March 16, 2004

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on March 16, 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 Oliver Wells, Greater St. Paul Baptist Church, Cocoa, Florida.

Commissioner Susan Carlson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the Minutes of the December 16, 2003 Regular meeting and January 15, 2004 Special Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ITEM WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated Item V.B, Contribution to Titusville Area Chamber of Commerce for 2003 Fourth of July Fireworks Display, needs to be withdrawn. He stated Agenda Item III.A.1 says Casabella, Phase 3, but should be Casabella, Phase 2.

Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Jenkins wishes to bring up anything about the Juvenile Offenders Costs; with Mr. Jenkins responding no, he will wait and prepare a more comprehensive letter.

PERMISSION TO SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE SESSION, RE: FOLEY V. BREVARD COUNTY

County Attorney Scott Knox requested permission to schedule an executive session to discuss the Foley v. Brevard County case on April 8, 2004.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant permission to advertise and schedule an executive session on Foley v. Brevard County on April 8, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: HABITUAL MISDEMEANOR OFFENDERS

Commissioner Scarborough stated he sent to each Commissioner a letter he received from Freda Schildroth concerning habitual misdemeanor offenders; Housing and Human Services Director Gay Williams advises they are putting together a more detailed response; and unless the Board has a problem with that, he would like to proceed, and he will bring it up under his report on Thursday, March 18, 2004.

REPORT, RE: PORTABLE ON DEMAND UNITS

Commissioner Pritchard stated he brought up at the last meeting the situation with portable on demand storage units (PODS); they are supposed to be used for a short length of time as a convenience moving out or in, but they have become storage buildings; and neighborhoods are beginning to complain because they have been there for extended periods of time. He stated Mr. Scott sent a memorandum on March 9 addressing PODS, saying the Zoning Code does not contain a division that regulates PODS; and if the Board wishes to allow POD usage for definitive and measurable time frames, a Code amendment would need to be drafted and considered. He suggested having Zoning evaluate the usage of PODS, what would be reasonable amount of time for a POD to be onsite, and return with a report.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to report on the usage of portable demand storage units (PUDS) and what would be a reasonable amount of time for them to remain on residential property. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PRESENTATION - JIM ROSS, CROSSWINDS, RE: DUCK RACE

Commissioner Colon stated Jim Ross with Crosswinds is present this morning to share a few words.

Mr. Ross stated on behalf of Jan Lokay, president of Crosswinds, he would like to express appreciation to the Board for making Brevard County such an outstanding place for young people and families to live. He stated the Board’s support has been a big reason that Crosswinds was recognized as the best organization in the nation serving runaway, homeless, and other kids in crisis; it is a serious issue as kids grow up; there are all kinds of difficulties they have today; and by helping them at the vulnerable stage in life, it is possible to keep kids from going down the path of drugs, crime, and ending up a burden on society. He the duck race is their major fundraiser of the year; each of the Commissioners has been given a glow-in-the-dark rubber ducky; and this marks the beginning of the campaign. He stated Friday is the kickoff; for the next five weeks, usually conservative adults will be acting like kids again; and they are going to have ducks everywhere. He stated it is a great time to have a lot of fun for a great cause; the premise of it is that people adopt ducks; they go into a local bank or other places, they put in a donation and get chances in the race; and last year they had 15,000 ducks adopted and raised $91,000 that went to the kids of Crosswinds. He stated the goal for this year is $100,000; it is important to reach that goal because this past year, there was a 29% increase in the number of people needing their services; and the positive part is there is an organization with outstanding counselors and other people to help the kids. Mr. Ross stated the money is desperately needed; a lot of people donate for the cause; a lot of people donate for the prizes; and this year there are some fantastic prizes. He stated at the risk of upsetting Commissioner Pritchard who is sensitive about not winning yet, he is going to highlight some of the prizes; the grand prize is four VIP seats at the Pepsi 400; they are the best seats in the house; and they cover the race and the qualifying, and are a great package. He stated the second prize is a seven-night cruise to the Caribbean; the third prize is a new 2004 Suzuki 250 Quadrunner All Terrain Vehicle from the House of Power; fourth prize is two round-trip tickets anywhere that Southwest Airlines flies; and the fifth prize is a $500 shopping spree at Dillards. He stated all the prizes are donated; the next one is a one-year membership to the Health First Pro-Health Fitness Center; the next is two large homemade ice cream sundaes each week for a year from the Marble Slab Creamery; and the 8th through 17th prizes are half-hour massages or facials from Massage Therapy Associates of Brevard. He thanked the businesses for their donations; and stated one reason the County has such an outstanding climate to live in is the business support of the community. He stated this year there are 140 business outlets that will be selling duck adoptions; and some of the major sponsors are Bank of America, the Margaret Heinz Foundation, Nokia, Riverside, Community Educators Credit Union, Harbor Federal, Indian River National Bank, Southtrust Bank, Space Coast Credit Union, Suntrust, Wachovia, SAIC, United Space Alliance, Publix, Met-Con, Coastal Steel Incorporated, Iveys, and Florida Copy Systems. He stated banks in other parts of the country will not become involved in an event where there is more than one bank; but in our community, the businesses are so community-minded that they do not care if one of their competitors is involved in something like this because it is for the good of the community. He thanked the Board for all it does for the County; and stated he hopes Commissioner Pritchard’s duck wins this year. Chair Higgs stated everyone wants to win.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would have thought that after several years of trying and stacking the deck with the big duck with the propeller, he would have come out one of the winners; and inquired where did he finish; with Mr. Ross responding he finished last. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much are the entry fees; with Mr. Ross responding it is $5 to enter the race; $10 will get two entries and one of the collectible ducks; and some people are trying to collect the ducks with the various colored beaks.

Commissioner Pritchard and Chair Higgs purchased ducks. Mr. Ross stated there will be 17,500 ducks in the field. Commissioner Carlson inquired what are the chances; with Chair Higgs responding one in 17,500. Mr. Ross stated it is for a great cause; and it is possible to see miracles every day as lives are changed and saved.

REPORT, RE: SCHEDULE FOR MARCH 18, 2004 WORKSHOP

Chair Higgs stated she sent a suggested schedule for Thursday to each Commissioner; and inquired if it is okay with everybody; and consensus was reached that the schedule is acceptable.

RESOLUTIONS, RE: RECOGNIZING WOMAN OF THE YEAR AND YOUNG WOMAN OF
THE YEAR
Commissioner Colon called Christina Marie Martin to come forward. A representative of the Commission on the Status of Women advised Ms. Martin is not present; Ms. Martin is dually enrolled in high school and at Brevard Community College; and she could not get out of a test this morning. She stated she will accept the Resolution for Ms. Martin, and Commissioner Colon will present it on Thursday evening at the awards ceremony.

Commissioner Colon read aloud the resolution recognizing Christina Marie Martin as Young Woman of the Year.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt a Resolution recognizing Christina Marie Martin as Commission on the Status of Women 2004 Young Woman of the Year. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Colon stated the Woman of the Year is Valerie Brown. She read aloud a resolution recognizing Valerie Brown as the Commission on the Status of Women 2004 Woman of the Year.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt a Resolution recognizing Valerie Brown as Commission on the Status of Women 2004 Woman of the Year. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chair Higgs expressed appreciation to Ms. Brown for being here this morning and for all that she does.

Commissioner Colon presented the Resolution to Ms. Brown. Valerie Brown thanked the Commission on the Status of Women for nominating and selecting her; and thanked the Board for giving this recognition. She stated she has worked a long time in Brevard County, and this is her first Resolution.

Chair Higgs stated it is much deserved; and congratulated Ms. Brown on the work that the Dependency Program has done and the strides that are being made there.

