May 10, 2005

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on
May 10, 2005, at 9:03 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Ron Pritchard, D.P.A., Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Helen Voltz, and Susan Carlson, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox. Absent was: Commissioner Jackie Colon.

The Invocation was given by Reverend Luis Lugo, LEL Sinai Church, Palm Bay, Florida.

Sheriff Jack Parker led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the minutes of the January 20, 2005 Workshop and February 15, 2005 Regular Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: SPACEPORT COMMERCE PARK

Commissioner Scarborough stated at the budget workshop, Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar brought up an issue concerning the County’s industrial park near the Tico Airport; the question was raised whether the County should try to sell for the highest value or whether there is the greater goal to try to bring in quality jobs; and the Board said it was the latter, and there was desire to actively pursue that. He stated the Clerk’s memorandum caught the idea that the Board does not want to have a degradation of the quality of the park; but there is something affirmative that needs to be worked on in trying to delineate how to seek out and obtain those companies that will bring in jobs. He stated it is becoming more critical as the County faces potential problems with the space program; every opportunity for alternative jobs should be made available; and that is part of the overall purpose of the park. He requested the Spaceport Commerce Park Authority be instructed to proceed with the methodology that would look to acquiring the highest paying jobs possible as they sell the property.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct the Spaceport Commerce Park Authority to proceed with a methodology for the sale of property in the Park that will assure that the highest paying jobs will result from the development of the parcels. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: WORK ON TURN LANES ONTO WICKHAM ROAD

Commissioner Carlson thanked the County road crew that worked on the turn lanes from eastbound Wickham Road onto northbound Murrell Road and also southbound Murrell Road onto eastbound Wickham Road; there was a problem; and they got it done. She stated they were expecting traffic tie-ups and phone calls; but it went smooth; and they got none. She stated she appreciates it when things go well, and knows the community does as well.

REPORT, RE: CLARIFICATION OF STUDY ON CONCURRENCY ON WICKHAM ROAD

Commissioner Carlson stated at the last Commission meeting, the Board talked about Home Depot and getting the concurrency review on Wickham Road; and she wants to make sure the Board clarifies that even though it is looking at that development and the concurrency issues on Wickham Road, a methodology will come out of that study that can be applied to other areas where there are concurrency problems.

REPORT, RE: AIRBUS AT MELBOURNE AIRPORT

Commissioner Carlson stated there was a lot of information in the newspaper about the European Airbus that wants to locate at Melbourne Airport; and inquired if anything is being done about that from the EDC perspective. County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the EDC has convened Team Brevard, which is an organization made up of people throughout the County and the municipalities; she spoke to Lynda Weatherman about incentives the County may be able to offer; and Ms. Weatherman will be looking for what kind of incentives are being sought. She stated the Board in the past had talked about helping with land clearing as it did with Boeing; they talked briefly about the other things that had been done in the Boeing project as incentives; some would not be appropriate because this is a City of Melbourne project and the County does not have as much jurisdiction; and Ms. Weatherman advised that as this progressed, if there was anything the Board could do to participate, she would bring that back to it, so the Board may hear more. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has gotten some background on what the Legislature has passed in terms of growth management rules; and inquired if a report is being put together to show what the effects will be on current Ordinances and budget; with Ms. Busacca responding she just asked staff for that this morning.

REPORT, RE: KENNEDY SPACE CENTER STATUS

Chairman Pritchard inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is aware what is going on with Kennedy Space Center with the changes in NASA, Lockheed-Martin, and the Atlas and the Delta programs; stated by 2010 there will be dynamic changes occurring in those programs; and everyone needs to stay on top of that to insure that the workforce does not make critical shortages that will affect the economic engine of the County.

REPORT, RE: LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX

Chairman Pritchard stated as the Commissioners may recall a couple of meetings ago, he talked about the local option gas tax; and since then he had done a lot of research regarding that. He stated he wants to start this report with a statement he made at a recent meeting; and he took it verbatim from the tape of the meeting, as follows: “Now let’s talk about the local option gas tax; and the reason I want to talk about this is it’s my understanding that the local option gas tax doesn’t really appear at the pump. It appears within the structure, the revenue structure that the distributor has. The market drives the price at the pump, and the distributor absorbs the fees, taxes, etc. If we don’t have our tax maximized, they make more profit. We get less revenue; so why wouldn’t we want to maximize our revenue by implementing as much tax and giving them less profit?” Chairman Pritchard stated he did some research and fact-finding; and since that meeting he and his staff have compiled a hefty file on the issue of local option gas tax. He stated he met with a major gasoline distributor and has a letter from another distributor that he would like to read. He read aloud, “I’m a gasoline distributor for Exxon, Mobil, Citgo, and Marathon, marketing gas throughout the State from Homestead to Jacksonville and across the State to St. Petersburg. Having said that, I can promise you that if the County gas tax is increased by any amount, that new gas tax increase will be immediately put on the street in the form of an increased price at the pump.” He stated the bottom line is that an increase to local gas tax will be passed on to the consumer every time they make a purchase; and therefore, he will not support an increase of the local option gas tax. He stated there were questions raised at the meeting concerning why the price of gasoline is cheaper in Orange County than it is in Brevard County even though their local option gas tax is higher; but the major distribution terminals are in Orange County; therefore the cost of freight is less and the cost of their gasoline is less. He stated that is basic business economics. He stated another question was why people pay so much for gasoline in Florida but gas is less expensive in Georgia; Florida has a complicated gas structure that ranges from 45 cents to 53 cents per gallon depending on the county; Georgia does not have a complicated gasoline tax system; it does not need it because it has a seven percent state income tax; and inquired what County residents would prefer. He stated what Brevard County gets in return for the taxes it pays at the pump is apparently not much; at the federal level, the County does not do very well; Brevard County only gets back 42 cents for every dollar it spends at the pump; and federal law guarantees that states get 90.5 cents back on every dollar paid in gas taxes, but a recent study by the Environmental Working Group of Washington D.C. shows that services from gas tax payments are siphoned away from gas buyers in traffic congested cities and diverted to more rural areas. He stated the Titusville/Melbourne/Palm Bay metropolitan area only received 42 cents for every dollar paid between 1998 and 2003, a loss of $194 million; and that could have paid for the Pineda Extension, Palm Bay Beltway, Wickham Road realignment, and a host of other necessary roadway constructions and improvements. He stated if it is for rural areas, he would like to know why Orlando got back 58 cents on the dollar, Tampa/St. Petersburg/Clearwater got 72 cents on the dollar, and Miami/Ft. Lauderdale got 90 cents on the dollar; and he would like to know why his money is going elsewhere. He stated he does not care about South Florida other than to use it as an example of what he does not want Brevard County to become; he was in Broward County on Saturday and had the pleasure of being cut off in traffic three times, given the finger twice, and given the horn once; and it is a traffic-congested nightmare. He stated happiness is PGA Boulevard in his rearview mirror as he is headed northbound; and those interested in building Broward County in Brevard County should move south. He stated he moved to Brevard County because of the quality of life; and advised if anyone does not like it, I-95 is that way. He stated in addition to the various gas tax revenue streams, he has been informed that there is approximately $6 million in unspent gas tax bond proceeds sitting in an interest generating bank account, waiting for various matching fund projects; and if that is true, he has a good use for a significant portion of the money right now. He stated there are roads that need paving and widening; there are sidewalks and bikepaths that need installing and a lot more; District 2 could use that money and use it well; and each road would have signage saying, “gasoline taxes, finally at work.” Chairman Pritchard stated there is an erroneous assumption that an impact tax is only paid by greedy developers; but that is nonsense as they are paid by the consumer and eventually passed on to everyone one way or another. He stated the usual comment is to make growth pay for itself, and it does; but what it does not pay for is the irresponsibility that got the County into the predicament of crisis management. He stated an impact tax is generally a last ditch effort to provide a revenue stream to cover inappropriate spending and mismanaged funds; if the Board raises the cost of construction by $9,500 in impact taxes, they will raise the price of everyone’s home an appreciable amount; and numerous national studies bear that out. He stated when a subdivision is built, the people buying the homes pay for the roads, streetlights, sewer, electric service, stormwater drainage, reuse water, and even the connecting roads to the arterial roads or the interstate highway; and their taxes are much higher than those in existing neighborhoods. He stated the vacant lot that was taxed at $600 becomes $4,000; it is a $3,400 increase right off the top; anyone not believing should check the Property Appraiser’s website; and they will be shocked by the amount of taxes people are paying. He noted if these people were not paying higher taxes, the County would either have to limit services or raise millage rates, neither of which is acceptable; and as difficult as it may be to believe, services most people take for granted are paid for in part by the newcomer or the existing resident who buys another home and then gets sticker shock at his or her latest property tax bill. He stated his bottom line on increasing the local option gas tax is that he will not support another tax increase; the residents pay too much in taxes and receive too little accountability and too few services; and there are too many pet projects and club activities funded on the backs of hardworking taxpayers. He stated there are too many wants and too little needs; there is a continuous stream of organizations looking for taxpayers’ dollars when they should be looking for real work instead of creating the next necessity; and it is time for a taxpayers’ revolt. He stated he is tired of “can’t do” and is ready for “can do”; and if government is not ready, then government can do something else like get a real job.

Commissioner Voltz stated that was good; Chairman Pritchard said the County gets back 42 cents on the dollar; and she assumes the Board would go to Congressman Weldon to look at the inequities there. County Manager Peggy Busacca responded at the federal level, they are currently working on that; but they look at it on a macro level and say the State gets a certain amount. She stated Mr. Weldon has been very persistent in trying to increase the percentage the State gets, but after that, the distribution is at the State level. Commissioner Voltz inquired if they should go to the State Representatives; with Ms. Busacca responding that would be the first step. Commissioner Voltz stated they need to do some heavy lobbying because it is not right. Chairman Pritchard agreed; and stated the revenue distribution needs to be adjusted significantly; and he is tired of Brevard County being a donor county.

Commissioner Carlson stated she has been working on that for a long time; they get 95% back; but she did not realize it was distributed differently depending on structure, the counties, and so forth; so she did not realize it was that low. She stated she does want to clarify one thing; and inquired if Chairman Pritchard thinks the Pineda is a pet project. She stated she knows they are going forward on the Pineda; it is in her District; Chairman Pritchard said he was going to do stuff in his District; and she wants to do things in her District.

Chairman Pritchard stated the distribution needs to be evaluated; and he was going to suggest having a transportation workshop to look at the revenue streams that could be applied to transportation, the way they have been moved around into every other operation, and the projects the County has. Chairman Pritchard stated they can look at where the spending is taking place, where it should be taking place, and structure the spending so that the Board can consider projects by the appropriateness of the project and have a good handle as to where it should be spending money most appropriately.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is hard to have that conversation with the rest of the MPO and have all the cities involved because they are touched by all of the road systems; and it is hard to have that conversation with just the Board; so if the Board is going to do something like that, it needs to have the officials at the State and federal levels there to talk about the discrepancies and where that evolved from. She suggested someone from Congressman Weldon’s office could be there as well.

Chairman Pritchard stated he does not have a problem with that; at the League of Cities meeting last night, they were talking about the Home Depot expansion on Wickham Road; and one of the comments he made was it seems as if the County catches the flack for what the cities are doing. He stated for construction permits for residential housing, 69% of the permits are pulled by the cities; 31% of the growth is within the County and 69% is within the cities; but the County is catching 100% of the flack; and inquired where is the fairness in the comments in the newspaper that say the County Commission is out of control. He stated he suggested to one official that they annex Wickham Road and take responsibility for it, but they would rather it be the County’s.

Commissioner Carlson stated the County has responsibility of providing driveway permits; the concurrency issues that will come from the secondary study on Wickham Road will be an issue that the task force will bring up; and she will be bringing it up at next week’s task force meeting.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board does this, it needs to do it at the MPO level so the cities will be engaged; Congressman Weldon made a report to the MPO in the last several months; and it would be good to have Congressmen Weldon and Feeney there as well as the legislative delegation to do it right. He stated otherwise they will get fragmented parts of the puzzle; and he likes the idea.

Chairman Pritchard stated it is a great idea; frequently he brings things up because it is time to bring them up and either discuss them fully or kill them; and this is now at the point where the Board needs to bring it up. He stated the majority of the public does not understand; it is not the County doing a lot of what is happening; the municipalities are doing it; and the County catches the flack. He advised it is not the County because once a property is annexed, it is the municipality that is doing it; but they tend to leave the roads to the County; and then it becomes the County being the good or bad guy, so this needs to be discussed. He stated for the issue of transportation, the MPO is the forum to do that; and they also need to discuss whether the MPO
is going to remain a hybrid organization, remain as it is, or move to become autonomous like the EDC. He stated if that is the situation, then the Board needs to look at that and address it. He stated to him KBB means Keep Brevard Brevard, not Keep Brevard Beautiful; reiterated he spent the day in Broward County; and he does not want Brevard County to become Broward County. Chairman Pritchard stated if someone thinks that is what they want, he or she should go visit Broward County to enjoy the ambiance of transportation in that county. He stated anyone who enjoys driving with one hand out the window and the other hand on the wheel should visit that county.

Commissioner Voltz stated she was in South Miami Saturday for her son’s graduation; she saw buildings in between roadways and on top of roadways; she has never seen anything like it; and it is not some place she would ever want to live because it was a total nightmare. She stated she does not see how people live down there; and she does not want to see Brevard County become like that. She stated she was so grateful once she started getting north of PGA Boulevard and started seeing green again; and it was just incredible. She stated the workshop should definitely involve the cities; she does not know if it has to be at an MPO meeting; but the players need to be there. She stated talking about driveway permits, she does not think it is the Board’s responsibility to look at driveway permits; it is staff’s responsibility to look at those permits; but the Board needs to look at the consequences once the driveway permits are issued. She stated she is not an engineer; she does not think the Board needs to get into issuing driveway permits when it hires competent staff to do that; and they are the ones that make those decisions.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING FOSTER PARENT APPRECIATION MONTH

Commissioner Voltz requested Chairman Pritchard move the resolution for foster parent appreciation week forward since there are babies present. She read aloud a resolution proclaiming the month of May 2005 as Foster Parent Appreciation Month.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming May 2005 as Foster Parent Appreciation Month. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Voltz presented the Resolution to Michelle Robinson, who thanked the Board on behalf of all Brevard County foster parents for the recognition of the service they provide as caregivers to the foster children of the County. Ms. Robinson stated they are foster parents because they carry a strong burden to love and care for those who need it the most; but it is always wonderful to hear that others appreciate the sacrifice that is made. She stated there are many foster parents in the County who have been doing it for ten or more years; her family has only been a foster family for four years; but 20 children have passed through their home, some spending only one night and others staying for longer. She stated one baby stayed 11 months; and they were blessed to be able to adopt that baby. She stated the easy part is caring for the children, but the heart wrenching part is when they have to let them go; and thanked the Board for taking the month of May to honor all foster parents and for its support.

