August 26, 2003

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on August 26, 2003, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Nancy Higgs, and Susan Carlson, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Nancy Higgs.

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the minutes of May 20, 2003 and July 8, 2003 Regular Meetings, and July 15, 2003 Special Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: AGENDA ITEM IV.C.

County Manager Tom Jenkins requested Item IV.C. be continued to September 16, 2003.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to continue the public hearing on a resolution vacating right-of-way in Section 26, Township 26S., Range 36E., as petitioned by Pineda Partners, L.L.C. to September 16, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: CONGRATULATING DR. LEON OSMON

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution congratulating Dr. Leon Osmon upon his retirement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: APPRAISAL OF THE PRITCHARD HOUSE

Commissioner Scarborough advised of a letter from Mary Schuster, whose family has owned the Pritchard house since the mid-1800’s, indicating a desire to sell the house; it is part of the heritage of this County and on the list for the sales tax $4 million historical projects; and she has acknowledged that the Board is putting the house on the projects list and has agreed to allow the County to proceed with an appraisal. He stated Brevard County was very successful with its Parks and Recreation acquisitions when it obtained appraisals and entered into contracts contingent upon passage of the referendum; but Ms. Schuster has not addressed a contingent contract. He inquired how much would it cost to get an appraisal of the house; with Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff responding about $3,000.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to allocate up to $3,000 for an appraisal of the Pritchard House in Titusville. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: TEEN FEST 2003

Commissioner Pritchard thanked the Parks and Recreation Department for the great event it held at Kiwanis Island Park called Teen Fest 2003; stated it was a huge success despite the rain; they came by the bus loads; over 2,000 teens were in attendance; and SCAT provided transportation. He stated Parks and Recreation had it so well organized that no one was allowed to enter or leave unless they were identified and monitored; the total organization of the event was incredible; and everyone involved deserves to be commended. He stated every year it becomes more and more popular because it is a safe place where teenagers can go and hang out together, listen to music, participate in games and activities, and just have fun; and again thanked all who organized, worked, and volunteered for the successful event.

REPORT, RE: CEMETERIES ON CONSERVATION LANDS

Commissioner Higgs advised in today’s Florida TODAY newspaper, there was an editorial regarding the funeral industry and the problems that have been experienced with cemeteries; historically counties and cities have been involved in the operation and regulating of cemeteries within their boundaries; and it has long been a thought of hers that there is a way for appropriately-purchased conservation lands to be used for final resting places for ashes and cremated remains of individuals. She stated if it is set up properly, it would provide preservation of the land as well as the memorial to the individual; it could be a way of seeing a lasting memory as well as conservation of lands; and she would like to have the opportunity to work with staff and bring back a report to the Board. She noted there could be a perpetual maintenance fee, and people would be assured that the final resting-place of their loved ones could be insured.

Chairperson Colon advised there is a consensus of the Board to allow Commissioner Higgs to work with staff and come back with a report on the use of conservation lands as cemeteries.

REPORT, RE: MOTIONS AT WORKSHOP

Chairperson Colon advised during the Workshop on August 21, 2003, she was supposed to vote nay on two items relating to Sarno Landfill, but did not officially put it on the record; and she wants to make sure it is on the record that she voted nay.

REPORT, RE: PRESENTATION ON MID-REACH SHORELINE PROJECT

Chairperson Colon advised in about two weeks Virginia Barker with Natural Resources Management will be making a presentation on the mid-reach shoreline project; and she wanted the Board to be aware of it.

REPORT, RE: BREVARD SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA

Commissioner Carlson advised the Board had wonderful entertainment this morning from the Brevard Symphony Orchestra (BSO); and Executive Director Fran Delisle is here to say a few words about the orchestra and program. She stated Commissioner Scarborough inquired why the Board could not have some entertainment when Commissioners came into the Commission Room instead of just seeing brochures and literature; she thought it was a great idea; and now they are here, and everyone has been able to listen to some wonderful pieces this morning and hopefully have been enjoying themselves.

Fran Delisle introduced the musicians, first chair cello Joan Markstein and Igor Markstein their Associate Concert Master, who received a round of applause. Ms. Delisle stated more than 70 professional musicians play with the BSO; this is a small sample of what they can look forward to for the rest of the year; a few weeks ago she talked to the Board about their 50th anniversary, which is coming up; and all six of their subscription concerts this year are going to be very special because they are going to recognize and honor some part of the rich history of the BSO over the last 50 years. She stated in addition to that, they will be doing some very special events; and they are lucky to live in a community where they have the opportunity, where no other orchestra probably can, perform underneath the Saturn rocket at the Kennedy Space Center. She stated they will be doing that in October; and likewise in October, they will be putting on their family free concert. Ms. Delisle stated they will be introducing instrumental families of the orchestra to families in the community; and another highlight of their 50th anniversary season this year, with their partner the King Center, the BSO is bringing probably the most well-known violinist Itzhak Perlman to perform with the BSO at the King Center; they are very excited about that; and hopefully everyone will be able to attend. She stated on Sunday they are doing an event at Barnes and Noble, which they call “Sunday with the Symphony”; their string quartet will be performing there and there will be vouchers that would allow BSO to receive a percentage of the purchases made that afternoon between 1:00 and 5:00 p.m. She stated in this stressful economic times they are all living through, there are communities much larger than Brevard County that are losing their symphony orchestras by the day; she hears of them at least every month when another orchestra is closing their doors; so they are so fortunate to live in a community that supports the arts. She stated the financial support the Board gives the arts is a sound investment in the quality of life of everyone in the community; and they thank the Board for that.

Commissioner Carlson thanked the BSO for the fine performance, and the BCA for allowing the Board to have sample of the arts present each time they have a meeting, as it is a wonderful asset.

REPORT, RE: E-MAIL VIRUSES

Commissioner Carlson advised some of the e-mails and trash e-mails she has been getting deal with a virus; and requested a report from staff on the County’s network and e-mail systems and if staff is making sure those things are not happening.

REPORT, RE: EAGLE PROTECTION ORDINANCE

Commissioner Carlson requested a report on the feasibility of putting in place an eagle protection ordinance. She stated the Board talked about it at the beginning of the year; some folks from her office and other folks did some research and got it to her; and she would like to give it to staff to see if it is feasible to put something like that together and bring it back as a discussion item at a later date.

REPORT, RE: NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT WORKSHOPS

Commissioner Carlson advised there will be some workshop by Natural Resources on September 8 and 9, 2003 to discuss with the community the proposed ordinance on significant environmental areas, which has to deal with critical habitat issues in the Comprehensive Plan that is laid out as an edict for the Board to go forward with in terms of identifying critical habitat, etc. She stated staff is trying to get as much input as possible from the development community; so those who should attend should be developers, engineers, builders, planners, consultants, etc. She stated what the proposed ordinance will hopefully enable will be an eco-friendly development; density, bonuses, conservation designs, reduced lot sizes, and setbacks will be discussed; and for further information, they can contact the Natural Resources Office at 633-2016. She stated it will be an interesting way to get some feedback for the Board when it deliberates on those issues.

REPORT, RE: GATHERING WITH SENATOR BILL NELSON

Commissioner Carlson advised Senator Bill Nelson will be in town today; as the Board directed she and Chairperson Colon to represent the Board on the mid-reach beach renourishment project, she found this might be an opportunity at the gathering to discuss it with him since he is going to be in Brevard County. She requested permission to attend the gathering at 12:30 p.m. in Cocoa; and noted she will use the lunchtime and a little additional time to do that today.

Chairperson Colon advised there were two items Commissioner Carlson’s office notified her that Commissioner Carlson wanted to provide input on; and because it is a busy agenda, she cannot see why it cannot be discussed after 2:00 p.m. when Commissioner Carlson should be back.

Commissioner Carlson advised she would like to postpone discussion on Items V.B., Staff Report on Regional Offsite Mitigation Areas; and V.C., Acknowledge Recommendations from Recycling Citizen Advisory Committee.

Chairperson Colon announced the agenda items that were postponed, tabled, and scheduled for time certains.

REPORT, RE: REMOVAL OF ITEM III.F.1. FROM CONSENT AGENDA

Commissioner Pritchard removed Item III.F.1, Renewal Agreement with Spearman Management, Inc. for State Lobbying Services, from the Consent Agenda, for discussion later in the meeting.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: DEER LAKES SUBDIVISION, PHASE 3

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final plat approval for Deer Lakes Subdivision, Phase 3, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining all required jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

UNPAVED ROAD AGREEMENTS WITH WILHELM REINDL, RE: TREASURE LANE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Unpaved Road Agreements with Wilhelm Reindl for a building permit off Treasure Lane, which has been constructed to the standards of the Unpaved Road Ordinance Section 62-102 for Parcel ID’s 29-38-32-00-46 + 107, 29-38-32-00-356, and 29-38-32-00-355, 306 and 359. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

UNPAVED ROAD AGREEMENT WITH LINN AND LOUISE WALTERS, RE:
REYNOLDS ROAD, EXTENSION B

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Unpaved Road Agreement with Linn and Louise Walters for a building permit off Reynolds Road, Extension B, which has been constructed to the standards of the Unpaved Road Ordinance Section 62-102. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

UNPAVED ROAD AGREEMENT WITH JOSEPH AND BARBARA FERRARA,
RE: REYNOLDS ROAD, EXTENSION B

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Unpaved Road Agreement with Joseph and Barbara Ferrara for a building permit off Reynolds Road, Extension B, which has been constructed to the standards of the Unpaved Road Ordinance Section 62-102. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE TECHNICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE PROJECT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Advisory Committees’ recommendations to appropriate $100,000 for intersection improvements at Fay Boulevard and Homestead Road; return $142,691.62 in unexpended funds from Roy Wall Boulevard, Eyster Boulevard Pedway, and
Huntington/Eyster Intersection improvements projects; appropriate additional $82,619.62 for Florida Avenue Improvements; appropriate additional $30,000 for Murrell Road Pedway project; and appropriate additional $30,000 for Barton Boulevard Pedway project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: ESTABLISHING INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE RIO LINDO
MAINTENANCE DREDGING MSBU

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an initial assessment Resolution authorizing the acquisition and construction of assessable improvements consisting of maintenance dredging within The Rio Lindo Maintenance Dredging MSBU. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

USE AGREEMENT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE: LANDSCAPING WITHIN
SOLERNO BOULEVARD AND TAVISTOCK DRIVE RIGHTS-OF-WAY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Use Agreement with The Viera Company for landscaping within Solerno Boulevard and Tavistock Drive rights-of-way. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, CONSERVATION EASEMENT, AND CREDIT RESERVATION AND
PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH MIAMI CORPORATION, RE: AURANTIA ROAD
SIDEWALK PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution authorizing the transfer of an easement interest in County property, and execute Conservation Easement in favor of St. Johns River Water Management District, and Credit Reservation and Purchase Agreement with Miami Corporation for Farmton Mitigation Bank regarding the Aurantia Road Sidewalk Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
AND DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF TREASURY, RE:
BABCOCK STREET WIDENING PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Memorandum of Agreement with Florida Department of Transportation and Department of Financial Services, Division of Treasury for the Babcock Street Widening Project, from Melbourne Avenue to Fee Avenue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF FUNDING AND SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RE: PALM BAY ROAD
WIDENING

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve additional funding towards the design of Palm Bay Road Widening Project; and execute Supplemental Joint Participation Agreement JPA #2 with Florida Department of Transportation for additional funding. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH TOWN OF PALM SHORES, RE: MAINTENANCE
OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND STREETLIGHTS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Interlocal Agreement with Town of Palm Shores for the County to maintain approximately 22 traffic signal and streetlights. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

GUARANTOR AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH BEACHES VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT,
GUARANTY LETTER, AND GUARANTY AGREEMENT WITH HARBOR FEDERAL
BANK, RE: PURCHASE OF TRUCK

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Guarantor Agreement with South Beaches Volunteer Fire Department, Guaranty Letter, and Guaranty Agreement with Harbor Federal Bank to guarantee the loan of $20,000 for purchase of a 2003 Ford Truck to support the operations of the Brevard County Fire Rescue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RENEWAL AGREEMENT WITH ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
RE: S.W.I.M. FUNDS FOR REHABILITATION OF IMPOUNDED SALT MARSHES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Renewal Agreement with St. Johns River Water Management District for S.W.I.M. funds for rehabilitation of impounded salt marshes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION AND APPROVAL OF STATE FUNDING REQUEST AND LONG-RANGE
BUDGET PLAN, RE: SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution supporting the Brevard County Shore Protection Project, and approve State Funding Request and Long-range Budget Plan to be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection as a grant request for FY 2004-05. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO USE AGREEMENT WITH SPACE COAST HABITAT FOR HUMANITY,
RE: PROPERTY AT 370 FORTENBERRY ROAD, MERRITT ISLAND

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute an Amendment to Use Agreement dated September 17, 2002 with Space Coast Habitat for Humanity for property located at 370 Fortenberry Road, Merritt Island. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO TASK ORDER NO. 2 WITH MONTGOMERY WATSON
HARZA, RE: SYKES CREEK REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY INJECTION WELL SYSTEM PERMITTING

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment No. 1 to Task Order No. 2 with Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH Americas, Inc.) to provide engineering services for the Sykes Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Injection Well System permitting at $30,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

TASK ORDER NO. 1 TO MASTER AGREEMENT WITH BOYLE ENGINEERING
CORPORATION, RE: LIFT STATION T-3 REHABILITATION

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Task Order No. 1 to Master Agreement with Boyle Engineering Corporation to provide engineering design and construction services for renovation of Lift Station T-3. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: EXTENSION OF TAX ROLL PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF VALUE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD ACTIONS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve extension of the 2003 tax roll prior to final certification by the Value Adjustment Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

MASTER AGREEMENT WITH BELLSOUTH, RE: REGULATED SERVICES AND
VOLUME AND TERM AGREEMENT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Master Agreement with BellSouth for regulated services and volume and term agreement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURE, RE: RELOCATION OF 800 MHz RADIO EQUIPMENT
FROM GRANT TO BAREFOOT BAY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve $43,634 to relocate the 800 MHz Countywide Radio System equipment from Grant to Barefoot Bay. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION TO RENEW AND EXECUTE CONTRACT WITH COMP BENEFITS,
RE: VOLUNTARY DENTAL INSURANCE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize renewal and execution of a Contract with Comp Benefits for voluntary dental insurance benefit HMO programs for two years, and the two-year PPO program guarantee; and authorize Human Resources Director to execute the contract documents necessary to secure the renewal. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the bills and Budget Change Requests as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING EAGLE SCOUT KEITH ANDREW HUNTER

Chairperson Colon read aloud a resolution commending Keith Andrew Hunter for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution commending Keith Andrew Hunter for his achievement of the rank of Eagle Scout, and offering congratulations and best wishes for a successful future. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon presented the Resolution to Mr. Hunter, who stated he is honored to receive the recognition. Commissioner Carlson inquired if he could talk about his project; with Mr. Hunter responding it is covered in the Resolution.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING EAGLE SCOUT BEN KLECHNER

Chairperson Colon read aloud a resolution commending Ben Klechner for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution commending Ben Klechner for his achievement of the rank of Eagle Scout, and offering congratulations and best wishes for a successful future. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon presented the Resolution to Mr. Klechner, who thanked the Board for the recognition, and stated he hopes to continue to serve anyone in any way they need.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING EAGLE SCOUT JASON TONEY

Chairperson Colon read aloud a resolution commending Jason Toney for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution commending Jason Toney for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon presented the Resolution to Mr. Toney, who thanked the Board for inviting him to the meeting and giving him the Resolution. Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Toney comment on his experience in Scouts; with Mr. Toney responding there is a lot of peer pressure and people think Scouting is for dorks, but how many times can you go rock climbing without parents and have fun going places with your friends, so it is not all what it is not cracked up not to be. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is an opportunity for independence; with Mr. Toney responding yes, and invited everyone to the Court of Honor on September 13, 2003, 4:00 p.m. at the First United Methodist Church on U.S. 192 in Melbourne.

Chairperson Colon stated the news always reports the children getting into trouble and at times like these it is an honor for the Board to let the community know there are outstanding young men in the community who are doing the right thing. She stated our youth can achieve anything they want; and this is just the beginning, and they have proven that.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING COMMODORE JOHN BARRY DAY

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud a resolution proclaiming September 13, 2003 as Commodore John Barry Day.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming September 13, 2003 as Commodore John Barry Day in honor of his memory and in recognition of the sentiments of the Navy veterans, Irish-Americans, and patriotic population. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard presented the Resolution to a representative of Fred Galey, who thanked the Board for the Resolution, and noted she is happy to accept it on behalf of Mr. Galey.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING PUERTO RICAN HERITAGE MONTH

Commissioner Higgs read aloud a resolution proclaiming November, 2003 as Puerto Rican Heritage Month.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution proclaiming November 2003 as Puerto Rican Heritage Month in recognition of the contributions made by Puerto Rican residents to the community. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs presented the Resolution to Bob Rodriguez, who thanked the Board, and stated it is an honor for the Puerto Rican community, Florida, and United Third Bridge. He stated it shows the diversity of the County; and invited the Board to the Salsa Festival on Sunday, and November 9, 2003 Puerto Rican Day parade with a lot of dignitaries from Puerto Rico and New York and all over the United States who will be coming to Brevard County.

PRESENTATION - KAY BURK, LEE BOHLMANN, AND SHELLEY LAUTEN, RE:
MYREGION.ORG

Kay Burk advised she is President and CEO of Brevard Cultural Alliance and on the Executive Committee of Myregion.org; and it is in that role that she appears before the Board this morning. She stated over the last two years, she had the privilege of being involved, along with Commissioner Scarborough, Dr. Duane DeFreese, and Keith Witt on the Executive Committee of Myregion.org; and she must say it has been an incredible experience. She stated this morning Shelley Lauten, Myregion.org Project Director, Jennifer Amodt of Myregion.org staff, and Lee Bohlmann, President and CEO of Melbourne/Palm Bay Area Chamber of Commerce are here to share information about the culmination of that work. She stated the Central Florida Sourcebook is the culmination of that work and for the first time ever, over 2,000 people over two years were involved in giving their input of how they in the business, government, and civic organizations can work together to build an agenda for the entire region and how they can build upon that for the future in seven counties in Central Florida. Ms. Burk stated at this time Lee Bohlmann, President and CEO of the Melbourne/Palm Bay Area Chamber of Commerce, who actively served on the CEO Round Table that was involved in that project, has a few remarks to share with the Board about the project; and requested Ms. Bohlmann to come forward.

Lee Bohlmann, President of the Melbourne/Palm Bay Area Chamber of Commerce, which is a 16-member organization representing over 20,000 employees in South Brevard, including the Beaches, Viera, and Suntree, advised she got involved with Myregion.org under the guise that they believe in regional planning and regional discussion and partnerships. She stated in the last few weeks, she attended the strategic planning session from the State; it was the economic summit in Orlando; it will be held in several other cities throughout the State; and they talked about where the State is going with its planning and economic development. She stated she believes it is important to overlay the economic strategies throughout every part of the State; and it has to be done beginning on the local level. Ms. Bohlmann stated she worked on the Brevard Tomorrow Task Force, serve on the workforce on education task force committee, which met yesterday; and she was also the Governor’s appointee on the Workforce Florida Board that talks about workforce, employment, and economic development for the State. She stated the one thing she learned in all those projects is they do all have to work together and listen to each other and plan together. Ms. Bohlmann advised they can be in their own corner of the County and think things are going well, but they must consider the rest of the world and the region and market area; no man or woman is an island; so they need to consider all the planning. She stated her involvement with Myregion.org has been extremely beneficial to her professionally as well as for the Chamber; at their recent Chamber planning conference, they did evaluate all the components of Brevard Tomorrow, Myregion.org, Brevard Workforce Development Board, and the State strategies to form their strategies because they see if they want to work together as a State they have to start things at their own level and in their own home. She stated they determined what goals and objectives they would include in their five-year strategic plan that will align them with all the efforts; and today, the Board is going to hear more about Myregion.org, but it is very important for Brevard County to consider how it can align its efforts with the whole regional planning effort that will together work with the State strategies to make them a stronger force in the United States and certainly a stronger force in the world. She stated they cannot ignore the thought of regional planning and regional discussion to keep them informed of what their neighbors are doing, what their friends consider because together they can do a lot; they all bring their own agendas to many of those meetings; but when they hear that many of them are looking at some of the same problems of growth, development, and challenges of redevelopment and water quality in all parts of the State, they realize they have to work together to solve them as well. She encouraged the Board to consider the presentation it will hear today and strongly and enthusiastically continue its support and perhaps enhance its support and participation in Myregion.org. She noted it has been a pleasure working with all the staff and seeing the results they have had; if the Commissioners have not had a chance to read the Sourcebook, it is a wonderful start; it was criticized of not being the dogma of all the final decision-making, but it is a start of where they begin to layer the different kinds of things that are important to all the people; so if the Board has any questions, she will be happy to answer them, but she again encourages the Board to consider this seriously.

Ms. Burk stated at this time it is her pleasure to present to the Board Shelley Lauten, the Project Director for Myregion.org.

Shelley Lauten thanked the Board for having her and stated it is always an honor and privilege to come before the Board. She stated the Board has the regional sourcebook of information; and it has been a two-and-a-half-year incredible journey. She stated when they came to the Board asking for support, there were a lot of questions and concerns because it was an uncharted course; they never before created a regional agenda or looked for ways to bring regional leadership together to begin talking about the issues that are so important to all of them; and for the first year, all they did was collect information about the seven counties, which resulted in volumes because it had never been done before. She stated a workforce study in Brevard County had never been coordinated or evaluated against what happened in the other six counties; that happened over and over again; so once they looked at all the information, what was most important for the project was the leadership that evolved throughout the two and a half years. She stated in looking at the Resolutions and Awards on the Agenda, there is a common theme, which is leadership for the future and in the past; and what they saw in Myregion was an incredible coalition of leaders from seven counties who came together, did not always agree, but looked at the information and decided if they were to be globally competitive in the 21st Century, they had to do things differently than they have done in the past. Ms. Lauten advised the sourcebook is not unlike the process Brevard Tomorrow went through; on page 9 are six key regional priorities that as a region the leadership group of over 300 people believe are really critical if they are to continue to move forward in a positive way in the region; but what is very different on the project, even from Brevard Tomorrow, are the regional resolves on page 20. She stated they felt, and the executive committee was adamant about it, that if they look at the issues relating to regional cooperation and coordination, things needed to structurally change if they were really going to make some impact on quality of life, education, etc. She stated they need to have systems and procedures and ways to communicate that are different and would be on a regional scale; they had never done that before; and they have very few organizations that have regional impact. She stated they want to continue as a leadership group to make sure there is a forum for public, private, and institutional leaders to look at those agenda items and continue to work on them and move them forward. She stated at this point they are really assessing the feasibility of Phase II; the Board went through a similar process with Brevard Tomorrow; they need an organization to continue to ensure that effort is put forth on all of the agenda items and how to continue to move together as a region because it is so easy to go back to their habits of working one by one, individual by individual, city by city, county by county; and they are assessing through a feasibility study right now what that organization will look like and will have that result and will come back to the Board when they get those. She noted in mid-September they should have those results back of what the organization looks like and how they move the organization forward; and inquired if there are any questions.

Commissioner Carlson stated she knows it has been an interesting two and a half years in collecting all the data, and inquired if there were any outcomes defined to be strategic in nature. She stated in Brevard Tomorrow they created the strategic plan that was through a culmination of a couple of years collecting and doing similar things; but did Myregion.org create a strategic plan that they would implement in Phase II, or is Phase II supposed to be that part. Ms. Lauten advised the sourcebook has seven to ten key strategies for each of the themes and hopefully will be the template they will work on together as a region to accomplish in the next phase; and similar to the model of Brevard Tomorrow, they developed the strategies and the goal in Phase II is to make sure that those strategies are implemented. Commissioner Carlson stated what Brevard Tomorrow intended to do was create its multi-year; it cannot do those things in a couple of years, so the strategy and implementation of that strategy was to define the priorities and what will be worked on so that they have measurements and outcomes that are understandable to the public and so the public knows and the officials that are working all the leadership knows that they have actually accomplished something through the process and that they are going in the right direction . She inquired if that is the intent of Phase II; with Ms. Lauten responding yes.

Ms. Lauten advised leadership did play a very important part in the Myregion.org; and requested Ms. Burk join her as they honor one of the key leaders of the project and representative of the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners. She stated she cannot tell the Board what a wonderful advocate Truman Scarborough has been for Brevard County and continues to be; how he challenged each of them on a day-to-day basis, and on behalf of the executive committee, they have a token of appreciation to present to him. Ms. Lauten presented a framed picture of the region to Commissioner Scarborough. Ms. Burk stated they truly want to thank Commissioner Scarborough who has been an absolutely wonderful advocate for Brevard County in the regional project; and advocacy has been needed at times. She stated he has been there to meet the challenge. Commissioner Scarborough thanked Ms. Lauten and Ms. Burk for the accolades.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the most frustrating thing of all is that there is nothing yet tangible; it makes it extremely difficult when dealing with so many people and so many different things; however, if they can create a shift, ask questions differently, and look at things differently, then they open up and empower people to become critics. He stated they want to empower the critic because the critic then becomes the creator; they have not tried to define, but allowed discussion at a different level with a different methodology, which will allow Brevard County to advance because it sees itself as part of the region; and because of that, the second phase is most critical. He stated if the Board ends up with a report, it will not accomplish the ability to bring all the different groups together; so it is important that the Board continue to support the regional concept.

Chairperson Colon thanked Commissioner Scarborough, on behalf of the Board, for the work and long hours he has put into the regional process.

PRESENTATION, RE: EMPLOYEE LONGEVITY RECOGNITION

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised this is the opportunity to recognize the employees who have dedicated their careers to serving the residents of Brevard County; and the first recipient with 35 years of service is Louis Clarkson. He stated Mr. Clarkson is an employee of Roadways and Landscaping Department; he began his employment with Brevard County Road and Bridge in 1968 as an Automotive Equipment Operator II and was promoted through the ranks to Heavy Equipment Operator, Project Supervisor, and Road Supervisor; and when the new construction team was formed, he moved to that in 1985 and built some of the major roads in Brevard County. He stated Mr. Clarkson served as Superintendent; is currently working back in Maintenance as Supervisor at Babcock Street Facility in South Brevard, covering the entire southern end of the County; and is recognized for his knowledge and expertise in road construction and maintenance and for always getting the job done on schedule and usually under budget. He congratulated Mr. Clarkson for his dedicated service.

Chairperson Colon presented a plaque to Mr. Clarkson, who received an applause from the Board and audience.

Mr. Jenkins advised the next 35-year recipient is Arthur “Mack” Thompson. He stated Mr. Thompson began his career with Brevard County in 1968 as a Laborer with Road and Bridge, and was promoted numerous times to Maintenance Worker I, Maintenance Worker II, Automotive Equipment Operator, and more recently Automotive Equipment Operator II. He stated Mr. Thompson specialized in driving those big dump trucks that are seen all over the County; and driving those trucks is no small task in the day-to-day traffic. He stated he also served on the Countywide Employee Advisory Committee in 1989 and 1990, where he provided input to the County Manager’s Office on a variety of issues; and over the years Mr. Thompson has received numerous letters of appreciation from his customers. He thanked Mr. Thompson for 35 years of outstanding service.

Chairperson Colon presented a plaque to Mr. Thompson, who received an applause from the Board and audience.

Mr. Jenkins advised the recipient for 25 years of service is Sue Douzanis, who was hired by Brevard County in 1978 as an Administrative Secretary in the Parks and Recreation Department; and she said she considers herself to be very fortunate as her first supervisor in the County was Jack Masson. He stated in 1984, Sue was selected to serve as the Executive Secretary of the newly-formed Public Safety Department; she had the pleasure of serving several Public Safety Directors over the years; and she is currently Jack Parker’s Executive Secretary, and continues to serve in that capacity today. He stated Ms. Douzanis is known as a very special person who has been a big reason for the success that has been achieved in the Public Safety Department over the years; and her 25 years of dedicated service to the citizens of Brevard County is to be commended. He stated any time the Emergency Operation Center is activated, she is there helping out during hurricanes and other disasters; and her hard work and caring attitude has resulted in a better Public Safety Department and a safer Brevard County. He congratulated Ms. Douzanis on her 25 years of service.

