MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

July 24, 2007

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on July 24, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairperson Jackie Colon,  Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Chuck Nelson, Helen Voltz, and Mary Bolin, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

 

 

The Invocation was given by Rob Medina, Commissioner’s Aide to Chairperson Colon.

 

 

Commissioner Truman Scarborough led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

 

 

Brevard American Idol Melinda Lebo performed the National Anthem.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired how Ms. Lebo got to be the Brevard American Idol.  Ms. Lebo stated her father signed her up for Brevard Idol; she did not know about it; and he told her about it a month before so she would pick out a song.  Commissioner Voltz stated Ms. Lebo obviously won the competition; and inquired how many people were competing; with Ms. Lebo responding 61.  Commissioner Voltz stated Ms. Lebo did a great job; and wishes her the best with her career. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the meeting is off to a great start; God, country, and family are what the nation is about; and they have given honor to all of that this morning.    

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the Minutes of the May 8, 2007 Special Meeting, May 22, 2007 Regular Meeting, and the May 24, 2007 Zoning Meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca requested the members of the Budget Office come forward. 

 

Chairperson Colon and Commissioner Voltz complimented the Budget Office on their work this year. 

 

Ms. Busacca stated this year Brevard County has received the distinguished budget presentation award from the Government Finance Officers Association; it is a prestigious award; very few obtain this award; and in order to receive the award, Brevard County had to satisfy nationally recognized guidelines for effective budget presentation, designed to assess how well the County’s budget serves as a policy document, a financial plan, an operations guide, and a communications device.  Ms. Busacca stated the award states that the recipients have pioneered efforts to improve the quality of budgeting and provide an excellent example for other governments throughout North America.  She stated receiving the award are Budget Director Dennis Rogero, Assistant Budget Director Elizabeth Swanke, Budget Analysts Paul Bessler, Stacey Claridge, Jim Earnest, Sean Meshberger, and Neal Swayne, Special Projects Coordinator Palm Wallace, and Administrative Assistant Rhonda Horning. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated she is proud of the job the Budget Office has done; Brevard County is not the only community going through hard budget times; it is every county and city in Florida; but they do not have the team that Brevard County has.  She stated staff has been working late and on the weekends; and the Board thanks the families of staff because it is not easy and it does not go unrecognized.  She stated the Board is thankful and proud of the award. 

 

Commissioner Bolin expressed thanks to staff; and stated it is because of the efforts of the Budget Office’s that the Board has the basis to make the decisions it has to make. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many minutes is it before the Board approves the budget on September 18, 2007; with Mr. Rogero responding he knows approximately. 

 

Mr. Rogero expressed appreciation to the Board; and stated the award is a team effort. 

 

 

 

Mario Busacca stated he is pleased to be present this morning to honor some County employees; introduced Barbara Naylor; and stated they are the Historic Preservation Officers at Kennedy Space Center for NASA.  He stated as part of owning all that land, Kennedy Space Center has lots of resources; and he is going to be talking about the Clifton schoolhouse, which was ostensibly the first African-American schoolhouse built in the County.  He stated the Clifton schoolhouse was built in the early part of the last century by those people who lived in North  Merritt Island, including the Campbell family among others.  He stated it was built and operated for a little under ten years; then other schools were built, and the residents had the opportunity to go elsewhere.  He stated in the ensuing years, the building was used for all kinds of things; but when NASA decided to go to the moon, it bought some land; many, if not all, of those stakeholders were moved off the property and many historic properties fell into disrepair; and the Clifton schoolhouse was one of them and was lost.  He stated three or four years ago, thanks to the efforts of the Park Service and Roz Foster, it was found; they were surprised it was still there and had not been burned down; but the building was in a sad state of disrepair.  He stated since it was government land, some decisions had to be made about who was going to maintain or restore the building; NASA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Park Service were operating the land; but none of those entities could come up with the resources to restore
or repair the building.  He stated that is when the County and the Historic Preservation
Commission came in and asked to remove the remains and put them in the Heritage Park that is being planned in Titusville; and commented on the process.  Mr. Busacca stated the preservation is possible because of the tireless efforts of Roz Foster and Cheryl Page; the remains are now stored in preparation for reassembly; and he cannot say enough about the commitment of Ms. Foster and Ms. Page to this process.  He advised a couple of members of the Campbell family are present today.  He presented plaques to Ms. Foster and Ms. Page in recognition of the partnership between NASA, the United States Park Service, and Brevard County, Florida, in preserving the remains of the Clifton schoolhouse; presented environmental program patches; and expressed appreciation to both for all their efforts. 

 

Roz Foster stated she is honored to be part of this; and thanked the Campbell family, which is an intricate part of restoring the schoolhouse.  She introduced Brenda Gray and Craig Rivers who are descendents of those who built and lived at the schoolhouse.  She stated they are honored to be able to save the remains; it shows that non-profits can work with governments for historic preservation; and thanked the Board for help to see that this became a reality.  She stated they are looking forward to the restoration, which the Campbell family will be helping with. 

 

Cheryl Page stated little did she imagine when she watched This Old House on television that she would be involved in a restoration; and it has been a pleasure working with Mr. Busacca and Ms. Foster. 

 

Commissioner Voltz advised she had an opportunity to look at the facility and the little place in the woods where it was; and it was an incredible experience.   

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz read aloud a resolution proclaiming the week of August 1 through 7, 2007 as Clown Week.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to adopt Resolution proclaiming the week of August 1 through 7, 2007 as Clown Week.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz presented the Resolution to representatives of Clown Alley, Duckweed, Perky, and Rasberry.  Duckweed advised a number of clowns who usually attend could not be present today; and expressed appreciation to the Board.  He presented gifts to the Commissioners. 

 

Chairperson Colon inquired how folks in the community would get in touch with the clowns; with Duckweed responding there is a clown website, clownsmartclownalley.com or people could call him at home at 724-6809.  He stated they have 22 clowns now; and there are two new clowns from Colorado who are planning to join, so the group is growing.    

 

 

 

Ms. Busacca stated the South Area Parks and Recreation Department consists Jessica Breault, Bill Jones, Pat Clarke, Dick Soucy, Frank Lanza, Gustavo Vergara, Alvin Hall, Greg Carlton, Mark Shaw, Pam Defore, Danny Snyder, Frank Hatton, Dennis Maoriano, John McClendon, Richard Carey, Mark Blasak, Diego Salazar, Jim Hunt, Debbie Cox, Jimmy Rodela, Sandy Ross, Ernie Quick, Dave Lent, Art Schultz, Floyd Jackson, Floyd Jesmer, Sheryl Dellinger, Darin Moyer, Ron Butler, Junny Rios-Martinez, Joe Labelle, Jeff Cooke, Doug Spinnazola, David Borst, Luis Aguirre, Larry Cremeans, and Zimbalist Nelums. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated the South Area Parks and Recreation Department is being applauded for their above and beyond service during the Little League tournaments; and the recognition is from parents, visitors, and the County.  She stated the Viera Regional Park hosted the Brevard County Little League tournaments; it was Countywide; but because of the bad weather, a lot of other parks had to move their games to the Viera location.  She stated the staff members had to think quickly on their feet and be creative to keep the playing fields up and running for all the extra games that needed to be played; and described their efforts to save the field during the bursts of rain using hand pumps, foam from sofa cushions, granular drying agents, and roller sponges.  She stated the games went on just by pure grit and determination; and she never realized how much work went into these games.  She stated the staff would rake the infield, repair the pitcher’s mound and the batter’s box as the teams switched out; and the staff members are positive contributors to the children’s lives who play this game and role models for all County employees.  She stated there were over 250 games played in Viera during the tournament; there were no injuries or incidences involving the field condition or playability; and staff has set the standard.  She expressed appreciation to the employees for the success of the 2007 District 4 Little League tournaments; and stated she applauds the employees for the time and effort they put in to make this a happy time for the children.  Commissioner Bolin presented certificates to the employees.

 

A representative of the employees stated she has worked the tournaments in the past as a park maintenance technician but not as a supervisor; and commented on the willingness of all the employees to help.  She stated the people present are those who worked directly on the fields, but there were many other staff members who ran errands, made calls, and got the necessary supplies and equipment to make this event a reality. 

 

Chairperson Colon commented on the work ethic of County employees; and thanked the group on behalf of the children and the community. 

 

Jeff Whitehead stated he had the privilege of being on both sides of this event; the maintenance side is unbelievable; and this year he had the privilege of coaching and being in the dugouts.  He stated the children came back and acknowledged the efforts of staff every inning; and he would challenge every county or city in the State to do what Brevard County does.  He stated they would like to do this for their adult citizens as well; these are tough budget times; they can generate revenue by running the tournaments and providing the service; and that is what they would like to do in the future. 

 

Chairperson Colon thanked everyone for the outside-the-box thinking. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the employees do a great job; what no one sees is all the pressure they are under because every Little League District or Tournament Director is under incredible
pressure to get the games done because they are on a clock and have to get a certain number of games done by a certain amount of time.  Commissioner Nelson stated if it was not for the employees, that could not happen; it is a miserable experience to know the tournaments are starting in the middle of the rainy season; but the employees did a wonderful job and he is very proud of them. 

 

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated Item III.D.4 is a request for an executive session; and the report should read that it is an executive session with IAFF, rank and file only.  She stated the supervisory unit will not be discussed in that executive session. 

 

Chairperson Colon inquired when will it be; with Ms. Busacca responding it is being requested for August 7, 2007. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated on August 9, 2007, the Board anticipates that different people will be there as they do the workshop on NASA and the EDC; and requested Chairperson Colon send a letter, as a matter of courtesy, to NASA Director Bill Parsons.  He stated it is just a formality; and Mr. Parsons knows about the meeting and would like to attend if the shuttle schedule has not slipped. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated she will send that letter.

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he was supposed to attend the Governor and Cabinet meeting in Tallahassee for the trail; but that item was not scheduled for the next meeting, so he will not be going to Tallahassee.  He stated Commissioner Scarborough may be able to go later; and he thinks it will be scheduled at the end of August.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to go but will wait to be sure there is not a Board meeting conflicting.

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz thanked Commissioners Colon and Bolin for attending the meeting yesterday; and stated everyone probably saw on the front page of Florida TODAY that Jim Brown, former football player with the Cleveland Browns and actor, came to the community to present the Amer-I-Can Program.  She stated it is going to address crime, drugs, gangs, and families in the South Melbourne area; it will be put in Palm Bay High School, Satellite Beach High School, Eau Gallie High School, and Stone Junior High School; there were approximately 200 community leaders who came together from the Chambers of commerce, Habitat for Humanity, neighborhood associations, elected officials, police chiefs, and School Board members; and there was an incredible diversity of people there.  She stated in bringing
everybody together, they can begin to solve some of the problems that exist in some of the neighborhoods; this is a pilot program; it will be in three other counties; and several months ago when she was in Tallahassee, she was talking with Representative Needelman about some of the things she was working on with some of the leaders in South Melbourne.  Commissioner Voltz stated Representative Needelman told her about the program and that he had just gotten a $1.35 million grant approved to address some of these problems; and within three weeks all the letters and invitations had been sent out, there was a place to meet, and lunch was to be provided.  She stated it was an effort by a number of people including Yvonne Minus, Joe McNeil, Carl Finnerson, Leonard Ross, Bennie Hopkins, and Kathy Meehan; the group has been meeting since February; and then the program came and pulled the whole community together.  She stated it is going to be a wonderful program that is going to be put into the school system; and she looks forward to presenting it in September.  She stated it is going to be pulling in all of the other community members; there are quite a number of churches in the South Melbourne area that can help address some of the issues; and thanked everybody who worked on the committee.  She advised she asked the Board’s permission to purchase sodas and water; but she also purchased ice and napkins; that was not included in the previous approval; but she wants to be sure it is included.  Chairperson Colon stated it is no problem.  Commissioner Voltz stated there was a lot of press coverage, and she is grateful to those who came out, and most importantly to those who will continue to participate in the process of dealing with the issues in South Melbourne. 

 

Chairperson Colon thanked Commissioner Voltz and State Representative Needelman for putting the event together; stated it was wonderful to see because for so long in this area, there have been too many funerals of young people and gangs; and people do not want to talk about crime, but it is not possible to fix the problem if people put their heads in the sand.  She stated the elected officials are not doing that; they are doing everything within their power to make sure that does not happen; Jim Brown is a wonderful, very humble man; and he came to serve Brevard County.  She stated they are not going to be reinventing the wheel; they are going to be working very closely with the churches, all the organizations, law enforcement and elected officials; and it is going to be a wonderful opportunity.  She stated the program already has a proven record in California; they have been able to stop the gang violence in Los Angeles; and Brevard County is getting ahead of what could possibly come.   She stated this is a beautiful community; with the good, unfortunately comes the bad; and the County has to be ready for that in thinking how others have been able to solve those problems.  She stated Jim Brown is an incredible light of hope to be able to do that for the community.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the Assistant Attorney General also was down; there was a show of force that everyone is working together in this; nobody was left out; and it was great.

 

Chairperson Colon stated there are only four counties in the State that are going to be allowed to do this program; and inquired if it would be possible to have someone from Cocoa look at what is going on to see if something can be done along those lines in the schools in Cocoa.  She stated she spoke to the Cocoa Mayor yesterday and he is excited and thankful, and would like to be a part of it.  Commissioner Voltz stated Representative Needelman and his group picked the schools; she had nothing to do with what areas they were going to be putting money into; after listening to Mr. Brown, she was more excited about the program than she was before; and she was thinking it would be an ideal program to be put in the jails.  She stated Mr. Brown was saying they have taken the Latino groups and the black groups that were fighting
continuously within the jails, they went in with the program, and now they are getting along and there have been no fights.  Commissioner Voltz stated this is just a pilot program; and when it is all over, if they can show that it was successful, they can look at going to the State and requesting the program for the other areas.  Chairperson Colon stated it is taking young people and teaching them life skills; that is where the problem lays; the reason why young people are into drugs and crime is because they do not have the needed adult supervision; and the program teaches them all of that, including respect for authority and respect for themselves.  She stated it is a comprehensive approach for those young lives; and it is very exciting.  She stated it is a pilot program in Florida; but in California, it has been going on for years; so this is not something that is new.  She stated Commissioner Bolin was also present yesterday; and expressed appreciation to Commissioner Voltz for her leadership. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she would like to remove Item III.D.3 for discussion.  Chairperson Colon advised members of the public have requested to speak on the item.    

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve a wetland restoration plan as submitted to Natural Resources Management by Dr. Carl Saladino for a parcel at 6420 3^rd Street, Rockledge.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize staff to draft interlocal agreements with the Town of Grant-Valkaria to allow the Town to contract for building code and contractor licensing services and stormwater administration services.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approvals for Londontown Place Subdivision, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and developer obtaining all other necessary jurisdictional permits.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize the disbursement of educational facilities impact fees in the amount of $6,425,456.61 to the School Board of Brevard County in accordance with the terms of the Interlocal Agreement.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Binding Development Plan with D&E Hardware for property located on the northwest corner of U.S. 1 and Roberts Street, extending north to Dunn Street, and lying east of Econ Avenue.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Binding Development Plan with MAI Krupa, Inc. for property located on the southeast corner of Aurantia Road and U.S. 1.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Amendments to Interlocal Agreements with the Cities of Cape Canaveral, Satellite Beach, Rockledge, Palm Bay, Melbourne, Cocoa, and Titusville, and the Town of Malabar regarding the Local Option Gas Tax.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize permission to advertise for Continuing Appraisal Services; appoint a Consultant Selection Committee consisting of Assistant County Manager Mel Scott, Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff, County Attorney Scott Knox, Land Acquisition Supervisor Holly Pardi, and Park Support Services manager Marsha Cantrell or their designees; appoint a Negotiation Committee consisting of Assistant County Manager Mel Scott, County Attorney Scott Knox and Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff or designees; authorize
the Chairperson to execute the Professional Service agreements with Appraisal firms; and authorize the County Manager or designee to execute renewal options as outlined in the Agreements.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

      

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Task Order #ER-002 in the amount of $137,907 for the design of intersection improvements at Ellis Road and John Rodes Boulevard.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Amendment to Contract with United Signs & Signals, Inc. for traffic signal rehabilitation and construction services.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing for September 11, 2007 to consider amending the water and sewer rates charged for County water and sewer service and Barefoot Bay water and sewer services.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Software License Agreement and Addendum A with APPX Software, Inc. for purchase of the APPX Software for Processing Medicaid; and authorize the Housing and Human Services Director to execute any future amendments/renewals to the Agreement, contingent upon the approval of the County Attorney and Risk Management.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the allocation of $3,416,165 for the affordable/workforce housing projects of Villas of Fern Park, Country Oaks, Low Income Housing and Community Development, Inc., Kennedy St. Project, Titusville Housing Authority, Riverwalk Apartments, Abbey Lane, and Villas at Palm Bay; and authorize the Chairperson to execute subsequent contracts and amendments, contingent upon the approval of Risk Management and the County Attorney.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve naming the Sharpes Community Park, Bernice G. Jackson Park.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Memorandum of Understanding with Brevard Community College to partner in the implementation of historic preservation grants to restore and preserve Oliver’s Camp Historic House at Brevard Heritage Park.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize the standardization of the Tedder Boat Ramp Systems, Inc., for the installation of boat ramps; and authorize the Chairperson to execute Purchase Order for the South County Boat Ramp, not to exceed the amount of $660,250, pending final permit approval.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to reject all bids received for Bid #B-5-07-57, Manatee Hammock Shoreline Repair; and approve re-solicitation of new bids.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.    

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to consider the Special Magistrate’s recommendation to reduce the accrued fine for Case #03-1426 from $23,925 to the reduced sum of $2,392.50; and direct staff to prepare and execute release and satisfaction of lien upon receipt of payment.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to accept the Contractor Pre-qualification Committee’s finding and a subsequent Protest Committee’s finding that the apparent lowest responsive bidder, MGM Contracting, Inc. failed to qualify under the procedures for the Pre-qualification of Construction Bidders Prior to Award; and authorize proceeding with award to the next lowest responsive and qualified bidder, Hamilton Roofing, for the amount of $90,068.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution qualifying Spilker Roofing  & Sheet Metal Company as an eligible business under the County’s Tax Abatement Program and authorize a public hearing to consider adopting an exemption ordinance.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize a public hearing to consider an ordinance rescinding tax abatements of select companies that no longer qualify.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to bid construction of Road and Bridge facilities located on Babcock Street in Palm Bay and Valkaria Road in Valkaria; and authorize the Chairperson to sign associated contracts.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize extension of Lease Agreement with the City of Cocoa for the building at 400 South Varr Avenue, Cocoa, for the Brevard County Housing and Human Services Department’s Family and Children Services office.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Interlocal Agreement with the Town of Grant-Valkaria for the Enhanced 9-1-1 System Database and Mapping System.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution and approve Letter indicating the Board’s intention to initiate conflict resolution proceedings with the City of Melbourne.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Coastal Health Systems of Brevard, Inc. to increase its billing rates.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve scheduling executive sessions with the County Manager and appropriate staff to discuss collective bargaining negotiations with the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 2969, Rank and File only, to be held at the end of the regular public meeting on August 7, 2007.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution authorizing Florida Development Finance Corporation to issue industrial development revenue bonds up to $7.5 million for Palm Bay Academy, Inc., a charter school planning to expand in Brevard County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to appoint Douglas Sphar to the EEL’s Program Recreation and Education Advisory Committee with term expiring December 31, 2007.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the Bills and Budget Changes, as submitted.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Thomas Klein, representing IAFF, Local 2969, stated he wanted to speak on behalf of the Union; there is a collective bargaining agreement; and they have gone out of their way over the past years to see that the firemen, police officers, and reset of the County employees were paid fairly and equitably so they are able to live within the County.  He stated it is their means that they would like to keep the payments to the cities provided they will still incur the increases through the Cody Study, as established; and if they cannot have their Cody Study raises, they hope the County will agree to pull that amendment and not fulfill the first responder payments.

 

Chairperson Colon stated this is on the Agenda to possibly enter into agreements with listed cities.  County Manager Peggy Busacca stated it is for FY 2006-2007.  Chairperson Colon inquired if the Board has to take action today or cannot it wait until the Board has a better picture of the budget; with Ms. Busacca responding yes, but the discussion that the Board has been having at the budget workshops are for next year’s budget, and these are agreements for this year’s budget.  She stated if the Board did not enter into the agreements, the money would remain in the budget; but it is not the same money the Board has been discussing in the budget workshops. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she pulled it off the Agenda not because she does not support the funding; the Board already did the contracts and will be sending the money forward; but her question is under the fiscal impact, it says for FY 2008, the First Responder Program is budgeted utilizing EMS services pending a final decision by the Board to continue funding of the program.  Commissioner Voltz stated the Board should not have budgeted the money until it made a final decision; to put that the program is budgeted leads people to believe the Board is going to support giving the First Responder money; and the Board should not be giving anyone hope that it will be doing that.  She stated she spoke to Chief Farmer yesterday; and requested an overview.  Chief William Farmer stated the current issue is for this fiscal year; the cities have performed their duties as was required by the contract that they have with the Board, so it is appropriate; but regarding the language on the Agenda Report, as part of the status quo budget, the Board has not taken any official action on whether to support first responder, which was a cut in his budget.  He stated it was funded through Reserves; he does not support the first responder program in lieu of County personnel; if the Board can give the $1.3 million and continue to take care of the County’s own, that is fine as it is a worthwhile program; but it is not more worthwhile than the County employees.

 

Chairperson Colon stated what is before the Board is giving the cities the money for this year, which they well deserve because there is a contract.  Chief Farmer stated he recommends passing the item.  Chairperson Colon stated this is separate from next year’s First Responder Program. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated what she is questioning is that the Agenda Report says the First Responder Program is budgeted using EMS reserves; and that is for next year, which gives the cities an indication the Board is going to support and fund that program next year just as it did this year.  She stated she does not think that should be in there. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated that can be excluded to be discussed further; but the Board needs to take care of what is in front of it today; and the Board has not taken action yet on next year.  She inquired if the Board is comfortable with excluding that language. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreements with the Cities of Cape Canaveral, Cocoa, Cocoa Beach, Indian Harbour Beach, Melbourne, Palm Bay, Rockledge, Satellite Beach, and Titusville, and the Towns of Melbourne Beach, Melbourne Village, and Indialantic for FY 2006-2007 to allow allocation of approved EMS funding to First Responder agencies, with deletion of the sentence in the Agenda Report concerning future funding.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider resolution vacating public utility easements in North Carpenter Road Sherwood Estates, Unit 4 as petitioned by Patricia and James Roberts, Trustees.

 

There being no comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easements in North Carpenter Road Sherwood Estates, Unit 4, as petitioned by Patricia and James Roberts, Trustee.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider resolution vacating public utility easement in Barefoot Bay Circle, Barefoot Bay, Unit 2 as petitioned by Thomas and Violet Grohusky. 

 

There being no comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easement in Barefoot Bay Circle, Barefoot Bay, Unit 2, as petitioned by Thomas and Violet Grohusky.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution authorizing issuance of variable rate revenue and refunding bonds, Series 2007 for Volunteers of America project.

 

There being no comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution authorizing issuance by the City of Tampa of Variable Rate Revenue and Refunding Bonds (Volunteers of America Project), Series 2007, in order to satisfy certain requirements of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, which requires a hearing and authorization by the elected officials within a jurisdiction in which bond proceeds will be utilized; and executed First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement with the City of Tampa.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance for adult entertainment licensing suspension and revocation hearing procedure. 

 

There being no comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt an Ordinance amending Section 62-4964 of the Adult Entertainment Code to clarify the proceedings for the suspension and revocation of adult entertainment licenses.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider maintenance dredge conditional public interest determination for Paul M. Pettit, Sr., Honeymoon Lake. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he prefers option 1, which is conditional approval.

 

There being no further comments, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to grant a conditional Public Interest Determination for maintenance dredging contingent upon Natural Resources Management Office’s administrative approval of the spoil site recipient area and conformation of all applicable State and Federal permits or authorizations, for maintenance dredging of the Honeymoon Lake Inlet, as submitted by Paul Pettit.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz advised the Agenda says Item III.B.5 is in District 5, but it is actually in District 3. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve Assignment of Option for Sale and Purchase of the Neil Schopke/Tony Barge property through The Nature Conservancy; authorize the Chairperson to sign the Assignment of Option for Sale and Purchase; and authorize staff to exercise the Option for Sale and Purchase on or before August 2, 2007.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve the Brevard County 2007-2008 HOME Consolidated Action Plan and the Brevard County FY 2007-2008 Action Plan; authorize the Chairperson to execute the required certifications and SFS-424 Application for Federal Assistance Form; authorize the County Manager or her designee to execute the CDBG and HOME Program Grant Agreements and the Disbursement Agreements
with the four entitlement cities upon approval from HUD; authorize the County Manager or her designee to sign contractual agreements for projects identified in the Action Plan after approval from Risk Management and the County Attorney’s Office; and authorize Facilities Construction or Parks and Recreation Department as construction managers to use competitive bids, State contracts, or sole sources to secure contractor to carry out the proposed projects.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to designate August 16, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. as a Budget Workshop.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve advertising and scheduling of a private executive session on August 7, 2007, at 11:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes, in the case of Stack v. Brevard County, for the purpose of discussing settlement negotiations or strategy related to litigation procedures.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the appointment or reappointment of an at-large member to the Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority has been moved to August 9, 2007. 

 

 

 

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider resolution vacating alley in Merritt City Subdivision as petitioned by Mark D. Sutton. 

 

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated the petitioner is aware of the objections that were received from Transportation Engineering, MIRA, and an adjacent property owner; and they have requested the item be continued to October 23, 2007.  Commissioner Nelson indicated he is okay with that. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to continue the public hearing to consider resolution vacating alley in Merritt City Subdivision, as requested by Mark Sutton to the October 23, 2007 Regular Board meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he would like for vacatings in the MIRA District area to go to MIRA for comment before they come to the Board.  Chairperson Colon stated that is setting a new policy.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to direct that all future vacatings located within the Merritt Island Redevelopment District be sent to the MIRA Board for comment prior to coming to the Board of County Commissioners.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the item talked about needing open access for possible future development; and inquired if this item is in MIRA’s long-range goals.  She stated MIRA will be sunsetting in five years; and if MIRA starts coming up with more projects, she is not sure that is where the Board wants to go. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated it is not so much a case of long-range planning as it is short-range; this is an area where MIRA has been looking for retention; and the project could easily be done in the five years remaining.  He stated each time it comes back before the Board, it will have the opportunity to look at that question.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she would like to know when they anticipate doing that, where they are in the process, and do they think it will take five years or less.   

 

 

 

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider resolution, exchange of property, vacating public access only across portion of Mullet Creek Road, accept rights-of-way, and name and/or rename roads following 911 guidelines for South Beach Community Park.

 

Trudie Infantini stated she has lived in the South Beaches for the past 15 years with her family; and she is present because she understands the County is about to vacate Mullet Creek Road.  She stated she tried to voice her concerns at a town meeting, but there was not a great deal of public comment at that time.  She stated the County proposes to vacate Mullet Creek Road; the fiscal impact is estimated to be $1,500; but she differs with the estimate because the road currently bisects the proposed park, and a new road will cost the County just under a million dollars.  She stated Mullet Creek Road already bisects the Park; it has a turning lane and electric access; and one of the reasons the developer had a problem building the community center was because he could not access the road.  She stated there is a great  deal of sugar sand down there, which means there is going to be a lot of fill for the stabilization road; and the proposed road will be twice as long as the existing Mullet Creek Road.  She stated the current road bisects the park, which is a great logistical benefit; the only thing on the south side of the road is a retention pond; and it is not something she would want her young children playing in; and there are alligators in the ponds at Aquarina, so she does not think the Board wants that right next to where children are going to be playing.  She stated the only other thing on the south side of the road is going to be an undeveloped field; the County is proposing to increase the taxes for South Brevard for the parks by 102%; the operating fund will increase by 50% on the taxes; and the people were told in November that if they passed the referendum, the taxes would not increase.  Ms. Infantini stated to increase the taxes and also put in a new road seems fiscally irresponsible when there is a road that will suffice for the needs of the community and the park, with a minor modification; the storm drain is already in; and half of the road is already paved.  She stated the residents on the road knew when they bought their property on Mullet Creek Road that Honest John’s Fish Camp was just down the road; the residents on Carmen Street that backs up to that property had no idea; she used to live on Carmen Street; and she never knew a park was going to go in there, much less a road.  She stated many of the neighbors have been working with the Parks Department to find out what it will do now that it has raped all the trees from the land; and she is present to appeal to the Board, in times of budget crisis, not to spend an extra million dollars on an unnecessary road when there is already a functioning road.     

 

Barbara Arthur stated she has been meeting with the County for the past seven years concerning this vacating and the impacts it will have on her family and her business; in conjunction with the road vacating, they have worked together to try to resolve the issue of their business sign at the entrance to Mullet Creek Road and A1A; and by passing this item today, the Board will eliminate the road through the portion of the park, which would be a safety issue if it were allowed to remain there.  She stated she does not oppose the vacating; but if the Board wants to keep the road there, she would not oppose that either.  She stated this will move the park project forward and keep it from being held up any longer.  She stated her business and family are the only residents west of the area to be vacated; and requested the new road to the South Beach Community Park retain the name Mullet Creek Road.  She stated there would be no negative impacts to the residents of Mullet Creek Road east of the area to be vacated; and her family and business will bear the burden of all the impacts.  She stated the residents on the paved portion of Mullet Creek Road will benefit by getting a cul-de-sac and by having the fish camp traffic alleviated; having the dead-end road named Mullet Creek Road will denote access to Mullet Creek, which it does not have; and the fish camp has name recognition for being located on Mullet Creek.  She stated the Mullet Creek Islands are now part of the Indian River Lagoon Preserve State Park, which also has name recognition for its location on Mullet Creek; Mullet Creek is a well known location, known to both locals and visitors; and the Mullet Creek Islands are listed as a viewing site on the Great Florida Birding Trail, and Mullet Creek Road is listed as the access in the brochure that is distributed Statewide.  She stated Mullet Creek Road is a historic road; it is the oldest road on the South Beaches, even preceding S.R. A1A; and renaming Mullet Creek Road would be confusing to the public and would impact her family’s business.  She stated residents on the paved section of Mullet Creek Road do not seem to take the vacating seriously as evidenced by the suggested names, Prohibition Road and Hooch Creek Road.  She stated she does not know how many of the current residents on the paved portion of the road will be living there in the future; but members of her family will remain on the property even 20 years from now as they have for the last 120 years.  She stated changing her address will impact County and State licenses, patrons, storage customers, maps, business cards, brochures, rental contracts, storage contracts, magazines, wholesalers and retailers, marketing companies, credit card companies, doctors, banks, insurance companies and
policies, telephone book listings and ads, utility providers, drivers’ licenses, tackle distributors and other vendors, and numerous other entities.  Ms. Arthur stated if it is the Board’s desire to name the new road something other than Mullet Creek Road, she would request the road be called Old Florida Trail.  She stated they have worked diligently and in cooperation with the County in support of the vacating; and requested the Board honor her family’s request.

 

Jason Arthur declined the opportunity to speak.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she had a meeting in South Melbourne that was attended by more than 100 people; and 85% of the people wanted to leave the park as it was.  She inquired how many homes are on the current Mullet Creek Road; with Assistant County Manager Mel Scott responding there are 23 property owners along Mullet Creek now.  Commissioner Voltz stated those 23 people would have to go through the same change of address and everything else that Ms. Arthur would have to do; and changing one address may be simpler than changing 23 addresses.  She stated she would like to change the name to Old Florida Trail and vacate the property, but first she has a couple of questions.  She stated it was mentioned that the amount of money to move the road was $1,500; but that was not to build the road.  Parks and Recreation Director Don Lusk advised the $1,500 refers only to the advertising and recording costs.  Commissioner Voltz stated she did not want anybody to think it was only going to cost $1,500 to move and construct the road; it was indicated there would be a 102% increase n taxes; and she is not sure where that figure came from.  Mr. Lusk responded if someone’s tax went up based on the value of the property, he does not know about it; he has not heard anything from anybody else; and he will research the issue.  Commissioner Voltz stated the Board is not looking to raise taxes on the South Beaches by 102%; the sign has been taken care of; and she would like to move the two items; and on the third one she would like to leave the name Old Mullet Creek Road and change the name of the new road.        

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt a Resolution vacating public access only across a portion of Mullet Creek Road, accept rights-of-ways; retain the name Mullet Creek Road on the old road; and name the new road Old Florida Trail. 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated Ms. Arthur and staff have done a good job of trying to resolve the issues; but the solution is a precedent that he is not comfortable with.  He stated having a road going through a park is undesirable, but can be managed; his concern is that there is talk about giving an easement along the road alignment; and that sets a precedent he would not want to set.  He stated he would love to vacate the road; but he does not think the Board has a structure in place that allows it to do that that he is comfortable enough with to vote for it.  He stated when the property was purchased, there were no assurances that the road was ever going to be vacated; the Board needs to move forward with the park project with the road in place; and it may be able to find a way to get FDOT to relent in terms of its approach to the sign.  He stated at this time he does not feel comfortable with the structure of the vacation; the Board is doing too many things that he would never want to do again; and he is going to oppose the vacation at this point.  He stated it is not because of Ms. Arthur and her business; it is because of what the Board has to go through to get there; and if it is possible to come up with a better way, he could support it in a different fashion. 

               

Commissioner Voltz stated FDOT will not allow that sign to be moved; this is holding up the park progress; it has been seven years; and people have paid on the park for seven years with nothing being done.  She stated boats having been passing through the neighborhood for years; 23 people want the vacation; staff is supporting it; and the park is going to have to be redesigned if the Board does not do this.  She stated millions have been spent already; and for the Board to hold it up now because of the vacation would be a travesty for the people on the South Beaches who have been paying on the park for seven years. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he was told this item would be easy; he is a little disoriented; and he would like to bring the item back on August 7, 2007.  He stated at that time, he might be prepared to proceed; and he knew it was going to be complex, but thought that things were coming together.  Commissioner Voltz stated things have come together.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like an opportunity to visit with the different comments that are being made; and on August 7, 2007, he may be able to support the motion; but today he is lacking in information. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated if this cannot be done, the people from the South Beaches will be before the Board in mass about why the park has not been done in the seven years that they have been paying taxes on it; something has to be done; and the vacating is the key to the whole park project.        

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the park construction started at one point, but the County had to cut a contractor loose, so he does not know that one could say the construction did not start.  Commissioner Voltz stated the people have been paying taxes and do not have any final product.  Commissioner Nelson stated in the interim, Mr. Lusk can look at the impacts; he does not believe they are as significant as one might imagine; and it was always a possibility that the vacating would not happen.  He stated it will cost what it would have cost if the Board had assumed the road could not be vacated; but he is not comfortable about giving a six-inch strip that is 2,200 feet or whatever the length is, to put a sign out by the road.  He stated it is a set of circumstances that he would like to have on the record so people will know exactly what the Board is doing; it sounds like the Board is holding up a park; but what the Board is doing is setting a precedent to allow advertising to occur by giving an easement on a six-inch strip of road right-of-way.  He stated he has some concerns about how to get there; he wants to see the park built as much as anyone; but the reality is whether this is something the Board would ever do again. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired what would be the ramifications of waiting until August 7, 2007.  Mr. Lusk responded his job has been to move the projects forward; but a mistake was made when the County moved to contract before vacating was done because that ultimately causes a problem with the contractor.  He stated moving this to August 7 would mean that he would delay to that period of time before he released the bid; staff is ready to go to bid on this project; and it will be an additional delay. 

 

Chairperson Colon inquired if August 7, 2007 would be the correct date; with County Manager Peggy Busacca responding yes. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated his concern is there seems to be more than one moving part; and he wishes he could say he understands everything, but he knows he does not. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated one of the reasons staff is reluctant to put out a bid is that if there are changes in the plans, they will have to do a change order; historically the Board has not been receptive to those kinds of things; but this is a unique situation; and he thinks the Board could go ahead with the bid.  He stated if timing is that critical, the Board can go to bid, and later it can do a change order.  Mr. Lusk advised Mr. Nelson is correct; it would probably result in a change order; and if the Board does not vacate and there has to be reengineering, it will impact whoever wins the bid to construct as well as the separate engineers, so there would probably be two different changes that would have to be made.  Commissioner Nelson stated the building has a one-year construction timeframe; and he thinks the process can be moved along without those issues being too much concern. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she does not want to go out for bid until the property has been vacated or something has been taken care of; it is a mistake; it caused problems last time; and it has been seven years with no progress on the final product.  She stated there has been some dirt turned; there have been some other things done; but the final product is one to two years away.  She stated people are saying when they voted for this, their kids were young, but now the kids are not even going to use the park; and inquired how fair is that to the community.  She stated she wants everyone to meet with staff; and requested Mr. Lusk contact the 23 people who live on the south side of Mullet Creek Road to let them know what is going on.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she concurs with not going out to bid. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to continue the public hearing to consider resolution, exchange of property, vacating public access only across portion of Mullet Creek Road, accept rights-of-way, and name and/or rename roads following 911 guidelines for South Beach Community Park to August 7, 2007.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article VI, Section 62-2116, Substandard Parcels for Docks.

 

John Coppola stated he owns and lives on a piece of land that he purchased in 2004; he and his neighbor purchased property at the same time and built homes; and he owns a parcel along the river that is separate along Rockledge Drive.  He stated recently there has been some talk about what is going on with docks along there; his parcel is considered a substandard parcel; but before he purchased the property, he asked if there were any permits he needed to get from the County and was told, that the Indian River was not something the County dealt with.  He
stated he also called the Army Corps of Engineers and sent a drawing of the dock; and he was told it looked okay and there were no red flags.  Mr. Coppola stated they purchased the property, put in for permitting from the Army Corps of Engineers, received a permit, and built a dock; but apparently the fact that the dock touches the substandard property is a Code violation.  He stated he has not been cited yet because staff is confused about how this is working; but the Board is getting ready to make a decision.  He advised of permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and DEP saying he is allowed to build a dock; but now he is being told that the dock should not be there because it is touching the property; and that seems crazy.  He requested the Board reconsider before voting to decide what it will do with the docks; and stated there should be some kind of permit from the County.  He stated if he had been required to get a permit, there would have been a red flag, and he would not have purchased the property.  He stated there are 34 docks that fall into this; and requested the Board not include the 34 docks in whatever law it passes that would make the docks illegal.  He stated he is being forced to hire an attorney to get into a battle with the County even though he tried to do everything legally.  He stated he spoke with Commissioner Bolin last week to bring it to her attention. 

 

Douglas Czerwinski stated he is Mr. Coppola’s neighbor; he purchased his property in 2005; and he got all the necessary permits from Army Corps of Engineers and the State.  He stated prior to building, he called the Building Department, which informed him it did not have jurisdiction on the Indian River; he called Contractor Licensing, which said it did not have jurisdiction on contractors working in the river; and he started building his dock.  He stated on the first day, Code Enforcement told him he had to stop; he had a meeting; and at that meeting, George Ritchie said he was correct, that the County had no jurisdiction and he could continue building his dock.  He stated a week later Code Enforcement came back and told him they were going to issue a Code violation because the lot was too small.  He stated at that time, the major portion of the dock had been constructed; and that is the status now.  He stated the proposed ordinance is worthless; he already has development rights from the State; and there are a lot of conflicts with the proposed ordinance and the existing Ordinances.  He stated Chapter 62-1254 allows for penalties for unauthorized use of the land; but the land that is being used to build the dock is State land; it is submerged land; and he is not building a dock on the land that is in question.  He stated his State permit specifically says he is building on State lands and has to follow the State rules.  He stated Chapter 62-1102 defines a dock as an accessory structure; it says that an accessory structure has to be on the same lot as the principal structure; but the docks that are being built are not on the same lots as the principal structures, but are on State land.  He stated the ordinance the Board is looking at refers to 62-2118, but the scope of that ordinance is for public drainage easements, drainage rights-of-ways, and canals; and the County has no jurisdiction over the rivers.  He stated the proposed ordinance says one has to get a permit and do certain things; but when a person tries to do that, he or she cannot do it.  He stated Chapter 2247 of the Florida Building Code provides an exemption from the Building Code for the docks in State waters, and also gives an exemption with respect to Code violations for zoning requirements.  He stated Chapter 28.253, Florida Statutes, talks about riparian rights; for the County to tell him whether he can do something that the State is already telling him he can do is not right; and he would recommend sending the ordinance back for a rewrite. 

 

Maureen Rupe inquired how many total with the canals and the rivers would be grandfathered in.  Commissioner Voltz advised there are 21 that are grandfathered and 13 that are in the possible situation where they could potentially put docks. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the LPA at its June meeting recommended changes, to limit the dock use to existing canal-front lots, exclude riverfront parcels, and remove the 20-foot lot lines; she does not think the riverfront parcels can be removed because that is what the Board has been talking about; and many of the lots are on the riverfront.  She stated there are 11 riverfront parcels; four of them are already built on; and it would be a total of seven more on the riverfront for a total of 13 all over the County.  She stated that is not an enormous number of potential new docks.  

 

Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino stated staff has identified 34 lots, including canal-front lots and riverfront lots; but that was when staff had information from the Property Appraiser’s Office.  She stated the way the ordinance has been drafted per Board direction it has frozen the effective date as May 22, 2007; and there may be some more that have not shown up yet on the public records. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the affected property owners have been notified; with Ms. Sobrino responding yes, they were notified of the LPA and the Board meetings.  Commissioner Scarborough stated for those persons adversely affected by some confusion of staff, those could be handled as vested rights; and commented on the problems encountered with the Port St. John boat ramp and lack of parking.  He stated once this type of amenity is created without a home a unique environment is created and some subsequent owner could begin to utilize it in manners the Board is not anticipating.  He inquired if it sounds like there are some good vested rights issues; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding the same thought was running through his mind. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated Commissioner Scarborough hit on his concerns; he voted against this all the way up to this point; and he will vote against it again because it is putting the Board in the position of creating an ordinance to legalize something that was done inappropriately.  He stated he is not comfortable with it; there are vested rights questions that can be dealt with; there is an administrative process they can go through; but using ordinance powers to do this is the way he would want to approach it; and he will be voting against it.

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Board does not move forward with the ordinance, what is the process under the original Ordinance; with Ms. Sobrino responding there are some docks that are subject to Code Enforcement violations currently and they are going through the process.  Ms. Sobrino advised the Ordinance that is on the books today provides that these types of parcels of land are illegal and cannot be used for docks; and anybody who has use of their property by virtue of a dock would be in violation of the Code and may be subject to Code Enforcement.  She stated if someone has compelling circumstances, they have the right to pursue vested rights.  Commissioner Bolin stated under the old method, the individuals have the right to appeal; the Board is getting to the point where it is starting to regulate upon regulate; and she is not in favor of the proposed ordinance.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired how many Code Enforcement issues that are outstanding; with Ms. Sobrino responding she cannot give that number right now, but there are several pending and several are pursuing vested rights.  Commissioner Voltz stated there are a number that are involved in Code Enforcement; and she assumes they will all be included in a vested rights action of some sort.  Ms. Sobrino advised that would be at the discretion of the property owner; and when they examine the standards for vested rights, some may feel that they should be considered while others might feel that they do not have any avenue to pursue that.  Commissioner Voltz stated staff should not be so quick to say something is not under the County’s jurisdiction or that it has no problem with it because in saying no, staff is actually saying yes.  She stated there was a property owner on Rockledge Drive about nine years ago who went to County staff, the Army Corps of Engineers, St. Johns River Water Management District, Fish and Wildlife, and everywhere to find out whether or not he could build a dock; he built an elaborate dock and nobody seemed to have a problem with it; one agency pushed the responsibility off onto someone else; and when the dock was almost completed the next door neighbor complained that he could not see the river any more because the dock was being built.  She stated the Board said he had to tear it down; from what she understands it is still not torn down and the neighbor who complained bought it; and she would like to find out how many Code Enforcement cases are out there that could potentially be vested rights issues.  She stated before the Board turns this down, she would like to know how many possible vested rights cases will be coming to the Board.  Ms. Sobrino stated vested rights would probably only be for those persons who already constructed a dock; and she is only aware of two Code Enforcement cases at this time, but she can check that information.  Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Lyon stated he does not have the exact number, but can get that information back to the Board by the end of the meeting.  Commissioner Voltz stated the Board can come back to this item.

 

Chairperson Colon stated the Board is ready to vote now; and she does not think the majority of the Board wants to put an ordinance in place.  She stated there is a process that the Board has called vested rights; if someone feels they have been misled, there is an opportunity to come before the Board with an attorney; and at that point the Board looks at all the evidence and makes a decision.  She stated the Board is comfortable with looking at cases individually rather than changing an ordinance that will affect all docks; the door is not closed; the Board still wants to listen to what the people have to say; and that evidence will be presented to the Board. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she would like Mr. Lyon to come back with those numbers; and inquired if the Board needs to abate Code Enforcement.  Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board is considering vested rights, it may want to abate; and inquired how long should the Board give them to file for vested rights.  Mr. Knox suggested abating Code Enforcement for 90 days because they can get through the process in that length of time.  Chairperson Colon stated it is for both of them; with Commissioner Scarborough advising it is for anything outstanding. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to abate Code Enforcement for 94 days for people having docks who wish to pursue the vested rights process.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chairperson Colon recommended the speakers consult an attorney to begin the vested rights process. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to deny the proposed ordinance relating to substandard parcels for docks.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Voltz voted nay.     

 

 

 

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider approval of transmittal of 2007A Comprehensive Plan Amendment package.

 

Richard Stevens submitted paperwork to the Board, but not the Clerk; and stated he is present relative to the Plan amendment 2007A.1.  He stated he would like to set the stage for community input on the issue; there is a denied precedent issue; the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment will set a precedent for all private conservation designated lands in the County as shown on the Future Land Use Map; and in 2004, Peggy Busacca said the area off Sykes Creek is an example that the question that staff is asking is universal should this occur in other cases; so this is a policy issue, not simply an issue related to one property.  He stated if the Board looks at pages 18 and 19 in the package, it will see that it modifies the intent of Policy 5.4; at the time in 2004 there was no public discussion; and from introduction to closure, it was two minutes and eleven seconds.  He stated citizens’ exhibit B is a pictorial; there is a small outlined area in red that says 3.5 acres; and that was the subject of the Board in 2004, was brought back to the community, and was addressed by the Board in 2006.  He stated that was the basis on which the denial was made; and also the other areas shown in yellow are properties between S.R. 528 and Sykes Creek Parkway that are of the same classification as the property being discussed today.  He pointed out properties on the map including the property being discussed today, Mr. Zajdel’s and Newfound Land and Property Management’s properties, embedded wetlands within the property, and the mosquito containment berm that was put in by the Army Corps of Engineers.  He stated the 3.5-acre parcel that was the Small Scale Amendment in 2006 was denied by the Local Planning Agency, the Citizens Resource Group, and the Board in 2006; and that denied amendment should not be the basis for further amendments.  He stated no change was made to the Comprehensive Plan; Policy 5.4 still stands the way it was written in 2004; and County staff mentions on page 8 of the package the denied amendment as a basis for a finding of fact.  He stated staff clearly states it was denied in 2006; Ryan Rusnak of Forte Macauley Development Consultants, Inc. also references the denied amendment as a basis for supporting Newfound Land and Property Management’s request; and it was entered in the record by Attorney Jack Kirschenbaum on June 1.  He stated the amendment application was option 2, but option 1, the interpretation of Policy 5.4 is still the basis of the application.  He stated the documentation on record today shows that Ms. Busacca was correct; this was an overall policy issue with far reaching effects across the County; and amendment 2007A was recommended for denial by the LPA and the CRG.  He stated it is a bad precedent to be using; and requested the Board deny the amendment, accelerate the Small Scale Study, and fully evaluate this issue and how it should be treated in the future for all County residents.  He stated the Board needs to invest the time to insure that all property rights across the County are preserved; and recommended the Small Area Study findings be used to modify Policy 5.4 in the current revision cycle of the Comprehensive Plan.  He displayed an aerial view of the property; stated everything to the left of the blue line is pristine waters as part of the Banana River Aquatic Preserve; and pointed out the property in question.  He stated it is the appropriate buffer between development and the pristine land that supports the wildlife that uses the area between Sykes Creek and S.R. 528.  He stated it is a natural water body; it is part of the Indian River Lagoon; the area to the right of the line has wetland functionality; they would like to protect it; and any additional development to the right of the line would significantly endanger Sykes Creek.

 

County Attorney Scott Knox stated as a matter of procedure the Board generally hears the applicant first.  Chairperson Colon stated she gave Mr. Stevens approximately eight minutes; she will not be allowing other speakers that much time; but it was important for him to be able to explain to the Board and present the maps. 

 

Attorney Jack Kirschenbaum, representing the applicant, stated he has experts with him today including the owner of the property, Alan Zajdel, Bill Kerr who is an expert in environmental issues, and Ryan Rusnak who is a planner.  He stated what is before the Board is not fairly debatable; and that is the legal standard the Board must use.  He stated the Board is going to hear that this is before it because of a mistake in the County maps and a reliance by Mr. Zajdel on the Planning and Zoning staff because of an interpretation previously made by the Board that stands; and for those three reasons this is not a fairly debatable matter.  He stated based on the facts and the law, the Board must transmit this Comprehensive Plan request to the Department of Community Affairs; and the procedure would be to accept the Plan amendment, transmit to DCA, conduct a Small Area Study, and when it comes back from DCA, look again at the facts of the case.  He stated the facts will demonstrate that the use requested of this property and change to the Future Land Use Map is consistent with what is around it; the people in the neighborhood have every right to object; and they have been using the property as a park forever.  He stated it is a lovely undeveloped property; the request is to allow the 13 acres to be used for just 12 units; and in the neighborhood to the west an equivalent strip would be approximately 50 homes.  He stated it is a consistent and compatible use; Mr. Zajdel will talk about how and why he got the land; Mr. Kerr will talk about the nature of the land; and Mr. Rusnak will address the planning issues that are before the Board. 

 

Alan Zajdel stated he is the property owner and President of Newfound Land Property Management; and he has met with some of the Commissioners before.  He stated he bought the property after doing nearly two years of diligent research; he paid particular attention to providing the existence of 12 acres of uplands along the eastern boundary of the property; and prior to closing on the property, he had a meeting with County staff to discuss the property’s use.  He stated at that time he determined that he had potentially 12 general use home sites with zoning of GU; he checked with the Planning Department regarding the conservation line on the Future Land Use Map; and upon reviewing the map, it was found that the Future Land Use Map was in error.  He advised the conservation line was drawn across his uplands and did not follow the wetlands; the planner said it was an error on the County’s map and would be fixed; several months later he appeared before the Board, which unanimously agreed the Future Land Use Map was in error and would be fixed; and if not for County staff’s representations that the map would be corrected he would not have bought the property.  He stated his 12 acres of uplands being used as 12 one-acre home sites is reasonable and compatible with the surrounding community.  He stated there has been a lot of concern about the proximity to the Ulumay Sanctuary; he has additional lands to the west of his area of use, approximately 47 acres, which he is willing to make available to any of the County conservation agencies interested in getting involved; and that will further protect and increase the size of the Ulumay Sanctuary.   He stated he is available to answer questions. 

 

Bill Kerr, consulting ecologist, advised of his service on County Advisory Boards; and stated he currently serves on the St. Johns River Water Management District’s Governing Board, and has for nine years, with his term ending March 2008.  He stated the line for private conservation is established on what areas are wetlands and what areas are uplands; and pointed out various areas on the map.  He stated the area at the western property line is the levee of the Mosquito Control District that is adjacent to the Ulumay Preserve; it is not pristine property, but has ditches, etc.; and the Mosquito Control District controls it for mosquitoes, so it is not directly connected to the Lagoon at certain times of the year.  Mr. Kerr stated the eastern boundary of the property is against the homes that already exist; there is only one acre of wetlands within the 13 acres of uplands, the largest is .22 acre and the smallest is .07 acre; and the wetlands are isolated, impacted, and heavily overgrown.  He stated the property itself is heavily overgrown; in a drought it could be considered a fire hazard because of all the fuel loads that exist there; and there are existing Ordinances that provide if the property is taken out of private conservation there will be a 50-foot upland buffer that cannot be developed between the western edge of the property and the portion of the property that is proposed for future development.  He stated there are a few endangered species issues; there are wading birds that use most of the property to the west and the mosquito impoundments to feed; there are some gopher tortoises that will be adapted; if they are impacted, they will either be relocated or an area will be protected within the area for them.  He stated in addition his understanding of the Wetlands Ordinance is that it is necessary to have at least five acres to be allowed to impact wetlands, so the isolated wetlands will be protected by the County’s Ordinances.  He stated they are also currently protected by the Corps of Engineers and whatever State agency will be permitting this, either St. Johns River Water Management District or the Department of Environmental Protection.  He stated if there are questions, he would be happy to answer them. 

 

Ryan Rusnak advised of his educational and employment background; and stated he is currently employed as a land planner with Forte Macauley Development Consultants.  He stated Mr. Zajdel owns approximately 60 acres in the Merritt Island area; to the east of the property are dense single-family residential properties; to the west and inclusive of Mr. Zajdel’s property is salt water marsh area; and what they are focused on is the 13 acres of uplands.  He stated they are not asking the Board to approve, but to transmit to the State the request to change the uplands to Residential 1 land use category.  He stated they are present because of a mapping mistake; and the story begins in 2001 when the Future Land Use Map was updated from the U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps to the GIS-based maps.  He stated when Mr. Zajdel came into the Planning and Zoning office in 2002 he asked two questions, what is the zoning and what is future land use; the updates happened in 2001, but in 2002 the map had not been created; converting all the maps was a huge undertaking; and in those instances where there was no map, the pre-2001 quadrangle map was pulled out and a determination was made that the majority of the uplands was Residential 15 and a small portion of the uplands was private conservation.  He stated the map was created according to that opinion; the date on the map is November 15, 2006; and in December 2006, one month after the map was created and five years after Mr. Zajdel closed on his property, the County opined that there was a mistake, and that in 2001 the majority of the uplands was designated private conservation and whoever told Mr. Zajdel that the property was Residential 15 was incorrect.  He stated the maps that had been created over the past five years were incorrect too; the decision came out in December 2006 and the map was printed in January 2007.  He stated it is obviously a big mistake when somebody goes into a County office and asks about zoning and future land use, buys a property after being advised the majority of the property is Residential 15, and then after closing on the property, is told that there has been a mistake.  He stated it is not just the mapping mistake that says the majority of the property is Residential 15; but it is that the uplands were designated private conservation in the first place.  He stated on October 24, 2004, staff came to the Board to ask for help in interpreting Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element that deals with private conservation lands; staff had Mr. Zajdel’s property as a subject; the question was whether uplands should be considered private conservation; and the Board said no, they should not.  Mr. Rusnak stated that has been the standing interpretation since that point; so the property is entitled to a residential land use category.  He stated looking at the surrounding area, it is dominated by Residential 6; the home sites are less than quarter-acre lots; they do not have retention which further reduces the density; it is high density; and they are asking the Board to transmit Residential 1, one unit to the acre amongst Residential 6.  He stated the Residential 1 category is compatible and consistent with the area; and not transmitting to DCA would be arbitrary.  He advised of a letter from Sans Lassiter concerning the roads affected, Audubon and Banana River Drive operating at level of service C now and with the 12 lots being proposed.   

 

Jason Frederick, President of the Space Coast Audubon Society, stated the history of the area is that the Ulumay Sanctuary is a significant natural resource, recognized internationally by the Audubon bird watchers.  He stated the name Ulumay was documented by Alvara Mexia in 1605 while on a mapping exhibition from the St. Augustine garrison; he came to the area to meet the Ais chief; and his diary says, “Here is the town of Ulumay, the first of the province of the Ais; and in back and adjacent to this town there are many camps.”  He advised the late Johnnie Johnson, a long-time member of the Brevard Historical Commission, documented what little there was of the AIS sites; and although the BKI survey claims there is no historical significance of the area, it was deemed a historical landmark by the Brevard Historic Commission and a plaque was presented to the Board.  He stated in the 1950’s the area was dug for mosquito control; the installation was done by the Army Corps of Engineers in association with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission to restore the wood stork rookery; there was a freeze in 1985 that destroyed the rookery; but the culverts used for the mosquito control allowed juvenile fish to be pumped into the wetlands, creating a fish nursery that invites wood storks as well as other species to help rebuild the Ulumay rookery.  He stated the area in and around Ulumay is used by several species, several of which are species of special concern while others including the wood stork are on the threatened species list; Florida is the Atlantic Coast flyway where hundreds of birds migrate from the north to South America or the Caribbean Islands; the birds need a layover spot to rest and refuel; and Ulumay Sanctuary is one of those areas.  He stated the Indian River Lagoon Blueway Program is a State effort to acquire more than 22,000 acres of buffer lands along the Lagoon; buying and preserving waterfront land along the Indian River Lagoon is a top priority of the State; and the reason he is bringing this up is because Mr. Kerr is on the board of the Indian River Lagoon Blueway Project.  He stated the map indicates the property is an essential parcel remaining for the Indian River Blueway to purchase; and there is a conflict of interest if Mr. Kerr is on the board to preserve the area but is also helping the land owner to develop the same area.  He stated Mr. Kerr said there are gopher tortoises; but the environmental reports do not state that there are gopher tortoises.  He submitted paperwork to the Board, but not the Clerk.   

 

Chairperson Colon advised of the procedure to address the Board. 

 

Julie Seberry requested the Board deny Mr. Zajdel’s request to change the property from conservation to development.  She stated Mr. Zajdel bought 60 acres of land for approximately $194,000; he bought it knowing it was conservation land; he wants to develop the property; and he plans to sell each acre for $400,000.  She stated it has also been discussed that the properties are low and it will be necessary to bring in a lot of fill; all of their houses are behind the property; and the water will have to go their way.  She stated their homes are their biggest financial investment; and they bought their homes because they were told by the County that the land behind them was conservation land.  She requested the Board leave it that way as they have been there for many years.  She stated the property is not a park; it is a beautiful pristine piece of property; she has seen various wildlife and birds there; and Mr. Zajdel bought the property as conservation land, the Board should leave it that way.   

 

Ken Klein submitted paperwork to the Board, but not the Clerk; and stated his property abuts the subject property.  He stated they have lived there for 42 years; and it has been nice having conservation land behind them.  He stated the Small Area Study has been requested by the CRG, the LPA, the Board, the East Merritt Island Homeowners Association, and virtually all citizens present at the meetings; and they all requested denial of the amendments.  He recommended waiting until the Small Area Study has been performed; and inquired why are they present if everyone recommended a Small Area Study be performed.  He stated the Small Area Study will have to consider many items; one item will be wetland functionality; and he was able to find a definition in the County’s Comprehensive Plan.  He stated he would like to discuss three items within that definition; and the first is the wetlands ability to provide a diversity of habitat and food sources from threatened and endangered species and species of special concern; the BKI report indicates there are wildlife there that could be on the list; and the summary in the report from staff says the land may provide potential habitat for several protected wildlife species, which are listed.  He stated the second item is the wetlands ability to provide flood storage capacity; after Hurricane Francis in September 2004, the land behind his home flooded from the hill on the east side to the berm on the west side; and he tried wading back there, but could not get to the berm because the water was higher than his 16-inch boots.  He stated if development occurs, this land is going to be filled in; there will be no more flood storage capacity; and the runoff from the new development will be to the east because he does not believe the County will allow the runoff to go into Sykes Creek.  He stated the runoff will be running east through their neighborhood and possibly through their homes; there are going to be retention ponds and ditches; but they will quickly be overwhelmed; and he is begging the Board not to sacrifice the existing neighborhoods for the sake of a developer’s profit.  He stated the third item says in considering the functional value of wetlands, the degree of alteration, uniqueness, landscape diversity, and proximity to water bodies should be considered; and this sounds like the responsibility of the Small Area Study Group so that there is consistency through all Merritt Island and the County.  He stated the Board should not put on blinders and ignore the fact that there are many plots of undeveloped conservation land on East Merritt Island; it has been said that there is no reason to wait for the Small Area Study because nothing relevant to this amendment will come from it; but the Board feels a Small Area Study is important and the vast majority of citizens have recommended denial of the amendments and asked to wait for a Small Area Study.  She stated if the County denies the request and waits for completion of the Small Area Study, it will tell the citizens it is also concerned about haphazard development and wants a unified approach to future development.  He stated to the residents of this area, the amendment is about a quality of life; to the developer, it is about profit; and urged the Board to do the right thing and deny the amendment. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated looking at the map, on Mary Street there are two homes that appear as thought they have property within the boundaries of the property the Board is talking about; there is a larger parcel that has been cleared; and inquired if that is Mr. Klein’s property and who cleared the parcel.  Mr. Klein responded when he moved to the house in 1965 it was just plain sand; from the late 1960’s to 1970’s, there were big clumps of grass; and his neighbor and he chopped down the clumps of grass and started mowing it.  He stated there were no trees or bushes, just clumps of grass; and what Commissioner Voltz sees is grass that has grown since then that he has kept mowed; but it is not his property.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if it is not his property, but he is taking care of it; with Mr. Klein responding yes. 

 

Arlene Klein stated she concurs with everything her husband said; she has been a resident on Mary Drive since 1965; and their property is adjoining the eastern boundary of the subject land.  She stated the Board’s decision will influence the actions of many other parcel owners in the County; and requested the Board deny the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and wait until the Small Area Study is completed, so there is a unified plan for the use of all land parcels in this area.  She stated this will greatly affect the traffic in the community, especially during the land development and building phase; and commented on the safety of the children who attend Audubon Elementary School.  She requested the Board consider the impact that many new residences will have on the drinking water.  She stated they will also lose the floodwater retention area; and floodwaters from a major storm would run through their neighborhood and possibly their homes.  She requested the Board be fair, just, and wise in making the decision.

 

Jim Flanigan stated he is thoroughly against the request; and there should not be any kinds of changes made on the property, which are good dense wetlands.  He stated Mr. Zajdel said a couple of things he would like to bring up; and one of them is that he is going to put septic tanks on the 12 lots next to the Ulumay Sanctuary, which is a disaster.  He stated Mr. Zajdel also said he wants to put a driveway sized road to access the properties; inquired how can the Volunteer Fire Department get down there and would that be a problem; and advised some of his neighbors will have a road on three sides of their property when the road is built.  He stated Mr. Kerr said the way to tell if a wetland is a wetland is that after it rains the land is spongy; and suggested Mr. Kerr walk on the property now, after all the rain they have had, as it would be spongy up to his knees.  He stated right behind his house there is no park; a person cannot even walk there because it is so dense a person cannot see; and he does not know of any park on the property as it is a really dense wetland property.  He inquired why the developer uses ex-County employees like ex-Commissioner Ron Pritchard on his staff; stated it does not sound right; and requested the Board wait for the Small Area Study before considering this. 

 

Elizabeth Christianson stated she is opposed to the request by Mr. Zajdel to change his property from private conservation to residential; the land was classified conservation for a reason; and the original land owner knew the land could never be developed, which is why he never built on it.  She stated it should always stay as it was intended and is currently, which is a buffer to insure long-term protection of wetlands and environmentally sensitive lands, Sykes Creek parkway, and the Ulumay Wildlife Refuge.  She stated if they had realized the conservation land could be developed or destroyed, she and many of her neighbors would have attempted to purchase the land or would have approached the County to purchase it; years ago a few neighbors including her former husband talked to the original land owner who assured him there would be no development of the land; and the owner said they could use the land, take care of it, and enjoy it.  She submitted pictures to the Board, but not the Clerk; and stated Mr. Zajdel’s intention is to put a road behind their houses; that would destroy critical wetlands, plants, and trees such as mangroves and Carolina willow, also known as swamp willow, as well as the habitats of many animals including species of special concern and threatened species such as egrets, osprey, herons, wood storks, and gopher tortoises.  She stated she has seen those species behind her yard, including alligators, otters, and many birds; and if those are not wetlands, she does not know what they are or where all the water would go.  She stated at the same time Mr. Zajdel will be devaluing all the property abutting his land; she will have a road on three sides of her house; and inquired who would want to live in a house like that or even buy one like that.  Ms. Christianson stated many of her neighbors will have roads in the front and back of their houses; they have paid their property taxes and now their property will be devalued; and they will all be losers so that Mr. Zajdel may gain by destruction.  She stated by allowing this request, the Board will be setting precedent for all of the County that wetlands, environmentally sensitive land, wildlife, and water quality are not important; and the County should do everything possible to protect and enhance all the areas’ wildlife and natural resources.

 

Arthur Christianson stated Elizabeth Christianson is his daughter; he actually lives in Ridge Manor; but he has a great interest in the area in question and the land behind it.  He submitted a map to the Board, but not the Clerk; and stated he keeps hearing about the road that runs behind the houses, but he has not seen a road on any of the maps that have been presented to the Board.  He stated if the plan goes through, there will be three roads around his daughter’s house; and commented on the traffic load.  He stated he also heard many times that there is no wildlife back there and it is just a bunch of swamp; so one day he took some pictures so the Board could see the wildlife; and submitted pictures to the Board, but not the Clerk.  He commented on the pictures; and advised he took them from his daughter’s backyard and did not trespass.  He stated the Board can see the slant from his daughter’s yard down into the storage of water and the mosquito berm in back; and inquired where is all that water going to go.  He stated he heard many times that it will be one unit per acre; and inquired what does that mean.  He noted there are no deed restrictions on anything; someone could build a house that is one acre big, leaving five feet on each side and calling it a one-family house; and inquired how high could they go.  He stated none of that has ever been put in writing; it has just been presented verbally; and that is why he is very concerned.  He stated if someone pays $400,000 for a lot, he is sure they are not going to build a 1,500 square-foot house; and after the Board sees the pictures, it will see that it is not a very suitable place to fill in the water storage area to be even with the existing homes.  He stated between the proposed road and existing homeowners is supposed to be a clearance; but it looks like it will either be a drainage ditch or if horses are authorized in that area, it would be a nice horse trail, which would not be very pleasant for the present homeowners. 

 

The meeting recessed at 11:44 a.m. and reconvened at 11:57 a.m.

 

Floyd Rippetoe stated he emailed information to all the Commissioners yesterday; he meant to mail it last week with backup documentation; but other events prevented him from accomplishing that.  He stated he lives on East Merritt Island and is Chairman of the Development Committee for the East Merritt Island Homeowners Association, which is not a deed mandated association or related to a particular development or piece of land, but is an alliance of all the homeowners and property owners on East Merritt Island, working together to protect their area.  He stated the East Merritt Island homeowners have a number of issues with the request for transmittal to the State; the people have been after the County for a long time to do a Small Area Study for all of East Merritt Island; and it has been approved, authorized, and according to the Planning and Zoning staff, is scheduled to begin next month or in early September.  He stated one of their concerns is that this is the kind of issue that should be included in the study; and if the amendment is forwarded to the State, it will put the CRG that is conducting the study in the uncomfortable position of trying to develop an overall coordinated plan to submit to the State while there is an additional possibly conflicting amendment already before the State.  Mr. Rippetoe stated such a conflict could be resolved by not forwarding the amendment to the State, but letting it be part of the overall Small Area Study.  He stated the second concern is the whole basis of the applicant’s presentation and request is based on the clarification that was talked about earlier; the clarification resulted from incomplete information to the Board, including a logically invalid argument; and if this is forwarded to the State, it will be affirming that incorrect clarification, and that issue can then be used to attack other properties.  He stated the argument is that it should not be both private environmental and zoned GU; but all the lands shown in yellow on the map presented by Mr. Stevens are classified and zoned the same way, so the same argument can be made on them.  He stated the question should be revisited and not affirmed by sending this forward to the State.  He stated it is also based on part of a claim that the private conservation designation of this land is incorrect; and he disagrees strongly on that.  He stated it is historically consistent with what has gone on in the past on the land; back in the 1950’s the Army Corps of Engineers, working with Brevard County, put in mosquito control berms; that was before the developments were built; and the purpose of the berm was to keep the salt water from washing this portion of the Sykes Creek marsh.  He stated in the 1960’s, when the rules were changing with respect to private ownership of submerged lands and marginal lands, etc., federal surveys were done to establish the boundaries; and the famous meander line survey was done and finalized in 1966, differentiating between privately owned lands and sovereign lands.  He displayed a drawing; and stated the orange line follows the government surveyed meander line; and that can be verified by looking at the 2004 Brevard County Atlas.  He stated when this area was developed to the limits as defined by the boundary line, the homeowners relied on the County’s classifications.     

 

David Bindig stated his property abuts the parcel in question on two sides; and he opposes the potential change in the land’s use and/or the transmittal.  He commented on residents, property owners, developers, attorneys, experts; and stated the residents are trying to get the correct information out to the other residents so they do not go off on rumors.  He stated there have been meetings throughout the community as well as LPA and CRG meetings; they are a working class neighborhood; and he submitted some pictures showing the neighborhood.  He stated they are a development of older homes from the 1960’s 1970’s, and 1980’s; they are a humble working class area; and he has lived there for 38 years, going through the school system.  He stated he is a product of Brevard County; he and his wife bought a house in the area and have been residents for eight years; and he does not see the potential change being consistent with the neighborhood.  He stated they live along the private conservation land; but they do not live next to a park; and those comments are not accurate.  He stated the property is densely wooded with mosquitoes and things like that; there is a berm that people walk on from the west over to the tower of the Ulumay Sanctuary; and it does connect.  He stated the proposed neighborhood was mentioned as 12 or 13 one-acre lots that will possibly be valued at $400,000 each and sold as waterfront property; there are few access points to get to the parcels, if the applicant is able to get through the changes and subdivide; and if the value is what they are saying it will be, he does not believe the people will be building homes like his home on those lots.  He stated he does not see any consistency with the neighborhood; the new owners will use the existing roads to get to their homes; Wilmar Road was just repaved; and he does not want to see the road get worn down by a construction project in the back.  He stated their home sites have little restrictions; the lots are 100 feet by 100 feet; they were platted as such; but they have not received anything in writing about how they plan to build the lots behind them.  He stated the applicant is stating on the record in meetings that it will be left up to the people buying the lots to deal with the mitigation, fill, and development; there will not be certain restrictions; and it almost sounds like a subdivision even though it may not be titled as such.  Mr. Bindig stated it does not sound consistent; the Board will have to deal with the individual people in the future if this goes further; and he does not see the character of this continuing with the area of East Merritt Island.  He stated if the property owner is allowed to subdivide, he stands to make a lot of money on his land investment; he bought the property without a formal survey and relied on the County to give him the information; he does not see that as being a smart plan; and he does not see the Board changing it in midstream.  He stated he opposes the request; and requested people to stand if they are against the request; with the majority of the people in the room standing. 

 

Commissioner Voltz requested Mr. Bindig show her where he lives; with Mr. Bindig pointing out his property on the map.          

 

Barb Venuto stated her family has lived on Lakewood Circle for 15 years; they bought their home there because they wanted to be close to a wildlife sanctuary and enjoy the nature; and they have hiked, kayaked, bird watched, and biked the trails at Ulumay Sanctuary.  She stated there are over 150 different species of birds that can be seen throughout the year; and it was a surprise when they received a letter last year advising of the intent of the developer.  She stated she has attended and spoken at each of the five public meetings; and there has been a huge effort by the community to fight the developer.  She stated property rights go both ways; and she feels a personal responsibility as a custodian of the ten acres zoned conservation.  She stated Alan Zajdel is a local developer; he has built some beautiful homes around the corner from her neighborhood and on some beautiful lots on the river; and it would have been nice to leave those lots open, but they were zoned to be built on, so the residents did not fight with the developer.  She stated this time Mr. Zajdel bought land that most people did not believe could be built on; he bought 60 acres at $194,000 or approximately $3,000 an acre; during that time a one-acre site in the neighborhood sold for $98,000 and a three-acre site sold for $225,000; so Mr. Zajdel paid a small amount for his property because it was zoned for conservation.  She stated there are many peculiarities about everything that has been happening at the last five meetings; the Property Appraiser’s map only points out 32 acres owned by Mr. Zajdel; Mr. Zajdel did not have the property surveyed when he purchased it; and inquired about the difference between the 32 acres on the Property Appraiser’s map and the 60 acres Mr. Zajdel says he owns.  She stated the wetland survey was done by Bill Kerr who sits on the St. Johns River Water Management District board; he says the St. Johns River Water Management District concurs with his findings; and inquired if this is a conflict of interest.  She stated County Manager Peggy Busacca said this case is precedent setting, so by its vote, the Board will be setting precedent.  She stated at the LPA meeting in 2006, Laurilee Thompson asked if an owner could contest the Comprehensive Plan’s label or zoning; since 1988, every seven years, the Plan is reviewed and owners have 21 days to contest the assessment; and inquired why the previous owner did not contest it.  She stated the previous owner enjoyed the low taxes on the land for 20 years; all the neighbors believed they lived next to conservation land; homes next to green spaces have higher value in the real estate market; and this is taking from the community rights to leave this a green space.  She stated the owner bought the land with the knowledge that it was zoned conservation; the community has also lived with the knowledge that it had this green space; and the problem now is the owner believes the information he received means he is entitled to the right to build and is planning to subdivide into 12 sections for $400,000 each, or a total of $4,800,000.  She stated the developer plans to do a minimal amount of development for the home sites; and each person will face a difficult and challenging time trying to build.  Ms. Venuto stated there are many unanswered questions; it seems unfair to pass the buck to 12 individuals who will pay a high price for their property; and the County will need to study and answer many questions, which will be more easily done now.  She stated she hopes the request will be denied until a Small Area Study is done; this is a small piece of the puzzle; and requested the Board not make judgments on the small area, but consider the whole piece.       

 

Nancy Bindig stated as part of the package, on page 5, there is a historic resource analysis providing there is no known impact on the known historic resources associated with the amendment; and she has done some research.  She stated in 1987 the Historical Commission first raised the issue of trying to record the history of the County; the Board contracted with Dr. Shofner to write the history, which is done in three volumes; and in the first volume he explores the history of the Ais Indians and the province of Ulumay.  She stated the Board has already heard how the mapping of Ulumay goes back to 1605 when the Spanish were involved with the area; and all of this is located on the Banana River on present day Merritt Island.  She stated the Merritt Island area was described in that volume as a low land mass more than 30 miles long, bordered on the east by the Banana River and on the north by Mosquito Lagoon, and at the southern end forming two small peninsulas which enclose Newfound Harbor; and it further says to the east is a long low barrier island that widens into Cape Canaveral just east of Merritt Island and then narrows again, is rarely more than ten feet above sea level and usually no more than a half-mile wide; and the barrier peninsula extends far to the south, separating the Indian River from the Atlantic Ocean.  She submitted brochures to the Board, but not the Clerk; and commented Commissioner Nelson calling the area the heart of the community.  She stated the Board has heard a lot about property rights; and she is full agreement with everything that has been said.  She stated it works both ways; they have concerns as homeowners in the area; the neighbors said they thought the land was part of the Ulumay Sanctuary; and common sense says that it should be as records and old plats show that it was intended to remain untouched.   She displayed a picture of a No Hunting, Bird Sanctuary sign; stated signs were placed at the end of Wilmar; and that would indicate that the parcel of land was part of the sanctuary.  She stated there was also a lack of signs saying that it was not a part of the sanctuary; there is a bike path, and she commonly hears people riding their bikes or walking along the path that borders the old mosquito berm; and requested the Board refer to page 5 of the packet where it talks about the subject property being located within the AE special flood hazard area where the base flood elevation has been determined.  She stated based on the survey that was done when she purchased her property in 1999, it is four feet above the base flood elevation; and the neighboring homes have legitimate concerns about flooding in this area.  She stated there is a petition with 320 signatures from people in the neighborhood who are against the change, even though they could not be present today.  She commented on a headline from a magazine concerning Brevard County and ecotourism; and requested the Board continue to preserve this area by voting no to sending the amendment to Tallahassee.  She stated to do otherwise would compromise the confidence of the concerned citizens who, after having their land surveyed, purchased their property in good faith based on the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan and existing restrictions and regulations. 

 

Maureen Rupe stated the land was bought as conservation; whoever owned it since 1992 sold it as conservation land; and the developer who subsequently purchased the land knew full well it was identified as conservation, but now is trying to extract additional development rights on the justification that the County made a mistake.  She stated in 2002 the applicant entered into a verbal option agreement to buy the property; in 2003 the applicant entered into a written contract to purchase the property after one year of due diligence including investigations of wetlands and discussions with the County; and in 2004 BKI flagged the wetlands.  Ms. Rupe stated one month later in 2004, the applicant met with Gwen Heller of Land Development and Ryan Rusnak of Planning and Zoning; and Mr. Rusnak presented a photocopy of the Future Land Use Map showing residential designation on the eastern portion as well as conservation on the uplands.  She stated on July 19, 2004 the applicant met with Todd Corwin of Planning and Zoning who reviewed the map and acknowledged the mistake, advising the entire portion of the land which was upland appropriately should have shown the residential designation; on August 18, 2004, the applicant closed on the property; and on October 26, 2004, the applicant appeared before the Board, which acknowledged the error and agreed to correct the mistake.  She inquired why the County, if it knew there had been a mistake, left it until someone could buy the property.  She advised on October 26, 2004 the Board provided clarification that private conservation future land use designations are not intended to include uplands or properties with zoning of EA; this is inconsistent with the definition in Chapter 253.034, Florida Statutes; and inquired in light of the State’s definition, does the County have the right to redefine conservation land without a formal change and review by the State.  She stated they know by Conservation Element 5.2 that there must be sufficient uplands for buffering and be compatible with adjacent uses; and inquired who has determined that these are isolated wetlands.  She inquired if the property is contiguous with neighbors who established in the 1960’s and 1970’s with no stormwater utilities to contain stormwater on the development; and stated they cannot afford any more pollution into Sykes Creek and the Banana River.  She stated the Indian River Lagoon is dying from pesticides, fertilizers, and roadway runoff; and she does not see how they can afford any more pollution. 

 

Mary Hillberg stated she is representing herself and Jack Radiman, President of the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association, as well as several other North Merritt Island residents who are concerned with the issue.  She stated even though they do not live in the area, the island is theirs, as is the County; and they are interested in any areas that will impact them as a community.  She stated the area was conservation land since the 1960’s; the 1988 Comprehensive Plan reflects a commitment to the citizens; and re-designation of this property would diminish public trust and trust in the Board’s acting in the best interest of the community.  She stated Ulumay Sanctuary is a beautiful natural preserve supporting diverse flora and fauna populations in the center of the County, close to a large portion of citizens; Parks and Recreation, EEL’s Program, and the Indian River Lagoon Blueway all desire and endorse this property for conservation; and development east of the Ulumay Sanctuary is not compatible with the established wildlife preserve.  She stated the proposed development may include horses that are incompatible with the Ulumay Sanctuary and could seriously damage the delicate ecosystem and aquatic preserve there; and the proposed private drive and 30-foot buffer would be right behind existing homes, serving as a horse trail and runoff containment, both undesirable and possibly devaluing the homes.  She stated James Street, which is the only viable access to the property at the moment, has a sewer system under it; and heavy equipment and trucks laden with soil may damage the road and the sewer.  She stated this is a small older neighborhood; the streets cannot be widened; and it should not have the traffic of construction and increased congestion in terms of safety for the current residents.  She stated destroying a neighborhood in order to build a 12-unit development only to satisfy a developer’s desire to make money is not appropriate foundation for a policy; and the actual proposed use of the property is still not clear.  She stated the developer has said he will not build but will sell to someone else; this may set a precedent for other property near Ulumay Sanctuary that is at great risk; and those individuals have removed their decision making terms of selling the property or working out a deal with EEL’s, while they watch to see what the Board does, so this would not affect just one area but the whole central preserve as well as conservation areas throughout the County.  Ms. Hillberg stated stormwater runoff will become a serious problem as new development must be higher then existing homes and roads; the applicant’s property is up to four feet lower than the residential community, so it will have to be raised quite a bit to be higher than the crown of the road; and when filled, water runs down, so it will run to places it should not.  She recommended the Small Area Study be completed before any consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment is discussed; and recommended the amendment not be transmitted.

 

Doug Sphar stated he is a long-time recreational user of the Ulumay Sanctuary; almost 30 years ago he worked with the late Johnnie Johnson on clearing the trails there; and he has done extensive bird photography there and canoed the Ulumay’s waters with the Space Coast Paddling Club.  He requested the Board not transmit the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment; and stated it would be unwise for the Board to set a precedent of changing a land use designation simply to exclude upland areas from historically designated conservation land.  He stated uplands and wetlands are part of the same ecological system; and recognition of this fact is essential to preserve the biological integrity of the Lagoon and riverine ecosystems in the County.  He stated he was a system engineer in the aerospace industry; and an ecological system is no different than a missile system, in that small changes to one component of a system can have profound effects on the overall performance of the system.  He stated this case is complicated by the decision made by the Board on October 26, 2004; at that time the Board was asked to determine whether the intent of the Comprehensive Plan was to include the properties that were not wetlands in the private conservation land use designation; and the Board determined that the property owner can address these issues during an application for Future Land Use Map amendment.  He stated in 2004 the Board was given just two choices, wetlands only for conservation designations or to decide the matter later; and there were no other alternatives, such as determine the intent of the Comprehensive Plan must include wetlands and associated uplands necessary to preserve the wetland functionality.  He stated only Mr. Zajdel’s property was used as an example; there was no public comment or staff analysis outside of Mr. Zajdel’s particular case; and the Board decided that ten of the private conservation land use designations were not to include upland areas or properties zoned other than EA.  He stated the Board must implement or readdress this decision for Mr. Zajdel’s property; based on the Board’s decision, the applicant could ask to change the zoning to EA on the part of his property historically designated as conservation as a land use; but that solution would not allow him to profit from the development of those 9.89 acres.  He stated the Board’s job is to look at the public interest; and requested the Board designate EA to the applicant as he already meets the criteria of lands that are classified as EA or alternatively he could stipulate this conservation land use in a binding development plan.  He requested the Board not transmit the Comprehensive Plan amendment 2007A, but to request the applicant ask to rezone the 9.89 acres of his property currently designated as private conservation to EA. 

 

Jim Egan, Executive Director of the Marine Resources Council, stated the lands under discussion are critical for the future of the Indian River Lagoon; the Lagoon has less coastal wetlands naturally than many other estuaries along the coast; and this is confirmed by studies by Dr. Grant Gilmore.  He stated the studies also confirm that of the areas that are so critical to survival of the estuaries, having less to begin with means that every bit is critical and if they continue to be compromised, the viability of the water body will be in jeopardy.  Mr. Egan stated every day a little more of the marginal areas get developed; typically they are in private hands and are not zoned conservation; and typically the owners get to mitigate some of their wetland impacts and fully develop the uplands.  He stated the lawn fertilizers and chemicals come in; the septic tank seepage occurs as well as runoff from the roadways; and those and other types of activities have been impacting the Indian River Lagoon for some time.  He stated this area is subjected to several times the amount of nitrogen and phosphorous that it should be getting in order to have a healthy non-impaired use; when property is already protected under conservation, it proves to be exceptionally valuable; in the past, the EEL’s Program had difficulty acquiring lands like these because if they had any development potential at all, the developers would often ask for several times the value of the property because they were waterfront.  He stated when uplands and wetlands interfingered together are in conservation, they are almost priceless and cannot be replaced.  He stated what is unusual in this case is they are zoned conservation; this is not a case where property rights would be taken away from the existing property owner; he gets to continue to use the lands for the same use they were zoned for when he purchased them; and they would have value if he chose to sell them to the EEL’s Program or some other conservation agency.  He stated the owner would even make a profit on his purchase, although maybe not the extreme profit that he would like to make; the lands could be used for wildlife viewing and other benefits; being adjacent to the Ulumay Sanctuary makes the property that much more valuable; isolated natural areas connected to the Lagoon have great value; but when such property is connected to the Ulumay Sanctuary, it would have even more value.  He stated agricultural lands and rural lands are often targeted by developers to be purchased cheaply, seek to change the zoning, and then make a profit selling them off; and if environmental lands become a new target for developers, they would be purchasing them and seeking to change the designation, which could be a tremendous source of wealth for the developers.  He stated if the Board grants it to certain ones, it will make it much harder to legally sustain not granting to all of them, so as a precedent setting thing, this could be huge.  He stated the main concern about issues like this is that conservation lands, once they are set as conservation lands, must be preserved in perpetuity or there is no point is creating conservation lands; in terms of the idea of it being uplands versus wetlands, the State has considered changing the definition of wetlands to declare that areas that are under conservation are no longer wetlands; and inquired if they would suddenly become open to development as well.  He stated regardless of the definition, the lands that are zoned conservation are too few in number already; there has been too much impact created on the water bodies; the economy and ecology of the area depends on the water bodies; and the lands that are currently conservation must remain so.                 

 

Mr. Kirschenbaum urged the Board to consider the legal standard it is operating under; stated the question is whether or not this request is fairly debatable; and they believe under the facts and law, that it is not fairly debatable and the Board must transit.  He stated Future Land Use Element Policy 5.4 reads, “Lands which are privately owned and zoned EA or so designated by an approved binding development plan shall be designated as private conservation.  Such privately owned parcels shall permit a maximum residential density of one unit per ten acres.”  He stated the Board was asked what that means; and the Board in October 2004 directed that the intent of the conservation land use designation was not to include upland areas or properties other than that which is zoned EA.  He stated that is the Board policy and interpretation; the public has a right to rely on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, its policies, and the Board’s interpretations; and Mr. Zajdel has every right to rely on the Board, its policies, and interpretations.  Mr. Kirschenbaum stated he is not making a vested rights argument now; but Mr. Zajdel had every right to rely on staff before he bought the property, when staff said the maps were wrong; Mr. Zajdel came before the Board, which said that was right and directed him to get a wetland map and come back, which he did; and now Mr. Zajdel is seeking transmittal.  He stated he does not know if the Commissioners have been to the property; and submitted photographs of the property with a map.  He stated it is not pristine land; there are pepper trees and wrecked cars; it is not the Ulumay Sanctuary, but is separated from it; and he understands the homeowners’ position, which was summed up by one woman who said they could use the land, take care of the land, and enjoy the land.  He stated he used the term park, but he did not mean swing sets and slides; he meant a passive park; and the neighbors have been using it for hiking, birding, mowing, clearing, and using it.  He stated the people are enjoying Mr. Zajdel’s land; and they want it to stay like it is.  He stated he would rather live on a cul-de-sac rather than a through road too; he would not want to have his neighboring conservation area or green space developed either; but the owner has the right to develop the property.  He stated they are proposing 12 homes; there are claims that there will be floods in the neighborhood, children will be hurt or killed, and properties will be devalued; and inquired with lots selling for $400,000, how can that devalue the neighbors’ lots.  He stated he understands the neighbors do not want change; but Mr. Zajdel has every right to have that change.  He stated Ms. Rupe was the best witness for Mr. Zajdel when she read the timeline; it is obvious what happened; and it is not lawful not to transmit.  He stated this is not a request for rezoning or site planning; and those things will come later.  He stated they have an intensely developed older neighborhood with lots of little lots on the east; there is a mosquito berm on the west; and this is not environmentally sensitive land or the Ulumay Sanctuary.  He stated what is requested is a change from the private conservation, which the Board’s policy and interpretation do not allow to be placed on the land; and the request is to change that to Residential 1 for 12 home sites on the property.  He advised they have presented three experts, Mr. Rusnak for planning, Mr. Kerr for the environment, and Mr. Lassiter through his report for traffic; and there is no question that 12 home sites on the 13 acres is consistent and compatible with the surrounding area; and based on that, the Board must transmit.  He stated the County and the St. Johns River Water Management District have certified the wetlands as Mr. Kerr described them; they are isolated, small, and less than one acre; and this is not pristine undeveloped land, nor is it part of the Ulumay Sanctuary.  He stated it should not and cannot be private conservation under the Board’s interpretation of its own policy; it is not fairly debatable; and it must to be transmitted to DCA.  He stated if the Small Area Study comes back and says that Residential 1 is terrible, the Board will have the opportunity to have that data when this comes back from DCA and can stop it then; but previously all studies and staff’s recommendation were that Residential 6 is an appropriate, consistent, and compatible land use for this property.  He reiterated he is not making a vested rights argument; he may have to make that on another day and will have different evidence for it; but what they are seeking is what was always provided for by the County to Mr. Zajdel before he bought the property; and if not for the representations of staff and the wrong maps, they would not be before the Board. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated someone mentioned the land was not appraised before purchase; with Mr. Kirschenbaum advising the land was not surveyed before it was purchased, although there were sketches of survey based upon legal descriptions done on a number of occasions.  Commissioner Voltz inquired how does that affect this; with Mr. Kirshenbaum responding not at all as they have been told that for the purposes of staff, the sketches of survey are sufficient and appropriate and meet all the standards to apply for a Comprehensive Plan amendment transmittal.  Commissioner Voltz inquired whether Mr. Kerr has a conflict of interest because he is representing an applicant and at the same time he is on the St. Johns River Water Management District Board, which approved the project.  Mr. Kirschenbaum responded Mr. Kerr is not representing the applicant; he is an expert brought to give the facts to the Board, as is Mr. Rusnak; and he is the one representing the applicant who makes the arguments on his behalf.  He stated Mr. Kerr and Mr. Rusnak are paid as consultants; and that is why there is no conflict.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they came voluntarily as witnesses and are not paid by the applicant; with Mr. Kirschenbaum responding they are paid experts who were hired to come before the Board and render their opinions. 

 

Mr. Kerr stated he has been a practicing environmental consultant for 25 years; he helps people through the permitting process at the County level, at the St. Johns River Water Management District level, and at the Army Corps of Engineers level; he is not a primary contractor; and he could not have a contract with St. Johns River Water Management District while he served on that board.  He stated as Mr. Kirschenbaum described, he is an expert witness; he is not forbidden from doing that work; and if a project he is working on is reviewed under the St. Johns River Water Management District regulations, then at the board meeting, he would declare the conflict and recuse himself from voting.  He stated he has always done that on any project he has been involved with in the past, even though he does not have to; but if someone has paid him before, he does not want people to think his vote was influenced, so he would recuse himself.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated conservation lands classically have a variety of habitats, not just wetlands; and inquired if it is fair to say that conservation lands can include uplands.  Mr. Kerr responded that is a fair statement; in this case, the Board has said that conservation lands are not to include wetlands; and that is how they understood the interpretation.  He stated his job in this case is to determine what is uplands and what is wetlands; he has done that and had those lines reviewed independently by the St. Johns River Water Management District staff and Brevard County staff; and everybody agrees on those lines.  Commissioner Nelson stated that is a question the Board needs to talk about related to conservation lands; and he has always had an issue with the interpretation.  Mr. Kerr stated the Board could get into a long discussion about the value of conservation lands; he is for infill as the wise thing to do; it is better to have infill and go some place further away to preserve large acreages of land for conservation that include uplands and wetlands; but that does not directly relate to the issue before the Board because it is not governed by those regulations.  Commissioner Nelson stated expansion of existing areas makes a lot of sense; Mr. Kerr is talking from a development perspective; but from a conservation perspective, it is not uncommon to add to the boundaries of existing lands to make them even more viable.  Mr. Kerr agreed it is not uncommon; and stated if the land stayed in conservation, it would be difficult to manage as the habitats are managed by fire, and it would be nearly impossible in this area because it is closely surrounded by development.  He stated it does have some significant environmental characteristics, most of those associated with Ulumay Sanctuary and the property adjacent to it; and it is an upland parcel that is so dense and thick that one cannot get through it. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated the Board can amend the Comprehensive Plan twice a year; and inquired when is the second time; with Ms. Sobrino responding there is another filing period that closes at the end of the year in December.  Commissioner Bolin stated it was mentioned that there is going to be a Small Area Study; and inquired what is the timeframe for the final report.  Ms. Sobrino stated she would estimate it would be approximately nine months in order to complete the study and present the findings to the Board.  Commissioner Bolin stated the final report for the Study would miss the end of the year and it would be in 2008 before they could do the transmittal.  Ms. Sobrino advised it would have to be in the filing period that closes at the end of June 2008 in order to have the benefit of the review and input from the Small Area Study; if the Board decides to transmit the package today, it would begin a statutory process in which it would be processed by the State, distributed to various reviewing agencies, and an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report, known as ORC, would be provided to the County.  She stated statutorily the County is then obligated to try to address any concerns that are raised and adopt the package or not adopt it within 60 days of the ORC report, which would put it approximately at the end of the year.  She stated if the Board transmits and starts the process, the adoption process would have to take place statutorily prior to the completion of the Small Area Study.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board transmitted today and started the Small Area Study when Ms. Sobrino anticipated, would it not have the Small Area Study results when the package came back from DCA; with Ms. Sobrino responding that is correct.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated there were two interpretations made; one was called a mistake and the other one is called an interpretation; and it is a matter of which side someone is on at the time.  He stated he has problems with policy 5.4 because in his experience from dealing with parks and conservation areas, the County has too narrowly focused the policy on just wetlands.  He stated conservation areas can be all uplands and do not even have to have wetlands, so that is an issue.  He stated the second part is that the interpretation of the map should have included all the way over to the boundary of the housing because that would have made sense based on the information the County had.  He stated based on the information the Board received in the Agenda package, today’s testimony, and the recommendation of denial from the Future Land Use Citizens Resource Group on June 21, 2007 and the LPA on June 18, 2007, he would move the 2007 Comprehensive Plan amendment not be transmitted to the Department of community Affairs.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny transmittal of the 2007A Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Department of Community Affairs.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.        

 

 

 

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider adoption of tentative FY 2007-2008 Ad Valorem Millages.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board has trimmed 9% of the budget and cut $21 million; Melbourne, Indialantic, Palm Bay, and Melbourne Beach got a decrease of $7.40; West Melbourne got a decrease of $7.05; Malabar got an increase because of the new MSTU; and in unincorporated District 3 and Grant-Valkaria, there is an increase of $2.86.  She inquired what has the Board done; and stated it is so much work for nothing.  She stated when people get their TRIM notices and do not see the $1,300 decrease that the State said they were going to get, they are going to come after the Commissioners asking why the Board did not do what the State said to do, even though the Board cut 9% and decreased $21 million.  Commissioner Voltz stated even though the Board went through the entire process of cutting, people are going to get anywhere from a $7.40 decrease to a $2.86 increase. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated folks will be upset and not understand that the Board did what the State asked it to do; the Board is continuing to go through this process; it has laid people off because of it and had to restructure the County and the way it does business; it had to change a lot of policies to achieve that; and the State claimed that people were going to save $1,300.  She stated folks from Tallahassee were on television, from the Governor to the House Speaker, State Representatives and State Senators, saying this was wonderful; but in November when the people get their bills, they will need to have their State Representatives explaining.  She stated the problem lies with the fact that the Commissioners look like the bad guys; there is not enough money to give raises to the employees; they are not able to build the libraries or roads; and they are not able to do so many things that the community wanted because of the cuts, but the savings in Commissioner Voltz’s District is not even going to be enough to pay for breakfast.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired how should the Commissioners respond to the citizens.  She stated she is going to have to tell the residents that the County cut 9% and decreased by $21 million, but it is not showing up on the tax bills.  Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated he does not believe he can answer that; the Board has done what it was directed to do; it is a reduction of more than 9% when looking at the aggregate operating millage rate; and the Board has met the statutory requirements.  He stated he is not sure how the Board can answer the question; what is presented to the Board today are only the Board of County Commissioners millage rates; and beyond that, he is not able to explain the complications of the many different taxing districts having weight on the final tax bill.  Commissioner Voltz stated at the same time the Board cut $21 million from the budget; part of that was General Fund and part of it was many other things; the aggregate was that amount of money; and it was the total of the budget and 9% because that is what the State asked the County to do.  She stated it was difficult; and she is sure the Board is going to have the same dilemma in responding to the residents. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the Commissioners will tell the truth that they have been telling for months; they have told the kind of impact this was going to cause the County; they also shared that the savings were not going to be anything to be excited about; and the Commissioners have been as transparent as they possibly could be, so they have done their job. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated it was difficult because there were so many moving pieces and parts in the budget; it would be nice to explain; but she does not know if they can explain why the people are not seeing a $1,300 savings or even a $200 or $500 savings.

 

Chairperson Colon stated the Commissioners do not have to explain; they did their job; and the questions in regard to why did the State do that need to be asked of the State Legislators.  She stated the Board does not need to be explaining the constitutional amendment on January 29, 2008; the Board did not put it on the ballot; people have been taking credit for what they did; but in Brevard County 71% of the residents were protected by Save Our Homes and 29% who bought homes in the last three or four years were getting killed by taxes.  She stated it is not fair in the same community for one to pay $1,200 in taxes and the other $7,600 in taxes; and something needs to be done about that imbalance.  She stated nobody did anything for small business owners or about insurance, which has gone up 200% while the State is giving 20% savings; and a great number of constituents in Brevard County were dropped completely by their insurance companies.  Chairperson Colon stated those are the phone calls she has been getting; but the Legislature did not do anything about insurance and it is claiming that there would be tremendous savings.  She stated the numbers are in; they cannot lie; the Board tried to tell the community the kind of impact that this was going to cause; and tomorrow there is going to be a workshop where there will be discussions about more layoffs because the budget is still not balanced.  She stated that process is still in the works so more of the community will be affected; and that is why she is saying the Board has done its job and any explaining to the community needs to be done by the State.  She expressed concern about the vote on the January 29 and the impact it is going to cause the community; and stated she is worried about the citizens.  She commented on the new referendum, the formula, no longer being protected by Save Our Homes, vulnerability, and the need for explanation.  She stated the State Legislature is the one that voted for this; the Board of County Commissioners did not vote for it; and the Legislators need to do all the explaining.  She stated the Board will welcome the Legislators coming before it to speak to the constituency to explain why they are only getting a $7 savings. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated her question was more rhetorical than anything; she understands; she has been through the process of cuts and layoffs; and it is just one of those things that does not have an answer. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the Legislature tried to figure out tax reform in one week; it was always a moving target; every week the proposal changed; and the Board never knew exactly what the impact was going to be to the community.  She stated it is hard because the quality of life for the citizens is going to be affected; and after January 29, 2008, it will probably see something even worse. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff was able to get something from the School Board; with Mr. Whitten responding yes, its total millage rate currently is 7.667 mills and the proposed millage is 7.531 mills, which is a 1.77% reduction.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he was reading that the State is making the School Boards come up with additional monies; the Board talked about the School Board having a millage increase; and what is concerning him is that whatever the Board did would be wiped out in the bottom line by what was happening elsewhere. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired is the projected aggregate 5.918 mills; with Mr. Whitten advising that is the current.  Commissioner Voltz stated rolled forward is 6.049 mills; and the aggregate preliminary is 5.4 mills.  Mr. Whitten advised what goes on the TRIM bill will be the comparison of the proposed individual rates compared to the roll forward, which will be a 9% increase, so the TRIM bill will give some comfort in terms of the roll forward rate, which is 9% higher than the actual proposed or preliminary rate.  Commissioner Voltz stated it is rolled forward because there is a decrease in value; with Mr. Whitten agreeing. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the Board would not mind having to restructure the County and its services if it knew that would give relief because it is not fair for people to pay thousands of dollars more than other people; and reiterated the example of her family paying $1,200 and her parents paying $7,600 in taxes even though they use the same services, the same roads, the same libraries, and everything else.  She stated if they knew there was relief for the 29% who do not have Save our Homes or for small businesses, there would at least be a sense of accomplishment, but nothing has been accomplished; and that is the part the Board finds so frustrating.  Chairperson Colon stated after going through this entire exercise, the community will still be paying high taxes; and the Board is feeling almost hopeless after going through the entire process.  

 

Commissioner Nelson stated Mr. Whitten has provided the Board with a revised sheet; it reduces the General Fund while it increases the Special Districts; and it has the advantage in the long run of getting the voted millages in the areas where they were voted, and also reducing the Countywide general.  He stated the total revenues are basically the same and everything else is the same; and inquired if they have to approve the millages individually or can they be done at once.  Mr. Rogero advised they only have to be done individually if they are changed.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if what is shown are the statutory requirements as maximums without a supermajority vote of the Board; with Mr. Rogero responding yes.     