PRESENTATION BY BERKELEY YOUNG, VICE PRESIDENT, RANDALL TRAVEL
MARKETING, RE: TOURISM DEVELOPMENT OFFICE STRATEGIC PLAN

Berkeley Young, Vice President, Randall Travel Marketing, inquired if it would be possible to delay his comments; stated later on the Agenda is a presentation by Rob Varley of the Tourist Development Council; and it might make more sense to do it all at one time.

Commissioner Carlson stated she was going to suggest that; and requested it be delayed.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS APPRECIATION WEEK

Chairman Pritchard read aloud a resolution proclaiming May 8 through 14, 2005 as Correctional Officers Appreciation Week.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming May 8 through 14, 2005 as Correctional Officers Appreciation Week. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Sheriff Jack Parker expressed appreciation to the Board for taking the time to recognize these very special people; stated so often they fly under the radar; but they do one of the toughest jobs to be done in society, and they do it well and without complaint. He stated it takes a tremendous amount of courage to walk into a cellblock by yourself, unarmed, with 60 or 70 violent felons, many of whom are facing capital offenses; and they do that everyday with pride and commitment. He stated they do not often think about what the term corrections stands for; they talk about diversion programs, drug treatment, and all kinds of things to help keep people out of the jail; but the thing that works best of all are the people being honored today, who are masters in correcting behavior and setting examples of what a person can and should be. He stated a lot of people come into jail after committing some type of offense, watch the corrections officers, and talk to them; and they decide, based on conversations with the officers, that they no longer want to be involved with criminal activity. He stated these people truly make a difference, but never get the credit they deserve; and he is proud to be a part of them. He introduced Commander Susan Jeter, the Jail Commander.

Commander Susan Jeter thanked the Board for taking the time to show appreciation to the correctional officers of the County; stated they do appreciate the support. She introduced Lt. Merritt, Sgt. Seeley, Officer Fontaine, Officer Maggie, Officer McKeon, Sgt. Cummings, Major Patrick and Officer Woodruff; and stated on their behalf, she thanks the Board for its recognition.

Chairman Pritchard presented the Resolution to the group.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Sheriff Parker introduce the new Jail Commander. Sheriff Parker introduced Commander Susan Jeter who is the Commander of the Brevard County Jail; stated he and Ms. Jeter worked together over 20 years ago; and she was always a very special correctional officer. He stated she is a very professional and caring person; she is the kind of person who leads by example; and his phone has been ringing off the hook with people saying it was the best decision and choice he will make as Sheriff to select Susan Jeter as the jail commander.

Commander Jeter stated she met a few of the Commissioners when she served on the board they have for mental illness; it did enlighten her on a lot of issues regarding the mentally ill; and they will work hard to get some of those issues addressed at the Detention Center. She stated with the Board’s support, the expansion, and the increase in staffing, she sees nothing but good things ahead.

PRESENTATION, RE: LARRY WEBER, KEEP BREVARD BEAUTIFUL

Chairman Pritchard stated Larry Weber is not present; he had a presentation he wanted to make to Commissioner Colon who is not here today; and he will make his presentation at another meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: GROUP HOME ON PINEWOOD DRIVE

Attorney Joseph Columbo stated he represents the Pinewood Drive Property Owners Ad Hoc Committee, which was formed to deal with a therapeutic group home in the neighborhood; the Pinewood Drive community is in District 5 in unincorporated Brevard County; and it is comprised of approximately 25 homes, which all require a four-acre minimum lot size. He stated since 1995 a group home owned by a for-profit corporation, Alternate Family Care, based out of Sunrise, Florida has existed in the community; and there have been problems since day one with the group home. He stated the problems have culminated in the actions of the property owners here today; and this is just a small representative group as there are approximately 20 homeowners who are on the committee. He stated since day one there have been problems; it is a group home set up specifically for severely emotionally disturbed teenage boys; and up to 11 teenage boys are allowed to live at the group home. He stated they are not on a witch-hunt; the people are not ogres; but they are concerned about the children in the community. He stated there are many young children in the community as well as regular citizens; and they are very concerned with the activities of the group home. He stated Commissioner Voltz was involved in attempting to ameliorate the conditions at the site and made efforts in the past, back in 1997; and Commissioner Colon has asked for Commissioner Voltz to be the point person on this. He stated Commissioner Voltz’s Projects Coordinator Christopher Hill assisted with a meeting between the homeowners, the Brevard Sheriff’s Office, the Alternative Family Care CFO, and the property owners; the meeting took place on April 4, 2005; but since that meeting, nothing has improved and there have been incidents which indicate the situation has worsened. He stated he became involved shortly after the meeting took place; the Sheriff’s Office log reflects that since the home has been in existence there have been 380 incident reports; and what is disturbing is there were 35 that involved assaults, seven involved suicides or attempted suicides, three involved sexual batteries, and 31 involved missing persons. He stated there were a total of 80 violent or potentially violent crimes at this one home in the County over the past nine years; and these children are all bused to Eau Gallie High School.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Columbo’s time be extended. Chairman Pritchard stated he assumes the homeowners are paying for Mr. Columbo to be present; with Mr. Columbo responding that is a correct assumption. Chairman Pritchard stated he can see that this is going to be a fairly lengthy conversation; and it may be something Mr. Columbo wants to address with the District 5 Commissioner. Commissioner Voltz stated her office has been working with the group; she tried to work with them when she was on the Board previously; and her office has been dealing with them, but she does not know that there is anything they can do. She stated she does not know what this is doing in the middle of a residential area; it is totally out of place; it should not be there; and she does not know what the Board can do, but something has got to be done because it does not belong there.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is it a licensed group home; with Commissioner Voltz responding it is. Commissioner Voltz inquired what can the Board do legally. County Attorney Scott Knox responded the best thing to do would be for him to call Mr. Columbo to get some more information on what is exactly happening; this is the first he heard about it; but they have run across a similar problem in District 1 and ended up filing suit on it. He stated that case was semi-resolved, but he is not sure how it panned out since it was resolved. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board needs to do whatever it can to stop this; and why it was ever licensed there is beyond her imagination. Commissioner Scarborough suggested Commissioner Voltz make a motion to authorize the County Attorney’s office to file whatever is required because otherwise it will have to come back to the Board. He stated that will allow Commissioner Voltz and Commissioner Colon to work with the community; they did have to file action in Titusville; and he would suggest Commissioner Voltz make the motion.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the County Attorney’s office to take whatever legal action is necessary concerning a group home on Pinewood Drive. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Columbo stated he will contact Mr. Knox’s office.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH WALKABOUT RESIDENTIAL COMPANY,
LLC, RE: FITZROY REEF AT WALKABOUT

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final plat approval for Fitzroy Reef at Walkabout, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of documents required for recording, and developer obtaining necessary jurisdictional permits; and to execute Contract with Walkabout Residential Company, LLC for infrastructure improvements to the subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL ENGINEERING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVALS, RE: COUNTRY OAKS
SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approvals for Country Oaks Subdivision, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable, and developer responsible for obtaining necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH MERIDIAN OF BREVARD, LLC, RE: GUARANTEEING IMPROVEMENTS
IN WINSLOW BEACH CONDOMINIUM

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Contract with Meridian of Brevard, LLC guaranteeing infrastructure improvements to Winslow Beach Condominium. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

UNPAVED ROAD AGREEMENT WITH RICK WOODLING, RE: VALLY ROAD

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Unpaved Road Agreement with Rick Woodling for construction of a road in existing County right-of-way known as Vally Road under the Unpaved Road Ordinance, Section 62-102. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL ENGINEERING AND PLAT APPROVALS, RE: RIVER RIDGE SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approvals for River Ridge Subdivision, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable, and developer responsible for obtaining necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

UNPAVED ROAD AGREEMENT WITH DONNA ROBSON, RE: COREY ROAD

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Unpaved Road Agreement with Donna Robson for construction of a road in existing County right-of-way known as Corey Road under the Unpaved Road Ordinance, Section 62-102. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

UNPAVED ROAD AGREEMENT WITH LOLA VAETH, RE: REYNOLDS ROAD

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Unpaved Road Agreement with Lola Vaeth for construction of a road in existing County right-of-way known as Reynolds Road under the Unpaved Road Ordinance, Section 62-102. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BINDING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH NAJJAD, INC., RE: PROPERTY ON
SMITH ROAD, EAST OF NORTH COURTENAY PARKWAY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Agreement with Najjad, Inc. for property located on the north side of Smith Road, east of North Courtenay Parkway. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BINDING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH EARL AND DENISE BROOKES-HOLMES,
RE: PROPERTY ON OHIO STREET SOUTH OF MIAMI AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Agreement with Earl and Denise Brookes-Holmes for property located on the east side of Ohio Street, approximately 250 feet south of Miami Avenue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: HOMESTEAD AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve request for the installation of speed humps on Homestead Avenue, south of Fay Boulevard, located in Port St. John. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: CAMIO AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve request for the installation of speed humps on Camio Avenue in Port St. John. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: HUNT DRIVE

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve request for the installation of speed humps on Hunt Drive in Merritt Island. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

INFRASTRUCTURE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH MICHAEL DICHRISTOPHER,
RE: CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN ON WAVECREST STREET,
MERRITT ISLAND

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement with Michael DiChristopher for construction of a sanitary sewer force main on Wavecrest Street in Merritt island. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH WHEELABRATOR RIDGE ENERGY, INC., RE: ADDITIONAL
FIVE-YEAR TERM FOR SALE, TRANSPORTATION, AND DISPOSAL OF WOOD WASTE

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Wheelabrator Ridge Energy, Inc. (Ridge Generating Station Limited Partnership) for an additional five-year term for the sale, transportation, and disposal of wood waste from the County’s solid waste disposal facilities. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM POLICY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Policy HS-012, Weatherization Assistance Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: AMENDMENT TO FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER PROGRAM POLICY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Amendment to Policy HS-007, First Time Homebuyer Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: AMENDMENT TO REPAIR, REHABILITATION, AND REPLACEMENT
PROGRAM POLICY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Amendment to Policy HS-008, Repair, Rehabilitation, and Replacement Housing Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO MANAGEMENT LEASE AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF FLORIDA,
RE: 67 PARCELS WITHIN THE BREVARD COASTAL SCRUB ECOSYSTEM PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment No. 4 to Management Lease Agreement #4263 with Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida for 67 parcels acquired by the County and State within the Brevard Coastal Scrub Ecosystem Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO MANAGEMENT LEASE AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF FLORIDA,
RE: 112 PARCELS WITHIN THE BREVARD COASTAL SCRUB ECOSYSTEM PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment No. 5 to Management Lease Agreement #4263 with Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida for 112 parcels acquired by the County and State within the Brevard Coastal Scrub Ecosystem Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CONSERVATION EASEMENTS, RE:
WETLAND MITIGATION LANDS DONATED TO BREVARD COUNTY FOR
MANAGEMENT UNDER EEL PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the EEL’s Program to accept donations of land for wetland mitigation with conservation easements in favor of St. Johns River Water Management District. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
RE: MITCH ELLINGTON PARK

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Conservation Easement to St. Johns River Water Management District as required by the permit for Mitchell Ellington Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD BID AND EXECUTE CONTRACT WITH SPEEGLE
CONSTRUCTION II, INC., RE: BARRIER ISLAND ECOSYSTEM CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to award Bid No. B-2-05-51, Construction of Barrier Island Ecosystem Center, to Speegle Construction II, Inc. in the amount of $2,009,000; and execute Agreement with the Contractor for the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVE EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE INSURANCE AND ACCEPT DONATION, RE: CAPRON
RIDGE MITIGATION PROPERTY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize staff to waive exceptions to the title insurance for Capron Ridge mitigation property; and accept the donation of 21± acres to the County for management by the EEL’s Program, subject to plat restrictions and the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO AWARD PROPOSAL #P-2-04-29 AND EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE: LAWN
AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE FOR SARNO ROAD LANDFILL

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to award Proposal #P-2-04-29, Lawn and Landscape Maintenance for Sarno Road Landfill, to Space Coast Quality Lawn Maintenance at $38,821; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO AWARD PROPOSAL #P-1-05-13 AND EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE:
BANKING SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to award Proposal #P-1-05-13, Banking Services, to SunTrust at $311,000 for an eight-year period; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REAPPOINTMENT, RE: BREVARD COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to reappoint Philip Nohrr, Roberta Bechtel, Pamela Gatto, Joy Gilliland, and William Potter to the Brevard County Educational Facilities Authority with terms expiring December 31, 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION RENOVATIONS AND EXECUTE
CONTRACT, RE: PUBLIC SAFETY ANSIN ROAD FACILITY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize staff to utilize a Board-approved Construction Management firm or Job Order contractor, whichever is most cost effective and expeditious, to complete construction of renovations at the Public Safety Ansin Road Facility in Cocoa at an estimated cost of $316,800; and authorize the Chairman to execute the associated Contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID, AWARD BID, AND EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE: HARRY T. MOORE
AVENUE PAVING AND DRAINAGE PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to bid, award to lowest, qualified, responsive bidder, and execute Contract for construction of improvements to Harry T. Moore Avenue Paving and Drainage Project at an estimated amount of $1,200,000; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT WITH SCHOOL BOARD, RE: PROPERTY LOCATION
INFORMATION FOR USE IN FORECASTING AND DETERMINING STUDENT
POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Non-disclosure Agreement with School Board for property location information for use in forecasting and determining accurate student population projections. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH NEXTEL, INC., RE: INSTALLATION OF AMPLIFIER SYSTEM AT
GOVERNMENT CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Nextel, Inc. for installation of an in-building radio amplifier system at the Government Center; and authorize the Information Technology Director to process and execute annual renewals for subsequent extensions of the Agreement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

TERMINATION OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND AUTHORIZE REMOVAL
AND RETURN OF EQUIPMENT, RE: BELLSOUTH MOBILITY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to terminate the Memorandum of Understanding dated May 11, 1999 with BellSouth Mobility for access to the County’s Public Safety trunking radio system during emergencies; and authorize removal of radio equipment PR #202-3259 and PR #204-2001 from the County’s inventory and return of the equipment to BellSouth. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEASE AMENDMENT WITH TICO, RE: SHERIFF’S OFFICE HANGAR AT MERRITT
ISLAND AIRPORT

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Amended and Restated Lease Agreement with Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority and Sheriff Jack Parker for replacement of a hangar at Merritt Island Airport. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT, RE: ED WASHBURN AS ASSISTANT COUNTY
MANAGER

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to confirm the appointment of Ed Washburn as Assistant County Manager for the Development & Environmental Services Group. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT, RE: ED LYON, P.E. AS PERMITTING AND
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTOR

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to confirm the appointment of Ed Lyon, P.E. as permanent Director of the Permitting & Enforcement Department. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF POLICY, RE: REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR ELECTED
OFFICIALS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Policy for reimbursement of expenses for Elected Officials. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH PEGGY BUSACCA, RE: COUNTY MANAGER

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Peggy Busacca as County Manager for compensation and terms of employment. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: CONGRATULATING RETIRING TEACHERS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution congratulating retiring teachers in District 1, as follows: Patricia Barden, Pat Freeman, Mildred Ross, James LaCoy, LaNelle Netherton, Frank Orletsky, Rebecca Patrick, Anna Johnson, Lynda Tempest, Ivanna Harbin, Margaret Pelletier, Karen Fucile, Frederic Ankersen, Jackie Maynard, Karen Ball, Larry Gilreath, Dan Cleavenger, and Lula Brundidge. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint Anthony Koromilas to the Landscaping, Land Clearing, and Tree Protection Task Force, with term of appointment expiring August 31, 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY IN BRYAN & CARLILE
RESUBDIVISION - CARLOS SPRINGFIELD

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating right-of-way in Bryan & Carlile Resubdivision, as petitioned by Carlos Springfield.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there are any concerns; with Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff responding there have been no objections.

