cost. Chairman Pritchard stated a lot of people watch the programming as his office gets emails and calls.

Commissioner Voltz stated she talked a while ago about the possibility of streaming the meetings on the Internet; she does not know what it would cost; and inquired could staff review the issue. Mr. Whitten responded he has asked that question a couple of times; it is the purchase of bandwidth; right now the County does not have it; and it is expensive. Mr. Whitten stated staff will try to put a cost to it, but it is going to be an expensive proposition. Commissioner Carlson stated with the construction of I-95 they are bringing down fiberoptics and connecting with the ITS systems; and it is the same thing needed for what Commissioner Voltz is talking about in terms of streaming things. Mr. Whitten noted the County has the ability to do that now; from the EOC it has the ability to use the four cameras; they are strategically located throughout the County; and staff is going to test it. He stated it was a grant, which Mr. Lay was able to get; staff is going to make sure the cameras are working by testing periodically through SCGTV; and it will be able to show traffic congestion in the morning. Commissioner Carlson stated the ITS systems she was talking about were so the County could incorporate it onto its local roadway systems so there are up-to-the-minute evacuation routes.

Commissioner Carlson stated page one includes $253,887 and FTE’s are 3.5; and inquired does it include the one employee that SCGTV is short. Mr. Whitten responded yes, and it includes that employee sharing his or her time between SCGTV and the Communications function. Chairman Pritchard stated one of the things the County does well is SCGTV. Mr. Whitten noted they do an excellent job. Chairman Pritchard stated people like it; a lot of folks cannot come to the meetings, but they can attend by watching the television; it might be 2:00 a.m. or Saturday or Sunday; and the programming is good and professional.

The meeting recessed at 11:45 a.m. and reconvened at 12:45 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENT, RE: CENTRAL FLORIDA EDUCATIONAL SUMMIT AND PRISM
PROJECT

Commissioner Carlson stated this Thursday there is going to be a Central Florida Educational Summit and Prism Project, which comes from a partnership with MyRegion.org; eight school districts in Central Florida, including Brevard County are launching a ten-year campaign to improve map and science education under the leadership of the O-force, which is the name of the Orlando Regional Partnership for Tomorrow’s workforce; the participating school districts will be Brevard, Hillsborough, Lake, Orange, Osceola, Polk, Seminole, and Volusia Counties; and their focus is going to be to recruit and develop highly qualified math and science teachers for the region’s schools over the next ten years in hopes of having more out there for the long run because right now there is a huge deficit. She noted the Summit will be at the Rosen Center in Orlando off of International Drive, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.; and she will be there representing MyRegion.

BUDGET PRESENTATION, RE: HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE FOR FY 2005-2006

Human Resources Director Frank Abbate stated the first item deals with employee salary increases for FY 2005-2006; specifically staff is looking for any direction or guidance the Board may want to provide in preparation of the upcoming budget before the various departments start putting any kind of monies into the budget for salary purposes; he submitted information relating to a baseline the Board may want to utilize to determine what it might want to do this coming year; and during the last several years the Board has provided 2% COLA and 1% merit increase for employees during the first pay period in December. He noted if the Board chose to do that this year the total General Fund impact would be $2.35 million; ad valorem would be $1.14 million and other would be $1.62 million, with the total impact being $5.12 million; it includes all Charter Officers; and it is assuming everyone throughout the organization would have the same 2%/1% in the first pay period. He stated staff provided additional information to the Board as well; if it chose to do a salary increase any later than the first pay period in December, the impact would be $233,000 for every pay period it delays; if it started before December 9, 2005, it would be an additional $233,000 overall impact for every pay period prior to December 9, 2005 that it was implemented; and he also provided information relating to what a 1% COLA or merit increase would equal. Mr. Abbate noted 1% on a total impact, including all the Charter Officers, would be $1.67 million; if the Board went in addition to 3%, it would be an additional $1.67 million; if it went less than 3% for every 1% it reduced it, it would be $1.67 million; and last year the Board was concerned about the increase in group health insurance premiums and how it would affect lower paid employees. Mr. Abbate stated if the Board chose to implement a similar type of pay adjustment for employees under $30,000 and gave them 10 cents an hour additional to cover the offset and premium increases in group health insurance that may be imposed, it would be $259,000.

Commissioner Voltz inquired why Mr. Abbate picked December 1st since the budget starts October 1st. Mr. Abbate responded it has been that way for the last 10-plus years; it has always been the first pay period in December; it is less expensive to the Board to implement it two months into the fiscal year; and the reason the first pay period in December was selected and always has been the same is because one would receive the pay increase before the holidays. He stated there is nothing that says it needs to be that way; there are no contractual obligations; it is the way it has been in place; and it would increase by $233,000 for every pay period closer. He noted there are six or seven pay periods; and it is an additional $1.2 million to $1.4 million if the Board implemented in October. Commissioner Voltz inquired is it premature to talk about 2% and 1% before a study is done. Mr. Abbate responded the study will be separate and apart from what the County would expect as a normal COLA and merit increase; staff is not asking the Board to approve a 2% and 1% now as it has to negotiate with three unions, etc.; it is looking for some kind of guidance in terms of setting up the tentative budget; and it can change at any point through the second public hearing in September. He noted staff is trying to give the Board the opportunity on the front end to set a starting point.

