MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

January 9, 2001

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special workshop session on January 11, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Sue Carlson, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Nancy Higgs, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox. Absent was: Commissioner Randy O'Brien.

The Invocation was given by Pastor John A. Mitten, Victory Baptist Church, Port St. John, Florida.

Commissioner Jackie Colon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approved the Minutes of the November 21, 2000 Special Meeting, November 28, 2000 Regular Meeting, and November 30, 2000 Special Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: ESCROW ARRANGEMENT FOR PINTER PROPERTY

County Attorney Scott Knox stated sometime ago the County settled the Pinter case and executed the Contract for the purchase of property in the Mims area; there is a problem in that the Contract was tied to a survey of acreage, and it was not possible to determine the acreage prior to the closing date; and what they have agreed to do is enter into an escrow arrangement where two acres worth of the purchase price will be withheld until the survey is finalized. He requested Board approval to execute the escrow arrangement.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the County Attorney to enter into an escrow arrangement on the Pinter property to withhold the purchase price for two acres until the survey is finalized. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION, RE: MEETING WITH CONGRESSMAN DAVE WELDON

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was an article in the newspaper concerning rent for Congressman Dave Weldon's office; there are a lot of questions; and suggested the Chairman, County Manager, and Facilities Management Director meet with Congressman Weldon to see if something can be worked out.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize the Chairman to meet with Congressman Dave Weldon concerning his office at the Government Center. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE LETTER TO SECRETARY OF STATE, RE: REIMBURSEMENT FOR VOTING
SYSTEM

Commissioner O'Brien advised of newspaper articles concerning the Elections Panel and voting reform; stated Hillsborough County Elections Supervisor Pam Iorio wants the 24 counties with punch-card voting systems, as well as two counties with paper ballots and the lever voting system, to switch to optical scan systems by 2002 at an estimated cost of $25 million; and recommended sending a letter to Supervisor of Elections Fred Galey requesting he be closely involved in the proposed legislation to change the voting machines. He stated the County spent a million dollars for voting machines; and it would be unfair for the other counties with antiquated machines to get a bailout and the County gets nothing. He requested the Chairman write a letter to the Speaker of the House and Senate President advising the only fair system would be for each county to receive a proportional share of money according to population or some other fair and equitable formula.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Secretary of State has the ability to approve or not approve systems; all they would need to do is say the error rate on the punch-card systems is too high; and then the other counties would have to go to another system. She stated she agrees with Commissioner O'Brien that the County should not have to buy its system and the State buy systems for the other counties.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the article indicates it will cost $25 million to buy systems for the 26 counties; some counties are saying they cannot afford new systems; and if the State is going to buy them systems, Brevard County and all the counties that already replaced their systems should get their fair and equitable share in a rebate of some kind.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board saw an analysis that showed the new system would be cost effective and save money, so she does not know why the other counties would look to the State to buy their systems.

Chairman Carlson inquired how long did it take the County to get its system; with Commissioner O'Brien responding approximately four years to agree that it was financially feasible.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the Chairman to send a letter to Secretary of State Katherine Harris requesting, if funding is provided to counties to replace voting systems, that a proportionate share of funding be provided to counties that have already replaced their voting systems. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Commissioner O'Brien talked to Mr. Galey about the issue; with Commissioner O'Brien responding not yet. Chairman Carlson suggested Commissioner O'Brien meet with Mr. Galey, and if he desires, he can bring it back at the next meeting.

ANNOUNCEMENT, RE: TOM METZ

Chairman Carlson announced Tom Metz, who was President of the Homebuilders and Contractors Association, passed away before Christmas; Mr. Metz did not always agree with the Board, but was always fair-minded and straightforward; and he will be missed.

APPOINTMENT, RE: TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Chairman Carlson stated Bob Wille resigned from the Tourist Development Council; Mr. Wille had completed two years of a four-year term; and requested the Board appoint Ed Palmer to finish the term. She noted the appointee has to be a city official.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to appoint Ed Palmer to the Tourist Development Council, replacing Bob Wille, with said term to expire October 7, 2001. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Bob Wille did a wonderful job on the TDC as chairman, and will be missed.

ANNOUNCEMENT, RE: KAREN WILLIS

Chairman Carlson congratulated Karen Willis, Director of Planning and Development for the Brevard Workforce Development Board, who has been elected to the Board of Directors for the National Association of Workforce Development Professionals.

OVERVIEW, RE: FIRE AND DROUGHT SITUATION

Chairman Carlson requested the Public Safety Director give an overview of the fire and drought situation. She stated there have been a lot of fire outbreaks; many have been in her District; and a phenomenal job was done by the firefighters.

Public Safety Director Jack Parker stated Assistant Fire Chief Tim Mills will provide the update as he was on the scene at the Windover fire. Assistant Fire Chief Tim Mills stated the County has been in drought conditions for several months; the rains yesterday were not sufficient to drop the drought index, which has risen to 563; there have been several brushfires in the last month; and the most significant were the one on Sunday in Windover and the one in the City of Melbourne on Wickham Road. He stated the one in Windover involved approximately 35 to 40 acres; approximately 15 homes were in danger; but they hit the fires hard with the cooperation of the multi-jurisdictional agencies, and were able to snuff the fires before they damaged any homes. He stated they responded to the fire yesterday in Melbourne to assist the City; and one business sustained minimal damage.

Chairman Carlson stated the plastic siding on the building had a meltdown. She inquired about the water situation.

Assistant County Manager Steve Peffer stated the St. Johns River Water Management District is having its monthly meeting today and tomorrow; and it is expected some kind of declaration
will be issued regarding water shortages in Central Florida. He stated at this time, he does not think that Brevard County is going to come under any directive from the St. Johns River Water Management District; however, water conservation is in everyone's best interest.

Water Resources Director Dick Martens stated Brevard County is experiencing dry conditions; it is approximately 10 to 15 inches below normal for the year 2000; inland areas including portions of Volusia, Marion, Lake, Seminole and Orange Counties have experienced 20 to 25 inches of rainfall deficit; and the Florida aquifer is at record low levels. He stated the St. Johns River Water Management District is considering a declaration of severe water shortage for those areas; right now there will probably not be a mandatory reduction from water producers, but there will be watering restrictions and restrictions on outside use of water; and although Brevard County is not specifically mentioned, the City of Cocoa receives its water from Orange County, and will be included in the group affected by the cutbacks. He stated conservation is in order as five months of the dry season are ahead.

Mr. Peffer stated although Brevard County has been dry, it is not as bad as the rest of Central Florida; one communication characterized their drought as 100 to 200 year drought; but in Brevard County, it is a five to ten year drought. He stated one of the problems is that the brush is drying out; and high winds and cold weather aggravate the situation.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated he received a phone call from one of the Windover Farms homeowners complimenting the fire crews for saving his house.

Chairman Carlson stated Windover Farms has a lot of native vegetation surrounding the homes; the vegetation goes right up to the homes; and recommended having at least a 30-foot safe area around homes. Mr. Parker stated anyone interested in acquiring any wildfire tips can call their office at 633-2056.

REPORT, RE: APPOINTMENTS

Commissioner Scarborough requested removal of his appointments to the Septic Tank Review Committee from the Consent Agenda.

RESOLUTIONS, RE: EXCELLENCE IN PUBLIC SERVICE AWARDS

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated annually the Board has an opportunity to recognize outstanding employees; it is difficult to select several of so many outstanding employees to recognize; and this year there are two recipients of the Excellence in Public Service Awards.

Commissioner Colon read aloud a resolution commending Virginia Barker for her dedicated service to protect and preserve the natural resources of the County, and selecting her as the recipient of the Excellence in Public Service Award for the year 2000.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution honoring Virginia Barker as recipient of the Excellence in Public Service Award for the year 2000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Colon presented the Resolution to Ms. Barker. Virginia Barker expressed appreciation to the Board; and stated working in the Natural Resources Office is very rewarding; there is a great team of people doing all sorts of exciting things for the County; and working on the beach project has been outstandingly rewarding. She stated the project is going well; it is ahead of schedule; and thanked the Board for letting her work on the project. Chairman Carlson thanked Ms. Barker for her hard work.

Commissioner Higgs read aloud a resolution commending Stephanie Bryant for her commitment to improving the quality of life of the residents of Brevard County and selecting her as the recipient of the Excellence in Public Service Award for the year 2000.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution honoring Stephanie Bryant as recipient of the Excellence in Public Service Award for the year 2000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs presented the Resolution to Ms. Bryant. Stephanie Bryant expressed appreciation to the Board; and stated she enjoys her job.

Commissioner O'Brien read aloud a resolution commenting Steve Latza for his outstanding and dedicated service in protecting the citizens of Brevard County through dependable operation of a 911 Emergency Telephone System, and selecting him as the recipient of the Excellence in Public Service Management Award for the year 2000.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution honoring Steve Latza as recipient of the Excellence in Public Service Management Award. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien presented the Resolution to Mr. Latza. Steve Latza expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution and the opportunity to serve the County. He expressed appreciation to the agencies, managers, dispatchers, and call takers he works with; and stated they do a wonderful job in serving the citizens of the County.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired about strange calls received by 911; with Mr. Latza responding the strangest one was when someone called in on Thanksgiving to get information on how long to cook a turkey, but the majority of calls are for emergencies. Commissioner O'Brien suggested compiling the strange calls into a book.

FINAL ENGINEERING APPROVAL, RE: VIERA, PARCEL E-1

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant final engineering approval for Viera, Parcel E-1, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable, and developer obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

UNPAVED ROAD AGREEMENT WITH TRACY PRICE, RE: WHYNOT DRIVE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Unpaved Road Agreement with Tracy Price for a building permit off an existing right-of-way for Whynot Drive, which has been constructed to the standards of the Unpaved Road Ordinance, Section 62-102. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, ESTABLISH SELECTION
AND NEGOTIATING COMMITTEES, AND EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE: PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES FOR OLEANDER POWER PLANT PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to advertise request for proposals for professional services for the Oleander Power Plant Project; appoint a Selection Committee consisting of County Manager Tom Jenkins or his designee, Permitting and Enforcement Director Billy Osborne, Building Official Carroll Brown, County Development Engineer Bruce Moia, Fire Chief Bill Farmer or his designee, and Facilities Construction Director Samuel Stanton or his designee; appoint a Negotiating Committee consisting of County Attorney Scott Knox or his designee, Building Official Carroll Brown, County Development Engineer Bruce Moia, and Facilities Construction Director Samuel Stanton or his designee; and authorize the Chairman to execute a contract with the number one ranked firm. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CITY OF MELBOURNE ORDINANCE NO. 2000-68, RE:
ANNEXATION IN JOYAL GARDEN SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance No. 2000-68 from the City of Melbourne, annexing approximately 1.3 acres south of Aurora Road in the Joyal Garden Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, AND
APPOINT SELECTION COMMITTEE, RE: A. MAX BREWER MEMORIAL CAUSEWAY
BRIDGE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution reallocating partial funding for rehabilitation of A. Max Brewer Memorial Causeway Bridge to be utilized towards a Preliminary Development and Environmental Study for a high rise bridge; grant permission to advertise request for proposals from consultants for the study; and appoint a Selection Committee consisting of Public Works Director Henry Minneboo, Assistant Public Works Director Ed Washburn, Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff, MPO Director Bob Kamm, and Special Projects Coordinator III Harriet Raymond, or their designees. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT MODIFICATION #2 FOR FINAL PAYMENT TO TRUGREEN LAND CARE, RE:
S.R. 405/U.S. 1 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE I

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Contract Modification No. 2 with TruGreen Land Care for S.R. 405/U.S. 1 Intersection Improvement Project, Phase I, decreasing contract amount by $8,682.50 for change in number of plants and irrigation adjustments; and authorize final payment to TruGreen Land Care at $266.629.41. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS WITH MUNICIPALITIES, RE: MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC
SIGNALS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Interlocal Agreements with Cities of Cape Canaveral, Cocoa, Cocoa Beach, Indian Harbour Beach, Palm Bay, Rockledge, and Satellite Beach, and Towns of Indialantic and Malabar for maintenance of existing traffic signals. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE CREATING
TREASURE LANE ROAD PAVING MSBU

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance creating the Treasure Lane Road Paving MSBU. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, ESTABLISH SELECTION
AND NEGOTIATING COMMITTEES, AND EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE: DESIGN
SERVICES FOR SHARPES COMMUNITY CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to advertise request for proposals from qualified architectural/engineering firms for the Sharpes Community Center; appoint a Selection Committee consisting of Assistant Public Works Director Ed Washburn or his designee, CDBG Manager Jaime Irizarry or his designee, and Facilities Construction Director Samuel Stanton; appoint a Negotiating Committee consisting of Facilities Construction Director Samuel Stanton, Construction Coordinator Bill Clifton, and CDBG Manager Jaime Irizarry or his designee; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract with the number one ranked firm. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ACQUIRE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS, RE: INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS ON ORANGE, MITCHELL, AND HARRY T. MOORE AVENUES IN
EAST MIMS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to acquire right-of-way and easements for infrastructure improvements on Orange, Mitchell, and Harry T. Moore Avenues in East Mims in accordance with approved policies and HUD requirements at appraised value only, and to bring back to the Board the acquisitions above appraised values. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY, RE:
RESTORATION OF EEL SANCTUARIES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Memorandum of Agreement with Florida Division of Forestry for restoration of EEL sanctuaries. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH CARIBBEAN CONSERVATION CORPORATION,
RE: BARRIER ISLAND ECOSYSTEM CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Memorandum of Agreement with Caribbean Conservation Corporation for a Barrier Island
Ecosystem Center. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST AND CITY OF SATELLITE BEACH,
RE: PRESERVATION 2000 GRANT FOR LAND PURCHASES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Conceptual Approval Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement with Florida Communities Trust and City of Satellite Beach for a Preservation 2000 grant for land purchases. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO OBTAIN APPRAISALS, SURVEYS, ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITS, AND
TITLE INSURANCE, ACCEPT TITLE EXCEPTIONS, EXECUTE NEGOTIATED
CONTRACTS, AND PROCEED WITH LAND CLOSINGS, RE: PARKS AND
RECREATION BOND REFERENDUM LAND PURCHASES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize Parks and Recreation staff to obtain appraisals, surveys, environmental audits, title insurance, and accept title exceptions where park improvements are not impacted; authorize the Chairman to execute negotiated contracts and contract amendments required unless specific Board action is required per Florida Statutes 125.355; and authorize proceeding with land closings for the Parks and Recreation Referendum land purchases for the North, Central-Merritt Island, and South Areas. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RENEWAL AGREEMENT MEMORANDUM WITH ADVANCED DATA PROCESSING, INC.
AND PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, RE: AMBULANCE
BILLING SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Renewal Agreement Memorandum with Advanced Data Processing, Inc. for ambulance billing services; and grant permission to advertise request for proposals, including all necessary procedures to secure ambulance billing services starting October 1, 2001, including soliciting of proposals; appointment of a Selection Committee consisting of Public Safety Director Jack Parker, Public Safety Support Services Manager Craig Simmons, Public Safety Finance Manager Ann Fosburr, and the County Budget Manager Dennis Rogero or his designee; and authorize the County Manager to execute the service contract with the most qualified vendor. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION AND JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION, RE: SR A1A TROLLEY SYSTEM SERVICE DEVELOPMENT
GRANT

