January 13, 2004

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on January 13, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chair Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Pastor H. A. Dean, Riverside Baptist Church, Indialantic, Florida.

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the September 30, 2003 and October 7, 2003 Regular Meeting Minutes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: CHANGE OF AGENDA

Chair Higgs advised a shift in the Agenda to move the 11:30 a.m. time certain to 12:30 p.m. so the Board can get through as many items as possible due to many reports being added to the Agenda.

REPORT, RE: PRESENTATIONS BY FRANK KINNEY AND PAUL SECOR, TRDA,
ON OPERATIONS AND SPACE ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGY OUTREACH
PROGRAM (SATOP)

Commissioner Scarborough advised Frank Kinney and Paul Secor from TRDA are here to do a presentation on the Operations and Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program (SATOP).

Frank Kinney stated they are here to share with the County Commissioners and highlight one of their programs; they have appeared before the Commission before at Commissioner Colon’s request to discuss the Incubator Program; that program is moving forward; and they are finalizing a lease with the Airport Authority in Melbourne to lease five acres of land across from Harris Corporation to build a new incubator facility, an extension of their NASA Incubator Program. He stated they have operated a business incubator in Titusville for the past seven years; and they are excited to expand the program to involve Florida Tech and University of Central Florida, take advantage of the high-tech concentration off Nasa Boulevard with Grumman, Harris, and the other companies, and to encourage the acceleration of spin-off of high-tech businesses in the community.

Mr. Kinney stated one of the programs they are anxious to share with the Board is called the SATOP Program, which is the Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program. He advised the program has been operated and managed by TRDA in partnership with NASA for almost 10 years; and it is headquartered in Titusville at the TRDA offices, but has grown to become a four-state effort, involving New York, Texas, New Mexico, and Florida. He stated it is a statewide program; Brevard County has a share of benefit from the program; and they would like to share some of the successes that have come through the program. He advised Paul Secor is a former President of the Titusville Chamber of Commerce, who TRDA hired several years ago to manage the program. He stated they brought packages to show the Board, which are kits they provide to all the Economic Development Agencies around the State when promoting the program. He stated the program is about selling the benefits of the Space Program; a majority of people outside of Brevard County have limited support for the Space Program; and one of the reasons for that is they need to do a better job of selling how the Space Program is benefiting everyone in their lives. He stated they have to give examples that are relevant in this community; and they have to be the kind of examples of projects, which are helpful, create jobs, and improve our lives. He advised Paul Secor will walk the Board through the presentation.

Paul Secor advised he first came in contact with the program when he was with the Titusville Chamber of Commerce and thought it was interesting because they can offer businesses free technical assistance from NASA. He noted instead of passing out papers and brochures, he likes to pass out success stories that show what the program has accomplished and brought examples from Brevard County and around the State of Florida. He advised there is an item called Toby’s Nose Filters in front of the case; it is a unique invention by a local inventor from Merritt Island; the inventor came up with an idea to filter out smoke and pollen without the large white masks; and he designed a small nose filter. He advised the challenge the inventor had was he could not come up with a strong enough filter on the inside of the unit to filter out smoke; he put the challenge to SATOP with TRDA; SATOP matched him up with State University of New York; the University put a filter expert on the job; and the expert recommended a special carbon-based filter that helps remove smoke and other odors. He stated the inventor has now opened a storefront on Merritt Island; just sold 10,000 units to a tanning store where they spray liquid tan; they are now using the filters; and Congressman Dave Weldon took 6,000 nose filters to Iraq to distribute to the American soldiers.

Mr. Secor advised the next invention is a large patch, which is better known as Wound Dressing; it came from a company called Magnus Biomedical; and they make wound dressing for burn victims. He stated the challenge they had was to manufacture the product it took 92 hours of drying time; they thought that was too long; put the challenge into SATOP; they were matched up with Precision Fabrication and Cleaning located in Rockledge; and Precision Fabrication and Cleaning reduced the drying process from 92 hours to 25 hours. He stated it is a big savings to Magnus Biomedical, and it is realizing results.

Mr. Secor stated another item is called Fishing Lures by Bruce; it comes from another local Brevard County inventor, based out of Titusville; it looks like a normal fishing lure; but it has a laser inside. He stated the inventor did testing with fish; and realized when he used his laser pointer in his aquarium, the fish were attracted to it. He advised the inventor designed a lure, but the fishing lures leaked water and sank; TRDA matched him up with Boeing at the Kennedy Space Center; an engineer named Ernie Banks took the challenge; decided to use an o-ring and a special adhesive; and was able to conquer the challenge. He stated Fishing Lures by Bruce implemented the new design; and is now getting 10,000 units produced for the initial test market run.

Mr. Secor advised the next one is from a local company called Pure Clean; it has invented a filter spray; and if you spray it onto the filter it turns a normal air conditioning filter into an electric static filter. He stated the company knew the product would produce results, but could not prove it; and it was matched up with Lockheed-Martin at Johnson Space Center and were able to validate actual particles the spray would remove from the air. He stated the company is in conversations now with Lysol regarding expanding to nationwide sales.

Mr. Secor noted last is a glass figurine that comes from a company called Buddah Belly Glass in Sarasota. He advised Buddha Belly Glass manufactures figurines for Disney and specialty shops, paperweights, and large glass figurines. He stated their challenge was the glass needed to be fired in a kiln; it takes an enormous amount of energy to fire up to ultimate temperature; and it takes a while when removing a batch for the kiln to heat back up. He noted they needed help with their electric bill to make it more energy efficient; they matched them with the Thurston Company, which recommended the business owner insolate the kiln with a material similar to shuttle tiles; and it resulted in a saving of $2,500 a year in terms of power and increased productivity by 50% because the business owner is now able to rotate batches of glass in and out more quickly.

Mr. Secor advised they need the kits back to share with the Economic Development Councils throughout the State, but did bring the glass figurines for the Board to keep. He stated they are active in promoting the program; and they have a contract with each of the four Chambers and the Economic Development Council. He stated it is a free program; small businesses in Brevard County can get up to 40 hours of technical assistance at no charge; and all they have to do is contact TRDA, or visit the website at www.spacetechsolutions.com. He stated a request can be entered on the web; and they have engineers and staff who will contact the requester the same day and begin working on the challenge.

Chair Higgs expressed thanks to Frank Kinney and Paul Secor for their presentation.

Frank Kinney stated it is about selling the Space Program and generating greater political support for it. He stated they have 45 contracts with Economic Development Agencies around the State to promote the program and sell the benefits; it is great marketing for the companies; it exists in four other states with the same type of model; and TRDA is the prime contractor for it. Mr. Kinney advised Commissioner Scarborough requested he review with the Board the issue of hydrogen. He stated President Bush announced several years ago there was going to be a major hydrogen initiative in the country and allocated several billion dollars for the purpose of trying to promote hydrogen as the next fuel source. He stated Congressman Dave Weldon took a leadership role and put together an organization called the Florida Hydrogen Partnership; and it involves Florida Tech, University of Central Florida, Florida Solar Energy Center, TRDA, and Enterprise Florida which are participating in the enterprise. He stated one of the successes Congressman Weldon was able to achieve this year in Washington, D.C. is he did secure a $2,000,000 earmark in the U.S. Department of Energy budget for the Florida Hydrogen Partnership, which is headquartered in Brevard County. He noted there has been other important successes in Brevard County; Florida Tech was able to secure a $900,000 earmark for doing additional hydrogen research; and the University of Central Florida, for the third year in a row, was able to secure a $9,000,000 earmark for hydrogen through the State University System that involves four or five other universities in the State; but the prime contractor is the University of Central Florida and the Florida Solar Energy Center located in Cocoa. He stated that is approximately $27,000,000 coming through the State University System for hydrogen research. He stated all combined gives critical mass where they should be able to get a good start. He advised California is ahead of Florida; it has been working the issue for many years; but thanks to Congressman Weldon Florida has a real opportunity. He encouraged the Board to support those types of efforts; and stated it would be based in Brevard County, but involve many entities outside of Brevard. He stated Brevard County is fortunate to have the Florida Solar Energy Center and University of Central Florida that have been taking a strong leadership role in the hydrogen effort.

Commissioner Scarborough advised hydrogen is an unlimited resource; if it can be tapped, the fossil fuels that are used would take Brevard County out of risky situations and world politics; there are long-range needs to understand hydrogen; and Brevard County is in a key posture.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize Federal Lobbyist Ed Pauley to assist with the hydrogen research funding. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: ENERGY RECOVERY AT THE LANDFILL

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board moved forward with trying to take methane gas that comes naturally out of the West Cocoa Landfill; it was projected to receive annual payments of $200,000; but Energy Recovery Associates is facing problems with the gas line tied in some way to the Enron issue and ownership problems.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize staff to take an active roll in recovery of methane gas at the West Cocoa Landfill and do what they can to effect the sale of gas to the Florida gas line, which runs in proximity to the landfill.

Chair Higgs advised she does not know the full implications of what Commissioner Scarborough is speaking about, and would like to have it come back as a regular Agenda item before voting on it.

Commissioner Scarborough removed his motion. Chair Higgs stated Solid Waste Management Director Euri Rodriguez can brief her; but she does not know enough about it to vote today.

REPORT, RE: CODE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 62-2117, PARKING IN
RESIDENTIAL AREAS

Commissioner Pritchard advised the County had an interesting situation regarding a Code Enforcement issue; and the further they got into the part of the Code that was affected, it was found that the Code needed to be reviewed and amended. He advised Chapter 62-2117 has been amended so many times the intent of the Code seems to have lost its focus; it deals with parking, locating, and storage of trailers, recreational vehicles, boats, motor bikes, vehicles, and heavy equipment; and many respondents are confused as to the definition in this section. He stated for example if a person owns a Ford F-150 pick-up truck, it is determined to be a passenger type vehicle by the manufacturer, and the Code allows it to be parked in a residential neighborhood; but if a person owns a Ford F-250 truck-up truck, it is listed as commercial and cannot be parked in a residential neighborhood. He stated there is a definition of driveway; it does not allow what is known as bubbling; the Code allows one boat in the front yard as long it is parked in the driveway; some people expand their driveways in width; but they cannot park their boats there. He noted there are many issues with this Code that need to be address.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct Code Enforcement, along with Planning and Zoning, to review Chapter 62-2117 and get a report to the Board in 45 days so it can address it and make amendments that are necessary. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: SUPPORT OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR WATER RESOURCES

Commissioner Pritchard advised there is a letter dated December 15, 2003 from St. Johns River Water Management District to at that time Chairperson Colon, talking about support letters that St. Johns River Water Management District is applying for Federal funding for water resources. Chair Higgs advised she put an Agenda item today for the next meeting. Commissioner Pritchard advised it is fine with him.

REPORT, RE: VALKARIA AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Commissioner Pritchard stated Valkaria Airport apparently does not have a Master Plan. Chair Higgs noted it does. Commissioner Pritchard stated he has a note from one of the members that says there is a lack of a Master Plan for Valkaria Airport. Chair Higgs inquired if there is a Master Plan for Valkaria Airport; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding there is an Airport Layout Plan. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it really is a Master Plan; with Ms. Busacca responding she does not believe the FAA considers those as two different things. Chair Higgs advised there was a Master Plan originally devised. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like a Master Plan to come back as an Agenda item at the next meeting; it needs to be looked at, as it restricts its ability to request grant funding in a timely manner; and action needs to be taken to make sure the Board has the type of plan that allows grant funding.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to bring the Master Plan for the Valkaria Airport back to the Board at the January 27, 2004 meeting.

Chair Higgs opposed the motion; stated if Commissioner Pritchard wants it to come back, it should be an Agenda item; and she does not think the Board needs a Master Plan unless there is an amendment to it. She stated it is an adequate plan with established guidelines. Commissioner Colon inquired if it is coming back as an Agenda item; with Commissioner Pritchard responding that is what he wants. Chair Higgs advised the motion is to bring back the Master Plan. Commissioner Pritchard noted he wants to see the Master Plan for Valkaria Airport and have it addressed by the Board to see if it is adequate. Ms. Busacca stated there is an Airport Layout Plan; a Master Plan was created a number of years ago by staff, but the Board said it was not the direction it wanted to go; so that Master Plan is not in effect. Chair Higgs noted the Board has a Layout Plan that is in effect and deemed adequate in that it has gotten funds on a variety of things.

Commissioner Scarborough advised he would prefer to get a report; and if the report indicates the Board still needs what Commissioner Pritchard wants, he can put it on the Agenda. He stated the Board is going to do a plan, the information comes from other people; and the Board approves plans not create them. He stated he wants to see what the airpiort has, what it may need, and the methodology to accomplish what is needed. He stated Valaria issues cause much discussion; and even if nothing is accomplished it will be an extended item, which may not lead to the results needed. Commissioner Carlson stated if Commissioner Pritchard has specific questions after looking at the old Master Plan or the Layout Plan, he can itemize them and address them specifically. Chair Higgs inquired if Commissioner Pritchard wants to amend the motion to get the report on what is the effect of the current Master Plan, and what is the status; with Commissioner Pritchard responding that would be fine.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to get a report from staff on the status and effect of the Master Plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard advised his intent is to make sure the Board has a plan that allows it to obtain grant funding. He noted the Airport Director has been renting space on property adjacent to the airport because the facility he was using was condemned. Chair Higgs inquired what is the status of Valkaria Airport Manager Jim Shinkus’ office; with Ms. Busacca responding the bids are going out to put a new structure at the Airport for the Airport Manager, which should be in place within 45 days.

REPORT, RE: CODE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 62-2117, PARKING IN
RESIDENTIAL AREAS (CONTINUED)

Ms. Busacca stated her understanding regarding the Section 62-2117 issue is that there is a gentleman under Code Enforcement investigation now; and there has been some discussion regarding abatement. Commissioner Pritchard requested Code Enforcement abate Mr. Swagert's Case so that any enforcement action against him will be held until the matter of addressing Section 62-2117 is handled. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is something that needs to be placed on the Agenda; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he will bring it back to the Board on January 27, 2004.

REPORT, RE: COMPLIANCE WITH SOLID WASTE COLLECTION CONTRACT

Commissioner Pritchard advised his office received many calls after the holidays of serious delays with trash and recycling pick-ups. He stated the contract with Waste Management clearly states that it will notify, in the local newspaper, the residents and businesses in Brevard County at least 10 days prior to holidays what the schedule will be for holiday pick-up; and appropriate notification was not made in the newspaper or Commission offices. He stated he would appreciate the County insuring the contract requirements are adhered to in the future; and that Waste Management provide notification so the public is aware when trash pick-ups will occur.

REPORT, RE: FUNDING FROM DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES

Commissioner Pritchard advised the Board is receiving a $2,000,000 grant from the State Department on Children and Family Services; and anyone with the least understanding of
the State’s performance on DCF issues should see red flags for the $2,000,000 grant from the State to have Brevard County do what the State could not. He stated errors and fraud are not unique to the State level; the State is converting its child welfare programs to community based care; and his concern is the statement of work that accompanies such grant funding, and the eventual evaporation of monies in a not too far future. He noted the Board must go on record with a motion that puts the State on notice the County will give its best shot to properly administer the grant; but when State funds are no longer available or are deemed inadequate for the intended purpose, the County will cease any activity that resulted from the State provided funding. He recommended the County Attorney propose wording for such a resolution.

Chair Higgs advised the County is not accepting responsibility from DCF; and requested Assistant County Manager Don Lusk explain what the roll of the County is in foster care services and community based care initiative. Assistant County Manager Don Lusk stated at this point the County is a partner at the table for an organization called Community-Based Care of Brevard, Inc.; that is the group looking at how shelter care and foster care is privatized in Brevard County; the County has made it clear that it was concerned with the financial implications to the County; and it is made clear in an Agreement regarding the County’s financial requirements. He stated the Board needs to look at the Agreement before a resolution is drafted; all requirements have been provided to the State and it has been agreed to; and every person that sits on that board from the County, as well as the other members, are clear that the County’s role is to try to get the money it needs from the State, and spend it in the most efficient manner possible. He noted Commissioner Pritchard’s concerns are addressed in the Agreement already in place. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if he can get a copy of that Agreement; with Mr. Lusk responding yes.

Chair Higgs advised the citizens groups and professionals are trying to design a good system that cares for children; and if the State chooses not to fund that, it is the position of the Board that it should not be a partner to that.

REPORT, RE: MARS LANDING

Commissioner Pritchard stated there is one Rover that has landed on Mars, and another is about to land on Mars. He stated in celebration of that Mars Bars were looked for, but they did not have them. To celebrate that event and the efforts of NASA, he presented Milky Way bars to the Commissioners.

REPORT, RE: TITUSVILLE PLAYHOUSE, INC. PRESENTATION

Commissioner Carlson advised Stacy Johnson, representing the Titusville Playhouse, Inc., will speak on its upcoming theater productions, its youth and adult education programs, scholarships, and its need for volunteers.

