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

September 17, 2002

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on September 17, 2002, at 9:03 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Truman Scarborough, Commissioners Randy O’Brien, Nancy Higgs, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, 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 Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve the Minutes of the July 9, 2002 Regular Meeting, July 18, 2002 Special Meeting, August 1, 2002 Zoning Meeting, and August 20, 2002 Special Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CHANGE IN AGENDA

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated Item III.B.3 needs to be changed, so he will move it to the July 24, 2002 Agenda.

DISCUSSION, RE: BOARD'S AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH ASSESSMENTS

County Attorney Scott Knox stated Monday he sent out a copy of the memorandum he did in response to the Board's questions about its authority in terms of assessments for mobile homes and other things. Chairman Scarborough requested Mr. Knox elaborate on the memorandum for the benefit of those who may be watching the meeting on television. Mr. Knox stated the Board requested he do a response to the question about the Board's authority in the area of assessments on property; and he came up with five alternatives for the Board. He stated the Board has the statutory authority to file a suit challenging the Department of Revenue approval of assessment rolls; the second is initiating an investigation of assessments under the statutory authority of the affairs, accounts, records, and transactions of County officers; the third is the Board's authority to retain a certified public accountant to do a performance audit of the Property Appraiser's office; fourth is to request the Department of Revenue to conduct an in-depth review of assessment rolls that have been approved by the Department of Revenue; and the fifth would be an initiation of a transfer of the Property Appraiser's duties to another office through a Charter amendment. Chairman Scarborough requested Mr. Knox provide his phone number so anyone who wishes may contact him; with Mr. Knox responding 633-2090.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board wants this item to be brought back for discussion, should it put it on the next agenda; with Chairman Scarborough advising it can be discussed now. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board cannot make a motion under Reports; with Chairman Scarborough agreeing the Board normally does not do that. Commissioner Carlson stated she would like to bring it back on another agenda. Chairman Scarborough stated it will be scheduled for the next meeting.

ITEM REMOVED FROM AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION

Commissioner O'Brien requested Item III.C.2 be pulled for discussion; and advised he will vote against III.D.1.

Commissioner Carlson requested Item IV.B. be pulled; with Chairman Scarborough advising that is a public hearing, which cannot be pulled. Commissioner Carlson stated the individual who came to object last time could not make this meeting; and he sent a letter requesting it be continued. She stated she would also like to hand out something that came to her yesterday from Gray Harris, so everyone has the same information.

SAMPLE OF THE ARTS, RE: WFIT

Commissioner Carlson stated WFIT is in the lobby; and Susan Massey is present to say a few words about WFIT and what it provides to the community.

Susan Massey expressed appreciation for the grant support WFIT received; stated it is the only locally based public radio station; and it contributes a great deal to the community. She advised of the broadcasting schedule of WFIT and other activities of the station. She commented on new shows such as Coastal Connection; and advised Jazz on the Green will be held on November 16, 2002, and there will be a Salsa Dance on October 12, 2002. She stated free copies of the Radio Wave Newsletter and posters are available at the display in the lobby; and those wanting more information may call at 674-8410 or visit the website at www.wfit.org.

REQUEST TO TABLE ITEM

Commissioner O'Brien stated Aneta Ott, who is the Chairman of the Merritt Island Special District, has asked for Item V.A., Acknowledge Receipt, Re: Duties of Dependent Special Districts, to be tabled. Chairman Scarborough advised it could be tabled at this time. Commissioner Higgs stated that is not fair to those who may be coming later.

REPORT, RE: TOWN MEETING

Commissioner Colon stated she held a town meeting on Saturday at Indian Harbour Beach; it was well attended; and the residents were able to speak to the resource officers from Indialantic Elementary. She stated they are going to start community policing with the resource officers; they will meet with the neighborhood associations to find out what is going on in the community to prevent crime. She stated Bob Lay, Emergency Services Director, was also there providing information on evacuation during hurricanes.

PRESENTATION, RE: GET SMART PROGRAM

Dr. J. Ronald Bailey stated the Get Smart Program is the gateway to engineering technology, science, and match resources for tomorrow; it is a summer program aimed at middle school students and their teachers, which was developed by Dr. Maria Pozo de Fernandez; and presented a slide show on the program. He stated as to why middle school students, it is a pipeline issue; the national report on the crisis in higher education provided national statistics showing if 100 young people start in kindergarten, by the time they reach eighth grade, only 24% are on track to study math, science, or engineering; by the time they graduate, it is only 8%; and as a nation, the country is only producing about 4%, which is not enough. He stated students are successful when they have involved parents, are responsible for their own learning, and have dedicated teachers and contact with role models; no child should be left behind; and he is proud of the public schools in the County. He stated statistically Brevard County is better than the national average, but it can do more; partners in this besides the College of Engineering at Florida Tech, include Stone Middle School; and Richard Reagan, the science teacher at Stone Middle School, who has been a partner from the beginning in putting this together, is present today. He stated corporate partners include Harris Corporation, Northrop Grumman, Kennedy Space Center, and the Florida Solar Energy Center; and they are starting to open the eyes of the young people and their teachers as to what engineers do. He stated the program could not have been done without the support of the financial partners including Don Beck at the Summer Internship for Teachers Program and the Florida High Tech Corridor Council; and advised of the assistance of Lynda Weatherman in getting funding. He advised of the hands-on workshops and field trips to industry; and stated there were 44 middle school students who were on campus for a week; three high school students helped, as well as six graduate students, four teachers, fourteen faculty members, some staff, and Dr. Fernandez. He stated the teacher involvement was very important; they came three weeks early to help structure this program, and stayed later to develop education modules to take back to their classrooms and share with other math and science teachers around the County; and each teacher will have contact with approximately 150 young people each year, so the leverage from the program is significant. He commented on slides showing various aspects of the program; and stated it is important to instill in young people that it is important to start taking mathematics early, because if someone is not taking algebra in the ninth grade, they are probably behind if they want to be a mathematician, scientist, or engineer. He commented on field trips to the beach, Northrop Grumman, Florida Solar Energy Center, and Harris; read comments from students and parents; and advised of Channel 13 news coverage of the program. He stated there is a website where they will be posting all the education modules so they will be accessible to the students; they will continue to make this available to the widest possible audience; and explained why the program takes place during the summer, including inability to wedge more academic material into the nine-month curriculum, availability of facilities and faculty at Florida Tech, and rewarding teachers financially. He stated young people have too much time on their hands; doing something useful in the summer is part of what the program is doing; and the challenge is how to repeat it next year. He stated they have submitted a proposal to the National Science Foundation in partnership with Brevard Public Schools asking for funding to take this program across the whole County, but it is tough competition for this kind of grant; and if they do not get it this year, they will try again to make this available in every middle school, elementary school, and high school; and they are also going to try and raise approximately $60,000 to do this again and expand it.

Chairman Scarborough stated that is a wonderful program; and thanked Dr. Bailey for his presentation.

Commissioner O'Brien stated some parents may want to get involved with the Program; and suggested Dr. Bailey give a phone number where he can be contacted. Dr. Bailey stated the phone number is 674-8020; and as for general information, the cost to students last year was $50 and the age was 7th and 8th graders.

PRESENTATION, RE: NEED FOR TRADE SCHOOLS IN BREVARD COUNTY

Dr. David Metcalf, RWD Technologies, stated the same way the Get Smart Program addresses the needs of education at the middle school level, they want to look at some of the ways those needs are being addressed for adults and people further along their educational path. He stated Dr. Don Astrab from BCC is also present; this is part of what the Board asked the EDC to do; it set up a Task Force to look at this; they spent approximately seven months looking to see what is available in the County and some of the ways this can be done; and there was a broad range of participation in the Task Force and a good synergy between the different programs. He stated the Task Force went to major educational outlets in the County as well as others one might not think of, including the American Red Cross; Brevard Community College plays an extensive role as does the Brevard County Public School system, Florida Tech and other institutes, and public and private companies that service within the area of trade schools and technical education. He stated the need, as it was defined, is to look at the needs of the skilled trade workers in the County and the clear path for personal and workforce development at all levels of society including the underprivileged and underserved; what they found was a cohesive Countywide strategy for teaching and promoting trade professions; that strategy leverages what is going on within the School Board, post secondary, and also private industry and trade groups; and from the anecdotal information, the Board will be able to take a detailed look at that.

Dr. Don Astrab stated he has been with Brevard Community College for approximately 11 years; and looking at technical vocational education has always been a very cohesive working unit between the School Board, Brevard Community College, and industry, to identify needs. He stated BCC is currently offering approximately 70 technical programs and developed a number of new credit certificates within some of the degrees, so the number is closer to 90. He stated the way it is set up now promotes collaboration; they are looking to pool resources all the time; and one current example of a program they want to expand is auto body repair. He stated Cocoa High School has a tremendous facility to work in this program; BCC is interested but does not have the space or resources to gear up; so it has been talking for the past three or four months on how to pool resources to use this lab in the daytime for high school students and at night for adult programs. He stated they are looking at a similar thing in Titusville for culinary arts; the BCC campus has the kitchen facilities to do it; and bringing in dual enrollment students is ideal collaboration efforts. He stated there are minimal entrance requirements for students coming into vocational programs; and the potential earnings as students move along is outstanding in a lot of the programs.

Dr. Metcalf stated the Commissioners have been provided with binders containing information about all the different programs that are available; and there are many exciting new programs that are trying to cover some of the intense needs in the County, State, and nation, such as allied health, construction, and the journeyman programs. He stated the Board will be hearing about the Workforce Investment Act in the next months; they have all been instrumental in getting the information needed to be able to see all the programs that are being put in place and have been put in place over the last year; and there are a number of efforts to promote the programs in the schools and community. He commented on program enrollment, completion, and placement; and stated case studies and examples will give the Board an understanding of what some of the programs have done for people as individuals and from a slice of life perspective.

Dr. Astrab stated there are two levels of apprenticeship; it starts at the high school in a dual enrollment or pre-apprenticeship program; there are currently 90 high school students in apprenticeship programs from Palm Bay to Titusville; they range from carpentry to electrical, air conditioning, and plumbing; a high school student would start as a junior two years in the apprenticeship program; they can even do one year and then transition into the adult program; and in the summers they are paired up with a contractor and receive on-the-job training. He advised one woman who went through the apprenticeship program in machining currently owns here own machine stop, and has come back as an instructor. He noted more and more women are going into the trades; many sit for their journeyman licenses; and they often move right into site coordinator positions with salaries that are very good. He stated while enrolled in the dual program, students spend half their day in high school and the other half in BCC so they never lose touch with either facility; they are getting all their core courses early on and doing dual enrollment; and industry is sponsoring a lot of this in terms of supplies, etc.

Dr. Metcalf stated there are more progressive programs that BCC has in place like the multimedia design program, from which he hired people, and which is how he became involved with the committee. He stated some recent high school graduates have been able to get out without completing the program and go right to work while finishing their education because of the flexible scheduling; and in the creative arts area, which is not traditionally thought of as a high-wage area, there have been a number of new developments in technology that have made this a viable career path, which can lead to a stable career or higher education. He stated the skills can earn an individual up to $60,000 a year; some people make even more than that without two or three years of actual practitioner work with the education they receive; and that happens in the intern programs too.

Dr. Astrab stated everyone is aware of the nursing shortages today; there is a waiting list to get into any allied health career; and there are a number of success stories where students have started in high school, taken all their prerequisites, applied into a nursing program, and continued through. He stated one young man who went through the welding program is currently working on the shuttle repairing the cracks in the engines; one obstacle is that there is such a demand that people are being hired before they finish a program, and getting them to come back and finish to graduate is an issue; and welders go out, end up in a lot of different positions, and are doing very well.

Dr. Metcalf stated the programs are alive and well; they are achieving a lot of the functions that people need within the County to get them the education they need and deserve; and one of the things the Task Force recommended was looking at ways to continue to spread the word about the programs being offered to make sure people know of their availability; and that is why he appreciates the Board giving them this time to get out to a broader audience. He stated it is also important to leverage some of the grass roots efforts such as the mentoring programs; the Brevard Workforce Development Board is doing a good job of that; and the Get Smart Program is a good example of the community working with BCC and the public schools. He stated the Get Smart Program is at the lower grade levels, but it continues on in other programs later in the education curriculum, like the dovetailing effect that happens from high school into the trades at BCC. He stated they are making sure there is continued good synergy between all levels of schools; there are other areas where there is fighting over the same budget; but in Brevard County there is a real spirit of collaboration, which is a good sign of ongoing progress of these programs. He stated the Board has been provided additional materials; and outlined what is contained in the binders. He stated anyone wanting more information can contact the EDC, which is the body that commissioned the Task Force; stated it has been through the EDC's guidance and support that this has happened; and the contact person at the EDC is Dan Grimm at 638-2000.

Commissioner Carlson stated there are programs that are put together by BCC in collaboration with the School Board; the one she was looking at was for seventh and eighth grades, which is the orientation exploration program; and inquired how is that integrated. Dr. Astrab responded one of the big efforts is the tech program, which starts with kindergartners; they do a lot with the middle school to start looking at career assessment; and they try to be involved in the science fair program through tech prep, so it really starts there. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is part of the normal seventh and eighth grade curriculum; with Dr. Astrab responding that is right. Commissioner Carlson stated she has a junior high age child, so she is curious. Dr. Astrab stated in terms of the junior high, that is where they are just beginning; there is not a widespread offering there; and it is more their general curriculum and getting the word out what is going to be available at the high school level. Dr. Metcalf stated what he found out from the sponsor for the public school system is they engage the guidance counselors to identify and target students who may be at the high or low end of the spectrum at that grade level; as they get to the higher grade levels such as ninth or tenth grade, people begin to identify their careers on their own; and that is why community outreach is important to target parents to make sure they understand what is available.

Commissioner Colon thanked the presenters; and stated she and her office are mentors through Take Stock in Children; and the partnership between the EDC and BCC has been incredible. She inquired how the State funding cuts have affected the programs; with Dr. Metcalf responding they have had no impact on the programs and what they are doing in terms of technical vocational offerings; they have been fortunate to stay strong; the funding is solid; and they are pursuing other grants. He stated one grant they are pursuing is for aerospace; they hope to bring that more to the high schools through dual enrollment; and another grant they are pursuing is for distributed energy, so there are ways of finding other sources of income to get programs started and pick up the slack. Commissioner Colon stated she knows people who have gone through the program and are making very good salaries now; and she does not think the community realizes the kind of training that is going on. Dr. Metcalf stated the binders contain wage information; and if anyone has any ideas, he is sure the people at the EDC would love to hear them and pass them on to other Task Force members.

Chairman Scarborough thanked Dr. Metcalf and Dr. Astrab for their presentation; and stated the County is blessed. He stated sometimes the statistics are not compared frequently enough; but whether looking at test scores, average wages, or level of educational attainment, the statistics show this is the thinking man's community, and it is reflected in quality of life. He expressed appreciation for the composite efforts that are making this come to pass where the average person is able to enjoy a better life.

Commissioner O'Brien stated certain areas in Rockledge and Cocoa are the poorest in the County; it would be incumbent upon the community to try to put some kind of technical education within those communities; and commented on transportation difficulties. He stated he is hoping the EDC and BCC can look at areas like this, find the industrial building that would be required, and invite the unemployed of the community to come in and be trained in a trade, so they can be employed. He stated he has been talking about this for a long time; where he and Commissioner Colon come from in New Jersey, every school has a shop teacher; but here in Florida some do and others do not, so children do not get a chance to make something from wood or wrought iron and learn things like that. He stated he is pleased to hear what BCC is doing, and hopes Dr. Metcalf and Dr. Astrab will go back to the Committee to suggest targeting some of the poorest neighborhoods, to see if it is possible to remove some of those people from dire and continuing poverty through training. Dr. Metcalf stated in order to meet some of the needs of the underserved areas, they have entered into a contract with the mentor program to do the prep work to get people involved in some of the programs to help fill the pipeline from those areas; and he is sure more information will be coming to the Board about that. Commissioner O'Brien stated the school buses bring children to school at certain times; and if it was possible to shift the course times for adults to, for instance, 10:00 a.m., it might be possible to work something out with the School Board to use the school buses to go to specific neighborhoods. He stated by working in cooperation, if the classes were shifted to fit the ability of transportation, people who have no transportation would be able to get to the classes. Dr. Metcalf stated he will take that back to the Task Force.

PRESENTATION, RE: TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Commissioner Colon stated this is the perfect presentation to follow some of the things that have been said about of the areas that are in great need; she is thankful that some of the things are being shared with the community about things that are happening; and partnerships is the key word.

Frank Kinney, Executive Director of Technological Research and Development Authority (TRDA), stated Dave Kershaw who is one of the Directors of TRDA distributed some books with his presentation in it; and it is very appropriate to follow the presentations that just took place in that one of the keys to the success of the TRDA's programs over the last fifteen years has been a very strong relationship with Brevard Community College as well as Florida Institute of Technology and the EDC. He stated TRDA is celebrating its 15th anniversary; he serves as the Executive Director, and has since its inception; it was created through local legislation in 1987, and is governed by a five-person board appointed by the Governor; and it is an independent special district. He stated the mission in the beginning was to promote Brevard County as a high-tech center; Brevard County is the only county in the State that has an organization similar to the TRDA; and its mission was broadened to promoting technology in other parts of the State. He stated the board of the TRDA is chaired by Ernie Brill; local business persons serve on the board; it is a very active board; and that has been a key to the success of the program. He stated TRDA receives funding from a variety of different sources; it is not a district that can tax; and it works through a variety of different agencies including Florida Department of Education. He stated they receive 50% of the Challenger license plate revenues; they also work with the Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee on energy related programs; and they have also been very successful in working with some of the different federal agencies in trying to attract dollars to this area and to the State to promote technology and job creation. He stated NASA has been a key partner of TRDA since its inception; the Challenger license plate funds were designated for use for space-related education and technology based programs; one example would be the Get Smart Program the Board heard about earlier; and advised of support of the Get Smart Program by the Summer Industrial Fellowship for Teachers, Inc. (SIFT), for which a significant portion of the funding comes from the Challenger license plate revenue to promote teachers and teacher training during the summer. He stated there are some very interesting connections between the different programs; and they all tie together nicely. He stated the Endeavor Academy is a new program that started this year that focuses on math, science, and technology-based training for teachers of grades K-12; it is made possible through grants from the Florida Department of Education as well as the U.S. Department of Education; they work closely with Dr. DiPatri and the Brevard County School System; and the program takes advantage of all the great teacher training programs that are already in existence in the State, promoting them to teachers not only in Brevard County, but throughout the State to try to raise the bar as far as the quality of teacher training in the areas of math, science, and technology. He stated See NASA is another significant program; it is funded from the Department of Education; and he worked with NASA on the effort. He stated it is all about brining kids to the Space Center to expose them to an educational experience; it is a two-day experience usually in conjunction with a launch; the program was started this past year; and they hope to expand it so that every fifth grader in the State will have the opportunity to make a field trip to the Space Center, and hopefully build on the type of work that FIT is doing to encourage students to go into math, science, and engineering-type disciplines. He stated another program is Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program, which is an economic development-based program designed to provide free technical assistance to businesses utilizing NASA as well as aerospace contractors to provide assistance to the businesses. He stated it is $3 million a year program funded by NASA; there is a contract with the local EDC to market the program in the County, but there are also contracts with 55 other economic development agencies around the State to do the same type of thing in their communities to try to make the technology and the advancements being discovered through the space program available to business people to solve their everyday technical problems; and they have recently expanded that program to Texas, New York, and New Mexico. He stated the hope is that one day it will become a national program and a key part of the effort to sell the space program and communicate its benefits to Congress as well as to the citizens. He stated another effort that is significant is energy-related programs; TRDA is serving as the lead agency for the State in the area of energy; it contracts with the Energy Office of the Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee, and receives funding for the purpose of investing in technologies that are energy-related; and it has invested in a number of companies in the County that have allowed them to develop technologies that have some energy connection. He stated companies can receive up to $30,000 in grants for the purpose of developing business plans, marketing plans, and those things that are necessary for them to secure venture capital funding as well as grants to allow them to leverage other venture capital money. He stated another program allows the companies to receive up to $150,000 in grants for the purpose of developing those technologies to the next stage; another related program is energy incubation, which is the creation of clean energy businesses; and it has never been as important as it is today to try to develop some alternative energy sources. He stated that is going to come from the private sector for the most part; and they need to encourage those businesses that are developing those technologies. He stated this past week, they received a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to develop a clean energy incubation component in the County as part of what it is doing with NASA; the NASA incubator in Titusville will now begin to promote and seek out businesses, specifically developing clean energy technologies; that grant was for $170,000; and they expect that type of funding to continue. He stated they are also working with NASA in the area of dual use technology, trying to find companies that can develop NASA technologies for commercialization and supporting the development of technologies that NASA needs at Kennedy Space Center; and in the past week they received an announcement that they just received a $600,000 grant in conjunction with the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which is based in Orlando, as well as the Brevard County Workforce Development Group and the EDC. He stated this is about trying to support some of the subcontractors who are working with the Boeing Corporation in Brevard County and trying to assist them in the development of technology innovations and the commercialization of those innovations, as well as working with the suppliers of Boeing under the new contract the company received. He stated it is a very significant effort, and connects TRDA with the Workforce Development activity and training activity, which is important to the community. He stated the budget for the TRDA is approaching $7 million; they are based in Titusville, and have 19 employees; and they have grown substantially in the last 15 years. He stated they have contributed a great deal to the County; and probably their biggest weakness is they have not been blowing their horn enough. He stated a lot of times when great things are happening, they are working behind the scenes to help make some of those things possible; and he is anxious to focus on the incubation program, which has a great deal of promise, and which has already contributed greatly to the community.