There being no further comments, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution vacating right-of-way in Bryan & Carlile Resubdivision as petitioned by Carlos Springfield. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING INGRESS/EGRESS AND WELLSITE
EASEMENT IN FITZROY REEF - CREECH ENGINEERS, INC.

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating ingress/egress and wellsite easement in Fitzroy Reef, as petitioned by Creech Engineers, Inc.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there are any concerns; with Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff responding there have been no objections.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution vacating ingress/egress and wellsite easement in Fitzroy Reef as petitioned by Creech Engineers, Inc.

Commissioner Carlson stated in the summary, it says the easement is in direct conflict with the proposed development plan and the preliminary plat. Mr. Denninghoff stated this is a process of modifying existing easements and replacing them with new rights-of-way or new easements as the project develops; so a consent item was required to be passed in order for this to be approved.

Commissioner Voltz seconded the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENT IN WATERWAY ESTATES, FOURTH ADDITION - RONALD E. OLINGER

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement in Waterway Estates, Fourth Addition, as petitioned by Ronald E. Olinger.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there are any problems; with Traffic Engineering Director John Denninghoff responding there have been no objections.

There being no further comments, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement in Waterway Estates, Fourth Addition as petitioned by Ronald E. Olinger. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT IN
WOODRIDGE AT SUNTREE, UNIT II - THOMAS AND JEAN BOULTON

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility easement in Woodridge at Suntree, Unit II, as petitioned by Thomas and Jean Boulton.

Commissioner Carlson stated the applicants are just replacing their screen enclosure; with Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff responding there have been no objections.

There being no further comments, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easement in Woodridge at Suntree, Unit II, as petitioned by Thomas and Jean Boulton. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADOPTION OF 2005A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
AND SUBMITTAL OF AMENDMENT PACKAGE TO DCA

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider adoption of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and submittal of Amendment Package to DCA.

Commissioner Carlson stated Items A.4 and A.5 have been postponed because there was no proper notification; and she understands A.3 is going to the 2005B Amendment package.

Planner Todd Corwin advised the applicant requested 2005A.3 be withdrawn and put into the 2005B package because of the small area study potential for the area. He stated 05A.4 and 05.A.5 are requested to be continued to May 17, 2005 so property owners in the area have a chance to come to the meeting and speak; the property owners were notified; however, the surrounding property owners were not, so staff is requesting the items be continued.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board will only be doing 1 and 2 and changing 3. Mr. Corwin stated that is correct; staff is requesting the Board review 1 and 2, and on May 17, after 4 and 5 are heard, the package will then be transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs. Chairman Pritchard inquired what about 3; with Mr. Corwin responding it was withdrawn by the applicant. Commissioner Carlson stated she will not be present for the entire meeting on May 17; and inquired if it could be continued to May 19. Mr. Corwin advised notices have already been sent for May 17, 2005. Commissioner Carlson requested the items be heard early on May 17, 2005; with Chairman Pritchard responding the Board can do that.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to continue the public hearing to consider Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2005A.4 and 2005A.5 to May 17, 2005 for an early time certain. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Jim Reinman stated he is the applicant for 2005A.2; there is a unanimous recommendation from the LPA and the CRG; and there have been no objections at any public hearing.

Rod Honeycutt stated he is present for 2005A.1.

Planner Alan Woolwich stated for Amendment 2005A.1, they have prepared findings of fact, which he will be reviewing for the Board this morning. He stated the subject lands are located in Sections 16 and 21, Township 21, Range 35; the lands are located east of U.S. 1 in Mims, on the east and west sides of Hammock Road, west of the Indian River and south of Main and Cuyler Streets; the existing roads in the proposed amendment area are gravel or sand surface; and the subject lands are currently forested with a small amount of working and active groves. He stated the current future land use map designation is Residential 2 and Planned Industrial; and the proposed future land use map designation is for Residential 4. He stated currently the lands are vacant; the request, if approved, would enable the subject properties of 148.57 acres to be developed as residential with a Residential 4, four dwelling units per acre, future land use designation. He stated the subject lands are bordered to the north, south, and west by Residential 2 and Residential 4 future land use designations; Residential 2 permits two units per acre with the appropriate zoning classification; lands with a Residential 4 directly abut the northwest area of the proposed amendment for the length of approximately 1,000 feet; and that is to the west of Hammock Road. He stated established residential land use patterns in the area range from one acre to two and one-half acres to the west, north, and south of the proposed amendment area with larger parcels of vacant residential or agricultural land included; smaller residential parcels are located west along the U.S. 1 corridor; and they have done a development analysis for planning purposes, looking at transportation and other concurrency items. He stated they have not noted any deficiencies in any of the levels of service; and potable water and sanitary sewer are available or planned.

Rod Honeycutt, Honeycutt and Associates, stated as staff explained, they are requesting a land use change on approximately 150 acres from R-2 and PIP to R-4; if it is approved, they will submit for rezoning to go concurrently; and in the rezoning, they will limit it to two and one-half units per acre in a binding development plan. He stated the plan for west of Hammock Road will have 50 single-family lots on 50 acres; and east of Hammock Road on the river side will have low-rise condominiums of 320 units for a total density of two and one-half units per acre. He stated they had a preliminary environmental investigation; there are some wetlands on the east side; and they will avoid those wetland impacts. Mr. Honeycutt stated one reason they are going with the low-rise condominiums is to cluster them; there will be 70% open space; and they will be upgrading the entrance road. He stated as staff explained there are a lot of dirt streets; that will be Hammock Road and Cuyler Road that are adjacent to the property; and they will also do additional landscaping on Cuyler Road, which will be the main entrance to the site. He stated the item was unanimously recommended for approval by the LPA; they meet concurrency; the concurrency staff discussed was with R-4; and with R-2.5, they do even better. He stated they met with the community on numerous occasions and had positive response; and he is available to respond to questions.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this area was given IU zoning because the railroad track goes over the Lagoon out to the Space Center where they took heavy equipment; and some time back it was thought there could be a potential for industrialization back there. He stated that probably is going to be inherently incompatible because as the area develops residentially, there is an incompatibility in bringing in heavy trucks through residential areas. He stated there is a transition there; and some of it is caused by the Chain of Lakes project, the new hospital, and things like that. He stated they are concerned with working with development and preserving the area along the Lagoon; the Lagoon is not the most favorable place to develop because of the railroad track; few people want a train coming ten feet from their back door; and inquired as they get into developing the area, is there potential to structure this so they have the same level of density but with a conservation component that would extend along the track and the Lagoon. Mr. Honeycutt responded he would think so; and in the preliminary concept plan he shows it going closest to the railroad track, but there would not be any problem. Commissioner Scarborough stated where they can, they want to work with development in conservation where they do not lose development rights; the Blueway project is one that is still being discussed; and they do own to the south of some of the parcels of the entire Chain of Lakes. He inquired at what juncture can they get into that discussion; with Mr. Honeycutt responding if this is approved today, they are going to apply for rezoning; that would go along at the same time; and in the meantime they would be willing to go with a binding development plan, meet with the community, get their approval, and get Board approval.

Chairman Pritchard stated there is a road that goes off SR 90 into Pensacola; it is a bluff road; and the railroad track is down the bluff along the bay. He stated there is very elegant housing, most of it two and three story houses; and the railroad track is there. Mr. Honeycutt stated that is what they plan. Chairman Pritchard suggested Commissioner Scarborough look at that area, as he thinks that is what he has in mind. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a potential to be back from the tracks but high enough that it would be over the trees, allowing a view over the Lagoon, but not having the train going by at night. Mr. Honeycutt stated they are planning on lower level parking so that would bring the first unit over that area. Chairman Pritchard stated what is between the track and the water could be the passive park; and it would be a beautiful setting.

Attorney John Evans stated they want to make the negative of the railroad track into a positive; they intend to get away from the track and go a little higher to have the views; but yet, they will preserve between the buildings and all the way to the river as open space, so they would expect east of Hammock Road to have a 60 to 70% open space.

Commissioner Carlson stated looking at the map, there is a lot of PIP that is existing on the north and south; and inquired if the Board is looking at something to make it more uniform. Commissioner Scarborough stated they had three meetings with the community to provide background information; they are at the point where they want to do some land use changes; and his conversation with Ms. Busacca was that this was the first area they would want to go into, remove all the industrial zoning, and go to residential components. He stated this is not inconsistent with where the Board will be going with overall planning.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Amendment 2005A.1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Senior Planner Alan Woolwich stated 2005A.2 is a large scale plan amendment; the applicant is James L. Reinman; the current future land use map designation is planned industrial; and the proposed future land use map designation is Residential-2. He stated the amendment request is for approximately 19.89 acres; the lands are located in Section 16, Township 21 South, Range 35 East, east of U.S. 1 in Mims, on the east side of Hammock Road and the west side of the Indian River and the FEC rail corridor; and the subject lands are currently forested and vacant. He stated the current zoning designations on the property are IU with a small portion of TR-2 and BU-1 on the east side of the railroad corridor on the Indian River. He stated the request would allow the subject property to be developed as residential homes, resulting in the establishment of residential, two dwelling units per acre density designation. He stated the future land use map designation existing on the lands to the west, northwest, and southwest of Hammock Road also have a Residential-2 density designation; and established residential land use patterns in the area range from one acre to two and one-half acres to the west of the proposed amendment area, with larger parcels of vacant and residential agricultural land included. He stated staff has provided an analysis based on the concurrency models for planning purposes only; and they have noted no deficiencies in transportation. He stated there is a wetland analysis that indicates there are wetlands on the property; the appropriate notes and comments are in the report; and a report has been provided by the Natural Resources Management office. He stated there is potable water service lines in the area; and it is within the 6-to-20 year planning area for the Mims location.

Jim Reinman, representing the owners of the property, stated he is acting as the applicant; the property is to the north of the property that was just discussed; and it falls directly into the comments Commissioner Scarborough made previously. He stated the property is no longer suitable for industrial land use; it is zoned industrial with a CUP for a junkyard; they are trying to significantly improve the use to Residential-2, which is less intense; and the plan is to do in excess of one-acre lots on the 19 acres. He stated the problem in the area is the railroad tracks, but there is no industrial use of the property; on the west side of Hammock Road is Residential-2; and their request is consistent with that. He stated they see this as being the development plan in the future for this area; it will be low density residential; and he does not think there is any problem with conserving the area east of the railroad tracks because there is no way to access that anyway. He stated that area will not be developed; and all development will be to the west of the railroad tracks. He stated they will be applying for a zoning designation consistent with the request; and he is talking about single-family one acre residential lots on the property, with the homes being constructed to the west of the tracks. Mr. Reinman stated the property runs to the river, but they will not be able to build anything on that side of the property; and those are the restrictions associated with the property. He stated they had unanimous recommendations of approval from the LPA and the CRG, and have had no objections throughout the hearing process.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if they could put in a dock; with Mr. Reinman responding they could put in a dock, but will not be able to build many homes. Mr. Reinman stated they do not have a concept plan except to do 13 lots that would front on Hammock Road, but they will not be able to drive across the railroad tracks to build a home, although someone could walk across, if they were quick.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are opportunities and there are problems; he would like to have an opportunity to talk to the applicant about that; and inquired if they could table the item. Mr. Reinman responded the trend is to re-designate as Residential-2. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has no problem with the general thrust; there is industrial just to the north; it may need more clustering of units; and unless they cluster, it could be problematic. Mr. Reinman stated he is happy to talk to Commissioner Scarborough about it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to continue the public hearing to consider Amendment 2005A.2 to May 17, 2005 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 10:15 a.m. and reconvened at 10:32 a.m.

ACQUISITION SERVICE OPTIONS, RE: ENVIRONMENTALLY ENDANGERED LANDS

Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson stated there are recommendations for acquisition service options; the proposals have been narrowed to four; and they are The Nature Conservancy, The Conservation Fund, O. R. Colan Associates, and Kehoe Real Estate Services. He advised the fourth ranked, Kehoe Real Estate Services does not have the resources to be successful; there was concern how to divide the lands; and commented about selecting a single provider.

Amy Tidd expressed support for the EEL Program, which 70% of the voters supported; and commented on the ranking. She stated three of the firms indicated they would not open offices unless they got the whole contract; and requested others supporting the EEL Program to stand, with approximately 20 individuals standing.

Maureen Rupe expressed support for Option 1, for The Nature Conservancy.

Michael Myjack stated he is in support of Option 1 for The Nature Conservancy; he has been impressed over the last number of years; and he has worked with Ms. Tidd on Preserve Brevard to get money for EEL’s. He stated it is vital for the County to continue to support this effort.

Chairman Pritchard expressed appreciation to the Committee, Ross Hinkle, Mike Knight, Don Lusk, Chuck Nelson, and Kim Zarillo.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Option 1, the Selection Committee’s recommendation to negotiate with The Nature Conservancy as the best and sole provider of acquisition services for the EEL Program.

Chairman Pritchard stated Option 1 was The Nature Conservancy, followed by The Conservation Fund, number three was O. R. Conlan and Associates.

Commissioner Scarborough seconded the motion.

Chairman Pritchard recommended the Board follow the suggestion in that The Nature Conservancy will be the primary mover and shaker, and should the need occur, The Conservation Fund would be able to be utilized when appropriate. Commissioner Carlson stated that works for her as long as The Nature Conservancy is the one; and inquired if Commissioner Scarborough understands. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would hope it would lead to smooth flow rather than disruptive flow if the intent is that if The Nature Conservancy finds a problem with handling all that the County is doing, it would contact Mr. Nelson, and they would then move to someone else; but he does not want to figure out every time who is going to be first and who is going to be second. Chairman Pritchard stated that was not his intent. Commissioner Carlson stated her interest is continuity and not interrupt the process because they want to move on lands quickly. She stated the Board needs to do what the people have told it to do; and the quicker they can get to it, the better. Chairman Pritchard stated that was not his intent; when he was briefed, he was given assurances that The Nature Conservancy can handle the program; but should the amount of work become overwhelming, he wanted to have a backup available; and the Conservation Fund would be ready to handle another purchase. Mr. Nelson stated he wants to be sure that another resource would be because the Thousand Islands acquisition is unique and will be labor intensive; so it was not a slap at either organization because they are high quality. Commissioner Voltz stated she will support the motion, but is not very happy about doing so; The Nature Conservancy backed out of its contract, which she did not think was a very bright idea to begin with; she is not sure why they did it; and they may end up backing out of the contract again. She stated she personally likes the Conservation Fund; the material she received from that group was very top notch and high quality; she likes what they have done; but the County does need to get on with the program and begin buying the lands before they go up any further. She stated the Board has wasted some time because The Nature Conservancy backed out of the contract; and that is what has held up this program for the last six months.