Chairperson Colon presented a plaque to Ms. Douzanis, who received an applause from the Board and audience.

Mr. Jenkins advised the last 25-year recipient is also from Public Safety/Fire Rescue, Curtis Marfuta, who started as a firefighter in 1978, was promoted to Lieutenant in 1981, and received his emergency medical technician certification in 1990. He stated over the years, Mr. Marfuta received numerous letters of appreciation from residents for his many acts of saving lives and property; he was very well liked and respected by all the crews he led over the years in Brevard County Fire Rescue; and he retired after 25 years of meritorious service, finishing his career at Station 80 in Suntree. He stated the good news is Mr. Marfuta is an avid golfer and now will have time to perfect his skills; and everyone wants him on their golf team because he is so good. He congratulated Mr. Marfuta for 25 years of dedicated service with Fire Rescue.

Chairperson Colon presented a plaque to Mr. Marfuta, who received an applause from the Board and audience.

RESOLUTION, RE: WELCOMING SENATOR ANTHONY HILL

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution welcoming Senator Anthony Hill to Brevard County and wishing him continued success. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: CONGRATULATING CENTENARIAN LOUISE BEUTE LEHNART

Commissioner Pritchard advised Ms. Lehnart is celebrating her 100th Birthday on August 29, 2003, and read the resolution congratulating her.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution congratulating Louise Beute Lehnart for celebrating her 100th Birthday and wishing her continued good health and happiness. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard advised Sharon Luba will be presenting the Resolution to Ms. Lehnart at her Birthday party on Friday night; and noted she still bakes, cooks and cleans, which is wonderful.

RESOLUTION, RE: CONGRATULATING WILLIAM H. BORGER, USN CAPTAIN

Commissioner Pritchard read a resolution congratulating USN Captain William H. Borger upon his retirement.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution congratulating William H. Borger upon his retirement from the US Navy after a meritorious career, and thanking him on behalf of the citizens of Brevard County and the United States. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard advised he will present the Resolution tonight at Captain Borger’s retirement dinner.

PRESENTATION BY STEVEN WEBSTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FLORIDA
MARINE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, RE: PERMITS FOR DOCKS

Steven Webster, Executive Director of Florida Marine Contractors Association, thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak on the permitting issue facing Brevard County. He stated while he was waiting for the meeting, he was on a conference call with attorneys in Tallahassee about the permitting issue statewide; and he heard that last week the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finally released about 600 permits it was holding for more than two years in what had previously been called an area of inadequate protection in Lee County. He stated the release of those permits is considered a good thing, but not a great thing because there has been no permits issued anywhere in the State since mid-May; and that is bad for the rest of the State. He stated in Brevard County they have not had a single permit released by the Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service since last November; and the reason for that gets extraordinarily complicated and somewhat unbelievable. Mr. Webster stated the Florida Wildlife Commission passed a series of manatee restrictions in Brevard County in 2001; the signs and federal zones were implemented last year; the signage was completely done throughout approximately in November, 2002 and was initiated in June, 2002; and by the time the signs were up, they all thought things would be all well and good, but the Fish and Wildlife Service decided to change its own procedures and require what is called formal consultations on permits before any are released to the Army Corps. He stated the only problem was the Fish and Wildlife Service did not know how to write a formal biological opinion; and it took them three months to figure out how to do so. He stated during that time no permits were released anywhere in the State. Mr. Webster stated upon figuring out how to write the biological opinion they needed to accompany the permits, law enforcement officials with Fish and Wildlife Service suddenly realized they had to do a signage check in Brevard County to ensure any tickets they write to boaters would stick if they go to court. He stated their fear was that if tickets were tossed out in court, then the Manatee Club and other plaintiffs could claim that it is a breach of the settlement agreement because of inadequate signage and inadequate enforcement. He stated it started in March; and even with Congressman Weldon’s intervention, they are still waiting for the signage issue to be resolved; the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) had taken out of its own funds $500,000 to sign Brevard County in 2001; David Roach, Executive Director of FIND managed to bring that project in under budget; the federal government then came back to FIND to demand more signs to meet the enforcement obligation; and Mr. Roach essentially said they have $180,000 to spend and anything else they needed they would have to spend out of their own funds. Mr. Webster stated the Fish and Wildlife Service wanted to put signs every quarter of a mile apart in the rivers; they are going to settle for something less than every half mile apart; no one in the room pretends that a difference of a half mile or a quarter mile for placement of those signs has anything to do with manatee safety or conservation or preservation of the environment; and although marine contractors will put those signs in, it is a travesty what they are doing to the rivers, streams, lakes, and oceans. He stated it will not be until November 2003 before those signs are installed; they will have spent about $600,000 between State and federal funds for signs in the river; they still do not have permits being released and the only people who ultimately are hurt by this are homeowners who are trying to wend their way through the intractable process. He stated people took the time to file the permit application and go through every step of a very lengthy process that begins with the County and ends somewhere in Washington, D.C. before coming back here, only to be denied or withheld again and again. He stated his organization filed suit in May against Fish and Wildlife Service for this conduct Statewide, but being a Brevard resident, he felt it was absolutely too much. He stated Congressman Weldon’s office quickly acted to see if they could shorten the time line between when the federal government decided it needed more signs and when they would actually be implemented; they already failed to meet that deadline; they are looking at something that will not happen until November; and it is their hope that the Board would send a letter to Fish and Wildlife Service requesting it immediately expedite the release of permits in those areas where signage is adequate, and get the permits back to the Corps so that when signage is finally completed, construction can begin. He stated it is a situation where jobs are at risk, and businesses are at risk; it is time to act; and with the Board’s help they can get them to act more promptly. Mr. Webster advised he received the names of persons from the County who will be on the ordinance committee and is grateful for the Board’s help.

Sandra Clinger of Save the Manatee Club advised she agrees with Mr. Webster on one issue and that is they have a problem; the signage is not well posted in Brevard County; it is a long and complicated process; but the problem is not with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the problem is with the way the zones were posted. She stated the State and federal agencies embarked on the posting issues for Brevard County long before the first sign was put in the water; meetings were held including representatives from the County, City of Melbourne, and State law enforcement agencies; and it was held at the State On-water Law Enforcement Office in Titusville. She stated FIND and the federal government law enforcement officers met to try and resolve the signage issue, look at existing signage in the County before the new zones go in, and where the law enforcement officers had problems with those zones, needed additional signage, and how the new zones would be posted; everyone came to agreement, including FIND and came up with a sign plan for what needed to be done in Brevard County, including description of zones, maps showing what signs go where, and everybody agreed it was a good plan, but unfortunately it was not what got posted on the water. Ms. Clinger stated Mr. Webster was off on the posting; the posting was initiated in November of last year; it was not completed until after February of this year; the State law enforcement officers, including Major Bruce Buckston, went on water and did a subsequent to posting sign inspection; and after signage was completed, they were finding and hearing problems from their officers almost immediately when signs were being put in. She stated they found no less than 55 discrepancies and serious issues with the signage the way it was posted; things as serious as boaters see a sign that says resume safe and normal operations, which tell them they are entering unregulated waters, when in fact the zone was 25 mph in the channel and slow speed outside. She stated there were places where shoreline buffers were virtually nonexistent, places where signage had the wrong citation; they will say the Volusia County citation for Brevard County zones; and there were not only areas where the officers found the new zones to be lacking, but places where they knew the old zones were insufficient for them to enforce. She stated it is completely appropriate for the Fish and Wildlife Service to not proceed with issuing permits if the necessary speed zones are known to be inadequate; it has taken months to get FIND to address those issues; and exhibited a pack of papers of correspondence between the Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation Commission and FIND, relating to trying to get FIND to address their problems. Ms. Clinger stated the State went to the effort of not only delineating its problem areas but supplying color photographs to FIND illustrating the problems; FIND has been completely resistant to making the corrections until recently; the Governor’s office has become involved; and they are just now proceeding to address those issues. She requested the Board encourage FIND to correct the problems; and stated if it takes action today, the most appropriate action would be to encourage FIND to correct the signage problem so that permits can move forward. She stated additional information Mr. Webster may not have yet is that additional 120 permits were released in Lee County yesterday; and she believes as soon as the issue is resolved in Brevard County, they will not have any problems here either.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Ms. Clinger agrees with releasing permits in areas where signage is adequate; with Ms. Clinger responding the problem is vessels do not stay confined to the area where signage is adequate; it depends on how large an area around a particular facility would be deemed adequate because those vessels travel a variety of distances away from the facility; so they need to look holistically at the County and get those signs fixed. She stated it should not take FIND that much longer to get the issue resolved; signs are in production right now; and that is what they are waiting for now, just the time it takes to physically produce signs and get them posted on the water. Chairperson Colon noted there is one thing Ms. Clinger and Mr. Webster agree on and that is to have those permits become a reality; with Ms. Clinger responding she wants the signage to be posted and adequate before permits are released.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the reason to have signage is so boaters know when they are in violation or not; and as a practical matter, within the court system, people receive fines like he would get a fine for speeding. Ms. Clinger stated they can be fined if the Judge finds that the Board had a reasonable opportunity to know he or she was in a regulated zone. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that environment exists today; with Ms. Clinger responding some places yes and some places no. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the courts have found that signs were confusing in some places, and the rules are not working because the signs are not working; with Ms. Clinger responding there have been some decisions; and in fact, in the correspondence from the Fish and Wildlife Commission to FIND, they cited one of the reasons they needed either an additional sign or clarification on sign posting is because they had difficulty having tickets upheld in that area.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there would be a problem with the Board sending a letter to FIND asking them to move forward as quickly as possible and telling them if the County can cooperate, it would be happy to assist them if they need help, and responding to Mr. Webster’s request that the County correspond with other agencies that would be issuing permits saying when the proper signage is in place, the Board hopes they will expedite those permits. Ms. Clinger stated any encouragement to FIND could only be viewed as helpful at this point because they are moving and the Club wants to encourage that positive movement on their part. Ms. Clinger stated backing up that approach with the federal government would also be appropriate.

Chairperson Colon stated that is what she was getting at; it seems like Ms. Clinger and Mr. Webster, although from different angles, are saying the same thing; and she is trying to see if the Board can come up with a consensus on the wording of the letter. Mr. Webster stated he would like that, but does not think they are saying the same thing; his belief is that waiting for signage to be agreed upon by various levels of government while businesses and homeowners are left holding the bag is not an appropriate action for government; moreover, some of the information the Board just heard is not entirely accurate although it could be interpreted that way. He stated the issue is how many tickets have been issued that were thrown out because of inadequate signage; he does not know that number, but it is very small; tickets are thrown out for a variety of reasons; and in this case, FIND has opposed putting additional signs in because it believes there is a bona fide and critical safety issue for boaters. He stated the signs are not navigational aids; they have nothing to do with helping people find their way home or through a channel; they are markers that are put at almost random locations to mark various zones and widths; they are regulatory markers; consequently, because they are not lit and frequently not striped very well, they are dangerous. He stated FIND recognizes the more signs and obstacles put in the water, the greater the likelihood of injury and death; consequently, FIND tries to put out as few signs as possible. Mr. Webster stated there is a thing called the signage coordination committee at the federal level; when all the meetings took place on signage, those issues should have been reviewed by all parties then; to a degree they were; but in the practical atmosphere of putting the signs out in the river, sometimes they can put the signs where they originally thought they could site it and sometimes they could not. He stated they waited several months for the completion of the project before initiating review; and that ultimately caused the huge delay they see now. He stated from the contractors’ standpoint FIND is doing a very good job of honoring the public trust; they do not think Fish and Wildlife Service is doing the job that it should be doing; and he agrees that a letter to FIND saying to please get it done is not a bad thing, but the culprit is the Fish and Wildlife Service at the U.S. government level.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what do dock permits have to do with signage; with Mr. Webster responding according to the Settlement Agreement, lawyers in Washington decided to implement what is called the “but for” argument; but for means but for the boat, the manatee would not be struck; but for the dock, the boat would not be on the water; so they determined there would be a linkage with dock building, construction, and placement and manatee protection. He stated that is further layered by the federal government deciding what exactly constitutes manatee protection; they used four mitigation tools: (1) speed zones, (2) education, (3) enforcement, and (4) permitting; and they concluded that unless the first three are adequately in place, the fourth would not be allowed. He stated the problem is it is all very assumptive because they do not know how much of any one of those things they need to be in compliance with before they are no longer adequately protected. He stated for example, in Lee County, they lifted an area of adequate protection in what is called Reach 32, but in Reach 33, they decided it is not adequately protected and permits will not be released there. He stated the standards that they use are slightly different; the biological opinions that they write do not jive with each other; they have a lot of discretion in what they are allowed to do; consequently, because they are worried about legal ramifications about their settlement, they are withholding permits in all of Brevard County, including those areas that they agree are adequately settled, until the dispute between agencies and judges is resolved. Commissioner Pritchard stated if the signage is unlit and poorly striped, it would depend on boats having lights that would cast enough of a beam to show the reflectivity of the sign; and if they do not have something like that, because of the numerous amounts of signs in the water, it is creating a navigational hazard; and inquired if that is correct; with Mr. Webster responding yes, exactly, and FIND is greatly worried about that, and they are too, as the people who do it for a living. Mr. Webster stated part of the issue is the signs in some areas cannot be placed the way they were intended to be placed; the water is too deep; they have to use can instead of post; there is no real good place to put something that defines the zone because the zone edge is too far from where boat traffic might be; and the ultimate issue here is the federal government coming in and micro-managing how the State and County spends their money on these issues. Commissioner Pritchard stated the signs are huge and are mounted on double poles; he recalls a couple of years ago, when they installed additional signs in Sarasota Bay, two boaters were killed when they hit those signs; and the poles were pulled out. He stated signs have not been put back in that one area; so it has a lot to say if they are going to put a sign in to put it in properly, locate it where it supposed to be, and provide illumination so people can see it. He stated it is very dark on the waters at night; and even a 300,000-candle power searchlight does not provide a good indication of what can be out there that one might run into. He stated Mr. Webster mentioned the “but for” mentality; he had that argue a lot; they can say the same thing about a garage on a house, a car for the garage, and the car involved in an accident.

Chairperson Colon stated the Board needs to focus on the letter because there are time certains; and she wants to make sure it goes to both agencies because the more folks it is sent to the more helpful it would be.

Mr. Webster stated from their perspective as residents who live and work here and enjoy the water here, they support the Board encouraging all parties to come immediately to a responsible solution to this issue. He stated it is their contention the problem is due to the federal government and Fish and Wildlife Service; Ms. Clinger was right, there was a group of people who got together and discussed signage and where they ought to go; but after that was done, the federal government came back and demanded signs every quarter mile apart; that was not in the original plan; and they are greatly trying to expand that.

Chairperson Colon advised the Board is not here to debate that; it wants to stay focused and send a letter on behalf of its residents; and that is what it needs to focus on now and not get into a debate. She stated the Board has respect for both opinions, but it needs to focus to make sure that the work on the wording of the letter is correct. Mr. Webster stated he appreciates the Board’s involvement in this issue. Chairperson Colon inquired how would the Board like to word the letter; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he would like more of a suggestion that they need to work to ensure dock permitting is released so that people who are paying taxes on their properties are able to do with it as they like; and the “but for” argument is ridiculous, so whatever type of wording that will encourage the agencies to release the permits without tying it into signage and whether or not there are 100 or 1,000 more signs. Chairperson Colon requested Commissioner Pritchard get to the point; with Commissioner Pritchard responding the point is the permits need to be released; it is causing not only a hardship, but a burden on taxpayers who own residential and commercial properties; business owners are losing business; and some have gone out of business, so that is what the letter should say. Chairperson Colon inquired if those are things Commissioner Pritchard is suggesting regarding the hardship it is causing; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he does not want to write the letter, but is offering what he thinks should be in it; and perhaps Mr. Webster, Mr. White, and Ms. Clinger can get together and provide the Board with a draft letter.

Commissioner Higgs inquired why the Board does not have a letter now since it was on the agenda two weeks ago and the letter could have been ready to go today.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to draft a letter to Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) and appropriate federal and State agencies expressing its concern about the lack of dock permits being issued in Brevard County; and bring the letter back to the Board for approval. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 10:25 a.m., and reconvened at 10:32 a.m.

APPROVAL OF STUDY GROUP, RE: CREATION OF DOG BEACH AT CANOVA
BEACH PARK

Commissioner Pritchard advised this item is to create an area where responsible people would be able to take their dogs and have water recreation; and he would like to create a committee to look at beaches, lakes, rock pits, any area that would be best suited for such a recreational area for dogs. He stated the City of Sarasota has created a dog beach and it turned out to be one of the best things it did; but the Commissioners need to read the City’s report in order to take it from them because the person who wrote it was not an advocate and has since become an advocate. He stated a lot of areas throughout the State are doing it; there is good opportunity for the Board to revisit the issue; it has been brought up before; but for various reasons, usually the “not in my backyard” reason, it did not happen. He stated it does not mean it will happen, but it does mean it is something the Board should look at. Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the problems they currently face is that many people are bringing their dogs to the beach throughout the County after hours or at times when they do not think they might have a problem; so the Board in effect is encouraging people to disobey the law by not providing them an area that they can legally take their dogs and enjoy the water and interact. He stated he does not own a dog, does not have a dog in this fight, and is more of a cat person, but he thinks it is something the Board needs to address; and that is why he asked the Board to take an opportunity to listen to the people in the community, hear what they have to say, and perhaps form a committee with the responsibility of looking at the County, all the aspects, and consider whether the Board even wants a dog beach or not. He stated that is what he will request of the Board at the end of the public comments.

Scott Ellis of Melbourne, advised he is not here for the Clerk’s office, but for himself; the Board had a problem with the dog beach issue ten years ago; it is easy for people to say the wheel does not work if they have not seen the wheel; what the Board is looking at with this proposal is not for the County to go out and reinvent the wheel, it is looking at other people’s wheels and the dog beaches and seeing how it works in other counties. He stated clearly it does work elsewhere; and what they are asking for is the opportunity to bring those ideas back to the Board and implement a dog beach in Brevard County. He stated his preference for ten years has always been Canova Beach; Canova Beach has had a history of problems, but the problems actually predate the more recent problems they have seen; and when he was a small child, the beach was full of rocks. He stated it is an uncomfortable beach, it is a nasty beach, it is good for fishing, but he would not do much else out there. Mr. Ellis stated there are at least half a dozen beaches families can use north and south of Canova Beach; he felt it was an ideal beach to use as a dog beach because of the problems with the beach itself and the problems with people who attend the beach; and here is an opportunity to have a dog beach. He stated the Board will hear a lot of concerns about it; it has been through those concerns for ten years; other counties have been able to address those concerns; and Brevard County does not have to start from scratch and go through a learning process because it is able to look at other counties and see how it was done. He stated whatever is done, if the Board creates a dog beach at Canova, it is not a permanent fixture; and if it decides after a year that the process has failed, it can remove the dog beach. Mr. Ellis stated it is very difficult and actually impossible to try and prove the existence of something that may happen out there; and the Board went through ten years of people saying it will not work and it is impossible to do that prototype. He noted the Board is looking to set up a prototype at Canova Beach based on other successful dog beaches around the State; if it works that is great, and if for whatever reason it fails, nothing will stop the Board from dissolving the dog beach; but it has been easy for people to shoot down an idea they have never seen before in operation.

Mary Anne O’Neill, Mayor of Indian Harbour Beach, advised she is here at the request of the city council and many residents of the City; they want to express their opposition to the proposed dog beach at Canova Beach; and their first concern is the cleanliness of the beach. She stated the dog feces can pass worms and other diseases to those who come in contact with them; she is not opposed to dogs and have two that love the water and would love to be able to play in the water; but many of the children play on the beaches, and their health should take priority over the freedom to allow dogs to play on the beach and in the water. She stated the proponents of the dog beach claim the owners will pick up after their animals; she lives in a small community where many residents own dogs; and 90% of the people do pick up after their animals, but only sometimes when people are watching. She stated if people are not watching, they ignore it and pretend it did not happen; and that is in the grass where people can see the piles, so who knows whose dog it belongs to after it is done. Mayor O’Neill stated at the beach, all they have to do is kick sand over it and it is still there; they are not observed and feel like they have gotten away with something; and often a child playing in the sand may step on the pile. She stated the Board should not restrict families from visiting any of the beaches, so the contamination is always there; and their second opposition is the beach would be difficult to police. She stated the proximity of Canova Beach to the beaches of Indian Harbour Beach would make them vulnerable to incursion by the owners of the dogs; they are proud of their beaches; and they want to keep them safe, healthy, and comfortable to visit. She stated she also hear people say that it is not fair that a few people who do not pick up after their dogs should prevent them from having an area where all the dogs can go; that is civilization; if a few people did not feel the need to speed on the highways, they would not have to have speed limits; and if a few people did not commit robberies and murders, they would not have to pay for police officers. She stated laws are made in society to protect the majority from the few; and requested the Board continue the no dogs on the beach in the more populated areas particularly. She noted they are not against an area, but in the more populated area, particularly Canova Beach, they would rather not have the dogs on the beach.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mayor O’Neill would be opposed to forming a committee to study an area; with Mayor O’Neill responding no, and she would not be opposed to a different area, but the area they are concerned about is Canova Beach because many of their residents use that area. She stated they would not be opposed to a less populated area.

Sil Crespo, Jr. of Palm Bay advised Canova Beach is a very unique feather; the worst thing the Board can do to it is allow dogs on it; it is unique to the coastline because it exposes the natural process that forms the State of Florida; and rather than turn it into a dog beach, he is here to advocate that the Board turn it into a learning center for the citizens. He stated thousands of dollars are spent to renutrify the beaches; the County goes with hat in hand to the State and federal governments asking for money to renutrify the beaches; and that is commendable and necessary because it is part of the economic welfare. He stated a tremendous amount of people are employed in the tourism business; the County needs sandy beaches in Cocoa, Indialantic, etc.; but Canova Beach is unique. He presented photos of Canova Beach to the Board of anastasia formation, the rock structure that protects the whole east coast of Florida and is best exposed in Brevard County; and stated it is a great place to educate the children and citizens as to why Florida is the shape it is. Mr. Crespo advised over the past three years, because of scouring by storms, the rock has been cleaned off and there are a group of marine organisms called polychaete worms; they look like beakers on the muppets; those worms produce very unique structures; and they are called worm rock, but it is not a rock, it is a very delicate structure made up of sand and shells; and what keeps the structure hard are so many little worms. He stated they are the natural beach building barrier; for the past three years, he has been photographing and studying Canova Beach; it has not been renutrified, but no sand has been lost because of the rocks and little characters; and if the Board looked at the photos it will see extreme low tide and the funny mound-shaped structures are the polychaete worm colonies, but actually it is a reef. He stated studies were done in the 1960’s and 1970’s about the benefit of those structures to the coastline; the photographs also show children playing in the water and footprints on the mounds; every footprint has crushed several hundred of the little structures; and they are ignorant of the fact that they are suffocating those structures that are protecting the beaches. He inquired would it not be terrific to take the beach and turn it into a learning center. Mr. Crespo stated he spoke to people on the beach who say it is just a bunch of rocks; one gentleman said it is a rocky beach; but that rock is what protects the beach; and the marine worms will fossilize and turn to rock. He stated a dog park some place else would be more commendable than Canova Beach; Canova is a unique learning opportunity for citizens; and the Board should seriously think about setting it aside for that purpose. He stated The Nature Conservancy in Jupiter and Tequesta has done just that; they put up signs explaining the structures and people go there on purpose to understand the uniqueness; and requested the Board not consider a dog park but a learning center at Canova Beach.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the purpose of the discussion is to see whether or not the Board should form a committee; and inquired if Mr. Crespo is interested in forming a committee. Mr. Crespo stated he would not object to a committee and is not against a dog park, but he is against one at Canova Beach.

Chairperson Colon inquired about Mr. Crespo’s credentials; with Mr. Crespo responding he is a retired science teacher from New Jersey and his specialty is coastlines and the environment, especially beaches.

Jane O’Brien of Melbourne, member of Space Coast Therapy Dogs, advised she coordinates the therapy dog program at Holmes Regional Medical Center and is in favor of the study. She stated she is not in favor of Canova Beach, but there should be a study that will allow people to focus on the dogs and what responsible owners do with the dogs. She stated there are two major events coming up; Canine Fest at Merritt Square Mall will show a large group of dogs together being in an environment with all kinds of people and all kinds of things happening; and it will show how the owners are responsible and do take care of their dogs and do not create messes. She stated there is also a municipal event at Wickham Park on September 20, 2003; there are going to be numerous dog organizations there that will also give people an opportunity to see the dogs together in a large environment interacting with people; and all the problems that come up with dogs that people have questions about could be answered at those events.

Mary Peth advised she has lived in Cocoa Beach for over 20 years and has no children or dogs; and her concern are the health issues associated with permitting dogs on any of the beaches. She stated according to the Center for Disease, most pet owners do not know that their pets carry larva migrans, which infects people; most cutaneous and visceral larva migrans are diagnosed in the southeastern United States; and persons likely to come in contact with larvae-contaminated soil are sunbathers who recline on larvae-contaminated sand and children who play in contaminated areas. She stated those areas should be off limits to children; and therefore it is most important that pet feces do not become disseminated in the environment. Ms. Peth stated larva migrans can remain in the environment for years; people might say they will pick up after their dogs, but research shows that it does not solve the problem because people think they have picked up everything but in reality they probably do not because the eggs that cause larva migrans are minute. She presented a picture from the University of Iowa Medical School to the Board, but not the Clerk, to give it an idea of what cutaneous larva migrans look like; and stated visceral larva migrans travel to the vital organs, liver, lungs, etc. Ms. Peth stated Florida’s economy survives on tourism; and the Board must think ahead as to what impact larva migrans could have on those visiting the beautiful State from other states and countries. She stated Dr. Heshmati, Director of Florida Public Health Department, told her having dogs on the beaches is a risk to humans and the Board of County Commissioners has been told that. She recommended a grassy vacant area specifically for animals, and the County review, update all current signs that ban animals on beaches, state the amount of the fines, and enforce them because they are not being enforced at this time. Ms. Peth stated in speaking to a relative in Bainbridge Island off Seattle, Washington, she was told their dogs do not run on the beach; they have designated grassy areas that are contained; and the owners are required to pick up after the dogs. She read a letter from John Gordon Adams who asked her to bring his message to the Board, as follows: “My name is J. Gordon Adams and my family and I own a dog. Ms. Peth has been kind enough to bring my message to you since I work and was not able to be here today. I’ve been living in the County since 1994 and I enjoy it. I spent some time at the College of Public Health at the University of South Florida. Whoever has convinced the elected officials of the County to bring this matter of dogs on the beach again is ill informed about the gravity of larva migrans and its health effects. If you could see someone with cutaneous larva migrans, you would be emphatic with keeping dogs off the beach. Please go to the Center for Disease Control for more information. Any reported cases of larva migrans in the County will come back to haunt us. J. Gordon Adams.” Ms. Peth presented copies of the letter to the Board, but not the Clerk.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Ms. Peth is for or against forming a committee; with Ms. Peth responding her feeling is what is there to study when their health is a concern; and with all the health issues they have before them right at this time, why do they want to create something else.

Isabel Damas of Melbourne advised she supports the study group, and wants to address a couple of things she heard from the previous speakers. She stated she is not a scientist, but there are thousands of seagulls on the beach and they drop their droppings, which she knows have salmonella; there are children on the beach playing amongst all the droppings in the sand; and that is not controllable. She stated Commissioner Pritchard said people are taking their dogs to the beach even though they are not allowed; that will always be the case with people who are not responsible; and there will always be that type of people. She stated it would be better to have an area where responsible people can take their pets; and perhaps those who do not, when they are fined, can be told where they need to take their pets. She stated she and her friends who are dog people do not hesitate to let someone know if they are not following the laws that might hurt them in the long run; she takes her dogs to Gleason Park in Satellite Beach where dogs are allowed on leashes; and she takes the bags with her and has not hesitated to pick up after someone else’s dog because she does not want a law passed saying no more dogs at Gleason Park. Ms. Damas stated she needs to mention another issue about safety on children on the beach; her son does metal detecting on the beaches; he finds numerous hypodermic needles just below the surface of the sand; any child could step on those; and that would be worse than stepping on dog feces, which they can wash off.

