MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

September 19, 2006

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on September 19, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chair Helen Voltz, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

 

 

The Invocation was given by Reverend Robert Adams, Jr., Faith Presbyterian Church, Merritt Island, Florida.

 

 

Commissioner Helen Voltz led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the Minutes of the August 24, 2006 Special Meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated Item I.D.3, State Funded Subgrant Agreement with Department of Community Affairs and Grant Permission to Bid, Award to Lowest Qualified Responsive Bidder, and Designate County Manager to Execute All Required Documents, Re: Installation of Window and Door Protection for Space Coast Junior/Senior High School, should have the School Board facility staff as project manager. 

 

Chair Voltz stated Item I.D.1 Approval of Meeting with Cities of Melbourne, Cocoa, Palm Bay, Rockledge, and Titusville, Re:  Discussion of Senate Bill 1194, Growth Management and Interlocal Service Boundary Agreements, should include the City of West Melbourne.  Commissioner Colon stated yesterday at the Growth Management Coalition meeting there was desire to have the City Manager and an appointed elected official from each municipality and to have the meeting workshop style. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Michael Myjak submitted a card to discuss Item I.D.1.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he wants to make sure that the public is aware that on Item I.C.2, Approval, Re:  Sale of Surplus Portion of Former Fortenberry Wastewater Treatment Plant Site, there was a minimum bid established of $685,000; and there was a bid of $686,000.    

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Grant Contract with National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; and authorize staff to advertise, award, and execute agreements to implement the Marine Turtle Hurricane Mitigation Project, with no in-kind or matching funds required.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.      

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution releasing Contracts dated April 11, 2006 for improvements to New South Wales and Lorikeet at Walkabout.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.    

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Revised Policy BCC-45 for Initiation and Development of New or Amended Ordinances.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.     

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Policy BCC-89, Flag Stem and Easement, which establishes the procedures for the review and approval of flag stems and easement lots creating a total of three or more lots from one parent parcel of land.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Contract with Harbor Homes, LLC, for guarantee of performance for road repair improvements for Marina Village Condominium.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to waive the requirement for a 15-foot vegetative buffer tract on all four sides of Palms of Indian River Estates.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Contract with Bonita Beach, LLC, for guarantee of performance for road repair improvements for Bonita Beach Condominium.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution establishing a uniform assessment of costs for Code Enforcement cases and appeals.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Binding Development Plan with Mitchell M. Townsend for property located on the west side of U.S. 1, south of County Line Road.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to accept staff’s recommendation of the two top-ranked proposals for Proposal P-3-06-23, Disaster Debris Removal Services, from AshBritt Environmental and Crowder Gulf Disaster Debris Management; approve negotiations with those vendors and if unsuccessful, to negotiate with the third ranked proposer, CERES Environmental Services, Inc.; and authorize the Chair to execute negotiated contracts.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to waive Phase I Environmental Assessment, deed and plat restrictions, all FP&L, and BellSouth, and public utility easements; and authorize the Chair to execute Contract for Sale and Purchase with Melvin Brown, Karen Brown Higdon and Melissa Carole Brown NKA Melissa Carole Allen, Co-trustees of the Carolyn F. Brown Trust for property needed for the Wickham Road Widening Project, between Nasa Boulevard and U.S. 192.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve and accept Temporary Construction Easement from John Adkins and Ann Adkins; waive Phase I Environmental Assessment, deed and plat restrictions, all FP&L, BellSouth, and public utility easements; and authorize staff to order payment in the amount of $4,600 for the easements and conduct closing for the property needed for the Wickham Road Widening Project, between Nasa Boulevard and U.S. 192.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution and execute County Deed transferring all Brevard County interest in Hammock Trail, Beth Lane, Connors Cove, Wilderness Lane, Deerwood Trail, Hidden Lakes Place, El Dorado Way, Pinto Lane, Country Road, Sienna Drive, West Drive, Lakebreeze Boulevard, Mustang Road, Oak Lane, Lakeland Drive, Melissa Court, Lakepoint Drive, Pat McKee Place, Stan Drive, and Hazelwood Drive, along with any existing associated permits, to the City of Melbourne.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to accept Deed from Bryan G. Lambert for the conveyance of Lucas Road right-of-way on Merritt Island.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to accept temporary construction easement from Nygmatron, LLC; waive Phase I Environmental Assessments, deed and plat restrictions, all FP&L, BellSouth, and public utility easements; and authorize staff to order payment in the amount of $5,700 and conduct closing for property needed for the Wickham Road Widening Project, between Nasa Boulevard and U.S. 192.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the request of the Sonoma District Association, Inc. for the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office to provide traffic control enforcement for the community; and execute Agreement with the Sheriff and the Sonoma District Association.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve request of the Windsor Estates Homeowners Association for the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office to provide traffic control enforcement for the community; and execute Agreement with the Sheriff and the Windsor Estates Homeowners Association.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the request of the Sunset Lakes Homeowners Association for the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office to provide traffic control enforcement for the community; and execute Agreement with the Sheriff and the Sunset Lakes Homeowners Association.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Policy HS-17, Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention Program, which will be utilized to implement the County’s new default prevention strategy, which was approved by the Board and Florida Housing Corporation as part of the County’s State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) funded Local Housing Assistance Plan.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Water Line and Ingress/Egress Easement Agreement, and Bill of Sale with the City of Cocoa for POW/MIA Park.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

AGREEMENT TO RENEW AND AMEND EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH PROGRESSIVE
     ACTION SOCIETY, INC., RE:  USE OF GIBSON COMPLEX                                                  

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Agreement to Renew and Amend Existing Agreement with Progressive Action Society, Inc. for use of a portion of Gibson Complex in Titusville.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Agreement to Renew and Amend Existing Agreement with the Child Care Association of Brevard County, Inc. for use of portions of the Gibson Complex in Titusville.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Agreement with the City of Rockledge to replace existing Interlocal Agreements for operation and maintenance of the City-owned Parks and Recreation Facilities.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Second Addendum to Existing Agreement with the City of Cocoa for operation and maintenance of the City-owned Parks and Recreation Facilities, to add Junny Rios Martinez Park, and Fern and Prospect Park.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

                                                           

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Amendment to Agreement with National Financial Systems, Inc. to extend the existing Agreement for an additional 12-month period, for debt collection services-primary placement.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to accept the high bid of $686,000 from Anthony G. LaCourt for County Land Sale #06-04; and authorize the Chair to execute all necessary documents to close the sale.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to award Proposal #P-3-06-28, Marketing Services for Space Coast Area Transit, to Space Coast Advertising Consortium; appoint SCAT Director James Liesenfelt, SCAT Manager of Planning and Finance Bob Roberson, and Deputy County Attorney Shannon Wilson to negotiate contract terms to be effective for three years with an option to renew for an additional two years; and authorize the Chair to execute the negotiated Contract.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution authorizing the leasing of County property to a not-for-profit corporation; and execute Amendment 2 to Lease Agreement with Crosswinds Youth Services, Inc. for property at 55 North Courtenay Parkway, Merritt Island, Florida.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

           

                                   

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize staff to advertise Request for Proposal from qualified architectural/engineering firms; authorize the establishment of a Selection and Negotiating Committees; authorize Permission to Bid construction once design is complete; and authorize the Chair to execute all associated contracts for design and construction of an addition at ire Station #83 in Palm Bay.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (Reconsidered later in meeting.)

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the revised FY 2006-2007 Cooperative Advertising/Marketing Assistance Program Handbook.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve a meeting with the Cities of Melbourne, Cocoa, Palm Bay, Rockledge, Titusville, and West Melbourne on October 17, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. to discuss Senate Bill 1194, Growth Management and Interlocal Service Boundary Agreements; and direct that the City Manager and an elected official from each municipality be invited to attend.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (Reconsidered later in meeting.)   

 

                       

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve payment of award of $412.50 to James M. Miles, $206.25 to David W. Williams, and $206.25 to
James A. Hurley, Jr. of Utility Services under the Employee Innovations Program.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute State-funded Subgrant Agreement with State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management for installation of window and door protection for Space Coast Junior/Senior High School-second floor of main building in the amount of $210,000; authorize permission to bid, award to the lowest qualified responsive bidder, and designate the County Manager or her designee to execute all agreements, contracts, and additional changes, documents, or amendments required for the grant contract; and designate the School Board Facilities staff as the project manager.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Site Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with the Housing Authority of the City of Titusville for placement of emergency radio repeater equipment at Titusville towers complex; and authorize the Emergency Management Director to take any subsequent actions to implement the Agreement as may be required.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

                                                           

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve scheduling a Workshop at 1:30 p.m. on Monday, December 11, 2006 with the Brevard County Legislative Delegation in the Florida Room.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the Revised Precinct Legal Descriptions for changes to existing Precincts due to annexations by the Cities of Melbourne and Palm Bay.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to reappoint John Devivo to the Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District, with term of appointment expiring September 30, 2010.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated House Bill 7079 goes into effect on October 1; one of the provisions of the Bill would permit the operation of ATV’s on public streets or roads during the daytime if they are unpaved and the speed limit is less than 35 mph; and Mr. Osborne advises that most unpaved streets have a speed limit of less than 35 mph.  She stated she did not know if the Board wished to exempt the County as it has the right to do under the law or have discussion on the issue. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has been advised that the Sheriff’s Office wants to weigh in on this issue; Lt. Scully will come to the Board to address it; and even if the County exempts out, the Sheriff’s Office will have jurisdiction.  He requested Mr. Knox address the issue. 

 

County Attorney Scott Knox stated he talked to Commander Scully yesterday; the issue is whether exempting out would allow ATV’s on all public streets; Commander Scully pointed out a separate provision in Florida Statutes, which prohibits ATV’s on public streets; and so if the Board wants to pursue the exemption, there should not be any problem with it.  He noted Commander Scully is favorably disposed toward doing it. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to reconsider the Consent Agenda.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the Consent Agenda minus items I.C.5, Permission to Advertise Request for Proposals for Architectural and Engineering  Firms, Appoint Selection and Negotiating Committees, Permission to Bid Construction; and Authorize Execution of All Associated Contracts for Design and Construction, Re:  Fire Station #83 in Palm Bay, and I.D.1, Approval of Meeting with Cities of Melbourne, Cocoa, Palm Bay, Rockledge, and Titusville, Re:  Discussion of Senate Bill 1194,
 Growth Management and Interlocal Service Boundary Agreements.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.                            

                         

DISCUSSION, RE:  HOUSE BILL 7079 CONCERNING ATV’S  (CONTINUED)    

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to look at creating an ordinance exempting Brevard County from the provision in House Bill 7079 that permits ATV’s on public unpaved streets or roads during daylight hours where the speed limit is less than 35 mph.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud a letter from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies advising of the Sheriff’s Office receiving award of reaccreditation status; and extended the Board’s congratulations to Sheriff Parker and all the men and women of the Sheriff’s Office.

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated there was good news in the newspaper this morning about the Florida Communities Trust; Chair Voltz was there and can fill the Board in on what happened at the meeting; and he will talk about the one for the Thousand Islands.  He stated in late 2004 or early 2005, he inquired about the status of the purchase of the Thousand Islands, which are south of Minuteman Causeway in Cocoa Beach; and he found out that the parties had left the table because they were dissatisfied with the lack of progress and the treatment they perceived as being unfair.  He stated these are crucial pieces of property, not only environmentally sensitive pieces that the community would want to preserve, but the potential for development was there; and some people did not realize that.  He stated at that time, there was an issue with The Nature Conservancy and whether the Board was going to extend the group’s Contract; and he had a meeting in his office with Mr. Fountain and Jim Swann, who is well known in the community.  He stated Mr. Fountain was under the impression that no development could take place on the property; but he was given assurances that if it were not purchased and set aside for conservation, someone with deep pockets would develop as many lots as they could, which in this case involved 14 one-acre parcels that could have been developed.  He stated the money was there for this to take place if someone had enough money to litigate with the City of Cocoa Beach; and with that information, they started on a path to bring this back to the table.  He stated he contacted parties, the Crawfords and the Reynolds and assured them they wanted to have discussions, have fair equitable appraisals, and address their issues and concerns; and they had a meeting in January 2005 and it ensued from there.  He stated they were successful in purchasing the Crawford portion of the property; and the Reynolds portion is in negotiation at this point.  He stated at the same time, they found the Florida Communities Trust had not received any requests for funding from the County; former County Commissioner Sue Schmitt sits on that board; and advised of meeting with Commissioner Schmitt, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Manager Don Lusk.  He stated in 2005, the County applied for and received $1.4 million; and this year the County got $3.5 million plus $600,000 for a project in Micco.  He reiterated the purchase of the Reynolds property is in negotiation and will happen as soon as they can make it happen.  He stated property like this should not be allowed to slip away.  He stated on September 15, 2006 the Florida Communities Trust awarded a grant of $3.5 million for the remaining Thousand Island properties in conjunction with the City of Cocoa Beach; they worked hard over the past few years to acquire this environmental jewel in the
Banana River; the acquisition of the Thousand Islands began in 1987 with owner David Smith for 500 acres, with cost sharing between the County’s Beach and Riverfront funding, Cocoa Beach, and the State at a joint cost of $3.2 million; and those were the islands on the north side of Minuteman Causeway.  Commissioner Pritchard advised the islands to the south of the Minuteman Causeway are the last pieces in a large acquisition plan to acquire and protect in perpetuity all of the Thousand Islands with the Crawford and Reynolds properties for a total of $4.3  million; the County’s EEL’s Program will contribute $1.2 million for the Crawford property with the grant being used for purchase of the Reynolds property; and the State contribution will be approximately 45% of the total project cost of $7.9 million.  He stated the greatest element of the Florida Communities Trust Grant is that the County will own the property outright of the State; and expressed appreciation to the Board for its support, County staff, and former Commissioner Sue Schmitt.  He stated it is probably one of the finest acquisitions the County has made in the Environmentally Endangered Lands Program; he is pleased it has come to fruition; and he is looking forward to the next step, which is the purchase of the Reynolds property. 

 

Commissioner Carlson expressed appreciation to Commissioner Pritchard for bringing the focus back to the Thousand Islands; to Chair Voltz for representing the Board in Tallahassee; and to former Commissioner Sue Schmitt for advising of the opportunities at the Florida Communities Trust so the County could take advantage of them.  Commissioner Pritchard noted this is former Commissioner Schmitt’s last year on the Florida Communities Trust.  Commissioner Carlson stated the Board needs to be sure people from the County are on that board. 

 

 

 

Linda Geiger, Director of Educational Programming and member of the Surfside Players Board of Directors, stated they were scheduled to have entertainment; he has not arrived; but he may still show up.  She introduced Kimberly Lambeth who is Operations Director for Surfside Players; stated Surfside Players is a community theater dedicated to performing arts through productions, presentations, education, and outreach; and they focus on entertainment for all audiences, providing an environment for performers, providing opportunities for training and development, providing a venue for public service, and fostering a sense of belonging to the community.  She stated several years ago they designed and implemented a strategic plan; since then they have been able to accomplish many of their goals, such as increasing the number of main stage productions to include three straight plays and three musicals; and they now present a second stage series of events with edgier shows for a contemporary audience.  She advised they extended their educational programming to include two after-school programs and three summer workshops; and this summer they served more than 100 families in the summer workshop.  She stated Surfside Players continues to see creative ways to increase awareness and revenues; they offer their facility for rent and often for free to schools and other not for profit organizations; they form working partnerships with community organizations; and they offer complimentary admission to their dress rehearsals for groups such as Devereaux, Florida Treatment Network, and Circles of Care.  She stated they recently revamped their volunteer recruitment system; and they are proud of all of their programs and services.

 

Commissioner Carlson advised Surfside Players has a booth in the foyer with information. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson introduced Phil Laurien, who is the new Executive Director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council; and advised he will speak a bit about where he began and advise of the background and plan for the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, which has a new face with myregion.org.  She stated Mr. Laurien has a slide presentation; the Board is pleased that he is present; two Commissioners sit on the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, which is made up of multiple communities and counties; and she and Commissioner Colon have been on it this year.  She stated it has been interesting because they have seen an evolutionary process occurring. 

 

Phil Laurien stated this is a familiar environment for him as he worked in county government in two previous counties; and county government always looks the same.  He stated he has been in planning for 32 years, both in the public and private sector; he had a private consulting service in New England; and he has worked in four different states, Florida being the most recent.  He stated what attracted him to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) was the interest in regionalism and smart growth; and commented on smart growth.  He advised he came most recently from Ohio, which is a “let’s make a deal” state; it is more of a zoning state than a planning state; and he wanted to spend the last years of his planning profession in a progressive state.  He stated it was interesting to come to Florida and see the differences; there are people like Commissioners Carlson, Colon and others who are really interested in the good of the region; they see there are overarching interests beyond just the local interests; and the myregion process has been interesting because it respects local authority.  He stated there are seven counties and 86 cities involved in the process, so there are 93 different planning and zoning authorities; each has its own sovereign community; and each can do whatever it chooses in the realm of planning; but the overarching issues of the transportation network, affordable housing, and other issues relate beyond the borders.  He stated he will provide a brief update; most of the Commissioners have been a part of the process; the last community meeting in Brevard County will be tomorrow night at Florida Tech at 6:00 p.m.; and invited all interested parties to attend.  He stated they are teaching the facts, but not preaching them; if they continue the existing development patterns for the next 45 years, they are going to consume 1,812 square miles of new lands; and that is 1.16 million acres, at an infrastructure cost of approximately $104 billion.  He noted the numbers come from the Penn Design Study that was done last year; however, the same study said that if they were to change development patterns to allow higher densities on just one-quarter of the land area to be developed, they would need only 420,000 acres of new land.  He stated it would allow for open space to be retained; and there would be adequate cost savings on infrastructure alone to acquire all of the environmentally sensitive lands in all seven counties and to build the transit system on certain select corridors.  He stated the most noticeable issue for the growth in the region is traffic; current low density patterns have resulted typically in ten new trips per household per day; alternative mixed use kinds of development where there can be shorter trips, people can live closer to work, or they could walk or bicycle to work, could result in a reduction to four trips per day, a significant savings.  He stated they talked about alternative development patterns in the first group of workshops last spring; and displayed a slide showing a conservation subdivision, which is a low density alternative for areas that the Board  would like to see stay rural but have some development rights.  He stated they may be one unit per acre or one unit per two acres; but instead of everybody having a large lot, the alternative conservation development patterns would have perhaps a quarter-acre lot or a third-acre lot with fully 50% of the open space staying green.  He displayed a slide showing a traditional neighborhood design; and stated it might look like Mt. Dora, old Cocoa, or Winter Park.  Mr. Laurien stated they are areas where there is a more formal design with mixed uses, open spaces, and offices, residential, and commercial development.  He stated typically at a density like one would see in Mt. Dora, there are four to seven units per acre in the downtown area with mixed uses of offices and retail; and described Seaside, an urbanistic community developed 20 years ago in the Florida panhandle.  He stated density without amenities is the devil and can hurt the community; but density done right with amenities, shops, stores, places to work and interact with friends, and open space can be a desirable deliverance from suburban sprawl that could overtake the area in 2050.  He displayed slides showing the chain of parks in Tallahassee, Florida and Central Square, which is one of the 24 squares laid out in Savannah, Georgia in 1735.  He stated among the implications for the myregion process are that there may be alternative development policies that might be desirable, such as the examples he gave; and benefits would include reduced cost.  He stated if they can preserve some open space by having compact development in certain areas, that would reduce auto trips if transit can be incorporated; the tradeoff would be higher density in some areas; but the bottom line is there are 93 different planning and zoning authorities, so it is still a matter of local choice.  He advised the Board is going to have to think about how its current plans and policies work; and provided examples of table maps from the first round of workshops.  He commented on the process whereby people were able to select future development patterns and indicate them on the map with colored dots; and displayed examples.  He stated the maps show a theme that is conservation oriented, linking up existing conservation lands; water was an issue because people were wondering whether there would be enough water in the year 2050 from groundwater; and the answer is not from groundwater alone.  He stated by the year 2008/2009, the St. Johns River Water Management District says they will run out of water from the Floridana aquifer and will have to start using alternative sources, which should get them to approximately 2045.  He stated the red dots indicate urban low density at four to seven units per acre; the brown dots show urban mid-density at seven to ten units per acre; and indicated a town center and transit line.  He displayed the map developed by the 3,000 people from seven counties who played the development pattern game; advised it has been spatially interpreted by the University of Florida; and commented on the areas of density and open space.  He stated it is a very different picture from the pink trend map that the Board has before it; people are voting for centers of population in 2050 surrounded by open space, whereas patterns of development based upon current Comprehensive Plans in seven counties will be a big blob 50 miles in every direction from Orlando.  He commented on issues to be discussed at the upcoming workshop, centers of population, transportation corridors, major arterial roads operating at level of service F, and need for alternative kinds of transportation.  He stated the implication for the County Commissioners, Mayors, and all the municipalities is to stay tuned; after they finish the series of workshops, they will take the composite plan and turn it over to the University of Florida and the other consultants; and they are going to be building five different scenarios, one of which is the most environmentally friendly.  He stated the second will be the smart growth type with compact centers; and the third one will be transit oriented, showing what certain transit corridors of higher densities would look like.  He stated the fourth would be the composite, the people’s choice, which is the one the Board saw this morning; and the last would be the trend.  He stated the last week in January, they will be on television every night for an hour; people will be able to see the fiscal and economic impacts, the cost of the infrastructure, the air quality impacts, and the effect
of the environment on all of the five scenarios.  Mr. Laurien stated they will invite people from the seven counties to vote via the Internet or Brighthouse network controls for one of the five scenarios that they would find most interesting in the year 2050.  He stated the elected officials in the 90 communities can discuss what they want the area to look like, whether the vote relates to them, and if it does what policies they may need to change.  He stated it is a big project for the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated it is nice to see the summary of all the input and to see where the 3,000 people have voted to put people; a lot of people, once they are here, want to close the door and not have any more growth; inquired how can they stop people from coming; and advised they are forecasting a doubling of population.  Mr. Laurien stated there are local land use authorities that can establish the kinds of uses and densities that are most appropriate; however, it is not possible to go down to the ocean and tell the tide not to come in, so people will still want to keep coming to the area.  He stated there will be pressure to change; visions change as the people who have the vision change; and as Commissioners transition out and others transition in, this will be a dynamic process of growth.  He stated the early settlers paid $24 worth of trinkets to buy Manhattan; land is not like eggs in that it can be cooked over and over again; and Manhattan has been cooked over and over again as the people keep coming.  He stated the question is how big the County wants to be, what it wants to look like when it is built out, and is there a limit or physical tipping point.  He stated when water runs out, there are those kinds of limits, but they are a long way in the future; and in the meantime the Board needs to ask the questions about what it wants to look like when it is built out and what built out means.  He stated the County has local authority; only the County can make those decisions; and people need to understand a community is a living organism.  He inquired if people decide to have no more growth, what happens to the organism; and advised it is not an easy answer, and is up to the elected officials and the people of the community to have that debate.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the issue is density; and it is a Statewide issue.  He stated if they look at the future land use map and realize it is out of sync with where the County wants to go, they need to make adjustments to the map and apply the appropriate zoning so people will know what the zoning is going to be and the potential density.  He stated a speculator who looks at the future land use map and sees a density of 15 units per acre makes the assumption he can at least do that even if it is zoned agricultural, so it puts everybody in a bit of a bind.  He stated they need to address the future land use and density of the County, and start thinking of the County as a region; and inquired what would Mr. Laurien suggest to get them looking at the County as a whole and apply the appropriate densities.  He stated when a municipality annexes, it takes the authority away from the County and gives it to the municipality; and some people will play “let’s make a deal.” 

 

Mr. Laurien stated the tension between cities and counties has always been there; when he was a County Development Director, they did annexations; and there was always that tension.  He stated the one thing that will come from the myregion process is how they will build a transportation network to serve the people because they are not going to make it with roads alone; and the issue has to transcend the annexation battles.  He stated they have to step back and decide what the region is going to look like because traffic does not end at the county lines; and they are going to need to build a regional transportation network.  He stated density is not the enemy if it is done right, with certain corridors of higher density with the proper amenities and open areas preserved.  Mr. Laurien stated people are saying they want more concentric kinds of rings of compact growth surrounded by open space; and whichever scenario is selected in the end, his guess is that it will have elements of smart growth, conservation, and transit themes.  He advised of the need to bring people together to talk because if they keep battling with each other about edges and density, it will always be “let’s make a deal” over density; and stated that would be hurting the region.   

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board has approved additional funding to Lead Brevard because it recognizes that is the only entity in the County that has the capability to facilitate thinking on a regional basis; and commented on meetings he has attended regarding regionalism and Brevard being Orlando’s beach.  He stated they need to promote Brevard County as its own region, and then they can become part of the seven-county region; the organization to do that is Lead Brevard; and it is not going to happen unless there is someone in that position to facilitate the move. 