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

Chairman Pritchard suggested buying the Thousand Islands.


PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING REGULATIONS TO
ENCOURAGE MIXED USE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Zoning Regulations to encourage mixed-use commercial and residential development.

Mel Scott stated he lives in Floridana Beach; and is it not his intention to provide a hard sell on this item as he understands it is being well received. He stated he is in favor of the item; and he also wants to speak in favor of the Board granting staff direction to include some proposed floor ratio amendments in the 2005B Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. He stated in the last ten-plus years this has been in effect, it has been used just once; and that is in light of an unprecedented growth explosion in the County. He stated the nice thing about the proposed ordinance is that it does not affect density as it is tied to the Comprehensive Plan; and it simply eliminates strings that were attached to this concept ten years ago and a go-slow approach to the whole idea of mixed use. He stated each of them has been to several visioning programs or growth management seminars; if they have any depth to them, they will talk about pay-as-you-grow, how to combat urban sprawl, mixed use, and walkable communities; and this Code change will do that by eliminating some of the strings such as requiring if someone is going to build something above a strip center, that it be substandard in size to the market. He stated this is the only instance in the entire Zoning Code where there is a cap on square footage for living area; every single and multi-family zoning classification in the Code requires that minimum square footage requirements be met; and by undoing this, it does not affect density but does allow for more meaningful and desirable units to be constructed. He stated he strongly supports the amendment.

Commissioner Voltz stated she read through this and thought about it; she does not have any problem with the first amendment change; but she has a problem trying to visualize a shopping center with an apartment complex on top of it, which is kind of what the Board is looking at. She stated she does not know if she can support something like that; the fourth amendment, which is the hours, is not an issue; but she is not sure she can support the second and third amendments. She stated if someone is going to have a home above a business, she does not think the Board should regulate how big it is; but it may be looking at people renting space on the top of the shopping centers; and she is not sure she is going to support two of the four amendments.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is strange; he went to a shopping center in Winter Park, which has residential above, and it is very upscale housing; and it can work. He stated the problem is whether someone is going to abuse it and create some type of slum environment or will they do something upscale. He stated normally he would think it was strange, but he did see one that was very affluent and nice.

Commissioner Carlson stated there are opportunities for abuse in any type of housing.

Commissioner Voltz stated she has some reservations. Chairman Pritchard stated if Commissioner Voltz were to see it, she would see that the units in Winter Park are very upscale; and it is on the site of what was a blighted and disturbed property. He stated this is the trend; it is a great way to deal with blighted and disturbed property; and people are gravitating toward that. He stated people look forward to having an apartment above a complex; the taxes pay for the opportunity to live there; and it is a great idea because people enjoy that type of living.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is akin to urbanized living; it is a great way to incorporate the walkable community that Mr. Scott was talking about; and some people like that lifestyle although others like the suburban lifestyle. She stated there are a lot of advantages in living in those areas; but up this point, the County has not given it a chance in the Code; and if it tries it and finds out it is creating something the Board does not like, it can extract it.

Chairman Pritchard requested a further explanation of item three, deleting the requirement for maximum one dwelling unit per business within a multi-business complex. Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised the way the section is written now describes these residential uses as accessory uses to the commercial; the commercial is the primary use; and it is not truly mixed use, but a commercial use with an accessory apartment above, which is associated with the business below. He stated there has to be a relationship with the person occupying the residence and the business; and typically it is the owner or an employee. He stated the reason this is not used is because that locks the person and the business together forever; the person can never leave that residence as long as he owns that business; and if the business goes under, the family has to move or there is a Code violation. He stated it is an unnecessary provision that was placed in the Code; and it makes the provision unusable. He stated to truly have a mixed use walkable community, it is necessary to have people living and working in the neighborhood; and it is a walkable community so people do not have to get into their cars to go everywhere. He stated they did some analysis on this; it would not increase the height or bulk of the buildings; there are still height restrictions and parking standards in place; essentially what will happen is some of the potential available for a commercial structure would be for residential instead; and staff thinks it is a great idea because it forwards some of the principles that have been talked about for years with smart growth, so staff recommends it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 62, “Land Development Regulations”, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Section 62-2106 to promote mixed use commercial and residential uses on commercially zoned parcels; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Brevard County Code of Ordinances.

Commissioner Voltz stated she will support the motion because the concept in general is good and this is someplace that the Board needs to move; but the Board needs to be very cautious about what it will end up with. Commissioner Carlson stated they will be cautiously optimistic.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE RESCINDING SELECT COMPANY TAX
ABATEMENTS

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance rescinding select company tax abatements.

There being no comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance repealing Ordinances granting certain ad valorem tax exemptions for failure to continue to meet the criteria for such exemptions; repealing Ordinance 96-27 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted Excell Services, 4050 Rio Mar Drive, Rockledge, Florida; repealing Ordinance 00-24 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted to JDS Uniphase Broadband Products, 1110 West Hibiscus Boulevard, Melbourne Florida; repealing Ordinance 02-06 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted to Intersil Corporation, 2401 Palm Bay Road, Palm Bay, Florida; repealing Ordinance 03-01 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted to American Medical Processor, Inc., 1400 White Drive, Titusville, Florida; providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

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

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

Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar stated Mr. Gholston made a presentation at a previous Commission meeting; the company makes specialized containers for electronic, medical, and other related types of uses; they have gone through the process; and this is the last step. Commissioner Carlson stated it was an interesting presentation.

There being no further comments, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt an Ordinance granting economic development ad valorem exemption to EDAK, Inc., Melbourne, Florida; specifying the items exempted; providing the expiration date of the exemption; finding that the business meets the requirements of F.S. 196.012; providing for proof of eligibility for exemption; providing for an annual report by EDAK, Inc.; providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FOLLOW-UP REPORT, RE: UNDERGROUND PET CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS (INVISIBLE
FENCING)

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Option 1, leave current Code as is and continue to enforce violations on a case-by case basis when these systems are used as stand-alone.

Chairman Carlson stated she will not support the motion; but she could support staff’s recommendation, which would be for the systems to be used as a supportive element because of the issues that have been highlighted, such as not preventing dogs from being stolen, other animals from entering the yard, or prevent people from entering the dog’s territory. She stated all of those cases are potential safety issues, so she cannot support the motion.

Commissioner Voltz stated she thought the Code does not permit invisible fence systems now. Commissioner Carlson stated they are dealt with on a case-by-case basis; but the Board needs to address it in the Code for the appropriate use of them.

Animal Services and Enforcement Director Craig Engelson stated currently the Code does not allow an underground pet containment system as a stand-alone system; they are treated on a case-by-case basis just like a regular fence; and the Ordinance needs to clarify what is an underground pet containment system.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if staff would prefer Option 2; with Mr. Engelson responding affirmatively. Commissioner Carlson stated that would clarify the use. Mr. Engelson stated what staff needs is a definition and the acceptable use of that type system. Commissioner Carlson stated that would be insecurely fenced property.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Option 2, to change the Code to specifically address the appropriate use of underground pet containment systems. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PRESENTATION BY BERKELEY YOUNG, VICE PRESIDENT, RANDALL TRAVEL
MARKETING, RE: TOURISM DEVELOPMENT OFFICE STRATEGIC PLAN
(CONTINUED)

Berkeley Young, Vice President of Randall Travel Marketing, stated his company did a complete comprehensive research study of the County’s tourism market and industry a few months ago; and he serves as an expert not only on Brevard County and its tourism market, but also on the overall tourism industry and the changes that are taking place. He stated the definition of vacation has changed; the Board may remember the days of “See the USA in your Chevrolet”; once a year people went on vacation; and many people remember vacation as being in the back seat of a station wagon with Mom and Dad. He stated the thought that he would ever get out of school to take a trip was unheard of; but the world has changed; and 911 permanently changed people. He stated there is now a society of people who plan at the last minute; so the research that his company did for the County exactly mirrors what is being seen all over the country in research; and he will point out some important issues that are facing the County. He submitted paperwork to the Board, but not the Clerk; and stated he highlighted some key points. He stated the study that was done last year was a comprehensive study that lasted approximately six months; they covered many aspects; and one of the most important things was they spent a week as visitors to experience the area. He stated one of the unique things for the visitors who are driving down I-95 through the State of Florida on their way south, Brevard County is a respite; the interstate is less congested; and it is a peaceful place. Mr. Young stated the goose that laid the golden egg in Brevard County is its scenic beauty, natural environment, and beautiful beaches; and the most important thing the Board can do is to preserve that and avoid what has happened in other parts of the State. He stated they examined the market segments of the lodging properties, based on the I-95 properties, the inland properties, and the beach properties; and they are looked at the leisure markets, the corporate business markets, the conventions, the sports groups, and the pre and post-cruise markets, etc. Mr. Young stated a lot of different market segments stay in the County’s hotels; there are 365 days in the tourism year; and when they look at how to spend the dollars, they have to look at the total and not just something that affects one or two weeks a year. He stated the County does pretty well with occupancy the first six months of the year; and when he talks about visitation, he is not talking about more people in the first six months, but spreading it out evenly. He stated there is a summary of what was found out from the leisure visitors; a lot of people are adults only, traveling without kids; and the family market stays about four nights. He stated approximately 30% of the brochures the Office of Tourism sends out convert to visitors to the area; that is a good rate, showing the current program is doing a good job; and they made some recommendations to go to even a better level. He stated they broke down the spending by visitor group, showing the amount of money spent by the different segments; and he highlighted the total sales tax spent. He stated when they talk about anything to do with an occupancy tax on hotels, that is money used to increase the County's overall sales tax; and the amount is $285 per household that local residents do not have to pay in taxes because tourists are paying them. He stated in terms of the overall strategic direction that they have recommended, he highlighted putting visitors in front of cash registers; that is the definition of tourism; and they found that due to some signage issues and poor information in the area, they had to make U-turns on average four to five times a day, so they were the visitor frustrating the resident, creating traffic problems due to poor facilitation of their visit. He stated all the time they were spending in the car was time they were not spending in front of a cash register spending money; and suggested looking at ways to do a better job to get better economic impact from the travel and tourism segment. He stated there are three priorities endorsed by the TDC; one is to have a visitors sales center; right now some Chambers of Commerce are providing visitor centers; but they found some of them closed on weekends and having limited hours. He stated a lot of visitors are pouring into the County and they are looking where to spend their money; and right now the County is not getting the maximum impact from the visitors once they are here. He stated the County needs a good sales center, a place that is a way to show off the best of the County to get the maximum economic impact from the visitors; it needs to be highly visible, on I-95; and the County wants to capture them to show them the best the County has and where to spend their money. He stated to accomplish that and many other things like beach revitalization, renourishment, maintenance, and support of many of the programs around the County, the Board should increase the occupancy tax on hotels by one penny, bringing it up to a 5% tax; on many occasions he speaks against raising taxes when it is not deemed in the best interest of the visitor and the community; but in this case, the County is already at a lower occupancy tax than the competitive communities in Florida, so it is leaving money on the table. He stated they have seen in studies all over the country that when it comes to occupancy taxes, visitors do not start getting frustrated until they exceed 13%; New York City and San Antonio are above 18%; and right now the County is at 10%, way below the national average. Mr. Young stated the County can add another penny to the occupancy tax without having a blip on the visitor’s radar screen; but it will improve quality of life and help the County accomplish improved signage throughout the County. He stated the only place the County has good signage is in Viera; but finding where to go and what to do in the rest of the County is nearly impossible. He stated just finding the zoo, which is just off the Interstate is difficult; all of the County’s attractions need better signage to help the visitor find where to spend their money; and commented on traffic difficulties created by visitors driving slowly trying to find places. Mr. Young stated they have recommended a lot of other strategies that are key to the development of the Space Coast Office of Tourism’s program of work; and they are aggressively implementing those. He stated when they do a research project, they stay involved with the client to make sure they are on point and to provide support for development; and the Office of Tourism is focused on a 20-year vision plan that preserves the scenic beauty, nature, beaches, and wetlands that visitors are coming for. He stated all the national trends are showing that Americans are desperate for peace, quiet, and relaxation; the County has some of the most unspoiled beaches on the coast; and it needs to preserve and enhance that. He stated the County needs to let the visitors know what is here, bring them in, and get the maximum economic impact because this is a very important industry for the County. He stated the three most important points from the study are a new visitor sales center, increasing the room tax, and improve the signage system throughout the County. He stated he began by saying the definition of vacation has changed; and recommended a website called generationalmarketing.com, which was started by a woman who worked for the US Council on Aging. He stated there used to be a generation gap, young and old; but now there are the silent generation, baby boomers, generation X, and generation Y; and it is necessary to deal with all the different groups on a daily basis. He stated this means in tourism marketing, the Office of Tourism has to be aggressive or they will fall behind and the County will lose market share; and challenged the Board to increase the room tax to 5%, which will not affect the tourism industry negatively in any way but will enhance the quality of life in the County. Mr. Young distributed his business card to the Commissioners; and stated they do not see research as a one-time thing, so they are an ongoing partner of the County. He stated if they have follow-up questions, they can get in touch with him; and they are ready to serve the County in any way they can.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Young said there was a threshold on bed tax at 13%; with Mr. Young responding once they start exceeding 13%, they start frustrating visitors; and most places in North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia are at 13%. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the maximum the County can go to; with Office of Tourism Development Director Rob Varley advising right now it is 5%. Mr. Young stated the County would be at the maximum at 5%, which would make it competitive with all the surrounding communities; and most places up and down I-95 and I-75 are at 6% or higher, so the County is way below the standard.

Chairman Pritchard stated the Board discussed signage at a recent meeting like a 50-foot statute of Commissioner Scarborough, similar to the cowboy in Las Vegas. Mr. Young stated the Board should not underestimate the power of quirky things that can make people remember you; but with Cocoa Beach and the space program, the County is pretty well known at this point.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 102, ARTICLE III, TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT TAX

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 102, Article III, Tourist Development Tax.