Ray Mullin of Indian Harbour Beach, advised he does not have much to say except a few comments that were offered to him as he solicited a petition against dogs on the beach; he came here from out-of-state to live on the beach; and inquired if it goes through for Canova Beach, will they be banned from the beach so the dogs can be there. He stated he knows the Board has not had a study but does not think it needs a study because dogs do not belong on the beach. He stated a question was asked about who is going to police it; owners are going to have dogs without leashes that can go anywhere they want to; and if people are not allowed to use that beach, where would they go. He stated if they have to live with the dogs, there may be legal problems with dog bites, dog fights, fights with fishermen, joggers, walkers, etc.; and what is scary to him is a dog without a leash going up to a small child playing in the sand who may put his hand out to the dog. He stated he saw the laws about dogs in Brevard County; there are a lot of them; he does not want anybody’s dog running up to him on the beach without a leash if he is sitting there or lying in the sand or walking in the water; that is a scary thought; and he does not want a dog coming up to him and taking his sandwich. Mr. Mullin inquired how will it be policed if they do it; who will they sue if they get bitten by a dog; how do they report an incident on the beach; who would they report it to; and how would they find out who the owner is. He stated it will be a big fiasco as far as the legal issues if there should be a problem; dogs bite people, ask the Post Office; and he does not know how people in bathing suits would defend themselves against a dog. He stated they proposed to use Canova Beach because it is rocky and does not get used; last Sunday he and his wife counted 140 plus people on the beach; it is against the law now and people are using the beach with dogs on the weekends; and he does not see why people should be denied that beautiful beach. He stated it is used by people; millions of dollars are spent to build condos for people to come there and enjoy the beach; he cannot understand the thinking of even wanting to use the beach for dogs; and he is sure the Canova family did not want condos and hotels, but wanted people to use that beautiful beach.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Mullin is for or against forming a committee to look at the possibility of creating a dog beach; with Mr. Mullin responding he personally does not think there is a need for a committee, but the Board can make that decision.

Nancy Toney of Melbourne stated she is a responsible dog owner and belongs to the Space Coast Therapy Dogs; her dog visits hospitals and nursing homes; and she is in favor of the study and a committee to do the study.

Phyllis Clark of Palm Bay advised she has been a resident for 30 years, loves Brevard County and the beaches, and is for a dog park. She stated right now there are not many places where dog owners can take their dogs; at present they have one off leash dog park in Satellite Beach; and anyone who goes there any weekend will see many dog lovers such as herself letting their dogs run and play. She stated dog parks make good dog citizens because they provide a neutral territory for dogs to learn social skills with people and other dogs; people who go to the off leash dog park are responsible owners who keep their dogs up to date on their shots and licenses and clean up after their dogs; and those are requirements for being at the dog park. She stated if they had a designated dog beach, it would more than likely be cleaner than most beaches in the County, which have plenty of garbage contamination already, such as beer bottles, diapers, discarded bait, etc. She stated dog parks are places for good old fashion family fun; and a dog park would be a reward for responsible dog owners and the canines they love. She stated right now the closest beach Brevard County residents can visit with their dogs is at Ponce Inlet, which is about 90 miles away; the proposed dog park could be a plus for tourism; and she is sure dog lovers from other areas of Florida would come to Melbourne with their families and dogs to romp on the beach and patronize the businesses during their visits. She suggested the Board check out some of the websites, such as dogpark.com and dogfriendly.com and see that being dog friendly is big business. She stated a dog beach in this County could benefit many; and she hopes the Board will move forward with a study group for a dog beach.

Fay Campbell of Cocoa Beach advised she has lived at the beach almost all her life; she grew up in Norfolk, Virginia in a beach cottage on Chesapeake Bay; and as children they played on the beach every day and the dogs were out there playing with them. She stated she is a healthy specimen; none of them ever suffered any ill-health effects from playing with dogs on the beach; and during the school year, she always took her dog for walks on the beach after school. She stated her family moved to Virginia Beach and did not live oceanfront, but lived on the other side of Atlantic Avenue and were on the beach just about every day; that was their way of life; and they always took the dogs to the beach. She stated it was natural and normal; eventually Virginia Beach was concerned for tourists and passed an ordinance limiting the time of day that dogs could be allowed on the beach; but they were still allowed on the beach at that big tourist center before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. She stated when she and her husband moved to Cocoa Beach they were stunned to learn that they would never be able to enjoy their beach and dog at the same time; they planned to live in Cocoa Beach the rest of their days and will be there for the rest of their lives; and they would like to have their dog on the beach with them, so she is grateful the Board is willing to hear their needs and interests and to form a committee. Ms. Campbell stated she heard a lot of comments about dogs defiling the beach; from her personal experience at Cocoa Beach, she has never known dogs to litter the beach with aluminum cans, beer bottles, cigarette butts or plastic bags, which is detrimental to marine life; and they do not leave remnants of fire works on the beach . She stated dogs are not responsible for any of those things; there is a matter of dog poop; dog owners do not like to step in dog poop either; and the Board heard a lot of people who support dog parks say they clean up after their dogs and are watchful of other people to make sure everyone does the same. She thanked the Board for considering off-leash dog parks in Brevard County and hearing their requests to provide for them to have their dogs on the beach.

Joseph Warnick of Indian Harbour Beach advised he lives in a condo directly beside Canova Beach Park; he has a fairly elaborate computer system and has been forwarding quite a few people’s thoughts to the Commissioners in the last few days; and his sympathy lies with those who understand the scope of the problems inherent in a proposal for a study of this type. He stated the implication of this proposal is no trivial matter; it is too important an issue for anyone to cavalierly say that it is only a study; he is not going to try to go into details about it; but the Board will see a lot of information and hear a lot of excellent speakers today who are a lot more familiar with the details of problems than he is. He stated the Turtle Beach Association is working on this; he is sure the Board understands they do not purposely put dogs on the beach with little turtles running around and thousands of eggs directly under the surface; and he is sure they understand the health hazards of purposely putting dogs on the beach. He stated all that ground was covered thoroughly when the law was enacted that no dogs are allowed on the beach three years ago; the Board decided to take no action on it; and if need be, they will cover all that ground again with the Board because they are just getting started. He stated the main thing he would like the Board to understand is the new make up of the beaches; the beaches have drastically changed from ten years ago; and they have all changed from just three years ago. He stated starting at Cape Canaveral and working down, the Board will find the entire area saturated with homes and condos; Cocoa Beach has no square inch available that is not filled up; Satellite Beach, except for the Base and a patch saved for conservation is completely built up with condos, townhouses, and homes; and Indian Harbour Beach is not like it was five years ago, and is completely built up on the beach. He stated thousands and thousands of people are living on the beach in those areas; the same situation occurs in the South Beaches; many people say the proposal is ill-conceived, frivolous, and inappropriate; and inquired if it is an appropriate place to do a study, he thinks not. He stated he does not think any study is warranted; and inquired how often will this issue be brought up over and over again.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Warnick is for or against forming a committee to study it; with Mr. Warnick inquiring what does Commissioner Pritchard think. Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not know and that is why he asked; with Mr. Warnick responding he will say it again, he is against a study; it is inappropriate considering the circumstances; and if it is to be conducted, it should be in areas other than Brevard beaches.

Hugh Atnip of Merritt Island advised he has lived in Merritt Island since 1993; before that he lived in Cape Canaveral for eight years; someone handed him a newspaper about Central Park dated July 20, 2003; and they have allowed dogs in Central Park for 150 years. He presented the paper to the Board, but not the Clerk. He stated he is definitely for the study; what the Board is talking about is man’s best friend; while living in Cape Canaveral the only place he could find to take his dog is now Manatee Park; and a lot of other people bring their dogs there, not necessarily in the park, as they usually use the road. He stated it is undeveloped except for one paved road; they let the dogs run so they can get out of apartments; and there was a field next to it. Mr. Atnip stated he moved to Merritt Island and there was no place to take his dog; he used to take him to a field where they are now building the sports complex on the other side of the Barge Canal; but most of the time he would drive to Cape Canaveral and go to the field next to Manatee Park. He stated development is taking over everything; he has been pushed out of areas where he could take his dog; he would use the other side of the Port where the Coast Guard Station is and let his dog run on the river bank, but after September 11, there is security and they cannot go there any more. He stated Satellite Beach came out with a park but that is 22 miles from where he lives; but he makes the drive as often as he can. He stated a lot of people have a fear about how dangerous dogs are; it is nothing like that; he goes to the dog park once or twice a week and has only seen a couple of incidents where dogs growl at each other, but has never seen any dog bite anybody. He noted it may have happened, but he has not heard of any and it did not happen while he was there. He stated he was amazed at what he learned at the dog park; he did not know there were 600 of them in the country and looked it up on the Internet; now when he travels, he will look for dog parks in different states; so it is an attraction for tourism. He stated all they are talking about is not so much a place where dogs can roam free; they are talking about having them on leashes; and the man who knows so much about coastal areas may be able to suggest another place if Canova Beach is a bad place. He stated Brevard County is a dog unfriendly county; he was here three years ago and tried to get it to go through and was resoundingly defeated; dogs cannot go anywhere; and inquired what do they have to do, get rid of their dogs.

Jeff Clemons of Palm Bay stated he supports the committee to do a study of a dog beach park; showed a picture of his six-pound Chihuahua; and stated there has been a lot of talk about parasites and things, but seagulls eat fish and fish carry almost the same kind of worms and parasites that dogs do that they deposit on the beach; and people are susceptible to them the same way they are to dog feces. He stated cruise ships are dumping into the ocean where fecal count is higher than it should be on the beach; and that is part of the problem also. He stated all the people he knows who would use the beach would be responsible; they always pick up after their pets; it is easy to take a plastic bag, invert it, pick up the poop, turn it inside out, tie it in a knot, and throw it in a trash can. He stated they have receptacles for people to throw their used fishing lines, which he has seen on the beach and has picked up and thrown in them; and there is also a box at the beginning of the boardwalk at Canova Beach that allows for plastic bags to be put in. He stated they can take the bags to the beach, put their trash in it, and bring them back to put in the receptacles in the park; and the matter of dog feces could be handled in the same way. Mr. Clemons stated he has noticed people on the beach at night with their dogs when they know they would not be caught; that would be alleviated if it is allowed and there was a certain amount of time they could be there with their animals.

Hillary Steinberger of Merritt Island stated the Board should allow the study, and she is for dog beaches. She stated she heard a lot of opposition to the study, but it is only a study; and inquired what is the big deal and why not have the study. She stated even if people are against dog beaches, there should be a study to determine if there is going to be an impact; and she does not understand why people are against a study.

Mary Warnick of Indian Harbour Beach advised she lives directly north of Canova Beach Park; one reason they chose to live in the area was the beautiful and very clean beach, and because the laws in Brevard County prohibited dogs on the beach. She stated she does not have anything against dogs or dog owners; some of her best friends are dogs and dog owners; she owned dogs and is familiar with their characteristics and needs; and dogs need to exercise, but they do not need to run on the beach. She stated dogs like to swim, but they do not need to swim in the ocean; and suggested those people who want a recreational facility for dogs form a private group for the purpose of raising money to purchase suitable land and develop and maintain it, with the only County Government involvement being issuance of needed permits. She stated to consider changing the designated use of County land using taxpayer money and the time of elected officials and any other government source for such a project is ludicrous; therefore, she requests the Board of County Commissioners to reject the proposal that a study be conducted on the feasibility of any County-sponsored dog beach or dog water park.

Lynn Miraglia of Melbourne Village advised she supports approval of a study group on the possibility of a dog beach; and requested that someone from Tourism and Economic Development be on the committee. She stated her reason for suggesting that is recently a director of a nonprofit organization in Austin, Texas, who runs a summer institute for children, was researching the possibility of moving to Florida in this area; she picked up a book titled, Dog Lovers Companion to Florida and pointed out to her that Brevard County is represented in the book as one of the more animal unfriendly counties in the State; and as a taxpayer and property owner she wants Brevard County to be as attractive to as many companies and tourists who are considering spending money in the area as possible. She stated Brevard County has miles of beaches and water recreation areas; setting aside a small fraction of those miles would not impede a human’s ability to enjoy this natural resource; and it will add a quality of life to people who have companion animals. Ms. Miraglia stated people with dogs prefer to go where they are welcomed and will not bother anyone; Fort Lauderdale has set aside a designated area of beach for dogs; and it has not resulted in dogs running amuck along the beaches in Fort Lauderdale. She stated some other criticisms included accusations that people will not pick up after their dogs; and until there is a trial period for a dog beach, there is no factual data that indicates this would be the case in a designated dog beach area. She stated there were concerns about health hazards; California has done studies of the sand at some of its dog beaches and the information is available online; and the studies indicate there is no health hazard. She stated there appears to be some source that think there could be a health hazard to immune deficient people; the fact that California, Sarasota, and Fort Lauderdale have no apparent health issues resulting from dog beaches only reinforces the need for a study group to research this issue. She presented copies of a document to the Board but not the Clerk.

Teresa Doherty of Indian Harbour Beach advised she lives on Mimosa Place with exits to Wallace Avenue, which dead ends at the north end of Canova Beach; her family and she walk Canova Beach almost every day; and they enjoy walking, swimming, and playing in the sand, especially her three-year old son. She stated Commissioner Pritchard stated in the Florida TODAY newspaper on August 10 and 24, “That’s a rocky stretch of the beach not used by many people”; and that is a fabrication because the location is extremely popular with parents and their toddlers and young children because of the ocean rocks which help form tidal pools for the youngsters to play in and protect them from the surf. She stated she is against the study of a dog beach park because of dogs attacking her or her family and the health issues involved; according to Mary Peth, parasites live in the sand for years once the dog feces is removed; the parasite enters the human body doing great harm; and there is dog urine to consider also and how can that be removed. Ms. Doherty advised Dr. Heshmati stated, “I was asked to comment about bringing dogs and other pets on the beach. Animal feces and excretions such as dogs contain pathogens, including bacteria viruses and parasites that cause infection in humans through skin or hand contact; therefore, my recommendations is to avoid animals being on the beach area for the safety of the public.” She stated according to Richard Wynn of the Sea Turtle Preservation Society, five species of sea turtles swim in the ocean and three species lay their eggs on Brevard County beaches; the hatchlings will return 20 years later to lay their eggs on the same beach; and Brevard County beaches are the largest nesting area of sea turtles in the western hemisphere. She stated the idea of a dog beach park has been addressed by the Board in May 2000; it was voted down because of strong opposition and the many ramifications of dogs on the beach; and inquired how much time and energy is going to be exerted again by the public, Commissioners, and staff. She stated a dog park is already provided in Satellite Beach; she always wanted to own a home near the beach and chose that area to purchase her home because of the close proximity to Canova Beach; and requested the Board not take that away from her and her family and vote no for a study of dogs on Canova Beach.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the formation of a committee to study anywhere in the County, lakes, rock pits, and whatever; with Ms. Doherty responding since Commissioner Pritchard on Friday in a phone conversation would not permit this item to be postponed, she will repeat it, please vote no to the study of dogs.

Fran Gorecki of Viera, advised she and her husband moved to Brevard County over five years ago; a few years back, she looked at the County’s website to see where they could take their dogs for exercise and recreation; and out of 108 County parks, dogs are allowed on a leash at only a handful. She stated there are no off-leash dog parks and they cannot take their dogs to the beaches; and Brevard County could be ranked among the least dog friendly counties in Florida. She stated she is happy the situation is starting to improve; the person who said the County opened a dog park in Satellite Beach is incorrect; it is the City of Satellite Beach that opened that park; and it has been open for a year now and has been very successful and has had no problems or diseases. She stated they take their dogs there often and have a great time; and she is happy Parks and Recreation Department has proposed building a few off-leash dog parks so the County is making progress and becoming a little more dog friendly. She stated most of the County’s dog owners are at work today and could not attend this meeting to show their support; 30 to 40% of the people in the County own dogs; and she thinks all dog owners are in support of having a study group to look into a dog beach in the County. She noted dog owners represent 30 to 40% of the population and also 30 to 40% of the taxes that support the County parks system; they pay taxes for many facilities they do not use; and they do not begrudge doing that, but think it is only fair that their needs should be taken into account as well. Ms. Gorecki stated it is a basic issue of fairness; they should have a small area on the beach where they can take their dogs to play; they are not talking about an alligator beach with vicious animals; and the rules would prohibit aggressive dogs. She stated many of the 30 to 40% of dog owners also have children; and if they go to the dog beach, they are willing to accept there could be a risk involved, whether it is stepping on seagull doodoo and catching a disease or whatever; and they go there knowingly, so that is the beauty of having a designated area. She stated if people choose not to be around dogs they can go to another area of the beach; there are 72 miles of beaches and a lot of other places people can go; so she is in favor of Canova Beach because it is fairly centrally located in the County and has easy access from the Interstate so people from other areas can come there easily. She stated it has rocks in the surf so it is not a great swimming beach; but it could be any stretch of beach or lake that the committee could find. Ms. Gorecki stated she believes having a dog beach would benefit permanent residents, seasonal residents, and help attract tourists; there are publications, one was mentioned earlier, that track dog friendly areas; and it would help to increase occupancy rates in the County if they had a dog beach. She noted it could possibly create new jobs also. She stated there are 630 successful dog parks and numerous dog beaches located throughout the United States; by following their example, the proposed study group could find a formula for success in Brevard County; and she is confident the study group members can work together to find creative solutions to overcome any objections that have arisen or may continue to arise and come up with a strict set of rules that would protect the dogs, owners, turtles, and other beach users. She stated to answer a gentleman’s question, people would not be banned from going to the dog beach; it would be by choice; and if they wish to go there, they could. She thanked Commissioner Pritchard for putting the item on the Agenda, especially since he does not own a dog; and she hopes the Board will approve the study group today. She stated when it comes time for the final vote, she hopes the Board will approve a dog beach even if it is on a trial basis; dog owners believe a dog beach can work; if they are wrong, the idea can be scrapped after the trial period; but at least they would know the Board was willing to give them a chance to show they are responsible people who will follow the rules and will clean up after their dogs.

Lisa Grace Kestel of Rockledge advised she lived in Cocoa Beach and has been a resident for over 30 years; she is a dog friendly person and advocate; and she believes it is necessary to become a dog advocate so they can preserve their quality of life and well being. She stated she is strongly in favor of the study and of having a designated dog area for dog folks to take their dogs; with the influx of folks coming to the State in this area there is less and less open space to allow dogs to run around and be dogs in a safe and secure environment; and requested the Board approve the study.

Michelle Wagner of Satellite Beach advised she has lived in Satellite Beach most of her life, moved back here after 30 years in Leon County; in Leon County she had to drive for an hour and a half to take her dogs to the beach; and when she moved back she was looking forward to taking her dogs on the beach and running them. She stated she lives four blocks from the beach and cannot take her dogs and run them on the beach; there are laws in Brevard County that affect dogs already; they are to be licensed, leashed, and cleaned up after; and as far as she is concerned, Brevard County beaches are part of Brevard County and the laws affect the beaches. She stated she understands there is a concern that dogs will attack people on the beach; people walk their dogs on the streets on a leash and they have not been attacking anyone else walking on the streets; so she cannot imagine why the dogs walking on the beach would suddenly attack beachgoers. Ms. Wagner stated as for clean up, she likes the idea of having plastic bags at the end of the streets; all the streets have signs that say no dogs on the beach; and requested consideration of putting up receptacles, plastic bags, and doggie disposal pooper scoopers that people could use. She stated dog owners are responsible; the ones that are walking their dogs on streets in Brevard County have them on leashes; they are cleaning up after them; and as for policing, half the people in this room would be the first to call and say those people are not policing their dogs and someone needs to go there and take care of it. She noted the other half of the people in the room are responsible and would not need to be policed. She stated she is for all of Brevard County having dogs on the beach; and if they cannot have that, she is certainly for a small area set aside for dogs; and she would like to be on the study group.

Coralie Wells from Indian Harbour Beach advised she would like to address marine life in terms of the dog park on the beach, particularly the sea turtles. She stated it is a unique aspect of Brevard County beaches; she personally have grave concerns about the dogs and turtles getting along well together in addition to the bio-pollutant issue; and her first experience with a hatchling was saving it in the daytime from a runaway dog. She stated the dog had a responsible owner and finally got it under control; but dogs like to go after little crawling things and like to dig. She stated she believes Nancy Yates, a marine biologist of the Turtle Preservation Society has talked with Commissioner Pritchard and he promised her if the Board had the study committee, that she would be on it. She stated she is opposed to the study committee, but would urge the Board if it does set up such a committee, it would have equivalent experts not only for the turtles, but fish, birds, and different issues. She stated the beaches have very complex organisms; and suggested appropriate experts available to present data and the Board attend to that data.

Jane Koke of Indian Harbour Beach advised she likes dogs, had two very large dogs, and thoroughly enjoyed them when she lived up north on an acre of property. She stated she lives in Oceanwalk Condo and their regulations permit dogs as long as they are 15 pounds or less; and they have rules on how to protect their property so it is not marred by dog feces. She stated she is sorry to say that some of the owners do not abide by the rules; dog owners are very apt not to abide by the rules; and she has pictures showing dogs on the beach that were taken over a period of time. She stated there are dogs off the leash and on the leash running up to a person sitting on the beach; they know there are dog beaches in Florida; they are all along the Atlantic Coast and up around the Gulf; but they do not have the same criteria as what is being suggested here on the beach. She stated the majority are fenced areas; they have many requirements; three quarters of them do not permit the dogs unleashed; and there are fees for the use of the beach. She stated they are also in isolated areas not in areas where there are two large hotels on one side of it and a string of condos on the other side; and they are definitely isolated. Ms. Koke stated Commissioner Pritchard talked about Sarasota and its beach; the beach is not in Sarasota because the City turned down a dog beach due to sanitary and health reasons; and the beach is in Venice and is isolated. She stated it has an airport on one side and a golf course on the other side; and when she talked to people there if golfers complained that they lost golf balls because of dogs, they said no, that cannot happen because even the isolated beach is fenced. She stated there is going to be one beach in St. Lucie County beginning October 1, 2003; it is on South Hutchison Island called Walton’s Rocks; it is an isolated area with no condos, hotels, or anything around it; and it will have an extremely long walk from the parking lot to the beach, which would discourage people who might want to go on the beach for other reasons than a dog beach. She stated the beaches in Brevard County are not suited for dogs; there are too many people and homes directly on the beach; and for that reason she sees no need to have a study on a dog beach. She stated it cannot happen because there is no place for it; and it would be a waste of time and money and a repetition of things that have already been said and proven to be correct.

Claire Gambao, member of Space Coast Therapy Dogs, advised if the Board does not have the study, it would be convicting someone without having a trial; she supports the proposed study for dogs on the beach and would like to have a larger area for dogs; most dog owners are responsible parents; but if there are irresponsible dog owners, they are going to go on the beach whether there is a law against it or not. She stated it is offensive to her to find diapers on the beach, but the Board is not banning children from the beaches; it is an issue of fairness; and a lot of the opposition says somewhere else but not in my backyard. She stated dog owners pay taxes; she does not have a problem because she has 100 acres for her dogs to run; and inquired what is wrong with having a study, and are people opposed to the study afraid the group will determine there are not going to be any problems with dogs on the beach. She stated she is in favor of the dog park and a dog beach; it is an issue of fairness; and she would like to serve on the study group.

*Commissioner Carlson’s absence was noted at this time.
Chairperson Colon advised when people came to her office regarding this issue, one of the first things that was told to them was to make sure they did their rounds with the rest of the Board; there is a history of some of the folks who are against it; and she will pass copies of emails to the Board so the Commissioners can read them. She stated there are folks who want the issue tabled to the next meeting, but that did not happen; so she wants to put in the records her perspective and the history of how it got here from her point of view. She stated based on the information she received from a lot of residents that are going to be affected if something like this happens, there is no way she would want to prolong the inevitable; according to some of the Minutes she read from 2000 in regards to the issue that had taken place already, it was very controversial; and the Commissioners were torn because folks would be happy or upset with the results whether it is for or against it. She stated she does not believe in prolonging something if she already knows, based on what she heard in her testimony and what she has seen of not supporting it; and she would not be in favor of supporting a study because all it is going to do is prolong something that the citizens who live in the area have been pretty adamant about and feel it is something that was discussed in 2000. Chairperson Colon stated the Commissioners who were on the Board had been through it; this is her first time; and to respond to the question of why be against the study, Commissioner Pritchard and she have voted against studies in the past, not a particular issue like dogs on the beach, but whether it was inevitable, or the amount of money involved, etc. She stated she will not be supporting a study; her opinion is not to take any action on the item; and there are a lot of folks who want to be on the record, such as Messrs. Goldson, O’Connor, Hollman, Brown, Trembly, Cheney, and Jones, Ms. Dodson, etc. She stated she has owned dogs for 20 years and loves her dogs; they are part of her family; she is a dog lover and worked hard for dog parks in Brevard County and working with adoption center; and for people to say she does not support it because she is not an animal lover is far from the truth. She stated actions speak louder than words; she has been active in the last three years to make sure the animals are protected in Brevard County; but she will not support a study, and if it comes back, she will not support a vote to put dogs on the beach. Someone from the audience inquired why did they waste their time; with Chairperson Colon responding she did not put it on the agenda, so she is not responsible for the lady being here; if a Commissioner wishes to put something on the agenda, he or she has every right to do so; whether they get their way or not is different; but the discussion is before the Board now and she wants to keep it that way.

Commissioner Pritchard advised the agenda item says Canova Beach Park; the information that has been passed around by his office has been a study; and the study is to create an area somewhere in the County; and it may end up at Canova Beach, at a rock pit, lake, Wickham Park, or wherever. He stated he has voted against studies and also voted for studies; and what he is trying to do is see that the community is represented and given an opportunity to come together to form a committee and see whether or not it is something the community would like to address. He stated the emails he received both for and against it say that people would like to look at it; the not in my backyard is always the scenario, it does not matter what it is; and several people who spoke today in opposition to Canova Beach were not opposed to a committee study. He stated there were many more here in support of a committee study than opposed to it, but the deck can be stacked on one side or the other; all he is trying to do is be fair and provide the opportunity for the community to form a committee and study the issue; and when he was contacted by the Turtle Coast Group, he said absolutely he thinks someone from the group should be on the committee because if it is going to be proposed as a beachfront area, then those are concerns people have. He stated he is not trying to lock anyone out or not the Board should not do that and create some reason; it is a community effort; a lot of people in the County own dogs and would like to be able to do water recreation activities with their dogs; and they should be given an opportunity to be part of the discussion. He stated it is more than a few people, it is a representative of the community; and he would like to see that the Board at least give them the ability to discuss it and come up with a proposal.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Agenda item says, “It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the creation of a group to study and bring back recommendations to the Board regarding the creation of a dog beach at Canova Beach Park”; so it is very specific in regard to what they are here for. She stated any Commissioner can bring something to the Board; Commissioner Colon is not in favor of this, as she clarified; she did not put it on the Agenda and she did not pull it off either; and while they do not always agree, that is the way those things work. She inquired if there is a dog park being developed, where is it going to be, and what are the specifics.

Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson advised they are in the process of developing three dog park areas with the referendum projects; they will be doing one at Palm Bay Regional Park, which is going to be three plus acres; and they are also working with Indian River Kennel Club on the possibility of developing an actual dog training building to replace the equestrian activities that had fallen to the wayside. He stated they are also going to be developing a dog park at Viera Regional Park of three plus acres, and at Mitchell Ellington Park on North Merritt Island; so they have three projects in the works. He stated they contributed to the development of the dog park in Satellite Beach as well; and it is on property the County sold to the City for a minimal sum.