Commissioner Carlson inquired has it always been the practice to include the Charter Officers in any sort of COLA/merit increase; and stated the Sheriff’s Office has come back with additional increases over and above what the County does. Mr. Abbate responded staff thought the best way was to give the Board the full impact of what the General Fund would be for all the Charter Officers; and staff is not trying to tie anybody’s hands, but trying to show what the real total impact will be to the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated staff has General Fund impact, ad valorem impact, and other; General Fund draws a considerable portion; and inquired is it 50% from ad valorem and is the ad valorem different than General Fund ad valorem and what is other.

Budget Director Dennis Rogero stated the ad valorem on the sheet would be any other ad valorem not associated with the General Fund; and the other category would be any self-sustaining agency.

Chairman Pritchard stated based on past year’s experience this would be a good point for Mr. Abbate to factor in as part of his budget process; all it is at this point is some idea of where things may go; staff needs to have an idea; and Mr. Abbate presented an idea based on past experience and should include it as part of his budget preparation work.

Mr. Abbate stated the biggest financial impact from Human Resources Office’s budget is group health insurance; as a follow-up to the February 24, 2005 workshop, staff prepared a package of information for the Board; it is currently paying $30.1 million; and employee and dependents are paying $2.8 million, retirees and their dependents pay $1.8 million, and the total premium being collected is $34.7 million. He noted it is the 86/14 overall program ratio that the County currently has; it is not 100% of all program costs; employees pay out-of-pocket expenses; and part of the Board direction was in terms of establishing goals to not increase out-of-pocket expenses. He stated staff is focusing on the major part of program expenses, which is premiums, employer, employee-dependent, and retiree-dependent; there are six options; staff is not looking for specific direction to establish premiums for next year; and he provided these options to the Board so it would have the opportunity to see what the impact of different employer funding levels will be. He noted staff is assuming once again a 12% increase in insurance costs; six months into this year staff shared last week with the Employee Benefits Insurance Advisory Committee where the County is in revenues and expenses this year; due to a couple of catastrophic claims it has, it is close to being even, meaning it has collected as much revenues as it has had expenses during the first six months of this year’s Group Health Insurance Program; and the targets the County established last year are right on the mark. Mr. Abbate stated the goal was to have an extra $500,000 at the end of the year to add to the reserve that needs to be kept; he is hopeful during the next six months the County will do that; all of the literature and guidance he has received from the consultant says 12% is the appropriate number for next year; and assuming program costs have to increase by 12% overall, option 3 looks at the status quo, which means the Board would provide the same employer funding it provided last year. He noted last year it was at 7.8%; if the Board would give a 7.8% increase, on average, employees and retirees would have to have a 39% increase on their rates in order to have an overall program increase of 12%; option 4 shows if the Board was at 7.8%; and it said at the workshop it wanted to look at what it would take if it held retiree increases to half of what they were last year. He stated that is what options 2, 4, and 6 on the bottom of the page provide; the employer increase would be 7.8%, retirees would be 7%, and employees would have to make up that difference; instead of 39% it would become 60%; and that is options 3 and 4. He noted he provided options 1 and 2, which say what if the employer cannot afford to go 7.8%; option 1 provides 6%; and a 6% employer increase would require employee dependents to increase by 51.5% and the same for retirees and dependents. He stated Commissioner Scarborough and the Board asked for the fiscal impact of the options on low paid employees, average employees, and median employees, which he provided; if those types of increases, which are annualized, are too much, then the Board might want to look at options 5 or 6; and such options maintain the 86/14 overall contribution level as discussed at the workshop. He noted it would require a 12% increase on the Board’s contribution level and a 12% increase on the employee/dependent and retiree/dependent increases, which is option 5; option 6 includes maintaining the 12% employer increase, but not increasing the retiree’s cost because they only have a $287.00 COLA as part of their FRS; and retirees’ cost would increase by 7%, and employees and their dependents would increase by 15%, which makes up the lost revenue from the retirees. He stated employer contribution would be at 12%; option 1 would be an additional Board contribution of $1.8 million, which is the 6%; option 5 would be a $3.6 million employer contribution; and it is not all paid by the Board as about half of it is ad valorem General Fund dollars, and the other half comes from different enterprise funds and different employers that participate, such as the Clerk who is paid with State dollars but participates in the County’s program. Mr. Abbate noted the Board is seeing the total increase in the numbers of all employers participating in the County’s program’s contribution; the General Fund ad valorem impact is approximately half of that $3.6 million if the Board chose option 5; he provided backup information for the Board to review in terms of what the premiums would be; and if it does not want to provide any additional direction on it at this point, the plan is to look at the tentative budget to have a 7.8% increase, which would either be options 3 or 4. He stated if the Board thinks that is too much from an employer perspective, then it might want to look at options 1 or 2; and if it is concerned that employees and retirees are taking too much of a hit, then it might want to look at the funding in options 5 or 6.

Chairman Pritchard stated if the Board is looking at a compensation package, realizing salary is one issue and benefits another issue, they both intermesh; historically the public sector has been known for having good benefits and not always the best of salaries, which is why people tend to gravitate toward the public sector; they are willing to give up a higher salary because of better benefits; and the County is at a point where it needs to have a better salary. He noted it is extremely important to have good benefits, especially for existing employees; the County should not change horses in midstream; to have a retiree suffer when he or she goes to get prescriptions and have to make a decision on whether to eat or buy pills is fundamentally wrong; and he would like to move forward with the compensation study and mesh it with an insurance evaluation study for a total compensation package that would be reasonable, responsible, and beneficial to the employees. He stated he does not think it is possible at this point to separate one from the other.