Office of Tourism Development Director Rob Varley stated the TDC met and formed a Task Force and three committees, one dealing with the fifth cent issue, one dealing with the visitor information center, and one dealing with signage. He stated the separate committees met and came back as a Task Force; and the Task Force made recommendations to the TDC. He stated one recommendation is to go forward with the fifth cent; the committee on the fifth cent did a lot of research with the local hotel industry; it checked out the area around the County to see if it would still remain competitive; they found they will still have less resort tax than most Central Florida destinations; and the hotel industry is highly supportive of this. He stated in the meantime there was additional discussion about the fourth cent; the fourth cent pays for baseball; it was found there are excess monies being collected in the fourth cent; and the State allows that excess to be used for marketing. He stated they are recommending taking $350,000 a year out of the fourth cent, when available; and they have worked out that deal with major league baseball. He stated the visitor information center committee met; it looked at a lot of locations, and has not settled on one location, but it is getting close; they know it needs to be in North Brevard; and one of the options they are looking at, in addition to land at SR 50, is getting the State to allow use of the rest area at the entrance of the County. He stated if that works, they could do the same thing at the rest area in South Brevard in the future; so those are options they are looking at; and they are not settled on a specific location for the visitors center, but are moving as fast as they can. He stated the signage issue has become so important that the committee came back to the Task Force; and the Task Force recommended to the TDC forming a signage committee to serve just as the marketing and sports committees do. He stated they are recommending earmarking significant dollars from the extra fifth cent for a signage program; and they would bring on a professional company to design a plan and place signs. He stated one of the issues before the Board is finding more dollars for the beach; and part of the recommendation is to reallocate the money that was allocated for marketing in the third cent to allow additional beach revenue, for the visitors center, and investment in cultural events. He stated they are also recommending continuing to fund the Brevard Zoo beyond the time when they have paid off the loan for the African loop.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the questions is who actually pays this tax; and requested an explanation. Mr. Varley stated the resort tax was established in 1986 by the voters; it is regulated by the State; but it is paid by people staying overnight in the County’s hotels. He stated they pay 4% on top of their room rate, so it is the out-of-town, overnight visitors who pay that tax.

Chairman Pritchard stated the consideration is to go from 4% to 5%; and inquired why not to 6%. Mr. Varley responded currently the State law does not allow that; but the TDC has requested staff investigate the possibility of going to a sixth cent, earmarked for beaches. He stated that is being discussed; they have not gotten that far yet; but it is something they would have to go to the State Legislature for next year. He stated the TDC is interested in looking at that; but they do not know how much support there will be from the local tourism industry. Chairman Pritchard inquired if that was implemented, who would pay that tax; with Mr. Varley responding the visitor.

Keith Winsten, Executive Director of Brevard Zoo, stated he is speaking in support of the fifth cent, and particularly the reallocation that would make 15% of the third cent permanently part of the zoo’s budget. He stated the zoo is a great community resource; it is a place families love to visit; it is a strong partner in education; it is a venue for the arts; and it supports conservation; but he is not sure the Board is aware of the zoo’s role in tourism. He stated last year 90,000 of the zoo’s guests came from out of the County; right now they are working with the TDC to create an ecotourism brochure; by the end of summer, they expect to have a tourist information center at the zoo; and next year they will be bringing back the dinosaur exhibit. He stated tourism is an important part of the zoo; and the zoo plays an important role in the County in doing that. He stated the zoo has always run in the black; it is a self-sustaining organization; last year 94% of its operating income was earned by the zoo; so the zoo feels it is its responsibility to continue to be sustainable in terms of operating expenses. He stated the board of the zoo is about to enter into a process to do a business plan for the next ten years to insure that sustainability; and once that business plan is complete, a master plan will come out of it. He stated this is the third zoo he worked at; what makes a zoo successful is constantly keeping its product fresh; people come back when there is something new to see; and it is necessary to keep facilities up to date in order to be successful. He stated the possibility down the line of having 15% of the third cent permanently for the zoo will enable it to do planning and insure it has a steady capital stream; he cannot say today exactly what the zoo will use that money for; but he can say it will come out of the board-driven process, looking at the business plan, and reflecting the master plan that would be reviewed on an annual basis and reported annually to the TDC. He stated this is a wonderful opportunity to follow in the steps of other communities that have great zoos that supply this kind of ongoing commitment to capital improvements for their zoo.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is good to hear the zoo is working on the business plan and the master plan; and inquired if there is a timeline on that. Mr. Winsten responded the board is meeting on May 20, 2005 to kick it off; and the expectation is they will have the business plan in six to nine months after that and then the master plan in six to nine months after that, so it will be a year to a year and a half before completion of the master plan. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the zoo will provide the Board with a presentation; with Mr. Winsten responding affirmatively; and stated the process will also include community input.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if the zoo has anything special for the summer; with Mr. Winsten responding the butterflies are continuing; a couple of reptile exhibits are coming in; but a lot of the work will be on the dinosaurs for next year. Mr. Winsten stated they will continue to make small improvements as they like for people to be surprised every time they come.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the butterfly exhibit will be extended; with Mr. Winsten responding it is scheduled through July 4; one of the big expenses is the purchase of the butterflies from butterfly farms; the exhibit has been so successful, that they are eating the zoo out of plants; but they are breeding them very successfully; so they are looking to retain them through July. Chairman Pritchard suggested the zoo have an “adopt a butterfly” program.

Bill Bieberbach, representing Ron Jon’s Surf Shop, stated he supports the allocation, as proposed by Mr. Varley and the TDC, for the fifth cent; and he serves on the Brevard Zoo Board, the Hubb Sea World Research Institute, Central Florida Blood Centers, the TDC Marketing Committee, and the Strategic Plan Sign Committee. He stated they support amendment of Chapter 102, Article III of the tourist development tax.

Kay Burk, representing Brevard Cultural Alliance, stated she strongly supports the board of directors and the member cultural organizations, which run from the arts to the zoo, and planetarium; and they passed along this morning their latest cultural marketing piece, which was done in partnership with the TDC. She stated they support the amendment because it brings 10% increase to help market arts and cultural tourism; it also will allow the other entities involved in this to have needed money to help them promote their various aspects; and as the Board can see, the piece says 92 Reasons to Catch the Cultural Wave This Summer. She stated they use the beaches as part of promoting the community, arts, and culture; and they see the significance of the beach community in drawing tourism to the community. She stated they support the entire proposed ordinance.

Roger Dobson stated he is a member of the TDC and a hotel owner in Cocoa Beach. Chairman Pritchard noted he is also a former Commissioner. Mr. Dobson congratulated the Board for appointing Peggy Busacca as its County Manager; and stated it was a great step. He stated this is a win/win situation; it was conceived by the TDC and staff; and it benefits everyone involved in the community, and certainly the tourism industry, the zoo, BCA, and the beaches. He stated everything has been said; encouraged the Board to support the initiative; and advised it is not a cost to the residents, but is paid by the industry and the visitors. He clarified the 13% does include the 6% sales tax; and requested the Board support the proposed ordinance.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the residual benefits of tourists is not only money to the economy but they create a basis for better restaurants and better things that the community enjoys. He stated it is a ripple effect in many capacities to the quality of life the community enjoys, so tourism is very much a part of the economy.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt an Ordinance of Brevard County amending Brevard County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 102, Article III, Tourist Development Tax, Section 102-117, Levy, which authorizes revenue collected from the fourth cent of the Tourist Development Tax to be allocated exclusively to pay the debt service on bonds issued to finance the construction, reconstruction, or renovation of a professional sports franchise facility, to now authorize such collected revenues to also be allocated to promote and advertise tourism in the State of Florida, nationally and internationally; creating a provision in Section 102-117 providing for the levy and imposition of an additional one (1%) percent tourist development tax pursuant to Section 125.0104(3)(n), Florida Statutes; creating a provision in Section 102-119(4), budget plan, to provide that the revenues realized from said fifth cent be allocated to promote and advertise tourism in the State of Florida, nationally and internationally; amending Section 102-119(4), budget plan, to reallocate the net revenue derived from the third cent of the tourist development tax; to provide in Section 102-119(4), budget plan for the additional permitted allocation of the fourth cent; and to provide in Section 102-119(4), budget plan, for the fifth cent tourist development tax revenue; providing for severability; providing for inclusion in Code, providing for area encompassed; and providing for effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPEAL OF WAIVER DENIAL, RE: BUILDING PERMITS IN WEST CANAVERAL GROVES
FOR JOSH KRUPNICK AND ANNETTE DITTMER

Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Lyon stated this item was last heard on March 8, 2005; and it was tabled at that time for a staff report. He stated the report has been completed; it outlines how one would go about obtaining a permit in this area; it would have to be along a County-maintained road; Satellite Boulevard is the only one in the area that is County-maintained; but neither Mr. Krupnick nor the Dittmers have property on that road. He stated the next option would be to construct a road to County standards; but first they would have to obtain the required rights-of-way.

Josh Krupnick stated at the Board meeting on March 8, 2005, it was proposed instead of granting a waiver, the Board could entertain a discussion of a change to the base Ordinance to allow for exceptions; it was said that staff would generate a report and bring all of the related documentation forward for discussion; however, the report addressed only waivers and did not address any changes to the Ordinance. He stated on Friday he met with Commissioner Scarborough and several members of the staff; only waivers were discussed and not changes to the Ordinance; at the March 8, 2005 meeting it was said that perhaps a different approach was needed; and he hopes today a different approach is taken for West Canaveral Groves, as it is badly needed. He stated currently there is no mechanism in place to insure that the side roads off Satellite Boulevard are maintained to County standards; there are approximately 250 people living in the West Canaveral Groves area; the staff report says, “there is no mechanism to insure proper maintenance or access to these residents, and there may be issues providing proper emergency services”; and this is not only related to future permitting but to the existing residents who live on these roads. He stated these issues will continue to exist whether or not a home is put on his particular lot; they are preexisting problems since residency has already been allowed on the streets; and inquired what will the Board do to address this. He inquired how can the Board say the roads are good enough for the current residents, but not for others; and stated clearly a new solution is needed that provides a methodology to improve the roads for the existing residents and uphold the rights of other property owners, often right next door, to use their land. He stated the current Ordinance is inadequate and unfair; it leaves the entire burden of cost on any single family that wants to build; there needs to be a fair distribution of cost; and there is also the issue of right-of-way. He stated this is not only a problem for future applicants, but for the existing residents; the existing residents also utilize the same checkerboard of land for ingress and egress; some has been deeded to the County, but some is still privately owned; and inquired how can some be allowed to utilize this for access and others be denied. He stated property owners are not being treated equally; they need to have a level playing field for all property owners; and hopefully the Board will act responsibly and fairly to devise a new solution to the problem of infrastructure in Canaveral Groves, not only for himself but for the future of the entire community. He stated if it is not possible to do that today, he would appreciate approval of his request for a waiver as he is already under contract to build his home; and he would only be utilizing the same access as the existing residents.

Chairman Pritchard inquired how much did Mr. Krupnick pay for his property; with Mr. Krupnick responding $22,000.

Jerry Wall stated he lives in West Canaveral Groves; and in the words of Minnie Pearl, he is proud to be here. He stated he appreciates the opportunity to address concerns from his neighborhood; he is here representing not only himself but also Douglas Heckart, president of the homeowners association, who asked him to speak on his behalf, and supporting Len Beckett of the government relations committee of the homeowners association. He stated some days ago he contacted the office of some of the Commissioners requesting a call back; he never heard from some of the Commissioners; but he understands the Commissioners have busy schedules. Mr. Wall stated he would like to direct the Board’s attention to the report on dirt roads within West Canaveral Groves by Ed Lyon, April 20, 2005; it is a clearly stated presentation of facts pertaining not only to West Canaveral Groves, but to all similar areas of the County, from Grant to Scottsmoor; for the Board to reverse County position on this issue would be to open a potential Pandora’s box; and this is not a matter of not wanting growth in West Canaveral Groves, but a matter of growth within the parameters of the neighborhood action plan approved by the Board on January 11, 2005, and predicated upon community development block grant actions, both pending and planned. He stated they are traditionally a low, medium, and fixed income area that is friendly to manufactured housing and those wanting to utilize the advantages of nonconforming agricultural lots of record less than two and one-half acres in size; they have a vision and action plan for their community; and they are unlike some who buy to build an expensive house without any apparent regard for the ambience, demographics, ecology, wildlife, environment, or other concerns of the community, notably the almost complete lack of infrastructure. He stated it is a proven fact that if an area like West Canaveral Groves is opened to unlimited permitting, builders will come demanding, by virtue of the fact that the County granted them a permit, all of the amenities of Viera and Suntree. He stated it has been suggested that those residing in West Canaveral Groves are a bunch of ignorant hicks; and he may be somewhat of a hick but is not ignorant. He stated the County, like himself, is on a fixed income; and the Board and his community cannot afford this type of growth.

Len Beckett, representing West Canaveral Groves as the government relations committee chair, stated as the Board just heard from Mr. Wall, the West Canaveral Groves Homeowners Association, has discussed the issue; it is a group that organized to increase their involvement within the County and to encourage responsible and sustainable infrastructure changes in their area that are badly needed, and to encourage responsible growth; and it is not their goal to try and tell anyone what they can or cannot do with their property. He stated they do believe that granting Mr. Krupnick’s petition would be detrimental not only to West Canaveral Groves, but to every other community in a similar situation in the County, and would also bankrupt the County. He stated there is a reason the County does not have the side roads, and that is because it cannot afford to mitigate all possible future growth with St. Johns River Water Management District. He stated it is a very dangerous situation; and he does not think the County would be advised to allow Mr. Krupnick’s request. He noted Mr. Krupnick is not the first one who had a denial for the same reason and will not be the last; if the Board allows Mr. Krupnick’s request, it cannot deny anybody else; and that will mean unfettered growth, which the County cannot afford. He encouraged the Board to keep that in mind. He stated it is also true that Mr. Krupnick apparently did not do his homework before he bought his property or ignored what he was told; a major issue out there is the fact that some realtors and land speculators are not disclosing that those properties cannot be built upon without improving the side roads to County standards; and the present Ordinance does not disallow Mr. Krupnick to build, but requires him to bring the road up to standards to access the home. He stated there is no denial of land use; but there are requirements; it is not unfair to require Mr. Krupnick to follow the County Code when the Board requires everyone else to follow it; and commented on setting dangerous precedent.

