May 20, 2003

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 20, 2003, at 9:02 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Nancy Higgs, and Susan Carlson, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Truman Scarborough.

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the Minutes of January 16, 2003 Special Meeting and February 21, 2003 Summit with the Municipalities. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORTS, RE: CONGRATULATIONS TO GRADUATES

Commissioner Pritchard extended congratulations to the graduates who are going through their graduation ceremonies this week.

REPORT, RE: NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK ACTIVITIES

Commissioner Pritchard advised this week is National Safe Boating Week; and the annual campaign, which started Saturday and will continue through Friday, is designed to heighten boater awareness prior to the Memorial Day weekend. He stated the observance gives the U.S. Power Squadrons and Coast Guard Auxiliary Units the chance to boast about their continuous work to keep everyone safe. He stated traditionally some power squadrons close the week-long observance with blessing of the fleet ceremonies; there will be two of those celebrations on Saturday; and the Banana River Power Squadron will hold a blessing on the Indian River west of Dragon Point and north of Eau Gallie Causeway, and Cocoa Beach Power Squadron will hold its blessing offshore at Oleander Point near Lee Wenner Park, both starting at 11:00 a.m. Commissioner Pritchard advised the Banana River Power Squadron will hold a reception following its blessing at Coral Bay Restaurant in Melbourne, while the Cocoa Beach Power Squadron will invite participants to bring their own picnic at Lee Wenner Park after its ceremony.

APPOINTMENTS, RE: CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to appoint Bob Bolin, Robert J. Ludwiczak, and Joan Madden to the Charter Review Commission, with terms expiring August 31, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: BREVARD SYMPHONY YOUTH ORCHESTRA

Commissioner Carlson advised Marie Laufler with the Brevard Symphony Youth Orchestra is here to tell the Board about the Orchestra.

Marie Laufler thanked the Board for the grant; advised they have three orchestras of 165 students ages 8 through 18 representing over 52 public, private, and home schools from Palm Bay to Mims; and stated in addition to being musically talented, the students are incredible. She stated they commit to an hour and a half to two and a half-hour rehearsals from August through May; and they volunteer their time to play at various community events. She stated they are among the top academic achievers in their schools; two are valedictorians this year; and they are also among the top students in all-County and all-State orchestras. She stated they represented Brevard County at some of the most prestigious schools and camps in the country; they do four formal concerts and one holiday concert to benefit Brevard Sharing Center; and next year they will turn 20 years old. She stated they are auditioning 190 students to be part of those orchestras for next year; and she has a video of one of their concerts in the lobby.

Commissioner Carlson stated she received an email that talked about the Youth Orchestra seeking individuals for its board of directors; with Ms. Laufler responding every year they seek individuals for the board of directors; they have about six members and can have about 30; so there are quite a few openings. Ms. Laufler stated they are looking to work more intensely on their planning and fund-raising strategies and are looking for expertise in those fields, but welcome all inquiries to be part of the board next year with the term starting July 1, 2003.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are a lot of great musicians in Brevard County; prior to the meetings, the Board could have taped music by those musical groups and announce the groups; and it would be a nice way to enter the chambers before meetings. He suggested they look into the possibility, as it would be an opportunity for people to listen and enjoy the music.

Commissioner Carlson stated hopefully they will bring some time, talent, and treasure to the board of directors, as it sounds like they could use additional help, but they do provide great programs and need to keep going.

REPORT, RE: CALENDARTS

Commissioner Carlson stated Kay Burk brought up the point as a reminder that Florida TODAY sponsors a calendarts, which is a foldout in the newspaper every quarter and has every possible thing anyone can do in terms of the arts in Brevard County; and she recommended people put them on their refrigerators because it is very useful.

REPORT, RE: ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA

Commissioner Pritchard pulled Items III.A.3., III.A.15., III.A.25., III.B.9., and III.B.13. from the Consent Agenda. Chairperson Colon advised the items that have been pulled will not be heard until the end of the meeting. Commissioner Carlson stated Item IV.M. is the ordinance for the surtax, and Item VI.D.2. is the language of the ballot; and inquired if those items could be put together for the 2:00 p.m. time certain; with Chairperson Colon responding absolutely.

REPORT, RE: UNITED WE PAINT

Chairperson Colon advised they painted a lot of homes with United We Paint; their project was magnificent; and thanked everyone in the County who participated in the project. She stated they painted a day care center on Lipscomb Street; the owner was very pleased; and the children will have a surprise to see what a wonderful job everyone did.

FINAL ENGINEERING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, RE: HERITAGE
ISLE, PHASE 1

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approval for Heritage Isle, Phase 1, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and developer responsible for obtaining required jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: CHASE HAMMOCK SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final plat approval for Chase Hammock Subdivision, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer obtaining jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE:
WINGATE ESTATES, PHASE 4

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final plat approval for Wingate Estates, Phase 4, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer obtaining jurisdictional permits; and execute Contract with The Viera Company guaranteeing infrastructure improvements in the development. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE:
VIERA COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final plat approval for Viera Commerce Park Subdivision, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer obtaining jurisdictional permits; and execute Contract with The Viera Company guaranteeing infrastructure improvements in the development. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE:
SOLEMO BOULEVARD AND TAVISTOCK DRIVE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final plat approval for Solemo Boulevard and Tavistock Drive, subject to developer obtaining jurisdictional permits; and execute Contract with The Viera Company guaranteeing construction of right-of- way and utility improvements per construction plans approved by Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE:
SONOMA SOUTH SUBDIVISION, PHASE 2

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final plat approval for Sonoma South Subdivision, Phase 2, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer obtaining jurisdictional permits; and execute Contract with The Viera Company guaranteeing infrastructure improvements in the development. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH TOWN OF INDIALANTIC, RE: LOCAL
REGULATION OF REGISTERED CONTRACTORS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Interlocal Agreement with Town of Indialantic to establish a system for the regulation of registered contractors and unlicensed contractors. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT WITH PINEDA CROSSING
CORPORATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN DEER LAKES, PHASE 2

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract with Pineda Crossing Corporation dated January 28, 2003, for improvements in Deer Lakes, Phase 2. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REQUEST FOR WAIVER FROM DR. LEVY, RE: RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH FOR
CASABELLA OUTPARCEL 1

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to waive requirements of right-of-way width and reduce the right-of-way from 50 feet to 40 feet with a 10-foot drainage and utilities easement for a connecting residential street into Casabella Outparcel 1, as requested by Dr. Ronald Levy. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REQUEST FOR WAIVER FROM COUSINS PROPERTIES, INC., RE: THE
AVENUE VIERA (FORMERLY VIERA PROMENADE)

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to waive portions of Sections 62-3206 and 62-102 for The Avenue Viera, to allow the site plan to be approved without curb stops, required number of parking spaces for specific uses, required onsite parking for the theater parcel, minimum building setbacks, and lot access by easement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BINDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH STEPHEN AND MARY JO BARKASZI,
RE: PROPERTY OFF CINEMA STREET AND CARRILLON AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Plan Agreement with Stephen and Mary Jo Barkaszi for development of property off Cinema Street and Carrillon Avenue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ORDINANCE FROM TOWN OF PALM SHORES, RE:
ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY EAST OF U.S. 1 AND SOUTH OF ROBERTS ROAD

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance No. 2003-02 from Town of Palm Shores annexing approximately 3.6 acres east of U. S. 1 and south of Roberts Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ORDINANCE FROM CITY OF WEST MELBOURNE, RE:
ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY WEST OF DAIRY ROAD AND SOUTH OF FELL ROAD

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance No. 2003-09 from City of West Melbourne annexing approximately 42 acres west of Dairy Road and south of Fell Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH CHASE HAMMOCK LAKES, LLC, RE: REGIONAL
STORMWATER TREATMENT POND

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Chase Hammock Lakes, LLC for construction of a 20-acre regional stormwater treatment pond and dedication of the property to Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF TITUSVILLE, BREVARD
COMMUNITY COLLEGE, NORTH BREVARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, AND
ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, RE: CHAIN OF LAKES
REGIONAL STORMWATER PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Joint Participation Agreement with City of Titusville, Brevard Community College, North Brevard Hospital District, and St. Johns River Water Management District for the Chain of Lakes Regional Stormwater Project to provide a wet detention pond to treat and attenuate stormwater flows prior to discharge into the Indian River. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF MELBOURNE, RE: PARKWAY DRIVE
WATERLINE MSBU PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Interlocal Agreement with City of Melbourne for construction and installation of a potable water system for Parkway Drive Waterline Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU). Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF FUNDING, RE: REPAIR OF SEAWALL IN FOUNTAINHEAD
SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve additional $24,800 from the Countywide Roadway and Landscaping Business Area for repair of the seawall in Fountainhead Subdivision at a total cost of $61,600. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL TO INCREASE PURCHASE ORDER TO BREVARD ROAD MATERIALS,
INC., RE: CERTIFIED BASE ROCK

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve increase to Purchase Order No. 4500021427 to Brevard Road Materials, Inc. for certified base rock to $100,000 for use on roadway projects in Central and North Brevard until Rinker Materials can provide the material under its current bid. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: REVISING SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR
SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution revising the schedule of fees and charges for signing and pavement markings to more accurately reflect material and labor costs incurred by Traffic Engineering. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: FENNER ROAD

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve request for speed humps on Fenner Road in Cocoa. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ISSUE WORK ORDER TO FRAZIER ENGINEERING, INC., RE:
PARKWAY DRIVE WATERLINE EXTENSION MSBU PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize issuance of a Work Order to Frazier Engineering, Inc. to provide engineering, design, and permitting services for Parkway Drive Waterline Extension MSBU project, at a cost of $50,504.00. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REQUEST TO WAIVE ENCROACHMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE INSURANCE
AND EXECUTE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT, RE: FALK ESTATE PROPERTY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to waive encroachments and exceptions to title insurance shown on the survey of 110 acres being purchased by the City of Rockledge and Brevard County for drainage, stormwater treatment, and mitigation purposes; and execute Compliance Agreement with Jonathan D. Rahn, Personal Representative of the Estate of Hilda Falk. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION, RE: SUBMITTAL OF PROJECT PRIORITIES TO BREVARD MPO

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize staff to submit project priorities to the Brevard MPO for preliminary consideration. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, APPOINT SELECTION
AND NEGOTIATING COMMITTEES, AND EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE: SALES
REPRESENTATION IN EUROPE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise request for proposals to contract with a company to represent the Tourist Development Council in primarily the United Kingdom market; authorize the TDC Marketing Committee to initially review and shortlist proposals; appoint Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, an Assistant County Attorney, and Tourism Development Executive Director to the Negotiating Committee; and authorize the Chairperson to execute the Contract and the Tourism Development Executive Director to renew the Contract with TDC approval. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF SALE TO MILLENNIUM HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, RE:
TITUSVILLE GARDEN APARTMENTS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the sale of Titusville Garden Apartments to Millennium Holding Company, LLC contingent upon proof of payment of $32,000 by John Charman as stipulated in the original Rental Rehabilitation Agreement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, RE:
EMERGENCY SHELTER AND GROUP RESIDENTIAL CARE AT COUNTRY
ACRES CHILDREN’S HOME

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Contract with Florida Department of Children and Families for emergency shelter and group residential care beds at Country Acres Children’s Home; and authorize the Chairperson to execute any amendments or addenda to the Contract, contingent upon approval by the County Attorney and Risk Management. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FACILITIES RELOCATION AGREEMENTS WITH FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY, RE: POW/MIA PARK

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreements with Florida Power & Light Company to relocate power lines and poles at POW/MIA Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDED LEASE AGREEMENT WITH TOWN OF INDIALANTIC, RE: NANCE PARK

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amended Lease Agreement with Town of Indialantic regarding parking meter fees for use, development, maintenance, and operation of Nance Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: LIBRARY SERVICES TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Library Services Technology Plan for 2003 to 2006. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

GRANT APPLICATION, GRANT AGREEMENT, BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, AND JOINT
PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH KEEP BREVARD BEAUTIFUL, INC., RE: PEPPER
BUSTING AND SHORELINE HABITAT RESTORATION AT ULUMAY WILDLIFE
SANCTUARY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize submittal of a $50,000 FCMP grant application to Florida Department of Environmental Protection for funding of pepper busting and shoreline habitat restoration at Ulumay Wildlife Sanctuary; authorize Parks and Recreation Director to execute Standard Grant Agreement, approve Budget Change Request to establish project account; and authorize preparation and execution of Joint Project Agreement with Keep Brevard Beautiful to administer the project if the grant is approved. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH BREVARD COMMUNITY COLLEGE, CITY OF
PALM BAY, AND SCHOOL BOARD, RE: PALM BAY AQUATIC CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Brevard Community College, City of Palm Bay, and School Board for use, development, maintenance, and operation of Palm Bay Aquatic Center. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID, AWARD BIDS, AND EXECUTE CONTRACTS,
RE: PARK PROJECTS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize advertising for bids and award of bids to lowest responsive bidders for South Lake Conservation Fencing, Long Point Park, Erna Nixon Park, Gibson Field, Holder Park, W. W. James Park, North Brevard Senior Center, Titusville Veterans Memorial Pier, Edgewood Middle School, Gardendale Elementary School, Jefferson Middle School, Manatee Cove, MILA Elementary, Stevenson Elementary, Central Brevard Soccer, Flutie Athletic Complex, POW/MIA Park, Oars and Paddles Park, and Palm Bay Regional Park; and authorize the Chairperson to execute Contracts with successful bidders. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, RE: SUMMER FOOD
SERVICE PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Florida Department of Education for the Summer Food Service Program for children at Cuyler Park, Campbell Park, Boys and Girls Club at Gibson Complex, Woody Simpson Park,
Joe Lee Smith Park, and Cocoa West Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH VIERA-SUNTREE LITTLE LEAGUE, RE: RESTROOM AND
CONCESSION FACILITY AT SUNTREE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Viera-Suntree Little League for development of a restroom and concession facility at Suntree Elementary School. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, APPOINT SELECTION
AND NEGOTIATING COMMITTEES, AND EXECUTE CONTRACTS, RE: SAMS
HOUSE, PINE ISLAND CONSERVATION AREA

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise request for proposals from architectural/engineering firms specializing in building preservation areas for renovation of Sams House at Pine Island Conservation Area; appoint Charles Nelson, Anne Birch, and Chairman of the EEL Program Selection and Management Committee or their designees, and a designee from the Brevard County Historical Commission to the Selection Committee; appoint Charles Nelson, Christine Lepore and Anne Birch or their designees to the Negotiating Committee; and authorize the Chairperson to execute contracts for professional services. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID, AWARD BID, AND APPOINT SELECTION COMMITTEE, RE:
INVENTORY CONTROL AND WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to bid inventory control and warehouse management system; appoint Bill Farmer, Craig Simmons, Greg Pelham, Jon Sellers, Debra Lambert, and Steve Bloch or their designees to the Selection Committee; and award bid to the lowest qualified proposer. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND APPOINT
SELECTION COMMITTEE, RE: MEDICAID NON-EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION
FOR SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise request for proposals for Medicaid non-emergency transportation for Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT); and appoint the Transit Director, County Manager or designee, Brevard County Local Coordinating Board member, two staff members from the State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, and the Purchasing Manager or designee as non-voting member to the Selection Committee. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PURCHASE OF SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH SENIOR RESOURCE ALLIANCE, RE:
SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT VOLUNTEERS IN MOTION PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Purchase of Service Agreement with Senior Resource Alliance in the amount of $75,000 from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004 for transportation services in the form of Volunteers In Motion Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT TO EXTEND EXISTING CONTRACT WITH RYDER TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES, RE: VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FOR SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement to Extend Existing Contract with Ryder Transportation Services to provide vehicle maintenance for Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) through August 15, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: COMMENDATION LETTERS FOR SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Chairperson to co-sign letters of appreciation with the Town of Indialantic to the Army Corps of Engineers and construction contractor Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, for their work on the Brevard County Shore Protection Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

TASK ORDER NO. 00-13 WITH S2Li, INC., RE: CLOSURE OF WEST SLOPE OF
CENTRAL DISPOSAL FACILITY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Task Order No. 00-13 with S2Li, Inc. to prepare construction level design drawings, technical specifications, and permit applications for construction of the west slope closure project at the Central Disposal Facility. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVER OF BID REQUIREMENTS AND AWARD QUOTE #Q-3-03-29, RE: SPACE
COAST AREA TRANSIT MODULAR BUILDING

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to waive bid requirements and award Quote #Q-3-03-29, Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) Modular Building, to Acton Mobile Industries at $40,421 with Option 6, aluminum skirting and set-up. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE RESCINDING
SELECT COMPANY ABATEMENTS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance rescinding Ordinances granting tax abatements to Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Submit Order.com, MSI of Central Florida, AllStar Corporate Media, Inc., Hydro Aluminum Automotive, Inc., Stratos Lightwave, Inc. and Mainstream Engineering Corporation, that no longer qualify under the program guidelines or did not submit annual reports. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO UTILIZE STATE SNAPS AGREEMENT, RE: PURCHASE OF
REPLACEMENT COOLING TOWERS FOR HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE V.
MOORE JUSTICE CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize staff to use the State SNAPS Contract Program for the purchase of two cooling towers for Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Justice Center; and to use the contingency from the Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Justice Center Expansion Project to purchase and install the cooling towers. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID, AWARD BIDS, AND EXECUTE CONTRACTS, RE:
STANDARDIZED STRUCTURING CABLING SYSTEMS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise for bids, award bids, and execute continuing contracts for labor and material to install Standardized Structured Cabling projects throughout Brevard County facilities to support high-speed voice, data, video, and imaging applications. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLANNING GRANT APPLICATION,
RE: REVISION OF LMS TO COMPLY WITH 2002 DISASTER MITIGATION ACT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute grant application and authorize submittal to Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management for revision of LMS to comply with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2002; and authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute all forms and documents associated with the grant. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: SUPPORTING CREATION OF BREVARD COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution supporting creation of the Brevard County Citizen Corps; and authorize the Chairperson to execute any correspondence to the State or Federal Government necessary to confirm formation of the Citizen Corps. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RENEWAL OF DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STANDARD CONTRACT #QJ 302,
RE: CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Contract with Florida Department of Revenue, Division of Child Support Enforcement for funding for Child Support Enforcement personnel and related office expenses in the amount of $43,350. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE GRANT APPLICATION, RE: BYRNE GRANT FORMULA BASED
BREVARD COUNTY FEDERAL AWARD FOR FY 2003-04

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Sheriff’s Office to submit a grant application for the Edward C. Byrne Grant for FY 2003-04 as recommended by the Byrne Grant Advisory Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF REQUEST FROM SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, RE: USE OF
FORFEITURE FUNDS FOR UNIVERSITY BOXING CLUB

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Sheriff’s Department to spend $5,000 of forfeiture funds for the University Boxing Club, which provides alternative leisure activities to youths. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE AND SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE SESSION, RE:
LUMBERT/KAUFMAN v. BREVARD COUNTY ET AL

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the County Attorney to advertise and schedule an executive session for May 22, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. to discuss settlement of Lumbert/Kaufman v. Brevard County et al. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS, RE: McPHILOMY v. BREVARD COUNTY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize settlement of all claims regarding McPhilomy v. Brevard County for a total of $55,000 including attorneys’ fees and costs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint and/or reappoint Tom Redman, David Matte, and Anselmo Baldonado to the Charter Review Commission with terms expiring July 31, 2004; Susan Hopkins, Janet Laimont, and Howard Wolf to the Charter Review Commission with terms expiring December 31, 2004; Randel Rodriguez to the Citizen Budget Review Committee, with term expiring December 31, 2003; and J. B. “Barry” Forbes to the Housing Finance Authority, with term expiring June 6, 2007. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING ANANT RAMESH PATEL

Commissioner Scarborough stated in the United States there is a program called Junior Nobel Prizes sponsored by Intel Corporation, which Anant Patel participated in; and he is also the valedictorian at Astronaut High School. He read the resolution commending Anant Patel on his outstanding performance in the 2003 Intel Science Talent Search Competition.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution commending Anant Ramesh Patel for his outstanding performance in the Intel Science Talent Search, and extending best wishes to him as he continues his studies at the university level. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Patel advise the Board of his project.

Anant Patel advised he is looking at various mechanisms they believe play a pathogenic role in the onset of degenerative disorders, particularly inflammation. He stated the project he submitted to Intel Science Search was a protein that not intrinsically regulate inflammation, but in Alzheimer’s patients there may be a disorder in the mechanism to which the protein release happens. He stated he hopes to make a synthetic version of the protein later on and study the effects of it modulating inflammation in the brain.

Chairperson Colon stated the Board is extremely proud of Mr. Patel. Commissioner Scarborough presented the Resolution to Anant Ramesh Patel.

RESOLUTIONS, RE: COMMENDING NICOLE HENNEGAR, RACHEL HILLYER, AND
ASHLEY KIRK

Commissioner Pritchard stated it is outstanding what the young people are doing these days; Mr. Patel is on his way to neurodegenerative pathogenic something or other, which is absolutely fantastic; the Board also has three wonderful young ladies here, along with their parents and troop leaders; and introduced Irma Kroom, Program Training Specialist of the Girl Scouts Citrus Council. He stated he attended a Girl Scouts Citrus Council Women of Distinction Award breakfast a few weeks ago and became aware that the program in girl scouts, called the Gold Award, is equivalent to the Eagle Scout Award in boy scouts, and the girls who attained that rank have not received recognition; so he felt they deserved to be recognized. He stated the girl scouts is the world’s pre-imminent organization dedicated solely to all women where, in a nurturing environment girls build character and skills for success in the real world; and in partnership with committed adults, girls develop qualities that will serve them all their lives, such as strong values, social conscience, and conviction about their potential and self-worth. He stated girl scouts build leaders one girl at a time.

Commissioner Pritchard read a resolution commending Nicole Hennegar for achieving the 2002 Girl Scout Gold Award for her animal conservation and bat education project.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution congratulating Nicole Hennegar for achieving the 2002 Girl Scout Gold Award, and wishing her success in her future endeavors. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard read a resolution commending Rachel Hillyer for achieving the 2002 Girl Scout Gold Award for her project that benefited children with after-school activities inspired by a desire to provide children access to books.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution commending Rachel Hillyer for achieving the 2002 Girl Scout Gold Award, and wishing her success in her future endeavors. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard read a resolution commending Ashley Kirk for achieving the 2002 Girl Scout Gold Award for her project of making a to-scale map of DeLaura Middle School for new students and visitors to find their way around the campus.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution commending Ashley Kirk for achieving the 2002 Girl Scout Gold Award, and wishing her success in her future endeavors. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon advised the County will be able to have these young ladies to work in Mosquito Control, Library Services, and Planning and Zoning.

Irma Kroom thanked the Board for the opportunity to showcase the accomplishments of the outstanding young women; and stated they embody all that it takes to be a girl scout. She stated girl scouting began 91 years ago on March 12, 1912 by the founder Juliet Gordon Wall, and has continued with a mission to inspire girls to the highest ideals of conduct, character, patriotism, and service so that they will become strong and powerful citizens in communities. She stated the citrus Council of Girls Scouts currently serves over 18,000 girls in Central Florida and 4,000 in Brevard County; they are building leaders one girl at a time; and they are thankful for the opportunity to share with the Board their program. She stated they will continue their mission to work toward building leaders and enriching girls throughout the Central Florida area.

Commissioner Pritchard advised Ms. Hennegar is attending University of Florida; and inquired if she has seen the huge bat house at the pond where the alligators are; with Ms. Hennegar responding when she lived on campus she went there a lot and that is what inspired her project. She stated there are about three billion bats there that fly out every night. Commissioner Pritchard stated the first night they flew off and never returned, so he is glad they found their way home. Ms. Hennegar noted it is a big thing now.

Rachel Hillyer stated she has enjoyed her project and had fun reading the books; she hopes it will work for others; and thanked the Board for letting them be here.

Ashley Kirk stated when thinking about a project, she wanted to find something she enjoyed; and since she wants to go into architecture and always liked her drafting classes, she thought the map project would be a project she could do; and thanked the Board for honoring them.

Commissioner Pritchard presented the Resolutions to Ms. Hennegar, Ms. Hillyer, and Ms. Kirk.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION
DIVISION 5 MONTH

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming June 2003 as Air Force Sergeants Association Division Five Month in recognition of their meritorious service. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING EMERGENCY SERVICES WEEK

Commissioner Pritchard advised the resolution proclaims May 18 through 24 as Emergency Medical Services Week, May 21, 2003 as Emergency Medical Services Children’s Day, and May 22, 2003 as Trauma Awareness Day; and read the Resolution proclaiming Emergency Medical Services Week.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution proclaiming Emergency Medical Services Week, Emergency Medical Services Children’s Day, and Trauma Awareness Day in Brevard County, and expressing sincere appreciation to the dedicated individuals for their valuable service to the citizens of the community. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chief Bill Farmer advised they always want citizens to feel welcome to come to the fire stations, but this week there will be newspaper and other local media invitations for more citizens to come by, cool off, check their blood pressure, meet their firefighters, EMT’s, and paramedics. He stated they will be in Melbourne Mall this weekend with a static display to educate folks about emergency medical services. He introduced Michelle Ziegler Trauma Center Nursing and Education Director, and Dr. McPherson, Medical Director for Brevard County and numerous cities, as well as Emergency Director for Holmes Regional Medical Center.

A representative thanked the Board for the recognition; and stated on behalf of the paramedics, they appreciate the Board’s support. He stated they see 250,000 patients in a year and the trauma center sees upwards of 2,000 critically-ill patients a year; and paramedics make a difference with their timely and critical care which saves lives, and decreases disability and long term injury and illness for patients. He stated as an emergency services department director, he works hand-in-hand with colleagues such as Dr. Swartz at Parrish Medical Center, Dr. Williams at Wuesthoff Hospital, and Dr. McGuen at Cape Canaveral Hospital; they have an excellent crew of administrators in emergency medical services with Jack Parker, Public Safety Director, Bill Farmer, Fire Chief, and number of excellent municipal chiefs; and they provide an excellent service. He stated the first responder service is highly appreciated; Michelle Ziegler was an emergency medicine services director for EMS and department director before and after the trauma service was developed; they made a strong difference in improving outcomes in trauma patients; and the care is excellent. He noted they are fortunate to have those services in the community.

Michelle Ziegler advised they recently went under their designated site survey on May 12, 2003 and received one of the highest rankings a trauma center can possibly get; and they are a Level 2 center, but the State said they are nationally recognized and can be compared to a Level 1 trauma center. She stated in this day and age when many have health care concerns; she wants to say they run a top-notch trauma unit.

Public Safety Director Jack Parker thanked the Board for its support; stated Brevard County is on the map now for state-of-the-art emergency medical care; but without the Board it would not be possible. He stated the Board has been there for every request they have made; it has always supported them and found the money to make it work; and if it did not do that, they would not be here today.

Chairperson Colon thanked all those in emergency medical services for what they do; and Commissioner Pritchard presented the Resolution to Michelle Ziegler.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING MARION HENDERSON

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution commending Marion Henderson for his 38 years of service with Brevard County.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution commending Marion Henderson, Road Supervisor with South Area Roadway Maintenance, for 38 years of dedicated public service with Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PRESENTATIONS, RE: EMPLOYEE LONGEVITY RECOGNITION

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised this is the Board’s opportunity to recognize its employees, such as Mr. Henderson, who have invested a career with County government. He stated Billy Osborne, Director of Roadways and Landscaping Department, has been with the County 35 years; entered the County employment as a Draftsman II in the Planning Department; and since that time has continued to receive a number of promotions. He stated Mr. Osborne has served as Traffic Engineering Division Director, Permitting and Enforcement Director, and the Road and Bridge Director; Billy is currently the Roadways and Landscaping Director; and during his tenure, he has been recognized for outstanding service by municipalities, Commissioners, Homeowners Associations, citizens, and fellow staff. He stated he has also shared his musical talents at many County functions over the past 35 years, including his most recent gig at a retirement party for a fellow County employee. He stated Mr. Osborne is also very willing to assist other employees and has donated substantial hours of annual leave to assist those who have used up all their sick leave. He stated Mr. Osborne has entered the DROP Program, but the County can look forward to four more years of excellent customer service; and congratulated Mr. Osborne on 35 years of service.

Chairperson Colon presented a plaque to Billy Osborne, who expressed appreciation.

Mr. Jenkins advised the next recipient for 35 years is Mamie Pittman who began her library career at the Mildred Bruner Library, formerly known as the Titusville Library located near Draa Field in Titusville; she was a Clerk Typist; and it was a very small library, so she gained experience as she helped the public with reference, checking out items, and even mending books. He stated the library then combined with the Indian River City Library in 1972 and moved to the current site forming the North Brevard Public Library. He stated Mamie has worked in reference and circulation and has seen children she has helped grow up bring their youngsters to the library. He stated in 1979 Mamie was promoted to her current job as head of circulation; she supervises a staff of ten employees; and last fiscal year 237,000 people visited the North Brevard Library, which is open 7 days a week. He stated Mamie and her circulation staff checked out 452,000 items during that year; and congratulated Mamie and thanked her for 35 years of service.

Chairperson Colon presented a plaque to Mamie Pittman.

Mr. Jenkins advised the next recipients have 30 years of service; Rick Schuh began his employment with Brevard County Parks and Recreation in 1973 as a Maintenance Worker I; since that time, Rick has witnessed many changes and always strives to do the best job possible while keeping Brevard County’s best interest a priority. He stated Rick prides himself on being a loyal and dependable employee who has gladly assisted practically every department in the County at one time or another; he is currently the Parks Supervisor for Palm Bay Regional Park; and he oversees the maintenance responsibilities for the soccer fields, cricket field, playground area, basketball court and pavilion rentals, and has a great relationship with the youth organizations that utilize the facilities. He stated Rick’s dedication to that profession has been exemplary; Brevard County is fortunate to have such a team player as Rick in its organization; and congratulated Rick on his 30 years of service.

Chairperson Colon presented a plaque to Rick Schuh.

Mr. Jenkins advised there are several employees with 25 years of service; Mike Taggart was hired as a firefighter in 1971 and promoted to Captain on September 2, 1978; he was promoted to Battalion Chief in 1990, and to assistant Chief of Administration in 1998; and he is the Agency’s Fire Marshal, providing a valuable link between common sense and the proper application of life-safety codes. He stated Chief Taggart is responsible for all of the change in status forms for over 400 personnel and all the job requisitions for Fire Rescue; he helps out on the computers quite a bit also; he is a Vietnam veteran; and he volunteers thousands of hours as a coach and referee in youth football. He stated Mike is very active in his church and involved in missionary work; he will be going to Mexico and later to Cuba on missionary expeditions; and congratulated Mike for his 25 years of service.