Commissioner Voltz stated something should be done for the retirees; the County cannot let it go on like it is; and inquired what is the percentage of employees ready for retirement within the next couple of years. Mr. Abbate responded there are a fairly large number of employees who are participating in the DROP Program; he does not have the specifics of how many may be retiring; and he can obtain the information for the Board. Commissioner Voltz stated there will be a study on salaries; and it is important to get it accomplished, along with some of these other issues. Commissioner Carlson inquired when will the study come back. Mr. Abbate responded he does not see the comprehensive salary study coming back before the Board makes its budget decisions; the minimum timeframe is July/August; all staff is looking for today is if the Board wants to move off the 7.8% increase it is anticipating; and options 3 and 4, while the percentages for employee and retiree increases are listed, do not need to be the exact percentages and could be close to them in order to fund at the 12% level. Chairman Pritchard stated the employee and employee/dependent premium is 60% or 39.5% increase as compared to option 6. Mr. Abbate noted the difference is because the employer in options 3 and 4 is contributing at 7.8%; if the employer chooses to contribute at 12%, then that is how the County gets to the 12%, 15%, and 7% numbers; and unless the employer increases the contribution from 7.8% to 12% then there will be that kind of increase in options 3 or 4 in order to adequately fund the program. Chairman Pritchard stated currently the County is at 86/14; option 6 is 86/14; and inquired is it more status quo than options 3 and 4. Mr. Abbate responded status quo is in terms of the employer’s contribution; staff looked at what the increase was over the last year; if the Board is looking at it for status quo of maintaining 86/14, then it would put in the tentative budget, which can be changed, a 12% employee increase; and staff is prepared to do that if it is the Board’s direction.

Commissioner Carlson stated option 6 would cap retirees and the difference goes on the backs of current employees, not on the employer. Mr. Abbate stated if the Board does not want to see 15%, there is potential opportunity as the County is going out on four different areas of group health insurance, including prescriptions; there is a potential of saving $100,000 or $200,000, which may be that difference in 15% to 12% for employees; he cannot promise it today until the RFP to find out; and it will come back to the Board in early July. He noted staff met with the Employee Benefits Insurance Committee and set up the timeframe to do the interviews during June; and it will bring back something to the Board in July. Commissioner Voltz stated it will come back before the final budget process. Mr. Abbate noted staff is not looking for a final decision and is only asking in the tentative budget, what should be put in for the employer contribution rate. Chairman Pritchard inquired how does option 5 differ from option 6. Mr. Abbate responded option 6 is a cap on retiree increases; and inquired is the Board looking at the status quo as staying at 86/14 for preparation of the tentative budget. Chairman Pritchard stated currently it is 86/14; the County is in the process of developing a salary compensation study; he does not want to change something on this side drastically since he does not know what is going to happen on the other side; for budgetary considerations if the Board keeps it 86/14, it is keeping something fairly constant while it is discussing what is going to happen here; and once it sees what happens here, then it will mesh them.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the last thing he wants to do is give somebody a raise to find out their check for net salary is less; somehow that is a bad message; there were some suggestions of retirees taking horrific hits; and it would be unconscionable. He noted he is happy with what is being said here; and each Commissioner will be visiting with Mr. Abbate on the different scenarios. Chairman Pritchard stated he appreciates the spreadsheet and information; staff gave the Board the data it requested; he does not ever want to see anyone having to decide whether it is going to be food or medication; and he has seen it.

Commissioner Carlson stated the consensus sounds like option 5, the 12% across-the-board; and inquired if the Board looks at the 3%, 2% COLA and 1% merit potentially, what is the differential between what is increasing in insurance and the actual raise, and what are employees seeing as an increase from a COLA perspective. Mr. Abbate responded page 13 shows what the increases would be; the average salary for employees who make the bottom 25% salary is $27,278 under option 5; they would receive $823.00 COLA and merit increase; and their increase on group health insurance would be $149.00 a year for family coverage. He stated the Countywide median average is between $973.00 and $1,078. Commissioner Voltz stated she likes option 6; and 86/14 gives the Board flexibility of working within those guidelines. Mr. Abbate stated it can have the flexibility through September; staff will be going back to the Employee Benefits Insurance Advisory Committee to review individual premium structures based on what the Board has told staff in the past and today; and staff will come back with a recommended premium package. He noted an agenda item will be coming back to the Board on April 26, 2005 for selection of a retiree representative to the Committee; 11 individuals have expressed interest; staff has provided a synopsis for the Board; and the individual will be on board when there are discussions in terms of bringing back a package to the Board.