Chairman Pritchard stated looking at the map of the area, what is referred to as roads and streets are actually private property with easements given by the landowners for access to those who have built homes; with Mr. Lyon advising that is correct, and Satellite Boulevard is the only road that is County-maintained. Chairman Pritchard inquired looking at Pioneer Avenue, Lot 8, how does that owner access his property; with Mr. Lyon responding he assumes he uses the easements. Chairman Pritchard inquired if they have acquired legal access to travel down Pioneer Avenue and have they acquired permission from the other property owners; with Mr. Lyon responding it is his understanding there are ingress/egress easements that are granted to all the property owners, so they have legal access. Chairman Pritchard inquired if the shaded portion of Lots 8, 4, 6, 10, and 12 fall into the allowance that was given in 1998 when the County somewhat opened the books and allowed building permits in a two-month window of opportunity; with Mr. Lyon responding he does not know the specifics, but assumes they met all the rules at the time they applied for building permits. Chairman Pritchard inquired if the issue with Mr. Krupnick’s lot is that window of opportunity is closed; with Mr. Lyon responding yes, the Code referenced a particular date where any homes out there were accepted, and then provisions or guidelines were set for any new development within the area. Chairman Pritchard stated in order for Mr. Krupnick to get a building permit, he would have to obtain the permission from the owners of Lots 11, 12, 14, 13, and 17 in order to construct the road to access his property. Mr. Lyon advised he would have to do more than just get permission; through the ingress/egress easements, he does have permission to travel across their property; but the County is requesting they dedicate right-of-way so that it can be maintained to County standards once the road is constructed. Chairman Pritchard stated the property owners have chosen not to give that permission; with Mr. Lyon responding staff has not sent out anything recently; but letters have been sent out in the past requesting that. Mr. Lyon advised Mr. Krupnick said he sent out letters requesting right-of-way; and four or five of the eight or nine responded. Chairman Pritchard inquired who is responsible for obtaining the right-of-way, the County or Mr. Krupnick; with Mr. Lyon responding to follow the guidelines of the existing Codes and Ordinances, that would be Mr. Krupnick’s responsibility. Chairman Pritchard inquired why is Mr. Krupnick before the Board; with Mr. Lyon responding he is requesting a waiver of that requirement. Chairman Pritchard stated if the Board grants the waiver, it has been alleged the Board is opening a can of worms; with Mr. Lyon responding there are quite a few inquiries in this area and other areas throughout the County; and they give them the same guidelines when they ask how to develop a parcel such as this. Mr. Lyon stated sometimes there is road right-of-way; in this case it is a little different because the road right-of-way is not dedicated; they do dirt road agreements quite often; so this is the normal process and they follow the existing Code. He stated they provided that information to Mr. Krupnick; and he is asking for a waiver to that requirement. County Manager Peggy Busacca advised there is a waiver requirement in the Code; the County Manager’s office several years ago established standards; Mr. Krupnick asked for a waiver and it was denied; and he is appealing the denial to the Board.

Commissioner Voltz inquired when Mr. Lyon says he has to bring the road up to County standards, is he saying up to County dirt road standards or an asphalt road; with Mr. Lyon responding the dirt road standard. Commissioner Voltz stated that is much less expensive.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a history to this; when he first came into office, there were agreements where they allowed building permits down wilderness trails; and there was no way for people to get to it so it got problematic because people would be passing through many different people’s properties. He stated it almost got to be a neighborhood dispute; and the County Attorney’s office advised the Board was putting itself at risk of liability because if the County issues a building permit, it assumes certain responsibilities like if it had to fight a fire or deal with someone with cardiac rest and things like that. He stated Canaveral Groves came up as a particular problem; there were people who built without building permits; the Board was faced with the problem of removing them from their property, which would have rendered them homeless or give them a window to come up to Code; and the Board did not open it up to a waiver of the requirements for new building permits, but it was to bring in those others. He stated the idea that there are 1,800 homes off Satellite Boulevard is just the tip of the iceberg; right after meeting with Mr. Krupnick he met with another gentleman who has a similar problem; and there needs to be a solution to it. He stated for the Board to solve just Mr. Krupnick’s problem would be the worst possible solution; and the Board cannot grant one waiver without letting it apply elsewhere. He stated people watch these things that are happening; there was an extended discussion with Mr. Krupnick because of the inequity of his having the burden of building the road; but there were three in South Brevard today that people wanted to go ahead and build the road, and they are giving it to the other people who will be able to walk in and get a building permit because the road has been built for them by their neighbor. He stated there is something that is not right about that; and to say the County did not address the problem is incorrect because it went through different scenarios with water and roads and different methodologies. He stated under the current MSBU Ordinance there are nine times the items come before the Board; several of the times are because the Board does not want anybody’s property to be liened without them having an opportunity to be heard; and commented on one instance that was $15 a front foot to bring the road up to County maintenance standards. He stated the cost is not that great; it gets to be a fairness issue more than anything else; and suggested the Board simplify the MSBU Ordinance where it could have one or two hearings at the most and have an expedited thing for moving the County into not a global solution to the West Canaveral Groves issue, but a singular solution on a case-by-case basis. He stated a waiver is a waiver is a waiver; the County will sooner or later come back and close that door when this goes bad; and when it goes bad, it will go really bad. He stated the variation between a buildable lot and a non-buildable lot is multiples; the cost to a property owner who has $15 a front foot placed as a lien that he pays off over ten years at four percent interest is a great gift and the deal of the century; the value of the property triples in a heartbeat; and at the same time the lien is payable over ten years at four percent interest. He stated he does not know what the problem is with some of the property; some of the owners appear to be distant owners who just ignored Mr. Krupnick; but if there is a simplified ordinance for the MSBU, the Board could move away from the inequity of Mr. Krupnick having to build to the standards of the County and giving it to his neighbors. He stated he talked to Mr. Knox who said it did not appear anything was mandated that would not allow this; and he would like to have staff come back with an expedited methodology for MSBU’s so they can facilitate some sense to this problem.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct staff to return with an expedited methodology for an MSBU for roads in West Canaveral Groves. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated this is a very bad situation that is only getting worse; and the Board needs to address it, so maybe this is one way it can do it. He stated this is a good start because there are neighborhoods that are platted like this all over the place; and the Board cannot treat it as an individual effort, but as a global situation.

Ms. Busacca inquired if this is to be taken as staff direction that Mr. Krupnick’s appeal is denied; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes.

WAIVE PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TITLE COMMITMENT AND
APPROVE AND ACCEPT SIDEWALK EASEMENT, RE: CORAL SANDS OF
INDIALANTIC, LLC

Commissioner Voltz inquired if there is any problem with this; with Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff responding no, staff recommends the Board approve the requested action.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to waive the Phase I Environmental Assessment and Title Commitment, and approve and accept the sidewalk easement in favor of the County from Coral Sands of Indialantic, LLC. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH HARB BROTHERS, INC., RE: PROPERTY
AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BARNES BOULEVARD AND U.S. 1

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board gave staff direction to pursue right-of-way for Barnes Boulevard; this is one property staff has been negotiating for; they have come up with a price of $400,000; and there is a site plan on the property for a convenience store that includes gas pumps. She stated if the Board does not buy this property, it will not have any retention; and the reason it is before the Board is because the price is 116% of the average of the appraised values. She stated this is something the Board cannot go forward on because of the problems with the intersection at U.S. 1 and Barnes Boulevard.

Chairman Pritchard stated if the Board does not buy it now it will be 125% next time; with Commissioner Carlson responding no, it will be a gas station.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to execute Contract for Sale and Purchase with Harb Brothers, Inc. for property at the southwest corner of Barnes Boulevard and U.S. 1, needed in conjunction with the proposed Barnes Boulevard improvement project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO SCHEDULE, RE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve scheduling a Solid Waste Management workshop on August 18, 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: RESOLUTION NO. 68-148, ESTABLISHING VALKARIA AIRPORT
ADVISORY BOARD

Commissioner Voltz stated page one of the resolution says, “removal of members, three unexcused absences and two excused absences by any member of the Valkaria advisory board within one year period shall be deemed resignation from the board”; but they only meet four times a year, so that is not even possible and does not make sense. She says she has no problem on page two where it says it shall meet monthly; and it says under authority and duties, “all actions by the airport advisory board shall be specifically subject to applicable deed restrictions and FAA rules and regulations”, so she does not know what people are afraid of with the expansion of the few hangars down there and maybe a few other things for them to talk about. She stated she does not have a problem changing the meetings to monthly; she does not know about removal of members; but she guesses it could be left in there if the meetings were held monthly.

Commissioner Carlson stated the other issue was that they could bring issues to the Board; and that is included. She stated since the Board had the visit on the Micco issue from the DEP gentleman, she would recommend the advisory board become familiar with the Scrub Jay Management Plan for the airport; with Commissioner Voltz responding that is an excellent idea.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board can get something back with the changes; with Commissioner Voltz responding it would have to come back. Chairman Pritchard inquired if when it comes back it will have a different number than 98-148; with Commissioner Voltz responding yes. Chairman Pritchard inquired if a motion is necessary; with County Manager Peggy Busacca advising it is Board direction.

RESOLUTION, RE: QUALIFYING SPACE COAST TRUSS, INC. AS AN ELIGIBLE
BUSINESS UNDER THE COUNTY’S TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM

Commissioner Carlson stated in Rockledge there is a brownfield, which used to be a truss company site; she thought Space Coast Truss owned that site; and inquired if Mr. Lugar knows anything about that; with Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar responding no, but the representative from Space Coast Truss is supposed to be present after lunch. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board could postpone the item until then because there was a brownfield that contaminated the water in that area; and it was a truss company, so she wanted to ask about possible contaminants. Commissioner Scarborough stated in zoning items, truss companies are not always considered the best neighbors because of the noise so the Board needs to be careful.

The meeting recessed at 11:59 a.m. and reconvened at 1:09 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE REGULATING RESORT DWELLINGS

Chairman Pritchard called for the first of two public hearings to consider an ordinance regulating resort dwellings.

Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated this is the first of two public hearings on the resort dwelling ordinance; the Board directed staff to put together the ordinance a couple of months ago; and it does a couple of things. He stated the first thing it does is define what a resort dwelling is; there is the issue of whether the Board wants to define resort dwellings different from what the State does; and right now the State defines them as 30 days or less, while the Board had talked about making it some period longer than that. He stated staff has defined it for the purpose of discussion as 60 days or less; and the fact that it was defined separately from the State allows the Board to discuss that issue. He stated amortization is part of the Ordinance, but there is no recommendation from Tindale Oliver yet; but the firm is aware that the second hearing is on May 19, 2005. He stated what they are proposing is that resort homes be a permitted use in all multifamily and commercial, including hotel commercial, zoning classification; and they are also suggesting the Board may want to consider it as a permitted use with conditions in certain limited circumstances, but conditions would be based on the location. He stated page 13, Section 4 has location standards under paragraph 1; the first is if there was a nonconforming multifamily use that happened to be in single-family zoning; there is that circumstance in the South Beaches because of a recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment which reduced densities; and previous densities may have been multifamily, so there are some nonconforming multifamily structures in single-family zoning. He stated the second possibility is to locate them on the east side of A1A even if located in a residential zoning classification. He stated the third is on the west side, having frontage on A1A, but not abutting single-family uses in platted subdivisions; and the Board can make that more restrictive if it wishes, as the LPA suggested it is not restrictive enough. He stated finally they may be located in multifamily tracts in PUD’s or in single-family tracts if they are submitted and approved as part of the preliminary development plan; and the Board would get a chance as part of a public hearing to consider that option. He stated in those cases where resort dwellings are permitted with conditions, staff suggests a series of performance standards that would govern parking, maximum occupancy, and noise levels; and also it would require local management by a Brevard County resident who would be responsible for making sure that the home meets the performance standards.

Commissioner Voltz stated in Section 4,(1)(c), she would like to look at the language, and have it say located on the west side and having direct frontage on SR A1A, but not abutting single-family detached uses or parcels zoned for single-family detached uses because currently it says a platted subdivision, and there are not a lot of platted subdivisions abutting A1A. Mr. Enos stated there are circumstances on the beach especially where there are single-family uses that are not in subdivisions but happen to be on tax parcels that have been split off by metes and bounds descriptions, so that would be a little more restrictive than the language presented.

Commissioner Carlson stated she would add similar language to (b), which is located east of Highway A1A, because the issues she has been coming up against, in meeting with folks, have dealt with platted residential communities that are on the beach, in a nice section, and then all of a sudden one of them becomes a rental; so if there is a way to put similar language in (b), she would prefer that. Commissioner Voltz stated she agrees there should be no difference between east and west. Commissioner Carlson stated she did not know, by looking at the commentary of the LPA, it has prohibit resort homes entirely in single-family classifications; and inquired if that would include the platted single-family versus just the subdivision single-family. Mr. Enos responded that was not the intent; the issue was discussed at a subsequent meeting; the original motion was to eliminate them from single-family altogether; but the person who made the motion clarified at a subsequent meeting, stating the intent was the single-family detached subdivisions only. He stated he did not intend for that to apply to the other circumstances that were described in (a), (b), or (c), as amended.

Commissioner Voltz stated under local management it says, “establish requirements for local management to assure performance and provides for the revocation of occupational license if violation occurs”; the County does not issue occupational licenses; and inquired how that comes into play. Mr. Enos responded if the Board were to adopt this ordinance, then it would be setting up a circumstance where staff would be issuing occupational licenses in those cases where they qualify; and in those cases, where they qualify as a permitted use with conditions, the County would have an additional set of performance standards where the license would be at risk if there was too much noise or parking on the street or something like that. Commissioner Voltz stated the LPA’s recommendation under manager responsibility talks about the performance standards not being utilized if the owner lives on the property; and inquired if that is correct. Mr. Enos responded that was a recommendation of the LPA that there was at least one circumstance described where the owner of the property also was an onsite resident; and the LPA felt that in that circumstance that person would be the local manager, so it was not necessary for the conditions to apply in that circumstance. Commissioner Voltz stated she would like to see the Board include that in whatever it decides.

Scott Berry stated he lives on A1A; he is in Brevard County part of the time and in Iowa part of the time; and he did not plan on speaking but filled out a card so he would have an opportunity to do so; and did not realize he would be called upon. He stated he is in a disappointing situation; he bought a home in the County unaware of the brouhaha going on; he was naïve enough to have looked at it before the hurricanes hit and not noticed how close he was to his neighbors; and the first he realized he was that close to a house was when he came back after the hurricanes and found that a portion of fence had blown down and saw the house ten feet away. He stated while he can understand people’s consternation about a change in things, he is new to this; he knows the Board has been deliberating on this for some time as had the LPA; but he has not seen a lot of reasonable discussion among community members. He stated he sees a lot of high feelings on both sides of these issues; he does not see anybody sitting down together trying to come up with something that will work for everyone, and recommending that to the Board; and if he were the benevolent despot of the world, that would be how he would have structured this. He stated maybe they need to step back a little bit and force the people with different opinions to all sit down together and learn to be civil to each other and work something out that makes sense. He stated there would have been room to come up with a compromise that would require property owners who choose to rent short-term to require a deposit that would be kept in escrow to assure that if there is damage to someone’s property or disturbances at ungodly hours, that money would be forfeited and the people who really caused the problem would be compensating the local residents; but he does not know if that is even a possibility. He stated it is not a reasonable expectation to look at A1A and say it is the same as anything that is in a subdivision; it is a noisy highway; and it was in spite of the fact that it was on A1A that he purchased the home he bought. He stated they bought with the intention of moving here eventually; he is not financially fixed to move here at this point; since he purchased that home a number of things have happened businesswise such that he is facing serious financial problems if he cannot cash flow this; and that is not the Board’s problem or his neighbor’s problem, but it is a statement of fact. Mr. Berry requested the Board carefully consider the impact this will have on everyone; he cannot see a nickel’s worth of difference between having a house rented long-term versus short-term, short of the fact that if there is someone who is a turkey long-term, the neighbors are stuck with him forever, but if there is someone who is only there a week and raises Cain, they are only there a week and then it is on to the next people. He stated there is not a lot of difference; the best people to be living in a house are the owners because they take the best care and are most considerate of the neighborhood in general; but there is nothing better about a long-term renter versus a short-term renter. He stated because the short-term renter is paying more money and is probably at a higher economic status, their behavior standards are probably higher as well.