Commissioner Higgs stated so the County is involved in a number of projects for dogs; three are in the planning stage right now; and inquired if any of them have water attached to them or part of them; with Mr. Nelson responding the Palm Bay Regional Park site will have water associated with it; the other two are in the final permitting stages and are probably going to be more of a canopy type area with nice shade as opposed to water; but they will look to see if there is capacity to add water to those. Commissioner Higgs stated so the Parks and Recreation referendum and Parks Boards are developing facilities where people can take their animals; there will be water at one of them at least; so Brevard County should not be indicted as being totally dog unfriendly. She stated there are ways they can come up with other waterfront areas where pets could go; she is not sure the item before the Board today is what they ought to do; but she would support a study and recommendation coming back from citizens if it is a balanced group that will look at it in terms of being able to support access to water areas in the County. She stated she does not support the Agenda item, but will support a study in regard to where they can have animals in relationship to water; Brevard County has a lot of facilities that are all for people; there are people who want to take their pets with them and people who want to be without their pets; so it is not just a question of animals, but of people who are owners of animals.

Commissioner Pritchard requested Commissioner Higgs’ proposal to revamp the requested action; with Commissioner Higgs responding she would support a committee be developed for a limited period of time to do a study and recommendation for areas with water access for people with dogs that it would include representatives of all Commission Districts, Parks and Recreation, Animal Services, and be given a period of time to sunset and recommendations come to the Board in 120 days. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if each area Park and Recreation Board could provide a member to the study group; with Commissioner Higgs responding yes, if it is in addition to each Commission District.

Commissioner Higgs stated the group may come back with no recommendation. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if beach property will be included in the study; with Commissioner Higgs responding she would not exclude it. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is concerned about the comments; Dr. Heshmati is not here to confirm his comments; and before proceeding, he would like to have a report from Dr. Heshmati, and will make a motion to ask him for a report. Commissioner Higgs stated if the motion passes, then the report will go to the committee. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is nothing wrong with citizens being involved, but it is also important that the Board call upon those persons who have the expertise. Commissioner Higgs stated she would add someone from the Health Department to the committee if that is what Commissioner Scarborough wants. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is not the point; the point is that some things are discussed in a community sense; some things have experts; if he is going to have open heart surgery, he would not have a citizen committee advise on the best way to proceed, and would want a good surgeon; so sometimes the Board needs to go to the experts and sometimes to the community common. Commissioner Higgs stated she assumes the committee would study all the issues involved, including health issues and things that were raised. Commissioner Scarborough stated there are parameters he would like to state on the front end; the committee needs to consider public health and safety; and that is not an item for discussion as broadly as the location of the park and its proximity to the users. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Commissioner Scarborough would feel more comfortable if the committee is charged to study and make recommendations in regard to facilities which would allow water access for people with their dogs that includes not only designating an area but their recommendation may be no. Commissioner Scarborough stated there were things that quoted Dr. Heshmati and he is not here to refute what was said or confirm that it is true; and if they are true, it is going to be persuasive on him whether he would limit the committee to where they would look at possibilities because there is no reason to charge a committee with all waterfront properties when the Health Department is saying it is a fundamentally unsound decision. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Commissioner Scarborough would like to table the item and get the report first; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he does not mind doing it simultaneously; and as the Board receives it, it could send the committee further comment.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the formation of a committee composed of representatives from each Park and Recreation Board, five Commission Districts, Parks and Recreation Department, Animal Services and Enforcement Department, and the committee be charged with studying and recommending to the Board the advisability of the provision of areas with water access for people with their dogs, not exclusive of a recommendation of no provision being provided.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it was good up to the last line. Commissioner Higgs stated the committee is not being charged with absolutely recommending a place and may come back with no recommendation. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is what he would want; the issue of the Health Department is a good point; the only concern he might have is it could be such a blanket comment in that dogs on the streets could produce the same health issues; and dogs anywhere could provide the same health issues. Commissioner Scarborough stated he agrees and that is why it is important to have Dr. Heshmati comment and not people comment for him.

Commissioner Pritchard seconded the motion.

Commissioner Higgs advised 120 days to return with a report. Commissioner Pritchard recommended 180 days to give the committee six months; and if it can come back sooner, that is fine; but it will give them an opportunity not to rush into it. Chairperson Colon inquired when will the report come back from Dr. Heshmati.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough, Pritchard, and Higgs voted aye; Commissioner Colon voted nay; and Commissioner Carlson was absent from the meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the Chairperson to contact Dr. Heshmati and request he comment on the advisability of having dogs on the beach where people would be barefoot or otherwise have direct skin contact with feces and urine previously deposited by the canine.

Chairperson Colon recommended the County Manager request Dr. Heshmati to provide his comments because she voted no and does not want to be accused of having anything to do with the letter.

Commissioner Scarborough amended the motion for the County Manager to contact Dr. Heshmati; and Commissioner Higgs accepted the amendment. Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 12:13 p.m. for an executive session and lunch break, and reconvened at 1:19 p.m.

PRESENTATION - REPRESENTATIVE MITCH NEEDELMAN, RE: POST
LEGISLATIVE BRIEFING

Representative Mitch Needelman, Chairman of the Legislative Delegation, advised it was a tough year, but a successful year; the Delegation sincerely appreciates the Board’s support and he appreciates Commissioners coming to Tallahassee and helping them on some issues. He stated there is a belief that this Delegation is inexperienced, but after just the special session, he realized the Delegation is extremely experienced and is achieving a lot for Brevard County. He stated many issues were covered and a lot of things behind the scenes went well. He stated this is 2003 and they are ready to go into 2004, but are still operating under the 1968 Constitution when the population was about 7 million people; now he has 16 million people he is trying to satisfy. He stated the budget was $2 billion and now it is $53.5 billion; two pressing issues were growth management and crime; and they are still dealing with those. He stated there were many issues the session had to address, including the amendment process that was approved by the citizens of Florida, Article V, high-speed rail, classroom reduction, universal pre-K, university assistance, smoking ban, pigs, and many other issues mandated by the public. He stated there are other issues that were not mandated, but was mandated in such a way that they had to address them, such as workers’ comp, personal injury protection, medical liability, and the budget. He stated he will break down some of the costs in the budget to give the Board an idea of how the budget came out in the State. Representative Needelman advised Article V and judiciary came out at .8 billion dollars or 1.4% of the total budget; criminal justice was $2.9 billion or 5.4%, education was $17.2 billion or 32.1%, general government was $4.5 billion or 8.3%, health and human services was $19.5 billion or 36.4%, and transportation and economic development was $8.7 billion or 16.3%. He stated it was quite a budget to work with; and if anybody understands the importance of balancing a budget and meeting the needs of the counties, cities, and State, then this Board understands that more than anyone because of what it has been going through recently. He stated as for education, they meet with the School Board on Friday to talk about some of the things that came up; contrary to what people have read, there was an increase of over $800 million in education above last year; and there was an increase of $16.1 million over last year’s budget for the Brevard County School Board. He noted that included the share cost that was shifted with retirement. He stated before the retirement system was totally picked up and now it is back to share cost; and that retirement cost was $4 million, but left $16.1 million. He stated a lot of that money is tied to classroom reduction, but Brevard County is ahead of the curve, and those dollars are made available because of the two amendments that were part of the large bill and became part of that bill; and the first one was the flexibility dealing with those dollars. Representative Needelman advised they were told Brevard County has moved forward and exceeded Department of Education’s (DOE) expectations on what the percentage of reduction in the classroom is for each year until 2008; so those dollars are released to be used by lawful means. He stated another flexibility included in the same bill was a request from the constituents; they wanted to look at the flexibility of dollars going into categoricals; categoricals were in place in the 1980’s because there was a fear that the dollars sent from the State were not going where they were supposed to; and there were about five categoricals. He stated all those were if they meet DOE standards, but the standards are not established yet; and when those standards are established, once those categoricals meet those standards, the funds become available for the County and are not shipped back to Tallahassee. He stated there is one area that has not released the category and that is for teachers recruitment of attention; that is one category that was left there; and they may not think the big movement was in dollars, but one of the biggest pushes they had in Brevard County is that the Delegation succeeded to get that flexibility for some dollars. He stated last year students got $5,486.37; this year it is $5,683.61; the actual population of students was 71,446 last year; and the estimate that came on Brevard County was analyzed by DOE and is not as high as what they were reading in the newspaper, so there is a discrepancy. He stated they are looking at 71,755 students in Brevard County for next year, which comes to .43% growth. Representative Needelman advised they will continue to work with the School Board; and the Delegation emphasized the importance of education in Brevard County, and made it one of the primary issues they worked with. He stated the negatives are impacts on the counties; they increased the Florida Retirement System to the counties about $100 million; there was a reduction in SHIP funds of about $52 million this year and $31.5 next year; they eliminated small county road assistance of about $25 million, reduced small county technical assistance of about $150,000, eliminated small county courthouse assistance of $2.8 million, reduced recreational development assistance program of $21 million, eliminated rural hospital construction and renovation assistance program of $2.5 million, and diverted county shared revenues to fund the Public Employees Relations Commission by $1.1 million. He stated he felt it was fair because they both share in the public employees going in front of the Commission; and they reduced rural infrastructure grants of $1 million. Representative Needelman advised there were costs that were not shifted to counties that the Delegation worked hard on to protect all the counties, but specifically Brevard County from some of the costs; they did not shift medical patient transport of $108 million or Medicaid nursing cost; and they did not divert mobile home fees of $21 million, did not eliminate transportation disadvantaged funding, which was also on the chopping block of $35.5 million, or eliminate the recycling grants of $8 million. He stated he was specifically engaged in looking at helping Brevard County with the assistance of the Delegation and being the Chair of the juvenile Justice Committee and sit on Criminal Justice, and also the Appropriations Committees, that gave him the opportunity, along with the Delegation, to pay very close attention to the things dealing with criminal justice. He stated there was no shift in juvenile detention costs that would have been $86 million; there was no shift in juvenile misdemeanor probation, which would have been $9 million; there was no shift of juvenile misdemeanor assessment of $4 million, and no shift in adult pretrial intervention which he went to bat for. He stated he has seen that program work well and knew counties could not pick up that cost, so that is a program they did not shift. He stated the FDLE shared cost labs of $16.2 million was not shifted either; and overall they kept $300 million in costs from shifting to counties; however, what they did do was take $1.2 billion of non-recurring funds for non-recurring expenditures; and what that means is they have a tough year ahead also. He stated Brevard County funding requests passed fairly well, considering all the other counties; every Delegation member worked very hard for those; the list has 23 projects in Brevard County that made it; and they had more money to deal with than last year, but the expectation of service remained high and continues to remain high, which is where the dilemma comes in. He stated he will highlight some of the projects for Brevard County; beach restoration of $1.5 million, Viera Regional Park of $200,000, over $39 million for Brevard Community College various programs, projects, and capital items, transportation projects from SR 528 to I-95 to SR 404, at almost $70 million, for a total of $112 million for Brevard County projects in a very tight budget year. Representative Needelman advised the Board should be proud of its Delegation; and he does not know if it has been done before, but 100% of the Board’s requests passed this year and were signed by the Governor. He stated the Canaveral Port Authority legislative intent and codification, Cape Canaveral Hospital license, Melbourne-Tillman settlement to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of public lands, North Brevard Hospital District providing training school for nurses, purchase equipment, employees retirement programs, Sebastian Inlet Tax District codification, reenactments of special acts, and two claim bills, as requested by the Board all passed. Representative Needelman advised there was a lot of stuff in the general legislation, but he pulled out a few that might be good for Brevard County; Senate Bill 258 provides for electronic transfer of funds to pay expenses; the per diem rate increase, Senate Bill 1462, sponsored by Senator Posey, allows counties to exceed the maximum amount set forth by Florida Statutes if they wish to do so; House Bill 1023 is protection from public records county employees in assistance programs; Senate Bill 1098 is counties’ ability to continue to pay active military personnel, which is important right now with the military overseas; and the Board has a choice to do that after 30 days, but it mandates continuing health benefits and other existing benefits for those on active duty. He stated Senate Bill 1162 increases the population cap of the County; uses the tourist tax for zoological parks, fishing piers, nature centers, etc.; and it is very clear that the Board is able to use the tourist tax for that. He stated they also secured, to make sure when there is a specific thing in the County in which to use that tourist development tax, such as beach renourishment, those funds are protected and that is exactly where they go. He stated he is a firm believer that if they promise the public that is what they are collecting the dollars for, that is where they go; and they just tightened it up for the County on that issue. He stated transportation Senate Bill24A came through in the special session to authorize Department of Transportation to use bond proceeds from the Beeline Expressway for other transportation projects; and that was an important issue. He stated another one of the Delegation members, Thad Altman, under House Bill 1813 expanded the local option gas tax to be used for other transportation needs such as bikeways and walkways that are needed for comprehensive roadway networks; so the Board can justify using those dollars for its bikeways and walkways. He stated generally he was told it was a bad year; however, from his perspective, walking into the first session of 2000 and constantly under the hot lights of all the issues, they had a great year and Brevard County came out ahead. He stated he wants to recognize a few people for the hard work they have done in helping the Delegation stay on line with constant communications; it is so important to pick up the phone and tell the Board about our problems; and each of them appreciate the opportunity to have that kind of communications with the County Commissioners. He thanked Scott Knox for allowing his daughter to be an intern; stated she did a fantastic job and helped Brevard County; and she learned a lot. He noted it was nice to have someone who understood the make up of government and lives government in Brevard County. He stated another person he would like to thank is Guy Spearman; he personally appreciates Mr. Spearman being up there because of the hard work that he has presented; there are a lot of issues out there that have a tendency to always be on the front burner; they cannot escape from them; and they cannot forge that they have issues at home. He stated they try to work them all but it is difficult; and Mr. Spearman gave them a lot of help on all the issues. He stated one of the best investments the Board made is Carol Laymance; what she is paid is probably not enough; she is such an asset for the County in Tallahassee; and she moved into his office and took over one side, but he is thankful she did because every time there was an issue that came up in reference to Brevard County legislation or dollars, Ms. Laymance brought it to his attention immediately, which is so important as they go through the process. He stated he appreciated the opportunity to come before the Board; he kept it short; they look forward to next year; it has been an honor serving as the Chair of the Delegation and a memory that will be treasured for a long time along with the awesome responsibility, trust, and confidence that the Board handed him as Chair and how it allowed the Delegation to succeed for Brevard County.

Chairperson Colon thanked Representative Needelman and his staff who have been incredible in keeping in touch with the constituents and County staff and how closely they have worked together, and the many meetings she had in her office trying to deal with housing and human services, law enforcement, etc.; and she appreciates that it pays off when it is time to communicate with the folks in Tallahassee.

Commissioner Scarborough thanked Representative Needelman for his presentation; stated some years back the Board did not have someone like Carol Laymance and just gave the Delegation a list; but things are very dynamic; the Delegation represents the same constituents and need to come back to the Board and say there are opportunities; it is a dialogue and not a monologue list; and Representative Needelman being here creates an environment that Brevard County can be more dynamic. He stated the Board would like to evolve into a regional type political form; and advised Representative Needelman that the Board will support him with the things that are occurring.

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

Representative Needelman stated when they redistricted the Delegation had that in mind; the membership has increased by one, but really two with Representative Poppell covering Indian River County, and Representative Mayfield; they also sit on the Delegation and go all the way down to West Palm Beach to West Okeechobee; and the Board has a capable representative in Representative Bob Allen who takes care of Orange and Seminole County areas. He stated Brevard County is a growing power; it is becoming a major player in the legislative process; Commissioner Scarborough looked at making sure Brevard County is very much part of the region; and the Delegation is working hard to make sure that it is in the centerline with that.

Commissioner Pritchard requested Representative Needelman introduce his office staff so the Board can see who does the work; and Representative Needelman introduced Damien Wilson his Assistant. Commissioner Pritchard stated there is a serious side and fun side to all of this; the two has to be blended; Representative Needelman has done a great job; and he appreciates all that he has done and the hard work of his office staff. He inquired about worker’s compensation, homeowners, liability, and health care insurances and what is being done to reduce the cost of those coverages; with Representative Needelman responding there are a couple of things moving; they just got done with the medical liability issue; and they are waiting to see what happens with that as they brought the caps into play. He stated although most people saw the media coverage dealing with the cap issue, it had 109 other issues addressed to bring those costs down, including a freeze until January 1, 2004 to get some studies to see what the cost reductions will equal to. He stated unfortunately Senator Posey’s amendment did not pass; but he is a firm believer that it is a living working document that will continue to be addressed over a period of time. He stated one thing Commissioner Gallagher is looking at as far as insurance is the possibility of eliminating the arbitration board; there seems to be a conflict in the Insurance Commissioners/Comptrollers Office and that board; but he does not know if Commissioner Gallagher is going to bring it forward this year or not. He noted they heard talk of that, but has seen nothing yet; so it is on the front line. He stated they are working diligently on workers’ compensation; he was informed Sunday that a whole group of people were left out of that, so there is a lot of work still to go forward with; and the legislation they have in place needs some time to see what happens with that. He noted those things will continue to be addressed in the future as they move forward; there are specific items that need to be addressed; and he will be taking that forward again and is sure medical liability will be back on top of the list after January.

Chairperson Colon inquired how is Article V coming along. She stated it is a hard budget time for the County and they are being careful with allocations and taking into consideration that the State is supposed take over. Representative Needelman stated there are still issues they need to address with it; from his years in law enforcement, he had concerns with teen court, drug court, and those things; and they had to make a decision whether or not that was a State interest. He stated drug court succeeded in that area; however, teen court did not, which means if the County wishes to continue with a very successful program, it will need to find the dollars. He stated another thing they did was restrict how they can find those dollars through fines and forfeitures; there are some good and bad with it; they have a list of all the things and will be glad to go over them with the Board; but generally they took a giant first step and know there are issues dealing with ordinances in which how the process is going to be and which to have hearings on that need to be addressed. He stated there are issues to deal with funding that needs to be address; they took a bold first step with that and the Board will see that those are living laws that have to be worked as the problems come up. He stated they made their first attempt; they are not satisfied and do not know if they ever will be satisfied with it; but as a mandate from the public dealing with the shift of the courts to the State, there are still some things that need to be ironed out. Chairperson Colon stated she would definitely want their offices to continue that dialogue so they can be prepared for next summer to be able to have a smooth transition.

Chairperson Colon advised the Florida Association of Counties gives out an award for County Champion; and this award is going to be given out today. She stated it reads: “In spite of the many challenges and battles for counties during the 2003 Legislative Session, I am proud to say that the FAC was successful this past session on a number of legislative priorities and issues. Our accomplishments could not have been achieved without the support of the Legislator we are honoring today. FAC is proud to honor Representative Mitch Needelman as a County Champion for 2003. Representative Needelman represents District 31, which covers parts of Brevard County. As a member of the House Subcommittee on Public Safety Appropriations, Representative Needelman vigorously opposed cost shifts to counties. In a tough budget year, he worked hard to prevent the shift of $86 million in juvenile pretrial detention facility costs to counties. Additionally, Representative Needelman fended off shifting $15.2 million in FDLE crime lab costs to the counties. Finally, Representative Needelman was a strong advocate in protecting State funding for prevention and intervention programs for juveniles maintaining approximately $17 million for those programs to meet the needs of our youth. Please join me in thanking County Champion Representative Mitch Needelman for his hard work and support of counties this past session.”

The Board and audience applauded Representative Needelman, and Chairperson Colon presented him with the award. Representative Needelman stated actually the recognition is for the entire Delegation because he could not and did not do it alone; each of the members have a commitment to Brevard County, and each was part of it; so he will accept the award on behalf of all the members of the Delegation.

Mary Kay Carisio stated it is an honor to be in Brevard County; Brevard County holds a special place in her heart; she has been doing this for 20 years and got started by being an intern for Marilyn Evans Jones; and on behalf of the Association, they appreciate the Board doing the presentation and recognizing its legislators at home. She stated it was a tough year and they are going to have another tough year; but with the phone calls and letters and visits to Tallahassee, it does make a difference. She stated it is important that during the interim the Board continue its dialogue with its Delegation; they are asking all the counties to do the same thing and spent time with their Delegation members and let them know the impact those cost shifts could have at the local level because the bottom line is property tax increase. She stated she appreciates the Board’s help and support and she will continue to call on it and ask for its assistance; and they appreciate the honor of being here.

Commissioner Carlson thanked Ms. Carisio for being here; stated she knows it is a long trip to come and honor our legislator; she knows they work hard and try to juggle a lot of county commissioners; it is like herding cats; so it is very difficult. She stated she wants to remind the Board that she will be at the policy meetings on September 24 through 26, 2003 in St. Johns County; and recommended any other Commissioner who wants to go and put forth their best effort to push the issue of cost shift forward and try to prevent it next year and give the County a good foot forward, she would suggest they do so.

Chairperson Colon stated Brevard County is truly blessed; they work closely with their Delegation and do not see that throughout the State; there is a lot of fighting going on and the ones who get hurt when that happens are the citizens; but that is not happening in Brevard County. She stated they may have differences of opinion, but the respect is there; and she cannot thank the Delegation enough for bringing that message. Ms. Carisio responded they love to hold Brevard County up as a role model for many other counties.

Commissioner Higgs advised Mary Kay Carisio is the Chief Executive Officer of FAC and not everybody knows her; and the Board appreciates the Association sending its Executive Officer here today. Ms. Carisio advised Carol Bray is their Legislative Director.

Carol Bray thanked the Board for its hard work and the work of its staff; stated they have been invaluable to the Association throughout the years, particularly this session, particularly to Representative Mitch Needelman who she had the pleasure of starting a legislative relationship with when he first got elected; and he has continued to be a very strong advocate for Brevard County. She stated they are happy that Representative Altman is now part of the Delegation as he is a former County Commissioner; and it will be a wonderful asset in terms of bringing the local experience to Tallahassee. She stated they look forward to continue to work with the Board; and if there is anything they can do in the interim, please give them a call.

Chairperson Colon requested the Association keep working hard for Brevard County because the Board truly appreciates it.

The meeting recessed at 1:56 p.m., and reconvened at 2:02 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS/
SABAL AVENUE IN HAMPTON HOMES, UNIT 7 - MICHELE M. SCHAUT

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility easements/Sabal Avenue in Hampton Homes, Unit 7, as petitioned by Michele M. Schaut, and a request for fee waiver.

Commissioner Pritchard requested staff address the situation regarding the petition to vacate.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised there are two parts to the item; the first part is the vacating request; initially there was a concern associated with it, but that has been resolved; so staff has no problem with the vacating aspect. He stated the second part of the request is to waive the fees associated with the vacating; and those come to $640.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board would conceivably be approving the vacation, but denying the fee waiver if it took that option. Mr. Denninghoff noted that is one option before the Board. Chairperson Colon inquired what does Commissioner Pritchard want to do; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he has a problem waiving the fee; staff has expended much more than the fee on this issue; it was a very unusual situation; and it hinges on the ability to sell the property. He stated what staff has done greatly exceeds $640, so he will move to approve the vacating and deny the fee waiver.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easements/Sabal Avenue in Hampton Homes, Unit 7, as petitioned by Michele M. Schaut, and deny waiver of the fee. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING UTILITY EASEMENT/ORANGE AVENUE
IN MERRITT RIDGE SUBDIVISION, SHEET 2 - MATTHEW J. NAETZKER

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a utility easement/Orange Avenue, in Merritt Ridge, Sheet 2, as petitioned by Matthew J. Naetzker.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised of a request to continue the public hearing until September 16, 2003.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating utility easement/Orange Avenue in Merritt Ridge Subdivision, Sheet 2, as petitioned by Matthew J. Naetzker until September 16, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY IN SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 26S., RANGE 36E. - PINEDA PARTNERS, L.L.C.

Chairperson Colon advised the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating right-of-way in Section 26, Township 26S., Range 36E., as petitioned by Pineda Partners, L.L.C. was continued to September 16, 2003 earlier in the meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT/
MEGHAN DRIVE IN PLAT OF SUNRISE - MARK AND MARIA NIMMO

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility easement/Meghan Drive in Plat of Sunrise, as petitioned by Mark A. and Maria G. Nimmo.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easement/Meghan Drive in Plat of Sunrise, as petitioned by Mark A. and Maria G. Nimmo. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING UTILITY EASEMENT AND PUBLIC
UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN ATLANTIC GARDENS SUBDIVISION AND
TERRACE SHORES SUBDIVISION - DiPRIMA HOLDINGS

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating utility easement and public utility and drainage easements in Atlantic Gardens Subdivision and Terrace Shores Subdivision, as petitioned by DiPrima Holdings.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution vacating utility easement and public utility and drainage easements in Atlantic Gardens Subdivision and Terrace Shores Subdivision, as petitioned by DiPrima Holdings. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
ROLL FOR TOBY AVENUE ROAD PAVING MSBU

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution confirming the preliminary assessment roll for Toby Avenue Road Paving Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU).

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution confirming the preliminary assessment roll for the Toby Avenue Road Paving Municipal Service Benefit Unit and recording of the assessments in the Brevard County Clerk of Courts Official Record Book; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION INCREASING EMERGENCY MEDICAL
ASSESSMENT AND AMBULANCE BILLING RATES AND FEES

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution increasing the Emergency Medical assessment and ambulance billing rates and fees.

Commissioner Higgs advised the resolution includes a change in the EMS assessment in Micco; all the costs of the service are carried by the assessment because of the arrangement that Micco has; she talked with the people in Micco and has a meeting scheduled there next Tuesday at the Library; and she would like to meet with the citizens and go over this issue before the Board votes on it. Commissioner Higgs stated she wants to share with the Board the issues of indirect costs and want to be sure they all have the information; so she would like to continue the EMS assessment rate for Micco. She stated it amounts to about 84 cents a month, but she wants the opportunity to go over it with the citizens. She noted she received requests from the legislative liaison with Barefoot Bay Recreation District and the Micco homeowners to talk with her.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Higgs is only interested in the Micco assessment rate; stated there are three parts to this; and inquired if Commissioner Higgs wants to hold off on the whole thing.

Commissioner Higgs stated there are things in regard to the indirect costs that the Board needs to look at; the indirect costs are driving some of the other costs; and the Board needs to look at that in terms of this assessment as well as the solid waste assessment fees it will look at later. She stated her concern is to hold off on the Micco assessment; there are significant impacts to those three assessments, including solid waste from the way they are doing indirect costs; and if the Board is comfortable, then they can proceed, but they should have further discussion on indirect costs because they did not talk about that in the budget hearing and it does have an impact on the assessments. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would prefer to be briefed in person rather than take up the Board’s time.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution increasing the Emergency Medical assessment and ambulance bill rates and fees until September 9, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs requested the County Manager and Budget staff go over the indirect costs with the Board in greater detail and how they are calculated and being assessed; and distributed two items to the Commissioners, but not the Clerk, giving a brief description of how those are being used.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTIONS ADOPTING SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT
RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES AND RATIFYING, CONFIRMING, AND CERTIFYING
SOLID WASTE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider resolutions adopting solid waste assessment rates, fees, and charges, and ratifying, confirming, and certifying solid waste special assessment rolls.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board will be hearing this again at the budget hearing; with Solid Waste Management Director Euripides Rodriguez responding if it is the pleasure of the Board to postpone it to the budget hearing. Commissioner Higgs stated there are issues in regard to changing the way they are doing things; and she would like the Board to look at the way indirect costs are being assessed. She stated the Board can go ahead and do a couple of other parts that are not affected by the indirect costs, but one of the items talks about homeowners bringing in their own debris; and inquired if the Board has to vote on that item today. Mr. Rodriguez advised what are before the Board are the rate resolution on the disposal side, rate resolution on the collection MSBU, which is the one Commissioner Higgs raised questions on, and the rate resolution for solid waste impact fees. He stated the impact fees have no bearing on direct costs; there is some bearing on disposal, but they are minor in consideration of the entire budget; and the major impact as he understands it is on the collection side. Commissioner Higgs stated in the body of the Agenda Report it talks about homeowners who bring in their own debris will continue to be without any additional charge; and when they discussed it yesterday, if they have a professional bring it in, it is still billed to the individual residential property. Mr. Rodriguez advised the disposal rate resolution as it stands right now recommends on the assessment to remain as it is; there is some recommendation for a slight increase for construction and demolition originating from commercial property; it has no bearing on who brings it in or whose the transporter; and the deciding factor will be where the debris originates from. He stated to answer Commissioner Higgs’ question, if it originates from residential property, it will still be considered part of the assessment and free of charge at the gate. He stated there is another section that the Recycling Advisory Committee proposed, which is to give a slight decrease in the gate charges for clean concrete in order to promote recycling of same for road base material; so they can avoid some costs and at the same time be able to reuse that material. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there would be a problem continuing the three resolutions to the budget hearing; with Mr. Rodriguez responding as long as they are approved by September 15, 2003.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to continue the public hearing to consider resolutions adopting solid waste special assessment rates, fees, and charges, and ratifying, confirming, and certifying solid waste special assessment rolls until September 9, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING BUILDING AND BUILDING
REGULATIONS RELATING TO CERTIFICATION OF LOWEST FLOOR
ELEVATION AND FOUNDATION SURVEY

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending building and building regulations relating to certification of the lowest floor elevation and foundation survey.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Article II, Technical Codes, Division 1, specifically amending Section 22-48, floor elevation to be above grade of adjacent thoroughfare; providing for resolution of conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing for codification and renumbering; and providing for an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the economic development tax abatement program.