Chairperson Colon presented a plaque to Mike Taggart.

Mr. Jenkins stated the next recipient is Pam Shoemaker, sometimes known as “Ms. Enthusiasm”; Pam was hired as a Clerical Assistant in 1978 and was promoted to Secretary with Library Services in 1978; she was promoted to Librarian in 1990 and received a number of awards for perfect attendance; and she passed the Management Certification Exam in 1992. He stated she resigned briefly in 1996 and returned in 1999 as the Animal Services Administrative Manager; and in 2001, she became the Recycling Coordinator for the Solid Waste Management Department. He stated Pam is also extremely active and has been in a leadership role in the Florida Women in Government organization; she also assists the Citizens Academy Program with Marea Assante; and received numerous letters and awards of appreciation and commendations for her tireless efforts in volunteer work in the community. He stated her enthusiasm is unmatched; and congratulated Pam on 25 years of service.

Chairperson Colon presented a plaque to Pam Shoemaker.

Mr. Jenkins advised another 25-year employee is Doug Sutter, who is not here this morning; he started as a Welder Trainee; and he has been with the Solid Waste Management Department his entire career. He stated Doug worked as a Supervisor; is now Superintendent; and received the sick leave incentive award for his dependable performance in showing up for work all the time. He congratulated Doug for his 25 years of service.

Chairperson Colon advised the County is the best place to work, evidenced by those who have been with the County 25, 30, and 35 years; and they are wonderful people.

Mr. Jenkins advised what is interesting is almost all of them started their careers at entry level positions and stayed with the County many years, been promoted numerous times, and achieved a significant level of success. He congratulated those employees for their longevity.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING MANAGEMENT WEEK

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution proclaiming June 2 through 7, 2003 as Management Week and expressing sincere appreciation to the National Management Association for its valuable contributions and assistance to citizens of Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: CONSTRUCTION OF DAIRY ROAD AND SINGLETON AVENUE
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS BY COUNTY FORCES

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider County forces constructing intersection improvements of Dairy Road and Singleton Avenue.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize Roadways and Landscaping Department to perform the services necessary for construction of the Dairy Road and Singleton Avenue intersection improvement project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING STORM SEWER EASEMENTS IN
HARBOR POINT SUBDIVISION - FLEIS & BENNETT ENGINEERING

Chairperson Colon advised the petition to vacate storm sewer easements in Harbor Point Subdivision, as petitioned by Fleis & Bennett Engineering, has been withdrawn.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENTS IN PINE ISLAND LAKES, UNIT 1 - THOMAS HAGGARD AND ANH
TU HUYNH NGUYEN

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility and drainage easements in Pine Island Lakes, Unit 1, as petitioned by Thomas Haggard and Anh Tu Huynh Nguyen.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility and drainage easements in Pine Island Lakes, Unit 1, as petitioned by Thomas Haggard and Anh Tu Huynh Nguyen. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING,RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENT IN PORT ST. JOHN, UNIT 5 - DAVID S. AND CHRISTA D. JACKSON

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement in Port St. John, Unit 5, as petitioned by David S. and Christa D. Jackson.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement in Port St. John, Unit 5, as petitioned by David S. and Christa D. Jackson. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS IN
BAREFOOT BAY, UNIT ONE - BAREFOOT BAY PROPERTIES, INC.

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility easements in Barefoot Bay, Unit One, as petitioned by Barefoot Bay Properties, Inc.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easements in Barefoot Bay, Unit One, as petitioned by Barefoot Bay Properties, Inc. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY
WITH HARBOR DEL RIO, LLC FOR LIFT STATION OFF AUDUBON ROAD

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution authorizing the exchange of property with Harbor Del Rio, LLC for a lift station off Audubon Road.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution authorizing exchange of property with Harbor Del Rio, LLC for a lift station off Audubon Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE GRANTING TAX EXEMPTION FOR WASHINGTON
MUTUAL, INC.

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance granting tax exemption for Washington Mutual, Inc.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Ordinance granting an economic development ad valorem exemption to Washington Mutual, Inc., 3990 Babcock Street, Melbourne, Florida; specifying the items exempted; providing the expiration date of the exemption; finding that the business meets the requirements of Florida Statutes 196.012; providing for proof of eligibility for exemption; providing for an annual report by Washington Mutual, Inc.; providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired why Commissioner Higgs voted against the Ordinance; with Commissioner Higgs responding she is not in favor of tax abatements, and has recommendations to amend the way the Board does the program; and she has no problem with the business. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised it will create 500 new jobs averaging $35,691 salaries and will be retrofitting a building to accommodate their consumer lending division. Commissioner Carlson stated it is the old Wal-Mart on Babcock Street, which has been an eyesore for a long time.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE IV, RELATING
TO CONCURRENCY EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Chairperson Colon called for the first public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, Article IV, relating to concurrency evaluation procedures.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Section 62-602(c) and 62-602(d), by replacing and deleting outdated references; creating Section 62-602(I) relating to the reevaluation of a congested roadway segment for substantial traffic count decreases; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Brevard County Code. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE CREATING TOBY AVENUE ROAD PAVING
MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT (MSBU)

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance creating Toby Avenue Road Paving Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU).

Commissioner Higgs advised she will move the ordinance, but will also make a subsequent motion.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance of Brevard County, Florida; creating the Toby Avenue Road Paving Municipal Service Benefit Unit; incorporating the terms and provisions of Chapter 98, Article II, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, entitled “Municipal Service Benefit Unit,” to authorize the acquisition and construction of certain capital improvements within such improvement area and the imposition of non ad valorem assessments within such improvement area; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated in talking to some of the people who live along Toby Avenue and understanding their concerns, a lot of people have horses and uses Toby Avenue as well as other streets in Valkaria for riding horses; what they asked is that if the Roadways and Landscaping Department could work with them in the possibility of creating a shoulder, so she will move that.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct the County Manager to direct the staff to meet with the citizens to see if there is a way, as part of the MSBU, to create an area that would be safe for horses and joggers. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: CONSTRUCTION BY COUNTY FORCES, INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT WITH VIERA EAST CDD, PERMISSION TO BID AND AWARD
BID FOR MATERIALS FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF MURRELL ROAD

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider reconstruction of Murrell Road by County forces.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize County forces to reconstruct Murrell Road as a four-lane roadway from the southern intersection of Crane Creek Boulevard to Wickham Road; authorize the Chairperson to execute Agreement with Viera East Community Development District (CDD); and grant permission to bid or quote, and to award bid or quote for materials to be used on the project, which are not covered by current annual contracts. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE X,
DIVISION 3, SURFACE WATER PROTECTION TO CLARIFY CANAL

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article X, Division 3, Surface Water Protection, to clarify canal.

Chairperson Colon advised Ms. Loretta Lawrence had to leave and her comments were that she supported the changes drafted by the Board because it will help her to get her pool.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it says you can encroach up to 720 square feet in the setback area; and inquired how was the 720 feet determined, and why is it not 850 or a percent of the yard size.

Natural Resources Management Supervisor Sherry Williams advised staff took the square footage in the Comprehensive Plan, so the wording is almost strictly from the Comprehensive Plan Policy. She noted she was not with Brevard County when it was adopted, and would have to refer to historical documents.

Natural Resources Management Director Conrad White advised he also does not recall where the number came from, and would have to go back through the Minutes to see what the discussions were about it.

Commissioner Higgs stated if she remembers correctly, the Board was calculating a pool and decking; and if it is multiplied out, that is how they came up with the square footage, using a reasonable size pool and deck.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he did a little calculating last night and kept coming up with the lower 800 numbers for what he would consider reasonable; taking a 15’x30’ pool and adding 4 feet of deck goes above 720 square feet; and if it is a larger pool in a yard of significant size, there may be a problem with the setback. He inquired why the Board does not adopt a percent of available yard space instead of square footage only, so if a person wanted to put in a 16’x32’ poor he would not run over 720 square feet, which would give a 12’x28’ pool or something along that line. He stated a pool is generally designed to accept four to five inches of rain water; and through evaporation it is off and running again; so if there is an accommodation that the Board could look at that would increase the size above 720 square feet to give people an option of putting in a larger pool, he would like to consider that option.

Ms. Williams stated there are a couple factors the Board may want to consider; one is it is in the Comprehensive Plan; so if it wants to change it, the Board would have to first change the Comprehensive Plan policy. She stated another factor is there is a limitation of 30% impervious area within the shoreline protection buffer; 720 square feet only refers to encroachment within the shoreline protection buffer, not the total back yard; so if a person has a house on a canal and 25-foot shoreline buffer, he can encroach up to 720 square feet within the buffer area. She noted it does not limit what goes on in the rest of the yard landward of the buffer. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is potential to have a bigger pool; with Ms. Williams responding yes.

Commissioner Pritchard requested Ms. Williams explain the buffer area if a person has a seawall and a house and what area could they encroach; with Ms. Williams responding manmade canals are considered Class III recreational waters; and the shoreline protection buffer for Class III waters is 25 feet. She stated for a seawall, it is measured from the State upland line or the seawall itself; so if the back yard has the 25-foot wide shoreline protection buffer, for lots created prior to 1988 on the canals, they are allowed, if they have insufficient lot depth, to construct their primary and accessory structures to encroach within that buffer provided they design and build a stormwater retention area. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Ms. Williams is saying they can build a pool right up to the seawall; with Ms. Williams responding no, they are allowed to encroach within 15 feet of the buffer or up to 10 feet; and the proposed amendments to the Ordinance removes the distinction between public and private canals so they are all treated the same. She stated if they provide for stormwater retention, they are allowed to go up to ten feet from the seawall. Commissioner Pritchard stated clarifying private and public canals is a benefit to the homeowners; but if they have a lot that only has 25 feet between the slab of the house and the seawall, they would have to setback five feet from the house so they do not open the door and fall into the pool; that would leave only ten feet for a pool; and inquired if there is a way to take the setback from the seawall to five feet; with Mr. White responding no without changing the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance. Commissioner Pritchard stated a ten-foot wide pool is very narrow; and if they had a l00-foot lot, they could have a 50-foot long pool ten feet wide. Commissioner Pritchard stated the reason for the setback is for penetration so runoff and fertilizers do not go into the water body; if they had a deck between the pool and seawall, the area would be pervious with no grass and no reason to fertilize so there would be no runoff that would be harmful to the critters or waters in the canals; and inquired what would be the harm in doing something like that. Mr. White stated the only thing a lawn would do is absorb nutrients, but if they are not fertilizing the area, then that is not necessary. Commissioner Pritchard stated the idea is to prevent runoff; and if there is no runoff because of what is constructed, it becomes an absorption area because of the decking and not concrete; and there could be a berm or stormwater retention area. He stated the idea is to keep algae blooms, dead water, and other problems; he understands all that, but he is trying to work with the situation to have it make sense. He inquired if the County can prevent runoff, give people larger pools and wooden decks so no fertilization takes place in those areas, hence no runoff, and if that sounds like something the Board could look into. He inquired what does staff think of it; with Mr. White responding it would be up to the Board and staff would entertain anything the Board desires. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what does the Board think about that; with Chairperson Colon responding she does not have a problem bringing it back to look at the wording. Commissioner Pritchard stated he wants to bring it back because it makes sense to him; if the Board is trying to prevent runoff, one of the ways is not by having lawns that will be fertilized; with the best intentions, people are going to fertilize their lawns and canals because using a spreader throws fertilizer everywhere; and all that debris ends up in the canals along with lawn clippings and runoff. He stated he is trying to eliminate all that going into the canals so the County does not have to spend money dredging it because of all the nutrients, muck, and whatever else that ends up accumulating because people with the greatest of intentions would like to have a great lawn. He noted it seems like a win/win situation to him.

Commissioner Higgs stated the issue of private and public canals is what the Board needs to resolve and get the change in place, so she would like to go ahead with what it has before it today and Commissioner Pritchard can bring back the other items for the Board’s consideration as legislative intent. Chairperson Colon inquired if it is important enough to bring back another item; with Commissioner Higgs responding she will look at it and see exactly what the language says and what is asked, but would like to move with the proposed ordinance today. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how does the rest of the Board feel; with Commissioner Carlson responding she has no problem bringing it back and reviewing the language if Commissioner Pritchard wants to meet with staff and get briefed on exactly what it all means specifically and bring it back, but she would like to deal with the canal issue, and has one suggested change. She stated she does not know if the Board wants to go there or not, but the definition of canal, which has been the reason it was brought back in the first place, says on the bottom of page one, “canal means manmade linear waterway constructed through uplands and designated for navigation of vessels.” She stated the rest of the sentence is deleted; and she would suggest putting in a comma and saying, “excluding conveyances primarily for drainage,” because obviously the drainage canals were not created for navigation of vessels. Commissioner Higgs stated she would move the item with that change.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance of Brevard County, Florida, amending Chapter 62, Article X, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, relating to surface water protection, specifically amending Section 62-3661, Definitions, to amend the definition of “canal”; amending Section 62-3666, General Provisions, by eliminating the distinction between private and public canals; amending Section 62-3668, Class II Waters, Outstanding Florida Waters, Aquatic Preserves, conditionally approved Class III Shellfishing Waters, and Class III Waters, by eliminating the distinction between private and public canals and providing for the construction of pools; providing for the interpretation of conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed and an effective date, amended to add, “excluding those linear waterways whose primary purpose is conveyance of drainage.” to Section 62-3661, Definitions.

Commissioner Pritchard stated sometimes conveyances primarily for drainage become canals; he knows of a couple that were so large that people eventually put docks in them; and inquired what effect will the ordinance have on them; with Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer responding in that kind of situation that would not be a problem under the definition. Mr. Peffer stated what the ordinance is trying to eliminate is large-scale drainage canals that are well into the uplands, such as the Melbourne-Tillman drainage system that was intended for drainage and not for navigation. Mr. Peffer stated staff is trying to help make the clarification, but this ordinance deals with shoreline protection buffers; they are most concerned with those areas on the Indian River Lagoon that have a potential of affecting the water quality of that water body; so staff is not trying to say anything about those drainage canals; but that suggested change would help solidify that. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it is going to hurt a property owner from being able to put a dock in and a boat in some of the drainage ditches that have become canals. Commissioner Carlson stated she is not familiar with drainage ditches that have become canals. Commissioner Pritchard stated there is one on Merritt Island that was a drainage ditch many years ago and over time miraculously became bigger and deeper and became a canal; there are docks and boats in it, but it is still shown as a drainage ditch; and the application is no longer a drainage ditch. Mr. Peffer stated staff could make that distinction in terms of interpreting it and allow for the construction of docks in that situation. Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not want the interpretation to be no and go downhill from there; and he wants the interpretation to be yes and go uphill from there. Mr. Peffer stated for those canals that are clearly drainage related, they are trying to say those are not for navigation and are not going to be treated as such; and Commissioner Carlson’s suggestion would help clarify that; however, where navigation has been feasible and an ongoing practice, they would be able to make those accommodations. Mr. White stated it appears in the ordinance that those existing drainage ditches docks are prohibited. Ms. Williams stated except those drainage ditches that have been historically used for navigation; so if they can show those ditches have been used for vessel navigation, then they are exempt from the prohibition. She stated if there are drainage ditches where people have been mooring boats for years, they would be allowed to put boat docks and ramps in those ditches, but they have to show they have been historically used for vessel navigation. Commissioner Pritchard stated the issue of the canal came about because of the conflict with a channel and a proposed development on Merritt Island; according to Webster, a canal is just a deeper part of an area and literally a channel and canal are synonymous; and what staff is trying to define is a canal being between an upland and a cut that would be for the most part manmade. He inquired if they exclude a canal being the deeper part of a water body, that is a canal/channel, is it going to have an effect on channel designation or the ability of someone to develop property next to it. He noted that seemed to be the issue the Board was hung up on for a while with the development on Merritt Island. Mr. Peffer stated that is correct in a sense that there was ambiguity in the way the Ordinance was written that created the possibility of confusion; and staff is trying to clear that up . Mr. Peffer stated channel was used in the definition of canal which immediately created some confusion and ambiguity; staff is trying to make sure there is a distinction; they all understand that a channel lies in any water body and think of the intercoastal waterway as a dredge canal as distinct from an excavation into an upland area where they have the linear excavation for the purpose of navigation; so a typical canal front home is what is thought of when thinking of a canal which is very distinct from a channel. He stated what staff tried to do is help the Ordinance more clearly reflect that by having a better worded definition; and in this case, they are not touching the definition of channel, but are trying to eliminate the word channel when talking about canal. He stated if there is a better way to say that, staff will certainly go to that, but that was what they are trying to do by the changes. Commissioner Pritchard stated there probably is not a better way to say it, but his concern obviously is that they might be throwing a roadblock up because of a definition. Commissioner Pritchard stated the common usage of a canal is how it was said by Mr. Peffer; most people think of a channel as a channel and generally that is how they are referred to; there is no intercoastal canal, it is a channel; but that is not the true definition. He stated he wants it on the record that the exercise the Board is going through is not going to be a way to have an unusual staff interpretation that will be no and go downhill from there; and he wants staff’s interpretation to be yes and go uphill from there in order to help people instead of throwing up a road block saying on a canal or channel they did this and that and now they cannot do it. He stated if the definition is going to be clear-cut and something that is going to be used to benefit, then he is with the Board on that; but if it is going to be something that will be used to work against someone, he has a problem with that. He inquired if Mr. Peffer is saying it is going to be a benefit; with Mr. Peffer responding anytime clarification of an ordinance can be made and it is more easily understood that is a benefit to everyone. Mr. Peffer stated what the Board is dealing with here is the shoreline protection buffer; and channels as they thought about them do not have shorelines, so that is again a way to make it clear to everyone as to what the ordinance really covers. He stated it is not intended to be more restrictive in any way, but rather more clear; and therefore avoid some confusion staff has dealt with in the past. He stated it is the same as the issue of public and private canals; that was confusing and created ambiguities in enforcement of the ordinance; it was not providing any environmental benefit and was confusing people; so staff came to the Board and suggested removing that confusion and improving the ordinance.

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

Chairperson Colon advised Commissioner Pritchard to bring back legislative intent on the other issues he mentioned.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62 TO ALLOW OUTDOOR
SEATING AREAS FOR RESTAURANTS (FIRST READING)

Chairperson Colon called for the first public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62 to allow outdoor seating areas for restaurants.

Lisa Tucci of Capt. Garo’s Red Fish Inn stated Sections 62-1482 and 62-1483 deal with commercial retail space; right now it is against the law to eat outside; and with the smoking ban being passed, it is completely illegal to smoke in restaurants. She stated they are here to ask the Board to consider outdoor music/entertainment; they are not talking about rock concerts, but outdoor music; it is against the Ordinance for Carabbas, Ruby Tuesday’s, Applebee’s, the hotels, and other places to have music or televisions outside; and requested the Board allow outdoor music and entertainment. She stated with the ban on smoking indoors, most people will be looking to move outside; and they would have to comply with Section 62-2271 of the Noise Ordinance.

Charles Watzke of Capt. Garo’s Red Fish Inn stated they are looking for outdoor entertainment at a soothing sound level for the enjoyment of people who visit the businesses in the unincorporated areas, as the smoking ban will affect business establishments. He stated with outdoor seating they would like to have outdoor entertainment that will comply with the zoning of the property and the Noise Ordinance.

Ms. Tucci stated Mr. Watzke also has a petition signed by over 2,000 citizens wanting outdoor entertainment; and they will go to hotels and businesses until August to alert them of the change being requested that is not within the amended Sections 62-1482 and 62-1483 and get their signatures.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised this is the first of two public hearings on a proposed ordinance; if the Board were in agreement with the content of the ordinance, the motion would be to forward it to the final hearing on August 7, 2003; and if there is anything of substance the Board wants him to discuss, he would do it now.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if outdoor entertainment would be a separate issue from what the Board is looking at now; with Mr. Scott responding it can be viewed as a separate and distinct issue; currently, if there is an establishment in the County that wants outdoor music, it can do so by utilizing the special events permit process that is in place; and there is also an opportunity to use parks facilities and go through the Parks permitting process if they want a family barbecue with a combo band. He stated the issue being addressed is the ability for an established restaurant to have music outside all the time to accompany its outdoor seating as an accessory use; so the outdoor music event would not be something that would be a draw in and of itself, but for people having meals at the restaurant; however, as written the ordinance does not allow it.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it sounds like something that should be included in the ordinance, assuming they are talking about ambience, someone playing a guitar or keyboard and not blasting across the street or waterways. He stated it would be background music, not participatory, but to provide a nice ambience while eating dinner. He inquired what would be the options for including something like background music with noise standards within the ordinance. He stated many restaurants have background music playing; to do the same thing out front could be piped or live as long as it is not creating an issue with the neighbors; and inquired what would be the problem and what would be the best way to do it. Mr. Scott stated as an issue it is not an inherent problem; but when the Board thinks about introducing an activity such as this, it has to be comfortable that most of the time, not all of the time, it would be something that would occur as anticipated. He stated many times outdoor music is volume driven; that is how it garners its success; and if it gets out of control, it becomes a Code Enforcement issue. He stated if the violation occurs, it could become quite obnoxious quickly and Code Enforcement may not be able to get there to remedy the problem; so the Board has to get that comfort level that it would be something that would perform as intended most of the time, if not all the time.

Chairperson Colon stated she does not have that comfort level and will not support it, but would like to hear from Mr. Washburn on some of the things they have encountered recently.

Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Washburn stated outside music is some times not that much of a problem if it is in a downtown area or commercial area; the problem is if there is a small eating establishment in a residential area, because it is almost impossible to be assured the volume will be controlled. He stated they have had people come in for a special event permit, say it is not going to have the volume up high and it will not be disturbing to the neighbors, but Monday morning the calls come in, and staff has to deal with it. He stated it would be very difficult to legislate a permissive type of activity.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board should go ahead with the outdoor seating and have staff do an analysis and memo on the issue of outdoor music. She stated every District had establishments that met the definition and had big problems with outdoor music; the Board may not want to go there; there may be some circumstances which could be approved, but she would prefer to proceed with the seating issue now and take care of that later after the Board gets a memo to see if it wants to proceed. She stated she understands what the people want to achieve, but she also understands the problems they had with many places; and it will happen again unless the Board is careful about the way it does it.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to move the ordinance amending Chapter 62 to allow outdoor seating areas for restaurants in BU-1 and BU-2 zoning classifications with specific conditions, to the second public hearing on August 7, 2003; and direct staff to return with a report regarding outdoor music at restaurants. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated while he understands the establishments’ concern, he also knows people on the Island complained about an establishment across the river; however, this is not blasting type of music, but rather ambience; smoking will occur outside of restaurants; and people who enjoy their cigarettes will be sitting outside, and those who enjoy sitting under the stars will sit outside. Chairperson Colon stated the Board needs to discuss it when it comes back and is in favor of putting it on the agenda. Commissioner Pritchard stated the point he is trying to make is that it would not be blasting type of music; there will always be violators, no matter what it is; and the question is if there is a violation, can the County handle it. He stated he hates to punish 100% of the businesses because 3% cause the problem. Chairperson Colon stated that is why it is coming back; the Board could have said no today; but it will consider it and hear both sides of the issue.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION APPROVING SECOND QUARTER
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR FY 2002-03

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution approving the required budget changes in the Second Quarter Supplemental Budget for FY 2002-03. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: SUPPORTING NO REDUCTION IN CURRENT U.S. TARIFF ON
IMPORTED CITRUS PRODUCTS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution supporting no reduction in the current U.S. tariff on imported citrus products. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he brought the issue to the Board’s attention a few weeks ago; now Marion and Lake Counties have done it; the resolution is asking not to reduce tariffs on imported citrus because Florida is a citrus producing state. He stated if tariffs are reduced on citrus products there will be imports that will undercut what is an 11 billion-dollar industry; and that is why he supports the resolution.

Commissioner Higgs stated in a sense the Board should discuss all the tariff policies of the World Trade Organization, then she would be ready to talk about reducing tariffs on citrus products; but just one part of that, being the tariff on agriculture, causes her concern. She stated she has not gotten into the United Nation’s discussions in her whole commission life and wonders if the Board should be discussing tariff policies, how imports are controlled, and the full line of debate that is going on with the WTO about tariffs. She stated in one place they reduce the tariff, and in another place they have a tariff on a product; it is a complicated issue; and if the Board is willing to talk about all of them, she would be happy to do that, but just to pull out one makes her uncomfortable. Commissioner Higgs stated she would support continuing the tariff on agriculture unless the Board sees a whole myriad of things going on; and told Commissioner Pritchard if he is ready to talk about all the policies regarding tariffs, she is ready, but she would hate to just talk about one part of it because it is a very complicated international debate. She stated the Board would have to talk about steel, manufactured products, pharmaceuticals, and all those things because tariff policies are very complicated. She stated the Board needs to support Florida agriculture, but it is a part of a very large discussion that is going on internationally.

Commissioner Pritchard stated regarding the WTO and United Nations, the United States should pull out of that, but if Commissioner Higgs wants to talk about all the things, it is blowing it out of proportion. He stated what he is talking about is the State’s citrus industry. Commissioner Higgs stated she did not say anything about blowing it out of proportion. Commissioner Pritchard stated there are approximately 90,000 people and an economic impact of 9.1 billion dollars in the citrus industry; it is significant; it does not need to be mired down in a discussion of the entire tariff policy; and he is focusing on one item that is supported by two other counties. He stated Brevard County is a citrus-producing county; the Board should support the citrus industry and tell them it does not want to see a reduced tariff; and right now it is not well paid.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution supporting no reduction in the current U.S. tariff on imported citrus products and requesting other County Commissions and School Boards to support the resolution and notify the Governor, Legislature, and State and Congressional Delegations to support no reduction in the current tariff.

Chairperson Colon called for a second to the motion; and hearing none, noted she would support it, but it would not go anywhere.

Commissioner Higgs seconded the motion.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is going to vote against it for the reasons stated by Commissioner Higgs; the whole concept of how the world economy operates is on free trade; free trade requires concessions on everyone’s part; and it is a component part of a massive discussion. He stated for the Board to take this posture now may work against its better interest in the long run.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough and Carlson voted nay.

Commissioner Higgs stated she supports the citrus industry in the County; when all the discussions are concluded, it may not be the right thing to do in terms of the big picture; but the Brevard County citrus industry needs to be considered.

The meeting recessed at 10:29 a.m., and reconvened at 10:40 a.m.

REPORT, RE: IMPACTS OF REDUCING THRESHOLD FOR MSBU PROJECTS

Greg Pelham, Roadways and Landscaping Finance Manager, advised at the last meeting the Board asked staff to bring back information on reducing the requirement for Board consideration of MSBU’s to two-thirds of the affected property owners; staff researched projects they were requested to bring to the Board; and since October, 1999, they have done 19 MSBU projects that have surveys. He stated of the 19, 11 did not meet the 75% requirement to bring them to the Board; of the 11, only one, had the two-thirds percent been in place at that time, would have been brought to the Board; so staff has provided options for modifying the policy now used at 75% of affirmative votes.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if certified mail is sent to all affected individuals; with Mr. Pelham responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if they do not respond, is it considered a no vote; with Mr. Pelham responding no, no response is considered no response votes; the direction of the Board was to only bring MSBU’s for its consideration if 75% of the affected property owners voted in favor of the project; and no response votes do not come into the equation of meeting that 75%. He stated staff has to have 75% of the people who return the ballot check yes they are in favor of doing the project before bringing it forward to the Board.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if staff has considered including a comment in the certified notice that if they do not respond it will be construed as a yes vote; and stated that way everybody will respond; with Mr. Pelham responding since 1994, when the Board adopted the 75% threshold, no response has not been considered a yes vote. County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if staff considered including that in the letter to the property owners so they understand if they do not respond it would be considered a yes vote; with Mr. Pelham responding at this time staff has not; they send out ballots outlining what is being considered and giving options to vote yes in favor of the project at a certain cost, or no. He stated there is no statement that notifies them that no response would be a yes vote. Mr. Jenkins stated there have been some incidents where there were a large no response and that is why there is a difference between Options 1 and 2. He stated Option 1 is the affected property owners, which is everybody in the unit; and Option 2 is the responding property owners, which is only those who respond. Commissioner Carlson stated it is not fair, if staff does not get some sort of response, to construe it to be a no vote; with Mr. Jenkins responding staff does not do that, and it is considered a non-response. Mr. Pelham noted non-response is only counted in the total number of ballots sent out. Mr. Jenkins stated theoretically they could have a small percentage of property owners voting for it. Commissioner Higgs stated no, it has to be 75% who say yes. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the 75% is the affected or responding property owners; with Mr. Pelham responding the affected property owners. Commissioner Pritchard stated if there are 100 owners and 25 do not respond, staff would have to have 75 who respond yes.

Chairperson Colon advised the Board has three options; and inquired which one would the Board want to adopt. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is wrong with Option 1.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Option 1, to amend the policy to use affirmative votes in the amount of 66.66% of affected property owners as the requirement for the Board to consider establishing an MSBU.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if a person fails to vote, is it counted as a negative vote; with Mr. Pelham responding no, it is not counted as anything. Commissioner Scarborough stated the way he reads Option 1 is he does not have to vote to vote no; with Mr. Pelham responding if staff sends out ten ballots, they have to get 6.6 back in affirmative; and if 2.3 do not respond or respond no, it does not make a difference. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has a problem counting non-responsive votes because any time a presumption is made, the other side will come in arguing that it is incorrect or inappropriate; therefore, if Option 1 contemplates only the affected property owners and not the voting owners, he cannot support Option 1.

Commissioner Carlson stated if certified letters go out to every property owner, a percentage will not respond and there is no requirement to respond; so the Board does not have a clear picture of yes or no votes. She stated staff has not included non-responses, and only count those that respond. Commissioner Pritchard stated if there are 100 property owners and 25 do not respond, that means staff will need 75 affirmative responses from affected property owners and not 75% of those who respond. Commissioner Scarborough stated it may make the burden even greater with 66% of all affected property owners than the 75% of those responding. Commissioner Higgs stated it is 75% of the affected property owners now. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it is 75% of those who respond; with Commissioner Higgs responding no.