Ralph Baum thanked Commissioner Voltz for the suggestion to change the rule involving the private residences as well as the subdivisions; stated they think that development of the area has been growing; there is hardly any property left to develop; but there is a very diverse mix of people moving into the area. He stated one of the draws has been the peaceful and pristine nature of that particular stretch; and it certainly does not look like Cocoa Beach. He stated they are encouraging people of various wealth and age statuses; it is not only senior citizens; and there are more young people finding Melbourne Beach a desirable place to live. He stated they came with the idea it was a peaceful and pristine area; transient renters, particularly when the people who own the property are nowhere near it, have little incentive to maintain the property; and the renters can cause all sorts of abuses because a week or two later they are gone and have no stake or interest in maintaining the properties. He stated to maintain the quality of life they have enjoyed all these years, the ideal situation is not to affect the long history of rentals being there; most of the people bought on the beach assuming that at some point that was part of the game; but the people who have developed and bought homes on the west side thought they were going to enjoy a higher standard of privacy and personal responsibility for maintenance of the properties. He requested the Board support Commissioner Voltz’s suggestion for the change of the rule.

Carolyn Lavrack submitted paperwork to the Board, but not the Clerk; and stated hers is the house next door to Mr. Berry’s. She stated they have been there going on 12 years; and they expected to spend the rest of their life in their home. She stated they thought it was a residential area; but all of a sudden they are faced with a weekly rental; and she is sure the Board has heard these stories many times, so she is not going to go through them. She stated they are pushing for Commissioner Voltz’s change on page 13, item (c) concerning the west side of A1A, except if it is up to a subdivision because nobody is beside a subdivision. She stated she submitted a picture of the rental house from the Internet as well as the calendars from March and May; and stated even though these people had warnings from Code Enforcement, the renting is going on. She stated she also submitted a map showing her house, the rental house, and a house that is in back; and it is not a subdivision, but just metes and bounds pieces of property. She stated there are hundreds of them up and down the west side of A1A; if the current wording stays in the ordinance, it will affect them; and she sent all this information through the mail to the Commissioners, and what she presented today is just copies. She stated she hopes the Board can help them because they are here to stay; they are in the community working their charities and the elections; and the weekly rentals are not a good thing and will drive a lot of good people out of the A1A area.

Gene Cimino stated his major concern is with the amortization language that is in the proposed ordinance on page 15; and inquired if the period could be less than a year; with Commissioner Voltz responding yes. Mr. Cimino submitted an article that was in Florida TODAY on January 26; and stated it says that there are skyrocketing values in Brevard County of 43% last year. He stated they have already been through five months so it has appreciated in addition to that; and his philosophy is that the people who bought these homes did so to make money, and have made money at the expense of people who live in the residential neighborhoods like himself and other people. He stated they put up with a lot; the people advertise on the Internet; they get transient renters; they are on vacation and always partying; and they have to deal with it. He stated in his case, the owner is in Illinois; he has to call and get an answering machine to try to talk to the owner without going to the police; and he refuses to keep doing that. He stated the owner charges very high rentals; and the calendar, which is on the Internet, is pretty well booked up to 2006. He stated he is in a single-family residential neighborhood; when he bought his house, he did not intend to live next to a motel or a resort area; and he would hope it would be less than a year and no longer than a year. He stated in addition to the appreciation, they see very high rents; and he does not see any problem with them putting the property on the market now or leasing it for longer terms. He stated it might behoove them to put it on the market, because he does not know how long the properties will continue to go up; nothing continues to go up forever; it takes time to sell property; and if everybody starts putting their property on the market, prices will drop. He stated he does not know if that is going to happen in Florida, but it happened in Massachusetts and in other northern states. Chairman Pritchard stated that is because water freezes in Massachusetts.

George Utting stated he lives in Waterway Estates in the unincorporated area north of Satellite Beach; and he is directly affected by two resort dwellings, 417 Cardinal Drive is directly across the street and 417 Penguin Drive is directly across the canal from his home. He stated these resort dwellings have been used as transient weekly rentals since April and June 2004; as the Board has determined, resort dwellings do not belong in single-family residential developments; at the Board meeting of January 25, 2005, a motion was passed unanimously to prohibit short-term rentals of less than 60 days in a single-family residential area zoned RU-1-11; and he commends the Board for this decision, for such use is obviously inappropriate. He stated the LPA on April 18, 2005 made the recommendation to change Section 1, Chapter 62, Article VI to 30 days or one calendar month for consistency with State regulations; and requested the Board stand by its motion of January 25, 2005 since the County definition of “resort dwelling” may differ from the State’s definition, as do many of the County’s definitions. He stated what concerns them are the amortization issues; they are designed to make sure the owners of the resort dwellings recoup their investment; and he understands an outside consultant is to make recommendations to the Board as to the terms of the amortization. He stated he hopes the consultant and the Commissioners take into consideration the fact that these resort dwelling owners will make a large profit on their investments if they sell on today’s market; and they no doubt have made profits to date on the rentals. He stated the dwelling at 417 Penguin Drive was purchased for $370,000 in June of last year; a comparable house at 408 Cardinal Drive with hurricane damage, few renovations, and no pool was just listed for $589,000; and even if the sale of 417 Penguin was for $490,000, the profit would still be $120,000 or 32% in a period of less than 18 months. He stated a similar situation applies to the dwelling at 417 Cardinal Drive, which has a pool and was purchased last year for $330,000; and it should not be the intent that the owners of these resort dwellings be able to sell at maximum profit, but only that they be able to sell at cost plus improvements together with a small but reasonable profit. Mr. Utting stated in light of the extreme aggravation the weekly rentals have caused the surrounding residents of the neighborhoods, he strongly urges the Board to put a stop to this use immediately and restore single-family neighborhoods to their intended purpose.

Evelyn Brown stated she lives in North Waterway Estates; she is a real estate broker; and she has done some research on the pricing. She stated there are two issues she would like to comment about; and she is happy to see the Commission is moving to protect the homeowners on the South Beaches. She stated she does not want to protect her neighborhood but throw others to the wind; and all homeowners in the County need equivalent protection for their home areas. She stated the gentleman from Iowa was very thoughtful in thinking the deposit could be used to compensate a third party neighbor; but he should acquaint himself with the laws governing the disposition of deposits for rental properties, which are very strict; and she thinks to compensate a third party would probably take a judicial process with a judgment in order to pay for some presumed damage. She stated wanting to do something in a nice way is not sufficient; and they have to abide by the laws and rules they are given as landlords and homeowners. She stated she was disturbed to hear someone say one of the homes had been booked into the year 2006; she thought the Board put a moratorium on rentals beyond April or May of 2005; and she was concerned to hear it is still occurring, although she may have misunderstood the Board’s decision. She stated, to reiterate a couple of things Mr. Utting said, the homes were sold for $333,070 as documented in the County records; a home on Penguin Drive with upgraded bathrooms, original kitchen appliances, original kitchen cabinets, and an enclosed entryway just sold in the mid-$500,000’s; and since it is within walking distance, she is sure she can get information for the Board, if it so desires, on the specific dollars and so on for that property. She stated Mr. Utting mentioned a listing, but she knows of a sold property; the gutter end of the canal is where all the trash floats to; and they are also corner lots at the gutter end with only a tiny canal frontage of approximately 24 feet. She stated one of those just sold in the mid-$400,000’s; she saw the interior of that property; and there were no upgrades or remodeling. She stated the gentleman had lived there most of the life of the home; it had original kitchen appliances and original dark Formica cabinets; it had no pool; and if that home can sell in the mid-$400,000’s, she knows the investors who say that have put a lot of money into improving their homes are probably going to approach the other end of the spectrum that she has mentioned. She stated if their cost was not that much, then they will make an even greater profit; and if the Board would like any documentation on these sales, she would be happy to email any information the Commissioners might want. She stated the one that sold on Penguin Drive in the mid-$500,000’s was a for sale by owner and sold in one weekend; and after they signed the contract, they had an offer for $600,000, so they had two bidders, but the second bidder was too late. She stated that brings the point about the amortization; there is a white hot market right now; if the amortization period is extended, it will not be doing the investors a big favor; and inquired who knows what will happen if there is a big hurricane in the fall and the homes are wiped out. She reiterated right now there is a white-hot market; if you snooze, you lose; and now is the time to take a profit if they are not going to retain those homes for long-term rentals or personal use.

Tania Hanlin, Secretary of the South Patrick Residents Association, and a resident of North Waterway Estates, stated she wants to bring everybody back to a little bit of reality. She stated they are raising families in the neighborhoods; there are caregivers in the neighborhoods; they are looking forward to retirement or are retired; they live in North or South Waterway Estates; and they work there, go to school there, and worship there. She stated these are their neighborhoods, not vacation resorts; and if the Board keeps this in mind, it would be very helpful to the residents of these single-family residential areas.

Juanita Brooks stated she has three comments to make, two of which have already been mentioned; but she would like to underscore them. She stated in Section 2 of the ordinance, the LPA has recommended disallowing resort dwellings in all single-family classifications; but as Mr. Enos advised, the person who made the motion came back at a later meeting and clarified that he was not meaning multifamily in particular; and recommended the Board keep that in mind in making its decisions about the final ordinance. She stated Commissioner Voltz mentioned that the LPA recommended that if a person lived in the resort dwelling, it would be exempt from the performance standards; and the third is a potential omission. She stated she has talked in the past about one size not fitting all; she is aware that the ordinance must be written for the majority of situations; but there are always going to be a few that do not fit all of the characteristics of the ordinance. She suggested there be some language for those who may not fit the general profile so they can come to the Board to ask for an exemption; and the Board can hear of their special situations and make some decisions regarding an exemption for them.

Attorney Mike Minot, representing properties impacted by the legislation, stated concerning the issue of the definition of vacation rentals, there are a number of comments in the report from staff and the LPA concerning the differentiation between the 60 days and 30 days; and he does not want to repeat those; but at the same time, there is confusion from the public standpoint, the regulatory standpoint, and the Code Enforcement standpoint. He stated there has been enough confusion in the past whereby people have come wanting to comply with both the resort tax as well as to be regulated and get the property approvals; and there has been confusion regarding State licenses, lack of local licenses and that type of thing. He stated in the future if there is a mirroring of definitions, all that confusion can be minimized greatly; and it would be maximized in the event that the definitions are not the same. He stated his observation of the differentiation between the two is that above 30 days, the policy the Board has clearly set, which is to capture the vacationers who are for a half-week, a week, or even two weeks, is that there be legislation concerning uses of property, particularly in single-family residences, regarding that use; and 30 days will capture and take care of that. He stated anyone who is here for 30 days or longer is not a vacationer; they are here as a seasonal-type person; and suggested that seasonals are different from vacationers, but are going to be caught up by the definition between 30 and 60 days. He stated there are people who come down for six weeks or even two months; they are going to be impacted greatly by this; and he does not think this is the Board’s policy. He stated he simply brings that to the Board’s attention that net is going to be cast out from the proposed definition that is for 60 days and will impact those people. He stated regarding the issue of A1A, the Board has heard a number of comments; some people have suggested they appreciate the new legislation, such as he and his clients do; but east of A1A is a horse of a different color. He stated in the 45 years he has lived in the County, that area has been completely different than even just a few hundred yards west of that, particularly south of the Melbourne Beach City limits; and suggested even for consideration of the A1A corridor, there should be a differentiation between those pocketed unincorporated areas north of the South Melbourne Beach City limit and those that are south of the Melbourne Beach City limit. He stated to the south is a long stretch of straight road of A1A; and everything east of there in his lifetime has been used for tourist-related types of uses. Mr. Minot stated in previous hearings, his clients have come before the Board to say they are going to be impacted as they are directly next to a restaurant, on the other side is a bar, and across the street is a professional office, and maybe three or four doors down is another single-family residence; but they will be caught in the regulation of this ordinance even though the entire strip east of A1A has been used for tourist-related activities including short-term rentals. He stated he knows of friends and family who have used that area for decades for that purpose; another comment was made earlier that no one buys east of A1A anticipating that they are going to have a neighborhood atmosphere as it is a tourist-related use; and suggested that area be located in a way that moves it to a permitted use just like multifamily would be, considering all the uses that are around it. He stated he was listening to Commissioner Voltz; if he understands the suggestions made earlier, west of A1A, not only the platted residential subdivisions will be considered with respect to the abutting issue, but also those that are zoned single-family; and he questions how future zonings will be impacted. He inquired how the property that would be zoned in the future, but not today would be impacted and the same with respect to newly platted subdivisions. He stated it would be easy to say what properties are adjacent to platted subdivisions today; but it is more difficult to identify and understand what would happen with a property that is not adjacent to single-family zoning but in the future will be. He stated through no fault of their own, someone will come in and change the zoning to create an impact that is not there today. He stated regarding the amortization, there is no meaningful discussion that can occur today since the consultant by the County has been hired to provide some kind of report for the Board; and neither the Board nor the public have the benefit of understanding what that report may be. He stated he is asking the Board, for procedural purposes, to give the public, including him and his clients, the opportunity to receive the report, digest it, and give a meaningful type of response; and that would not be within now and next week or something like that.

Ayn Samuelson, Vice President of the South Patrick Residents Association and a small business owner of residential rental properties, stated they appreciate the Board’s concern about their community and that the Board voted to restrict resort dwellings in their residential areas; but this is Countywide, not just in South Patrick Shores. She stated they have enjoyed over four decades of home ownership with reasonable expectation that home rentals in the area would only permit long-term, non-transient rentals, thereby encouraging tenants to become involved in their communities. She stated with this in mind, it is essential to draft a definition of resort dwellings that is compatible with the residential areas; previously the Board voted to support a definition of less than or equal to 60 days; this would permit dwellings to be leased for periods greater than 60 days in the residential areas zoned RU-1-11; and modifying this definition to a shorter period of 30 days or less is not compatible with the neighborhoods and could adversely affect the stability of the neighborhoods. She stated they want to limit confusion; that is extremely important; and they have to remember that this is Brevard County and they can think out of the box and be creative in crafting solutions to fit the unique situations. She stated if they supported an ordinance that would be consistent with the definition of non-transient rentals, those defined as rentals over six months, it would reflect both the Florida Statutes and would catch the essence of what the Commissioners have stated their desires are when it comes to areas of RU-1-11. She stated if they are going to talk about lack of confusion, they can go to the non-transient rentals of six months or more in those areas; that would also be consistent with the Statutes and the Board’s belief system; and closely connected to their wellbeing is how existing resort dwellings will be permitted to amortize their expenditures. Ms. Samuelson stated she is very interested in what the report will be from Mr. Enos; it will shed a lot of light on the issue; and they all want the amortization issue to be fair but the period to be as short as possible to support the integrity of the neighborhoods. She requested the Board do the right thing and continue to fight to insure stability of the residential neighborhoods with the proper definition of resort dwellings of at least 60 days and a fair and short amortization period.