BUDGET PRESENTATION, RE: FACILITIES DEPARTMENT FOR FY 2005-2006

Facilities Operations Director Hugh Muller provided a chart to the Board, starting with the year 1986; stated there were approximately 82 buildings and 84 personnel in Facilities Management and Maintenance; the budget was just under $6 million; and the Department maintained about one million square feet of buildings. He noted the Department maintains buildings in 184 different locations throughout Brevard County from Mims to Micco; in 2005 staff estimates there are about 360 buildings at 184 different locations; there are 20 different buildings at the jail; and the main jail is a big one, and some of the trailers the Sheriff’s staff has there for various functions are small. He stated counting only numbers of buildings does not always give the full picture; staff recently put an addition on Building A of 25,000 square feet and an addition to the Moore Justice Center of 60,000 square feet; both of those buildings count as one; and they are far bigger than they were. He noted the buildings have grown from one million square feet to 3.5 million square feet; his budget is currently $10 million; under building maintenance and court there is $10 million; and unfortunately, all of it does not go straight to maintaining all of the buildings as $1 million is dedicated to jail repairs, and $2.1 million is utilities. He stated the County writes a lot of checks to FP&L Company, water departments, etc.; staff has taken efforts to try and reduce the amount of money that is spent on utilities; but $2.1 million is strictly utilities; and court related utilities is about $815,000 of the $2.1 million. He noted salaries and facilities are $3.5 million; administrative costs are about $500,000; and technicians and area supervisors are $2.9 million. Mr. Muller stated the County gathers about $1.2 million in billable work orders; his Department maintains the libraries and fire stations, but does little maintenance for Parks and Recreation Department as it does its own except for things like air conditioning, roofs, or something that is out of scope for it; insurance and property general liability are around $550,000; and capital replacement is $100,000. He noted it leaves the Department with $1.5 million for actual maintenance expenses for 3.5 million square feet of buildings; it is not able to do a whole bunch every year without taking extraordinary measures other places; there are 56.5 FTE’s for building maintenance and 3.5 FTE’s for building support; and Whitestone Research recommends 176 staffers in Facilities based on the standard book that is published every year that the U.S. Army started with and the International Facility Managers Association used to justify, codify, and plan what should be done for maintenance, costs, etc. He stated it is United States wide and is a 50-year average on what it takes to adequately maintain buildings; if the County uses this standard, it needs 176 people in Facilities as opposed to 60; last year he only mentioned 90 people; and the difference between the 90 last year and 176 this year is that he did not include the fire stations, libraries, and water/wastewater in the 90. Mr. Muller stated when a fire station has a problem, the County does not give him additional staff; it is billable and is part of the $1.25 million his Department receives; his staff that goes to repair the fire stations or libraries is at the expense of General Fund Building; and for Building Support there is about $2 million budgeted. He noted it is 13 real estate leases and 12 service contracts; Facilities Department pays the lease for Public Health in Melbourne; it is the host for the Charter Officers, judges, and Sheriff; and when the Tax Collector or Property Appraiser needs additional space they come to his Department and it provides it for them. Mr. Muller stated recently it has stopped one lease because it has moved to its new facility; these are some of the things his Department has been doing to try and save money for the Board; the Board is interested in trying to do more with less; his Department has been trying to do more with less for years; and history shows that it has been doing its part on trying to eliminate waste and be more efficient, etc. He noted the Department recently reduced the Security Contract by $120,000 due to the cameras, alarms, and electronic doors in all major buildings; instead of having a security guard after-hours, staff locks up the building, has video surveillance, sound sensors, and is paying a surveillance company $9,600 a year to monitor it as opposed to $120,000 worth of staff having to be there on a security basis. Mr. Muller stated other Service Contracts are custodial, air conditioning, courier and mail, pest, fire extinguisher, elevators, and vending; the Roofing Contract came to the Board in this last year due to the impact of the three hurricanes; there were a lot of roofing concerns that the hurricane highlighted for staff on the deferred maintenance the County should have been doing but was not doing; and mostly it is the expense of being in an area where the County is prone to hurricanes. He noted there was a lot of roofing work that needed to be done and the Board supported his Department in a Roofing Contract, which is part of the $2 million under Building Support; the construction side looks like there are five people dedicated for pre-construction and four people dedicated for construction project management, but there are nine people in construction that do both sides of the house; Sam Stanton’s time is partially involved in design and project management; and another staff person is involved in keeping track of the costs for both sides.