Stacy Johnson advised the Titusville Playhouse does receive the Brevard County Cultural Grant every year; as a requirement to that, they come out and give the Board information about arts groups and tell the Board who they are funding. She stated it is a non-profit community theatre, located in historic downtown Titusville; and Titusville Playhouse has a 300-seat auditorium, does seven main stage productions every year and five youth theatre productions. She stated it is half through its season which began in the summer; it is about to begin Taming of the Shrew, which opens this Saturday and runs for three weekends; the February show is a youth theatre show called The Great Cross Country Race, and the story of The Tortoise and the Hare; the March show is a main stage production called Two and Two Makes Sex; the April show is a youth theatre production Sleeping Beauty; and then it ends the season with the musical Annie Get Your Gun. She stated in addition to the shows, the Playhouse does many concerts and fundraisers; it has a great educational program for adults and youths and offers scholarships for the youth theatre and adult classes, as well as discounts for families; and it is a community theatre run by volunteers. She noted if there are volunteers, they can be signed up today.

REPORT, RE: SATELLITE BEACH HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS SOCCER TEAM

Commissioner Carlson advised the Satellite Beach High School Girls Soccer Team Scorpions achieved the No. 1 ranking in the nation in the National Soccer Association of America pole, and extended her congratulations to the Scorpions.

REPORT, RE: TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ISSUE

Commissioner Colon wished everyone a Happy New Year. She advised her 2004 has already been blessed; her mother and father are in town from New Jersey; and she enjoys having them visiting for another week.

She stated at the last Board meeting she was ill, but watched the meeting on television; and was proud on how the Board handled the Tourist Development Council issue. She stated she was happy with the unanimous vote and the way Mr. Enselmo Baldonado handled himself in the middle of adversities. She advised the issue was sensitive in regards to discrimination.

REPORT, RE: TOWN MEETING IN INDIAN HARBOUR BEACH

Commissioner Colon advised the town meeting was wonderful in Indian Harbour Beach; and there was a great turnout. She stated one of the discussions was regarding community policing and the COP Program; and present was Vicki Yacono-Belcher who is going to share with the Board on Project Lifesaver.

Vicki Yacono-Belcher advised the Brevard County Sheriff’s Department in conjunction with the Brevard County TRIAD, Inc. are dedicated to Project Lifesaver; it is designed to track and locate missing persons and persons who may be in danger due to Alzheimer’s, Autism, Down Syndrome, and other memory problems; and those will be people eligible to obtain lifesaver bracelets. She stated Project Lifesaver provides an individual with a bracelet that contains a small radio transmitter, which allows the Sheriff’s Office to find that personalized, audible signal. She noted if a family member or friend is in an assisted living facility or nursing home, the bracelets are available for added security and peace of mind for the caregivers. She stated the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office Aviation Unit supervises the tracking; and the Unit will locate the transmitter with both ground and air tracking receivers. She stated additional information may be obtained by calling the Senior Help Line. She advised the bracelets are maintained on a monthly basis by the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office Citizen Observer Patrol Volunteers. She stated she is the supervisor for the Countywide COP Program; at this time there are 146 volunteers who put over 2,000 hours in a month; the program has been expanded to include locating missing people in danger. She stated they have had three people since she began the program in November 2003 who were all located, but none of them had on the bracelets. She requested the Board advise everyone in their districts to call; if they cannot afford the bracelet, TRIAD will work with them; and it is important to locate the people and get them back home safely.

REPORT, RE: MELBOURNE AIRPORT

Commissioner Colon wished a Happy Birthday to Melbourne Airport for 75 years of operation.

REPORT, RE: CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Chair Higgs advised there are three items being pulled from the Consent Agenda by citizens that the Board will entertain after the Resolutions and Awards. She noted Items III.A.3, III.A.14, III.B.3 were pulled from the Consent Agenda.

RESOLUTION, RE: AWARDING SALLY SCALERA AND RICHARD SOUCY THE
EXCELLENCE IN PUBLIC SERVICE AWARD FOR 2003

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised this is an annual award where the Board of County Commissioners recognizes outstanding public employees, both rank and file as well as Supervisor’s in the County organization. He stated they are being recognized for their excellence in public service to the citizens of Brevard County. He noted there are two recipients for the Excellence in Public Service Award; and the individuals do not know they are receiving the award. He invited Sally Scalera to come up from Agriculture and Extension Services Office. Mr. Jenkins read the resolution aloud.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution awarding Sally Scalera the Excellence in Public Service Award for 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-001.)

Sally Scalera thanked the Board for the award; and stated she thought she was coming to the meeting in case it had questions about the Master Gardener Program.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised he wants to recognize a second employee with the Excellence in Public Service Award, and invited Richard Soucy with Parks and Recreation to come up. Mr. Jenkins read the Resolution aloud.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution awarding Richard Soucy the Excellence in Public Service Award for 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-002.)

Richard Soucy thanked the Board for the Resolution.

RESOLUTION, RE: AWARDING MARY F. BERLEY THE EXCELLENCE IN PUBLIC
SERVICE MANAGEMENT AWARD

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised he wants to present the Excellence in Public Service Management Award, and invited Mary Berley from Animal Services and Enforcement to come up. Mr. Jenkins read the Resolution aloud.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution awarding Mary F. Berley the Excellence in Public Service Management Award for 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-003).

Mary Berley stated she is stunned, and thanked the Board for the Resolution.

RESOLUTION RE: COMMENDING CANAVERAL PORT AUTHORITY ON ITS 50TH
ANNIVERSARY

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud a resolution commending Canaveral Port Authority on its 50th Anniversary.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution commending Canaveral Port Authority on its 50th Anniversary. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-004.)

Chairman of Canaveral Port Authority Rodney Ketchum thanked the Board on behalf of the five elected Commissioners of the Port Authority, staff, and employees for recognizing them. He advised he left a goodie bag on the Commissioner’s seats; and in the bag there is a book describing the history of Port Canaveral. He stated he came to Brevard County in 1955; and what really struck him was the entire population of rural Brevard County was less than 30,000. He stated in 1960 there were over 25,000 school children; in 1948 or 1949 this little rural county took upon itself the tax burden of establishing the Port at Canaveral; and in the book they try to recognize those pioneers and the people who have added to its growth and expansion over the years. He stated the book was directed by Dixie Sansom; and she will autograph it if the Board would like.

Dixie Sansom stated they are in the process of providing a coy of the book to all the public and private libraries in Brevard County; and if the Board knows anyone who would like to have a copy, to let her know. Commissioner Carlson noted they need to give one to the History Museum.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE BREVARD COUNTY
LIBRARIES

Chair Higgs read aloud a resolution recognizing contributions of the Brevard County Libraries.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution recognizing the contributions of the Brevard County Libraries and applauding its efforts in enriching the lives of citizens. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Resolution No. 04-005.)

Library Services Director Cathy Schweinsberg stated it is due to the Board’s support that the Brevard County Libraries ranks where they do in the State Libraries; and expressed her appreciation.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE CENTER FOR
THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED, INC.

Chair Higgs read aloud a resolution recognizing the contributions of the Center for the Visually Impaired, Inc.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution recognizing the contributions of the Center for the Visually Impaired, Inc. (CVI), and welcoming its expansion that will contribute to the welfare of the blind and visually impaired residents of Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Resolution No. 04-006.)

A Representative of The Center for the Visually Impaired, Inc. stated she wants to tell the Board a little about the Center for the Visually Impaired, Inc.; and to introduce our staff, and to introduce two students who have graduated from the program. She advised it is a non-profit agency, and has just opened offices in Brevard County at 571 Haverty Court, Rockledge. She stated Center for the Visually Impaired, Inc. provides independent living training, orientation and mobility instruction, computer training, and peer support to adults, children, and seniors in Brevard County. She advised losing vision is a traumatic experience; and the dedicated staff helps the students to cope with vision loss and continue on with their lives. She noted they have seen dramatic changes in the lives of their clients; and they are happy to expand the services to Brevard County as approximately 200 individuals are receiving services from the State Division of Blind Services in Brevard County. She introduced District Administrator for the State Division of Blind Services Alex McGlaughlin, Program Administrator from Brevard County Beth Allen, Computer Instructor and Peer Support Group Coordinator Pam Myers, Orientation and Mobility Specialists Mary Jane Anderson, and Rehabilitation Technician Betty Wright. She noted Mr. McGlaughlin wants to speak to the Board

Alex McGlaughlin advised the Center for the Visually Impaired is a community partner in the delivery of services. He stated his job is to provide resources in training so individuals who are blind and visually impaired in Brevard County will be able to be fully integrated into society. He stated they want to get to know the Board and the Board to know them so it might champion the cause of the local citizens who are blind and visually impaired and deserve specialized services to cope with their disability.

Helen Buckey stated about 20 years ago she was told she had glaucoma; not long ago she was told she has Macular Degeneration, which means she does not see at all out of one eye; her doctor sent her to the Center for the Visually Impaired; and she learned a great deal. She noted she can feel things, smell things, and hear things she could not before; she lives alone and does her own cooking; and she has talking books. She advised the Lions Club gave her a radio that delivers the news from Chicago Tribune, New York Times, and USA Today, without commercials. She advised there are up sides being hearing impaired; she is two people on her income tax; she rides the Space Coast Transportation for $1; she has a clock to put on the wall that was given to her so she can see it; and everyone is nice to her. She noted the worse thing is that she has to ask for a ride, but she takes them to lunch for giving her a ride. She is learning Braille; they sent wooden blocks; and she can feel the Braille marks.

Linda Teran stated she has been a Central Brevard resident and taxpayer for 36 years; is legally blind with Retinitis Pigmentosa; and she is hard of hearing. She advised she has been a client of the Center for the Visually Impaired for five months; and she is glad to have CVI for the first time in Central Brevard County, especially in Rockledge. She noted CVI provides the service for the visually impaired; it teaches computer class and independent living skills; and it is a support group. She stated Pam Myers is her computer instructor; she showed her how to use Magic and draw on the computer; and she has learned how to navigate the desktop, e-mail, address book, calendar, Microsoft Word, and the Internet. She advised she has learned how to use a walking cane; she only has 10% field vision left; and she uses a walking cane to navigate. She stated without the cane, people do not know she has vision problems, so it is very helpful to her. She stated if it was not for CVI she would not be good at the computer; and hopes CVI will continue to help low-vision and blind people. She advised the staff at CVI is supportive, helpful, patient, and understanding.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING EAGLE SCOUT JASON MCCLASKY

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud a resolution commending Eagle Scout Jason McClasky.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution commending Jason McClasky for attaining the rank of Eagle Scout and offering congratulations and best wishes for a successful future. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-007.)

Jason McClasky stated he has been in the Scouts since the first grade, and went through the program, has much fun with the Scouts, and encourages everyone to join. He advised his project was planting fifteen Lignium Vitae trees with trail markers at Sandy Ridge Wildlife Sanctuary in Coral Springs; the trees are on the endangered list; and he made signs to tell everyone about it so people would be more aware of the trees.

Greg McClasky thanked the Board for recognizing Jason, scouting, and all the many people who have been involved, especially his wife. He stated he wants to publicly congratulate Jason on all his accomplishments, tell him how proud he is, and challenge him to continue his success in the future.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING ELIZABETH BRADLEY ON HER 95TH
BIRTHDAY

Commissioner Scarborough advised Elizabeth Bradley will not be present at the meeting to receive her resolution; but he will make a motion to adopt the resolution to give to Ms. Bradley at another time.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution recognizing Elizabeth Bradley on her 95th Birthday. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-008.)

REPORT, RE: CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (CONTINUED)

Chair Higgs advised III.A.3, III.A.14, and III.B3 has been pulled by citizens for discussion.

Commissioner Pritchard advised he wants to comment on a couple of areas within the Consent Agenda. He stated the areas that deal with annexation, he believes in the destiny of the cities; if the cities are going to grow it will cost the County money in terms of tax revenue; and the County needs to address the issue of the loss of revenue, and how it will effect the budget. He stated under III.F.1 the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office is requesting State funds for a publication; he believes it is a worthy project; the caveat is if they did not get State funds they would be looking at the County General Fund; he does not approve of that; and if they cannot get State funds, they need to look within their budget and fund the brochure out of that. He stated other than that he is in favor of passing the Consent Agenda.

CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE: IMPROVEMENTS IN SONOMA
SOUTH SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Contract with The Viera Company to guarantee infrastructure improvements in Sonoma South Subdivision, Phase 4. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Contract.)

UNPAVED ROAD AGREEMENT WITH GEORGE FONTANA, RE: SERNA AVENUE,
EXTENSION B

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Unpaved Road Agreement with George Fontana for a building permit off an existing right-of-way, known as Serna Avenue, Extension B. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Unpaved Road Agreement.)

UNPAVED ROAD AGREEMENT WITH JESSE MARSHALL, RE: MULBERRY LANE

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Unpaved Road Agreement with Jesse Marshall for a building permit off an existing right-of-way, known as Mulberry Lane. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for
Unpaved Road Agreement.)

UNPAVED ROAD AGREEMENT WITH WILHELM REINDL, RE: GOLDRUSH
AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Unpaved Road Agreement with Wilhelm Reindl for a building permit off an existing right-of-way, known as Goldrush Avenue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Unpaved Road Agreement.)

CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE: IMPROVEMENTS TO WICKHAM
ROAD EXTENSION

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Contract with The Viera Company guaranteeing improvements to Wickham Road Extension. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Contract.)

CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE: IMPROVEMENTS TO SOLERNO
BOULEVARD AND TAVISTOCK DRIVE

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Contract with The Viera Company for improvements to Solerno Boulevard and Tavistock Drive. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Contract.)

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT AND PERFORMANCE BOND FOR
BIRCHWOOD SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract with Birchwood Developers Group on September 30, 2003 and performance bond for Birchwood Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Resolution No. 04-009.)

FINAL ENGINEERING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, RE: HERITAGE
ISLES, PHASE 2

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approval for Heritage Isles, Phase 2, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and developer responsible for obtaining necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL ENGINEERING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL RE: CAPRON TRACE
SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approval for Capron Trace Subdivision, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and developer obtaining necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH COUSINS DEVELOPMENT GROUP,
RE: THE AVENUE AT VIERA

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant final plat approval for The Avenue at Viera, subject to minor changes if necessary and receipt of all documents required for recording; and execute Contract with Cousins Development Group guaranteeing improvements in The Avenue at Viera. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
(See page for Contract.)

BINDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH KALENY ENTERPRISES, INC. (A.K.A.
LARRY AND SUSANNE CHANCEY), RE: PROPERTY LOCATED IN
MELBOURNE SHORES

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Binding Development Plan with Kaleny Enterprises, Inc. (a.k.a. Larry and Susanne Chancey) setting forth conditions for development of property located in Melbourne Shores. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Binding Development Agreement.)

BINDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH LUIS GARCIA (A.K.A. WALTER ASKEW),
RE: PROPERTY LOCATED IN MELBOURNE SHORES, FIRST ADDITION

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Binding Development Plan with Luis Garcia (a.k.a. Walter Eskew) setting forth conditions for development property located in Melbourne Shores, First Addition. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Binding Development Agreement.)

ACKNOWLEDGE ANNEXATION REQUEST AR 2003-144 FROM CITY OF
MELBOURNE, RE: PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG WEST SIDE OF DAIRY
ROAD, NORTH OF FLORIDA AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to acknowledge Annexation Request AR-2003-144 from City of Melbourne involving 35 acres along the west side of Dairy Road, north of Florida Avenue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE ANNEXATION REQUEST AR-2003-145 FROM CITY OF
MELBOURNE, RE: PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG EAST AND WEST SIDES
OF WICKHAM ROAD, NORTH OF POST ROAD AND SOUTH OF PINEDA
CAUSEWAY

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to acknowledge Annexation Request AR-2003-145 from the City of Melbourne involving 120 acres located on the east and west sides of Wickham Road, north of Post Road and south of Pineda Causeway. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BINDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH GEORGE QUEEN, RE: PROPERTY IN
PORT ST. JOHN, UNIT 1

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Binding Development Plan with George Queen setting forth conditions for development of property located in Port St. John, Unit 1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Binding Development Plan.)

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TOBY AVENUE PAVING
MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to be held on January 27, 2004 to consider improvements and the final assessment roll in the Toby Avenue Road Paving Municipal Service Benefit Unit. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO INCREASE WORK ORDER TO FRAZIER ENGINEERING, INC.
RE: JOHN RODES BOULEVARD AND SHERIDAN ROAD INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant permission to increase Work Order #2002-013-015 to Frazier Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $39,600 for a new total work order amount of $43,800 to provide engineering services for the John Rodes Boulevard and Sheridan Road Intersection Improvement Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
RE: EXTENDING PERIOD FOR USE AND MAINTENANCE OF PORTION OF
THE CRANE CREEK DRAINAGE DISTRICT

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Florida Institute of Technology extending period for use and maintenance of portion of Crane Creek Drainage District for a ten-year period beginning January 25, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Amendment to Agreement.)