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution and execute Joint Participation Agreement with Florida Department of Transportation for a SR A1A Trolley System Service Development Grant. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

GRANT APPLICATION, FEDERAL ASSURANCE FORM, AND CERTIFICATION OF
EQUIVALENT SERVICE WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RE:
NON-URBANIZED AREA FEDERAL TRANSIT OPERATING ASSISTANCE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize execution of the grant application, Federal Assurance form, and Certification for FY 2001 Section 5311 Non-urbanized Area Formula Federal Operating Assistance funds of $60,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVE BID REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORIZE PURCHASE, RE: TWO USED TROLLEY
BUSES FOR SCAT'S PROPOSED A1A TROLLEY BUS SERVICE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to waive bid requirements and authorize purchase of two used trolley buses from Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority for SCAT's proposed A1A Trolley Bus Service at a cost of not greater than $124,000 each. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN WORK ORDER FOR POMEROY APPRAISAL COMPANY, RE:
EASEMENT APPRAISALS FOR SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT, PHASE II

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize an increase in Work Order #2000-002-A002 for Pomeroy Appraisal Company up to $45,000 for easement appraisals for Phase II of the Shore Protection Project (South Reach, including Indialantic and Melbourne Beach). Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO PURCHASE BASED ON BID PRICES FOR BID #B-4-0-77, RE: THREE
EMERGENCY PORTABLE GENERATORS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize purchase of three emergency portable generators based on the bid prices submitted for Bid #4-0-77. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVE FORMAL BID REQUIREMENTS AND AWARD FORMAL QUOTE TO TRENCHLESS
SPECIALTIES, RE: REPLACEMENT OF FOUR SUB-AQUEOUS WASTEWATER
PIPELINE CANAL CROSSINGS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to waive bid requirements and award formal quote to Trenchless Specialties for replacement of four sub-aqueous wastewater pipeline canal crossings. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SATISFACTION OF SOLID WASTE IMPACT FEE LIEN, RE: 810 SOUTH INDUSTRY ROAD,
COCOA, FLORIDA

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to accept payment of $20,000 to satisfy the Solid Waste impact fee lien of $41,308 generated by the prior owners of property located at 810 South Industry Road in Cocoa, Florida. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF PROPOSAL #P-1-1-07 AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE
CONTRACTS, RE: WORKER'S COMPENSATION, AUTO LIABILITY, GENERAL
LIABILITY, AND PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY
CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to award proposals to F. A. Richard & Associates, Inc. for liability claims administration at estimated cost of $135,240 for the first of a two-year agreement with annual renewal options, and Underwriters Safety & Claims, Inc. for Worker's Compensation claims administration at estimated cost of $79,590 for the first of a two-year agreement with annual renewal options; and authorize staff to negotiate contracts with both firms, and return the contracts to the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVE FORMAL BID REQUIREMENTS AND AWARD QUOTE #-2-01-17, RE: WOOD
FENCE INSTALLATION FOR MARITIME HAMMOCK SANCTUARY

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to waive formal bid requirements and award Quote #-2-01-17 to East Coast Fence & Guardrail at $50,742 for installation of approximately 450 linear feet of split rail wood fence and approximately 5,890 linear feet of field fence with a single gate around the perimeter of the Maritime Hammock Sanctuary in Melbourne Beach. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

GRANT WITH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, SUBCONTRACT WITH
BREVARD COMMUNITY COLLEGE, PERMISSION TO ISSUE REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS, SIGN DELIVERABLES, AND APPROVE LOAN, RE: EMERGENCY
GENERATORS AT COUNTY SHELTERS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with Department of Community Affairs for a grant of up to $2,029,500 for generators
at schools used as shelter; execute Local Emergency Management Needs Appropriation Subcontract with Brevard Community College for up to $554,000 of the grant funding for a generator located at Melbourne Campus; execute Local Emergency Management Needs Appropriation Subcontract with Brevard County School Board; grant permission to bid services required to meet the budget and scope of work of the grant; authorize award of contracts; authorize the Chairman to execute contracts with the most qualified responsive contractors; designate the County Manager to sign deliverables and modifications to the original contracts; and approve a temporary loan of up to $250,000 from the General Fund until reimbursement from the State is received. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 98, ARTICLE IV,
SECTION 98-107, PORT ST. JOHN DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 98, Article IV, Section 98-207, Port St. John Dependent Special District, to set forth a policy for filling vacant seats when a sufficient number of candidates do not qualify to fill all vacant seats. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: ADDITION OF ZONING MEETING TO 2001 BOARD MEETING
SCHEDULE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve addition of Zoning Meeting on October 4, 2001 at 5:30 p.m. to the meeting schedule. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCEDURES FOR APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATIONS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution amending the rules governing the Board of County Commissioners to include procedures for appeals of administrative interpretations and provide an option to zoning applicants to choose a total of 15 minutes for their presentations or divide the 15 minutes between multiple persons speaking as part of the applicant's presentation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to appoint/reappoint Jim Messer to the Building and Construction Advisory Committee with term to expire December 31, 2001; George Fayson, Sr. and Fannye Faye Johnson to the Community Action Agency Advisory Committee with terms to expire December 31, 2001; Tony Boyles to the Community Based Organization Funding Advisory Board with term to expire December 31, 2001; Ivan Rolle to the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Board with term to expire September 30, 2004; Franklin Livingston, Mary Tees, and Michael Wiedmann to the Contractors Licensing Board with terms to expire December 31, 2001; M. Rene Davis to the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee with term to expire December 31, 2001; Diane Stees and Kim Zarillo to the Environmentally Endangered Lands Procedure Committee with terms to expire December 31, 2001; Brooks Humphrys to the Extension Advisory Council with term to expire December 31, 2001; Ed Bradford, Roz Foster, and Brooks Humphrys to the Historical Commission with terms to expire December 31, 2001; Hele Simonson to the Marine Advisory Council with term to expire December 31, 2001; Richard Wallace replacing Sue LaDow to the Metropolitan Planning Organization Citizens Advisory Committee with term to expire December 31, 2001; Tom Kruezinger, Laurenzia Lewis, and Loretta Whitten to the Mims/Scottsmoor Public Library Advisory Board with terms to expire December 31, 2001; George Broyles and Christopher White to the North Brevard Commission on Parks and Recreation with terms to expire December 31, 2002; Sheila Hutcheson to the North Brevard Library District Board with term to expire September 30, 2003; Jack Houts to the Personnel Council with term to expire December 31, 2001; Ed Coburn, Dan Faden replacing Katherine Martin, Dwight Greenburg, and Matt Sokoloski to the Planning and Zoning Board with terms to expire December 31, 2001; Constantine Daniel, Alice Crowell-Lance, and Maureen Rupe to the Port St. John Public Library Advisory Board with terms to expire December 31, 2001; Joe Littlefield to the Public Golf Course Advisory Board with term to expire December 31, 2002; Susan Cossey and Frank Kinney to the Spaceport Commerce Park Authority with terms to expire December 31, 2001; Raymond Cook and Janis Walters to the Valkaria Advisory Board with terms to expire December 31, 2001; George Cipoletti to the Veterans Memorial Park Advisory Board with term to expire December 31, 2001; and Sondra Ball replacing Leonard Daye and Rebecca James replacing Barbara Ray to the Zoning Board of Adjustment with terms to expire on December 31, 2001. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the bills and budget changes as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY IN
CATALINA ISLES ESTATES, UNIT ONE - BILLY R. AND AMELIA B. SASSER

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a portion of right-of-way in Catalina Isles Estates, Unit One, as petitioned by Billy R. and Amelia B. Sasser.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there have been some problems with this item, but he believes they have been resolved. Assistant Public Works Director Ed Washburn advised there is still an objection from one of the neighbors. Commissioner O'Brien stated this is a road that goes nowhere; the Sassers asked the property be vacated because there is vandalism and illegal parking; and aside from one neighbor, everyone agrees it should be vacated. He stated all other objections have been overcome.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt a Resolution vacating a portion of right-of-way in Catalina Isles Estates, Unit One, as petitioned by Billy R. and Amelia B. Sasser.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the property is vacated, who will get it. County Attorney Scott Knox responded it will go to the abutting property owners. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it would go to all of them, and not just the applicant; with Mr. Knox responding that is correct. Commissioner Higgs stated that is not outlined as part of the agenda item; and inquired if it is done as an administrative measure; with Mr. Knox responding it is an operation of law.

Mr. Washburn stated if the Board chooses to approve the item, it would be subject to the applicant giving the necessary easement to Florida Gas. Commissioner O'Brien advised the applicant has already agreed to do that.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PORTION OF SIDEWALK EASEMENT
IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 29S, RANGE 38E - BRIAN SCULTHORP

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a portion of sidewalk easement in Section 10, Township 29S, Range 38E, as petitioned by Brian Sculthorp.

There being no comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt a Resolution vacating a portion of sidewalk easement in Section 10, Township 29S, Range 38E, as petitioned by Brian Sculthorp. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS IN
BAREFOOT BAY, UNIT 2, PART 13 - RICHARD G. DREW

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility easements in Barefoot Bay, Unit 2, Part 13, as petitioned by Richard G. Drew.

There being no comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt a Resolution vacating public utility easements in Barefoot Bay, Unit 2, Part 13, as petitioned by Richard G. Drew. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE AMENDING ANIMAL
ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCE FOR NEUTERING COMPANION ANIMALS

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider a resolution and ordinance amending Animal Enforcement Ordinance for neutering companion animals.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt a Resolution specifying changes to incorporate State laws relating to sterilization of animals adopted, and adding a refundable deposit of $50 to encourage people to have animals neutered; and adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 14, Animal Services and Enforcement, Code of Ordinances for Brevard County, Florida; specifically adding Sections 14-66, Mandatory Neutering of Cats and Dogs; and providing an effective date.

Chairman Carlson stated in the briefing Dr. Ward mentioned an oversight that would require an amendment to the budget from General Fund Contingency to fund the veterinarian and veterinarian technician, which will be reimbursed later from fees. Dr. Joe Ward, Animal Services and Enforcement Director, stated a veterinarian was included in the startup costs for the project, but a veterinary technician was overlooked; he originally planned to use the people at the North Animal Care and Adoption Center to assist the vet during the surgeries; however, it will be a five-day full-time operation, and it would take those people away from taking care of the animals, which they were hired to do. He stated the fees that are taken in for the adoptions will eventually cover the cost, but the startup cost is not in his budget at this time. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated it would be a revenue offset by expenses. Chairman Carlson inquired if a motion is needed; with Mr. Jenkins responding if the Board is interested, Dr. Ward needs to advise of the amount of revenue he expects to receive and what the expected cost will be. Commissioner O'Brien recommended this be brought back as a separate item.

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

Commissioner Colon stated she wants to make sure the lines of communication stay open in regard to being able to have neutering available to families who cannot afford it. Dr. Ward stated a meeting is scheduled at Commissioner Colon's office on that subject. Commissioner Colon stated she wanted the Board to be aware that it is continuing.

Dr. Ward stated the cost for veterinary technician is estimated at $30,000 a year for salary and benefits; and in order to make the startup, they need $12,500.

Chairman Carlson requested Dr. Ward put the information in the form of a report so all the numbers are justified, and bring it back. Dr. Ward inquired if that is for the veterinarian as well; with Chairman Carlson responding for the overall costs.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2000-56, ADDITIONAL
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN SENIOR CITIZENS AGE 65 AND OVER

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2000-56, Additional Homestead Exemption for Certain Senior Citizens Age 65 and Over.

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated because of the unknown and uncertain fiscal impact of the exemption on bonds backed by Dependent Special Districts, MSTU's, and other voter-approved millages, the County's Bond and Disclosure Counsel suggested amending the Ordinance to exempt those millages to avoid any potential contractual issues regarding the bonds and disclosure issues. He stated the Property Appraiser is also requesting some minor changes to the exemption amounts for fiscal years 2001 and 2002.

Chairman Carlson inquired if it is the intent that the only exemption would be from General Fund taxes; with Mr. Whitten responding affirmatively. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the primary reason is the issue of disclosure; and the most immediate solution is to not include those items.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance 2000-56 of Brevard County, Florida; clarifying the imposition of the additional homestead exemption for certain eligible senior citizens age 65 and over, excluding all ad valorem County tax levies for Dependent Special Districts, Municipal Service Taxing Units, and other voter-approved millages; adjusting the amount of the additional exemption for tax years 2001 and 2002; providing for severability; providing for an effective date and inclusion in the Code.

Commissioner Colon stated this is positive; the federal government has cut back on services for seniors; and if there is any way the County can help to take that burden, it would be greatly appreciated.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he is uncomfortable with the idea that the Property Appraiser would be the one person to say the numbers from Tallahassee are totally wrong; and commented on the unknown and uncertain fiscal impact, difference in numbers projected by the State and by the County, and growing number of senior citizens. He stated the exemption is a good thing; but the Board is going forward with no real figures on what the loss will actually be.

Discussion ensued on the numbers.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF ZONING OFFICIAL
INTERPRETATION CONCERNING JPM INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider an appeal of Zoning Official interpretation concerning JPM Investment Group, Inc.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated there is an establishment that currently has a 2COP beverage license for on-premises consumption; the license is issued by the State; and it is for beer and wine. He stated the State coordinates with the Zoning Office to insure the establishment has the proper zoning in place to conduct such a business; application was made for a 4COP license to expand the sale of beer and wine to include all alcoholic beverages; and it was the Zoning official's interpretation that this would represent an expansion of the nonconforming use, which is contrary to the Zoning Code.

Attorney Richard Torpy, representing the applicant, submitted an Affidavit indicating notice was served on the property; and stated the Board changed the Ordinance in December, 2000, and now hears appeals of decisions from various officials; and the Board will be reviewing the facts and circumstances on which Mr. Scott made his decision. He stated this is not a trial or a conditional use permit request; and the Board is not present to take testimony. He stated speaker cards have been submitted; but it is his position that it would be improper for the Board to allow them to speak, as the Board is to hear what Mr. Scott reviewed in making his decision and not take new testimony. He stated the property is a bar that has been serving alcoholic beverages since prior to 1958; the Board did not regulate service of alcohol through zoning prior to 1958; on October 23, 2000, they requested Mr. Scott sign off on the State's license approving the sale of alcohol in addition to beer and wine; and on November 15, 2000 Mr. Scott sent a letter advising it was a nonconforming use and that the request was an increase in the nonconforming use. He stated the four reasons Mr. Scott cited were that the State of Florida licenses beer and wine differently than liquor as evidenced by the different types of licenses; that the previous owner requested and was denied a CUP by the Board in February, 1991 and May, 1995; that the Board denied the requests; and that the Code differentiates between beer and wine and liquor. Mr. Torpy noted Section 6-3, which was cited, deals with the times someone can serve beer and wine versus liquor; and the only distinction is that full liquor cannot be served on Sundays until 1:00 p.m. while beer and wine can be served seven days a week. He stated none of the things cited by Mr. Scott are consistent with the Code; and read aloud from the Code provisions on nonconforming uses, "for purposes of this subdivision the term nonconforming uses is defined as the use of land or structures that was lawful prior to the effective date of the Ordinance from which this article is derived or the County Comprehensive Plan, or the effective date of any amendment thereto, but is now not permitted within the

Comprehensive Plan or other Codes." He stated the zoning is BU-1; the service of alcohol is permitted on the conditional use permit; and arguably this is not even a nonconforming use. He stated assuming it is a nonconforming use, the Code says, "use of land or structures qualifying as nonconforming use as defined in the Code cannot increase the size of the structure, reestablish the use if it is abandoned for more than 180 days, or build another building or another structure on the land if it is already nonconforming." He stated there is nothing that says it is not possible to add liquor if someone is already selling beer and wine; the citation Mr. Scott is relying on has to do with expansion of the physical use of the premises and whether there will be a higher impact on the land by a bigger structure; and none of that is at issue in the subject case. He stated it is the same size and type of establishment; the only difference is they are upgrading from selling beer and wine to full liquor; and that becomes very important because there is no legal basis in the Code to say this is an increase in nonconformity. He stated they are not asking to do anything under the three provisions; and there are no other provisions in the Code talking about beer and wine or liquor being a nonconforming use. He stated this is a nonconforming use simply because they have been serving for so long. He stated there are cases that deal with the issue of what is the increase of a nonconforming use; and they all have to do with increases in size. He advised of a case where someone wanted to put a car on top of a billboard, and the court said that was an increase in nonconforming use; and a case where someone wanted to take out singlewide mobile homes and put in doublewides, and the court said there was no evidence that there was an increase in size, but the idea was density or increase to the actual impact on the land. He stated in J&R Holdings, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Robert Fontaine versus Brevard County, the case was similar in that there was a bar on A1A which had a beer and wine license and wanted to serve full liquor; the sole issue in the case was whether the County properly denied the petitioner's request to sell mixed drinks in addition to beer and wine; and Judge John Antoon said, "perhaps the sale of alcoholic beverages and other activities on or in the vicinity of the petitioner's property should never have been allowed so near a residential neighborhood; nevertheless, it was allowed; and the denial of the requested conditional use permit was arbitrary and therefore should not stand." He stated it is the same issue that has been presented today; and the court says the County cannot even deny it on a conditional use permit. He stated the applicant does not have to worry about that criteria because he has been grandfathered in; unless he asks for an increase in the size of the building or to put more seats or more parking or something that increases the physical impact, the County's Ordinance says it is not an increase in the nonconforming use; and the court has made the specific distinction between beer and wine and liquor as not being an increase. He stated people may wish the old nonconforming uses were not there, but they are, and this is not an increase; and therefore, Mr. Scott's opinion is incorrect. He stated the Board needs to interpret the Code as written, determine this is not an increase in nonconformity, and authorize issuance of the license. He submitted paperwork to the Clerk and to the Court Reporter.

Chairman Carlson advised the first speaker is Annette Yardley; with Mr. Torpy objecting to public input for the reasons he gave earlier. Chairman Carlson inquired if there is any validity to Mr. Torpy's objection about entering additional testimony. County Attorney Scott Knox responded there is no legal objection he could pose; and it is within the Board's realm of
freedom to ask for comments from the audience on any subject. He stated they have a right to speak; but the Board cannot really consider what is said in terms of the impact on whether Mr. Torpy is right on the legal issues.

Annette Yardley stated she lives behind the bar; and described her property. She stated she accepts that the bar is grandfathered in for beer and wine, but not for more; advised of the businesses which have operated on the property; and described problems with inadequate parking, removal of "No Parking" signs, noise, and odor. She stated there is no other place in the area that sells liquor; advised of children living in the area; and commented on parking and traffic problems.

Timothy Rhoads stated he lives directly across the street from the property, and is aware of the problems with parking and traffic; and advised of serious injury to a friend by a person leaving the lounge one evening, which resulted in his friend losing her business and her health. He commented on problems with noise, parking, and provisions of the Covenants of Deed; and stated the neighborhood is attentive to the problems.

David Spurlock stated his property is behind the bar; and reiterated the objections voiced by his neighbors to the expansion of the license. He commented on dangers from intoxicated drivers, trespassing on his property by bar patrons, and bottle noise; and stated he does not want to stand in the way of someone making a living, but how the owner is making a living is what the neighbors have a problem with.

George Hurt thanked the Board for its role in the beach renourishment project. He commented on previous requests to expand the license being denied by the Board, beer and wine license not entitling someone to full liquor license, change of business from sandwich shop to topless bar, and surrounding neighborhood. He stated he previously submitted a letter advising of the history of the property; and expressed concern about the increase in business resulting in an increase in intoxicated people going onto the roads, and the remoteness from emergency services. He stated there is a dramatic difference between beer and wine and hard liquor; the State and County recognize the difference, which is why there is different permitting; and he hopes the Board will consider that in its review.

Mr. Torpy reiterated the applicant is not before the Board to get a conditional use permit as the owner was in 1991 and 1995; the conditional use permit process allows the Board great discretion in reviewing the issues brought up by the individuals; but they are present to look at the reasons Mr. Scott denied the request. He stated there is no issue that this is a nonconforming use; it has been serving alcoholic beverages since before the Board regulated those things; the County law tells what a nonconforming use is; and in each of the instances it talks about enlargement of the structure or facility. He stated the people have mentioned they anticipate more traffic, which may or may not be true; the applicant anticipates a different type of traffic and clientele; and the parking spaces, seating, and occupancy are not changing; so granting the right to sell liquor will not increase the use of the structure unless the owner violates the current occupancy or parking requirements. He stated they have not asked to expand the structure or parking in any way; and there is nothing in the Code that talks about a change in the product being served being an increase in a nonconforming use. He noted if he had a barber shop where he cut men's hair, and then also started cutting women's hair, that would not change what he was doing; and the business already serves alcoholic beverages. He stated the Board is in a tough position as the appeal panel looking at its own Code; he understands the difficulty of the decision; and he would have preferred the decision to have been at the Board of Adjustment level. He stated Judge Antoon's opinion clearly states that once the serving of alcoholic beverages is allowed, whether it was a good or bad decision, there can be no legal distinction between the service of beer and wine and the service of alcoholic beverages. He requested the Board look at its law and make its decision based on the law.

Chairman Carlson requested the County Attorney go over the main powers of the Board in deciding these types of issues. Mr. Knox stated the Board must look at the Ordinance and decide whether Mr. Scott interpreted it properly or not based upon the facts that have been presented in the form of the documents that are included with the agenda item. He stated the Board should read the Ordinance, look at the circumstances that have given rise to the appeal, and decide whether Mr. Scott is right or wrong; and recommended Mr. Scott be allowed to speak. Chairman Carlson stated it says, "upon hearing such appeals, the Board's decision shall not be contrary to the public interest"; and requested an explanation. Mr. Knox advised it means the Board cannot interpret the Code in a fashion that would be contrary to public interest; the Board cannot create a new interpretation that would be contrary to public interest because public interest is what runs the Code; and if it came down to a choice between one interpretation or another, the Board would have to go with the interpretation that promotes the public interest.

Mr. Scott stated the empowerment that the Zoning Official receives from the Zoning Code to interpret the Code is due to the fact that it was recognized that the written word cannot contemplate every event that the Code will have to address as it is being applied to real situations; and the Zoning Official was given the authority to interpret provisions. He stated he would like to rebut one of the statements made by the applicant regarding the non-applicability of the expansion of nonconforming uses to a use; that section only addresses the expansion of structures; and the second word in the definition of what someone cannot do in an expansion, enlargement or modification is "use." He stated his basis for the interpretation was on the use of the property expanding from one that was just for beer and wine to one for full alcohol. He stated with regard to the nonconforming status of the structure, a use or a structure that does not have a conditional use permit, but is required to have one by today's Code, is by definition a nonconforming use. He noted he was shown the case law only minutes before the public hearing, and was not able to go over it in depth; but it appeared that the Judge was reviewing a situation where there was beer and wine permitted onsite, and the denial of the conditional use permit was deemed to be arbitrary. He stated in the case before the Board, there is a nonconforming status; it is not a situation where the use is permitted by the Code; and that is what gives that use special restrictions. He stated there are instances in the Code where a distinction is made between beer and wine and full alcohol, specifically Section 6.3 of the Code; and the State differentiates between the two as evidenced by the fact it requires different COP permits depending on what is to be served. He stated he has seen the Board repeatedly deliberate on rezoning applications that have entailed beer and wine or full liquor; it has considered the neighborhood impacts and the differences that those types of uses might have on neighborhoods; it is compelling to recognize the site has applied for two conditional use permits in the past and was denied; and one could argue that avenue has been exhausted, and now it is appropriate to try and exhaust this remedy, which is an appeal to the Zoning Official interpretation.

Chairman Carlson inquired what were the bases for the two denials; with Mr. Scott responding the discussion focused on neighborhood impacts, and if over time, the use had been able to find a coexistence with the neighborhood, and whether the balance would be exacerbated by the introduction of an expanded bar menu.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Zoning Official has made a very good case; there is no buffer in the area between the business and the adjacent residential neighborhood; the Noise Ordinance is being violated on a regular basis; and there is a detrimental effect upon the surrounding community by the impact of traffic and the need for additional parking. He stated evidence of offsite parking has been substantiated by testimony; and that means people are walking down A1A, which is dangerous to the public. He stated community standards must be considered; the zoning for beer and wine is appropriate for this location; and additional customers that would be generated by the expanded use would only increase the nonconforming use. He stated the establishment is incompatible with the Future Land Use Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and the community standards; and because of the documented noise being created by the bottles being dumped, it would be prudent to set the closing hour at 11:00 p.m. He commented on lack of police protection. He stated the Code, as previously cited by Mr. Scott, is currently interpreted and fully supported; and if the Board denies the request, it would also show support for lack of public purpose. He stated the Zoning Official is given the authority to make interpretive decisions; there is a requirement for a permit; there is a nonconforming status; the Board has considered conditional use permits for beer and wine in neighborhoods other than this along with the community standard; and for the stated reasons he will move to deny the application.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny the appeal of Zoning Official interpretation concerning JPM Investment Group, Inc.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the motion should be to support the interpretation. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is trying to do something a little different here; and inquired if it would be prudent, instead of voting on the motion today to defer this until the Attorney is able to come up with a legal basis for the denial. Mr. Knox stated it is important to frame exactly what the issue is. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board should defer the vote, and direct the County Attorney to return with a written decision. Mr. Knox suggested he frame the issue first before the Board votes; and advised he could come back with something in writing. He stated the crux of the issue is how to interpret Section 62-1182, Subsection A, Subsection 1; Mr. Scott has said that under his interpretation the use of the land cannot be extended, enlarged or increased, and that going from beer and wine sales to full alcohol sales is an extension, expansion, or increase in the use of the land; and Mr. Torpy is saying that is not what Section 62-1182 says. He stated Mr. Torpy is saying that the use of the land cannot be enlarged, extended, or increased, but that means someone cannot enlarge, extend, or expand to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied on the effective date of the Ordinance; and he is saying that has to be read in the context of the expansion upon the land as opposed to an independent separate basis for determining whether the use has been increased or extended. He stated there are two different ways of reading the provision; one is to say the use of the land cannot be enlarged, extended, or increased; and the other is to say that the use of the land cannot be enlarged or increased to occupy a greater area of land.

Commissioner Scarborough stated historically the Board had to review moving from beer and wine to hard alcohol; in each case the Board has consistently felt that it was an increase in use that could have an impact; beer and wine is sometimes just associated with a restaurant environment; and it is a fundamental change in use which is much more profound than the example given of cutting men's or women's hair. He stated he wants to be sure the Board touches on the right issues; the County Attorney can articulate that for the Board; and rather than getting fouled up in court and having to come back and clean it up later, he would prefer to make sure everything is done correctly. Mr. Knox stated the Board needs to say whether it finds Mr. Scott's or Mr. Torpy's interpretation to be correct. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is going to vote on the motion, which will do that; but as a part of the motion, the Board should instruct the County Attorney to come back with appropriate language. Mr. Knox stated the Board needs a written order.

Commissioner O'Brien withdrew his motion.

Mr. Scott stated Subparagraph B says, "in addition to the provisions of Subsection A of this Section, structures qualifying as nonconforming use as defined in this Subsection shall not be enlarged, extended, increased or expanded in any manner unless such enlargement, extension, increase or expansion is specifically in conformity with the provisions of this Article and does not increase the nonconformity of such use."

Mr. Knox advised the two interpretations are Mr. Scott's which says that applies to use, and Mr. Torpy's that says it only applies to structures; and the Board has to make the call.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he wants the motion to include everything he said prior to this point, and to include B, Subparagraph 2, that says, "and does not increase the nonconformity of such use."

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the County Attorney to create a resolution indicating the Board, after considering the appeal of JMP Investment Group, Inc, finds the interpretation of the Zoning Official to be correct.

Mr. Knox stated he will create a resolution that conforms to whatever decision the Board makes; and he will bring it back within two weeks.

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

Chairman Carlson stated Mr. Knox will bring back a report in two weeks; with Mr. Knox advising that will be the event that allows Mr. Torpy to appeal to the Circuit Court, which he is sure he will do. Mr. Torpy advised that is correct; and inquired if there will be additional discussion in two weeks. Commissioner Scarborough advised any time something comes from staff and the County Attorney, there is an option for further inquiry. Mr. Torpy inquired if it will be on the agenda; with Commissioner Scarborough responding affirmatively.

Discussion ensued on where and when the item will be heard in two weeks.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to continue the public hearing to consider an appeal of a Zoning Official interpretation concerning JPM Investment Group, Inc. to January 23, 2001. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 10:37 p.m. and reconvened at 10:49 p.m.

CONSIDERATION, RE: AMENDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TAX EXEMPTION
GUIDELINES

Dale Baswell stated Hydro Aluminum Rockledge was one of the initial companies that received ad valorem tax abatement in 1995; and they support the ad valorem tax abatement as it currently stands or with more relaxed requirements. He stated it is a critical tool to support growth for added value businesses; and presented slides showing that Hydro Aluminum has spent $29 million in total investments from 1995 through 2000 at its Rockledge location. He stated they own 40 acres; only 16.5 acres are developed; and the rest was permitted in 1997 for future expansions. He noted $13 million of the $29 million has been under ad valorem tax abatement, representing approximately $200,000 in tax savings and a taxable investment of $16 million; approximately 55% of the total has not been subject to ad valorem tax abatement, which represents an increase in taxes; and incentives such ad valorem tax abatement have enabled Hydro Aluminum to add jobs for residents. He stated their tax base went from $156,000 to $297,000 from 1995 to 2000. He commented on their initial exemption, not having equipment delivered until the abatement was passed, additional exemptions in 1995 and 1997, and plans for future expansions. He urged the Board to not make it harder to receive ad valorem tax abatements; stated if the average annual salary is changed to $29,519, it would probably exempt Hydro Aluminum in some of its expansions; Hydro Aluminum wants to continue to grow in the County; and recommended the guidelines be left as they are.

Nancy Heller, on behalf of the EDC and Excell Agent Services, stated they have been a recipient and have seen the benefits of the Ad Valorem Tax Abatement Program. She presented newspaper articles concerning Excell's beginnings in the County and the success of the EDC. She stated Excell opened in 1996; they hired and trained 600 directory assistance operators in six weeks at entry level wages; and the Center employed 1,200 County citizens in less than a year. She stated today the Center employs 705 operators and support staff; all employees are trained and promoted from within; and the cost of training is over $1,000 per person. She stated Excell provides directory assistance for ATT primarily; and most operators with base pay plus incentive make $10 to $12 an hour. She stated 75% of the existing support staff and management started at the entry level position; of that 75%, 50% make $29,519 or more; and they continue to look for new opportunities in the call center environment that will bring higher skilled jobs and higher pay to the existing staff. She advised of benefits including paid on the job training, health insurance, a 401K retirement plan, life insurance, full vesting at three years, job advancement training, job opportunities at other locations, and a day care supplement; and commented on contributions to the community. She stated they have received help from the County, and will continue to support the employees and the community; and they do support keeping the tax abatement program requirements the same.

Gilbert Russell, representing SunTrust Bank, asked everyone in support of maintaining the Tax Abatement Program as it is to stand; and a large group stood. He commented on the ad valorem exemption as a tool, leveraging dollars, attracting new quality industry and jobs, and State incentives. He stated some of the incentives are for training while others are for improvement of property; and they create jobs for workers at all levels. He stated if changes are made to the program, it will create a digital divide; it will give incentives to highly skilled jobs; but ignore step-up positions; and recommended making no change to the program. He advised of the return on the investment made for abatement, number of times the program has been adjusted, need to reapply and re-qualify each year, and the abatement committee and process. He recommended there be no modifications; noted 83% of all workers in the County earn less than $29,000; and commented on the value of the abatement program to the community.

Jeff Greenhill, representing SunTrust Bank, commented on the need for consistency with business recruitment efforts, four changes to exemption program in four years, companies choosing to not relocate to the County if salary guidelines are implemented, and need for jobs that allow workers to move from the $15,000 level to the $29,000 level. He stated 60% of workers in the County earn less than $15,000; and with salary guidelines, a society of "haves" and "have-nots" will be created. He advised of a company that was denied a tax abatement by Lubbock, Texas based on salary guidelines; stated the company moved 45 miles to the north to Plainview, Texas; Plainview grew from 20,000 people to 25,000 people within two years; and the company expanded to 500 additional workers and increased the size of the warehouse without additional tax abatement. He stated tax abatement is a very big economic development tool; and the Board needs to be sure it does not adopt guidelines such as high average salary that will eliminate the County from being competitive in the economic development of the County.

Howard Becker, representing Sarand Corporation and the Brevard County Manufacturers' Association, stated the Association represents over 800 manufacturers employing more than 45,000 people. He advised of the County's uniqueness in that employees live in the community where they work; and stated as a result, the executives and owners of the manufacturing firms are concerned about quality of life issues that include the environment, public education, and government services. He commented on quality of life, manufacturers paying high wages, manufactured products, and funding of community services. He stated the incentive program has built-in circuit breakers; if companies do not create the jobs, they do not get the incentive; and that is an excellent check and balance system. He expressed opposition to any changes in the current ad valorem tax incentive program and to the continual raising of the subject. He commented on the incentive program being a valuable tool to sell expansion to Brevard County, success in combining quality of life issues with economic expansion, and efforts of the Board, the EDC and others to develop momentum in the community. He stated Brevard County is the 7th largest high-tech manufacturing community in the country; that has been accomplished while maintaining air and water quality, and maintaining the County as a great place to live. He recommended the County take a consistent, thoughtful approach to attracting new business and encouraging current businesses to expand in the area; and advised the current ad valorem tax incentive program represents such an approach.

Heidi Brandow, representing the Cocoa Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, expressed support for the tax abatement program and desire for no changes; and stated the Chamber agrees with the presentations concerning keeping the program as is. She stated for industry coming into the area, the program is a recruitment tool that is needed competitively; but more important, it encourages homegrown businesses to mature and grow. She stated eliminating or changing the program sends a message to existing businesses that the Board is not willing to invest in the ingenuity and progress of its own in the County; and keeping the program says the Board has faith in local businesses.

Greg Moore, representing Enterprise Florida, stated across the United States, and particularly in Florida, there is polarization of salaries; and commented on economic growth coming to an end, unemployment at historically low levels, higher unemployment rates for minorities and women, and people being qualified for $25,000 to $27,000 a year jobs. He state larger companies are interested in a high quality, educated workforce; but smaller companies favor cash because there is no shortage of employees for those types of jobs. He stated when the program began, there were no salary levels imposed; based on what the Board is proposing, a company creating 60 jobs and making an $8 million capital investment would receive no abatement if the salaries were only $28,000; and to some that looks like an increase in taxes on those who can least afford it. He stated it is not good public policy to impose the increase in salaries.

Dale Ketcham, representing AJT & Associates, advised of the firm's use of the abatement program to make a considerable investment in a new building in Cape Canaveral; and stated that has contributed considerably to the growth in Cape Canaveral. He stated he is familiar with economic development activities in a number of communities over the last ten years; and dollar for dollar Brevard County has as good or better economic development organization than any place in the southeast United States. He commented on tax abatement as a tool, competing interests, tax dollars going somewhere else, third meeting in four months involving the business community, and supporting the EDC. He stated the more the Board empowers the strength of the EDC, the better off the investment in that strength will be.

Dale Coxwell, representing Mid-Florida Steel, stated they obtained a tax abatement which has allowed the company to expand and create a safe working environment for its employees; but if the qualifying wage level had been $29,519, Mid-Florida Steel would not have qualified. He stated it is not realistic to set a qualifying annual wage at a level that exceeds 83% of the County's employed workforce; establishing the minimum qualifying wage at $29,519 will exclude most local industrial-oriented manufacturing businesses; and these are the businesses that are competing to design, build, and maintain the new facilities for the higher end manufacturing companies the County is trying to draw to the County. He recommended the Board think about this before making a decision.

Henry Hill, City Manager of Melbourne, and member of the EDC Executive Board, thanked the Board for the successful program the County is operating with the ad valorem tax abatement effort, which is superintended by the EDC; and advised of approved abatements which will result in 2,000 new jobs being created in the Babcock Street corridor in Melbourne. He emphasized it is important for all Brevard County; and advised of the impact on housing, shopping, and restaurants. He stated the program has been very successful; and expressed appreciation for the County's efforts. He encouraged the Board to maintain the program in the same manner in which it has been operating.

Jeff Troan, representing Lockheed Martin, stated the company was pleased to be a beneficiary of the tax abatement program last year; and it will help improve the company's competitiveness over the next 10 to 20 years. He stated the program gives the County a significant advantage over other locations; and urged the Board to not limit the ability to apply the program. He advised of situations where a good program could not be applied to a good project because it did not meet the number of employees or the employment goals.

Clarence Rowe, representing the Central Brevard Branch of the NAACP, stated each Commissioner has been given a package; and outlined the contents, including a list of companies eligible for tax abatement, letter from the County Attorney concerning affirmative action policy, information on membership dues, information on getting the EDC to be a part of helping the less fortunate, and the latest figures dealing with unemployment. He advised of census tracts having high unemployment, disenfranchising certain parts of the community, need for additional information, and talk about the economy booming not applying to those census tracts. He requested the Board hold a workshop to see if a partnership between the County, the EDC, BCC, and the School Board can be worked out. He commented on a conversation with Commissioner O'Brien concerning need for transportation; and stated nothing has been implemented even though there are people who need to work but cannot get to work. He stated 68% of the people work part-time; those people do not get any benefits; and reiterated his request for a workshop. He commented on CDBG funds being insufficient, inability to get requested documents because of problems with confidentiality, average salary not applying to certain census tracts, and need for improvement in tracts where unemployment is high. He requested the Board do positive things to make improvements and formulate partnerships; questioned membership dues of $2,500 to $10,000; and advised of the makeup of certain committees and the exclusion of those citizens who are barely making enough to survive. He requested the Board consider hiring a consultant or consulting firm to find out the cost of living for an individual; and advised of information received from a friend in Dallas concerning cost of living. He stated the cost of living is so outrageous that people cannot afford to survive; and he would appreciate the Board doing something to formulate a partnership. He stated in 1998, when there were attempts to deal with the CDBG Board to try to help some people, that was rejected; and reiterated his request for a workshop.

Commissioner Colon inquired about Mr. Rowe's opinion on the qualification of $29,519. Mr. Rowe stated he did not receive the information he requested in order to make a decision; his concern is that people be paid a decent wage; and there are people who have worked all their lives, but never get anywhere because their income is insufficient. He stated he hopes the information he requested will be forthcoming; and suggested the companies put forth upward mobility programs so people can advance up the ladder based on their skills and abilities. He commented on the need for transportation so people can get to work.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he and Mr. Rowe have talked; Mr. Rowe would like to see some means of greater accountability that certain census tracts are being positively impacted by the program; and just to have a lower threshold does not accomplish that. He stated if there is just side-to-side movement, the question becomes to what extent the Board is creating upward mobility; the EDC would say there is a need to have upward mobility for the people who do not have good jobs and the unemployed; and Mr. Rowe would agree with that. He stated Mr. Rowe wants to be shown how that has been accomplished; and until there is a methodology to demonstrate that, there is a lack in the program. He stated as far as wage, Mr. Rowe does not disagree with the upward mobility throughout; if someone is earning $25,000, he should be moving to $30,000; it needs to be jobs that benefit the community; and that is why Mr. Rowe is requesting additional information. Mr. Rowe stated it should be jobs that have a future.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Mr. Rowe has talked to the Workforce Development Board; with Mr. Rowe responding no, and he does not want to meet with anyone until he has done his homework. Mr. Rowe stated he is upset about books he received from Mr. Lugar; it looks like a double set of books; and both have the same cover, but one has 20 pages and the other is approximately 60 pages.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the confidential information Mr. Rowe is seeking can be found in the public library or on the Internet; and suggested several sources including Dunn & Bradstreet, the NCA, the Securities Commission, or in the prospectus of a public company. He stated a lot of information is available, but it is necessary to look for it. Mr. Rowe stated he made verbal and written requests to the County; this involves taxpayer dollars, and as a citizen of the County he has a right to make that request. He stated that information can come through the County; and if necessary he can go to Atlanta or Washington to get it. Commissioner O'Brien reiterated the information is in the public library; and it is not necessary to go to Washington. Mr. Rowe advised the EEO-1 report is not in the library. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Mr. Rowe voted for or against the 1994 referendum; with Mr. Rowe responding he voted for it because he saw big things happening, but does not see those things happening in his community. Commissioner O'Brien noted the last time Mr. Rowe was before the Board, he said he voted against it. Mr. Rowe reiterated he voted for it; he does not feel he made a mistake; but he does feel it is being totally ignored; and suggested the Board focus on it. He stated if Commissioner O'Brien finds an EEO report at the library, he would like to see it.

Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Rowe has met with Lynda Weatherman; and advised of the importance of opening lines of communication. She stated she would be more than happy to set something up so Mr. Rowe can meet with Ms. Weatherman to start opening the lines of communication; and it may be worthwhile to give the EDC an opportunity to come up with the data to justify the tax abatement for companies that would bring certain levels and jobs to the community. She stated the idea is not just to include companies with salaries of $29,000 and above, but to allow companies that will pay lower than $29,000 so the community Mr. Rowe is referring to will be helped by the abatements. Mr. Rowe stated he does not have a problem with that; once he has been given the information, he is willing to listen; but until he has done his homework, all he can do is accept what others are saying; so, he is not going to meet with anyone until he has done his homework and can have an exchange of ideas. Commissioner Colon stated she would like to be present for such a meeting; and it would probably take a number of meetings. Mr. Rowe stated he does not have a problem with that; and he mentioned partnerships with different organizations including the EDC.

Franck Kaiser, representing the Home Builders and Contractors Association, expressed concern about the Board's position on tax abatement; and stated there is no need to raise the bar. He stated the tax abatement program is the strongest tool in the County to encourage new business and growth; but it is also the most misunderstood tool. He stated industrial, commercial, professional and residential construction are impacted by the companies that are brought to the County whether the jobs pay $29,000 or $18,000; the revenue generated to the County comes from a number of different sources by the companies generating the jobs; and advised of the record number of building permits in the last year. He stated the largest contributing factor to that has been the jobs created by the EDC in the last few years, specifically in the last year; and commented on first-time home buyers who make less than $29,000, bond programs, and executive housing. He stated tax abatement is actually a deferment of taxes; when it is offered as an incentive, the companies will grow; and as they do, they will generate more taxes in the future that will offset the abatement. He stated the economic impact analysis done on the tax abatement program does not take into consideration revenue generated to the County by permits, plan reviews, inspection fees, fees paid by construction workers, taxes paid by new home buyers, or sales of building materials, appliances, and furniture. He cautioned the Board about sending unfriendly signals that may send value-added jobs elsewhere; stated the system is designed to be self-regulating; and before tightening incentives, the Board might look at other incentives such as job credits, free land for industrial sites, free buildings or buildings with subsidized rent, and below market loans for industrial development.

John Newton, representing CIA Developers, stated the company builds and designs industrial project and incubator buildings for high-tech and industrial companies in Brevard and Volusia Counties; they have been in business for 20 years; and he has been a part of the company for six years. He stated in the past six years, they have built approximately six or seven facilities; some are single-tenant buildings, but most are multi-tenant; and commented on not knowing when they build the building who will occupy it. He stated the six or seven buildings have generated approximately 30 or 40 companies employing approximately 10,000 people; and commented on the types of companies in the buildings. He stated they never know in advance who will be in the buildings; and it would be unreasonable for the Board to consider, in advance, of companies needing to expand, what the companies should be to qualify for the abatement. He stated it should be looked at case-by-case with some kind of guidelines; but if a company is bringing the type of jobs to the community that will benefit the community, that type of company should be looked at and there should be some flexibility. He stated the companies may need an abatement to expand and grow; often without such an abatement program, the likelihood of those companies increasing wages and employing more people will not happen; and the companies will either stagnate, go out of business, or choose a location where an abatement program is available. He advised the most important things are flexibility and an open means of interpretation to qualify the most types of companies.

Helen Voltz stated she read in the newspaper that the Board was going to address tax abatement again. She noted Commissioner O'Brien is correct in that Mr. Rowe did say at the last meeting that he voted no on the tax abatement, which makes her question whatever else he has to say about it. She stated the business community is tired of coming to the Government Center to talk about tax abatement; and most of the people present are not even qualified for abatement, but represent businesses in the community. She stated the community voted on the issue of tax abatement; they said the Board may apply the tax abatement; however, the people assumed the Board would apply the abatement, which is evident by the Cities of Palm Bay and Melbourne passing abatement incentives; and the Board should support the program regardless of personal feelings. She stated she never supported the EEL Program, but voted to buy the properties because the people voted to do so. She noted $29,500 is approximately $15 an hour, which is a lot of money; and what the Board is saying is that people who make less than that or who do not have the ability to make that much are not really important in the community; and that is an arrogant decision. She stated those people making less are the majority of the citizens; they voted for this program; and the Board should leave the program alone. She stated there is a very qualified staff to administer the program; and the Board has no reason to look at tax abatement once the program is in place. She stated the EDC is a great organization; they are on top of the business community, more so than government is; and the Board should let them do what they are experts at doing.

Joe Matheny stated he supports some form of tax abatement; and activity is expected at Port Canaveral that could benefit from abatement.

Ann Coburn stated last year she contacted Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs about tax abatement; she has been here less than three years, and so did not vote on the referendum; but tax abatements can be a good and useful tool in attracting business to the County. She stated she is in favor of tightening the criteria for granting the abatements; and inquired what is the current salary criteria; with Economic Development Director Greg Lugar responding $26,133. Ms. Coburn suggested increasing the salary requirements on an annual basis; and expressed concern about the criteria for number of employees. She stated 10 or 12 employees are proposed by Oleander Power Plant; and she wonders if that was one of the industries encouraged by the EDC. She stated when calculating average salary of employees, the top one should be omitted; salaries in the County are low compared to much of the country; and she would like to see the rate going up yearly. She stated if they qualify, the County should contract with them, and if they qualify and meet the criteria after each year, they may be given the abatement.

Mr. Lugar stated $26,133 is the average value that can start receiving points in the current method for calculating points to determine the percentages; that does not necessarily mean it is necessary to have that amount in wages for the company to qualify; and if the company has a large number of jobs it is going to create and/or a higher capital investment, it could qualify in one of the other percentages.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the average manufacturing wage; with Mr. Lugar advising a chart has been provided. Mr. Lugar stated the Board asked about the average wage for Brevard County; that is how the $29,519 figure was derived; but the average for the manufacturing category is much higher at $44,000. Commissioner Scarborough inquired under the Statute, what kind of industries can be granted abatement. Mr. Lugar stated there are three categories for new businesses locating in the County and the same for expanding businesses; if a company is involved in processing, fabrication, or compounding of material to produce a product for sale, that is considered manufacturing, and it is necessary to create ten jobs; if a business is not a manufacturer in that category, but is a seller of a product or service, it is necessary to create 25 jobs; however as the Statute is written for both new jobs as well as existing, it is necessary to export at least 50% or more of the product outside the State of Florida, so it excludes local retail type operations. He stated the third category is an office complex related to certain types of industry; and it is necessary to create 50 jobs to qualify. He noted there is a fourth qualification, but it is not applicable in Brevard County because it does not have Enterprise Zone status. Commissioner Scarborough stated the people voted to do this, and they wanted to have an effective program that would add to the overall wealth of the County; and commented on certain industries that have no possibility of getting an abatement such as a medical facility. He stated people would like to see the program increase the overall wealth of the County; that can be viewed in two senses, one being that people with higher wages have more expendable revenue, and the other is to increase the tax base. He stated generally in local government there is a problem in bringing in enough revenue with a home at less than $100,000; a person with higher wages will have more investment in a home and more expendable revenue; so it is easier for the Board to justify the higher wages off the top. He stated the argument made by Mr. Rowe is that the program could be used as a tool to help people move up; while the EDC recognizes that as an important element, there needs to be an exchange of information so there is a degree of accountability that people are being moved from one level to another through the program; there have been discussions with EDC members and Mr. Lugar; and he is still at a loss as to how to implement something with accountability. He stated most of the census tracts that Mr. Rowe brings forward are residential areas; and the people do not expect or want to have an industrial complex going into a residential area. He stated during the election he heard more concerns expressed about how the EDC is working than any other subject; he is not saying that they are not doing a good job; but the Board should not assume that it is where it needs to be as a community because there can always be a better community. He stated the people are not buying off on growth for growth's sake; and they are afraid of it because there are beginning to be greater deficits that are only going to be handled through substantial tax increases or deterioration of quality of life.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the program authorized by the public by referendum in 1994 has brought prosperity to the County; Excell brought to the County a company which trains its employees; and while nobody wants a $6 an hour job, that is all some people are qualified for. He noted Florida's high drop-out rate, high rate of teen pregnancy, and low SAT test scores; stated everyone is not highly trained, educated, skilled, or qualified to make $50,000 a year; and Excell and other firms like it will help to lead a lot of people out of poverty and into an improved quality of life. He stated Harris, Lockheed, GE and others bring the highly skilled engineers and technicians that keep the economic engine fueled; and while someone has to buy the Jaguar and Mercedes, someone also has to repair and maintain those vehicles. He stated 83% of the people in the County earn less than $30,000 a year; abatement is a small investment that has reaped giant rewards; the County abates $508,000 a year; firms like Hydro Aluminum have expanded and are paying an additional $160,000 a year in property taxes than it did before the program; and the program has paid for itself. He commented on a newspaper article indicating Florida's growth rate tops the nation, the County's employment rates being higher than the State's, and increased jobs in the County. He stated the difference between welfare and some service jobs is not great; if the Board can create high-tech, better paying jobs, it will realize its potential of a qualified workforce. He commented on unemployment rates, polarization of salaries, computer revolution, raising standards for education, referendum to empower more spending for education, and remaining competitive. He advised of the contributions of high taxes, impact fees, high operating costs, lack of skilled labor, and economic stagnation in the County prior to 1994; stated the referendum passed, and the Board went to work on behalf of the citizens; and the newspaper headline speaks highly of how far the County has come. He stated the Board can take affirmative action to try to move the employable who live in poor census tracts; it should consider coordinating its transportation system with the businesses so people can get to work; and requested the Board direct the County Manager to look into coordinating work start times with bus route pickup times. He commented on apartment costs in Merritt Island, costs for a young person to survive, people needing entry level jobs, and children having to leave the County to find employment. He stated he hears the cry to not create low-paying jobs; people may feel that somehow if the standard is raised their jobs will pay more; but if the standard is raised and there are no low-paying jobs available, a lot of people will become unemployed due to lack of skills or educational background. He emphasized the need for balance; stated politically higher wages sound good, but in reality it does not work; and advised of employment rates prior to 1994 and since that time. He stated he hopes the County will entice firms that have a lower bar financial as well as those that are high tech, and balance between the two so people can keep their children here, but also keep everyone employed as well.

Commissioner Colon stated the tax abatement program should be left alone; the Board should be consistent; the companies are able to reapply so they can be evaluated again; and the key is to watch the progress every year. She stated it is important to realize that the Commissioners cannot give away the farm and be able to do something for the existing companies; the citizens are the ones who have been paying; and the citizens want people to come into the community who will pay their fair share so there will be a balance. She stated she has spoken to Lynda Weatherman and some of the members of the EDC about things that will have to be done to have a partnership; and she would prefer for the Board to leave the guidelines alone so the County can encourage companies to come and provide the kinds of jobs the community needs. She stated based on the information the Board has and the public comment, that would be the way to go.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is not a fan of abatement, but if it is going to continue, there should be a diversity of wage rates and types of businesses; and she is not in favor of making changes today.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to take no action to amend the Economic Development Tax Abatement guidelines to change the salary eligibility level.

Chairman Carlson stated she agrees with the three Commissioners who have said they do not want to change the guidelines; and inquired who, of the people supporting the tax abatement, has read the economic strategy that the EDC put together; with most of the people in the audience indicating they have. She stated in January, the Board talked about industry clusters and other things; part of the strategic plan is to identify Brevard County industry clusters; and six existing clusters and three emerging clusters were identified. She stated under Goals and Strategies for Economic Success, the overall objective is to build on the existing cluster base, and leverage and grow the emerging clusters; and it lists all the positive things that will happen. She read aloud from page 17 of the plan concerning the regional economic modeling system; stated there needs to be justification; and as long as it can be proven that any abatement is achieving what the strategic plan has set out, she does not have any problem. She stated she does not care how the EDC administers the tax abatement program as long as it fulfills the strategic plan.

Lynda Weatherman stated in 1994 this was voted in by the people of the County; and the first action of the EDC was to ask to look at the return on investment for the companies because the EDC does not want to present companies that do not have the correct return on the investment for the community. She stated the way the Statute and Ordinance are written now, the higher the job, the higher the pay, and the higher the capital investment, the higher return on the investment the company will give to the community, and the higher tax abatement the company will be allowed under law. She stated there are minimum thresholds which must be met, and if the thresholds are not met, the company does not get an abatement. She stated the efforts of the EDC are tied to the strategic plan; and provided an example of going after the manufacturing side of the satellite industry. She stated when existing businesses meet the thresholds that are required and outlined by law, the EDC works with them in regard to the ad valorem abatement; and sometimes those companies are not the ones in the clusters, but have been here and paying taxes for 25 years; however, all of the EDC's proactive effort is in regard to the target industries.

Chairman Carlson inquired if anyone heard a report on television about how Intel will not be hiring any more employees in California due to the problems they are having with congestion, pollution, etc.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the consensus of the Board is not to move the threshold for salary; but there were other things brought forward; and one of the things that was touched on was the cluster. He stated the County, in a partnership with the EDC, is a business; the business is to beat everybody to get the best possible jobs; and the fact that so many people are present today indicates there is a good community to work with. He stated he would like to see a continuing dialogue on adjustment consideration and the cluster as well as those ideas Mr. Rowe touched on. He stated from time to time the County may want to abandon the lower realm of salary if it can demonstrate it is reaching a group that is unemployed. He stated he knows there is a motion on the floor, but after the vote, he would like to go on to further discussion.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should be discussing how to get to the tracts that are the poorest of the poor and how to get those people to work; and the only way to break the circle is to define a way for transportation. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not talking about transportation, but about tax abatement; transportation is a separate issue for a separate date; and the Board needs to let the community know while it is not moving the threshold, there are other dialogues that need to be continued.

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

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the Board continuing dialogue with the EDC and all other interested persons on the clustering target concept and the idea of using tax abatement to encourage industries to employ the less employable.

Chairman Carlson inquired if there is a methodology Commissioner Scarborough wants. Commissioner Scarborough stated he just wants to continue discussion on the two concepts.

Commissioner O'Brien stated some industries may want to purchase vans to pick people up and take them to work; and that may help solve part of the problem.

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

Chairman Carlson stated she has a question under adjustment consideration #2 that talks about the redevelopment districts; and inquired if Mr. Jenkins has anything to add. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the abatement reduction in assessed value is not factored into calculating the redevelopment agency payment; the County is paying more money to the Redevelopment Agency than the revenue being received from the abated property; and this results in two rather than a single tax revenue reduction to the County with no adverse impact to the Redevelopment Agency. He stated the legal question being reviewed is can the percentage reduction in assessed value for abatement be factored into the payment that is made to the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Lugar advised they are working with the Property Appraiser who requested information from the Department of Revenue; and they are waiting for that information. Commissioner O'Brien requested something be put on the Agenda for the first meeting in February. Mr. Jenkins stated it is really a legal question; and once they get the answer, they will put it back on the Agenda.

Chairman Carlson stated the Board appreciates all the business people who came to the meeting; the EDC does a great job; she sits on the EDC Board; and she will continue to stress the need to follow the strategic plan.

CONSIDERATION, RE: PARTICIPATING IN REGIONAL STUDY COORDINATED
THROUGH ECFRPC

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Executive Director of the Orlando Chamber of Commerce is present to discuss a regional project.

Jacob Stuart, Regional Chamber of Commerce President, stated before the Board is the proposal that was made to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council; and inquired how the Central Florida region will compete in the global network in the new century. He stated the competition is not Tampa, but Tokyo; and the counties need to begin to think as a region about a variety of things. He stated the program will help all the counties build a new regional mentality; it will begin to strengthen coalitions; and it will allow maximizing and targeting of available opportunities as a region. He stated in the proposal there are thirteen templates; and commented on presentations to other counties, conversations with Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs, and Carlson, and building momentum. He advised the public can find the entire proposal at the Internet site myregion.org. He stated the proposal is being shepherded by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council; and introduced Sandra Glenn.

Sandra Glenn, Executive Director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, stated several years ago the Regional Planning Council was searching for a new identity, and held a summit; and one of the things that came from that was the need for the Regional Planning Council to change its role to become more of a facilitator and a planner for the entire region. She stated while they were working on a program, the Orlando Regional Chamber of Commerce began to seek partners for a regional study including government, private industries, and institutional facilities; and after hearing the Chamber's presentation, the Council members felt this was a role that the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council needed to be playing. She stated it proposed a number of components to the program; first, it would focus on building a new regional mentality; second, it would work toward strengthening and creating regional coalitions; and third, it will strive to maximize the opportunity and address the challenges. She commented on issues and needs of the region; and requested conceptual approval of the proposal. She stated they are asking the County to become a partner with private enterprise, give a grant of up to $50,000 a year for a three-year period, and sign an interlocal agreement. She stated Jeff Jones of the Regional Planning Council is the project Chief; and commented on benefits of the project, including analysis and information, creation of a new awareness of the focus, and shaping the future of the region. She stated there will be many community meetings, visioning sessions, and input from each of the communities; and the needs of the communities will become a part of the document. She commented on training and leadership, building consensus, and a deeper understanding of regional competition and cooperation; and requested the Board's support.

Joe Matheny, Chairman of the Canaveral Port Authority, stated the Port is proud to be part of the County; and it will make a serious contribution to the program. He stated this is an opportunity for the six counties to pull together and have a real voice in the development of area economics; the Port is willing to contribute $25,000 a year for a three-year period; and the other five counties have already made commitments.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he was invited by Mr. Stuart to a presentation; it was one of the most remarkable things he ever attended; and the whole region was there. He commented on living in the Washington, D.C. area, presentations on Charlotte, North Carolina and Cincinnati, Ohio, and current planning within the limitations of geographical boundaries. He advised of his service on the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, review of developments of regional impact, and failure of the group to be proactive. He stated a map of Los Angeles shows one area even though it is comprised of various counties and cities; and inquired when will this region understand that people coming to our area will have a similar mentality. He stated there are thousands of people coming into this area from around the world; the area has the same visibility of London or Los Angeles; and inquired if the area can capture this in a positive sense, or will it continue fighting. He stated this is one of the best opportunities that have ever presented itself to the greater community.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve County participation in the Regional Study being coordinated through the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council at $25,000 per year for three years, with Port Canaveral committing to a $25,000 match for the next three years.

Commissioner Higgs stated Brevard County benefited from a regional effort by fellow county commissioners to support the Space Center and its effort to build the research center; that effort is worth almost any commitment the Board might make to the regional planning effort; and the County will continue to benefit from the regional support for the Kennedy Space Center. She stated they should have supported the Space Center as it is everyone's Space Center; the region is coming together; and there is tremendous private support for this effort. She recommended the County be at the table when the regional decisions are made; stated Brevard County is linked to Central Florida in terms of economics, transportation allocations, human services, and universities; and the effort will be important to help shape what the region will be. She stated she is proud to be a part of the Regional Planning Council; this is a real step forward; and expressed appreciation for the support of the Port.

County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if the funding source will the General Fund Contingency, and will the Board want to see the interlocal agreement; with Commissioner Scarborough responding affirmatively.

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

Commissioner Scarborough requested the Chairman send a letter of appreciation to the Port.

The meeting recessed at 12:55 p.m. and reconvened at 2:10 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REQUEST FOR VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION FOR ANDY
LAIKIN

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider a request for vested rights determination for Andy Laikin.

Attorney Curt Mosley, representing Andy Laikin and Space Coast Development, stated the Board has previously been given the staff report, the time line, the documents on which Mr. Laikin is relying, the Resolution, and the correspondence between Mr. Laikin and the County. He stated a determination of vested rights has three parts, the first being an action or omission by the County; in June, 1985 the Board adopted Resolution Z-7145, which approved a conditional use permit for gasoline operations accessory to a convenience store in BU-1-A zoning; and in March, 1990 the BU-1-A zoning was amended to change a convenience store from a permitted use to a conditional use. He stated the Zoning Official has taken the position that the change invalidated Resolution Z-7145, and as a result, the CUP was lost; but the Zoning Map has not been changed. He stated in May, 1999, Mr. Laikin entered into a contract to purchase a piece of property; as part of his due diligence, he came to the Zoning Office to confirm the zoning of the property, and was handed a copy of Resolution Z-7145, which said it is a conditional use permit for gasoline operations accessory to a convenience store; and when Mr. Laikin asked if that was still the zoning, the answer was affirmative. He stated Mr. Laikin checked on the zoning on several occasions; he got copies of the material in the file including a site plan that had been submitted by the prior owner who was going to put in a 7-Eleven on the site; and there was correspondence from the County including a letter advising that special use permits (SUP) were going to be terminated by a certain date. He stated the SUP on the property was for professional offices; but Mr. Laikin had no interest in that, so he did not respond. He stated in August 2000, he got a letter from the County advising all conditional use permits (CUP) were going to be terminated or revoked by August 3, 2002 if they were not used; Mr. Laikin contacted the County and was told that his CUP was still good; and he got a letter from the Planning and Zoning Office advising his CUP was still good. He stated the second element in determination of vested rights is that the property owner acted in good faith reliance upon the actions of the County; Mr. Laikin had a letter from the County; he had gone to the County on numerous occasions between May 1999 and November 2000 to confirm his zoning and that the CUP was in effect; and the property owner acted in good faith reliance upon the actions of the County. He stated Mr. Laikin purchased the property; he hired engineers, surveyors, architects, and other professionals; and he expended over $15,000 in reliance on what the County told him. He stated the third element of the vested rights determination is whether the property owner substantially changed his position in reliance upon the County's actions, and as a result incurred obligations and expenses such that it would be unfair for the County to deny his right to the conditional use permit for convenience store with gasoline operations. He stated in the report staff said that Mr. Laikin did not check to see what the current Ordinance was; the current Ordinance says, under BU-1-A, "conditional uses, convenience store, with or without gasoline operations"; if Mr. Laikin had looked at the Ordinance, he would have seen that he needed a CUP for a convenience store with gasoline operations; and that is what was handed to Mr. Laikin by the County. He stated Mr. Laikin did everything he could in good faith reliance upon the Ordinances and what he was told by the County; he expended large sums of money; and when he went to the County in November 2000, after being in contact since May of 1999, to get his plan approved, he was told the conditional use permit was no good because in 1990 the amendment was made to change the convenience store to a conditional use, not a permitted use. He stated there is nothing in the Ordinances that say changing a permitted use to a conditional use voids a CUP; but the Zoning Official has interpreted it that way although there is no authority for it and Mr. Laikin did everything he could possibly do. He reiterated Mr. Laikin did everything he could possibly do, but has been denied; and requested the Board grant the relief he is entitled to, which is that the CUP is valid and he can build the convenience store with gasoline operations.

Stephen Kussmaul expressed opposition to the vested rights determination based on the proposed use not being a good fit for the location, area already saturated with gas stations, traffic safety concerns, and danger to children going to school. He stated it is in the Board's best interest to turn the request down, and request the owner of the property come up with something that is a better fit for the neighborhood. He stated a convenience store is not a good fit; it will take food and money out of all the rest of the businesses; and it will shortchange the neighborhood.

Alice Brutscher expressed opposition to the vested rights determination based on impact to the neighborhood and danger to bicyclers, walkers and skateboarders. She stated another neighbor requested the Board find a busy corner to put the store on, and not make a corner busy just to accommodate another business.

Karen Crandell, representing the parents in Atlantic Gardens, expressed opposition to the project based on the dangers to children going to school, incompatibility of the business with residential use, noise, bright lights, fumes, pollution, fire risk, and the possibility of drunk drivers due to alcohol sales.

Gerard Hazel voiced opposition to the determination based on location across from the Quality Suites exit creating a traffic problem, which might entail need for another traffic light. He requested the Board decline the application for gas station and convenience store.

Bob Kemp stated he owns the Mobil Station in Indialantic; and spoke about supply and demand, and dilution of the market. He expressed opposition to the determination of vested rights based on saturation of the market, property abutting residential property, and lack of buffers.

Richard Williams expressed opposition to the project based on no need for another gas station, no benefit to the neighborhood, and safety issues.

Andy Laikin stated between Eau Gallie Boulevard and U.S. 192 is 3.4 miles; on that stretch, there is a Mobil gas station and one other convenience store; and he is not trying to put anyone out of business. He noted this is not a zoning issue, but a vested rights issue; he has met all the criteria as it relates to the package the Board has; hopefully the Commissioners have reviewed the package showing what he has been told for the past 18 months; and that is primarily what he based his expenditures on and why he bought the property. He stated he never would have done that if the County Zoning Department had not told him that the property was zoned with a valid CUP for a convenience store with gas pumps. He noted he had personal problems which prevented him from moving as fast as he would have liked; but that should not negate the fact that for the whole time, until the day he submitted the site plan, that he had a valid CUP. He advised of an alternate route for school children to the bus stop; commented on the nearby gas station and convenience store and competition; and stated he does not see how those things affect the vested rights issue the Board is considering today. He stated there was a letter from the owner of property behind his requesting a six-foot wall and certain hours of operation; and he has no problem with that. He stated for the whole 18 months he was assured that he had a CUP for a convenience store with gas pumps every time he went to the Planning and Zoning office.

Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Laikin explain his business and how he had been involved in development of real estate; with Mr. Laikin responding back in the 1970's and early 1980's he developed a couple of condominiums, but has retired from development and primarily works as a real estate broker and has a small mortgage company. Commissioner Higgs inquired when Mr. Laikin bought the property, how was it represented to him. Mr. Laikin responded he lived in the Melbourne area; for many years he would drive by the property, which had a Trafford Realty sign on it saying "Zoned for Convenience Store"; then a couple of years later a Prudential sign went up indicating the property was for sale again; and he contacted the realtor. He stated they wrote up a contract allowing him a 15-day contingency to inspect the property and verify the zoning; during the 15 days he went to the County and was handed the CUP from the file, showing the property to be zoned for a convenience store with gas pumps; and after that he closed on the property. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is was represented to Mr. Laikin by the seller that a convenience store could go on the property; with Mr. Laikin responding no, and that is why he went to the County to verify after he put the property under contract. Commissioner Higgs inquired when Mr. Laikin went to verify, did he look under the BU-1-A descriptions in the Zoning Code to determine what the property was usable for; with Mr. Laikin responding he did not, but staff at Planning and Zoning handed him the CUP. Mr. Laikin stated Mr. Scott's report says he did not get a confirming letter; but he did not think he needed a confirming letter when he was actually handed the CUP saying it was good. Commissioner Higgs inquired what does the CUP not say. Mr. Laikin stated he has copies of the CUP and the Zoning Ordinance; requested the Board look at each of them; and noted there is no way to tell by looking at them. He stated he is holding a CUP for a gasoline accessory to a convenience store in a BU-1-A zone; the latest zoning for BU-1-A, under conditional uses says, "convenience store with or without gasoline sales"; it does not give any date; and inquired how a reasonable person would see that it was changed in 1990. Commissioner Higgs stated under the BU-1-A Code it specifies that a convenience store is a conditional not permitted use. Mr. Laikin noted he had the conditional use permit in his hand. Commissioner Higgs stated it was conditional for gas pumps; and it says a CUP for gasoline pumps conditional to an accessory convenience store. Mr. Laikin stated it says, "CUP for gasoline sales accessory to a convenience store in a BU-1-A zone"; it does not say that the CUP was just granted for gasoline; and the Ordinance does not say anything different. He stated it says convenience store with or without gas pumps; the CUP was with gas pumps; and inquired how any reasonable person could interpret it any differently. He stated he is not an attorney; he was given the CUP by the County; and inquired why he would look up the Ordinance when the County opened its files and gave him the CUP and copy of the site plan.

Chairman Carlson requested comment from the County Attorney. County Attorney Scott Knox read, "a conditional use permit for gasoline sales accessory to a convenience store in a BU-1-A zoning classification." Commissioner Higgs inquired what does "accessory to" mean; with Mr. Knox responding it would be accessory to the permitted use of a convenience store, which is different than a CUP. Mr. Laikin inquired if it says that, how would he know that. Mr. Knox inquired if there is any notation on the Zoning Map reflecting the rezoning of the property in 1999; with Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott responding in 1990 it was not a rezoning action, but an amendment to the Code which affected the BU-1-A CUP for gasoline sales. Mr. Knox inquired if there is any reflection on the Zoning Map about the change in status; with Mr. Scott responding no. Mr. Scott advised it is assumed it would affect hundreds of properties and that is why staff encourages people to get written confirmation of what the Zoning Codes mean. Mr. Laikin stated on the Plat Book showing the different zonings, even today it shows a CUP Z-7145 and BU-1-A zoning. He stated at one time he was concerned because he read in the paper that the County was going to do away with all CUP's; he went to the County to see if it would affect him; Mr. Rusnak wrote him a letter; and now Mr. Scott is saying that the letter was really about something else and that staff does not recall verifying the CUP. He stated he does not know what other reason they thought he would be asking about it; he knows they researched it because they wrote a letter dated October 29, 1999 going into quite a bit of detail about exactly how he got his CUP, the zoning, and the land use; and inquired did they forget to include a sentence telling him it was no good anymore. He stated staff thought it was good just like he did or they never would have written the letter like that; he received a letter in June, 2000 asking if he was going to use his CUP, to which he responded he was going to use it as fast as he could; and he does not know what else a reasonable person could be expected to do in a situation like this.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the term "imminent peril"; stated there are questions about impact to the neighborhood; and inquired how imminent peril would be defined in that regard; with Mr. Knox advising if it is imminent peril to the public health, safety, or general welfare of surrounding residents, and it would be some sort of adverse dire consequence. Commissioner Scarborough stated the dire is adding a different dimension; and inquired if it means it has to be something profound; with Mr. Knox responding the word peril implies it has to be something pretty dramatic. Commissioner Scarborough stated subparagraph 3 talks about acts of reliance; it says, "not considered development expenditures or obligation"; and acquisition is not considered an act of reliance. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board would need more information about the $15,000 expenditure because the purchase itself would not meet the requirements of subparagraph 3; with Mr. Knox advising Mr. Laikin would have to go beyond that. Mr. Knox stated he thought he heard there were $15,000 in engineering expenses; with Mr. Laikin advising he has a list of expenses. Commissioner Scarborough stated normally the Board gets itemized bills and canceled checks for evidence.

Commissioner Colon stated she asked those questions to Mr. Laikin when he came to her office; he was able to recall some expenditures that had happened; and she asked about receipts to be able to prove what Commissioner Scarborough has just shown. Mr. Mosley stated they were here at 9:00 a.m. with their engineer who would have been able to provide live testimony as to what he is charging and how much he has been paid, but he had to leave. Commissioner Scarborough inquired did he give Mr. Laikin a bill; with Mr. Mosley responding he did not ask for one. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the engineer has never presented a bill; with Mr. Mosley responding no, they have an agreement, and the engineer is certainly not working for free.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if he walked into a government office to ask if he could build a dentist office on a piece of property; and if staff provided a copy of the CUP and the Ordinance, he would have a reasonable right of expectation that he could rely on that information. He commented on having to go to different offices for additional verification; and stated he gets a strong feeling that the CUP was put into Mr. Laikin's hand, and he had a reasonable expectation that there was a CUP. He stated the Zoning Map says BU-1-A, with a CUP Z-7154; and with what staff and the map are saying, Mr. Laikin would have a reasonable expectation that he had no problem. He inquired how often does a person have to come to its own government to check again, and then when the person has purchased the property and moved toward design and construction, the County says, "no, we've changed our mind." He stated this is not about competition of gas stations; there is a vested right here; government has told Mr. Laikin something along the way; and there is no imminent peril. He stated Mr. Laikin has already spent his money on the property; he has a reasonable expectation; he relied on what he was told by the County; and the average person is not a planning and zoning genius who knows all the scribe marks down the side of every law written and changed along the way. He stated the answer Mr. Laikin was given was that he had a CUP and that the property was still zoned BU-1-A which allows for convenience store and gas station; and he hates to see the Board look the other way on this one.

Commissioner Higgs compared the situation to buying a vehicle that used to be advertised for $20,000, but now is $10,000, and not asking what caused the reduction in price. She stated Mr. Laikin has been a real estate agent for a while and has done some development; the property was advertised as BU-1-A, but not as a convenience store; and if questions were asked, it would have been found that the underlying BU-1-A zoning no longer allows a convenience store unless there is a conditional use permit. She stated the conditional use permit that is on the books is for gas pumps, but a convenience store is no longer allowed without a CUP, so that is the underlying change that has occurred. She stated that is the question that was not asked, just like if she did not ask if the vehicle had an engine, and if she did not ask that, she did not do her due diligence; and if she did not ask if a convenience store is allowed in BU-1-A, then she did not ask the underlying question that a person who is experience in real estate and development should have asked.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he has a document in front of him dated June 26, 2000 which provides that it will not otherwise have any effect on the property's current zoning classification or any of the uses currently permitted on the property and requiring no action on the part of the receiving party. He stated it references a CUP number, so even on June 26, 2000, Mr. Laikin had the conditional permit, and was told there was no effect on the property's current zoning classification; and so he was being told to relax, that it was okay.

Commissioner Colon stated on June 26, 2000 staff sent out a courtesy letter to thousands of property owners notifying them of the Board's intent to revoke unused CUP's; with that kind of letter, staff includes information that pertains to the person; and it almost seems like a personal letter, but in reality according to the information the Board has, it was a letter that was sent to thousands of property owners that pertain to the particular issue.

Chairman Carlson inquired where does the Board stand as far as notification when it makes a change like that; and inquired what is the difference between one or the other getting notification. She stated going back to the letter from Mr. Rusnak, where it says, "nothing has changed in the CUP," would there be more background checking in that regard to make sure it is really a legitimate CUP. Mr. Scott advised that would depend on if the question were asked. Chairman Carlson stated the applicant did ask for backup for the CUP; with Mr. Scott responding that is the contention of the applicant. Mr. Scott advised the June 26, 2000 letter is a form letter; the Board decided last summer to begin the process of cleaning up the zoning maps beginning on August 3, 2002; a 20-year old conditional use permit for a tower in Suntree is what brought to the Board's attention the need to research the many CUP's that have since been invalidated by subsequent changes to the Zoning Code; and the form letter was sent to over 3,000 property owners, beginning the process of farther down the line, doing the in-depth analysis on a parcel specific basis to figure out which CUP's are valid and which are not. He stated the phrase at the bottom of the letter is technically correct that it will not otherwise have any effect on the property's current zoning classification or any of the uses currently permitted on the property, because the property did not contain a convenience store as a permitted use.

Commissioner O'Brien stated eight months prior to that, on October 29, 1999, there was no documentation saying he was informed that his CUP would be changed or that BU-1-A classification would be changed; Mr. Laikin obviously questioned, and the County responded the property is currently zoned BU-1-A and has a conditional use permit under Z-7145 for gasoline sales accessory to a convenience store. He stated it questioned specifically if the proposed amendment to the current mixed use designation on the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map series would affect the current zoning on the above described property; with Commissioner Higgs advising it did not. Commissioner O'Brien stated the proposed neighborhood commercial land use designation on the map series will not impact the current permitted zoning or conditional uses previously approved by the Board; with Commissioner Higgs advising it did not. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Laikin has a CUP; his property is zoned BU-1-A; and inquired what is the problem. He stated 3,000 letters went out; each person who gets a letter has a reasonable expectation that the contents are individual to them; and it means the same thing to one as it would to 2,999 other people. Mr. Scott stated the letter is responding specifically; it is answering a question, which is not whether the CUP can be used for a convenience store; it specifically answers what will the effect be of a change in the mixed use future land use designation to a neighborhood commercial and a community commercial future land use designation, and what effect will that have on zoning in general; and the answer is that it does not affect that. He stated the action of government was merely to convert one future land use designation to two new future land use designations; and this is another illustration of one question being asked, maybe with the thought that something else is being asked, but then the answer is specifically to another question. Commissioner O'Brien stated the last sentence still says, "the above described property will not impact the current zoning, the current permitted uses, the current conditional uses previously approved by the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners." He stated in other words, Mr. Laikin is saying he has the CUP in his hand and the property is currently zoned BU-1-A, and he has a reasonable expectation that based on whatever he has in his hand, he can do certain things on the property. Mr. Scott stated that sentence could have been elaborated to state that if you currently have an invalid CUP, the action will not resuscitate it; and by saying that it will not impact the current zoning, permitted uses, or CUP previously approved, he can sympathize that the wording might fuel a misunderstanding. He stated technically what it responds to is the fact that it has no impact on it, meaning if it is currently invalid, it remains invalid. Commissioner O'Brien advised Mr. Laikin was not told it was invalid by staff, and was in fact, told it was valid.

Mr. Scott stated the letter illustrates that staff was not told to investigate that aspect, and was asked the impacts of a future land use map designation. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Laikin had a reasonable expectation that everybody knew what they were talking about.

Chairman Carlson inquired as of March 29, 1990, what does Mr. Laikin have on the property, and is there a valid CUP; with Mr. Scott responding it is not valid. Chairman Carlson inquired if the records show that he has a CUP, but it is not valid; with Mr. Scott responding that is correct. Chairman Carlson inquired if that is why he got one of the 3,000 letters; with Mr. Scott responding that is correct. Mr. Scott stated eventually staff would begin the process of officially removing the CUP along with over 3,000 others from the County maps; the maps serve as historical documents, documenting all events that have occurred in public hearing as they relate to zoning; and many times there are Z-file numbers and CUP or SUP information on a property that simply indicated there is a lot of history in public hearing on that property; and it becomes the task of staff to research which ones are valid and which have been invalidated over time. Chairman Carlson inquired when the change occurred in 1990, was there not a process to keep a record of the CUP's that would be affected so they could be referred to easily; with Mr. Scott responding it is done on a case-by case basis. He explained staff has on file every iteration of the Zoning Code; when a property owner comes in to inquire if he can use a CUP, staff researches the date on which it was issued, and then compares the status of the Zoning Code at that time to the status today, and uncovers if anything has changed. He stated many times a permitted use has remained a permitted use in that zoning classification for many years; if nothing has changed, staff is able to confirm that the use can go forward; and that is what happened. He stated in the process, when staff was specifically informed of the property owner's intent via a site plan submittal for a convenience store, the site plan was denied; and that has led to this vested rights application. Chairman Carlson inquired if this was not in the middle of a vested rights determination, could Mr. Laikin apply for a CUP for a Convenience Store; with Mr. Scott responding affirmatively. Chairman Carlson inquired why he did not do that versus the vested rights determination. Mr. Scott responded the applicant has the opportunity for his day in court; and the vested rights application, given the correspondence that the applicant has amassed, justified the form that the Board is in now.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Laikin has been told by somebody on staff that he has the CUP and the zoning; and he was never informed that the CUP was invalid. Mr. Scott stated staff denied the site plan, which is when he was told officially. Commissioner O'Brien stated people do not create site plans until after they have purchased property; if he purchased property and wanted to build a house, and had $500,000 invested in the property, and someone said he could not build, he would not be happy; Mr. Laikin is saying he is being treated unfairly; and he does not like to see the Board doing this to someone who did his homework. He stated Mr. Laikin has been told by government that he has a CUP; then he spends his money, time and effort to get a site plan, and is told the government lied; that is not right; and the Board cannot do that. He stated Mr. Laikin was never told the CUP was invalid and that changes had been made; and he cannot deny the request. He stated he understands how the neighbors feel; but the man bought the property in good faith, came to the Board in good faith with a reasonable expectation; he has documented his whole story; and nobody ever told Mr. Laikin not to buy the property because he could not build a gas station.

Chairman Carlson requested Mr. Knox go over some of the points in terms of criteria for consideration and provide his recommendation. Mr. Knox noted he does not make recommendations.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he touched on the issue of imminent peril earlier; and Traffic Engineering Director Dick Thompson come forward. He read aloud a paragraph from a letter, "many school children must pass this already busy and treacherous corner as they walk down Coconut and A1A to their bus stop at Terrace Shores and A1A, which is next to this property. Cars will be darting in and out of this location because of the heavy traffic flow on A1A, and it would be difficult to see children as they come across two sides of a busy parking lot." He inquired if Mr. Thompson can comment; with Mr. Thompson advising he is unfamiliar with the issue. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if he has been to the property; with Mr. Thompson responding no. Commissioner Scarborough stated he agrees with some of the things that Commissioner O'Brien is saying; even though staff was trying to answer a specific question, it does reference a specific piece of property; and when a specific property is referenced, it is incumbent on staff to pull the file and see if there is something unique to the property. He stated he is concerned that the applicant failed to bring in anything to show that he acted in reliance such as billings; the acquisition of property is not an act of reliance under the Ordinances; and he is concerned about the issue of imminent peril because if imminent peril does exist, it can be denied based on that.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to continue the public hearing to consider a request for determination of vested rights by Andy Laikin to allow the applicant the opportunity to present documentation of obligations, when they were incurred, and for what services from the engineer and others that were acts of reliance, and to allow the Traffic Engineering Director to look at the property and report to the Board on whether he sees a potential imminent peril.

Commissioner Colon stated the if this is continued, the applicant may be able to bring evidence forward. She stated another issue has to do with the safety of the neighborhood and how it is being affected as far as quality of life; and she wants to be fair to all parties involved.

Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion to continue the public hearing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. Chairman Carlson announced the issue will return to the Board on January 23, 2001.

Chairman Carlson advised she received a handwritten letter from David Zloch, who was present earlier but had to leave, in opposition to the vested rights request.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE VI,
CREATING SECTION 62-2251.1, USES NONCONFORMING TO PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission to advertise public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article VI, creating Section 62-2251.1, Uses Nonconforming to Performance Standards.

Maureen Rupe inquired how many businesses are now nonconforming; advised of the example given concerning an auto repair shop that was not generating noise in excess of the old loud and raucous standard, but which may exceed the revised measurement in effect today; and commented on the case of the bottles being dumped in the Dumpster. She stated the people in Port St. John live with two polluting power plants that are grandfathered in; and recommended the Board go with Option 1. She requested if the Board goes with Option 2 that it look at the part that says, "this grandfathered status shall run with the use. The use may be sold and retain its grandfathered status." She stated when someone buys a business, he knows what he is buying into and if he has to conform to new standards; and recommended the wording be removed from Option 2. She stated if new Code comes in, it means the old one is not working.

Chairman Carlson requested staff bring back more detail regarding the public purpose considerations. She stated some of the athletic fields may not be able to meet the performance standards; and the Board needs to determine how it will handle that.

Commissioner Higgs stated her motion was to advertise the public hearing; but the Board needs to discuss this issue.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are two options; sometimes the Board likes to leave itself options as it proceeds into the public hearing; and inquired if the Board advertises the
more stringent standards, will that allow the opportunity to go to the less stringent. County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Board should advertise the broader of the two, so it can adopt either option. Commissioner Scarborough recommended advertising so there is the option for full public comment. Commissioner Higgs stated if that is the intent of the Board, that is fine; but if that is not the intention, then there could be a lot of upset people; and she would rather the Board discuss it more and advertise what it really wants to do. Commissioner Scarborough stated he hates to get in a posture where the Board has advertised, and finds that comments at the public hearing necessitate re-advertising. Commissioner Higgs stated as the Board went through the performance standards discussion, the initial advertisement was very stringent, and some people got upset; but as they got into the process, they did not go that far, so it worked out; and she hates to see people get upset if that is not the intention.

Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson stated when the Board was talking about performance standards relating to commercial and industrial uses, a lighting standard was created that said any lighting fixture over 400 watts and over 32 feet would create a conditional use permit requirement; in field lightings, the lighting fixtures are higher than 32 feet and greater than 400 watts; so for the referendum process, it is going to be necessary to do 40 conditional use permits to meet the standard. He stated the bigger concern is facilities that have existed for
30 to 35 years where they were lighted and the lighting level does not meet the existing standard; that can be improved by re-lighting; in some cases Little League has increased its lighting levels; and with lighting technology they could reduce the glare; but the problem is they may never be able to meet the standard because some of the fields are close to property lines where the spill light coming off of the field will be exceeded even by the new lighting level. He stated the dilemma is he cannot bring it up to the new Little League standard in some cases; and if they are grandfathered, at least he can keep it at the existing lighting level, which is still not desirable. He stated they may never be able to conform on some of the facilities.

Chairman Carlson inquired if there is school property with lighting of this sort; with Mr. Nelson responding affirmatively. Chairman Carlson inquired if the school takes care of it; with Mr. Nelson responding the schools would be exempt from those standards; but there are County-owned facilities which are next to residential property, such as the Fay Lake field. He noted the field was there first; but the houses are there now; and he does not know if they can meet the requirements. Chairman Carlson inquired if there is any way there can be a public purpose consideration that will allow some to be grandfathered and others amortized. Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated staff can investigate that. County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired is a baseball field light more of a public purpose than a power plant light since power is a public purpose. He stated this issue was brought to his attention; and he is concerned about having two sets of standards. County Attorney Scott Knox stated the legal standard the Board will have in making those kinds of distinctions is whether there is a rational basis; and it may be possible to call recreation a different kind of public purpose than lighting for power plants. Mr. Nelson stated it goes to the nature of parks because they are not industrial or commercial, but they are in the no-man's land between those; and sometimes it is difficult to determine where that falls. Chairman Carlson stated there must be some sort of language to deal with that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is concerned about having dual standards; if he was a neighbor of a ballpark, he would be just as offended by the light as if it was another facility; and there should be a degree of uniformity. He stated when the Board was doing the lighting standards, some things were more of a concern than others; and the lighting discussion did not have a lot of people upset. He suggested reviewing the lighting standard in the performance standards rather than having a dual standard.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to review performance standards for lighting to see how they could be more in tune with the needs of the Parks and Recreation referendum construction projects.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if staff will bring back a report, but not advertise. Commissioner Scarborough stated this is separate; Mr. Nelson is going to have a problem having proper lighting at the fields; and if the Board is going to do this right, it should look at the performance standards for lighting. Commissioner Higgs recommended doing that before advertising the ordinance. Chairman Carlson stated she does not know if it matters. Mr. Jenkins stated his biggest problem is with existing as opposed to new. Mr. Nelson stated the difficulty will be in renovation; and the referendum was heavily loaded with renovation projects. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not know where the Board will come down on this; but recommended Mr. Nelson and Mr. Scott get together and provide a report.

Commissioner O'Brien seconded the motion.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should look at Option 2; and commented on the situation on Sykes Creek Parkway where there are gas stations across from houses, which would have to close if they had to retrofit. He stated he does not think that is the Board's intent; and he is a little concerned.

Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. Chairman Carlson advised the issue will come back to the Board in 30 days.

AGREEMENTS WITH TITUSVILLE, COCOA BEACH, MELBOURNE-PALM BAY, AND PALM
BAY AREA CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, RE: TDC 2001 CATEGORY A - PROMOTION
AND ADVERTISING GRANT PROGRAM

Commissioner Higgs stated she pulled this item because she has been philosophically against the way the Board has done the Category A-Promotion and Advertising Agreements for a number of years, and has always voted no. She sated the Board has never supported her concerns, and she does not think it will this year.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to execute Agreements with Titusville, Cocoa Beach, Melbourne-Palm Bay, and Palm Bay Area Chambers of Commerce for TDC 2001 Category A-Promotion and Advertising Grant Program in the amount of $30,000 each. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is opposed because it is non-competitive, not because she is against the Chambers.

AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RE: ROADWAY
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE FOR S.R. 5 (U.S. 1) FROM POST ROAD TO SOUTH TOWN
LIMITS OF PALM SHORES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Agreement with Florida Department of Transportation for roadway lighting maintenance on U.S. 1 (S.R. 5) from Post Road to the south Town Limits of Palm Shores. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH DANA AND GREG HUNNICUTT,
APPROVE APPRAISAL EXEMPTION, SURVEY, ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, TITLE
INSURANCE AND TITLE EXCEPTIONS, AND PROCEED WITH LAND CLOSING, RE:
PARKS AND RECREATION REFERENDUM LAND PURCHASE IN MIMS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Contract for Sale and Purchase with Dana and Greg Hunnicutt; authorize execution of Contract amendments as required; approve appraisal exemption authorize parks staff to obtain survey, environmental audit, and title insurance, accept title exception, and proceed with land closings for land purchase at 2337 Harry T. Moore Avenue in Mims, adjacent to Cuyler Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF MELBOURNE, RE: INTERSTATE
COMMERCE PARK/MELBOURNE SPEEDWAY

Water Resources Director Dick Martens stated in the early 1990's the County constructed a wastewater force main on Eau Gallie Boulevard to serve the animal shelter that was being built, and connected the City of Melbourne's sewer system at Jon Rodes Boulevard and Eau Gallie Boulevard; and since the City normally requires pre-annexation agreements for sewer service outside the City, and waived that for the County, it entered into an agreement with the County whereby the animal shelter could connect without the pre-annexation agreement although the City reserved the right to approve future connections into the facility that the County was going to construct. He stated recently Interchange Commerce Park came to the County requesting permission to share the use of the force main to connect the wastewater service from their park to the City's sewer system; they have entered into an Interlocal Agreement with the City that has provisions for the construction of future facilities to serve the site; the applicants have agreed to repay the County a pro-rated share of the original construction cost of building the force main; and the action before the Board is to authorize execution of the Interlocal Agreement, accept the payment, and allow Interstate Commerce Park to share the wastewater force main with the County.

Commissioner Colon stated based on some of the feedback she received from the community, they would prefer they connect to the County's force main for access to the City system versus having a septic tank.

John Soileau, Attorney for Interstate Commerce Park, requested the Board allow off-site sewage plant treatment of the wastewater rather than an alternative which could involved onsite treatment; and advised it is better public policy.

Commissioner Colon stated in November, 2000 she was under the impression that funding was not there to continue the project; Brandywine homeowners had some concerns; and when this was placed on the Agenda, she notified the people in Brandywine, Lamplighter Village and Lake Washington area who had called previously so they would not be upset about finding this on the Agenda. She thanked the developer for the wall he is planning on putting up for Lamplighter Village; and requested more background about the wall. Mr. Soileau stated the developer will have to meet all performance standards for lighting and sound; there has been a good bit of sound testing; two sound tests have been submitted to County staff; and there is ongoing discussion with staff concerning those test. He stated the developer has committed to be a good neighbor; the project has been pushed to the back of the parcel; it is a subdivision of industrially-zoned lots which could have a lot of other things such as a cement plant; but the speedway project will be in the back corner surrounding by nothing. He stated it is fairly distant from I-95; and there is no significant residential population until the other side of I-95, although there is the Space Coast Marine Institute, which has some residents near the Interstate. Commissioner Colon inquired about the wall and the agreement with the residents from Lamplighter Village. Mr. Soileau stated the County does not impose the requirement that a sound wall be put along I-95; the developer generated this; and Chuck Julian will advise of the characteristics of the wall.

Charles Julian, President of Melbourne Speedway, stated the objective of the wall is to barrier I-95 noise from Lamplighter Village, not the racetrack. He noted one of the road tests was televised; it is not possible to hear on I-95 under certain conditions; but they are creating a noise wall to give an I-95 barrier. He stated part of the agreement includes that Lamplighter not only supports the speedway, but gets a 24-hour benefit from the wall; and also Lamplighter Village has agreed to support a three-day national event.

Commissioner Colon inquired will the wall be built at the same time the speedway will be built. Mr. Julian stated it has been put in writing; and it will be connected with the building of the speedway. Commissioner Colon stated Brandywine was notified of this meeting; and someone was present earlier, but had to leave. She stated the community is excited about being able to bring children and families to the speedway; and inquired if there are any plans to have any kind of adult entertainment in this area. Mr. Julian stated that is insulting; and it is a speedway, which will be a regional facility. Commissioner Colon stated the question is based on citizens asking the question; and it is not insulting. She stated Z-10186 states the use permit of alcoholic beverages on premises consumption in an IU-zoning classification be approved for a three-acre tract with no condition of no adult entertainment; and based on the information from staff, she believes the issue must have come up or it would not be in writing. She requested Mr. Julian let the community know that this is not something he plans on doing. Mr. Julian stated this will be a speedway with children and go-karts; it will have car shows; and the subject should not be relevant. Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Julian's answer is no; with Mr. Julian responding his answer is that the question is an insult; and inquired why anyone would put an adult entertainment facility in the middle of a speedway complex.

Chairman Carlson requested Ms. Busacca provide some background on the adult entertainment issue. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Resolution was part of the conditional use permit for the alcoholic beverages; the applicant at that time, who was not Mr. Julian, was asked if there was going to be any adult entertainment; and he answered no, and it was made as a condition of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Colon stated it was based on the request from Daniel Platt, but it is the same piece of property; and Mr. Julian can set the record straight now; with Mr. Julian responding he just did. Mr. Julian stated it will be a speedway complex with children; it encompasses the whole property; and he does not know how adult entertainment could possibly be connected. He noted it will be a multi-million dollar facility and someone has extrapolated that it is going to be topped off by an adult club; and he does not even understand why he is having this conversation. Commissioner Colon stated the area is going to be aimed at family entertainment; but when questions come from the community, it is her duty to investigate. She pointed out the area on the map; and inquired if Mr. Julian is saying absolutely no for the record; with Mr. Julian saying no, it will be family entertainment without question. Commissioner Colon stated if she is going to give it her approval, she has to be sure what is going to happen because she has to be accountable to the community. Mr. Julian stated there will be car shows and fairgrounds; most likely there will be various types of outside entertainment just like any racing facility; and it will be heavy for children and the local market. He stated there is an alcohol license; and during races, they will probably sell alcohol; and nothing else will be close to the facility unless it accents the facility. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Julian is saying his answer is no.

Joseph Rathgeber stated he has no objection to the raceway; but there is a problem with wastewater. He stated the cost for any utilities that go west should be born completely by the developer; and the County should not pay for any kind of extension of the sewer. Mr. Martens stated there is nothing new being constructed; the original line that was constructed approximately ten years ago was for a County need; and it was built to serve the animal shelter. He stated there was some extra capacity that would allow room for the speedway to utilize that facility as a common facility; but the speedway has entered into a pre-annexation agreement with the City of Melbourne; and sometime in the foreseeable future the speedway will be constructing regional wastewater facilities on the west side of I-95. Mr. Jenkins stated they will also be paying their fair share of the existing pipe at the cost that was incurred ten years ago. Mr. Rathgeber requested the Board keep the costs down in the County because taxes just keep going up. Commissioner O'Brien reiterated the cost the County spent putting in the sewer line to the animal control shelter will be pro-rated to the racetrack people so they will be paying their fair share. He stated he does not want the public to have the idea that the Board just gave a commercial entity a free sewer line. Mr. Martens stated the County calculated an appropriate reimbursement; and the fee will be paid back to the General Fund, which paid to build the sewer line. Mr. Jenkins noted other private parties have done the same thing and paid the County.

Chairman Carlson stated she met with Mr. Julian, Mr. Platt, Mr. Torpy, and Ms. Varieur.

Muriel Varieur, President of Lamplighter Village Homeowners Association, Phases 4 and 5, stated Lamplighter Village is the immediate neighbor of the racetrack; and they have researched
every concern, including noise pollution, odors, lighting, etc. She stated the County has done a baseline study of the noise pollution from I-95; the residents let the developer know they were not willing to take any more noise without having some relief; and they have been conversing with the MPO for over a year and a half about the proposed expansion. She stated last year FDOT cut back the natural berm on the highway; and advised of the consequences. She stated they advised the developer of the racetrack that they need some relief, and did not wish the problem compounded by racetrack noises; and after numerous meetings, Mr. Julian proposed that the racetrack enter into negotiations with the landowners of Lamplighter Village to build a sound barrier wall the entire length of the I-95 boundary, with the racetrack bearing the entire cost. She stated engineers who specialize in sound barriers would design the wall; the wall would be built simultaneously with the racetrack project, and would be completed prior to opening day; if both parties reach agreement, it will be recorded with the County along with the racetrack plans; and in return Lamplighter Village will be a good neighbor. She advised of good faith negotiations; and advised if they fail at any point, she will be informing the Board immediately. She noted she was one of the people who told Commissioner Colon that she would rather see the racetrack connect to the existing line rather than having to deal with septic issues. She requested the Board grant Mr. Julian's request.

Chairman Carlson inquired about comments from the Lake Washington area people; with Ms. Varieur responding she met with a gentleman on the Board of the Lake Washington Acres Homeowners; she attended noise level testing at Bithlo; and Mr. Bunnell and Mr. Perez-Falcon are aware of the negotiations between Lamplighter Village and the developer. .

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Third Amendment to the Water/Wastewater Agreement for the Eau Gallie Road/I-95 Area with the City of Melbourne to allow utilization of a County-owned force main for the connection of Interstate Commerce Park, Inc. to the wastewater system of the City of Melbourne, with Interstate Commerce Park agreeing to pay the County $8,737.50 as its proportionate share of the County's construction cost. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, REVIEW OF CITY LAND USE,
ZONING AND ANNEXATION PROPOSALS

Chairman Carlson advised of a letter from the League of Cities concerning working together with the County to ensure that things do not happen the way they did with Brevard Crossings; and requested Ms. Busacca provide an update.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised last evening she spoke to the League of Cities and gave them the County's perspective on some of the issues and challenges of the last year. She stated they discussed annexation, which often leaves the County in a more passive role, the opportunity to make comments on Comprehensive Plans as one of the few avenues left to the County, and that frequently concerns are brought forward by constituents; and the municipalities were sensitive to the issue. She stated they discussed joint planning agreements which have been moving forward with the Cities of Rockledge and Melbourne as well as several other cities; the municipalities were positive about that issue, and anxious to move forward; and the municipalities were pleased that the County is doing this on an individual basis because issues are different from municipality to municipality. She stated the League has invited the County to a meeting in two weeks of its Intergovernmental Coordination Committee to listen to discussions about the ways coordination can be improved with the County. Ms. Busacca advised the municipalities were concerned about the County providing city services, and felt that the County needed to think through that issue; and a statement was made that the government closest to the people should provide those services. She stated another issue that was discussed was when annexation occurs, funding for road and drainage improvements sometimes go away because the County uses the MSTU mechanism; some municipalities were unaware of the potential conflict; however, there were others that felt the authority to extend gas taxes rested with the County, and did not have a lot of sympathy that there was insufficient gas tax money to do both road maintenance and road improvement. She stated there was some discussion about the unintended impacts to annexation and other issues that arise; one issue that was brought forward was that when the County abated impact fees, it created a situation where it was advantageous for developers to remain in the County rather than annex into the municipalities; and she made a statement that the impact fee discussion was going on, annexation had been an issue, and there was a whole different set of rationale for talking about impact fees. She stated she brought forward the fact that there are other unintended consequences, giving the example of the City of Cocoa annexing 300 acres recently, which impacts some of the County's land use decisions; and it was agreed that more discussion would be a good thing. She stated a representative from the City of Melbourne requested the County address the enclaves within its City; Aurora Road was not specifically mentioned, but she believes that was the intent; and she is uncertain what actions the County can take to encourage enclave areas to annex into a city, but the County should work together with the City to address that issue.

Chairman Carlson stated the letter addresses a committee meeting and completing a list of recommendations; and inquired if that is the same committee that will meet in two weeks. Ms. Busacca responding it is; and staff will be attending to listen to the discussion.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it is going to be hard to sell the enclave idea to areas like Snug Harbor and the area between Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral; and they have tried to work out an annexation of Avon-by-the Sea, but at the last moment the City said no. He stated it is too bad about some of the enclaves because they pay all the taxes to the County, but receive few services due to the distances it is necessary to travel to get there. Ms. Busacca stated it was discussed that the way the legislation is established by the State, the counties do not have an active role in annexation; the City of Melbourne brought up the annexation and enclave issue; and staff can discuss it with them, but she is not certain what the County can do to change that. Commissioner O'Brien inquired about the law that was presented two years ago to change the situation; with Ms. Busacca responding there was a window of opportunity, and some cities did take advantage of it. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the City Manager of Melbourne has spoken to him on more than one occasion about the enclaves on Aurora Road; and he advised him that the Board does not have a strong position except that it has never been interested in forcing anyone into annexing into a city. Commissioner Higgs advised the County cannot do that. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board does not encourage it; if property owners and residents want to be in a city, the Board does not object; but it is difficult to do something against the wishes of the residents of the area.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it costs the County to service enclaves; and advised of the situation where the County contacted the City of Titusville about annexing an area on the other side of Sand Point Park. He stated all of the cases with enclaves are a win/win situation; the problem is to show the resident in the community that they will get better services if they let annexation occur; and the County should take a proactive role in communicating that there are advantages for the residents.

Chairman Carlson stated the League of Cities is interested in having two-way communication; and requested staff provide a report in two weeks. She stated if the County can set up some procedures or a policy on how the cities and County can work together, that would be a positive step forward.

APPROVAL, RE: LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION WORKSHOP

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the Legislative Delegation Workshop date of January 17, 2001 at 12:00 noon. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: CONGRESSMAN WELDON'S OFFICE

Joseph Rathgaber stated the Government Center was built to house County agencies; and Congressman Weldon should not be in the complex. He stated the taxpayers are paying three times the amount of rent for the spaces, including the taxpayers pay Congressman Weldon's rent; the Board may have to pay rent for an agency that should be at the Government Center because Congressman Weldon is there; and Congressman Weldon is getting money, which is paid by taxpayers, from the federal government for rent, but that money is going back to the federal treasury. He stated if Congressman Weldon wants to stay in his office at the Government Center, he should pay the going rate of rent in the area; but reiterated Congressman Weldon does not have a reason to be in the complex. He suggested Congressman Weldon move his office to Sarno Road and Airport Boulevard, where there is an old K-Mart; that might attract other businesses and other professionals to the area; and it might provide more income and economic development. He inquired why the taxpayers have to pay three times to have Congressman Weldon at the Government Center.

Chairman Carlson stated at the beginning of the meeting, the Board requested she meet with Congressman Weldon; and she will be discussing this issue with him.

ANNOUNCEMENT, RE: TOWN MEETING

Commissioner Colon invited the community to attend a town meeting at 10:30 a.m. on Saturday, January 13, 2001 at Gleason Park.

APPROVAL, RE: EXPANSION OF COURTHOUSE OPTIONS WORKSHOP

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the workshop on Thursday, January 11, 2001 was originally scheduled to discuss courthouse options; it is proposed to expand that to include Visioning and the Capital Improvement Program; and requested Board approval.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve expansion of the Courthouse Options Workshop on January 11, 2001 to include Visioning and the Capital Improvements Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WARRANT LISTS

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

___________________________________
SUSAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)