Dave Kershaw, Director of Florida/NASA Business Incubation Center, stated he would like to define what business incubation is and then talk about what has been accomplished nationally, what has been accomplished in the County, and what they hope to do in the near future. He stated business incubation is a process of nurturing young companies to help them grow and survive during the critical early phases of development; TRDA helps them to become established and profitable so they can go out into the commercial real estate market, create jobs and wealth, and support the local economic development of the community; and the process, no matter where it takes place, provides four fundamental things. He stated the first is affordable space either at or below market rates; and the space should be expandable and flexible so it can accommodate companies as they grow or contract. He stated another element of incubation is shared business services such as common copy machines, fax machines, and access to conference rooms or videoconferencing equipment; TRDA also provides business assistance from its staff in coaching and mentoring activities; and it opens up access to professionals such as attorneys or accountants. He stated the fourth fundamental thing is access to capital resources either through grants, loans, or private equity investments; the process has been quite successful in the County; and all of the fundamental things incubators provide are important because most entrepreneurs report that in the first six to nine months of getting their business together, they spend upwards of half their time focused on some of these infrastructure issues, such as where to locate the business, who to lease the copier from, etc. He stated when entrepreneurs do that they face a huge opportunity cost in terms of time lost in finding, negotiating, and contracting for these kinds of services; and what incubators do is reduce the time, cost, and hassle of having a business up and operational so they can focus on their core business development and revenue producing activities. He stated depending on where incubators are they have a number of different missions; TRDA in Titusville is focused on helping to accelerate the growth of small technology companies; other incubators are involved in helping to diversify economies to help grow more strong companies within an economy focused on targeted sectors like electronics, aerospace, or information technology; and incubators help to empower minorities by providing them with entrepreneurial training and giving them access to opportunities and resources so they can increase their incomes and become financially independent. He stated incubation began about 20 years ago in this country; at that time there were only a handful of incubators; and today the National Business Incubator Association (NBIA) reports there are well over 800 incubators in the country. He stated very few of them are private; most are associated with colleges or universities or with economic development agencies, such as TRDA; and the NBIA reports that in the last 20 years incubators in North America have created more than 500,000 jobs. He stated NBIA also reports that 84% of the firms that have graduated from incubators have stayed in their communities and continued to provide a return to the local economy, investors, and entrepreneurs in those companies; it also reports that 87% of all firms that have graduated from incubators are still in business today, which is an incredible success ratio as most non-incubated companies have a 50-50 chance of survival; and for every public dollar invested in incubation, there is a return of $4 back to the economy in salaries, wages, direct purchases, and other economic benefits. He stated with the incubator in Titusville, they are very proud of their results over the last six years; they helped client companies create more than 70 permanent, high-waged jobs; they housed, counseled, or graduated 27 different technology companies; and those companies that are still operating in Central Brevard have revenues exceeding $10 million a year. He stated American
Services Technologies, currently operating in Cocoa, has 30 employees and $5 million in sales in 2001; NetLander, which is an information technology software company operating in Titusville, has 15 employees with $1.6 million in sales in 2001; Command and Control Technologies, the County's Spaceport Park in Titusville, has 18 employees and $1 million in sales in 2001; and Dr. Metcalf who spoke earlier and his company were also a client of TRDA in the technology incubator in Titusville. He stated they are looking at doing some expansion of the incubator services in the future; and they have begun working with the City of Melbourne on developing an incubator along the University Boulevard corridor, which is a CDBG target area. He stated the City has committed $250,000 to this project, which his agency has matched; and they are currently seeking additional funds of approximately $1 million from the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration to build the project. He stated they are looking to do about 25,000 square feet to not only serve technology companies, but to serve professional service companies and small manufacturing and assembly companies; and they will impact low and moderate income people in the area by providing the standard incubation services, access to entrepreneurial training, and opportunities in the area of federal procurement, federal business opportunities, getting them familiar with GSA schedules, and opening opportunities to become certified as 8A or small disadvantaged businesses. He stated they are also looking to develop the expansion of the incubator in the north part of the County; they are completing a feasibility study partnered with Housing and Human Services Director Gay Williams and her staff; and they expect that to be completed this week. He stated it is looking positive in regard to the expansion of operations to provide more incubator services to residents in North and Central Brevard; incubators have a great track record, and they have a great track record in the County; and they are pleased with what they have done. He stated they have had the investment of the housing office and the City of Melbourne to help establish more incubation and infrastructure in the County, and to help develop the next generation of economy in the County. He thanked Commissioner Colon for inviting them.

RESOLUTION, RE: CONGRATULATING THE CAPE CANAVERAL COUNCIL OF THE
NAVY LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES

Chairman Scarborough stated there is a resolution for the Cape Canaveral Council of the Navy League of the United States.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt a Resolution congratulating the Cape Canaveral Council of the Navy League of the United States on its Centennial and its recognition as a 2001 Outstanding Council of the Year. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LETTER, RE: FOX LAKE ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

Chairman Scarborough stated he has a letter he would like to send to the Department of Environmental Protection regarding a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation effort to improve Fox Lake.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the Chairman to send a letter to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection requesting support for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Fox Lake enhancement project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LETTER, RE: TOPPING TREES IN ENCHANTED FOREST FOR TICO CLEAR ZONE

Chairman Scarborough stated the Tico Airport Authority has concerns about the trees in the Enchanted Forest; he has received information from the EEL's Committee; and requested permission to forward that information to the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, which is the owner of the property.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Chairman to send a letter to Governor Jeb Bush concerning the request of the Tico Airport to top trees in the Enchanted Forest for an aviation clear zone. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING PUERTO RICAN HERITAGE MONTH

Commissioner Higgs read aloud a resolution proclaiming Puerto Rican Heritage Month.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution proclaiming the month of November 2002 as Puerto Rican Heritage Month. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs presented the Resolution to Samuel Lopez. Mr. Lopez expressed appreciation to the Board for the resolution; and invited everyone to the 6th Annual Puerto Rican Day Parade in Palm Bay. He stated United Third Bridge has been operating in the County for six years; the idea behind the group and the parade is to provide culture and scholarships for people of color in Brevard County; they started raising funds at the Seventh Annual Salsa Festival at Wickham Park; and since they started they have helped place ten teachers in the Brevard County School system and 11 police officers. He stated they formed a partnership with HealthFirst to get people of color to participate in the nursing program for minorities; and they partnered with BCC and UCF to start a teaching program for young minorities to be able to go to school and end up teaching in the County. He stated United Third Bridge provided technical assistance to help form the first Florida Puerto Rican/Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; the opening day will be November 2, 2002 at 12:00 noon; and there will be business networking. He stated they also acquired a building to house United Third Bridge as well as the Chamber; and he will be making announcements about the ribbon-cutting ceremony.

Commissioner O'Brien advised of his vacation in Puerto Rico.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING EAGLE SCOUT JARED J. SOUDERS

Commissioner Higgs read aloud a resolution commending Jared J. Souders on his achievement of the rank of Eagle Scout.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution commending Jared J. Souders on his accomplishment of the rank of Eagle Scout. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs presented the Resolution to Jared Souders. Mr. Souders expressed appreciation to those who helped him with his project.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING FAMILY DAY

Commissioner Colon read aloud a resolution proclaiming September 23, 2002 as Family Day.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution recognizing September 23, 2002 as Family Day. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING REGULATIONS RELATING
TO HOME OCCUPATIONS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept legislative intent for proposed amendment to Chapter 62, Article VI, Section 1155 relating to home occupations. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT, RE: REVISING SECTION 62-1334 OF THE ZONING CODE TO
CLARIFY THAT ONLY COMMODITIES RAISED ON THE PREMISES MAY BE PACKED
AND PROCESSED ONSITE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept legislative intent revising Section 62-1334 of the Zoning Code to clarify that only commodities raised on the premises may be packed and processed at that site. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT, RE: ANNEXATION REQUEST #AR-2002-141 FROM CITY OF
MELBOURNE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge annexation Request #AR-2002-141 by the City of Melbourne involving approximately 17.7 acres of property along the west side of Wickham Road, south of Lake Washington Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL ENGINEERING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, RE: CHASE HAMMOCK
SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approval for Chase Hammock Subdivision, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and developer obtaining all other necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, RE: AQUARINA, PARCELS E, F, AND G

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant preliminary plat approval for Aquarina, Parcels E, F, and G, subject to compliance with recommendations by review agencies and all other applicable policies, ordinances, laws, and regulations, and developer obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: REVISING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW FEES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution revising the development application review fees. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF AFFIDAVIT FOR REISSUANCE OF LETTER OF CREDIT, RE: AQUARINA
BOULEVARD

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Affidavit for Reissuance of Lost Letter of Credit guaranteeing infrastructure improvements to Aquarina Boulevard. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

UNPAVED ROAD AGREEMENT WITH HAROLD D. CATRON, RE: FORTUNA AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Unpaved Road Agreement with Harold D. Catron for a building permit off an existing right-of-way, which has been constructed to the standards of the Unpaved Road Code of Ordinances, Section 62-102. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH TAX COLLECTOR, RE: ENFORCEMENT OF
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Interlocal Agreement with the Tax Collector for enforcement of occupational licensing for a one-year period beginning October 1 2002 and terminating September 30, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WATERLINE EASEMENT WITH CITY OF MELBOURNE, RE: MELBOURNE BEACH
LIBRARY WATER SERVICE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Waterline Easement in favor of the City of Melbourne for the new Melbourne Beach Library located in Section 8, Township 28S., Range 38E. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 2003 CATEGORY A PROMOTION
AND ADVERTISING GRANT PROGRAM HANDBOOK

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the proposed Tourist Development Council 2003 Category A Promotion and Advertising Grant Program Handbook. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO FY 01-02 AGREEMENT AND RENEWAL OF FY 02-03 AGREEMENT
WITH BREVARD COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY, INC., RE: WE CARE PROGRAM
FUNDING

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment to FY 01-02 Agreement with Brevard County Medical Society, Inc. reallocating unexpended funds, and Renewal of FY 02-03 Agreement with the Society in amount not to exceed $25,000 for the We Care Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, RE: WEATHERIZATION
ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Department of Community Affairs for the Weatherization Assistance Program, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and Low-Income Emergency Home Repair Program; and authorize the Chairman to execute follow-up amendments or additions which increase program funding, contingent upon Risk Management and County Attorney approval. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT WITH OSCEOLA COUNTY, RE: FIRE/RESCUE SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Automatic Aid Agreement with Osceola County to provide a service exchange to allow for fire and rescue protection to the southwestern Brevard area known as Fellsmere Grade area and the southeast Osceola area known as Deer Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF PALM BAY, RE; I-95 CORRIDOR AUTOMATIC AID

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Renewal of Agreement with City of Palm Bay for I-95 corridor automatic aid emergency fire and medical services, with increase of $2,600 to the yearly payment of services to the City and increasing amount paid for services to $15,600 for FY 2002-2003; and authorize the County Manager or designee to execute renewal options. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA MEDICAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, RE: PARAMEDICS
RIDE-A-LONG TRAINING

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Florida Medical Training Institute allowing emergency medical technician and paramedic students to ride the County Rescue Units to achieve hands-on training; and authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute renewal options as outlined in the Agreement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH ATTORNEY SEAN ANDERSON RE: LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF
INDIGENT PERSONS IN DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Attorney Sean Anderson for legal representation of indigent persons in dependency proceedings in the amount of $50,000 per year, from October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH CONFLICT ATTORNEYS, RE: LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF
INDIGENT PERSONS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Attorneys Sean Anderson, Sam Bardwell, Jeannette Congdon, Tony Hernandez, III, and William L. Powell, Jr. for legal representation of indigent persons in conflict and juvenile court proceedings in the amount of $26,000 per year, from October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FIRST RENEWAL TO S.W.I.M. AGREEMENT WITH ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, RE: INDIAN RIVER LAGOON WETLAND REHABILITATION

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute First Renewal of S.W.I.M. Agreement with the St. Johns River Water Management District for rehabilitation of impounded salt marshes in the Indian River Lagoon, from October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RATIFICATION, RE: EMERGENCY PURCHASE OVER $35,000 FOR SEWER SYSTEM REPAIR

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to ratify Emergency Purchase Order in the amount of $39,000 for sewer system repair at South Patrick Regional Pumping Station. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: BAREFOOT BAY WATER AND
SEWER DISTRICT RATE RESOLUTION

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing by the Governing Board of Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District on October 1, 2002 to consider a resolution amending miscellaneous fees and charges. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH SCHOOL BOARD, RE: SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Brevard County School Board to provide funding for the School Resource Officers Program. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

PERMISSION TO DEMOLISH, RE: MELBOURNE COURTHOUSE MOD C

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the demolition of Modular C at Melbourne Courthouse on Nieman Avenue as a recent inspection by Building Code Compliance found the structure to be unsafe for occupancy. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY NATURAL GAS SALES
AGREEMENT AND NUI CITY GAS COMPANY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE
AGREEMENT, RE: NATURAL GAS COST SAVINGS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the FPL Natural Gas Sales Agreement and NUI City Gas Company Transportation Service Agreement for natural gas cost savings at County facilities; and authorize the Chairman to sign all associated documents related to the Agreements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: AUTHORIZING TAX EXEMPT COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN FOR
SHERIFF'S FLEET VEHICLE PURCHASE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution approving a draw of $300,000 from the Florida Local Government Finance Commission Tax-exempt Commercial Paper Loan Program to provide funding for the purchase of 13 law enforcement vehicles; authorize the Chairman to sign all closing documents needed to complete the loan; and authorize staff to make the necessary budget changes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TRANSFER OF NON-EXCLUSIVE
CABLE TITUSVILLE FRANCHISE OF TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT TO
ADVANCE/NEWHOUSE PARTNERSHIP

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing on October 15, 2002 to consider a Consent to Transfer non-exclusive cable television franchise of Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership to a wholly-owned subsidiary and management by Advance/Newhouse Partnership, with Time Warner Cable continuing the day-to-day operation of the system. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL TO ACCEPT RENEWAL FROM HEALTH FIRST HEALTH PLANS, INC., RE:
GROUP MEDICARE HMO PLAN PREMIUM

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept the $150 premium per member per month presented by Health First Health Plans, Inc. for the Group Medicare HMO Plan, effective January 1, 2003, subject to Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) approval. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: ESTABLISHMENT OF GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION
RATES FOR EMPLOYEES, RETIREES, AND DEPENDENTS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to establish the recommended group health insurance contribution rates for employees, retirees, and dependents, effective January 1, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE; MERIT SYSTEM POLICY CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise public hearing to consider amendments to Merit System Policy II, Pay Plan; Merit System Policy IV, Appointments; Merit System Policy V, Probationary Periods; Merit System Policy IX, Leave; Merit System Policy XI, Employee Performance Evaluation; Merit System Policy XII, Disciplinary Actions; and Merit System Policy XIII, Employee Grievances and Appeals. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION, RE: RECORD NOTICE OF NON-ACCEPTANCE, EXECUTE QUIT CLAIM
DEED WITH SEASONS IN THE SUN, LLC, AND ACCEPT EASEMENT

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Quit Claim Deed with Seasons in the Sun, LLC; authorize staff to record Notice of Non-Acceptance; and accept easement for the property at the time grantor fulfills all requirements for granting the easement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF LEGAL FEES, RE: COUNSEL FOR PERSONNEL COUNCIL

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the hourly rate for legal services to the Personnel Council of $155.00 per hour, effective January 1, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT PLAN AND WELFARE TRANSITION
PLAN

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute the Workforce Investment Act Plan and Welfare Transition Plan as requested by Brevard Workforce Development Board, Inc. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to reappoint Larry Garrison to the Health Facilities Authority with term to expire September 16, 2006; and appoint Tom Olexa to the Committee to Review Special Master Procedures with term to expire November 1, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Bills and Budget Changes as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION, RE: COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN TO FINANCE TRANSPORTATION
CAPACITY PROJECT

Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts Scott Ellis stated the issue today is the commercial paper draw on the impact fees; and inquired if it is authorizing a commercial paper draw in 2004-2005, which is an obligation of a future board.

Commissioner Carlson stated it might be good to have a little background before Mr. Ellis continues; what she put on the Agenda was to authorize commercial paper draw in 2004-2005, not to exceed five million, to finance the widening of Barnes Boulevard; and the method of payment for this loan will be a commitment of transportation impact fees. She stated when Local Option Gas Tax (LOGT) projects were prioritized in 1999, Barnes Boulevard was included for three intersection improvements only; and since that time, there has been a significant increase in traffic on Barnes Boulevard, with a great deal more anticipated before LOGT funds will be available to widen the segment between Murrell Road and Fiske Boulevard. She stated the segment between Murrell and Fiske is in great need of widening; and she would not bring this before the Board unless she thought it was of an urgent nature. She stated the recent construction of larger commercial centers on either end of the segment when combined with current and anticipated residential construction necessitates the near term funding mechanism in order to proceed now with the widening project. She stated there are sufficient transportation impact fees saved at this time to complete engineering and design and start necessary right-of-way purchases; if the project is started now, it will be sometime in 2004 before additional funding would be required; but it has been determined that transportation impact fees, while not bondable, are an acceptable source of funding for payment of a commercial paper draw, based on the County Attorney's opinion. She stated if Constitutional Gas Tax, LOGT, or other funding becomes available for transportation capacity projects, those funds could be applied in lieu of this funding plan; but in that event the transportation impact fees would revert to the smaller projects normally associated with impact fees.