RESOLUTION AND SUBORDINATION OF COUNTY UTILITY INTERESTS, RE:
WIDENING OF STATE ROAD 3 FROM STATE ROAD 520 TO SKY LARK
AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution and execute Subordination of County Utility Interests in favor of Florida Department of Transportation for FDOT Project #237705-02 along SR 3 in Merritt Island. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-010.)

APPROVAL TO SIGN LETTER, RE: RECOMMENDATION AND INPUT ON
FLORIDA WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL MARKER PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize the Chair to sign a letter to Florida Department of Veteran Affairs providing input on what the County wants to engrave on the County marker, which will be part of the Florida World War II Memorial Marker Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Letter.)

APPROVAL TO ADD TO YEAR 2004 LEGISLATIVE REQUESTS, RE: PERMANENT
STATE FUNDING SUPPORT FOR VETERANS TRANSITIONAL FACILITY

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve adding request for State grant funding of $170,000 annually to pay operating expenses for the Vietnam Veterans of Brevard Transitional Housing Facility for homeless veterans and/or families to the 2004 Legislative Requests. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

TERMINATION OF SUB-LEASE AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH
CHILD CARE ASSOCIATION OF BREVARD COUNTY, INC., RE:
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF B.A. MORSE PARK IN COCOA

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to terminate Sub-lease Agreement with Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and execute Agreement with Child Care Association of Brevard County, Inc. for maintenance and operation of B. A. Morse Park in Cocoa; and authorize Parks and Recreation Director or designee to execute renewal options as outlined in the Agreement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Agreement.)

UTILITY AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF PALM BAY, RE: PALM BAY REGIONAL
PARK

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Utility Agreement with the City of Palm Bay to provide water service to Palm Bay Regional Park in the amount of $43,257.50. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Agreement.)

AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO AGREEMENT WITH THADDEUS COHEN
ARCHITECT, RE: HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE V. MOORE MEMORIAL PARK

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Amendment No. 3 to Agreement with Thaddeus Cohen Architect for additional services to design a security system in the amount of $800.00 for Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Memorial Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Amendment No. 3.)

RESOLUTION AND AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF INDIAN HARBOUR BEACH, RE:
SUB-LEASE OF SAVE OUR COAST DINKIN PARCEL

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution and execute Agreement with the City of Indian Harbour Beach to sub-lease the Dinkin Parcel to the City for development, operation, and maintenance as a park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Resolution No. 04-011 and Agreement.)

AMENDMENT WITH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RE: AMBULANCE SERVICE
TO PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract with Patrick Air Force Base to continue to provide 911 EMS ambulance transport service to the Base at estimated cost of $80,300 per year for five years. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Amendment.)

PERMISSION TO PURCHASE, RE: FIVE AMBULANCE/RESCUE TRANSPORTS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant permission to purchase four replacement ambulances and one additional ambulance from Wheeled Coach, Inc., for a total of $409,515. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RECLAIMED WATER MAIN CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH THE VIERA
COMPANY AND INCLUSION IN FY 2004 CIP, RE: CONSTRUCTION OF
RECLAIMED WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN IN LAKE ANDREW DRIVE
RIGHT-OF-WAY

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Reclaimed Water Main Construction Agreement with The Viera Company for construction of reclaimed water transmission main in Lake Andrew Drive right-of-way; and authorize inclusion of the project in the Water Resources Department’s FY 2004 CIP. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION ENTITY, RE: BREVARD
SCHOOL READINESS COALITION

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize Central Services to assist with a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) as a preliminary step in procuring an administrative entity for the Brevard School Readiness Coalition (SRC). Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

EXTENSION OF SALE/PURCHASE CONTRACT WITH CARTRIDGE SOURCE OF
AMERICA, INC., RE: FIVE-ACRE PARCEL IN SPACEPORT COMMERCE
PARK

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize a 60-day time extension on the pending Contract for Sale and Purchase with Cartridge Source of America, Inc. for a five-acre parcel located at the corner of Armstrong Drive and Schirra Court in Spaceport Commerce Park, for a new closing date of March 15, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: APPROVING CONFIDENTIAL PROJECT NO. 03-00156 AS
QUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRY

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution approving Confidential Project No. 03-00156 as a qualified target industry for marketing and warehousing its new piston engine for general aviation aircraft and requesting the State waive the QTI local match requirement in lieu of the County’s tax exemption local match. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-012.)

APPROVE PUBLIC OFFICIAL BOND, RE: COUNTY MANAGER

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the Public Official Bond for the County Manager as required by Brevard County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2.67, in the amount of $5,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF NOMINEES TO THE GOVERNOR, RE: CHILDREN’S
SERVICES COUNCIL

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize staff to submit nominees Linda Brooks, Ann-Marie Brush, Joan Clark, Patricia Craig, Marilyn “Bunny” Finney, Dr. Harold Utt, Jr., General Titus Hall, and Dr. Laura Verry-Sidoran to the Governor for consideration to fill two positions on the Children’s Services Council. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL TO USE STATE DRUG FORFEITURE FUNDS, RE: EDUCATIONAL
PUBLICATIONS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the use of State Drug Forfeiture funds in the amount of $6,000 pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 932.7055(4)(a)(b) to fund the publication of two separate educational supplements in April and August 2004 at $3,000 each. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS FOR RICHARD AND IRENE JONES
AND MELINDA MILSAP, RE: BREVARD COUNTY VS. BUTLER ET AL
(SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT)

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to accept the attorney’s fees and cost proposal submitted by Richard and Irene Jones and Melinda Milsap in the amount of $2,343 and $4,273.50 respectively, for the Brevard County vs. Butler et al case; and authorize the County Attorney to execute a settlement agreement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, RE:
TAPING OF OFF-SITE PUBLIC MEETINGS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize an additional $2,200 from the Board’s General Fund Contingency to the Charter Review Commission for taping of off-site public meetings scheduled for January 21, 2004, February 18, 2004, and March 17, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to appoint/reappoint Kelli Jo Strabley to Animal Enforcement Dangerous Dog Hearing Council with term expiring December 31, 2004; Bob Fritz to Brevard Commission on Aging with a term expiring December 31, 2004; Harold J. Fuller to Building and Construction Advisory Committee with term expiring December 31, 2004; Glenice Fablinger and Loretta Wilson to Central Brevard Library & Reference Center Advisory Board with terms expiring December 31, 2004; Rita Spencer-Fust to Brevard County Commission on Status of Women with term expiring December 31, 2004; Jack Callinan to Citizen Budget Review Committee with term expiring December 31, 2004; Izeal Battle, Leartis Brothers, Reverend Melvin Chatman, Jackie Henderson, Jimmy Jackson, Betty Wells and Zola White to Cocoa West Community Center Advisory Committee with terms expiring December 31, 2004; John Anderson to Community Action Board with term expiring December 31, 2004; Bud Crisafulli, Roger Drabyk, and Lena Nordell to Contractors Licensing Board with terms expiring December 31, 2004; Marilyn S. Hooper to Country Acres Advisory Board with term expiring December 31, 2004; Richard Corsillo, Joe Demes, Roy Gunsler, Doug Jaren, Tom Mott, Tim Myers, and George Reynolds to District 2 Canal
Dredging Committee with terms expiring December 31, 2004; Steven Webster to Economic Development Commission of the Space Coast with term expiring December 31, 2004; Sharon Luba to Employee Benefits Advisory Committee with term expiring December 31, 2004; Rocky Randels and Courtney Roberts to Environmentally Endangered Lands Procedures Committee with terms expiring December 31, 2004; Bud Crisafulli to Extension Advisory Council with term expiring December 31, 2004; David Andersen, Douglas Hendriksen, Brooks Humphrys, and Ann W. Smith to Historical Commission with terms expiring December 31, 2004; Carol Hurst to Library Board with term expiring December 31, 2004; Doug Jaren and George Reynolds to Marine Advisory Council with terms expiring December 31, 2004; Greg Cronk to Medical Services Review Committee with term expiring December 31, 2004; Duane Watson to Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency with term expiring November 13, 2004; John Anderson and Bob Estes to Metropolitan Planning Organizatin Citizens Advisory Board with terms expiring December 31, 2004; Ben Drew to Parks and Recreation South Service Sector Area Advisory Board with term expiring December 31, 2004; Joe Sekera to Personnel Council with term expiring December 31, 2004; John Daignault, Aneta Ott, and Michael Selig to Planning and Zoning Board with terms expiring December 31, 2004; Lou Howard to Public Golf Advisory Board with term expiring December 31, 2004; Bill Baer and Ken Rivard to Valkaria Airport Advisory Board with terms expiring December 31, 2004; Melvin Mueller to Veterans Memorial Park Advisory Board with term expiring December 31, 2004; Courtney Roberts and Clyde Thodey to Zoning Board of Adjustment with terms expiring December 31, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Bills as presented. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for List of Bills.)

Meeting recessed at 10:24 a.m. and reconvened at 10:34 a.m.

FINAL ENGINEERING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, RE: AURORA OAKS
SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approval for Aurora Oaks Subdivision, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and developer obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE ANNEXATION AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA
04-01 A-S FROM CITY OF TITUSVILLE, RE: PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR
CARPENTER ROAD, FOX LAKE ROAD, PARRISH ROAD, AND SINGLETON
AVENUE

Chair Higgs advised Item III.A.14 was pulled for discussion by the public.

Walter Pine stated the reason he is before the Board today is that when the Agenda was produced on January 7, 2004 the City of Titusville had not entertained the issues. He stated during the City meeting a number of properties were dropped from consideration, some were pulled by the landowners themselves, and a portion was passed; and it originally failed at the City. He stated City Councilman Ken Ward advised he had a conflict of interest voting on some of them; it was Rule 13, which has to be specific to each vote; and it was an improper Rule 13. He stated Mr. Ward, after stating he had a conflict of interest on some of those issues, then voted. He stated there are a number of issues that would make it unlawful for this to be properly handled; and asked the Board to not consider it at all. He requested the Board look at the tapes from those City of Titusville meetings so it can determine if it has been appropriately or lawfully done. He advised it would be inappropriate for the Board to put a stamp of approval or even consider an item that was unlawfully done by any municipality or other agency.

Thelma Roper stated she came to the meeting to bring it to the Board’s attention that there has been a lot of opposition to the annexations in Titusville; they are usually evening meetings that are better attended; and no one from the Titusville meeting expected this item to be on the Agenda this quickly. She stated it is not appropriate at this time to pass and approve this item. She noted there were meetings ending at 3:00 a.m. regarding this issue; the Board needs to look hard at this before approving it; and requested the Board not go forward with it at this time.

Michael Myjak stated he is representing over 400 Brevard County residents in the Rambling Acres Homeowners Group, Fox Lake Homeowners Group, Osprey Point Homeowners Association, and the newly formed Mims Annexation Coalition that recently formed because of this particular annexation request. He advised citizens in Brevard County do not really have a voice on the City Council; they do not get to vote on the City Council Membership; yet it is this City Council that wants to annex in and around them. He stated he moved into the County from the City, and built his home in the country in an area inhabited by wildlife; the groundwater comes from this area; and it is a water recharge area. He noted one of the things most of the residents in this particular area are concerned about is when new development occurs, it occurs in a comparable fashion to the homes that are already out there. He stated what has been proposed is simply the city of hodgepodge; a developer comes in and wants to take a piece of land and integrate it into the City; and it does not have a relationship to what is there already. He stated this started in late October; on November 11th they had the first meeting that ran until 2:45 a.m.; 99% of the people who spoke were opposed to it; and the measure was voted down because one of the Council Members had a conflict of interest. He advised at the very next meeting, after invoking Rule 13, they did so without putting it on the Agenda. He stated the people who live in the County did not know what the City of Titusville’s rules were; and they
were not prepared for this trickery to bring an item back under old business that was never
advertised. He stated according to City of Titusville’s advertisement, which stated, “The City Council upon reconsideration has scheduled a special interest meeting on Tuesday January 6th to conduct a new public hearing on every individual application that comprised the referenced land use amendments. It was also agreed that every application would be voted on separately by the City Council.” He advised the last part of the statement was true as they voted on every application separately; it was not the same issue voted on prior to Rule 13; they separate out those that Councilman Ward claimed a conflict of interest on and he did not vote for; but they did not allow them to address and speak to each one of the issues. He noted an issue is the fact that the City is growing too fast; there have been over 5,500 new housing units approved in the City within the last six months; and that is almost a 33% increase over the 15,000 that are there now. He stated he does not know where the water and sewer services will come
from to support these people; and 92% of the homes going in are below the mean value for the City to break even on its MSTU. He requested the Board consider that when abutting neighbors are effected by annexation, the people have some say; and adding a referendum requirement to the County Charter may be the only course of action the people have available to them. He advised the Joint Planning Agreement, at least with the City of Titusville, should consider concurrency for schools, roads, and other services that need to be purchased, as the City has stated it will not consider those.

Attorney John Evans, representative for Bob Holloway, who is one of the people whose annexation was approved, stated Dwight Severs is one of the most conservative, competent City Attorneys in the State; and he approved all of the actions of City Council. He stated if Mr. Severs said it is correct procedure, he believes his word; they are voluntary annexations; and the vast majority of the people, including his client, signed a water service agreement. He stated the water service agreements are about 10 years old, and what they say is that when their property becomes contiguous to the City of Titusville, they agree to automatically annex in consideration of receiving City water. He advised Mr. Holloway has signed one of those agreements; and Mr. Holloway wants City sewer service, which he believes is a good thing as opposed to septic tanks. He stated it is not the City forcing something to happen; they have the City water; they have received the benefits; all of the Osprey Point and other areas have received the benefit; but now they want to renege on their agreements with the City. He stated Mr. Holloway’s rezoning was submitted to the County staff and it was found to be in compliance with land development regulations; it was found to be in compliance with the Zoning Code; and it was found to be in compliance with the density allowed by the Land Use Plan. He stated staff wrote a supportive memo except for the fact that there is a small school overcrowding issue. He noted he does not understand how the County residents can say they have not been heard; he was there until 3:00 a.m. listening to the County residents; the hearing went another four hours at the next meeting; so the County representatives have been heard. He stated his client has
agreed to a minimum of 2,000 square foot homes, two car garages, and in the $200,000 to $250,000 range; he does not see how that is unsuitable to this particular neighborhood; so he would support the motion.

Chair Higgs advised the item before the Board is acknowledgement of an annexation and Comp Plan amendment by the City of Titusville. Commissioner Scarborough stated Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott should speak to this item. He stated as this evolved, the County had citizens come in; Mr. Scott has met with them; and the Board asked for this product prior to the action of the City. He advised this is not the Board’s normal response to an annexation, but is a product that had occurred and was part of the package before the Tuesday night meeting. He noted when the Board objects, it does not object to the annexation, it objects to the zoning methodology; the County has responsibility to that; and Mr. Scott is in a posture to take this product and move it to a product the Board can consider. He stated some people contacted his office and were advised this was not going to be heard today; the Board would pull it; and Mr. Scott would move forward to the next phase. He stated the report was shared with the City; there was a split three-two vote; and it is a very contingent thing. He stated there are issues that Mr. Scott can go into today, but he believes the best thing would be to take the large report covering all the parcels; and inquired if Mr. Scott could speak to where he will take it if it comes back January 27th. Chair Higgs advised if the Board brings it back on January 27th it will have the staff report with all of the new information as to what the City actually did, not what was proposed. She stated there is no pressure to do it now. Commissioner Scarborough advised if the Board did not do it that way, each Commissioner would probably receive 500 plus calls this afternoon.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table acknowledgement of annexation and Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 04-01 A-S from the City of Titusville for property located near Carpenter Road, Fox Lake Road, Parrish Road, and Singleton Avenue until January 27, 2003, and direct staff to return with a report on what the City has done. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: AUTHORIZING DONATION OF COUNTY-OWNED SURPLUS
RESIDENTIAL PARCEL IN MERRITT ISLAND TO NORTH BREVARD CHARITIES
SHARING CENTER

Thelma Roper stated she is not opposed to this; and inquired if North Brevard Charities will keep the costs of the houses down since the County is donating property with that intent, going to partner with Habitat for Humanity to also keep the costs down so the very low income people will be the ones benefiting by this. She stated if not, she wants to contact Habitat for Humanity when there are parcels like this because many times it is looking for parcels that can accommodate and keep its prices low because of the volunteer work and not having to contract.

Chair Higgs advised the County does partner with Habitat for Humanity in a number of things; and Housing and Human Services Director Gay Williams can respond to Ms. Roper’s questions.
Housing and Human Services Director Gay Williams advised Habitat for Humanity was not able to utilize this property; North Brevard Charities also operates and functions as a community housing development organization, which is an organization committed to providing affordable housing. She advised the land was purchased through the Community Development Block Grant; it will enable them to market this as affordable housing for the very low, low income individuals; and it provides them an opportunity to have home ownership. Chair Higgs requested Ms. Williams forward a copy of the North Brevard Charities information to Ms. Roper.

Motion by Commissioner, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution authorizing donation of County-owned surplus residential parcel located in Merritt Island to North Brevard Charities Sharing Center for construction of three single-family residential homes to be sold to very-low, low and moderate income Brevard County residents. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-013.)

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, RE: SAWGRASS SOUTH AT SUNTREE

Chair Higgs requested County Attorney Scott Knox advise the Board on the status of the item.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised this is the Sawgrass matter that the Board considered at its last meeting. He stated when the information was brought up regarding the eagles possibly relocating, the Board authorized staff to view the eagles’ nest again to make sure what was being represented was actually happening. He noted staff has done that; they brought back a report; and the report is made part of the record today. He stated the issue the Board is to consider is the findings of fact that were prepared based on the information that was presented before the report was made available; so the question before the Board is if the report in any way changes its original decision to deny the plat.

Chair Higgs requested Natural Resources update the Board on the status of the eagles’ nest. Natural Resources Representative Donna Oddy advised since the January 5, 2004 report that was provided to the Board, she visited the eagles’ nest on January 9, 2004; and again January 12, 2004, and there was no change in the status of the nest. She stated a great horned owl was residing in the nest, having kicked out the eagles; she visited the starter nest BE-17B on both of those days to see if any activity was present in that area; no eagles were visible at the nest or within the area; and it did not seem to be any difference in the appearance of the nest structure, like anything had been added to refurbish the nest.

Chair Higgs advised the Board has the findings of fact, and now has a report that may have effect on those findings of fact; and there are two options for the Board to consider, rescind the prior action, or approve the findings of fact as they are before the Board. She stated the Board does not usually open up the discussion on findings of fact. County Attorney Scott Knox noted
the Board is not considering the findings of fact so much as it is the report, because it is new evidence that was not available at the time it made its original decision. He stated if there is any change in the Board’s view of the evidence based upon the newly produced evidence, it needs to consider that today, and needs to hear from the applicant and anyone else who wants to speak to the issue of the report. Chair Higgs inquired if the report is the one just given to the Board by Natural Resources that sheds new light on the findings of fact, and not the site plan; with Mr. Knox responding that is correct. Chair Higgs advised the first card is Dick Northrup.

Dick Northrup, president of SAI HOA, stated the residents remain concerned with the Sawgrass South development and its potential adverse impact on both the community and the environment. He advised the eagles’ nest issue was of paramount importance to them, along with the continued preservation of wetlands; and further monitoring is required to determine the status of the bald eagle pair using the nest BE-17B, immediately south of St. Andrews Isle. He stated he hopes the Board will uphold its previous denial. He advised Frank Rockwell and Carlyle Rogers, who reside in SAI adjacent to the proposed development, will elaborate on specifics of the eagle sightings. He stated he has more to say about the development; and inquired if he should continue with that; with Chair Higgs responding her preference would be to deal with the question of the eagles. Mr. Northrup stated he requested the Board uphold the denial of the final engineering plan and final plat approval for Sawgrass South.

Frank Rockwell stated he lives in St. Andrews Isle; the nest BE-17B is directly behind his house at a distance of approximately 125 feet from his back door; so he can see when the eagles are there or not. He advised the last time he heard the eagles was Friday morning; and the last time he saw them was the weekend before that. He stated from his house he cannot tell if the nest has deteriorated or been improved by the eagles but the eagles hang around that tree a fair amount of the time; and he hopes the Board will affirm its decision.

Carlyle Rogers stated she and her husband have lived on St. Andrews Isle for a year and a half; and their home overlooks the south side of the lake where the bald eagles’ nest BE-17B is located. She advised since she came before the Board on August 30th, she and some of her neighbors have observed the eagles; and in late October 2002, she took a picture of the eagle, which she will share with the Board. She stated she observed the eagles flying over the lake just before Christmas. She advised although there have been reports that the eagles attempted to return to their original nest BE-17A, and have once again been displaced by the great horned owl, it was in the spring of last year when she personally observed the eagles building their nest at BE-17B. She stated the pattern may be the same as last year; and the eagles may return to BE-17B in the spring to continue to strengthen the nest. She noted the eagles should be given enough time to return to the newer nest since they have again been evicted by the great horned owl. She stated in order for the eagles to survive, the Board should uphold its denial of the proposed Sawgrass South development. She stated it would be inconsistent for the Board to give more protection to scrub jays, than to the bald eagle, which is our national symbol just like the American flag. She advised the bald eagle is a majestic bird, and it deserves to be protected. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what month in the spring is Ms. Rogers speaking of when the eagles returned; with Ms. Carlyle responding March.

Melissa Hoagland, President of CFRG Board of Directors, expressed the communities’ thanks to the Board for the consideration it has given their concerns regarding the request. She stated the main issues can be divided into two categories; and the first is the protection of the eagles that are nesting on the property. She advised on September 16th the Board voted to deny the request for the final engineering approval, finding that its approval would be inconsistent with Brevard County Comprehensive Plan policies to protect endangered and threatened wildlife; but on December 2nd the Board directed 20 days of additional monitoring. She stated Ms. Oddy’s report on the results of that monitoring reiterates that the great horned owls have ousted the eagles from the original nest; and further monitoring would be required in order to determine whether the bald eagle pair was reusing BE-17B or some other nest within its territory. She advised she would prefer that eagles returned to nest BE-17B as it is a safer spot and better protected. She stated they stand by their position in that all of the groups and individuals who spoke on September 16th, that the eagles deserve a chance to maintain their territory and continue to live there in safety. She stated if the Board decides that BE-17B is not longer in need of protection, she wants to have the opportunity to address the concerns about the specific details of the plan and its impact on Suntree.

Edward Lopez, Vice President of the Suntree Masters Homeowners Association, stated he was there to speak with respect to a possible change of the Board’s original vote. He stated it has been recommended that further observation is needed before any clear determination can be made with respect to the bald eagles; and if the Board decides to move the matter that concerns the residents, he would like the opportunity to speak on that issue.

Jim Fallace, Attorney representing Sawgrass Land Development Company, stated they have filed a petition for Writ Certiorari; and that is an appeal of the Board’s decision that remains pending. He stated they believe there was insufficient evidence to meet the standard required to deny the application for preliminary plat and final engineering approval; and they stand by that. He advised they are forced because of the legal proceeding to object to a reopening of the evidence; and they do not think the evidence that has been presented in any way contradicts what was presented by their expert, Mr. Godley, at the original hearing. He stated he understands from Mr. Knox’s comments that the staff report is made part of the record, and it states specifically, “during the monitoring period I visited BE-17B on three separate occasions, and no bald eagles were visible at the nest or in the area.” He stated that is consistent with what Mr. Godley said and testified to at the hearing. He advised it is not a good nest, and the eagles will most likely not return to that nest, and have not returned to that nest. He advised the evidence is that the BE-17B nest continues to disintegrate; it is essentially twigs in a tree; and they would object to hearing any evidence that would indicate BE-17B is being rebuilt, as it is not. He stated in the petition for Writ Certiorari they cited numerous cases that said general comments from the public do not establish or meet the threshold that BE-17B is a viable nest for the eagles. He stated with respect to the findings of facts, if the Board chooses not to rescind its order, he has specific written objections to those proposed findings; and requested that the objections be made part of the record. He stated they have insufficient time with the five
minutes to address all of those written objections. Mr. Fallace advised if the Board wants to supplement the evidence and establish and concur with its staff that BE-17B is not a nest being used, it has that prerogative; and it also has the prerogative to rescind its order. He stated to reopen the hearing and have members of the public come in and say they saw an eagle and that BE-17B is a viable nest is not proper procedurally; and requested the Board rescind its prior order of denial. He noted they are there to present evidence, if necessary; and he has two objections to file to make part of the record. Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Fallace wants to give the Board the objections; with Mr. Fallace responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if County Attorney Scott Knox has seen the objections; with Mr. Knox responding no. Commissioner Scarborough advised the County Attorney and the Board have not reviewed the objections; and if the Board is to receive objections, the County Attorney needs to review it and bring it back after he comments on the objections. County Attorney Scott Knox stated if Mr. Fallace points out something that was wrong in the findings of facts, it would be good to know beforehand. Mr. Fallace stated he has the objections; if the Board proceeds with the rescinding of the order based upon the supplemental evidence, he can file the objections and they can discuss that; but his client does not want to waive the right to point out objections. He advised there is nothing that says the Board cannot say the eagles have not returned, and they are not building BE-17B. He stated their expert said at the original hearing BE-17B is not a viable nest; it was a decoy; and the eagles are not building BE-17B. He advised the eagles are flying in the area, but that does not establish competent, sufficient evidence to deny an entire subdivision from being built. He stated if the Board proceeds not to rescind the order, and considers the findings of fact, it is his obligation to come before the Board and point out what he sees as errors in the record. He advised if the Board does the right thing and says there is no activity in BE-17B, there would be no basis for proceeding with the denial; and the issue of the objections to the finds of fact become moot.

Steve Godley, President of Biological Research Associates, stated he wants to provide other pictures to the Board that was taken of the nest BE-17B in August 2003 and again in January. He advised by August 2003 relative to where the nest was at the end of last nesting season, the birds attempted to make a smarter nest. He stated what was there had decreased by three quarters by August, but there are few sticks now. He stated as of this morning he visited BE-17A and BE-17B; there is no evidence of any additional sticks under BE-17B; and there is no whitewash under BE-17B. He stated with eagles, if they have nested in a tree, even if not seen, they leave the evidence. He stated he did not see any adult eagles in the territory when he visited there this morning. He stated the speakers mentioned the man’s home is 120 feet away from that particular tree, which is the same distance this developer is proposing any new lots; so the zones of protection is about the same. He noted they issued an incidental taking statement to protect the developer, the service, and the County the same as Bevard County routinely applies for incidental taking statements on public works projects for Florida scrub jays and obtains similar permits. He advised a research at the Cape has documented in coastal Brevard County a 25% decline in the last decade in Florida scrub jays because of County projects, roads, etc.; and in the same time period, they have seen approximately 25% increase in bald eagle nest in the County. He advised it would be unfair to deny a developer a legal right to obtain a permit but it is okay for the County to get an incidental taking statement. Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Godley has any evidence the bald eagles are not at nest B, but at nest A; with Mr. Godley responding they do not know if the eagles are even going to nest this year. He advised a fair number of pairs do not nest if the nest is taken over by great horned owls for one or more years; they know the owls have returned in late December; it is now January 13, 2004; and based on his experience with other bald eagle territories, with owls in the territory taking over nests, birds would search and begin to build new nests almost immediately after being kicked out of their other nests. He stated it could be the eagles built another nest that is not on the property. Chair Higgs inquired if he knows where that is; with Mr. Godley responding no.

Commissioner Pritchard stated when the issue came about, it was strictly regarding the bald eagle; and he wants to hear the report by Donna Oddy that was written today based on observations yesterday and earlier in the month. He stated Ms. Oddy said the bald eagles’ nest BE-17 at Grandhaven was observed on January 9th and 12th, and no change to the previous report dated January 5th was observed. He stated a great horned owl was still occupying BE-17 nest while the pair of bald eagles were never observed; nest BE-17B was also observed on January 9th and 12th and no bald eagles were observed at the nest or within the area; and there was no sign that the nest was being refurbished; so to even refer to these as bald eagles nests is erroneous. He stated the Board should call BE-17 GH01 for great horned owl one and BE-17B should be NAN1 for not a nest. He noted this is being used to prevent development on the property; and years ago St. Andrews Isle was property like this. He stated based on the evidence, the findings of fact as the Board has them are not relevant because the eagles do not occupy those nests; and to refer to them as bald eagles’ nests is erroneous.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board heard that the nest had diminished in size, and inquired if Ms. Oddy noticed any diminishment in the size of the nest; with Ms. Oddy responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board heard the March date as being an activity date, and inquired if there is a particular date that Ms. Oddy has observed as to greater activity with nests; with Ms. Oddy responding the nesting season occurs from October through May, and it is her understanding that it depends upon the individual pair of eagles. She stated a deposition can begin as soon as mid-December or may not occur until late February, so there is a lot of variability depending whether they are an original pair or a new breeding pair; and she is not aware of any specific increased activity specific to March. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board heard testimony that March was the date last year. Ms. Oddy stated it could have been, but it is her understanding that the owls kicked the eagles out around January of last year, and they would begin to look for and rebuild a nest as soon as possible after that. She stated sometime in March may have been the right time for them to begin building the nest. Commissioner Scarborough inquired when the owls moved in on the nest; with Ms. Oddy responding the owls were first observed on December 31st, but abnormal behavior was beginning around December 22nd; both pairs were visible at the nest, in the nest and together on December 19th; after that weekend only one eagle was observed; in the four-hour period, no eagles were observed; and finally the owl was observed. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the owls are in the proximity, and if the eagles are in the process of going back to 17B nest again; with Ms. Oddy responding she cannot say for sure the second eagle is still present. She advised the last time she saw the pair was December 19. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how frequently Ms. Oddy observes the nest; with Ms. Oddy responding two times a week for a four-hour period, alternating between four hours in the morning and four hours in the afternoon.

Commissioner Carlson stated in all the reports Ms. Oddy gave the Board she did not mention any deterioration of the nest; and inquired if Ms. Oddy took any pictures while she was observing so there would be something to compare with Mr. Godley’s picture; with Ms. Oddy responding not when the nest was first brought to her attention, but she viewed the nest through a spotting scope, and the nest seems to have deteriorated in size. She stated she took pictures at that time, but Mr. Godley’s picture turned out better than hers. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Ms. Oddy chose not to report the deterioration of the nest; with Ms. Oddy responding the original request of staff was an order to determine if BE-17 was reoccupied. Ms. Oddy noted Mr. Fallace mentioned last time that BE-17 was reoccupied; and staff was asked to observe if the primary nest was reoccupied, so she did not think to put the deterioration of BE-17B in the report. Commissioner Carlson stated the deterioration of BE-17B would have proven that it may not have been a viable nest versus a viable nest. Ms. Oddy advised viable is an iffy term; there is always a possibility the eagles were reoccupying up until December 19th; the eagles brought sticks and added to it; and she thought it was the case until the owl came back. She stated there is nothing that says the eagles could not go back to that nest and refurbish once they were ousted, but it does not seem to be the case. Commissioner Carlson stated she cannot see the Board changing its position, but feels it warrants further consideration in terms of time frame and observation. She inquired if the eagles come back to BE-17A, what status does that afford BE-17B given that the Corps has deemed it to be an incidental take; with Ms. Oddy responding it would either be considered an abandoned nest, or Fish and Wildlife Service may feel there was enough of the nest deterioration to consider it a blow-out. She advised the nest is still afforded protection; if the complete nest was blown out, the nest would be a afforded two-year protection; if the nest is considered abandoned, it will be protected for five years; so it will be protected and lots 8 through 12 outlined in the biological opinion will still be in effect for no building.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if staff believes there is consistency with the Comp Plan if the Board were to turn over the denial and allow the building in that community; with Natural Resources Director Conrad White responding the Comprehensive Plan is fairly generic when it comes to these issues; and it is up to the Board to make the decision of whether it is consistent. Commissioner Carlson inquired if based on observations of this particular nest with the other nest in combination, and the preservation that the Board is currently affording it, is that consistent with the Comp Plan; with Mr. White responding the science presented to the Board
shows that both nests are not occupied presently; there is no indication that the eagles will begin nesting again; and if the nests deserve additional scrutiny in terms of the Comprehensive Plan is an important decision of the Board.

Commissioner Pritchard advised there are no eagles; the situation speaks for itself; and the County is protecting something that does not exist. He stated to raise the issue of an eagle, whether it is going to return or not, is a moot point because the eagles are not there; and the Board cannot base a decision on what is going to happen down the road when the evidence consistently shows the eagles are not present. He noted this is an attempt to stop Sawgrass South Subdivision; it would be a huge increase to the tax base; and there is no effect on bald eagles that are not part of the picture. He stated the great horned owls keep chasing away the eagles; and if people want to see eagles, they can go to the dump where there are plenty of them. He advised there are no eagles at this location; and the Board should not deny Sawgrass South Subdivision from being built.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Fallace brought up the fact that there is no evidence that BE-17B is a viable nest, yet he does not say it may become a viable nest; so she is sitting on the fence as far as if it is truly consistent; and the Board needs more time. She inquired if it will help the case, if the Board asked for formal affidavits from the individuals in the community with times, dates, and pictures to add to their testimony of their sightings of the eagles that would augment Ms. Oddy’s testimony. County Attorney Scott Knox responded if the Board does that, it will have to reopen that portion of the hearing; and he does not see where affidavits will help one way or the other.