Mr. Muller stated the capital dollars for the Moore Justice Center or Palm Bay Service Complex projects do not show in his Department’s budget; it is a CIP item and separate funding; it does not come out of his total budget of $13 million and total staff of 69; and part of the reason for the Roofing Contracts is for quicker response and to transfer liability to the contractor. He noted the Department cannot do everything; one challenge it has if it does something in-house, it does not always get a warranty guarantee; the painters have been well recognized by the paint industry; and when Dennis Fagley paints a building the manufacturers honor the warranty on that paint that is applied properly because he is a skilled craftsman. He stated the County gets warranty and guarantee on materials, but it does not have the benefit of having a warranty guarantee on roofs if the roofing contractors do it because of various issues; and contracting it out, there is a benefit of transferring liability and gathering a warranty as opposed to just the benefit of in-house staff doing it well and on a more economical basis initially, but long-term sometimes it makes sense to contract out and gather those liabilities and warranties. He noted a lot of staff time is going to go toward work at the jail; that is where they will be putting the emphasis; over the last year a lot of the emphasis went to the Palm Bay Service Complex; and in the near future the emphasis will be on outfitting the two floors that are currently vacant at the Moore Justice Center. He stated the County has successfully put thermal energy storage at the Historical Titusville Courthouse, Merritt Island Service Complex, and Suntree Library; thermal storage reduces electrical costs by deferring it to making ice at night when there is not that much heat so there can be a lesser chiller generating it; instead of having ten half-ton trucks, there is one five-ton truck handling it; and instead of having a five-ton truck, by spreading out the load, it can be done with an equivalent of a three-ton truck. Mr. Muller noted when the County builds buildings, if it uses central chillers as opposed to individual units, there is the opportunity to spend a little bit of money to invest in thermal storage or things of this nature; it saves money in the long run; paybacks are usually between three and seven years for thermal storage; and it paid for itself in seven months in the Historical Titusville Courthouse. He stated the Suntree Library was built with thermal storage; Building C at the Government Center has 32 or 34 separate units in a closet for air conditioning; at the jail the County is getting ready to build an addition with four tents and another pod; and to put a chiller there may be a little more initially, but it gives the option to spend some money and the efficiencies of having a big unit as opposed to a small unit. He noted it is part of the plan that is currently going on for the jail; the County needs to think long term; its buildings exist forever; the Historical Titusville Courthouse is an example of that; it was started in 1881; and the same building is being used. He stated anything the County could have done or can do to make the buildings efficient that are going to last 50 or 100 years makes sense; some of the things it has done in the past, such as the Government Center at Viera, were to economically buy and move in, but the lights are on in the hallways and bathrooms 24/7; the County is paying the electrical bill for that; and it is not cost effective to rewire the building, take it from the circuit breakers, and put switches in each one of the bathrooms because it would have to spend more money than it is worth over the next 15 or 20 years. Mr. Muller noted if the County had done it from the beginning, it would not have had that expense in the long term.

Chairman Pritchard inquired about a timer switch. Mr. Muller responded the wiring is in the ceilings and it is hardwired to the circuit breaker; Rich Cohen had his electricians look at it and they tried to figure how they could do it economically; it could be done in a bathroom or two to show how much expense it is to get it done; but it is not readily done. He noted when the lights are needed they need to be on as opposed to just putting them on a timer; some staff works unusual hours in all the buildings; so it is when is the light needed and how can it be readily turned on and off. He stated the Detention Center will be opening a 400-bed facility this year; there will be an increase in the utilities and maintenance operational costs; the Palm Bay Service Complex was recently opened; and it is about $110,000 for utilities, maintenance, and staffing. He noted the Property Appraiser asked him to explore the possibility of having additional staff in a central location on Merritt Island; he will brief the Board later as he formalizes plans on some options staff may have dealing with Public Health and the Merritt Island Service Complex; buildings are not as locked in as there is a tendency to think they are; and a lot of walls are moved and there are many renovations. He stated the buildings spread out over 72 miles; he has to get his staff there, which takes time; and all of maintenance used to work out of Titusville. He noted they now work out of five separate locations so they have one-fifth as much mileage as they would have had if they were all working out of Titusville.

Commissioner Voltz stated she would like to make an appointment with Mr. Muller to see the new complex in South County; and she is getting complaints that there are no signs at the old facility telling somebody where the new facility is located. She inquired is the County mandated by Article 5 to care for the maintenance on all of the court buildings; with Mr. Whitten responding yes.

Mr. Muller stated it is not only the courts, but also the State Attorney and Public Defender; the growth needs of the courts have been discussed; he has a letter from Norm Wolfinger that he needs space for an additional 12 people; but he has no idea where he will be able to put them at this time.

Commissioner Voltz inquired is all of the space, if not occupied, accounted for at the Moore Justice Center; with Mr. Muller responding yes. Commissioner Voltz stated page 2 includes a lot of different things with roofing contracts, restructuring of facilities, and thermal energy; there are no costs included; and inquired what is it. She noted under trends and issues, and estimated budget it is $775,000; and inquired where the money will come from. Mr. Muller responded for the roofing contracts the County hopes to get reimbursed from FEMA for a lot of that; the hurricane was a tremendous expense to the County; and from a roof standpoint, it is getting new roofs at the expense of the federal government in part. Mr. Whitten stated if the County were to do roofing through contracts on a long-term basis, it would probably need those dollars that are dedicated to staff for payment of contractual services for the roofing companies; there are no dollar cost savings, it is more efficient, liability is transferred, and perhaps there is better expertise; there is not a dollar amount on it because there would not be a roofing staff; and it would contract out and need those dollars that are dedicated to personnel now to pay for that service. Commissioner Voltz inquired is the Department’s entire budget $10 million; with Mr. Muller responding the maintenance part is $10 million and the entire budget is $13 million. Commissioner Voltz stated the Department does a great job; she does not know how it does it; one-fifth of the entire budget is just for utilities; and every time she has called about something the staff is out there on the spot. She noted she does not know if all departments can appreciate that, but she can; the Department does a tremendous job for the money it has; and she is amazed. Mr. Muller stated one thing that is hard to share is what staff knows it is not doing; the soffits in Building A have been postponed for probably three years; within the maintenance community staff cannot do everything it would like to do; and it gets to the point where it is doing almost Jiffy Lube maintenance. He noted unfortunately the Department is not, in some cases, changing its oil every 3,000 miles, but is changing it at 9,000 miles or waiting until something breaks before it can fix it as opposed to trying to prevent it from breaking by doing the maintenance it would like to do; but the County recognizes it wants to keep taxes low.