Commissioner Voltz stated she has a question about the 30-day issue; she thought the Board talked about following State guidelines; and inquired what would be the problem with that. Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones stated as the Code Enforcement person, she would actually prefer 30 days, but that is not her call to make; 30 days would be easier for the amortization; 30 days is actually licensed by the State and requires certain kinds of licenses; but going to 31 days, it falls out of the State licensure. She stated there is corporate housing out there too; people come in and stay more than 30 days, but maybe not more than 60; the snowbirds come down for just December, January, and perhaps February; and those are the things the Board needs to look at. She stated it is easier to enforce for 30 days if it mirrors the State because the citizens will be seeing the same definition for the County and the State. Commissioner Voltz stated she does not know whose responsibility it was to get the Tindale report back; but the Board cannot make a decision today. She stated she realizes this is the first hearing, but at the same time, she does not want it to come back right before the next meeting because that is not fair to anybody. Attorney Jones stated they were having problems with getting the appraisal report; what the appraiser had to do was do mini-appraisals of a sample of the resort homes; and that is what the holdup was. She stated they are working on it; they now have the appraiser’s report; and they are working on getting the report to the Board as soon as possible. Commissioner Voltz inquired if this is supposed to come back on the 17th; with Mr. Enos responding on May 19, 2005. Commissioner Voltz inquired when will the Board get that information; with Attorney Jones responding she is supposed to get a call today; they were trying to put it together; and she cannot say when it will get to the County, but she is hoping it will be here by the end of the week. Commissioner Voltz stated she certainly hopes it is soon. Chairman Pritchard stated there was a piece of the news last night saying people are unable to close on their financing because the appraisals are not keeping up with the market; the appraisals are coming in under what people are asking because the market is increasing at a rate greater than the appraisals are keeping up with what properties are selling for.

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Board approved advertising an ordinance that would extend the moratorium on resort homes in the event May 19 comes and the Board is still not comfortable with the amortization report or some other issue, so that could be extended until the Board had a chance to review that in more detail.

Commissioner Carlson stated the issue of the moratorium was just on subdivisions; but some of the concerns that were brought up were regarding platted single-family homeowners who are being affected by other platted single-family homes that are doing resort rentals; and she is not sure those were included in the moratorium. Attorney Jones advised the moratorium was Countywide in every zoning classification. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is a way to approach the ones that are actually doing that; with Attorney Jones responding the ones that were doing it before December 9, 2004 are allowed to continue as a nonconforming use; but for the ones that were established after December 9, and there is one, Code Enforcement is investigating violation of the moratorium Ordinance.

Commissioner Voltz stated if it is coming back on October 19, 2005, that is not enough time to get back that report from Tindale, get it out to the appropriate people, and have them respond appropriately; and the Board has a meeting on May 26, 2005. Ms. Busacca stated the Board does have a workshop; but the second reading has to be at a night meeting. Commissioner Voltz inquired if there are any other meetings; with Ms. Busacca responding not night meetings. Chairman Pritchard stated the Tindale report only deals with the amortization; with Commissioner Voltz responding that is a big key to this whole thing. Chairman Pritchard inquired why; with Commissioner Voltz responding because the Board needs to find out if it has zero amortization or a one-year amortization; and it depends on who it is going to affect and how severely it is going to affect who.

Commissioner Carlson stated Attorney Jones also brought up the issue if it is 30 versus 60 days; and inquired does that mean it will be more defensible if they are talking about amortization if it is 30 days and parallels what the State has in the Statutes. Attorney Jones stated for the amortization, the Board can only choose to amortize those that are legal at the time of the moratorium on December 9, 2004, and those would be the ones that have licenses; but if the Board goes to 60 days, people who were paying their resort taxes will create a larger pool being amortized from the 30 to 60. Commissioner Carlson inquired is it less defensible; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired in what respect. Attorney Knox stated it is hard to say yes or no because he does not know what the consultant is going to come back with; the amortization defense will be tied to whether or not it is reasonable to allow people to stay in existence to obtain a return on their investment; and depending on what they find, a reasonable return on the investment may be just the increase in the value of the property with zero amortization. He stated it could be something longer than that depending on what kind of return they expect; so it is hard to say how this will flesh out until they know what the consultant is going to say. Commissioner Carlson stated that could potentially depend on the market and the given community; with Mr. Knox responding yes.

Chairman Pritchard stated there is no decision that will be made today; this is the first of two public hearings; so the only thing the Board is doing today is listening. He stated the Board received information; it is listening; and it will be back and a decision may or may not be made at the second public hearing depending on what it finds out from the Tindale report. He stated the question of amortization may be moot depending on what the report has to say; the issue of 30 versus 60 days will be discussed further; the issue of the location of where these properties may or may not be located will be further discussed; and that was the purpose of today.

Commissioner Voltz stated she wants to make sure that as soon as the report comes in Attorney Jones get that to everyone.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be beneficial to the Board, since the question of 30 to 60 days is more problematic to handle as an enforcement matter, that if there are particular cases where something over 30 days has resulted in a problem in the community, that it be brought to the Board’s attention. He stated what he has heard up to date is the weekly rentals
were causing more of the problems; and there can be a great ordinance, but if they cannot enforce it, it weakens the ordinance that way. Commissioner Scarborough if there are rentals from 30 to 60 days that are creating problems in the community, it would be beneficial for staff to bring that to the Board’s attention on May 19, 2005.

Chairman Pritchard stated it appears that the 30 days is the more enforceable ordinance; but what Commissioner Scarborough is saying is that if they are finding within the community a renter who is there between 30 and 60 days and is creating a problem, the Board would like to know about that. He stated the idea is not to create a problem for staff and the community, but to resolve a problem that there may be in the community.

RESOLUTION, RE: QUALIFYING SPACE COAST TRUSS, INC. AS AN ELIGIBLE
BUSINESS UNDER THE COUNTY’S TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

Hank Taylor, representing Space Coast Truss, Inc., stated he is a former member of the Brevard Economic Development Council; and he is back to work with local industry again. He stated there is a local company looking to make a major expansion in the County; and he got a call from Greg Lugar about some concerns about the property.

Commissioner Carlson stated she remembers there was a truss company in Rockledge that had moved and there was contamination; it became a brownfield; and so she was concerned about any sort of chemicals onsite or anything like that. She stated they are looking for clean industry; the Board wants the company to expand here; and it appreciates Space Coast Truss, Inc. being in the County, but wants to be careful about what is going on. Mr. Taylor stated the problem was caused by the former owners of the property, Fisher Beverages; and it was from their underground fuel tanks. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Taylor is talking about the Rockledge property with Toni Wilcox responding yes. Mr. Taylor stated before the property was purchased by Space Coast Truss, it required the previous owners of the property to go in and clean up the damage that had been done to the environment; and the Board has a clean bill of health on it. Commissioner Carlson stated it has not been completely cleaned up from the community perspective. Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar advised the truss company that Commissioner Carlson is thinking about is Weakly Lumber Company on Corwin and they had a major situation going back to the 1970’s; they have been going through cleanup; and as late as 2003, they finally concluded a lot of the cleanup work. Commissioner Carlson inquired where is Corwin; with Mr. Lugar responding Paint Street goes east-west; and Corwin is the entryway into that industrial area that goes north-south; and it is not the same site. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that was the one that had the brownfield; with Mr. Lugar responding neither of the two projects was designated as a brownfield; there are only three brownfields in the County; and they are really for commercial industrial areas that have facilities to clean up that provide State and local incentives; but neither of the sites Commissioner Carlson is referring to are designated as brownfields. Commissioner Carlson stated a couple of years back she had information about that in Rockledge; and inquired if that is the site that Mr. Lugar is talking about; and where is Space Coast Truss expanding. Mr. Taylor responded there is a site in Melbourne, south of Sarno, to the west of North Drive, and the east of Jon Rodes Boulevard, and it is an industrial area. Commissioner Carlson inquired if they are looking at corporate headquarters; and inquired if there is a manufacturing site there as well. Mr. Taylor responded the total facility is 40 acres; there will be corporate headquarters, a truss plant, the building materials and lumber yard for storage of materials, the solid wall systems division, and two new divisions that will be put in. He stated one new division is concerned with millwork and the other with panel walls. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there will be any residual chemicals onsite anywhere that could be a potential contamination issue; with Mr. Taylor responding the only thing that would be approaching that would be fuel for the trucks; and they will be fully compliant with all the laws. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there will be fuel onsite; with Ms. Wilcox responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it will be underground; with Ms. Wilcox responding no, it is all above ground in concrete bunkers, and they have not had any fuel spills. Ms. Wilcox advised they are doing it currently on Cox Road and on Paint Street; they use off-road diesel for their tractor-trailer delivery trucks; and they use in-yard diesel for the in-yard forklifts. Mr. Taylor stated they are very responsible corporate citizens; and they would like to keep them here. He stated they are a rapidly growing industry; they have several plants in other parts of the State; they just opened a facility in Crescent City near Palatka; and the people of Putnam County are trying hard to get the company to move its corporate facilities up there, but they would like to keep them in Brevard County.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution qualifying Space Coast Truss, Inc. as an eligible business under the County’s Tax Abatement Program; and authorize a public hearing to consider adoption of an exemption ordinance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REVISED POLICY BCC-69, RE: EMPLOYEE INNOVATIONS PROGRAM

Commissioner Voltz stated the money that the person saved the County was quite extensive; she would like Option 3, increase award from 10% to 25% of the first year’s savings, with a maximum of $4,000; and if they save the County that much money, they are entitled to it.

Chairman Pritchard stated he likes Option 5, which would be $5,000; that is one he was very familiar with many years ago; and that would be up to that amount. He stated if someone saves the County $100,000, $5,000 is a good consideration, and he has no problem with that. He stated today someone can easily save $100,000 with a recommendation, invention, or fabrication; and he thinks it is worthy. He stated, for example, they were forced to change out fire helmets; it would have cost over $50,000 at that time; they were able to orchestrate the keeping of the helmets they had, saving over $50,000; and the employee was able to generate a significant savings by doing that. He inquired if Mr. Abbate has a problem with it; with Human Resources Director Frank Abbate responding absolutely not. Mr. Abbate stated he would like to confirm that they would also move it from $2,000 to a $5,000 maximum; and the Board is okay with raising it from 10% of savings to 25% up to the $5,000 amount; with Chairman Pritchard responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this would be without approval, but under extraordinary circumstances additional compensation might be appropriate due to the appropriateness and the magnitude of the savings, and it could be brought to the Board for additional consideration to the employee. Mr. Abbate stated staff will include that in the policy.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to increase the maximum award for the Employee Innovations Program from $2,000 to up to $5,000 and raise the percentage from 10% to 25%; and under extraordinary circumstances, a recommendation for additional compensation be brought to the Board for consideration. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board will be paying the gentleman who was paid $450 under the new guidelines. Commissioner Carlson inquired how much did he save the County; with Commissioner Voltz responding a lot of money. Chairman Pritchard inquired which item is Commissioner Voltz referring to; with Commissioner Voltz responding it was brought up at a recent meeting. Mr. Abbate advised it was a Mosquito Control employee for the tank; and if the Board wishes to apply that standard to that employee, that can be done. Commissioner Voltz stated she thinks so because that is what brought this issue up. Chairman Pritchard inquired what was the project. Mr. Abbate responded the nature of the project was the storage tank Mosquito Control used for some of its chemicals; and the employee rebuilt the tank so they avoided transfers of chemicals and some other time-consuming labor intensive processes by use of the tank that the gentleman created, which they now utilize. Commissioner Voltz stated the County paid him $450, which seemed to be very minimal; and that is why she originally brought this up.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to award the gentleman who created a new mosquito control storage tank, and was previously awarded $450, a new award under the revised guidelines. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: CHANGE IN BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve an After Action Legislative Workshop with Lobbyist John Thrasher on May 23, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE SESSION, RE: STACK, TRUSTEE V. BREVARD
COUNTY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to schedule an executive session to discuss strategies regarding Stack, Trustee v. Brevard County on May 17, 2005, at 11:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: BEAVERBROOK STREET

Traffic Engineering Director Dick Thompson stated there is a limited amount of money for speed humps; in this particular location, the posted speed limit is 25 mph; they studied two locations when they gathered their data; there were only 85 and 75 cars counted, and only five or six in the two locations that were driving above the speed limit; and that was between one and ten miles an hour above the speed limit. He stated his conversation with Commissioner Scarborough was that since there are so many requests for speed humps, this could be considered to be denied so the money could be used some place else where it is needed most.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board made a motion that it was not paying for speed humps anymore as of the next budget. Mr. Thompson stated it is his understanding the County is still paying for them. Commissioner Voltz stated right now it is, but as of the next budget on October 1, 2005, the County is not paying for them. County Manager Peggy Busacca stated she thought the issue was putting in culverts. Commissioner Scarborough stated he recalls the culvert discussion but not the speed hump discussion. Commissioner Carlson stated she remembers the speed humps because she brought it up; and there was a previous discussion before that, that the Board was going to try to stop paying for them and what would happen if it went back to an MSTU scenario and the County did not have money in either place. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to put this back on the Agenda; he has a problem doing it because it gets to be a fundamental safety issue; a couple of these can come up like the one today that the Board approved earlier that was around a school area; and if the Board cannot spend MSTU money to protect children with speed humps, it may have an area that is inherently dangerous, people may not want to pay for it, and a child could die. Commissioner Voltz stated she agrees with that but the Board should not be paying for every one of them. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board could look at discretionary speed humps. Commissioner Voltz stated it comes before the Board anyway. Commissioner Carlson stated the staff sets aside $25,000 per district for that; it was $100,000 or more that was set aside when it could come out of the MSBU, and if there was money available, that office could take it out of the MSBU; and if there was no money, it could be budgeted for the next year. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is concerned because there may be cases when it goes beyond just the neighbors to a bigger environment. Commissioner Voltz stated she is saying it comes before the Board anyway. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board says it is not going to pay for it, it could be done case-by-case.

Chairman Pritchard stated he and Ms. Busacca had a discussion at lunch about speed humps; and that will be coming back. He stated when that comes back, the Board can also discuss whether it will be using MSBU funds or how it will be paying for them.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m.

_____________________________________
RONALD PRITCHARD, D.P.A., CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)