 

Mr. Laurien stated in the post myregion era when the final scenario is selected, there is going to be a need for facilitating those kinds of efforts, county by county and community by community; and some of it has already started.  He stated they are already working as a regional planning council; and commented on working with Tavares, Lake County, and Winter Park.  He stated the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council is going to give a certain number of free hours to any of the member communities to start this discussion; and if the County is interested, it should call on them.

 

Commissioner Colon stated when she goes to meetings outside of the County, she realizes that everyone is in the same boat; they are not just Brevard County problems; but all of the neighboring counties are experiencing the same kind of growth, some even worse than Brevard County.  She stated she and the Sheriff attended a meeting in Orlando yesterday; and commented on I-4 traffic.  She stated Brevard County is continuing to look at the regional outlook; and advised of meeting with Indian River County officials and consideration of meetings with Volusia County concerning transportation.  She stated the County is looking at what is happening west of I-95; growing pains are coming along; and organizations such as the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and myregion.org are even more critical in looking at the bigger picture.  She invited Mr. Laurien to attend the meeting on October 17, 2006, which will include all the major cities in the County; and advised they will be discussing urban infrastructure and service boundary lines.  Mr. Laurien advised he will check his calendar.  Chair Voltz advised the meeting is at 1:00 p.m. on October 17, 2006.  

 

Commissioner Carlson expressed appreciation to Mr. Laurien; stated there is a new face for the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council; and Mr. Laurien’s leadership is going to make all the difference in insuring this vision goes forward.  She stated the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council was one of the major investors at the beginning of the myregion.org effort; and she looks for great things in the future.  She commented on the Central Florida GIS Program, budgeting for a GIS analyst, applying land use issues to the region, insuring everyone is on the same piece of paper, sustainability, and finding the balance.  She stated in June of 2007, it will be very telling; now is the time to be paying attention; and Chair Voltz will be there for the next round.  She inquired if there is still an opportunity to go to the event at Florida Tech; with Mr. Laurien responding affirmatively.  Mr. Laurien stated people can go to www.myregion.org and sign up to come; it is open to the public; but they do like to know in advance how many people are coming so they can prepare for it. 

 

Discussion ensued on number who will be attending and issues to be discussed. 

 

Mr. Laurien stated there are varying degrees of ability to have GIS in the 93 different communities that are part of myregion.org; some smaller communities do not have that capability at all while others are very good at it.  He advised all of the data and modeling is free; it is available; and the communities can get it through the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council.  He commented on the level of detail that is available. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she has been to every one of the meetings; it is not as easy as it looks; and the citizens are able to look at that for the first time.  She commented on attending other meetings; stated she will be attending a meeting tomorrow; and when reality hits, it is quite enlightening to find it is a difficult challenge.  She requested the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council’s assistance, with the County’s Planning and Zoning Director, on putting together the map for the October 17 meeting; with Mr. Laurien responding Ms. Sobrino can call them. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired where is the meeting at FIT; with Mr. Laurien responding in the Student Union Center.  Commissioner Carlson advised there will be parking on Babcock Street and on Country Club Road; and there will probably be signs on both roads. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the Sheriff’s Department does an incredible job; and advised of a new program the Sheriff initiated called Paws and Stripes. 

 

A representative of the Sheriff’s Office stated yesterday Commissioner Colon was able to join the Sheriff and staff at the jail complex for introduction of the new canine program called Paws and Stripes, which is a partnership with the Humane Society, SPCA of North Brevard, and Animal Control Services; they find unadoptable dogs, which are donated to the Sheriff’s Office on a temporary basis for an eight-week training program; and Corporal Fred Abbey, who is an experienced canine handler, will be spearheading the program and training the dogs with the inmates.  He stated the inmates will be training the dogs for eight weeks; they are low-risk, nonviolent offenders; Commissioner Colon walked through the tents yesterday and there was no threat to her; and it is a great program at virtually no cost to the taxpayers.  He stated once the dogs are turned over to the Humane Society, it will put them up for adoption; the adoptive parents will have to go through an obedience class to learn how to train the dogs further; and the program will instill a sense of worth for the inmates so they have something to look forward to when they get out of jail.  He stated when the inmates leave they will be certified in dog grooming, dog obedience, and Red Cross Pet First Aid, so they take a lot away from it.  He stated the dogs are salvageable; they will not be euthanized; they are going to good families; and the inmates leave with a sense of accomplishment. 

 

Commissioner Colon inquired about the other programs utilizing the inmates; with the Sheriff’s representative responding they are still operating male and female inmate work programs, doing trash collection throughout the County.  The Sheriff’s representative advised they started the program in the summer of 2005; it started with male inmates but a month later they started using female inmates; they wear the black and white strips for high visibility; and in the seven-month period, they have collected over 100,000 pounds of trash throughout the County, which is a significant impact.  He stated they took it a step further and joined partnership with Keep Brevard Beautiful; and now they are working on the recreational islands in the Banana and Indian Rivers.            

 

Commander Joe Ambrose stated the Sheriff appreciates the Board’s support in trying to get guardrails and the extra lane on I-95; they have written thousands of citations since they started the program on I-95, although it is not really the Sheriff’s responsibility to take care of I-95.  He stated the Sheriff has taken an aggressive behavior stance on that; he wants to stop the fatality rate that has been getting out of control; and they have slowed down the fatality rate because their percentages are getting better in the last four years.  He stated they have the phantom cars that some people have questioned; but they do help to some degree; and requested the Board be patient because they are going to step up efforts in the next few months.  He stated anyone planning on speeding on I-95 might want to think about it.           

 

Chair Voltz commented on deputies on the overpass at Lake Washington Road catching speeders; and stated the phantom cars do help and speeders do not know if there is anyone in them or not.  Commander Ambrose stated the Sheriff is going to keep the cars; he is glad the Board is saying that it is positive; and normally they do not hear the positive things.  He advised they are using laser radar so they can pinpoint the cars that are speeding, even if there are 20 or 30 cars going at one time.

 

Commissioner Carlson advised of law enforcement presence at the Eau Gallie Interchange and problems with traffic backing up on the ramps at that point.  She inquired what kind of dogs with specialties the Sheriff’s Department has; with a representative of the Sheriff’s Office responding all the canines are able to track; they can only be certified in one specialty; and there are several EOD bomb certified dogs, narcotics certified dogs, and one cadaver dog.  He stated they have tracking bloodhounds that they use when there is a missing person who is not a threat to the community or themselves; and they do not like to use the tracking canines that work on road patrol that would track the violent offenders.  Commissioner Carlson inquired about German Shepherds; with the representative responding chances are they are patrol dogs; and they try to strategically place the dogs throughout the County.

 

 

 

Chair Voltz stated she went to Tallahassee on Wednesday and Thursday; she was in a meeting for six hours; and while it was not a lot of fun, it was productive.  She stated some of the people who presented projects to the Florida Communities Trust did a good job, while others did not do such a good job; and the lady the County hired did a really good job.  She stated the Florida Communities Trust funded every project that reached above the 160 mark; one took $6 to $7 million; the way they rank the projects is to look to see if the community has an updated
comprehensive plan; and that particular county has not updated the plan since 1989, so chances are it may not be getting anything at all.  Chair Voltz stated there were a couple of others that were potentially questionable.  She stated the County will get money for the park at Eau Gallie; the Brevard Marina was next in line; everything from 160 up was funded; and the next number was 155 and the County had 158 for that particular item.  She stated while the County got the Deratany property in Micco, which is a positive; it got the Thousand Islands; and she is assuming it will get the other one, which is three out of four projects.  She stated they probably will not know for approximately six months, but that is very positive for the community when the County has not done anything before; former Commissioner Sue Schmitt was good at giving extra points to those who deserved them; she was very fair; and commented on the points for Brevard Marina.  She stated they are assuming they are going to get something for that, so it was very positive. 

 

 

 

Chair Voltz stated there was an article in the newspaper day before yesterday relating to the Cody Study and how supposedly the Department Directors manipulated the numbers before the Board got them; she does not know where the newspaper got that information; and people have been asking her about it.  She requested Mr. Abbate clear that up for the general public so everyone knows what happened.

 

Human Resources Director Frank Abbate stated the Department Directors participated in the Cody Study from the onset; in August, before the Study happened, Department Directors were asked to provide input about hard to fill positions to make sure the consultant looked at those positions carefully when benchmarking positions and looked at what was available in the market.  He stated in January 2006, when they received the first draft, they shared it with the Directors to get input; and the input was taken from the Department Directors and provided to Cody and Associates, which then developed the final draft report that came to the Board  in February 2006.  He stated between August and January, the Department Directors met on an individual basis with their key staff and with Cody and Associates to express concerns; but the Department Directors did not change the results of the Cody Study.  He advised Cody and Associates made the recommendations; and they were brought forth to the Board. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the article says that it did not make wages competitive with surrounding area governments.  Mr. Abbate stated he does not know where that information came from; the Cody Study looked at the comparative jurisdictions that the Board approved, in addition to the internal alignment, which was how positions within the organization relate to one another, and to completed position questionnaires from employees; and those three factors were the considerations that Cody and Associates used to develop the recommendations.  Chair Voltz inquired if the Board knew when it initiated the study that not everybody was going to get a raise; with County Manager Peggy Busacca responding affirmatively.  Chair Voltz inquired what was the percentage; with Ms. Busacca responding 42%.  Chair Voltz inquired if 42% did not get raises; with Ms. Busacca advising 42% did get raises.  Chair Voltz inquired why 58% did not get raises; with Mr. Abbate responding because of the minimum salaries as they were changed and the methodology that was used to see where people were slotted.  He advised by slotted, he means that each year of service, they look at the minimum salary; they looked at a total of
fifteen years of County service time in-grade; a scale was developed for every position; and they looked at the number compared to where the person actually was.  Mr. Abbate stated the reason that was done was to address the issue of salary compression, which is people who have been with the County ten years not making the same amount as someone with the County for one year; and when that analysis was done, people received increases if they were not at that minimum level.  He stated the study utilizing that methodology established a minimum threshold for people; people who were already making that or above that, did not receive an increase under the Cody Study; however, the Board approved providing half of the COLA increase that was going to be awarded in April, so employees either received 1.5% or twenty-five cents an hour, whichever was greater.  He stated that was consistent with what was going to happen in FY 2006-07 anyway; the Board already had a 3% COLA adjustment or fifty cents per hour, whichever was greater; and everyone received one-half of the COLA increase in April when  the County awarded the Cody Study.  He stated everyone in the organization received either 1.5% or twenty-five cents per hour, whichever was greater; no one received less than that; and what is scheduled to happen in the fall is not just the COLA, but the remaining 1.5% or twenty-five cents per hour plus the merit increase, which is 1% or twenty cents per hour, whichever is greater.  He stated anyone who is making below $34,000 would receive higher than 1.5% because twenty-five cents an hour would equal more than that. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if Jeff Schweers called Mr. Abbate concerning this article; with Mr. Abbate responding no, he does not believe Mr. Schweers spoke to anyone in his office. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud a letter from Julie Taylor of Keller Williams Realty of Brevard expressing appreciation to County employees Rick Enos, Todd Corwin, Ernie Brown, George Ritchie, Gwen Heller, Dawn Parker, Kim Douglass, Martha Daniher, Melissa Dingman, and Frank Skarvelis for their assistance with educational seminars on how government operates; and congratulated the employees on their excellent level of service.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the next staff recognition goes to Facilities as well as to Road and Bridge for their work on the façade and landscape improvement at the Merritt Island Service Complex.  He stated people have commented how much better the building looks.  He stated the employees who will receive certificates are Scott Barrett, Bill Clifton, Bob Anderson, Gary Raulerson, Randy Lovelace, Mike Yuknus, Dennis Fegely, Harold Stewart, and Billy Osborne.  He stated Mr. Osborne’s involvement was the resurfacing of Heidi Lane, which is the access road, and the parking lot; and it all looks so much better.    

 

Road and Bridge Director Billy Osborne accepted certificates on behalf of the employees who worked on the project. 

 

 

 

Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis stated building a fire station in the middle of Palm Bay is a million dollar expense; the station exists solely within the City; and inquired if Attorney Knox has requested an Attorney General Opinion yet.  County Attorney Scott Knox responded he did not know he was supposed to send a letter requesting an Attorney General Opinion.  Mr. Ellis stated if it is not going to be done, he will send one, because it was discussed at a meeting.  Mr. Knox stated it was discussed but there was no motion.  Mr. Ellis stated he will take care of it.  Mr. Ellis reiterated the fire station is in the center of Palm Bay; just because the property was inherited from Harbor City Volunteer Ambulance Squad does not make it a logical place to put a fire station; and look at the service radius, this station would not work anywhere to the south and only slightly to the north.  He stated it would be more logical, if there was a need to build another fire station in that area to build to the south if the backup is for Valkaria; if the backup is for West Melbourne, it would move north; and if there is a need to cover I-95, they should contract with the City of Palm Bay rather than go to the expense of hiring ten people, an engine, and building a million dollar fire station.  He stated it defies logic where it is. 

 

Chief William Farmer, Fire Rescue Director, advised it is not going to cost for additional personnel; they are able to do it with available staff; and they did have a contract with the City of Palm Bay to handle I-95; but in the course of one year, there was a 131% increase in that cost.  He stated the capital improvement plan for the last five years had a property purchase program; but they have not been able to purchase property for under a million dollars, and to build a station costs in excess of $1.6 million.  He noted they did not inherit the property from Harbor City; they purchased the property; it does service West Melbourne; and it can also service the northwest corner of Palm Bay, if the City chooses to contract with the County, so it would not have to build a station.  He stated they are not building a station, but are renovating a station. 

 

Mr. Ellis stated at $1 million, it is building a station; and it will not be comparable to what they are starting with.  Chief Farmer stated he has no idea what Mr. Ellis is basing anything on, whether the qualifications for putting a fire station in place or the qualifications for construction.  Mr. Ellis stated they are spending a million dollars; they are not going to put a paint job on an ambulance station; they also own property at Babcock Street Road and Bridge, which is south of Malabar Road; and if they are looking for I-95 access, they could access from there.  He stated if Chief Farmer wants to get into qualification issues, he will be glad to go over some of those issues.  Chair Voltz advised this is not an issue for argument.  Mr. Ellis noted he did not raise the issue of qualification; with Chair Voltz advising she appreciates Mr. Ellis’ comments.  He stated his point is that it is quite obvious to anyone who lives in Palm Bay that is the wrong place to put an engine; they cannot get out of there between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., as Commissioner Colon knows; and commented on the difficulty of moving on Minton and Palm Bay Roads to try to get onto I-95 at that time of day.  Chief Farmer advised they have excellent operations there; the response times have been great; but the crews do not like it because they are stacked on each other.  He stated there might be better locations, but not for the amount of money they would be spending.  Mr. Ellis stated if they went to the Babcock Street Road and Bridge site, they would be spending nothing; and inquired what is the cost of the contract with Palm Bay that has fallen through; with Chief Farmer responding it is open-ended and has a 131% increase with no cap.  Mr. Ellis clarified he asked how much it was; with Chief Farmer responding he does not know; it was two years ago; and if Mr. Ellis will call his office, he can get that information.  Mr. Ellis advised he tried calling yesterday, but could not get anyone to return his calls.  He stated he is being told they cannot contract with Palm Bay because it costs too much, but when he asks how much it is, Chief Farmer does not know; and the County is going to spend $700,000 a year to operate a fire station and a million dollars to build on in the heart of Palm Bay.  Chair Voltz advised Mr. Ellis can find out from Chief Farmer, if he wants to call.  Mr. Ellis noted by the time he finds out, the Board will have already voted. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated if that is the concern, the Board can table the item so they can get more questions answered; and inquired if time is of the essence.  Chief Farmer responded one meeting will not make a difference; the problem is that the ladies and gentlemen who live there are stacked like cordwood; and it takes a year or 18 months to get construction done.  He stated they are not just worried about the I-95 access; they are also dealing with the West Melbourne area; and they have excellent response times into West Melbourne from this location.  He stated they shared this location with senior staff who agreed this is a good location.      

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table consideration of actions relating to Fire Station #83 in Palm Bay to the September 26, 2006 Board meeting. 

 

 

She stated she has more questions; she also needs to find out what letter Mr. Ellis was under the impression the County should have been requesting.  Mr. Ellis advised during the fire fee discussion, the Board discussed sending a letter requesting an Attorney General Opinion on the issue of doing a rebate on the fire fees because there is no prior legal case on that issue.  He stated obviously the Board is going to have to make a decision this year that it cannot back out of, but it could form the basis for the decision next year.  Chair Voltz stated she thought that was being taken care of.  Commissioner Colon stated they will take care of it; obviously that direction was not very clear; first they will focus on the motion to table; and then there will be another motion requesting the letter from the Attorney General.        

 

Discussion ensued on getting additional information.

 

Chief Farmer inquired what is the question or information desired; with Commissioner Colon responding she will meet with Chief Farmer.  Mr. Ellis advised the question is why is this the best location to put the station; and Chief Farmer will probably need a list from Facilities of other County-owned property in the area.         

 

Chair Voltz called for the vote on the motion to table the item.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to request an Attorney General Opinion on the Fire Assessment Assistance Program.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Mr. Knox inquired if the letter is to ask about the assistance program; with Chair Voltz responding yes, concerning the legality. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has been on Chief Farmer’s side of the table, moved and renovated stations, and placed them in areas where they needed to be; and they used the fire station location model that he described back in the 1980’s.  He commented on the model, the criteria, and relying on input from people in the field.  He stated when this item comes back, he would be interested in more specifics as to why this location is best; and suggested running a response time to certain points of interest and compare to other areas.  He stated they want to make sure the stations are located in the best possible areas; they cannot just look at the costs, but need to look at the location because it is specific to the incident area; and it is like losing a nickel on one side of the street but looking for it on the other side because the light is better.  He requested costs for the station with two bays or whatever they are talking about, living accommodations, all ADA requirements, and all the other enhancements; and stated having just toured a station in Ft. Lauderdale last week, there is an incredible amount of construction that has to go into stations now because of all the requirements, etc.  He stated the cost of building a station is enormous. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she would also like to know the number of accidents on Palm Bay Road that the County has to respond to on a regular basis; and inquired how long has the station been there.  Chief Farmer responded the station has been there a number of years; it was the Harbor City Station; and it is probably one of the best constructed stations he has ever seen. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she wants to make sure they have that kind of data; they are not talking about building a new fire station; and it is an existing station that staff has recommended needs to be upgraded.  She stated she would be particularly interested in knowing the numbers in regards to accidents.    

 

 

 

Chair Voltz stated there are people in the audience for Item VI., Ordinance, Re:  Economic Development Ad Valorem Exemption for IAP Worldwide Services, Inc.; and she would like to consider that item after the next item so they can get back to work.   

 

 

 

Michael Myjak stated he has concerns regarding the meeting; recently public comment was squelched or dismissed; the Board is the responsible party for disenfranchised unincorporated Brevard County residents; and no city officials at the proceedings will be representing them.  He stated they are the people who are about to have their way of life changed due to the annexation process; an interlocal agreement is still an agreement; and the agreement does not change the process if it is not followed by either party, which is an issue that still has not been resolved.  He stated Chapter 171.2, Florida Statutes, is a template or flow chart and provides some timelines; but unfortunately it does not address the residents’ concerns who are affected; and it probably will not unless the Board allows the people within those areas to have a vote and a say in the matter, which it can do under Chapter 171, Florida Statutes.    

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is going to have a dialogue with the cities; and inquired if it would be possible to have public comment; with Chair Voltz responding there will be a public comment section on the agenda.  Commissioner Colon inquired if it is possible to have it at the beginning.  Commissioner Scarborough commented on having public comment, then ideas evolve, and the public is not able to interface or comment on the new ideas that have evolved in the discussion; and requested the Chair accommodate the public if there are new issues that come up.  He commented on being elected by people from the cities and the unincorporated areas, addressing the Board, and being fair to people.

 

Commissioner Colon commented on Commissioners wearing two hats, as the mayor of the unincorporated areas and also representing those in the incorporated areas; jurisdiction of the municipalities; jurisdiction of District 5; and representation at the meeting.  She stated each municipality will be well represented at the meeting; but the District 2 Commissioner will also serve as the mayor of Merritt Island; and that is why it is important to hear from the unincorporated areas at these types of meetings.  She stated the public has to be given an opportunity to speak; and inquired will there be public comments at the end of the meeting.  She advised of the usual format for workshops; and inquired will the public be able to bring comments back to the Board and the Board have more discussion. 

 

Chair Voltz stated it is going to be an open discussion type of meeting; she would not want to stop somebody if they wanted to speak on a specific issue the Board was discussing; and as each item is finished, she will ask if anyone wants to speak on that item, and as long as they have submitted a card, they may speak.  Commissioner Colon inquired if this is going to be unique to this workshop; with Chair Voltz responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve a meeting with the Cities of Melbourne, Cocoa, Palm Bay, Rockledge, Titusville, and West Melbourne on October 17, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. to discuss Senate Bill 1194, Growth Management and Interlocal Service Boundary Agreements; and direct that the City Manager and an elected official from each municipality be invited to attend.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

REPORT, RE:  SAMPLE OF THE ARTS  (CONTINUED)

 

Linda Geiger advised of the Surfside Players Outreach Program. 

 

T. J. Cravens, Melbourne High School Senior, gave a musical presentation.

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson read aloud resolution proclaiming the third week in September as Industry Appreciation Week in Brevard County.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution proclaiming the third week in September as Industry Appreciation Week in Brevard County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to a representative of the Economic Development Commission, who expressed appreciation to the Board.

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the Commissioners are looking forward to the cake.

 

Chair Voltz read aloud the resolution proclaiming National 4-H Week.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution recognizing October 1 through 7, 2006 as National 4-H Week.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Zachary Kann, President of the 4-H Council, expressed appreciation to the Board for its continued support of the 4-H Program; and commented on the 4-H Program.  Chair Voltz presented the Resolution to Mr. Kann who presented the Chair with a cake. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud the resolution declaring October 2006 as American Pharmacists Month.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution declaring October 2006 as American Pharmacists Month.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard presented the Resolution to Karen Bills, Past President of the Brevard County Pharmacists Association, who expressed appreciation to the Board, and commented on the value of pharmacists to the public. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud a resolution recognizing the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency Beautification Committee. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution recognizing the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency Beautification Committee.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard presented the Resolution to Marcus Herman, Chairman of the MIRA Beautification Committee who expressed appreciation to the Board.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the members backgrounds.  Mr. Herman stated he has been a Merritt Island resident for 40 years, and is a local business owner.  Ozella Bowles advised she has an interest in the community, has been a Board member of Keep Brevard Beautiful for many years, and she volunteered for the Beautification Committee.  Betsy Keenan advised she is a realtor, but also has a two-year landscape technology degree and a four-year science degree in ornamental horticulture.  Fran Quattrochi of Quattrochi Real Estate advised she was a recipient of an award from the Committee.  Sandee Natowich stated she is the Past President of the MIRA Beautification Committee and Vice Chairman of the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency, is a personal chef, and is a Certified Master Gardener.   

 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough read aloud a resolution congratulating the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program of Brevard County.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution congratulating the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program of Brevard County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough presented the Resolution to representatives of RSVP including Sally Long, who expressed appreciation to the Board.  Judy Pobjecky, RSVP Director, advised Ms. Long is not only the oldest volunteer, but she has been serving for many years; and introduced Carl Anderson and Vin Vinci.  

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon read aloud a resolution proclaiming September 15 through October 15, 2006 as Hispanic Heritage Month. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming September 15 through October 15, 2006 as Hispanic Heritage Month.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Commissioner Colon presented the Resolution to Victor Ramos, representing Positive Progress for the Youth, who expressed appreciation to the Board.  Mr. Ramos advised of the activities of Positive Progress for the Youth, including a boxing tournament to be held at 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, September 23, 2006 at the Omni Community Center.  

 

 

Chair Voltz advised she enjoys watching boxing. 

 

 

The meeting recessed at 11:08 a.m. and reconvened at 11:22 a.m.

 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance granting economic development ad valorem exemption for IAP Worldwide Services, Inc.

 

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten advised Arlene Mellinger and Ms. Gonzalez are present from IAP; the company anticipates expanding its facility in Cape Canaveral to 60,000 square feet; and they will create 65 new jobs within the next 18 months averaging $57,000 per employee. 

 

Arlene Mellinger, representing IAP Worldwide Services, Inc., advised of the company’s community involvement; stated IAP Worldwide Services was founded in 1989 in South Carolina as a contingency contractor to fulfill the military’s needs during the Gulf War; and in March 2005 IAP acquired Johnson Controls World Services.  She advised she was originally with Johnson Controls World Services; IAP is located where Johnson Controls had its headquarters in Cape Canaveral; and in the past 18 months there has been a roller coaster of growth.  She advised of work done by the company and major contracts that are necessitating expansion.  She advised of other company offices; and stated the tax abatement will be helpful in allowing them to keep the project management office in Cape Canaveral. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the Board wants the company to stay; and it wants to do everything it can to keep the company in the County.  She stated it is important to work in the business community. 

 

There being no further comment, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt an Ordinance granting an economic development ad valorem exemption to IAP Worldwide Services, Inc., 7315 North Atlantic Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida; specifying the items exempted; providing the expiration date of the exemption; finding that the business meets the requirements of F.S. 196.012; providing for proof of eligibility for exemption; providing for an annual report by IAP Worldwide Services, Inc.; providing an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Azar Parchami stated she is concerned about property taxes; and she is sure a lot of middle class people feel the same.  She stated in Florida, property taxes are completely out of hand; she has a small property in Indialantic; the taxes were $1,200 three years ago and now are up to $5,000; she is a single mother, had two open heart surgeries, and is unable to work; this house was supposed to be used for her retirement; but taxes, insurance, and electricity are totally out of control in Florida.  She inquired what she is supposed to do; and advised she has tenants but they cannot afford it.  She stated the property was built in 1954; its value has gone up $40,000; and nobody really cares.  She stated she cannot sell the property because she had damages during the hurricane and cannot afford to fix it; she cannot raise the tenants’ rent because they cannot afford it; and young people cannot afford homes here so they are going to move away.  She stated the schools are not going to have any children; only rich people will be able to come from up north; and people graduating from school will not be able to rent or buy here.  She inquired who is going to support her when she retires; she has no retirement; and she cannot even sell the property right now because of the way the market is.  She stated the Board  is going to see tons of people like herself; the house is going to go for foreclosure because she cannot sell it; she would have to put a lot of money into fixing it to be able to get out of it; and inquired who is going to buy it.  She stated the people who live here cannot afford it; people are buying homes over the Internet and bringing in money to the State; and inquired what are the residents supposed to do.  She stated even if her taxes are not raised any more, she is going to be paying on a $150,000 base; and it is getting ridiculous.  She noted she is not the only one; everybody has the same complaint; and they are all hoping someone will do something. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the issue is the property assessment; the tax rate is lowered each year because of the whole issue with the way the Board has to do business; and advised of a phone call she received while in Tallahassee from one of the local channels indicating the Governor had requested all County Commissioners look at their tax rate structure to reduce the tax rate for this year until the State finds out what it can do.  She stated she suggested freezing all property assessments until the State can figure out what to do with the Property Appraisers’ offices so these things do not happen.  She stated Ms. Parchami is right; she is not alone in this; the Commissioners hear it all the time; and it is Property Appraiser Jim Ford who does the property assessments, and the Board has no control over them.  She stated Mr. Ford advises them to reduce the tax rate; but the Board could reduce the tax rate to almost nothing and the public would still be paying a lot more than they are paying now, so it is the property assessment that is the issue.

 

Ms. Parchami stated she called the Property Appraiser’s office; if she had sold her house last year, she would have made a lot of money; but today she cannot even give it away.  She stated the assessment is based on January 2005 when the market was the highest; and if it was assessed today, there would be $100,000 difference in the average home.  Chair Voltz stated they assess every January.  Ms. Parchami stated it was January 2005 not January 2006; if they based it on January 2006 it would still have been in balance; but a gentleman at the Property Appraiser’s office advised it was last year.  She stated she was told it takes a year and a half to assess the homes; if they waited six months, she could understand that; but in a year and a half the whole economy can change. 

 

Chair Voltz stated in January they will reassess; and it is good to have one’s assessment go down for tax purposes, but not if one wants to resell. 

 

Ms. Parchami stated she understands the millage has gone down; but three years ago, she paid $1,200 in taxes versus $5,000; and she has a lot of damages, so she does not know what it is based on, but it is not fair.

 

Chair Voltz stated Ms. Parchami can always go before the Value Adjustment Board and talk about those things; and suggested Ms. Parchami go next door to find out when the deadline is.  Ms. Parchami advised she filled out a petition yesterday, which was the deadline; and commented on the things required on the petition.  She stated last year’s appraisal does not help with her dilemma; and there should be something they can do because they cannot keep kicking the middle class out of Florida.  Chair Voltz stated that is what is happening unfortunately; and it is something the State has to deal with. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Chair Voltz said it very well; Ms. Parchami said her bill has gone from $1,200 to $4,800; and commented on the County’s portion of the tax bill for those in the incorporated and unincorporated areas.  He stated the dynamics are such that if someone lived in the unincorporated area, which has the greatest impact and the County was completely abolished, they would still have a bill that would double in size; the Board could reduce the millage to nothing, send every County employee home, and say the County is all gone, but it still could not reverse what has happened.  He stated for those in the cities, the impact is less, only 30%; and when the Board talks about cutting a million dollars from the budget, it is only pennies on most people’s homes.  He stated he likes Chair Voltz’s idea of freezing all assessments to stop the madness before it gets any worse; and inquired if the Board can adopt a resolution freezing all assessments.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution requesting the State freeze all assessments. 

 

 

Chair Voltz stated the Governor has put together some sort of task force, but she is not sure when it is meeting. 

 

Commissioner Colon inquired what would be the impact; with Chair Voltz responding probably not much to the County, but there would be impact to the homeowners.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Property Appraiser would not be doing any assessments; and everything would be put on hold until they get a grip on the evolving situation.  Commissioner Colon inquired if it is legal; with Chair Voltz responding the Board is just sending a Resolution to the State to make a suggestion.  Commissioner Pritchard suggested adding to the resolution because the problem addressed by Ms. Parchami is a commercial rental property and there is no cap.  Chair Voltz stated she is talking about all property.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he is talking about putting a cap; Chair Voltz is talking about freezing assessments; and his is an alternate suggestion.  He stated there is a 3% cap on homesteaded property; and inquired why not have a 3 or 6% cap on commercial properties.  Chair Voltz stated the State is looking at that, but until it gets a grip on all those things, there could be a freeze.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he agrees; but what he is suggesting is putting both components in the resolution, freezing it for now and then providing a cap on commercial properties.  Chair Voltz stated Ms. Parchami has rental property; with Commissioner Pritchard advising the cost goes right to the
tenants who can least afford to pay.  He stated for a commercial business, if a pizza was $10, then next week it would be $12.50 because of the cost; and the people end up paying for this. 

 

Ms. Parchami advised last year she did not raise the rent even though it hardly even covers her mortgage; her tenants cannot afford it; but now she is having to pay $200 a month more in taxes.  She advised of having to raise the rent; and commented on government supporting the people, retirement, people leaving the State, and losing homes to government.

 

Chair Voltz stated there is a motion on the floor with an addition.

 

 

Discussion ensued on what the resolution should include, freezing assessments, and caps on assessments.

 

Commissioner Scarborough explained the concept of rollback; and stated it is persons like Ms. Parchami who are trying to provide a home for someone who has not been able to buy a home that is being impacted; and as she is impacted, the family that she is providing housing for is also being impacted.  He stated the renters are not going to be able to afford the house; and they will have to rent poorer quarters because there is not an understanding that those people have a right to live with as much dignity as someone who owns a home.  He stated there are a lot of inequities in the law. 

 

Ms. Parchami advised of trying to sell the property to the renters. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated when the Board does something, she would like there to be substance, and not just a feel good resolution; she is concerned about how this will work; the Statutes set certain requirements for the Property Appraiser; and the Board needs legal feedback on whether the Property Appraiser has any authority to freeze assessments.  She stated she would like to get something in writing from the Property Appraiser’s office concerning what that office is supposed to be doing, and whether the Property Appraiser has the authority to stop assessments of homes. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want to vote on this if Commissioner Colon is uncomfortable; and the intent was not to instruct the Property Appraiser, but that the law actually be changed.  Chair Voltz stated the State makes the rules.  Commissioner Colon stated she wanted to be clear who this is directed to.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can bring this back at the next meeting.  Commissioner Colon stated she is comfortable if it is to the root of the problem at the State level.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board will send the resolution to the Legislative Delegation and the Governor. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised of property values from 2000 and correspondence with the Property Appraiser; and the median price of a house in 2000 was under $100,000, but today it is $236,000, so if they do not freeze some part of this, it will have rental commercial values that will push people out.  He inquired if those people leave, who will provide the services they provide; and noted they cannot survive in an atmosphere where there are only the very rich and the very poor.  He stated they have to have everybody because everybody contributes; and he appreciates Ms. Parchami coming today because what she had to say is representative of the community. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the group is called the Property Tax Reform Committee; and it will be meeting in Tallahassee to look at some of these issues. 

 

Commissioner Colon suggested bringing the issue to the Florida Association of Counties; with Chair Voltz responding she will be there next week, so she will bring it forward. 

 

Chair Voltz called for a vote on the motion to adopt Resolution requesting the State freeze all property assessments pending results from the Property Tax Reform Committee.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Don Brintle stated he owns an acre and a quarter off Lake Drive; the value went from $180,000 to $260,000; and there is no way he can rent the property and get that much money out of it.  He stated he previously came to the Board with a problem, and the Board was supposed to be checking it out. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Brintle has BU-2 zoning, which requires certain activities to be in an enclosed structure; and what Mr. Brintle has is a carport that is surrounded by a fence.  He stated the Board was going to look at the peculiarities of his property to see if the fence and the location would be something the Board could live with on a case-by-case basis.  He stated staff’s concern was setting a precedent. 

 

Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn stated staff is working on it.  Mr. Brintle stated he would like his employees to be able to do their work.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he thought the Board abated enforcement; with Mr. Washburn indicating it did not.  Commissioner Pritchard advised in that case, Mr. Brintle cannot do what he is doing.  Mr. Brintle stated they do not want anyone working behind the building until the Board approves it.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the status; with Mr. Washburn responding he spoke to Mr. Enos who is working on it, but it will be a couple of weeks or possibly a month because he will have to return to the Board  to show the ramifications throughout the County, and not just for this specific instance.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the alternative would be to put walls in, which would require permitting, etc.; and he saw the operation when he was out there with Mr. Enos.  Mr. Brintle commented on the problems involved with putting in walls with a ceiling that low and others working outside. 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca advised staff will notify Mr. Brintle when the issue returns to the Board.

 

 

 

Michael Myjak stated the Penn Study points out that 1.16 million areas are being developed in this region at a cost of $90,000 an acre; and that is just for doing the infrastructure.  He stated he wants the Board to pay particular attention to the talk about using the conservation design
development; he has listened to Mr. Laurien and also studied some of the same practices of conservation subdivision design; they are talking about taking lower density land uses and using that for a trade to get the density in certain places leaving green spaces; and that sounds like SEAS ordinance that the Board did not pass.  Mr. Myjak advised he tried to work the same thing in Titusville; it was called a rural overlap district where they would take the existing density that is in the land, and as it came into the City, it would be as part of the design practice to convert green space so that it would be shared; and it would have allowed flow.  He noted those things have not passed in any city in the County; there is not a city in the County that has a zoned density of less than one unit per acre, and most are two or five or more; and they need to get their heads around the lower density concept to stop growth.  He stated if they do not build it, they cannot come; and that is how to stop growth.  He stated stopping growth does not mean they die; it means they have to move into a sustainable form of living; and all living organisms do this.  He stated organisms do not just keep growing; land use and zoning are legislative prerogatives; they are not property rights; and they do not divest a person of all reasonable use of their property.  He stated if someone buys pasture thinking condo, it does not mean they will get it; and it does not guarantee the right of that person to do that to them or their neighbors.  He stated the people who live nearby have to have a say in the process; and right now they do not.  He stated transportation, water, and schools are the biggest issues; but schools are not in the picture for myregion.  He stated if roads are built, people come; and if they are trying to slow growth, they have to think about the roads.  He stated the report showed finding new water resources; but they have already been knocked out; and they cannot build a desalinization plant on the Indian River Lagoon.  He stated they are not going to get the 50 million gallons a day out of the Indian River Lagoon; they have not started building off of Highway 50; and if they do not have water, they cannot feed the people.  He stated he has an answer.

 

Chair Voltz suggested Mr. Myjak save it for the workshop.  Mr. Myjak stated he knows where some of the money is going that the Board is not accounting for that is paying and fueling growth; and it is outside of the cap, but the Board is not collecting it, but should be.  He stated it also goes along with the legislative intent; and it is a problem that has to be fixed at the State.  He stated right now the money coming in from new development and new growth is not part of the cap on the County’s annual budget; it is gravy; and advised of the amounts for the City of Titusville ranging from $350,000 four years ago to $117 million this year.  He stated that is more than 10% over the City’s actual budget, which is not counted as part of what the City is doing.  He stated there is money out there if the Board just looks for it; and this is something that the State is going to have to do because it is going to control growth. 

 

Chair Voltz noted controlling growth is unfortunately not all about money. 

 

 

 

Walter Pine stated the Resolution the Board adopted is the worst thing it could have done because the Board just asked for taxes to be frozen at the highest level they’ve ever been.  He stated what they have been pushing for is to freeze increases; that way if the bubble does burst, which it has in many areas of the State, they can ask for recalculations and lower the taxes; but the Board’s direction is to freeze at the current level.  He requested the Resolution be amended to freeze increases.      

 

Chair Voltz stated they need to be shown how taxes can come down.

 

Mr. Pine advised of changing the way it is calculated, doing it over a five-year average so short term aberrations in property prices do not drive people from their homes.  He stated there are other calculation methods; and commented on other calculation methods including a cap, which would allow people to prepare.  He requested the Board take additional public comment; and if it chooses to freeze at this point, to only freeze increases not decreases.  He submitted a document involving the Brevard County Manager’s Trust Fund; and stated he was dismayed to find the Chief Financial Officer and the Commissioners he spoke with had not heard of this, which indicates a lack of communication. 

 

Chair Voltz recommended Mr. Pine email the Governor concerning the Property Tax Reform Committee.  Mr. Pine advised he is already dealing with several members of that Committee. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is the intent of the Board to have the Resolution freeze only increases, not decreases.  Commissioner Pritchard stated that was his intent; and another factor is homestead portability.  Chair Voltz stated she thinks that will be done this year.  Commissioner Pritchard advised he hopes it will; and commented on a property in his District.  Chair Voltz commented on her son’s purchase of a house and being poorly advised about taxes. 

 

 

 

Thelma Roper stated she has a couple of issues concerning Code Enforcement.  She stated she had occasion to have contact with that Department lately; when someone asks a Code Enforcement office for an accommodation, the officer can say yes, no, or whatever; and there is no procedure for a person who is disabled to request an accommodation.  She stated the officer advises he will put in the request to see how it goes; but when she checked on it later, she was told the officer never said that; and a person has nothing to stand on.  She advised of discussing issues with County staff concerning grandfathering; they were advised by staff that things had to be changed; they obeyed the Code Enforcement officer; and now they are told they destroyed their grandfather rights.  She stated there is a lot of room in Code Enforcement for issues; and advised of officers not being able to respond to questions concerning environmental issues.  She stated in the western states, because of the Kilo decision, there is a push to limit not only the taking issues but regulations restricting property rights; and read aloud the definition of “litter” from the County Code concerning Code Enforcement.  She inquired if government officials are included in the definition; and stated the definition is vague.

 

 

 

Bea Polk stated the Board is talking about taxes; Property Appraiser Jim Ford is the one that liked the 3% cap; and inquired about Mr. Ford’s budget. 

 

Chair Voltz advised it increased by 21%. 

 

Ms. Polk stated they are talking about over $11 million; and inquired if that much is needed to run one part of the local government.  She stated Mr. Ford has three attorneys, an in-house attorney, a confidential attorney in Jacksonville, and another in Brevard County; and the Board gives Mr. Ford the money for this.  She stated the Board tells her it cannot do anything about it and that it went to Tallahassee one time; but that is not true, and she has paperwork showing the County never did that.  She stated it is time for the Board to cut budgets because the budgets are the reason the taxes are so high; and she hopes when rates are cut that all properties are assessed equally.  She stated the Appraiser’s office needs an overhaul; and commented on checking on how many properties have been reevaluated and how many have not.  She stated the Property Appraiser owes money to the County because he overspent $168,000; and inquired if the County is going to give him the rest back, and in doing so show that elected officials are giving money for private activities.  She stated hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on her case, which was a private case; she cannot tell how much was spent because the Property Appraiser’s attorney is a private attorney who does not account for his time; and inquired what the Board is going to do about it.  She stated this is taxpayers’ money; and inquired if the Board is going to get part of the $3 million from the case.  She commented on paying for the confidential attorney, hiding public records, taxpayers’ money, and Board giving the Property Appraiser money to spend as he wants.  She inquired if the Board is going to give Mr. Ford over $11 million this year and did it check out how many attorneys he has. 

 

Chair Voltz requested the County Attorney address the issues.  County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Board has some limited authority over the Property Appraiser’s budget; but it is subject to appeal to the State, which ultimately has the final say.  Chair Voltz inquired if the County has ever gone to the State; with Mr. Knox responding not in the 13 years he has been with the County. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the question was asked a while back when she first got on the Board because the Board had issues; the Board wanted to see if it could affect that budget; and the Board was told it could not because it had gone through the process Mr. Knox just talked about. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired has any County ever gone to the State with their Property Appraiser’s budget and won; with Mr. Knox responding he does not know, but can find out. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated this has come up time and again; and she would like to make a motion to give direction for the County Attorney to ask the State what the County is able to do and not able to do, and get a response in writing.  She stated when these kinds of statements are made, the people at home take them as facts; and the Board needs to get something in writing specifically about the budget, legal matters, and the Board’s authority to get involved with the Property Appraiser’s expenditures.  She stated she would like to have that as soon as possible. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct the County Attorney to get in writing from the State the authority of the County regarding the Property Appraiser’s budget; and report at the September 26, 2006 Budget meeting on counties that have gone to the State over the Property Appraiser’s budgets and won, the legality of
withholding $168,716 from the Property Appraiser’s budget, and the legality of the Property Appraiser hiring a private attorney using taxpayer dollars.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chair Voltz stated the Board is just as frustrated as Ms. Polk.  She requested Mr. Whitten address the $168,716 that Mr. Ford owes the County.  Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten advised it is a part of the audit issue that the Finance Director recently advised the Board about; the Property Appraiser overspent, which created a financial statement deficit in the 2005 financial statements; and commented on clearing the financial statements so they can be submitted to the State by September 30, 2006.  He stated the amount is $168,716; the only way to clear that in terms of the deficit is for the Board to either make the correction or for the Property Appraiser to come up with that amount; and in order for the Board to make the necessary budget adjustment, it would need to transfer from Reserves to clear the deficit.  He advised right now the financial statements reflect an amount due to the Board from the Property Appraiser’s Office.  Chair Voltz inquired if the Board can withhold $168,716 from the Property Appraiser’s budget; with Mr. Whitten responding the Board may have that option, but staff cannot take any action until there is direction by the Board.  Chair Voltz inquired if the Board can do that; with Mr. Knox responding he will have to look into it.  Chair Voltz requested Mr. Knox report at the budget meeting on September 26, 2006, which will be the Board’s final opportunity to deduct the $168,716 from the Property Appraiser’s budget. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she is uncomfortable talking about the Property Appraiser when he is not present to defend himself; it would be more appropriate for the Property Appraiser to be present; and requested Ms. Busacca request the Property Appraiser’s presence at the budget hearing.  Chair Voltz stated the Property Appraiser will not come.  Commissioner Colon stated if that is the case, the Board needs something in writing from his office advising of his intention so the Board can take appropriate action; and stated she is very uncomfortable that no one from the Property Appraiser’s office is present. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the Property Appraiser did overspend his budget; and inquired what he spent it on.  Mr. Whitten responded it is on the financial statement as a total number and not a line item.  Chair Voltz requested Mr. Knox find out whether or not the Property Appraiser is allowed to have a private attorney at taxpayers’ expense; and stated if it is at taxpayers’ expense, the taxpayers should have a right to know what that money is being spent for. 

 

 

 

Joan Wheeler advised the CRA, Titusville City Manager, and Parks and Recreation know nothing about the highest and best use and the drafts; and commented on the new draft, which calls for hiring someone to determine the financial feasibility of the marina expanding into Marina Park.  She stated the cost would be $60,000 to assess the financial feasibility; but she does not know if it will come from referendum money or the MSTU; however, Parks and Recreation will be paying the bill.  She stated it astounds her to think the County would be paying the City’s bill to figure out the financial feasibility of the City’s commercial endeavor; and
inquired if the City cannot afford to do the study, why would the County be paying for it.  She commented on the expansion of the marina into the park, parking for the marina at the park being in the plan, and costs. 

 

Chair Voltz stated she does not know if the Board can do anything. 

 

Ms. Wheeler inquired if there is a liaison. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough explained the financial arrangement with the City, whereby an MSTU was adopted that allows collections to go to the Parks and Recreation Department rather than the City; and stated the City can say it does not want the monies directed to the County, but to be retained by the City.  He commented on the County’s responsibility to respond to the City’s needs and the draft that was provided to Ms. Wheeler for her input.  Chair Voltz recommended Commissioner Scarborough work with Ms. Wheeler.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he and Ms. Wheeler will never agree on whose money it is; the City is having a meeting this evening and could say it no longer wants to have that money directed to the County and the relationship would be severed; and it would not be the best for the City or the County. 

 

 

 

Tuck Ferrell expressed appreciation to the Board and staff for their efforts concerning transportation; stated Senator Haridopolos also had a lot to do with it; and advised of research and bringing representatives of the Florida Department of Transportation to the County.  He stated they need transportation help and connectivity.      

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING, RE:  RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN ORANGE
     GARDENS SUBDIVISION -  R. K. ENGINEERING                                                                                                     

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating rights-of-way in Orange Gardens Subdivision as petitioned by R. K. Engineering. 

 

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised there are issues that need to be resolved; the petitioner has not agreed to withdrawal; and recommended the Board continue the public hearing to the October 31, 2006 meeting. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if the item can be denied.  Mr. Denninghoff responded it can be denied or continued; and staff will try to bring the vacating back concurrently with the plat for the development that would take place there.  He stated at that point the vacating could be approved by Resolution and the plat could be approved at the same time, which would resolve all the issues.  Chair Voltz inquired if the Board denies it today, will it come back later or does it need to be left open.  Mr. Denninghoff responded staff would prefer to have the vacating performed by Resolution because it would resolve a couple of legal issues, so staff would prefer to have both done simultaneously.  He advised the developer is trying to bring the plat forward as quickly as possible. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired at a previous meeting did the Board say it was not going to process things that would go through the parkway at any point.  Mr. Denninghoff responded by continuing the vacating, the Board will hold the vacating suspended until the plat comes forward; and the developer has indicated they will plat the parkway right-of-way through the proposed development to provide for the parkway to take place. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to continued the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating rights-of-way in Orange Gardens subdivision as petitioned by R. K. Engineering to October 31, 2006.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending regulations governing parcels of land divided by public right-of-way to allow for residential docks on unimproved parcels.  She advised Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown requested this be continued as there is an outstanding issue.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending regulations governing parcels of land divided by public right-of-way to allow for residential docks on unimproved parcels to October 10, 2006.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn requested the Board direct that Code Enforcement continue to be abated on the Puleio’s dock.  Commissioner Carlson advised that was part of the motion; with Commissioner Pritchard advising it was included with his second.  

 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement in Parkchester Unit 1, as petitioned by Ernest Dean Page.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt a Resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement in Parkchester, Unit 1, as petitioned by Ernest Dean Page.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement in Plat of River Dunes Subdivision, as petitioned by Richard and Sherree Ogden.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt a Resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement in Plat of River Dunes Subdivision, as petitioned by Richard and Sherree Ogden.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating portion of unimproved right-of-way in Resubdivision of part of Farms 76 through 81, East Extension of Scottsmoor and acceptance of a drainage easement, as petitioned by Deborah Adkinson.

 

Operations Specialist Cynthia Streeter stated the only thing staff was waiting on was the drainage easement; and there are no other objections. 

 

There being no further objections or comments heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt a Resolution vacating portion of unimproved right-of-way in Resubdivision of  Part of Farms 76 through 81, East Extension of Scottsmoor and acceptance of a drainage easement, as petitioned by Deborah Adkinson, conditions on the drainage easement.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

   

  

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a portion of public utility and drainage easement in Poinsett Groves Subdivision as petitioned by Robert M. Packard (William Hurst).

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt a Resolution vacating portion of public utility and drainage easement in Poinsett Groves Subdivision, as petitioned by Robert M. Packard (William Hurst.)  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider a resolution confirming the preliminary assessment roll for Morningside Drive Road Paving MSBU. 

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt a Resolution confirming Preliminary Assessment Roll for Morningside Drive Road Paving MSBU.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Zoning Code to add on-premises consumption of alcohol in restricted neighborhood commercial, BU-1-A zone as a conditional use permit.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve moving an ordinance amending Zoning Code to add on-premises consumption of alcohol in restricted neighborhood commercial, BU-1-A zone as a Conditional Use Permit to the second public hearing.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider a resolution and agreement for land exchange with A. Duda & Sons for parcels in the vicinity of the Government Center.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt a Resolution; and execute Agreement for land exchange with A. Duda & Sons for parcels in the vicinity of the Government Center.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

County Attorney Scott Knox read aloud from Attorney Rick Torpy, who identifies himself as representing the applicant, including, “The applicant hereby stipulates that the Board action on April 6, 2006 represented a final denial of the subject rezoning request and that the time for any appeal of the Board action is past.  The applicant further stipulates that it shall not appeal or otherwise challenge the Board’s denial of the rezoning request.  Should the Board elect to adopt Findings of Fact, the applicant requests a continuance so that the applicant may make record objections to the staff’s proposed findings.” 

 

Chair Voltz stated the applicant should have been present.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board is required to hear the applicant; with Mr. Knox responding no, it was a request.                       

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution approving Findings of Fact for Banana River Marina.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve waiver to buffer wall requirement, Section 62-3204(g), along the eastern property line of the proposed development of the Northern Tool property at the southeast corner of U.S. 192 and Commodore Street, with applicant agreeing in lieu of a wall to construct a six-foot high stockade fence and supplement the area with additional landscaping to provide a six-foot opaque feature within 12 months, post a performance bond for 125% of the cost of the wall, and if the adjacent property does not obtain commercial zoning within 18 months, to construct the block wall.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to waive bid requirements; accept low quote from Crane Rental Corporation; and authorize issuance of a Purchase Order for $90,620 to Crane Rental Corporation for crane service to set 80 pieces of eight-foot by eight-foot concrete box culvert for the Port St. John Parkway road construction project in District 1.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Contract for Sale and Purchase for .34 acre from Gloriann Wells for property surrounded by the Chain of Lakes Recreation Complex; authorize staff to obtain survey, environmental audit, title insurance, and accept title exceptions; and authorize the Chair to execute any Contract Amendments that may be required and proceed with land closing.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) 2007 Legislative Issues Survey Response.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Stipulated Final Judgment, including all damages, costs, and fees in the amount of $2,035,000 for value and $141,459.78 in costs and fees for Brevard County vs. Tropical Splash Car Wash.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

 

The meeting recessed at 12:38 p.m. and reconvened at 1:34 p.m.

 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the item deals with the lines where the study will be taking place; UCF advises if the lines are redrawn, it will not be able to finish the study this year; and there is a time limitation in getting it finished and to Tallahassee.  He stated as soon as the County contracts with UCF for the study lines, it becomes an issue with Tallahassee, the Legislature, and the people who will be voting; also on the agenda is a proposed moratorium until the small area plan is finished; and advised of items that were tabled at the last Zoning meeting or that he anticipates may be tabled at the October Zoning meeting.  He stated there is a great deal of connectivity, but they will be heard in different sequence; and the item the Board is dealing with is the incorporation feasibility study and where the lines are drawn. 

 

Commissioner Colon advised of representatives of East Mims who made it clear they did not want to be part of the study; and stated that is why this item is on the Agenda today.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the gentlemen involved was Shawn Harris; and as recently as yesterday, he assumes his position was the same, but he does not see Mr. Harris in the audience.  Chair Voltz advised Mr. Harris is present. 

 

Walter Pine advised of his opposition to the incorporation or any favorable action on the item before the Board.  He commented on making public records requests of Steve Jack; and requested the Board ensure the expenditure of the $20,000 allocated by the Board is done in compliance with Florida Statutes.  He advised of questions concerning the finances of the group and the members of the board; and stated if this passes, the members will become the interim city management, so he has a right to know who they are.  He advised of additional requests that have been denied; and requested the Board impose the requirements of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes on the Mims group and ensure the public records requests are complied with.  He expressed support for changing the boundaries. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the Board did not request these things of the Grant-Valkaria group.  Chair Voltz stated she does not know if anyone made the requests.  Commissioner Colon stated the Board should have the same requirements for both groups.  Chair Voltz stated if the group is using public funds, it is open to public disclosure.  County Attorney Scott Knox stated there is some case law that deals with that issue, but it is vague; and he will have to look at it.  Commissioner Colon noted the Board did not give the money to the group, but to UCF to study the feasibility. 

 

Discussion ensued on use of taxpayers’ dollars, money going directly to UCF, and using the same rules for both groups.

 

Mr. Knox stated as long as the group is not acting as an advisory board and was not appointed by the Board, it is probably not covered by the Board’s rules.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated if information is requested regarding the study, the educational institutions are also under the Public Information Act.  Mr. Knox noted they could go to UCF for the information. 

 

Michael Myjak advised he is working with the Mims Community Group, but is not within the annexation area; he is a hired consultant; and he does some presentations for the Group as well as working on charter development.  He commented on what is available on the group’s website, what is available at the Mims Library, and what has been told to Mr. Pine.  He stated the only thing not currently available is the information on the charter and its progress; but that will probably be available within a week.  He commented on vacillation on the boundaries, public meetings, petitions, homeowners associations not passing on information, lack of financial resources to do mass mailings, and meetings at Astronaut High School.  He stated David Laney has been at all of their meetings; votes have been taken on issues; and they have been making good progress. 

 

Neta Harris advised of living in the Sherwood area since 1970 and being ambivalent about the Sherwood area being included in the proposed area to be called Mims.  She stated the Board of Directors of the Sherwood Homeowners Association has been privy to the information, but has not shared that information with the homeowners; and when she read in the newspaper that the Association had unilaterally requested to be withdrawn from the process she was even more incredulous because the homeowners had not been informed of that decision.  She stated the process is too far along to be aborted at this point; County monies that were allocated would be wasted; and inquired if the study is restarted, where the money would come from.   

 

Steve Jack, President of the Mims Community Group, stated the president of the Sherwood Homeowners Association has been getting his emails for over a year, but has not passed them on; and commented on a letter from Gail Akins agreeing the information has not been passed to the Sherwood community.  He advised of lack of polling of the Sherwood homeowners and those homeowners not attending the meetings.  He commented on the public meetings, TV and newspaper coverage, flyers at one town meeting, attendance of 325 people at the first town meeting, and attendees being required to show proof of residency within the proposed boundaries.  He stated they are going into the fourth of five community meetings; he has been involved with Sherwood and East Mims; most of them are not coming to the meetings; but the meetings have been publicized with big community signs.  Mr. Jack advised the meetings are always open; they are the third Thursday of every month at 7:00 p.m. at the Harry T. Moore Center at 2180 Freedom Avenue; and they have been open to everyone, and they plan to stay that way.     

 

Commissioner Colon advised of representatives of East Mims coming before the Board to advise they would not want to be part of the study; stated she has heard Mr. Jack say his group will yield to the East Mims community and its right to decide its future; and requested feedback.  Mr. Jack advised of talking to Dwight Seigler several times, requesting something in writing saying the community wanted to pull out of the study, and not receiving anything in writing.  Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Jack does not have a problem as long as the community puts it in writing; with Mr. Jack responding it will probably fold the study if the community pulls out at this time; the credibility of the college is going to be on the line; and there is no way that Mr. Laney can get the study done.  Mr. Jack stated he does not know if the Board has a copy of Mr. Laney’s letter.  Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Jack’s concern is what it would do to the study, but the group will still yield to the East Mims community.  Mr. Jack responded he has no problem with that, but this is so far along that it should be taken to referendum and let everybody have a vote; and there are some indications that the community was never polled.  Commissioner Colon stated this is not going to end today; the people have been very clear that they would like to see some changes in the community; and the Board will have to hear from the community. 

 

Michael Raymer commented on La Grange, Indian River City, and Whispering Hills all now being part of Titusville; and advised if East Mims and Sherwood pull out, the feasibility study is over.  He advised of living north of S.R. 46 on Pine Street and the length of time it takes to get onto S.R. 46; and commented on land use density in the area, possibility of being annexed into Titusville, and areas that have already been annexed by Titusville.  He expressed concern about density; and stated he does not want to ride around in places like Merritt Island, Cocoa, or other congested areas.  He stated they live comfortably in Mims now; but if they continue with the density, it will no longer be a comfortable place to live.  He commented on being in the military and living in large cities and the effects of density.  He voiced objection to incorporation. 

 

Suzanne Wolters advised she is speaking for herself and her mother-in-law Gladys Wolters; they moved to Mims five years ago upon retirement from the Navy; and commented on her property, which is next to wetlands.  She stated incorporation will bring adversity to Mims; and commented on learning to live as one, pride in her community, desire for the community to remain small, and her mother-in-law walking to church without worry.  She requested the Board not take action to change Mims. 

 

Gail Akins stated she is vice president of the Sherwood Homeowners Association; president Vic Steuerwald could not be present today; and she would like to defend him from statements made by Mr. Jack.  She stated Mr. Steuerwald and Mr. Jack did have conversations; Mr. Jack did request Mr. Steuerwald bring the issue to the board of directors a little over a year ago to see if the area wanted to be part of the study; and the board of directors voted no at that time.  She stated Mr. Steuerwald gave that information to Mr. Jack who wanted to do a door-to-door survey to poll the people; and she does not know if that ever occurred, but it has not occurred at the homes of any of the board members.  She commented on being surprised to be included in the Mims Feasibility Study Map, the newsletter sent to Sherwood homeowners, children in the area attending Titusville schools, voting precincts in Titusville, mail delivered by Titusville Post Office, being in unincorporated Brevard County, and needs being met by the County via use of the Titusville facilities.  Ms. Akins stated Sherwood does not feel a part of Mims; and commented on the boundaries of Mims, the feasibility study map including the Sherwood area, tax base, approval of the map by the County without the knowledge of the Sherwood homeowners, and community meeting signs.  She expressed appreciation to Mr. Jack, the community group, and those who worked to curb growth in the Mims area; stated it is commendable that they began this grassroots effort to preserve all of the raw land that is being taken for development; and advised of talking to Mr. Jack several times.  She stated where she and Mr. Jack differ is in the lack of notification to the Sherwood area residents by either the study group or the County; and commented on the feasibility study map including people who do not know they are part of the study and feel no connection to Mims, opportunity to express themselves at the polls, and remaining part of the unincorporated County.    

 

Walter Hart stated he has friends in the Sherwood area, and they have not been informed of the Mims boundaries; taxpayers’ money has been spent for a study; and recommended it be allowed to continue as it was originally intended.  He stated if the study says they cannot do it, they cannot do it; if the study says they can do it and the vote is to turn it down, that is another situation; and they like the area the way it is.  He commented on need for a traffic light on S.R. 46; stated he read the results of the study for the traffic light; and inquired how many more people have to be killed at the intersection before the State can get the light in.  He stated he understands it has been approved; there is engineering involved; and commented on the need for another cement pole to support the lights.  He requested the Board build a fire under DOT to get the light in. 

 

Tom Etter stated he went to the homeowners meeting in April and heard about the map; and the consensus was that Sherwood did not want to be part of it, so he thought the issue was over and done with.  He advised of talking to other homeowners who are not members of the homeowners association; and stated they do not want to be part of Mims.  He stated they are happy with the County and with Commissioner Scarborough. 

 

Clarence Clarke stated the only reason he knew the meeting was to take place was because he went by Commissioner Scarborough’s office and was advised of it.  He commented on living like a mushroom and lack of notification, attending a meeting at Astronaut High School, threats of violence at the meeting, and lack of notification.  He stated Sherwood is not really in Mims, but it has been pulled in; this morning was the first time anything of consequence has appeared in the newspaper; and advised of people not knowing about the issue.  He stated the dominant issue is a conflict in personal lifestyle; rural lifestyle is the last thing the people in Sherwood desire; and their subdivision could be put in any city in America.  He stated if the study is wrong, it should be stopped; and inquired why go through this and have it voted down.  He advised Mr. Laney had nothing to report three weeks ago; but if he has a computer, he can get the study out.  He requested East Mims and Sherwood be released. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Clarke said he talked to people who did not know of the study; and inquired once they learned of the study, were they all opposed; with Mr. Clarke responding yes.  Mr. Clarke commented on the Sherwood subdivision, dismissal of the study, and residents not believing they are part of Mims.  He stated no one he has talked to was aware this was happening, and they questioned how this could happen.  He stated no one favors it; and the feasibility study should have never got off the ground until the people affected had a chance to say something.      

 

Thelma Roper stated she lives inside the feasibility study area; and there is an issue regarding requests for public records.  She stated the community group is not advisory to the Board, nor is it appointed by the Board; but the money for the UCF study was paid by the Board for the group’s benefit.  She stated Mr. Jack is making the decisions on the contract; and when the funds were expended for this, it created a government in the sunshine requirement, so the requests for documents should be honored.  She commented on the issue going to a vote, no creation of a PAC to show donations and expenditures, notification of meetings, and rejection of homeowners associations by some communities.  She stated Mr. Jack said he had 350 people at the first meeting; she went to that meeting, but did not stay long; and she was flabbergasted and disgusted because some of the information being put forward was false.  She advised when a member of the public pointed out the inaccurate information, the meeting took a rude and nasty turn, and the person was told to leave the meeting or he would be removed.  She stated as far as the boundaries, if areas do not want to be included, they should not have been included; and there should be better information. 

 

Fred Kusterer advised of his background living in Mims since 1970; and recommended letting the feasibility study continue as it has been.  He stated at the end if it is feasible for Mims to incorporate, everybody will have an opportunity to vote; and if they want to vote it down, the two areas that have requested to be excluded have enough population to vote it down. 

 

William Haas stated it would be an injustice to stop this after all the work the community put into it; there have been monthly meetings for almost two years; everyone in the community was invited; and now all of a sudden at the last minute, some want out.  He stated they are claiming they did not know what was going on, which is false; and commented on P&Z meetings with a large group from East Mims, the two groups not representing their people, and giving every resident the choice to vote on the future.  He stated Mims has experienced fires and hurricanes; the people banded together as a group; and it should stay that way for the betterment of the community rather than becoming divided.  He stated it should be the people’s choice to live within the boundaries of Mims, as formed by the study, and have a vote on the issue. 

 

R. C. Kirk advised of being a Titusville resident for 45 years and having friends in the Mims area including Mr. Jack, people in the East Mims area, and people in the Sherwood area.  He stated he attended all the meetings; last night he attended the East Mims meeting; and commented on having a project in the pipeline to get rezoning.  He stated there was a meeting of Steve Jack’s group, the East Mims group, and Dwight Seigler’s group at Cuyler Park; he made a presentation; there were 150 to 200 people there; and since then the feasibility study and things about incorporation came up and created a lot of division and anger.  He stated he has been to Mr. Jack’s group; they are trying to figure out something to please all so they can do something with their property; and it is to the point now where it is getting ugly and something needs to be done to get it under control.  He stated it is not working for the whole community; and commented on looking like a laughingstock to outsiders, East Mims group being in existence for 50 to 60 years, people getting their feelings hurt, and a grant for people with low income to get assistance on houses.  Mr. Kirk stated there are a lot of things to look at that are not being considered; and it may be up to Commissioner Scarborough to get everyone loving each other again.  He reiterated his project has been in the pipeline for one year; a year ago everybody was okay; but then there was this division, and it is not good. 

 

Bob Brenneman stated those Sherwood homeowners who say they are not getting information from the Homeowners Association should have attended the annual meeting on April 20, 2006; and advised of living in Sherwood for 14 years and serving as past vice president of the Homeowners Association.  He stated the Sherwood homeowners have known for some time that Mims was going to be incorporated; Mims is doing this to prevent being annexed by Titusville; and at the Sherwood Homeowners Association annual general meeting in April 2006, the residents were given a map by Commissioner Scarborough which included the Sherwood area in a proposed boundary of Mims.  He commented on not knowing who made the decision to include Sherwood, no reason to include the area except for the tax base, no one in Sherwood being in favor of being part of Mims, and lack of similarities between the two communities.  He noted Sherwood is a residential community with approximately 850 single-family homes and a few townhouses; the majority of Mims homeowners live on acreage while Sherwood homeowners live on smaller lots; Mims is mostly rural and allows farm animals; there are trailer parks, mobile homes, and few deed restrictions; and described the commercial properties and businesses.  He commented on development in Mims and Scottsmoor, planned development in the area, no advantage to Sherwood to be part of Mims, satisfaction with level of service provided by the County, and no desire to have taxes increase.  He stated Mr. Jack and Mr. Myjak have advised the residents if Sherwood is not incorporated as part of Mims, it will be absorbed by Titusville; but the residents will take their changes.  He stated the Homeowners Association wrote requesting Sherwood be removed from the proposed Mims boundary map; and requested the Board honor the request.     

 

Tom Hughes voiced opposition to the study that includes Sherwood; advised he was a resident of Mims for 28 years, but moved to Sherwood; Mims is a nice area, but definitely rural; and while he enjoyed living there, he moved to Sherwood to a smaller place.  He stated they do not want to be part of Mims; he has been told the choice is either be incorporated into Mims or be annexed into Titusville; but he does not believe that because any annexation would have to be voted on by the people the annexation is affecting. 

 

Attorney David Dyer, representing AG Ventures, Sunlake LLC, and Parrish Holder Land Corporation, stated Adam Armaganian is distributing a letter that he faxed to each of the Commission offices yesterday.  He stated his clients own approximately 200 acres that are within the proposed area for incorporation and another 70 acres in a nearby area; and his clients are requesting they not be included in any incorporation of Mims or the feasibility study.  He stated they have a good relationship with the County; several of his clients’ properties have binding development plans in place; and they do not know where they would be if they suddenly came under the jurisdiction of the newly formed Mims government.  He commented on his clients’ relationship with the County, desire to remain in the County, and uncertainty if their property was incorporated into Mims.  He stated there appears to be a lack of consensus with a lot of people in the area as to whether or not this is a good idea; and requested the study be stopped at this point. 

 

Shawn Harris stated he is not opposed to the feasibility study; he has worked to help get signatures; and advised of meetings with Steve Jack, Scottsmoor pulling out of the study area, and his community never indicating it wanted to be part of the study area.  He stated prior to the information going to Mr. Laney, he told Mr. Jack that East Mims did not want to be a part of the study area, but he later found that Mr. Jack submitted the information anyway.  He stated when he asked Mr. Jack why he did that, he told him he thought the people should decide.  He stated East Mims has been functioning in their community; they do a good job of managing what they have; and they have a good working relationship with the County.  He commented on working with Commissioner Scarborough, working the process, and mechanisms to accomplish what they want.  He stated East Mims may be a poor minority community, but it should not be ignored; they had a community meeting last night; and they again voted to not be included.  He stated the people who came in orange shirts want control of their destiny; and inquired why the County would deny that to East Mims.  He stated East Mims is not opposed to what Mr. Jack’s group wants to do; and they would like to work out it out so Mr. Jack’s group can do what it wants to do and East Mims can continue to do what it is doing.         

 

William Hall stated he moved to Titusville in 1959 and three years later moved to Mims; and he would like to see it maintained as is.  He stated Walkabout Golf Course is a short distance from where he lives; if he stands between houses there, he cannot stretch his hands out without touching both houses at the same time; and commented on developers coming from out of state, buying land, trying to get it rezoned to put 10 to 15 hours an acre, and selling it to developers to build the houses.  He commented about the meetings that were held, posters announcing the meetings, requests for rezoning for higher density, Mims Elementary school capacity, and traffic concerns.  He stated the Board needs to stop the business of having so many houses per acre. 

 

Susan Fitzpatrick requested the Board allow the feasibility study to go forward so everyone within the proposed boundaries will get a vote. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated when this started, he had Maureen Rupe come into the office to discuss what happened in Port St. John; and advised of the two votes in Port St. John, one on whether there should be a study, which was supported by 70% of the people, and a second one on whether to incorporate, which was opposed by 70% of the people.  He stated at least two of the people involved in the study left the area afterwards; the homeowners association dissolved; there has not been an ability to reform the homeowners association; and they told people this was not an easy process.  He noted David Laney was part of the study in Port St. John; and Mr. Laney advised him this one scares him more than Port.  St. John.  He stated he met with Mr. Laney on Friday; Mr. Laney did not get back to him that it is not feasible until Monday with an email; he said everything he feared could happen is happening; and Mr. Laney now fears for the reputation of the University of Central Florida.  He stated he respects the manner in which all comments were made today; everybody has approached it in the best of all possible lights; but it is an awful process.  He stated Ms. Rupe advised Port St. John lost because they tried to include areas that did not want to be included; and if the Board proceeds forward with the Mims study, it will be condemning any potential for there ever to be a Mims.  He stated those who do not want the incorporation will win by letting the Board proceed; and it is
ironic that the people who are favoring are suggesting one thing and the people opposing are suggesting another; but cautioned if people do not want there to be a Mims, they should allow a vote because there will be 70% in opposition.  Commissioner Scarborough stated those people from Sherwood and East Mims who do not want to be included are motivated to vote against; he does not know an easy answer to the issue; but the Board is talking about a moratorium and small area plan to allow it to get a handle on things.  He stated it would allow discussion of all the issues of concern with density and development; and if there is a desire to come back to the Mims issue, everything will have been kept at the status quo.  He stated before going any further, he would like to listen to the other Commissioners. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the two groups who are opposing have enough population to vote down the incorporation; and inquired why the Board is going to bother.  She stated when Grant-Valkaria incorporated, it did its homework; it had several hundred people present in support; and no one came to the Board saying they were against the incorporation.  She commented on phone calls to her office concerning the incorporation and not taking sides on the issue because she has constituents on both sides.  She stated the Mims incorporation is different; if the Board lets it go forward, it is going to fall flat; and if that happens, there will be an eternal wall between those people who did not support it and those who did.  She stated the Board is looking at what to do with the small area study and what can be done to control growth; and someone mentioned that the people would have to vote to be annexed into the City of Titusville, which is true, unless someone is in an enclave.  She stated the Grant community did an outstanding job of getting notice to the people and letting everyone know what was going on; there are no hard feelings in that area like there are among the people present today; and the Board does not want to create hard feelings or make the situation worse than it already is.  She stated it is the job of the Commissioners to make sure that growth in unincorporated Brevard County is done in such a manner that the area does not become like Orlando or South Florida; there is a lot of land in Mims that developers would love to develop; but the Board makes those decisions.  She stated the Board has heard from a lot of people; Commissioner Scarborough is doing a good job ensuring the Board is looking at all of the people coming in; and piecemealing growth does not work because it benefits no one but the individual developers. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated Port St. John was the poster child for how not to do it; and the Mims incorporation is going down the same path and the group is going to end up losing.  He stated the boundary needs to be redefined; if the group really wants to incorporate Mims, it should exclude the people who do not want to be part of it; and then, if they choose to come back, the Board will be happy to listen to them.  He stated everyone wants to control their own destiny; and commented on the moratorium for the Mims area.  He inquired where is the Mims area, what are the boundaries, and will it affect Cedric Jackson’s project that was embraced by the community; and stated he has a problem with the definition of the Mims area.  He stated Sherwood and East Mims are not part of the Mims area; and inquired what the Mims area is.

 

Commissioner Colon stated she has listened to everyone; she does not believe they should throw the baby out with the bathwater; a lot has gone into the study; if Sherwood and East Mims do not to be part of it, then the Board should respect that; and the Board does not want to shove anything on people who do not want it.  She expressed concern about the letter from Mr. Laney concerning the study; and stated if the issue is going to cause division in the community, she would be willing to invest a little more money to make sure East Mims and Sherwood are removed from the study.  Commissioner Colon stated this is a time of technology; all of the information is in the computers; and it should be possible to exclude those areas, even if it is necessary to spend a little more.  She commented on Sherwood and East Mims wanting to be removed, uniqueness of the character and appearance of the Mims area, excitement of East Mims about redevelopment and affordable housing, and removing negative elements.  She recommended continuing with the feasibility study and directing Mr. Laney to remove Sherwood and East Mims.  She commented on Mr. Laney’s letter, needing a certain amount of people to do something, and Mr. Laney not being present to defend himself.  She stated they are almost there; they have growing pains; but if Commissioner Scarborough does not feel it should go forward, she would respect his wishes. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Laney feels the change has changed the Contract to the extent there is no contract; but he also advised that it is problematic getting the work completed in a manner that the University would like to complete it.  He stated Mr. Laney would like to complete it with some degree of professionalism that would reflect well on UCF; and suggested amending the Contract to draw new lines.  He stated whether or not they will be able to have a product in the time needed for the Legislature is a separate issue; and commented on projects that would not come under the proposed moratorium but would be decided in November 2006.  He stated at that time, the Board will have the information for the community on the impact of the five projects; and a decision will be made.  He commented on ripple effect, three phases, data on specific zoning items, and looking at the big picture; and stated if they draw the lines as Commissioner Colon is suggesting, they can go back to UCF.  He stated what he is picking up from Mr. Laney is not that they cannot do it but they cannot do it the way they would like to do it correctly. 

 

Chair Voltz stated she has no problem with the group doing a feasibility study minus the two areas; and inquired if that would leave enough tax base to fund a city.  Commissioner Scarborough stated that is the study.  Chair Voltz stated she does not understand what Mr. Laney is saying; and if Sherwood and East Mims are eliminated, there are other people who are requesting to be left out.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be difficult to start pulling out items; but East Mims and Sherwood are definable areas.  Mr. Harris noted East Mims is from Cuyler Street to Brockett Road and from U.S. 1 to the river.  Commissioner Scarborough stated Sherwood is easily defined because it is a platted development.  Chair Voltz stated she does not know how much work Mr. Laney has done; someone said it was 90% completed; but if it is 90% complete, Mr. Laney should be able to easily pull out the numbers from East Mims and Sherwood and determine whether or not he should go further.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he cannot speak for Mr. Lane; but if the Board wants to redefine the area, it may be deferring for a year.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she supports whatever direction Commissioner Scarborough wants to go; it makes a lot of sense to exclude the two areas; and it still leaves a big area to look at a study. 

 

Chair Voltz stated including the two areas would doom it to fail, so if the people want to incorporate Mims, they should exclude those areas. 

 

Steve Jack inquired how did they get to Brockett Road.  He stated when he originally talked to Dwight Seigler, East Mims was from Cuyler Street to Main Street, then from Main Street to Wiley Road; and now it is incorporating all of the developers to take in the whole area. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated when this first came up, there was a conflict as to where the boundaries were, which took a month to address; the Board thought that was resolved; but for the last couple of months, he has been hearing it is not resolved.  He inquired if Mr. Jack wants to come back with a boundary and go through the study.  Mr. Jack responded if the people want to take out these areas, he has had it and is willing to let the developers do what they want.  He stated he told Commissioner Scarborough that if this is turned down, he will never be before the Board again; he does not care what happens to Mims; he did what he thought the community wanted; and advised of petitions from the East Mims area wanting the feasibility study.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Jack’s comments are reflecting the heat of the moment; with Mr. Jack responding no, he already talked to Commissioner Scarborough about this, and if the rest of the community wants to carry on, it can do that, but he will not be before the Board  again.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not feel the need to continue this in any shape or fashion; the community has spoken; UCF has taken a responsible position; and it is better to terminate it now, see what the settlement is with UCF, and let the people get on with their lives.  Mr. Jack stated his feeling is the community has not spoken to the Board, so it should be taken to referendum for a vote.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he disagrees; and there is a lot of the community taking a position by saying they do not want to be part of the vote.  Mr. Jack stated the gentleman from Sherwood said he was talking to people who said they did not know about the study.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the gentleman said they should have known about it, but he was still opposed to it and did not want to be part of the vote, so it did not matter whether they knew about it or not because they do not want to be part of it; with Mr. Jack responding that is fine.  Commissioner Pritchard stated there are factions involved that do not want to be part of the study; and inquired why should they take it to a vote; with Mr. Jack responding if it is going to divide the community, then it should be stopped.  Mr. Jack advised they started out to join the community together to make it better; and that is all he has ever tried to do. 

 

Chair Voltz stated she has no problem moving forward with the study minus the two groups; and inquired if that is a problem for Mr. Jack.  Mr. Jack responded he is going to quit right here; but he will go back to the community, and if it wants to do that, it is fine.  Chair Voltz stated she is ready to move forward if that is what Commissioner Scarborough wants to do. 

 

Commissioner Colon commented on Mr. Jack being upset at the discussion, continuing with the study with the exclusion of Sherwood and East Mims, not forcing areas to be part of the study, and moving forward to a vote.  She stated it will not divide the community to go forward excluding the two areas; it would be the best thing possible for Mims to allow the study to go on; and the folks who want to vote will be able to do so.  She stated she is willing to support a motion if Commissioner Scarborough is willing to move forward with the study excluding the two areas.  Chair Voltz advised of her willingness to support a motion. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Maureen Rupe lived through the Port St. John incorporation study; 70% of the people wanted the study; but the final vote was 70% against.  Commissioner Colon stated the people in Grant-Valkaria were also told not to bother because incorporation had never been approved in Brevard County; and people were trying to discourage it because it

was so hard.  Chair Voltz inquired who; with Commissioner Colon responding the folks who had gone through the process and thought it was so much work.  Commissioner Colon stated they will not know unless they ask; the same thing happened with Grant-Valkaria; and she wants to make sure there is education and people know what they are getting into.   

 

Maureen Rupe stated they did lose because they included Frontenac, Sharpes, and Williams Point who wanted nothing to do with Port St. John; they were left at a disadvantage because there are 25,000 people in Port St. John, while those areas do not have even a third of that; but that small minority opposed so aggressively that Port St. John did not stand a chance.  She stated she still bears the scars; it was awful; the problem was those groups did not want to be included; and the very small minority caused so much trouble, that the incorporation failed. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if those areas were included anyway; with Ms. Rupe responding yes, that is where they went wrong.  Ms. Rupe advised 74% of the people voted yes to have the study, but the three areas were not included in that vote.  Chair Voltz inquired if those areas were not included in the dialogue; with Ms. Rupe responding they were included in the dialogue, but they were not included in the straw ballot for the study.  Ms. Rupe stated those areas did not want to be included, but were included; and they put up opposition. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the amount of money the County owes UCF; with Chair Voltz responding if 90% of the work is done, she would say it is pretty close.  Commissioner Pritchard stated it does not always work that way.  County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Contract was 10% at the beginning and $10,000, so the County has already given 50%.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Board owes another $10,000; with Ms. Busacca responding yes.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the County owes them $10,000 for the work they have done or for work yet to be done; with Ms. Busacca responding the Contract did not consider that, but simply said it would be a project, and the Board would give them the remainder.  Chair Voltz inquired if the Board cuts it off, it is done; with Ms. Busacca responding that is right.  Commissioner Pritchard read aloud from Mr. Laney’s letter; and stated he does not know if the Board owes more or not, but it sounds like it owes more money above the $10,000 it has already paid.  He stated he does not see why the Board would want to spend another $10,000 only to have a negative vote come out of it; and Mr. Jack has said he has had it and is not interested.  He stated he can understand the Board being concerned and sympathetic towards what has gone on; but if it is not going to go anywhere, then he does not see what it is trying to salvage; and if the group wants to come back, it can make this decision.  He stated they can stop all of UCF’s involvement at this point, take some time to think about it, and if the group wants to come back and redraw the boundaries, that is fine.  He stated he does not want to make a decision based on what has happened today only to have it fail in referendum; and he would rather they take a couple of weeks, think about it, and come back to advise the Board whether they want to go or not. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated a lot of work has gone into this; and recommended moving ahead.  She stated she is glad Sherwood and East Mims came forward to say they did not want to be part of this; it is clear; and if Commissioner Scarborough would like to make a motion, she would like to move forward with the incorporation study excluding Sherwood and East Mims.  She noted she does not know who will win or lose. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated it is like laying a foundation and finding out it is not in the right spot; and it does not matter how many bricks one puts into something if it is not right, it is not right.  He stated he cannot look at spending any more money if he does not think it is going to go somewhere; that is why he is asking the community to think about it and come back; and he does not want to waste money on something just to make him feel good. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated when she talks about investment and work that has gone into this, it has nothing to do with dollars, but with hours and hours of meetings, sacrifices, and taking time away from families and work; and those are things one cannot put a dollar amount on.  She stated she is comfortable that the Board is doing the right thing moving this ahead; it is a win/win for everybody; the speakers from Sherwood did not say they were against incorporation, but just wanted to be left out of it; and East Mims is not against the incorporation.  She stated East Mims is going about its business; it is hoping the study goes well; and that is why she is comfortable moving forward.  She stated the citizens were willing to spend hours of time; expressed appreciation to Mr. Jack for his dedication and all he has done for the Mims community; and it will be a win/win if it goes forward. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated a few months ago Commissioner Scarborough brought up the term “social capital” which is the time invested in something or the sweat equity; and there has been a lot of that.  He commented on continuing to invest social capital into the process if it is not going to come to the type of conclusion desired, results of the study, and paying the freight to have government in Mims.  He stated if the Board wants to move forward, he is good to go; if it does not, he is good to not go; but he wants to leave this with the people and does not want to make a decision that is going to put the community in a bind because it will invest more social capital.  He stated if there is the slightest twinge from a neighborhood that does not want to be part of the study, the group may be back before the Board again; he does not know the status of the study; and the community may be looking at a significant individual investment in this to continue from this point forward.  He stated he would like to know it is willing to undertake this opportunity should the Board give it to the community; and he does not want the group to make an irrational decision with a rational process. 

 

Mr. Jack stated they have a Mims Community meeting tonight; Thursday night was supposed to be the first meeting that Mr. Laney was going to have the facts back; and requested the Board allow him to take this to the Committee to see how it feels.

 

Commissioner Scarborough commented on losing momentum; and stated the two questions that need to be answered are what they would have to do with UCF about drawing the lines and where the lines would be for East Mims.  He stated they need to talk to Mr. Harris and Mr. Jack to get the lines drawn; and inquired if the Board would be willing to meet an hour before the Budget Hearing on September 26, 2006 to hear this issue; with Commissioner Colon responding yes.  Commissioner Scarborough stated that way the Board will have more information. 

 

Mr. Jack stated the biggest problem with Mr. Laney is the information he has is not relevant.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands, but he needs to get new information.  Commissioner Scarborough stated everything is not irrelevant; and he has information from the Property Appraiser and things like that.  Mr. Jack stated Mr. Laney will have to extract all the information.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it is his intention to table the issue until 4:30 p.m. on September 26, 2006.  Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Jack will bring back feedback from the community.  Mr. Jack stated he has no hard feelings; and his goal has always been to bring the community together.  Chair Voltz stated the Board knows that, and Mr. Jack has done a great job, which is why she does not want to see it just go down the tubes at this point. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough requested the Board jump to the moratorium issue; and recommended approving the item.  He inquired what are the three issues; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding what is the area to be covered, what is the date to be inserted for the Red Light Doctrine because the Board brought it up on September 7, 2006, although today is the move to advertisement, and the third issue is whether it is rezonings or all development orders that will be covered by the moratorium.  Chair Voltz stated it would be just rezonings.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the intent was to have no new rezonings; as far as the area, that is something that can be discussed next Tuesday; and inquired if the area has to be defined to take action today.  Mr. Knox advised the Board could authorize the advertisement of the ordinance with the existing description, and then later change the description if it wished. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated since it is the desire of East Mims and Sherwood to stay in the County, he would want to include those two areas in the moratorium because the Board needs to have the data together; it will not affect Mr. Jackson’s rezoning, which will be heard in November; but it would affect any new rezonings that would be coming in, until such time as they get a Small Area Plan.  Mr. Harris requested clarification; with Commissioner Scarborough responding if someone has a rezoning request in the system, it will not apply, but after the Board takes action on the moratorium, any new rezoning request would be put on hold until after there is some understanding under the Small Area Plan.  Mr. Harris stated he has some concerns, but will not worry about it.  Chair Voltz recommended Mr. Harris talk to Commissioner Scarborough before next Tuesday; with Mr. Harris advising he will express his concerns then.             

 

Discussion ensued on tabling items, moratorium requiring two hearings, defining boundaries, and advertising broadly. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance imposing a moratorium on rezonings and Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the area currently under the Mims Study, pending completion of the Small Area Plan. 

 

 

Mr. Knox inquired what the date is for the Red Light Doctrine.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if cards were submitted on the item.  Chair Voltz advised there are a number of cards. 

 

Discussion ensued on whether to consider Item VIII.D.5 at this time, other items on the Agenda, number of cards submitted, and fairness to others who are present for other items on the Agenda.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table consideration of the Mims Incorporation Feasibility Study Area boundaries to September 26, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a portion of unimproved right-of-way in Indian River Park Subdivision, as petitioned by Leonard Jones and Willis Haynes. 

 

Dot Jones, representing Leonard Jones and Willis Haynes, stated the item requested is vacating of an unimproved platted road; the survey shows the road to be 30 feet wide; and it was originally scheduled for August 22, 2006, but has been rescheduled to today because of a negative comment from Susan Wellen with Land Acquisition.  She advised Ms. Well said, “from a right-of-way perspective, this request is denied as the proposed vacating will close direct access from U.S. 1 to the properties east of the petitioner’s property.”  She stated all of the property owners were notified, and none have objected; this is not an improved road, and it is not used; and the only ones it will affect are Leonard Jones and Willis Haynes, who are the ones requesting the vacating.  She stated it is a 30-foot wide road; even Ms. Wellen recognizes that it takes a minimum 50-foot right-of-way from U.S. 1 to improve a road to where it can be used;  and there is not enough land to use it, so it is a road that was platted years ago but will never be used.  She advised Leonard Jones owns the property to the north and has had a business there for 35 years; ten years ago he bought the property to the south of it; he requested rezoning of the south property to BU-2; and Zoning staff suggested that the road be vacated, if Mr. Haynes was in agreement, because it would make that property contiguous and there would not be an unusable road with a platted right-of-way that nobody uses or can use.  He stated that way Mr. Jones would not have to put a building on the property to the south because that is not what he needs the property for; Mr. Jones needs the property for equipment, machinery, and things like that; and he has all the building he needs.  She advised there is an aerial view in the packet showing the rights-of-way that the people to the east of the property use; they have property access and do not need the road; and none of the property owners have objected.  She advised the only negative comment came from Susan Wellen, who admitted it would take 50 feet to use the road, but the road is only 30 feet wide; and there is a survey in the package.  She requested the road be vacated. 

 

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated the facts have been represented correctly; the properties to the east of the vacating request do not rely on the road at this point; they rely on existing partially improved road rights-of-way that go to the north and out to U.S. 1; however, the comments by Land Acquisition are accurate that this would eliminate a potential access to U.S. 1, although it would be substandard from the current required right-of-way width if it was a public road. 

 

*Commissioner Colon’s absence was noted at this time.   

Mr. Denninghoff advised staff has not received any objections from the property owners to the east; it has not heard anything from those property owners, so they have not confirmed that they do not care regarding the matter.  He stated it is in the Board’s discretion whether it wishes to take action; or staff can solicit comments from the property owners to the east.    

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has talked to Cynthia Streeter concerning this; he has tremendous respect for Ms. Wellen; but there does not seem to be a desire to maintain the road.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution vacating portion of unimproved right-of-way in Indian River Park Subdivision as petitioned by Leonard Jones and Willis Haynes.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider a resolution, exchange agreement, and deeds for exchange of property with Paul R. Rufo for Wickham Park outparcels.   

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the numbers on this do not look good; but it is almost like a Thousand Islands type thing in terms of value to the public.  He stated sometimes value is what value is to the user; and there are reasons why the County will be benefited by this transaction.  He stated they are fully aware of what the numbers show, but they are also aware of the public benefit that will be afforded to the people of Melbourne. 

 

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt a Resolution authorizing exchange of .69 acre of Wickham Park property for .527 acre of property owned by Paul R. Rufo; execute Exchange Agreement with Paul R. Rufo, County Deeds, and any additional documents necessary for transfer of the properties; and accepted Warranty Deeds from Mr. Rufo.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

*Commissioner Colon’s presence was noted at this time.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve full refund for the entire application fees in the amount of $5,361 incurred to process the Grant-Valkaria August and September rezoning applications.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is reason to think any of the applicants want to stay in the holding pattern that they are in; with Zoning Manager Rick Enos responding none of these items have been postponed; and the advice was the Board could not take action on these items. 

 

Chair Voltz called for a vote on the motion.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino stated when the Board was looking at transportation impact fees, it raised the question about the fact that industrial fees had been exempt until that time. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Swanke’s memorandum to the Board spells out that although the exemptions are legally defensible, the economic benefit to the County is in question; and requested Mr. Swanke comment on any uses or abuses of the existing system and if the Board needs to change it, what he would advise. 

 

Planning Support Services Manager Steve Swanke stated as it stands right now impact fees for certain industrial land uses are exempt as a matter of right; to qualify for an exemption a developer only needs to demonstrate that the new building he is constructing will be used by one of the specified industries; and he does not need to demonstrate any long-term economic benefit to the County.  He advised right now the definition of industrial includes mining, utilities, construction services, manufacturing, transportation and warehousing, and waste remediation services; if the Board is comfortable with having it structured as a matter of right and now requiring a demonstration of economic benefit to the County, it can either continue with the present definition or revise the definition to exclude those industries the Board  does not wish to encourage and add new industries it does wish to encourage; and alternatively, it can restructure the exemption program to award exemptions on a case-by-case basis when it has already awarded economic incentives such as Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Abatement or other industrial incentives offered through Enterprise Florida.  He stated recipients of those awards would either be relocating to the County or expanding business operations within the County, and would have gone through an exhaustive process by which their economic benefits to the County would have been assessed; and that would provide a basis for awarding an impact fee exemption for new development.

 

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud Option 3; stated earlier Mr. Swanke mentioned there are a litany of uses that can fall into this category while others may not be as appropriate; and inquired if Mr. Swanke has any recommendations.  Mr. Swanke responded if the Board continues to structure these as a matter of right, a mining industry and any facilities it would construct in the County would be exempt from impact fees; certain manufacturing industries such as a poultry processing plant that may only pay minimum wage would be exempt from impact fees as a matter of right; but a data processing company that only provided services and was not a manufacturing service would not be exempt under the definitions as they are currently

structured.  He stated if they went to a case-by-case review, the County has already established economic criteria such as the creation of certain number of new jobs, certain wage structure, and having to continue for a period of time to demonstrate significant economic impact to the County for which it is willing to award some economic relief.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the County can apply some of the exemptions awarded to those types of industry on a percentage basis for impact fees; with Mr. Swanke responding affirmatively.  Chair Voltz inquired about people who have tax abatements; with Commissioner Pritchard advising that is where he is going.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the criteria that is applied for tax abatement should apply here; if the County does not encourage economic development, it is going to have serious complications; and if it can reduce a fee by a minimal amount and encourage bringing in business, it is a good use of that type of incentive program.  He inquired if there would be a problem merging the two and bringing it back so the Board could look at it and make a decision based on two components instead of one; with Mr. Swanke responding affirmatively.  Mr. Swanke requested clarification on what is being proposed.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to see the methodology that is used when the Board does tax abatements for certain types of industrial applications, although he is not sure mining or poultry farms would fall into that.  County Manager Peggy Busacca advised of criteria for tax abatements such as requiring a certain number of jobs.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the EDC cannot propose the exemption for a litany of other uses that one might think would fall into that category; it is very focused; and the Board should take the same focus.  Mr. Swanke stated he agrees; that is what he tried to communicate through Option 3, that once the particular industries have been identified through other incentive processes, the best way to award the impact fee incentives would be to those companies that have already qualified under that program.  Commissioner Pritchard stated if the Board uses the criteria already used by EDC, all it would need to do is apply it; and if it is 30% that EDC would request, then it could be a 30% reduction in the impact fee; with Mr. Swanke advising it can be structured that way.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees with a demonstration of economic benefit along the lines of what is done with EDC economic incentives; and commented on environmental impact and the exemption staying with the use.  She stated if a ten-year economic incentive is given for a tax abatement, this exemption would go with that use; and if the use changes, then the entity would have to pay the proper amount.  She stated another issue is that economic benefit would not be derived if the nature of the business changed no longer making it eligible for impact fee exemptions; she would want that to be part of it; and she assumes that is what Option 3 would entail.  She stated on the first page of the memo it says, “The 2001 Ordinance failed to revise language contained in the industrial exemption section . . .  the oversight was corrected in the 2006 transportation impact fee Ordinance but remains in the Code for correctional, fire/rescue, and emergency medical services impact fees”; and requested explanation.  Mr. Swanke stated when the Board first started with the exemptions in 1995, it adopted definitions for industrial and commercial based on the 1987 edition of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual; in 2001 when the Board revised the impact fees, the definition of industrial was updated but some references were left to the 1987 edition of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual while others were changed to the 1997 edition of the North American Industrial Classification System, so there is a discrepancy that should be corrected. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired when they give the industrial, do they by right cover the correctional, fire/rescue, and emergency medical service impact fees; and stated she is not sure

the Board wants to go that route.  Chair Voltz stated she agrees.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the only reason he mentioned transportation was that it was the only one he could think of that would be universal; and he is not sure others would apply in this situation.  Chair Voltz stated the people who get tax abatements are not exempt from those anyway.  Mr. Swanke advised right now they are, so staff would take as its direction to remove those exemptions from those programs; school facilities and library facilities apply to residential uses only so do not need to be changed, but fire/rescue, correctional, and EMS would have the industrial exemptions removed from the Ordinances.  Chair Voltz inquired if those will be removed from the tax abatement program; with Mr. Swanke responding no.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is enough direction to staff; with Mr. Swanke responding he has a good idea of what the Board would like to see. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to restructure the exemption provisions in the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance so that impact fee exemptions are awarded by the Board of County Commissioners on a case-by-case basis when an economic benefit to the County has been demonstrated using methodologies and criteria utilized by the EDC for the Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Abatement program, to eliminate impact fee exemptions for industrial development from the Fire/Rescue, Correctional, and EMS Impact Fee Ordinances, to structure the transportation impact fee exemptions in such a way that the Board may award an exemption for a percentage of the impact fee assessed on a development; and revise definitions within the impact fee ordinances to reflect the current version of the North American Industrial Classification System.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated since the Board is talking about impact fees, there is a deadline of October 14, 2006 for people who were in the pipeline; and staff was going to suggest to the Board changing the deadline to December 31, 2006.  Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn stated the Board would have to amend the Ordinance since the deadline is October 14, 2006 to have a building permit submitted; that is not as difficult for a single-family house; but for a commercial facility, which has to have a site plan approved before it can submit a building permit application, the Board may want to think about what it wants to do.  Commissioner Colon stated it is just commercial; and expressed concern about economic development and how the small business community would be affected. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if the Board wants to take action today.  Commissioner Colon stated she would like to be able to give that direction just for commercial so the Board can bring it back and look at it. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to bring back options to deal with vesting commercial development from the Transportation impact fee rate increases schedule to take effect on October 14, 2006.

 

 

Chair Voltz stated that is the way to go as the Board did not give enough time for commercial.  Mr. Swanke stated another way to approach this would be to amend the Ordinance to include anyone who has submitted an application for site plan approval by the October date, or to extend the October date.  Mr. Washburn stated it would be better for staff to come back with options; staff has gotten a lot of calls from commercial people, including those with multi-family site plans advising there is no way they can make the October 14 deadline for building permit submittal; and if staff could bring it back on October 10, 2006, that would be the best thing.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the ones having trouble have submitted a site plan already; with Mr. Washburn responding some of them have, but some have not; and when the Board made the deadline October 14, 2006, unless they had a site plan in, there was no way they would get it out of the system in time because they would more than likely have some comments for changes.  Commissioner Carlson stated if they have already submitted a site plan that would do what Mr. Swanke suggested; with Mr. Washburn responding that would be one of the options. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated there are external agencies that are part of the site plan process that need to approve prior to submitting the site plan, like St. Johns River Water Management District; and it is his understanding someone cannot apply for a site plan until having all external agency approvals.  Mr. Washburn stated it sometimes can be part of the site plan process itself; but staff will bring back options to the Board.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he just wanted to make sure the Board did not say “submittal of a site plan” and then find out St. Johns River Water Management District or others were holding up that submittal, leaving the person trying to submit stuck. 

 

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

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated there was a warrant study done for Wingate Estates, but there were not enough warrants to provide for stop signs in this community; the alternative would be going through the speed hump process, which she is not supportive of; and commented on putting in stop signs, and what to do if they do no slow the traffic.  County Manager Peggy Busacca advised removing a stop sign creates a safety hazard.  Commissioner Carlson stated if they are put in and they are found not to be doing the job, they can be pulled out; with Chair Voltz advising it is not that easy. 

 

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised removal and installation of stop signs is a particularly sensitive matter; removal of a stop condition requires going through notification process and putting up signs warning people there is no longer a stop sign; and it is done on side streets.  He stated it introduces the hazard for people who are obeying the stop sign, which when signs are put in the wrong locations is a lower number than it should be; and he could not in good conscience recommend installing stop signs that are not warranted. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she would like to talk to the community, so would like to table the item. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table consideration of request for all-way stop signs and reduced speed limit in Wingate Estates.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated staff suggested including West Melbourne; with Chair Voltz advising she wants to do that. 

 

Michael Myjak stated the new part of the interlocal agreement, as specified by the City of Melbourne, is problematic; the Statute says upfront that the intent is the subtraction of territory from unincorporated area of the County; and it is intended to establish a more flexible process for adjusting municipal boundaries.  He stated he has no trouble with municipal boundaries waiting to annex; the municipalities can only annex property out of the County; but he has a problem with people who live in the annexed areas not having any say in the matter.  He stated this is identifying areas that the municipality can annex at will; and he has some recommendations with regard to the agreement, particularly with regard to Section 2 of the resolution where it states the County agrees with the issues of negotiation as stated by the City of Melbourne.  He stated land use and zoning are not addressed in the agreement; if there is going to be an agreement between a municipality and the County, one of the biggest concerns would be land use and increased density; people annex land into a municipality so they can increase the density, which then changes the character of the neighborhood; and it makes the plan ineffective.  He stated the agreement should include land use and zoning; and his preference would be for it to include the land use that is existing in the County’s Comprehensive Plan.  He stated Section 7 of the proposal is to continue to utilize existing procedures outlined in Part 2 of Chapter 163 until such time as the City of Melbourne decides to annex individual properties; and then it goes on to say it will exempt these properties in this municipal area from the two-year major Comprehensive Plan amendment limitation, which mean the City can annex and do whatever it wants with the properties.  He inquired if the Board is agreeing to this; and whether it will ask the people that live in the area what they want to do before agreeing to allow the City to move in and take over property.  He stated the City specifically says that the details will be specified in the Municipal Service Area Joint Planning Agreement that may result from the requested negotiation, which moves outside the binding agreement those things the County will agree to; and that means the County will have no control.  He stated Section 10 says all municipal services will utilize existing procedures to apply; and they are not doing the permits for the St. Johns River Water Management District and DEP until afterwards.  He stated 171 is an issue concerning service delivery, fiscal responsibility, and boundary adjustments; it specifies clearly public safety, fire emergency rescue, and medical; and he would assume levels of service go along with those.  He commented on issues that were addressed and those that were not addressed like schools and solid waste; and stated those things have to be taken into account as they are concurrency issues.  He inquired if all of the concurrency issues in the agreement are not going to be addressed, what good is the agreement and what kind of teeth can a binding agreement have if there are no consequences.  He stated this is unfair to the people who live in the area; the Board is the only one having any say for the people living in the area; and 171 also gives credibility to the people who just broker land, not the electors who live

in the area.  Mr. Myjak stated it changes it to be people who reside or own property or businesses or abut the property, changing the definition of who the affected people area; and that is an issue.  He inquired if the people who live there are not going to be asked, why not just hand it all over to the cities and be done with it; and stated that is effectively what is going to happen if this path is followed. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the Board is going to be talking to the cities on October 17 about a number of things including this issue.                   

 

Mr. Myjak inquired if the Board is voting on the Resolution with Melbourne today; with Chair Voltz responding it is just discussion; and the Board will be meeting with all the cities.  Mr. Myjak advised that is on October 17, but he is talking about what is on the Agenda today. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated it might be useful if Mr. Knox advises what response is required.  County Attorney Scott Knox stated it is 60 days to file a resolution or not, but Mr. Washburn has more details.  Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn stated in Section 4 of the responding resolution, they asked to talk about future land use and residential densities; the purpose of the resolution is to sit down and negotiate with the City with respect to an area that is not contiguous with the City’s present area; and if they are able to negotiate an agreement, that will come back to the Board, and they will cover all the things that Mr. Myjak is worried about.  He stated this is a means and method to sit down and talk face-to-face with the City about those issues.  Commissioner Carlson stated this is a proposal to come together to talk; it is a starting point for that conversation; and commented on the letter to Ms. Busacca, the Resolution, municipal service areas, and providing for efficient delivery and funding for public services before and after annexation.  She stated, as Mr. Myjak said, it sounds like things have been left off, so that is why the Board is asking to talk about the whole picture; and the City may not want the County’s input, but this opens the conversation. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the Board is not going to get into a debate with Mr. Myjak today, but he can come to the meeting on October 17, 2006. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the questions that were asked are very legitimate; this project is in District 5; and she has met with staff about the concerns and to make sure everything is in black and white.   She stated the City of West Melbourne wants to be part of the discussion because it has to do with infrastructure and utilities; it is an area that right now is not developed but will be developed quickly if the Board is not careful with how it is going to be arranged; and right now they are just starting the discussions.  She stated the Board  never had to deal with Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, with the kind of scrutiny it wants to go through now; this is the first one; and they have encouraged staff and the municipalities that it has to be done right, because if it is not done right, then the rest will follow.  She stated the Space Growth Management Coalition talked about Chapter 171, but not in great detail; the Coalition wants to have discussions because it is more of a working paper; and they may be able to add to it for a comprehensive approach.  She stated anyone listening has every right to be concerned because if this one is not done correctly, it will have an effect; and commented on municipalities policing themselves, everyone being in this together, and accountability.  She stated County staff is staying on top of the questions; the spirit of cooperation between municipalities is very positive; and Melbourne wants to do the right thing, and now West Melbourne is interested.  She inquired if there is anything she did not cover.

 

Mr. Myjak inquired if the School Board can be brought in as one of the special districts and can people living in the area be given the right to vote.  Chair Voltz stated they did not discuss that; it was approved unanimously in the Senate and the House; and it is something the Board needs to look at.  She stated there has been an interest in having the School Board involved; and that is not identified, there must have been a reason. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the School Board sits at the table at the Growth Management Coalition; it is a component of being able to have those discussions; and the Statute is pretty specific.  She stated there is nothing wrong with the municipality or the County asking whether it is looking at the bigger picture; and commented on doing this right. 

 

Commissioner Carlson commented on this as enabling legislation; helping the County in dealing with schools, water, and transportation; doing this right as it is first, confusion with joint planning agreements, and such agreements having no teeth.  She stated that is what the Board  has been talking about; Melbourne has a JPA that addresses certain things; but what is proposed is going to address all those things plus others.  She stated even though it is a boundary agreement, there is discussion of all the above for all parties so everyone understands how they are going to be accountable as they annex; and it is up to the folks that approve their own annexation.  She stated if they want to go into the city, then they will go, and if they do not, they will not. 

 

Mr. Myjak stated his point was that the Board’s hands are not tied to this; and Chapter 171.203(6) says that the Board has the ability to extend the provision beyond this. 

 

Mr. Washburn stated the County has worked with the City of Melbourne on many things; the City is very responsible with respect to annexation; and the County needs the City’s help with respect to the right-of-way for the parkway.  He stated it is much easier for Melbourne to help the County with right-of-way through the annexation process than it is for the County to try to purchase such right-of-way; and if the City annexes the land and the County agrees, everything still applies with respect to school capacity, comprehensive planning, and those things.  He stated staff is very comfortable sitting down and negotiating with the City to attempt to bring back to the Board a workable agreement.      

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Myjak raised the question about the people in the area; this is an interlocal service boundary area and an opportunity to vote on whether or not they want to be within this boundary area; and he has not heard of that.  He stated he does not know what type of requirement there would be or why people would feel they may not want to be within that area.  He stated he would like to get more information about why someone would be concerned about being within the boundary area.  Mr. Washburn responded most of the properties in this area came to the City of Melbourne with respect to services; they are not developed; and there was some overlap with the West Melbourne service area for water and sewer.  He noted Melbourne provides the City of West Melbourne with water; then West Melbourne distributes it so the people have been talking to both cities over time to try and get services; and this is a means for them to do that, which is why West Melbourne was invited to come to the table in the discussions.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired what would happen if Melbourne initiated a service boundary area, and the people within the boundary area did not want services because they felt it was a precursor to annexation; with Mr. Washburn responding it would not happen.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Melbourne has sent a Resolution and there is a resolution for the Board to sign saying it invites the City of West Melbourne to participate; and it talks about proceeding with discussions with Melbourne in an expanded capacity.  He stated there are two separate resolutions that lead to discussions; and inquired if he is incorrect in that this is just agreeing to sit down to talk about these terms or is the Board agreeing to what is in the City’s Resolution.  Mr. Knox responded the Board is agreeing to the issues for discussion, but not the details or substance.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the issues that Mr. Myjak brought forward are the issues that the Board needs to be advised of; and suggested Mr. Myjak email his issues to all Commissioners.  Mr. Knox stated the only caveat is that the Board has until October 10, 2006 to do something about it, so it is not going to be one of those things that the Board can wait to develop the issues it wants to talk about, and it will have to come to a decision.  Commissioner Scarborough stated whatever is finally resolved would be back before the Board because the Board is accepting the City’s Resolution as an invitation to discussion.  Mr. Knox advised the ultimate agreement comes back to the Board.    

  

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution providing a response to the City of Melbourne’s Resolution No. 1993 requesting the County to negotiate an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement and providing an invitation to the City of West Melbourne to participate in the negotiation process, pursuant to the Municipal Service Boundary Agreement Act, Chapter 171, Part 2, Florida Statutes.    

 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board wants to invite a School Board member; with the Board reaching consensus not to do so at this time.

 

(Vote on the motion takes place later in the meeting.)    

 

 

The meeting recessed at 4:10 p.m. and reconvened at 4:20 p.m.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to recess the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners and convene as the Governing Board of the Brevard County Mosquito Control District.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment extending for one additional year the Contract with ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc., for engineering services associated with site restoration services at the Melbourne and
Merritt Island Airports.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adjourn the meeting of the Governing Board of the Brevard County Mosquito Control District and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Chair Voltz noted the Board did not vote on the motion made previously; and called for a vote on the motion to adopt Resolution providing a response to the City of Melbourne’s Resolution No. 1993 requesting the County to negotiate an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement and providing an invitation to the City of West Melbourne to participate in the negotiation process, pursuant to the Municipal Service Boundary Agreement Act, Chapter 171, Part 2, Florida Statutes.

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board wants to talk about issues, it needs to include them in the resolution; and he would like to make a motion including the other items that should be discussed.  Chair Voltz inquired what items.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board would like Mr. Myjak to speak; with Chair Voltz responding no. 

 

Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn stated in the responding resolution the Board has invited West Melbourne, and future land use and density are part of the discussion.  Commissioner Scarborough stated that is not as far as Mr. Myjak indicated the Board needed to go.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to amend the motion to include those items raised by Mr. Myjak.

 

 

Chair Voltz stated she does not know what those items are.  Commissioner Colon advised they are schools, solid waste, and land use.  Commissioner Pritchard stated schools are not part of Chapter 171.  Mr. Myjak stated another issue is voting.  County Attorney Scott Knox stated annexation can be added; and voting is included in the annexation provisions of the law.  Chair Voltz inquired what do they need to add; with Mr. Knox responding land use, zoning, schools, solid waste, and annexation.  County Manager Peggy Busacca stated if this is a service agreement about who is providing services, she does not understand discussion about schools because they are Countywide.  Chair Voltz stated it is about water and sewer.  Commissioner Colon recommended discussing it all.  Mr. Knox stated there are six items that are listed to be discussed; and if the Board wants to add anything, it can do that.  Commissioner Carlson stated it is just discussion.  Mr. Knox advised the Board does not have to do anything; if it wants to talk about schools it can; but if it does not add schools, it cannot talk about them.  Mr. Washburn advised future land use is the controlling factor; zoning means nothing without future land use; so the future land use and the residential density are key issues for discussion with respect to the annexation area. 

 

Chair Voltz called for a vote on the motion.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

An objection was raised by a member of the audience that the original motion was not voted on.  Discussion ensued.  Commissioners Carlson and Pritchard accepted Commissioner Scarborough’s amendment as a friendly amendment to the prior motion. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he heard that the members of the Titusville/Cocoa Airport Authority were not asked whether they could attend the meeting or not; and Patty Patch wanted to attend, but will be in California on the proposed date.

 

Chair Voltz stated the Board has canceled and rescheduled the meeting over and over again. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Ms. Patch is one of the members and was not asked if she was available on the meeting date.  County Manager Peggy Busacca advised she does not know if they were asked.  Agenda Specialist Sally Lewis advised they were informed by email that the Board would be discussing this today.  Chair Voltz inquired if the members agreed to the meeting date; with Ms. Lewis responding not all of them.  Commissioner Scarborough stated normally the Board does not schedule something until calendars are checked; and in this case, calendars were not checked and the TICO Board was just advised that the Board was taking action today.  Chair Voltz stated they should have been present today; and she thinks the TICO Board is just trying to avoid meeting until Commissioner Pritchard is gone, which is not going to happen.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board needs to hold the time firm on the meeting; and if the members are not present, the Board will hold the discussion without them.  Commissioner Carlson stated TICO has lost its Executive Director; with Chair Voltz responding the Executive Director will be present as he is not leaving until October 20, 2006. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve October 19, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. for a joint meeting with the Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Scarborough voted nay.       

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the last time the Board gave a three-month notice, and that was still not good enough.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the last time it was canceled because a hurricane forced closing of the building.  Discussion ensued on number of times the meeting has been rescheduled, and closing of County buildings. 

 

 

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the item is a proposed moratorium on rezoning applications in the Mims area, which is currently identified as the incorporation area proposed for the feasibility study; and the reason for the moratorium would be the preparation of the small area plan to determine what amendments would be appropriate, if any. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Knox said the Mims area that would be included in the feasibility study; earlier the Board discussed keeping Sherwood and East Mims out of the study; and at this point, she understood that they would not be part of it.  Mr. Knox advised the reason they kept it larger was because they can always cut it back, but cannot always add to it, so if the folks from the Sherwood and East Mims areas decide they want to be part of the study area for purposes of the land use study, they cannot be added later if they are not included now.  Commissioner Colon stated one of the things the Board wanted to accomplish was to make sure there were no more rezonings coming in the Mims community; and that applies to everyone except those in the pipeline who will be heard in November.  She stated right now the moratorium for any rezoning will be for the whole area. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the point he wanted to clarify was what is the Mims area; Mr. Knox is suggesting using the entire area to advertise for public hearing; and the Board  can cut back later at the public hearing.  Mr. Knox advised the Board can do that if it wishes at the public hearing.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the purpose of public comment; with Mr. Knox responding the Board traditionally heard from the public on every Agenda item.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the speakers should advise if they are for or against what the Board is going to do.  Chair Voltz advised that is all the Board needs to hear because the boundary is not an issue. 

 

Walter Pine expressed concern about notice, District 5 putting in a moratorium for District 1, and District 1 Commissioner having no input on what happens in the District; and inquired if Commissioner Scarborough approved it.  Commissioner Scarborough responded he was at the Zoning meeting primarily concerned about four zoning items; discussion evolved into the possibility of additional zonings evolving from the four with a ripple effect; and Commissioner Colon brought up the idea that the Board was not only talking about four zonings, but the potential of others.  He stated after the Board tabled the four items, Commissioner Colon made a motion recognizing the fact there were multiple issues arising; while the Board could not have a moratorium legally impacting the four items that were tabled, there was an ability to get more information as to an overall plan; and they decided to wait until that was completed with a moratorium, which he supported.  Mr. Pine stated he opposes the moratorium; people have the right to seek zoning changes up to the day they are annexed into a city; and this will substantially affect their property rights and the standard of the zoning that will be there when they are annexed.  He stated it has to do with the rights over their property and what the city has to grant them as they are brought into the city; and to create a moratorium at this point substantially interferes and restricts the property rights of the property owner at this time.  He stated it is significant; it has not been the habit of the County to do this with other incorporations; and it is wrong because if affects the creation of the city.  He provided an example involving a property owner in the unincorporated area wishing to change zoning, which they may not be entitled to under the city’s regulations.  He stated to say that because people procrastinated and did not believe the city of Mims would happen, they are out of luck is not right; and he opposes the moratorium. 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated Mr. Washburn advised the Board may wish to talk about future land use amendments as well as rezonings. 

 

Chair Voltz stated this is only going to be until November when the Small Area Plan comes back.  Commissioner Scarborough stated they are two separate things; the Board will have the information about the people in the process by October 20, 2006; and on November 2, 2006 it will vote on the five items.  He stated independent of that, the Board is going to proceed with the Small Area Plan for future zoning or Comprehensive Plan requests; and commented on starting the process, losing a planner, and being much further along than they normally would be with the Small Area Plan.  He inquired what length are moratoriums generally; with Mr. Knox responding this particular one is 180 days, but if the Board gets the plan back sooner, it can stop it sooner.

 

Steve Jack, president of the Mims Community Group, stated he supports this; it is needed; the infrastructure is not set up for everything that is going to be rezoned; and commented on the five-year plan to expand the water plant.  He stated if this was already set, it probably would not be necessary to do the feasibility study; and requested the Board approve the item. 

 

Susan Walters stated she totally supports the item. 

 

Thelma Roper stated one of the biggest issues with the people is density rather than rezoning; and the Board controls the density.  She stated the backup package includes two proposed ordinances; one of them addresses rezoning issues; and the other one talks about Comprehensive Land Use and other Development Regulations as well as Development Orders and Development Permits.  She inquired would this also include properties that are not asking for rezoning, but are just seeking permits; and which version of the ordinance will the Board be using.  She noted she is against the item anyway as it is unnecessary; but the public needs to know which ordinance is being discussed.  Mr. Knox responded it will be version two, which is for rezonings. 

 

Susan Fitzpatrick stated she totally supports the moratorium. 

 

Fred Kusterer indicated support for the moratorium. 

 

Shawn Harris inquired if the Board needs additional information or time to study the impacts before approving any more rezonings; with Chair Voltz responding yes.  Mr. Harris inquired if that is why the Board needs the Small Area Study; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the ones that are in the pipeline are in the pipeline; and the ones coming into the pipeline will not be processed until after the Small Area Plan is completed.  Mr. Harris inquired if the Board needs the Small Area Plan to make better decisions on that area for growth; with Chair Voltz responding yes.  Mr. Harris stated he has no problem, and supports the moratorium.

 

Attorney Kimberly Rezanka, representing Roper Harding Mims Partnership, advised the Partnership submitted an application for rezoning on September 8; and inquired what is the pipeline.  She stated she does not have an effective date yet, which is part of the problem; and if it is going to be September 7, 2006, she has a real problem because they have been working with staff for three months on submittal of the rezoning, and could not bring it back because part

of it had been denied last December.  Ms. Rezanka stated if the pipeline is defined as sometime after today that makes a difference; otherwise, she would request the Board insert a date after September 8, 2006, which was the most recent rezoning application deadline.  She stated she received a copy of the verbatim transcripts from September 7, 2006 and it is not clear at that point that there was a red flag; the motion was to direct staff to look at whether or not it would be appropriate to address a moratorium to do a Small Area Plan; she was at that meeting; and she recalls a quasi-small area study being proposed.  She stated it was not even a small area plan when she left, so she is concerned. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated to simplify the matter, the Board can say today’s date.  Mr. Knox advised that is fine. 

 

Laurilee Thompson stated she supports the plan.     

 

Paula Lay stated she supports the ordinance as it will give everyone a better look at what they have to deal with that is coming. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the item is a request for permission to advertise a public hearing; and inquired how can they already have a date.  Mr. Knox stated if someone submitted a rezoning application before today’s date, no matter when the ordinance is adopted, they would be considered to be in the pipeline.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that is the case even if the Board has not made a determination of whether it is going to go forward or not; with Mr. Knox responding the Board is setting the date in the proposed ordinance and can always change the date, but this is for advertisement purposes.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board was talking about zonings and Comprehensive Plan amendments, the area that is currently under the Mims study as previously described, and today’s date.  Mr. Knox stated the Comprehensive Plan amendments are not in the current proposed ordinance, but can be added.  Commissioner Scarborough stated Ms. Busacca mentioned it and to be consistent, they should probably be included.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it was future land use; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Comprehensive Plan and residential densities are what most people are concerned about.  Commissioner Pritchard stated it includes the Mims area as currently defined; and inquired if it is reduced, what effect it will have and can the ordinance be modified when it comes back for public hearing; with Mr. Knox responding yes. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance imposing a moratorium on rezonings and Comprehensive Plan amendments for the area currently under the Mims Study, pending completion of the small Area Plan, and using September 19, 2006 as the date for the exemption provision.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Mark Poole, representing the Indian River Kontrol Society, advised of the history of the group, which flies model airplanes on the field just east of the Government Center; and stated they heard in December they will have to leave that sight because of construction of the Health Department building.  He stated he made his first presentation to Parks and Recreation eight years ago, suggesting they plan for this; and after seven years of work, they have identified the U.S. 192 landfill location as a place to develop their dream of a high-quality, multi-use flying site.  He stated in May 2005, the Board gave them a ten-year Use Agreement; and advised of their vision for the site as a multi-use facility supporting various activities.  He displayed pictures; stated that there was plenty of land there to do it; at that time they believed they had ten to fifteen years of good useful life at the site; and now things have changed.  He stated he wants to make three requests; the most urgent is the fact that they need to have some place to fly as of December since they are losing their location at the Government Center; and presented a drawing showing things they have done so far.  He advised the group has put $15,000 into the property to include gates to isolate them from the Deseret operations, a north fence, a wetlands delineation, mowing, and a storage shed; a lot has happened in the last 15 months; but they have an issue with fill.  He presented a timeline showing the sequence of events; and stated the property is insured and open for usage, but because it is so rough, they cannot use it for aircraft that have wheels.  He displayed an aerial view of the property; pointed out the roads and entrance; and displayed a picture showing how rough the property is.  He requested the Board allow them to use the dirt that is on the north edge of the property along the canal; stated the canal was dug years ago and the dirt was simply heaped on the side; it is sitting 800 feet away; and they would like to use some of the dirt to level out the field.  He stated the cost to the club would be prohibitive; it cannot afford that much dirt; and the group has paid for dirt to be brought to the Government Center site to level the field the club uses now, which is not something the group can take with it.  He requested the Board allow them to use the berm dirt in exchange for the County keeping the dirt the group brought to the site it has been using.  He displayed a picture showing low areas; stated when there is a heavy rain, it gets wet; and advised of permitting and installation of a new culvert.  He stated by December the group needs to finish the culvert and get the fill; they had estimated the worst case scenario at approximately 7,665 yards to fill the area; and they are willing to pay to move it from the berm to their area.  He noted there will be no cost to the County to do this; the dirt is sitting there; it is close; it is easy to get; and the club will pay for that move.  He stated they will move a gate down toward the entry culvert; and they will seed that area.  He stated they started the effort eight years ago; it has been their dream to develop that site; and they had a ten-year Use Agreement for it as of May 2005.  He stated in a meeting two weeks ago at Solid Waste Management a couple of things became clear; staff has been given a directive to start looking at developing the site; they need to do environmental and geo-technical surveys on the location; and it was the opinion of Solid Waste Management and attorneys representing the County that the club would not be able to do anything with the location because it might impede the programs of the studies.  He stated the club would like to level the site and use it, which would not impact the studies; and they would like to find out how they can do that.  He stated they see five to seven years as the real duration of time to start development of the site; they could be using it for those five to seven years; and they could look at other options on where to go long-term.  He stated they have spent $15,000-plus on the property; they need to level it and finish the entry road and the culvert; there is fill material 800 feet away; they lose the site at the Government Center in December; and right now there is no other long-term solution.  He stated Solid Waste Management advises there is an area on S.R. 528 at the Cocoa landfill that could be used as a short-term option; the club has looked at it, it is flyable, and it could be used for a three to four-year timeframe; but it is not a long-term solution.  Mr. Poole stated the first request is to allow them to proceed with leveling the area and using it as they intended; it took eight years to get this far; and requested they be allowed to continue.  He stated the second request is to use the dirt from the berm, which is right there; and the third request is to be allowed to use the Cocoa landfill site because there is some uncertainty with the U.S. 192 location.  He stated they have some options; but the goal of his effort eight years ago was a long-term high quality flying site; and now whether it is long-term is in question.  He stated having some options, he feels better about the future; and requested the Board consider those things as it makes its decisions.  He displayed pictures of other government-assisted RC parks in the southeast.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is not sure he sees the need to have both sites in the works at this point; and inquired what effect would that have on the County’s plans for Adamson Road.  Solid Waste Management Director Euri Rodriguez stated the piece of property they are talking about at the Central Disposal Facility is meant only as a temporary solution; Mr. Poole and some of his associates visited the site to see if it would meet their needs; and the idea is to buy some time by locating the group at the Cocoa landfill until the County knows what is going to happen at the U.S. 192 site.  He stated the property at the landfill will not be needed until seven years from now, which gives them time to find out if the U.S. 192 site is going to be used for a landfill and what portions of it have to be preserved by DEP, Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife, etc.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that means the club would be at the Adamson site and nothing would be going on at Deseret; with Mr. Rodriguez responding Attorney David Dees sent a letter strongly suggesting no further changes be made to the U.S. 192 site as it could put the permit process in jeopardy.  Mr. Poole stated the attorney did not say they did not want any development of the site; and the question is whether it meant not developing the full park or whether leveling the mowed area would prevent doing the environmental and geo-technical surveys.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the group can have seven years at the Adamson site, why would it not want to invest its time and effort there; with Mr. Poole responding he would like ten to fifteen years; the group had a ten-year Use Agreement; and they have already invested $15,000 in the U.S. 192 site. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the group is investing in properties assuming it will have a long-term lease agreement.  Commissioner Pritchard stated that is an assumption, but that assumption might affect the County’s ability at the landfill.  Commissioner Carlson stated she understands that; but the County has given the group the green light and it has already invested money; and the package also includes a topographic survey that shows jurisdictional wetlands on the site.  Mr. Poole advised the group paid for the wetlands delineation; and Susan Jackson’s organization did the survey process.  Chair Voltz inquired if it was approved by DEP; with Mr. Poole responding the St. Johns River Water Management District has approved it, and all of their setbacks keep them within the St. Johns River Water Management District’s regulations.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if they can ask the permitting agencies if this would be sufficient, given that Mr. Poole has already gotten the okay from the other agencies.  Mr. Rodriguez advised the Army Corps of Engineers, DEP, and Fish and Wildlife have made it clear that they will look at the parcel as one permit, not various permits; they do not want to piecemeal it; and the reason the question was asked was because the County was thinking about developing the northern part of it in 20 years.  He stated the agencies still want to see one stormwater permit for the entire site; that does not take away from any future plans they might be able to accommodate for the airplane club; but it is putting those plans on hold until they know which parts of the land are required for preservation and so forth. 

 

County Attorney Scott Knox stated he talked with Attorney Dee at length and he could not be more clear that until the permitting agencies have made their determination as to whether or not the County was going to get a permit, nothing should be done with the property because it could jeopardize the permitting; and there is a hundred million dollars at stake. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated that is the Deseret permitting; and suggested the group use its time and effort at the Adamson site.  He stated he understands the group made an investment; but he does not see how the Board can jeopardize the future use of the landfill.  Mr. Poole stated he does not think a clear delineation has been made of what type of development would impede.  Commissioner Pritchard advised the County Attorney just said development would create a serious problem, so the delineation has been made; he understands the group has made a substantial investment; he does not want the group to keep investing in something that will jeopardize the County; and to give the group permission would be short-sighted.

 

Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Knox has made it clear; and she wants to use her energy now in finding out how to accommodate the group now; and more discussion is needed on where to go because the Board cannot jeopardize with the clock ticking at Sarno.  She inquired about the timeline and whether the geo-technical and environmental studies have been done.  Mr. Rodriguez responded they have started the geo-technical, they have done part of the wetland delineation, but it has not been sent to DEP; DEP has to come back and review the wetland determination with the Army Corps of Engineers; and the Fish and Wildlife survey is a multi-year process so they are looking at approximately two years, and four years before they get the permit.   

 

Discussion ensued on the timeline and possibility of lawsuits and challenges.      

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Rodriguez is comfortable accommodating the group and helping with the S.R. 528 site.  Mr. Rodriguez advised they believe they can make it work, although they have some security concerns; and commented on the area.  He stated it is a temporary site and will permit them to buy some time to find out whether they are going to get the permits or not.  Commissioner Colon stated she feels bad because she knows how hard folks have been working; it is frustrating to the Board to hear that it is going to take four years before it even knows if the land is going to be used; and she is sure staff will help with the site on S.R. 528.  She noted the Board is not happy with the news it was just given. 

 

Mr. Poole stated the County Attorney is asking the attorney rather than the permitting agencies; he would think the agencies could be asked if they leveled the area out there whether it would impact the ability to do studies; and inquired why that cannot be asked.  Chair Voltz stated Mr. Knox has already answered that.  Mr. Knox advised of Attorney Dee’s qualifications in the field of permitting; and stated he knows what he is talking about when he says do not touch the property, and the Board would be crazy not to take his advice. 

 

Commissioner Carlson explained the club is an outside entity; the agencies might look at an outside agency moving dirt in a negative way; and inquired when the County initiated the environmental permitting process.  Mr. Rodriguez advised it was initiated at the workshop in February 2006.  Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Poole and his club have invested a lot of money in a site that is a lease site; one of the caveats with the County’s lease agreements is that any time the County deems it necessary to take the lease away for purposes of the County, it is going to have to do that, just like it did with the club’s property near the Government Center; and expressed concern about groups investing a great deal of money to establish something on a lease site.  She stated she supports the RC folks and Harmony Farms in what they want to do; but as the County grows it will have a need for land; there is just so much vacant land to expand its facilities and services; and she hates to see the club investing money and then realizing down the road that it may not ever get back to the site so is it out $15,000.  She stated she does not look at that as being too fair; but the agreement spells out that it is a lease and is subject to the will of the County. 

 

Mr. Poole stated the club worked under the assumption it had a ten-year Use Agreement; up until two weeks ago it believed it had ten years at the site; and now after 15 months to find out that the $15,000 was for naught is more painful than if the club had been there for three or five years; and requested the club be compensated for that. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated that is what she was going to ask.  Mr. Poole stated the club cannot take gates or barbed wire fencing back or get their money back for those things.  Commissioner Colon stated she would like to know the legal aspects.  Commissioner Carlson stated her point was the County is not telling people who are leasing the properties to invest; they have chosen to invest looking at the future saying it is worth that investment if they are going to use the property for ten years; and she understands that money comes out of their pockets.  Commissioner Colon inquired how the Board feels about some kind of compensation.  Mr. Knox advised the Board can buy out their Use Agreement, if it wants to do that. 

 

Chair Voltz stated there is a huge parcel on Sarno Road; and inquired how big is it and could the club go there; with Mr. Rodriguez responding it is 68 acres and full of trees. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would prefer not to have County monies, even if the Board decides to buy out the lease, going on this entity; however, this is clearly a Parks and Recreation type issue; and inquired what is the difference in these people or other people who want park amenities.  He stated rather than trying to make them whole, the Board could find a location and give them a qualify facility; he would support the County’s investment because this is not the way the County should treat people; and he would feel better about having an improvement on County property.  Mr. Knox stated that is a good idea.  Chair Voltz stated any amenities that need to be at the site in Cocoa could be moved; and the County can do whatever it needs to do to facilitate what is needed in lieu of the $15,000 that has been invested.  Mr. Poole advised the only thing they can move is the storage building that was just installed; and the price to move it is $750.  Chair Voltz stated the County can move that; with Mr. Poole noting that leaves a big gap; the wetlands delineation was done; and the County benefits from that. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated at that point they can get the environmental permitting done and determine the status of the property; they can potentially talk about the berm because it is a tradeoff; and the Board can address that once it gets the outcome.  Chair Voltz advised the Board is not saying no.  Commissioner Carlson stated the Board is willing to help the club do

what it needs to do now.  Commissioner Colon recommended the County move the club and get it ready before December.  Chair Voltz stated the Board will do what it can to set the club up without any charge and hopefully some day it may be able to go to the U.S. 192 site.  Mr. Poole stated that was the hope.  Commissioner Colon stated they all hope that happens not just for the club, but for the future of the County and its garbage. 

 

Mr. Poole stated he is not clear on what was decided; and inquired if the Board is saying it will support their move to the Cocoa facility.  He stated they have approximately $3,000 worth of tangible things they can move; there may be some compensation for the wetlands delineation; and inquired what about the remaining portion.  He inquired if the County could build a sunshade building or something of equivalent value to the $15,000 the club put in.  Chair Voltz stated that is what the Board needs to look at; she thinks it needs to be addressed; and suggested Mr. Poole wait until they are on the site to see what they need, and they will go from there.  Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn stated Mr. Poole can work with him and Mr. Rodriguez; they understand the monetary value; and Mr. Rodriguez has already been working on some of those things. 

 

 

 

Maureen Rupe, president of the Partnership for Sustainable Future, stated all 17 groups support what she will be saying today; the gopher tortoise status has been upgraded by the State to threatened species, but there has been little protection for the species up to this point; and every year thousands are crushed or entombed.  She stated 80,000 tortoises have been destroyed under take permits since 1992; and this is an underestimate of total loss as thousands more have been destroyed on development sites by unpermitted activities.  She stated the State is writing a new management plan for the gopher tortoise, but there are no present plans to include a ban on the entombment.  She read aloud from the definitions in Chapter 828.02, Florida Statutes relating to cruelty to animals, and from Chapter 828.12, Florida Statutes, relating to killing animals, including penalties.  She stated she has not found an exemption in the State law for the gopher tortoise; the only license to do it is in the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission’s policies; she is sure there is something in there that would withstand a challenge; but State law still says it is illegal to kill an animal in this manner.  She stated according to Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, from 1992 to 2005, the County was one of ten counties hardest hit by gopher tortoise take permits; and she had a PowerPoint presentation showing what happens in a take, but they are not allowed to show a tortoise that has been decapitated by a bulldozer.  She stated she understands the County Manager’s concerns; but she is trying to put a case forward concerning the cold-blooded killing, so she hopes the Commissioners review the photographs she emailed to each of them.  She stated the Board has the power to stop this cruelty; it is not allowing people to see what the County is allowing to happen; and besides stopping entombment, they are also requesting that lines be identified for relocation.  She stated according to Commissioner Pritchard’s website, 62% of the County is currently set aside for conservation including federal, State, publicly owned, private land, CARL lands, and water management districts; and she knows folks with five to ten acres who would be willing to give tortoises a safe home.  She stated other Florida counties and cities have either partial or full bans on tortoise burials, have implemented relocation programs, and have come
up with a number of ways to pay for the program; County staff said there are approximately 1,000 tortoises that are killed each year in the County; but staff would not be able to relocate all of the gopher tortoises based on sheer quantity, relocation costs, or the fact that some tortoises are sick.  Ms. Rupe stated when everything else is exhausted, the tortoises must be euthanized humanely; and there are others present who will tell of the impact to other creatures including endangered creatures that are harmed through the tortoise taking program.  She stated Ray Ashton of the Ashton Biodiversity Research and Preservation Institute will be speaking next; and he is willing to work with County staff on a solution.  She requested the Board direct any questions to Dr. Ashton who has experience in helping other counties to develop their ordinances; requested the Board put into effect options 2, 3, and 4; if the Board is undecided, it could ask a classroom of young children what is the right thing to do.

 

Dr. Ray Ashton stated he was asked to come to speak to the Board about the issue of entombment and gopher tortoise conservation; and he has good news for the Board.  He stated the situation has riled more people in the State of Florida than any other animal; there have been more responses; more people writing to the FWC; and much action is taking place.  He stated the complete situation with the gopher tortoises is under review; and the entombment is going to stop.  He stated he serves on the stakeholders committee for the Fish and Game Commission to discuss the issues and how to resolve the problems; and they are all agreed, and have sent forward a message to the Commissioners that the entombment has to stop.  He stated incidental take has to become truly incidental as it is under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations under the Endangered Species Act instead of an absolute pay and kill, which is what it turned out to be over the last 15 years.  He stated there was a fright about upper respiratory tract disease being the tortoise AIDS that would kill all the tortoises if they were moved around; the fear was they would all get the disease, die, and become extinct in the State; but that was a fallacy.  He stated  it was just a cold, the tortoises got over it fine, and the requirement for testing before relocation can be removed.  He stated he and other scientists have been working on methods of relocation; and the other reason there was a take was because they knew relocation did not work.  He stated they have been relocating tortoises under the Fish and Game Commission rules and regulations over the past 15 years; they have essentially killed the tortoises in a different, but not so obvious way; and that is part of the good news.  He stated the second part of the message is economic, which is always the best news when there is good conservation and good money to back it up; there were two choices that were given by the Fish and Game Commission over the past 20 years; one was incidental take; in other words the tortoises were diseased and could not be relocated anyway, and people paid so much an acre for the habitat loss; and that gave permission to destroy the tortoises.  He stated the second choice was relocation; if they tested negative and there was a place to put the tortoises, it was possible to relocate them; and the cost there was essentially the relocation cost.  He stated the way the Commission is planning to do relocation now opens up several avenues of revenue for counties, other State agencies, and private individuals; first is the relocation cost; there is a fee per tortoise that is usually charged to give the landowner income to support use of the land, the same as if he was having cattle on the land; and there is a fee for development of the relocation site.  He stated it is going to cost more to do that now because they know scientifically what it takes to make tortoises happy for the rest of their lives on a site; and the most important part of the new package is that the counties, cities, or even private individuals can charge a fee for the land that is being lost, while before there was never a fee charged when there was a relocation.  He stated now there is not a choice; there will be a fee charged for habitat loss; so one pays for the tortoises and the habitat; and whoever is responsible for the relocation can set the price and organize the relocation.  Dr. Ashton stated it is not necessary to use just County lands; but the Board can recommend and work with private landowners to set up conservation easements, and expand the amount of money that can be put into a conservation program, especially in management and monitoring of those protected areas.  He recommended the Board look at this program; stated FWC is planning to work with willing counties to let them take over the relocation process and take the income as well; and that is the direction it is going in.  He stated it is a complicated project; it would take an hour or two to teach it; and submitted written materials.  He stated he is meeting with staff tomorrow to talk more about how the project works; and advised Citrus County in the last ten years would have made $21 million just on the land part, not relocation.  He stated the County would not be doing anything to the landowners and developers that they would not already have happening to them through the State; and they are going to be responsible for paying for the land and relocation of the tortoises, whether it is the County doing it or the FWC out of Tallahassee.  He stated the money will go to the entity responsible for the program; and encouraged the Board to consider a good plan.  He commented on going to counties to represent the tortoise, counties and developers equally at fault, and regulations resulting in tortoises dying.

 

Commissioner Colon stated she would not be prepared to take action today; and inquired what other counties have adopted an ordinance to do what Dr. Ashton mentioned.  Dr. Ashton stated the counties that have the greatest conservation of tortoises are Lee, Collier, and Walton Counties, as well as at least 16 other counties.  He noted Leon County has a complete moratorium.  Commissioner Colon inquired if the ordinances have been in place for a while or is it just recently; with Dr. Ashton responding counties started to take responsibility for moratoriums against take as far as five or six years ago.  Commissioner Colon stated she has a lot of questions; there are a lot of EEL’s properties and conservation lands in the County; and those are the areas that would be attractive.  She stated with something of this magnitude she would want the Building and Construction Advisory Committee and everyone who would be affected by this to be able to give feedback; and the Board can get the ordinances from the other counties, bring them forward to the BCAC, and be able to have all the players.  She advised she has no intention of getting everyone in an uproar over something they do not understand; and everyone needs to hear the pluses and the minuses because this is going into dangerous territory.  She commented on approaching this in a positive manner, controversial issues, getting everyone involved, and doing things right to have a win/win situation.  She stated Dr. Ashton can help with ideas of how to do that; and she would like for the Board to ensure that all the information that staff gathers be brought to the advisory boards.  She inquired who are the different folks that are part of the committee; with Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown responding Mr. Myjak happens to be on the Building and Construction Advisory Committee, but there are also a number of other representations there.  Commissioner Colon stated it needs to be mixed; with Mr. Brown responding it is; and there may be an additional way to look at this.  Mr. Brown stated if the Board is inclined to explore this line of thought, they could host a public workshop to get the experts in the field down, get some feedback, and explore some things in a more in-depth way; and they could then bring back to the Board some information.  He stated the staff report is just the tip of the iceberg; and inquired if the Board would like to explore these options and assess the carrying capacity for the County.  He stated option 4 tells staff to go develop an ordinance; but he does not think they are there yet.  Commissioner Colon stated that is not the route the Board is going to take; she has seen a lot of

things come back and slap the Board for having that approach; and she has no intention of going that route.  Commissioner Colon recommended staff get on the phone immediately and let people in the community know the idea that is being kicked around; and stated it is not attractive to her, even though she will not say no to money.  She stated it is still taxpayers’ money; she is wondering how it will work; there would be millions of dollars going into a community; and regardless, it is not free money, but is taxpayers’ money.  Dr. Ashton stated the question is whether the money goes to the County or does it go to Tallahassee; with Commissioner Colon responding exactly.  Commissioner Colon stated she is being careful because the Board does not want to be accused of only doing this because it wants money to come in; and she is interested in figuring out what else the Board can do.  She stated if this is handled the wrong way, it is not going to be good, but she is excited.  Dr. Ashton stated the Institute is willing to help the Board; and advised of the Institute’s experience working in 27 different countries.  He stated he wishes he had a recording of what Commissioner Colon just said to take to other counties; that is what has to happen to make this work; and the concept of conservation begins at home.  He stated the reason that is important is because developers are going to scream at the Board; they are not going all the way to Tallahassee; and they will be able to organize things with this program, which will help ranchers, people in silviculture, and so forth.  He advised of meetings with the Cattleman’s Association, which is enthusiastic about the opportunities; but cautioned it is at home and the Board cannot do it through the State. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired what board is Dr. Ashton on with the FWC; with Dr. Ashton responding they call it the Stakeholders Advisory Group; and it is made up of 13 different groups.  Commissioner Carlson inquired about the timeline; with Dr. Ashton responding the incidental take rule should be revised by January or February 2007; and procedures for proper relocation will be in place probably about that time as they are being discussed now.  Commissioner Carlson inquired about the opportunity for the County to take over; with Dr. Ashton responding the Board will have to do it now because it needs to get relocation sites soon; the rule on testing has gone by; there are a lot of developers who do not want to tell people buying houses or building houses that they have entombed tortoises; and he would recommend starting by next year because once the money starts flowing to Tallahassee, it will continue flowing to Tallahassee.  He commented on methodology, spreading the program out throughout the counties, meeting with DCA to come up with a message, and a change in the way the State is doing conservation, not just with gopher tortoises.  Commissioner Carlson stated on East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, they have looked at an array of DRI’s; the current ones are required to have set-asides for gopher tortoises; but she does not remember when they got an update on the DRI’s hearing whether they would be required to maintain them.  She inquired if Dr. Ashton has any input on that.  Dr. Ashton stated he probably looked at one or two of those from Brevard County.  Commissioner Carlson noted these are Osceola County where there are 35 DRI’s in the pipeline.  Dr. Ashton stated onsite relocation is difficult; and 87% of all onsite relocations that have been put in place since 1986 have been failures.  Commissioner Carlson stated the DRI’s are hundreds of acres and might be areas where gopher tortoises are numerous; and commented on preservation.  She noted each DRI had to preserve three sites of a certain size; it was a group of five DRI’s; and they connected them and made sure the rules applied to each equally.  She stated that is regional thinking that is coming out of the Planning Council; it is going to be the way the State will be looking at it; and she assumes Dr. Ashton is on the upper edge of that.  Dr. Ashton stated that is the way it should be; but more land is needed; they know that tortoises require more land than what they have been talking about for 25 years; instead of a quarter-acre, roughly one acre should be set aside per tortoise because of the complexity of their forage they used to think they ate grass, but now know they eat over 410 species, and need 150 species onsite at any one time of the year.  Dr. Ashton advised they have even discovered that tortoises talk to each other; and they are not the dumb animals they were thought to be.  Commissioner Carlson stated she appreciates all the research Dr. Ashton has done on the issue; and inquired if the County goes the route Mr. Brown is talking about in terms of getting together a stakeholders group, is Dr. Ashton available to help in that process as either an expert or facilitator; with Dr. Ashton responding absolutely.  Dr. Ashton advised there is a good group of people who have been involved for quite a long time; and they are very enthusiastic to help out. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the fee Dr. Ashton charges to relocate a tortoise; with Dr. Ashton responding it is actually the consultants who usually charge the fee; and explained that the consultant would find out how many tortoises are on the property, go through the discussion with the State, find the relocation site that has been permitted by the State, excavate the tortoises with a backhoe, and move them to the site, which would have been prepared.  He stated usually they have to put in a fence for six months until the tortoises reprogram themselves to know they are home; that is the biggest issue with failure; and the cost is $2,000 per tortoise on average.  He stated it is all based on the market; it is not required by the State or anyone else; but that is the way it is working right now.  He stated they charge between $400 to $600 a tortoise to relocate them on someone’s property; that is the charge from the landowner; and where he lives it is only $350 because of the value of the land, which would go into permanent or semi-permanent conservation easement if it is on private land.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if an acre is needed for each tortoise; with Dr. Ashton responding they can relocate between two to three tortoises per acre depending on the quality of habitat.  Commissioner Pritchard stated in the newspaper it said a half-acre; it said there were 70,000 tortoises in the State; and it estimated that 900 to 1,000 died in Brevard County, although he does not know where they got that number.  Dr. Ashton advised he did not give that number.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the current FWC regulation on gopher tortoises; with Dr. Ashton responding the regulation is now the two choices he explained before.  Dr. Ashton advised all testing is gone; and commented on paying FWC a per head cost plus loss of habitat for nuking the tortoises onsite, formula based on number of tortoises per acre and acres of tortoise habitat, and point system that is based on old science.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the dollar cost of that; with Dr. Ashton responding approximately $7,200 to $7,400 per acre. 

 

Discussion ensued on formula based on habitat, presence of tortoises, high quality habitat, consultants, Dr. Ashton being semi-retired, moving tortoises onto sites affecting other species, and new regulations. 

 

Dr. Ashton advised the regulations are based on science, forage, areas where tortoises can put their burrows, and canopy and tree cover; all of those things have to be evaluated before one can relocate tortoises to a site; and commented on tortoises and diseases.  He advised when tortoises are moved onto a site, they provide the microhabitat for over 410 species of commensals or animals that utilize the tortoise burrow for one reason or another; there are a bunch of listed species that use the burrows; and that is why the tortoise is called a keystone species.  He stated when tortoises are moved or nuked onsite, all of those species are killed, no matter how rare they are. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there is a less expensive way to do this; and stated his concern is something will be created that will be a prohibition because of money and people are going to find a way around it.  He stated few people are going to pay $2,500 to move a turtle; and inquired if they are not encouraged to do something because the cost is prohibitive, what the Board can do to make it an incentive without being punitive.  Dr. Ashton stated he agrees 100%; and he would like to discuss it with Commissioner Pritchard.  Commissioner Pritchard advised he has read a lot about the gopher tortoise; and when he read the newspaper, he wondered where the information came from because it was not what he had read in books.  He stated he did a little research; the habitat for the gopher tortoises becomes habitat for myriad other critters; and if the cost is prohibitive and the only incentive is punitive, that is not good.  He stated that is what Commissioner Colon was alluding to with getting partners in and finding ways to do this; and expressed concern about running out of acreage.  He inquired if they run out of acres, then what; with Dr. Ashton responding he does not think they will; they are looking at that; if they all went to conservation lands, that might be true; but they will want to encourage the private sector because that expands the conservation lands.  He stated the amount of money involved goes from one landowner to the next; with Commissioner Colon responding that is her problem.  Commissioner Pritchard stated it comes out of somebody’s pocket. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the tortoises have become controversial; they went from being loved to now becoming a token like scrub jays and manatees; and if this is truly about protecting the turtles, she is uncomfortable discussing the dollars because it makes it sound like a moneymaker.  She commented on Animal Control, intent to protect tortoises, not wanting to penalize landowners or developers, being criticized for action either way, and not supporting making money in the turtle hunting industry.  She stated Dr. Ashton is saying there are incentives in counties where there is cash involved; and Tallahassee would have those dollars.  Dr. Ashton noted it is going to be one way or the other, but they are going to pay.  Commissioner Colon inquired what the Board is truly going after; and stated she does not want to do anything to hurt the turtles.  She stated there is conservation land; that kind of discussion is attractive; and it is a win/win for everybody.  Dr. Ashton stated part of the plan is called an assurance colony program.  Commissioner Colon stated she is interested in learning more, but the Board has many other items today; there are pluses and minuses; and she is willing to think outside the box, but she wants to be sure the Board is clear on its intent.  She stated if the intent is to hurt the industry so they will not be able to build, hopefully it will be squashed right away.  Dr. Ashton stated it is better when handled at home rather than through Tallahassee; there are incentives and methods of working with the development community; and he is doing this in Collier County.  He described what is happening in Collier County; and stated there are ways it can work better locally.  He stated in the plan, there are ways for people to not have to pay, but actually get the tortoises moved out of harms way; and more tortoises are lost now because there is no one watching the store.  He stated for single-family homes there are not enough enforcement officers to arrest people because they are killing tortoises when building their houses on one-acre lots; and everyone knows that; so there has to be a better way.  He stated people cannot afford to spend $2,000 per tortoise to have their tortoises moved; and they have been working on a plan for the last few years that makes it better.  Commissioner Colon stated she is sure Dr. Ashton is hearing these kinds of questions everywhere.  Dr. Ashton stated it is a good thing to think it out instead of coming up with a knee-jerk moratorium like Leon County has that is very bad for development and everybody else; when they say they shall not entomb or kill tortoises, that is it; and commented on staff coming up with discussion on how to handle the tortoises, calling him in to consult, and not having many choices.  He inquired if they cannot entomb the tortoises and do not have any place to put them, where are they supposed to put them. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired about fees.  Dr. Ashton stated when he worked as a consultant, they put all of the species together to make it work in the habitat; they can save a lot of acres; and if there is a willing developer, they can create a system that is good for everything with the resources being most important.  He stated they can do it right and save everybody money and time; but it has to be well thought ahead of time. 

 

Maureen Parent presented a PowerPoint presentation on gopher tortoise preservation.

 

Sandra Clinger encouraged the Board to move forward to get the information needed; and stated this has gone on far too long.  She commented on working on gopher tortoises as part of her undergraduate work, feeling part of the shame, and letting things go on without speaking out.  She stated gopher tortoises are being managed toward extinction; the way the State has been doing it has resulted in tortoises going from a species of special concern to a threatened species; and large numbers of tortoises are being killed every year in a cruel and horrific way.  She stated more than 50% of the tortoise population has declined over the last three years; 80% of their habitat has been destroyed in the last 100 years; and this is under the management that has been going on for tortoises.  She commented on how the system works, take for gopher tortoises, no justification for cruel acts perpetuated on animals, and tortoises and other commensal species being blocked from escape from the burrows and asphyxiating or being crushed by bulldozers.  She stated such an image was deemed too disturbing to be presented today; and everyone should be disturbed that this is going on.  She commented on incidents involving entombment of tortoises, knowingly inflicting suffering on animals, protection of animals by Florida Statutes, and actions necessary to move forward to end government-sanctioned inhumane treatment of tortoises.  She stated there should be an immediate prohibition on live burials; she understands the desire to get all the information; and requested the Board direct staff to move forward to look into developing an ordinance for the County insuring opportunities for an active relocation program and dollars from the program stay in the County.  She requested the Board ensure that any ordinance will prohibit the live burial of tortoises or other inhumane acts, identify appropriate sites for tortoise relocation, and establish a process and protocol for proper tortoise relocation including requirements for soft release. 

 

Barbara Hoelscher, president of the Friends of the Enchanted Forest, and member of Brevard Nature Alliance, Sierra Club, and the Partnership, etc., commented on keystone species and other species of special concern or species of more protection, including gopher frogs, southeast beach mice, Florida mice, pine snakes, red rat snakes, gray rat snakes, and indigo snakes.  She advised occupiers of abandoned burrows include foxes, squirrels, possums, raccoons, bobwhites, quail, red and gray foxes, bobcats, and armadillos; and inquired if the County is going to try to relocate all of these animals.  She commented on relocation of gopher tortoises, tortoise reproduction, conservation and other appropriate private lands for relocation, encouraging organizations and business to pitch in, and education.  She noted Dr. Ashton has a

magnificent website; and he and his interns and colleagues are available to go all over Florida to bring seminars.  Ms. Hoelscher commented on death, euthanizing tortoises in a non-violent way, impact on bulldozer drivers, and extinction of a keystone species resulting in extinction of many species.  She requested the Board give directions to staff and other County and civic organizations to identify County lands suitable for gopher tortoise relocation, identify funding methods, and develop an ordinance that prohibits the keystone gopher tortoises’ entombment.   

 

Neta Harris, Executive Director of the Brevard Nature Alliance, urged the Board to direct the Natural Resources Management office to identify County or private lands suitable for gopher tortoise relocation and develop a plan to prohibit tortoise entombment in Brevard County.  She stated the Brevard Nature Alliance is available to work with the Board and other stakeholders and organizations; and they are committed to making a plan for the County become a reality.  

 

Chair Voltz advised Mike Myjak had to leave, but left a note; and read the note aloud supporting a solution to keep tortoises alive that does not divide the community or adversely impact property owners.

 

Laurilee Thompson stated a lot of time, energy, and money has been invested in the development and promotion of the Space Coast as a destination filled with opportunities for visitors and residents to participate in fun educational activities with their families; and commented on Kennedy Space Center, museums, attractions, and diversity of habitat that are home to species of wildlife.  She stated gopher tortoises are one of the most fascinating and easily seen animals; and advised of programs at the Enchanted Forest.  She stated gopher tortoise areas are a tourism asset; it would be unthinkable to run over a manatee, dolphin, or Ron Jons Surf Shop with a bulldozer; and inquired how would the Tourist Development Office and the County’s public relations firm deal with that kind of adverse publicity, and why should gopher tortoises be treated differently. 

 

Paul Schlueb commented on living in Titusville for 40 years, working as a volunteer at the Enchanted Forest, and placing identification tags on tortoises at the Enchanted Forest to track them.  He stated if changes are going forward with FWC, it is going in a good direction; and the Board sounds like it is going in the right direction.  He stated in the past century gopher tortoises lost 9.2 million of the 10.8 million acres on which they once lived; just 1.6 million acres of the sandy habitat remains; and commented on gopher tortoise habitat, development resulting in loss of habitat, and 85% decline in habitat.  He advised of other species that use the gopher tortoise burrows, habits of the tortoises, species using burrows to escape from predators, cold, or fires, and dependency on the gopher tortoises.  He recommended the County get more involved in taking over protection; and stated in the past it has not been enough. 

 

Suzanne Valencia requested the Board work with Dr. Ashton and do something about entombment.  She stated entombment means being buried alive; and urged the Board to move forward with this. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired what would Mr. Brown recommend the Board do; with Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown responding a lot of valuable information was presented today, but it brings to the forefront that a lot of information needs to be compiled and people brought to the table.  He stated it needs to be vetted out in a public forum so there are no concerns about improprieties or activities being taken on in the dark of night in the halls of government; and there is great value in bringing this out to the public to get input from the different interest groups.  Mr. Brown stated he has spoken to a number of developers on the topic, and has not heard a single one of them say they would rather entomb tortoises versus relocation; historically they did not have the choice because of the respiratory limitations and land limitations; and options have not been explored in a way that would be viable, but the opportunity is now.  He stated if the Board decides to explore this, it needs to find what the carry capacity of the County is; there is plenty of room if they can use private lands; but they do not know and it is premature to make assumptions without having the data.  He recommended holding a public forum away from the Board Room to get input into the process; and stated he would be glad to host it and bring in whatever experts are needed to answer the questions.  He stated the second option would be to actually get a handle around what the County has as carrying capacity; and based on the public input, the best approach may be a voluntary incentivized process.  He stated the County should not be chasing the dollar on this; he does not think that was what Dr. Ashton was implying; but the reality is the development community and residents may not have a choice.  He stated local government is sometimes the best place to make these kinds of decisions; if the County are able to be involved in that process, it needs to be involved; and there are a lot of incentives that can be offered, such as density bonuses, to incentivize developers to be more proactive where the opportunities exist.  He summarized they need to hold public workshops, look at doing surveys of public and private lands, and talk with private landowners as to what their interest would be; and then the Board and staff will know what the carry capacity is they can deal with. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Brown is suggesting options 2 and 3 to some extent because option 2 is carrying capacity; in order to determine carrying capacity, they will have to begin compiling a database of potential receiving sites; and then they will develop a process, which will allow a voluntary relocation to the development community.  She stated the only carrot staff can offer now is to say the County would like to work with them once the database of potential relocation sites is identified so there is an alternative to FWC; the people will still have to go through the process; and commented on funding and incentives.  He stated the other piece would be the stakeholder group; and commented on representation of all groups including the Building and Construction Advisory Committee (BCAC).  He stated there are certain things the County can do in parallel, but Dr. Ashton’s expertise would be helpful; and whatever consultation costs that might mean could be assessed as well. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated first she would want to send it to the BCAC; it needs to be clear that the Board did not start this; people get upset because they were not notified this was going to be on the Agenda; but this was a citizen’s request that came before the Board, there was discussion, and there is interest.  She stated going out for community forums would be a bad move; and commented on the issue becoming an environmental versus development community issue, sending the issue to BCAC, who will be affected, and doing things with sensitivity.  She stated the only way she would support this is for it to go directly to the BCAC; there is a lot of research to be done; there are folks who are interested in helping get the data; and there is data in regard to other counties.  She stated this does not have to be done tomorrow; but there is an interest on her end in seeing where it will go; the community would like to embrace something like this; and she is very comfortable that is the case.  She stated there is

plenty of land; Mr. Brown should be careful about how he does this as it is extremely sensitive; and it could be a win/win for everyone.

 

Ms. Busacca stated it is uncommon for the Board to take such a large step without having a plan laid out; and suggested the Board consider asking Mr. Brown and his staff to put together a plan of who to talk to and what information needs to be gathered, and bring it back to the Board.  Chair Voltz stated that is a good idea. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she has a lot of faith in Mr. Brown, as do all of the Commissioners; he has done a lot with the marine issues; and commented on the meeting she attended.  She stated there was a working group environment before it came to the meeting where it was vetted to the community; and that is the type of process she would like to see.  She stated Mr. Brown knows what has been most effective in bringing folks together; he will provide the Board with a report on the process and the people; and then the Board will see what process will come out with.

 

Mr. Brown stated the wisdom of Ms. Busacca was timely; that is a prudent way to do it; and he is hesitant to bring back legislative intent because he does not want to send the message that the Board is moving forward with an ordinance.  He stated at this point he is sensing that the Board desires to explore this to get the real data and science; he can bring back a report under agenda format of the recommended direction to proceed; and they will see where it goes from there. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated it will come back for discussion; they are not suggesting drafting anything, not even legislative intent; and they need to get the additional information. 

 

Chair Voltz stated she understands Dr. Ashton will be meeting with staff tomorrow.  Mr. Brown stated staff will have the privilege of meeting with Dr. Ashton tomorrow, but he has to go places; and commented on costs.  He inquired if the Board would like the costs in the rollout plan; with Chair Voltz responding affirmatively.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board also needs to look at staff time; if this is going to mean that staff cannot get to this until December, the Board needs to know that; and the Board needs to know if it can solicit volunteer help or whatever it might take to help in the process.    

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the people voted $75 million for environmental lands; lands for relocation of tortoises is something that is germane; and he would hope that Ms. Busacca would call upon the resources of EEL’s Manager Mike Knight as well in looking at the methodologies the County could employ.

 

 

 

Opal Morris stated she resides at 1220 North Tropical Trail in Merritt Island; and she is present to request waiver of Code violation fees that were placed on her rental property at 3710 Gum Street in Cocoa.  She stated she is a law abiding citizen, owns and pays taxes on numerous properties that she owns in three of the Commission Districts, and is an asset to her community.  She stated her tax dollars are supporting children and other tax-supported recipients; but she is being heavily fined for a Code violation of which she was unaware until the bank she was attempting to do business with in order to make additional business investments notified her of the lien against her property.  She stated she investigated and discovered that the Code violation notice had been delivered to 3707 Brockington Circle in Cocoa, which is another of her rental properties, rather than to her residence.  She stated she learned that a visitor at the Brockington Circle property signed for the notice and she never received it; and she does not know of any further attempt to notify her to see if she was aware of the situation, even though she was being fined $200 a day.  She stated nobody has been hurt by the Code violation; and it is unfair for such a harsh fine to be imposed when she had no notice or knowledge of the Code violation.  She stated prior to seeing the violation notice, she hired an attorney to help with eviction of the tenant occupying the property; the tenant was evicted for failure to pay rent and maintain the property; and she could see the property from the outside, but was not aware of the inside violations.  She advised of going to the house as early as 7:00 a.m. and being told by the children that their mother was not there; and she did not go into the house so did not know what was happening there.  She stated the call the tenant made to Code Enforcement was vindictive and in retaliation for being evicted; as soon as she regained possession of the property, she discovered damages and mess the tenant had left; and as she was physically unable to clean the property herself, her husband and children cleaned it for her and began making repairs.  She advised she did not see the refrigerator for which she was cited; and she assumes the tenant took it with her or that it was moved before she took possession of the property.  She stated she is responsible for the upkeep of the property and for knowing its condition; she did everything in her power to regain control of her property so she could restore it to order; and she will make her correct mailing address accessible for all future correspondence.  She requested any consideration the Board can given in this serious matter; and submitted pictures. 

 

Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Lyon this case originally started late 2001 and was heard by the Special Magistrate in February 2002; and it has just within the last couple of months come into compliance, which is why the fines are so large.  He stated the exterior violations were taken care of quickly after the February 2002 hearing; and then the property sat dormant because only the interior violations were left and no further complaints were received. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if staff had the incorrect mailing address in 2002; with Mr. Lyon responding staff had the Brockington Circle address from the Property Appraiser’s website; and when the Special Magistrate made the recommendation on reduction of the fine, he looked at all of those aspects, but felt staff followed due process. 

 

Commissioner Carlson questioned the dates; and inquired if Ms. Morris received a notice of the February 2002 hearing.  County Manager Peggy Busacca stated Ms. Morris said that the notice went to the Brockington Circle address and someone else signed for it.  Commissioner Carlson inquired when Ms. Morris regained control of the property and became aware of the lien.  Mr. Lyon stated the notice was signed for by Jane Silas in 2002 at the Brockington Circle address.  Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Lyon said some violations were cleared up after that. 

 

Ms. Morris stated there were two different times; at the time of the first violation, she was still teaching at Rockledge High School; and she remembers going to a hearing before the Special Magistrate, clearing up the outside of the property, and bringing pictures.  She stated the issue before the Board is a different violation; this morning staff faxed her the original violation; and it shows Code Enforcement first became aware of it in July 2001, but it was not until October or November of 2001 that notice was served at the Brockington Circle address.  She stated she was aware of the outside violations but not the inside. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the inside violations have kept this going; with Mr. Lyon responding yes.  Commissioner Carlson inquired when were the outside violations fixed; with Mr. Lyon responding March 2002.  Ms. Morris advised she did not know about the inside problems until she regained possession of the property; and provided a copy of a letter from her attorney.  She stated she received the final judgment in April 2002; but the tenant did not move out until December 2002.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if Ms. Morris saw the condition of the inside in 2002 and has been aware of it for four years.  Ms. Morris stated she took care of it but did not report it because she was not aware there was a lien. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the pictures showing the property on October 5, 2005 still are pretty bad.  Ms. Morris advised she has not seen those pictures; and nobody was living there.  Chair Voltz stated someone was living there because there are clothes in the closets.  Ms. Morris stated no one was living there at that time.  Mr. Lyon stated Ms. Morris inquired about the date during the briefing; and it is possible that may have been in 2001 as staff did not go to the property in 2005. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired how staff became aware of the inside violation.  Ms. Busacca stated the tenant made the complaint. 

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if Ms. Morris did not have access to the home until December 2002, and was she not aware of the condition of the inside of the home.  She inquired if there are any hearing records showing the notification of inside and outside violations.  Mr. Lyon stated the owner was notified, but it appears Jane Silas signed for it and Ms. Morris was not at the hearing.  Mr. Lyon stated staff followed due process for notification; but records show Ms. Morris was not at the hearing.  Commissioner Colon stated Ms. Morris would not have known about the inside until December 2002; and inquired once she did know of the violations, how does the County follow up to see if the work is done.  Mr. Lyon stated the first thing staff did was to verify that all the exterior health and safety issues were resolved; but with regard to the inside violations, because it had already gone to hearing and the Magistrate had set a fine, the process is to wait for someone to call back and request re-inspection.  He stated staff was not aware until recently that Ms. Silas did not have the authority to sign for the notice.  Commissioner Colon inquired when did the County finally get on board; and stated she hopes there are measures in place so this does not happen again because this is not the first time she has heard of such a situation.  Ms. Busacca stated Ms. Morris contacted staff after she was advised by her bank of the lien. 

 

Discussion ensued on similar situations in municipalities, liens, and current condition of the property. 

 

Mr. Lyon stated in February 2006 staff signed off on the case with no violations.  Commissioner Colon inquired if Ms. Morris called the County in February 2006; with Mr. Lyon responding yes.  Commissioner Colon inquired how much are the fines; with Mr. Lyon responding $11,792. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much money has the County expended.  Ms. Busacca stated this did not go through the regular process, so staff has not had a chance to calculate costs, but staff can bring that back to the Board. 

 

Discussion ensued on unusual circumstances, sequence of events, actions taken to resolve the problem, property being vacant, and permit for air conditioning.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Ms. Morris understood that a lien was accruing; with Ms. Morris responding it had already stopped as it hit the limit.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if Ms. Morris was told the lien was going to accrue if she did not take care of the property. 
Ms. Morris stated it had already accrued.  Commissioner Carlson inquired about the lien; with Mr. Lyon responded the lien is capped at 35% of the assessed value.  Mr. Lyon advised the cost value up to the Special Magistrate hearing was $254, which has been paid; but that does not include anything that has been done since the initial investigation in 2001; and the very last
re-inspection is not part of that. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated based on the pictures she has seen from 2001, the home was not fit for someone to live in; but she is aware the home does not look like that any more.  She commented on the condition of the home; and stated she is glad Code Enforcement got involved.  She inquired when Ms. Morris took possession of the home, did she bring it up to a humane way of living.  She stated the pictures are horrible; and no one should have lived in those conditions.  She inquired if anyone has lived in the home since December 2002; with Ms. Morris responding only her children for a short time, and they cleaned the home and fixed everything.  Commissioner Colon commented further on the condition of the home.  Ms. Morris stated prior to the tenant moving in, the head custodian at the school where she was teaching rented the property, and she did not leave it like that.  Commissioner Colon inquired how has the notification process been corrected; with Mr. Lyon responding staff follows due process as set in the Code, which follows the Florida Statutes. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired about the timeline and the steps that staff takes to insure the owner is notified.  Mr. Lyon deferred to the County Attorney.  Commissioner Scarborough suggested they could go to personal services with a summons; that may get a better response; and it may be worth the cost.  Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones stated currently notices are sent to the address the taxpayer gives to the Property Appraiser for their tax bill; personal service would go from a $4 notice to a $25 notice per case; and there are approximately 80 cases every two weeks.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if the owner of the property on record is not the same as the person who signed the notice, should that be a red flag.  Ms. Jones advised she does not know what the difference in cost would be to send it by registered mail to the specific person, but husbands and wives sign for each other; the majority of the problems are with rental property not homesteaded properties; so the majority of the problems are with people who live at the address where there is a Code violation.  She stated this is a rare instance; and it is up to the Board to make the decision. 

 

Commissioner Colon suggested staff come back with feedback.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he is confused about the timeline; and he is not sure Ms. Morris knew of some of the things because of the problem with the notice.  Commissioner Carlson stated her concern is when Ms. Morris actually understood that the lien was being created and was Ms. Morris’ attention focused on the improvements only because of the lien.  She suggested Ms. Morris bring in proof of when she took care of the problems.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there is a transcript of the hearing; with Mr. Lyon responding affirmatively.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the transcript might help fill in some of the blanks.  County Attorney Scott Knox stated he can take a look at this with Ms. Jones and Mr. Lyon and come back with options for resolution. 

 

 

Ashley Borchert, representing Bobby and Fran Fleckinger of Loughman Lake Lodge, stated they are trying to get an issue taken care of with the paving of Hatbill Road; they are aware that has to be done through District 1; but they have had problems in contacting Commissioner Scarborough.  She stated they contacted staff; they know that in District 1 there is a Transportation Advisory Committee; but the Committee has not met since August 19, 2004, and not all the seats are filled, so they have not been able to bypass meeting the County and meet with the Committee.  She stated they tried to contact the District 1 office to see why the Committee has not met and why seats have not been filled, but they have not received a good response.  She inquired how they can get heard. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he and Road and Bridge Director Billy Osborne talked about the issue; part of it came up with this particular case because when the Board approved the exception to the rule so the fish camp could have a restaurant, it had a 100-seat cap on it until the road is paved; and therefore, the Fleckingers need a paved road to have a bigger restaurant.  He stated there may be other ways the Board could look at that; he met with Mr. Osborne and conferred by phone with Harriet Raymond; and in District 1, there are 85 miles of unpaved roads, while the rest of the County has approximately 36 miles of unpaved roads.  He stated just to put asphalt on those would be $17 million, and with drainage and land acquisition, it could be $35 million; the committee has been in existence for 15 years; it had projects that it has been working on; and the current list has approximately 25 projects, which would take seven to ten years to complete.  He stated that does not mean they do not move things around once the Committee meets; and commented on the process, the Committee, and not changing the list to put one project ahead of another.  He requested Mr. Osborne explain some of the reasons the Committee may not find this as a key project.       

 

Road and Bridge Director Billy Osborne stated the Committee would note there is specific interest in this roadway; but there are other roadways out there, based on the list, that meet certain criteria, such as school bus stops and number of houses on the roadway; and they probably meet more criteria than the one roadway being discussed. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the criteria evolved before he came into office with the local gas tax; former Commissioner Charlie Roberts took some of the money and applied it to dirt road paving; and at that time, certain criteria were developed, one being that normally they do
not go out and pave.  Commissioner Scarborough stated if someone wants to buy on a dirt road, it is their dirt road; but sometimes there will be a development further back on the dirt road, and that road would become an arterial road; and as an arterial road, buses would stop and there would be other activities and movement.  He commented on technical data, having parallel roads that could meet the criteria for paving, paved road becoming a major thoroughfare, and preferring to have the neighbors’ road paved.  He stated it became more than an engineering discussion; and inquired if it is just a matter of wanting to have more people at the restaurant; with Ms. Borchert responding no, they want the road to be paved.  Ms. Borchert advised they do not want the County to pay for it all; there are other options; and they have also talked with Mr. Osborne and Ms. Raymond.  She stated they have been informed there are other options besides District 1 paying the entire amount; and they want to be given the opportunity to be heard by the committee.  Commissioner Scarborough stated Ms. Borchert’s group will be given an opportunity to be heard by the committee like everybody else; but Mr. Osborne is saying they will be able to pave two roads in the Canaveral Groves area and two roads in the North Brevard area this year; and while Ms. Borchert can make the presentation, she may want to think in other ways.  He stated there are some other dynamics to this particular project; a lot of the development that would use the road is at Baxter Point, which is in Volusia County; Volusia County residents do not pay into the MSTU funds; and people will question why the County is paving a road for the benefit of people in Volusia County.  He noted he is not trying to discourage Ms. Borchert from going to the committee, but it is a dynamic process; and after the budget time, the committee will be meeting on which roads to prioritize.  Ms. Borchert inquired who she should contact; with Commissioner Scarborough responding they will let Ms. Borchert know.  Commissioner Scarborough commented on the letter from Ms. Raymond and requests to the committee.

 

Chair Voltz stated the group has not met in two years.  Commissioner Scarborough stated when the committee met, it had a whole list of roads; and it was not a matter of having the group meet all the time unless the group wanted to reprioritize.  He commented on the process, notification, and prioritization of roads. 

 

Laurilee Thompson stated the road does not have a high priority because there are not a lot of houses on it; but there is a social need to consider paving the road because there is a County park at the end of it, Hatbill Park, and the road passes through the Seminole Ranch Conservation Area.  She advised there are a lot of user groups that use this area for recreation including airboaters, fishermen, equestrians, hikers, campers, paddlers, and birders; Seminole Ranch is one of the best birding areas in North Brevard County; and when she was out for the fall migration bird count on Saturday, she noticed a new user group, parasailers.  She stated as more of the land west of the St. Johns River is developed, the people who live in the counties to the west are looking at Brevard County’s recreational areas and preserves; and advised lack of pavement is limiting the ability of user groups to access one of the major recreational areas in the north end of the County. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be nice to have roads to the park; and inquired what the cost would be.  Mr. Osborne stated they would have to pave 4.5 miles from where the pavement ends at S.R. 46; it would involve asphalt costs, permitting costs, and possible right-of-way issues; and there are sections of the road that would have to be completely re-engineered, designed, and realigned, so it would probably be approximately $6 to $7 million to pave all the way to Hatbill Park.  Ms. Thompson inquired how much does it cost to take a load of dirt there; with Mr. Osborne responding he does not know, but the County has done it several times.  Ms. Thompson stated it has to be done almost every time it rains.  Mr. Osborne noted it does not cost $6 to $7 million.  Ms. Thompson suggested considering how much it would cost in future years with prices going up and how much the County is spending hauling loads of dirt there now.  She stated it would eventually pay for itself, although possibly not in her lifetime; but the County is spending money to maintain the road, and that need would go away if it was paved. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough commented on paving the road, number of roads to be paved, amount needed for road needs, and road needs in other areas of the County.  He stated if there was $7 or $8 million in the North Brevard fund, the road he would be looking at would be Sisson Road, which is going to collapse with all the building that is going on around it; and while he can sympathize with those who want Hatbill Road paved, he cannot support diverting from a major arterial from the Space Center onto S.R. 50 because it is not logical or rational.  He stated the request can and should be made; but it is very difficult to encourage the request at this time with the numbers they are looking at.  Ms. Thompson stated she understands that, but she did want to point out that the road is being used by recreational users.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he would love to have the money to pave it; but Ms. Thompson understands what he is saying, and he is not getting into some of the districts where the problems are much greater.  He stated the Board is going to be doing some bonding; but if it took 10% of it and paved that particular road, there would be questions not only in District 1 but throughout the County of why the Board spent that much money on that particular project.  He stated it is not that the project is not good; but there are time and money constraints. 

 

Commissioner Carlson suggested the group address the St. Johns River Alliance to see if it can get additional funds because this is a regional issue.  She stated the Fleckingers’ place is a jewel on the river; and commented on an event held in the area where there were 400 people.  She stated it is a beautiful location; the Alliance will be holding its December meeting there; and it could be addressed from different angles.  Ms. Thompson advised the event was a fundraiser for a child who was injured. 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m.

 

 

 

                                                                        _____________________________________

ATTEST:                                                         HELEN VOLTZ, CHAIR

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                        BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

______________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

 

  (S E A L)