Mr. Ellis stated everyone understands the need for widening Barnes Boulevard, and no one has a problem with using impact fees to do the engineering and right-of-way; but there are two issues of concern. He inquired how can the Board issue commercial paper on impact fees, which are a volatile source of revenue, and how can the Board pass an item today to bind a future board to do the commercial draw. He stated he would understand if today's item was to use existing impact fees to do the engineering and the right-of-way acquisition; that makes sense and the money is there; but he does not understand why the Board is discussing today doing a commercial paper draw two to three years in the future. He stated this presentation should be made three years from now about the volatility of using impact fees for commercial paper; for those who were here in the early 1990's, impact fees were down significantly because construction was down; there is a projection for impact fees showing a large increase in 2004-2005 in impact fee revenue; and inquired if that is because the CDD credits will be paid off at that point. He inquired if the assumption is that in 2004-2005 there will be no CDD credits to Viera. Planner Steve Swanke stated the only credit that has been authorized so far to the CDD is for Murrell Road; they expect that would be repaid in that timeframe; and they do not anticipate other credits to the CDD. He noted there may be other credits that are due to The Viera Company that they are not aware of at this point, so there is some possibility they would have to consider a request from The Viera Company for an impact fee credit for a roadway improvement constructed either within the DRI project or outside it.

Mr. Ellis stated the Board is projecting no impact fee credits for those four or five years, which it does not know; he does not know what Viera's grounds may be when it comes and asks for an impact fee credit to be granted by the Board because a CDD is a quasi-governmental authority; but that is somewhat of a moot point today because the Board is talking about commercial paper draw that is going to be done two to three years in the future; and that is why he does not understand the item today beyond authorizing engineering and right-of-way with impact fee dollars. He inquired why is there a discussion in 2002 on a commercial paper draw in 2004-2005, when it is already known that Commissioner O'Brien is retiring and there is no idea who may be retiring in 2004, but it is going to be a future board. He inquired if the Board's action today is binding on a future board to do the commercial paper draw. County Attorney Scott Knox responded no, if the Board today passes this item and the board of 2004 decides it does not want to do it, it can repeal the item in 2004. He stated today's action would represent a commitment to move in that direction, but it does not bind the board in 2004, if it chooses to say no. Mr. Ellis inquired if that is the Board's understanding, that it is a commitment to issue in three years, but is not a binding item. Chairman Scarborough advised that is what the Board has been told. County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if the Board obligates them today, does that tie up the impact fees so no one else can make a demand on them. Mr. Knox responded the Board could take that position in terms of allocating them for accounting purposes. Mr. Jenkins stated if The Viera Company came in at a subsequent time and asked for a credit, if it had already been committed, then it would not be available, which should solve the problem. Mr. Swanke advised it depends on the circumstances of the project for which it is asking for credit; Florida Statutes provide certain mandatory credits for development's action within developments of regional impact, so the Board would also need to consider the character of the project and the nature of the exaction, and make some decision regarding whether credit was due. Mr. Jenkins inquired if this project is a project of regional impact; with Mr. Swanke responding it is a major project, but most of it is not in the DRI.

Mr. Ellis reiterated he does not see how the Board can obligate those funds toward the future draw; the Board can certainly obligate funds toward engineering and right-of-way; but he does not believe it can obligate future funds for a construction project that will not start for another two or three years. He stated as Chairman Scarborough and Commissioner Higgs remember, there were funds allegedly committed to do the Malabar Road widening project with gas tax, but the money had been expended before the project was done; so there is no guarantee there will be impact fee dollars in 2004-2005. He stated he does not understand why the Board is considering an item today for commercial paper; as for the commitment of impact fees for engineering and right-of-way, that is not unusual; the City of Palm Bay did that with the Emerson widening; but he does not understand why the Board is dealing with the issue of commercial paper today for an item that is going to come up a few years from now.

Commissioner Colon inquired how does tying the hands of future boards play in what the Board is discussing. Mr. Knox responded if the Board decides to commit impact fees from this area for this purpose now, and authorizes a commercial draw in the year 2004, if that board in 2004 decides it does not want to do it for whatever reason, it does not have to go forward with it. John Denninghoff of Public Works, stated staff would like to have some assurances to funding for future construction because if they proceed with the design effort at this time, and there is a significant delay between the completion of the design and the initiation of construction, it will be necessary to expend more funds for an updated design or re-design. He stated the further apart the design and the construction are, the more money the Board will be spending on a re-design effort.

Jim McKnight, City Manager of Rockledge, stated in his 17 years as City Manager, this is the only issue for which he has been before the Board; he keeps coming back; and he will continue to come back on this issue. He stated Barnes Boulevard has been on the radar for quite a while as a four-lane project with the County; it is the only County road in the City of Rockledge; what they saw happen with the Viera CDD were plans for a connection at I-95; that may or not every happen, and if it does, it is going to be a long time away; however, Viera continues to develop at a rapid pace, and the growth of traffic on Barnes Boulevard has been substantial. He stated there has been one fatality on that road in the last three years; it continues to grow with truck traffic because it is a connector between I-95 and U.S. 1; and additionally it is an evacuation route for the hurricane season. He stated he does not think he has to sell the Board on the idea that this needs to be done as soon as possible; the City of Rockledge has not made a definite commitment; the County has not voted on it; but there has been discussion about participating with the City's impact fees with the County because the project is that vital to the safety of the citizens who live in the area as well as the people who use the road. He stated there will continue to be growth in the area; they believe they were at moratorium status recently; however, the new DOT standards indicated that it was not at moratorium status, but very close; and in the near future the City will be facing the issue of whether it can issue permits in that area or not. He stated long ago when he was on County staff, this project was on the radar; but it has been put off, and now it is time to move forward. He stated he cannot debate Mr. Ellis about the issuance of commercial paper; it is a reasonable assumption that things have to be done when the time comes, but steps need to be taken; and he understands what Mr. Denninghoff was saying about commitment to funding or having to spend additional money to get a redesign. He stated they need to figure out if there is going to be any right-of-way acquisition; they are only concerned about the segment between Murrell Road and Fiske Boulevard, which is the critical segment; the traffic counts are substantially lower at the other end; and there is acquisition of sanctuary there, so the development potential on the other end is much lower. He reiterated the area between Murrell Road and Fiske Boulevard is at a critical status, and will only get worse; stated Rockledge City Council is unanimous in its belief that the project needs to be moved ahead; and the City will consider being a financial partner in this project.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the City would be willing to take on the road if it is four-laned; with Mr. McKnight responding he is not sure. Mr. McKnight stated at that point, it is the City's decision because it gets involved in the functional reclassification that the State does as to who has what; it is not something the Council has talked about; however, it is something that could be considered. Commissioner O'Brien stated Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott has been working diligently with all the cities to come up with a joint planning agreement that provides when the cities have annexed 51% along a roadway, they take the roadway as a city responsibility. He stated both sides of Barnes Boulevard are owned by the City; and he does not think there is County property along the road because the City has annexed it all. Mr. McKnight stated there is still some area on the east end that is County property. Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like to see the City Council put on its agenda a discussion on taking title to the road for all future maintenance, upon completion of the four-laning of Barnes Boulevard. Mr. McKnight stated it is a reasonable request.

Heidi Brandow, representing the Cocoa Beach Area Chamber, stated the Chamber is supporting the City of Rockledge in its request to move this project forward; and read aloud a Resolution adopted by the Chamber's Board of Directors on September 11, 2002, supporting the four-laning of the 1.2 mile section of Barnes Boulevard between Murrell Road and Fiske Boulevard/I-95.

Commissioner Carlson stated everyone is basically saying the same thing; and she thinks the Board should move forward with the action in the sense there are dollars available to go ahead with the engineering and design. She stated the commercial paper draw should not be required before 2004-2005; that is fine to make the decision then; even though the County Attorney has said the Board could bind future boards, she is not sure that is prudent; but this still needs to move forward; and the Board also needs to address the issue of what happens once it is four-laned. She stated hopefully there will be funds in 2004-2005 that may not be as questionable in terms of the impact fees; it would be her hope that they could get something that was a better investment; but given the circumstances and urgency, she would like to proceed with the item to get started on an engineering design and begin communications with the City concerning the joint planning agreement. She inquired when is the best time to get the City Council to address the joint planning agreement in terms of the 51% ownership, and taking over the maintenance of the road once it is four-laned. Mr. Denninghoff suggested an interlocal agreement with the City that would include participation in the expenses associated with the widening, the maintenance responsibility, and ownership of the road after the widening is completed, prior to moving forward. Commissioner Carlson stated that can be part of the motion.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize moving forward on the widening of Barnes Boulevard, including going back to the City Council to get feedback on financial participation, maintenance, and ownership of the road.

Chairman Scarborough noted there is no second at this time.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should send the item to the City of Rockledge; when the joint planning agreement is signed, it can come back to the Board for approval; and then staff can go forward with the planning and design. He stated he likes to have an agreement in hand first before spending money; the Board could go forward today and the joint planning agreement could float around for years; Mr. Scott has worked hard to get agreements and several cities have signed; and it is important at this juncture to say, the County will put money into this deal and the City will come to the table as well; the agreement will say not only on Barnes, but on all future roads, when it hits 51%, the City will take over responsibility; and he would rather have the agreement in hand before spending money.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the City of Rockledge has a Joint Planning Agreement in place; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired how could this be crafted in the way Commissioner O'Brien was talking about; with Ms. Busacca responding the local roads are already addressed through the Joint Planning Agreement; and the issue of Barnes Boulevard, which is classified as a County road, may take a separate agreement.

Commissioner Colon stated staff has been giving the Board feedback on this subject; she is under the impression staff is telling the Board it is uncomfortable with how far apart the design and construction would be and that it would cost more money to do it this way; so, she is uncomfortable moving forward. She stated Barnes Boulevard is a road that needs to be widened; there was also talk about tying the hands of a future board; she has been in that position in the past, and does not intend to do the same thing now; and expressed concern about commercial paper and impact fees. She stated those are the reasons she will not be supporting the motion.

Commissioner Higgs stated she can support a motion today that takes most of what has been said, which is to commit the current impact fees to start with the design and then move forward specifically with Rockledge regarding an interlocal agreement to nail down exactly how things will be done; once the design is moving forward, the Board can have a sense of how much the right-of-way acquisition is going to be; there may be people who will see the benefit of the road to their properties; and people may donate right-of-way so they can get the road widening done, in recognition of how beneficial the project is. She stated she will second the motion if it is to direct staff to move forward on the design and to get that going, with the money coming out of impact fees, and also to move forward on the interlocal agreement.

Chairman Scarborough stated he is more of Commissioner O'Brien's inclination; he does not have a problem proceeding in this manner, which is new and different; but any time one goes into new territory, it is necessary to nail down a couple of things; and he is not going to support the motion at this time. He stated he would prefer to take Commissioner O'Brien's course to further define things with the City of Rockledge before going forward.

Commissioner O'Brien suggested Commissioner Carlson amend her motion to say that a joint planning agreement must be in place first, and once it is in place, then the design and acquisition of right-of-way can proceed.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to move forward with a joint planning agreement with the City of Rockledge for the widening of Barnes Boulevard; and upon execution of such agreement, authorize moving forward on the design for the widening of Barnes Boulevard, with the funding to come from transportation impact fees.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if this will start solving some of the problems; with Mr. Denninghoff responding yes.

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

The meeting recessed at 10:47 a.m. and reconvened at 11:00 a.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY/POWELL STREET IN
BAKER'S RESERVE PROPERTIES, INC., FIRST ADDITION TO MICCO - LEONARD D.
HEARNDON

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating right-of-way/Powell Street in Baker's Reserve Properties, Inc., First Addition to Micco as petitioned by Leonard D. Hearndon.

Walter Straub stated he has no objection to the vacating of Powell Street; but he does have concern about access to his property to the south of the Hearndon property.

Commissioner Higgs stated she understands the concern and has talked to Mr. Straub and Mr. Hearndon; Mr. Hearndon owns the property south of the vacation of the Powell right-of-way, which is Parcel 279; the parcel that Mr. Straub owns is south of that parcel; and Mr. Hearndon has indicated a willingness to donate to the County a right-of-way provision on the west side of the parcel, which would be a continuation of Evernia Street. She stated it is a 30-foot right-of-way; it would go the length of Parcel 279; and if the Board vacates, he will provide a legal description for the 30-foot right-of-way on Parcel 279, and that would give access to the parcels south of there. She stated how that would be developed, in a legal sense, is a different set of issues; but Mr. Hearndon would be willing to do that. She inquired what would be needed from Mr. Hearndon so the Board would have those assurances; with Cynthia Streeter of Public Works responding Mr. Hearndon would need to execute a right-of-way or quitclaim deed to the County and provide a sketch and legal description for the right-of-way. Mr. Hearndon stated he will get the surveyor to do a legal description of the western 30 feet, and will do a quitclaim deed to the County.

There being no further comment or objection, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution to vacate right-of-way/Powell Street in Bankers Reserve Properties, Inc., First Addition to Micco Subdivision as petitioned by Leonard D. Hearndon, subject to Mr. Hearndon submitting a right-of-way or quitclaim deed to the County for the donated right-of-way and a sketch and legal description for the right-of-way. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY/FOURTH STREET IN
PLAN OF TOWN OF PINEDA - GEOFFREY SCOTT THOMPSON

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating right-of-way/Fourth Street in Plan of Town of Pineda as petitioned by Geoffrey Scott Thompson.

Commissioner Carlson stated Dr. Saladino sent a letter of objection; and she would like to continue the public hearing to the next meeting. Chairman Scarborough stated the meeting on September 24, 2002 may be problematic; and suggested it be continued to October 1, 2002. Commissioner Carlson distributed information received from Gray Harris and Robinson.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to continue the public hearing to consider resolution vacating right-of-way/Fourth Street in Plan of Town of Pineda as petitioned by Geoffrey Scott Thompson to October 1, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING UTILITY EASEMENT/PUESTA DEL SOL
PLAZA IN PUESTA DEL SOL - JAMES D. AND ANA L. CARRAWAY

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating utility easement/Puesta Del Sol Plaza in Puesta Del Sol as petitioned by James D. and Ana L. Carraway.

Ernest Popplein stated he has been working for approximately ten weeks to pull a permit for the property owner to build a dock on his property; and they have run into a final snag, which is a five-foot drainage easement along the canal bank. He stated he has been working with Cynthia Streeter and has talked to Commissioner Colon; and requested the Board vacate the easement so the owner can utilize the easement area for the dock and utilities to the dock, and for any future concerns that may come up. He noted the owner is concerned about resale problems.

Commissioner Colon inquired about the status. Cynthia Streeter of Public Works advised she has investigated to see if any other easements have been vacated within the area, and to date, there have not been any; she did a field visit and noticed there were other encroachments and infrastructure within the easement area; research at the Building Department back to 1995 did not show where any permits have been issued; but she has no objections from any of the utility companies or County agencies regarding vacating of the easement. She stated staff does not have a problem with the easement being vacated.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if staff has entertained the possibility of an easement encroachment agreement; with Ms. Streeter responding she has talked with the contractor and the property owner; she sent them a copy of the easement encroachment document; and the other card submitted is from the property owner who would like to talk about the easement document.

James Carraway stated he is the property owner; and advised the easement had no purpose in the beginning, has no purpose now, and there is no known future purpose for the easement. He stated it has been troublesome and costly for the County in the past; it is troublesome and costly for him now, and will be for people in the future; it seems to be a mistake that was made in the beginning; and requested the Board removed the easement.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt a resolution vacating utility easement in Puesta Del Sol as petitioned by James D. and Ana L. Carraway.

Commissioner Higgs stated she thought the Board could accommodate the property owner with the encroachment agreement; and in that way, they have not vacated the easement, which may at some future date be useful. Mr. Carraway stated there is no known purpose for the easement in the future; the encroachment agreement solves his immediate problem and allows him to build his boathouse; but it becomes an issue when property is bought or sold; and requested the easement be vacated. Commissioner Higgs stated as long as the Board has officially acted in regard to the encroachment agreement and it is that it is a legal encroachment, the future buyers of the property have it legally mapped out for them exactly what they would go forward with; and even though it does not seem to have a purpose now, down the road it may be found to be useful. She stated it is possible to solve the applicant's problem without binding future boards. Mr. Carraway stated it is a troublesome easement and will remain that for both the County and the property owners unless it is vacated; the agreement itself is troublesome, and will probably require two attorneys, one for the buyer and another for the seller, to understand it; and there does not seem to be any good reason not to vacate. He stated it is unreasonable and unnecessary government restriction on the homeowner; he bought the property because of the canal there; to use it, any property owner in the future is going to have to go through the same process; and requested the Board reconsider.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Colon and O'Brien voted aye; Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs, and Carlson voted nay.

There being no further comment or objection, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to prepare an encroachment agreement with James and Ana Carraway for the dock and roof overhang. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION, EXCHANGE AGREEMENT, AND COUNTY DEED
WITH A. DUDA & SONS, INC., RE: EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY EAST OF
GOVERNMENT CENTER

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution, exchange agreement, and County deed with A. Duda & Sons, Inc. for exchange of property east of the Government Center.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated this item was continued from a prior meeting; staff got an appraisal to confirm the value of the parcels; this is an opportunity that was presented to the Board to swap a piece of property in the middle of the growth area for another piece on Lake Andrew Drive; and it would be an even swap of the two parcels. He stated they got one appraisal at the Board's request; and suggested if the Board is interested in going forward with this, that a second appraisal be done. He stated State law is that if the County buys a piece of property over $500,000, it must get two appraisals; the County is not buying the property as it is a trade; but if the Board wants to go the extra step, staff can certainly get a second appraisal. He noted staff did not want to incur that expense unless the Board was interested in pursuing it.

Commissioner Higgs stated that is a good avenue if the Board is going to pursue it; if it would bring together all the County's holdings in the area in one place, it would have some advantage; but she wants to look carefully at the second appraisal. She stated the underlying assumptions need to be very clear that the zoning would be compatible and those issues are taken care of; it makes some sense to exchange the parcels; but her decision would be contingent on the second appraisal.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize staff to proceed with a second appraisal for the exchange of properties with A. Duda & Sons.

Commissioner Colon stated she also recommended there be a second appraisal; and she will be supporting the motion.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he will support the motion; but at the same time, the Board will be considering Item V.G, Policy BCC-24, Acquisition, Sale, or Exchange of Property, which may require other information to come to the Board before it can go forward with this item. Chairman Scarborough stated if it is acceptable to the Board, any requirements adopted today by the Board would apply to this item as well.