Bea Polk of Titusville stated she does not know what is being amended in the economic development tax abatement; and inquired if a business is approved and does not meet the requirements, does it pay the first year back. She stated that is what she would like amended; and there is a lot more that needs to be redone in the tax abatement program. She stated it needs to be restudied because it is getting out of hand; if one year they take it and they find they have not been going by the rules and do not hire all the people they need, they do not pay it back; and that is a good way to get a good start in a business. She stated she wants to know if that is in the ordinance, and if not she would like it to be in the ordinance that if they fail to do what they sign they are going to do, that they repay the taxpayers.

Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar advised the program is set up where those companies that do not meet their employment requirements per the application they submit are brought to the Board for consideration of rescinding the abatement. He stated the Board has rescinded 36 abatements since the beginning of the program; it rescinded eight just a few months ago; so the companies are not allowed to continue to receive their abatement once their employment numbers go below the State requirement of having created and maintained ten jobs.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if a company initially qualifies and never meets the requirements, would it receive an abatement for the first year; and is that abated amount taxed on to subsequent years as taxes; with Mr. Lugar responding if the company did not make improvements or did not locate or relocated in Brevard County it would not receive an abatement; if the company did locate and made improvements but did not create those jobs, it would not receive the abatement; and they would be rescinded the year the annual report is due. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is no way that they would receive abatement where they would have a problem justifying. Mr. Lugar stated they do annual reports every year; they are required at the beginning of the year; and they check the employment levels and verify those. Commissioner Scarborough stated since taxes are not paid until they get the tax bill in November, by then they would have lost their abatement status; therefore, it would not have accrued to them. Commissioner Carlson stated so there is no tax benefit until the criteria is met; with Mr. Lugar responding that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough stated they lose status by November and do not receive abatement. Ms. Polk stated that is not what she understands; it is a good program, but she understands and has talked to a lot of people, that if they have the first year, and some were never checked, and they did not do it the first year, it was free of taxes to them. She stated she would like to see the paperwork on some of the companies and would like to check where they paid their taxes because she did a lot of checking and it may go over the year before it comes to the Board to rescind them, which is good because a lot of them has not done it. She stated she has information and people tell her if they went over a year and no one checked them; and inquired, when they first started the abatement program, was it checked every year; with Mr. Lugar responding it is checked every year. Ms. Polk inquired why some of them were so long being brought before the Board; with Mr. Lugar responding there were companies that made improvements and increase employment base in the initial years; they verify those with annual reports; and they had employment numbers that were equal to what they put on their application; so they were eligible to receive that abatement for that year. He stated subsequent years their numbers went down below the required ten jobs; and that is when they brought it back to the Board and those abatements were rescinded. Ms. Polk stated she guesses she needs more paperwork. Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Lugar work with Ms. Polk; with Mr. Lugar responding he will be happy to do that.

Commissioner Carlson stated in the new language in the last sentence inserted, “projects which clearly do not require inducement would not be approved”; and inquired how is require inducement defined; with Mr. Lugar responding the objective is to ensure the company makes an application to the County prior to making an initial step to locate or expand in Brevard County; and those incidences would be executing a lease for a facility, purchasing property or facility to locate into, pulling building permits on existing land they may own, or making public announcements to the effect they are coming to Brevard County. He stated those are very similar if not the same incidences that the State utilizes for its QTI Program, Transportation Road Fund Program, and several other State incentive programs. He stated the inducement that Brevard County is saying has to be reserved is that they must have made application to the County prior to those incidences occurring. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the sentence that starts out, “Any business decision, such as announcements, etc.” and the following sentence are required. She stated the first sentence says, “may constitute grounds for disapproval”; then to clarify it says, “projects which clearly do not require inducement will not be approved.” Mr. Lugar stated that is similar language taken from the QTI application package. Commissioner Carlson stated the second sentence starting with, “Any business seeking an exemption. . .” at the end of it needs “business” which was left out.

Commissioner Higgs stated inserting the language makes it more likely the ordinance will be used to actually induce businesses and not just give a benefit; it will require that they not have made decisions to move or expand prior to actually getting an abatement; so it is good language and consistent with the State.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance amending the Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Ordinance as codified in Section 102-185 through Section 102-192 of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Section 102-186 to require businesses file an application with the County before the business has made the decision to locate or expand in the County; providing incidences for making a decision to locate or expand in the County; providing for ratification; providing for severability; providing for an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR VACATION ISLAND PLAYGROUND

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to development standards for Vacation Island Playground.

James Cherven of Satellite Beach and Grant VIP Island, stated he would like to revisit the previous Board meeting where he understands the Board approved rezoning or rewriting of the rules for VIP Island, where it would permit permanent residences and make it single-family residences with square footage based on lot size or something to that effect. He stated he believes the Board approved it and sent it to the Zoning Board to rewrite the standards; and inquired if that is correct.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the Local Planning Agency reviewed the ordinance as directed by the Board.

Mr. Cherven stated that is what he thought; he attended that meeting, and also went to the Zoning Board meeting that was advertised; and the reason he is here is that he has a particular problem. He stated the Zoning Board addressed a whole bunch of issues, but he did not hear the one he is going to talk about brought up; and the reason he did not ask to speak at that meeting was because one of the residents at VIP, Mr. Priest, sent a letter to the Zoning Board addressing the issue of the size of accessory buildings. He stated since it is going to be single-family residences, he would request they also include Article VI, Sections 62-1101 and 62-2100.5 on accessory buildings. He stated it states that for single-family dwellings, if they have a lot of 7,500 square feet or less, they can have up to 600 square feet for an accessory building; and it also states that the accessory building can be half the size of the principal dwelling with the maximum being 600 square feet. Mr. Cherven stated the reason he is bringing it up is because he has a couple of sail boats and has already lost sails because he has to bundle them up and put them in a small area; and insects get to them and eat them, so he would need about 250 square feet to store them. He stated he owns a home on VIP and several lots; after he retired from the Space Center, he and his wife lived there for about six years; they are back in Satellite Beach now, but are going back to the Island; and he keeps his boats there. He stated a 1,200 square foot home on a tract lot with a single car garage of 30’x12’ is quite a bit of square footage; so he would like to be considered for the same space to store his junk and sails in a similar manner that most folks have.

Commissioner Higgs requested staff explain the issue of accessory buildings and what is provided. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised currently the Code permits that an accessory building shall be limited to private docks, utility sheds, and screened porches, and the utility shed shall not exceed 100 square feet; so what Mr. Cherven is requesting is that the utility shed have a larger maximum size. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Zoning Board recommended they be able to pour a concrete foundation for the accessory building; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Commissioner Higgs stated staff has done a good job trying to balance the uniqueness of VIP Island and what has gone on out there; they have been through years trying to come up with a solution; this is the first time she has head this issue; but the uniqueness of the island in the middle of the river precludes her being able to support large accessory buildings. She stated the recommendation of the P&Z Board on top of those staff drafted are reasonable and accommodating of what is going on; and she can support that, but that is as far as she can go. She stated she does not think they need any more development, so she will support the P&Z Board’s recommendation and what is in the ordinance.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance specifically amending Chapter 62, Article XIV, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; specifically amending Section 62-4811, Land Use and Development Standards; specifically amending Section 62-4812, Drainage; providing for severability; providing for codification and renumbering; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for area encompassed; and providing for effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

STAFF REPORT, RE: REGIONAL OFFSITE MITIGATION AREAS (ROMA)

County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if the Board would like to hear from staff before or after hearing the public comments; with Chairperson Colon responding before.

Natural Resources Management Director Conrad White advised Regional Offsite Mitigation Areas (ROMA) is a very complicated issue; staff first discussed it in March of last year; and the Board directed staff to come back with a full report in September. He stated after further discussion, the Board wished to see further analysis of ROMA to see whether or not there is a market available, what would be the expected outcomes, are there local and State partners available, and what the options are for restricting mitigation to put it more closely around the impacted site. He stated staff has done its analysis and that is the report before the Board; he has asked George Platt with Florida Wetlands Bank based in Broward County, to respond to some of the questions the Board might have; they started the first mitigation bank in the State; and he has vast experience in that, much more than staff does.

George Platt with Florida Wetlands Bank advised two of the cards are for him and the Vice President Desmond Duke; and he would defer to staff if the Board prefers. He stated staff has provided an in-depth report; if the Board has questions, he will be happy to address those; he brought a video, but will skip it and make it available to the Board to look at the testimonial to the public/private venture they did; and the first mitigation bank in the State was with the City of Pembroke Pines on 458 acres. He noted it is a good video as a sort of primer on mitigation banking; and he will leave some documentation that will give the Board some additional ideas on ROMA’s and mitigation banking as it consider the opportunity.

Mary Sphar of Cocoa, representing the Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group, advised staff’s report on ROMA’s makes it clear that a regional offsite mitigation area could be helpful to owners of single-family lots platted before September 9, 1988; and it could provide the County with a coordinated and effective wetland mitigation project that would reduce the County’s loss of wetland functions. She stated the Sierra Club will await the Board’s decision on the details before commenting further on ROMA and making final judgment on any proposed County ROMA initiative; however, the report presents other options besides a ROMA to prevent wetland loss; and she will comment on Options 2 and 3. She stated Option 2, requesting delegation of the State’s Environmental Resource Program (ERP) to Brevard County is a very interesting idea that needs to be explored further because of its potential to protect wetlands and their functional values; it is not a new idea for the Board to consider; and it was advocated by Commissioner Higgs at the April 18, 1995 Board meeting. She stated when the Board considers all the wetland loss that has occurred in Brevard County since that time and reevaluates some of the permitting and mitigation decisions that have been made by the St. Johns River Water Management District it can reasonably ask whether the County staff could do a better job of preserving the functions of wetlands. She stated one reason the County might do better is that staff can implement out County’s land use and density policies for wetlands at the same time as it enforces the State’s permitting requirements; and the Sierra Club would like the Board to request a feasibility study on delegation of ERP to Brevard County. Ms. Sphar advised Option 3 is change Brevard County Policy 5.3 of the Comprehensive Plan on wetland permitting; she discussed with staff on how Policy 5.3 affects the residential Policy 5.2.e.1., part of which states that lots platted in the future should have sufficient uplands for the intended use and for a buffer to preserve wetland functions; and there are differences of opinion on how the two Comprehensive Plan policies should be interacting. She stated changing Policy 5.3 as stated in the report is an excellent idea because it would clear up all ambiguity and it would allow the County to enforce the residential wetlands Policy 5.2.e.1 as it is currently written. She stated one action the Sierra Club strongly supports is Option 3, change Policy 5.3 on wetland permitting; it is something that could go forward now independent of any further feedback needed on ROMA or ERP; and requested the Board consider taking the next step toward advertising that language and to request a feasibility study on the delegation of the ERP to the County.

Kim Zarillo advised she has a few items she would like to comment on in the Agenda Report; in general it is a positive move for protection of wetlands as well as facilitating assistance to the single-family owner and the protection of the public good the wetlands provide; but she would like to see cooperation with the cities where and whenever possible as part of the ROMA. She stated she would also like to see, as a representative of the Florida Native Plant Society, the settlement of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the wetland changes; and she would also like to see changes to Policy 5.3 implemented in the next possible cycle. She stated she would not agree with adding sliding scales to the Comprehensive Plan; they do not belong in the Comprehensive Plan but more in an ordinance; and as they learn more about wetlands, they need the flexibility to change. Ms. Zarillo stated some past projects have turned out very well; to set those ratios in the Comprehensive Plan rather than in an ordinance that can be amended with new data and methodology, is important to consider; and forming an agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on the ERP would also facilitate better protection of wetlands as well as assisting single-family homeowners that are trying to build and do not have the wherewithal that developers normally do in construction.

Commissioner Carlson stated she was thoroughly briefed by staff, but has some questions; there was a question regarding partial credits on existing mitigation banks that could possibly be used for the small sites; and requested staff explain it. Mr. White advised he sent the Board an email yesterday; they have talked with two mitigation banks located in Brevard County, the Mary-A Ranch in South Brevard and Farmton mitigation bank in North Brevard; they each sell credits or partial credits down to a tenth of a credit; and that would be about $2,000. He stated that would be an option for the single-family homeowner to purchase a tenth of a credit. Commissioner Carlson requested staff explain what partial delegation of the ERP program would be; with Mr. White responding he will defer to Sherry Williams.

Sherry Williams advised the Florida Administrative Code and Florida Statutes allow delegation of the ERP program to regional and local governments; and that delegation can be assumption of the entire permitting program or portions thereof. She stated if the County just wanted to pursue the wetlands permitting portion, it could do that; if it wanted to pursue the entire program, it could also do that; and that mechanism is in place. She stated Department of Environmental Protection has delegation agreements with several governments in the State, most recent is Broward County, which was done in 2001; and there are also Agreements with the City of Tallahassee and Miami-Dade County. She noted they are also in the process of negotiating agreements with two other governments in the State; Broward County was a partial for the most part; she is not certain about Miami-Dade County; and she has not read the agreement with the City of Tallahassee.

Commissioner Carlson stated the question she comes up with is putting together the right mix of things that are going to help protect the wetlands the most at the least cost, both to the wetlands and the public; and inquired if they could do partial credit to alleviate the issue with the small lot size, and does it need to utilize the partial delegation of the ERP program and also have that Option 3 change in the Comprehensive Plan to really affect what they want to affect in terms of wetlands.

Mr. White stated doing Option 3 would give the Board much more control over what is essentially a local issue; the ERP would allow the Board to issue permits throughout the County for wetland impacts; presently there are two agencies that do it; and County staff has in some cases a lot more knowledge than some of the regional staff does. He stated the partial credit issue is met partially through the Mary-A Ranch and the Farmton mitigation banks; and the changes to the Comprehensive Plan are necessary if the Board decides to go forward with the ERP; so it could adopt ordinances or regulations that are at the State level. He stated without the change to the Comprehensive Plan, they are still restricted, once a permit is issued by Department of Environmental Protection or the District, from looking at any additional wetland impacts, except for density issues.

Commissioner Higgs stated it is her understanding that subsequent to staff doing the report, there has been some interest expressed from possibly partners in a ROMA that would help bring the cost per acre down; and maybe Mr. Peffer can speak to that. Mr. White stated Mr. Platt would be best to answer that since they have a partner with Broward County or the City of Pembroke Pines.

Mr. Platt stated he will give his overview of the issues. He stated he has spent a fair amount of time in Brevard County over the years, usually as a member of the State Board of Community Colleges; they were coming here for meetings; but he also has known staff members and Mr. Jenkins was his Deputy County Manager when he was a County Commissioner in Broward County. He stated he enjoyed sitting through the dog park discussion, and his creative juices started to run on whether or not they could do a mitigation bank that also had a dog park on it; and they might be able to put that together. He stated Florida Wetlands Bank came up to Brevard County about six years ago and talked to Mr. Jenkins and Mr. White; and they spent a lot of time looking at sites because they knew that if the Board really believed in and lived by no net loss of wetlands, it could do postage stamp mitigation, but it cannot keep permitting without insuring the wetlands are protected. He stated many of the wetlands that are being developed here and across the State are not pristine wetlands; pristine wetlands generally are not going to be developed; but it is the lands that are the farms and ranches and some of the areas that have been ditched, diked, and drained that historically were wetlands and have been under agricultural use that are now basically going to be developed in some fashion over time. Mr. Platt stated he is not an expert on Comprehensive Plans, but if development is going to come and the Board cares about wetlands protection, then it has to put a series of wetlands policies in place that are going to insure the development meets the no-net loss. He stated the County should also go through sequencing, try to minimize any impacts, avoid impacts wherever it can, but when the regulators, be it the County, Army Corps of Engineers, or St. Johns River Water Management District, say they are going to allow development, but they will have to mitigate, then the Board wants the mitigation to be optimally the best mitigation it can get, preferably within reasonable proximity of the property that is impacting the wetlands, meaning in Brevard County rather than some far-flung county, even though it may be in the same watershed. He stated if it is the Board’s preference to keep the mitigation at home whenever it can, that is a political issue. Mr. Platt stated in 1991 they came up with the concept of a mitigation bank before there were any in Florida; they developed a business model in their spare time with an engineering firm and his law firm, and ultimately decided they needed a piece of property; and they found the property in the City of Pembroke Pines. He stated at the time Hurricane Andrew had not come yet, and all the people had not migrated north to Broward County from Dade County; but they had a lot of land in a floodplain that was really historically all wetlands covered with Brazilian pepper and Melaleuca trees. He stated they went to them and asked to take 350 acres of the 500 acres and make it into a pristine wetlands preserve with 11 habitats; and they would design it and permit it and create a mitigation bank, sell credits and make a lot of money, create a long-term trust fund, and ultimately they would be long-term stewards after they finished their five years of monitoring and complete the project. He stated it is completed now although they continue to add lands; they bought another 116 acres and added to it; it was the first permitted mitigation bank in the State before a statute, State regulations, federal regulatory guidelines, letter, or anything else; and it became a template for what was being done. He stated as mitigation bankers and builders and maintainers of ROMA’s, they cannot afford for this young industry to suffer a black eye, meaning they cannot afford to have somebody fail or have somebody go out and try to do some kind of a scam; it has to be done right; and the regulation is important. He stated the State has done a good job of regulating mitigation banks; there are a number of mitigation banks whose service areas touch Brevard County; but they do not have any fully permitted in Brevard County. He stated there is one going through the process and has its St. Johns River Water Management District permit, but he does not believe as yet it has gotten its Army Corps permit, and that is the Mary-A Ranch, which is a large mitigation bank. He stated Pembroke Pines turned out well; they got about $3.5 million cash off the sale of the credits; they got about $10.5 million worth of fully restored preserve of physical work that was done; all the permitting was done on their dime and they are getting about a $650,000 trust fund that they will use to perpetually manage the site. He stated if the sites are built right, they do not require a lot of maintenance because basically it is restoring it to its pristine condition; it is mostly a case of making sure exotics do not re-invade it, whether it is cattails or Brazilian peppers or whatever the case may be; but it turned out to be a win/win situation for Pembroke Pines and they did not front any money. He stated they were fortunate, unlike Brevard; although the County may have some properties that may be suitable for ROMA’s, in their situation, they had gotten that 500 acres as a donation in the days when they could meet their mitigation by donating lands; but obviously the problem with donating land is it is a net loss of wetlands because if it is wetlands and they are donating it, it still has to be restored and the County would sell credits in order to permit the restoration; so there is a net loss of wetlands, but that is not done anymore. He stated it was done under a DRI many years ago; that is more or less history; they have gone on; and they currently are doing a 2,778-acre mitigation bank in Collier County in a joint venture with the Baron Collier Companies. He stated it is contiguous to the National Audubon Society Corkscrew Sanctuary, which is over 12,000 acres; so collectively they will be up close to 15,000 acres when they are completed in that particular project. He stated they worked closely with the Audubon Society and a number of other environmental organizations who want to see the larger blocks of wetlands put together rather than the little postage stamp ones that sometimes, oftentimes, according to a State Department of Environmental Protection study back in the late 1980’s, they simply failed because there was no one to watch them or maintain them. He noted the homeowners associations would spray the wetland plants thinking they were weeds. Mr. Platt stated they are also in the process of working with the City of Plantation in Broward County; it is interesting because that is a project that is not unlike what the Board is talking about here with single-family homeowners; they have an area of one-acre estates called Plantation Acres; some of them have been built on and some have not; but it is very low-lying land and every time somebody wants to build, they have to put in a pad in order to meet flood requirements and they are impacting wetlands as they do that. He stated for each one to go through a highly cumbersome wetland permitting process is extremely difficult; so what the City did is took land another piece of land that they had and identified that they wanted to restore the land as a water park; that was essentially a preserve; that they would take the credits that they would get from restoring that and allow them to be basically banked to be utilized by homeowners as they come in for their permits; and the City was going to work with them in order to facilitate that. He stated the Board is talking about 902 acres and 209 credits; the Pembroke Pines mitigation bank met public need on many public projects; they were able to offer a reduced price to the City for mitigation needs that they had; they built a passive park with an interpretive center adjacent to it with a boardwalk; and while it did not invade the whole property, they had canoe trails and there is a conservation easement that would go over any of those areas so that it can be used for canoeing, birding, passive recreation, and sometimes fishing, but rarely hunting. He noted sometimes if the property is large enough, they could allow hunting on it as well. Mr. Platt stated they congratulate the Board because it sounds as if it is serious about the no net loss of wetlands and about looking at that second public benefit, which is to look at the needs of the single-family homeowners. He stated in the case of Panther Island mitigation bank in Collier County, what they did there was enter into a contract with the county to be able to provide them with a block of credits at a reduced price; another option if the Board decides to do it, is that; the feasibility study that is being discussed is important because there are a number of questions that need to be answered; and ultimately they can only be answered if the Board identifies the specific pieces of property that would be potentially suitable for either a ROMA or a mitigation bank. He stated ROMA is a regional offsite mitigation area that would be undertaken by a government basically to meet its needs or identified needs, in this case single-family homeowners, and could be single-family homeowners and some public works projects; and if the Board wanted to, it could combine those as well. He stated a mitigation bank is broader in that it has an unlimited market out there; it can sell to any customers that come along; and one thing he would ask the Board to look at in its feasibility study is not only how it could relate to the mitigation banks that are already serving the area or those that might be coming online, but whether or not it makes sense to consider a new mitigation bank that would use the sale of private credits for private development to buy down the price of the single-family homeowner credits in order to basically subsidize those so instead of being $17,000 per credit that is in the backup material, which is probably a fair and reasonable estimate of what it costs today for a full credit, the Board might be able to figure out a way to get that price down to $10,000 or $8,000 by virtue of pricing. He stated the study needs to look at what the market is because the Board cannot price the credits outside of the marketplace. He stated those are just a few ideas of what they have looked at and their experience; they worked as far north as St. Lucie County where they built their mosquito impoundment areas after the last hurricane; and they have done work in about 11 counties in the state. He stated they have not had an opportunity to work in Brevard County; and they welcome the opportunity in some form to work with the Board because they think it is doing what they do.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Board heard about the partnerships; it is her understanding that there may be an opportunity to partner with municipalities, perhaps even other agencies; so partnerships between different governmental entities could make it happen. She inquired if it is staff’s understanding there has evolved those opportunities; with Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer responding the short answer is yes, but he is not going to let the Board get away with the short answer because for the Board’s benefit, he needs to elaborate on it. He stated he first became involved with this issue in a meeting in Commissioner Higgs’ office with Bill Kerr; Mr. Kerr wanted to be here today but had to appear as an expert witness; and Mr. Kerr called him yesterday and mentioned that he was aware of a potential opportunity to work with one of the cities and look at some of their mitigation needs, which perhaps do not involve wetlands, but acquisitions that could include wetlands that the County could share and potentially use in terms of a ROMA type of approach. He stated one of the issues that they would need to look at, as Mr. Platt suggested, is that simply buying wetlands is not sufficient to get credits; typically they are in a situation today where they need to look at improving a wetland if it is going to be used as mitigation; and simply buying it and preserving it does not allow for a trade off to result in a not net loss. He stated unless the County can make something better, it cannot compensate for using it somewhere else; so they do not have any idea whether that potential exist with the municipalities or anything else, as it requires additional study and additional look to know if they can get there.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of his concerns is the County has made it very difficult for people to develop a single residential homesite; they cannot find property to mitigate; and they have created the mitigation issue and it is making it very difficult. He stated an email from Conrad White sent yesterday talks about the Mary-A Ranch and Farmton, minimum purchase price is $2,000 for a tenth of a credit; and inquired what is a relationship with a credit and the development of a half-acre residential homesite that might require some litigation. He inquired how many tenths of credits do they need and is that going to price people out of the home-building market.

Virginia Barker advised if the permit is issued by Department of Environmental Protection or the St. Johns River Water Management District, then they have their whole system for determining how many credits they would need for a particular impact; and it depends on what sort of wetland they are impacting and where they are mitigating. She stated if the State is not involved and it is a single-family home and only the County is involved, then the ratio is a two to one acreage ratio; and to try and draw that similarity for the Mary-A Ranch operating at the south end of the County, $13,000 for a tenth of a credit basically covers 16 acres, which is 7,000 square feet of mitigation, which would mean that the impact and the ratio is two to one so the impact on the single-family lot that a person could have and cover with a tenth of a credit would be 3,500 square feet. She stated for a house pad and driveway, they should pretty well be able to cover that with 3,500 square feet; so one-tenth of a credit is what they would need and that would cost $2,000.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired 3,500 square feet would be a pad of what size and could accommodate what size square-foot house; with Sherry Williams responding a typical impact associated with a single-family home not only includes the building pad and driveway, but a septic tank and drainfield; the Wetland Protection Ordinance allows for filling for residential purposes to include that; so they are really talking about a typical small single-family lot that may be 60 or 70 feet wide and 80 to 100 feet deep. She stated they end up using most of that just to accommodate the lot drainage that may be required and the septic tank and drainfield in addition to the building pad and driveway. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how would it relate in terms of tenths of credits for a half-acre parcel to build a 3,000 square-foot house and have a driveway. He stated the driveway is typically 80 feet long; and inquired what are they talking about in tenths for a configuration like that and if they put sod in does that also impact wetlands. Ms. Williams advised it very well could. She stated it can be very site specific; most of what they have been seeing are some of the small lots like in Port St. John, some of the older platted lots where Department of Environmental Protection does permit single-family development; and they just may not require mitigation. She stated for mitigation of wetland impacts of five or six thousand square feet, a lot of times they do not even require mitigation and therefore the County steps in at that point and say they need to compensate for that and the County’s ratio is two to one and requirements of 10,000 to 12,000 square feet. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how does that relate to the tenth of a credit and dollar value; with Ms. Barker responding 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of mitigation require one and a half to two tenths of a credit at Mary-A Ranch; it would depend on the particular mitigation bank and how many credits that are permitted to sell; so they have to go bank by bank to come up with the calculation, but staff did it on one bank.

Mr. Platt stated he will give the Board an alternative should it decide to do it; and it is part of what the feasibility study has to look at; the Board could determine that it is in the best interest of the County to promote the offsite mitigation option or ROMA option; it could acquire land or take land that it already owns; there are some lands on the study of a few hundred acres that the County already owns; and it could determine that there is a public benefit to restore that land into a pristine wetland with habitats and new plantings and so forth. He stated the Board could pass the soft cost and actual restoration work onto the homeowner in a pro-rata form of a percentage of a credit, whatever it might turn out to be. He stated because the County already owns the land and does not want to charge the homeowner for the land's cost, it would want to charge them for the cost of the actual restoration. He stated in that case, the County’s credits are going to be cheaper than going to a private mitigation banker that had to go out and acquire land in order to do its mitigation bank; so that would be a way of trying to come up with a better price from a homeowner’s standpoint.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is trying to tie the credits into a dollar value and guess his estimate would be $5,000 to $10,000 to develop a single-family home on a half-acre lot. Ms. Barker stated if Ms. Williams numbers of 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of mitigation is needed, that if they were mitigating at the Mary-A Ranch, they would need two-tenths of a credit, which would cost $4,000. Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the sod and what ever remains, not just the house pad and driveway; with Ms. Williams responding a typical 5,000 to 6,000 square-foot impact would include the pad and surrounding area, and somewhat of a lawn to associate with that. She stated they have to go through the avoidance of impact first and minimize that; but it does allow them to build a home. She stated it does not allow them to clear whatever they want, but enough to get the house, septic tank, and driveway with some associated lawn. She stated they try to keep impacts to a minimum; it is very site specific; and a typical lot in Port St. John may have 10,000 to 12,000 square-foot mitigation need just to build a home and 5,000 square-foot impact. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is talking about a much larger parcel than that; he is talking about a half-acre parcel with a 3,000 square-foot footprint for a house and garage and perhaps an 80-foot driveway and the corresponding landscaping and sod, which is not going to be native and is going to be St. Augustine. Ms. Williams stated the septic tank and drainfield will depend on how many bathrooms are in the house. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is what he is trying to get a figure for, not a smaller development, which is what is found in subdivisions. He stated some of the properties out west are quite large; some are one, two, or five-acre tracts; and he is trying to get a handle on what it would cost to develop something of that size.