RECOGNITION, RE: WINTER 2004 GRADUATING CLASS FOR BREVARD COUNTY
CITIZENS ACADEMY

Chair Higgs stated she read a quote the other day that said, “If our country is worth dying for, it’s worth living for”; and there are a number of people who are serving and have been trained by the Citizens Academy who are living that motto, which is great.

Marea Staples, Special Projects Coordinator for the County Manager’s Office, stated she is present this morning to present the Winter 2004 graduating class of the Brevard County Citizens Academy. She stated the Winter 2004 session started on January 7, 2004; it is a free nine-week educational program consisting of one three-hour meeting per week and one half-day tour; County departments were involved in the planning stages as well as being guest lecturers. She stated the departments and offices include the County Manager’s Office, Space Coast Government TV, Public Safety, Emergency Management, Animal Services, Water Resources, Solid Waste, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Extension Services, Mosquito Control, Transportation Planning, Transit Services, Transportation Engineering, Parks and Recreation, Library Services, Housing and Human Services, Planning and Zoning, Permitting and Enforcement, the Offices of Tourism, Budget, Strategic Planning and Legislative Delegation; evaluations were conducted after each session; and the Academy and presenters consistently received very positive feedback. Ms. Staples advised the Spring 2004 session of the Citizens Academy will start on Wednesday March 24, 2004; citizens may register on the County’s website or call 633-2010 and request an application from the County Manager’s office; and applications are accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. She stated Chair Higgs will hand out the diplomas to the class members Richard Bleau, Mike Cunningham, Barbara Emmetts, Daniel English, Joan Lewis, Marianne Pennie, Lillian Richards, Nancy Rogers, Fannie Salerno, Catherine Schroeder, George Theriault, and William Weglein; and James Malatos, Sr. also received a certificate, but was unable to attend this morning.

RESOLUTION, RE: SUPPORT FOR TROOPS SERVING IN IRAQ

Commissioner Pritchard stated Lt. Colonel Jim Peterman, U.S. Army Retired, was a Green Beret Special Forces Chaplain in Vietnam; and he earlier distributed bumper stickers to some members of the audience and the Commissioners that said “We love our military on the Space Coast.” He stated the resolution is in support of the troops serving in Iraq as well as those who have served and are now home, and those who will be going to Iraq. He read aloud the resolution expressing support for troops serving in Iraq.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution requesting everyone to join in observances sponsored by the Vietnam Veterans of America, Space Coast Chapter 831, in support of the troops serving in Iraq and asking everyone to join in observances sponsored by the Vietnam Veterans of America on Saturday March 20, 2004 at Cocoa Riverfront Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard presented the Resolution to Lt. Colonel Peterman.

Chair Higgs stated she appreciates Lt. Colonel Peterman being here, and appreciates everything the troops are doing. Lt. Colonel Peterman stated as Vietnam veterans they heard about the protests and captured documents showing pictures of the protests around the Pentagon, which was unsettling; and when the troops came home, they were spat upon and rejected. He stated no matter how anyone feels about the war, they should support the troops because this country is free because of the blood that has been shed. He encouraged everyone to be united behind the flag; stated liberty and freedom for all is a goal everyone talks about; and they do not mind protesters because they are giving a message, but they do mind those who deceive and divide the country. He stated the country needs to be courageous and confident from this moment on because we are challenged heavily; and invited everyone to attend the ceremony on March 20, 2004.

RESOLUTION, RE: DECLARING ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE DAY

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud a resolution declaring April 2, 2004 as Alternative Fuel Vehicle Day on behalf of the Florida Solar Energy Center.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt a Resolution declaring April 2, 2004 as Alternative Fuel Vehicle Day. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he will present the Resolution to the Florida Solar Energy Center.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: CASABELLA SUBDIVISION, PHASE 2

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final plat approval for Casabella Subdivision, Phase 2, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining appropriate jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVER OF SECTION 62-3204, RE: VIERA REGIONAL PARK SITE PLAN

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to waive a requirement of Section 62-3204 pertaining to easements of record, for Viera Regional Park Site Plan, thereby allowing the plan to be approved prior to the relocation of the drainage easement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVER OF REPOSITORY FEE, RE: STATE-LICENSED CONTRACTORS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to waive the $20 fee assessed for placement of State-certified contractors in the repository file to maintain current licensing and insurance information in the permitting system until an accurate database can be implemented. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: PROCEDURE CREATING OUTDOOR MUSIC COMMITTEE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve a procedure to create a committee to develop regulations relating to outdoor music consisting of one appointee by each Commissioner from the live music/tourist/restaurant industry, and one appointee from neighborhood interests; the committee be created for a term not to exceed 120 days after the last appointment is made; and the committee provide a report to the Board within 45 days of its last meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE ANNEXATION #AR-2004-148 BY CITY OF MELBOURNE, RE:
PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF WICKHAM ROAD

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge Annexation #AR-2004-148 by the City of Melbourne of approximately 110 acres located west of Wickham Road in the vicinity of the intersection of Turtlemound Road and Parkway Drive. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE ANNEXATION #AR-004-147 BY CITY OF MELBOURNE, RE: PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2500 N. HIGHWAY A1A

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge Annexation #AR-2004-147 by the City of Melbourne of approximately .96 acre located at 2500 North Highway A1A. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE ANNEXATION #AR-2004-146 BY CITY OF MELBOURNE, RE:
PROPERTY LOCATED AT JOHN RODES BOULEVARD AND DOW ROAD

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge Annexation #AR-2004-146 by the City of Melbourne of approximately 1.89 acres located at the southeast corner of John Rodes Boulevard and Dow Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RIGHT-OF-WAY USE AGREEMENT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE: LANDSCAPING
WITHIN MURRELL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM WICKHAM ROAD TO CRANE CREEK
BOULEVARD

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Right-of-way Agreement with The Viera Company for installation and maintenance of landscaping and irrigation improvements within the public right-of-way of Murrell Road from Wickham Road north to Crane Creek Boulevard. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN, RE: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize staff to acquire a commercial paper loan for the purchase of 12H CAT motor grader and a 950G CAT wheel loader for the additional multipurpose crew approved by the Board on December 16, 2003, and to make any necessary budget changes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, MAINTENANCE MAP, AND QUITCLAIM DEED FROM WILLIAM FERRELL,
RE: PORTION OF WASHINGTONIA DRIVE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution certifying that a portion of Washingtonia Drive is a County road; accept Quitclaim Deed from William B. Ferrell, Jr., Successor Trustee of the William B. Ferrell, Sr. Trust; and authorize the Chair to execute the Maintenance Map.

SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT WITH SPACE COAST MARINE INSTITUTE OF BREVARD
COUNTY, RE: NEW MORTGAGE FOR STUDENT CENTER, COUNSELING, AND
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Subordination Agreement with Space Coast Marine Institute of Brevard County to allow the Institute to secure a new mortgage to construct a Student Center, Counseling, and Administration Building. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, RE: ELECTRICAL SERVICE FOR
POW MIA PARK

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Easement to Florida Power & Light Company to construct, operate, and maintain the electrical service to the redesigned POW MIA Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENTS NO. 006 AND 007 ASSIGNING IVEY, HARRIS & WALLS, INC. AGREEMENT
TO MILLER LEGG & ASSOCIATES, INC., RE: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR PARKS
AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendments 006 and 007 assigning the Ivey, Harris & Walls, Inc. Agreement to Miller Legg & Associates, Inc. for architectural and engineering services for Valkaria Community Park, Micco Park, South Mainland Community Center-Micco, and POW MIA Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, RE: ELECTRICAL SERVICE FOR
HOWARD E. FUTCH MEMORIAL PARK

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Easement to Florida Power & Light Company to construct, operate, and maintain the electrical service to the redesigned Howard E. Futch Memorial Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVER OF TITLE EXCEPTIONS, RE: STERLING FOREST LLC DONATION TO EEL
PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to waive back slope easement, By-laws of the Sterling Forest Homeowners Association, and restrictions, covenants, and conditions, which are identified as exceptions on the title commitment for 50.389± acres being donated to the EEL Program by Sterling Forest, LLC. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL TO PURCHASE FROM JOHN BROWN AND SONS, INC., RE: BRAZILIAN
PEPPER TREE REMOVAL SERVICE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve purchase of Brazilian pepper tree removal service on County-owned lands on the South Beaches for the EEL Program from the sole source vendor, John Brown and Sons, Inc. in the amount of $116,032. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID AND AWARD BID, RE: LEASE OF BULLDOZERS TO STOCKPILE
SOIL REMOVED FROM FOX LAKE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT AT CENTRAL
DISPOSAL FACILITY
Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to bid and award bid to the lowest qualified bidder for the lease of two D6 bulldozers, or equivalent, to stockpile excavated soil received at the Central Disposal Facility from the Fox Lake Aquatic Habitat Enhancement Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: SPACEPORT COMMERCE PARK AUTHORITY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to reappoint Susan Cossey representing Canaveral Port Authority, Peggy Busacca representing Brevard County, Al Matroni representing Space Coast Economic Development Commission, Jay Schenck representing the Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority, Conrad Eigenmann, Jr. representing the City of Titusville, and Frank Kinney representing District 1 Commission District, to the Spaceport Commerce Park Authority, with terms expiring December 31, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO USE JOB ORDER CONTRACT, RE: PARKWAY MODULAR 4
RENOVATION TO CLERK OF COURTS AREA

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize staff to use its Job Order Contract to construct renovations at Modular 4, Clerk of Courts Area in Titusville, at an estimated cost of $50,575.86; and authorize the Chair to sign the contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF RELEASES, RE: SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM OF ALVIN
SANDERS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Chair to sign releases in Brevard County Circuit Case Number 05-2001-CA-009154-XXXX, Alvin Sanders v. M. A. Stevens, as Trustee of William Hualpha Stevens Revocable Trust, Joan M. Hamm, Phillip C. Hamm, Anthony Palmieri, Anita Palmieri and Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, and subsequent appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, Case Number 5D02-1940, settling all claims of Alvin Sanders upon legal approval of the County Attorney’s office. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint/reappoint Marcia B. Mario to the Brevard County Commission on the Status of Women with term expiring December 31, 2004; Sharon Savastio and Joe Ward, to the Electronic Pet Systems Containment Review Committee with term expiring December 31, 2004; Leesa Souto to the Environmentally Endangered Lands Procedure Committee with term expiring December 31, 2004; Goldwyn Daniels to the Palm Bay Regional Park Advisory Committee with term expiring on December 31, 2004; and George Theriault to the South Mainland Community Center Citizens Advisory Board with term expiring December 31, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

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

REPORT, RE: PENNSYLVANIA STREET SPEED HUMPS

Vicki Coggins stated she supports the removal of the speed humps because the original survey was done incorrectly, and did not include all of the affected residences; she has lived on Pennsylvania Street for 12 years, but was not informed about the speed humps; and the original traffic survey indicated that the necessary parameters were not met. She stated the speed
humps are a safety hazard for people with back problems or other health issues; and they slow emergency response vehicles. She advised the dog that was killed was always on the street and never on a leash; and the lady who was killed was not killed on Pennsylvania Street although she did live on Pennsylvania Street. She stated this is a non-issue for Pennsylvania Street; the people in the neighborhood who want to walk and ride bikes on sidewalks should move to a neighborhood that has sidewalks and bike paths; and she walks and rides her bicycle in the neighborhood, but also pays attention to traffic. She stated the majority of the residents in the neighborhood do not want the speed humps; the Board made a mistake by installing the humps and has wasted taxpayers’ money; but the real mistake is not taking corrective action. She stated the speed humps are like a wound that is not cared for; it will fester and not heal as quickly as it would with the proper care; and requested the Board not let this matter fester and go untreated. She requested the Board do the right thing through the survey results, and not let the community remain divided by the misrepresentation of a majority group of homeowners.

Gary Porter stated it is clear that the safety and peace and quiet of Pennsylvania Street has been greatly increased by the speed humps; there really is a just and fair solution, which is to open up Ranch Road and Ohio Street by putting in culverts so those people have access without going down Pennsylvania Street; and that is very straightforward. He stated the reason the anti-hump people do not want this is they don’t want to share even a small fraction of the traffic that has to go down Pennsylvania Street, but they are willing to subject Pennsylvania Street to that. He stated it does not make any sense to him. He stated he is willing to pay $4,000 for culverts for Ranch Road or Ohio Street so the people living on those streets do not have to go over the speed humps on his street. He submitted pictures of the culverts to the Board, but not the Clerk.

Jon England stated the first and only public meeting on this subject was held several months ago; and the outcome was that staff was tasked to work with the community to develop a solution. He stated the motion was made by Commissioner Carlson; and the key words were to work with the community to develop a solution. He stated some amendments were discussed, but rejected; and the motion passed unanimously. He stated staff performed some traffic studies, but he does not know why; and staff sent out a survey, which was similar to taking an SAT test. He inquired if the Commissioners got such a form in the mail, would they take the time to fill it out. He stated the staff did not work with the community; sending out a survey and doing traffic studies does not meet his definition of working with the community; no public meetings were held; and some staff members refused to talk to them. He stated the best they could come up with was mediation; it sounds like a good idea until you look into it; the mediation that was offered was between a small number of representatives of the two neighborhood factions; but neither faction has representatives empowered to bind that faction to any agreement, so he is not sure what mediation could accomplish that a meeting would not accomplish. He stated the 600-pound gorilla in this matter is the County; and the County would not have been involved in this case, so mediation was nothing more than a nice word, and a plain meeting between the parties involved and staff assistance was not even offered. He stated there is a report based on the things the County did, which was a survey and a traffic study; and staff reverted to form by adjusting the survey results to provide a pre-determined answer. He stated when this first came before the Board, staff claimed that support for the speed humps was nearly unanimous; that was important because without the illusion of support the speed hump installation criteria would not have been met; but what the Board was not told at the time is that after learning that the affected residents overwhelmingly rejected the idea of speed humps, Traffic Engineering took it on itself to restrict the survey to what Mr. Thompson referred to as the most affected residents. He stated the same sort of thing is going on in the current report; instead of simply reporting the survey results, staff has decided to filter the results based on another strained definition of whose opinions matter and whose do not; and it should be travel criteria rather than the most affected criteria, but the effect is the same. He stated if someone disagreed with the pre-determined answer, their opinion did not count; as an example they rejected the opinion of all the Brandywine Lane residents who have to deal with the increased traffic flow, but they counted the opinions of Pennsylvania Street residents who do not have to cross a single speed hump to get to their homes, and do not have to deal with degraded emergency service response times. He stated this sort of biased manipulation has allowed them to take survey results that showed roughly two-to-one opposition to the speed humps and claim that the neighborhood is evenly divided. He thanked Commissioner Carlson for making the motion at the last meeting, and the Board for passing that motion.

Paula Stratton stated she lives in the Police Foundation; and requested the Board have the speed humps removed that were installed on Pennsylvania Street. She stated the whole controversy has supposedly been about speed, but none of the speed studies bear this out. She stated the last speed study shows average speeds on the interior roads from a low of 16 mph to a high of 28; extraordinary measures such as speed humps are not warranted in our neighborhood; and Dick Thompson did not follow the established procedure for speed hump installations. She stated when the residents on Pennsylvania Street failed to get the signatures from the 120 homeowners required, Mr. Thompson, after persistent pressure, reduced the survey area to 35 homeowners. He stated that the speeds were so bad that he felt he was justified in doing this; but in a letter to Rob Medina of District 5, Assistant Traffic Director Robert Zaitooni stated that the speeds were primarily due to the rural characteristics of the roadway, low volume, and tangent roadways, and the conditions are typical of many roadways with similar characteristics. She stated Mr. Zaitooni advised the average speeds were 31 mph; less than 20 days after that letter was written, another letter was written by Mr. Thompson to Mr. Medina stating, “Due to the fact that there is an alternative route, it has been determined the survey area can be Pennsylvania Street only. A new speed hump package will be sent to Mr. Santiago upon your approval.” She inquired what happened in the 20-day period that caused Mr. Thompson to change his mind and throw normal procedure out the window. She stated he does not state in the letter that speeds are high because the average speed was 31 mph, and the speed studies did not meet the criteria for speed hump installation; and inquired what happened during that period. She stated she heard a lot about the safety of the people on Pennsylvania Street; she does not understand why their needs are more important than anyone else’s; and inquired if they are a special class of County residents whose desires are more important than the residents who live along Chicago or Brandywine. She inquired about other neighborhoods that have petitioned in the last few years for speed humps; and stated by creating a new category of “most affected” a door has been opened for every street in the County to petition for and receive speed humps. She stated in all instances, Traffic Engineering appears to be digging in its heels to justify the installation, even to the point of ignoring the survey results and asking residents to come to mediation. Ms. Stratton stated they carefully visited the issue of attending mediation in a neighborhood meeting where the vote was unanimous that mediation would help if this was not such a black and white issue; however, the majority of the residents have now stated three times that they want the speed humps to be removed; alternatives and middle ground were presented in the County survey; and the majority said they want no other modifications. She stated the majority has no middle ground on this; and inquired what would mediation have accomplished. She stated the Board wants to do the right thing for everyone; and requested the Board treat all constituents equally.

Marjorie Rhodes stated she is reading statements from other neighbors who could not be present. She stated Terry Beard says, “The traffic has increased on Chicago three times what it used to be. I think everyone but the folks on Pennsylvania are coming around Chicago and Brandywine to exit. We have a window that looks out on Chicago so we can see all the cars going by.” She stated the next one is from Herman Hannah; and read, “I do not want speed humps in our area or any access area road because I have a heart condition and do not want emergency vehicles to have to be slowed by humps.” She stated Kevin and Susie Soden wrote, “We do not understand how the speed humps could have been installed when the majority of affected residents voted against them. If it is true that another survey was sent to a much smaller group in order to slip this by, then the Commission should be ashamed of itself and should not be surprised if their deceptive practices are challenged both legally and publicly as an example of government corruption and misuse of power." She stated her husband could not be present today but one thing he pointed out from an engineer’s point of view was why put 15 mile per hour speed humps in a 25 mph zone.

Thomas Stratton stated he was present on August 12 and read a statement; all the people who are against the speed humps get to speak first and the people who are for it get to speak second; and he is curious why that is.

Chair Higgs noted she is going through the cards as they were submitted.

Mr. Stratton stated there are more letters; they have more anger and vitriol in their neighborhood; and he is interested to see what will happen if the speed humps stay. He stated the Board will hear a lot of impassioned pleas about people diving into ditches, getting hit by cars, dogs being killed, and after the speed humps were installed, a woman being killed on a road the speed humps were not on. He stated all they have on their side is the precedent and the facts of the studies; Mr. Denninghoff is either depending on the Board’s ignorance or negligence when he says there is no clear consensus in the survey that staff conducted at the taxpayers’ expense to let the Board know how people feel; but 66% want them out; and inquired if that is not a consensus. He inquired if things were so bad on Pennsylvania Street why were there only six calls in one year for increased enforcement of the speed limits; stated these are the facts; and all they have are the facts, the precedent, and the policies of the County on their side; while the other side has a favorite Commissioner and anecdotal stories; and the Board has acted on the stories and the anecdotes, slipping in the wishes of 39 residents at the expense of 260 residents.

Carmen Santiago submitted paperwork to the Board, but not the Clerk. Ms. Santiago stated she lives on Pennsylvania Street; and requested the Board keep the speed humps on her section of the street. She stated this is the third time the issue has come before the Board; it unanimously approved the initial petition to install the speed humps in August 2002; and it unanimously denied the petition to remove them in 2003. She stated she shares the concern about public safety in the entire community; she was supposed to have been one of the pro-speed hump representatives at the January 2004 mediation meeting and was looking forward to working out solutions that would insure safety for all; however, the anti-speed hump group refused to participate. She stated there was a meeting of the National Police Home Foundation shortly before the August 2003 meeting; she was called before the meeting by the person who chaired the meeting, and asked not to bring the issue up at the community meeting because the minds were already made up and polarized. She stated she did not bring it up; but other people during the meeting tried to bring it up only to be told they could not bring the issue up because people were already polarized and there was no use discussing it. She stated before I-95 was built, it was part of a larger area; and it is possible to see the extension of the original street grid on a map; the interstate cut off the normal west to east and south to north traffic flow; it necessitated an awkward curve on Arizona Street, now renamed Brandywine Lane; and it made Pennsylvania Street the only outlet. She stated over time the number of homes in the area has grown tremendously and so has the problem with speeding. She displayed a map showing the area and pointed out Pennsylvania Street, Chicago Avenue, Brandywine Lane, Ranch Road, Ohio Street, and the non-speed hump portion of Pennsylvania Street. She noted the last three streets are dead-end into canals. She stated she wishes the speed humps were not the only practical, efficient, and effective means of calming traffic; she has never liked speed humps, and was originally reluctant to get involved in petitioning for them; but a single incident on the street changed her mind. She stated on New Year’s day in 2002 before the speed humps were installed in broad daylight a speeder lost control of his car on Pennsylvania Street; it veered across the oncoming Tropic Lane, jumped a ditch, tore out a chain-link fence, and stopped when it was hung up on a driveway culvert; and if she had been walking there as she usually does, the car would have gone right over her and she would not have had a chance. She stated speed destroys and kills; there is no practical protection against speeders; the only way is to slow them down; and the best way to do that is speed humps. She stated she would like to highlight two points in the County staff report on the traffic volume speed study and community survey; the study supports the survey’s results, which showed a broad support for the uniform 25 mph speed limit in the area; and the survey showed that there are in general two opinions related to the speed humps, either leave them and leave the rest of the community as is, or keep them and leave the rest of the community as is. She stated comparison of the traffic speed study conducted before and after the speed hump installation shows that they were effective in reducing speeding; and looking at only those residents who returned survey and who would actually save time by traveling on Pennsylvania Street, the vote for the speed humps was 42 not to remove, 45 to remove them, and one no vote. She stated the County staff could only deal with objective numbers; and read aloud the first line of the survey, “We like the speed humps on Pennsylvania Street”; and if that comment was accepted, then the vote was 45 to 43. She requested the Board let public safety on the street have the rest of the votes. She stated she does not think the residents who voted against the speed humps really understand the seriousness of the problem; they live on short dead-end streets and pass through Pennsylvania Street at 120-second increments; they are shielded by their vehicles; but her family has only the speed humps and the Board to protect them. She stated this issue is about safety; and she supports the County staff’s findings. She requested the Board resolve the issue today and give them closure.

Marion Forno stated she lives in West Melbourne; and she is here to ask the Board to keep the speed humps on Pennsylvania Street; this is the third time the issue has come before the Board; the Board already voted unanimously in favor of the speed humps twice; and requested the Board vote in favor again. She stated this is all about public safety; and the residents of the street have seen that the speed humps have effectively calmed traffic and made the street much safer. She stated she would like to read a letter sent to a Commissioner shortly after the speed humps were installed; the author could not be here because she was killed by a hit and run driver on Brandywine Lane just a few steps off Pennsylvania Street less than 17 months ago; and read aloud, “Dear Commissioner, I would like to thank you for approving the speed humps for our street, Pennsylvania, between Brandywine Lane and Chicago Avenue. We have needed them for a long time. The many speeders on the street apparently have no concerns for safety, and have ignored all other attempts to make them slow down. Although the speed humps are inconvenient for us all, we believe that safety for ourselves and children is more important. We, the only ones who must drive on the street, petitioned for the speed humps and are satisfied. All others can take another street if they so wish. Thank you again. Marie Sumner.” She stated Ms. Sumner postscripted, “We have lived at this address for thirty years and have observed that very few people observe the 25 mph on Pennsylvania Street. We are happy to have the speed humps installed. My husband is disabled and has poor vision. His doctors recommended walking for his health and he feels very much safer with the speed humps installed, resulting in much slower traffic.” Ms. Forno read aloud a letter from the new owner of the Sumner home, “I am a new homeowner who lives on Pennsylvania Street. Our home was purchased because the previous owner’s wife was unfortunately killed by a speeder in this immediate area. Now that she is gone, he was forced to move into an assisted living facility and sell their life-long dream home of 32 years. She was his only caregiver.”; and stated the letter is signed D. Brocker. She stated speed kills and irrevocably changes lives; and expressed appreciation to the Board for its concern about public safety in this community. She requested the Board resolve the issue today as the community needs to put this at rest.

Dr. Sanford Zelnick stated he lives on Pennsylvania Street; the speed humps have been in place for about a year and a half; and there have been good results. He stated the vehicular speeds of Pennsylvania Street have definitely slowed down; the objective data before the Board clearly shows this; and the residents of the affected block unanimously know and agree with that statement. He stated even the other side does not dispute this; a significant number of speeders prior to installation of speed humps were excessive; there were over 30 cases of individuals driving 20 miles over the posted limit; so they are talking about speeds approaching 50 mph on a residential street with nothing but a ditch a couple of feet to the left to protect people. He stated it does not take a great amount of thought to know that an unsafe condition exists on Pennsylvania Street; the residents told the Board that; and it should be clear that with the installation of the speed humps, the risk of serious injury or worse to any pedestrian walking on Pennsylvania Street is reduced. He stated the speed humps have caused no harm that he can tell; there are people who are not happy with that action, and they have addressed the Board this morning; but no one from the other side has come forward with any proposal to reduce speeds on Pennsylvania Street that would receive wider support from the general community or that would make sense to the Board at this point. He stated mediation was considered and several of them adjusted their schedules to talk about this in a more reasonable way; the Board arranged for a professional mediator, but they were told at the last minute that the other side had no interest in discussing this in good faith; and the meeting was abruptly canceled. He stated it is up to the side opposite to explain the motives for their conduct; and he leaves that to the Board to evaluate. He stated the only thing he understands from their written comments is that they want to impose unsafe conditions on Pennsylvania Street that they would not accept on their own streets; at the end of the day, that sort of solution is unacceptable to him because it would amount to a tyranny of the majority; and when the data is carefully looked at, it is a slim majority as other speakers will point out. He stated more meetings and discussion are not the answer at this point; the Board has the speeding data clearly before it; the actions the Board took were reasonable in light of that data; and the other side wrote to the Board that they were unwilling to engage in any constructive dialogue until the speed humps are removed. He stated such an action would immediately make Pennsylvania Street more vulnerable from a public safety standpoint; every time the issue is re-examined, it opens old wounds and accomplishes very little; most reasonable people have come to terms with the presence of speed humps on Pennsylvania Street and have adjusted their lives accordingly; and the fact that most have slowed their speeds lends credence to this belief. He requested the Board not delay the matter; stated the time has come for a final decision; and requested the Board keep the safety of the people on Pennsylvania Street foremost in the deliberations, and stand by the correct initial decision to have the speed humps. He advised excessive speed kills.

Terra Faubel stated she spoke last time to request the Board keep the speed humps; she lives on Pennsylvania Street; she has a 15-year old daughter who walks to the bus stop in the morning and afternoon; and it scares her to think that before the speed humps were there, people were driving 45 to 50 mph on the road. She stated that is like walking on the side of Wickham Road; and inquired how the Commissioners would feel if that were their child. She stated the traffic report says that the average speed in the neighborhood exceeds the posted speed limits; the people in the neighborhood wish that 25 mph be the posted speed in the neighborhood; and inquired if that is the case, why are they driving 31 mph on Michigan, 33 to 38 mph on Brandywine Lane, and 29 to 32 mph on Chicago. She stated the people are wishing the speed humps be removed because they were not part of the petition to put them down; but they do not live on Pennsylvania Street and they are not the ones affected. She stated they have another choice in coming into the neighborhood; and that is why it was reduced to the people who live on Pennsylvania Street. She requested the Board keep the speed humps.

William Brink stated he lives on Pennsylvania Street right in the middle of the speed humps; they build their house in 1972; and right now the street is safer than it has been in several years, due to the speed humps. He thanked the Board for having them installed; and requested they remain there.

Debra Jones stated she lives on Pennsylvania Street; and requested the Board keep the speed hump. She noted she is also speaking for two others who could not be present today; and the first letter is from Tammy and David Brink of 2760 Pennsylvania Street, “We are writing today to ask you not to remove the speed humps on Pennsylvania Street. We appreciate your concern for safety in the area and the entire community. We realize this is the third time the issue has come before you, and you have approved the speed humps twice in the past. We ask you to do it again one more time. We support the County staff’s findings and recommendations about the speed humps. The speed humps have proven to be effective in controlling and greatly improving safety on our street. That is very important because we have three children who love to ride their bikes and take walks, plus our youngest daughter will be walking to the bus stop in the morning when people are leaving for work. This is all about safety. Thank you for your concern for public safety in the community, but please resolve the issue today so we can move on. Thanks again. Tammy and David Brink.” She stated she has another letter, and read aloud, “I want to support keeping the speed humps on Pennsylvania Street in West Melbourne. My granddaughter Lindsey and her family live on the street. Before the speed humps it was not safe for her or anyone to ride their bikes or horses on the rims of the street. Walking to a friend’s house was out of the question. Thank goodness that the speed humps were installed. Traffic slowed to an acceptable speed. I am sure the humps are not agreeable with everyone who drives on the street, but frequently responsible officials must make unpopular decisions. I believe that the decision to keep the humps is a correct decision and one that would very well save a life. Richard Jones.” She read aloud a letter from herself and her husband, “I am here today to ask you to keep the speed humps on our street. I stand by your wise decision to have them installed initially. You have gathered research showing the high rate of speed the cars were using before they were installed, thus proving the need for the speed hump reducing measures. Your research also showed that speed humps are the most cost-effective way to slow cars down to the posted limit. Without them someone is going to get hit. I am an RN at Holmes Regional. I work with trauma patients every day. Just last Sunday I took care of a 25-year old girl that was hit by a car as she walked along a street. She was in constant pain with multiple fractures. She was lucky to be alive, although she did not think so. No, the accident did not happen on Pennsylvania Street, but it could have. If the humps are gone and the cars are allowed to speed again, do we have to wait until we have another fatality in the neighborhood, possibly one of our children before we do the right thing? Follow your heart and retain the humps to keep out neighbors safe.”