Chairman Scarborough stated he has a concern; there was an extensive discussion between Scott Ellis and an appraiser; and the thought was that sometimes the property value on the market may be one thing and the property value to a particular individual may be different. He stated if he owned a car dealership, and could buy a property immediately adjacent or five miles down the road, an appraisal might recommend buying the property five miles down the road because it is a better value; but looking at it as a businessman, he would say no because it would mean his salesmen would have to drive down there and he would not have the capacity to funnel customers next door. He stated there are two values; and one is value to the marketplace, which is going to drive the seller because the seller will go to the marketplace and get the highest and best value; but when the Board is expanding facilities such as athletic fields, there needs to be an analysis incorporated because there may be unique value, which would indicate the value to the County would be greater or lesser than the appraised value. He stated as businessmen, the Board should think beyond the bland appraisal; and with that thought in mind and the fact that this is coming back, he can support the motion.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT WITH TOWN OF PALM SHORES
FOR REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT ORDERS

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a joint planning agreement with the Town of Palm Shores for review of development orders.

Rochelle Lawandales, representing the Town of Palm Shores, expressed appreciation to the Board and County staff for their support. She stated upon the Board's approval today, this will be taken to the Town Council at the end of the month for ratification and signature.

There being no further comment, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Joint Planning Agreement with the Town of Palm Shores. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien commended Planner Jim Ward and Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott for their work on the Agreement.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION CHANGING SCOPE OF SERVICES TO EL NINO
DISASTER RECOVERY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution changing scope of services to El Nino Disaster Recovery Community Development Block Grant.

There being no comments heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution changing the scope of services to El Nino Disaster Recovery Community Development Block Grant; reject the South County Bid (B-4-02-68) due to the cost of the project exceeding available grant funding; authorize the North Bid (B-4-02-67) for four sites in lieu of five to reduce bid cost to approximately $483,000; and authorize grant project extension request. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE STREAMLINING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND USES

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance streamlining accessory buildings and uses.

Commissioner O'Brien stated somewhere in the paperwork there is a sentence that says some co-provisions create unintentional impacts; a few months ago the Board tied a noose around the necks of staff by not allowing them to make some important decisions on their own accord to get things done; and sometimes the Board makes provisions in Code or Ordinance that have unintentional impacts down the road. He stated the Board can help fix that problem by taking words such as "shall" and making them "should"; and an example is on page 3 of the staff report talking about setbacks. He stated it says, "the structures shall be set back not less than 100 feet from the front lot line" and "not less than 50 feet from the side lot lines"; this is for an accessory building or use in productive agriculture; and the next part is that "the structure for the housing of farm animals or bees shall be located 50 feet from property under different ownership, etc." He stated if the word "should" was used, then staff, the County Manager, and the Committee would have leeway if the person could not make the 100 feet; if a person had a barn that had to be within 45 feet instead of 50 feet, then staff would not be locked in concrete such that the Board would have to hear an appeal or the applicant would have to jump through hoops trying to make a structure fit on the property. He stated there could be a wetland in the way that would make it impossible to build with the absolute setback; and he would like to see a change in the wording to say "should" instead of "shall" to allow for some deviation. He stated staff will use common sense; staff will not deviate the entire 50 or 100 feet; but staff would probably be willing to okay something that was only three feet off. He stated allowing some form of mitigation by staff will allow people to use their property; and at the same time, the goal the Board wants to attain will be met. He stated it says 50 feet because if someone is raising bees, the Board does not want the bees bothering the neighbors; but if the setback is only 45 or 47 feet, it may have no detrimental impact to the neighbor. He stated someone may want to build their barn 95 feet from the front line instead of 100 feet because they may have a beautiful stand of trees they do not want to cut down. He recommended Section 3, Chapter 62, Setbacks, and Section 7, Rural Estate Use Setbacks, be changed to "should"; and an example would be a small shed for storage of lawn maintenance equipment that the homeowners want to place at the side of the house rather than behind it so as not to block windows or something like that. He stated he would like to let staff use common sense as to where this can be applied. He stated Section 8, Rural Residential, RR-1, should be "should" rather than "shall" to allow staff to have elasticity to allow accessory structures to be moved a few feet so they are not in a ditch or something. He stated the word "should" is less powerful and does not bind staff or the Board; the Board has had this argument many times; sometimes it shackles its own hands; but sometimes it shackles the public; and the Board should not be adopting Ordinances that are so strong that they leave no way to wiggle or move, and do not allow staff in reviewing of plans to make allowances that are reasonable. He stated with the word "should", staff can at least move a little to accommodate the public; staff has a lot of common sense and knows what to do; and they can pass it to the County Manager if necessary. He stated Section 16, Single Family Attached Residential, says, "shall be located to the rear of the front building line of the principal building and no less than 10 feet to the rear of the side lot lines, but in no cases within the setbacks from the side street and with a minimum spacing of five feet"; but if the word was "should" there may be some places where it would allow staff and the designers to work together to work things out. He stated they do it all the time when they design projects; they are able to make a sidewalk three feet instead of four feet or things like that; and commented on the difficulties created for a single-family structure if there is no way for staff to find a resolution to problems. He stated if people appeal to the Board, it has the ability to say yes or no if the word is "should." He stated on page 8, Section 21, Rural Residential Mobile Homes, accessory buildings in residential agriculture uses are permitted, but it says, "the principal structure shall be set back not less than 25 feet from the front lot line"; and suggested changing the word "shall" to "should" to allow staff to give approval to move the structure forward to be in line with the person who originally put it up by 20 feet where the line used to be. He stated the Board had an example last month with a house in Cocoa Beach where the owner wanted to build the house with a 20-foot setback; but because there was a new setback of 25 feet, the Board said it had to be 25 feet even though all the other houses on the street were at 20 feet; the man waited ten years, the Board went back to 20 feet, and now he could use the 20-foot setback; but if the word had been "should," staff could have said it makes sense to have the house in line with the other houses on the street. He stated Section 21, 62-1401(B), says, "accessory buildings shall be located to the rear of the front building"; and suggested changing the word to "should" because sometimes accessory buildings can be to the side. He stated it calls for setbacks for barns to be 125 feet from the front lot line, 50 feet from the side lot line, and 50 feet from the rear lot line; and if the word is changed to "should," it would allow the owner to work with staff or appeal to the Board to shift or move it a couple of feet; and there may be good reasons to do so, such as keeping a tree. He stated that would give staff the ability to work with the public, and it would free up everyone to make a better decision for the public. He stated it says in Section 62-14.04, mobile home parks, TR-3, storage of travel trailers and recreational vehicles, that such units are stored in a separate area, which shall be landscaped and maintained, and storage of these units shall not be permitted on individual lots; but he sees nothing addressing the situation such as the one at The Great Outdoors where the recreational vehicles are built into the houses. He stated changing the word to "should" would give a little elasticity for projects like The Great Outdoors. He stated that is why he is looking specifically at certain paragraphs, but not every place where it says "shall." He stated in environmental areas, it says, "principal structures shall be set back not less than 25 feet from the front or side street lot line"; and if the word "should" was used, the structure could avoid the environmentally-sensitive area within the property by moving five feet one way or three feet the other, but still not be so close to the road. He recommended allowing some elasticity to correct potential problems rather than locking in and creating unintentional impacts upon property owners. He stated Part B says, "accessory structures shall be located to the rear of the front building line"; but there may be some reason why it has to be on the side; and if the Board uses the word "should," if there is a compelling reason, someone could use common sense. He stated Table 1, under Section 36, 62-2100.5, Accessory Buildings, says, "the side limitation of accessory buildings or structures when secondary to single-family residential uses is further limited as follows: each detached accessory building or structure shall not exceed 600 square feet or 50% of the living area of the principal building whichever is greater"; but the next section says administratively they can expand beyond that provision, but not exceed 1,000 square feet.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to change "shall" to "should" in the specific sections he mentioned previously.

Commissioner Higgs stated she does not support the amendment regarding setbacks; there are provisions in the Code for people to resolve their problems with those; and this is one of those things where "shall" is an appropriate mechanism in the law.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed to carry; Commissioners O'Brien and Colon voted aye; Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs, and Carlson voted nay.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board is trying to clarify the three different zoning interpretations to aid the public in understanding what is needed from them; she appreciates Commissioner O'Brien's suggestions concerning "shall" and "should"; but the Board is trying to strengthen the Ordinance, not weaken it. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is any reason to strengthen the Ordinance.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is trying to clarify accessory buildings and accessory uses; and she has one concern about the table shown on page 15, Section 36, 63-2100.5, which lists between one and five accessory structures on property up to one acre in size. She stated up to 25,000 square feet, she agrees with, but at the 25,000 square feet and the next sizes, she does not think it is in the best interest of the community to have so many accessory buildings permitted on a smaller lot.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to amend the proposed ordinance to change the table on page 15, Section 36, such that at 15,000 to 25,000 square feet the three becomes a two, and subsequent accessory structures be two, three, and four, up to 45,000 square feet, and in the paragraph below the provision that says one additional accessory building for each 10,000 square feet be amended to 15,000 square feet.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he cannot support that; accessory buildings include but are not limited to private garages, storage sheds, carports, greenhouses, gazebos, cabanas, utility buildings or rooms, verandas, glass rooms, porches, screen porches or awnings, swimming pools in screened enclosures, and private residential boat docks; and if someone is on a half-acre lot, and wants a greenhouse and gazebo, they could not have a porch or glass room. Commissioner Higgs advised if they are attached to the principal structure, this would not apply; what the Board is talking about is accessory structures; and if someone has a house with a pool screened area attached, then it would not be an accessory structure. She stated it is when the structure is separate from the building and put as an accessory, that the provision applies; so, a glass or screen room that is attached to the principal structure is not included in this as an accessory building. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what if someone wants a storage shed, greenhouse, and a gazebo; with Commissioner Higgs responding they can have up to two. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board keeps wanting to limit, but at the same time, there are unintentional impacts.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the amendment to the proposed ordinance. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

There being no further comments heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 62, "Land Development Regulations", Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Article VI, Division #1; Divisions #4, Subdivisions; II, III, IV, V, VI & IX; and Division #6, Subdivision #1; specifically amending Sections 62-1102, 62-1331(2), 62-1332(2) & (5), 62-1333(2), 62-1334(2), 62-1334.5(2), 62-1335(2) & (5), 62-1336-(2) & (5), 62-1337(2), 62-1338(2), 62-1339(2), 62-1340(2), 62-1341(2), 62-1342(2), 62-1343(2), 62-1344(2), 62-1371(2), 62-1372(2), 62-1373(2), 62-1401(2) & (5), 62-1402(2), 62-1403(2), 62-1404(2) & (9), 62-1405(2) & (9), 62-1406(2), 62-1481(2), 62-1482(2), 62-1483(2), 62-1571(2) & (5) to revise the accessory structure or use provisions; creating Section 62-1343(5)(H) to provide for accessory building setbacks; creating Sections 62-1404(1)(C), 62-1405(1)(C), and 62-1406(1)(E) to provide for attachments to principal structures within the TR-3, TRC-1, and RVP zoning classifications; creating provisions for accessory buildings or uses within the PUD & RPUD zoning classification to be coded as Sections 62-1443.5 & 62-1463.5 titled "Accessory Buildings and Uses"; creating supplemental regulations under Sections 62-2100.5 titled "Accessory Building and Use Standards" and providing criteria for said use; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, as amended. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT, RE: DUTIES OF DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table consideration of a report on the mission of the County's two dependent special districts. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 11:41 a.m. and reconvened at 1:00 p.m.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board did not say to what date it was going to table the item; and the request was to table to October 12, 2002.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated there is no October 12, 2002 meeting. The Board reached consensus to table the item to October 15, 2002.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: APPEAL OF STAFF INTERPRETATION OF
SECTION 62-3694(c)(3), BREVARD COUNTY CODE

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an appeal of staff interpretation of Section 62-3694(c)(3), Brevard County Code.

Barry Wallingford stated he is the owner of Atlantic Business Systems in Satellite Beach, a company they have managed to grow from less than $250,000 a year in 1994 to over $2.5 million anticipated this year; they employ 18 Brevard County residents; and they have outgrown their present space, and are attempting to expand. He stated he owns property in Satellite Beach, Merritt Island, and a vacant lot in Business Center Park, which has a small 0.13 acre wetland. He stated Jake Wise of CEG will present his case for mitigation.

Jake Wise stated they have discussed this item once before, and they are hoping for an official decision; the site is unusual in that it is triangular shaped with a railroad along the entire eastern boundary; the Code requirement is that two of the sides have a development prior to February 1996 to be able to develop it; and they have that to the south, but not to the west, which was developed after 1996. He requested the Board consider that the railroad to the east of the property be a commercial/industrial development; and stated it is private property that was developed before February 1996, and could be sold and used for any type of use. He stated railroad property has been sold or given away in Orange and Seminole Counties in the past for commercial uses; so the railroad should suffice to meet the requirements to impact the wetland. He noted the wetland is only 0.13 acre; it is highly disturbed and of minimal quality; and a biologist who reviewed the site considered that mitigating the wetland would be better for the environment than trying to maintain it because it has been so disturbed and is such a small area. He stated they have no issues with mitigating it; all they are asking for is that the railroad be considered a commercial/industrial development prior to 1996, because it is privately owned and because of the unusual shape of the site.

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board talked about transportation corridors last time and commercial; but while this is a transportation corridor, it is a different type of thing. He stated when there is a transportation corridor, it is something he can use as transportation; this is almost a foreign piece of property in the sense that a person cannot get on it and use it as he would a road or other transportation facility; therefore, he would see it more as commercial as opposed to transportation.

Commissioner Carlson stated whether one is talking about the roadway system or the rail system, there is public benefit; and obviously as a commercial establishment, the Board has never really defined that when talking about the wetlands policy. She stated what the wetlands policy says is "substantially surrounded"; the Board has been through that argument many times; but there is a problem in that the policy does not address odd shapes, but defined it as a square. She stated what the Board is addressing is commercial versus a public corridor; that is really the issue; and she tends to fall on the side of what the Board has discussed as far as substantially surrounded and the way the wetlands provision acknowledges that. She stated if the Board wants to change that, make exceptions, and go against what the Comprehensive Plan defines a utility corridor to be, then the Board will have to go that route; but she does not think the Board can supercede that at this point in terms of the process. She requested an opinion from the County Attorney. County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Board has a choice between commercial and corridor; whatever it calls it will determine how this goes; it could go either way; and staff came back with an interpretation that it was a corridor based on what was in the Comprehensive Plan and in other Ordinances. Commissioner Carlson stated the Comprehensive Plan does not discuss commercial versus public corridors in terms of defining that; and she would like to hear from the other Commissioners.

Commissioner Higgs stated the critical issue is the Comprehensive Plan and what it says in terms of utility corridors and rail transportation; staff has interpreted that the utility corridor is different from an industrial use; transportation and utility corridors do not have a zoning because they are not the same as private property in the sense of zoning or land use; so the Board has previously answered this question that it is does not fall as an industrial use; and the Comprehensive Plan's definition of substantially surrounded should stand. She stated she would support the Board not defining substantially surrounded in this case because of the long-standing definition in the Comprehensive Plan, which has been the policy and practice of the Board and previous boards.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he has a tendency to agree that the railroad tracks are not going away; they are used for industrial uses with what trains carry; this is an anomaly; and some of the Code provisions have created an unintended impact. He stated this is a parcel of property within an industrial zone that Mr. Wallingford would like to develop for his company; it is in the right location; the Board has the ability to not just interpret, but to waive; and this is a good example of why the Board should waive the policy. He stated if the property was some place else and there were no railroad tracks or environmentally endangered lands, there would be a different problem; but this is a triangular piece of property, which the Board did not address when it wrote the policy. He stated the railroad tracks are a division line between whatever is on the other side of the tracks and the industrial property; they are in the right zoning; and he agrees with Chairman Scarborough that the railroad tracks are industrial.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to support staff's interpretation that the property in question is not substantially surrounded, and that railroad tracks do not have an industrial zoning or land use criteria attached to them.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is unfortunate that the Board has not defined this better; but it did have a discussion of every incidental wetland; the discussion of substantially surrounded and wetlands continues to come back; and this .1 acre wetland does not take away the right to develop the property. She stated unfortunately there is an Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan that have argued this all around; and she cannot say she would support it unless there was something that was truly a hardship, for which the Board has received no evidence. She reiterated the Board has not taken away rights to develop the entire piece of property; the wetland is not very big; and she supports the motion.

Chairman Scarborough stated the original discussion was that the exception would exist because there would be difficulty developing the property in something other than commercial or industrial because it was substantially surrounded; the intent of the Board was to say someone may be in a posture where it could not force another use; but the railroad tracks create several different problems. He stated it is difficult to get railroad crossings to go to the other side; and it is a more intense use because it is a heavy activity.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board was given a drawing and the portion of the property that is a wetland does not take away the ability of the owner to use the property in a commercial or industrial way; and with some creative design and engineering, he should be able to do the development. Chairman Scarborough inquired if they would still be able to use the property without touching the wetland; with Commissioner Higgs responding yes.

Assistant County Manager Steve Peffer stated there is one thing he would like to have clarified during this discussion; in reviewing this item, they are not really talking about the specifics of this development, such as might be considered during a variance proceeding when there could be discussion about individual hardships; this is styled as an appeal of a staff interpretation; therefore, if the Board finds that staff has misinterpreted the Comprehensive Plan, staff will come away from the meeting henceforth and always interpret transportation and utility corridors as constituting a side for the purpose of this argument, unless the Board provides other direction. He advised this will be precedent setting for all properties adjacent to the railroad; and this is not a variance type process to deal with this triangular piece of property.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he cannot find anything wrong with determining today that the railroad is an industrial use; in the Comprehensive Plan, when the Board discussed it originally, it graded the wetlands in terms of quality, and that would be bearing upon the Board's future decisions; and this wetland is poor quality and very degraded. He inquired what was the Board's purpose in writing the policy this way, and has it attained the same goal by declaring that the railroad tracks could be considered a side.

Jake Wise stated he knows the specifics of the site are not a big factor in the Board's decision today; however, because of the triangular shape and the buffer requirements to the wetland, it is a huge impact on development. He stated he is a very creative engineer, but it is still necessary to meet setback, parking space, and driveway requirements; and because of the way the triangular shape narrows to the north, it limits a lot of what could be done with the site. He stated they would have to get tremendous variances to be able to avoid that area and to make the development cost feasible; the intent of the Code, in saying substantially surrounded, was picturing a four-sided property; this property has three sides; and if the railroad does not count as commercial or industrial, that would result in there only being two sides of the property. He noted he cannot think of anything more industrial than a railroad; and cited his experience having an office next to railroad tracks. He stated he would think that one of the two sides being developed prior to February 1996, since the railroad cannot count, would meet the definition of substantially surrounded and possibly the intent of the Code, although the definition does say two sides.

Chairman Scarborough stated what he heard from Mr. Peffer was getting an interpretation of the broader dynamics; that concerns him; and he would prefer, if the Board is going in that direction, to go back and change the fundamentals. He stated it is complex; there are several issues that have been raised; and the Board may also want to do an evaluation if a property is a rectangle with small sides at the end. He stated those smaller sides could be commercial, but the back could be something totally separate; there are a lot of dynamics; and suggested the Board address the whole thing.

Mr. Knox advised Mr. Peffer's point was if the Board decides that staff's interpretation was wrong, it would be setting a precedent up and down the railroad tracks.

Chairman Scarborough stated there were other elements to Mr. Wallingford's case besides the railroad tracks, such as the number of sides and what is meant by substantially surrounded.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board did not talk about the shape of a site, and it was assumed it was a four-sided site. Chairman Scarborough stated that is the problem.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it goes back to unintentional impact; and inquired what would happen if Mr. Wallingford took one of the three points and did not purchase one foot, making it a straight line so it would be a four-sided property. He inquired if the fourth side would qualify him as being substantially surrounded; and advised he could dedicate that foot of property to the County.