Commissioner Voltz inquired has staff identified where the $775,000 for opening the new Detention Center and the complex in South County will come from. Mr. Whitten responded it is a cost that the Board is going to have to deal with when the budget is developed; Sheriff Parker promised the Board a report on the plan by April 29, 2005; staff plans on delivering it to the Board by that date; and it will include the hard construction costs and estimates of the operating costs, which is another budgetary issue for the Board to address during budget development.

Ms. Busacca stated staff gave the Board a long list of needs it had; about $12 million was estimated in the difference between the amount of revenues projected and the amount of costs; and they were included within the list.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Muller is saying consolidating and creating thermal energy storage is a good thing; and inquired how does it work out in maintenance long-term. Mr. Muller responded it has been economical to maintain it; the Board may have heard about problems with thermal energy storage with moving ice; the ice is not moving with what the County has done; the coolant is going through coils and the ice is formed around the coils, so there are not those maintenance problems that were associated with attempts to use ice where they physically move the ice; and the County does not physically move the ice at any of its three locations. He noted it was part of the benefit the County gathered from hiring a thermal storage consultant before it tackled the Historical Titusville Courthouse; a smaller chiller can be used if there is thermal storage because the peak lows are spread out; and maintenance of the ice tanks has turned out to be very minor. Commissioner Carlson stated staff has had a consultant talk to it about thermal energy storage; and inquired did staff also talk to the consultant about a plan to convert facilities of all 184 different locations, what ones qualify to be converted, and the cost effectiveness. Mr. Muller responded he wanted to touch base with the Board to see if it is interested in staff pursuing that for the areas where the County has chillers, such as the Moore Justice Center and Central Reference Library; if the County is interested in investing a little bit because it is going to be there forever, even if it does not come back with a three or five-year savings, but is seven to ten years, it is still taxpayers money that is going to be saved; and it is significant with fuel costs and costs of utilities today. Commissioner Carlson inquired is Mr. Muller going to bring back legislative intent to discuss the issue and what the potential savings might be. Mr. Muller responded staff will be happy to develop it. Commissioner Carlson stated it would be worthwhile, if $2.8 million is expended in electricity, to look into what the County could possibly save; and inquired are there grant opportunities through the solar energy folks. Mr. Muller responded some of the frustrations staff has include at the jail; there are about 27 units on the roof of the main jail blasting hot hair into the atmosphere; in the kitchen there are furnaces making hot water for the showers and cooking; there is efficiency of tying them together, but it needs to be done in the beginning and not later as it is hard to retrofit and takes money; and the jail is probably going to be there for 50 or 100 years. Commissioner Carlson stated the legislative intent could cover everything that is in the County.

Mr. Muller stated another innovative thing the County is doing is moving to waterless urinals; it has been done in some of the restrooms in Titusville at the Parkway Complex and men’s room on the first floor of the Government Complex North; water is not needed to flush with the new technology; it takes a little bit of expense to take the existing fixture out and put a new one in; and the County would not have to pay for water for the fixture. Commissioner Voltz requested staff look into the gaps along the sides of the doors in the ladies restroom at the Government Center.

Commissioner Carlson stated different efficiencies have been brought up over the years; and inquired did staff go into the power plant perspective for the Government Center. She noted the County went into the whole thing about how much electricity is expended; and the lights are on all the time because it does not have a choice. Mr. Muller responded staff looked at it; it is tremendously expensive to build and operate; prior to being with the County he operated many power plants in places like Turkey and northeast Canada; and it is not something the County wants to jump into because it is manpower intensive and it is hard to compete with FP&L Company on generating electricity. Mr. Muller stated for storms and things like that the County needs to have emergency generators, which it has; FP&L Company has incentives; the County is getting ready to put in a new generator for parts of the Government Complex; and when FP&L Company is having problems and if the County agrees to go on generator power, it gives the County better rates. He noted there are five different meters at the Government Complex; if it had one meter, it could have a lesser rate and pay less; because it already has five meters and five transformers, it is not economical to do that; and staff has explored the issue in-depth several different times. He stated FP&L Company has updated the County’s study; and it was not economical for the County to compete with FP&L. Commissioner Carlson inquired are there any consolidation opportunities for the 184 different locations; stated the County built the Government Center in Viera to centralize; now it appears to have gone to decentralization; and inquired is it something that functionally it has to do because it is 72 miles long or is there something it can possibly improve. Mr. Muller responded when the Government Center was built the County consolidated from 18 separate locations; the challenge is providing service to the public; it is an economic versus political versus service decision; and he is not sure how many of the 184 different locations the County could readily consolidate, but it makes sense to consolidate in the major centers. He noted instead of having one big government center the County could end up having three complexes or possibly four complexes, although there are five Districts; and perhaps it needs to have five complexes to meet the needs of the citizens, as well as the political needs of the County. He stated he would relish some additional staff, but he understands the needs of the County; and he wishes his Department could do more, but it takes more to do more.

Commissioner Carlson stated everybody is looking at reducing the size of government; and it would be great to have a snapshot of all departments to see how historically they have been downsizing over time to see what the County has been doing with tax dollars that a lot of folks think it is squandering.

Chairman Pritchard noted the County would be better served with a project manager and private sector contractors to build the buildings and the County do minor repairs. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Muller for all he does.

BUDGET PRESENTATION, RE: ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL PROGRAMS OFFICE FOR
FY 2005-2006

Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar stated the Economic and Financial Programs Office has two employees; the budget is $142,000; and its responsibilities include bond issues, the Tax Abatement Program, economic development programs, financial programs, commercial paper loans, cable franchises, the State’s Qualified Targeted Industry (QTI) Program, the Qualified Defense Contractor Programs, Space Coast Commerce Park, and community redevelopment agencies, including MIRA, etc. Mr. Lugar noted some of the projects done in the last 16 months include the $16 million EELS project, the $45 million limited ad valorem tax bonds, and the jail expansion sales tax revenue bonds.

Mr. Lugar stated adding up the utility and solid waste bond issues, and the two sales tax bond issues, the County has realized debt savings of over $6 million, $3.5 million alone from the utility bond refinancing project; the Investment Committee looks at some of the actions of the County’s investment advisor that is managing its long-term portfolio; it has about $150 million at any one time throughout the course of the year that the investment advisor is buying and selling different types of instruments; and the Committee oversees to insure the guidelines adopted by the Board are being followed. Mr. Lugar advised the Economic Development Tax Abatement Program continues to be a success; with the bonds being paid off, the Board may choose to have some of the sales revenue proceeds fund parts of his Office for the next year or two; it has been spending a considerable amount of time working on those issues; and his Office will be working more with MIRA. He noted the consultant who oversees the Agency has announced this is his last year; there will be some kind of a transition probably this year; and it will be either himself or someone else being more involved with the administration of MIRA activities for a period of time.

Chairman Pritchard stated MIRA generates approximately $1 million a year; he supports the redevelopment of blighted and slum areas, and existing shopping centers; there comes a time when the County needs to say it has done its part and now it is time for this to sort of ride off into the west; and he brings it up about every six months to the MIRA Board. He noted the money should be going back into the general revenue stream; the Board should set aside what it needs to pay off the outstanding debt, which is not much; MIRA needs to look at what is a realistic project; and it does not need to look for things to spend money on, but look at things that need the money spent on. He stated that is what Mr. Lugar has done; and he was very interested in having MIRA sunset.

Commissioner Carlson stated if there are financial debts associated with an authority, they have to string it along for “x” number of years as it takes a while to accrue enough money to bond or do whatever they want to do for improvements; they are stuck in that debt situation; the County has to wonder when to cut the ties; and it is a positive thing to be able to take something out of a blighted situation, but it is nothing with a tax incentive to do it.

Chairman Pritchard stated MIRA was not too far from being solvent and debt free from the infrastructure debt it had paid. Mr. Lugar stated it is time for MIRA to revisit its mission and work program to see what is there that needs to be done.

Commissioner Colon stated government has to play a key role in the redevelopment issue as nobody else is going to be doing it; the south part of the County has started to develop CRA’s and Bayfront Redevelopment, etc.; banks are competing against each other to try to go after that kind of business; and it is an area eventually that is going to be very profitable.

Chairman Pritchard recommended an agenda report in a month or so that would address redevelopment of blighted and disturbed areas, and what incentives the County could provide.

The Board discussed not lowering the standards for companies to locate in the Commerce Park.

BUDGET PRESENTATION, RE: TOURISM DEVELOPMENT OFFICE FOR FY 2005-2006

Tourism Development Director Robert Varley advised the Tourist Development Office’s programs and services include promotion and advertising, beach improvement, visitors information center, cultural arts and special events, Space Coast Stadium, Brevard Zoo, card racks, partnerships, staff and capital for I-95 visitors center, marketing, advertisements, volunteers to man visitors center, and I-95 VIC at a rest area. He stated the Office operates on the 4% Local Option Resort Tax; all of the uses of the tax are mandated by State regulations; there is a staff of 10 fulltime employees and one part-time employee; and the Office hopes to expand that in the near future. He noted the Office operates on an annual budget of a little over $5 million; national events like 9/11 affected Brevard County adversely; there are approximately five major hotels in the south part of the County that probably will not be reopening until January or February 2006; and the Office is concerned about that effect on its budget and staff is watching it very closely. He stated one of the shortfalls his Office found is shopping is not as strong an experience for the County’s visitors as it should be; it should be usually number one on activities that visitors do, and it is number three; the Office needs to do a better job of marketing its shopping areas; and the strategic study recommended establishment of an I-95 visitor center.

Mr. Varley stated tourism is the second largest employer; last year the Office received over $400,000 in co-op advertising; it is going after grants from the State; and revenue enhancements include reallocating the third and fourth-cent of the tax to increase funding for beach renourishment and marketing, and imposing a fifth-cent tourist development tax to enhance the budget and seek sponsorship opportunities at the visitor information centers. He noted being the second largest employer in Brevard County, over 17% of the total workforce is in tourism, with over $375 million in wages; one out of every six persons works in tourism; overnight visitors generate $1.8 million; and there are 2.6 million day visitors annually. He stated it is a $2 billion economic impact; direct spending is $1.1 billion annually; visitors pay a lot of the County’s taxes so it does not have to, including the hotels that pay nearly $8 million in property taxes; and over 50% of the tourism tax is invested directly back into the community.