Mike Oyler stated it is wonderful that the County recognizes achievements and accomplishments in the community; when he went to the Beach Boys concert, Commissioner Pritchard gave the Beach Boys an award for coming to the County; and it was a great event. He stated he and his family live on Pennsylvania Street, and have lived there for 18 years; they are here to thank the Board for its concern about the safety of the community; and he supports staff’s findings. He stated staff did an excellent job; the benefit of the speed hump is that they have been an immediate and effective improvement for the safety of the community. He stated he has many personal experiences about the safety issues on Pennsylvania Street; he has studied this issue for 18 years; and what staff has concurs with his findings. He stated this is about safety for the neighborhood; they appreciate the Board’s concern for public safety; and hopefully this can be resolved today.

Mary Levy stated she lives on Pennsylvania Street; and she is in favor of the speed humps. She stated she has lived there for nine years; and she has seen two cars in the ditches in those nine years from speeding, one in her ditch and one in her neighbor’s. She stated she waits outside every morning with her child as he goes to catch the bus; it is still scary because she still sees people speeding between the speed humps; and the speed humps have done quite a bit, but they have not eliminated the speeding. She stated she still fears for her son’s safety; and there should be a stop sign between Pennsylvania Street and Chicago Avenue because it is a dangerous intersection. She stated now they are flying off Ranch Road down Chicago Avenue and still on Pennsylvania Street. She stated as the Board can see from the survey, no one wants to open their own roads, which is something that should have been looked at and supported; they do not want the roads open because they do not want the same problems the people who live on Pennsylvania Street have; some people said they wanted to maintain the area as a country setting; but without the speed humps, the road looks like a speedway. She stated the speed humps take nothing away from the country setting; but they make the people safer. She stated she appreciates the speed humps being there; and she hopes they remain there.

Lisa Zelnick stated she lives on Pennsylvania Street; and thanked the Board for its continuous unanimous support on an issue that has already been before it twice. She stated she finds it difficult to believe that time and money are being spent on the numbers 25 and 17. She stated that is all this is about, the sole desire to have the existing speed limit of 25 mph enforced and the 17 extra seconds that it takes to drive on Pennsylvania Street because of that enforcement. She stated at the meeting on August 12, 2003 the Board directed Transportation Engineering to study the issue, seek alternate options, poll the community, and coordinate mediation efforts between the opponents of this issue; the result of this assignment has been compiled into a report entitled, National Police Home Foundation Subdivision-Pennsylvania Street Speed Hump Report; within days of that meeting, Transportation Engineering placed speed checking devices throughout the community; Appendix B of the report indicates six other streets have significantly higher speeds than the posted limits; and this study indicates that excessive speed continues to be a problem in the neighborhood, and there is no reason to believe that if the humps were removed, that drivers would respect the posted limits. She stated Transportation Engineering also compiled a neighborhood survey to send to all the property owners in the subdivision; there is written evidence that efforts were made by the speed hump opponents to influence and change the nature of the County survey; and in an email sent by speed hump opponents to Peggy Busacca, dated October 29, 2003 the statement was made, “We do not need or want speed humps on Ranch, Ohio, etc. and the majority have already stated they do not want them on Chicago either. We do not need nor want culverts. It is ridiculous to even have this on the survey.” She stated the Board directed staff to study all possible solutions to our problem; speed humps on roads with excessive speeding and putting culverts or bridges over canals and opening dead-end streets are certainly reasonable options; and opponents want to continue to limit access to County roads for their safety, but want to deny us traffic calming devices to help insure our safety. She stated the results of the survey are compiled in Appendix A; angle points, the only other traffic calming device available, was not supported; sidewalks and asphalt paths, neither of which calm traffic were also not supported; of approximately 250 possible participants 33% voted to remove the humps; and that is not the overwhelming majority claimed by speed hump opponents. She stated 40% of the neighborhood was so unconcerned about any issued raised that they did not respond to the survey. She stated as directed by the Board, Transportation Engineering scheduled a mediation meeting to take place on January 20, 2004; she personally hoped that mediation would help the problem because the speed hump opponents had acknowledged in their opening remarks to the Board in August that they did not dispute the findings of Traffic Engineering; however, two days prior to the scheduled mediation, after complaining in the same email sent to Ms. Busacca that no one had suggested mediation or even attempted to bring the two sides together, opponents of the speed humps canceled mediation. She stated in their cancellation notice dated January 16, 2004 and labeled Appendix D of the report, they stated, “Mediation will serve no purpose to us.” She stated this is the third time the issue has come before the Board; and inquired if it is time to hold drivers accountable for their actions and enforce the speed limits on public roads. She stated Pennsylvania Street is a through street; they are not complaining about that; but their complaint is the disregard for safety exhibited by drivers every time they exceed the posted speed limit of 25 mph. She stated in the initial traffic study done in February 2003, 875 vehicles in a 24-hour period exceeded the speed limit; and inquired why should they be victims of the majority that cannot follow the law. She requested the Board not let mob rule dictate public safety issues; and urged the Board to stand by its previous decisions and put the safety of their neighborhood ahead of 17 seconds of driving convenience.

Commissioner Colon stated she is ready to make a motion; the testimony that has been presented is not new to the Board; the Board requested mediation; it was attempted; but it did not happen. She stated more of the information that came from County staff supports the original conclusions; and she would like to keep the speed humps and allow the community to go forward.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to acknowledge the report on the Pennsylvania Street speed humps; and support the original decision for installation of speed humps on Pennsylvania Street.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is always difficult when a road is used both for family residences and a transit area; and when that occurs, there are different viewpoints on what the road serves. He stated those people who walk and have children go to school view the road with a need for speed controls; but those who are transitioning through the area have a different viewpoint. He stated the Board is doing the right thing because the purpose of speed humps is to protect safety.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it is obvious that the people who live on Pennsylvania Street have their concerns; they are the ones most directly affected by the traffic that passes; they do not want Pennsylvania Street to be a boulevard, but a bit more residential; however, because of the canal closings on the other streets, their street has become a thoroughfare. He stated they are trying to take control of their part of the neighborhood; and he supports the motion.

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

The meeting recessed at 10:24 a.m. and reconvened at 10:33 a.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENT (LEE HALL PLACE) IN PLANTATION ESTATES SUBDIVISION - BENNY
AND LINDA SMITH

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement (Lee Hall Place) in Plantation Estates Subdivision as petitioned by Benny and Linda Smith.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised there have been no objections.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement (Lee Hall Place) in Plantation Estates Subdivision as petitioned by Benny and Linda Smith. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

(Note: Item was redone on May 18, 2004 as it was not properly advertised.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS
(35TH STREET) IN PLAT OF ORLANDO BEACH - MARTIN GREENE

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility easements (35th Street) in Plat of Orlando Beach as petitioned by Martin Greene.

John Campbell stated he is present to speak on behalf of the item.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised there have been no objections.

There being no objections, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easements (35th Street) in Plat of Orlando Beach as petitioned by Martin Greene. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

(Note: Item was redone on May 18, 2004 as it was not properly advertised.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS
(S. PAPAYA CIRCLE) IN BAREFOOT BAY, UNIT 1 - JAMES AND HARRIET RIGG

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility easements (S. Papaya Circle) in Barefoot Bay, Unit 1 as petitioned by James and Harriet Rigg.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised there have been no objections.