Commissioner Higgs stated there are a lot of implications if the Board decides today that utility corridors or railroads and transportation corridors are commercial/industrial, and puts that definition on it for roads and other things; that will spill over into the way the Board has previously dealt with other transportation corridors; so, this is a much bigger issue than Mr. Wallingford's particular problem. She stated his problem is solvable, but that is not what the Board is being asked to do today; it is being asked to support or not support the definition for transportation corridor; and she goes back to what has been the practice of the Board for years, which does not assign a land use to the railroad or the roads, and that the Comprehensive Plan talks about utility corridors. She stated that is what the Board needs to hinge on today; if it wants, at some other point in time, to look at other ways of defining substantially surrounded, that will be another painful process to look at that; but today the Board should stand on the way the Comprehensive Plan treats it and the way the practice of the County is in terms of the definition of transportation and utility corridors.

Chairman Scarborough stated he is going to vote in favor of the motion to deny because he does not want to do major policy changes in this mode; but after, he would like to see a motion to look at the issue again and redefine with full Board discussion on a number of different scenarios and way, because he does not necessarily agree that a railroad does not have the same impact on a property that commercial or industrial does.

Commissioner Higgs noted her motion was to support staff's interpretation.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

*County Attorney Scott Knox's absence and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley's presence were noted at this time.

Commissioner O'Brien requested a report from staff as to the railroads specifically; stated the FEC track runs through the County; he would like to know where the Board would hit this problem again and whether there would be a negative impact along the railroad to properties that are not commercial/industrial. He inquired how many people build their houses up against the railroad; and whether, because the Board does not define the railroad as one of the sides or as industrial, it would have a larger impact on future industrial growth and a minimal impact on the objective the Board is trying to reach of not having industrial growth be sporadic or sprawling.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct staff to provide a report on the transportation corridor, railroads specifically, and the effect on property that is not commercial/industrial.

Chairman Scarborough stated he will support that, but would like to have it extended to the concept of what the Board means by number of sides and surrounded in that capacity, as well as the railroad because that seems to be part of the issue; and inquired if that could be included; with Commissioner O'Brien responding affirmatively. Commissioner O'Brien stated he wants to find out the effect and the unintentional impact on everyone else.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the report is basically looking at the transportation corridor, with rail in particular, and then getting feedback from staff in regard to the shape of any particular lot; with Chairman Scarborough responding he would include the shape because there could be odd shapes such as the elongated rectangle that could be problematic.

Chairman Scarborough seconded the motion to direct staff to provide a report on the transportation corridor, railroads specifically, and the effect on property that is not commercial/industrial, and on how to deal with odd shaped lots in terms of number of sides substantially surrounded. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Barry Wallingford stated he did not intend to require the Board to make a decision on 70 miles of railroad throughout the County as he is obviously only concerned about one piece. Chairman Scarborough stated the law has to be consistent; the Board cannot do one thing for one person and something else for someone else; so, when it makes a decision, it is for everyone's property.

Mr. Wallingford inquired what the Board would recommend for his situation in terms of requesting a variance instead of setting precedent for the whole County; and what is the process and how long does it take. Commissioner Carlson stated variances are available; with Attorney Bentley advising a variance is not available, and this is the process. Commissioner Carlson stated if Mr. Wallingford came back with a particular site plan, he could get a variance for a certain number of feet for side setbacks; with Attorney Bentley responding yes, for side setbacks. Commissioner Carlson stated if Mr. Wallingford has a site plan in mind, he can bring it to staff and inquire what else he can do. Mr. Wallingford commented on the cost; with Chairman Scarborough advising there is another option to wait and see what occurs after the Board addresses it in a fuller discussion, although that is not going to happen quickly. Mr. Wallingford inquired if there is a time line; with Mr. Peffer responding a staff report could come back in two to three weeks; if it requires a Comprehensive Plan change, that would be a long process; but a change to the Ordinance could be accomplished in 60 to 90 days. Chairman Scarborough requested an opinion on whether it would require a Comprehensive Plan change; with Mr. Peffer responding the definition for substantially surrounded is in the Ordinance, but not in the Comprehensive Plan; however, the requirements for substantially surrounded may be in the Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner O'Brien reiterated his suggestion about selling part of the triangle to create a four-sided parcel.

STAFF REPORT, RE: REGIONAL OFFSITE MITIGATION AREAS

Jim Egan, representing the Marine Resources Council, stated a lot of research has been done on the wetlands in the County and Indian River Lagoon as a whole; the wetlands are of importance to the health of the Indian River Lagoon, primarily because of the normal relationship between wetlands and an estuary, and how closely they are connected as a tool for filtering pollutants and storing flood waters before they get to the lagoon; and it is also important in terms of habitat for the lagoon because the Indian River Lagoon has fewer wetlands connected to it than any estuary on the entire Atlantic Coast of the United States, while per capita it has higher amounts of wetland impacts than any other estuary. He stated this is according to research of Dr. Grant Gilmore; and when looking at wetland impacts in the area, it is necessary to pay special attention to that because typically a landowner sees a wetland as being a wasteland, while scientists know that it is a valuable habitat and community resource in terms of flood protection. He stated the proposal for a regional mitigation area can have certain benefits if it makes available a mitigation alternative locally that would otherwise not happen or happen at a great distance from the area or happen in a half-hearted way, creating little isolated wetlands throughout different parcels; and a regional mitigation area would be desirable from that perspective. He stated the Board would not want to subsidize a regional mitigation area or it would be actively encouraging wetland destruction and impacts to the wetlands that may cause things for which the real cost will not be found until ten or twenty years down the line as areas that were not subject to flooding suddenly become subject to flooding or water quality impacts occur that change the County's hydrology; so the critical thing is to design so as to not encourage impacts or allow people to develop parcels that right now under the Comprehensive Plan is not considered to have enough uplands to put a house on it. He stated he would not want to see the Comprehensive Plan being undone; and if this alternative was created without subsidy and it applied to individual homeowners whose already platted lands are going to be developed, it would offer them an option so they could pay into it and not have each individual trying to find some way of dealing with it individually. He stated there would be a desirability to have a regional connected wetland as opposed to little pieces scattered all over the place with little ability to maintain or monitor them; and advised a lot of time ten years later the little pieces do not exist any more.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board met in 1997 in a workshop concerning wetlands; there is no question it is a valuable habitat; but one of the statements made to the Board by Jim Swann from St. Johns River Water Management District was that the District has actually seen a net gain in wetlands across the years, with approximately 12,000 more acres at that time than there was before. He stated he is not saying they are not losing small areas of wetland through new growth and destruction, but Mr. Swann's statement was dynamic in that there was positive growth in wetlands rather than negative destruction of wetlands.

Mr. Egan stated there may be a misunderstanding because there is not a lot of creation of wetlands; but more wetlands are moving from private ownership into government ownership with hopes that as more go under government protection, they will be kept. He stated he is not sure what Mr. Swann was referring to, but he was probably referring to protected wetlands, now under government ownership and protection; and he does not know of anyone who is creating wetlands on a large scale. He stated most of the created wetlands are a situation where there is a wetland on site, so that portion is eliminated and a little bit nearby is enlarged.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Swann may have been referring to severely degraded wetlands that have been restored. Mr. Egan stated it could be that 12,000 acres more wetlands of a higher grade have been produced; but overall, since no one is creating wetlands, it is always a question of the pie shrinking. He stated a lot of the time they are not lost in big pieces; and they tend to be nickel and dime losses here and there because the isolated wetlands are the ones most likely to be impacted. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if wetlands are created when retention ponds are created; stated a lot of retention ponds have cattails at one end and certain foliage around them; and if he applied for a permit to expand a retention pond ten years after it was established, he is sure the County would say no, it is a wetland that cannot be touched. Mr. Egan advised biologists and engineers have a big fight about retention ponds; the engineers want retention ponds to be big holes in the ground with a grassy side, and the biologists would rather them turn into wetlands; but technically they are usually treated as a stormwater treatment area. He stated sometimes there is a special setup where there is a wetland being used as a finishing tool, so polluted water is sent through it; cattails are almost always nature trying to turn it into a wetland; but for the most part, those water bodies are not really becoming wetlands, although they could potentially. He stated usually they are being treated to not allow the plant material to fill the volume capacity, so they do not ever quite become wetlands; but they could have that potential use. He stated the only problem with them is they tend to be isolated; the real wetlands that are the most valuable are the ones physically connected to a water body; that is a place where juvenile fish could use it for shelter areas and a source of food interchange; the nutrient interchange between the water body and the wetlands becomes valuable; they are serving the function of capturing water so they are often being used in place of wetlands; a wetland is nature giving free flood protection; and that is part of the value of a wetland.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there is no doubt about the value of wetlands that exist; and advised of his experience owning a property on Newfound Harbor, where a corner of the property was declared a wetland because of water runoff accumulation and the grasses that were growing there. He stated a retention pond may have a corner that is a little muddy, and that may become a wetland. Mr. Egan stated they are not legally defined as such; anyone who has a retention pond can always realign the shape of the pond to its original capacity; and the St. Johns River Water Management District may say the retention pond has become filled in with cattails, for example, and require the owner to recreate the shape of the pond. He stated it is not necessary to get a wetland permit if one has a retention pond if it is necessary to re-excavate it, because it is understood to be a tool. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is not referring to filling the pond with cattails, but a corner or portion of it; and there are retention ponds with fish swimming around in them. Mr. Egan agreed there are; but it is usually a very low bio-diversity because there are only so many species that can survive there; and a retention pond is not protected as a wetland.

Commissioner Carlson stated it also has a lot to do with the soil; if someone is building a retention pond, they are not necessarily in a position where they have the proper soil, so she does not see how they would create a wetland from a retention pond. Mr. Egan stated nature will tend to create a habitat around the edges of a retention pond, which, if it was connected to a water body, would have a value; and it will also have a value to migrating birds, but is not comparable to a wetland. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is feasible if someone had a triangular shaped property with a .1 acre disturbed wetland, such as the previous speaker, that they could create some sort of a stormwater facility/wetland and make it productive keeping the integrity of the wetland in place but also using it to serve as a holding place for water. Mr. Egan stated they tend to shy away from that because if someone wants volume, they need depth, and wetlands tend to be too shallow; and it also tends to degrade wetlands even further when they are used for stormwater. He stated cattails are indicative of too many nutrients; if he was afraid of water running off the parking lot and getting into a water body, he could send it to the wetland first and then into the water body; the wetland would intercept most of the pollutants; but the wetland would start to degrade, so ideally they would go into a retention pond. He stated in an extreme case with high water, the retention pond may overflow into a wetland and overflow into a water body; but it is preferable to not see the wetland be degraded by stormwater if possible. Commissioner O'Brien stated the .1 acre wetland discussed earlier was already degraded; and inquired if by having stormwater runoff diverted to that area, could it not improve the wetland that is already there and degraded. Mr. Egan responded it probably would not improve it; ideally he would love to see the wetland enhanced as part of the process; usually a wetland is called degraded because someone found a couple of beer cans or Brazilian pepper trees have started to make their way in or things like that; but usually it does not take much to turn the wetland around as part of the process. He stated rather than write it off and use it as a retention pond, it would be better to see it restored; if the St. Johns River Water Management District was interested, it could be proposed to that body as an alternative; but usually the District prefers to see wetland not be used as stormwater retention, so usually that has to be handled separately.

Commissioner Colon stated they are trying to focus on the regional offsite mitigation area (ROMA) and valuable habitat; and she is in favor of supporting wetlands. She inquired if Mr. Egan had an opportunity to read everything that came to the Board regarding the report and the cost to the County, and does he have those figures. Mr. Egan stated if he was on the Board he would tend to be looking at trying to take advantage as much as possible of partnerships to see what someone else can bring to the County in terms of a package or offer to decrease the County's responsibility and burden; there is a big upfront cost in terms of the purchase of the lands; but ultimately the Board wants to make it clear that it is going to be the person creating the impacts, not the average taxpayer, who will be paying the bill. Commissioner Colon stated there were examples of private mitigation companies where it is possible to have that kind of partnership; some of the things that were discussed were if ROMA was established, whether it would require a significant initial investment on the County's part for additional staff, permitting costs, administrative costs, restoration, design, development, and land management responsibilities for the next ten years; and there was discussion about if the Board chooses to subsidize ROMA, if it would require additional County funds. She stated that would be a great deal of money; and she wanted to know if that was in the information that was given to Mr. Egan. Mr. Egan stated in order to make this possible, the County would have to invest "x" number of dollars in the process; there is going to be an ongoing cost with restoration and maintenance; and the Board would have to calculate what a credit would be worth to utilize that mitigation so the County is not left holding part of the bag. He stated the County would make its initial investment upfront and then that investment would be paid for as people started to use the credits; but if the Board does a subsidy kind of arrangement, the homeowners who are creating the impacts would never have to repay the County. He stated if it was set in such a way that it was defined as each person has to pay a credit that would be proportional to the value the County invested in the parcel, then ultimately, even though the County would be paying the money now, in the end, it would be the people generating the impacts who would ultimately have paid the cost. He stated ten years from now, there may not even be alternatives in the County for them to invest in; but if the County has something in place, it could bill them if they wanted to participate in order to mitigate within the County. Commissioner Colon stated even though this was just based on a report that was requested from staff, one of the biggest issues was funding; and inquired if there has been any discussion about where the funding would come from. She noted the Board is going through hard times with the budget; and inquired if this has been brought to the attention of the environmental community. Mr. Egan stated he only heard about this a week or so ago; and he has talked to a couple of people about it. He stated in looking at a private mitigation area, it is necessary to recognize that it is quite expensive to get mitigation credits in these areas, and in looking at the kind of things necessary to get the credit, it is not a simple thing. He stated in the example of the tenth-acre degraded wetland, in order to get that wetland to the point where they could get credit, it would be necessary to go through a lot of trouble, and then they would only be given a fraction of the value; it is a very difficult process for the mitigation credits to be worth the exchange for the impacts; a reasonable estimate is $15,000 to $17,000 per acre to charge the people who are creating the impacts; that would not be paid upfront; but when figuring the management, cost to design, and the restoration costs, that is where the price goes up. Commissioner Colon stated there would have to be a calculation of how much the homeowners would pay. Mr. Egan stated it would be based on their impact; and if he had a huge home and was told it was going to have an entire acre of wetland impacts, he would pay more than someone who had only one-tenth acre of wetland impact. Commissioner Colon commented on the awkwardness of the County having an ordinance in regard to wetlands and telling the community they cannot cause an impact on certain wetlands, but being the same agency the people in the community would have to come to for mitigation. Mr. Egan commented on having alternatives, County not making money on the process, this not being a hidden tax, and that it is an expensive process by the time the mitigation area is complete. Commissioner Colon stated based on what she was told in her briefings, it would require an entire department if the County was to support something like this. Mr. Egan stated he would be surprised if it required a whole department; usually what it involves is the County acquiring the land and using the experts to come up with a good plan; and once the plan is in place and the process is going, it could be done with contractors and other types of things. He noted all the work tends to be upfront; and once the land and the plan are in place, then there is just the ongoing process of restoration and people paying their money to the County because they choose to have their mitigation handled locally. He advised if people are told to handle their own mitigation, purchase wetlands, and restore them, it is less likely to be local; and when impacts are created locally, it is nice to see the results locally as well.

Commissioner O'Brien stated his concern is if the Board goes into regional offsite mitigation areas, developers will be approaching for use of the area. Commissioner Higgs stated it would only be for those that are platted as of a certain date; this would be single-family homeowners who would otherwise have a very extensive process of mitigation; and one thing that did not come through clearly in the staff report is that ROMA would only serve previously platted lots and individual homeowners, and would not be a method by which one could have a large development mitigated. She stated developers have the ability through a stream of experts to handle it, and also have the experience; and the people who are finding it most difficult to handle the mitigation requirements are those who have a single-family home because they only go through the process one time. She stated the process is cumbersome and difficult; and the result is frequently that the protection is less than long-term and less than the function that should be preserved in wetlands. Commissioner O'Brien requested an example. Commissioner Higgs stated there are a number of platted areas in the County such as Cape Kennedy Estates, West Canaveral Groves, and areas in Mims and Scottsmoor where there are a lot of plats drawn out from the 1920's through 1980's, which were sold off; an individual may buy an acre lot and find they have a .1 acre wetland in the middle of it; and rather than moving their home, they try to find a way to mitigate that; so if the Board chooses to go through with this process, those individuals could buy the credit so they could put their house in a certain place; and the County, with full cost accounting of the upfront as well as the long-term cost of maintaining the wetland would then facilitate a mitigation area within the County to assist those homeowners. She stated it would not be for a developer or be an extra cost to the general taxpayer; and it would only be for those previously platted lots. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the person would be allowed to destroy the .1 acre wetland and build on it. Commissioner Higgs advised people can fill their single-family home lots in order to have their house pad and driveway; and that is allowed under the Code today. Commissioner O'Brien stated if a person builds on a one-tenth acre wetland, they will have to mitigate; the County will purchase, for example, 100 acres for mitigation; but that 100 acres is already wetland; and inquired if it is already wetland, why is the County buying it and charging someone for wetland that already exists; with Commissioner Higgs responding because regulatory agencies say they have to mitigate. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they are mitigating with land that is already an existing wetland, what has been accomplished; with Commissioner Higgs responding staff may be able to better explain the environmental lift that has to be demonstrated in the mitigation projects. Natural Resources Management Director Conrad White stated typically in looking at a mitigation site that is highly disturbed, there is less value attributed to that site than if it had been a pristine wetland; the agencies look at the amount of environmental lift or the amount of effort it takes to bring that degraded wetland up to a near pristine state, and determine the amount of value for the work; and the amount of credit the agencies give is directly related to the amount of work that has to be done to rehabilitate the wetland. He stated it is not just buying pristine wetland and preserving it; and it is necessary to show one is going to work to bring a wetland back to near pristine state. Commissioner Carlson stated in essence it is replacing a wetland. Commissioner O'Brien stated he understands the replacement; that is why he brought the question up; and inquired if the land the County buys for the mitigation bank must all be in a degraded condition. Mr. White stated the majority of the wetland would be degraded; a good example, although he is not suggesting it, would be Canaveral Groves where much of the wetland area has been ditched, diked, and disturbed over many years; and if the County filled in the ditches and brought that back to its natural grade, reestablishing the wetlands, that is the type of work the agencies would be looking at in terms of mitigation. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the single-family homeowner could mitigate by paying a fee every year or just one time; with Mr. White responding it would be a one-time purchase of credits, and the amount of environmental lift one would get for the project would determine the amount of credits received. Mr. White advised the banker, who actually is doing the work, sets the value of the credits; they are typically based on the amount of work necessary to bring the site up, such as the cost to move the dirt and reestablish the trees; and it is a one-time fee.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired about the mall in Cocoa; with Commissioner Higgs advising this would not be available to them. Commissioner O'Brien stated that project wants to mitigate in Orange County; he was told that the amount of money the project was going to pay for mitigation to the St. Johns River Water Management District was going to be used to buy the trucks, cars, and equipment to restore the wetlands; he wondered how degraded the forest was; and inquired what is being done besides maintaining the area, which is the job of the St. Johns River Water Management District anyway. Mr. White stated in the case of the Tosahatchee mitigation area, much of the work associated with the Brevard Crossing Mall was going to be enhancement; that usually means taking out exotic plants and replanting native vegetation, and insuring the hydrology is right.