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt the FY 2007-2008 Tentative Millages for the purpose of notification to taxpayers; and instruct the Assistant County Manager for Management Services to complete the Florida Department of Revenue’s Certifications of Taxable Value, Form DR-420. 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz requested the numbers be read.  Mr. Rogero stated the FY 2007-2008 aggregate rolled back/forward operating millage is 9.81% and the percent change from aggregate to current is 7.82%; and the correct list should say revised on 7-19-07.  Commissioner Voltz stated it is an increase in millage, but decrease percentagewise.  Mr. Whitten stated the current aggregate operating millage is 5.9181 mills; the aggregate rolled back/forward operating millage is 6.0491; the proposed millage is 5.4556 millions; and that is a 9.81% decrease from the rolled back millage and a 7.82% decrease from the current millage. 

 

County Attorney Scott Knox stated this is not the time or place where the Board needs to make a choice about whether to use simple majority or super majority or unanimous; but it can if it wants to, although it does not have to.          

 

Commissioner Nelson stated once the Board establishes these millages, it can go down, but not up. 

 

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

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated earlier a speaker talked about increases in the parks millage; this is the first year that the 2006 millages are showing up; and the vote was to not exceed the original voted caps, which were 6/10^ths  of a mill for the south, 8/10^ths for the north, and 8/10^ths for Merritt Island, so when they say it is the same amount of money, it did not exceed what the voters had originally approved, but it was just bonding the growth within the millages.  He stated where there is a 102% increase, there is also a 46% corresponding decrease in some of those.

 

 

The meeting recessed at 1:24 p.m. and reconvened at 2:01 p.m.

 

  

 

John Campbell stated he is a land surveyor who is representing Pete Abate, who is attempting to do a flag lot application on a piece of property called Margo Lane; and submitted photographs to the Board, but not the Clerk.  He stated Margo Lane is a dirt road that was created when the groves was put in and is probably 40 to 50 years old; and recently the property has been developed.  He stated when the road was originally set up there was a cross-access easement that was set up for all the property owners to use; and it was 50 feet in width.  He described photographs of D’Albora Road and the intersection with Margo Lane; and stated when they brought in their flag lot application, staff requested he come to the Board for a variance for the amount of easements that have been created on Margo Lane.  He described additional photographs; and stated it is a rural area and the community wishes to keep the dirt road.  He described photographs showing Mr. Abate’s property; and stated he wants to create two more building sites.  He advised the property meets the zoning requirements, but because of the number of approved easements on Margo Lane, they need some help.  He described additional photographs of Margo Lane showing drainage and public utilities; and stated the property owners have been maintaining Margo Lane and there has been no County maintenance on the road.  He stated the ultimate development of the area will be limited in terms of density because of the character and zoning of the land; and they would appreciate the Board’s consideration in granting this variance to allow Mr. Abate to divide his property into two sites.  He stated North Merritt Island has many farm roads; and Margo Lane has become a quasi-public road.  He requested the Board’s consideration of the variance; and advised they are not attempting to get the County to maintain the road as the private owners are maintaining it.  He requested the Board consider it a private roadway that is being used by a limited number of people for their homesteads; and requested the Board grant the variance.  He stated he lives in North Merritt Island, has his business there, and has raised his family there; it is a beautiful piece of land, which is very rural; it will continue to be rural; and creating two sites will not create any hardships in the area.  He stated he does not believe there is any opposition; and he would appreciate the Board’s consideration of the variance. 

 

Commissioner Voltz requested Mr. Campbell point out which parcel he is talking about; with Mr. Campbell pointing out the parcel on the map.  Mr. Campbell stated the photograph shows the width of Margo Lane between the fences. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated this is the poster child for the process the Board is going through, which is in effect subdivisions that spring out of the flag stem easement process.  He stated Mr. Campbell said two lots, but this creates four lots on ten acres.  Mr. Campbell stated Mr. Abate had previously obtained another variance; the original parent parcel was ten acres; and he will end up with four two and one-half acre parcels in its entirety.  He stated he is not asking for four sites because two have already been approved.  Commissioner Nelson advised Mr. Abate got those through the flag stem process.  Mr. Campbell stated the flag stem process has its purpose; it is set up for rural development; it is not set up for single-family homes; and one of the problems with Margo Lane is that there is so much fragmented ownership that it would be impossible to get a road right-of-way dedication.  He stated right now the property owners that live on Margo Lane are doing the maintenance on it; there is a cross-access easement that has been filed for the property owners; and the fact that there are power, phone, water, and garbage collection means it will not further impound the people if this is granted.  Commissioner Nelson stated Mr. Campbell has described why the County should not have a Flag Stem Ordinance because if it has no impact, it should be able to be done any time, anywhere; and he does not think he would agree with that.  He stated since he has been in office, he has received some
calls about drainage in the area; the parcel just to the south and west of Mr. Abate’s property has drainage issues; and County staff has been there.  Commissioner Nelson stated this needs to go through the process that the Board has talked about for small subdivisions because if there is already a drainage problem, this cannot do anything but add to it.  He stated he would like some assurance the Board is not creating new problems; and inquired where they are in the process of creating the small subdivision ordinance.  Ed Lyon, Permitting and Enforcement Director, stated the Board just directed that at the last meeting; it will be creating a whole new section of Code; and it will take some time to do that.  Commissioner Nelson stated the Board has held up other items related to completion of the process; and he will make a motion to deny the request, and at such time there is a small subdivision ordinance in place, that would be the appropriate time to deal with it. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to deny the request of Pete Abate for waiver of Section 62-102 to allow a fourth and fifth lot to utilize the same easement for two additional building permits.

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is necessary to have a County-maintained road to get a building permit.  Mr. Lyon advised there is a provision for access by easements; and that is why the waiver is required because one is only allowed to have two access by easements to get a building permit if the property does not abut a County-maintained road or a private road that has been approved through a subdivision process.  Commissioner Scarborough stated this is not a subdivision or a private road; with Mr. Lyon advising it is an ingress-egress easement.  Commissioner Scarborough stated all of Margo Lane is maintained by the residents; with Mr. Lyon advising that is the case.  Commissioner Scarborough stated when he came into office there were a number of places in North Brevard where they could not get fire trucks or ambulances into the properties because they were not maintaining the roads adequately; and commented on arrangements for road maintenance.  He stated it is a health and safety issue; and he is glad the Board is not taking action on this. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired about the zoning of the parcel; with Mr. Lyon responding he does not know the zoning.  Commissioner Voltz stated if they are going to do four lots on ten acres, and it is not zoned AU, they are getting around the zoning issue.  Mr. Lyon stated that is something they normally check prior to putting in the waiver request to make sure what they are requesting is compatible with the zoning. 

 

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

 

 

 

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating unimproved rights-of-way in Orange Gardens Subdivision as petitioned by Ulbricht & Blazik; and advised the Board will also consider final engineering and preliminary plat approvals for Woodbridge Farms Subdivision, as the items are connected.                                                                                           

 

Joe Miniclear of Stromire, Bistline, and Miniclear, representing Ulbricht & Blazik, stated the applicant is requesting the vacation of an unimproved right-of-way in Orange Gardens Subdivision; this is a subdivision that was platted in the 1920’s; it has never been improved; no property has been sold in the subdivision; and it is his understanding there is no need for the property for the public.  Mr. Miniclear requested the road right-of-way be vacated.  He stated Mr. Campbell is more familiar with the history and will speak to it if the Board has questions.  He advised the Woodbridge Farms Subdivision has had a long and tortuous process; it started before he became involved with his clients; the property was purchased; and a subdivision was placed for review by staff.  He stated they were originally told it was not going to happen that way; they then found out that a piece of the property was one of the proposed rights-of-way for the parkway that was going to go through there; and they have gone through a number of hoops including substantial redesign.  He stated within their project they have left the area open for the roadway; they have over-engineered the drainage so that section of the road can use their drainage; and they have been able to resolve with the staff most of the issues that they have asked for waivers on.  He stated the one sticking point is Simon Road; it is a dirt road that access the property; it was originally on the list of roads to be paved; and there had been more than $300,000 set for funding of that, but the funding was removed.  He stated staff has asked his clients to get engineering for the entire construction of the road; but before they do that, which will involve a substantial outlay of additional funds, and after going through the process for more than a year, they wish to request tentative approve of the plat contingent upon being able to satisfy Road and Bridge that the design can accommodate the various Statutes and Ordinances that they would be bound by on a road allowing access into the project.  He stated the project would be development of 81 lots; more than two-thirds of those lots would flow onto the parkway, bringing it down to 21 or 23 that would use Simon Road after construction of the parkway; what the applicant is looking for today is for the Board to tell them that if they can get the access to the property that meets County standards, the Board will allow them to press on with the development; and it would seem equitable to allow them an opportunity spend the money for the engineering knowing that there is a carrot at the end of the stick.  He advised their engineer John Campbell is present to answer questions.  He stated they are asking the County to look at the entire plat, tell them that it seems to meet the County’s criteria, and tentatively approve it contingent on being able to meet the access requirements.  He stated there are some drainage issues that would have to be addressed; but there is sufficient right-of-way.  He stated it is on the section line so there is a roadway on either side of the section line of 20 feet; and there also may be future roadway access that has been acquired through maintenance out there, so he does not believe additional land would be necessary.  He stated the engineers have advised the plans can be done so the road would meet County standards; and they are going to request the County build the road and the applicant will pay for it.  He stated that way the road will be built to County standards; and the applicant will front the money for engineering and construction.  He stated the development in its design sets aside property for the beltway and that portion of the drainage. 

 

John Campbell stated he is the surveyor of the platted property and also filed the petition to vacate the right-of-way in Orange Gardens, which was created in the early 1920’s; the road was never built; there has never been any occupation of the property; there has never been anyone who used the road; and the road sits in the eastern third of the subdivision.  He stated in order to replat, they need the Board to vacate the road right-of-way; and they have filed the necessary

paperwork.  Mr. Campbell stated he knows of no objections from the public to the vacating; they did an extensive survey; and it shows that the roadway was never used by the public for any purpose at all, and was, in fact, pasture land.  He stated the engineers and attorneys are more concerned with the Woodbridge Farms item; and requested the Board approve the vacating of the road right-of-way regardless of the decision on the tentative plat because it is an encumbrance on the land.  

 

Chairperson Colon requested Mr. Knox comment on the precedent; and stated there seem to be several issues that need to be addressed.  County Attorney Scott Knox stated the issue is whether or not there is adequate road right-of-way for Simon Road; and if the Board allows the 81 units to access over that roadway and its standard is 50 feet, there is the question of whether or not the Board is permitting something that should not be allowed, or waiving something that is normally required for subdivisions of that size.  He stated to the extent the Board allows that, it opens the door to the possibility that this could happen someplace else.  He stated there may be conditions that could be imposed that would allow the Board to restrict the precedent setting value; but that is something the Board will have to discuss.  He stated as a rule of thumb, once the Board allows something in a substandard type of environment, it has set a precedent. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Board approves this, will it have a substandard road.  Ed Lyon, Permitting and Enforcement Director stated the request on the table is to approve a road design at 40 feet; there are many engineering concerns with that; and it would be below the County standard, which is currently a minimum of 50 feet.  Commissioner Bolin stated roads are sacred; and she would not approve a substandard road. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired how this item is different from the one the Board just turned down in Merritt Island; and stated it is the same thing.  Commissioner Nelson stated the only difference is one is off the right-of-way. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to deny requested final engineering and preliminary plat approvals for Woodbridge Farms Subdivision.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to deny adoption of a resolution vacating unimproved rights-of way in Orange Gardens Subdivision, as petitioned by Ulbricht & Blazik.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired how long has it been since the Board increased these fees; with County Manager Peggy Busacca responding they have never been increased and $3 was the original number established by the State.  Commissioner Voltz inquired what brought it up now; with Ms. Busacca responding the State passed legislation that would allow it to happen, and which became effective on July 1, 2007.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board is going to do it just because it is allowed; with Ms. Busacca responding that is the question, whether the Board wants to do it.  Commissioner Voltz inquired is it the same with all three of them; with Ms. Busacca responding yes.  Commissioner Voltz requested staff tell her the difference in the one that says it expands the imposition of the court costs to juvenile dependency cases and the one that says collection of $65 to court costs to juvenile dependency cases.  Deputy County Attorney Shannon Wilson responded in both cases the fee is already imposed in most adult cases; and what is proposed is to expand the collection to juvenile delinquency cases, so it will be a little bit more money to the extent it is collectible from the juveniles in question.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if staff knows how much money this will raise; with Ms. Wilson responding staff is trying to project that now; they are trying to get good information on the number of cases where they are able to collect from the juveniles in question; and that becomes the problem.  Commissioner Voltz inquired what is the difference between the $3 and the $65 because they both say court costs to juvenile delinquency.  Ms. Wilson responded it has to do with the use of the money; in one case the $3 goes to teen court; but the $65 imposition goes into five different funds, including teen court or other juvenile programs, support of law libraries, and support of certain court facilities.  Commissioner Voltz stated she is not looking to fees just because the State says the County can do them; and she is not going to support it.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated these are people who have been through the courts and have done bad things; with Ms. Wilson advising presumably that is the case.  Commissioner Nelson stated the money can offset some costs and go back into teen use.  Commissioner Voltz stated that is if it can be collected.  Commissioner Nelson stated he understands that; if it was just a fee for the sake of having a fee, that would be one thing; but these are fees that are being collected from people who have been through the system and they will go back to benefit some of the same kids.  Commissioner Voltz stated at the same time it puts a constraint on somebody and they have to pay $65 versus whatever it is now.  Ms.  Wilson advised the amount is not being increased, but types of cases on which it can be collected is being increased.  Commissioner Voltz stated the parents are going to have to pay, so this is actually extending it to parents because most of the juveniles will not be able to pay.  Ms. Wilson noted if it was her child, the child would have to pay somehow.  Commissioner Nelson stated Ms. Wilson worked with a lot of cases when he was in Parks and Recreation where kids went out and did stupid things; and it was part of the learning lesson that they had to pay some of the things, so he supports the expansion. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Sections 38-4(b), 38-5(c), and Ordinance 04-26, expanding the types of cases through which certain court costs could be imposed by the Circuit and County Courts upon sentencing.

 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she will vote in favor because she does not want to be obstinate; and her concern is not about the money that comes in, but whether it can be collected and whether the Board is raising it just because it can. 

 

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

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote the meeting adjourned at 2:33 p.m.

 

 

 

ATTEST:                                                                     _________________________________

                                                                                    JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON

                                                                                    BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                                    BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

___________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

 

 

            (S E A L)