Chairperson Colon stated it was 75% of the affected property owners and with Option 1 it will be 66% of the affected property owners; and called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACCEPTANCE OF DEED FROM WILBUR E. AND THELMA M. McCREADY, RE:
PROPERTY AT INTERSECTION OF VICTORIA DRIVE AND PALM AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to waive boundary survey, Phase I environmental assessment, and title search; and accept a Road Right-of-way Deed from Wilbur E. McCready and Thelma M. McCready for property located at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Victoria Drive in Micco. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: REVISING FEE SCHEDULE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT

Commissioner Pritchard advised the Agenda Report says, “Land Development Division is in the process of becoming entirely supported by user fees; and inquired if currently it is supported by the General Fund; with Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Washburn responding it is supported by $65,000 from the General Fund. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what percent of the budget is that; with Mr. Washburn responding approximately 3%. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the $65,000 the Division now gets from the General Fund will go back into the General Fund and be used elsewhere in the County; with Mr. Washburn responding yes, as their purpose was to be supported by fees and not the General Fund. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Building and Construction Advisory Committee reviewed all the fees and considered them to be appropriate within the normal realm and fitting to be charged because it is reflection of the cost of actually performing the work; however, a couple of the fees increased significantly. He stated the review for residential lot drainage went from $27.50 to $75.00; correspondingly, re-inspection of residential lot drainage went from $77.50 to $75.00; so one went up $50 and the other down $2.50; and it is like buying high and selling low to make it up in volume. He inquired how was the review for lot drainage ever set at $27.50 when re-inspection was $77.50; with Mr. Washburn responding when the previous Land Development Engineer recommended those fees, they were just starting out in that program; now they found that lot drainage review requires a considerable amount of time; and they are abiding by the Board’s policy to tell it the cost of doing business. He noted $27.50 was not a very good fee. Commissioner Pritchard stated the idea is to have the taxpayers pay to fund the operation of a Department; their taxes go toward putting the people in place and having something there that applicants can come to; so the proposed fees are like user fees. He stated an applicant who goes to the Department is paying a fee to visit the Department and get something such as a permit; that person has already paid a portion of the fee in taxes just to have staff there; and what staff is looking to do is charge that person a full cost of having them there so the applicant is being charged twice. Mr. Washburn stated that is something the Board may want to discuss rather than him, as he is following the Board’s direction. He stated the user fee is there for the people who need it; if a person has been living in a house for ten years, that person would not need staff to do any lot drainage review; and the person who needs the service will be paying for it. Commissioner Pritchard stated what he is getting at is becoming entirely supported by user fees, yet the cash in the drawer that gets staff in, in the mornings is already paid by the taxpayers; and now staff is looking at a user fee for the person who shows up. He stated he does not have a problem with people paying a portion of the fee, but has a problem with becoming entirely supported by user fees. He stated 3 to 5% of the budget comes from the tax base, then the Board is looking at an option of increasing taxes or making cuts elsewhere in order to fund the Department; but the people who come and knock on their door are paying twice for the service, once in taxes, and once in fees. He stated if they rent a tennis court, it may cost $5.00 an hour; but lot drainage review is a lot more money at $75.00; and he questions the validity of charging that much for the level of service, considering the taxpayer has already paid once.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

BINDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN, RE: DIANNE M. CULLEN AND DESIREE M.
WEBBER

Attorney Philip Zies representing Dianne M. Cullen and Desiree M. Webber, doing business as New Leash on Life, advised some facts in the Agenda Report are inaccurate; it indicates the applicants never submitted an executed binding development plan agreement (BDP), when in fact on March 13, 2003, they submitted a signed BDP to the County signed by both Desiree Webber and Dianne Cullen incorporating the terms of the February 6, 2003 Board meeting where the terms were agreed to. He presented a packet to County Attorney Scott Knox and the Commissioners, but not the Clerk; stated also enclosed in the packet is a letter dated March 27, 2003 from Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley acknowledging receipt of the BDP and indicating a joinder by the mortgagee, Chase Manhattan Mortgage, was required to move the process forward; and that was the first time they were made aware of that, so they endeavored to seek the joinder. Mr. Zies advised April 17, 2003, they received a letter from Eden Bentley indicating there were six new conditions to the BDP that she wanted included; that was after the February 6, 2003 meeting where the Board imposed its conditions and after they submitted their BDP signed on March 13, 2003; and those six new conditions had not been agreed to. He stated the most troublesome one is the term that Ms. Bentley seeks to impose upon the BDP of no new dogs being placed on the property; it has always been the applicants’ position that they are trying to help dogs and find adoption homes for dogs that would otherwise be euthanized; and an implicit element of placing dogs for adoption is that other dogs will come in and substitute for those dogs. He stated they signed the BDP under the terms that they would reduce the number of dogs from a maximum of 75; at the time of the February 6 meeting, there were only 70 dogs at the New Leash on Life premises, but they agreed to cap them at a maximum of 75 to be reduced to 45 within one year and then reduced further to 15 in two years, but there was no discussion on a restriction of bringing other dogs into the program so they would not be euthanized and would enjoy the benefits of a second chance and a home found for them. He stated the letter from Rick Enos on February 10, 2003 described the process, indicated that a site plan was necessary, and gave a time line of May 6, 2003; he has a site plan and would be happy to submit it to the Planning and Zoning Office, but the problem is that the new conditions have been imposed on the BDP and in order for his clients to participate in the process, they need to come up with substantial funds of approximately $1,200 plus to submit a site plan; and they cannot submit the site plan and have those new conditions put upon them. He requested the Board review its minutes, look at the requirements that were read into the record by Mr. Torpy; and accept the BDP that has been submitted by Ms. Cullen and Ms. Webber and move the process forward.

Commissioner Carlson stated since Mr. Zies referred the Board to the minutes, she will refer him to where it says, “He (Mr. Torpy) stated the applicants did not realize the need and immediate demand that would be created; it grew out of control at its height of 125 dogs; there are now approximately 70 plus dogs; and they have agreed not to take any more dogs and not let the number of dogs go above 75.” She stated it was fairly clear, when they discussed it earlier, the staggered dates to reduce x number of dogs one year and x number another year down to 15; and they are allowed to have four dogs. She stated she does not understand why the Board is getting a BDP dated March 13; there is no record of it; it did not come on the Agenda; what the Board has is a BDP that was slowed down because Mr. Torpy had a problem with its interpretation; and now they are going before a special master. She requested staff replay what the Board went through on February 6 to date and explain to the Board what they know about the new BDP and if it reflects what was agreed upon, or what the differences are.

Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised on February 6, 2003 the Board approved the zoning action with a BDP and number of conditions associated with that action were: (1) periodic health care inspections; (2) site plan to be completed within three months, which would have been May 6, 2003; (3) improvements to be completed within six months; (4) the number of dogs reduced to 45 by February 6, 2004 and 15 by February 6, 2005; and (5) property to be used only for a dog kennel and if the property ownership changed, it be brought back to the Board. He stated with the BDP process, the property owner has 120 days from approval of the zoning action to get the BDP recorded; within the 120 days, staff has deadlines built in to keep the process moving; within 60 days they ask the applicants to submit to staff; it gives staff 30 days to get the BDP in a condition that is recordable and another 30 days to get it to the Board; and finally it is recorded. Mr. Enos stated the main problems with this BDP is the question that was discussed regarding whether or not the intent of the BDP was to not take any more dogs and the site plan. He stated it is clear in the minutes the intent was not to take any more dogs; they had a pre-application meeting with the engineer a few days prior to May 6, but the site plan has not been submitted; so, even as written that the site plan will be submitted by May 6, it is impossible for the applicants to meet the intent of the Board as well as that condition of the BDP.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is normal to put in the BDP when the site plan needs to be submitted; with Mr. Enos responding it is not a normal provision of BDP’s; however, it was a condition the Board placed on the zoning action that became part of the BDP. Commissioner Carlson stated the wording in the new BDP states the decrease to 45 within 12 months, but it does not give the dates or say when it is going to occur, which they all agreed on at the time; she does not understand how it works, but an additional three months were given to Ms. Webber and Ms. Cullen to try and get the BDP signed and submitted; and normally it is brought back and okayed because all the parties were there at the hearing and agreed on everything. She inquired where exactly, from a legal perspective, is the Board at right now.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Board is in a position where the applicants do not agree with the Board about what the interpretation of the action was at the last meeting; and it will have to decide what it intended to impose as conditions; and if they do not agree to the conditions, then it goes back to Code Enforcement. Commissioner Carlson stated there is a special master hearing scheduled but she does not know the date. Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones stated it is June 19, 2003, but that issue is whether there is a violation of GU zoning; and if the zoning is changed with the recording of the BDP, the special master hearing will go away because the problem will be resolved. Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board does not accept the BDP, it would be in the hands of the special master who might choose to just allow four dogs, then the Code violation will accrue and they would have to start getting rid of the dogs right away. Ms. Jones stated the special master is bound to only allow four dogs and he would give them a reasonable amount of time to cure. She stated he would ask the County staff for recommendations; and Animal Control told her today their recommendation would be 120 days to cure. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Zies understands what the issue is; with Mr. Zies responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired if he is equipped to speak for his clients; with Mr. Zies responding the Board has misinterpreted or at least the applicants feel the Board has misinterpreted the intention of the agreement formed on February 6, 2003; it is clear in the minutes that there are now 70 dogs and they will not let the number go above 75 dogs; and clearly there will be more dogs added, at least five. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not understand where that logic came from and why they would assume they would bring more dogs in when the minutes say and Mr. Torpy put on the record that he understood there would be no more dogs. Mr. Zies stated it says they have agreed not to take any more dogs and not to let the number of dogs go above 75, so clearly there are 70 now and they are not going above 75. Commissioner Carlson stated it is an issue for the entire County so she will let other Commissioners comment on what they think they heard.

Chairperson Colon stated the Board was clear about not allowing any more dogs; it is not just based on those minutes, but all the meetings; the Board has seen this issue many times and many hours of County staff time has been put into this issue; so the Board has bent over backwards to help Mr. Zies’ clients. She stated May 6 was the deadline; it seems every time it comes close to the deadline, Ms. Webber sends her representative in, and the Board is at it again; and those were some concerns the Board had and intentionally made sure Ms. Busacca kept a close eye on the BDP so that the Board could keep tabs on what was going on because of the history of the applicants regarding compliance. She stated she is not surprised a representative is before the Board again trying to reword things; it was clear Mr. Torpy understood the Board did not want any more dogs there; they are supposed to have four dogs, not 75; it is a home; and the Board has been through all of that and she is not willing to keep going forward because the hours spent on it by staff is incredible. She stated she does not know why the Board is dealing with it again; she wanted to put an end to it at the last meeting; but the Board in good faith wanted to give them one more opportunity and that is now being abused and a game is being played about how many dogs and who said what. She stated it was clear that the Board was trying to be compassionate, and it is not fair that it is here again discussing this.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is not fair to the animals as well because Ms. Webber could be actively finding homes for those animals without bringing any more in. She stated the Board in good faith reached out and said it understands she is doing a very humanitarian thing, but there are rules and other people are being impacted, not just the animals. She stated the problem started from Code violations; they are going to continue to have Code violations because nothing is going to happen; the dogs are not going away; and the Board can agree to the BDP of February 6, 2003, but if they do not sign it, it does not mean anything. Mr. Knox stated if they do not sign it, their zoning does not take effect and the Board can proceed with the special master or file for an injunction. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board is at an impasse; the special master has to say four dogs; the next step is an injunction; so Ms. Webber and Ms. Cullen need to think hard what they are doing there for the animals and themselves. Mr. Zies stated the BDP before the Board is a new plan that was submitted March 15, 2003. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have it; and inquired if staff received it; with Mr. Enos responding it was received around that date, but he is not sure exactly when. Commissioner Carlson stated Ms. Bentley did not agree with what was stipulated in the BDP so it has been sitting out there. Mr. Enos stated that is part of the procedure, the time period for staff and the applicant to get together and rough it out to a point it is believed to represent the Board’s intent; staff does not believe it represents the Board’s intent; but they were running out of time and it needed to get to the Board.

Mr. Zies stated the other information he included in the packet shows Ms. Bentley responding on March 27 acknowledging receipt of the BDA; and the only information she gave them as to the unsuitability was that it did not include a joinder from the mortgagee. He stated Ms. Bentley gave no indication that it did not reflect the agreement of the Board; and it was not until April 17 when she first made his clients aware there were other issues other than the joinder. He stated there was no discussion of any of those other terms; and his clients have no objection and reluctantly agreed to five of six conditions other than not bringing other dogs in.

Commissioner Carlson stated the April 17 letter clearly lays out what is reflected in the minutes; and reiterated what the letter said. She stated if they leave the Board no recourse, there will be no action on this item, and as such the special master will have it.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired in what format did the Board approve the zoning item; with Mr. Enos responding on February 6 the Board approved the BDP conceptually as part of the zoning action, and they had 120 days to get the fully-signed BDP back to the Board. Commissioner Scarborough stated right now the BDP is on the regular agenda; and inquired if that is today’s action; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has not actually approved the BDP at this time; the only difference with this and prior approvals is it has a dispute over the intent of the Board; so the Board may want to bring it back to make sure its true intent is expressed in the BDP. Mr. Enos noted typically the BDP’s come back as consent items. Commissioner Scarborough stated the system works, otherwise they may not have a BDP that expresses the Board’s true intentions.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the vote that the Board took back then he opposed; in fact he opposed both of them; it is almost as if no good deed goes unpunished; and the Board went along with this and come up with a plan. He stated now it is back for interpretation; it was mentioned there is a history of other problems; there is going to be a history of continual problems; the BDP is not going to solve a thing; they may bring in dogs that are pregnant that will drop seven puppies, and they will be up to 96 dogs; and Code Enforcement will be called out there, and it will go back and forth. He stated it is time for the kennel to move to a properly zoned area on five or ten acres or whatever it takes, so they can do what they want. He stated nobody complained about taking care of dogs; everybody is saying it is a wonderful thing; but what is wrong is the neighborhood it moved into, which allows four dogs per house not 70 plus; and he sees nothing but problems coming from this. He stated the Board will not resolve a thing by trying to work something out; and it will be better served to say no, and have them move to some place that is more accommodating.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board’s intention is clear; there is a provision in the BDP that has a date that has passed; so the Board could not approve the BDP if it wanted to without another public hearing to change the date for the site plan that was missed. Mr. Knox stated if the May 6 date was specified at the hearing, that would be part of the zoning action, and the Board would have to take another public hearing to change it.

Commissioner Carlson advised the Board will take no action on the item today.

CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE AND ADDENDUM WITH BERTRAM SCHILD
AND FREDERICK ZACHARIAS, RE: RELOCATION OF MAX K. RODES PARK

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Contract for Sale and Purchase and Addendum with Bertram Schild, Bertram Schild, Trustee, and Frederick Zacharias for approximately 120 acres at $2,400,000 less property exchange value to relocate Max K. Rodes Park; authorize staff to obtain survey, environmental audits, title insurance, accept title exceptions, and proceed with closing, as well as obtain two appraisals on the property commonly known as the GMSA property; authorize the County Manager to represent the County in coming to agreement and/or disagreement on the value exchange of the GMSA property; and authorize staff to advertise a public hearing for the exchange of the GMSA property. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF BID #B-4-03-37 AND CONTRACT WITH CENSTATE CONTRACTORS, INC.,
RE: CONSTRUCTION OF NORTH BREVARD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to award Bid #B-4-03-37, Construction of North Brevard Wastewater Treatment Facility Reclaimed Water System, to CenState Contractors, Inc. at $888,000, and execute Contract with the Contractor for the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO TASK ORDER NO. 97-03 WITH HDR ENGINEERING, RE:
OVERSIGHT SERVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MELBOURNE
TRANSFER STATION

Commissioner Pritchard stated the cost benefit analysis states the cost for the additional engineering fees will be $130,000, and it is really an oversight; the engineer is being paid $130,000 to keep his eye on the contractor who should have completed the work; and now the County is paying $130,000 in essence to baby sit the contractor and make sure the work happens. He stated it also says the fees “may” be recovered by the County through the assessment of liquidated damages against the contractor; and inquired what is the County’s opportunity to capture the $130,000 and why should it pay $130,000 to have someone watch the contractor who is supposed to fulfill his obligation. He stated he would like some assurances that the County will get its money back.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised staff will pursue the fees; the reason “may” is used is whenever there are issues in closing construction contracts, there are counter claims to deal with and usually a negotiated resolution of what the contractor maintains he is entitled to and what the County feels it is entitled to; so staff is going to put forward the very best case possible; and part of that case is the use of the engineer for construction oversight, documentation of what happens on a day-to-day basis, and why the cost has run up. He stated “may” is to reflect the reality that says although the County may be putting in for liquidated damages counter claims and negotiations of positions may result in some compromise.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it is the same project the Board voted to pay a subcontractor the amount he was due because he completed his portion and the Board did not want to hold him up until the general contractor completed the project; with Mr. Peffer responding that is correct, the subcontractor was adversely affected by the contractor’s delays. Commissioner Pritchard stated the service hired to overview the construction is by HDR; HDR was contracted by the County to provide construction administrative services for a lump sum fee based on a 15-month construction schedule; and for whatever reason the project was delayed, so it is that action that staff will be reviewing to determine whether or not the County will recover $130,000. He stated he assumes the County has to have HDR there overseeing the construction otherwise who knows what will happen; it does not seem like the best way to do business, but he understands why the oversight is needed; and it is a shame that someone signs a contract and does not live up to the obligations they agreed upon. He stated HDR’s oversight is simply lining up the dogs to recover the $130,000 extra the County will pay because of the contractor’s shortfalls. Mr. Peffer stated in addition to that, the presence of the engineer on the job will help insure the County and residents of a quality product in the long run; and there will be issues to be resolved in the future, but having the engineer working onsite overseeing the project will help guarantee the County that the product is of a quality nature.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Addendum #3 to Task Order 97-03 with HDR Engineering to provide construction oversight services during the construction of the Melbourne Transfer Station. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SOURCE IDENTIFICATION, RE: NITROGEN IN OCEAN SURF ZONE

Water Resources Director Richard Martens advised in the last week or so there have been a series of press articles about sampling studies in the ocean that revealed the presence of trace amounts of nutrients, specifically nitrogen; and he, Mr. White, Mr. Jones, Mr. Peffer, and Cheryl Dunn from the Health Department met to discuss the issue and came to the consensus that it would be appropriate to contract with the academia or a scientist who has some expertise in those types of studies and see if they could bring this issue to resolution. He stated if the County has a problem, staff would like to identify it and try to trace the sources; and this item is to authorize staff to proceed with the investigation.

Chairperson Colon inquired how much would it cost; with Mr. Martens responding they estimate under $35,000, but negotiating a specific scope of work and testing to be done is something they have yet to do, so they do not have a firm number on it right now.

Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem with the item, but wants to know what TDC’s involvement is with negative press; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding staff can check with the TDC as to what it is doing. Commissioner Carlson stated the bed tax deals with beach renourishment; the way it has been described, sewer is in the waters, which is pretty bad; and TDC should be aware of that and put out what it can in terms of positive press.

Commissioner Higgs stated TDC does respond and has done a good job responding to allegations; it is appropriate to ask TDC to participate in this scientific inquiry, so the Board is sure the information is disseminated properly; and she would want to take it to the TDC so it can participate as well.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize research funding through a University to monitor and evaluate nitrogen and potential sources along Brevard County beaches, proposed to be less than $35,000 to be jointly funded by Water Resources and Regional Stormwater Utility Departments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon advised on a positive note, three of Brevard County beaches are the most cleanest in the State of Florida.

DIRECTION, RE: SHERIFF’S OFFICE MID-YEAR SUPPLEMENT BUDGET REQUESTS

Sheriff’s Office Finance Director Deborah Barker advised she told Sheriff Williams that the item would not be heard before lunch, but the Board has been speeding by; and if it wants to speak to the Sheriff, it will have to wait until after lunch. She stated if the Board wants to proceed, she will be happy to answer any questions.

Commissioner Higgs stated when she talked to Ms. Barker earlier, she thought there was a potential for additional revenues from the retirement system; and inquired what is the estimate and when will the Board know what those could be; with Ms. Barker responding that is a new occurrence that happened between Friday and yesterday; they received information from the Budget office that the FRS rates decreased; they looked into that; and preliminary estimates on her side, the sworn deputy rates, is going down about 5% from 25.14 to around 19% in July, 2003, so from July to September they will realize some savings as well as other County agencies. She stated within the Sheriff’s Office side, they are looking at about $400,000 savings for three months, and the County would also realize some savings, but she does not know what the figure would be. She stated if that is a consistent fact that continues through the fiscal year and FRS does lower those rates to that percentage, they would all be looking at some savings.

Commissioner Pritchard advised the Agenda Report says $2.8 million in additional mid-year funding; and inquired if any of that has been budgeted; with Ms. Barker responding there is $2.8 million that comprises a variety of different issues; some is over time, some is compensation for payouts and resignations, and some is for medical and food contracts at the jail; and some has been budgeted, but the majority is costs exceeding projections. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much was budgeted; with Ms. Barker responding her records indicate about $623,000 of the $2.8 million was budgeted. Commissioner Pritchard stated that leaves $2.2 million.

Ms. Barker stated those are costs realized after the fiscal year started and costs over the initial projections; for the compensation payouts that they are looking at, she submitted a budget adjustment of $600,000 to the Board; basically what is happening in the Sheriff’s Office as well as other County agencies, is they have longer term employees who are taking advantage of the DROP Program; they have several employees at 25 and 30 years and it is time for them to retire; and those are costing significant dollars. She stated she had experienced $600,000 of that at the time she submitted the budget adjustments; and since then, in the last month, she experienced another $300,000; and those are not budgeted. Ms. Barker stated as they go into the budget process, the Sheriff’s Office, and she does not know what other county agencies would do, but the Sheriff’s Office does not know what those costs are going to be and they do not include those in their budget; but if the Board wants them to, they will be glad to work on that and negotiate that in the budget process, but they do not know what the cost is going to be and they do not and have not historically budgeted for that. She stated generally speaking, they can absorb some of those costs through attrition, but they have had a very high year this year and as of May, she has experienced $900,000 of compensation

Commissioner Pritchard stated some of the items that are listed are radar units, compensation for over time for traffic patrol, $300,000 for over time compensation for specialty police, etc.; and he does not understand why the radar units were not part of the budget. He inquired if Ms. Barker said it is part of the $600,000; with Ms. Barker responding no they are not, but she can offer an explanation to Commissioner Pritchard. She stated a couple of years ago, they looked at beefing up the speeding enforcement aspect of the Sheriff’s Office; it was kind of a pilot program; and she believes Commissioner Higgs asked them to look at that because of the revenue generating capability for the County off the extra tickets the Sheriff’s Office can generate, which could rack into hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they thought it was a good return on investment. She stated a couple of years ago, Commissioner Higgs asked them what it would take to offer some more speeding enforcement controls along selected areas where there have been a lot of citizen complaints and safety issues; they started off the first year at $25,000 for over time; that was two years ago; and they were able to help that, initiate that, and absorb those costs in the Sheriff’s budget because they had FRS savings that were going to kick in that July, and the Sheriff's Office covered that amount through those savings. She stated last year they brought the $25,000 amount forward in mid-year to pay the over time cost for the deputies to actually go out and do speeding enhancement and enforcement as well as safety issues in addition to their regular duty, and they were funded. She stated it is sort of a gentleman’s agreement; they will work with the Board every year and bring it and talk about it mid-year if the County is desirous of the Sheriff continuing that; and at that time, the Board will have a chance to look at the return on its investment in speeding fines. Ms. Barker stated the stalker radar units are to try and equip more road patrol cars with those speed detection units; they have been in the Sheriff’s five-year plan; they are able to acquire them with the cost of a new deputy; so they are starting to slowly build their inventory, but what they are trying to do is to purchase some of those units to have more in the cars so that more of the deputies would be able to go out and assume this duty. Commissioner Pritchard noted he saw one of the motorcycle officers generating revenue this morning; with Ms. Barker commenting there you go. Commissioner Pritchard stated later on the Board is going to talk about 24 full time road deputies; there is a grant program requiring an $83,000 match; that is a tremendous amount of money the County does not have; notwithstanding all the good intentions of the Sheriff’s program, it is a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul; and in some cases the Board is petered out and cannot do those things. He stated what the Board needs to address is if this is the time to expand or if this is the time to focus more on what it is doing and do things leaner, meaner, and at less costs. He stated the Detention Center is eating up quite a bit of money, not only with medical, but base care, health, and reasonable comfort for inmates, but he does not know how comfortable they are sleeping on the floor. Ms. Barker stated there is substantial over time cost associated with running the Detention Center. Commissioner Pritchard stated a lot of the items are also proposed in the one cent sales tax, such as additional deputies, jail expansion, cars for deputies, etc.; there is costs all over the place; but the Sheriff keeps coming back continuously for a tremendous amount of money. He stated with all the best intentions, the justifications frequently are very weak for increasing the budget; to say they are not going to have enough money is not enough of a justification if he is looking at what fuel is projected to be, cars, etc. Ms. Barker stated she will be glad to provide Commissioner Pritchard additional information he will need. She stated she provided the Board with a 30-question information detail that the Commissioners and County staff asked her to provide; and if that was not sufficient for Commissioner Pritchard, she will get him whatever details he would like to see. Commissioner Pritchard stated he has been on Ms. Barker’s side and done that; he can justify anything he wants; and he can have a helicopter with bat wings on it and justify that. Ms. Barker stated things cost what they cost; the Sheriff brings forward recommendations, as the chief law enforcement officer for the County; he wants to work with the Board and for the Board to determine what services it wants to offer; but they feel it is their obligation to bring those things forward. She stated they know they need deputies so they bring forward grant opportunities; the medical contracts cost what they cost to provide services to the inmates at the Brevard County Detention Center; and she is not minimizing Commissioner Pritchard’s comments. Commissioner Pritchard stated his point is there is only so much to go around; with Ms. Barker responding she understands that. Commissioner Pritchard stated the disproportionate share cannot always be given to one of the components of County government; and that is what he is trying to say. He stated he will be looking into next year’s budget for what they have operating now, what is not needed, what can be done better, what can be leaner, and what can they do for less money. He stated perhaps a piece of equipment would take the place of a few people, and through attrition the Sheriff would be able to make up the difference and still perform at a level that the people would like to see. Ms. Barker stated she is looking forward to working with Commissioner Pritchard during the budget to accomplish those things.

Chairperson Colon advised the Board talked about options for use of the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund; Mr. Knox was supposed to give the Board feedback and his opinion of the statutory language governing the use of those funds; and inquired what expenditures can be funded from the Trust Fund; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding they looked at that issue and agree with the Sheriff that those funds are available for that purpose. Chairperson Colon inquired if staff was aware the funds would be able to be used; with Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responding yes, that is one of the Board’s options. Ms. Barker requested clarification if Mr. Knox agrees with the Sheriff that those funds can be used for the medical and food contracts, because that is not her understanding.

Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Knox clarify what he thinks and not worry about what the Sheriff thinks because there may be a disagreement. Mr. Knox stated he will defer to Mr. Whitten as to what he wants to use it for. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board asked last week for an opinion from the County Attorney; and she has been asking since last week what the opinion is in regard to that fund. Chairperson Colon commented the answer is yes.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board does not have the money that is required for mid-year adjustments of this nature, especially $2.8 million; she is concerned about the return on investment, for example, $113,000 for radar units and compensation for additional time for traffic patrol; and maybe it came through her office or maybe it did not, but she did not see the return on investment for that. She stated if there was a return on investment, at least on that particular item, it would have helped her and help to justify the cost. Ms. Barker stated she has it and is sorry Commissioner Carlson did not get it. Commissioner Carlson stated she may have it and probably read it, but not in terms of the application of this Agenda item. She stated the other concern she has is there are too many unknowns right now to support a mid-year increase because they have the sales tax issue that possibly will pay for a jail and the cost associated to operating that jail. She stated they expend a lot of dollars in over time, but she is sure they have not considered the budget potential for that, which she assumes would be a much larger amount to maintain a larger jail. She stated it would be nice to know more about FRS and that information, and also the Welfare Trust Fund; Ms. Barker answered probably every question she had and she appreciates that, but she does not know how many questions there were. Commissioner Carlson stated she will support allowing the Sheriff to use those dollars, which she believes was $900,000 with $70,000 being encumbered against those funds, so it would leave $830,000 that the Sheriff can work with for some of the costs that are itemized in the Agenda Report. She stated right now she is uncomfortable with the State Legislature; she does not know what it is going to do in terms of costs it is going to shift down to the County and what the financial state of the County is. She stated if the County Manager can show her where he can find $2.8 million out of the existing budget, she would be happy to support the Sheriff, but if he cannot do that, the Board cannot go there from here.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he asked Frank Abbate about resignations and retirement and the DROP Program and how it impacts budgets; and requested Mr. Abbate put that discussion in a memo and get it to the Commissioners, which would be helpful.

Commissioner Higgs stated it is obvious the Board does not have $2.8 million that the Sheriff needs today; it would have to go into Reserves to do that, and none of the Commissioners are ready to do that because it has set some target figures for that fund; but the Board can act today to make it clear that it would change the allocation of the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund for the jail management system over to the two needs for food and health contracts, recognizing the allocation is not a recurring revenue stream year after year. She stated the Board is faced with the Sheriff requesting a large amount in mid-year, so it might as well take a motion to amend the Trust Fund.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to amend the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund from Jail Management to Inmate Health Care and Food. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated there has been an indication that there may be revenues available from FRS; and inquired if the Budget Office calculated those revenues; with Budget Manager Dennis Rogero responding they did not have time to do that. Mr. Jenkins stated it is already in their salary and fringe benefits accounts so that would be available for over time and payouts. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board needs to take action to allow them to move those funds; with Mr. Jenkins responding no.

Ms. Barker inquired what shall she take back to the Sheriff as far as what is the Board’s recommendation for the remainder of the shortfall. She stated they have $1.5 million shortage in the food and medical contracts; the Board redirected $958,000, but actually, for the record, interest was added to that and the actual amount of the check that was submitted was over $1 million, which is a little more than $958,000. She stated the amount that was encumbered against that has not been spent because they had a fiduciary responsibility to wait until this matter was settled; so if the Board is going to redirect those monies and the Board does not feel like it is supplanting for general operating expenses, then she will work with them and let them know what the full amount is. She inquired what direction should she take to the Sheriff for the remainder of the costs; stated they have another $500,000 in food and medical costs that are not funded, and a million dollars in compensation that is not funded; and at this point the Sheriff’s current budget would not allow the continued operations and would not allow the payment of the full medical costs.