Commissioner Colon stated on the list of potential ROMA sites in the County, there are areas in Palm Bay that have been identified; and inquired if the municipalities have been notified that these areas on are the list; with Mr. White responding no. Mr. White stated staff looked at the larger parcels available in the County that could serve as a mitigation area and looked at whether they were disturbed; and that is as far as the analysis went. Commissioner Colon stated there is a huge area in the City of Palm Bay that has been identified; so even though the Board is having discussion today, she would not want to move forward with any major decisions that would affect municipalities. Mr. White advised it would take a lot more analysis than what is included in the report.

Mary Sphar stated the program objective of directing what would be piecemeal mitigation to larger functional projects is good; but she has questions concerning regional offsite mitigation area and how this program would work. She stated single-family lots would be eligible; and inquired if it would be those created before September 1998 that are grandfathered into the Comprehensive Plan residential wetlands policy, or those created before January 14, 2000, or all residential lots existing now or to be created in the future. She inquired if there will not be an open ended number of lots, is it possible to estimate how much wetlands acreage will be impacted that would be eligible for participation in the program, and is the program a wise use of staff time and energy. She stated there always seems to be a backlog of things to do, and it takes a long time for very important programs to get underway, such as the significant environmental areas ordinance, which she has been waiting years for, or the air quality ordinance, which may or may not have fallen into a black hole. She inquired if the program will actually encourage the filling of functional isolated wetlands since mitigation will become easier; and what is the probability the program would backfire. She stated there are related issues that should be settled before final consideration of ROMA; and inquired if no net loss is defined anywhere. She stated a clear definition is needed to assess the potential of ROMA; about a month ago the County was seriously considering approving final engineering approval for Sawgrass South, Phase 1; the St. Johns River Water Management District was going to let the applicant destroy a tenth of an acre of relatively pristine wetland if he saved two acres of the same wetland onsite; obviously the County would have lost wetland acreage; and requested the Board see that no net loss is clearly defined in the Ordinances or Comprehensive Plan. She recommended settling whether the Comprehensive Plan residential policy is trumped by the policy that says the County does not duplicate the permitting function of the St. Johns River Water Management District and the DEP; this is the subject of the Sierra Club appeal that was pulled from the August 13, 2002 Agenda when it became apparent that further talks with staff were needed; and they are working on that. She stated the staff report on ROMA gives alternatives; she would like to see staff assess the feasibility of the conservation easement program, which is the third suggested alternative to ROMA; she is not sure how it would mesh with any significant environmental area ordinance; but the idea of a conservation easement program has been tossed around the Natural Resources Management Department for many years. She requested the Board ask Natural Resources staff for its thoughts on the program and the possible effectiveness of it; and advised she does not have any conclusions about ROMA other than that questions need to be answered and the related issues she mentioned need to be explored.

Chairman Scarborough stated this was the initial report; and inquired what staff envisioned happening today; with Mr. White responding he envisioned the Board giving staff clear and succinct direction.

Commissioner Higgs stated she brought up the subject at the first meeting and the Board agreed to get the staff report; and her idea was that there are platted lots that have to go through the long process of mitigation, but not for the gain there should be environmentally, both in terms of it being allowed to be mitigated in an easy manner some place outside the County, or if it is mitigated onsite, it is not the proper protection for the wetlands. She stated she envisioned that there have to be definite consistencies with the Comprehensive Plan; they are not looking at all lots created in the future, but just those already platted; and there would be no subsidy. She stated the County would look to DEP and the St. Johns River Water Management District and others before proceeding to determine if it wanted to move forward; and it would want to have partners in this. She stated it will also be necessary to analyze whether or not there is a market for a bank; and that may be a critical issue. She stated this would be a process of making it easier for single-family homeowners; they would carry the cost of both the administration and setting up of the bank; and while those people could make it through the process today or tomorrow, it would be harder. She stated the County could make it easier and get a more solid environmental benefit if it had a measure by which it could insure that the functions of the small wetlands were being mitigated in an appropriate way; and that is her goal. She stated it will mean the County will get involved, but she does not think there has to be a cost to the general taxpayer; if the Board does not do this, nothing will fall apart tomorrow, and people will still go forward to develop; but they will have to go through a long process. She stated it boils down to whether or not this is a priority the Board wants to be involved in and whether it wants to move forward. She stated she would not support something that is not environmentally sound or something that would be contrary to the wetlands policies that are in the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Scarborough inquired what does Commissioner Higgs see as the next step; with Commissioner Higgs responding if the Board wants to know more, it can ask whether there is a market for this, whether there are partners available, and get some analysis of the cost to see if this is something the County can be competitive in.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to come back with a report on whether there are any partners available in this and whether there is a market for credits if the Board creates them.

Commissioner Colon stated she would like to find out exactly what kind of initial cost there would be to the County; the Board needs to get those numbers; and if areas are identified within the municipalities, the Board owes them the respect to let them know they are within the radar so the Board can get some feedback from the people. She stated this is something that would affect the entire County, not just the unincorporated areas.

Commissioner Higgs stated the County could just have the mitigation bank for the unincorporated area because the Board is only talking about platted lots that are already there; but the decision of where to go with the mitigation would be one that the Board and staff would make. She stated she does not think they are looking at anything other than identifying where possibly those banks could be located.

Commissioner Carlson stated feasibility and cost are two key questions as well as what Ms. Sphar brought up about the potential conflict between subdivisions and allowing mitigation to occur through St. Johns River Water Management District and not necessarily getting the net benefit to the community. She stated what the County saw with Sawgrass was what Ms. Sphar suggested that there was not a net benefit; luckily there was a fight there; and she questions the mitigation St. Johns River Water Management District does sometimes and whether it benefits the community. She stated it would be nice to get an analysis of what the County is getting in terms of net benefit so there will be no net loss in regard to allowing the St. Johns River Water Management District to continue mitigation efforts on subdivisions. She inquired if that could be included in the analysis; with Commissioner Higgs responding that is fine.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired why is the Board only looking at those lots that are already platted; and stated he does not think the Board should limit itself to saying only those lots platted before 1988 because a lot can happen in the next 20 years where larger parcels that are now AU or something could be split into RR-1 or something like that. He stated they should also be eligible; and inquired if not, what is the goal.

Chairman Scarborough stated that could be part of it; and inquired if it would be okay to wrap all the Commissioners' comments into one motion. County Manager Tom Jenkins indicated that would be acceptable.

Chairman Scarborough seconded the motion.

Commissioner O'Brien stated in the presentation he would like to have some kind of statement as to what the Board is trying to achieve, and what is the goal. Mr. Jenkins stated staff will also give the outcomes. Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like to know the end result.

Commissioner Carlson stated no net loss is what the Board is ultimately after and trying to make use of the best possible scenario. Commissioner O'Brien inquired would this be restricted only to single-family homes; with Commissioner Higgs advising that was her intent. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it would be restricted such that Mr. Wallingford could not come in with his .1 acre wetland, or could the Board have a maximum allowable for industrial/commercial of a quarter acre. Commissioner Carlson stated she was dealing with single-family homes; and her question was regarding subdivisions because of the lay of the land and how St. Johns River Water Management District mitigates that. She stated single-family homes are one thing; the Board is looking at that feasibility; and inquired about large developments of single-family homes, for which the County gets no say as to how it is mitigated, and which is sometimes not to the benefit of the community. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if six years ago the Board tried to pass a policy that would require mitigation to take place within ten miles of a disturbance; with Mr. White responding the Board discussed that. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it was ever formalized; with Mr. White responding he does not recall, but will check. Commissioner O'Brien requested Mr. White bring that back also as the Board may want to formalize it. He commented on mitigating within five or ten miles of a disturbance. Mr. White stated if the Board recalls discussions about Brevard Crossing, the County was preempted from telling the builder he could not mitigate outside the County; and the St. Johns River Water Management District has State rules that allow it to do that. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what happens if the Board changes its Comprehensive Plan and say its rules are approved by the LPA to require mitigation here. Commissioner Carlson responded then the County would have to take back the decision that the St. Johns River Water Management District has the authority to mitigate subdivisions. Mr. Peffer advised the Board cannot pass a Comprehensive Plan change or an ordinance that is in conflict with State law. Chairman Scarborough stated it may be the State law that needs to be changed; that is another way to do it; but the County will need to get some partners in the process. Commissioner O'Brien suggested putting the requested change in the Legislative Packet. Chairman Scarborough stated he would be careful to make sure other counties are reading it the same way before going that route because these things can be read differently by different people. Commissioner Carlson stated the question she asked would give the Board the basis to have that argument potentially; and inquired is the community getting a net benefit based on the actions of the St. Johns River Water Management District. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Board should ask the St. Johns River Water Management District that question; and stated as it is the one that does it, it would be logical to ask the District. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board directed staff to ask. Commissioner O'Brien reiterated his suggestion to put the issue in the package for Tallahassee; and stated the request would be to allow each County to decide whether to have mitigation solely within its own county or not.

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

Commissioner Higgs stated that includes letting the package go to the cities so they know about Commissioner Colon's question. Chairman Scarborough stated that is appropriate because they may want to be more involved. Commissioner Higgs stated the intent was not to deal with regulation inside municipalities, but they need to know what the County is doing.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he wants to get staff's reaction on what the options may be to have mitigation take place within the County. Chairman Scarborough stated while the Board may be very conscious of the County, Brevard County exists as part of systems; and some of the systems operate in a holistic sense, which is why the water management districts were created. He stated the St. Johns River Water Management District is a whole system; and if it just looked at the counties, it would be fragmented. He stated if there is something affecting the Banana River, and the mitigation is done on the St. Johns River, which is a totally different system, it is not mitigating the Banana River; but in the case of Brevard Crossing, which drains into the St. Johns River, mitigation was done on the other side of the river. He stated if they went to Tosahatchee and developed the area rather than holding it as preserve, the water qualities of the St. Johns River would degrade rapidly; the system is impacted by both sides of the river; and he has of a problem getting into jurisdictions without the County having a comprehensive strategy that includes the other counties because of failure to look at it as a system. He stated the problem is whether the County is being shortchanged by moving around the system to the cheaper projects; and did it really get a full measure of mitigation for Brevard Crossing. He stated by the time it went to the Planning Council, it was a done deal; but there was no new acquisition, and whether it was done now or later was not a major impact. He stated he does not object to a St. Johns River system, but everyone needs to be more involved and determine if they are really extracting from the St. Johns River Water Management District the full measure of what they want from that system, because he does not think the County got it for Brevard Crossing. He stated the County was failed and trumped because it was done and the County did not have the ability to come afterwards; and that bothers him. He stated if the Board runs with wanting to have jurisdiction, it may end up finding that it is only Brevard County running; and some people could turn that against the County because it would seem to be very parochial. He stated Commissioner O'Brien is right, but how it is said is extremely important in how it plays. Commissioner O'Brien stated what the St. Johns River Water Management District did was mitigation banking; everyone already pays taxes to the District to do that; and now the District is mitigating 100 acres of wetlands in Brevard County into one of its projects at Tosahatchee. Chairman Scarborough stated it was a bottom line budget issue rather than a new land acquisition, which means the District did not have to take money from its general revenue fund to pay for those things, because they got it out of a mitigation. He stated the word "extract" was used, but it is just another tax; and the County needs to be sure it is getting no net loss. Commissioner O'Brien stated what started this about six years ago was mitigation of some property in Merritt Island that was done in Volusia County. Commissioner Higgs stated that is why regionally it makes sense to have it available in the County. Commissioner O'Brien stated one of the concepts is a minimum size mitigation; if something is 25 acres, it would have to be mitigated in the County; if it is more than 25 acres, the St. Johns River Water Management District could mitigate wherever it wants. He stated if it is mitigated elsewhere, the County ends up with a net loss; the County's Comprehensive Plan calls for no net loss; and inquired how can the County stop that from occurring. Chairman Scarborough stated that is a separate question; and staff may come back with some options.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct staff to bring forward options to change State law.

Commissioner Higgs stated she does not understand the question. Commissioner O'Brien stated he wants options on how to change the State law so there is a minimum amount of property that cannot be taken out of the County in mitigation or what would be an appropriate mechanism to slow down the loss of wetlands in the County.

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

The meeting recessed at 2:23 p.m. and reconvened at 2:36 p.m.

AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH JOHN L. SOILEAU AND STEWART B. CAPPS,
RE: SPECIAL MASTER SERVICES

Commissioner Higgs stated she does not have a problem extending the Agreements; but if the Committee is just now getting ready to meet, and the Board had asked for a report from the Committee by October 1, the date may need to be changed. Central Services Director Steve Stultz recommended changing the date to December 3, 2002.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Chairman Scarborough, to execute Amendments to Agreements with John L. Soileau and Stewart Capps for special master services, extending the term for three months; and to extend the date for recommendations to come back to the Board from the Committee to December 3, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL TO CLOSE OUT PROJECT, RE: TAX COLLECTOR'S VIERA OFFICE

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Tax Collector has decided to indefinitely postpone the project based on costs considerations as doing something at Merritt Island has a higher priority.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve termination of a Contract with Holeman Suman Architects; cancel execution of Construction Management process; approve Budget Change Request, and refund remainder of the Commercial Paper proceeds when all expenses to close out the project have been paid, as the project to build a Tax Collector facility has been postponed by the Tax Collector. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF POLICY BCC-24, RE: ACQUISITION, SALE, OR EXCHANGE OF
PROPERTY

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated in addition to the policy in the package is a memorandum from the Public Works Department, which raises a number of issues related to right-of-way acquisition for roads and drainage, and whether the nature of those acquisitions may be different than other acquisitions.

Chairman Scarborough stated sometimes there is a tremendous advantage to the County expanding existing parks by having properties that are adjacent to each other; the Board needs to look at the value to the County as well as appraised value; and that may be a continuation of the discussion. He stated sometimes, even for business, one would want to buy the parking lot next door rather than a parking lot four miles away even though the appraised value is better.

Commissioner Colon stated no one should be exempt, including Public Works, from the criteria the Board is trying to set regarding land acquisition, and making sure it is under New Business. She stated just because Public Works has special circumstances, they do not need to be exempt; and on an earlier item the Board gave direction that it wanted to follow the same format.

Chairman Scarborough stated another way rather than exempting it would be to have a fuller discussion of why a certain property is the only one that would work for drainage or road widening, so rather than exempting it could be handled as a matter of further discussion and analysis.

Commissioner Carlson stated the only issue she had with the item was under D, which talks about purchasing the property directly from the property owner; that is fine, but under certain circumstances where the benefit is to the taxpayer, the Board needs to looking at that. She stated Public Works defines some of those particular areas as does Parks and Recreation; and requested Mr. Jenkins advise how the County had to buy some property because some ball field lights happened to be on another parcel. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated in that particular case, the County was able to have the individual with the Contract to Purchase close on it, and then the County purchased it; and explained that many years ago ball field lights were put on someone else's property, which created a limited option for the County to either purchase the property or take the lights down and reduce the size of the complex.

Commissioner Higgs stated there are two amendments that make sense; under the last item of the Policy, it says, "all acquisitions shall be placed on the Board Agenda as New Business"; but from time to time, it should be placed under Old Business, if it has been previously discussed. She stated the language says, "this does not preclude staff from negotiating with representatives of the owner"; frequently people have realtors or attorneys who are representing them; they are designated representatives; and that would be in contrast to someone who just has a contract on a piece of land. She stated it makes sense to allow permission for a professional to represent a land owner; that is an appropriate way of acquiring property; that is under D; and it is a standard process for people who are selling land to have a realtor or representative.

Mr. Jenkins inquired, hypothetically, if the County was trying to extend or widen a road, and a potential piece of right-of-way had someone who only had a purchase option or contract to purchase on that property, would the County then not be able to do the road project. Chairman Scarborough stated there can always be something that is a problem; it is really coincidental when someone is in a purchasing mode, there is potential for turning the property with little down and without full commitment, which sends up a lot more red flags; but it can be done with additional analysis and by special permission of the Board. He stated the Board could make the determination that special conditions exist and there are no irregularities, because it is coincidental that someone is holding an option or purchase agreement and the County wants it at the same time. He stated there may be people who watch and know where the County is going on road projects; they may just be in that fortunate position; but at least this would discourage that opportunistic type of attitude. Mr. Jenkins stated right now there is no provision in the Policy for any kind of special circumstances. Chairman Scarborough stated maybe there needs to be a provision for special circumstances; and the Board needs to have a red flag waved in its face to let it know it needs to look at certain items closely.

Commissioner Higgs stated paragraph D precludes staff from negotiating with representatives of the owner including realtors and other professionals; but the Board may in a public meeting authorize negotiations. She stated that way it is on notice in a meeting; the might allow other processes that are acceptable; and that gets it in the public realm, the red flag is raised, and everybody knows about it.

Commissioner Colon stated she wants to make sure the Board has the actual assessed value from the Property Appraiser's Office; and she does not see that; with Mr. Jenkins advising taxable value is included under G. Commissioner Colon inquired about having an actual appraiser who would be working for the County and not for an engineering firm; with Mr. Jenkins responding that is included. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated she thinks Commissioner Colon intended the Board to discuss the option of hiring an appraiser; and the appraiser is addressed in Section F. Mr. Jenkins stated under F, it says, "appraisers utilized by the Board shall be under contract to the Board of County Commissioners and not their consulting engineers." Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board votes on this, does it mean it is voting to have an appraiser under the Board. Chairman Scarborough advised he would like to see the actual language before voting; with Commissioner Colon agreeing. Commissioner Higgs inquired what language; with Chairman Scarborough responding he proposed some language regarding exceptional circumstances. Chairman Scarborough stated he voted on things before and found out later that what was done was a little different than what he wanted.

Commissioner O'Brien indicated if the Board hires its own appraisers, it should be cautious about hiring appraisers who may have a relationship with the owner of the subject parcel. Commissioner Colon suggested having an appraiser who works for the County so there will not be any conflict of interest. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the individual would be a County employee; with Commissioner Colon responding yes. Mr. Jenkins inquired if there was an appraiser on staff, could he or she be used in condemnation cases or would it be necessary to still have an outside appraiser; with Attorney Bentley responding anything over $500,000 will require a second appraisal.

*County Attorney Scott Knox's presence was noted at this time.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated Pasco County had an appraiser on staff; that appraiser was beat up constantly because he was biased in favor of the County; and juries never believed anything he said. Commissioner O'Brien stated that makes sense. Mr. Jenkins stated such appraiser could be used for a check and balance, like an audit if the Board wants someone to review outside appraisals to make sure they are reasonable; but he does not think the appraiser can be used in any kind of legal proceedings.

Chairman Scarborough stated Commissioner O'Brien is going to a separate issue of point of a conflict and the fact that an appraiser may have a long-standing business relationship with the other side, and may be influenced by that; there are a lot of conflict of interest issues; and recommended having an affidavit put together by the County Attorney's Office, where whoever takes that employment has to sign such affidavit stating any past relationship with the other side and that they see no conflict of interest. Commissioner O'Brien stated that would be important; he cannot see the County hiring an appraiser because it is not a full-time job; and when the Board needs an appraiser, it can hire one. Chairman Scarborough reiterated the Board can get the disclosure and statement of non-conflict. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if that is acceptable to Commissioner Colon; with Commissioner Colon responding yes. Chairman Scarborough stated that is another thing that should be included; and the Board will hold the item until the next meeting. Mr. Jenkins stated staff has been informally operating off the policy; and requested it be delayed to October 1, 2002; with Commissioner O'Brien responding that would be all right. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board will consider the item on October 1, 2002. Mr. Jenkins reiterated staff is already operating off those principles, and has implemented them.

*Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley's absence was noted at this time.

DISCUSSION, RE: BILLBOARD LEGISLATION

Chairman Scarborough stated the legislation for billboards was held over from the prior meeting, but no one is present to speak to the issue.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is this going to be on the ballot; with Chairman Scarborough responding yes. Chairman Scarborough stated this came to his office, and he wanted to bring it to the Board, but it does not have to take any action, if it does not wish to. Commissioner Carlson inquired what action would Chairman Scarborough like the Board to take. Chairman Scarborough stated what it does is protect trees from being removed or altered to enhance billboard visibility. Commissioner Carlson stated it also protects home rule authority to require billboard removal.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated this is a proposed constitutional amendment; and the purpose is to override the legislative effort to allow billboard companies to put up signs where they want to without any local control. He advised the Legislature has enacted legislation that has taken away local jurisdiction to control signs, and required compensation for removal of signs if local government tries to make them amortize or take signs out; and this amendment seeks to overcome that.

Chairman Scarborough stated it is one thing to lobby the Legislature, but another thing with a constitutional amendment; and he is happy to just have this before the Board. He stated he will leave it up to each Commissioner to move forward with discussion.

STAFF DIRECTION, RE: CARGO TRAILER SALES IN BU-1

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated this is a report in response to previous Commission reports; it has been pointed out that the BU-1 commercial zoning classification allows for the sale of several types of vehicles including lawn mowers, motorcycles, and cars, but because of another provision elsewhere in the Code, it has been interpreted that people are prohibited from selling cargo trailers. He stated the item is intended to bring the issue before the Board for discussion.

Commissioner Carlson stated this talks about the various options; currently under BU-1, there can be sale of lawnmowers, motorcycles, and cars; and if the Board makes cargo trailers compatible with BU-1, it may want to add limitations on length, etc. Commissioner Higgs stated it could be permitted with conditions.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Option 2B, to amend the Code to allow cargo trailer sales as permitted with conditions; and direct staff to return with suggestions for limitations. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

STAFF DIRECTION, RE: DISTINCTION BETWEEN STRUCTURAL WALLS AND
WALLS/FENCES

Commissioner O'Brien stated a wall that acts as a fence should be a fence; but a wall that supports a building is a wall. Chairman Scarborough stated this would make that clarification.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated they are seeking that clarification; they have, through Zoning Official interpretation, viewed it that way; but a literal read of the definition for structure brings one to the conclusion that a wall is a structure and must adhere to setbacks.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct staff to modify Sections 62-1102 and 2909 to clarify that a wall on a building is a structure, and if it is not on a building, it is a fence. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

STAFF DIRECTION, RE: MINIMUM LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS

John Volk inquired if the Board decides on Items 2, 3, or 4 of the options, would it allow staff to issue a permit.

Chairman Scarborough suggested taking one thing at a time; and stated the first is whether the Board wants to make a change. He stated he is happy with Mr. Scott's recommendation.

Commissioner Higgs recommended Option 2, moving forward doing things one at a time to see if they work.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Option 2, to reduce the minimum lot depth in RR-1 from 200 feet to 125 feet; and authorize staff to proceed with amending the Code.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if a property does not meet RR-1, what does it meet. Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott inquired if Commissioner O'Brien is talking about the property in question that brought up this agenda item; with Commissioner O'Brien responding yes. Mr. Scott stated it does meet RR-1; the issue was from what point from that lot, one would be measuring lot depth; the property owner wished staff to calculate the lot depth from Litteral Lane, but in doing so, it would only be 134 feet whereas RR-1 requires 200 feet; so by default, staff had to view the front yard from Valkaria Road, which was in excess of 200 feet.

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

Chairman Scarborough stated Mr. Volk made a request of the Board, but he has some questions. He inquired if staff understands the request; with Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott responding yes, but he would defer to the County Attorney. Mr. Scott stated the request is, with Board direction to amend the Code, which would have the effect of allowing Litteral Lane to be viewed as the front, the Board would allow Mr. Volk to place his shed, even though temporarily it would be contrary to the Code, but with amendment to the Code, it would ultimately be brought into compliance.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Board can do that if it wants to, and abate enforcement pending the adoption of an ordinance.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what happens if after having the public hearings the Board does not adopt the ordinance, and it has issued this permit and Mr. Volk has proceeded. She stated Mr. Volk would be the one who loses. Commissioner O'Brien inquired is the shed already in place; with Mr. Volk responding no. Commissioner O'Brien stated the only choice is to wait until the Board holds the public hearings and changes the Code. Commissioner Higgs stated she would not agree to issuing the permit now.

Mr. Volk stated he asked for the permit in March, six months ago.

Chairman Scarborough stated he sees no motion to proceed with allowing Mr. Volk to install his shed.

STAFF DIRECTION, RE: REVISING SECTION 62-2117 OF THE ZONING CODE TO PERMIT
PARKING OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES IN TOURIST COMMERCIAL ZONES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize staff to amend Section 62-2117 of the Land Development Regulations to allow parking of commercial motor vehicles in tourist commercial zones. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: BREVARD COUNTY CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AND
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated the Board directed staff to return with a report that discusses the County's concurrency management and transportation planning systems; staff is requesting that the Board discuss two issues; and the first is several times in the recent past, the Board has seen roadways approaching capacity, most specifically, it saw North Courtenay Parkway approach such capacity at 100%. He stated at a point in a roadway's life that it reaches 100% capacity and a development proposal comes forth, which would send that roadway over capacity, the Florida Statutes allow that if a developer is requesting or offering a proportionate fair share of cost reimbursement to the County, the County has to first identify what type of payment would be acceptable to mitigate the impacts to the roadway; and in the report staff identifies three options. He stated the first is to propose that the developer provide the County with 100% of the transportation impact fee, which is currently only assessed at 28.5% of the justifiable maximum; and selecting that option provides the Board with an option that will stand the test of the court system because that number was derived through a proven methodology. He stated the second option would be for the Board to direct the Traffic Engineering Department to identify the costs and return with estimates; and the third option shares some of the second option, which is that the Board would be part of a negotiation process to identify what a fair share roadway improvement cost might be. Mr. Scott stated the second issue is that staff has witnessed over the past couple of years transportation anomalies; and requested the Board discuss using three-year averages to determine the true capacity of a roadway as opposed to the last traffic counts that occurred on the roadway, which are susceptible in certain circumstances to short-term anomalies.

Chairman Scarborough suggested taking the issues one at a time; and inquired is there a preference as to how the developer takes care of the issue of concurrency.

Commissioner Carlson stated the only problem she has with requiring the developer to pay 100% is that it is then an administrative task; there have been a lot of issues with SR 3 and other areas that have congestion that have had public input; and the Board should at least allow a public hearing, which would lead to requiring the developer to negotiate with the Board the fair share roadway improvement costs, with staff input as to the fair share defined by something that would be a combination of B and C. She stated the Board has to get public input and look at the public interest as well.

County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if it would help for Mr. Scott to give a recommendation. Mr. Scott stated staff knows that at least assigning 100% of the transportation impact fee would bring a figure that will pass the legal test because it is based on the impact fee rate structure.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Chairman Scarborough, to approve option 7.a, to require the developer to pay 100% of the transportation impact fee.

Chairman Scarborough stated he likes that because people have a right under Florida Statutes; he does not think the County could do better than that; and it is legally justifiable. He stated deviating from that could get the Board caught in a morass of discussions that are not going to be beneficial in the long run because the Board would certainly have difficulty going above 100%, and it would be negotiating downward.

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

Chairman Scarborough stated the other issue was the averaging; and he has a problem with that. He stated coming to the Government Center today he was driving down Fiske where developers are clearing the whole area; and if he goes back to a three-year average, he may be including things where there is minimal traffic, and it would scare him because he could end up with some real anomalies until the numbers catch up. He stated he is not comfortable with the three-year average; sometimes the movement to capacity occurs extremely rapidly; and commented on development in the UCF area, where in a six-month period traffic had gone from being able to immediately move through a light to a three-light cycle.

Commissioner Higgs suggested a two-year average. Chairman Scarborough stated he is not too big on averaging because there is a potential danger, and he would prefer to look at current conditions.

Transportation Planning Director Robert Kamm stated the traffic counts will fluctuate from year to year; the task is to separate the noise and normal variations from the overall trend; and staff's concern is if they go on just the most recent count, they may be reacting and causing a great deal of difficulty for the Board and private sector in reacting to a temporary spike in the count, when what they are really interested in is the longer term growth trend. He stated he suggested three years as a way to get an average that would eliminate and dampen some of the variation and still keep an eye on the recent growth trend.

Chairman Scarborough stated he has not seen spikes, but enormous changes with the level brought on by some developments; he has seen whole fields of houses under construction elsewhere in the State; and the impact of that coming on the road instantaneously needs to be reflected more rapidly. He stated if the County needs to have more counts to verify, he would like to see the counts occur within a shorter period of time at different times of days; and he wants to know what the noise is now, not what it was when he heard crickets. Mr. Kamm stated the roadways in the County that have the most rapid rate of traffic increase have been North Wickham Road and Palm Bay Road; North Wickham Road has been increasing about 5% per year; and that would be the area, because of the large amount of vacant land in the North Melbourne area, where the scenario the Board is talking about of major development appearing very rapidly would be most likely to occur. Chairman Scarborough stated his experience, not necessarily in Brevard County, has been huge developments with simultaneous construction on an enormous number of houses; and it is a tremendous absorption rate. He stated the economy may change and interest rates may go up, etc. and there will be more of a normal pattern; but right now he is not concerned about the 9-11 impact but the low interest rates and boom in the housing market; and to go back three years is dangerous. Mr. Kamm stated what was seen in September was traffic counts in the central part of the County were substantially lower than they were the previous year; and it was not a case of a spike but the opposite situation.

Mr. Jenkins stated there have been a couple of incidents; and inquired what caused the one on South A1A. Mr. Kamm stated on South A1A, the County was using a number for the capacity of the roadway that was unrealistic; and the State revised the procedures so there is now a much more accurate reflection. Mr. Jenkins inquired about the other one; with Mr. Kamm responding Wickham Road was the other one where the volumes were above the normal standard used for capacity; and when they went back and did more refined analysis, there was actually more capacity on Wickham Road. Mr. Jenkins inquired if that was because of Patrick Air Force Base being closed; with Mr. Kamm responding he does not know. Mr. Kamm stated they have talked at great length about why the traffic volumes were upon Wickham Road; there was construction on U.S. 1, which was ongoing, so people may have been using Wickham Road instead; and it is difficult to put a specific answer to that question. Mr. Jenkins commented on identifying some unusual factors and having some flexibility. Mr. Kamm stated staff's concern is to create an artificial problem; he does not think that is what the Board wants to do; and staff wants to be sure there is a real situation that needs to be dealt with and not just a spurious traffic count; with Mr. Jenkins advising it is something they may be able to figure out.

Mr. Scott stated Chairman Scarborough raises some good points; the Ordinance currently provides for the additional step in analysis to occur when a road goes over capacity; and if staff suspects that the over-capacity count is in response to an anomaly, that will be borne out by the analysis. He suggested amending the Ordinance to allow for when a count drops in an area that staff knows is growing; because a count is dropping in an anomaly event, there could actually be a roadway entering capacity; and the net effect may be allowing too much development on the roadway and the next year seeing the count go up. Mr. Jenkins stated the County has not been confronted with that yet; but there were two recent incidents where a moratorium was declared. Mr. Scott stated SR 3 was that event; that was when the Board had the H&M debate; and SR 3 was coming up to capacity, then dropped to 84% where it had previously been in the mid-90's. He stated at that point staff followed the existing Ordinance, which took care of it because it directed that an in-depth analysis be done; and that solved the problem.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what does the Board have that it will know what the future is going to be; and stated SR 3 is a good example. He stated at Kennedy Space Center three million square feet of research center is going to be built for 10,000 employees; 5,000 employees will use SR 3 as their route to leave their jobs and 5,000 will go to Titusville; the capacity of the road at this time is already 100%; it dropped, but next year it may go back up; and in that small envelope three or four projects can come along creating a mess. He stated although last year it was at capacity or close to that so that a project could not be done, this year the capacity has dropped; and it is not a question of reserving capacity but something the Board already knows about. He stated the Board needs to be able to look down the road and see what other events will affect the roads to a point where they are going to hit gridlock if the Board continues; it is necessary to put on the brakes someplace; and SR 3 has plans to expand to six lanes, from the high school to SR 528. He inquired should the Board now go to the MPO and say SR 3 needs to be six-laned from SR 528 to the gates of KSC.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board has to make a decision on this today; with Mr. Jenkins responding no. Chairman Scarborough stated staff threw something at him today about the possibility of an anomaly; he has not thought of it in that way; and he would like an opportunity to talk to staff and get a better handle on it before he votes. He inquired if it can be delayed until next week. Mr. Scott requested it be deferred at least until October 1, 2002; and stated the Board handled one item, so staff will reformat the Agenda item.

PERMISSION TO PROCEED WITH ACQUISITION, RE: 110-ACRE PROPERTY
(FALK PROPERTY)

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission for staff to proceed with acquisition of a 110-acre parcel in District 4 known as the Falk property, located adjacent to the Fiske Boulevard pond project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACCEPTANCE OF LAND DONATION FROM SALVATION ARMY, RE: LAND ADJACENT
TO SOUTH MAINLAND COMMUNITY CENTER-MICCO

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize staff to obtain a survey, environmental audit, and title insurance, and accept title exceptions where park improvements are not impacted; and proceed with acceptance of the land donation from Salvation Army for 0.09 acre of land adjacent to the South Mainland Community Center-Micco.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the assessed value is $530; and the owner is going to give it to the County as a gift. Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson advised that is correct. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why would the Salvation Army give the County land worth $500. Mr. Nelson responded it is an unbuildable lot adjacent to the Community Center; there is an overlapping of surveys; and as the Salvation Army cannot build and does not want to pay taxes forever, it will donate it to the County to add to the park. Mr. Nelson stated if the Salvation Army had come to the County, the County probably would have acquired it for nuisance value; but the group chose to donate, which is great. Commissioner O'Brien stated if it is useless, it has no value, but the Salvation Army is claiming $530 value. Commissioner Higgs stated there is nothing the Salvation Army can do with the property; this is a service to the community; and she appreciates the group making the donation.

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

WAIVER OF PROPERTY TITLE OBJECTION, RE: WGML INVESTMENTS, LTD. AND PRN
REAL ESTATE & INVESTMENT, LTD. PROPERTY

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to waive any objection to an ingress/egress easement on the title commitment regarding purchase of the WGML investments Ltd. and PRN Real Estate Investment Ltd. properties.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if this land is already owned by the Swartz Family Foundation of the National Heritage; with EEL's Coordinator Anne Birch responding the National Heritage Foundation is the title holder. Commissioner O'Brien inquired who is the National Heritage Foundation; with Ms. Birch responding she is not sure what its role is, but it is the landowner. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the land is being preserved by the National Heritage Foundation; with Ms. Birch responding no, EEL's is looking to acquire the property from the National Heritage Foundation in conjunction with the State of Florida. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what does the County know about the National Heritage Foundation; and if the Foundation is not going to develop the property anyway, why is EEL's going to buy it when the goal of preservation is already being met. Commissioner Higgs stated there is no assumption that the National Heritage Foundation is a land preservation agency; and the Agency is just the holder of the property. Commissioner O'Brien stated it was not revealed to him what they were or what the Foundation’s goals were; and inquired why National Heritage Foundation has the property. Ms. Birch stated she has no knowledge that National Heritage Foundation is a conservation organization. Commissioner Higgs stated the Swartz property was transferred to the National Heritage Foundation; they are still involved in the property; and the proceeds will go into an account for their benefit. Ms. Birch stated this is concerning the WGML property and its relationship with the National Heritage Foundation; so this agenda item will allow EEL's to close on the WGML property. She stated WGML had an agreement with the National Heritage Foundation to provide access if it developed the property; this creates a title exception; the State wanted WGML to provide access through its property for the National Heritage property; and that is what the agenda item does. She stated it creates a title exception to the property, but the State will eventually acquire both properties; there is an Agreement to acquire the National Heritage property, and there is a signed contract for the WGML property, so all this does is clarify where the access is on the WGML property in favor of the National Heritage property. She stated the State will not sign the Contract currently agreed upon by National Heritage Foundation and the County until the easement is placed on the WGML property; and WGML is in favor of doing that.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the National Heritage property is not for conservation, what is it for; and if the County does not buy it, can it be sold to a developer; with Ms. Birch responding conceivably it could, but she does not know if it would. Commissioner O'Brien requested additional information about National Heritage Foundation properties before voting. He stated if National Heritage Foundation has no intention of ever allowing construction on the property, then the County does not have to buy the property because it is already conserved; with Ms. Birch responding this is not a contract for sale to purchase the National Heritage property, but is concerning the WGML property, so if the Board approves the Agenda item, it will not be approving a contract for sale with National Heritage.

Commissioner Higgs stated if Commissioner O'Brien reads the attached settlement with Jack and Delores Swartz, it goes through a number of items that were settled in the litigation in 1991; and everything was set up so there are easements in place so they could develop the property. She stated the Swartz's transferred the property to the National Heritage Foundation; they are still beneficiaries of the sale; so everything indicates the intent was not to preserve, but to sell the property. Mr. Jenkins stated the only role National Heritage Foundation has in this is WGML is granting it access on its property for the benefit of National Heritage Foundation. Commissioner O'Brien stated the map he has shows an easement on National Heritage property. Commissioner Higgs stated there is another map. Mr. Jenkins stated the County is buying the property from WGML; it is allowing the National Heritage Foundation to have access across that property to settle an outstanding issue between those two parties; but the County is not acquiring National Heritage property. Ms. Birch stated at this time that is true. Mr. Nelson stated when the issue comes back before the Board, staff can bring information as to the nature of that organization. Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like that, but would also like to know if the County is going to buy the WGML property; with Ms. Birch responding the County has a contract on it already. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why is the County buying that property; with Ms. Birch responding it is within the Brevard Coastal Ecosystem project area as is the National Heritage property. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the contract is with WGML; with Ms. Birch responding that is correct; WGML property is split between two parcels; and the contract only affects the northern piece.

Discussion ensued on the easement, map, providing access to an existing road, and needing information prior to voting.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like to know what other properties are adjacent to these properties. Ms. Birch responded the properties to the right of WGML property are in conservation through the Town of Malabar; and directly north of that property is the Turkey Creek Sanctuary. Ms. Birch advised she can provide a map showing a larger picture of the conservation area. Commissioner O'Brien recommended no action on the item today.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he voted in opposition because of the lack of information. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board already agreed to buy the property at a previous meeting.