Commissioner Colon advised the Board should stay with its denial, and continue to monitor the nests. Commissioner Pritchard stated if the Board makes decisions based on what may happen, it will never make a decision; the decision should be made based on if the eagles are present; the finding of facts before the Board talks about the presence of eagles; and Natural Resources said eagles do not exist on the property. He noted whether an eagle flies by has no bearing. Commissioner Colon advised she is not Mother Nature, and has no clue if the eagles will come back; and the best thing to do is to continue to monitor since no one knows if the eagles will be back.

Commissioner Higgs stated her concern is on the day the Board made the decision, there were certain facts; and knows there was a certain set of facts presented today, but she is not sure how long those facts stay in place. She advised she is uncomfortable approving the findings of fact today; and she wants to see all the facts together, including what was discussed at the previous hearings in regard to roads, where turnarounds are, and those kinds of things. She stated she wants all the facts in place for the Board to look at again, what the motions were, and what the changes were, so there is no error at all if the Board considers it. She stated factually she knows what Ms. Oddy told the Board today; but does not know if those facts will change tomorrow. Commissioner Carlson advised she is in the same position; and the community owes every opportunity to the eagles and the County’s good stewardship of them to give them the benefit of the doubt. She advised she has not seen additional information that would cause her to rescind the previous decision; she supports going forward with the findings of fact; and it will probably go to court no matter what the Board decides to do.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised if the Board decides to go forward with the findings of fact, there are two things it needs to consider; Mr. Fallace indicated he has some objections; and he would like to see those before adopting the findings of fact. He advised if the Board decides it is not going to rescind the prior action, then it needs to add findings it has heard today to the findings of fact, and bring it to the next meeting. Chair Higgs advised before approving findings of fact, she wants to review Mr. Fallace’s objections.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board proceeds, it needs to take the objections it has. He stated once an action is taken like this, it is irreversible as far as nature is concerned; the potential for development is always there; but once development occurs, the natural state of the land has been precluded. He stated the Board was advised there was a propensity around a March timeframe, and heard from staff that there is a thought process in the regulations that even a blown-out or abandoned site is preserved. He advised the Board needs to proceed with some degree of caution, and be sure the County Attorney receives and reviews the objections. He advised at the moment he is not ready to reverse his decision.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board accepts the original findings of fact without any further objections, is it in a better position legally than it would be if it accepted those objections and testimony; with Mr. Knox responding what typically happens is the objection format is one that is used to stay at the State level at administrative hearings. He advised the hearing officer, which is the role the Board is sitting in today, looks at the objections; if it agrees with them, it could change the findings of fact to reflect the changes that came out of the objections; and if it does not agree with them, it just denies. He stated what he would expect to be able to do between now and the next meeting is to go through the objections and either make changes if there is something really wrong, or recommend that they be denied when it comes back to the Board. He noted it would be helpful at this point, to incorporate some kind of statement about what has transpired today, because if he were in the position of the applicant and were to be faced with the findings of fact based upon a hearing that occurred a month and a half ago, and did not take into account today’s evidence, he would be yelling that the Board was being arbitrary and denied him due process because it did not consider all the evidence. Chair Higgs inquired if the Board should ask the County Attorney to incorporate the additional facts it heard today; with Mr. Knox responding that is what he would do. Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Fallace wishes to present his objections if the Board would receive those; with Mr. Knox responding that is his advice.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize the County Attorney to take the objections of Attorney Fallace, representing the applicant, include any new testimony in the findings of fact that was presented at the meeting, and return it to the Board for its review.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it was also brought out at the meeting that Fish and Wildlife did not find BE-17B to be a viable nest; with Mr. Knox responding the last time it was talked about, it was brought out that there was an incidental take permit that was issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service as it pertained to BE-17B with conditions attached to the take permit saying they could not do certain things on that lot or several lots around it for a period of five years. Commissioner Pritchard inquired who used the term viable nest; with Ms. Oddy responding Mr. Godley or Mr. Fallace. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it was screech owls or great horned owls that occupied the nests; with Ms. Oddy responding great horned owls. Commissioner Pritchard advised under number seven in the findings of fact, it says “in order to protect crucial bald eagle habitat,” but the nest is now occupied by an owl. Ms. Oddy stated 17A was definitely eagle habitat; they were using it until they were ousted by the great horned owls; the eagles then moved to the nest at 17B; they did not have the time to nest and raise young in that particular nest; so there was some discrepancy as to whether it was a viable nest. She stated the eagles returned to the original nest in an attempt to reoccupy until approximately December 19th; then the pair were once again ousted by an owl. She stated it is still bald eagle habitat; it is still part of their territory; but it happens that the nest is occupied by great horned owls. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what makes a habitat; with Ms. Oddy responding bald eagles are territorial. She stated she believes the eagles have been in the area since about 1996; they have successfully reproduced there until they were evicted last year, and again this year; and BE-17B was a starter nest in the hope they could reproduce there. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what makes up owl habitat; with Ms. Oddy responding similar things; they can build their own nests but often do not; and unfortunately they evict eagles as well as other species and make use of their nests.

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

BINDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH WILLIAM S. FERRELL, SR., RE: PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF WASHINGTONIA DRIVE WEST OF
I-95 AND NORTH OF CHESTNUT RUN SUBDIVISION

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a binding development plan with William S. Ferrell, Sr. for property located at the northern terminus of Washintonia Drive west of I-95 and north of Chestnut Run Subdivision.

John Evans, attorney for William S. Ferrell, Sr., stated they do not have any more to add; they have submitted an agreement to the County Attorney; the language has been approved; and they are at the meeting to respond to any questions the Board may have.

Chair Higgs inquired if Ms. Bentley discussed something with him yesterday; with Mr. Evans responding if it was about the five years, that will be acceptable. Chair Higgs recommended adding to the Binding Development Plan that after five years it will expire if the construction of the subdivision has not been platted. Mr. Evans advised if the subdivision is not been platted within five years from the date of the approval, then the zoning and development agreement would expire. Chair Higgs inquired if the County Attorney has specific language; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding they have specific language proposed, which is being handed out to the Board now. He advised it says, “However, in the event a plat is not recorded in the public records of Brevard County within five years of the date of this agreement, this agreement will be null and void, and the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners shall be authorized to rezone the subject property to general use or the closest zoning classification then in existence with density limited to one unit per five acres or less.” Mr. Evans inquired what if the property is done in phases; with Mr. Knox responding they would have to go through a rezoning on it anyway; it would be something they would have to initiate; and Mr. Evans could protest at that time if he wants to. Mr. Evans advised they can live with that.

Commissioner Scarborough advised he voted against this the last time, and will continue to express concerns. He stated it will set a pattern in which people are going to be able to deal with something that is going to be a volatile decision; he is afraid the Board is allowing this developer to lock in a $2,800 for school impact fees; the idea this will proceed whether or not the Board has an agreement with the School Board on the issue concerns him; he thinks it is a dangerous precedent; and he will not support it. Chair Higgs stated the Board is locked in if the developer complies with whatever impact fee it sets or the minimum set in the agreement. Commissioner Pritchard advised on page three of six, the second paragraph says, “time of execution of the Binding Development Plan, the County has not enacted any school impact fees during dependency of this agreement, the Commission makes an official determination as to the amount of school impact fee it will charge. In the future the amount of voluntary contribution set forth here in shall immediately change and become equal to the amount.” He stated it will happen long before they will do any groundbreaking at this development; and he does not see the need for anything retroactive. Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board is creating a new vehicle here; and it cannot do it for one developer because the Board is creating a methodology for development in Brevard County where this issue lies. Chair Higgs stated if all the facts that are involved in this case, including the full financial scenario, the density of the plan, all of those things are in place, the Board may feel compelled to act the same way. She stated the facts in this case are guiding her to want a conclusion; and that is the only way she can agree to it.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Agreement with William S. Ferrell, Sr. on property located at the northern terminus of Washingtonia Drive west of I-95 and North of Chestnut Run Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Scarborough voted nay. (See page for Binding Development Agreement.)

PUBLIC HEARINGS, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 118-1, DEFINITION OF
LIMOUSINE-VANS

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Section 118-1 of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida by amending the definition of the term limousine-vans; providing for severability; providing for an effective date.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Ordinance amending Section 118-1 of the Brevard County Code regarding the definition of limousine-vans. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Ordinance No. 04-01.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF VESTED RIGHTS
BY DILSON CAPUTO

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance a request for a vested rights determination to allow a single-family residence to be rebuilt on a .63 acre parcel that is substandard to the property’s RR-1 (1 acre minimum) zoning classification.

Kelly Solid stated at the December 4, 2003 meeting, they were denied a request for a zoning change from RR-1 to EU-1 as the Board was reluctant to grant this change due to setting precedent for the surrounding properties; and as an alternative, it was suggested by the Board they apply for vested rights. He stated the application was submitted on December 12, 2003 with a letter to Mel Scott of the Planning and Zoning office; and at this time they request the Board grant the vested rights for the property located at 2965 Turtlemound Road. He stated the action will not set a precedent on the zoning map; it is consistent with the County Code 62-507(d)(4) which states “existing single-family residences utilize a permanent residence in an established part of the Comprehensive Plan adopted on September 9, 1988, even if inconsistent with the Zoning Code, may be considered for vested rights.” He stated the property at this time has an existing dwelling that was built in 1951 and was occupied until October 2003; it is in major disrepair; it is not safe; and it is not up to Building Codes. He stated the plan is to build a new single-family dwelling on the .63 acres, which will require no additional variances and will adhere to all existing Brevard County Building Codes and regulations. He stated the granting of the vested rights and the subsequent building of a new single-family dwelling will add to the health, safety, and welfare of the taxpaying community of Lake Washington. He stated there was an issue concerning annexation of a portion of Mr. Caputo’s property to the south; Mr. Caputo is not the only owner of this property, as he is a co-owner of the property; and if they did try to annex some of the property, they need .37 acre, which would take up a major portion of his driveway as well as part of the pond that is existing now. He stated it would be expensive and is not practical.

Commissioner Carlson inquired when was the last time anyone occupied the home in question; with Mr. Solid responding October 2003. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the house has since been condemned; with Mr. Solid responding it has not been condemned, but is in disrepair. He stated it was built in 1951 with substandard codes; it is not on a slab; and it is in fairly bad shape. He advised no one lives there now.

Dilson Caputo stated the last renter resided on the property for 19 years; it was creating an issue to his health; and it was a blessing to him to move out of there. He advised the gentleman who lived there did not have the means financially to do repairs to this home; and it is a health issue now. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the previous renter rented the home for 19 years from Mr. Caputo; with Mr. Caputo responding he rented from the previous owner.

William Chilcott stated he and his wife live on the property that is adjacent to the north and the east of the property in question; their property is also an illegal lot, as it is under the size limit for the area; and the house they reside in now was built about the same time as the house on the existing property. He stated if vested rights is considered for that property, it might be something they would be looking into in the future if something were to happen to their house. He inquired, as far as the criteria for consideration, must the single-family residence be utilized as a permanent residence, does it have to be rental property, and can he rent the house out and have the same consideration; with Chair Higgs responding questions regarding his particular property should be addressed with staff at a one-on-one meeting. She stated if he talks with someone in the Zoning Office they will help him sort out those issues.

Commissioner Carlson stated as the Board looks at vested rights, it does say existing single- family residences utilized as permanent residences; and inquired how is that interpreted for the purposes of this vested rights issue; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding residents can be someone living there. He stated he does not know if the Board would consider rental to be residence or not, but it seems like it fits the definition. He advised he does not know how staff has interpreted residences in the past. Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised it has been clearly written in this fashion to give the Board discretion. Chair Higgs inquired when was the lot created; with Mr. Scott responding in 1978. Chair Higgs inquired if the lot was created legally; with Mr. Scott responding at that time it was substandard to the zoning classification. Chair Higgs inquired if it was recorded; with Mr. Scott responding yes, it was recorded. Chair Higgs stated it was a recorded lot in 1978, but it was illegal.

Commissioner Carlson stated in this particular area and throughout the County she sees a precedent being set by allowing vested rights on an illegal lot; and inquired what the Planning and Zoning Director’s perspective would be as he reviews this; with Mr. Scott responding the act of creating a lot consistent with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan at the time is something the Board has taken very seriously throughout the years. He stated if the framework for creating land is going to be under the guise of buyer beware, there is that precedent setting aspect to this. Commissioner Carlson stated given that the applicant has property adjacent to this lot, she has concern in allowing a substandard illegal lot to be built upon unless there is some sort of serious hardship. She stated she does not feel it is something the Board should go forward with because of the precedence setting nature of it. Chair Higgs inquired if that is a motion to deny; with Commissioner Carlson responding she would move to do so.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Chair Higgs, to deny the request from Dilson Caputo for determination of vested rights to allow a single-family residence to be rebuilt on .63 acre that is substandard to the property’s RR-1 zoning classification.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he wants to go back to the formation of the lot, and then recorded as an illegal lot. Planning and Zoning Director advised it was not recorded as such; there is an OR Book and Page number; but it was also re-recorded in that configuration in 2003 by reference to a Warranty Deed, which is page eight of the report. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what makes the lot nonconforming and illegal; with Mr. Scott responding it is not consistent with the Zoning Code, which is a different distinction from a nonconforming lot of record. He advised nonconforming references the fact that it was consistent with the Zoning Code at the time and the rules have since changed such that it does not meet that requirement. He stated the way the land was subdivided is a Statewide dynamic that is in play. He stated if a person wants to prepare an instrument that enables him or her to sell property in any dimension, he or she is then able to record it in that dimension and sell it to someone; however, if at the time it is recorded it is not consistent with the zoning classification in place at that, it is considered an illegal lot. He advised it happens dozens of times a day and they get circumstances like it a dozen or so times every other month. Commissioner Carlson advised anybody can create their own illegal lot and expect to build on it then run into the same problem. Mr. Scott noted there are two remedies which the Board is considering; and one is the vested rights. He stated there are two remedies available to the applicant, one is the sale document to purchase the property representing this lot as being a buildable lot; and since that is not the case, the buyer has recourse back to the seller. He stated in this unique circumstance, the co-owners of this property also own 3.3 acres to the south; so there is an opportunity for this lot to become larger making it one acre and consistent with the RR-1 zoning classification. Commissioner Pritchard stated if the owners did not have opportunity with larger acreage they can combine with the smaller parcel, they could end up owning a house, living in that house on a nonconforming lot, and when the house deteriorated because of its age, they could not rebuild. He noted this could end up being a piece of property that nothing can be done with other than selling to an adjacent property owner to enlarge his or her lot; the owner could lose substantially; the property owner adjacent could offer pennies on the dollar; and the owner could end up being severely damaged through no real fault of his or her own. He stated if it happened a long time ago, the seller may not be around. Commissioner Carlson stated what has happened currently is what happened way back when it was split to build a home, and a home was built. She stated the standards are much higher now, and they cannot do that. She stated in this case there are options, and if the applicant did purchase it with the intent of thinking it was a buildable lot, there is recourse. She advised she does not want to see illegal lots allowed to build in a substandard way.

Commissioner Scarborough stated criteria four stands alone without 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Scott stated his understanding is that it has to be put through the three-tier test, which is one through three and include number four. Commissioner Scarborough stated he hears the Commissioner coming to the premise if it does a Comp Plan change that rendered something nonconforming and illegal, it will be more inclined to render some relief.

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

RESOLUTION, RE: SETTING FORTH THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL OF
BENNETT’S CUP FOR WILD ANIMALS

County Attorney Scott Knox advised he has a revised version of the resolution, which he will hand out to the Board. He stated it has corrections of typos.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution setting forth the findings of fact and conclusions of the Brevard County Commission pertaining to the denial of a request by James and Joanne Bennett for a conditional use permit (CUP) for wild animals. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Resolution No. 04-014.)

CONSIDERATION, RE: UNTIMELY REQUEST FOR VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION
FOR COURTNEY ROBERTS

Chair Higgs advised the applicant will have ten minutes, and five minutes to wrap up after the other speakers.

Richard Torpy, representative of Courtney Roberts, stated he would like to give the Clerk documents he will be referring to during his presentation, but will do it later if the Board does not mind. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Torpy has copies for the Commissioners; with Mr. Torpy responding he has several copies of things that the Board needs to read; a lot of them are things he is going to tell the Board; and if the Board wants them, he will hand them out so the Board can review them. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has a problem with things going into the record without the opportunity to look at them first; the Board should have an opportunity to look at them first; and the County Attorney needs to see them. Mr. Torpy advised he will go through them first and then present them into the record.

Mr. Torpy advised as a procedural matter, he objects to the process that he is being put through today. He stated they filed a vested rights application to consider the decision that was made by Chief Building Official Carroll Brown; that decision was made in October 2003; and the vested rights application was filed in October 2003. He stated he is going to apologize in advance because he is going to make some very serious ascertains with regard to staff’s ability in Brevard County to prejudice the Board by either not providing it documentation or setting up the way a presentation is given to it. He advised he is going to go through that with the Board as it is a timeliness issue. He stated first he stated they were put under New Business; the last vested rights application the Board heard today was put under Public Hearings; and for some
reason they are being put under New Business. He advised it is labeled Consideration, Re: Untimely Request for Vested Rights Determination of Courtney Roberts; that is the Agenda Item; and he was not aware that a determination had been made that Mr. And Mrs. Roberts’ vested rights application was in fact untimely. He stated the issue was raised by staff, but he does not believe the Board has made a determination of the issue. He stated he objects to the fact that the staff has bifurcated the question. He noted he has asked staff for policies, procedures, adopted rules, and adopted regulations of the Board that allows the staff to decide the process of which a vested rights application will be heard. He advised he did not break his issues in their vested rights application into timeliness and the actual issue that the Board needs to hear, staff did. He stated there is no process that allows that, so he finds himself today without the ability to bring the evidence the Board needs for a vested rights, but just to defend the timeliness of the case. He advised what irritates him, and he thinks shows how the case has been set up by staff to convince them that they are right, is the actual Agenda item. He stated the Board was given an Agenda Report raising the timeliness issue. He stated in that Agenda Report, the only documents that he is aware of, because he has what the Board was provided was a resolution already finding that it was untimely, but more importantly a letter from Mel Scott to him dated August 27, 2003. He noted the importance of that is the letter is lined through; its contents cannot be read; all that can be read is that Mr. Scott responded to a letter that he sent him on August 8, 2003; and then the very last paragraph he refers to if they have any grievances they could raise them in the vested rights proceeding. He stated staff is tell the Board that the letter triggered the 30-day timeframe for his client to file a vested rights application. He stated he does have, and wants to present them to the Board today, the actual letters. He inquired if he may approach; with Chair Higgs responding to give her the letters and she will pass them out.

Mr. Torpy advised that Mr. and Mrs. Roberts had a stop work order issued against their property on March 25, 2003; it was property that was permitted to be constructed on in September 2002; it was substantially under construction at the time the stop work order was issued; but the only thing that was issued in the stop work order was one line that said “not built according to plans.” He stated he was immediately hired by Mr. Roberts because he could not find out why the stop work order was issued. He noted the first thing he did was do a public records request dated April 16, 2003, and that is in the documents he is providing the Board, to all the Departments, the Land Use Department, the Zoning Department, the Office of Natural Resources Management, and the Building Department asking for all the records relevant to Mr. and Mrs. Roberts case and the stop work order. He advised he also started to meet with staff to try and determine why the stop work order was issued. He stated between April and August what he determined and what was important, is he did get a couple of hundred documents in response to the public records request. He advised the other items he is putting into the record are documents he received that were from 1993, as well as all the other documents relative to this issue. He stated after reviewing the documents, he believed his client was wrong, that what he was asking the staff to do was incorrect, and that the record did not support him. He stated those are documents he is providing the Board with today. He stated the documents given to him, the focal issue, was whether Mr. and Mrs. Roberts’ home could be built subject to either a 50-foot setback from the intercoastal waterway, which is a buffer, or a 25-foot setback. Mr. Torpy advised that issue hinged on one fact, when the lot was created; and that discussion came up at the previous hearing about whether this lot was created prior to or after September 1988. He stated in this case, in 1993 when Mr. Roberts acquired this lot, a separate deeded lot, an issue was raised before the Board by the Office of Natural Resources Management; Lisa Barr, then the Director of Natural Resources, said they did not qualify; it does not qualify for the 50-foot or 25-foot setback; and he must build based on the 50-foot setback. He advised a letter was sent that was dated November 1993; there were several documents provided to the Office of Natural Resources back in 1993, including a letter from the original owner outlining when he created the lot that was in question, and in that letter stated the lot was created in 1986. He noted in that letter, Mr. Bryan, the previous owner, sent to Ms. Barr, because she acknowledges it, a survey, and a recorded instrument proving that the lot was created in 1986. He stated in addition to that there were certain minutes and notes from 1993 where this issue was discussed in front of boards, as to the legality of the lot in question. He stated when he received all the public records none of those documents were in the public record request. He advised there were approximately six documents from various Departments, interoffice memos, and communications from Mr. Bryan to Debbie Coles; and he has gotten all the documents proving his client was wrong and none of the documents to prove his client was right. He stated August 8, 2003 a letter was sent to Mr. Scott outlining those issues with quite a bit of frustration because he was put in a position if he could find the survey that was recorded he could help prove his clients’ case. He stated he attempted to go back to the surveyors in Brevard County who are still in business that were in business in 1986 to see if they could by some miracle find this document. He advised it does not exist, but there were several documents that would have proved his clients’ case that does exist, as Mr. Roberts was able to find them; and those are the documents he is putting before the Board today. He stated when he confronted Mr. Roberts with this and told him the records proved him wrong, he said it was not right; and started digging, and brought these documents to him. He stated those are all going into the record, but most importantly is a letter dated November 2, 1993 from Lisa Barr who was then Director of Natural Resources Management Division, reversing her prior opinion on August of that same year. He stated Ms. Barr concludes in bold print, “therefore, the administrative interpretation is that the 25-foot shoreline protection buffer applies.” He stated Ms. Barr refers in that letter to a recorded document; he took her testimony in this case; and she said she was reviewing something although she does not know what it was. He advised he asked her what she did with it, and she said put it in the records. He advised it is now gone. He stated in his letter of August 8, 2003 to Mr. Scott, he talks about the deficiencies of the Office of Natural Resources Management in not providing those documents. He stated Mr. Scott and his office also failed to provide another planning and zoning file on this issue. He stated in late August 2003 Mr. Scott responded to him, and that is the letter the Board has. He stated if the Board reads the content of that letter that he has given it, Mr. Scott is explaining why his office failed to provide the public records pursuant to his valid request. He stated he called Mr. Scott when he got the letter and he accepted his answer; and he believes it was an oversight.

Chair Higgs advised Mr. Torpy that his time is up. Mr. Torpy requested an extension. Chair Higgs advised Mr. Torpy that he can used his additional five minutes of rebuttal time. Mr. Torpy stated he needs an extension because he has a lot of important information that the Board needs to know to consider why they were so slow in filing their vested rights application; he is doing the best he can with the time; and this should be a quasi-judicial public hearing, and he is
asking for the additional time. Commissioner Pritchard advised he would like to hear what Mr. Torpy has to say. Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board can hear Mr. Torpy after the other cards; with Chair Higgs responding she has additional cards, she is affording Mr. Torpy the same privileges under a public hearing; and if the Board has additional questions after the cards, it can ask then. Mr. Torpy advised Mr. Roberts will waive his time so he can proceed right now under his card. Chair Higgs stated he cannot do that.

Alma McLaughlin stated Mr. Roberts’ situation will set a precedent for development; and if residents are allowed to do as they please then ask for forgiveness and the County approves it, a domino effect will take place. She advised that last month she submitted over 24 letters from Snug Harbor residents who oppose Mr. Roberts’ vested rights appeal and respectively request the Board deny the request. She stated along with that she color-coded all the homes that are opposed to this; and there has been so much controversy and misunderstanding, that she hopes the Board can bring some closure to this as it has been going on for years.

Joel Brown stated he disapproves and hopes the Board denies the vested rights appeal; and it was not filed in a timely manner per Section 62-507 of the Code. He stated ten years ago the County established the fact that this is an unbuildable lot; and it is unbuildable because there was a Comprehensive Plan that said if the purchase was after 1988 a person cannot have a 25-foot easement. He advised he personally went to the County and verified the fact Mr. Roberts purchased the property as two separate lots, 7.1 and 7.2; and it was recorded in 1993. He stated Mr. Roberts tried to build again on his lot in 2002; he was denied because of the same reason and was advised he could build an addition to his existing home; and he received a permit to build an addition due to the home being grandfathered in. He stated the plans Mr. Roberts submitted for an addition are an atrocity; he has a 2,000-foot residence; and he wanted to build a 4,000 square-foot addition. He advised Mr. Roberts had many violations, all types of Codes violated both in Zoning and Building. He noted there are about a hundred homes on the waterfront in Snug Harbor, on nice big, beautiful lots; and he feels it may set a precedence in the area. He advised he loves the area, and feels this is an attempt to violate all the County Codes; there is Code which covers additions for structures; and it does not comply in any way with that Code. He stated he has submitted a picture of the structure that was submitted as part of a permit and he has never seen such a horrendous set of plans. He advised the residence Mr. Roberts is trying to build is on a non-buildable lot.

David Mathias stated he occupies the lot immediately adjacent to the home under construction. He noted he thought the issue before the Board was whether the request that Mr. Roberts and Mr. Torpy had filed was timely; and he did not realize they were going to address the substantive issues of the request itself. He advised he did not come to the meeting to address the substantive issues of the request; if it proceeds to another meeting, he may be back more prepared to talk about the details of the entire project; but what he thought was being addressed was the timeliness of the vested rights application. He stated he looked at a portion of the County’s file, tried to sort it out himself; and everything with this project from day one since he has been involved remains confusing regarding whether it is an addition or a new home, whether it is a 25-foot setback or a 50-foot setback, whether it is one lot or two lots. He stated he is confused whether the Board is hearing if the request for vested rights was filed timely or on substantive issues; and it is very frustrating for him and the other homeowners. He stated as he understands it, the issue is the timeliness of the request; it should be a simple question; it should have a simple answer; and that answer is no, the request was not filed timely.

Mark Cameron stated he feels there should be no consideration given for a vested rights hearing because the project was already turned down in 1993 by the County. He advised it is his understanding from numerous phone calls and visits to the Building, Zoning, and Natural Resources Departments that the only building that could be built on this lot with a 25-foot setback from the water is a room addition to the existing house; and the room addition could only be built on the property if it was considered one lot. He stated a room addition could not be built onto the existing property if it went over the next property line. He stated with this information, he and five other Snug Harbor residents were told No. 21 West Point Drive had been issued a permit to build only a room addition. He advised at that time they were told in the Natural Resources Office that this could not become a separate residence; however, over a period of time the project was started, and as it progressed it looked like a single-family residence, not a room addition. He stated with great concern for not seeing the structure being connected to the existing house, more questions were raised and they were told a covered breezeway was to be built to connect the two buildings allowing it to be a room addition. He stated it was soon realized that there were many unanswered questions and the structure was not meeting the criteria to conform to the original permit as a room addition. He noted with this information, a stop work order was placed on the building; and there was a meeting in their County Commissioner’s Office to get a better understanding of where this project was heading. He stated at the time it was expressed by Mr. Roberts that it was his full intention to build a single-family home and it was a separate lot that he was building it on; however, according to the rules, if it was a separate lot, there must be a 50-foot setback from the water and not a 25-foot setback, which is what is there now. He stated the structure does not comply with a room addition or a single-family residence. He stated if this project is continued as a room addition, the concern is that they will have a two-family house on a single-family lot; the structure will have two kitchens, two front doors, two driveways, and two garages; and it is not legal to have a two-family house in Snug Harbor. He advised this decision not only affects the property at 21 West Point Drive, but also all the properties around it. He stated there is over $1.6 million in tax assessed properties and that is not the market value; they are closer to $4 million; so it is affecting all of them as a community.

Richard Torpy stated he wants to assure the Board that he is addressing the timeliness of the issue only, unfortunately the timeliness issue of this dovetails directly into the public record request and his attempts to uncover what happened ten years ago in this case and staff’s failure to provide him with those documents. He advised the Board may not be aware of it but he took depositions in December 2003, less than a month ago from the Natural Resources Mr. Conrad White where he testified that they failed to review the archives in an attempt to provide him public records in this case. He stated he is still fighting that issue. He noted that two days later they were able to look at those archives, at least the ones they were directed to, but what they found is that there is another office with more archives that they have not been allowed to look at yet. He stated they found that out in December 2003. He stated he wants to read the Board one of the documents that seems to be significant, which they did not get through the public records request. He stated in 1993, in a hearing before the Board of Adjustment, Zoning Official Rick Enos testified. He stated the issue is when was the lot created. He advised they have one of the documents and he is putting it into the record; that was a memo from the Brevard County Property Appraiser dated October 18, 1993, where he tells Ms. Coles that his client took title to the property by two separate deeds in 1993; and that was not given to him. He advised that is not relevant to the 1998 period of time; however, he also has a letter from George Bryan, the previous owner, where it says the lot was created in 1986 by a recorded survey. He noted Mr. Bryan does not say how he recorded or whatever, but the documents says he enclosed the recorded document; and that document has never been provided to Mr. Roberts. He stated it apparently was being reviewed by Ms. Barr who recites to the recorded document and says it was created by lot split in 1986. He advised that document was not in the public record and was not provided to him. He stated Mr. Roberts was so infuriated in 1993 that he wrote a scathing letter dated October 25, 1993 to Ms. Barr alleging that she failed to produce relevant records to the boards that were considering this. He stated after that letter was submitted, it was then that the November 2nd letter from Ms. Barr was sent to Mr. Roberts telling him he complied and he met the requirements for the 25-foot buffer. He advised Zoning Official Rick Enos said, according to the minutes, “The two parcels in question were originally one lot. I think it is described as Lot 7 in the Snug Harbor Subdivision. My understanding is that one lot has been divided into two lots by the previous owner. Both of the lots are legal lots according to the Zoning Code.” He stated that was Mr. Enos’ opinion given to the Board of Adjustment in 1993. He advised he thinks the Zoning Office’s failure was not a failure at all, it was just an oversight of a file; but he is not convinced with the Office of Natural Resources because the documents he is speaking of were in their hands but somehow did not make it to the public record file, or worse, were removed from the public record file. He stated he provided letters to staff; sent multiple letters to Natural Resources Management Director Conrad White demanding an investigation as to why these documents were not provide, and what other documents might be there; and he did not get a written response to that demand until December 10, 2003. He stated he did not know the response had been sent to him until he had Mr. White under oath in testimony where he advised he had just written the letter. He stated in 1993, when Lisa Barr said the lot qualifies for the 25-foot setback, his client stopped because he did not want to build his house there; it was not until February 2002 that he submitted building plans to build his home.

Chair Higgs advised Mr. Torpy that his time is up. Mr. Torpy stated he would like to ask for an extension to finish his presentation. Commissioner Pritchard advised he wants to hear what Mr. Torpy has to say; and inquired how much time he needs; with Mr. Torpy responding ten, or maybe five minutes.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to extend Attorney Richard Torpy’s time for five additional minutes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Richard Torpy stated after he found out those documents were missing, he sent a letter to Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott, which was copied to Mr. White for his response. He stated after he did not get a response, it was in October 2003 that he was able to conclude that Mr. Roberts had a vested right. He stated Mr. Roberts’ property was subdivided prior to September 1988; if that is true, it is not a vested rights case because current Brevard County Code says if the lot was created prior to September 1988, the house can be built pursuant to the 25-foot setback, provided he meets certain criteria. He stated he is asking for the application of current County Code. He stated when he found out staff was not going to honor Ms. Barr’s letter, which was presented to them as early as March 2002; staff’s comment was they disagreed with her opinion, he had to reinvent the wheel to prove what Mr. Roberts had already proven to Ms. Barr back in 1993. He stated the records he spoke to the Board about was not in the public records file; he had to try to recreate them, and he spent several months trying to do that. He advised by October 2003, he was convinced that he had enough information so he could at least bring a vested rights case to the Board. He stated the failure of staff to properly maintain public records, the loss of the survey, and the loss of the letters and documents supporting Ms. Barr’s opinion have prejudiced his client because now he cannot recreate the documents and prove what he proved ten years ago. He stated due to staff’s act, he is seeking an appeal under vested rights; it is called an equitable estoppel argument; and he did not know the fact existed until he was able to conclude that the records that should have been maintained by the County were lost. He noted what he finds unbelievable is he has all of the documents from 1993, particularly all the ones that support the County’s position, which are the ones that rule against his client; but the six documents, including Ms. Barr’s letter, were never presented to him, and now based on his review of those files, are missing. He stated he asked County Manager Tom Jenkins, and Natural Resource Management Director Conrad White for an investigation of why those records were not maintained. He advised no one answered him about what happened to those valuable and important public records; the file was not destroyed because he has documents from 1993; and it is just those particular important documents that are not in the file. He noted Mr. Roberts first sent a request to the County Building Official in October 2003 asking him to do two things; the first was lift the stop work order that had been issued; and secondly, modify the building permit that had been issued based on the information he had uncovered to allow him to complete a single-family residence on his property, subject only to a 25-foot setback. He stated Mr. Roberts did not get a response, so he sent a subsequent letter on October 16, 2003 and finally Mr. Brown responded to that letter denying the request. He stated it is from that denial, based on the evidence obtained during all of this issue of public records, that he is appealing an equitable estoppel vested rights issue to the Board. He stated staff only presented the Board with one letter where Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott mentions vested rights, and asks the Board by giving it an order to deny his right to go forward and present his client’s case. He advised he is offended by the staff’s action in this case; and requested the Board grant his right to move forward with a vested rights hearing on this matter and give his client adequate time to present the case.

Commissioner Colon advised the residents have stated Mr. Roberts should not have two-family homes on one lot; and inquired how does it work in regard to Snug Harbor; with Mr. Torpy responding Mr. Scott testified not more than a month ago, that it is a lawful lot. He stated it meets all of the zoning, and the minimum lot size requirements; if there is an issue raised by the Deed Restrictions, he is not aware of it; and that would not be within the Board’s jurisdiction to deal with. He advised no one has presented him with any Deed Restrictions or any evidence that would show the lot they are talking about is in any way nonconforming to either Brevard County Code or the Deed Restrictions for that subdivision. Commissioner Colon stated if his client went to staff saying there is only one home with an addition being added; and if that is the case, the Board is trying to give him the tools to make it legal. She stated someone is not being honest; and the Board needs to get to the bottom of that to find out if those are the rules Mr. Roberts is playing by or if he wants to change the rules. Mr. Torpy advised the County Attorney told him today is not the day to answer that question. Commissioner Colon stated he practically did answer that today. Mr. Torpy advised he did not; the Board would be amazed how much evidence he has on that precise question from 2002, and 2003 on what his client asked for and what staff directed him to do; and that will be part of the issued raised in the vested rights. Commissioner Colon inquired if that is what Mr. Torpy’s client was doing; with Mr. Torpy responding his client asked for a single-family residence building permit in February 2002.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the reason this item was put under New Business as opposed to a public hearing is because the issue is timeliness and not vested rights. He stated Mr. Torpy has gone into many things that apply to his vested rights case, but the issue today is whether his client filed timely. He stated that is something the Board needs to resolve; and the three things that would give rise to a vested rights claim filed by Mr. Torpy or identified in his materials, the first is the stop work order of March 2003. He stated that was the event that stopped Mr. Torpy’s client from moving ahead with his house at that time. Chair Higgs inquired if it was Mr. Roberts’ addition; with Mr. Knox responding the addition to the house. Mr. Knox advised Building Official Carroll Brown identified what the reasons were at that point and time and nothing was done until the following year. He stated the following August, Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott signed a letter responding to the letter inquiring about all the things Mr. Torpy just mentioned, and said at that time Mr. Torpy had 30 days from the date of the letter to file a vested rights claim, which dated back to March 2003. He stated in October, Mr. Torpy’s client requested Mr. Brown rescind the stop work order of March 2003; Mr. Brown wrote a letter of denial to Mr. Torpy; and that is the basis upon which Mr. Torpy has now brought the matter to the Board. He advised the issue is whether to go with the March 25, 2003 stop work order that triggered the vested rights 30-day review, or the August letter by Mr. Scott which re-offered that 30 days again, or the October 2003 letter that Mr. Torpy’s client sent Mr. Brown and got a response from Mr. Brown stating he would not rescind the stop work order. He stated the issue before the Board is if Mr. Roberts should have known in March 2003 that the order stopped him from building and the fact he claimed vested rights would allow him to continue to build; is it when Mr. Scott offered an additional 30 days in August; or is the written rendition that triggered the vested rights the denial of the request to rescind the March 25, 2003 order. He noted that is what the Board needs to decide.

Chair Higgs inquired what was the last written letter date August 27, 2003; with Mr. Knox responding there was a subsequent October 2003 letter from Mr. Torpy’s client requesting rescission of the stop work order. Chair Higgs inquired if the 30 days is not in any of those for a timely appeal; with Mr. Knox responding the question is if the Board assumes the March 25, 2003 date was the date that triggered the 30-day review, can it resurrect that later by asking Mr. Brown to rescind that order. Chair Higgs advised the Board cannot ask the Building Official to rescind the stop work order. Mr. Knox advised the Board must decide if it is what was contemplated by the 30 days.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Soctt stated there is another forum that hears appeals of Building Official interpretations; and that is the Construction Contractor Licensing Board. He advised the Board can say that Mr. Brown’s March 2003 letter set the 30 days, or his letter of August 2003. Commissioner Pritchard stated it seems if someone is going to apply for vested rights, they would have to have some basis as to what the series of events are that would give them a vested rights determination. Commissioner Carlson stated she is sure Mr. Torpy knows the Ordinance inside out and he knows there is a 30-day window for vested rights opportunity; and inquired if he knew that he had some form of valid perspective, why did he not just apply for a vested right and then go forth and get the records; with Mr. Torpy responding he does not set the rules. He stated he did that last year in an unrelated case, filed the vested rights because he had a 30-day window; he had an action that was a denial of a right; and the staff insisted that he come to the Board in 30 days. He stated he needed an extension; he was not ready with his plea; but he had to go before the Board then. He advised the equitable estoppel issue that has been raised in this case is because of the County’s loss of public record documents that would prove when his client’s lot was created. He stated he did not know about that until December 2003 when he took depositions. Chair Higgs stated that Mr. Torpy needs to answer the question and sit down. Mr. Torpy advised he needs to get it on the record what has been done. He stated until he gets full and fair disclosure of the public records in this case that will prove his client’s detrimental reliance, he cannot be required to make a request of the Board to consider a vested rights issue. He stated he filed the appropriate appeal; there is a separate case pending on the appeal that is being heard Friday; and he filed a lawsuit with the Circuit Court. He stated he filed every action he knows to make sure he could get full and fair consideration of this hearing. He stated what he did not anticipate is only being able to address the issue of timeliness. He stated he needs to present evidence that the Board needs to hear that would support not only the timely issue, but that Mr. and Mrs. Roberts are entitled to a vested right in this case. He stated he feels he has uncovered serious issues the County needs to address regarding public records.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Torpy has raised some interesting concerns; and the requested action is that the Board consider denying the request by Courtney Roberts to have a public hearing. He stated he thinks the Board should have a public hearing. He advised he understands the neighborhood concerns, but if this is an issue with evidence, information that is not forthcoming to people that request it, he is concerned about that; and he believes it is the public’s inherent right to obtain information when requested and not have to jump through a series of hoops that frustrate and cause people to just give up. He stated if the issue is to have Mr. Roberts have his public hearing for determination of vested rights, then he supports it. Chair Higgs advised she hears no motion. Commissioner Pritchard advised that is his motion.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard to allow Courtney Roberts to have a public hearing for determination of vested rights.

Chair Higgs stated the issue placed before the Board is the timely nature of the request in regard to the appeal of the Building Official’s decision. Commissioner Pritchard stated the issue is to have a public hearing for determination of vested rights due to the untimely nature of the request. He stated the untimely nature of the request is created by the amount of information that was provided; Mr. Torpy wanted the information; the information was not forthcoming; and because of that, he was not untimely in his request. He advised due to that, his request should not be considered untimely, and he should be given the opportunity of a public hearing.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board has the authority to waive the 30-day notice; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding the Board has never done that, but if it does, it will be setting a precedent. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if this is contemplated that the 30 days would some way be extended if there is a failure of the applicant or the petitioner to obtain information; with Mr. Knox responding he does not think there is anything on waiver of the Board’s own 30-day imposed deadline. Commissioner Scarborough stated sometimes there are good reasons; and inquired if outside the statute of limitation, are there reasons why, even though this is a hard and fast rule, is this justifiable; and inquired if the Board can consider what Mr. Torpy says within those guidelines rather than creating a waiver which may change the process; with Mr. Knox responding the concept Commissioner Scarborough is speaking of is the equivalent of the tolling of the statute of limitations. Mr. Knox stated in the statute of limitations law there is a certain period of time in which to file a claim after the cause of action has accrued. He stated the courts recognize that sometimes that person may not know they have a cause of action. He stated for example if someone is stricken by cancer caused by some agent not found out about until 30 years after being exposes to it, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until knowing that is what happened. He stated when finding out from the doctor’s diagnosis 30 years later that this is what caused the problem, the statute begins to run at that point not at the time the person was exposed to it. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County did have a stop work order which Mr. Torpy knew impacted him, so he does not think it is the same as tolling. He stated people do not get into discovery until after a lawsuit is filed; but unless there is something else out there that applies specifically to these things, he is inclined to use the strict thing because he thinks the Board would be writing new law. Mr. Knox stated if the administrative decision that abrogated vested rights was the March 25, 2003 stop work order, Mr. Torpy knew at that point if he had vested rights to do something that is different than what the Building Official says he can do, that is the point the time begins. Chair Higgs inquired vested rights of what; with Mr. Knox responding to build whatever it is he was building. Chair Higgs stated he had a vested right, and he had a building permit to build an addition to a house. Mr. Knox advised that is the substantive issue; but Mr. Torpy may have a different point of view than that. He stated Mr. Torpy may think the addition to the house included things that the Building Official does not think should be there; or he may think he has vested rights to build the second house notwithstanding the fact that the Board approved an addition. He stated Mr. Torpy has a lot of different permutations he may be able to argue.

Commissioner Scarborough advised he would feel better if County Attorney Scott Knox will render a legal opinion to the Board before it votes regarding obtaining factual information from public records; and he is not prepared to vote today. Commissioner Carlson inquired if a person has 30 days to prove and apply for vested rights; with Mr. Knox responding a person has 30 days to apply, then the Board can consider it six months later if it wants. He stated the application goes to staff; but he does not have to present that evidence until he comes before the Board. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is a timeframe when it must come before the Board; with Mr. Knox responding no. Commissioner Carlson stated if Mr. Torpy was trying to accumulate all the data to prove his case, that he felt sincere that he wanted to prove that he had a vested right and he applied for the vested right within that 30 days, he could have a year to gather all the information and then come back and prove it. Mr. Knox stated if he knew the underlying facts; and if he knew that Lisa Barr’s letter existed on March 25, 2003 and he was basing his decision to build this house on that letter, he could have asserted that on March 26, the day after the stop work order was issued. He stated it is not clear to him that is what happened, but he is using that as an example. He advised the real issue is what the Board considers to be the administrative decision that abrogated the vested rights; was it the March 25 stop work order, Mel Scott’s August letter, or the denial of the rescission of the stop work order in October; and it is one of the three dates.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised he wants to clarify two statements made by Mr. Torpy, but it is not in the flow of the discussion and he would like to come back to it at some point.

Chair Higgs stated the issue before the Board is a stop work order was issued on an addition to a house that was permitted; and it was stopped because it was not complying with the plan. Mr. Knox advised that was Building Official Carroll Brown’s position; Mr. Roberts has a different position; and he is claiming he has a vested right to proceed the way it is. He stated the issue is whether or not Mr. Roberts is allowed to go forward and build what he was building versus what Mr. Brown saw was a violation of the plan; and if he has vested rights to build what he was building, then Mr. Brown’s stop work order does not amount to anything. Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Torpy is going to present that the building was actually complying with the plan; with Mr. Knox responding Mr. Torpy is going to say he had vested rights to build what he was building. Chair Higgs advised the plans were the same. Mr. Knox stated it may not make a difference. Chair Higgs stated it does make a difference. Mr. Knox stated the Board cannot judge that until it sees the facts; and there may be something in the plans that Mr. Brown saw as one way and Mr. Roberts saw another. Chair Higgs inquired where does the first step of the appeal of the stop work order go to; with Mr. Scott responding the Building Official. Chair Higgs inquired where then does it go; with Mr. Knox responding if it is vested rights it comes before the Board; and if it is interpretation of the Code, it goes to the Building Board.

Commissioner Colon advised she is sensitive to all that has been said; Mr. Torpy mentioned he was going to take the County to court regardless if it hears it again; and she does not want to waste the Board’s time and the constituents’ time. She advised Mr. Torpy is an attorney who knows the Ordinance; he knew he had 30 days because he has come before the Board regarding vested rights with other cases; and something needs to be put in writing regarding the 30 days. She stated if they are going to take the Board to court, they may as well proceed, because she is uncomfortable about how it is coming before the Board.

Commissioner Pritchard stated in the findings of fact in paragraph 4 it says, “In any event the applicant filed a vested rights application more than 30 days after the last letter from staff”; and inquired who is staff; with Mr. Knox responding Building Official Carroll Brown. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Roberts filed a letter within 30 days from the last letter from Mr. Brown. Mr. Knox advised that is the issue the Board has to decide, which of those three letters triggered the timeframe. Commissioner Pritchard inquired when was the last letter received from staff; with Attorney Richard Torpy responding October 20, 2003. Mr. Torpy advised he filed the vested rights petition within seven days of Carroll Brown’s denial of their request to him in October 2003. He stated he also filed a dec. action to clarify Brevard County Codes because he has not been able to get clarification of various issues in the Code. He stated he is getting misinformation of when to file the vested rights application and what is in it; and requested the Board let him address that issue. He stated he is required by the Brevard County Code to state the grounds upon which he is claiming vested rights; and he cannot state the grounds upon which his vested rights application is based without the necessary documents. He stated the building permit that was issued is not what his client was entitled to. Chair Higgs advised Mr. Torpy to answer Commissioner Pritchard’s question. Mr. Torpy stated when he first learned there were documents available to him that could prove a vested right, which would have proved the issuance of the stop work order was incorrect, he sent a letter to Mr. Brown asking him to revisit the stop work order; Mr. Brown denied that; so he filed a petition for vested rights. He advised he could not file the application for vested rights because the Code requires him to put all of his facts, circumstances, and evidence that supports him in the petition.

Commissioner Carlson inquired when a person applies within that 30 days, what is required of that application; with Mr. Knox responding a sworn statement from the aggrieved party or property owner describing the basis of the appeal or claim. He advised the sworn statement shall be accompanied by copies of any contracts, letters, appraisals, reports, or any other documents, items, or things upon which the applicant’s claim is based. Commissioner Carlson advised she had not read the specific details of whether or not Mr. Torpy has been trying to gather information within that 30-day window or if he began gathering information to apply for that petition after that 30-day window.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated in Mr. Torpy’s presentation, there were things stated which he is sure were not intended to be said; the first is the testimony that Zoning Official Rick Enos made as part of the Minutes for a Board of Adjustment meeting was presented to him in December. He noted the record clearly shows that it is part of the August letter that he sent; and the Board of County Commissioners received the file for the Board of Adjustment in August. He advised secondly, it was represented that he had stated in a deposition that the two properties were both legal properties per the Zoning Code and other Land Development Regulations. He stated in those depositions, following a hypothetical that Mr. Torpy set up, his position in his deposition is that dimensions of the lot satisfy the Zoning Regulations but not necessarily other Land Development Regulations. He noted in the application that the Board has, there is reference to the effort being made to receive information being part of the basis for the filing date. He stated in the vested rights application, going through the chronology of events, he did not find those representations of a failure or a challenge in getting the information. He stated if in the application the letter to Mr. Brown, is being backed up by verbal representations by Mr. Torpy that there was a struggle to receive information, and he does not see that in the vested rights application.

Commissioner Carlson inquired from the stop work order to 30 days out if there was any discovery by Mr. Torpy from staff; with Mr. Scott responding not to his knowledge from his office.

Commissioner Scarborough stated after all that has been said, this will end up in court. He stated the Board should ask County Attorney Scott Knox to come back and see if he can find any language that would result in a tolling. He stated his gut reaction is when someone is told he has 30 days in which to file an appeal, it is saying all the facts are not needed, because he cannot get all the facts in 30 days. He advised it can go forward, and it happens in the court system, they file and do some discovery, they amend the file, and it is an ongoing process; but the timeliness has basically gone a long time; and if the Board gets into this without having something from the County Attorney, he would not feel comfortable. He stated the question becomes is the Board setting up a methodology where a person can sit on their appeal for an extended period of time. He stated he has a problem with the 30-day timeliness; it is having an impact and allowing the tolling, then allowing an additional 30 days; and it began about ten months ago. He advised he wants to table the item and have the County Attorney prepare a memorandum of what he can find on that particular issue.

Commissioner Pritchard advised he will second that motion. He stated County Attorney Scott Knox read from part of the Ordinance stating it needs to be specific in what the issues are, and file pertinent documents within the 30-day period. He stated the availability of the documents is his primary concern; they were not available and there was a lengthy retrieval process; that is something the Board needs to address in subsequent meetings; and requested Commissioner Scarborough include that the County Attorney review that particular portion of the Ordinance.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table consideration of the untimely filing of a request for vested rights determination for Courtney Roberts; direct the County Attorney to prepare a memorandum on the impact and allowing tolling if allowing additional time past the 30-day deadline and the specificity requirements of the Ordinance; and request Attorney Torpy prepare a memorandum on what he can find on the particular issues. Motion carried and ordered; Chair Higgs voted nay.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how long will the County Attorney need; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding it can probably be done by the next meeting if that is enough time for the Board. Chair Higgs stated there is no period of time specified for the tabling, so it is an un-ended table; and inquired if there is an idea of a date for the tabling; with Commissioner Scarborough responding January 27, 2004.

Meeting recessed at 1:35 p.m. and reconvened at 2:20 p.m.

APPROVAL TO DONATE LAND, AND ACCEPT SIDEWALK AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM P. W. AND ANGELENA ROBERTS, RE: PROPERTY AT CORNER OF WILEY
AVENUE AND U.S. 1

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve donation of land, waive boundary survey of that land, accept in-house title search, environmental assessment, and questionnaire conducted by staff, and authorize acceptance of the Sidewalk and Drainage Easement Deed from P. W. Roberts, Jr. and Angelena Bryant Roberts transferring property to the County for future right-of-way improvements at the corner of Wiley Avenue and U.S. 1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Easement Deed.)

DISCUSSION AND STAFF DIRECTION, RE: ENFORCEMENT OF BASKETBALL HOOPS/
POSTS PLACED IN OR UPON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING
CLASSIFICATIONS

Commissioner Scarborough advised Code Enforcement Manager Bobby Bowen suggested the Board try to get the basketball hoops/posts that are permanently fixed along the right-of-ways, which would be option number four.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize staff to enforce only those basketball hoops/posts that have been permanently erected in the rights-of-way in residential zoning classifications. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE ANNEXATION REQUEST BY THE CITY OF TITUSVILLE, RE:
PROPERTIES ON THE WEST SIDE OF SISSON ROAD, CRYSTAL COURT, EAST
SIDE OF SOUTH WASHINGTON AVENUE, SOUTH OF PARKLAND STREET,
AND WEST OF SINGLETON AVENUE

Commissioner Scarborough advised unlike the other annexations, this is less of an issue.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to acknowledge receipt of Annexation Request #SSA-23-26-2003 from the City of Titusville involving
approximately 6.87 acres located on the west side of Sisson Road and Crystal Court, east side of South Washington Avenue, south of Parkland Street, and west of Singleton Avenue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACCEPT EASEMENT, RE: SANITARY SEWERLINE FOR HARBOR DEL RIO, LLC

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize acceptance of an Easement from Harbor Del Rio, LLC for a sanitary sewer line located in Section 25, Township 24S., Range 36E. in District 2. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Easement.)

AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS, AWARD OF BID, EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS,
AND UTILIZATION OF STATE AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, RE: PARK
PROJECTS

Chair Higgs advised she had one speaker card on the item for Thelma Roper.

Thelma Roper stated there is an ongoing court case on Marina Park; so she would suggest that Marina Park not be voted on until the court case is finished.

Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson advised they are involved currently in the design process; they have to complete Chain of Lakes; and he is not sure if the Board should withdraw Marina Park from the grouping or not. He stated it will have an impact; it will be at least a year; and he is not aware of what the litigation may be at this point in time. Commissioner Scarborough stated it should go forward as the City of Titusville took the Board’s position.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant permission to bid, award bids, utilize State and Cooperative Agreements, and execute Contracts for Chain of Lakes Recreation Complex, Marina Park, Sand Point Park, Michell Ellington Park, Rotary Park-Merritt Island, Tropical Elementary, Brevard Zoo Linear Park, Irene H. Canova Park, Micco Park, North Beach Maintenance Compound, Rodes Park, South Beach Community Park, South Brevard Senior Center, South Mainland Community Center-Micco, Valkaria Community Park, Viera Regional Park, and Wickham Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION AND STAFF DIRECTION, RE: JUVENILE ASSESSMENT CENTER ADVISORY
BOARD REPORT

Chair Higgs advised the Board has a report from staff regarding the Juvenile Assessment Center; and there are several recommendations.

Housing and Human Services Assistant Director J. B. Kenna stated on July 25, 2002 the Board held a workshop with the Juvenile Assessment Center Advisory Board and with staff to discuss the future of the Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC); directed staff to report back to the Board on that progress; and that is what they are doing today. He stated staff has been working with the JAC for approximately the last year; and during a recent utilization review of the Juvenile Assessment Center they have seen a significant reduction in JAC utilization, coupled with an increase of staff costs. He stated staff costs have gone up for security services over the past
year. He stated the Juvenile Assessment Center Advisory Board remains committed to the JAC concept and has offered five possible solutions that range from staffing the JAC 24 hours a day seven days a week at a cost of an additional $1.2 million to actually closing the JAC. He noted while the JAC Advisory Board favors retaining the JAC concept and moving the JAC functions to a portable at the Juvenile Detention Center, there is no quantitative data or additional funding available to support the move. He stated until such time that another supportive funding source or additional dollars to maintain a 24-7 operation become available, it may be prudent to consider closing the JAC at this time. He stated by closing the JAC, the Board may realize a savings of approximately $200,000 this fiscal year; however, staff believes that there are some other priorities that should be considered for funding with those dollars.

Commissioner Pritchard stated when he was briefed on this item, what was said was while the concept of the JAC is great, the location is poor in that it tends to address only parts of the southern part of the County; the central and northern part of the County would have to go past the jail in order to go to the JAC; and it causes police departments not to fully utilize it. He stated one of the things said was it could be closed and then re-tooled, which could take about six to twelve months to reevaluate locations, and perhaps police departments would be utilizing it as well as helping to contribute to the cost of operating the JAC. Mr. Kenna advised while it is not one of the options presented, that is a reasonable option; the unique geography of Brevard has always made it difficult to satisfy each end of the County by trying to identify or designate a central location; and one of the reasons for the location on Sarno Road was that research showed that is where much of the juvenile crime was occurring. He noted the north part of the County, the Titusville Police Department, and North Brevard Sheriff’s areas have more difficulty driving way to down to Sarno Road. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what was the reason Brevard County Juvenile Assessment Center was established; with Mr. Kenna responding the original reason was to provide an avenue for those youth that had traditionally misdemeanors and may not get immediate intervention; and JAC is an opportunity for them to be dropped off into a facility where they can be assessed properly and get immediate intervention. He advised it was also set up so that much of law enforcement would have the opportunity to rapidly drop off the youth who violated the law and get back on the street to perform their duties instead of being tied up waiting for parents to pick them up or other situations such as that. Commissioner Pritchard stated the idea of having the JAC still makes sense, but the way it is currently configured is not working; and if the Board re-tooled it, it could have a JAC that really meets the level of expectations. Mr. McKenna stated when staff came to the Board last year and discussed it, they brought a consultant to discuss the issues that may improve the operation of the JAC; and research shows that a 24-hour a day seven day a week operation of a Juvenile Assessment Center does have value in the community.

Commissioner Carlson advised she agrees with Commissioner Pritchard because it does serve a purpose, and the original intent was to make it more convenient to get the police back on the road quicker. She inquired since there was such in-depth analysis of why the JAC is not working, if the option Commissioner Pritchard brought up was not in the scope of their discussion; with Mr. Kenna responding the idea floated up, but it was not one that was presented. Mr. Kenna stated the JAC Advisory Board was focused on some things that were tangible and what was in its purview to do or not to do, and that it would be more of a Board decision to talk about re-tooling and setting it aside for a period of time. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that sounds like a feasible thing to do, or has there been enough work on it to determine maybe it is not worthwhile now; with Mr. Kenna responding there is no quantitative data to show that what is being done now is working as they had anticipated. He stated staff believes in the concept of the JAC; most JAC’s that are successful across the State have broad financial support; and looking at it in another year would be viable. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the issue is in the process not in the outcome as it applies to the juvenile who is getting the assistance; with Mr. Kenna responding that is correct. Commissioner Carlson inquired if staff has been tracking when a juvenile comes in and is treated in that facility, what happens, does he come back, to determine if it has made any difference in that one person’s life; with Mr. Kenna responding staff does not collect the data, the Department of Juvenile Justice collects and tracks data on all of the children who come through its system, but it has not established any specific quantitative measures that could differentiate the path of a child through the Detention Center and the Juvenile Assessment Center.

Commissioner Colon stated she supports the recommendation from the JAC Advisory Board; but one of her concerns is to make sure those dollars that are already in the budget would stay there, and in the future do something with it. She stated she asked Mr. McKenna to identify three programs that if the Board chose to utilize those dollars this fiscal year, to give that recommendation, or as a recommendation to hold those dollars in the budget to see if there is a future program the Board would like to utilize it for the juveniles.

Housing and Human Services Director Gay Williams advised staff identified some options the Board may have available to it; one would be to use the funding to cover the existing and anticipated budget shortfalls that has occurred as a result of the increased match to Medicaid; another option would be to deter to TIP or the CAB Advisory Board for funding recommendations; or use it for further leveraging grant dollars to address child abuse or neglect prevention activities. She stated the Board could return the 12% to reduce CBO funding activities that would help with the Community Based Care Initiative. Commissioner Colon advised she does not want the Board to make that decision today since it is something that has just been brought up; and maybe it could come back to the Board at a future date as an Agenda item. Commissioner Pritchard advised the money has been appropriated and set aside in the budget; he would like to see it sit there for six months and give the JAC Advisory Board time for reevaluation; and if it comes back to the Board in that time period that it should be disbanded, the money would be available to use elsewhere. Commissioner Carlson stated on the very last option on page seven it says, “Note: Fiscal impact of co-locating the JAC with the BRJDC includes a one-time cost of $11,220 and recurring costs of $16,920.” She inquired if that is compared to the last option of moving the JAC to the JDC with a transportation component and contract with a security vendor, what is the actual difference; with Mr. Kenna responding it would be an additional $206,895 in addition to the money already budgeted to accomplish that and using a contracted security vendor. He advised another point of contention is that it may not be the same level of service with the contract security provider as with the Sheriff’s Office.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge receipt of the Juvenile Assessment Center Advisory Board Report, and approve Option 1 to close the Juvenile Assessment Center in 30 days, retool the program, request the Advisory Board look into ways to make it better, and to hold the money in abeyance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: QUALIFYING CONFIDENTIAL PROJECT NO. 03-00156 AS AN
ELIGIBLE BUSINESS UNDER THE COUNTY’S TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution qualifying Confidential Project No. 03-00156 as an eligible business under the County’s Tax Abatement Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Resolution No. 04-015.)

AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS, RE: CAIN V. BREVARD COUNTY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize settlement of all claims for Cain v. Brevard County case in the amount of $39,000, which includes attorneys fees and costs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE, RE: PURCHASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY NORTH
OF VALKARIA ROAD

Scott Glaubitz stated before the Board is a request to allow a negotiation process for permanent access into their grove property. He stated they have a 1972 licensing agreement granted by the Valkaria Airport that has been in continuous use since 1972; they maintain the access; and they would like to see if it could be a permanent access. He advised the access is north of Valkaria Road and north of the sidewalk currently being constructed. He stated he spoke with Valkaria Airport Manager Jim Shimkus who indicated the request needed to come before the Board, and the authorization had to begin at this point so he could enter the negotiation process. He stated Mr. Shimkus floated this concept with the FAA; FAA indicated the request may be granted because of the location; and it is not in a viable area of airport development. He noted the driveway is located such that the sight distance for stopping under the current 45-mph speed limit is met; he has been there since 1992; and there has not been an accident at that point. He stated he operates a viable citrus grove; they sell many boxes of fruit each year; and they continue to keep it in agricultural production. He advised Chair Higgs may remember in 1992 or 1993 he was before the Board and he requested the property be rezoned from residential to agricultural; and he has maintained that status ever since. He stated the grove was originally owned by two partners in the 1970’s; they each owned a house in that area; and when they decided to sell, they gave each other the right to access through the grove. Mr. Glaubitz stated with the onset of citrus canker, his concerns began to mount; and if the airport license agreement access were ever closed, the other two properties would have a right to cross the grove for access because it is in their Deeds. He stated if you recall the citrus canker that occurred in Palm Bay a couple of years ago was brought on by lawn maintenance people; one of those residents that lives on those properties is a Georgia resident and is gone six or eight months out of the year; and there is a lawn maintenance person coming in and out. He stated he would like to make the access permanent and ensure that is their access and not through the grove property; and people crossing through the grove property when there is equipment and workers out there is not conducive to a safe situation. He stated unknown to him, the Town of Malabar was also consulted in this request; and word came back to him that the Town of Malabar suggested the request be increased from the existing 30 feet to 50 feet, so he could address any stormwater treatment and water quality concerns it may have in the future. He noted he has been a good neighbor to Brevard County; there is an existing mobile home park to the east southeast, Tadlock Subdivision; Public Works came to him in 1994 and asked if he would sell them a strip of land about 25 feet by 600 feet long; the County was proposing to pave the road for those people; they asked him if he would sell them that strip to quiet the dispute; and he donated it to the County. He advised at this point he is looking to the County to see if it can help him a little. He stated he does not know what it will cost him; the FAA said there would be a cost; and he is willing to pay for that to make it a permanent access. He requested the Board allow staff to negotiate the sale of the right-of-way.

Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Glaubitz’s property is more in the Town of Malabar and has residential as opposed to agricultural zoning; with Mr. Glaubitz responding the grove is in the Town of Malabar, has zoning of RR-65. Chair Higgs stated it is not an agricultural zoning at all. Mr. Glaubitz stated where he built his house, and the twelve acres that goes along with it, has been rezoned back to agricultural. Chair Higgs inquired what part of the property is in the County and what part is in the Town of Malabar; with Mr. Glaubitz responding he has 12 acres in the County, and 55 acres in the Town of Malabar. Chair Higgs inquired if most of it is zoned residential except for those acres where the home is; with Mr. Glaubitz responding that is correct.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if this request is out of the ordinary in terms of negotiating for right-of-way access in any form; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding all the Board would be authorizing is the negotiation; and he does not believe it is out of the ordinary, but is the first step toward the purchase. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it should be advertised for sale in case anyone has an objection; with Mr. Knox responding the Board could let the negotiation begin, and then that issue can be looked into. He stated even if it had to go through the bidding process, the first step would be a negotiated price, because that is where the bidding starts under the Ordinance. Chair Higgs stated the property north of Valkaria Road is owned by the airport; and generally it is considered sound real estate principal that dividing up property is going to substantially affect the value of the property. She advised she would be very concerned about selling this land; the County has a license agreement that allows the property owner to access there; that seems to have some problems; and the County should renegotiate and look at that. She stated she is concerned about the value and detrimental effect on the airport property by selling off and bisecting the land.

Commissioner Colon inquired if there is anything Chair Higgs would suggest since it is in her District; with Chair Higgs responding this is an old licensing agreement going back to the 1970’s. She advised the Board needs to ask the County Attorney to work on that licensing agreement; the ability of the residential properties to continue to use it does not seem to be detrimental; she would not want to take the County airport property, divide it, and sell it off for a road that the County has sold the land for a price she does not think can be recovered; so she does not support this. She stated she would support sending it back to the County Attorney to reassess the licensing agreement.

Commissioner Pritchard stated this gets back to what he mentioned earlier about a master plan for Valkaria Airport; and he would be interested, since this would bisect the property, what effect it might have on the creation of the master plan, or at least a reevaluation of a master plan. He stated if there is a current issue with the possibility of losing access, then that is something the Board can address to ensure that will not happen while reevaluating what is going to happen with Valkaria Airport. He advised if the Board decides that this property Mr. Glaubitz would be bisecting is not in the interest of the airport, then it may want to look at selling that. Chair Higgs stated there are other ways for the individual to get to the property; there is the issue of the homes on the west side, but there are other ways to get there; and Mr. Glaubitz does not have to do that to the property.

Chair Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chair Pritchard.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct the County Attorney to review the Licensing Agreement and bring that back to the Board; and until further discussion in regard to Valkaria Airport’s future is held, the Board not commit to selling any property in the area of the Airport. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENTS - WALTER PINE, RE: LAW LIBRARY AND INFORMATION
SYSTEMS

Walter Pine stated the Law Library funding will end in September 2004, and something needs to be done because Law Libraries were consolidated; and that is the only place the public has access to current and updated information for those who wish to go before the courts. He advised he spoke to Commissioner Scarborough who is working in it; but he wanted to bring it to the attention of the entire Board and encourage it to begin working with the public regarding that. He stated the second thing he wanted to bring to the Board’s attention is in doing research on the SEA Ordinance, he became aware of some problems with the County’s Information Services, particularly the e-mail program presently being used; it is out of date; and it does not have the capacity to do searches from the administrative level. He stated each individual search would have to be done at each individual p.c. in some cases because of the way the system is set up. He advised the Department of Natural Resources has an administrative password to all its computers; that means they can eliminate anything from the public record they choose without oversight; and nobody would know that it is gone. He stated there is no standardization throughout the County regarding how the Information System is working; and it is under the control of each individual department. He noted it has inherent problems; there is no security other than the security that exists on each platform; and if there is no security on the p.c. and a person walks away, anyone can see everything that can be accessed from that p.c. He advised the only security is the firewalls for outside e-mails; so as far as an attack internally, there is a real problem. He encouraged the Board to begin studies of its Information System to standardize and upgrade the current equipment and software. He stated he understands the major problem is the funding. He stated Brevard County does not provide proper access to the public records; it is not doing its job; and the Information Systems needs to be given the funding to properly standardize to upgrade and provide access.

Chair Higgs requested the County Manager prepare a report regarding the e-mail system, how it is working, and where upgrades are possible, including costs, and send it to each Commissioner.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 2:54 p.m.

ATTEST: _________________________________
NANCY HIGGS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

______________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

( S E A L )