Chairperson Colon advised Ms. Barker to let the Sheriff know that the County’s budget does not fund everything also, and the same problems he has are the same problems the Board has. Ms. Barker stated she is sorry but she did not understand; with Chairperson Colon responding in regards to the budget, Ms. Barker said the Sheriff does not have the money, and neither does the Board. Ms. Barker inquired what services does the Board want the Sheriff to cut; with Chairperson Colon responding the Board has already taken action, and that is as far as it will go. Commissioner Carlson stated that is the Sheriff’s decision what areas he feels are priorities and what areas he feels are not. Ms. Barker stated compensation was short about one million dollars; and inquired what positions would the Board like to ask the Sheriff to cut; with Chairperson Colon responding the Board is not going there; and to relate to the Sheriff what the Board has done today. She stated the Board will be more than happy to hear from the Sheriff in July when he will be able to present his budget.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board does not have the information to give the Sheriff its thoughts; he is independently elected; but if the Board knew what employees he had, where they were, etc., it would be more able to comment. He stated Mr. Whitten shared with him that the Sheriff’s Office averages between 14 and 20 unfilled deputy positions at any given time, yet it is talking about hiring more; so the question comes up, can they hire more. He stated he does not know enough about what the Sheriff has, his hiring practices, his vacant positions, and what happens to the money when the Board funds a position that is not filled. He stated it is nice to ask the question, and if Ms. Barker wants to give the Board a great deal more information, it could perhaps be of greater assistance to her; but at this juncture the Sheriff has the information and the Board does not.

Ms. Barker stated they have 12 vacancies in deputies and 12 vacancies in corrections officers; if they are vacant for any amount of time, those monies are available to be paid in some sort of compensation, whether it is payouts or over time. She stated the budget adjustments she brought forth today were telling that in addition to any vacancy dollars that may be there, they have positions slated to be hired in the first week of June; so it makes for available compensation dollars, but based on the additional overtime and the million dollars worth of payouts, they are looking at not being able to fully pay the Sheriff’s Office personnel for the remainder of the year.

Chairperson Colon stated the Board has already discussed that, and it will see the Sheriff in July.

RESOLUTION, RE: AUTHORIZING TAX EXEMPT COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF SHARPES COMMUNITY CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution authorizing the borrowing of not to exceed $2,950,000 from the Pooled Commercial Paper Loan Program of the Florida Local Government Finance Commission pursuant to the terms of the Loan Agreement in order to finance a portion of costs for the construction of the Sharpes Community Center, including the reimbursement of certain costs incurred by the County in connection therewith, if any; authorizing the execution of a Loan Note or Loan Notes to evidence such borrowing and agreeing to secure such borrowing with a covenant to budget and appropriate legally available non-ad valorem revenues as provided in the Loan Agreement; authorizing the execution and delivery of such other documents as may be necessary to effect such borrowing; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF PROPOSAL #P-1-03-10, RE: INSURANCE CONSULTING AND BROKERAGE
SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to award Proposal #P-1-03-10, Insurance Consulting and Brokerage Services, for all lines of property and casualty coverage for Brevard County, at an estimated annual cost of $75,000 for each year of the first three-year agreement with annual renewal options; and authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the firm and the Chairperson to execute the final negotiated contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR AND ACCEPT GRANT, RE: COPS AND HOMELAND
SECURITY OVERTIME PROGRAM

Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board approved the grant application today, it can assume they would have $83,000 in overtime annually; she does not know what their overtime budget is, but can assume it is $83,000; so if they would use what would be overtime already allocated, it would not have a negative impact. Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten advised the grant is for next year on top of what would have been budgeted for next year. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they could use the overtime they plan in their budget for next year; with Sheriff’s Finance Director Deborah Barker responding it is the first cycle of a federal grant that is coming down for Homeland Security issues; and they found out about the grant opportunity very recently, after they submitted their budget to the Board on May 1, 2003. She stated this is additional overtime dollars that are available through a federal grant that can allow up to $333,000; the match is 25%; and they are trying to get additional overtime dollars in the Board’s budget. Commissioner Higgs stated the Sheriff already has $83,000 for overtime in his 2003-04 budget; with Ms. Barker responding the Sheriff’s overtime budget is $1,041,000. Commissioner Higgs inquired why is the $83,000 not a part of that; with Ms. Barker responding it is, and they are trying to take advantage of the grant funds. Commissioner Higgs stated so the Sheriff does not need another $83,000; with Ms. Barker responding of course they do; their overtime for this year is going to be $2 million; they have a federal grant opportunity; they are going to incur overtime for law enforcement needs; and they are trying to offset costs to the County by the federal grant opportunity. Commissioner Higgs stated she understands that, but if the Sheriff already has a million plus overtime budget, she does not understand why $83,000 cannot be dedicated to match this grant; with Ms. Barker responding they have a million dollars in the budget, but they are going to spend $2 million; and they can take it out of that budget but cannot have the deputies doing overtime. She stated she does not know what the solutions are, but there are lots of choices they can make together.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated if they can use existing dollars to serve as the match, by approving the grant application, the Board is not obligating itself to another $83,000. Ms. Barker stated she does not know about that legally; and requested an opinion on that because she believes it has to be new dollars.

Commissioner Scarborough stated that is what Mr. Whitten told him; he said the Board has to increase the overtime to utilize the grant; it cannot go back; and that is the unfairness of what the federal government has done to the County, because it has already jumped overtime with the recent event. He stated two years later the federal government says okay, the County can have more overtime and get more money, but it has already been hit with overtime and is not able to start where it was and has to stick it on the top. He stated it is committing the Board to reach out with more overtime. Ms. Barker stated she will defer to Mr. Knox because her understanding is that they have to be new additional dollars.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Sheriff is asking for $83,000 more next year; with Ms. Barker responding yes. Commissioner Higgs stated so it is new money. Commissioner Scarborough stated it has to be $333,000 more because the $83,000 is only a match; so the Board has to spend a third of a million dollars more on overtime next year to take advantage of the grant. He stated that is what he was advised; the federal government wants the County to spend more money; and it is not to help the County, it is to draw the County into spending additional monies.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what if the Board were to cut $333,333 from next year’s budget then put it back in, would that work; with Commissioner Scarborough responding they look at what the County is spending now; and the only way it is going to get it is for them to look at this year’s budget and what has been spent and bump it up one third of a million dollars to capture the grant. He stated if that is not done, they do not get the monies; so the Board would be committing to spending a third of a million dollars next year to get the federal money.

Chairperson Colon stated the Board is not taking action to authorize the grant application.

AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR AND ACCEPT GRANT, RE: COPS AND UNIVERSAL
HIRING PROGRAM

Sheriff’s Finance Director Deborah Barker advised the grant application for consideration and acceptance is for next fiscal year for the Sheriff’s office to work together in partnership to bring on 24 additional road patrol deputies; this is the Board’s opportunity to look at the program; it would be incorporated and they would work together with it in the budget process coming up in July, but they need, based on the due date, the Board’s consensus at this point. She stated homeland security is also a flavor in road patrol; it is through U.S. Department of Justice Universal Hiring Program as were the other COPS grants; and the good news is, the first year of the project for 24 deputies and their cars, the most expensive because of the cars, front-end operating costs, equipping deputies, etc., the total match would be $3 million, and the federal government would pay $1.1 million of that. She stated if the Sheriff is allowed to maintain his current capital base, using the base of the dollars they got for cars, equipment, light bars, and those types of things for the 20 deputies they put on the road this year, they could use that existing base and only ask the Board and taxpayers to come up with a difference of $693,000. She stated in conjunction with what the Sheriff can put forward and in addition to what they can get from the federal grant dollars, they can put 24 deputies on the streets in unincorporated Brevard County next year; and requested the Board’s permission to apply for the grant.

Chairperson Colon inquired if it will cost the Board $693,000; with Ms. Barker responding $693,456 of new dollars. Chairperson Colon stated the Board does not have that kind of money; and inquired if this is going to be another no action.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board just asked about unfunded positions; it is talking about new money again and goes back to Commissioner Scarborough’s question of how many of those 24 positions are going to be unfilled and unfunded since not all the ones that are in place are filled. Ms. Barker stated right now they have 165 road positions; there are some people who do not make it through training and some who retire; it is a continual process and they always have inflow of people coming and going because the Sheriff wants good qualified people. Ms. Barker stated right now of the 165 road deputies they have 12 vacancies; there are 700 sworn personnel and 12 corrections officer positions are vacant; so that is a very small percentage of approximately less than 4%. She stated they will always have some openings, but they can use the deputies. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there are 700 sworn deputies; with Ms. Barker responding no, they are corrections officers, road patrol deputies, agents, etc.; and out of the 900 plus employees, approximately 700 are sworn personnel.

Chairperson Colon inquired if it is a one-time shot from the federal government; with Ms. Barker responding it is a three-year grant. Chairperson Colon stated after three years the Sheriff will have to explain to the residents that they have to pay for 24 deputies per year with benefits and cars; and inquired how much would that cost; with Ms. Barker responding on a recurring basis, about $1.3 million a year. Chairperson Colon stated if the Board puts in $695,000 now, the Sheriff will be asking for $1.3 million in three years; she has been a public servant for eight years and as a rookie wondered why they did not take advantage of grants; and it did not make sense to her until two years later when they had to pay for law enforcement. She stated it is wonderful to take advantage of grants, but several years later it will cost x amount of dollars; and that is something the Board has to consider because it is not just coming up with the $695,000 now. Ms. Barker stated it is a mechanism to help offset funding for a need that exists in Brevard County.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board will grow its Sheriff’s force each year and needs to do that to keep up with growth in the community; she does not think it has to grow 24 this year; and suggested authorizing 12 deputies in this budget year. She stated at least it will get some federal dollars; so she will support a motion to authorize 12 deputies understanding that down the road the Board will be paying for those deputies.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize the Sheriff to apply for a grant to fund 12 deputies under the U.S. Department of Justice COPS, Universal Hiring Program.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this grant is not the same as the overtime grant, which he thought was a cruel joke on the part of the federal government; this is based on a desire to grow the number of deputies and brings in some federal funds to do that, which is a rational process.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired how many deputies will be part of next year’s budget; with Ms. Barker responding they have 165 now and are asking for 24, which would bring them to 189 deputies. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that 24 will be in next year’s budget; with Ms. Barker responding it is the federal grant to help offset the cost of 24 deputies they are asking for; and they are asking to work in partnership with the County to put those deputies on the road next year. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Sheriff will not be asking for any more next year; with Ms. Barker responding they have turned in their budget as of May 1st when they asked for 24 additional road patrol deputies. Commissioner Pritchard stated if the Board approves 12 deputies now, then 12 is going to be it for next year. Ms. Barker stated the Board will miss the funding deadline if it does not act today; and it will be turning away federal dollars.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the growth that occurs in the MSTU is required to pay for salary increases, health insurance, etc.; and inquired if anyone has the fiscal impact of adding 12 deputies and what the millage increase will be for that.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion to approve 12 deputies. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs voted aye; and Commissioners Pritchard, Carlson, and Colon voted nay.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired when is the deadline for the grant application, as he is not sold on accepting the federal money and the obligation that goes along with it; and until he is assured, he cannot support it. Ms. Barker stated she believes it is early June; and apologized as her cadre of technical folks were not present and are due after lunch. She stated the funding announcements just come out; it is not that they mean to bring them to the Board so quickly; they come out at a certain time; and they have to get them on the Agenda and work with incorporating them into the budget process.

Chairperson Colon stated there is one more meeting before the June recess if Commissioner Pritchard would like to continue this item. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would prefer to bring it back at the budget meeting and wants assurances that when they are putting full deputies out, they are going on the road and not in supply or shooting range or wherever they go, so the Board can make sure it gets what it pays for. He stated he does not have a problem with the return on investment; the federal government puts up some and the County puts up some monies; but at the end of that time, the County will see where it is and whether the deputies will stay, which everyone knows they will stay, but it is a question of attrition through retirement, etc. He stated he just wants to make sure, when they bring in deputies, they are put where the Board says it is going to put them and not put them in other positions where they do not see the light of day again.

Ms. Barker stated she needs to ask the Board what she needs to bring forward, because the Board has the assurance of the Sheriff’s Office that road patrol deputies are strictly used for that and community policing activities; and inquired what other additional information does the Board want her to bring to it. Commissioner Pritchard stated what the MSTU will do to impact the people. Commissioner Higgs requested the Budget Office bring back information on the impact of the 12 deputy positions on the MSTU. Mr. Jenkins inquired if there are any strings attached to the homeland security provision; with Ms. Barker responding it has to have a homeland security component. Mr. Jenkins recommended Ms. Barker define that so they know how they are going to be utilized; with Ms. Barker responding she still does not have clarification of what she needs to bring back to Commissioner Pritchard. Commissioner Pritchard stated the MSTU is going to increase; and he would like to know what the MSTU increase would be. Ms. Barker inquired if that means the service level or dollar level; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he wants to know what the dollar impact is going to be to the homeowner. Ms. Barker stated that information comes from the County Budget Office. Mr. Jenkins requested Ms. Barker define the service impact. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Sheriff is trying to go to two deputies per 1,000 people, which apparently is a chief of police standard nationwide; and he is now at 1.7. Chairperson Colon inquired if this is the Universal Hiring Program, and does that mean they would not be road patrol and would be homeland security; with Ms. Barker responding they are road patrol deputies, but they have to incorporate a compliment of homeland security, which can mean a variety of things such as training in weapons of mass destruction, first responders for ethnic and religious types of oversight, homeland security, specialized training, more visibility in the public, crime prevention, reducing fear due to terrorism, etc. She stated the County Budget Office will supply the millage information, and she will define the homeland security and service level of impact of the MSTU at the May 29 meeting. Commissioner Carlson requested information of all the employees of the Sheriff’s Department, sworn and unsworn; with Ms. Barker responding she can do that.

The meeting recessed at 12:07 a.m., and reconvened at 1:01 p.m.

KEEP BREVARD BEAUTIFUL, RE: TRASH BASH AWARDS

Larry Weber, representing Keep Brevard Beautiful, advised the 18th Annual Trash Bash was held on April 19, 2003 and was a huge success again; there were 35 sites in the County; and 1,778 volunteers collected 93,970 pounds of trash. He stated Elizabeth Melvin, Director of Environmental Programs, is the one responsible for the whole thing. He advised the City of Titusville won Category A with 113 volunteers who removed 2,377 bags of litter in the City; the group called Legendary Jeeps took their jeeps off road into the woods and pulled out a lot of garbage barrels, refrigerators, etc.; and they converted weight into bags. He stated the City of Cocoa won Category B with 135 volunteers who removed 369 bags of litter; and for the seventh year in a row, the City of Satellite Beach won with 340 volunteers and 255 bags of trash. He stated the Town of Malabar had 78 volunteers who removed 1,578 bags of trash. Mr. Weber advised Waste Management is one of their sponsors and gives the money to donate to the winners; the $500 winner of best performance based on population is the Town of Malabar; and the $500 winner based on most trash collected is the City of Titusville. He stated they also have a competition among the County Commission Districts; and the winner of the $500 for the most improvement is Commissioner Colon who will get a check made to the nonprofit organization of her choice, Links of Hope, for $500. He stated the stained glass Peli winner is District 1 Commissioner Truman Scarborough, for the most litter removed. He congratulated all the Commissioners and expressed appreciation for their support. Mr. Weber advised Marguerite Engel will talk about the Natural Heritage Camp cosponsored by Keep Brevard Beautiful and the Brevard Nature Alliance.

Marguerite Engel advised the Natural Heritage Camp will be held on October 3, 2003 at KARS Park from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; food will be provided by Dixie Crossroads; the camp will provide a hands-on educational opportunity for elected officials who represent the citizens of Brevard County; and it will offer adventuresome opportunities to explore the diverse plant, fish, wildlife, and ecosystems in a beautiful natural setting. She stated the camp will insure that elected officials have an opportunity to experience for themselves, through hands-on activities, the importance of the natural resources and outdoor recreational opportunities in Brevard County; it will demonstrate how Brevard’s natural resources directly impact the local economy and provide a basis for tourism, recreation, and commercial fisheries; and it is being sponsored by Keep Brevard Beautiful and Brevard Nature Alliance. She stated it is also in cooperation with Brevard County Natural Resources Management Office, EEL’s Program, Brevard Zoo, Satellite Beach, Parks and Recreation, Indian River Lagoon Estuary Program, Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island National Refuge, and St. Johns River Water Management District; so they hope all the Commissioners will be there. She stated it is only for elected officials and they hope they have a large turnout because it is going to be a fun day.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if they did it in Indian River County; with Mr. Weber responding that is where they got the idea. Commissioner Carlson inquired how successful were they in bringing in elected officials, etc., and what kind of class size did they have; with Ms. Engel responding it was very successful; almost all the elected officials in Indian River County, from State representatives on down, were there, even School Board members; and it was a hands-on, feet-wet activity. She stated they had different stations with about 15 to 20 in each group. Commissioner Carlson stated based on that success, she knows that Leadership Brevard is very interested in looking at it as a possible part of its course and curriculum; and it goes along with their mission and Brevard Tomorrow, and all the things they have been working on. Mr. Weber stated they want to partner with them and get them involved also. Commissioner Carlson suggested they also educate the citizenry and not just elected officials.

CITIZEN REQUEST - ROBERT RUBIN, RE: WAIVER OF INTEREST ON LEGAL FEES

Robert Rubin requested a waiver of the interest on legal fees; stated he filed for bankruptcy and put the legal fees in the bankruptcy, but nine years later he received a bill for the fee and the interest. He stated he paid the fee, but did not pay the interest; the judge signed off on it so he thought it was a cleared debt; and now he is asking for the waiver of the interest, not the debt.

Commissioner Carlson requested a legal perspective from the County Attorney.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised it was a Public Defender’s lien; it is his understanding in bankruptcy law, the Public Defender’s lines do not get discharged; and that is why the lien survived the bankruptcy. He stated what happened is apparently he did not become aware of it until recently and the interest has been accruing since the bankruptcy. Mr. Rubin stated that is correct; and he has the paperwork where he did pay the debt, but the interest is still there.

Chairperson Colon stated if the Board starts waiving these types of fees, it is looking at opening Pandora’s box. Mr. Rubin inquired why did it take nine years for him to get a letter when the interest would not have accrued as much if he was notified earlier. Chairperson Colon inquired how much is the interest; with Mr. Rubin responding the debt was $200 and the interest is $180.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the cost of stamps has gone from 30 cents to 37 cents, provably during that time and the service has not improved; it seems as if he paid the debt and the interest was a surprise; he was not aware of it; and $198 is more of an insult than a revenue stream. He stated he is not worried about it being precedent setting; he does not know how many debts like this would run nine years before the individual becomes aware of it; so he will support the waiver.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not have a problem, and if that is a motion, he will second it; it is a unique situation; the Board sees things from time to time, but this is not something he has seen a lot of; so he does not have a problem with this request since there was a lack of knowledge in the accrual.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to waive the interest on legal fees as requested by Robert Rubin, based on lack of notification causing accrual of the interest. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Scarborough and Pritchard voted aye; and Commissioners Higgs, Carlson, and Colon voted nay.

DISCUSSION, RE: FEDERAL LOBBYIST

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize hiring Eddy Pauley of Pauley Management, Inc. as the federal lobbyist for the Board of County Commissioners; and authorize the Chairperson to execute the Agreement with the firm.

Commissioner Higgs stated when the Board hired a lobbyist for the State, it went out for proposals; she talked to Mr. Pauley, he is a fine person; she is sure he will do an excellent job; and there are some issues in regard to other representation that would make it advantageous; however, the Board should ask for proposals so it can fully evaluate people who are available to provide this service.

Chairperson Colon stated she is willing to go forward with the recommendation, but maybe other Commissioners may support what Commissioner Higgs said.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the only concern he has about delaying it is what effect it might have on the Board’s ability to set things up and get a return on its investment. He stated he does not mind hiring the lobbyist in question now and over the course of the next year, go through another process to see whether the Board received a good return on investment and had the best representation of what might be available. He stated he met Mr. Pauley who seems as if he has all his ducks in a row and oars in the water and knows what he is talking about; and looking at some of the returns he has gotten for other clients, he would expect to have good things happen for Brevard County also.

Chairperson Colon inquired how long is the contract for; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding one year, which at that time the Board can evaluate it. He stated Economic Development Commission has retained Mr. Pauley to represent it, so there will be some enhanced coordination as well as a cost savings to the Board because it would deduct whatever Economic Development Commission pays him from what the County is going to pay him.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

CITIZEN REQUEST - TERRIE CANADA, RE: EXTENSION OF CUP FOR
MOBILE HOME

Commissioner Scarborough advised normally the Board would not do this, but the gentleman was aging and in ill health; however, he survived longer than anticipated. He stated he does not want to take the action the Board did not take last year and do not have a problem continuing it because it is the same situation. Chairperson Colon inquired for how long would it be extended; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it was thought he would not have to leave his home before he passed on, so a year perhaps with the idea when he passes on it terminates.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve extension of a conditional use permit for a mobile home to provide care for Lowell Canada until he passes away, with the condition the permit will terminate at that time. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CITIZEN REQUEST - MESSER CONSTRUCTION, RE: BUILDING PERMIT FOR
RESIDENCE IN WINDOVER WAY

Jim Messer, Messer Construction, advised they made a slight miscalculation on the elevation of the house they are building, and is here to see what the Board can do about it.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Denninghoff explain the issues and give the Board his thoughts.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised the problem is the finished floor dwelling portion of the home is built approximately six inches below the required elevation per Code, and the garage is about 10 inches below the elevation; however, the home is constructed above the 100-year flood elevation. He stated currently staff does not have the ability to waive that provision of the Code; and that is why they are here. He stated there is one alternative available to the homeowner, and that is to apply for a letter of map revision based on fill placement, which would remove the structure from the floodplain; and that would require cooperation from the builder, surveyor, and homeowner, as well as payment of a fee to FEMA, and would take approximately 45 to 60 days to accomplish. He noted that is one avenue that could be taken to satisfy the requirements of the Code and remove the home from the floodplain. Commissioner Higgs requested more information about that option; with Mr. Denninghoff responding the provision of the Code requires that if the house is in a flood zone, it must be constructed no less than 12 inches above the flood elevation; there is no provision for a waiver of that within the Code; there is a provision in the FEMA NFIP regulations to allow a piece of property to be removed from the floodplain based on the placement of fill; and that is an administrative function on the part of FEMA. He stated they would have to file the paperwork and pay the fees then receive a letter of map revision in this case; and based on that process, the property would be removed or at least the structure would be removed from the floodplain.

Commissioner Carlson advised during her briefing, another alternative besides the floodplain change was mentioned, where they could lift the walls and build additional six inches of foundation; and requested Mr. Denninghoff explain that alternative. Mr. Denninghoff advised other alternatives to do an administrative definition change as to location of the property could range from complete demolition of the home and reconstruction to partial demolition or disassembly and modifications of the existing walls, pre-cast lintels, and pouring another slab on top of the existing slab to raise it up the required amount and satisfy the Code requirements; and there are other more exotic approaches that literally pump synthetic materials under the home that will raise it up; but those are all possible and all very costly and difficult to accomplish.

Commissioner Pritchard advised there was an issue about the County’s flood insurance and how participating with NFIP to have the elevations one foot higher than basic requirement would give the County a lower rate on insurance premiums for people seeking flood insurance. Mr. Denninghoff stated Brevard County participates in the community rating system, which is part of the NFIP; that system rates each community; and the County earns points based on its compliance with standards and regulations, some of which are optional in order to participate. He stated currently the County has a rating classification 8; staff is striving to get it to 7; and the lower the number, the better off it will be. He stated the free board requirement that the County has imposed entitles it to as many as 300 points; it is about 400 points away from reaching the next level of classification; currently the citizens who have flood insurance enjoy a discount in the premiums for that insurance totaling approximately $500,000 annually; and if it moves to classification 7, that would go up to about $750,000. Mr. Denninghoff stated conversely if they do not earn the points that they need to maintain classification 8, they could slip to a 9 and those discounts would go down to about $250,000 instead of $500,000; so it is a very important program. He stated if the County loses participation in the program completely, it would lose its designation as an NFP community and lose the ability to get flood insurance, which means people cannot get a mortgage if their properties are in a floodplain. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what effect on the program would it have if the Board were to approve what the applicant is requesting; with Mr. Denninghoff responding there would be no immediate effect; the current classification was not based on the free board requirement; staff did not use the free board requirement in the current classification ranking; and they will apply that in the next cycle, which is approximately 18 months away. Mr. Denninghoff stated FEMA would review the County’s compliance with its regulations and would make a determination; if they view the County is not complying with its regulations sufficiently, they would not have to give it points; they modify and change the regulations in each cycle, so it is difficult to predict where the County will stand. He stated the County earns points in a range for each activity that it undertakes to the degree it performs the way it would like to in order to get more points in each case. He stated each time they gain some and lose some and he cannot tell the Board what the effect will be, but if they do not get the free board, it would not be a good effect.

Chairperson Colon stated the Board is being asked today not to apply its Ordinance; and that is something she does not know if the Board should do.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Denninghoff has given the Board another option, and that is to do nothing; not to change the Ordinance, but to turn the burden back to the builder to see if he can move that dwelling out of the floodplain. He stated if that occurs, the Board has not taken any action that could put it in jeopardy; and that is the action he would prefer to take because by doing something will put a lot of people at risk of having additional costs, which is not fair to those folks.

Chairperson Colon advised the Board will take no action on the request for waiver.

AUTHORIZATION TO COUNTY ATTORNEY, RE: SEEK ETHICS COMMISSION
OPINION ON APPOINTMENTS TO CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

County Attorney Scott Knox advised Commissioner Higgs brought to his attention and asked him to see if the Board would be interested in getting an Ethics Commission opinion on whether or not Aides to County Commissioners and employees of Constitutional Officers could be appointed to the Charter Review Commission.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the County Attorney to seek an Ethics Commission opinion on whether an Aide to a County Commissioner or an employee of a Constitutional Officer can be appointed to the Charter Review Commission; and present that information to the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard presented information to the Board, but not the Clerk.

RESOLUTION, RE: PRESERVING OLD OAK LODGE HAMMOCK

Commissioner Higgs advised the Old Oak Lodge Hammock is a parcel in the Aquarina development that is of significant historical value; and the residents asked that the Board consider adopting a resolution supporting the acquisition of the parcel. She stated there seems to be some controversy regarding how it would be presented, she recommends the seventh “whereas” say, signatures of 1,000 people have been submitted to preserve the historical and cultural environmental assets”; then, “the Board unanimously supports preserving the Old Oak Lodge Hammock ,” and not make any particular reference to any type of program. She stated the Board will support the preservation and it would allow the residents to have the Board’s support and to work out any kind of arrangements in regard to access.

Commissioner Carlson stated this sounds like something that should be added to the list of historical homes that the Board is going to be looking at for the sales tax; and applying the Board’s support does not guarantee that they are going to get additional funding from the County whether it is EEL’s or anything else. Commissioner Higgs stated they were submitting a proposal to Florida Communities Trust (FCT) and wanted the Board’s support for the preservation of the site; there is no building on the site; there is land with remnants of the building; and this resolution would lend the Board’s support to the preservation, but there was some question by neighboring homeowners in regard to public access; and that needs to be worked out. She stated the Board can support the preservation without enumerating a particular program. Commissioner Carlson stated to preserve it the County would have to buy it. Commissioner Higgs stated if someone would like to buy it to preserve it that would be correct, but it does not mean the County is going to fund it or FCT or anyone else; and the resolution simply supports the preservation. Commissioner Carlson stated another concern she has is if it is added to the list of EEL’s properties because it is historical and natural that the EEL’s Selection Committee deals with that it does not displace any other project. Commissioner Higgs stated she is not asking to displace anything other than to indicate the Board’s support so if they want to move forward with an application, they will have the Board’s support.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution supporting the preservation of the Old Oak Lodge Hammock through Florida Forever Program.

Chairperson Colon called for a second to the motion.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the resolution says it is an area scheduled for 313 condominium units and six high-rise buildings, and the developer is willing to sell the property for preservation; and inquired how much is the developer willing to sell the property for; with Commissioner Higgs responding she does not know the price. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is not supportive of the resolution because Brevard County is becoming land poor; it is taking land off the tax roll for every conceivable purpose; every one is referred to as critical and pristine; and if the Board were to apply that to every area throughout the County, it could because every area has pristine and critical and beautiful parcels. He stated it is referred to as the Old Oak Lodge and there is nothing there; it is a piece of ground that is scheduled for development; and he thinks it is an anti-development move that somehow is going to cost the County a considerable amount of money once it comes to fruition. He stated it will be the County that will end up taking it off the tax rolls and paying for it over the course of x number of years; and it will be a significant amount of taxable property that will be removed and inevitably going to cost someone, mainly the County, a lot of money to do something that he thinks is inappropriate.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Old Oak Lodge was on the site from 1880 to 1910 and served as a winter residence for leading scientists from around the world who documented the flora and fauna of the area; and the scientists who stayed there petitioned to Theodore Roosevelt to establish the national wildlife refuge south of there called Pelican Island. She stated it was a significant historical and biological site and has been documented in the Florida Inventory of Natural Places; and adoption of the resolution does not commit the County dollars to the project.

Chairperson Colon called for a second to the motion. Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

DISCUSSION, RE: SIGNATURE BONDS

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has an edited tape he would like to show that is only three minutes long. Chairperson Colon stated three minutes is good. A video recording of a Local 6 report on signature bonds was viewed by the Board and audience.

Mayor of Satellite Beach Bob Bolin advised when the signature bond was voted in, it was a good idea; it allowed first-time offenders a chance to make good and showed that the courts and judicial system was fair and compassionate; but like good self-government, the judicial system must show self-discipline in its practice. He stated somewhere along the line the discipline collapsed; and in the case of signature bonds, the courts have allowed the hardened criminal to walk away and not pay anything either in money or in time and commit bigger and more violent crimes. He stated equally important is it cost money for law enforcement, for the Board, for him, and for the residents; the law either needs to be amended or the judicial system changed; and they all know the judicial system has refused and in some cases abused the signature bond issue. Mayor Bolin stated the Board cannot allow this to go on because everyone is in jeopardy, not only their friends, themselves, and their families, but also their pocketbooks; and urged the Board to take that into consideration.

Michael Krasny advised he has been practicing law in Brevard County for 43 years as a prosecutor and defense attorney, and before the Legislature abolished his office, he was a city judge in the Town of Melbourne Beach. He stated he wants to tell the Board what he thinks about signature bonds; it does not have a place before the Board; it is a judicial issue; signature bonds are not loopholes no more than the Constitution of the United States is a loophole; and the signature bond issue was not voted in by the constituency, but is part of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. He stated the Federal Court Rules under the United States Supreme Court are very similar to those in Florida; it is a rule that the judges have to follow in order to consider bail; and if people do not subscribe to the theory that a person is innocent until proven guilty by evidence beyond and to the exclusion of reasonable doubt, they would not agree with him. He stated when a person is arrested, he is entitled to bail unless he is a dangerous person; there is a presumption under the Rules of Criminal Procedure in favor of a release on non-monetary conditions for any person who is granted pre-trial release; that is not a loophole, it is a court rule; and that is what the Supreme Court of the State of Florida and the United States Supreme Court said should happen to people who are arrested because bail is not punishment. He stated when a person is arrested, if they are presumed to be innocent, they should not be punished before they are tried; they should be tried first and then punished; and that is what the judges do. Mr. Krasny stated he read the statistics, but does not know where some of them came from; and if there are 80 arrests a day, and if the judges had to hold half-hour hearings on every bond, there would be five to seven judges out of 22 having bond hearings to hear the evidence in 80 cases of people who are up for bonds. He stated there is a human element in needing to see a person that everyone has seen on television put in jail; when they are seen racing down the road or committing crimes, there is a human element that says that guy should stay in jail because he is a criminal; and most people feel that way. He stated television cameras chase them because that is good news, but the judges are trained to resist that urge; they have a constitutional duty to resist the urge to put a presumed innocent person in jail until there is proof beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt; and that is what is happening in Brevard County. He stated it is not a loophole and it is not a new concept; it has been in the law for years; not all judges choose to put people out on a signature bond; but there are four or five different elements that the courts consider in letting people out on bond; and the first is under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. He stated it is from the Florida Supreme Court; he did not invent it; it was not voted in; and the first element is that judges are to consider personal recognizance, which is called ROR, release on their own recognizance. He stated that is #1 and comes after the language that says there was a presumption in favor of release on non-monetary conditions for any person who is granted pre-trial release. Mr. Krasny stated the County is not going to collect those bonds from the criminals; most of them do not have enough money to post bond; consequently, the judge uses an unsecured appearance bond, which is the signature bond. He stated he does not know from the statistics how many people who have been released on a signature bond have shown up in court; but if they show up in court, that bond is no longer valid and the Board cannot count that as money. He stated this is not the first time this issue has been before the Board; it has been before the Board a number of times before; and the County Attorney has wisely reported to the Board what its jurisdiction is. He stated judges are not there to collect bonds or fines.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Supreme Court is where the signature bond came from, does it only apply to Brevard County or does it apply to every county in the State; with Mr. Krasny responding every county in the State of Florida. Commissioner Carlson inquired based on Mr. Krasny’s perception and on some of the issues that were brought out in the news articles, is there any place that they can go from here as far as through legislative action or anything like that; with Mr. Krasny responding the Board can go to the Supreme Court which writes the rules; the United States Supreme Court has similar rules; and he doubts if they are going to buck the constitutional aspect of a right of a person to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. He noted that is what that rule does and it gives effect to that concept. Commissioner Carlson stated one of the parts of the news article was the recidivism, the issue of constantly breaking the law yet constantly going out on signature bond; and inquired if there are any suggestions in regard to that aspect; with Mr. Krasny responding his feeling is they only do that once; the second time they do not get a signature bond; but he is not suggesting that it has never happened before because the people who know the system best are the criminals; and he is not suggesting that no one has ever been released who has failed to appear. He stated if the judges are made aware of that at the bond hearing, then they usually hold them either for a cash or security bond; but making a person pay cash is not going to keep him from committing crimes; and that is the fallacy of the whole argument.

Chairperson Colon inquired out of 67 counties, how many use signature bonds; with Mr. Krasny responding he believes 26 of the 67 counties use signature bonds; and other judges may be requiring cash bonds and allowing them out on ROR. He stated he does not know whether statistics show that, but the primary thing is ROR, and after that the signature bond. Chairperson Colon inquired what authority does the Board have over signature bonds; with Mr. Krasny responding he is hesitant to tell a person sitting in authority that he or she does not have authority to do anything; he would never tell a judge he cannot do something because he usually finds out that they do it; but his thought is that it is not a problem for the Board of County Commissioners. He stated what might be for the Board is to figure out a system by which it can collect those fines; and at one time they said do not bother because it will cost more to try to collect those bonds than it would be to release persons on their own recognizance. He stated it is not a perfect to get people to show up in court; maybe half of them or two-thirds of them do; he does not know the statistics on that; but the signature bond is a rule of law by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida and the Supreme Court of the United States; and he does not think the County can overrule it.

Michael Alexander stated he has a few letters from past years that say, an unsecured signature bond equates to a form of promissory note that is guaranteed; judges of the 18th Judicial Circuit have previously expressed their authority and desire to use signature bonds; there is never any judgment entered in favor of the County, and the defendant is never held accountable for the original bond amount; and inquired why are they used with a face value. He stated if they are going to do it that way, they may as well use ROR then somebody would be accountable; and if a judge ROR’s a person and that person robs 12 more stores, it will come back upon that judge. He stated the counties that did signature bonds is inaccurate; Mary Ann Hinkle will discuss that because they made phone calls on it; and he does not think the right questions were asked because those 26 counties have three pre-trial release service and no signature bonds. He stated Brevard County is the only county that puts a face value on signature bonds; over the years it has been trying to collect that money; that is the big issue, the money; and the Board does not want to raise taxes or have people vote on taxes, but it has this money that is uncollectible. Mr. Alexander stated there is no definition of signature bond in the law books; it means a promise to pay; and inquired if those defendants are signing themselves out of jail on a promise to pay, why can the County not collect that money. He stated it is a big issue that millions of dollars are going out the window; and it cost his daughter more money to get her cat out of the pound than it does for someone to walk out of the County jail. He stated it is a political practice being abused; the Henderson case took five law enforcement agencies to get him; and inquired how much did that cost the taxpayers. Mr. Alexander stated there is no guarantee with a signature bond that the person is going to go to court. He stated the intent of the Legislature was the protection of the community from the risk of physical harm to persons; and unless such person is charged with a dangerous crime, he can get a signature bond; there are 15 on the list he saw; there is battery, domestic violence, etc.; and a letter from Judge Moxley dated November 19, 1998 has decided conditional signature bond will protect the community from harm to persons. He stated bond forfeitures from 1998 to now went from 606 to 383; it is taxpayer money to let them go; and for a signature bond with a face value on it, if they do not go to court, the County has to use taxpayer money again to find them. He stated the criminals on the street know that; that is why the docket is so big; they wait to see the judge and ask for a signature bond; it is a commodity in this town; and if they would get tougher on crime, the crime rate would go down. He stated he is not here to boost bail bonds; it is the money issue that he is concerned about; he was born and raised here; and adding up those dollars reveals a big chunk of change. He stated the taxpayers declined to vote on a new jail; if the people were accountable for that money, the County would have its new jail; and inquired how could it collect money from somebody it cannot find and will have to use more tax money to find them. He stated there is not a 100% guarantee; the big thing was, when he read the report, that the 26 counties that use signature bonds is incorrect.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Alexander is saying the number of counties that use signature bonds is incorrect; with Mr. Alexander responding yes. Chairperson Colon inquired how many, per Mr. Alexander’s research, use signature bonds; with Mr. Alexander responding this is the only county that uses signature bonds with a monetary value on them. Commissioner Higgs inquired how many use signature bonds without monetary values; with Mr. Alexander responding that is called ROR. Commissioner Higgs inquired how many counties use that; with Mr. Alexander responding every county. Chairperson Colon inquired if that is what Mr. Alexander wants and why they are before the Board; and inquired what can they do as Commissioners. Mr. Alexander stated the Board has control of their money. Chairperson Colon inquired whose money; with Mr. Alexander responding the judges’ money. Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Alexander is trying to get the Board to force the judges; with Mr. Alexander responding he is not trying to force anybody to do anything. Chairperson Colon stated she wants to stay focused and does not want to waste each other’s time; if this is under the jurisdiction of the Board, she would like to be able to try and get some feedback from Mr. Alexander exactly what it is that he would like the Board to do, not to just come here and complain; and inquired if he is a bail bondsman; with Mr. Alexander responding he is a bond agent. Chairperson Colon inquired how much has his business dropped because of signature bonds; with Mr. Alexander responding it affects his business, but he does not lose a lot of money and will survive; and he is here as a taxpayer and not as a bail-bonding agent. Chairperson Colon again requested what is the Board able to do within its jurisdiction that Mr. Alexander feels it can put, and did the Board put the signature bond program in place; with Mr. Alexander responding no, the Board did not put the program in place. Chairperson Colon inquired what would Mr. Alexander want the Board to accomplish; with Mr. Alexander responding the law does not state they must give signature bonds or that they have to use them. Chairperson Colon stated one more time she is going to ask Mr. Alexander what he would like the Board to accomplish; with Mr. Alexander responding he would sit down with the judges and express concern about the failure to appear rate and how much money the County is losing. Chairperson Colon inquired if that is all the Board has within its power to do; with Mr. Alexander responding he is not a lawyer and does not know what the power of the Board is. Chairperson Colon stated so all Mr. Alexander is doing is bringing it to the Board’s attention; and she wants the people at home to be clear what the Board’s jurisdiction is and does not want them to think the Board put the signature bond program in place because that is not the case. Mr. Alexander stated it is in the law and is there as a tool to relieve jail overcrowding. Chairperson Colon stated the Supreme Court made that rule. Chairperson Colon stated being married to someone in law enforcement makes her very sensitive to this issue; but as a County Commissioner she would like to be perfectly clear that the Board did not create this problem.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board represents the people and their money; and if there is a program in place that is not providing a good return on investment, and there is money going out to bring in repeat offenders, that serves no purpose other than to capture someone who most likely has committed a second crime, then the Board is not representing the public. He stated there is a program that apparently is not working, and he would like to see the program work; and that is why he brought it to the Board.

Chairperson Colon stated what has been said today is that the Board needs to sit down with the judges and that is the extent of it; and she wants to make it clear what the Board’s jurisdiction is.

Sgt. David Fitch with Brevard County Sheriff’s Department, stated he is in charge of the fugitive unit and hunt all the people the courts let loose; and it is not the Board’s responsibility, but it is its responsibility to go to the judges and the Legislature and ask the Legislature to change the law because they are wasting time and money. He stated he goes out and hunts them down; every time he arrests somebody, he has their history in front of him; and contained in those pages are multiple failures to appear in court; and inquired how can the courts let somebody go by signing his name. He stated the County cannot collect anything because those people do not have anything to collect; if they had something they would not be out committing crimes; and what he is asking as a citizen and law enforcement officer is that the Board go as a group to the Legislature and get them to change the law so there would be no signature bonds. He stated Seminole County is part of the 18th Judicial Circuit as well as Brevard County and it does not use signature bonds. Mr. Fitch stated they go out and chase them every day; they have about 25,000 active warrants in Brevard County; last year the Sheriff’s Office, with the assistance of the municipalities, served 16,000 warrants; and now they have the same 25,000, and a lot of them are repeat offenders that they continue to arrest and put in jail. He stated it is like a revolving door at the jail; the people are at risk; Mr. Henderson is a perfect example; and there are others that have been convicted and the judges let them out on what they call a quarterman’s bond with no money secured. He stated those people committed serious crimes and are just let out into the community; the Board and the citizens need to go to the legislature and the judges and beg them not to let those people out on the streets and continue to commit crimes and to do something that is secure for the people.

Chairperson Colon stated there is a big difference when she hears a citizen say they need the Board to speak to the judges and say they are not happy with how things are right now; her
husband is one of those who goes out to arrest people, so she is sensitive to this issue and can relate to the frustration because it is very frustrating as an elected official and taxpayer to see that. She stated she wants it perfectly clear to anyone who is coming to speak before the Board, to emphasize that the Board would have to go to the judges and the legislative delegation to lobby for this; it is not something it created in Brevard County; but it is something the Board can try to see if it can put a stop to it. Mr. Fitch stated that is what he is asking for.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Sheriff has taken it to the Florida Sheriffs Association and has it been part of their legislative agenda; with Mr. Fitch responding he cannot answer that and the Board would have to ask the Sheriff. Commissioner Higgs stated it seems like a real positive thing to do in that Association to get that kind of legislative effort; and inquired if it has ever been brought before the Brevard County Legislative Delegation by the Sheriff; with Mr. Fitch responding he cannot answer that. Commissioner Higgs stated that is an avenue she would encourage the Sheriff to take, both through the Legislative Delegation in Brevard County and the Florida Sheriffs Association; they are a very strong group and that could get a change Statewide.

Mary Ann Hinkle, Warrants Manager with Brevard County Sheriff’s Department, stated they keep about 25,000 warrants on file; they serve them and get them right back; but she was interested in the signature bonds from other counties. She stated she has a list that evidently was prepared by Tracy Oxley; she called the correction facilities and got information regarding usage of signature bonds; but the terminology was used wrong because to her a signature bond is a bond with a signature and a monetary amount placed on it. She stated she was told the counties said that they use signature bond releases in some form or fashion; she called seven counties who advised her that they do not use monetary signature bonds, they use PTR and ROR’s and cash and surety bonds; so she disagrees with the list. She stated there is a very high percentage rate of failures to appear; it stays within 40%; that is too high; and something needs to be done.

Commissioner Carlson stated she assumes PTR is pre-trial release; and inquired if Brevard County has that service; with Ms. Hinkle responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is anything in Ms. Hinkle’s opinion that makes Brevard County use the signature bond because it does not have other provisions to incorporate. She stated she knows it is an overcrowded scenario that probably puts Brevard County in that position. Ms. Hinkle stated it is, but the signature bond in reality is the same as an ROR or pre-trial release; basically more like the ROR because they agree on their own word and name to come back; and that is what they are doing with signature bonds also; and inquired why they cannot use the ROR’s instead. She stated to be honest, it will not help the problem at all.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised 99% of the inmates released under the pre-trial release program show up for their court appearance. He stated there is supervision under PTR so therefore there is a much higher return rate and they do not have the problems in PTR that they do with signature bonds. Public Safety Director Jack Parker advised the PTR deals with lesser offenders; and signature bonds generally deal with someone who is charged with a more serious offense.

Commissioner Carlson stated it seems like it would be the reverse; if they have a more significant charge, they should be followed throughout the process versus someone who has a misdemeanor charge; so it does not make a lot of sense.

Commissioner Scarborough stated ROR is substantially the same as a signature bond; all counties are using the ROR; but the relevant issue is the failure to appear, which becomes part of the problem. He stated the Board talks about to what extent it may be impacting the judicial system by its failure to have jail space because the jail is utilized for people before they go to trial; so the Board plays a role in releases in a different way. He stated he would like to see more data on the failures to appear and numbers on the ROR’s in other counties because there is some similarities.

Commander Bob Mutter with Titusville Police Department, advised he is in charge of criminal investigations; it is a State law that there be signature bonds; but Mr. Henderson had already pled guilty and was issued a signature bond to return to the community as a convicted felon. He stated that should not happen; that is not what signature bonds were meant to do; they are for first time offenders, lesser offenses, and not violent crimes; and it gets a lot harder to catch those people the third and fourth time that they are let out. He stated once they have been in the system and released three, four, or five times, it makes the job of policemen a lot harder.

Chairperson Colon stated some comments said ROR’s and signature bonds were the same; time and time again where it seems to have heartburn is the signature bond with monetary value; and requested staff give the Board clarification and explanation of ROR’s, PTR’s and signature bonds.

Public Safety Director Jack Parker advised the history of the signature bond in Brevard County is that it was more effective than an ROR because there was a possibility of a financial outcome if a person did not show up in court; in many cases, signature bonds require a secondary signature such as from a parent or family member that say they were going to make sure that person got to court; Mayor Bolin said at one time they were very effective; and he agrees with that. He stated at one time signature bonds were very effective and their failure to appear (FTA) rate was relatively low; over time, criminals in the system became aware that it was difficult to collect on signature bonds, and they became uncollectible. He stated as a result, the FTA rate climbed to where people who were aware of the system took advantage of that and tried to get signature bonds knowing there is not a lot of monetary punitive action for not showing up to court although they may be held in contempt once they get in front of a judge. Mr. Parker stated Ms. Hinkle said ROR may be less effective, and she is right; the ROR has no financial stipulation; there is no bluff and no misunderstanding by a defendant that there would be any money owed; so the chance of an ROR being more effective than a signature bond, in his opinion, is even less, but a lot of counties use ROR’s. He stated in his opinion, signature bonds are more effective than ROR’s because still today most defendants believe there is a financial responsibility, so they try, in many cases, to get back, although that is not always the case. He stated there is a tendency to lump all signature bonds as bad; there are excellent judges who use signature bonds in an excellent way; and they release people who are innocent until proven guilty, who have jobs, families, and do everything they are supposed to do, and they show up in court; so everything works just the way it is supposed to work under the criminal justice system. He stated other persons may abuse the signature bonds, such as the case listed by

Bobby Mutter; if someone is sentenced to prison for eight years, that is not an appropriate mechanism to release somebody into the community and tempt them not to show up in court; but it is a case-by-case decision by a particular judge. He noted those elected officers need to be held accountable for their individual actions; some do the job very well; and some are slightly careless in his opinion.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is not trying to eliminate the signature bond program, because as Mr. Parker said, there are times when it works properly; but he has a problem with the times where it does not work because it costs the taxpayers money. He stated sheriff deputies and municipal police are sent back onto the streets to arrest people who should not have been let out in the first place; and the taxpayers end up paying for it. He inquired if defendants pay a certain amount of money such as $40 to become part of the program and $10 a week to be monitored in pre-trial release; with Mr. Parker responding there is one program where that is the case, but most people are just assessed as far as risk and released without having to pay. Commissioner Pritchard stated signature bonds pay nothing; they have a monetary amount attached to them that is meaningless; there is no money that is involved; Brevard County has never collected a dime as far as he knows; and inquired what is the purpose of having signature bonds, is it to make judges appear to be doing something tangible and the word “bond” makes it sound like there is money that can be collected. He stated ROR may be a greater evil, but a signature bond is a total misnomer; it is a promise to pay; and who is being asked to pay is someone who cannot be trusted, so it does not make any sense. He stated maybe signature bonds can be eliminated for felons; if a person has a felony, that person would not get a signature bond; there are pads on the floor at the jail, and they can add a few more pads until the County gets around to building a bigger jail, which is something that has to be done. He stated the County has been in violation since 1988 when the jail was built; so maybe it is time it caught up with its responsibility. Commissioner Pritchard stated it was mentioned earlier about bringing this issue to the Board and it was not the right place; but it is the right place because the Board represents the people; judges do not convene to where people can go before them and have some sort of representation; and generally when people go before the judges, it is not because they have done well, but because they have made mistakes and got caught. He stated the issue is there is a program that is not working; and that is what he would like to correct, and why he mentioned in the interim eliminating signature bonds for felonies. He stated last year there were 726 signature bonds issued for felonies and 342 for misdemeanors; and suggested eliminating the felony portion until the problem is resolved so there would not be more criminals back on the streets performing more crimes because that is what their work ethics and career paths are. He stated the ones that become incarcerated, very few actually are rehabilitated; they just seem to learn more trades while they are in prison or jail; they become more adept and more illusive; and it becomes even harder to track them down. He stated it all dumps on the taxpayers who end up having to pay for all those things, while the criminals run free and the police officers spin their wheels going back out continuously picking up the same people. He stated the system is flawed and needs adjustments; and that is why he wanted it brought before the Board so the Board would take a position to help it fix the problem. Chairperson Colon stated it still goes back to the judges.

Commissioner Carlson stated the judges need a letter from the Chairperson to the Chief Judge talking about the issues the Board has discussed and requesting suggestions and anecdotes

they may be able to provide, and a letter to the Sheriff to have the Sheriff’s Association review the process of bringing it to the Legislature when that comes up. She stated that is the only means the Board has to really address the issue. She stated there is pre-trial release and pre-trial diversion programs all targeting first time offenders, yet it seems like what has gone through the cracks are the hardcore offenders; and inquired if there is anything the Board can do with the pre-trial programs that can take those folks into consideration. She stated one paragraph says, “if you eliminate or reduce the effectiveness of the pre-trial release program, it would most likely result in greatly increased jail population; and it would not surprise the staff of Criminal Justice Services if the jail population exceeded 1,800 inmates per day within a year of the change.” Commissioner Carlson stated that is if the pre-trial programs are affected, which the Board is not affecting at this point; and inquired if the programs can be enhanced and are they the types of programs staff would want to use for abusers of the system, the ones that are constantly coming back into the courtrooms and out on the streets.

Mr. Parker stated there are two very distinct issues; one is pre-trial release program and the other is signature bonds; judges use their discretion to issue signature bonds; and in some cases, a judge may attach certain conditions for signature bond release, which requires some supervision, etc. He stated staff does their best to make sure they comply with the orders, but because of the number of signature bonds, that would be something that they would have to work out with the judiciary and the Board because it would be relatively time intensive to supervise 800 people on release on a signature bond pending their return to trial or court. He stated that is one of the things staff does which makes them effective; that is also something that bondsmen do; a lot of people who do not return to court are not necessarily intentionally avoiding court, they simply are not being responsible and forget their court dates; and in some cases the court date has been moved. He stated the bonding agents are excellent as are the pre-trial release officers of reminding people when the court dates are and they find that it greatly assists in the FTA rate; so that is something that might be able to be incorporated on the signature bond side.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Parker is saying, since the Board originally authorized pre-trial release program it could not expand that to include those who are currently using the signature bond; with Mr. Parker responding they would have to work with the judges on that. Commissioner Carlson stated she knows they have to work with the judges and look at the current programs; and inquired how could they serve the people a little better than they are serving them now. Mr. Parker stated they really do the misdemeanor population and that is what they are responsible for; if the judges saw fit to have them help supervise people who are released, they would need additional assets to make that happen.

Chairperson Colon stated one part that was not discussed is the victims who are victimized by the system time and time again because offenders keep coming back; and there is definitely a concern for the safety of the citizens. She stated the Board also needs a letter from the Sheriff if he is opposed to signature bonds, and if the Board is going to the legislative delegation; she is frustrated, but all the Board can do is send letters to the chief judge and legislative delegation stating what a serious concern it is based on the safety factor. She stated if it is okay with the Board she would like to have the letter worded to include victims’ concerns.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has a memo in the package dated in December from Cliff Repperger, Assistant County Attorney; he suggested the County implement a system; and by the County that means the judges, whereby they might be able to collect in the future on signature bonds if the judges wanted to continue to use them; and he suggested that the signature bond paperwork would have to be amended and judges would have to be willing to enter an order in the County’s favor. She stated the signature bond would have to be amended to advise the defendant a failure to appear would result in a judgment being entered against him or her in favor of Brevard County; and a uniform order of judgment would have to be created for entry by judges when a defendant fails to appear. She stated once that judgment is issued, then a lien can be filed and they can go forward to a collection agency; so even if the system were to stay in place where there are signature bonds, based on the memorandum, the judges could do something on the front end that would have financial consequences. Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Repperger is here and might be able to explain it better than she did, but the letter that would be sent to the judges should include a recommendation to continue to use the bonds and consider there is an avenue where there are some financial consequences.

Assistant County Attorney Cliff Repperger advised one thing the Board would have to look at when considering collection on those things is that there may be substantial cost associated with the collection, including filing fees if the Board is going to file any action related to the judgments; so before it engages in a collection program, his recommendation would be to look at a cost benefit analysis to make sure that the County is not actually losing money trying to collect on those bonds. He stated a lot of the people who fail to appear cannot be found, so serving them and trying to collect on them may be very difficult; and a lot of them are indigent and do not have property. He stated whether it would be worthwhile going down that road and into collections is something that needs to be looked at.

Commissioner Higgs stated that would have to be looked at; there has been some resistance; and there has been discussions on signature bonds for years, but there has been resistance from the judges to stop using them. She stated perhaps an alternative that has some other avenue they could use would be something they would consider; and she would include that with whatever the Board is sending to the judges.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Commissioner Higgs wants some discussion in the letter that is sent out by the Board regarding collection; with Commissioner Higgs responding if they are going to continue to use signature bonds, they would do so in a process by which they enter an order in favor of Brevard County at the time that they issue the bond; and that the person involved would be advised that there could be a financial judgment against him or her; and if the person fails to appear, the judge would enter an order against the individual accused of the crime that would allow financial consequence. Chairperson Colon inquired who would do the collection; with Commissioner Higgs responding it would go through the process of collection, but the judge would issue the order against the person involved and it would allow there to be a consequence. Commissioner Higgs stated one of the things that has been talked about is that people assume there are no financial consequences if they do not appear through the signature bond process; and by this process, if the judge entered an order in favor of the County, there would at least be some possibility that the cost involved would be recovered.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised if the Board is serious about taking that approach, one thing it may need is legislative assistance because there are costs associated with some of that stuff, which the Board may want to get waived in those kinds of circumstances, but it can be done by legislation. Commissioner Higgs stated there are costs that need to be considered, but if the Board is going to send a letter, that is one option it could include for the judges’ consideration. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board cannot force the judges to do anything so in making suggestion, the Board could include a list of possibilities for improving what it thinks is a flawed system.

Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board is going to send a letter to the judges, she does not know what context it should be put in, but one of the available options ought to be one of the things that lays the ground work for any further change in whatever policy the judiciary is using. She stated that is to analyze incidences of failures to appear and subsequent law violations for signature bonds related to other types of pre-trial release conditions to determine whether signature bonds actually present an increased threat to public safety. She stated that is critical to determine that so that everybody is not just spinning their wheels; and that information should be in front of the judiciary so they can make a valid decision based on real facts. Chairperson Colon inquired if the County Manager is clear on the type of letter the Board wants put together; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes.

Commissioner Pritchard stated another element he would like to add to the letter is removing felonies from signature bond consideration; misdemeanor is one thing, felonies is another; but to take it one step further, the idea of collections sounds like creating another layer of bureaucracy; and he wonders if the Board would be better served to let the people in the business, the bonding agencies, secure some type of financial consideration from the persons. He stated he finds it hard to believe the criminals have nothing; they must have something even if it is $500; and $500 means a lot to them. He stated it costs a considerable amount of money; and inquired how would the judges feel if that money came out of their budget in order to pay for deputies to re-arrest felons that have been released on signature bonds.

Commissioner Carlson stated trying to do collections is a no-win solution, but if they can start with facts and put it in front of the judges and say this is what the Board is seeing in Brevard County, maybe it would provide a deterrent to using signature bonds and only using them for special cases. She stated an analysis is needed so they all know what they are talking about; the Board has heard a lot, but it does not know if it is hearsay or fact; it is not conclusive and the Board does not have a piece of paper where someone has actually done a study; and the Board really needs that so it can make it very clear what the problem is.

Chairperson Colon stated after the letter is sent, the item will be put on the agenda in July so the Board can discuss the issue one more time; it is extremely important; the Commissioners are not judges; and there are probably other things they have not looked at. She advised Mr. Jenkins to put it back on the agenda for the second meeting in July; and inquired if there is something Commissioner Pritchard would be in favor of doing to stay on top of this issue.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is in favor of doing this right so they do not continue with a program that is not working properly; and he would like to know more about the opportunities Brevard County has in terms of recovering revenue it has not been a party to. He stated the signature bond program has its place, but it is gone bad and needs to be adjusted; the County is losing out on a lot of opportunity and losing out by putting people back on the streets who should not be there; and he does not want to rush anything, other than to have the felony part of the signature bond stopped as soon as possible. He noted it needs to be brought back in July and done right. Chairperson Colon noted it is probably easier said than done; the Commissioners are not judges; and they do not have a clue of what they are going through and some of the things they are dealing with.

Commissioner Carlson suggested inviting the Chief Judge to the meeting prepared with information that he hopefully can collect or maybe staff can collect the details regarding at least felonies to start with and what the history has been on that.

Chairperson Colon stated the Chief Judge could also get feedback from the folks; but he is only one person, just like one Commissioner cannot speak for all five; and inquired if Commissioner Pritchard and Mr. Jenkins are clear on the direction.

The meeting recessed at 2:34 p.m., and reconvened at 2:43 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF ONE PERCENT
INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX, AND RESOLUTION CALLING FOR SPECIAL
ELECTION ON REFERENDUM LEVYING ADDITIONAL ONE PERCENT SALES
SURTAX

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance providing for the levy of a one percent infrastructure sales surtax; and advised the resolution calling for a special election on a referendum levying an additional one percent sales surtax will be discussed at the same time.

Harold Parten, outgoing First Vice President of the Brevard Federation of Teachers, advised he has been a resident and educator in Brevard County since 1964; he was one of the first on staff at Eau Gallie High School; his wife is the Principal at Gemini Elementary School; so the resolution the Board is considering is important to his family. He stated he reared two children educated in Brevard County schools; they are facing a crisis in education in Florida; and no less a crisis in Brevard County; he listened to the previous discussion with a great deal of interest because the problem perpetuated by signature bond releases is the fact that the County does not have enough jail space to house the people who commit the crimes. He stated there are infrastructure needs all around the County; and passage of the one cent sales tax will allow the cities, County, and School Board to address those needs in a real way. He stated he wears his tie on special occasions; it is a save the children tie; children of all nationalities, colors, and creeds are represented on it; and by educating children and providing adequate space for them to be educated in a proper environment, it will alleviate overcrowding in jails in a significant way. Mr. Parten stated when those needs are ignored, those populations grow, and the children and the community suffer. He stated he attended the Central Brevard Chamber of Commerce meetings when Mr. Pritchard was Chairman of the group on legislative affairs; one of the things

that came up constantly was the need of businesses to have well educated people served in a well educated community; and he understands that is a small part of this issue, but it is a significant part for the County to consider in passing the one cent sales tax. Mr. Parten stated Governor Bush has made it clear that if the County is going to get money from the State this year, it has to do something to address its own needs; and money can be freed up from his budget for operating needs by doing something about capital outlay needs in addressing classroom reduction. He thanked the Board for its courage in coming forward with the resolution; encouraged passage of it; and stated he will work as hard as he can on the issue because it is important for every child, parent, and citizen to have those needs met.

Rick Flowers of Malabar stated he has been a resident of Brevard County for most of the last 40 years; attended school here; taught school here; and spent the last several years working on behalf of teachers as an officer of the Brevard Federation of Teachers. He stated it seems that his whole life happened around school; and that is what brought him to the meeting today. He stated the Board is preparing to vote on whether to seek public approval of an added penny sales tax, the proceeds of which will be split among the County, cities, and School District; the goal of such tax, and hence the goal of a plan to market the tax to voters, must be to make Brevard County more habitable to its residents and more attractive to businesses; and no service can be more key than education to enhancing business, climate, property values, prosperity, and well-being. He stated although Brevard schools have a remarkable record of achievement since the outset of the space race, it has plenty of room for enhancement; the current labor contract granted teachers a 4% salary increase on paper; in reality teachers know they are realizing only 2%; and about a quarter of the teachers, after paying higher dependent insurance costs, will actually take home less pay than a year ago. Mr. Flowers stated the predictable result is teachers leaving the County, State, and profession, with no growing pool of qualified applicants to replace them. He inquired what will be the business climate of a few more such years, and how attractive can an area be to employers or families if it cannot hold on to its teachers. He stated Governor Bush has provided further incentives by announcing that only counties that pass added taxes like this one will receive full funding from the State for schools; full funding this year may be minimal, but nothing less can be satisfactory; and they are poor conditions in which to operate schools, but those are the conditions they have. He stated the greatest investment the School Board can make with its share of the tax, estimated at $6 million, is to free sufficient funds in its operating budget to pay teachers a substantial raise, and thereby settle a contract amicably; and the greatest investment the County and cities can make is to reinforce services to the students taught by those teachers. He stated the community that takes care of its children, that invest in their security, education, and future, takes care of itself; boosting economics lowers crime; and to be sure the public will not support a pipe dream, all three entities must compile specific and unassailable plans for expenditure. He stated they must be utterly forthright and focused; and his suggestion for focus is to make it count for kids. He requested the Board vote yes on the penny sales tax and make it count for kids.

William Ferrell of Indian Harbour Beach, stated he came to support the sales tax; it will be a good thing for Brevard County; there are many needs here; and it would address those needs. He stated some things have been neglected because there is no money for them; it is a tight budget year; they need to do what they can; and sometimes the community has to step up to the plate and do things they do not like to do. He stated he does not like taxes, but they need it for schools, transportation, and other things; the schools are suffering; some are overcrowded; and the problem is not going away. He stated they need to allocate money for schools, especially in the growing areas. Mr. Ferrell stated another important thing is transportation; that impacts the quality of life; a lot of people drive to work at Harris, Kennedy Space Center, and other places; and they need good transportation. He stated there are some roads that are almost dead ends; they need better circulation and better evacuation routes in case of hurricanes; and they need good connector roads. He stated they cannot depend on widening of U.S. 1 to six lanes and need to look at alternate routes to tie the transportation system together; they need some vision, but that takes money; and it takes money to improve the quality of life; therefore, they need this tax. He stated he has seen it work in other counties; it is working well in Indian River County, which is our sister county; and it is providing things there that Brevard County does not have. He stated he visited those counties and stopped and listened to what they are saying and doing; if it was not for the extra cent sales tax, they would have real problems because they could not provide the needed services for the future and what people want now such as transportation, schools, etc.; and it is critical for the citizens to think about that and what the sales tax could provide to improve the quality of life. He stated they need to think hard about the resolution and what it could do; how it could help the County to provide all the services and eliminate the shortfalls; and if they could improve things like the Palm Bay Parkway, Pineda Causeway Extension, the transportation network, and build schools, it will help. He stated the one cent sales tax would go a long way; it has to be one cent and not less to provide the revenue needed to meet the needs of the community now and in the future.

Chairperson Colon stated Jeff Shick, Chair of Brevard Senior Advocacy Coalition, had to leave but left a statement saying the Coalition supports the sales tax referendum and desires to provide input about projects funded with it.

Bob Bolin, Mayor of Satellite Beach, advised the world is constantly changing geographically, socially, intellectually, economically, and personally; and advised of his wedding picture taken 21 years ago and his conversation with his wife Mary about the changes. He stated what the world has evolved into is a now society; television and the media have made people want everything now, even though they cannot pay for it; and that is unfortunate. He stated when he was growing up, his parents taught him if he could not pay for it he did not get it; but times have changed, and everybody wants everything now, but they do not want to pay for it. He stated the Board heard about schools and good changes for the cities; they want their living to be better than it was before, but they do not want to pay for it; and he cannot blame them because neither does he; however, a solution is the sales tax that the Board has brought up; and the people should pass it. Mayor Bolin stated he has not received one negative comment about the sales tax; everything he has gotten so far has been positive; and encouraged the Board to make sure it will be a referendum for November. He stated he is sure the public will overwhelmingly approve it; they will have a job to do to sell it; but he does not think they will find too many people opposed to it. He requested the Board let them go forward with the tax, as it is needed for the schools, the County, and the municipalities. He stated God bless Brevard County and the United States of America.

Carl Scheuplein of Cocoa Beach stated he heard a lot of motherhood things today; and although the Chairperson did not want any complaints, they have a right to complain if they want to, and the right to make suggestions. He stated the way the Board has approached this tax, in spite of what everybody has said up to now, he considers to be ill-conceived, because he was at the Cocoa Beach City Commission meeting when the Commission discussed a letter from the County Commission, which said it would get a third of the tax and wanted a list from the City of the things it wants to spend the money on. He stated he thought that was strange to tell the City the County will give it a third of the money, and ask what would it spend it on and it has to be infrastructure; and that makes him feel real good about the tax that they have to come up with a list to come to the Board to say what it is going to spend the money on. He stated he does not understand that approach; the Board should be looking at critical things; and the Board has not done its job through the years on having impact fees on developers. Mr. Scheuplein stated he has been to the School Board; they said impact fees is up to the Board of County Commissioners; so to correct it the Board is now putting it on all the taxpayers to come up and do the things that the Board should have done a long time ago. He stated other counties have come with a major increase on impact fees; the Board probably does not want to hear it, but that is the situation; what it can do about it now, he does not know; but he does not understand the approach on this tax to go out and ask the cities what they would spend the money on. He stated if they have a real critical issue in that city, they should have been working on it separately; there are other issues such as the jail, schools, etc.; and he does not think the Board has helped the schools the way it should have in the past. He stated they came out with a $500 million bond issue for the school system and it did not pass because a lot of people did not like it; they did not have accountability they should have had out of the school system; and things have improved, but people remember those things. He stated there are critical areas, and he believes that to be true, but the approach really hit him the wrong way; he believes the Board did that to sell the program; it goes out there and say come with us and you will get the money and what do you want to spend it on; and that is not the approach for a tax increase. He stated every place they are looking at tax cuts and the Board comes in with a tax increase; they hear this pleading from people; some places it is new to them and they need it; but he did not care for the approach and think it was wrong and the Board should not have done it that way.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Scheuplein is for or against the tax; with Mr. Scheuplein responding the way it is right now, he will vote against it. Chairperson Colon stated she just wanted to make sure the Board has it and understands. She stated regarding signature bonds, there was word out in the community that the Board was the one that instated signature bonds, which is incorrect; and that is why she made it perfectly clear that they needed to state clearly where that was coming from. She stated there were folks in the community saying the Board initiated it and was responsible for signature bonds when it is not and it is the Florida Supreme Court; and having said that, it is where her aggravation came in regarding the complaints. She stated she has town meetings quarterly where folks can come and vent because that is what it is about; and she appreciates it. She requested Mr. Jenkins clarify how the one-third works and why the cities have to have their own lists.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Florida Statute is written in such a way that the Board of County Commissioners must share the money 60/40 with the cities unless an agreement is negotiated; in this proposal, the concept is the cities would take one third instead of 40%; the County would take one third; and the School Board would get one third, but the cities are entitled to their proportionate share of the revenue. He stated it is important to point out that the Board of County Commissioners is not levying a tax; and it is considering whether or not to have a referendum to allow the people to vote on whether they choose to tax themselves or not.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Board did direct a school impact fee study; it should see that in the early part of the summer; she understands what Lake County did in regards to the $4,000 impact fee; and the Board has an impact fee study underway for the schools.

Lisa Scheuplein stated they have been homeowners in Cocoa Beach since 1960 and watched all kinds of problems with growth in the County; it has gotten out of hand; impact fees is the only way to find out where they stand; but everybody is afraid because of the poor little builder. She stated that is part of the game; and if they want to play, they play it that way and not depend on the taxpayers to bail them out by having to build schools and everything else. She stated she is not against schools; her children went through school in Brevard County except for one year when they moved to California; they graduated from Cocoa Beach High School; and she would like to see the Board reconsider the impact fee because everybody has to live within their means. She stated they are retired and on Social Security; when they bought their house, the payment with insurance and taxes was $132; right now the insurance is over $900 and went up $200 since last year; and every where they turn they are being hit for bucks. She stated there are a lot of senior citizens in Brevard County; she would like to see the Board hit the builders not to make them feel bad, but they are causing the infrastructure to outgrow the community; the senior citizens cannot afford it; so the builders should pay the price by impact fees.

Chris Christensen of Cocoa Beach, stated he would like the Board to oppose the sales tax increase; funds should first come from impact fees on new construction for schools, roads, and other needs due to high growth; Lake County just passed an increase in the school impact fees to $4,142, which would bring in $15 million annually; and since Brevard County is two and a half times larger than Lake County, it may bring in $37 million a year. He stated most of the growth counties have impact fees; Brevard County should also, particularly for schools; Lake County’s impact fee for roads is $2,189, which brings in $11 million; and their road tax is almost double that of Brevard County. He stated the Board is actually going for a sales tax increase; next year it will be back for another increase because there will not be enough money ever; maybe impact fees would slow growth so that Brevard County does not become Miami-Dade County; he was born and raised in Miami, and he can tell the Board that is not what the people of Brevard County want. He stated impact fees probably is the only tax that would improve the quality of life because it will help pay for schools, roads, jails, hurricane evacuation routes, and extend water supplies. He stated a fallacy is to expand the tax base to save money; it works the other way; the more the Board expands the tax base, the more short of money it will be; growth does not pay for itself, even with impact fees; and there will never be enough money until growth is slowed down.

Ann Coburn of Canaveral Groves advised taxes are not all bad; she appreciates the police and fire protection, paramedics, schools, and beaches; but they could not have them at a reasonable cost without taxes. She stated she appreciates the roads and bridges, but they all need maintaining; the Sheriff and Fire Departments continually need upgrading with new equipment, training, and more staff; and the infrastructure is in bad shape, but the County does not have the money to fix it as it should. She stated the County has not made the most efficient use of its revenues; Commissioners need to treat the County budget as their own; and they need to be frugal and cut out the luxuries, like entertainment, sports fields, swimming pools, and some of the arts. She stated she watched the last workshop on television and shook her head at some of the requests; everyone wants a piece of the pie; and inquired when did government get into the business of entertaining citizens, which should be the role of private enterprise, and is not an essential issue of quality of life. She stated quality of life may mean going to a theater or art show, but for thousands of citizens, quality of life means being able to get a job, transportation to it, a home, nice clothes, and enough food to eat; and the Board should not take the attitude that if it cannot afford it, it will borrow the money. Ms. Coburn stated the County needs things like the jail improvements, and facilities and programs for the mentally-handicapped and people in need, such as homeless shelters and programs for children in need; and requested funding for the model dependency court which was cut by the State. She stated she is a guardian ad litem and see the good that it does; and she hopes the County can get some money for that. She stated people in the lowest income groups would pay a disproportionate share of the sales tax, yet many of them cannot go to a museum or to the King Center; they may not be able to afford transportation to a swimming pool or ball field; and most of them are blessed in that they have no conception what real poverty is. She stated she has known some people who cannot afford to buy an old car or bicycle for themselves or for their child; so SCAT improvements could be added to the list. She stated she would vote for the sales tax increase and work to promote it only under the following conditions: revenue derived are earmarked for basic needs only; they all know how the County population is constantly increasing and the rate of inflation; they need all the anticipated revenue to build more jails, courthouses, and facilities for the less fortunate; and the Board should pledge to pass a frugal budget every year. She stated if some money shows up as it occasionally does, it should be used for necessities like road improvements and the jail, not luxuries like swimming pools or sports parks. She stated if companies want tax abatement, they should be given after each year they meet the qualifications for tax abatement and not before because the County loses too much money that way.

Michael DeVillo, Public Works Director for the City of Cocoa, advised the Office of the City Manager of the City of Cocoa supports today’s resolution and infrastructure surtax; and the City Manager is to present a project list and interlocal agreement to the City Council at its first meeting in June, and will deliver that at that time.

Jim McKnight, City Manager of the City of Rockledge, advised the City Council has passed the interlocal agreement unanimously; the projects derived from this are not pulled from the air; they have a capital improvements plan element that are consistently updated; and theirs has certainly not been met on the time lines they had anticipated when they went into the capital improvement settlement under the Growth Management Act in 1988. He stated they are where they are right now; they have a very critical project in the City; it involves a County road called Barnes Boulevard; it is not being funded because there is no money to make that happen; and that is one of the projects that is critical and grossly needed for quality of life in their community. He stated there are a lot of different things that may need to be done and there are a lot of critical needs in the County; he grew up in this County and is one of the fortunate few who got to come back home; he was a product of the schools here; and they have critical needs and things not being met, which affect the quality of life. Mr. McKnight stated maybe impact fees need to be addressed, but impact fees will not solve the problems; he has seen the cost analysis on that and that can become a regressive revenue over time; and the County will not be able to meet its needs over time with impact fees. He stated it is important to be specific on what the projects are for the sales tax revenue, and to inform the voters what those projects are going to be so they can see when the time comes to go to the ballot what will be done with the revenues derived from the one cent sales tax. He stated one good thing about the sales tax is that Brevard County is a tourist destination; the tourists will help pay the sales tax; that is to the County’s benefit; and he does not know if it is going to solve all the problems, but it is a step in the right direction to at least let the voters make that decision. He stated it is something that is needed and will meet great needs within the community; but it needs to be specific to show what things are going to be done. Mr. McKnight advised the City Council has signed off on the interlocal agreement and they are working on their projects list right now in direct relation to their capital improvements program element of their Comprehensive Plan; and hopefully will workshop that next month and will finalize the list, depending on what the Board does as far as moving forward with the ballot. He stated it is the wise thing to do to give it to the voters and let them make that decision; this is a great County; he wants his daughters to come back to it if they choose; and he wants it to be the quality of life he has enjoyed. He stated Henry Minneboo sent him a picture of the City of Rockledge taken 43 years ago; it was the year he moved here in 1959; and things have changed, which is one thing everyone can be certain of. He stated it is a matter of whether they can manage the change or will it manage them; so he hopes the Board will move forward with this referendum and give the voters the opportunity to say whether it is something they need or not need. Mr. McKnight advised the Council wants clarification on the oversight committee; he understands it will be done by interlocal agreement among the County, School Board, and cities; and it is a good thing to monitor and report on how projects are progressing under the sales tax.

Sandy Pfrimmer, representing Melbourne-Palm Bay Area Chamber of Commerce, advised they want to go on record and let the Board know their Council of Chambers, which is the board of all the Chambers, met yesterday and is in support of the tax; and it wants to go forward and do what they can to promote it. She stated they would like to have the list of projects to educate the public on where the money is going to be spent; they feel it is a fair tax that goes over all lines of population including tourists; and about 25% of the sales tax is collected from nonresidents. She stated they are getting the cities projects and look forward to getting the County’s projects; and they support this issue through all the Chambers working together.

Dr. Jack Schluckebier, City Manager of Melbourne, advised he does not know if he can improve on their Mayor’s words when he visited the Board in April, which is if the County and voters here do not do this, who will. He stated the federal government probably is not likely to send millions of dollars to meet the infrastructure needs; although the City appreciates the work that is occurring on U.S. 1, there are hundreds of millions of dollars of unmet needs in the County; and the federal government is not coming to the tea party, nor is the State government, so that leaves the County and the Cities. He stated the best response to that is to fashion the need as best they can, identify them, enlighten the voters, and give them a good old college try. He stated to get to that point, they urge the Board to give the voters a chance to see the projects, the needs, and how they wish to address them; it is the most forthright proposal they can make to meet the needs in their minds; the City Council has twice voted on this; and they are waiting for the latest iteration of the interlocal agreement to be presented to them. Dr. Schluckebier stated he met with nearly every Commissioner except Commissioner Carlson; they have stated a set need; they appreciate the County’s assistance; and they encourage the Board in the strongest terms, to move forward with the tax as it has been presented. He stated if the Board leaves it until July or August, that does not allow governments to actually do any appropriate education with the voters; and they need the entire time between now and then to accomplish what needs to occur.

Lee Feldman, City Manager of the City of Palm Bay, advised he has been with the City six months and is proud of what they have done in Palm Bay; they have recently been named an All America City finalist for the year 2003; they were named a finalist because they take pride in partnerships; and today they have an opportunity to be a partner with the County and School Board and with the other cities on improving infrastructure throughout the County. He stated it is not an issue of Palm Bay, Melbourne, or Satellite Beach, or any individual city or County or School Board, it is an issue about all of them working together to make sure they have the infrastructure in place now to deal with tomorrow’s needs; and the sales tax will accomplish that and allow the three groups of entities the funding necessary to put in place the technological systems, roads, parks, schools, and infrastructure that are essential to have a vital and strong backbone for the community. He urged the Board to move forward; stated the City is moving forward; it is going to adopt its projects list in June; and the City thinks it is essential to adopt a projects list, not because it is required because it is not required under the Florida Statutes or interlocal agreement, but it is essential to have the confidence of the voters that they know what they are voting on. He stated it is not an abstract penny sales tax, it is a tangible tax that everyone can feel and touch and know what it is going to meet; and urged the Board to move forward today and put it on the ballot to let the voters decide their future. He stated the City of Palm Bay will be considering its projects in June and the interlocal agreement in July; and they are excited and happy the project can be moved forward.

Jackie Burns, City Manager of the City of Indian Harbour Beach, advised she has been in municipal government for 26 years and a city manager only eight years; she is pleased the Board has moved forward on this surtax; and urged the Board to move quickly and meet with citizen groups within the city and of all ages so everyone has a chance to speak out on it. She stated they are not putting the projects together just to have something to ask for; it is to be

accountable to their citizens on what they will be spending the tax dollars on; and the City’s motto is “where quality of life is paramount”. She stated they support the surtax; the Council voted unanimously for it; and thanked the Board for moving forward with it rapidly.

Leonard Beckett of Cocoa stated he is strongly opposed to the concept; the language in the proposed ordinance is somewhat disturbing to him; it says, “shall not be utilized to supplant or replace County General Fund, user fees, etc.”; and the language going on the ballot does not say not supplanting those funds. He stated no where does it say they cannot substitute general funds; no where are the protections on what the voters are going to vote on mentioned in the proposed language; and they have no protection of what is going to happen with the money. He stated the language as proposed for the ballot will allow the money to be squandered away just like every other dime the taxpayers have given to local governments; it is not a county or city issue, it is a total County issue; it is very apparent to the voters of Brevard County that their local governments and School Board have not been fiscally responsible to the voters; and he would not give a 17-year old who is irresponsible with money a $100 and say hold on to it, which is what they are being asked to do with the surtax. He stated they did the same thing with the Florida lottery; taxpayers are tired of that kind of spending; and on the Agenda there are items that cause questions of responsible spending, for example, why is the County replacing cooling towers for a building that is not five years old. He stated there is a problem with that; it is misspent money; and there is a lot of room in the present budget to cut the waste and be more responsible. He stated before tacking on taxes in an already critical stage of the economy, not only in Brevard County but the entire nation, they need to look at cutting nonessential services and cutting out waste; he does not begrudge getting money to provide for needs; there are some serious issues; but his point is the money has been misspent over and over again and there still is, in the language of the ordinance, no protection whatsoever against misspending on the part of each entity that is going to get the money. Mr. Beckett stated the School Board put a new roof on a building in Rockledge a couple of years ago; six months later they took the new roof off and put another one on that was a different color; that is not responsible spending; and that is what he is asking the Board to consider and what the taxpayers are going to have to look at. He stated they will not forget their money has been ill-spent; and of all people, this Board should know about the financial debacles especially in the last year or so.

Frank Montelione of Satellite Beach advised he heard the pros and cons of the surtax; he is transplanted from another area where they had a high standard of living; and they paid highly for it. He stated standard of living means different things to different people, so the idea of discussing a standard of living makes no sense because where his standard of living is, is not the same as anyone else’s standard; and they are all different. He stated Mayor Bolin said he thinks the proposal will pass overwhelmingly; he is not sure where he stands on the tax because to him the most important thing is accountability; and inquired who is going to be accountable for what is spent. He stated the cities are doing a wonderful job from what he heard; they are putting together their lists; other people thought it was not right they should not be putting together a list of what is expected of them to do with the money; but on the other hand, if he gave them $100, he would want to know why and what they are going to do with it; and even after they tell him, he wants to know where they are going with the money, are they spending it in the right place, and are they getting the best penny for the dollar. Mr. Montelione stated the sales tax is the fairest way to do it even if they are in the low income or fixed income brackets; he is on a fixed income as a retired police officer from New York; and he knows how much he has to spend and what he has to spend it on, so if the sales tax is more, they would not go out to dinner two nights a week, but maybe one night a week. He stated it is a fair tax as far as he is concerned because everybody can spend that penny any way they want to spend it; but contrary to Mayor Bolin, unless the taxpayers and voters are assured of the accountability of what the money is going to be spent for, it will fail. He stated if they are assured of the accountability, the Board may be able to get it through.

Thelma Roper of Titusville stated infrastructure is important enough to her that she would be willing to pay the tax; and there are certain needs. She stated one thing that disturbed her and she missed on the Agenda is one of the low-income housing units for Titusville area was sold; she does not know the particulars, but what she saw on the Agenda disturbed her; and when the Board distributes the money, it should give consideration to everything and not just stuff that is going to benefit a few. She stated the bulk should be given to benefit those who cannot afford better things but are trying; and requested the money be spent responsibly with accountability. She stated whoever spends the money should be accountable.

Kay Burk, President and CEO of Brevard Cultural Alliance (BCA), stated they support the infrastructure surtax due to its potential positive impact on the education system, municipalities, and the County to improve the quality of life for all of them and give the young people an opportunity for complete education in the community. She stated her organization has worked in partnership with Brevard County Libraries, Parks and Recreation, and Transportation Planning Office to provide a priorities list of facilities that have needs that can be addressed through the tax; they are also supportive of arts heritage and historic preservation and cultural facilities; and Brevard County has always approached funding for such facilities with a great deal of emphasis on accountability. She urged the Board to do a thorough review of such presentations and carefully prioritize all lists and publish those in material going out on the vote and referendum. She stated the public needs to be educated of what the sales tax includes and the BCA is committed to working to help improve the quality of life in the County by helping educate the public on the surtax referendum and wants to express its support again.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised there was a question raised on accountability and project lists; the reason the Board, through his office, asked everyone to provide project lists is so they can be specific to the public as to where the money is proposed to be spent; and in addition, a citizens oversight committee has been proposed in the ordinance, which calls for a panel of citizens to monitor the expenditures to insure they are being spent in the way the Board, cities, and School Board indicated prior to the referendum how they actually would spend those monies. He stated there is considerable emphasis being placed on accountability and being specific as to where the money will be spent.

Chairperson Colon advised the Board is considering the ordinance providing for the levy of a one percent surtax.

Commissioner Higgs stated she wants to talk about the time for the referendum and the method of going about the full cent for 20 years; when the Board first talked about this some time ago, the economy was in a stronger position than it is today; so before the Board makes a final decision to proceed, it needs to think carefully where it is with the economy. She stated that is an important facet in terms of the citizens supporting the referendum; she is not particularly optimistic right now about where the Board is on this issue; she appreciates that it has large infrastructure needs and what people said regarding impact fees; she has long been a supporter of impact fees and will continue to support those; but her concern is moving forward to November with the economy not rebounding and the method of which the Board thought it would at this time. She stated she would hate to see the Board present a referendum that is a good referendum with solid projects, is a good funding mechanism because of the state of the economy, if the Board does not find the citizens supportive of it; so she wants the Board to think about that before it makes the final decision to move forward. Commissioner Higgs stated she also wants the Board to think in terms of the size of the referendum; she is concerned about the road deficits, the jail, and projects the School Board needs to have; but the Board ought to consider a ten-year half-cent tax as opposed to a 20-year full cent to prove to the public it can handle it properly and it can ask again when it proves it can do it. She stated she does not minimize that they need to move forward for additional revenue for County infrastructure, but it would be wrong to talk about the final vote until it has some consideration of other aspects of it. She noted she threw that out for the Board to see where it might think those ideas should go.

Commissioner Carlson stated she did not have a comment on Commissioner Higgs’ proposal although she has a more optimistic perspective of the community that Commissioner Higgs might have; she was going to suggest language change to the ballot to tighten it up a little; but she can do that after the Board has its discussion of Commissioner Higgs’ perspective.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Commissioner Higgs is coming from a good direction; the concern he has was the scope of the projects that were coming in and it was becoming more a want than a need; and there are certain needs that are needed and wants that are wanted, but the question becomes what should the Board pay for and push forward. He stated he is not ready to pass the vote on the referendum today; he wants to see more of a defined list before going ahead on a vote; he voted to put the issue on the agenda for today, which he thought was appropriate; and it gives people time to come into the fold and see where they would like to spend their money because it is their money. He stated he does not want this to become a wish list and have it railroaded through; it sort of entices people without them realizing what the full cost of something is; it is one thing to build a building, and another thing to pay for that building for the next 20 years in terms of whatever the annual loan is; so the idea of limiting the scope of the projects to actual needs and not wants is a critical component. He stated he would consider postponing the vote on scheduling the referendum until July when the Board will have more opportunity for the voters to come forward with a list of specific projects and needs, not wants.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he likes the idea of understanding the projects; when he goes to the grocery store, he does not pay first, he gets the groceries then pays; and if he gets to the checkout and cannot pay, he has to put stuff back on the shelf. He inquired if the Board does ten years at half a cent and it does not pay for the projects, does the Board want to put stuff back on the shelf. He stated everyone who has come here has done the Board a lot of service, whether for or against the tax because they are telling the Board they want to know what projects and want assurances if they put the projects on, they will get paid for. He stated each Commissioner will have their own agenda; the truth is different areas have different thoughts and different age groups; the Board has a tremendous responsibility before it; and the more definitive it is, the more methodical it will be; and defining the list, the better it is going to be received by the community. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not agree with the half cent for ten years because there are projects that will be challenged even with the one cent for 20 years; he has not looked at all the projects; and the Board needs to spend a lot of time discussing them and have people feel comfortable about them. He stated sales taxes have been passed after September 11 by adjoining counties, some by 70%; it is not the Board’s tax, it is the people’s tax; the Board has to open up the forum to discussions; it is extremely difficult to fine tune; and he would like to do it right.

Mr. Jenkins advised the School Board has the ability to do a half-cent referendum on its own; the Board has proceeded to this point in a partnership mode where the cities and County negotiated a reduced amount to include the School Board at one-third in order to do a joint venture partnership; the School Board had agreed to go from half a cent to a third of a cent; and if the Board is interested in a half cent, it needs to notify the School Board so it can consider its own referendum, which is what the School Board would probably do. He stated the reality of that is the School Board will be asking for half a cent and the County with the cities will be asking for half a cent; so if that is where the Board is going, it needs to tell the School Board.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not think that is where the Board is going; when he commented on Commissioner Higgs’ approach, it was that the Board was looking more at the overall scope of the entire referendum; and she mentioned half a cent, but in looking at the scope, that was not the indication he had. He stated the School Board did come in as a partner from one half to one third of the proceeds; what is going to drive the entire project is what they have on the list; and that is going to determine whether or not the County is going to be part of it. He stated the School Board could win on its own, but that would leave the cities out; and it all depends on what is going to be on the list and whether the projects are considered viable and representative. He stated he does not want the School Board to make a decision based on today’s discussions; they like the Board can also wait until the first meeting in July, which gives the entire month of June to come up with a list; he would like to know what the School Board wants to spend its money on also, since he pays taxes; and if they are interested in building new buildings and additional classrooms, he wants to know what the accommodations are going to be and if there are ways to do it smartly.

Commissioner Carlson stated she thinks they all agree they need to move the issue forward in terms of processing it from all their perspectives, but she is concerned about the process in qualifying projects to create the list that all of them are talking about and making sure their priorities are specifically laid out in terms of, as she brought up in the workshop, strategically the projects that have been on the capital improvements program, i.e. road projects, the jail, etc. She stated if the Board defines a list, she does not have a problem waiting until July, but the month of June can be used to get everything on the list, whether it is municipalities, School Board, County, and what partnerships are going to work with agreements with the cities and School Board to leverage additional dollars that might be able to get them to a half cent if that is where the Board wants to be, or ten years if that is where the Board wants to be. She stated it is more critical to have that process in place that qualifies the projects to get on the list in the first place. She stated with that, she is open to what the Board wants to do at this point; and if it wants to wait until July and have a complete list, she wants to know if that is doable. Mr. Jenkins stated it is not doable because the School Board is not going to have its list until August and most of the cities will have their lists in July.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when he left the last meeting, it was his understanding, since the Board will be off in June, it would allow staff and Mr. Jenkins to go through the lists; they will be in their offices in June even though they will be on vacation a week or two; then each Commissioner could walk into a meeting in July with some format of a list. He stated Commissioner Higgs talked about percentages between different categories that they could walk into; the community has asked the Board for the highest degree of accountability possible; and the Parks and Recreation Referendum would not have passed but for the fact the people knew precisely what parks were going to proceed in which manner. He stated people like to know what they are buying and that applies to government or a can of peas; so the Board needs to give them a good can of peas.

Chairperson Colon stated she has not done a lot of talking about this issue because she does not support the surtax, but the majority of the Board does; and she needs to be fair. She stated it seemed like everybody pretty much knew what they wanted to do on Thursday; she does not know what has changed in the last few days; the economy is still the same; the Board has given citizens, municipalities, and organization a certain expectation; and she wants the Board to be clear about its direction. She stated the Board needs to be fair to the citizens and organizations who came before it; today they talked about whether it is a half cent or one cent and how many years; the Board needs to be fair to the citizens on where it stands and whether it is one cent or half cent so that municipalities and citizens know whether they have $100 or $50 to work with; and that is why she is trying to get that kind of direction. She stated it is awkward for someone who does not support the surtax; and she is not trying to sabotage the project, but that kind of direction needs to be steady so people can see the situation better. She stated she has not changed her vote, but it is awkward to be fair to the four Commissioners who have been straightforward about what they want; she heard July from Mr. Jenkins; and he needs to let the Board know when in July it will consider the projects. She stated today the Board needs to decide whether it wants to go with one cent or half a cent.