Commissioner Higgs stated that is permitted under Department of Environmental Protection because it is more than half an acre, so it is not a County permitting issue; and inquired if the County is only involved in much smaller lots; with Ms. Williams responding no, Department of Environmental Protection permits single-family residential development and so does the County through the one-stop permitting process. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Department of Environmental Protection requires mitigation on the larger parcels; with Ms. Williams responding on the larger wetland impacts and not necessarily the size of the parcel. She stated someone may have a small lot but larger impact or a big lot and little impact, depending on how much upland he has; and for wetland impacts of 5,000 or 6,000 square feet or less, the Department of Environmental Protection has not been requiring mitigation. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the County requires mitigation; with Ms. Williams responding they have and owe it in part to the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Peffer advised the County’s policy is to defer to the permitting agencies when mitigation is required, so as long as a Department of Environmental Protection permit is required, which brings mitigation into the picture, they do not impose additional requirements; however, in certain circumstances, where Department of Environmental Protection has not permitted and required mitigation, if there are wetland impacts, the County does require mitigation at the ratio of two-to-one. He stated it gets a little confusing because on one hand they are talking about agencies who trade off credits and on the other hand on the smaller impacts where only the County is involved, they are talking about two-to-one, which is generally acres; and that is what Ms. Barker was explaining earlier. He stated it does make it a little bit difficult to grasp what is happening, but the threshold is whether the State requires mitigation, and if so, the County’s practice has always been to defer to the State permitting and mitigation requirements.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it appears the ROMA is the way for the average homeowner to obtain a piece they can use as mitigation, but he still does not have a grasp for his alleged half-acre and 3,000 square-foot cost with the ROMA and wants to add to that. He stated a sliding scale was mentioned that would be the effect of whatever type of land they wish to build upon, whether it was Class 1, 2, or 3, or whatever type of wetlands; and inquired is that the sliding scale being referred to; with Mr. White responding no, one of the options they had originally put in the report is if they needed mitigation, they had to go farther outside the watershed or the sub-watershed they were in, such that if they were within two miles, the ratio would be two-to-one. He stated if they went ten miles, then the ratio would be five-to-one; so the farther away they got from the impacted site, the idea was to increase the number of credits that would be necessary. He stated State legislation will come into play in February 2004, and may make that particular option not viable. Commissioner Pritchard stated a 10th of a credit at $2,500 is a $25,000 lot; and inquired how does staff calculate the amount of money needed to be spent to determine that a tenth of a credit is $2,500 to restore the property that is part of the bank.

Mr. Platt advised the pricing of credits, at least in their case, has always been in direct relationship to design costs, permitting costs, financing costs, construction costs, construction meaning restoration of the land, and long-term monitoring and maintenance costs because once the land is restored, the County has to maintain and monitor it for five years. He stated then there is long-term trust fund contribution, which is required statutorily; and all that is added up, including marketing costs and land costs. He stated if it adds up to $100 an acre, the County would want to make a profit on top of that and would sell it for $120 a credit; and he used simple numbers, that is the bottom line. He stated it is any product that is fungible; and it is a question of whether or not the County wants to do a for-profit business like they did in the case of Pembroke Pines where they made money, but then they turned around and gave a portion of the profits back to the City, or whether it just wants to break even. He stated the cost of the credit or percentage of the credit all comes down to the County’s cost; if it decides it wants to subsidize that cost by not counting the land in pricing the credit, then that is a policy decision and there is no prohibition. Mr. Platt stated there is full cost accounting requirement in the Florida Statutes; there are, as they have discovered with the South Florida Management District, lots of ways around it; so if the Board does not want to go through full cost accounting, it basically hires a company to do the ROMA for it and they sell the credits and that is a way around the full cost accounting. He stated the full cost accounting was put in to avoid unfair competition with private sector mitigation banks.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are a lot of options; when he was briefed they got into a lot of things, such as who buys the land, what land, and innumerable issues; and the question is if it is well worth the Board’s time to proceed further with it. He stated he would like to keep as many options open as possible; and what type of motion would the Chair like at this time would be his question.

Chairperson Colon advised she wants the Board to make sure that any motion that takes place is not major for the simple fact that when she was looking through it and going through the briefings in the office, one of the things it entails is in regard to the participation of municipalities, and even here it would address about 1,200 parcels just within the City of Palm Bay; and also the kind of cost that it would be. She stated if the Board wants to get more in that direction, there is nothing wrong with that. Commissioner Scarborough stated he agrees, but with that in mind, how is the matter moved forward; with Commissioner Higgs recommending the Board direct staff to continue discussions with appropriate agencies and potential partners within the County, municipalities, and agencies, and see if there are those opportunities for partnerships. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that would take the course of a feasibility study, what would staff suggest if the Board wanted to get that information and those numbers; and is it best done through a feasibility study; with Mr. White responding if the Board wants to move forward, staff would like to have direction on whether they should go to the cities just by themselves or explore private partner type of arrangements; and when would the Board like staff to come back with that information.

Commissioner Higgs stated staff could pursue other governmental agencies first and see what opportunities are there, talk with the cities who may be impacted and have opportunities for mitigation, and see if St. Johns River Water Management District and Department of Environmental Protection have additional insights to give to the County; and if that goes forward, come back in 30 days with a report. She stated staff could see if there is feasibility within the governmental arena to move forward. Commissioner Carlson stated in terms of the options staff provided, the first one is to partner with a municipality. Commissioner Higgs stated staff can see if there is something there that they can work with other partners. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board wants subsequent motions; with Commissioner Higgs responding she wants to talk about the Comprehensive Plan and zoning issue.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize staff to look at possible partnerships with municipalities and other public agencies for offsite mitigation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when he was briefed by staff, they were very frustrated with Brevard Crossings and the way mitigation occurred with going to the Tosahatchee operational budget as opposed to acquisition of new lands; and one of the things that would be advantageous, if the Board does this, is to look at optimizing what it views as property. He stated that is a subject that can be very complex; they have used the Nature Conservancy in the acquisition of EEL’s properties; so using partners, even in the acquisition concept, he sees other ideas of different manners in which the partnerships can take place within Brevard County. He stated he and Mr. White also talked about means where the County could front the funding; and apparently they would allow the County to go into it blind and sell credits before it even has the property, which is reckless. He stated the idea would be to get a further report back on the different relationships because the Board would want to optimize everything on the table, whether it would be the property, relationships, how it is operated, etc., and have the ability to create everything the way it would want it to be as opposed to having it imposed from above or outside. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not trying to put any agency down; it always occurs to the greatest benefit of the greatest number of people; and the Board needs to try a little bit better and set an example if it is going this route.

Chairperson Colon stated she understands how this came about in regards to Brevard Crossings and being concerned of the fact that they went outside for mitigation; what she is concerned about is using County land that the taxpayers have already paid for in order to mitigate and build their home; and it feels like double taxation to her. Commissioner Scarborough stated it sounds like the Tosahatchee that already existed and the money went to it; and he is more inclined to want to go to new prime acquisitions because it would set a mark that it is out there doing something. He stated for those who do not remember the Tosahatchee issue, it is preserving the other side of the St. Johns River that the State already owned; and the St. Johns was essentially taking money from other mitigations and improving the property. He stated not that improving the property is not important, but if there is a loss, they should be compensating the loss; and that is where the Board felt robbed. He stated he would not want to do a Tosahatchee to the community and agree with Chairperson Colon on that issue.

Chairperson Colon inquired what other motions would the Board want to consider. She stated the motion was to continue discussions. Commissioner Higgs stated they need to know if there are any partners. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board goes that route, is it basically saying yes it wants to go out and see if there are more partners, public agencies that want to get together, and once it sees if there is anyone who wants to partner with the County, then is the issue of mitigation bank, creation of or utilization of other mitigation bank going to come into play; with Mr. White responding they would have to identify lands that would be appropriate for a County ROMA. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is premature to talk about a County mitigation bank versus using another mitigation bank; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Board is talking about being partners with other governmental entities in either a mitigation bank or ROMA. Commissioner Carlson stated a ROMA and mitigation bank go hand in hand, and either the County uses one that is existing or create its own. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to get involved in one that already exists so the people can go to those today; and Commissioner Carlson agreed. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is talking about a bank or ROMA that would be of benefit to the citizens of Brevard County or the governments of Brevard County and being a partner with them.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to see the Board set its standards high and where it mitigates is a place that the greater community views as something of value in the mitigation, that it becomes more than a mathematical formula, but something that is wise. He inquired if Commissioner Higgs is talking about going with existing property; with Commissioner Higgs responding she is not talking about that. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to make sure that the Board is setting high standards and making sure that when it goes into the mitigation, it is in fact preserving properties that are deserving of being preserved and that it is occurring as part of the County’s process.

Chairperson Colon thanked Mr. Platt and Mr. Duke for coming to speak to the Board from Fort Lauderdale.

Commissioner Carlson stated to make sure that she is clear as far as the other options, to make sure that the Board gives staff all the direction they need, is it going to do anything with pursuing the possibility of the ERP or is it going to wait on that and also Policy 5.3. Commissioner Higgs stated no, she is ready to do that. Commissioner Carlson stated she did not know if Chairperson Colon was moving it on and just wanted to make sure. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to go ahead in regard to Option 3 and amend the Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.3, and then Option 4, amend the Code to be consistent with what it has done in Option 3.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to request delegation of the State’s Environmental Resource Program (ERP) to Brevard County, and move forward with changes to Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.3 on wetland permitting to allow additional local evaluation.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board should wait until staff returns with more information before it starts changing the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Higgs stated Options 3 and 4 in the Comprehensive Plan are separate issues from the mitigation bank; and the mitigation bank or ROMA are totally separate from what the Board is doing in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. White advised Option 4 included that concentric ring expansion from the impacted site; and based on the State legislation that is coming forward, he thinks that is going to work for Brevard County; however, Option 3 is the change to the Comprehensive Plan so that they can look at wetlands even though the projects might be permitted by the St. Johns River Water Management District or Department of Environmental Protection. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the mitigation ratios that are in the Code is going to be precluded by the new law; with Ms. Williams responding yes.

Commissioner Higgs amended the motion to delete Option 3 and move on with Option 4, the Comprehensive Plan amendment; and Commissioner Carlson accepted the amendment.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the motion is to change the Comprehensive Plan; with Commissioner Higgs responding she is moving to move forward in a public hearing to consider an amendment to Policy 5.3 that is listed on page 10 of the package as Option 3. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board cannot change the Comprehensive Plan today, it just opens the door to start the process.

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

Commissioner Higgs stated in regard to the ERP, the Board should investigate further what the values are of changing and perhaps either some portion of the ERP be delegated to Brevard County and have staff further expand on that issue.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize staff to investigate the values of delegating ERP to Brevard County and report back to the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT, RE: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RECYCLING
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Bette Danse advised she resides in District 1; thanked Commissioner Scarborough for allowing her to represent District 1 on the Recycling Citizen Advisory Committee; stated it has been an honor to serve as chair of the committee; and they have been given a sunset of August 31, 2003 so this is their final report. She thanked each Commissioner for the opportunity to serve this beautiful County; stated the report before the Board lists names of city and County employees and presenters who assisted greatly in the committee’s study of the current practices used in recycling in Brevard County; and her special appreciation goes to Euri Rodriguez, Steve Peffer, Pam Shoemaker, and Solid Waste Department staff Mary and Mandy for their guidance and help and getting things done in a pinch, which happened quite often. She thanked the District volunteers who gave up many hours of their time traveling to and from and attending meetings every two weeks for the past five months; and thanked the citizens who attended the meetings. She stated they value their concerns and wish to impress upon the Board and everyone watching that the recycling committee has worked long and hard to come up with the sixteen recommendations, and it is their request that the recommendations be approved today. Ms. Danse stated it is her understanding that the Board had the report with the recommendations since August 15, 2003 and that the Solid Waste Management Director has briefed each Commissioner. She stated the County has waited long enough for action; it needs action now; people driving along the causeways and roadways, walking along the beaches and parks, or taking boats out into the waterways, they will see plenty evidence of recyclable bottles, cans, paper, and plastic thrown every where as garbage; and what is even worst is that marine animals are injured or killed when they ingest those objects thinking they are food. She stated fish have been found with as much as ten ounces of plastic in them; dolphins and manatees have eaten things like cigarette lighters with butane in them and cell phones; and inquired why are people in beautiful Brevard County throwing those items into the water and how does the County educate them and help them recycle in a convenient way, not just throwing them over the boat or out of the car. She inquired how difficult is it really to put cans and plastic and glass bottles into recycling bins or take the items home to recycle if they are out and about, or take paper and cardboard to the local recycling businesses that are listed in the yellow pages. She noted several of them attended their meetings and were wonderful with their presentations. Ms. Danse stated once recycling is a habit, people will find they do not want to throw the can or bottle into the garbage; it makes it difficult for children who hear about recycling in school to go to the lunch room and have no place to throw their recyclables; and if people recycle well, they will find they have very little garbage to put out. She noted some people told her they put out their garbage once a month because they recycle so well. She stated Brevard County needs a dramatic change in the attitudes and behaviors of its residents, tourists, and public institutions; and maybe if money is to be paid or saved people will listen; those people who recycle regardless of gain are the ones who truly get it; and the bottom line for those people is if they recycle instead of throw away, they save money plain and simple, their money and the County’s money. She stated people should care about the county they live in; Brevard County is a beautiful place; it is one of the top counties in the State; there are more people coming to this County than anywhere else; and most of the people in the last study from Connecticut and Massachusetts are coming here in droves. She stated Brevard County has gone from 50,000 people in the 1950’s to almost 500,000 people today; they talked about “mount trashmore” before, well, the whole County will be mount trashmore if the County does not do something soon. She stated the landfill needs to be saved as long as possible; think about all the tons of solid waste being generated month after month; the shredder has been inoperable at the landfill for a long time; it is simply not doing its job; and it needs to be taken out and a reuse and recycle center put in its place because it is a perfect place for it. She stated before finalizing the recommendations with the committee, she asked Mr. Rodriguez one-on-one if he had any concerns about any of them; and he has been terrific all the way through and mentioned only 4.B., the cost associated with compliance officers. She stated the starting salary for a compliance officer she has been told is $11,000 not $34,000 that is listed; the program can be put in place even if they do not have the funding because it can be considered later; 5.A. has a projected revenue through a new tipping fee of over a million dollars; so any costs associated with the recommendations can be considered in conjunction with the tipping fee revenue to the County. She requested the Board approve as many of the recommendations today as possible, including allowing committee members, as requested in the last two recommendations, to volunteer to monitor the implementation of the changes as individuals and as a committee, and to do a follow-up assessment. She stated other places have ongoing recycling citizen advisory committees and it would be of the utmost benefit to Brevard County if it did also. Ms. Danse advised the first change they are requesting is to get the message out to the public that Brevard County does care about recycling and it needs more people to participate; participation rate is about 41%; it is very low with multi-families; and there are places that recycle very well, such as Melbourne Beach, where people are in tune to it. She stated the committee has come up with a recycling information flyer to County residents every two years; there were people on the committee who wanted it quarterly and some wanted it every year, but they had to make sure they came to the Board with as low a figure as possible as far as what it was going to cost. She stated Orange County has quarterly newsletters; there are counties that put out newsletters that include recycling news in them; and if the Board makes changes in recycling, the news has to be out there. She stated the cost analysis and recommendations were done by the Solid Waste Department as far as advertising; it says increase advertising but not the budget for recycling; so there are already budget monies allotted but they are not always used. She stated they need to increase public awareness. She stated she found out this afternoon that Florida TODAY would put out a monthly press release at no charge to the County; all they have to do is write up the press release and fax it to Ms. Gonzalez and she will put it in; but it has to be updated every month. Ms. Danse stated as far as the school program, she mentioned about the children not having a place to throw their things; the staff engineer with the School Board brought that recommendation to the committee; he had a lot of discussions with the people; and they came up with a recommendation. She stated they wanted more but had to consider what would be feasible as a good beginning step; so they are talking about white paper or beverage containers at all secondary school facilities. She stated there were complaints that the County does not have enough pick up curbside; in discussions with Waste Management, S. P. Recycling, and Progressive, they have come up with being able to collect all plastic bottles with necks; and they do not even have to bother looking at the numbers on the bottom. She stated some steel cans are picked up in part of the County; and they were concerned about the libraries and magazines and thought it would be an ideal place to put recycling bins and reuse tables. She stated as for the procurement policy, that is tough; they just got tax information on glossy paper; that is not recycled paper; all governments Countywide should be using recycled paper; and believe it or not, Office Depot has recycled paper cheaper than new paper and they are called business lots so if the County buys in bulk, it can get recycled paper cheaper. She stated they are the only ones around that she knows of where recycle paper is cheaper. She stated as for office paper in all County facilities, the people they talked to in Tallahassee by teleconference said white paper is the most profitable; a lot of departments want to use colored paper for marketing purposes or whatever; that is cutting down on the value of it all, but that is a decision everybody has to make. She stated the commercial recycling issue has to do with individual calculations that Mr. Rodriguez talked about and will continue that as something comes from them; and the committee supports him totally. Ms. Danse stated they were concerned about a mandatory recycling program for commercial properties; what it means is if they are throwing their recyclables into the garbage they need to have education and training programs so they understand what they are doing; and that is something the Solid Waste Department would be able to do and put a program in place and have them recycle paper, aluminum cans, cardboard, etc. She stated in the talking phone book there are info lines; she happened to go through them the other day and 9698 talks about businesses; Brevard Recycling is in the phone book; and it says if management in any public building is not recycling paper, aluminum cans, and cardboard, then management needs to be consulted. She stated the City of Deerfield Beach had the mandatory recycling program with no compliance officers; she asked the person how it worked out; and she was told if there is a problem they look at the Ordinance and do what they have to, if they have to fine them or suspend their license or whatever. She stated Alachua County also has an Ordinance where credit is given to the businesses that recycle well; there is no fee; again with the concern on the money end of it, the average salary for a code enforcement officer is $34,320 plus benefits; so the low end would be $11,000 plus. She stated they would like to see a volunteer speakers bureau educate service and professional groups on the benefits of commercial recycling; and that is something where if there is a problem, people can go in and talk to them about it and help them out. She stated a lot of them complain about some of the restaurants, especially in Titusville that are not recycling at all; they say they do not have room; they would rather have a car with paying customers than to have a recycling container; and that is the mindset that has been going on. She stated with tipping fees and landfill operations, they support the Solid Waste Management Department’s initiative to charge a tipping fee; the projected revenue is over a million dollars; she talked to a person in Tallahassee about C&D; and she may have misunderstood the last workshop discussion but the information that was put out said C&D include renovations, remodeling, but is predominantly new construction, then renovation, remodeling, and demolition is last. She stated it does not include roads and bridges, but it does include household waste, paint, carpet, steel, and concrete; and also landclearing debris. She stated C&D are materials generated from construction or destruction of buildings; it is a new fee and it is going to help the County; and other counties have been charging such a fee for a while. She stated (b) is a lesser fee for clean pre-sorted concrete, and uses for concrete are road construction, drainage, borrow pit fill, which is used in lakes, and onsite containing walls; and inquired why should it be buried in the landfill and take up all that room when it can be used and people charged a lesser fee for the clean pre-sorted concrete. She stated if left on the construction site, it is considered clean; once it goes to the landfill, it is not clean anymore; so the reuse of concrete certainly saves space at the landfill. Ms. Danse stated she mentioned the shredder being down and spoke to Mr. Rodriguez about it; the shredder area is huge; and if they took everything out and made that a reuse center that would be great for people coming into the landfill who could drop off items and pick up items. She stated she came from an area that used to do that, and no sooner had something been put down, it was gone; if they put down an old microwave, television or bookcase, CD’s, books, you name it, people flocked to them; and in time of recession, it creates a low paying job, but at least it creates a job. She stated just like with compliance officers, it gives people a job in the County and the money stays in the County. She stated she talked to a gentleman in Tallahassee about the use of glass cullet for County roadways, and he said it was an excellent recommendation; some people said it is not recycling; he said it is recycling and it is reusing also. Ms. Danse stated the committee did a fantastic job considering the difficulty of the task they were charged with. She stated they had people in solid waste and people who were not knowledgeable at all about solid waste; then there were people who were into recycling; so it was quite a mix and they definitely had discussions about what the things to do were and the things not to do; and that is why they have in the report so many presentations. She stated she spoke to two gentlemen in Tallahassee to get the right guidance of how to make up their minds as to what to do; the committee in general felt that to have those recommendations, whichever ones the Board approves, that is it without checking later on to see if they were successful or not, or if something is wrong or if they can fine-tune it in some way so that they can better what is happening; and they do recommend that some form of the committee meet to check on the recommendations. She stated it may not be the same people, but the idea they did agree with the concept. She stated some of the people were not even considering being on the committee and they were asked to be on the committee and they volunteered because of that; but it was a hardship on a lot of them to make that trip; so she acknowledges that some of them would not want to be on this committee again because of their personal schedules, but there are others she knows who would be very interested in the committee. She stated the Solid Waste Department can respond to the Board on what the costs would be; and the concern with whatever recommendations are approved is getting those programs going to allow some of the members of the committee as volunteers to go in and say can they help and walk into a school and ask how they are doing with it and if they understand how they can do things. She stated fluorescent lights are hazardous but they have to be recycled and not disposed of and yet there are some places in the County that throw the fluorescent lamps down the shoot into the dumpster; it is mandated by the State to recycle fluorescent lamps; so things like that is where the volunteers would certainly help.

Chairperson Colon advised other speakers will get five minutes, and the only reason Ms. Danse had over 20 minutes was because she had to do a presentation of the advisory committee’s recommendations.

Dian Hardison of Cocoa stated she wants to reiterate that a very detailed work was carefully thought over at each one of the meetings; they had experts from various fields there; and she is a materials engineer and her interest in recycling is simply in the economics and the materials. She stated the recommendations they finally agreed upon, and trust her practically nothing was agreed on, are actually what she would call the bare minimum; and urged the Board to take as much action as it considers feasible that can be accommodated as soon as possible because a great many of them are things that simply require a statement, education, and repair of facilities that are in existence. She stated recycling has a great many potentials once the market is established; she mentioned use of cullet in roadways; that is not the only use for glass; but the market has to be established first. She stated the County has to set up the infrastructure; they tend to think of materials they use today as being cheaper coming from virgin materials because they do not count the cradle to grave costs; and when they are dealing with the full cost, they have to count the cost of shipping and disposal. She noted it is an engineering maxim. Ms. Hardison stated land does not get any cheaper; and the amount of garbage generated is certainly not getting any less; and as the further studies are asked for in the recommendations she hopes the Board does not say that they need to study something further that the advisory committee has already worked on, because they did do an awful lot of work on it and had an awful lot of help. She stated if the Board has questions or objections to the recommendations, Ms. Danse is the one to go to; she is the one who sets out her garbage once a month because almost everything else gets recycled; but they have the expertise available and the facts and figures that are extremely boring to back them up. She stated she remembers when they had paper drives, can drives, recycling drives at schools, Girl Scouts, and Boy Scouts; and it was considered a patriotic thing to do; it was to save resources that needed to be used elsewhere; and she does not see any reason why that cannot be used again today.

Patty Goffinet of Melbourne, member of the committee, stated they were a big group and did not always agree; but they did agree on the recommendations. She stated they had a lot of education and discussion and came up with what she believes are very good recommendations; and she hopes the Board will consider them carefully.

Chairperson Colon advised the fact that they could not agree on everything is a key factor; the list has things that are not going to cost the County any money; it is more an educational process and public relations; and the Board has the government channel to educate citizens because a lot of folks on the committee even though their hearts were in the right place and they were passionate about it, got a serious education from a lot of the folks among themselves about how complex the issue really is and how they cannot force anyone to do anything; so it was a learning experience for everyone involved, even the Commissioners. She stated they were getting briefings and finding out what was going on at the committee meetings; and it was definitely a good practice. She inquired if Commissioners had any questions.

Commissioner Carlson stated since Ms. Danse chaired the committee, she is sure she knows all the topics that were discussed; and she is curious, because the report did not give historical account of previous recycling efforts, such as the School Board’s try to recycle Styrofoam trays. Ms. Danse stated she was not there when the problem happened, but the committee had a couple of teachers who spoke and told them what they were doing as individuals. Commissioner Carlson stated there was previous to this group, maybe a couple of years ago, it was a test program where they tried to recycle the Styrofoam trays and it did not work because they could not get the end user involved; they could not give the recycled materials to somebody to go off and recycle it; and she wondered if the committee studied that and determined that the school did something different like bringing in regular plastic trays to put food on that they could wash instead of using Styrofoam. Ms. Danse stated the only recommendation made was what Brian brought to the committee and they did talk about that, but whoever he talked to said the only thing that would fly was the white paper and beverage containers. Commissioner Carlson stated there was a cost issue involved; by the hypocrisy of teaching kids recycling in the schools and then throwing stuff away is criminal as far as she is concerned when they could easily wash the trays and reuse them. She stated the committee did a great job; she liked the comment Ms. Danse made about a recycling swat team to use some members to go out and make sure some of the things were done and bring back performance measures if they actually did what has come from the recommendations. She stated when recycling first came to the County, and she assumes Ms. Danse got all the information in some briefing from staff, but it was on a voluntary basis and there were thoughts through the Legislature she thinks that they would make it mandatory at the curb; and inquired whatever came of that; with Ms. Danse responding they go by State guidelines which is reduction of 30% of solid waste disposal; Brevard County was at 29% in 2000, so it is doing okay; but they should do more. She stated she understands the State is going to ask the counties to go to 35% for recycling rate and there are some counties doing 50%, such as Palm Beach County, which is recycling 51%. She noted they have the equipment and lot of people who are into it. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there was discussion regarding location for collection during mandatory recycling for commercial establishments, and where would they bring the recycled goods, otherwise it is a huge cost to collect them, which may have been the tripping point for the commercial establishments to begin with. She stated as a small business owner they tried to recycle white paper and there was a bin in the parking lot because they were with other commercial entities, but then it was taken away because there was not enough tonnage or something like that. She stated something did not occur that would allow them to recycle conveniently; so if there is not that convenience to recycle for commercial entities, it will be tough and they would have to police that; and she does not know how they would do that. Ms. Danse stated Mr. Rodriguez will address getting the program going with Waste Management and the haulers. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the committee included receptacles in County parks and facilities to collect recyclables; with Ms. Danse responding that is under all County facilities, III.C. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the committee talked about recycle bins at parks; with Ms. Danse responding they did speak about it but did not single it out and just put down all County facilities for the item. Ms. Danse stated there is also problems with the parks and maintenance of the bins; she spoke to some of the men who work at the parks and they were getting French fries and everything else in the bins and it would mean manning those bins on a regular basis, and they do not have the money to do that.

Solid Waste Management Director Euripides Rodriguez thanked the members of the recycling committee; stated it was a true adventure in recycling; it was a long process of education; and they worked very hard, especially towards the end. He stated there were arguments, discussions, and finally consensus; and the consensus is what the Board has at this time. He stated the costs are for the Board’s point of view; if there was a cost borne by any other agency other than the Board it was not reflected in the report; the Code Enforcement Officer was taken out of it and they went to Code Enforcement and asked their opinion and they said it is not their area of expertise. He stated there are several recommendations that could be implemented immediately if the Board decided to do so.

Chairperson Colon requested Mr. Rodriguez single those out so the Board can accomplish something today; and if there are others that involve other departments, she does not want to make decisions on those today and would prefer those come back with some figures.

Mr. Rodriguez advised I.A. is distribution of recycling information flyer to County residents every two years; that is about $27,000 every two years; and that could be implemented and absorbed in the current budget without an increase. He stated I.B. is the increase advertising for recycling; that can be done at no cost because the Department has a budget line item of $15,000 that is not being used and could be used for that purpose.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve distributing a recycling information flyer to County residents every two years and increase advertising for recycling to increase public awareness. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Rodriguez advised II.A. is to request the School Board initiate recycling at all school facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Chairperson to write a letter to the School Board requesting it initiate a recycling program at all school facilities with focus on recycling white paper products at all schools and beverage containers at all secondary school facilities. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Rodriguez advised III.A. is to collect all plastic bottles and steel cans curbside; the steel cans are currently collected in the south end of the County and not in the north end; and the vendor is willing to put in what he needs to accomplish this item.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it will require a separate bin for bottles and cans; with Mr. Rodriguez responding no, steel cans would be put in with aluminum cans and plastic bottles will be put in with the rest of the plastic bottles.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve collecting all plastic bottles and steel cans curbside. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Rodriguez advised III.B. is to place recycling bins and/or reuse tables for magazines in libraries; and he would prefer to refer it to the Library Services Department.

Chairperson Colon advised that would be okay, and the Library Services Department can return with a report on that.

Mr. Rodriguez advised III.C. is to recommend green procurement policies (purchase recycled content products) in all County facilities; and he would recommend this item go to the Purchasing Office for review.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would be interested in the cost of the purchase; Ms. Danse said they can purchase white paper for less than new paper; so he would be interested in seeing if it is a cost saving or a loss.

Chairperson Colon stated the item will come back.

Mr. Rodriguez advised III.D. is to recycle office paper in all County facilities; he believes it is happening in the Government Complex, but cannot say it is in all County facilities. He noted it would fall under the Facilities Department.

Chairperson Colon requested feedback from Facilities Department or a memo go out to ensure it is happening in the entire County.

Mr. Rodriguez stated IV.A. is to convert all solid waste commercial accounts to individual calculation within three years and provide informational brochures on commercial recycling; this program has started several years ago; they talked to Ms. Danse about it and if the Board desires, they can convert all commercial accounts and disposal assessments from square footage to individual calculations. He stated currently all commercial properties are automatically individual calculations; but they are talking about the old properties on the tax roll.

Chairperson Colon inquired how does Mr. Rodriguez feel about it; with Mr. Rodriguez responding there is financial impact pro and con, depending on what kind of property they are talking about. Chairperson Colon requested Mr. Rodriguez bring it back with a report.

Mr. Rodriguez advised IV.B. is to initiate a mandatory recycling program for commercial properties.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is a fee to the commercial entity for the $150,000 cost; with Mr. Rodriguez responding they look only to the expense side and went to Bobby Bowen and asked him his idea of how much it would take and how many officers and cost would be involved.

Chairperson Colon advised that item will come back also.

Mr. Rodriguez advised IV.C. is to initiate a volunteer speakers bureau to educate service and professional groups on the benefits of commercial recycling.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve initiating a volunteer speakers bureau to educate service and professional groups on the benefits of commercial recycling. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Rodriguez advised V.A. is to support the Solid Waste Management Department’s initiative to charge a tipping fee for all commercial construction and demolition debris excluding roofing materials; and V.B. is to charge a lesser fee for clean presorted concrete C&D debris to be crushed and reused. He recommended the items be deferred until September 9, 2003 at the budget hearing.

Chairperson Colon advised the Board will consider V.A. and B. at the September 9, 2003 budget hearing.

Mr. Rodriguez advised V.C. is to investigate establishing manned reuse centers at the landfills.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize investigating establishing manned reuse centers at the landfills. Chairperson Colon stated it is okay.

Mr. Rodriguez advised VI.A. is to investigate the use of glass cullet in road base; and he would defer that to the Roadways and Landscaping Department.

Chairperson Colon advised VI.A. will come back with a report.

Mr. Rodriguez advised VII.A. is to recommend the RCAC conduct an assessment every twelve months of the adopted recommendations.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Recycling Citizen Advisory Committee (RCAC) to conduct an assessment every 12 months of the adopted recommendations. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Rodriguez advised VII.B. is to recommend permitting the RCAC members to assist as individual volunteers in implementation of the recommendations approved by the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to permit the RCAC members to assist as individual volunteers in implementation of the recommendations approved by the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon advised items III.B., C., and D., IV.A. and B., V.A., B., and C., and VI.A. will come back with reports, and the rest of the recommendations has passed.

Commissioner Carlson inquired when will the reports come back to the Board; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding it will vary from item to item, but they will treat them with a high sense of urgency and get them to the Board as soon as possible. Commissioner Higgs suggested a maximum of 60 days. Chairperson Colon advised the Board will get feedback in 60 days.

PROPOSED ORDER, RE: DENYING HENRY SAUNDERS’ ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL

Henry Saunders of Melbourne Beach advised he will address the findings of fact and hit on the major ones; #2 talks about why different names appeared at different times; and that was estate planning that his family was doing and had no bearing on the permitting process. He stated #3 says the lot was platted in 1951 and modified by the Andrews in 1991; and #4 and #5 talk about the tax bill; and at the time they purchased the lot, it was $92,000 and not $139,000 as mentioned. He stated #6 through #9 have no bearing on the permitting process; #10 and #11 talk about the sale of the property he was originally involved with long before the Comprehensive Plan came into effect; and that was for Lot 9 and had nothing to do with Lot 10. He stated #10 it is true that it took effect before the Comprehensive Plan took effect and it was the sale of the house and did not have anything to do with the lot next door. He stated they were retaining the 75-foot lot. He stated #11 the company kept marketing the house and not the lot next door; #12 through 16 need clarification; they say it talks about the deed; most of it was where a mistake was made in the sale of the house; and #14 is about correcting the deed. He stated #15 is where he contracted to buy the property subject to the County giving him approval for buildability; #17 is when they get into the letters and this is where they get very confused. He stated at one time in the letter he mentioned subdivided; and even though subdivided does not appear in the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Codes, it has been used to say he said deeded into two separate lots; however, he never represented that at any time and even mentioned in his letter that says the property was surveyed and split in two, but never represented any deed existed; and if there was, he would not have to keep coming back. Mr. Saunders advised #18 is the Gonzalez letter; he was told by staff when he first started this, he only had two options, put the property back or sue the County; that was what he was told so he sent a letter to Mr. Gonzalez, but he decided not to do it and that was the end of that. He stated regarding #19, the intent of the Andrews long before February 17, was to separate the property into two 75-foot lots, which they did by survey and putting up a fence around the vacant lot; there was no reason for them to deed two separate properties because there was no Comprehensive Plan in effect; so they always thought they subdivided their property or divided it into two pieces. He stated regarding #20, he repeatedly asked clarification on trying to get the lot buildable; and he never represented that he had deeds or anything like that. He stated #22 talks about research; he has a tremendous amount of research in the sale of the property originally; he had a signed contract that separated the property; and he had a deed that was all concerning the sale. He stated #23, the Planning Department and he understood, proven by the many meetings and communications that took place, that the issue was resolved.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant additional time for Mr. Saunders to complete his presentation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Saunders advised #27, he applied for a loan and did get it and closed on it and has a $400,000 loan on the lot; and #29, he does not understand because they may call those determinations, but they do not explain how they made those determinations. He stated regarding #30, on three different occasions there were three different accounts of how the County decided to put a stop work order on his property; one was that someone contacted District 3 and District 3 contacted Mel Scott; the other was a 30-day written notice he received in June 2003 and they said it was computer records that started the research; and the third one was that someone contacted Mel Scott; so there are three discrepancies of how this whole thing came about. He stated #31 and #32 he will not get into because Section 62-1189 is the important part, but everyone refers to 62-1188. He stated #34 is true; #34.b., he feels Lot 10 as it is now and was, is still a nonconforming lot of record according to Section 62-1189; and it was furnished to him by George Ritchie to determine a nonconforming lot of record. He stated based on the information he supplied the Zoning Department, surveys, affidavit, unsigned deed, listing agreement, letters, valid contract for purchase, all demonstrate that the intent of the Andrews at the time was to sell off their home and retain the 75-foot lot. He stated there is an attachment from Eleanor Dillon, who has over 50 years of real estate experience and is probably one of the most respected realtors in the South Beaches, and she confirmed the Andrews, when she sold them the property in the 1970’s, built their house on the north part and always held on to the south part. Mr. Saunders stated #34f. where the Board finds evidence that prior to the purchase he knew or should have known the lot did not meet the requirements; and by virtue of all the correspondence and meetings with George Ritchie and Mel Scott he believed the property was and still is a nonconforming lot of record. He stated Mr. Scott said in the minutes that he was not intimately involved in discussions, but he met with Mr. Scott on June 12, 2002 at 2:30 p.m. in his office with his assistant. He stated at that time he laid out all the documents and showed him everything; he looked at the lot and said it is 75 feet so what is the problem; and he explained the whole thing to him. He stated two years later, he looks at it and says based on 62-1189, which was represented to him of being a way to determine the lot is a nonconforming lot of record, he said he would get back with him. Mr. Saunders stated George Ritchie asked him to to do that before he would sign the final letter that went to the State that allowed him to get all his State permits; at that time he said he would get back with him; and the next day George Ritchie called him and said Mel Scott had approved it; and the following day he received a letter and that letter is an exhibit also, but it was never brought up. He stated two people in the Zoning Department over a two-year period signed letters that allowed him to build his house; now he does not know what else he can do; he did everything he thought; and in no area did he mislead or admit anything, and proved he has vested rights. He stated he spent a lot of money on this; the action is coming two years later from the first letter he received that they were going to stop it; they had plenty of opportunity to say wait, they do not agree with it; but the Zoning Director signed off on it and said he could go ahead and build his house; and now he is in the position two years later where the Board is stopping it. He stated there was plenty of opportunity to say wait we changed our mind, but not now; it is too far along; and he definitely has vested rights in the property.

Kristen Saunders of Indian Harbour Beach, advised her father stated everything pretty well; in the conclusion it was clear the people who voted against it felt there was a misstatement or misrepresentation of facts; all they have done over and over again is prove to the Board; they have put everything on the table from the beginning; and the whole point is the word “subdivided”. She stated they are all hung up on subdivided; the word is used in two letters; and she would challenge anybody to find a definition of subdivision or subdividing in the Planning and Zoning Books and Codes. She stated she looked it up in real estate books and Webster’s Dictionary; and no where does it say to subdivide a piece of property there must be recorded deeds, unrecorded deeds, fully-executed, or anything about deeds. She stated splitting of the property is the biggest thing right now; her father was going to read County Attorney Scott Knox’s statement; “I think the issue is yes, definitely one of vested rights. I think the issue is whether or not you believe Mr. Saunders acted in good faith based upon everything you heard; and if you believe that, then vested rights is appropriate; and if you don’t believe that, then I do not think it is.” She inquired where did they misstate the facts.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Mr. Knox mentioned to him that there was additional evidence. Ms. Saunders stated they were told they could not bring additional new evidence. Mr. Knox stated on the second to the last page of the handout regarding meetings with Mel Scott on June 12, 2002, that is new to the record, as there is nothing in the record about that meeting. Ms. Saunders stated it says in the staff notes that Mel Scott said he was never intimately involved in the meetings, but that is wrong; and it is going to be put in the finding of facts, which is a lie. Mr. Knox stated there is nothing in the record of what Mr. Saunders stated on the second to the last page of his response. Ms. Saunders stated why are they so afraid of the meeting with Mel Scott. Mr. Knox stated he is not afraid of it at all. Chairperson Colon stated that is not what Mr. Knox is saying; he is saying that based on what was put in the response, he has to find out whether it is in the records; and he is not debating what was said. Ms. Saunders stated she is sorry, but she is very defensive about it. Mr. Knox stated he cannot make any finding on that evidence if it is not in the record; and if the Board wants to let the information into the record, then it should hear what Mr. Scott has to say so it will have a complete record.

Commissioner Carlson inquired where did Mr. Saunders get the information, because when he met with her there was nothing about the exact time or day; with Mr. Saunders responding he found it on his calendar in his office. He stated he always writes down meetings so he does not miss them; and he went back to check it and there it was. He stated the letter came the following day, but George Ritchie had never been to the meetings. He stated the record says George Ritchie made a mistake; he does not think Mr. Ritchie made any mistakes; he always agreed with everything and never said he misled him; and he never said he gave him misinformation or that what he said was not credible. He stated he finds it ridiculous to bring him in here and ask him those things.

Chairperson Colon inquired if this is the first time County staff has seen the information provided in red by Mr. Saunders. She stated if there is something new, the same way Mr. Saunders went back to his records, staff can go back to their records to see if the meeting shows up; and that is what this discussion is all about.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board needs to take testimony from Mel Scott on the meeting that supposedly occurred on June 12, or does it have to advertise and reopen the public hearing. She stated she wants to preserve the rights of all involved and is confused about the process. Mr. Knox stated it was a public hearing originally; to reopen it the staff would have to re-advertise; and if the Board allows this to come in, it is basically opening up the hearing again. Commissioner Higgs inquired if she can ask Mr. Scott if the meeting on June 12 did occur before making her decision whether to reopen the public hearing; with Mr. Scott responding he has in his 2002 calendar, a meeting with Mr. Saunders on May 29, 2002 at 3:00 p.m.; he does not have anything on June 12; and he does not know if Mr. Saunders met with Rick Enos. Commissioner Higgs inquired if staff has the substance of that meeting; with Mr. Scott responding he does not know the substance of the meeting but will share with the Board that one of the things that is troubling to him is that on May 29, 2002 there was still deliberation occurring in Mr. Saunders’ mind regarding the buildability of the lot; and it troubles him that Mr. Saunders owned the property for about a year at that time because he purchased it on August 17, 2001. He stated his staff has been clear in what they have done in the process of issuing the building permit; it is his responsibility to be fair and open about that; and they did in fact issue the permit. He stated if the Board’s deliberations hone in on due diligence that occurred prior to the purchase being made, because no one wants to buy unbuildable land, due diligence should have been completed prior to purchase of the property. He stated Mr. Saunders met with him in 2002 seeking the buildability of the lot after he purchased the property; and he would share that with the Board even though it was not something Mr. Crooks entered into evidence when the public hearing was open. He noted it is something they have started to harp on since the public hearing has been closed. Commissioner Higgs stated she is concerned that she now has information that she did not have a chance to review and in trying to make a correct decision, she had evidence she went over and now she has new evidence she does not know what to do with.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not just Mr. Saunders’ case; it is everything that keeps coming back; and the Board asked for the orders and needs to have an opportunity to have Mr. Saunders comment on the order in a written fashion rather than a rehearing after the rehearing. He stated he does not know how many times the Board heard Ms. Pope’s concerns on her property; and the format is good, but the problem is it is coming to the Board at the last hour without adequate time for staff to review and make recommendations. He stated somehow it needs to be done in a timely manner for the other side to comment; whether it is material that needs to reopen the public hearing, he does not know; and for him to say one way or another is irresponsible. He stated it was tabled before and it can be tabled again and ask Mr. Scott to have the opportunity Chairperson Colon referred to. He inquired if there is anything material; and stated if not, it makes it irrelevant. Mr. Knox stated it is hard for him to say without going back through the records and figuring out what happened during that time frame and what they claim to be relying upon. Commissioner Carlson stated that is what the Board asked the County Attorney to do in the finding of facts. Commissioner Scarborough stated he likes the format; however, Mr. Saunders has thrown the Board a dilemma; they do not know if there is a dispute over the facts as he alleged; and secondly, if the facts are correct, are they of a material nature that would change the ultimate decision of the Board.

Chairperson Colon advised the motion to deny was a three-to-two vote, and the Board wanted to give Mr. Saunders an opportunity to speak; and inquired if the Board wants to give him an opportunity again to come to the next meeting.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be prudent to let staff analyze it; there are facts that need to be discussed; and secondly are the facts material to the finding of vested rights. He stated if the material facts are going to change the view of the Board, that is the purpose of this exercise; and it is not able to at this moment to get staff to give it advice it needs to make an informed decision.

Chairperson Colon stated Mr. Saunders did everything right and exactly what he was asked to do; he countered everything he felt was not correct; however, he cannot expect a decision from the Board today, as it was never guaranteed. She stated the Board is saying it needs an opportunity to review some issues; it does not mean it will change anything or that Mr. Saunders did anything wrong; but it has to compare the comments with information in the record.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table proposed order denying Henry Saunder’s request for vested rights; and direct the Planning and Zoning Director and County Attorney to review additional evidence from Mr. Saunders and whether the public hearing needs to be reopened.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it would be possible to give Mr. Saunders a time certain; with Chairperson Colon responding absolutely; and inquired of Mr. Saunders when it would be convenient for him.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in a prior meeting the Board asked staff to come back with recommendations on how to handle these issues when it is asking for findings of fact and the orders; the matter of today and timely filing is important; staff should have some rules that it comes to staff three days before the meeting on something like that so they would not have to take further tabling; and that is his suggestion to staff.

Chairperson Colon advised the paperwork should be with staff at least a week before a meeting; and if they feel they are not ready, they can table it on their own by a letter to their Commissioner; the Board needs to have the information so it does not have to table an item; and Mr. Saunders is not the only one that has come before the Board with things that need challenging.

Ms. Saunders stated anything that goes before the Planning and Zoning Board is public record, even emails, so they should not have a problem getting proof of the meeting because they have a huge discrepancy with one person saying there was a meeting and a lot of stuff was discussed. Chairperson Colon stated from there it goes to the courts; everything is public record; and the Board can only go by what its staff tells it. She stated as soon as Mr. Knox and Mr. Scott have their findings, they need to contact Mr. Saunders, and Mr. Saunders needs to advise her when it is convenient, morning or afternoon.

Commissioner Higgs stated if there is evidence that is material, the Board needs to reopen the hearing; and they could bring in new evidence at that time. Mr. Knox stated that is possible, but he has not heard anything new other than what the Board has here; so they need to go back and probably provide Mr. Scott’s version of events and as for caution, he will re-advertise it for vested rights on September 16, 2003.

Commissioner Carlson inquired how the item was advertised because it talks about administrative appeal versus vested rights; and inquired if they were dealing with vested rights. She stated the finding of fact is vested rights, but she thought the Board dealt with it on an administrative appeal basis from the beginning; and that is where a lot of legal perspective came from. She stated now it is look at it from a vested rights perspective; and inquired if it is any different than the administrative appeal; with Mr. Knox responding the original memo he did was vested rights and the wrong words were used in the Agenda Report.

Chairperson Colon stated the understanding is that the Board is looking at a vested rights application.

Commissioner Carlson stated she remembers it all being administrative appeal of the stop work order and all that stuff; with Mr. Knox responding if Commissioner Carlson goes back through the record, she will see it was talked about in terms of vested rights.

Commissioner Pritchard stated there has been a discrepancy; the property was purchased in 2001 and the meeting took place in 2002; there seems to be an issue of why Mr. Saunders would do something like that after having purchased the property, and maybe he should have done things before he purchased the property to ensure it was buildable. He stated from personal experience, he came to a meeting many years ago with County people and asked for and got permission to go ahead with a residential marina; six months later when he went back for a permit, it was denied; fortunately he had a tape recording of that meeting where everybody said yes; and if he did not have that tape recording, there would have been a problem. He stated last Thursday he had another problem; he called and asked if he could pick up his pool permit since he was going to Viera and would save the company from driving out there to pick it up; he was told by two people yes he could as long as he had a release from the pool company allowing him to pick it up; and on Friday morning, a third person called and said no, they do not do it that way; so they need to make some adjustments. He noted he did it the way he was told by two people; so his point is sometimes hedging a bet is why they come back frequently to make sure they are going to be able to get what it is some people tell them they cannot get.

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

The meeting recessed at 4:36 p.m., and reconvened at 4:45 p.m.

*Commissioners Carlson and Colon’s absences were noted at this time.

PERMISSION TO BID, AWARD BIDS, AND EXECUTE CONTRACTS, RE: PEDWAY
FACILITIES, BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS, INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT/TURN LANES, MAINTENANCE DREDGING, AND ROAD PROJECTS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to bid, award bids, and execute contracts for pedway facilities, bridge replacement projects, intersection improvement project/turn lanes, maintenance dredging, and road projects. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Vice Chairman Higgs inquired if the Dairy Road item was cleared up; with Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff responding yes, it is landscaping of medians in the Dairy Road project, which is still an outstanding item. Vice Chairman Higgs stated then they should not say construction of a four-lane road when it is actually landscaping the median because the road is already done. Mr. Denninghoff stated that is correct.

AGREEMENT WITH MILES MEDIA GROUP, RE: COOPERATIVE TOURISM AD
IN 2004 OFFICIAL FLORIDA VACATION GUIDE

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

Bonnie King advised the Tourist Development Council (TDC) has an opportunity to co-op with 29 tourism entities around Brevard County to take a five-page spread in the Florida Vacation Guide; it is the fulfillment piece that the State of Florida puts together and distributes 650,000; and if TDC pays the full cost in advance, it can take credit and save a lot of money then bill the 29 participants and save more money. She requested the Board allow TDC to do that and they will bill the people they have contracts with for reimbursements.

Vice Chairman Higgs inquired if the TDC will get the full cost returned; with Ms. King responding absolutely, and more. Ms. King stated the amount before the Board says $73,946; however, because six companies want to take reader response cards that cost $895 each, they will have to add $5,370 to the total; and request the Board authorize TDC to take the five-page spread and be invoiced for $79,315.75. She stated the total cost of the spread is $86,995; and their agency discount is 15%. Vice Chairman Higgs inquired how much revenue will TDC get from participants; with Ms. King responding $82,092.04, so they will come out ahead by $2,770, which will be used for graphic arts and things of that nature.

Glenda Busick of Melbourne stated she has not investigated this issue so she has a couple of questions; she is not sure if the Board provides money to TDC or if it is just the tax revenue; with Vice Chairman Higgs responding no general fund dollars are used for TDC, and it is the bed tax. Ms. Busick inquired why does TDC come to the Board asking how it can spend its money; with Vice Chairman Higgs responding because TDC is an advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners and not a solely operating body. Ms. Busick inquired if the Board can tell it no; with Vice Chairman Higgs responding yes. Ms. Busick requested the Board say no to the TDC because she has a big problem; it is not just her, but the taxpayers of Brevard County; and it is the sheet of paper with Agenda item VI.F.6. from Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten that shows the chart of expenditures and revenue for the County. She stated in 2001 the County spent more money than it got in; in 2002, it spent more money than it got in; and in 2003 it is estimated that it will spend more money than it will get in. She stated she drives around the roads in Brevard County; the roads are packed; and inquired does she believe that they need more tourists in Brevard County tearing up their roads, and does the County and State have enough water, she does not think so. She stated people talked about recycling and demanding businesses to recycle; and she has a problem with tourists and trash and police called out for tourist problems. She stated when the Commissioners were elected, she does not remember putting chamber of commerce after their names; chamber of commerce is a private business entity; she is a business owner and do not come to the Board and say she wants to use tax dollars to advertise her company and bring people in to buy her goods so she can manufacture more and hire more people in Brevard County; and that is not how it works. She stated she vehemently do not like TDC using the money to bring more people into the County, or the Economic Development Commission and the Board approving ads to bring tourists into the County especially when they are spending more money than they get in. She stated the County does not need more problems; it does not have money to repair roads; it does not have money for police; it does not have water; and it does not have money for landfills; and requested the Board deny the request.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is unlike the general revenue tax; the tourist tax is specifically collected for things like advertising for tourists; the word tourist is part of the tax; and that is how it falls in the Florida Statutes. He stated the Board cannot take that tax and take care of other general revenue problems; if it did not spend the tourist tax, then the other option is to eliminate it and not have a TDC and not have a tax; but the tourist tax was passed by the electorate of Brevard County. He inquired if the tax has to be renewed every year; with Ms. King responding no.

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

Ms. Busick stated when the Board was talking about educating the public about recycling, can the Board educate the public on what it cost to have a tourist in the County versus a resident; and inquired does the public really want the tourist development tax to continue and do they realize the impact to their property taxes for what services they actually get, she does not think so because the Board is not going to educate them and say they do not want tourists because they cost the taxpayers money. Commissioner Scarborough stated they cannot do that; the tax is to promote tourism; that is the purpose and why the Florida Legislature passed it; and inquired from whom is the tax collected; with Ms. King responding from the hotels. Ms. King stated it is a four-cent bed tax; they have an educational video that she would like to show the Board when it has a moment; it is 11 minutes long and highlights how the money collected helps not only residents and increase their quality of life, but also how the tourist dollars are spent to not only promote tourism but for beach renourishment, capital facilities and cultural arts. She stated the City of Cocoa Beach did a study of how much tourism affected the City and how much residents paid for it and how much tourism paid; the TDC has that study; and Ms. Busick can come to their office in Building B and they would be glad to get her a copy so she can see it. Ms. Busick stated she talked to people in Cocoa Beach and they do not like it being said that Cocoa Beach is like a mecca for tourists; they do not want more tourists; and the roads are flooded. Ms. King stated that is why the City wanted the study done; they wanted to prove to the TDC that tourism was costing them dollars; and they found out that if they did not have tourism and tourists in their City, they would not have the Publix and Winn-Dixie Supermarkets, and restaurants that they have, and would not get the property taxes from the hotels there. She stated that is why it all shows in their video and if Ms. Busick saw it she would understand how tourism works to better Brevard County. Ms. Busick stated that may be in the City and she appreciates that, and will probably come to see Ms. King, but she is talking about the County. Ms. King stated after they did the study of Cocoa Beach, the TDC was so impressed with it and decided to look at the whole County; and they are in the process of doing it for the entire County. Ms. Busick stated she would be interested in seeing that, but she knows that studies can usually end up how the person wants them to end up; with Ms. King responding the City of Cocoa Beach was hoping it would not show that it is a benefit. Ms. Busick inquired if Ms. King is going to do another study; with Ms. King responding not her, but there will be an RFP put out for somebody to do that study. Ms. Busick stated she knows how RFP’s go; she does not want to be doubting and so negative, but usually studies end up being typically what people want them to be because it is like hiring an expert witness in a trial.

Commissioner Higgs stated Ms. Busick needs to know the Tourism Ordinance actually allocates the funds; certain things are required under the State law, but certain things are also established by Ordinance; and the percentages of the allocations of TDC dollars are set out by Ordinance and not by State law. She stated how much goes to advertising, capital improvements, beaches, etc. are dependent on the Ordinance the Board passed. She stated this Board is the proper one to ask; while the tax was established by the voters, the actual allocations are by the Board; but the item Ms. Busick is asking about will be paid for by individual businesses and not TDC dollars. She stated the TDC office will be the conduit for the businesses because it will get a better price by doing bulk buying; but it is not tourism dollars because the businesses are buying together in a cooperative effort. Ms. Busick stated well, they assume the businesses are going to pay, but the Board is approving TDC taking the upfront money and doing it. Commissioner Higgs stated the businesses will sign contracts with the TDC. Ms. Busick stated she would like to see if they actually do pay on it; that would be very good to see; she appreciates that it is an ordinance where the Board decides what percentages; and inquired just because the State made a law to do something to bring tourists to Florida, can the County change the law. She stated she does not know why the County made the law because the State can make those laws, and the taxpayers end up fixing the roads, providing police, and having water problems. Commissioner Higgs stated the State can eliminate the tourist tax as a local option; the tourist development tax could be eliminated if the Board so chooses; but there are a number of things that are done using the tourist development tax that enhance the quality of life in Brevard County. Commissioner Carlson stated the zoo and the stadium are just two of the items. Commissioner Higgs stated beach renourishment and a number of things are done with tourist dollars; and she wants to be sure Ms. Busick understands that relationship. Ms. Busick stated she appreciates the Board taking the time to explain it; some things she can agree with, but in general if there are enough residents and the property taxes are going for certain things, they do not need that burden. Commissioner Higgs stated property taxes are not going to TDC. Ms. Busick stated she knows they are not, but it goes to repair roads, fund police, etc. Commissioner Carlson stated a lot of dollars are leveraged dollars because they get facilities that they would like for the quality of life in the community, but the tourists pay for it. Ms. Busick stated that is a matter of opinion whether it corrects the quality of life.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize the Tourism Development Director to enter into an advertising placement agreement with Miles Media Group for cooperative advertising in the 2004 Official Florida Vacation Guide; and authorize a purchase order in an amount up to $82,092.04, with the understanding the TDC will be reimbursed for the majority of the cost by the individual partners. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Chairperson Colon advised she has to leave to speak before the Florida Association of Counties regarding social services and has to be in Cocoa by 6:00 p.m. She passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Higgs.

*Commissioner Colon’s absence was noted for the remainder of the meeting.

AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER
SERVICES, RE: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR MOSQUITO CONTROL PROGRAMS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for State aid in the amount of $45,000 for Mosquito Control programs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION CONSIDERING TAX ABATEMENT APPLICATION AND CONTRACT
FOR SALE AND PURCHASE, RE: CARTRIDGE SOURCE OF AMERICA, INC.,

Commissioner Scarborough advised Greg Lugar gave him a list of sales in Spaceport Commerce Park; the numbers were unusual; the County started off with some sales between 1986 and 1988 of $34,000 and $35,000, then in 1989, there was a sale at $24,000, and several sales subsequent to that were $16,000, and $15,000; so there were questions raised. Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar advised the list was faxed to Commissioner Scarborough late yesterday, and other Commissioners do not have it. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is why he is commenting on it. Commissioner Scarborough stated it started in the mid-$30,000 range and dropped; and while the trend may be up, he does not think the price is out of line. He stated Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca talked to Ben Jefferies who purchased a large tract below the Park; and he had comments, but did not have heartburn over the prices. He requested Mr. Hurston describe what the company does.

Joe Hurston with Cartridge Source of America, advised they recycle toner cartridges and keep about 12,000 to 15,000 quarts of oil out of the landfill each month; and they have their finances and construction in place, but are out of space. He stated they won some wonderful contracts in the County. He explained the plant prototype; stated the property is 620 yards from their current facility, so they will not be changing the neighborhood; and they are purchasing five acres in anticipation of significant growth in the County.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Cartridge Source recycles anything else besides toner cartridges; with Mr. Hurston responding they just begun an innovative program of recycling printers and created a contract with NASA to get their excess printers that normally end up in the landfills. He stated they found a way to recycle the printers and bring them back into government service; it is an innovative and new dimension of recycling; and it is working very well. He noted it is cutting edge stuff.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution considering the tax abatement application of Cartridge Source of America, Inc.; requesting an analysis from the Property Appraiser and economic impact analysis from Economic Development Commission; and authorizing advertising a public hearing to consider an ordinance exempting the company from select ad valorem taxes; and execute Contract for Sale and Purchase and Addendum with Cartridge Source of America, Inc. for a five-acre parcel in Spaceport Commerce Park. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Vice Chairman Higgs advised she would vote for the sale of the property, but could not vote for the resolution because she has a problem with the Ordinance right now; however, she is happy to have the company in Brevard County.

RESOLUTION, RE: AUTHORIZING TAX EXEMPT COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN TO
REFINANCE MERRITT ISLAND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LOAN

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the interest rate; with Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar responding 2% which is the best rate.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution authorizing a commercial paper loan to refinance the existing SunTrust loan of Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency; authorize the Chairperson and County Attorney to sign the necessary loan documents; and authorize staff to make the necessary budget changes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CITIZEN REQUEST - LARRY MONARI, RE: PROPOSAL TO AMEND SECTION 62-102

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Mr. Monari cannot be here due to an illness in his family and requested the item be rescheduled.

PRESENTATION BY STEPHEN BURDETT, FINANCE DIRECTOR, RE: FINANCIAL
TRENDS OF COUNTY’S GENERAL OPERATING FUND AND TEMPORARY CASH
FLOW NEEDS

Finance Director Stephen Burdett advised the primary reasons the cash flow in the General Fund is low is because the Board’s general operating fund has been spending more than what it has been bringing in, which corresponds to the fact that the cash is low. He stated the primary purpose of this action is he needs the Board to authorize a loan from another fund of the County to the General Fund so that the Board will have sufficient cash to pay its bills and meet payroll requirements until property taxes come in. He stated the first chart is the General Fund revenue expense and fund balance; it shows increasing levels of expenditures and revenues; the yellow and blue columns relate to the dollar scale on the left; the yellow column is the revenue; the blue column is the Board’s incurred operating deficits since FY 2000; and the descending red line is the fund balance also known as residual funds, which follows the scale on the right side. He stated the red line continue to go down, meaning the Board’s General Fund balance is being depleted; the green line on the same chart represents where the General Fund balance should be if the Board was following its own fiscal policy, which is 10% of the general operating expenditures; and since FY 2002, the Board has actually been under that, and he projects it will be under it for FY 2003. He noted by his cursory look at the FY 2004 budget, that same pattern may be followed. Mr. Burdett advised the 10% in terms of dollars represents about $17 or 18 million; where the Board stands right now for next year is $10 million; so it is looking at $7 or 8 million if it wishes to follow its policy. He stated the following chart shows the cash flow of the General Fund in the months of November, December, and January; there is a surplus shown; that is a cash flow when property taxes are received; and the following months from February to July there is a net outflow because 49% of the General Fund is property taxes, and through July it gets close to zero if not already at zero. He stated General Funds 1 and 2 are the primary funds; at the end of July there was actually a negative balance; and what they had to do was expedite transfers from other funds that share in the cost of general government so that money was brought over; however, that simply delays when the County will start seeing or not having cash to pay the bills, which could happen between now and when taxes are received next year.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Mr. Burdett did not give the Board a chart for anything but this year; and if he looked at it in comparison, would it depict the worst position than they have done historically; with Mr. Burdett responding yes, he would say if any money was borrowed it would go back to 1997. Commissioner Scarborough stated the first chart was a great chart because he really understood it; and the other chart, if it was given to him for the last five years, he could see historically by laying them out how they flowed and by looking at it would know what happened. He stated there are times money flows and there are times when it does not flow; but they are getting into a tighter and tighter position that historically could be depicted by doing a chart for several different years. He stated the historical expenditure is accrued over several years also. Mr. Burdett advised he will get the five-year history for Commissioner Scarborough.

Vice Chairman Higgs advised when they do the budget each year, it is a balanced budget, so the difference between the expenditure and tax revenue and other revenues that come in is the cash forward they bring forward each year that balances the budget into the next year; with Mr. Burdett responding that is theoretically true; and if the reserve remains constant that is fine; however, as Mr. Jenkins pointed out, they keep spending more in terms of the percentage of department budgets and that starts to deplete it.

Glenda Busick of Melbourne stated the document shows a recommendation to limit first quarter filling of vacant positions, delay general fund capital expenditures, and request Charter Officers limit capital funding transfers to one-twelfth of their annual allocations for the first several months of the year. She stated she is not an accountant but has to balance her checkbook at home and at work; the Board has a budget and have departments that have budgets; but if the departments do not give a true number as to what their budgets are, then it is not true and the Board is not seeing what each one is spending. She stated if she gets it right, the Board can give them a bunch of cash and say keep going for a few months, but their budget does not show what they actually spent and the elected officials can say maybe the department budgets did not increase or something. She stated the things she was talking about, police, roads, water, and landfills the County is having a problem with because it does not have enough money to provide them, but department budgets do not increase and the Board can use cash to fill up their departments and let them run while they really should stop running or stop filling.

Commissioner Scarborough stated they are confusing apples and oranges; when Mr. Burdett did this, he had yellow and blue showing expenditures and revenues; and the second chart shows flow during the year. He stated he has been told most retailers take a loss every month except December; in other words, they have cash flows likewise; and when the tax bills come out, the County gets a lot of money in so it has cash flows. He stated if a merchant spends all he gets in January, he cannot pay the salaries in June; so there is a need to look at the fundamental basics. He stated whether or not the County is having more aggravated draws within the end of the fiscal year can only be depicted after Mr. Burdett does those other charts; the Board does not know at this time, but the truth is what Mr. Whitten is trying to do is give the Board some options if it wants to follow Mr. Burdett’s recommendation and move into increasing reserves like a savings account. He stated what the Board has done is pulled from the savings account to balance the budget; and Mr. Whitten is saying here are ways to go about making it work. He stated the Board has tried not to increase millages; if it is not increasing income, the question is how does it reduce expenditures; so it is an expenditure discussion exclusively in a calendar year format.

Ms. Busick stated she will be back at the budget hearings; Economic Development Commission, Brevard Tomorrow, Carol Laymance’s salary, Guy Spearman as lobbyist are expenses she does not think the Board can afford because it does not have enough money; and they do not want to raise the millage rate. She stated the Board has new construction, it has tourists coming in that use services but do not pay property taxes; so it is not a good position to be in. She stated the document said below the fiscal policy thresholds; she is not sure who determines fiscal policy thresholds, how much cash reserves the Board is supposed to have, etc.; and she got from this the Board is going into its cash reserves when it is not supposed to do that. She stated she is concerned about money being spent; and somebody has to decide not to fill positions and delay general fund capital expenditures and do those recommendations.

Vice Chairman Higgs requested Mr. Whitten address the issue dealing with fiscal policy and refilling of reserves each year.

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten advised the Board’s fiscal policy says that its goal is to have fund balances at 10% of the general fund operating revenues and a reserve account at 5% of that operating revenue; they budget to meet that goal each year; and unless there is different definitions of operating revenues, they budgeted this year to meet those goals next year. He stated staff presents a balanced budget; he looks at the cash forward as revenue; if he looks at total revenues versus expenditures, the budget is balanced; on top of the revenues is the cash forward; so it is balanced using operating revenues and the cash forward.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the County’s budget consists of a number of different pots of money, different funds like the Enterprise Funds, which are separate; and they are referring here only to the General Fund. He stated the General Fund consists of two funding sources; every year they get new dollars that they receive during the course of the year; and for as long as he can remember, the County has always taken its cash forward from prior years and rolled it forward and added it into the pot of new money. He stated they have a balanced budget and they have done that forever and ever. Vice Chairman Higgs requested Mr. Jenkins define cash forward; with Mr. Jenkins responding that is money left over from the prior year. Vice Chairman Higgs inquired if that is money that was budgeted and not spent; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes, but the thing that has occurred in the last several years is the demand for services and facilities increased the level of the budget expenditures each year. Mr. Jenkins advised for example, typically they would budget a department at $1 million; the department would spend 90% every year and 10% would come forward to the next year thrown in with the new revenues; and with the increase in demand for services, instead of spending 90%, they are spending 95% or 96%. He stated the point was made that they are spending more than what they are budgeting; however, they are not necessarily exceeding their budgets, but are spending a higher level of their budgets. He stated in order to be in compliance with the fiscal policies set by the Board, when they roll into the next fiscal year, they get new dollars from new construction and other revenues and take a portion of those new revenues and specifically budget them back into the reserve account to stay at those fiscal policies. Mr. Jenkins stated the point Mr. Burdett is making is as of September 30 those sometimes decline for several reasons, and one is a time lag; there are certain revenues for the month of September that the Board does not get until October and maybe even November; so there is a time lag in getting some of those revenues from the prior fiscal year. He stated the main point Mr. Whitten was making in the memo is that during the course of the year the Board is going to have to take a hard line on requests for additional funding, additional grants, whatever it may be; and whatever new revenue opportunities it gets, it would be prudent to put the majority of those in the reserve accounts to make sure that they are not depleting their reserves because the departments are spending at a higher percentage than what they used to spend.

Vice Chairman Higgs advised in the past the Board faced the issue of cash flow over the first few months; that is nothing new; cash flow is an issue many businesses face; and inquired how has the Board handled it in the past; with Mr. Whitten responding Mr. Burdett said the last time was in 1997, however, the last time he knows of came in 1992 when the Board got a loan from the Enterprise agencies. Mr. Jenkins stated on several occasions over the years, they had to get a temporary loan from one of the other County funds for the General Fund; one year they had to do it for library services, which is a separate pot of money; so it varies from year to year. He stated on several occasions they had to take internal loans from other County funds and used those monies for the first 60 days or so of the new fiscal year in order to have cash flow in the General Fund. Vice Chairman Higgs inquired if that is an issue that the Budget Office or Mr. Jenkins office brings to the Board or is that an issue that the Clerk brings to the Board; with Mr. Jenkins responding usually he does it, but generally the Clerk brings it to his attention, they sit down and come up with a plan as to how much they need and when they need to do it, and they bring it together. Vice Chairman Higgs stated the Board does not have a precise number and staff does not know precisely how much is going to be required, so any authorization to borrow money at this point would seem to her to be premature. She stated she understands they are going to have a cash flow issue, but she does not know how much it is and do not want to borrow money and pay interest on it until she knows pretty close what it is going to be. Mr. Jenkins stated if the Board were inclined to authorize staff, they would arrange to not borrow any more than what is needed in order to have the cash flow for the first several months; and that would be based on the balance at that time. He stated all of it is projections until they get the actuals; previously they asked for up to $3 million based on whatever they think they will need; but a lot of it is projections at this time and it may well be minimal.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board is going to do the three items in the August 22 memo to minimize cash flow impact; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes, some of those require the cooperation of the Charter Officers, but it is their intent to ask. Commissioner Carlson inquired based on Mr. Jenkins’ perspective of the departments whittling down their reserves over time and not bringing back 10% and bringing back 5%, how long will it take before it is 100%. She stated Mr. Burdett is trying to get the point across that deficit perspective is that they are not going to be able to put additional dollars in reserves. Mr. Jenkins stated they have to make hard choices as they develop the following year’s budget; they have no choice but to get those reserves back up to what the fiscal policies were and whatever it takes in terms of developing the budget for the next year; that is what they would have to do; so if the percentage were to continue to decline, they would have to get the money in the next year’s budget, which means they would have to do without some things the following year.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Burdett is going to put together how the Board reaches into the reserves during the year and the impact it is having; what they look at now is a better picture than what they end up with at the end of the year and have to reach into reserves; that is one point Chairperson Colon keeps making; so Mr. Burdett is going to do historical runs on if the Board is historically increasing draws from the reserves during the year. Mr. Burdett noted he looked at the current year, and the reserves are down about $450,000 from where it started. Commissioner Scarborough stated history tells him the story, and he likes to look at trends. Mr. Burdett stated reserves is simply a budgeted amount. Commissioner Scarborough stated his point is the propensity of the Board to reach into reserves after the budget is set and draw from that account; and requested Mr. Burdett give the Board that information as well.

Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board finds there is a trend and a propensity to do a particular way and want to change the policy or tweak it in some way, then it is going to help the Board make the decision a little easier. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is headed in that direction, but that type of information is important. Mr. Burdett stated not to say what the Board needs to do, but the attitude of the Clerk is if there is no cash, they do not disperse money, and will tell Mr. Jenkins there is no money; with Vice Chairman Higgs responding the Board understands that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated because the Sheriff has come to the Board a number of times during the year and the Board reached into reserves and said yes go and get a COPS grant is the type of decisions he wants Mr. Burdett to address. Mr. Burdett stated he was just addressing cash flow in his previous comment. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is interested in trends and if there are some trends that the Board has a propensity to increase draws during the fiscal year.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Burdett said the last time the Board did it was in 1997; with Mr. Burdett responding he was looking at the cash flow chart and when the fund balance was down at the lower level; and Mr. Whitten may be right about 1992, as he did not really look at all the Board actions. Commissioner Pritchard stated many businesses get by when their cash flow goes low point with a line of credit; the Board is looking for a line of credit; and the interesting thing is it would be paying itself interest on the money it would borrow. Vice Chairman Higgs stated that is because it is from an internal fund. Mr. Jenkins stated it depends on where they borrow it from; if they borrow from an Enterprise fund, they have to do it; but if they borrow from ad valorem fund, he does not think they have to pay interest. Mr. Whitten noted there probably would not be any other funds to borrow from other than Enterprise funds unless they got a bank loan. Mr. Jenkins advised there are two General Funds; and in 1992 they borrowed from Fund 02, which is the unincorporated area ad valorem General Fund.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Enterprise fund operates totally separate from County funds; if they use a County service, they have to pay for that service; and that is why there are different charges back and forth. He stated the Enterprise fund may be earning interest; therefore, it would have a loss by the loan; and the Board has to compensate it for that from the General Fund even though they are part of the County.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Enterprise Fund is generating interest from an outside source; if the Board borrows from that, it would pay interest from proceeds that the County has; so it is losing money; and it costs the Board to pay interest to offset the cash flow problem it is having. Commissioner Scarborough stated it does cost the Board to do that, but it is paying interest to the Enterprise Fund rather than an outside source. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Burdett said the General Fund is 49% ad valorem revenue; with Mr. Burdett responding approximately yes. Commissioner Pritchard stated if he pays his tax bill in November, it is x amount; December it is x amount plus more; and it goes on up from there. He stated the longer it takes people to pay their tax bills, the more money it cost them and the more money it is going to cost the County because it is not going to have the income from ad valorem taxes early in December; and if it strings out longer, then the interest it is paying for money it is borrowing from itself, it is costing the County money. Mr. Burdett commented the later people pay their tax bills the more they pay, which theoretically makes up for the loss of money.

Mr. Jenkins requested Mr. Burdett give a worse case scenario cap; with Mr. Burdett responding the worse case would be up to $7 million. Vice Chairman Higgs inquired if that is the Budget Office’s number also; with Mr. Whitten responding Mr. Burdett pays the bills so he knows the cash that flows in and out, so the Budget Office relies on his numbers. Vice Chairman Higgs inquired what source would be suggested; with Mr. Jenkins responding he would look at ad valorem funds and if not available, will look to Enterprise Solid Waste or Water Resources funds. Mr. Whitten noted they will work with Mr. Burdett to see which Enterprise fund is in the best position to do it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would agree to borrowing up to $3.5 million, and if they need more, they can come back to the Board. Mr. Jenkins stated County Finance should make that request to the County Manager so he can approve it.

Vice Chairman Higgs stated it would be helpful, as they get close to that $3.5 million, to know several weeks in advance if they need to do an Agenda item; and the County Manager can do more than a one line item. She stated the Board is being asked to take action; County Finance gave it one line from which to take action on in regard to how much they need, where they are going to borrow from, and what the situation is; they did get some charts; but all she got was one line, and would like to have advance notice so the Board can take care of it. Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis stated staff was given advance notice because this did not happen yesterday.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve borrowing up to $3.5 million dollars from ad valorem or enterprise funds for the General Fund. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board has set aside $3.5 million, which is a good move, but he is concerned whether it is budgeting to spend more; and that is why he voted against it. He stated as part of the budget process, they need to address where they are in terms of forecasting the future. Vice Chairman Higgs stated she does not have a problem going further into the budget process; but they have to deal with the cash flow issues now and be sure they can operate.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired when Mr. Burdett would be able to provide the Board with the information requested; with Mr. Burdett responding it should not take more than a couple of days. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the information comes back with even more distressing news, the Board may want to discuss in greater detail the suggestions in Mr. Whitten’s memo. Vice Chairman Higgs stated she wants to discuss the issue that she brought up under the assessments in terms of how overhead is allocated and how it affects the Board.

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

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has no axe to grind; there is nothing other than what he thinks a responsible board should do; and that is to review contracts and go out to bid and bring in all the parties that would be interested in performing the service. He noted the Board did that recently with Waste Management; and other proposals were provided, but the Board stayed with Waste Management. Vice Chairman Higgs stated the Board did not do that. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the Board negotiated directly with Waste Management. Commissioner Pritchard stated there were others that came in and made proposals; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board heard that they wanted to have it opened up, but elected not to do it. Commissioner Pritchard stated what he is getting at is they did come in and they made a proposal; they said they would like to be involved and would like to do it; and his point is that even though that was not as formal as what he initially stated, the idea is that the Board brings in people who are in the business and sees what they have to offer. He stated the point he always makes is what is the return on investment and what is the County getting for the dollar; and that is why he pulled the Renewal Agreement. He stated it says, “The State lobbyist has not received an increase since the initial 2000 contract”; apparently he has been the lobbyist for at least three years if not longer; and he does not know when the Board had an opportunity to review what other lobbyists may be able to do for the County. He stated maybe Spearman Management is the best, but he does not know that; and he feels a responsibility to look into the community and see if others are interested in providing the Board a proposal.

Vice Chairman Higgs stated Commissioner Pritchard’s vote for the federal lobbyist Mr. Pauley was not to go out to bid; so he needs to help her understand how he is being consistent with his previous vote for the federal lobbyist. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Pauley made a presentation and said he planned on doing this, that, and the other. Vice Chairman Higgs stated Commissioner Pritchard did not vote to open it up to anybody else and voted to go with Mr. Pauley and authorize the contract without bids. She stated at least the Board took bids on the Spearman Management contract some years ago. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Board did it some years ago, why does it not do it again. He stated when Mr. Pauley’s contract comes up, he will be more than happy to bid it. Vice Chairman Higgs stated then it should do Mr. Pauley’s contract now; with Commissioner Pritchard stating the Board could do both of them now if that works; and he does not have a problem with that. Vice Chairman Higgs stated Commissioner Pritchard had a problem with it the last time she brought it up. Commissioner Pritchard stated he also had the information that was presented by people who recommended him; he also had a track record of what Mr. Pauley had done; the first time he had spoken to a person about a federal lobbyist, it made sense; and that is all he is asking to do now. Vice Chairman Higgs stated Representative Needelman sat here and told the Board what the Delegation had achieved; there was some information from Mr. Spearman as to what he had achieved; and if Commissioner Pritchard wants to hear additional things, he needs to ask Spearman Management to provide that to him.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Guy Spearman is in the audience; Commissioner Pritchard has a right to have a report from him on what he has done and what he sees happening; but the problem is specialized services become very difficult to bid because it is a unique relationship. He stated a Commissioner has the right to ask Mr. Spearman for a full analysis of what he has done and where he wants to go, but it gets more and more difficult, when they get into those types of services, to find who can provide them, how they can provide them, and where they are situated. He stated maybe there is someone else out there; and if there is, Commissioner Pritchard has a responsibility to his constituents to bring that forward; but just to go out for bid sometimes strange things come in because it is more than just apples and oranges. He stated they may get every fruit in the basket that comes in; Commissioner Pritchard needs to feel comfortable and he wants him to feel comfortable; but it is not like buying a car for the Sheriff’s Department. Commissioner Pritchard stated when Commissioner Scarborough talks about a level of comfort, how better to determine a level of comfort than to go out for bids every x number of years; and inquired when was the last time Spearman Management’s contract came up; with Mr. Jenkins responding 2000. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there were others that came in at that time. Commissioner Pritchard stated he happens to think it is good business sense to review things every three years or every five years; and he is very flexible and is not locked in as the Board appears to be. Vice Chairman Higgs stated Commissioner Pritchard was locked in when Mr. Pauley’s contract came up; and she thinks the double standards is just unbelievable. Commissioner Pritchard stated he was very flexible with Mr. Pauley; with Vice Chairman Higgs responding he was not, he sat there and voted to give it to one person, Mr. Pauley, and that is an absolute double standard. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is not double standard; he just said he is willing to bring in others and go with an RFP or whatever the Board wants to do; but that is not the point.

Commissioner Scarborough stated rather than force a conflicting discussion, Commissioner Pritchard has the right to have more information included in the packet and brought back; and the Board can discuss it in more detail. He stated Commissioner Pritchard has the opportunity to request additional information; but he would like to know who else is out there that he thinks could do the job. He stated even when the Board went into the Solid Waste issue, it had people it was able to look at as viable options; there are lobbyists in Tallahassee that are very good; but he would like to know who up there can represent the Board better than Spearman Management. He stated there may be a retired mayor from Brevard County who could go to Tallahassee, but he would not know the players; knowing the players is what a lobbyist does; if Commissioner Pritchard wants to have it tabled to get additional information from Guy Spearman, that is perfectly legitimate; but for him to say he is willing to look at anybody, he has difficulty with knowing who the players are. He stated perhaps the Board needs to contact the Legislative Delegation because it plays to the Legislative Delegation just as much as it plays to the Board; and there is a way to go about this if the Board is willing to see what each member of the Legislative Delegation says and see what Mr. Spearman says, then take that information and see where it is. Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not have a problem with that; he is only asking to have a review; and he does not know who else is out there because he is not in that business. He stated he is in the business of representing that the Board gets the best bang for its buck.

PUBLIC COMMENTS - GLENDA BUSICK, RE: BUDGET, LOBBYIST, IMPACT FEES,
AND TOURISTS

Glenda Busick of Melbourne stated Mr. Burdett said about 40% of the General Fund is ad valorem taxes, and she wonders what percent impact fees are on new construction and people moving into Brevard County because the Board is in a real pickle as to roads, police, trash, water, and all those things for new residents. She stated somebody has to pay for it and she believes it is impact fees; there are enough people here; if they come in, they need to pay their way and not have existing citizens pay for all that stuff and have their property taxes go up, or the Board use the cash forward and keep spending cash forward. She stated department budgets need to be correctly written as to what they are spending; impact fees are needed because the Board is in a dire need; she is sitting between the Board and Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis and hearing him say that it is a dangerous level the position the Board is in about borrowing money to run payroll, etc.; and as a taxpayer she does not like that. She stated she was in retail and worked for Burdines and Macy’s for years; they knew which months were lean and planned for those months; by what the Board is spending, there is no big surprise there is no money in July, August, October, or November, and the money shows up in January; and that is the way it is. She stated department budgets are allocated based on the whole year; they should not come to the Board in July or August and say they are out of money, bring on the money from cash forward or wherever; the Board is in a bad position; and impact fees are a big one, and also how the Board spends the money. She stated she totally does not agree having contracts with people and going three years without discussing them; the people elected the Commissioners to represent them; as far as she is concerned, the Commissioners are lobbyists; they are the persons who represent the taxpayers; and the elected people in Tallahassee, Messrs. Needelman, Allen, Posey, and those guys are their lobbyists also as far as she gets it. She inquired why should she pay a budget for Carol Laymance; and stated that ticks her off that money is coming out of her tax dollars to pay for somebody to coordinate for Representatives and Senators in Tallahassee. She stated as for Spearman, she has a big problem with lobbyists running departments, the County, State, and federal governments; those people are deciding what issues get done, not the elected officials; so she has a big problem with that. She stated she appreciates Commissioner Pritchard bringing that up. She stated as for the tourist deal, somebody in Florida has got to take a look at all the people moving into Florida and all the tourists coming into Florida and using the services and not paying for them.

Commissioner Pritchard stated lobbyists are the way government does business; it is a necessary evil or whatever; that is how it generates a lot of input, revenue, etc.; so the Board cannot pull the plug on having a lobbying organization. He stated they have to be out there and participate in everything they can; and that is one of the best tools the Board has.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table the renewal agreement with Spearman Management, Inc. for State lobbying services for input from the Brevard Legislative Delegation.

Commissioner Scarborough encouraged Mr. Spearman to provide the Board with a report on the services he provides because it has been a number of years and to get a report on how he is doing and what he is doing would be important to be part of the record.

Vice Chairman Higgs inquired if the contract has not changed since 2000 and if there were annual renewals; with Mr. Jenkins responding the fee has not increased since 2000. Vice Chairman Higgs inquired if there were renewals of the contract on an annual basis that came to the Board; with Mr. Jenkins responding no, he was given the authorization to renew the contract that included two one-year renewals.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired how long should the agreement be tabled for; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it may be difficult getting responses from the Delegation. Commissioner Carlson stated Carol Laymance could probably get them quickly. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if four weeks would be reasonable; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that is more practical.

Commissioner Pritchard amended the motion to include September 30, 2003; and Commissioner Scarborough accepted the amendment. Vice Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Vice Chairman Higgs advised at one time she agreed with Ms. Busick in regard to the use of lobbyists, but she has learned a lot in eleven years and know they need lobbyists. She stated it is unfortunate that average citizens, including Commissioners cannot go to Tallahassee and effectively do it; so lobbyists are a necessary part of being able to secure what the County needs. She stated this year it was extremely important; and next year it is going to be even more important because if Ms. Busick thinks the County’s revenues are tight, she ought to look at the State’s revenues. She stated she also agrees with the impact fees and will provide Ms. Busick with copies of documents relating to those fees.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

ATTEST: ________________________________
JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)