The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on May 14, 1996, at 5:01 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Mark Cook, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O?Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION ADOPTING MID-YEAR SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider a resolution adopting the mid-year Supplemental/Amendment Budget for Fiscal Year 1995-96.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised additional information has been provided to the Board, and staff will respond to any questions.

Chairman Cook advised the County Attorney?s memo indicated once the budget is approved, expenditures are up to the courts.

Commissioner O?Brien questioned expenditures by the Judicial Branch for printers, print sharing devices, bookcases, furniture for visiting judges, jury rooms, receptionists, judges, judicial assistants, and hearing rooms, fax machines, network fax servers, speaker phones, chairs, tables, and desks; and received answers and explanations from Court Administrator Mark Van Bever. Commissioner Higgs advised the memorandum from Facilities Management Director Hugh Muller dated May 10, 1996, identifies all the furnishings in great detail.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the new furniture is the same or lesser quality than the existing furniture; with Mr. Van Bever responding it depends on the individual judge who makes the decision; and the furniture is purchased from the County?s bid. Chairman Cook expressed concern about the quotes being on the high end, and suggested shopping at local furniture stores for a better deal. Commissioner Scarborough expressed concern about shopping for someone else, and purchase of cheaper furniture that would need to be replaced in three years. Commissioner Ellis advised a large portion of the money is cash forward saved for those purchases; and since the move is being made and computers upgraded, the Board should expect to see a decrease in next year?s budget for Court Administration.

Discussion ensued on the high cost of furniture, the Justice Center not justifying the need for new furniture, bidding all furniture for the Judicial Branch as one bid, establishing a budget for furniture, and the need to furnish additional courtrooms, hearing rooms, jury rooms, and judges? offices.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Court Administration?s request to reduce the Judicial Branch budget by $32,316.00.

Commissioner Higgs advised she seconded the motion based on information she received and the memo from the County Attorney on the Board?s ability to manipulate that budget at this time. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it will come back to the Board; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding the Judicial Branch is considered a constitutional officer, so its procurements will not come back to the Board just as procurements by other constitutional officers do not. Commissioner Higgs advised the motion decreases budgeted amounts in the Judicial Branch?s budget. Mr. Jenkins advised it is a reduction in the budget approved for October 1, 1996; and the Board?s interest in its expenditures developed from the request to reduce the budget by $32,316. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Courts could have spent the $32,316 legally; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding yes.

Chairman Cook stated he cannot support the motion and would like to establish a budget for furniture. Mr. Knox advised the Board does not have that option now; but if it was money left over from expenditures or cash carry forward for next year, it could play with that. Chairman Cook stated if the Board does not have that option, what is it doing at this public hearing; with Mr. Knox responding it is hearing a request to reduce the budget. Chairman Cook inquired if the Board can establish what the reduction should be; with Mr. Knox responding the request is to reduce the Budget by $32,316 because they did not meet the cash carry forward projections. Chairman Cook inquired if the Board can have an additional reduction and appropriate $25,000 for furniture instead of $40,000; with Mr. Knox responding it is not one that is sought by the Courts; and once the budget is approved, the Courts can do with that money what it is budgeted for, and spend it the way it feels within the framework of what it was approved for. Chairman Cook inquired why is the Courts before the Board if it has no option but to approve what it is requesting; with Mr. Knox responding it is the same with all constitutional officers, they process their budget amendments through the Board because the statutes require it; but the statutes do not give the Board discretion to do anything about what they propose to do with their money. He stated it is like a reporting mechanism so the Board can align its budget with what they have done.

Chairman Cook called for a vote on the motion. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs voted aye; Commissioners O?Brien, Ellis and Cook voted nay.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if it is lawful to reduce the budget further by increasing the size of the reduction; with Mr. Knox responding no, that was part of the budgeting process they went through in October. Discussion ensued on the lack of authority to control the budgets of constitutional officers and the courts other than to change next year?s budget.