Mr. Jenkins advised staff has to concurrently do the budget in the month of June, which does present some challenges, so he will be cautious and say the second meeting in July, but if they can do it sooner, they would. He stated staff needs to know whether it is going to be half or one cent because the School Board may choose to do something different; it is not compelled to be a partner in this process; its participation is purely optional at this point; so he would feel more comfortable if staff could have some indication on a penny or half a cent.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the things the Board needs to realize is it is not driven by November 4, 2003; it can have the referendum election at any time; it does not have to be something rushed into; and the reason November 4th came up is because there is already an election at that time and it would be less money to have the referendum when there is already an election. He stated the support he has for this is to simply give the citizens an opportunity to participate and vote; when it was first brought up, he said he did not support it because it is a regressive tax; that is the position he has always been in; but he does support the ability of the citizens to make up their minds and vote if that is what they want to do. He stated the only way this will achieve any momentum is if they have specific projects identified as the bond referendum was; if the Board feels strongly about having a larger jail to hold more criminals, then this may be the only way it is going to happen; and if it feels strongly about the botanical garden, this may be the only way that will happen. He stated there are projects that may never happen unless citizens decided they are going to tax themselves to pay for it. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board is entering the budget process; he intends to go through the budget with as fine a tooth comb as he can come up with; he had three years experience on the Citizens Budget Review Committee, so he has a good idea how it is put together; and from previous experiences he has a good idea of how to take things apart, but that is all to be seen the same as this issue is all to be seen. He stated the whole point at this point is not to stop the process but to keep it ongoing, and not create expectations that may not come to fruition, but let people know that the Board has an interest in having the community participate in this process; and that is where he is coming from.

Commissioner Higgs stated she found it useful to listen to people who have different points of view than she has, and to learn from that, refine her ideas, and think about what the Board ought to be doing, so she has no problem with the Chairperson expressing her views. She stated she is interested in the opposition Chairperson Colon has to it that may better help her shape her views; this is the first time the Board talked about the terms of the referendum; it talked about it the other day, but not in length; and if the Board is going to referendum, she thinks that letting the people vote on it is a good thing to do, but wants a good package that not only includes projects but the terms of the projects and how much they cost. She stated she wants the Board to have a third discussion on what the alternatives are in terms of projects and terms and lengths and amounts; that is the only way to go about this so it has its best foot forward for the voters to look at; and that is why she raised the issue today. She stated the Board has not talked in terms of ten or twenty years other than briefly; it has not discussed one penny or half a penny; and that is why she raised those issues so they can be on the table.

Chairperson Colon stated Commissioner Higgs said the Board has not talked about whether it was a penny or ten years; she was under the impression that was taken care of at the first meeting that it was one cent for 20 years; that is the motion and that is on everything that was sent out to the community; so the Board was clear about that. She stated that is what she is saying in regards to staying focused; and if that is not the wish of the Board, then it needs to make sure that today it shapes it so the community knows what they will have.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he hopes he has not sent mixed signals; one of the things he has a great deal of problem with is seeing a reduction; it appears the Board will have under-funded projects; he does not know how it is going unless it wants to talk about eliminating a lot, and the impact on the cities and School Board if it goes to one half cent; and the Board would have to unwind the whole thing, which would cause a delay. He stated the Board met twice on the issue; the first meeting it had a lot of people talking and had a motion to move forward; then it had a meeting the other day. He stated when the Parks referendum was heard in North Brevard, they had the North Brevard Parks and Recreation Board meeting probably every week for several months; there were at least a dozen meetings to discuss the merits; it is extremely important that the Board spends time on this, regardless of the budget and meetings because it is a major event in the County and it would be foolish to put a list together and say here is the list, because folks are going to say why is this here, why not that, etc.; and it would be a disservice. He stated the Board needs to take its time and do it right; there is no problem with November, but if there is, Commissioner Pritchard is right on that; if the Board needs to continue to work the projects, it can move it to the Spring; but he wants to do it right, which means community involvement, community discussion, and listening to people who have taken the time to come and talk to the Board.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is probably important to restate the Board’s support for the one cent or half cent; it was clear from the get-go that the Board was talking about one cent; and she does not mind discussing it, but it should have happened before getting to this point, so she will make a motion that the Board discuss one cent. She stated that way the School Board knows where it is coming from and does not spin its wheels on a lot of projects that will never come to fruition; it could be talking about half a cent and less money; so the Board ought to at least establish that it is talking about one cent and the time frame. She stated she has a concern with the shorter time frame and bonding capability, and having ten years worth of sales tax revenue and trying to do a 20-year bonding scenario on something like the jail; that just is not going to work; so the Board needs to leave it. She stated it does not mean it is going to bond everything for 20 years; it means there are some projects that are larger and need that capability to bond out that far; the bond rates are good right now; so now is the time to do that. She stated the Board needs to put on the table and clarify for everybody that it is dealing with the one cent and not anything other than that.

Commissioner Higgs stated her understanding was the Board was moving forward talking about the one cent sales tax and different formulas for it; and her assumption was they would make a final decision; but if other Commissioners had one cent for 20 years, that is what it should go with, but it was not her understanding.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Commissioner Carlson made a motion for the one cent.

Commissioner Carlson stated the motion she would make is the clarification that what the Board is dealing with is the one cent sales tax, and she will put in 20 years only because that gives everybody a set time frame and how much money they can expect; then they can deal with their project lists a little more accurately and not spend a lot of waste time on something that is never going to come to be.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he will second that motion.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the reason he is seconding the motion and supporting it is because it is part of the formation stage and discussion stage; it is not in the implementation stage at this point; and in order to develop something, they need to have some idea as to how much they are going to have. He stated one difference with this issue and the Parks referendum is before the committees came up with items then attached a price; here the Board has a price and now it is trying to fit items into it; and one thing it cannot do is do it piecemeal. He stated they cannot take a part of this and a part of that because they are not going to end up with a whole; it has to be a very refined project in order to get it through; and in fairness to the community, he wants to make sure it is done properly. He stated he is not going to deny the community the right to vote on something as important as this.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Higgs and Colon voted nay.

Commissioner Higgs stated it does not mean she is against it, but is concerned that the Board is setting the time frame at this point.

Commissioner Carlson stated the only other issue she has, and thinks it slightly muddied the waters, even though there are a lot of good projects, as they saw in the workshop, a lot of folks came forward with their want list; they know they already have a needs list; and she would like to make sure that they have or at least start to think about or identify for the July meeting a way to qualify those projects over and above what they already know they have needs for. She stated that is mostly the cultural and land acquisitions and other things that are not on the list that have already been strategically included in the County’s strategic planning effort; but also any other strategic effort that has been out there. She stated if the oversight committee can be constituted ahead of time, that has worked for the EELS program; they did a selection committee that identified specific needs; but unfortunately it has not been constituted. She stated the Board could get a group of experts together who are scientists that can define whether they need this property or that property; in this case it is a little more difficult; even though they could get some credibility from selection committees of sorts to look at projects, she does not know how the Board would go about doing that if it just chose individual citizens, staffers, or city managers, or whatever and somehow created a list and go through it and say those are the things they ought to put on the referendum.

Mr. Jenkins stated staff will be happy to do some sort of criteria where the Board can evaluate the projects; and his sense has been that the Board wants to make the final determination as to what types of projects go on the project list. He stated when the Board says it is going to commit x number of dollars to land conservation, he does not know that it should; it already has a list in the EELS program from a general standpoint; and he does not think the Board has to say exactly what property it is going to buy because that is already being done. He stated they can do some sort of evaluation process, a measurement process on the projects to give the Board a basis to do some rankings or evaluations.

Commissioner Carlson stated the other piece of that was the cultural issues; and the Board has to make sure that any entity that comes forward with a suggestion, that it has the financial accountability piece that goes along with that.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board could make some sort of definition of a blue ribbon panel that would be the oversight panel; she is not talking about on the front end of the projects, because everybody will be determining the projects on the front end and the Board will know what those are; but it can have a referendum committee that is appointed through some process that will be updating citizens on what is happening with those projects; and that is a real important thing that the Board ought to do. Mr. Jenkins stated that is contemplated. Commissioner Carlson stated the ordinance says an oversight committee, but that is after-the-fact. Mr. Jenkins stated what Commissioner Higgs said is to be the monitor and eyes and ears of the general public to see that the Board follows through with the projects it said it was going to do. Commissioner Higgs stated defining who that is, is an important thing to give credibility to the process; that is what she is trying to say; the Board can nail that down as a process of defining the projects, who is going to make it up, is it going to be somebody she just picks that she wants, and is that credibility; so it needs a first class panel that is going to have objectivity in regard to those projects. Mr. Jenkins stated the cities and School Board want to participate in that as well; with Commissioner Carlson responding absolutely, as they have two-thirds of the money.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he hopes the oversight committee does not appear to be a committee that is empowered to reverse the decisions made by the electorate and people who go on it do not have the ability to adjust projects. He stated in 1989, they had a sales tax referendum; it has the distinction of one that has been defeated by the greatest number of voters in the history of Florida; basically it was for the jail and a lot of infrastructure; and nine months later it had the purchase of environmental lands, which passed by a wonderful margin. Commissioner Pritchard stated the EELS referendum failed the first time. Commissioner Scarborough stated it was not on the ballot in November of 1989; that was the jail and things like that; so the Board needs to be mindful of the complexity of the community. He stated it is more than department heads preparing a capital improvements plan; and if the Board forgets that it will miss the point. Commissioner Pritchard stated the EEL's program failed the first time and passed the second time; that program already has a referendum and money set aside; so to have the EELS program as part of this surtax is redundant. Commissioner Scarborough stated he used that as an example only of what appeared to be the basis to drive people to the polls. Commissioner Pritchard stated he was referring to Commissioner Carlson’s remarks about conservation and the EELS program; and he thought the oversight committee was going to be the committee to track the projects once approved and not to cull the projects to a selection committee.

Commissioner Carlson stated she was using the selection committee as an example on trying to sell something to the public in terms of accountability and credibility because of the failure the first time; part of the problem was lack of accountability and credibility; so to have a blue ribbon panel of scientists selected to identify them before the referendum even hit the streets was critical in the passage of that referendum. She stated that is not the way it can be done here because it is a totally different scenario; and she was just using it as an example of how the people bought into something they understood ahead of time. She stated the purpose of a blue ribbon committee or quality of life committee, or whatever they want to call it, ought to be made up of strong leader-type individuals from each segment of the community, whether it is academic, economic, business, whatever; and have representatives on a committee like that so they understand the big picture of the community, understand where it is the Board ought to be going in all those different areas, and where it needs to be going. She stated that is her idea of a blue ribbon committee; and the right names on that committee is going to sell it, just like the right names on the selection committee sold the EELS referendum because it was done in the papers and everybody knew what they were buying. She stated it has worked out very well for the County in terms of purchase of properties.

Mr. Jenkins stated it is also important to remember they spent the last nine months out getting community input and that is where the list came from; staff did not create the list; and it came from a wide range of people.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Board needs a motion to continue the public hearing on the ordinance to July 22.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to continue the public hearing on an ordinance providing for the levy of a one percent infrastructure sales surtax until July 22, 2003, and table the resolution calling for a special election on a referendum levying additional one percent sales surtax until July 22, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 4:15 p.m., and reconvened at 4:24 p.m.

REQUEST FROM JUDGE LISA DAVIDSON, RE: FUNDING FOR DEPENDENCY COURT

Judge Lisa Davidson advised they prepared notebooks for this meeting which tells the Board what she does and what her court does on a daily basis; and presented notebooks to the Board, but not the Clerk. She stated she is the Dependency Court judge, the only judge in Brevard County who handles dependency cases; and for those who may not be familiar with it, her court deals with abused, abandoned, and neglected children under Chapter 39. She stated when attorneys come into her courtroom, she wants them to tell her what they want when they leave; so she will begin by telling the Board what she needs. She stated beginning July 1 until October 1, 2003, she needs $62,500; many may ask what happens after October 1, but that is for another day; and she needs to buy some time now. She stated in October 2001, the Legislature gave Brevard and Seminole Counties $500,000 to operate a model dependency court; five circuits were awarded that money; Brevard County received $250,000, which allowed her to hire a general master, two case managers, and an assistant; and today she understands the Legislature has not funded those five circuits. She stated although it is not a done deal, they believe it is; and when the budget is finalized, she will lose her dependency staff, the four people who are here today. She stated they can spend a long time trying to determine why the Legislature did that, but it is her understanding those were hard decisions that had to be made by the judiciary and the Legislature in a tight budget year. She stated they are not funded not because they were not productive, efficient, or not good; it had nothing to do with that; and it had to do with making hard decisions. She stated they have over 1,000 children in the dependency system; she often says they are her children, not anyone else’s; they belong to her; but they are also the Board’s children. She stated dependency court is like the emergency room of the courthouse; she does not have the luxury of having a lot of time to make her decisions; oftentimes she has to make very quick decisions because in dependency court, children who are removed by the Department of Children and Family Services, have to be brought before a judge and not a general master, to make a decision whether that removal stays. She stated in her courtroom, she has babies who are crack babies, children who have been sexually abused, children severely physically abused with broken bones and brain hemorrhage, children who have been in the midst of a domestic violence and been injured, and children who are literally abandoned. She stated they have one child who does not have a living relative in Florida; she was dropped off in Brevard County a few years ago, and is in residential treatment; and there is nobody in Brevard County or Florida that is her kin, so dependency court becomes responsible for that child. Judge Davidson advised when she came into the division on April 6, 2001, she did not have a clue what she was getting into; actually she did not have a lot of say about coming to that court; she was assigned to it one morning and thought she was just going to be there for the day; and she did not learn until the end of the day, when she asked how long she was going to be there, that she was going to be there for the next two years, which was a surprise to her. She stated the dependency court was a mess; it is no one’s fault and everyone’s fault; but what happened is the court was having to react every day. She stated from April to October 2001, she would do whatever was on her plate that day; the day after Labor Day was the worst day she has ever been in court; she had over 84 judicial reviews; every child has at least one mother and one father; there are contract attorneys representing parents, Department of Children and Family Services attorneys, case workers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.; so there were 10 to 15 people at every hearing. She stated by Florida Statutes, they have to do judicial review hearings every six months; not very much was accomplished that day except she would read the judicial review and accept it and set another hearing in six months because that was the best she could do; the Department of Children and Family Services controlled her courtroom; and she was reacting because she is one judge with one judicial assistant and one court clerk, so that was the best she could do. She stated she could not set judicial reviews to make sure parents were complying with their case plans in 90 or 120 days because there was not enough time; if she ordered the Department to do psychological tests for a parent, or ordered a parent to do certain things, it would be six months before she could even look at it again, because physically there was not enough time. She stated she can only have dependency or termination of parental rights trials two days a week; in between she could have three days of trials because two days had to be spent on judicial reviews; and because of the 84 to 90 hearings a day, she had a hard time getting contract attorneys and guardian ad litem volunteers. She noted she could not expect a volunteer to sit in her courtroom from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. before she could get to his or her hearing; case workers were not in the field dealing with their cases because they were sitting in her courtroom as Florida Statutes say she has to do certain things at certain times; and at certain times it would take six months or longer to get to trial on a dependency case and those children are in limbo for that period of time. Judge Davidson advised the Florida Statutes is a good statute, but there is not enough resources; the statute requires she have a permanency hearing within a year; and sometimes they could not even have permanency hearings because there was no planning, and she could not do anything but what was on her plate the next day. She stated they did not have status hearings; she felt like she was running in quick sand from April to October 2001, and was not effective; and it is hard for someone who cares about her job as much as she does to say she did not feel very effective, but there just was not enough time. She stated the Legislature funded model dependency court; what she got was a general master who did 3,400 hearings that she did not have to do; she did arraignments, dispositions, and case plan acceptances; and she could look at a case plan and say why are they making the parent do a certain task, when they are not there to make parents better people. She stated she cannot make anyone a better person; she and her general master can insure that a parent can safely parent his or her child; and if not, then the parent cannot have the child. She noted they are there to make sure parents can safely parent their children; so they often do not need 25 tasks or cookie cutter case plans; her general master can look at those case plans and determine what actually needs to be done for those parents to get their children back; and she can also set status hearings, so if they order the Department to do something, they can come back within a certain amount of time. She stated if they ordered psychological testing within 30 days, or to complete a class in 45 days, her general master can actually monitor those cases and have them come back. Judge Davidson advised judicial reviews are no longer every six months; they do them between 90 and 120 days now; her general master does child support hearings so parents that do not have their children have an obligation to support those children; oftentimes they have parents who have paternity lawsuits or domestic violence situations or dissolution of marriage; and her general master can take care of many of those hearings. She stated in the year 2002, she held 1,814 hearings and trials, 169 dependency trials, 54 termination of parental rights trials; and every day she does shelters. She stated she does not believe there has been a day that she has sat in dependency court that she did not have at least three or four shelters and usually there are seven or eight; somehow if it is assigned to another judge, that judge ends up with one or two; and she does not understand how that works out because she does shelters every day and usually gets seven or eight. She stated she keeps the cases of children who were sexually abused until those children are on a course to a safe resolution; any child seven or under, she keeps those cases for everything; she needs to monitor those cases because those are children who are not necessarily in school and are at home all the time; and no one is monitoring them. She stated they are not turned over to her general master until she is satisfied that those children are really safe. Judge Davidson stated she never signs off on any recommendation from the general master without opening and reading the entire file; a few times she did not agree with the recommendation; and when she does not, she sets her own hearing because her name goes on the bottom line and she is responsible, and she needs to determine what is going on. She stated one of her case managers is a former worker of the Department of Children and Family Services; she keeps the statistics; they know where every child is in the system, where they are living, and everything about them; and the case manager sits in court and lets the general master know exactly where those children are in the system and what the situation is. She stated her other case manager works in the courtroom; the moment people come in they are given every hearing date for the next year; they know the first arraignment hearing date, the first judicial hearing date, and all the hearings for 11 months; and three weeks later they are going to be in her courtroom for a permanency hearing because she does not want those children languishing. She stated her case worker sets those hearings for her and does a multitude of things; and every 90 days or so the five of them meet and go through every case. She stated there are children who have been in the system for 12 months; they call themselves the strike force and target those children to see what is going on and what they can do that they have not done already to bring them to permanency; and if she loses those four people, she will be back to April 2001. Judge Davidson stated she does not know what else she can do because she does not have the resources and the Board will not meet again until July; in the meantime she will lose those four incredibly competent, loyal, smart, and dedicated people; and she does not want to lose them. She stated she is not worried about October 1, but between now and then, she needs to save their jobs so she can save the children; and requested the Board give her three months. She stated she will be back in July begging for more money, but today she cannot afford to lose her staff; everybody has an issue; she did not realize how difficult the job of Commissioners was; everyone has something important they want; but her courtroom is the emergency room of the courthouse and she does not want to go back to April 2001. She requested $62,500 to fund her staff between July 1 and October 1, 2003.

Commissioner Higgs requested an explanation of where the money came from and whose action has caused the fact that she will no longer have those four competent people; with Judge Davidson responding the Legislature funded the model dependency courts October 1, 2001; the Legislature has met and there has been hard decisions made in its budget so the five circuits were not funded again. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Legislature funded any; with Judge Davidson responding no, there were only five circuits originally funded.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there is another judge who could be assigned to help Judge Davidson; and stated he wonders what will happen next year without any funding. He inquired where is the money going to come from; stated the State has gone into dumping on the counties mode; it is going to be an encumbrance the County is going to have to face; and he wonders how it is going to do that. Judge Davidson stated the Board may need to make some very hard decisions locally; she had no time to react to this, so she cannot say what is going to happen down the road; and it is going to be difficult, but she needs time to react.

Commissioner Carlson stated the dependency court will still exist, but Judge Davidson will be missing the people who make it work; that is the critical issue; and based on the caseload she presented, she is not sure, even with her staff, how Judge Davidson makes it work. She stated Judge Davidson is in an emergency reaction stage right now; the Board is going to be in that stage by the time the legislative session is over on a lot of things as well; but she does not have a problem funding the $62,500 if Mr. Jenkins can find it to help the dependency court.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised there is $109,000 in the Contingency Fund which started at $400,000 at the beginning of the year; and it has to last through September 30, 2003.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Board has a workshop on Thursday; she would like to look at what the court system might be able to bring to the table as well as what alternatives may be there to fund what the Judge is looking for; the Board is sympathetic to the problem, but it needs to see what alternatives are available and next Thursday it can look at those. She stated the Sheriff requested $2.6 million; the Board does not have that kind of money; but she would like to have a few days to look at this item and have Mr. Jenkins work on the issues, so that by the workshop the Board can look at it more critically and see what it can do. She stated maybe the judiciary will also have some money it can help the Board with to meet those needs. She stated she is totally sympathetic because those are the Board’s children; they are in the care of the people of Florida; they are not only Judge Davidson’s children, they are also the Board’s children; and she wants to find a way to do it and wants to see what other resources can come to the table.

Chairperson Colon stated the Board has to figure out the dollars; those are the Board’s children and the Commissioners feel as passionate as Judge Davidson does; and she is not alone on this issue. She stated it takes a lot to do what Judge Davidson does; and it seems like there is a commitment on the part of the Board to try and see what it can do. She stated the item will be on the May 29, 2003 agenda. Judge Davidson inquired if she has to be at the meeting; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he would hate to see her taken away from her courtroom; the Board has a good idea what $62,500 is needed for; and it is just a matter of seeing where it can work that out. He stated the Board needs to review things and find out what is available.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Van Bever can also see what he can do to help; with Court Administrator Mark Van Bever responding he will.

CITIZEN REQUEST - CAROL O’CONNOR, RE: INTERPRETATION OF ORDINANCE
NO. 02-08, FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION

Chairperson Colon advised Ms. O’Connor wants to speak briefly, but she does not know how brief she can be because it is a serious subject; it is not something that the Board would take lightly, especially after all it has been through with Deer Run; but she should have the opportunity to speak for five minutes.

Carol O’Connor, representing Deer Run Community Association, stated she not only represents all the residents, but also the new home builders and the new lot owners; and she hopes the Board can come to a decision that County staff has misinterpreted how Ordinance No. 02-08 applies to get building permits and septic tank permits in Deer Run. She stated the 18-inch minimum and one-third acre fill of the lot could apply on lots that are small; in Deer Run, the minimum lot size is 2.5 acres, which means between house pads there is a minimum of 100 feet; so they do not have to worry about the house pad being built higher than the house next door because they are so far apart. She stated the County has given them some paperwork that allows the homeowners to dig trenches all the way around their lots to aid in drainage, so the 18-inch minimum does not serve its purpose in Deer Run in trying to avoid water going on the lot next door. Ms. O’Connor advised Commissioner Colon was very involved in getting a pump in Deer Run; there were nine residents who had drainage problems; they did not like that the water sat on their vacant properties for days before they drained; and the Ordinance not only encourages that, but they may end up with a worst case scenario, that being those homes were built pretty much on the house pad, and all the other property was much lower, which retained the water for a long period of time. She stated if the homeowners are restricted to build only on one-third of an acre, not one-third of their lot, they may have 2.5 acres, so that is a small area to build on; the smallest home was 3,000 square feet; they range from 5,000 to 6,000 square feet; and to get a house on one-third of an acre is nearly impossible with a concrete driveway of 100 to 200 feet. Ms. O’Connor stated people who live in Deer Run are equestrian people, so they also want a barn and outbuildings and there is no way those would fit on one-third of an acre. She stated Mr. Willis was denied a septic permit for a gravity-fed septic system due to eight inches; he was only allowed to build on one-third of an acre and could only go up 18 inches, which was not high enough for a gravity-fed septic system; and he actually had to do an up-system, which they do not allow in Deer Run, but allowed it for him. She stated what that means is if they get a minor rain event or catastrophic rain event four acres of his property are going to be under water. She stated the Board talked about safety issues with the pump, mosquitoes, snakes, and alligators; it will be encouraging more of that with the restrictions; they thought they got the pump because it was a problem and they are going to have more of it; and it is not going to benefit anyone in Deer Run if they lower the base line elevation for homes. She stated they never had homes flood before, they were always roads, lots, and pasture lands; and if they lower the finished floor elevation, they will encourage home flooding. She requested the Board order its staff to say in Deer Run or any lot that is 2.5 acres and above, be allowed to fill at least one-third of an acre for 2.5 acres and fill their lots up to a level where they can have a gravity-fed system instead of an up-pump, which is expensive, ugly, and requires a lot of maintenance, or to do the blocks or stemwall. She noted it cost Mr. Willis $16,380 to do that; and that is putting an unfair burden and emotional stress on the homeowners.

Chairperson Colon requested staff clarify the Ordinance, moratorium, etc. because this is not just a Deer Run issue, and Commissioners Scarborough and O'Brien stated it was not an ordinance that was put together just because of Deer Run.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised Ms. O’Connor’s request sounds like the County should change the Ordinance rather than staff has misinterpreted; and listening to her remarks, he finds nothing in them which would say that staff should be applying the Ordinance differently in Deer Run. He stated she made the argument that Deer Run has larger lots and there are pump systems out there and other considerations; the Ordinance is applied Countywide and makes no distinction of that nature; therefore, he submits that staff is interpreting the Ordinance exactly as it is written in the sense that it is applied Countywide. He stated if the Board wishes for staff to look at a situation different, such as Deer Run, he would recommend they work together to find some way to modify the Ordinance to reflect those differences; however, he supports staff’s interpretation by saying there is nothing in Ms. O’Connor’s remarks of what he can tell in the way staff applies the Ordinance, which would say there is a problem with its interpretation. He stated there may be an impact on its application, which Ms. O’Connor disagrees with and would prefer to be changed, but the interpretation does not seem to be under question.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what was the reason for the Ordinance to begin with.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised there were several aspects to the Ordinance, which were of concern to the Board at the time it directed staff to create the Ordinance; and one of the concerns was to protect the floodplain by limiting the amount of fill that can be placed within the floodplain without compensating storage. He stated if someone occupies the floodplain, it will raise the flood elevation and cause flooding on other people’s properties, so there was a desire to limit or control that. Mr. Denninghoff advised there was concern about elevations and that houses would be built that could cause additional fill to be placed within the floodplain; and the higher they build a house, using fill as a primary means of elevating the house, typically they have to put more fill outside of the house pad itself to support the fill that is directly under the house. He stated there was also concern about septic systems and wells, which would be constructed within the floodplain; and the desire was to allow those features to be constructed in such a way that they would not be damaged or prevented from working properly during a flood event; so there was an effort to try and balance all those factors within the Ordinance, and staff came up with the current Ordinance. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there was consideration for the size of the lots; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca inquiring if Commissioner Pritchard is asking whether the size of the lot relates to the 18-inch fill requirement; with Commissioner Pritchard responding no, the size of the lot as brought about if they have a one-third acre, if they have 2.5 acres, they are talking floodplain and talking about whether it will be fill or stemwall; and inquired if the size of the lot was looked at as having any bearing as to what amount they could fill. He inquired if they are only allowed to fill one-third of their lot, one-third of an acre, or one-third of their parcel; with Ms. Busacca responding if their fill exceeds one-third of an acre, then compensating storage must be provided on the lot; previous to that, the Board policy had been that compensating storage would be required for all lots regardless of size if it was constructed below the 25-year floodplain; so the Board said this is a reasonable way to allow people to construct up to a third of an acre, thus minimizing the impact to the floodplain without them providing compensating storage, which is expensive and difficult in the more flood-prone areas. Commissioner Pritchard stated in Deer Run they have 2.5 acres; and inquired if they can only fill one-third of an acre; with Ms. Busacca responding yes, without providing the compensatory storage.

Commissioner Higgs stated she does not believe staff misinterpreted the Ordinance; the Board went through great lengths to talk about it; it may need additional tweaking, and she does not mind asking staff to give the Board a report on that item, but she does not see any misinterpretation of the Ordinance in this case. She stated if the Board wants a motion, she will move to ask staff to do an analysis and report on the items out there and recommendations that would be an improvement to the Ordinance, and send them to the Commissioners.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to do an analysis and report on the items in Deer Run and recommendations to improve Ordinance No. 02-08, Floodplain Protection. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING TAX ABATEMENT ORDINANCE

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the legislative intent and authorize amending the Tax Abatement Ordinance to include provisions of Florida Statute 288.106 resulting in the criteria being consistent with the qualified target industry. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION TO APPEAL DECISION, RE: BLASKY v. BREVARD COUNTY
AND MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to discuss authorization to appeal the decision in the case of Blasky v. Brevard County and Mosquito Control District in executive session on May 22, 2003 due to its complexities. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH ENERGY RECOVERY ASSOCIATION, RE: LANDFILL GAS
UTILIZATION PROJECT

Commissioner Higgs stated she pulled the item because of the size of the project and amount of revenue that is going to the vendor who is being selected, that the Board puts it on the public record. She stated it is estimated that the yearly revenue for the County from the operation is $200,000; the County will assume the initial payment of $25,000 as well as continuing yearly payments for this project; and she wanted it explained on the record so that something of this size is fully understood. She stated it has already gone through the RFP process; and requested staff explain the project.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised one of the byproducts of a landfill is the production of gas, including methane; currently staff burns the gas as part of the air pollution control compliance requirements; however, they have explored opportunities to use that gas in a beneficial way and obtain revenue for the County. He stated staff sent out a request for proposals (RFP) on the beneficial use of the landfill gas, and obtained several proposals from a variety of vendors; they went through an extensive review of those proposals, including financial analysis using the County’s Financial Advisor to review the statements they provided to insure that the County could make an accurate evaluation; and as a result of the RFP process, staff returned to the Board for authorization to negotiate with the No. 1 selected vendor, who was the unanimous choice of the committee. He stated since that time, staff has been implementing the Board’s direction to negotiate a favorable contract for the County; and what the Board has before it is the result of that negotiation. Mr. Peffer advised Commissioner Higgs outlined a few of the key components; there are certain fixed fees that will be provided by the vendor to the County for the privilege of being onsite and getting access to exclusive use of the gas; and the gas will actually be purified and put into the gas pipeline where it could be used by anyone and 10% of the gross revenues from that would come to the County. He stated it is a good situation; the County will receive revenue for a product that is now going to waste and burning; another benefit is rather than having combustion products emitted in the area at the landfill, the gas being removed and sent somewhere else will improve the overall quality of that area; so staff recommends approval of the contract.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how long is the contract period; with Mr. Peffer responding the contract is for ten years from the time of implementation and can be renewed; the reason for the length of that contract has to do with the need for the vendor to successfully finance and assure there will be a return on that investment.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Agreement with Energy Recovery Associates to build a resource recovery facility at the Central Disposal Facility and pay the County for the right to the landfill gas and a percentage of the gross revenues from the sale of the end product. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BELLSOUTH BUSINESS CLASS FAMILY OF SERVICE CUSTOMIZED PRICING
ARRANGEMENT CONTRACT, RE: LONG DISTANCE SERVICE

Commissioner Higgs stated while she applauds the effort to save some money and thinks it is great to reduce long distance costs, she would feel more comfortable if staff would have gone out with an RFP or bid on this service. She stated staff did research and received quotes, but did not go into a full proposal process from other potential long distance vendors; and they should go through that process.

Information Systems and Communications Director Gino Butto advised staff has been looking at alternatives for long distance for the last few months, ever since BellSouth got into the arena; its proposed rates are significantly less than what the County is paying; and they were going to approach the Board in the near future any way when BellSouth had an additional incentive for not just Brevard County, but for people who are willing to engage with it before the end of the month. He stated its pricing became aggressive enough that staff felt they should at least bring it to the Board’s attention; and they would hate to miss this opportunity and be second guessed for not trying to save that kind of money. Mr. Butto advised as the proposal from BellSouth stands right now, the County would be looking at saving approximately $7,000 a month in long distance charges from what it is spending with AT&T/SunCom; Commissioner Higgs is correct that they did not go out for a formal RFP; and the numbers on the spread sheet are based on current bills or from verbal solicitation from vendors as to what their long distance charges would be for Brevard County.

Commissioner Higgs stated her concern is straightforward; it is a three-year contract; the County will be paying less and that is great; but it might get a better rate if it went out for an RFP. She stated when a three-year commitment is made, that is the wiser course of action.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the County goes for an RFP or bid, how long would it take and what amount of savings could be generated. He stated he is also interested in saving as much as possible, although he thinks $4,000 a month is significant. Mr. Butto advised they would be looking at two or three months to execute it assuming there are no contentions. He stated they would get started right away; they have a lot of the research done; so he is optimistic it would be around two months to do that. He stated it would possibly get a lower rate, but he doubts if it would be a major number than what is offered by BellSouth because the numbers are aggressive pricing as it is. Mr. Butto stated some of the reductions would come from others knowing what they are competing against and trying to low ball by a little bit to get the business and maximize their opportunities. He stated the School Board has gone from AT&T/SunCom, an arrangement which was typical in the State for local governments, and have engaged with BellSouth; however, he does not know the exact terms of the agreement, but it was as a result of some aggressive pricing that BellSouth is offering to get back into the business. He stated it is a window of opportunity for Brevard County, right now it is trying to recruit new business; and it is new in this arena. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there is a possibility of getting a one-year contract; with Mr. Butto responding BellSouth told staff it was a minimum of three years for the pricing; and if staff goes back and asks it what it can do for one year, it will probably be more because if the Board does not agree to do this by the end of this month, the cost will go up 10%. He noted the County can still go with BellSouth and get a good reduction if it does not make a decision to do this today, but it would not be quite as aggressive. He stated another thing the County would lose is the opportunity to combine this service as part of the master contract; the County has a lot of business with BellSouth; and it has indicated that if the County were able to execute soon, because of its promotions, it could combine it as part of the master contract which would also see a reduction from a volume standpoint. He stated he does not have those numbers because staff was just told that recently; but it could range from $1,000 to $3,000 a month off the current bill with the other contract. He stated that does not in any way satisfy Commissioner Higgs’ concerns; there are opportunities the County could have going through the more formal process; but he does not think it would get a much better price. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Board were to effect a better price through the master account, it could be saving $5,000 a month, and would there be any opportunity for BellSouth, during the three-year period, to ask for additional money, or would the County be so tied in with BellSouth that it would not have an opportunity to seek other vendors three years from now. He inquired is the County purchasing communications portion and is there equipment involved; with Mr. Butto responding those are on separate contracts and would not in any way obligate the County to extend the contract for any other arrangements it has with BellSouth. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if overall the County is looking at saving $5,000 a month for three years; with Mr. Butto responding it would probably be more than that.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute BellSouth Business Class Family of Services Customized Pricing Arrangement Contract for long distance service for a period of three years. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH SUNSET LAKES NORTH, INC.,
RE: SUNSET LAKES, PHASE 11

Commissioner Pritchard advised a director of the Sunset Lakes Homeowners Association contacted him late last night and early this morning; they have a concern with the builder and development of Sunset Lakes and are looking at this item, Sunset Lakes North, which is the remaining five homes and their retention pond along North Tropical Trail. He stated their concern is because they have problems with Sunset Lakes development; and he believes Representative Bob Allen and Congressman Tom Feeney had been contacted, but he is not
sure what their involvement is going to be. He stated they are trying to hold the developer accountable for what problems they are having with drainage, etc. in Sunset Lakes by tying it into approval of this plat, which is half a mile away.

Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Washburn advised prior to Commissioner Pritchard coming on the Board, the Board heard several presentations by Sunset Lakes Homeowners Association regarding the existing development; this plat is only five lots; they all directly access North Tropical Trail; they have a triangular shaped retention pond at the end; and although the owner of the land is the same, the developer and builder of the homes are different. He stated he will not articulate all the problems Sunset Lakes has; they had enforcement actions on the developer by St. Johns River Water Management District; and it has been his experience, but Mr. Knox will have to tell the Board, that it cannot hold hostage one section of a development or a plat based on what happened in another section.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he did not see how he could vote approval of this item as it seems to be two separate and distinct issues; and the concern of the community is if the same builder/developer is going to construct Phase 11, they want to make sure that it does not have the issues that Sunset Lakes has, and also that Sunset Lakes issues are going to be resolved. He stated he does not know whether County staff is still involved with these issues or whether the Homeowners Association is going to move on and initiate litigation; and requested staff clarify that for him. Mr. Washburn advised Sunset Lakes is a private development with private streets and drainage; St. Johns River Water Management District has some enforcement actions with respect to the development of the retention ponds; how that is being soled, he does not know; but to his knowledge the litigation would be between the Homeowners Association and the developer of Sunset Lakes and bears no relationship to this plat. Commissioner Pritchard stated approving this plat today is something that has to be done because the County cannot hold it hostage; and if it were to be denied, it would have to be for other reasons. Mr. Washburn stated he would rather the County Attorney address that, but it has been his experience. County Attorney Scott Knox advised the law on subdivision plats is if all the criteria of the Ordinance have been met, the Board has a duty to approve it. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that is where the Board is; with Mr. Knox responding yes.

*Chairperson Colon passed the gavel to Vice Chairperson Higgs, and her absence from the room was noted at this time.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final plat approval and execute Contract with Sunset Lakes North, Inc. guaranteeing improvements in Sunset Lakes, Phase 11, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer obtaining jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE RELATING
TO RESIDENTIAL FENCING SETBACKS AND HEIGHT

Commissioner Pritchard advised he was contacted by a constituent who wanted to put up a six-foot fence along the side of his house; the situation is unique in that there is a very high buffer along the same property line of foliage at 20 to 25 feet in height and probably 40 plus feet in length; and he asked Jim Ward to look at it and see what staff can do, not only to accommodate the individual, but review the item and current permitting requirements, which are being addressed, so they could perhaps eliminate having to go for variances, which are expensive at $598.00.

Vice Chairperson Higgs inquired if that is language Commissioner Pritchard would like to add to the proposed ordinance; with Commissioner Pritchard responding yes. Vice Chairperson Higgs inquired if the Board wants to hear more or add it in and let people talk about it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he was briefed by Jim Ward and has concerns about changing the language; and suggested advertising the ordinance broad enough to talk about both options. Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised they could advertise it broad enough to have that laid out. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not have a problem proceeding with advertising and the Board can discuss it at that time. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is fine.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize staff to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Land Development Regulations relating to residential fencing setbacks, and to advertise it broad enough to consider reviewing permit requirements to eliminate applying for variances regarding areas with high buffering of foliage. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION, RE: MUNICIPAL REVIEW OF LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX
PERCENTAGE ALLOCATIONS

Commissioner Pritchard advised the reason he pulled this item is because he is forever hearing how the County is not spending its local option gas tax appropriate in that it supposed to be spent on roads and it is using it for everything other than roads. He requested clarification on where the local option gas tax revenues are being spent and whether or not they are spending them appropriately.

*Chairperson Colon’s presence was noted at this time, and Vice Chairperson Higgs passed the gavel to Chairperson Colon.

Finance Manager Greg Pelham advised the local option gas tax is used to fund various things, most notably the Roadways and Landscaping Department. He stated a portion of it funds SCAT, Traffic Engineering, Survey Department, and MPO and FEC railroad grade crossing rehabilitation. He stated those are transportation related expenditures, and per the Florida Statutes are allowable to be funded by the local option gas tax. Commissioner Pritchard stated that satisfies him.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct the Clerk to mail a copy of the Local Option Gas Tax percentage allocations to each municipality for review, and authorize conducting the final review of the allocations at the July 8, 2003 Board meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE:
ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING CODE RELATING TO LIGHTING STANDARDS

Commissioner Pritchard advised there are two sides to the story, and he wants to get that straight; and inquired if the ordinance amending zoning regulations relating to light standards will apply to Parks and Recreation’s development of ballfields, or should the Board grandfather the existing fields in with the types of lighting they have. He stated he wants more clarification; and with Mr. Scott and Mr. Nelson here, he may be able to get that.

Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson advised when the Board created the lighting standards, they did not recognize there would be impacts to existing athletic fields; and this is an effort to not only address that, but also address the new fields they are constructing. He stated they have to go through the LPA and the Board of County Commissioners with recommendations on how to address that; they desire to create some level of grandfathering as part of this ordinance, so they can improve existing fields; and while bringing the lighting levels up for safety purposes and the spill light down, they will have a standard for new construction that would be better than what they had before the current Ordinance.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised Mr. Nelson has aptly put the desires of the Parks and Recreation Department, and the ordinance should satisfy that desire. He stated they are hoping to do a lot of fixes to existing park facilities that have become nestled within neighborhoods; they are also seeking to have the ordinance apply to the very aggressive construction program they have been undertaking since the referendum was passed; and this ordinance essentially allows the existing ballparks that have nestled into neighborhoods to be exempt from the lighting standards that the current Zoning Code has. He stated there are other iterations and permutations of the ordinance that the Board could consider, but they are not in front of the Board now; and inquired if the Board wants him to elaborate on what is here or what might be.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the issue came up that there were two sides to the story and the grandfathering of existing fields; it says that P&Z has reviewed the proposed sport and athletic lighting standards; and inquired if P&Z approved the standards; with Mr. Scott responding staff is not in the position to approve them; however, there are some aspects to the proposed ordinance that they could offer for the Board’s consideration. Mr. Scott stated for instance, exempting existing parks or future parks from lighting standards, one could argue there would be a double standard in place for Parks and Recreation’s construction projects, while requiring the private sector to go to great expense, in some instances, to adhere to a fairly stringent lighting standard. He stated there is an ability to come half way and have existing ballparks grandfathered to the more stringent standard; but as staff would do with a nonconforming use, if the improvements were to bring the existing ballpark into closer compliance with today’s

standards, there is a way to craft an ordinance which enables that to happen. He stated there is also the ability for fields and recreational facilities that are not yet nestled within neighborhoods to have lighting standards today adhered to perfectly. Mr. Scott stated he offered the Board the full spectrum of possibilities regarding full compliance as opposed to complete exemption and there being some place in the middle.

Mr. Nelson advised since they are going to do a debate here, a primary issue is the distance between what Mr. Scott described and what he described is about 100 feet of property; the property may have been acquired prior to the current standards, and he does not have enough property to make it work; so there may not be a field on the property that was purchased for that purpose. He stated the way the lighting standard is stated, he cannot light the field that was planned there, so those are issues he and Mr. Scott have to work through. He stated the ordinance has to go through the LPA; they expect there will be some horse trading and discussions that will go on; but ballfields are different from car lots or convenience stores in terms of lighting. He stated they are not looking for special treatment, but they are looking for treatment as a park as opposed to a parking lot.

Commissioner Higgs stated the ordinance as drafted does not specify public parks, it simply talks about sports and athletic fields. Mr. Nelson stated that is true; and it would probably be more appropriate to say facilities. He stated the School Board or a church school could have the same need; and what is good for one of them as a group, is good for all of them as a group. Commissioner Higgs stated there could be a private for profit sports complex that might fall into that standard that is not being conceived at this moment; with Mr. Nelson responding that is possible; their impact to the community will still be the same even if it is for profit; and what he is trying to say is they are not as aggressive a use as some other industrial types of uses. Commissioner Higgs stated they might be. Mr. Nelson stated if that actually were to take off, then the need for them to be doing some of their fields would be reduced; maybe that is a good thing too; but the reality is that there are not many for profit athletic facilities.

County Manager Tom Jenkins suggested including public and/or nonprofit; with Commissioner Higgs objecting to nonprofit. Mr. Nelson stated he would not object it being called for public park purposes. Mr. Jenkins inquired what would happen with the private schools; with Commissioner Higgs responding those are issues that need to be part of the debate; there are some sports facilities that are highly intense in use and impact; and unless it is specified in the ordinance those are not what is being conceived, there could be a motorcross field that might fall into the same criteria and be exempt. Mr. Nelson stated one of the things he and Mr. Scott discussed was dropping the word sports and staying strictly with athletic fields and identify what that means. He stated sports fields are basically fields as opposed to tracks because those are covered under other parts of the ordinance; and there are specific requirements for race tracks versus specific ones for parks.

Commissioner Pritchard stated what the Board would do is create a separate standard; although it could grandfather in existing fields, Messrs. Nelson and Scott need to work something out and craft an ordinance that is going to cover both sides of the issue; grandfathering in is fine; but he does not want to look at an ordinance when there are two professionals in disagreement as to what the wording should be. He inquired if the ordinance could be brought back at a later date; with Mr. Nelson responding the LPA process forces staff to do that; there is a process in place that puts staff in that position; and this is unusual because he and Mr. Scott work together rather closely and this is one of those rare occasions where there is a difference of opinion related to what the impact is. Mr. Nelson stated he is faced with one of the most strict standards in the State of Florida that was approved previously, and they are having to respond to it; so they are trying to look for common ground, and the process will get them there. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Board approved the proposed ordinance as is, it will go to the LPA and come back with recommendations and the Board can address it then; with Mr. Scott responding conversely the Board will spend money for advertising it when permission to advertise is granted; typically it has been the practice of the Board to have tacit approval if not conceptual approval on the concept that is now about to be debated publicly; so an alternative course of action would be to hold off on advertising the ordinance and to continue to work on it and bring it back to the Board for another permission to advertise.

Chairperson Colon inquired if that was okay with Mr. Nelson; with Mr. Nelson responding it is going to slow down projects, but as long as the Board is okay with that, staff will accept it. He stated they need to move along in a timely fashion; his concern is if they drag it on then it is going to drag out projects because that is the cause and effect; and he is comfortable that they would get those answers.

Commissioner Scarborough recommended the advertisement be in broad enough language to handle the possibilities; with Mr. Nelson stated that would be fine with him. Mr. Jenkins stated staff will continue to work together to come up with some solution. Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not want to hold up projects.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize staff to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Zoning Code relating to lighting standards broad enough to consider lighting of athletic fields. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

TERMINATION OF CONTRACT WITH FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION AND ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, RE:
PINE ISLAND CONSERVATION PUBLIC SMALL GAME MANAGEMENT AREA

Thelma Roper of Titusville stated she agrees that for the number of people going out there and what the County is putting out, it is not quite right; and inquired if anyone contacted any other organizations, like Ducks Unlimited, to see if they would be willing to underwrite the costs for the EEL’s program. She inquired how many of its members are aware of this program, and could consideration be given to allowing Ducks Unlimited or any other organization to underwrite it if they are interested. She stated if they are not interested, then she agrees with termination of the Contract with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised he talked to former Commissioner Roger Dobson, who is an original sportsman who used the area for 40 or 50 years, and originally came to the Board and requested this opportunity. He stated Mr. Dobson said the duck population has been very low and that is why nobody is going out there; that does not mean they will not come back in three or five years; but at the moment the reason there is no activity is because there are not a lot of ducks out there.

Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson advised they talked to a Ducks Unlimited representative, and if they wanted to pick up that responsibility in cost, staff would certainly be in a different position; but they have not indicated a willingness at this point to do that. He stated if they change their minds, then staff can come back to the Board and look to continue it. He stated it was a five-year test program; the numbers went down annually; so while the ducks are down as well, they believe there are other factors. He stated it is a relatively small hunting area compared to the Wildlife Refuge and some other areas.

Mr. Jenkins stated there was a nucleus of hunters who had been using the site for a long time and they have not been going there because there has not been any ducks.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to terminate the Contract with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and St. Johns River Water Management District for management of the Pine Island Conservation Area as a public small game management area, and provide notice to the parties as specified in the Contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENT - LILLIAN BANKS, RE: LAWSUIT ON SECTION 5.4 OF THE
BREVARD COUNTY CHARTER

Lillian Banks of Merritt Island stated there was a lawsuit on Section 5.4 of the Brevard County Charter head on December 19, 2002 by Judge Evander; the plaintiffs were Kay Burk, Melton Broome, Philip Williams, and Maureen Rupe; and the defendant was the Board of County Commissioners. She stated each Commissioner has taken an oath to uphold the laws of the State and County, which includes the Brevard County Charter and all its provisions; the Charter and its amendments were approved by a majority of the electorate; and the fact that the Clerk of Courts, Property Appraiser, and two citizens intervened and joined to defend the Charter, did not dissolve the Board of its lawful responsibility to defend the Brevard County Home Rule Charter. She inquired if the Board directed County Attorney Scott Knox, in representing the Board, to remain silent and raise no defense on the Board’s behalf and also on behalf of the citizens of the County. She stated when called upon by Judge Evander, Mr. Knox stated he was present in a cameo role; the official transcript of the hearing reads, “Let me ask Mr. Knox, are you going to have any argument on either of these motions?” Mr. Knox replied, “Your honor, no. I’ve been told to come and see what the court does and where he goes with this.”

County Attorney Scott Knox advised that was the direction he was given so that is what he said.

Chairperson Colon inquired if the direction was given during the executive session; with Mr. Knox responding yes. Chairperson Colon again inquired if it was during the executive meeting; with Mr. Knox responding right. Chairperson Colon inquired what is the status on it now; with Mr. Knox responding it is on appeal right now; and he is maintaining the same posture, which is to do what the court tells the County to do when it is finally resolved. Chairperson Colon inquired if the transcripts from the executive meeting does not get presented until after the case is over; with Mr. Knox responding that is right. Chairperson Colon inquired if in the future the citizens will be able to get a copy of what was discussed in those executive meetings; with Mr. Knox responding correct.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the attorney for the Property Appraiser and the attorney for the Clerk are making statements in support of the Charter; with Mr. Knox responding they are defending the constitutionality of the Charter, yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Knox believed the Charter was constitutional and how did he explain to the Board his legal view of it and what he felt his ethical duty was; with Mr. Knox responding it was his position that the Charter provision is unconstitutional, and he did not feel comfortable representing the Board in a position where he would be opposed to the constitutionality of that provision. He stated if he recalls correctly, he did advise the Board if that is what it wanted to do, it probably needed to get somebody besides him to do it. Commissioner Higgs stated in the interim the Board learned that Mr. Ford and Mr. Ellis had attorneys who were arguing the constitutionality; and inquired if the taxpayers of Brevard County are paying for those attorneys; with Mr. Knox responding as far as he knows they should be paying for Mr. Ellis’ and Mr. Ford’s attorneys. Commissioner Higgs stated so the taxpayers are being served by both of those attorneys.

Ms. Banks stated the answer from the Board is what she is looking for, not what Mr. Knox said; he said, “Your honor, no. I’ve been told to come and see what the court does and where it goes with this”; and inquired if the Board is saying it did not have anything to do with it or what; with Chairperson Colon responding that is not what the Board is saying; what it said was that the decision that he made was based on an executive meeting that took place upstairs. Ms. Banks inquired if the Board decided and told him that; with Chairperson Colon responding yes. Ms. Banks inquired if the Board gave Mr. Knox those instructions; with Chairperson Colon responding right, and then she also mentioned that in regards to the executive committee meetings, after the appeal and so forth, after all that is over, that the citizens are able to get a copy of those minutes. Ms. Banks stated she has one more question and wants the Board to answer it; and inquired if the Board considers it illegal or at least unethical to be a Commissioner and encourage someone to sue the Board regarding a lawful provision of the Charter; and stated she would like to start with Commissioner Pritchard and get his answer. Chairperson Colon stated Ms. Banks has to address the question to her as the Chairperson and from there, if the Commissioners wish to answer, they can. Ms. Banks inquired of the Chairperson if the Board considers it illegal or at least unethical to be a Commissioner and encourage someone to sue the Board regarding a lawful provision of the Charter. Chairperson Colon inquired if any Commissioner would like to answer Ms. Banks’ question.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a presumption that things are lawful, but anybody under the law has a right to challenge anything that the Board does, anything that happens, as to constitutionality and legality. He stated it would be inappropriate for him to say they should not take their legal rights if they think they have recourse against the Board; and while the Board has its own legal opinions of what may or may not be legal, it should not in any way discourage people from their constitutional rights to seek recourse in the courts.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Commissioner Scarborough’s comment is appropriate; the question and the issue that were always before him was whether he supported the vote of the people; and he has always said that he has; and part of it is on the record with him having said it many times before. He stated the issue that is now up is the Board’s position, the litigation, the Clerk and Property Appraiser, and the action that is being taken to clarify the constitutionality of the Charter; and he has his own convictions about that. He stated one of his firm convictions is that he believes when the people come forward, petition, and vote on that petition, that is the will of the people; and he believes that the Board should abide by that will.

Commissioner Higgs stated we are a nation of laws; there is the United States Constitution, federal laws, State laws, State Constitution, and the County Charter; the County Charter must comply with State laws as well as the State Constitution; and she would encourage citizens to use their free speech in all situations.

Chairperson Colon stated she cannot go into detail of what was said at the executive committee meeting; she cannot do that until it actually comes out; and it speaks for itself; but this is America, and that is what is beautiful about our country.

Commissioner Scarborough stated before the lawsuit occurred, the Board had an opinion from its attorney; and it said wait a minute, we have questions from two Constitutional Officers, and would prefer to have additional opinions; so it impaneled three attorneys who ruled against the County Attorney. He stated when things come into question, even the Board’s attorney’s opinion, it is incumbent upon the Board not to say, it is the law; there is a system that it needs to utilize to determine the legality of things; it is appropriate that the Board stand back and let that system take its course; and that is what is happening.

Chairperson Colon stated regarding lawsuits and suing the County, many folks who come before the Board and are not happy with its decision threaten to take the Board to court; that is what America is about; everyone is welcome to do that; and she does not think any Commissioner has a right to tell any citizen that he or she cannot do that.

PUBLIC COMMENT - WALTER PINE, RE: MARINA PARK

Walter Pine of Titusville advised he attended the North Brevard Parks Referendum Project Marina Committee meeting; he is not sure what the proper label of the committee is; but there have been a number of citizens who have been proposing alternative proposals for the park; and some of them provide significantly greater public benefit than the one that is being proposed by the County. He stated he has been doing this for some time; they brought this to the Board’s attention; it has been the Vectorworks issue and a number of others; and the prime issue all along is that there is a dedication of the property and they should get the greatest public benefit for the dollar expended. He stated he does not know who seated the committee, but there were three people out of the seven-member panel who clearly expressed a preference to a sports complex for the Titusville Little League; and there was a fourth that expressed an interest to that as well, but not from the podium. He stated out of seven people, there was a predisposition to Titusville Little League design. He stated a gentleman who was placed on the committee before it met resigned and was replaced by his brother to represent the same interest, the skateboard parks; he has not finished his research because of the short line between the two and he was not aware of this, but if there were alternates available, then the alternate should have been put in that position and not his brother to represent the same interest. He stated those seats belong to the citizens, not organizations; he attempted to bring his proposal in to broaden the scope of the discussion; he tried numerous times and had been prevented from doing that by the County; but with Commissioner Scarborough’s help, he was able to try and do it again last night. He stated he was treated atrociously by County staff from the beginning; and Mr. . .

Chairperson Colon advised Mr. Pine not to use names and just refer to employees as staff; with Mr. Pine responding he has a right to use a name. Chairperson Colon stated he is here to defend himself, so that would be fine. Mr. Pine stated it does not matter if he is here or not. Chairperson Colon stated yes it does, and if Mr. Pine read the back of the card, it says he is not allowed to use names. Mr. Pine stated if the Chairperson would read the Florida Constitution, Article V, Section 8, he has the right to insure the public trust against abuse; and the Board is the body that makes the decisions and insures the public trust is not abused. Chairperson Colon advised Mr. Pine to proceed with his presentation. Mr. Pine stated he has a right to bring those problems and those complaints to the Board’s attention at a public meeting. Chairperson Colon stated that is right, but in regards to the names, Mr. Nelson is here and can defend himself. Mr. Pine stated he wants his time restored from the interruption. Chairperson Colon advised Mr. Pine he had only a minute left, and she wants to say to him that if the person was not here, she would not allow him to speak about that person. Mr. Pine stated Chairperson Colon does not have that right. Chairperson Colon stated the Board does have that right, and has put it in writing regarding that issue. Mr. Pine stated putting it in writing does not make it right. Chairperson Colon advised Mr. Pine to continue his public comments.

Mr. Pine stated Mr. Nelson basically monopolized the time and he became quite frustrated over that; he interrupted the meeting probably inappropriately, but he for certain reasons cannot stay at all those meetings for any length of time. He stated he was told he would be given an opportunity to present it by Mr. Nelson; then public comment came up for Mr. Nelson’s proposal and he got up and made his comments about Mr. Nelson’s proposal. He stated he was told at the end of that, that it was the time he was supposed to be giving his proposal; and then he was given time. He stated after he had already been abused to the point that he was pretty well irate, and he does not know how many of the Commissioners speak well when they are irate, but he does not, so he was not able to adequately present the proposal or the issues. He stated the committee is biased, and on top of that Mr. Nelson, from his seat, said no matter what happens, if the committee does happen to recommend the proposal that he put forward, he would recommend to the Board that it be refused, or that it not be passed because he does not like it. Mr. Pine stated that is a referendum committee; staff has no business, no matter how he feels, he has a right to state that to the Board and make that recommendation, but he may not influence a referendum committee by making that statement from the floor during the meeting. He stated he has a right to an opinion and to make that recommendation to the Board, but he may not influence that committee by making those statements; and that was wrong.

PUBLIC COMMENT - THELMA ROPER, RE: FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Thelma Roper of Titusville stated she noticed not only the statement on the back of the card, but the notice on the front of the agenda which says, “requests that speakers appearing under public comment section of the agenda limit their comments and presentations to matters under the Board’s jurisdiction”; and inquired what is not under the Board’s jurisdiction. She stated the Board passes resolutions supporting anybody, anything, anywhere, so in that respect, it is under the Board’s jurisdiction if they want to bring it to the Board. She stated that statement violates the United States Constitution; the Commissioners were all quoting it just a few minutes ago; but she finds it very interesting that even though they all know it very well, they still wind up with stuff like this statement, which is a violation of her freedom of speech. She stated she has really been having a hard time with it because it seems like every meeting she goes to lately she does not care what agency it is, what committee it is, what commission it is, she is getting more and more of she cannot speak on this or that; and if they cannot speak on it, they should throw it in the garbage because it does not mean a thing. She stated when she saw the statement it angered her and upset her and one of the things that she does because she is disabled and does not work is work to insure that all people, including the disabled, have their rights; so she would like to present each of the Commissioners with a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Ms. Roper stated Mr. Pine’s comments last night reminded her of the situation with the pier committee about two years ago, when they sat there and listened to staff tell them to keep going on and they will disband the committee, get a new committee that will do what they want or else they will not do anything, they will take the money for the pier and the pier will not get fixed, nothing will be done, and they will spend it where they want to spend it. She stated she is making that statement because she wants the Board to be aware of what is going on in the citizens committee meetings; and they are not always up and up and unprejudiced as the Board is led to believe.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants to read the back of the card for the people who are watching the meeting, as it does reference the Constitution; and it says, “While it is the Board’s policy to promote citizen participation in accordance with the First Amendment protections guaranteed under the United States Constitution, no person addressing the Commission shall make slanderous, profane, or other remarks not protected by the First Amendment with full recognition that public figures are not subject to the same degree of protection from critical public comments as other individuals.” He stated the Commissioners, as elected officials, are not afforded as much rights, but there are certain people who have certain rights to be protected from comments, even though Ms. Roper has a right to comment. He stated it is a very big area of law, and the statements do not ignore the Constitution nor does the Board try in any way to limit rights. Ms. Roper stated that one just hit her on the back of the card, but seeing the one on the front of the agenda, that is the one that really made her upset.

Commissioner Higgs advised the statement on the front of the agenda says, “The Board of County Commissioners “requests” that speakers appearing under public comment section of the agenda limit their comments and/or presentations to matters under the Board’s jurisdiction”; it does not censor anyone; and it is a request of the Board. Ms. Roper stated that is right, but she just ran into some problems so when she saw it, it made her very upset and she wanted the Board to be aware of it.

Chairperson Colon advised Ms. Roper she has a copy of the Constitution from Floyd Rogers, so Ms. Roper can have her copy.

Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson advised obviously there are two views of what happened at the meeting last evening; Mr. Pine got frustrated and left the room for periods of time and missed part of the meeting; and they went over the process as to when he was going to be able to make his presentation. He stated staff made a short presentation about the plans; the Committee began to discuss the two plans that had been prepared; and at that point, Mr. Pine left the meeting. He stated Mr. Pine did, in the end, present his plan; he may have been agitated, as he said; but in the end there was concern because the Committee was starting to talk about Mr. Pine’s plan and there were things in it that did not meet Code nor the needs of the organizations. Mr. Nelson stated what he said was that he had concerns about the functionality of his plan for the organizations that would be using the facility; and if the Board wants him to send a staff member up there to take minutes, that is fine; but if it wants professional staff to go up there, they will be happy to continue to do that. He stated the role they play is to give some guidance in terms of the years of experience they have; he had his able Assistant Jack Masson with him, so they had about 60 years of experience last night; they were just trying to assist the Committee in its decision-making process; and as a result, the Committee came up with a unanimous recommendation for a plan that is being worked on.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

ATTEST: ________________________________
JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)