There being no objections, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easements (S. Papaya Circle) in
Barefoot Bay, Unit 1 as petitioned by James and Harriet Rigg. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

(Note: Item was redone on May 18, 2004 as it was not properly advertised.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE CREATING TREASURE LANE II ROAD PAVING
MSBU

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance creating Treasure Lane II Road Paving MSBU.

Chair Higgs advised one card was submitted in favor of the ordinance.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt an Ordinance of Brevard County, Florida; creating the Treasure Lane II Road Paving Municipal Service Benefit Unit; incorporating the terms and provisions of Chapter 98, Article II, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida entitled “Municipal Service Benefit Unit” to authorize the acquisition and construction of certain capital improvements within such improvement area and the imposition of non ad valorem assessments within such improvement area; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING HERITAGE ISLE AT VIERA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance establishing Heritage Isle at Viera Community Development District.

Mike Sheahan stated he is present on behalf of the applicant, Lennar Homes, for the Heritage Isle at Viera Community Development District; there are also five other consultants present if there are any questions; and they have submitted sworn and written testimony of one of the consultants and have worked closely with Planning to answer all questions.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida establishing a community development district over the real property legally described in Exhibit “A-2” to this Ordinance comprising approximately 370 acres; naming
the initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the District; establishing the name of the District as Heritage Isle at Viera Community Development District; designating the purpose of the District; designating the powers of the District; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REQUEST FROM SHERIFF’S OFFICE TO RESCIND RESOLUTION NO. 90-118, RE:
BUDGET SUBMITTAL DATE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Bea Polk stated she wants to know the reason for the change and what impact will it have.

Chair Higgs stated she told Ms. Barker that she thought this would be after lunch; and she is concerned that she is not present.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the Sheriff’s Office is requesting the change due to time restrictions and inefficiencies that result from an early submittal; based on the Resolution the Sheriff submits the law enforcement budget by May 1; and information such as retirement, vehicle insurance, and health insurance rates that are needed to create the most accurate reflection of actual cost are not always available in the April timeframe.

Commissioner Higgs inquired is there any negative impact to the budget process by putting this off; with Mr. Jenkins responding the Budget Office did not have any concerns about it.

Ms. Polk inquired when will it be submitted; with Mr. Jenkins responding State law says June 1, but Brevard County passed something to do it on May 1. Ms. Polk stated the reason she is concerned is because the Sheriff’s Department called her and said they were having problems, so she understood the extension of their time, but the Agenda item said Constitutional Officers, and it takes the public a long time to get the budget information and go through it. Mr. Jenkins stated this is only the Sheriff, even though it says Constitutional Officers.

Chair Higgs called for Walter Pine and Thelma Roper, but no response was heard.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if there are others that want to speak, the Board could consider this item later. Commissioner Pritchard stated he has questions that he would like to ask Ms. Barker.

The Board reached consensus to consider the item later in the meeting.

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

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant a 30-day extension on the pending sale/purchase contract with Cartridge Source of America, Inc. for a five-acre parcel in Spaceport Commerce Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVER OF VEGETATIVE BUFFER REQUIREMENT, RE: INDIAN OAKS SUBDIVISION

Jake Wise stated he is the civil engineer for the project; and submitted photographs to the Board, but not the Clerk. He stated the request is to waive the buffer requirement for a property on South Tropical Trail; and the pictures identify what the buffer area looks like now. He stated the site has a very large single-family residence on it; they are interested in splitting it up per the
allowable zoning and future land use into minimum one-acre lots; and it is the north and south property lines that have the buffer area because the east and west have rivers on those sides. He stated the site has been mowed regularly, and there are some fruit trees on the site; but within the entire 15-foot area on the north and south property lines, there are no trees, with the
exception of a single tree in the northeast corner. He stated in their engineering due diligence, they felt that the best design for the site would be a dry retention system, which provides better stormwater treatment than a wet retention system; and they will actually have a combination of the two to allow a pond for aesthetics with a fountain in front. He stated the pond will overflow into the dry system to provide better stormwater treatment before it goes back into the Indian River Lagoon System; in designing that, working within the limits of the size of the site and to be able to get lots on the site, they wanted to put the retention area on the north and south property lines, except for the far southwest corner where there is an existing residence that is going to remain; and that would capture all the runoff that today flows toward the north and south during large storm events onto the adjacent properties. He stated the dry retention system would catch that water, treat it, and discharge it into the river if the system every overflowed; but it only overflows with a 25-year storm event or larger, which is nine inches of rain in a 24-hour period. He stated they would like to put the dry retention system within the buffer area; developers of this project are interested in retaining every tree on site; and they are going to relocate every one, putting the majority of them beyond Brevard County Code requirements in the buffer area because there are no trees there now. He requested the buffer requirement be waived so the retention area can go in there; stated this is very sound engineering design that will protect the lagoon and provide further protection than the neighboring properties would have in an area where it is just mowed grass anyway; and a dry retention area is just a shallow excavated area that would be mowed like a lawn would be, so with the naked eye one would be able to see a little depression but with the vegetation that is planned, one would not see much. He stated along the south property line, there is an existing eight-foot ingress/egress easement that would be eight feet into the required buffer; the fence on the south property line is eight feet off the line; that is used for the neighbor’s driveway; and that is going to remain just as it is.

Commissioner Carlson stated she received a letter from Mr. Paul who lives 148 feet south and parallel to the subject property; and inquired if Mr. Wise is familiar with Mr. Paul; with Mr. Wise responding not personally. She stated he would agree to the waiver of the 15-foot buffer provided the developer erected a six-foot buffer wall in place of the chain-link fence, which is
unmaintainable and an eyesore that offers no buffer; and inquired if the dry retention area is on the same side. Mr. Wise stated the dry retention area would be along the entire north and south property line. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Paul lives 148 feet south and parallel to the subject property; with Mr. Wise responding there would be a retention area running along that entire area. Commissioner Carlson stated the developer would probably take the chain-link fence out. Mr. Wise explained the pictures to the Board; stated one fence is on the south property line; another fence is on the property; and the six-foot vinyl coated fence is on the property line. He stated there will be a fence there; but it will be up to each individual homebuyer.

Renee Shaffer stated she and her husband live north of the property; she does not know what the vegetated area would be; now when there is a lot of rain, there is flooding from the subject property; and she wanted to put on record that she is concerned about the flooding. She stated they are putting 10 to 11 homes on the property; and expressed concern about the low water pressure; and inquired what is going to happen when all the homes are built and she is competing for water. She stated when the people bought the property, she and her husband assumed it was going to be divided into four home sites; now it is 11 home sites; and she is concerned about traffic. She stated they need to start worrying as a community about the traffic; they need the speed bumps more than Pennsylvania Street does; and she thought she was going to get killed at her mailbox yesterday when two cars were passing in front of her home. She stated she is worried about the septic tanks; there are going to be five septic tanks butting up against her property; and she wants these concerns in the minutes because if something comes up, at least she will have something to fall back on. She stated she and her husband have been working hard to get the wildlife back in the area; they have four acres next door to the subject property; and she hopes these people will do the same.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the issue before the Board is waiving the 15-foot buffer; and apparently there is not a problem with that. He stated Mr. Paul’s concern about having a wall installed would be part of the site plan process at a future date. Land Development Specialist III Gwen Heller advised if the Board desires, that could be a requirement of the development of the engineering onsite. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would prefer it come back as something mutually agreed upon instead of enforced; and if it is something the developer would choose to look at and the Board would further address at a future date, that would be fine; and he does not want to take an enforcement measure at this point that would place a requirement that may be objected to. He stated since the issue is the buffer and there is no objection to that, and it appears the system will work, he will support the action.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to waive the 15-foot vegetative buffer requirement around the perimeter of Indian Oaks Subdivision.