PUBLIC INTEREST DETERMINATION, RE: MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF SEBASTIAN RIVER

Jim Egan, representing the Marine Resources Council, stated there are two projects in one in terms of the public interest determination; there is the muck dredging of the Sebastian River, which is a fabulous project that is being publicly supported by the St. Johns River Water Management District, the Indian River Lagoon Program, and other important partners; it may have some navigational benefits, but it is primarily environmental; but the realignment and creation of a channel between the inlet and the Intercoastal Waterway in the general vicinity of the Sebastian River is a different animal. He stated there are some benefits to doing both projects at the same time; the inlet dredging will take advantage of the disposal site that the Sebastian River muck dredging will be utilizing; but it is different in that it has a major navigational component. He stated there is an environmental benefit because once the channel is created there will be a tendency to focus boat usage on that channel and potentially reduce some of the boat scarring that is happening in the vicinity. He commented on the quality and importance of the seagrass beds in the area; and stated if some impacts can be removed, that would be desirable. He advised in the creation of the channel, some seagrass will be destroyed that will never come back; it is set up so mitigation is being covered by the muck dredging activity; and he does not think that fits. He stated the muck dredging activity is an environmental project that is ultimately coming from tax dollars; the community as a whole will benefit from it; but for it to be used as mitigation for a separate project is a weak point in the whole picture.

Maurice Sterling, representing St. Johns River Water Management District, stated three years ago the Board forwarded a letter over the signature of then Chairman Scarborough requesting the District pursue the muck removal project in the Sebastian River and assign it a high priority; the project is a part of the SWIM Plan for the Indian River Lagoon and is part of the comprehensive management plan as part of the Lagoon's National Estuary Program; and the project is positive for the Lagoon. He stated the project envisions a million cubic yards of sediment from the Sebastian River being removed, in concert with some other work, to address the sources of those materials that are flushed to the Sebastian system as part of other projects that the District has ongoing upstream, such as the Upper St. Johns Program, which curtails approximately 70% of the volume and frequency of discharge from the C-54 system and a 4,000 acre water treatment reservoir that is contemplated to be constructed in the new few years. He stated the project is funded by the Florida Legislature, which allocated $5.1 million for this work; and another $500,000 was allocated for the dredging of the inlet shoals. He stated he somewhat disagrees with Mr. Egan's position that the two projects are married in terms of the determination being requested today; the dredging project at the Sebastian Inlet is totally within Indian River County; and the Board is only being asked to make the determination today that the dredging project of the Sebastian River is in the public interest.

Commissioner Higgs requested an explanation of the relationship between the Sebastian Inlet Tax District, the St. Johns River Water Management District, and FIND, which are all working on the project. She inquired if it is standard for the St. Johns River Water Management District to start a project from as long ago as the last time Chairman Scarborough was chairman and then bring in a separate project by a separate governmental entity, and use the original project as mitigation for that. She inquired if the District has done that before; with Mr. Sterling responding not to his knowledge. Mr. Sterling stated the determination on mitigation on this particular project is outside the District's purview; and it is really a decision that will be made by DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers. Commissioner Higgs stated the District is suggesting that this is mitigation for the other project; with Mr. Sterling responding the District is not opposed to it. Commissioner Higgs requested an explanation; and inquired if the project can be just grabbed for credit; with Mr. Sterling responding it cannot. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the District is supporting it; with Mr. Sterling responding in the overall picture, it is a positive bit; and he appreciates the Board's point of view, but the determination will be made by the Department of Environmental Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers. Commissioner Higgs inquired did the St. Johns River Water Management District agree to marry the two projects together; with Mr. Sterling responding the two projects are within the District budget and work plan, and the District approved the plan. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the dredging of the channel is in the District's work plan; with Mr. Sterling responding the Sebastian River dredging project is in the work plan.

Troy Rice, representing the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, stated as to the relationship between the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND), the Inlet Taxing District, and the St. Johns River Water Management District, the St. Johns River Water Management District received funding from the State Legislature to initiate this project; they have gotten several grants from FIND to assist in this project; and commented on three grants. He stated FIND is involved solely as a financing partner; and the Inlet Taxing District requested to tag on to the muck dredging project, and as an economy of scale, use the dredge disposal site and machinery to be able to do the channel dredging in the inlet at the same time that the muck dredging is done.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Inlet Taxing District is contributing money to the muck project so it can mitigate its project; with Mr. Rice responding not to his knowledge. Mr. Rice stated the permit application, as submitted to DEP, includes impacts to approximately one acre of seagrass at the inlet, with mitigation being provided by the muck removal and prevention of the muck from entering the Indian River Lagoon and impacting seagrasses; but there is no cash being provided, although DEP may come back as a permit requirement and require financial contribution or some other type of mitigation. Commissioner Higgs stated the request on the south channel has been before the permitting agency before; with Mr. Rice responding that is correct; DEP issued a permit to the Inlet Taxing District at that time; however, it was unable to get a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers so the project did not proceed.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if it is possible to proceed with the river without the inlet or are the projects married to the point that they cannot be divorced. Commissioner Higgs stated she thinks they can; the Board can say it finds the dredging project in the Sebastian River to be in the public interest; but she finds difficulty with the marrying of the projects and the way the mitigation is going, which is a dangerous precedent. She stated she wants to see the project go forward; the Board can find that the Sebastian River muck dredging project is in the public interest; and then in a subsequent motion, it can question the use of the project as mitigation.

Commissioner Colon stated the questions have been answered; she was concerned about the precedent; and the Board will be doing the right thing by declaring it to be in the public interest as it is supportive of the project. She stated the questions will be taken care of by doing two different motions.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to determine the maintenance dredging or the muck sediment in the Sebastian River to be in the public interest. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated it would be appropriate that the Board send a letter to the Department of Environmental Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers expressing concern about the public project that has been proposed in the Sebastian River being used as mitigation for a separate project, and asking for review of that. Chairman Scarborough requested Commissioner Higgs work with staff on the letter; with Commissioner Higgs responding she will be happy to.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct that letters be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers expressing concern that the Sebastian River project is being used as mitigation for a separate project, the dredging of a channel through a shoal near Sebastian Inlet. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated removal of muck is important to improve water quality, so he has no problem with the project; but there is a similar problem in Sykes Creek on Merritt Island, particularly the place called the "S" curve. He stated it has been mucked in and the sewer plant drained all the phosphates out there for 40 years in a ditch that came into that one area; and requested the District look at that project and find a way to remove the muck. He stated the project is only twice the size of the Board room. Mr. Rice stated a study was done to prioritize muck removal projects over the course of several years; they have completed muck dredging in Crane Creek and Turkey Creek; the next project is the Sebastian River; and once they complete the Sebastian River, they will move into the Eau Gallie or Banana Rivers. He stated when that is complete, they will likely move into Newfound Harbor, and will be looking to the County to partner on such a project. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why they would want the County to partner on something like this; with Mr. Rice responding the County would not necessarily have to; but they are asking for partnerships as much as possible. Mr. Rice advised of the desire to leverage tax money to accomplish as much dredging as possible; and stated if it is a smaller project, he will have his staff look at it with County staff to see what they can come up with. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is an impediment to navigation. Commissioner Higgs inquired if this would be maintenance dredging or virgin dredging; with Commissioner O'Brien responding he does not know, but it has been filled in because of the County's actions with the sewer plant. Mr. Rice stated he will be happy to look into it. Commissioner O'Brien stated there is also runoff from SR 3; he thinks the diking along the sides was caused by dredging; and commented on taxes paid to other agencies.

RESOLUTION, RE: DELEGATING POWERS TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN PALM SHORES
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Rochelle Lawandales, representing the Town of Palm Shores, expressed appreciation to Commissioner Carlson, the County Manager, and Greg Lugar for their efforts.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution delegating powers to create and maintain the Palm Shores Community Redevelopment Agency to the Town of Palm Shores.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired how long the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency was chartered for; with Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar responding it is consistent with all the Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRA's) the Board has been approving for the past five years; and he believes MIRA was established for five years.

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

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board approved a CRA for Melbourne; with Mr. Lugar advising the Board approved two new CRA's for the City of Melbourne, one is the Babcock Street CRA, and the other is the Eau Gallie CRA. Commissioner O'Brien stated he read in the newspaper the cost for administration will be $65,000. Mr. Lugar stated the Resolution that delegated the authority to the City had the same requirements for administrative use of tax increment funds, which is limited to 25% of the annual tax increment to be used for administration; and if the City is paying it, it would possibly be from other sources. Commissioner O'Brien requested Mr. Lugar find out and advise the Board.

SALE AND PURCHASE CONTRACT WITH QUALITY GARAGE DOOR SERVICES, INC., RE:
PARCEL IN SPACEPORT COMMERCE PARK

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board is buying property; with County Manager Tom Jenkins advising the Board is selling property, which is in the Commerce Park in North Brevard.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Vacant Land Contract with Quality Garage Door Services, Inc. for purchase of a five-acre parcel in the Spaceport Commerce Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: OPTIONS FOR REVIEW OF SARNO LANDFILL APPRAISALS

Chairman Scarborough stated FDLE visited him; he indicated the Board is pleased that FDLE has undertaken this and would be willing to assist with getting appraisals or whatever is needed as part of the investigation; and he would like to see any efforts proceed under FDLE jurisdiction because that is the best avenue as opposed to bringing in different appraisals and the Board getting involved. Commissioner Colon agreed. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board will see what FDLE has in terms of the appraisals before deciding to take another step; with Chairman Scarborough responding the Board could write a letter to FDLE advising if it finds it prudent in its investigation to get separate appraisals, that the County would pay the cost of the appraisal by an appraiser selected by FDLE. He stated that would remove the question of it coming from the Board, but the Board would be supporting the investigation; this is unusual because FDLE is acting at the Board's request; and the Board should be sure FDLE has all the resources available. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Chairman Scarborough is going to write a letter saying the County will cover the cost of the appraisal; with Chairman Scarborough responding if FDLE finds a need to have an appraisal.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize sending a letter to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement advising if FDLE finds an appraisal to be prudent, the County will pay the cost for the appraiser selected by FDLE.

Commissioner O'Brien stated originally he asked the Board to look at a desktop appraisal, where a certified MAI appraiser reviews the appraisals that the Board already has to determine if they are in compliance with the rules and regulations of an appraisal.

Chairman Scarborough stated the County is fortunate that a State Agency has come to do the investigation because the people of the community would prefer FDLE to select an appraiser to do the appraisal; anything the County does will not have the stamp of approval that something FDLE does will have; if there is a need for follow-up, the Board can go there; but right now FDLE is involved, and the Board should give it whatever is necessary to do the best job for the community. Commissioner O'Brien stated FDLE has already said it is doing an appraisal; with Chairman Scarborough stating if it needs to do something more, this will give that latitude.

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

DISCUSSION, RE: TELEVISED DEBATE BETWEEN PORT ST. JOHN FOR TOMORROW
AND PORT ST. JOHN CIVIC LEAGUE

Richard Mickle, President of the Civic League of Port St. John, advised an email was sent to each Commissioner; and requested the Board deny this request for funding for the proposed debate that was put forward by Amy Tidd, President of the Port St. John Homeowners Association. He stated prior to Thursday, the Civic League had no knowledge of the debate; they were contacted through Commissioner Scarborough's office to find out where staff could send a fax to the Civic League to make it aware of the agenda item. He stated Ms. Luba appears to have been deceived into thinking the Civic League was aware of any request for a debate; but as of today, there has still been no notification from Ms. Tidd or the Space Coast League of Women Voters of any debate, which is proposed to be on October 11, 2002. He stated according to Ms. Luba's email dated September 13, regarding the September 11 conversation with Ms. Tidd, Ms. Tidd assured Ms. Luba that the Civic League had been invited by the Space Coast League of Women Voters; and it appears the deception was construed by Ms. Luba as acknowledgement and confirmation by the Civic League. He stated to date he still has not received an invitation to the debate; and requested the Board deny the Port St. John Homeowners Association’s request for funding for a debate. He stated the Board has been very generous with Port St. John, but it should not be responsible for this funding; this is a local issue; and the people who live in the rest of the County should not be subjected to this debate.

Chairman Scarborough stated since no one is here representing the other side, and there has been a failure to communicate, he does not think the Board needs to take any action on this today.

Commissioner Carlson advised of the ability under the policy for the Civic League and Port St. John for Tomorrow to have equal time on the public channel, but not together. Mr. Mickle advised he did not say he did not want the debate; he said up to this date, the Civic League has not been invited.

Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Mickle said that Ms. Luba, who is a person of great integrity, tried to deceive; with Mr. Mickle responding no. Mr. Mickle stated what he was trying to point out was that Ms. Luba had been told that the Civic League agreed to the debate.

Commissioner O'Brien cautioned about other groups using the public channel and groups wanting equal time. Mr. Mickle stated the Board should look at the issue of waivers, which could get costly.

LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SPACE COAST HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, RE: LEASE OF
PROPERTY AT 370 FORTENBERRY ROAD, MERRITT ISLAND

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution authorizing leasing of property to a not-for-profit corporation; and execute Lease Agreement with Space Coast Habitat for Humanity for property located at 370 Fortenberry Road, Merritt Island for one year with two one-year renewals and the organization paying all utility and maintenance costs, and monthly rental payments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: PROPERTY APPRAISER'S BUDGET

Bea Polk stated she has questions about the 2001-02 budget for the Property Appraiser; the operating capital outlay is shown as $178,840; the actual spent by March 31 was $21,689; and the request for this year is $271,631, an increase of nearly $93,000. She requested paperwork proving the Property Appraiser spent the rest of the money from $21,000 to $178,000; and inquired if the Board knows how much is left over in his budget every year. She stated in 2000 she came to the Board complaining about the amount of money given to different employees; and inquired is that how the Property Appraiser gets rid of the money so he can come back and get more. She stated she would like to know what all the money was spent for; and commented on the percentage of increase. She stated she would like to know, since 1999 how much the Property Appraiser's budget has gone up every year including everything, and would like to have the paperwork Mr. Ford's attorney passed out showing the increase and a copy of the appeals that were sent to the State. She requested the Board either do an audit of the Property Appraiser's books or remove $383,000 from his budget to see how much he would get back when he went to the State. She commented on the number of Property Appraiser's employees, amount of his total budget, items paid for by the Board, and amounts of previous budgets. She stated the Property Appraiser believes everyone should cut back to 3%; if he preaches it, he should live it; and she is wondering whether previous budgets have been wrong because they just indicated parts of the budgets. She stated when the public asks about taxes, it wants to know everything, all the taxes of the Department. Ms. Polk advised taxpayers are tired of paying their taxes for recreation and not having any difference. She stated she has the same recreational facilities she had before she voted for the referendum; and if the Board is not going to give what it promised and stand behind the referendum, it should return the money so it can be used for something else.

PUBLIC COMMENTS, RE: PARKS AND RECREATION REFERENDUM

Joan Wheeler stated the Parks and Recreation Department is waiting for the Board to do something; meanwhile the Department meets monthly with staff from the City of Titusville; and she does not know what they are doing. She stated she asked to attend the staff meeting, but was told to ask the City; and she would like the Board to direct the County Manager to allow citizens into hearings, particularly about Marina Park. She stated the City keeps saying it is waiting to use its options, that it voted to take five acres out, and that the County can do the program without the five acres. She stated this project was listed at $1,480,000; the City took five acres out of the project; when they meet behind closed doors, she wonders what they are doing that may not be there next year; and someone should be able to see what the two staffs are working on together rather than having to wait for them to come back with recommendations. She inquired if there is any problem with someone sitting in and watching the meetings, not necessarily her.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if there is any problem having people from the public attend the meetings; with Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson responding it was a meeting staff was requested to have with the Titusville City Manager; and he does not have a problem with the public attending. Mr. Nelson stated he was not at the meeting Ms. Wheeler is referring to, so is not sure how staff responded to her question; the City Manager asked for the meeting; what typically happens is staff is given an update on permitting and design issues; and the County reminds the City that it has not received anything related to Marina Park. He stated he would not mind if Ms. Wheeler attended, but the County is just one half of the meeting.

Chairman Scarborough requested staff touch base with the City Manager, and advise it would be the Board's preference, because of the controversy, that the public be allowed to attend, but not participate in the meetings. Ms. Wheeler stated she would appreciate that because there are no minutes taken at the meetings. Chairman Scarborough stated that is the way staff normally works; and the decision has to be made by the Board in the sunshine. Ms. Wheeler stated they are going to make recommendations to the Board on the projects, but the people do not have anything about Marina Park except on August 12, there was a conceptual plan that was turned in, with five acres taken out; by September 10, the Mayor did not know anything about it; but she does not know why he did not because the City Manager told him at a CRA meeting. She stated everyone is waiting, but one day something is going to happen that no one is going to know about until it is too late to do anything about it; and meetings behind closed doors bother her. Mr. Nelson stated he made a presentation before the Titusville CRA last week; what was discussed at that meeting is the same information that was discussed at the meeting with Tom Harmer; and relating to Marina Park, the County has again indicated that there are still two issues pending. He stated one is that the County is waiting for a response to the five-acre issue, whether it is in or out of the park; and there has been some confusion. He stated the other issue is whether the City is going to request the County review information related to Vectorworks and needs for parking and drainage; that information has not been transmitted to the County yet; but the City Manager indicated shortly the County should be receiving something. He stated he will talk with the City Manager to see if he has any concerns or issues, and will be happy to invite Ms. Wheeler. Ms. Wheeler stated her main concern is that the property is dedicated for recreation and public use, and if this has to be used for a private use, the question is whether it will be surplused or turned over to the City in some way so the City can do anything it wants with it. Chairman Scarborough stated the State deeded the property to the City; the State is the one with the reverter clause; the County has an Agreement with the City; the City has now said the five acres is not part of the Agreement; so the City has two entities to deal with, the County and the State. He stated Mr. Nelson has expressed concerns; at some point he needs to move forward with the park because other things are contingent upon this coming to some degree of resolution; so, beyond the concerns of the taxpayers, there are some practical staff concerns. Mr. Nelson stated the issue is at the end of the year, they start running into that window where it will delay the project; right now they are working on permitting the Chain-of-Lakes project; and as that one moves forward, it will be necessary to do the planning and design for Marina Park; so there will be some timing issues. He stated staff has not pushed it up to this point, hoping this will be resolved; and the City has indicated it will be sending information forward to the County for consideration shortly. Ms. Wheeler stated she is concerned someone is going to lobby someone in Tallahassee to get the property surplused or put in other hands so they can do anything with it five or ten years down the road; and even if it is turned over to the City, there is no guarantee.

PERMISSION TO SEND LETTER, RE: PROPERTY APPRAISER

Commissioner Carlson stated at the beginning of the meeting she requested an agenda item regarding the comments of the County Attorney concerning the Property Appraiser; and requested the Chairman send a letter to the Property Appraiser requesting his presence at any future Board meetings where there will be discussion of these issues, so the Board can allow him to give his side. She noted there is much public outcry on the mobile home issue and other issues regarding the tax assessment.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize the Chairman to send a letter to the Property Appraiser requesting his presence at Board meetings when issues concerning his office are discussed. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Scarborough requested the County Attorney prepare a letter for his signature.

Commissioner Colon stated she was under the impression that two things were going to be on the agenda; one was the discussion on mobile homes and the other was the homeless; but neither was on the agenda. She stated she hopes at some point the Board will be able to address those issues; she has been in touch with the Property Appraiser’s office to advise of the desire for answers regarding the deadlines, fee schedule, etc.; she received a response from the Property Appraiser’s office; and she advised there was going to be discussion today, although it did not happen.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 4:22 p.m.

___________________________________
TRUMAN SCARBOROUGH, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK