The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on August 3, 1999, at 9:07 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Truman Scarborough, Commissioners Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, Sue Carlson, and Helen Voltz, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Reverend Ron Meyr, Faith Lutheran Church. Reverend Meyr called for a moment of silence in memory of Deputy Adcock.

Commissioner Nancy Higgs led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

WAIVER OF REPROCESSING FEE, RE: BUD CRISAFULLI

Commissioner O'Brien stated Bud Crisafulli applied for a change in zoning on May 13, 1999, and was given a hearing date of July 6, 1999 for an appearance before the Planning and Zoning Board; and Mr. Crisafulli's hearing was changed to July 15, 1999 before the North Merritt Island Special District Board. He stated Mr. Crisafulli was unable to attend the July 15, 1999 meeting due to a previously scheduled deposition, and the item had to be tabled by the North Merritt Island Special District Board creating a reprocessing fee of $461.60.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to waive the reprocessing fee of $461.60 for Bud Crisafulli for zoning item which was rescheduled to be heard by the North Merritt Island Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LETTER, RE: COMMENDING VIRGINIA BARKER

Commissioner O'Brien read aloud a letter from Joe LaPolla, Deputy Executive Director of Port Canaveral, commending Virginia Barker, Office of Natural Resources, for her work on the shore protection project.

POSTPONEMENT, RE: OLEANDER POWER PLANT BINDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Commissioner Carlson stated she had expected to bring an agenda item back to the Board at this meeting regarding the Oleander Power Plant and the binding development plan, but she has been unable to secure a copy of the draft for discussion; so discussion of the project will be postponed to August 12, 1999. She requested the County Attorney advise of the current legal scenarios with Oleander Power Plant.

Chairman Scarborough stated performance zoning will be discussed on August 10, 1999. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board can decide whether to discuss Oleander Power Plant at the end of the workshop or keep it strictly performance based zoning, or discuss the whole item on August 12, 1999.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board does not review site plans; and inquired why it would be put on an agenda without going through staff review, and is Commissioner Carlson talking about a settlement discussion; with Commissioner Carlson responding affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Commissioner Carlson wants to do it prior to the court hearing on August 13, 1999. County Attorney Scott Knox stated there are two ways to resolve the hearing that is scheduled for August 13, 1999; one is the settlement of the lawsuit, which is what they were hoping the binding development plan would provide opportunity to do; but he has not received that although Mr. Spielvogel advises he will have it by this afternoon. He stated if that does not occur, then the hearing will need to go forward; and if the Board moves forward without adopting any performance based zoning applicable to industrial uses, the chances of a defense are very limited. He stated if performance based zoning has been adopted, that would allow some defense. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the judge will rule on August 13; with Mr. Knox responding it is possible the judge could enjoin the County to consider the site plan under the old rules. Commissioner Higgs stated usually there is a hearing and the judge takes the evidence into consideration; and inquired if Mr. Knox expects there could be a ruling. Mr. Knox responded if the Board has not adopted performance standards, the judge will be able to rule immediately. Commissioner Carlson stated Constellation has agreed on most of the performance based zoning issues that the Board was going to discuss, and will put them into the binding development plan.

Chairman Scarborough expressed concern that no matter how much things appear to be in order, there can be a wild card that can be a deal killer; and stated if it is possible to get everything on the table on August 10, 1999, then any loose ends could be resolved.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the interest of the Board is to bring this up after the performance based zoning workshop. Chairman Scarborough stated that would be good; and if there are loose ends, there are a couple of days to work on them. Commissioner Carlson stated she talked to Florida TODAY about getting something in the paper; they suggested an editorial; and she will be putting one together. Chairman Scarborough stated that type of information will be helpful to everyone.

APPOINTMENT, RE: CITIZEN BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint Pat Eder, replacing Tom Flavin, to the Citizen Budget Review Committee from August 3, 1999 through December 31, 1999. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: PROPERTY ABUTTING CASTAWAY POINT

Commissioner Voltz stated there was a newspaper article last week about a piece of property for sale in Castaway Point; it is adjoining the new park which the City of Palm Bay just opened; and inquired if there is some way the County could purchase this property so it does not get developed. Commissioner Higgs suggested the Florida Communities Trust; with Commissioner Voltz advising it is already too late for that. Commissioner Voltz stated she spoke with Lobbyist Guy Spearman about getting money to fund this; she has $140,000 in Beach and Riverfront money; the purchase price is $600,000; and recommended the Board look at ways to purchase the property, in conjunction with the City of Palm Bay, if necessary.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to investigate ways to purchase the property abutting Castaway Point property. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated the property abuts the Castaway Point property; but the priority for the City and the people is boating access; and the Board will need to weigh both of those things to see what can be done.

ANNOUNCEMENT, RE: MEETING WITH COUNTY COMMISSION CHAIRMEN

Chairman Scarborough stated after meeting with Orange County Chairman Mel Martinez, he decided to meet with all other Chairmen of adjoining counties; and he already met with the Chairman of Seminole County.

CONTRACT WITH PORTOFINO DEVELOPMENT GROUP, RE: INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS IN PORTOFINO BAY SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Contract with Portofino Development Group guaranteeing infrastructure improvements for Portofino Bay Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVER OF PERMIT FEES, RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PAVILION AT SHERIFF'S LAKE IN PORT ST. JOHN

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to waive building permit fees of $183, fire plan review fees of $133.12, and address assignment fee of $35.00 for a total of $351.12 for the pavilion at Sheriff's Lake in Port St. John. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE FILING FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, RE: ILLEGAL BOARDING HOUSE

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the County Attorney's Office to seek injunctive relief to abate use of single-family residential property at 3717 Chiara Drive, Titusville as a boarding house. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE LETTER TO BREVARD COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES, RE: ABILITY TO COMMENT ON REZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSALS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Chairman to sign a letter to identify interest in establishing an interlocal agreement to allow neighboring municipalities and the County to comment on rezoning or future land use map amendments proposed within a specified distance from a municipal/County boundary. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY CLOSING, RE: HUNTINGTON AVENUE FOR REHABILITATION OF FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING IN SCOTTSMOOR

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve temporary closing of Huntington Avenue from August 16 through 18, 1999 for rehabilitation of the grade crossing by Florida East Coast Railway Company. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS, INC., RE: SPACE AT GIBSON CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment to Lease Agreement with Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. increasing the space, and extending lease to August 16, 2001 for use by the First Step Early Intervention Program offered by ARC at Gibson Community Center. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENTS TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH INTERCHANGE SQUARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, RE: OFFICES FOR TAX COLLECTOR, PROPERTY APPRAISER, AND SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS IN PALM BAY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendments to Lease Agreement with Interchange Square Limited Partnership extending the leases at Interchange Square in Palm Bay through April 30, 2001 for the offices of the Tax Collector, Property Appraiser and Supervisor of Elections. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE NATIONAL TECHNICAL ASSOCIATION, RE: SUBLET SPACE AT GIBSON CENTER TO ALZHEIMER'S FOUNDATION, INC.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the National Technical Association to sublet space at Gibson Community Center to Brevard Alzheimer's Foundation, Inc., with the Foundation paying the County for utilities pro-rated at $360 annually. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE WITH HEARD CONSTRUCTION, AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACT, RE: CONSTRUCTION OF HABITAT GOLF COURSE PRO SHOP

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the guaranteed maximum price with Heard Construction for construction of Habitat Golf Course Pro Shop at $290,169; and execute Contract with Heard Construction for the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE TEFRA PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TRINITY EPISCOPAL ACADEMY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize advertising a TEFRA hearing to consider industrial development revenue bond for Trinity Episcopal Academy. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RENEWAL AGREEMENT WITH SPEARMAN MANAGEMENT, INC., RE: LOBBYING SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Renewal Agreement with Spearman Management, Inc. for lobbying services for FY 2000 at $51,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT WITH ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO., RE: INSURANCE BROKERAGE SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. amending existing Agreement for insurance brokerage services for property insurance, general liability insurance, public officials and employees liability insurance, and workers compensation reinsurance for a period of three years at a flat fee. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF PROPOSAL #P-1-9-12, GOLF MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SOFTWARE, AND PERMISSION TO BID AND AWARD BID FOR HARDWARE SYSTEM, RE: GOLF MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR COUNTY GOLF COURSES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to award Proposal #P1-9-12, Golf Management System Software, to Computer Golf Software at an estimated $57,900 for software, file creation, and on-site installation and training; and grant permission to bid and award to the lowest responsive bidder for hardware to support the software system. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL TO NAME SECTION OF COUNTY FACILITY, RE: GEORGE ZAHM EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER ANNEX

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve naming a new section of the Emergency Operations Center as the George Zahm Emergency Operations Center Annex in recognition of his dedication and countless hours of volunteer service to Brevard County Emergency Management. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOMMENDING TERION, INC. BE APPROVED AS A QUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution recommending Terion, Inc. be approved as a qualified target industry, and requesting the local financial support be waived and matched through Brevard County's Tax Abatement Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve bills and budget changes, as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING DRAINAGE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN PLAT OF SUNTREE PUD, STAGE 90 AND PLAT OF CORPLEX - GOLDEN TRIANGLE REALTY, INC.

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating drainage right-of-way in Plat of Suntree PUD, Stage 90 and Plat of Corplex as petitioned by Golden Triangle Realty, Inc.

Commissioner Carlson advised she met with the applicant's attorney, Philip Nohrr; and there was an objection to the item, but it has been resolved.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution vacating drainage right-of-way in Plat of Suntree PUD, Stage 90 and Plat of Corplex as petitioned by Golden Triangle Realty, Inc. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REVISIONS TO MERIT SYSTEM POLICY IX, EMERGENCY LEAVE

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider revisions to Merit System Policy IX, Emergency Leave.

Commissioner Voltz stated there are several reasons listed why the County would pay for bereavement; and inquired about an employee's grandchild. Human Resources Director Frank

Abbate advised the definition on the last page speaks about immediate family which would include grandchildren.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to amend Merit System Policy IX, Emergency Leave, expanding the provision for emergency leave to include grandparents and step relatives who raised or were raised by the employee, and deleting the word "natural" from parent. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE GRANTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AD VALOREM EXEMPTION TO SUTTON PROPERTIES ON BEHALF OF HETRA SECURE SOLUTIONS, INC.

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance granting economic development ad valorem exemption to Sutton Properties on behalf of Hetra Secure Solutions, Inc.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, Commissioner Voltz, to adopt an Ordinance granting economic development ad valorem exemption to Sutton Properties on behalf of Hetra Secure Solutions, Inc., 2350 Commerce Park Drive, NE, Palm Bay, Florida 32905; specifying the items exempted; providing the expiration date of the exemption; finding that the business meets the requirements of F.S. 196.012; providing for proof of eligibility for exemption; providing for an annual report by Sutton Properties on behalf of Hetra Secure Solutions, Inc.; providing an effective date.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what kind of supportive information does staff get when it gets the number of employees and salaries. Economic Development Director Greg Lugar responded the Board requested IRS or unemployment compensation forms be provided to show number of employees; but in terms of wages, the County does not have the ability to get any information. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Lugar cannot request supportive information; with Mr. Lugar responding he can ask as part of the annual report process, but it is difficult to get the actual numbers. Commissioner Carlson stated if they want the abatement, they should provide whatever the County wants them to provide; with Mr. Lugar responding he will ask for those figures.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct that applicants for economic development ad valorem exemption be required to present evidence documenting the number of employees and wages for which they are requesting abatement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Voltz inquired what kind of information could they provide; with Commissioner Higgs responding W-2 forms.

Discussion ensued on annual report, verification of figures, ability to decertify, net benefit formula, and EDC impact analysis.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Hetra Secure Solutions added $438,000 of existing machinery to its application; and he does not know if the Board wants to provide exemption for equipment already owned. Mr. Lugar advised if it is machinery that is brought in from outside the County which is not on the Property Appraiser's roll, it is considered as new; and that has been done for three or four other companies including USBI.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE GRANTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AD VALOREM EXEMPTION TO TERION, INC.

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance granting economic development ad valorem exemption to Terion, Inc.

There being no comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt an Ordinance granting an economic development ad valorem exemption to Terion, Inc., 420 North Wickham Road, Melbourne, Florida 32935; specifying the items exempted; providing expiration date of the exemption; finding that the business meets the requirements of F.S. 196.012; providing for proof of eligibility for exemption; providing for an annual report by Terion, Inc.; providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: SPEED HUMP CRITERIA AND OTHER RELATED ISSUES

Sheriff Philip Williams stated there have been a lot of petitions for speed humps in various areas of the County; and in a perfect world, there would be sufficient enforcement in targeted areas where there are complaints so speed humps would not be required. He advised of the inability of Sheriff's units to respond if there are speed humps and the possibility of damage to vehicles crossing speed humps at 45 to 50 mph; and stated the placement of speed humps in targeted areas could serve for those who live in the area as motivation to reroute themselves, but not to curtail speeds. He stated if speed humps were the panacea they are believed to be, it would be possible to slow down traffic in a confined area such as Port St. John or Barefoot Bay. He stated they are struggling to find a solution where the normal posted speed traffic is not impeded, and he would like to work with Mr. Thompson and Traffic Engineering in a more focused manner. He stated Ms. Rupe provided a list of the ten streets with most complaints in Port St. John; he has asked North Precinct supervisors to formulate an enforcement plan to address those issues; and time is needed to do that. He advised how complaints are currently handled; and stated by the time they slow things down at location A, and move to location B, there are complaints about location C and location A is as bad as it was before they got there. He stated Mr. Thompson may choose to revise some of the criteria for speed humps; traffic counts, speed estimates, and traffic patterns need study; they intend to meet the challenge of controlling traffic in the unincorporated area; and he does not endorse a program of putting speed humps everywhere without a planned approach. He advised of Ms. Rupe's comments about traffic circles; and suggested looking at that possibility as new neighborhoods are developed and old ones are reconfigured.

Commissioner O'Brien stated later on the Agenda, Troy Yates will be discussing a denial of speed humps; and Mr. Yates advised the Sheriff does not enforce the speed limit. Sheriff Williams stated Mr. Yates may have made a request for enforcement, but they have yet to get to him.

Commissioner Carlson inquired about smart trailers; with Sheriff Williams responding they temporarily catch the drivers' attention. He stated it is a neighborhood, age group, or County culture that has to be reined in; and that is one method to provide a warning that the Sheriff is paying attention to speed, followed by warning tickets and traffic tickets. Commissioner Carlson inquired how long are the trailers usually set up; with Sheriff Williams responding on a major thoroughfare, it would be up for a couple of days. Commissioner Carlson inquired how many does the Sheriff have; with Traffic Engineering Director Dick Thompson responding the City of Cocoa has one the County has borrowed, and a grant request is being written for one. Commissioner Carlson inquired if they are able to collect data with the trailers; with Sheriff Williams responding it would collect data, but Traffic Engineering is capable of doing the same thing without the trailer. Mr. Thompson stated the trailer is an educational tool which alerts motorists of driving speeds; and he understands it is possible to buy trailers that record the speed.

Discussion ensued on limit on locations for trailers, manpower needs, accuracy of trailer units, effect of trailers on speeders, use of off-duty deputies, changing speeders' behavior, and public criticism. Commissioner Higgs suggested the County Manager look at fine and forfeiture revenues to estimate what might be available for a set-aside fund for overtime traffic enforcement only.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the County has community resource officers; with Sheriff Williams responding there is a crime prevention staff of three people. Commissioner Carlson suggested looking into that possibility; and stated it is effective in the City of Melbourne. Sheriff Williams stated that can be done in those areas where there are community policing units like Barefoot Bay and Port St. John; and advised of donation of two radar-equipped motorcycle units by Orlando Utilities and Florida Power & Light to the Port St. John Community Policing Units which, when they are not on calls, could be used for traffic enforcement. Commissioner Carlson stated the referendum for additional deputies is coming; and inquired about the positive implications in terms of the problems being discussed. Sheriff Williams outlined the benefits of having additional deputies.

Maureen Rupe, President of the Port St. John Homeowners Association, expressed concerns about number of motorists within half-mile of school zones or crosswalks, notification of homeowner groups about speed hump requests, and 90-day enforcement period by Sheriff's Office. She stated speed humps are a band-aid; they do not work; and recommended a long-term solution. She requested the Board consider requiring roads in new developments have a minimal horizontal curvature on the streets, and plan for additional right-of-way and traffic calming devices.

Chairman Scarborough stated there was a committee in Port St. John that spent a considerable amount of time going over a number of issues; there is no simple or easy answer; and the problem does not lend itself to formula analysis. He stated the Sheriff is requesting the Board defer this so he can see how the introduction of additional law enforcement will impact the implementation of the plans. He stated there are a number of impending speed humps; and he does not know if the Sheriff is asking if they be held in abeyance from consideration. Commissioner Voltz stated if the Board is not going to hold them in abeyance, it should take action.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is not uncomfortable with the criteria the way they are; and the existing criteria with the change to the average volume might be useful. She stated right now there are five criteria; the Board is approving speed humps when four of the five criteria are met; and the one that is not being met is the percentage over the posted speed limit. She suggested amending the criteria to say four of the five must be met and the average daily volume must be met; and stated then the policy would be consistent with the Board's practice, and the Board would have a standard it is implementing.

Discussion ensued on whether to hold pending speed hump requests in abeyance, meeting four of five criteria, and not waiving average daily traffic volume.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there will be a proliferation of speed humps if the criteria is four out of five criteria and average daily volume of 1,500; and expressed concern about emergency vehicles. Commissioner Voltz stated 1,500 would make it more restrictive with fewer speed humps. Mr. Thompson stated the volume of traffic is not as critical; it is the speed of the traffic; and by having the volume limited to 1,500, it will not affect 5% of the requests. He stated speed humps are permitted on local residential streets; typically volumes will not be greater than that unless it is a cut-through; and advised how an assessment is done for typical number of trips to show the number of cut-throughs. He noted most of the speed hump requests have had very little concern about the volume of traffic; and it is just speed.

Commissioner Higgs inquired about adding another criterion to address the effects of the cut-through traffic; and stated they do not want to put in a speed hump and traffic go to another street. Chairman Scarborough advised of circumstances with a quadrangle and of a speed hump request coming in simultaneously with a road paving; stated speeding is pervasive; and inquired if the desire is to put speed humps on every street. He stated every time a speed hump is installed, it impacts the whole traffic movement.

Commissioner Higgs suggested adding "there will be no adverse impact as a result of changed traffic patterns." Chairman Scarborough stated it cannot say no impact. Commissioner Higgs suggested "limited." Chairman Scarborough suggested "any other relevant item"; so if there is something that could be relevant, it could be brought up for consideration. He stated it is impossible to define this with a formula; and if there is some strange traffic thing that is going to occur, the Board should be able to say no. Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees; and recommended incorporating EMS response times. Chairman Scarborough stated that is something else that could be considered.

Chief Bill Farmer advised EMS does lose time; the speed humps are designed for cars; fire engines and ambulances have to almost come to a complete stop to go over the hump both going to the call and when the patient is in the back of the rig going to the hospital. He noted the increase in response time would depend on how many speed humps there are on a street. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there are any critical areas that are more difficult to get to where response time would be crucial; with Chief Farmer responding areas with limited access like Port St. John or Canaveral Groves would be impacted by speed humps on the access roads.

Commissioner Higgs suggested the Board include a sixth criterion. Chairman Scarborough stated the sixth criterion would not be one of the four out of five; and suggested it say the Board may deny the request based on any unusual traffic effects that would be found to be detrimental.

Commissioner Higgs suggested at a minimum the request meet four out of the five criteria established with average daily volume at 1,500, and the Board may deny speed humps due to adverse impacts that are identified in the particular situation. Commissioner Carlson stated the adverse impacts should relate to health, safety, etc. Chairman Scarborough advised of a circumstance where a speed hump was requested 20 feet from a stop sign; and stated it met the criteria, but it was stupid.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve the five existing criteria for speed humps, with number 4 modified to establish the daily traffic volume at 1,500; direct that four out of five criteria must be met for approval, but that the Board may choose to deny speed humps where circumstances and impacts dictate even though criteria may have been met. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if a motion is necessary to direct the County Manager to look into some way of setting up a fund that could be used for special enforcement activities in neighborhoods. Commissioner Voltz suggested leaving that up to the Sheriff to figure out. Commissioner Higgs stated it is a funding issue; and if they are generating additional revenue in enforcement, that might be used for a special fund for local street traffic enforcement.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct the County Manager to investigate ways to set up a fund to be used for special enforcement activities in neighborhoods. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the progress on the land development regulations as they apply to traffic calming. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated he will check. Commissioner Carlson stated she would like to pursue some sort of a study regarding that because there are other issues in the Land Development Code that could be addressed as well.

Assistant Public Works Director Ed Washburn inquired if staff should continue to accept speed hump requests. Chairman Scarborough advised the Board will continue to hear them under the new rules.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Land Development Regulations for Conditional Use Permits (CUP).

Attorney Leonard Spielvogel expressed concern about paragraph 1.c dealing with reductions in value; and inquired if it is talking about short-term or long-term reductions. He expressed concern about language on page 5 dealing with maximum allowable noise sound pressure levels; and suggested deferring this aspect of the CUP until the performance standards are resolved. He read aloud from page 7, item d, "Due to changed conditions in the surrounding neighborhood as it has developed, would now cause imminent peril . . . "; and stated people should take responsibility for where they build and where they move. He noted the classic case is people who built up around the Merritt Island Airport, and then objected to the airport even though it was obvious; and stated there are people who are moving close to the County dump; the dump does not meet odor requirements; and the County has indicated it would be bound by the same standards, and not be above the law. He stated people who have moved close to the County dump probably got property cheaper; and then when the wind blows in a particular direction, they find the smell objectionable. Chairman Scarborough advised that is not true; he represents that area; and that has not occurred.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there has been any property value differential based on moving in around land like that; with Chairman Scarborough responding there is a belief that properties are selling at a lesser value than they would if they were not near the dump, but he does not know to what extent. He advised the Board could probably get information from the Property Appraiser.

County Manager Tom Jenkins invited Mr. Spielvogel on a personal tour of the County's landfill.

Jay Decator, Counsel for The Viera Company, expressed concern about language on page 2 which provides that the Board can consider appropriate safeguards where the applicant does not meet general and specific standards to protect adjoining properties and the immediate neighborhood; and advised the ordinance does discuss nearby properties. Chairman Scarborough inquired if immediate neighborhood needs to be changed to nearby; with Mr. Decator responding there is a definition for nearby in the ordinance. Mr. Decator advised the ordinance provides that the burden is on the applicant to show that he or she meets general and specific standards in an appropriate case, but does not say who determines what is appropriate. He expressed concern about language on page 6 dealing with hours of operation which talks about impacts of commercial and industrial uses adjacent to residential uses; and requested that be changed to adjacent or near to residential uses. He stated the last item on page 7 concerns the ability of the Board to modify or revoke conditional use permits that have not been implemented yet; questioned how someone would show imminent peril; and suggested using the language "substantial and adverse impact on public health and safety."

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the ordinance will come back to the Board; with Commissioner Higgs recommending it be done today. Zoning Official Rick Enos advised it does not need two public hearings.

Commissioner Carlson advised of a typographical error on page 2; stated page 4 says the proposed use will be "reasonably compatible"; and inquired whether the word "reasonably" is defined. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Carlson wants to strike "reasonably" and just say "be compatible"; with Commissioner Carlson responding yes. Commissioner Carlson stated it also says the Board of County Commissioners carries the burden to show, as evidenced by an appraisal conducted by an MAI certified appraiser, that a substantial diminution in value would occur; and inquired if that has occurred. Chairman Scarborough stated it would be future. Commissioner Carlson stated page 5 says, "Where the design of a public road to be used by the proposed use is physically inadequate to handle the numbers, types or weights of vehicles expected to be generated by the proposed use without damage to the road, the conditional use permit cannot be approved without a commitment to improve the road to a standard adequate to handle the proposed traffic"; and inquired if that includes the maintenance. Mr. Enos stated if the road is a County road, once it is brought up to the standard, then the County would maintain it. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the County would maintain it at that standard with the initial cost to upgrade to be borne by the user; with Mr. Enos responding if that is what the Board's desire would be as part of the approval of the CUP. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it should include maintenance since it will be used by the user specifically; with Commissioner Voltz responding not only the user. Mr. Enos stated if it is a County road, the County already has the maintenance. Chairman Scarborough stated Public Works has required some people, when they will be using heavy equipment, to put up maintenance bonds, so it is not contrary to practice when there is unusually heavy or destructive use. Commissioner Higgs recommended adding that. Commissioner Voltz inquired where has that been done before; with Chairman Scarborough responding in the Tico Airport area where there was hauling of dirt.

Discussion ensued about additional conditions, maintenance, and maintenance bonds.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to add language providing the Board may require additional steps by the proposer to insure the quality of the road, including a maintenance bond. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Spielvogel brought up the issue of noise levels; and suggested the Board adopt this now, and then come back if it initiates performance based zoning. She stated she would rather have something now instead of taking it out and leaving it in limbo. She stated she is in agreement with Mr. Decator's comments about imminent peril on page 7; substantial and adverse impacts would include nuisance; and inquired if this is nuisance abatement. Commissioner Higgs noted Mr. Knox suggested detrimental. Mr. Knox advised substantial and adverse impact may be better than detrimental.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve changing the language on page 7 from imminent peril to substantial and adverse impacts in sections a and d. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien thanked Mr. Spielvogel, Mr. Decator, Mr. Knox, and staff for all the work they have put into the ordinance.

Commissioner Higgs expressed concern about language on page 2 which opens everything to the Board's discretion; and requested Mr. Knox speak to what the Board may find itself confronting. Mr. Knox stated it may unravel everything the Board is trying to do by putting the specific standards for considering conditional use permits because it is saying if those standards are not met, the Board can still do what it wants, which is what the courts do not like. Commissioner Higgs stated that concerns her; the Board is trying to set up some standards, then it is saying if people do not meet those standards, everything is okay as long as the Board in its sole discretion says it is okay.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to amend the draft to delete language on page 2, " . . . unless the Board, in its sole discretion, prescribes appropriate conditions and safeguards to compensate for such inability on the part of the applicant in order to reduce the impact of the proposed conditional use on adjacent properties or the immediate neighborhood. If the applicant either meets its initial burden or claims to have done so, then the Board has the burden to show, by substantial and competent evidence, that the applicant has failed to meet such standards and the request is adverse to the public interest."

Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not agree; it says, "prescribes appropriate conditions and safeguards to compensate for the inability on the part of the applicant in order to reduce the impact of the proposed conditional use"; and the Board is leaving the door open to issue a conditional use permit provided appropriate conditions and safeguards are met. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has set up basic standards that have to be met, then it is saying the people do not have to meet the standards because the Board can waive that, and it opens a legal argument that would throw out almost anything the Board tries to do. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if that is really the case. Mr. Knox responded when the courts have thrown out the Board's decisions on conditional use permits, they have said that the Board has such broad criteria that it allows people to do so much that it is easy to meet them; and if the Board includes this condition, and an applicant comes up with another proposal that does not meet the criteria, and the Board does not like it, the applicant can claim the Board was not exercising reasonable discretion, and should not have turned it down. Commissioner Voltz stated the second part beginning with, "if the applicant either meets its initial burden" is okay, but the first part should not be in it. She stated the second part makes sense because if an applicant meets the initial burden or claims to have done so, the Board has the burden to show that the applicant has failed to meet the standards and the request is adverse to the public interest but the first part should not be in there. Chairman Scarborough requested Commissioner Higgs make two motions; with Commissioner Higgs responding she can do that.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to amend the ordinance to delete language on page 2, " . . . unless the Board, in its sole discretion, prescribes appropriate conditions and safeguards to compensate for such inability on the part of the applicant in order to reduce the impact of the proposed conditional use on adjacent properties or the immediate neighborhood."

Discussion ensued on lack of elasticity to allow approval, laws that stifle the public, advice of the County Attorney, number of cases lost, and burden to have competent and substantial evidence.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs, Carlson, and Voltz voted aye; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

Mr. Knox advised the second sentence with the exception of the words "either" and "or claims to have done so" is what the law requires; and where they do meet the burden, it becomes the Board's burden to show that they have not met the standards. Commissioner Higgs stated if the language "claims to have done so" is dropped, then it is simply reiterating the law. Mr. Knox stated "claims to have done so" creates a lower threshold for the applicant. Chairman Scarborough stated anyone reading it would claim it; and inquired about striking "claims to have done so."

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to strike the words "claims to have done so." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Knox had an opportunity to talk to the appraisers regarding language on page 4 concerning the irrebutable presumption. Mr. Knox advised they had a tough time wrestling with the percentages and thought if the impact was adverse and measurable at all, it should be considered; and that will vary from property to property. Commissioner Voltz inquired how can it be corrected; with Mr. Knox responding having a percentage that is rebuttable is a good idea; and the question is what percentages the Board wishes to pick. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Knox is saying the language is okay, but the percentage is the Board's policy call. Mr. Knox stated if there is a 10% threshold for rebuttable presumption, it could be higher or lower depending on the circumstances. Commissioner Higgs stated a 10% reduction may be significant; and she is more comfortable with less than the 20%. Chairman Scarborough suggested 15%.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to amend language under 1.c on page 4 changing percentage from 20% to 15%. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated on page 6 there is language concerning when the Board can revoke a conditional use permit which says the Board cannot do anything until two years have passed; and that unnecessarily limits future boards. She stated additional information may come forward in the two-year period that may indicate a need for it to be revoked; and advised of a situation with tropical birds. Commissioner Voltz stated they need to be given sufficient time; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Board can look at that. Commissioner Carlson requested legal verbiage. Commissioner Higgs recommended leaving it without a time period. Commissioner Carlson stated it will leave the revocation open; with Commissioner Higgs advising the time period will be unspecified.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to delete the time period from (d)(1) on page 6. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is a time limit on a conditional use permit which has not been used; with Mr. Enos responding paragraph F on page 8.

Commissioner Voltz stated most of the changes she wanted have been addressed; and the rest should not be a problem. She inquired why the Board is addressing the issue of conditional use permits when it is going through the process of performance based zoning. Commissioner Higgs stated that deals with only industrial, and there are conditional use permits in all kinds of areas.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if anything is included that may affect present conditional use permits that are more than three years old; with Mr. Enos responding yes, on page 7, paragraph 3. Mr. Enos read, "conditional use permits approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance which remain unused three years or more after the effective date of the ordinance"; and those would have to be administratively removed. Commissioner Voltz inquired if those people will be notified; with Mr. Enos responding affirmatively. Discussion ensued on a time frame for notification.

Chairman Scarborough inquired about the term "reasonably compatible" on page 4, paragraph b; with Mr. Enos responding there was a motion to strike that. Chairman Scarborough stated on page 6, subparagraph h, Mr. Decator indicated a need to add the words "or near to" after "adjacent"; with Mr. Enos advising the Board has not made a motion on that.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to add the words "or near to" after "adjacent" on page 6, subparagraph h. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if that would affect the truss company on Cox Road.

Chairman Scarborough inquired about additional desired action. Mr. Enos advised Mr. Decator commented on page 2, but the line was deleted; and he had an objection on page 3 to the term "in an appropriate case."

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to delete "in an appropriate case" on page 3.

Commissioner O'Brien read aloud, "In stating grounds in support of an application for a conditional use permit, it is necessary in an appropriate case to show how the request fulfills both the general and specific standards for review." Commissioner Higgs stated it should be shown in every case; with Commissioner Carlson agreeing.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to strike the word "reasonable" on page 2.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board was told the word "reasonable" has legal standing. Mr. Knox stated this is one place the Board may want to keep the term.

Commissioner Carlson withdrew the motion.

Mr. Knox stated page 4, paragraph c, refers to the burden being on the County to prove the drop in percentage by an appraisal; and suggested adding "as evidenced by either testimony or an appraisal from an MAI." He stated it may not be possible to get a full blown appraisal in certain circumstances.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to add "as evidenced by either testimony or an appraisal from an MAI" on page 4, paragraph c. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt an Ordinance of Brevard County, Florida amending Section 62-1901, Article III, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida pertaining to conditional use permits; amending general conditions for conditional use permits; amending the approval procedure; amending general standards of review; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date, as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (

The meeting recessed at 10:46 a.m. and reconvened at 11:08 a.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: IMPLICATIONS OF PAVING OR NOT PAVING DIRT ROADS

David Gravas stated he is a realtor and property owner on an unpaved road; and the Dirt Road Ordinance is working as is. He stated ten years ago, the County required just paved roads, and nothing was happening because no one could afford to put in paved roads; the Dirt Road Ordinance helped people build a road at minimal costs with the idea that the County would pave the road once 50% of the lots were built on.

Chairman Scarborough advised the County mandates that the residents pave the road; with Mr. Gravas stating it is done under an MSBU. Mr. Gravas stated people living beyond the quarter-mile are counting on it being paved so they can utilize their properties; and if there is a change and the quarter-mile is not paved, there is no provision to allow an extension and the people who are counting on building on their lots will not have that opportunity. He stated there may be people who would like to change the Ordinance, but they agreed to it in the beginning. Chairman Scarborough stated the people liked it when they did not have any expense; but when it came to paying for the MSBU, they decided they didn't like the Ordinance. Mr. Gravas stated they knew at the start they would have this obligation; and it is unfair to change it.

Buzz Tietig, Attorney and owner of Farm and Grove Realty, expressed concern about staff's report; and advised it affects two suits he has against the County, and he told Mr. Knox about this last week. He stated his first concern is that the County may be thinking about eliminating unpaved roads altogether; it has already eliminated paved road MSBU's; and that would leave no mechanism to have roads in his area which would be unfair, illegal, and unconstitutional. He stated if the Board is considering eliminating the inchworm policy, then people more than 1,320 feet from a paved road will have no ability to use their property, which would be unfair and illegal. He stated the third concern stems from equitable contribution over the years which has put an unfair burden upon certain landowners. He stated if someone had an unimproved area, and was allowed to use an MSBU to go from virgin land to a paved road, everyone who has benefited from the road would pay equally; but the way it is now, if an unpaved road is put in, only one or two people on the road pay for it, and then if it goes to an MSBU, it exacerbates the difference; and there should be some cost recognition for the unpaved road. He noted Mr. Minneboo said that 60% of the infrastructure for a paved road is done when the unpaved road is put in; and that cost should be recognized. He stated the unpaved road needs an equitable contribution provision; the Board has been looking at it for two and a half to three years, but nothing has been done; and urged the Board to look at it again.

Delores Boyd stated she bought property on Farnsworth Road as an investment; she never planned to build there; but she is being asked to pay almost a third of what she paid for her property to pave the road. She stated she was not told she would have to pay to pave the road; the County owns more property on Farnsworth Road than anyone; and the older houses are grandfathered. She stated it is unfair for an investor to have to pay such a big percentage to pave such a short street that no one wants paved. She stated she understands the people signed an agreement saying they would pay for the paving, but she never signed anything; and the ones who did sign the agreement do not want the street paved. She stated the County would benefit the most; it wants to add on new streets to bring in property tax; and the County is trying to get her to pay for it. She stated she does not agree with it, and hopes the Board reconsiders.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if Ms. Boyd can sign an agreement if she is not going to ever use her property; with Commissioner Higgs advising Ms. Boyd bought the property for an investment. Ms. Boyd indicated she is not going to personally use the property; with County Manager Tom Jenkins advising Ms. Boyd is going to sell the property. Commissioner Voltz recommended leaving the Ordinance alone.

Commissioner Higgs stated there can be no change in the current contracts with the 39 MSBU properties; and the bigger question is whether the Board wants everyone in the County to live on a paved road. She stated there are some circumstances where unpaved roads would be possible if there were no connecting transportation system that would be adversely affected if the segment was not paved; but it could be difficult to administer; and the only way to do it may be for all property owners to come forward in advance of the MSBU and have an agreement to make it a private road. She stated she does not know how to change the Ordinance in regard to Farnsworth and some of the others that are currently under MSBU contracts; and she does not see a way for the County to not proceed with those due to the contractual obligations. She stated there was never a desire to move in a direction that would not allow some development in the areas that might be dirt roads throughout.

Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees the County needs to keep the contracts in place for the 39 roads, and would not agree on changing the current Code, but would like to discuss the costs of paved versus unpaved roads. She stated there is a 50% increase over a paved road to maintain an unpaved road; somewhere that needs to be borne, and it should not be on the backs of the taxpayers in urban areas; and suggested a more equitable solution be found. Assistant Public Works Director Ed Washburn stated there is a one-time fee when the unpaved road begins, but he does not know whether or not that amortizes out over the number of years it stays an unpaved road; and the Board would have to consider a policy to assess people for the maintenance of an unpaved road. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the current formula now for the assessment upfront; with Mr. Washburn responding there is a one-time $500 fee. Commissioner Higgs stated that does not seem adequate based on the costs. Mr. Washburn stated if the road moves quickly and is paved, there may be some equity, but if it stays unpaved for a number of years, there is probably no equity in the $500 payment.

Discussion ensued on a yearly fee, unpaved road MSBU in Canaveral Groves, inadequacy of the one-time $500 fee, transportation advisory committees, and private maintenance agreements.

Chairman Scarborough stated people went out into the wilderness to build; then they said the County had an obligation to provide services because the County issued the building permit; as more people built, they requested the road be paved; people who purchased in Suntree or Viera bought infrastructure and amenities as part of the price of their house; but people in the wilderness expected the taxpayer to pick up the cost of infrastructure. He stated the discussion has been to allow people to use their properties, but have some type of rationale that as it moves to higher levels of service, the person would have to purchase through an MSTU or MSBU those things which the person in a development purchased with his lot so there is some equity. He stated there is no equity to begin with; a person with a $500,000 house pays a lot of taxes while a person with a trailer and $25,000 homestead exemption pays no taxes; and what the Board is attempting to do is have enough funds to maintain the roads for some level of equity. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there are MSBU's on unpaved roads; with Mr. Jenkins responding there was one in District 1. Commissioner Voltz stated there are none anymore. Chairman Scarborough stated the MSBU is not a bad instrument if everyone is in agreement because it allows upgrade of the property value; and advised of property values in Canaveral Groves which increased far more than the amounts of the liens.

Commissioner Carlson stated maintenance of an unpaved road is more than maintenance of a paved road; and that would be incentive to have paved roads. Commissioner Higgs noted some people do not want paved roads. Commissioner Carlson suggested they could pay the additional cost for the unpaved road. Commissioner Voltz stated an MSBU for an unpaved road sounds good, but the Ordinance still prohibits them from going beyond the first 1,320 feet. Commissioner Higgs stated there might be circumstances where it could be done. Commissioner Carlson stated the folks that want to purchase property off the unpaved road will know the agreement exists, so it will go from unpaved to paved, and it would be the same inchworm perspective. Commissioner Voltz stated if people who live on the unpaved road do not want it paved, they are going to prohibit the next group from going on. Commissioner Higgs stated it depends on the network in the area; there could be a circumstance where there would be a paved road, and a road comes off and dead- ends into a lake; and further development would not be precluded by those people having an unpaved road. Commissioner Voltz stated she would not have a problem considering it, if it was done that way, but not if it would preclude somebody from going further. Chairman Scarborough advised of a similar situation with waterlines; and stated if there is a group of people who want to keep dirt roads, what would have occurred further out will never occur; and it is foolish to have paved, dirt, then paved road.

Commissioner O'Brien recommended leaving the Ordinance alone; with Commissioner Voltz agreeing. Commissioner Carlson stated she is still interested in the assessment issue; with Commissioner Higgs advising she is interested in annual maintenance.

Mr. Tietig stated this could all be solved by having a series of ordinances, paved road MSBU with public funding, paved road MSBU with private funding, unpaved road MSBU with public funding, and unpaved road MSBU with private funding; and suggested instead of having a $500 fee with no relationship to reality, having a maintenance and installation fee. He requested objective accounting; and stated he disagrees with some of the maintenance figures given. He commented on the inchworm policy; and suggested the Board look more toward demand for an area than just physical length. He stated if the Board had the four MSBU's, it would put the burden where it is fairest.

Delores Boyd stated Farnsworth is a unique street; there are people who have been grandfathered in, a few new homeowners who signed an agreement, and some property owners who did not know anything about the MSBU; and the County is the largest landowner on Farnsworth, with 80 acres that back onto Farnsworth. She stated the amount being asked of each homeowner is approximately $5,000 on an $18,000 piece of property; and apparently the County is not paying its share. She stated Farnsworth is a very short street; no one on the street wants it paved; and she would not mind paying something, but $5,000 is out of line.

Commissioner Higgs advised the County does own property that has its access on Valkaria Road; the back of the property is on Farnsworth; and when a property owner does not use the road for access and there is an agreement, the property owner does not pay part of the fee, even if it is a private landowner. She stated part of Farnsworth is grandfathered in and will be paved under the MSTU; part will be paved under the MSBU; and there are two side roads that depend on Farnsworth so it cannot be left unpaved.

Chairman Scarborough suggested doing an analysis of the different options. Ms. Boyd reiterated Farnsworth is unique and should be looked at differently. Commissioner Higgs stated the road will come back to the Board; but the discussion today is about whether or not to move forward; and the Board should not take action today. Commissioner Voltz agreed there is no need to take action. She stated if Ms. Boyd is being charged $5,000, the value of her property will go up and she will be able to get that out of the property when she sells it. Ms. Boyd stated it would be some time before she could recover an extra $5,000; the property on Farnsworth is only worth so much at this point; and that is what it is going to sell for whether it is paved or not. She reiterated her position in terms of the County-owned property, paving not adding value to her property, and the MSBU cost. Chairman Scarborough invited Ms. Boyd to meet with him so he can show her what happened in other areas of the County; and stated she may be making a mistake on her position because in other areas the increase was immediate and substantial.

Commissioner Carlson stated there are individuals who put their financial obligations into getting a CO on a road with the expectation that part of it would be paved so they could build their home; unlike an investor looking at a return down the road, they have been waiting to build; and she would be interested in having staff look at the unpaved road MSBU with maintenance costs.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct staff to investigate options for unpaved roads, including municipal service benefit units and maintenance costs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Voltz stated on the Leichtenberg appraisal in Cape Kennedy Estates unpaved lots are worth $15,000 to $18,000 and paved lots are worth $25,000 to $27,000.

CONSIDERATION, RE: CHANGES TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM GUIDELINES

Chas Hoyman, representing the Ad Valorem Tax Abatement Committee of the Economic Development Council, stated the Committee has looked at the guidelines for ad valorem tax abatement; they have met with all of the Commissioners and staff; and revised guidelines were provided.

Commissioner Carlson stated she met with EDC Director Lynda Weatherman; they discussed the new formula; and her interest is that there was no additional incentive for existing businesses that are expanding. Chairman Scarborough stated Mr. Hoyman talked about having points based upon employees and percentages. Commissioner Carlson stated that would be just for existing businesses, not new businesses, to give them incentive to grow. Chairman Scarborough stated it would particularly be for the smaller business because the Board is looking to fill the McDonnell Douglas building, but does not look at the small business which may be struggling. He inquired if positive signals are being given to small businesses; and did Mr. Hoyman come up with percentage formulas. Commissioner Carlson stated Ms. Weatherman offered some formulas; and it is one point for increasing the employment base by 25%, two for 50%, and three for 75%. She stated she did not know if that was adequate or where Ms. Weatherman got her numbers. County Manager Tom Jenkins commented on the formula with a bonus set of points which would offset reductions experienced for lack of capital investment; and stated it would be a trade-off.

Mr. Hoyman stated he understands Ms. Weatherman talked about instead of the number of employees which are in the proposed guidelines, replacing that section with a percentage of employment increase. He stated if there was a 20 to 40% employment increase, it would be three points. Commissioner Carlson inquired how that would work with new versus existing; with Mr. Hoyman responding there would be two sets of guidelines. He stated new businesses would be under the guidelines presented; and existing businesses would be the same but instead of number of employees, it would be a percentage. Commissioner Higgs inquired about a minimum number. Mr. Hoyman stated if there was a company with ten employees which increased to twenty employees that would be 100% increase and they would get ten points; and ten is the minimum increase to be eligible. Chairman Scarborough stated he likes that. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the points would reflect a bonus on top of the points from the number of employees; with Mr. Hoyman responding that was not how he and Ms. Weatherman talked about it. Mr. Hoyman stated the percentages were to replace the hard numbers. Chairman Scarborough stated a new business coming in has to look at number of employees, but an existing business can look at the percentages, with a minimum increase of ten employees to qualify.

Discussion ensued on the point system, percentages, and bonus points.

Commissioner Voltz stated she likes Ms. Weatherman's suggestion; with Chairman Scarborough agreeing. Chairman Scarborough stated it is hard for the EDC to attract small businesses; and this indicates the County is treating small businesses seriously.

Commissioner Carlson stated there has to be a base; and inquired if a business starting with ten individuals would get 100% because they did not have anything to begin with; with Mr. Hoyman responding they would fall under the other guidelines for new business. Mr. Jenkins stated an existing business with ten employees would get ten points if it increased to twenty employees. Mr. Hoyman stated the percentages given make sense for a small business, but not for large businesses. Chairman Scarborough suggested existing businesses be allowed to use either the number of employees or percentage, whichever gives the most points; with Mr. Hoyman agreeing.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there are some very low numbers for existing businesses; with Mr. Hoyman advising the number has to jump ten or the company does not qualify. Commissioner stated if someone had 50 employees and added 10, that is the 20% minimum; he finds this confusing; and he does not like percentages because they do not create a level playing field. He stated the desire is to entice businesses to expand and grow; but he is not sure the Board should be traveling this route. He stated according to page 3, if someone has 11 employees, they would get three points; if payroll is below average, they would get two points; and if the investment is less than $250,000, they would get one point, for a total of six points or 50% exemption for five years. He expressed concern that an exemption is being given to a company paying below average with only a small capital investment. Commissioner Voltz stated that is incentive for a start-up company.

Discussion ensued on below average pay, negative incentive, enticing growth, and intent of the public.

Chairman Scarborough stated he agrees philosophically. Commissioner Carlson suggested a negative incentive. Commissioner Higgs stated the County needs jobs. Commissioner O'Brien stated a company paying below average wages should not receive an exemption. Commissioner Carlson stated if the County is giving an abatement, it needs to attract the higher paying employers. Mr. Hoyman stated these are manufacturing jobs; people with certain skills need entry level jobs; and some of the lower jobs give those people entry level, training, over a period of years so they can grow. Chairman Scarborough inquired if the average is down, where are they growing to. He advised of the situation of Alpha Tech where some people started at $7 an hour, but now make $15 because they developed skills; and noted some of the people are coming off welfare, and this is a start. Chairman Scarborough expressed concern about below average wages. Commissioner Voltz stated $12 an hour is a good paying job; but they would not get any credit for that. Chairman Scarborough commented on the average.

Clarence Rowe stated he supports the tax abatements; and recommended looking at the big picture because the jobs are not reaching out to a lot of the unemployed. He stated the program does not have sufficient accountability; the abatements are monitored once a year; and they need closer scrutiny. He stated the average salary is approximately $45,000; and advised of the need for support personnel. He commented on monitoring the number of employees, manipulating the system, and dealing with transportation problems. He advised of things needed to help people get off welfare, various programs that deal with the problem, and the need for clean businesses in the County.

Chairman Scarborough stated Commissioner Carlson requested the same information Mr. Rowe is asking about. Mr. Rowe stated he would like to see the workforce reflect the diversity of the community. Commissioner O'Brien requested Mr. Rowe meet with him to discuss transportation issues. Mr. Rowe stated it is an important issue, and he is working on it with SCAT Director Jim Liesenfelt. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board may want to look at how to reach out to some of the poorest of the poor within the community as part of the abatement program. Chairman Scarborough stated he would like to proceed with the item, and then come back and discuss other issues. He stated Mr. Rowe has some good ideas; the Board does not know who is being hired; and that may be another element the Board can address. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should set a bottom line at $18,000 or $8 an hour. Chairman Scarborough stated he would like to see meaningful numbers rather than percentages.

Discussion ensued on wage levels, percentages, number of positions at various wage levels, and need to look at new payroll formula.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the complaint from the public is that the County is giving abatements for minimum wage jobs. Commissioner Carlson stated that is a legitimate complaint; and advised of the need to see each company's business plan. Chairman Scarborough stated it is necessary to have ten jobs to be counted in the formula; and suggested if the wage is less than the average, the requirement be that the person employed has to be from Brevard County. Mr. Hoyman inquired how could that be administered; and commented on the cost of administration.

Chairman Scarborough suggested dealing only with the items before the Board today and discussing the other elements at another time. He stated he likes the employees and percentages and letting existing companies go either way; he would like greater gaps in the wages; and advised of the need for higher paying jobs. He stated Mr. Rowe wants to get people into the job stream, but in a job stream doing more than menial work; and there needs to be substantial differentiations between the points and actual numbers. Commissioner Carlson stated the more higher paying jobs are brought in, the more potential for the lower wage earners to upgrade to better jobs. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has no problem giving more points for higher wages; and the people are concerned about bringing in good jobs. Commissioner Voltz stated if it was 25% above average, 50% above average and 100% above average, the Board would be looking at higher salaries; and both of the ones the Board approved today would qualify for 75%.

Discussion ensued on the averages, percentages, and point levels.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to set incentives for payroll at zero points for below average, 6 points for average, 8 points for 25% above average, 10 points for 50% above average, and 12 points for 100% above average. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Discussion ensued on whether the higher point level would skew the formula, and incentives for below average wages.

Chairman Scarborough stated the current point system for employees will be shown for new businesses, but existing businesses can use number of employees or use a separate scale based on percentages. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should not do that as it gives local companies a different advantage. Chairman Scarborough stated there is a bitterness in the community about new businesses getting an advantage that current businesses do not get. Commissioner Voltz stated a new company may bring in 100 employees which makes a big impact on the community, but the County should accommodate a small company which grows. Commissioner O'Brien stated they can be accommodated by number of employees, payroll and capital expenditures; and applying the same formula, it makes a level playing field.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct that the point system chart for number of employees be used for new businesses, but existing businesses can go to

number of employees or a separate scale based on percentages. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs, Carlson, and Voltz voted aye; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

Chairman Scarborough stated capital investment is automatically incorporated into the formula, and the more the company invests, the less taxes it pays.

Chairman Scarborough passed the gavel.

Motion by Chairman Scarborough, to strike the capital investment section.

Mr. Hoyman stated if the Board takes this action, it needs to adjust all the points on the bottom.

Discussion ensued on benefits of capital investment.

Mr. Hoyman stated capital investment is an indicator of longevity in the community. Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Hoyman explain the McDonnell Douglas plant; with Mr. Hoyman responding it is true in most cases. Mr. Hoyman stated Harris Corporation is another example; it has its corporate headquarters in Brevard County; it has made a significant capital investment; and other corporations are here because of Harris Corporation. He stated McDonnell Douglas lost its contract; it had a significant amount of money; but in the total picture, it was cheaper to do business elsewhere. Commissioner Voltz and Vice Chairman Higgs indicated the capital investment section needs to be left in. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is not where the world is headed in the future. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board might want to include capital investments in the incentives, but the question is whether they should be given points since they already receive a tax advantage; and there are no guarantees for capital investment. Commissioner Voltz stated there is less guarantee with number of employees. Chairman Scarborough stated it allows for that person to walk in ahead of someone with a softer product; and the softer product is where the world is going to evolve, such as computer programming.

Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this gives the wrong signal. Commissioner Voltz inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is talking about someone coming in with a software business. Commissioner Scarborough stated those businesses will be given a disincentive. Commissioner Voltz suggested changing the points to 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Motion restated by Commissioner Scarborough, to change the point system for capital investments to one point for less than $250,000, two points for $250,001 to $1,000,000 and three points for $1,00,001 and above.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if a company wants to come in and make computer chips, the equipment is $500,000 per machine; there may be ten to twenty employees at slightly above average salary; but the capital investment might be $8 million. He stated under this system, they would be an appropriate exemption. He stated the Board can discuss computer companies that might not have a big investment; and that might be the wave of the future; but someone will still have to produce the aluminum, the chips, etc., so the manufacturing jobs will always be there. He stated the capital investment is where the County should give some incentive, and he does not like incentive for less than $250,000 because if he invested $115 in a typewriter, he would get one point. Commissioner Scarborough noted an investment of less than $250,000 would involve just a couple of hundred dollars in taxes, so there is already a disincentive. Commissioner O'Brien inquired which ad valorem tax abatement is the County giving; with Mr. Hoyman responding on real property and tangible personal property. Commissioner O'Brien stated the person who comes in has a building on which he pays ad valorem taxes; and that is what they are talking about, not the value of a typewriter. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has to have a new investment; if he builds a new building or buys a new typewriter, they are added; but if he only buys a new typewriter, he may not have any incentive to come in. He stated he doubts anyone will waste their time to get $500; and $250,000 may be too low.

Discussion ensued on capital investment levels and points.

Motion restated by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to change the point system for capital investments to one point for 0 to $1 million, two points for $1 million to $8 million, and three points for more than $8 million. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Carlson, and Voltz voted aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Vice Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Chairman Scarborough.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if there is anything else to be considered. Mr. Hoyman stated under the point system now, it is possible to have as low as four points; and inquired if the Board wants to add a category. Commissioner Voltz stated the whole thing will have to be reworked. Chairman Scarborough stated two were added on payroll, and two were subtracted on capital investments.

Discussion ensued on the point system, adjusting total points, and various scenarios.

Mr. Jenkins advised the minimum needs to be adjusted, but the maximum would stay the same. Mr. Hoyman stated four is the lowest score there could be; and inquired between those ranges, what percentage of abatement does the Board want to give.

Discussion resumed on the point system and minimum point level for abatement.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve a 40% exemption for four years for four to five total points. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioner Scarborough, Carlson, and Voltz voted aye; Commissioners O'Brien and Higgs voted nay.

Commissioner O'Brien requested a program guideline comparison be drawn up showing the actions taken today and brought back to the Board within three weeks; with Mr. Hoyman responding affirmatively. Mr. Hoyman stated the information staff provided based on the Board's request last time, which is the actual amount of the abatement, is interesting. Chairman Scarborough stated he is not only concerned about what has happened, but the signal being sent out; and the two things which have been criticized are whether the Board is interested in bringing high paying jobs, and whether it cares about small businessmen. Commissioner O'Brien stated that is also what he is hearing; and people do not want the Board abating more low paying jobs. Chairman Scarborough stated what Mr. Rowe said was somewhat contradictory; bringing people into the job market is not a negative but a positive; and recommended the EDC discuss that issue. Commissioner O'Brien stated hopefully today the Board has taken action to reduce the possibility of low paying jobs coming in; with Mr. Hoyman advising they will not get near the exemption based on the Board's actions, but they will get some positive benefit. Commissioner O'Brien stated the public is leery of the program although they voted for it. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board stiffened the payroll requirement so it is doing what it tried to accomplish.

The meeting recessed at 12:41 p.m. and reconvened at 1:38 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: PROPOSAL #P-1-9-17R, VOTER TABULATION OPTICAL SCAN SYSTEM

John Kriszka, representing Sequoia Pacific Systems, stated Sequoia Pacific Systems is the lowest, most responsible bidder; there were no concerns about software licensing; and hardware was demonstrated previously. He stated they did not attempt to promote a system that was not certified by the State; and they do not have existing certification problems for hardware and software already in use. He advised of the benefits of the Optech equipment; and requested the Board's consideration.

Keith McGinnis, representing ES&S, stated in Bay County, Florida, ES&S was not the vendor of choice; the Supervisor of Elections wanted another system; but after due diligence, the Commissioners selected ES&S; and now the Supervisor says it is the best choice ever made. He stated Commissioner O'Brien wanted to know how the ES&S system could be $250,000 less than the other systems; and provided copies of RFP's from other counties showing ES&S is not out of line. He stated the ES&S Eagle system is the only one currently Y2K compliant; he cannot sell the other system to the County because it is not certified; and requested the Board purchase the Eagle System.

John McLaurin, representing Global Election Systems, stated in 1996 evaluation of voting systems for the County took place; the decision was to purchase the Accuvote ES 2000 precinct tabulation system; but that did not come to fruition. He stated in 1999 the process began again; earlier this year the recommendation of the Supervisor of Elections and Purchasing Manager was to purchase the Accuvote ES 2000 system; in 1996 it was the best system, and it still is the best system; and it positions the County well for the future.

Nelly Strickland stated she is for paper ballots, which would not take much longer to tabulate than it has been taking; and as long as the system has a modem and no more safeguards than it has, it is not a reliable system. She commented on the Titusville City Council election, modems, flawed systems, and recount of ballots in Volusia County. She stated if the Board buys the system, she will not vote, but she will campaign against anyone who votes for the system. She requested the Board not get a system with a modem.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Ms. Strickland is speaking against the modem or the system; with Ms. Strickland recommending the Board wait another year for equipment to be certified and preserve the sanctity of the vote.

Mr. Galey advised his choice is Global Election Systems; and outlined the benefits. He stated Sequoia and Global have good reputations; since the last time, Global has sold to three other counties; and Global has been the most responsive to the RFP. He stated to continue to delay will begin to affect the ability to use the equipment in the November city elections or allow for training before the Presidential Preference Primaries; and rushing things could contribute to mistakes being made. He stated he prefers the Global system because the ballot box is solid and does not have to be set up; the other two systems have ballot boxes that have to be set up; and advised of problems with ballot boxes that require setup. He advised of benefits of the Marksense ballot system, including no overvotes, one card per voter, ease of marking, fewer spoiled ballots, and no transport of ballots that have not been tabulated.

Commissioner Voltz stated Y2K certification will not be done on the Global System until August 9, 1999; and inquired if there is some way to defer until that date. Mr. Galey stated no documents should be signed until after the final certification test on all three systems, but he has no doubt they will all pass. Commissioner Voltz inquired how to put that into the Agreement; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding a clause can be included to cover that.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to award Proposal #P-1-9-17R, Voter Tabulation Optical Scan System, to Global Election Systems, with the stipulation the Agreement include a clause addressing Y2K compliance; and authorize the Chairman to execute applicable contracts.

Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees with the choice of Global; but the Board has set aside $100,000 for the debt service; and the cost is shown as $139,000. She inquired if Mr. Galey will absorb the additional funds over $100,000; with Mr. Galey responding there will be cost savings; and he will absorb the cost.

County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if the intent is to proceed with the commercial paper financing; with Commissioner Voltz responding yes.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion to award Proposal #P-1-9-17R, Voter Tabulation Optical Scan System to Global Election Systems, with the stipulation the Agreement include a clause addressing Y2K compliance; authorizing the Chairman to execute applicable contracts; and directing staff to proceed with the commercial paper financing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Scarborough stated Ms. Strickland inquired about the modem; and explained it is a means of counting, and the count is reaffirmed at the central counting location. Mr. Galey stated the modem has nothing to do with the tabulation; the results are tabulated at the polling place; both systems print out a paper tape which is hung on the wall at each precinct; and the only thing the modem does is transfer results from the polling place to the central accumulation site. He stated the paper tape stays at the precinct; and another copy of the paper tape and the memory card are brought to the central location for verification. He stated the modem is just an expeditious method of transferring something from point A to point B just as it is in electronic banking, fax, voice mail, etc.; 99.9% of the time the verification shows they are identical; and there are rumors going around, but 99% of them have no truth to them.

Ms. Strickland stated if the modems are hooked up, there can be interference; and inquired why there has to be modems when every precinct has a phone. Commissioner Voltz inquired what Ms. Strickland thinks is going to happen; with Ms. Strickland responding someone will fiddle with the votes like they always have. Commissioner Voltz stated the votes are tallied at the polls; and if someone fiddles with the votes, there will be two different numbers.

DIRECTION, RE: NEW SOUTH MAINLAND SERVICE FACILITY

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated previously the Board discussed alternative locations for the placement of a South Brevard Mainland service facility to serve the population from Micco north to the Palm Bay area; and the Board looked at several locations. He stated one is part of Foundation Park on San Filippo Drive; and it is 35+ acres at $525,000 negotiable. He stated since that time there have been conversations with Brevard Community College; BCC President Tom Gamble, Attorney Joe Matheny, and Burt Purga who is President of the Palm Bay Campus of BCC are present; and BCC has proposed several alternative properties ranging from 5 acres to 20 acres, with the price to be negotiable. He noted the last sale was $27,000 an acre to the St. Johns River Water Management District. He stated there are also sites proposed by Bayside Lakes Development; Bayside Lakes has representatives present; and they have offered parcels in the 30 to 40-acre range which they would be willing to sell in phases. He stated the initial offer was ten acres with no cost; when the County indicated a desire for additional land, it was increased; and if the Board has any reservations about accepting free land, they would be willing to negotiate the overall price to make it more competitive. He stated there are two sites in the 30 to 40-acre range and a smaller site of 10 to 15 acres. He stated the Board discussion on this topic generated additional interest, and there was a proposal for a 29.4-acre piece of property on Conlan Boulevard at $675,000, which is probably negotiable. He requested further direction from the Board.

Dr. Tom Gamble, President of Brevard Community College, stated BCC has some property that might be of interest to the County; and he has asked Attorney Matheny to present the property information.

Joe Matheny, Attorney representing Brevard Community College, pointed out Brevard Community College on a map; and described the area including additional acreage owned by BCC, acres owned other educational facilities, and acreage owned by St. Johns River Water Management District. He pointed out parcels which would be available to the Board; stated BCC would like to see County administrative offices on or near the campus; there is a 17-acre parcel at the intersection of College Parkway and Babcock Street and I-95 that would be the preferred parcel for the County; and a secondary six-acre parcel is located on Treeland Boulevard. He stated the Board may prefer a piece of land on the BCC campus, and that can be discussed, if the County is interested. He stated BCC owns three lots totaling approximately five acres, and if that land is suitable, even if there is a split acquisition, that can be worked out. He noted BCC is not present to sell land to the County; BCC sold to St. Johns River Water Management District at $27,500 an acre; the release price under a bond issue is $43,260 an acre, and BCC had to come up with approximately $130,000 to make the deal; and the College would do that with the County if there is interest. He advised of access to the properties; and reiterated the desire to have an administrative facility rather than a motor pool or workshop. Mr. Matheny introduced Dr. Bert Purga, President of the Palm Bay Campus of Brevard Community College. Dr. Purga stated he hopes the Board will view the College as a service arm of the County, and call for assistance if desired.

Chairman Scarborough advised of the need for facilities for the Constitutional Officers in Palm Bay; and stated it would be nice to have a consolidated community. Mr. Matheny advised the only thing available of approximately 30 acres would be the combination of a 17-acre piece with a 20-acre piece, but 20 acres is undevelopable. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board is interested in further discussion, whom would they talk with; with Dr. Gamble responding Joe Matheny. Mr. Matheny stated they would be glad to talk at any time; and they only learned of the Board's interest a short time ago. Commissioner Higgs expressed appreciation for the offer.

Duane Watson, representing Bayside Development, stated Coleman Goatley will do the presentation.

Coleman Goatley, representing Town Center Partners, stated the area being discussed is referred to as the hole in the doughnut; it was originally planned to be the center of Palm Bay; and advised of the advantages of the area. He stated he is not withdrawing anything previously offered; they offered three locations; but the location identified as C is perhaps the best for the County; and outlined the advantages of Parcel C including location, traffic and access, and zoning. He stated the land being offered is net of retention; it is a parcel of 20 acres with an option for an additional 15 acres; there are no wetlands or endangered species; and the infrastructure will be in place by mid-2000. He requested the County consider starting construction within three years; and offered the 20 acres at a fixed sum of $20,000, and the additional 15 acres as an option at $15,000 an acre, subject to the appraisal not being less than that. He noted if the appraisal is less than $15,000 an acre, the County would have the benefit of the change. He stated Town Center Partners want the County in Bayside Lakes and it can provide the land the County needs.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Jenkins had any further discussion with the Constitutional Officers; with Mr. Jenkins and Facilities Management Director Hugh Muller responding they have not. Mr. Muller stated three Constitutional Officers are looking for a site; any of the sites would be acceptable; and they want to be together where they can service the customers. Chairman Scarborough noted each of the Constitutional Officers has his own preferences; and the Board needs to be sure it does not do something, and then find the Constitutional Officers have some other thoughts. Commissioner Voltz stated she spoke with Judge Silvernail; and while they would prefer the site to be near US 1, wherever the Board chooses will be fine. Chairman Scarborough advised of the Judges desire for a centralized facility and expansion at Viera, and the Constitutional Officers desire for capacity to reach out to the community. Commissioner Voltz stated the Judges could use two more judges' chambers, and prefer to be at Viera, but they will abide by the Board's decision.

Commissioner Voltz stated the property at BCC is not contiguous and there are some environmental problems; the City of Palm Bay would support the amendments to the DRI; but she is not sure it is what the Board wants. Commissioner Voltz stated she is looking at parcels C.3 and D.1; with Commissioner Higgs advising those are the outparcels, not the BCC parcels. Commissioner Higgs stated 87 acres of Mixed Use that are part of the DRI are being proposed; but the on-campus parcels are not under a DRI or other restrictions. Commissioner Voltz inquired about the size of the large parcel; with Mr. Matheny responding slightly over 17 acres. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board should build in preparation for the future; she does not think 17 acres will be sufficient; and the Board will need 35 to 40 acres. Commissioner O'Brien stated he agrees, and that is why he looked at the Bayside Lakes proposal which is 30 to 40 acres. He stated the offer from BCC is nice, but the property is not located near the population center; and commented on the population projections. He stated he likes the demographics of the Bayside Lakes proposal. Commissioner Voltz stated the Bayside Lakes property is cheaper; with Commissioner O'Brien agreeing.

Commissioner Higgs stated she likes the site that is closest to what was described in the study for the solid waste transfer station as the centroid; that study indicated the center is north of the Bayside Lakes area; and she has visited the site. She stated the site near BCC is better in terms of location and access; and it has better potential for the County. She stated in working with the College the Board could accumulate other areas to be used in the development; and advised of the need for further discussion and negotiation. She stated based on the presence of Malabar Road, I-95, San Fillipo, Babcock, and Jupiter Boulevard, the College site is the most promising; and suggested the Board enter into discussions with BCC on the specifics and how it can be worked out. She stated when the Board discussed moving the Judicial Facility to Viera, there was discussion about centralization of the Circuit; and that is the most critical aspect in terms of where the bulk of the Judges are. She stated at the time the decision was made to build at Viera, centralizing the Circuit was one issue, but location of the County judges in other places was a separate issue. Chairman Scarborough stated it started that way, but it ceased to be that in the final hours. Commissioner Higgs stated it is still an issue that is important; and whether that is done later or not is not critical to the current decision, but it is necessary to reference the difference. She stated the BCC location is close to the current location of the Constitutional Officers which has served well; this would serve well for the long-term future; and recommended the Board move forward to discuss it with the College.

Commissioner Carlson agreed with the access issue; stated it is critical to have proper access; pointed out the property on the aerial; and advised it makes it possible to see the advantages of one property over the other. She stated if BCC had not come forward with the additional possibility, she would have gone with the parcel off of San Fillipo. Commissioner Voltz stated it is close to residences.

Chairman Scarborough stated he is not speaking for the Constitutional Officers, but there was an interest in ease of access; and recommended the Constitutional Officers participate in the decision. He stated he thinks there is a preference for the I-95 site, but it is presumptuous on his part to say that for the Constitutional Officers. Commissioner Voltz stated that area is a traffic nightmare; and Babcock Street and San Fillipo are disasters when it comes to traffic. Chairman Scarborough stated those things may be taken into consideration by the Constitutional Officers. Commissioner Voltz noted BCC only wanted administrative offices, but the Property Appraiser will have a lot of vehicles that stay in the parking lot overnight and on weekends on a regular basis. Commissioner Higgs stated BCC does not want a maintenance building, but an office building assumes there will be cars. Chairman Scarborough inquired about car parking; with Mr. Matheny responding he understands that, and the College also has that. Mr. Matheny stated the College is about to spend $14 million for improvements to its site; St. Johns River Water Management District is going to spend $3.5 million; and the whole area is developing as a professional complex. He noted he is not trying to sell the property; but BCC would like to work with the County if it is interested in the area. Commissioner Voltz inquired about the price; with Mr. Matheny responding the two pieces shown in orange on the map are subject to a bond issue through the City of Palm Bay; the release price is $43,260 an acre; the property is not worth that; and they sold to St. Johns River Water Management District for $27,500 an acre, with BCC making up the difference. He stated he cannot speak for the BCC Board, but he knows it would make a lot of concessions if the Commission is interested in locating its administrative offices on or near the campus. He requested the Board not foreclose the idea of talking about part of the campus property. Chairman Scarborough inquired about price; with Mr. Matheny indicating he does not know. Chairman Scarborough inquired how much acreage would be needed projecting 40 to 50 years out; with Mr. Jenkins responding 35 to 40 acres would give some long-term flexibility. Mr. Matheny stated what is shown is all the College has; a parcel south of the large parcel is being developed; and the only other location for the County would be the corner of San Filippo and Treeland, but he is not sure BCC can afford to release 30 to 40 acres of land there. Mr. Matheny advised all of the land BCC has is off the tax rolls. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board looks at the 17 acres, it might be possible to work with BCC on the borrow pit and wetland area in terms of retention; and the property might have a developable value on all 17 acres if it was possible to handle other issues offsite. Mr. Matheny stated he cannot make the offer; but if the County wanted the 17 acres, BCC may throw in the 20 acres shown in green on the map. Dr. Purga stated there is precedent on working with the County as the Agriculture Extension offices are moving to the campus.

Commissioner O'Brien commented on the location of the parcels; and stated he strongly favors the Bayside Lakes parcel which is close to the population. Commissioner Higgs stated based on the study, the center is right where the BCC parcels are located.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct the County Manager to proceed with discussions with Brevard Community College and the Constitutional Officers to identify and further elaborate on the opportunities.

Commissioner Voltz expressed desire for the Constitutional Officers to see both sites; with Chairman Scarborough agreeing he would like the Constitutional Officers comment on both sites.

Motion restated by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct the County Manager to proceed with discussions with Brevard Community College and Bayside Lakes Development, as well as the Constitutional Officers, to identify and further elaborate on the opportunities of each site as the potential location of the South Mainland Service Facility.

Discussion ensued on population centers, map of Palm Bay, and cost of the Bayside Lakes site.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 2:39 p.m. and reconvened at 2:49 p.m.

*County Attorney Scot Knox's absence and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley's presence were noted at this time.

DIRECTION, RE: SURVEY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCES REGARDING CO-LOCATION REQUIREMENTS

Commissioner Voltz stated the recommendation permits co-location on power and light poles through lease agreements, along public collector, arterial, and limited access road rights-of-way, provided not more than 20 feet is added to the overall height of the pole; advised the new Florida Power & Light poles are twice as tall as the old ones and approximately four times the width; and inquired if anyone has asked Florida Power & Light if this is okay, or is it something the County is deciding. Planner III Robin Sobrino responded staff wanted to determine if the Board was amenable to the suggestion before checking with Florida Power & Light Company.

Commissioner Higgs stated she would want to allow co-location on power poles if less than 20 feet additional height is needed with no appearance before the Board. She stated in the County's Ordinance there is a building height of 80 feet to put an antenna on; and recommended it be lowered to 45 feet to allow co-location of an antenna less than 20 feet on that. Commissioner Higgs stated that would be more lenient in allowing an antenna to go on a building or power pole if less than 20 feet; but if the applicant has to come to the Board, he must demonstrate that he has attempted to co-locate and cannot do so, or someone building a tower must demonstrate that he is providing for co-location of other carriers. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how that would be demonstrated; with Chairman Scarborough stating to some extent the Board is taking their word. Commissioner O'Brien recommended the applicants be required to provide documentation.

Discussion ensued on co-location of towers, proving attempts to co-locate, and use of a consultant.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to amend the Ordinance to allow administrative approval by staff of co-location of antennas on power poles if less than 20 feet additional height is required; require applicants for towers to demonstrate they are unable to co-locate; lower building height from 80 feet to 45 feet to allow co-location of an antenna less than 20 feet; and require anyone who builds a tower to demonstrate they are providing for co-location of other carriers.

Commissioner O'Brien expressed concern about lack of proof of inability to co-locate; with Chairman Scarborough suggesting staff work with Commissioner O'Brien so something can be included.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if that is acceptable to the maker of the motion; with Commissioner Higgs responding affirmatively.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH A. DUDA & SONS, INC., RE: DONATION OF LAND FOR PINEDA CAUSEWAY EXTENSION

Commissioner Carlson stated she met with Mr. Decator and Mr. Babcock on this item; and all issues have been resolved. Commissioner Higgs stated the County Attorney had a concern.

Chairman Scarborough noted the applicant brought one chart for the Board and another for the audience; and suggested the County Manager request applicants provide two charts/maps in the future.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if any Commissioner has questions. Chairman Scarborough advised this is of broader public interest; and recommended Mr. Decator explain what is happening.

Attorney Jay Decator, representing A. Duda & Sons, stated in early 1996, A. Duda & Sons and the County entered into an Agreement whereby A. Duda & Sons would donate right-of-way for the future Pineda Extension, conditioned upon the County coming up with the funding to build the entire extension as a single road project; Duda is back before the Board to request an amendment that would not change the obligation to donate or the conditions; and they are proposing an additional approach that would allow the initial elements of the Pineda Extension to be constructed by a third-party developer as part of, and in conjunction with, development of adjoining lands to the south. He stated the amendment would deal with changing the alignment of the proposed extension and reducing the right-of-way from 200 feet to 150 feet; and there are two reasons for it. He stated in conjunction with rezoning the adjoining lands, the people in Windsor Estates requested right-of-way be shifted as far south as possible; and the second reason is in planning the future development of the area, the third part developer conducted an environmental evaluation which determined the original alignment would cross major high-quality jurisdictional wetlands. Mr. Decator pointed out the area on the map; and stated not only would there be an impact to the wetlands, but by severing the wetlands, it would call into question their future viability; and the area is the site of several active sandhill crane nests. He stated the new alignment is postured between the wetland and an eagle's nest; and although it requires the protection radius of the eagle's nest to be reduced somewhat, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, after informally reviewing the alignment, concurs that the benefits outweigh any impact on the eagle and informally approved the concept of realignment. He stated as a result of reducing the right-of-way width from 200 feet to 150 feet, it was necessary to provide specific areas that could handle the stormwater management requirements of the future Pineda Extension; and they have established five tracts that would be added to the donation. He described the five tracts, and pointed them out on the map.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the eagle has been removed from the endangered list; with Mr. Decator responding the law has changed, although he does not know the specifics, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service still intends to protect the eagle; and that was one of the elements that went into the evaluation of the proposal in reducing the primary protection zone. Commissioner O'Brien inquired does anyone have any idea when the highway may be built. Mr. Decator responded A. Duda & Sons currently has the property to the south under contract; and it contemplates that developer's development of the initial elements of the first two lanes of the Pineda. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it would be the entire way; with Mr. Decator responding it would be done in phases; and pointed out the maximum extent of construction which would be done by the developer. Mr. Decator stated with the framework in place, there would be nothing to stop some other party from stepping forward to continue further west. Commissioner O'Brien stated one of the problems he had in the past was that a lot of rights-of-way were vacated; and inquired if all the rights-of-way are in place from Pineda Causeway to I-95; with Mr. Decator pointing out the only missing portion.

Commissioner Higgs stated there have been circumstances where two-lane facilities have been built and people have developed adjacent to it even though there is right-of-way for a four-lane road; and then when it was time to build the four-lane road, it became a major issue with surrounding homeowners. She inquired what can be done by A. Duda & Sons to insure that any land developers would fully advise their purchasers that a four-laned road is planned there. Mr. Decator stated there are two ways to approach the situation; A. Duda & Sons does not wish to mislead anybody; and it could either be handled by signage along the right-of-way such as exists in Viera or as part of the approval process, notice could be required to be on the plat or covenants for the subdivision. Commissioner Higgs inquired if A. Duda & Sons could insure those things would happen; with Mr. Decator responding they entered into the contract already and that was not part of it. Commissioner

Higgs stated since A. Duda & Sons is asking the Board to make a change, she assumes there would have to be a different relationship with the buyer; with Mr. Decator responding the buyer's contract contemplates amending the Pineda Donation Agreement to facilitate the contract. Commissioner Higgs inquired if A. Duda & Sons is not able to do anything to insure the buying public is advised; with Mr. Decator responding A. Duda & Sons cannot unilaterally amend the contract, but a representative of the party is present. Commissioner Higgs stated there has been a problem in making the South Brevard traffic work because people built up around there and did not know there was going to be a four-lane road there. She stated if Pineda cannot work as a four-lane road, there will be difficulty in that area.

Roy Pence stated that is also of concern to him as a developer; he does not want to have people angry at them in three years when the road is extended; and if a notice is included in the deed restrictions, that would be the most thorough approach. Commissioner Higgs inquired about putting up a sign as Viera has done; with Mr. Pence responding he is not familiar with how that sign works, but he would consider it. Commissioner Higgs stated the County could put up a sign.

Commissioner Carlson stated on the actual construction of the roadway, the County is waiting for the North Melbourne Traffic Study to come in September, and when it goes under construction, it will be engineered for an eventual four-laning. Mr. Pence stated as part of the actual engineering he will be able to facilitate the eventual four-laning. Commissioner Carlson stated it will be like Murrell Road; potentially there is the entire right-of-way; but the drainage and everything is designed to eventually accommodate four lanes. Mr. Pence stated the actual drainage for the additional two lanes will not be constructed at the time of the initial two lanes; they are very concerned about the environmental impact because of the wetlands that must be traversed; and they are trying to minimize the impact of what they need to build the road today, not what might happen in the future.

Commissioner Carlson stated that may need to be discussed further.

B. B. Nelson, representing the Shriners, stated they have 39 acres along I-95 at the west end of the proposed extension; and recommended this item be tabled until the traffic study is finished. He stated they bought the property from the Dudas 11 to 12 years ago for the purpose of building a Shrine temple or hospital; individuals put the money up to buy it and donated it to the Shrine Holding Company; and they have an interest in seeing this develop properly, but it has not. He stated they have not been provided what they were promised; the road originally was going to pass along the section line extending from the Pineda Causeway due west; and the excuse to relocate it one-half mile south was based on wetlands, eagle's nest, etc., but they built houses on that proposed right-of-way, so it is all developed now. He reiterated his request to table the item until the report is complete; and stated the offer to go from a 200-foot right-of-way to a 150-foot right-of-way to protect the environment is a joke. He advised of unsuccessful attempts to meet with Commissioner Carlson; stated they have 39 acres where the Pineda Extension will terminate; they have a financial interest in what occurs there; and he also lives in the area, and so is personally interested. He advised of violations of the Comprehensive Plan, changes in the names of roads, and vacation of rights-of-way. He stated he has an aerial of the area; the area provides a total blockage of traffic flow in all directions; and provisions were made in the Comprehensive Plan, but the Board changed it.

Commissioner Carlson stated if Mr. Nelson has called her office three times and she has not responded, she apologizes, but her staff is efficient; and if Mr. Nelson called and wanted an audience with her, she would have had no problem. Mr. Nelson stated he has asked Commissioner Carlson's aide for an appointment three times to discuss the issue, and was told she would not meet with him. Commissioner Carlson stated that is wrong.

Commissioner Higgs inquired who Mr. Nelson represents; with Mr. Nelson responding they have a holding company which holds the land for a Shrine Temple; but the Shrine Temple did not buy the land. He stated individuals bought the land on behalf of the Shriners. Commissioner Higgs inquired if those individuals are the holding company; with Mr. Nelson responding no, the holding company is made up of the officers of the Temple. He stated the property is controlled by the Temple, but with the plan before the Board, the Temple will not be able to use the land, and will have to move somewhere else.

Chairman Scarborough stated no matter what line is used, the Shrine property will be affected; with the interchange into I-95 there will be acquisition; with the acquisition there will be substantial compensation, probably far in excess of the property's purchase price; and the Shrine is not going to lose money. Mr. Nelson stated there is concern about that due to the recent application of the Dudas to vacate a 100-foot right-of-way for approximately 3,000 feet; and that would reduce the value of the Shrine property. Chairman Scarborough stated the Dudas have a lot of land; and if the Shrine met with the Dudas, it may be possible to do some type of swap. Mr. Nelson advised they tried that; they had a proposal for an option, and it was withdrawn; so they are working on it.

William Pitman stated he is a Shriner and investor in the property; and he does not oppose the rerouting of the Pineda Causeway, but cautioned against making a hasty decision. He advised of past planning; stated the Board is planning for the County in the next 15-25 years and beyond; and urged the Board to table the item to get a study on it so the full impact will be known.

Chairman Scarborough inquired about the long-range MPO Plan; with Commissioner Carlson responding they do not know yet. Commissioner Carlson stated in mid-December, they will get the North Melbourne study back; and they are going to DOT to look at the plan which had been started before but was cut off in midstream to see if any of it is applicable. Chairman Scarborough advised of the timeframe for the Port St. John interchange; and inquired how much right-of-way there is for the Port St. John Connector going east; with Assistant Public Works Director Ed Washburn responding he will find out. Chairman Scarborough stated he has gone through similar decisions with the Port St. John interchange, and he is curious about how the Pineda Extension will look in comparison. Commissioner Carlson stated they will be looking at the connectivity at Wickham Park which is crucial; and the amendment is in keeping with the intent.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Carlson is not bothered by the issue of reducing the right-of-way from 200 to 150 feet; with Commissioner Carlson responding no, because the buffer is actually expanding to Windsor Estates, and there is other work that will be done down the road. She stated until the study is in, this is a step in the right direction based on the environmental issues. Chairman Scarborough inquired if there will be a conflict with what the study will show; with Commissioner Carlson responding she does not think so.

Mr. Decator stated there is an overall reduction in the area of the right-of-way of approximately 12.5 acres; many are within jurisdictional wetlands, and would not be suitable for stormwater management or other purposes; and Duda is setting aside an additional 6.6 acres of specific water retention tracts that will be part of the donation in the future, and will be used in connection with future improvements. He stated they are going to be handled by the developer, and will be a set-aside for future improvements; this puts a framework in place for the development to the south to incorporate some of the stormwater treatment from the Pineda Extension into its own system, thereby reducing the needs for stormwater management even further; and if that development does not occur, staff has asked for an alternative area to be set aside which is larger and provides additional area to be utilized for stormwater management purposes. He stated regarding the MPO study, nothing being proposed changes what is already in place; the original Agreement contemplates a donation for the future extension, and that remains in place; and what is new is that the initial improvements can begin now rather than later and can be put in place by a third party rather than the County. He stated this does not create a roadblock to north/south traffic as the amendment provides for intersections, and one of the intersections is for northbound traffic. He requested the item not be tabled; and advised of the opportunity provided to define specific elements that were not in the original Agreement.

Commissioner Carlson stated hopefully the MPO will bring back what can be done at the intersection at Wickham Road, which is the biggest question. Mr. Decator stated Duda has represented in the amendment that it recognizes the need for the future realignment of the intersection with Wickham Road, and pledges an area for that purpose; and pointed out the area on the map. He stated they have reviewed the County Attorney's comments, and have no objection; and requested the Board approve the proposed amendment with the County Attorney's revisions, subject to the County Attorney considering some alternative language. He stated they would like to fine-tune some of the language, to be considered by the County Attorney, in his sole discretion. Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley advised the County Attorney does not have a problem with that; and he had requested clarification on various items including when road construction would be completed or whether or not they could bond, and language about assumption of the obligations by the new buyer and what kind of document would be required for release of Duda. Mr. Decator requested the amendment be approved as presented.

Chairman Scarborough inquired what is the width of the right-of-way on the East Connector of the Port St. John interchange; with Construction Management Director John Denninghoff responding 150 feet. Chairman Scarborough stated Mr. Denninghoff previously indicated he is satisfied with that size, and it will be possible to put big oaks in the center. Chairman Scarborough stated Mr. Nelson is asking to wait for the study which will be back in mid-September; and inquired if it can wait. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board may miss an opportunity to work with Viera and the third party as there are time limitations. Mr. Pence advised of the time constraints caused by the scheduled closing. Chairman Scarborough inquired about extending the contract; with Tom Babcock, President of The Viera Company, responding it would not be in The Viera Company's best interest to do that at this time. Mr. Babcock advised the proposed amended agreement is better than the present Agreement; but this needs to be closed in this month. Commissioner Carlson stated it is a fiscal issue. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they want the cash flow now; with Mr. Babcock responding they are in business to make money. Chairman Scarborough stated it puts a degree of pressure on the Board to make decisions without the full information that it might have a month later; and that makes him uncomfortable. Commissioner Carlson requested Mr. Babcock report on any discussion he had with Mr. Nelson about potential land swapping. Mr. Babcock stated there have been discussions with Mr. Nelson regarding the Azan Temple, but he does not believe there will be a mutual meeting of the minds with regard to the values, acres, locations, etc.; they provided Mr. Nelson with the additional access so he has legal access from Turtlemound Road; and advised of advantages provided in the amended agreement. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not think the impact to Mr. Nelson's property will change if the Board takes action now or later. Chairman Scarborough stated he does not know what the study may show, but will defer to the Commissioner of the District.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize execution of Amendment to Agreement with A. Duda & Sons, Inc. for donation of land for Pineda Causeway Extension, including changing the alignment of the Extension, reducing the right-of-way from 200 feet to 150 feet, identifying the future intersections, and third-party developing initial improvements, subject to attorneys representing A. Duda & Sons and the County Attorney discussing the revisions recommended by the County Attorney. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS WITH CITIES OF MELBOURNE AND WEST MELBOURNE, RE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATION OF STORMWATER UTILITIES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize execution of Interlocal Agreements with the Cities of Melbourne and West Melbourne for administration and management of stormwater utilities for the Cities. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPLACEMENT OF ONE MEMBER, RE: EEL SELECTION AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the Chairman to appoint, within three weeks, a new member to the EEL Selection and Management Committee from the list of alternates received during the May 5, 1998 selection process. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVER INITIATIVE

Charles Moehle expressed concern about Brevard County losing control of things that happen on the St. Johns River and in the basin; and advised of hearings that were held, and control by the Mayor of Jacksonville. He urged the Board to adopt a strong resolution so Brevard County is represented on the Steering and Advisory Committees. He stated it seems to be a foregone conclusion that it will be controlled by federal agencies, and any money may have a lot of strings tied to it; and the County should not get into that blindly. He stated the County should insist on being involved in the programs, plans, use and control of the River and its basin, or it should pull out.

Chairman Scarborough inquired what would Mr. Moehle say, and to whom specifically. Mr. Moehle stated it seems it is going down a path that is being dictated by St. Johns Agency of Jacksonville. Chairman Scarborough stated he reads that the Mayor of Jacksonville is playing a large role in it.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the appointment of Conrad White to the Selection Committee was suggested by the Board of the St. Johns River Water Management District; the woman who is the Navigator was an employee of the EPA; and the EPA designated Mayor John Delaney as a point of contact for the American Heritage River Initiative because he submitted the original application. He advised of the duties of the Steering and Advisory Committees.

Commissioner Carlson stated she sent a letter to Mayor Delaney indicating her interest; the Mayor is the Interim Chairman of the Steering Committee, and was selected to act as the initial point person because he got the river nominated to begin with; but she has not been officially put on the Steering Committee. Mr. Moehle inquired about County representation on the Advisory Committee; and recommended the County not stand by and lose control. He noted the rivers are sponsored by federal government agencies including EPA and Army Corps of Engineers; and read aloud from a newspaper article concerning who is going to pay to clean up the Everglades.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated Assistant County Manager Steve Peffer has called Mayor Delaney's office and asked for a delay on the appointment date, and they have agreed that the Board can still nominate people to the Advisory Committee. He stated the Board has the ability to make recommendations to the Advisory Committee; and the role of the Committee will be to discuss projects and priorities for each basin, and convey that information to the Steering Committee.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board makes a recommendation, is it the prerogative of the Mayor of Jacksonville to decide, or is it vested in some local authority; with Assistant County Manager Steve Peffer responding the appointments to the Advisory Committee will be made by the Steering Committee; each local government has been offered three appointments; and quite a few names will go the Steering Committee. Chairman Scarborough inquired if it is Mayor Delaney's final decision who is appointed; with Mr. Peffer responding it would be the collective decision of the Steering Committee, not the Mayor himself.

Discussion ensued on appointments to Committees, Steering Committee appointed by Mayor Delaney working with other State agencies, reason for report, notification to local governments, letter from Mayor to County requesting nominees, number of appointments, Board removed from the process, equality rights of the Upper and Lower St. Johns River, and St. Johns River Water Management District being unelected entity.

Commissioner Voltz recommended writing a letter to Mayor Delaney advising of the Board's concerns that it was left out of the loop and was not notified until after the fact.

Chairman Scarborough inquired why is Mayor Delaney writing the letter; and stated if he writes a letter asking for explanation, Mayor Delaney will become the person in charge. Commissioner Voltz stated he was appointed because he went to Washington, D.C. to support the American Heritage River Initiative. Commissioner Carlson suggested targeting the question to the EPA since it put the St. Johns River on the list to begin with; and inquired how it is being done in other areas. Mr. Peffer advised the Mayor was the sponsor for the American Heritage River; and that is how he got into this position; however, the letter he got is not from John Delaney as Mayor of Jacksonville, but John Delaney as the Acting Chairperson of the American Heritage River Institute, and it is not on City letterhead. Chairman Scarborough stated his letter is on City letterhead. Discussion ensued on which letters are on letterhead and which are not. Chairman Scarborough suggested inviting John Delaney to come to a Board meeting to explain what is going on; and stated if he is Chairperson, he has a responsibility to come and talk to the Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize the Chairman to write a letter to Jacksonville Mayor John Delaney requesting his presence at a Board meeting to address concerns about the American Heritage River Initiative. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Carlson, and Voltz vote aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board could write a letter requesting an explanation, and that would be better than demanding his presence. Chairman Scarborough stated he is not demanding, but asking that he come down and explain.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize the Chairman to write a letter to the St. Johns River Water Management District requesting appointments be passed through the Board, if they are in Brevard County.

Discussion ensued on whether appointments should be passed to cities, expressing the County's concern and desire to be involved in the process, failure of government entities to coordinate, sending copy of letter to all cities, Board, as an elected body, making nominations rather than St. Johns River Water Management District, cities in the St. Johns basin, and requesting St. Johns River Water Management District consult with the County on nominations.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion to authorize the Chairman to write a letter to the St. Johns River Water Management District requesting it consult with the County concerning nominations. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the Board has been asked whether it wants to make suggestions on Advisory Board members; and inquired if it wishes to do that or defer; with Commissioner Voltz responding defer. Commissioner Higgs inquired why the Board would defer when it just spent half an hour discussing why the County has not been consulted.

Discussion ensued on appointments, and number of nominations.

Chairman Scarborough requested Mr. Peffer define how the Board would make the nominations; with Mr. Peffer responding it is up to the Board to make three appointments, and several of the cities were contacted. Mr. Peffer stated the nominations would go to the Steering Committee; there are a finite number of positions; and speculated the Steering Committee will try to get the best balance of economic, environmental, and geographic interests. Commissioner Carlson suggested each Commissioner provide one nomination; and the Board submit three, and two will be a backup. Chairman Scarborough recommended each Commissioner send his or her nomination to Mr. Peffer.

Mr. Moehle suggested the Board inquire why it cannot have more than three nominees. Commissioner Voltz recommended that be included in the letter. Chairman Scarborough stated Volusia County incorporates the middle, upper and lower basins; and inquired if they get three appointments in each; with Mr. Peffer responding he does not know. Chairman Scarborough stated he would like to know who is getting how many.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - TROY YATES, RE: INSTALLING SPEED HUMPS ON LAKEMOOR BOULEVARD

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board made revisions to the Speed Hump Policy this morning; and inquired if that would affect Mr. Yates' request. Traffic Engineering Director Dick Thompson advised the Board did not address the length of time to make the count on the road; staff has been doing a 24-hour count; and the length of time has not changed. Chairman Scarborough inquired if there is anything that occurred this morning that would affect Mr. Yates; with Mr. Thompson responding he does not believe so. Commissioner Higgs stated four of the five criteria would have to be met; with Mr. Thompson responding yes. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board could revisit the Lakemoor Boulevard item, and still be consistent with the policy even if the counts were not what they normally would be. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it will be put back on the Agenda; with Mr. Thompson responding that can be done.

Troy Yates stated he received something some time ago advising it met four of the five criteria. Commissioner Voltz stated that was not good enough previously; but this morning's action allows the Board to accept four out of five. Commissioner Higgs stated that is true if there was a count of less than 1,500 cars. Mr. Thompson stated the count was a maximum of 588 cars a day on one side and 360 on the other. Mr. Yates stated he has been unable to get the Sheriff to patrol. Chairman Scarborough stated the Sheriff was present this morning and promised to do more enforcement; and suggested Mr. Yates call him. Mr. Yates inquired if there will be another 24-hour road survey; with Chairman Scarborough responding no, it will come back as is to see if it is approved under the new criteria. Mr. Thompson stated he will notify Mr. Yates when this is scheduled on the Agenda. Discussion ensued on a suitable date.

Commissioner Carlson advised the Board's action does not address the road survey; and it will just be reconsidered under the criteria. Commissioner Voltz inquired which District is Lakemoor Boulevard is in; with Commissioner Carlson responding District 4. Chairman Scarborough stated if Commissioner Carlson can support it now, he can support a motion; with Commissioner Carlson responding she does not know enough about it.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table consideration of Troy Yates' request for installation of speed humps on Lakemoor Boulevard. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - ANTHONY HARTMAN, RE: EXTORTING MONEY FROM MR. HARTMAN AND DEFRAUDING THE COUNTY OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

Commissioner Voltz stated Anthony Hartman left, but she gave him her card, and requested he come to her office to talk to her, rather than bring it before the Board.

PERMISSION TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING, RE: STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR MIXED USE DISTRICT DESIGNATION ALONG I-95 AT GRISSOM ROAD INTERCHANGE

Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley stated one of the parties did not receive a copy of the map that was attached, and asked that the item be tabled to the next regular meeting.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if that is a problem; with Attorney Bentley responding no.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table consideration of permission to hold public hearing for Stipulated Settlement Agreement with Department of Community Affairs for Mixed Use District Designation along I-95 at Grissom Road interchange to August 17, 1999. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the map from Brevard Community College allows for any road right-of-way for the widening of Babcock Street, and will that take away any land.

Commissioner Higgs requested the County Manager check on availability of the privately held parcel to the immediate south of the BCC parcel, which might come together to make the property large enough.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if there is a gas line going through the property.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Land Development Code will address traffic calming devices; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding in approximately 45 days something will come back to the Board.

WARRANT LIST

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:14 p.m.

ATTEST:

TRUMAN SCARBOROUGH, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
( S E A L )