Commissioner Carlson inquired does staff have any numbers as to how many hotel rooms are still being occupied by residents due to the hurricane events last year; with Mr. Varley responding no. Mr. Varley stated he has some anecdotal references from a lot of hoteliers; and the Marriott Courtyard on S.R. 192 had a lot of people, but it is pretty much back to business as normal.

Commissioner Carlson inquired has business as normal been 65% capacity; with Mr. Varley responding no. Mr. Varley advised right now it is probably at 78%; the rates have increased and it is pretty solid; in getting through this season, there will be seven rebuilt hotels on the beach; and the rates will probably increase 20 or 25%.

Chairman Pritchard stated he notices when the cruise ships come in the staff come to the Merritt Square Mall and Cocoa Village in droves and buy huge amounts of things to take back home; and inquired does Mr. Varley have a strategy to encourage tourists to come off the beach and see the rest of Brevard County. Mr. Varley responded his Office is going to have to produce new collateral and get it out in the hands of tourists to let them know where they can shop and the uniqueness of the shopping; it is not just the Mall, it is the villages and flea markets; his Office hired a person to assist the Port in working a visitor information table in the terminals when the ships come in; and it is benefiting. He stated concerning the marketing efforts toward the cruise side, the County partners a lot with Port Canaveral, travel agents, and tour operator trade shows.

The meeting recessed at 3:30 p.m. and reconvened at 3:48 p.m.

BUDGET PRESENTATION, RE: HISTORICAL COMMISSION FOR FY 2005-2006

Historical Commission Director Steve Benn stated the Historical Commission is made up of 15 Commissioners, three from each District; the budget is quite small; the Historical Commission does a number of things that it is mandated to do by the County Code, specifically 50-039, which is to collect, arrange, record, and preserve historical material and data, books, pamphlets, maps, charts, manuscripts, family history, U.S. Census, etc.; and it goes on to the early pioneers of Brevard County, to document the County’s history, and to educate the public on its heritage. He advised Brevard County has a rich history throughout the years; Ponce de Leon landed here; Ponce de Leon Park recently opened; and staff is planning a historical marker for that location. He stated there are over 2,000 historic sites in the County, which are both historic and archeological sites; since the early 1990’s the County has published three books, the History of Brevard County, Volumes I, II, and III; the Historical Commission over the years has received loans from the General Fund to fund printing of the books; and it owes $10,062 as of last month.

Mr. Benn advised the proceeds were $828.00 in sales, so the Historical Commission is down to a little over $9,200; it hopes to be the first agency to repay the General Fund for any loans that have been received; it also publishes the Indian River Journal, which is a compilation of additional research and more information that has been uncovered through the years; and it is a supplement to the three history books. He stated the Historical Commission also publishes the Brevard County Landmark Guide; there are a number of locations and photographs; the goal is to put a historic marker at each of the landmarks in the Guide; however, there are many more landmarks that need to be documented and put into a brochure; and it is also a very vital part of historic tourism.

Mr. Benn stated NASA has donated over 36,000 historic shuttle program photographs and transparencies; staff would like to digitize them and have them online for people; one of the Historical Commission’s most successful programs is the State historic markers; and last year the markers cost $1,630 each, and this year they are $1,720 each. He noted through grants and budgeting, in the last two years staff has been able to add eight markers to the seven markers that were existing; it is an ongoing project; all of the Commissioners on the Historical Commission are involved; and the amount of employees he has is only himself and the Historical Commissioners help out when they can.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he and Mr. Benn discussed the need to have a place to store archives; more and more the County is being asked to have a safe, secure place for some things that are of importance until it can move them to other locations; it is probably an expensive capital issue, but if it loses some of these archives, it has lost them forever; and it is one thing that interests him. Chairman Pritchard stated it is a necessary capital issue. Mr. Benn stated right now the Historical Commission is working out of Byrd Plaza Shopping Center; there are other agencies storing their archives there also; everything could be lost with a good tornado or hurricane; and a good hurricane proof archive facility that all the County agencies and cities could use would be nice.

Commissioner Voltz inquired what size building would be needed; with Mr. Benn responding probably 40,000 or 50,000 square feet. Mr. Benn stated a survey of all the agencies would need to be conducted to determine how many records they have and need to keep in perpetuity, how much they are spending to store the records, and how much manpower is it taking to do that.

Commissioner Carlson stated it seems a connection with the library system and Historical Commission would be a positive thing; the community could access the information; and it would be more user friendly versus creating a big building where everything is archived. She noted perhaps a portion of the tourist tax could be allocated to the Historical Commission; and inquired about a hurricane proof chamber that could keep just the historical remnants.

Chairman Pritchard suggested getting with the Clerk, Sheriff, municipalities, and other participants on how they archive, what the costs are, how a collaborative effort could work, what they could save ,and what they can contribute toward the County’s effort, and come up with a plan and size of a facility, using library sciences to better utilize the facility, and report back to the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct that the TDC review a relationship with the Historical Commission for funding, and Historical Commission Director Steve Benn return with options on buildings to store records. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated Mr. Benn will provide a report to the Board regarding a building to store records.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve a loan to the Historical Commission for reprinting of Volume 1 of the Brevard History Books to be repaid from the sale of the books. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson suggested taking pictures of buildings before destruction, if they have historic value, and cataloging them.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.

ATTEST:
__________________________________
RON PRITCHARD, D.P.A., CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)