Commissioner Higgs advised the budget change is an accounting entry to reduce cash forward they do not have and adjust that line item; legally the Board cannot reduce it further; and she is sure the judiciary is cognizant of the Board?s legal ability. Mr. Knox advised there was an estimate of cash forward that exceeded what they actually received, so the $32,316 is an adjustment of money they did not received. Chairman Cook inquired if the Board is required to take action on it; with Mr. Knox responding it does not have to, but it is a County procedure that they come before the Board and present their budget amendments. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is the County staff that is affected because they will have a problem with the budget at the end of the fiscal year if the Board does not adjust it now. Commissioner Ellis stated given the legal opinion, there is no other option but to reconsider the motion; and requested the Budget Director bring back an analysis on the money being allocated to Court Administration during the budget workshops this summer.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to reduce the Judicial Branch?s budget by $32,316.00. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioners O?Brien and Cook voted nay.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if what applies to Court Administration also applies to the Supervisor of Elections; with Mr. Knox responding once the Board approves the Supervisor of Elections budget, he has discretion to do with the money what he sees fit for the budgeted purposes; and if he comes in with a cash forward shortage, the same thing would apply. Commissioner Ellis stated the cash forward is surplus. Senior Budget Analyst Neil Boynton advised the Supervisor of Elections budget supplement includes an increase in cash forward of $165,776. Mr. Knox advised if the Supervisor of Elections has more than he expected and did not spend it, the Board?s current policy is to take the cash forward and place it in the General Fund. Commissioner Higgs advised the request is to move the $165,776 into the Supervisor of Elections contracted services and precinct workers accounts from the cash forward. Mr. Knox inquired where did the savings come from; with Ms. Wall responding from operational savings due to hiring temporary employees. Mr. Knox advised if it is part of his overall approved budget which has been saved, the same principal applies; once the Board approves the budget, it is his money for that fiscal year and he can do with it what he sees fit and make changes he deems appropriate.

Mr. Jenkins advised the cash forward is from the previous fiscal year. Ms. Wall advised it has not been appropriated by the Board and is unbudgeted cash forward. Mr. Knox advised the statutory provision that governs it provides that it goes back to the Board for deposit in the same fund which it came from, which he presumes is the General Fund. Chairman Cook inquired if it would revert back to the General Fund; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes, unless the Board allocates it to the Supervisor of Elections.

Judy Pecot, Assistant Supervisor of Elections for Operations in Titusville, advised they requested the budget supplement or replacement of the excess funds from the 1994-95 fiscal year because of the additional expenses for a major presidential election year. She stated they requested funds to cover National Voter Registration Act expenses, extra employees to handle increased voter registrations, purchase of additional voting equipment, as the State statute requires a voting machine for every 125 registered voters, four new precincts requiring 32 people to staff it plus additional deputies on election day, and temporary employees to verify increased number of petitions because of the Charter, more candidates using petitions, and statewide committees looking at constitutional amendments. She stated they will have additional receiving centers to process results on election night in a more timely manner, and some polling places are now charging a user fee.

Commissioner Ellis stated he understands the expenditures are necessary this year, but next year?s budget should be $200,000 to $300,000 less because it is not an election year. Ms. Pecot stated there will be a decrease next year; however, they will have the November and some October expenses next year, but there will not be other elections unless the Board approves a special election. Commissioner Ellis stated the way to be assured the costs are truly related to elections is if next year?s budget shows a decrease over this year?s budget.

Finance Director Marjorie Stump advised they put in for a large contingency this year, but once they know the Board will go through in a timely manner, then they will come in with a 3% reduction; however, they do have a major election in November. Commissioner Ellis stated 3% is only $60,000; with Ms. Stump responding they will have over a $110,000 payroll for each election period, and budgeted enough to cover that; but if it is less, they will not spend it. She stated they requested $212,000 to support the elections, and this money will help, but the Board did cut the other out.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Supervisor of Elections? request to allocate cash forward of $165,776.00. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt Resolution approving the Mid-Year Supplemental Budgets for FY 1995-96. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

MARK COOK, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

ATTEST:
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(S E A L)