Chair Higgs inquired if there is anything that would preclude putting vegetation in a dry retention system; with Ms. Heller responding it is possible that some vegetation could be added on the banks or on the tops of the retention; and they can look at that in the design with the engineer. Chair Higgs stated if staff will work with the applicant, a proper dry retention with appropriate vegetation can meet both the desire to buffer the properties and the needs. She stated she has seen it in a number of places; and if the developer is creative, he can do that, so it is not necessary to totally waive the requirement, although she will not vote against it. She inquired if the developer is willing to work to accommodate both of those needs; with Mr. Wise responding absolutely. Mr. Wise stated the soils have high percolation rates; after a daily storm event, those are still going to be dry systems, so there is a good opportunity to put plantings in them; and as they have four-to-one side slopes, it would be easy to plant in that area as well. Chair Higgs stated that commitment is on the record.

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

ACCEPTANCE OF DEED FROM GOAT CREEK-FORTY-EIGHT ACRES, LLC, RE:
HENDERSON DRIVE AND GRADICK DRIVE RIGHTS-OF-WAY

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated the item is a joint project with the Florida Department of Transportation in Brevard County; they are paying 87.5% of the cost associated with reconstructing or replacing a County bridge; and this item will allow the project to move forward. He stated they have also asked if additional properties are needed for the project, that the County Manager be authorized to accept those parcels.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to accept Deed from Goat Creek-Forty Eight Acres, LLC for reconstruction of Goat Creek Bridge at Henderson Drive and Gradick Drive; and authorize the County Manager to accept future deeds, if necessary subject to review and approval by the County Attorney. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT FROM WOODSIDE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
AND WAIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, RE: SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT IN
WICKHAM ROAD BUSINESS CENTER SOUTH

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised a project in development is providing an easement to the County for utility purposes; and this is to accept the easement.

Commissioner Carlson requested clarification of the phase 1 environmental assessment waiver; with Mr. Denninghoff responding ordinarily phase 1 assessments are not required or necessary for easements; typically they are only required when obtaining ownership of the property; and staff did not feel there would be any benefit from having a phase 1 assessment performed.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to accept Easement from Woodside Land Development Corporation for Miramar Warehouses, and waive a phase 1 environmental assessment for a sanitary sewer easement in Wickham Business Center South. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT AND PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION, RE: NEIGHBORHOOD
ACTION PLAN FOR EAST MIMS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to acknowledge receipt of a Citizen-initiated Neighborhood Action Plan for East Mims; direct staff to meet with neighborhood groups to discuss prioritized requests; and direct staff to prepare an initial and annual status report for Board review for the next five years. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT AND PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION, RE: NEIGHBORHOOD
ACTION PLAN FOR WEST COCOA

Commissioner Pritchard stated this and the next item are both neighborhood action plans; and staff is looking for direction. He stated his concern is, in going through the plan, quite a few of the issues are minor but others are expensive and expansive; and the priority listing is not always with the quickest and least expensive first. He inquired how is the Board going to address both of the plans considering the resources available.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated it is important to recognize that the plans in and of themselves do not allocate or dedicate funding; one of the attributes is that they do require and bring together communication and dialogue; and staff will continue to do the things listed that they are able to without receiving a reprioritization of funding. He stated there may be times when, based on the plan, at local level they will be able to leverage funds that they may apply for through State or federal avenues; but first and foremost they are planning documents that allow staff to see the hopes and desires of the community itself. He stated even though it is in draft form today, it has already facilitated some accomplishments through the identification of the projects and people have been able to talk about doing the projects; so it has been a means through which to communicate needs, address those needs that staff can address, and if some require additional funding, they can be brought to the Board.

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

Commissioner Pritchard stated on both plans the first three or four issues are street lighting, road maintenance, traffic calming, traffic lights, etc., which are transportation and safety issues; and he agrees those would be of primary importance, but will need high end dollars, especially for signalization. He stated he would appreciate staff working on those issues that the neighborhood has identified that are going to be costly to assure that the dollars are going to be available. He stated there are knowledge, skills, and expertise in-house to do a lot of the things; the residents have worked hard on the plans; it has taken them a long time to come up with the plans; and he would like to make sure that the majority, if not all of it happens.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge receipt of Citizen-initiated Neighborhood Action Plan for West Cocoa; direct staff to meet with neighborhood groups to discuss prioritized requests; and direct staff to prepare an initial and annual status report for Board review for the next five years. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT AND PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION, RE: NEIGHBORHOOD
ACTION PLAN FOR TROPICAL PARK, MERRITT ISLAND

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge receipt of Citizen-initiated Neighborhood Action Plan for Tropical Park, Merritt Island; direct staff to meet with neighborhood groups to discuss prioritized requests; and direct staff to prepare an initial and annual status report for Board review for the next five years. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

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

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Advisory Committee project funding recommendations as prepared by the Technical Advisory Committees for the North Mainland, Central Mainland, South Mainland, South Beaches and Merritt Island and North Beaches Transportation Impact Fee Benefit Districts; approve Budget Change Requests required to implement project appropriations and budget for balance forward in FY 03/04; and authorize the Chair to execute Disbursement Agreements with the Town of Indialantic, and the Cities of Cape Canaveral, Indian Harbour Beach, Rockledge, Satellite Beach, and West Melbourne. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: VALKARIA AIRPORT MANAGER AS FULL-TIME POSITION

Chair Higgs stated this is a prudent thing to do.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the Valkaria Airport Manager as a full-time position. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: APPROVING CHANGES ON MAXIMUM TOWING RATES

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated this is the cost-of-living adjustment that is called for in the Resolution.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt a Resolution approving changes on maximum towing rates in accordance with an annual rate increase of 3% or the published Consumer Price Index, whichever is lower. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: SNUG HARBOR UTILITY SYSTEM PURCHASE NEGOTIATIONS

Chair Higgs advised of the procedure to address the Board and the time limits.

Water Resources Director Richard Martens stated last year the residents of Snug Harbor came to the Board and requested it consider acquiring the utility that provided water and sewer service to the community and consolidate it within the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer System; the Board appointed a Negotiating Committee to establish and arrive at an equitable and agreeable price to acquire the system; but the committee was unable to come to a recommendation. He stated the value that the utility is offering to sell the system for exceeds the value that can be established by any means other than direct value to the County itself; if the County acquired the system and consolidated it within the Barefoot Bay system, it could
afford the purchase; and under that scenario it has a certain value to Brevard County only. He stated they were unable to come to a recommendation; and they are bringing it back to the Board for further guidance.

Chair Higgs stated there were a number of appraisals, some from appraisers and some from engineering or accounting firms; and requested Mr. Martens give a summary of the different valuations as well as the equivalent residential unit comparisons. Mr. Martens stated they started with Barefoot Bay’s consulting engineer who evaluated the system, the condition of the system, and any deficiencies; they evaluated the system using six different methods including the income approach and the reproduction cost approach. He stated they took six values and came up with an opinion of value at $527,000; and they also hired an accounting firm that did a detailed analysis of the income and expenses of the utility; they based it on several scenarios, one being the value of the system to another private utility operating under existing rates and regulations by the Florida Public Service Commission; and they estimated that the present value of the cash flow of the system based on those scenarios to be $295,000. He stated they also evaluated the system under County ownership, but with the County operating the existing system and taking advantage of some of the economies of scale that the County enjoys because of the size of utility; under that scenario, they estimated a net cash value and a present value of that system at $98,000; and the numbers were all before financing systems. He stated under the system that they proposed, the County would consolidate the two systems, and charge the Snug Harbor residents the rates, fees, and charges of the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District, which are higher than what the residents are paying currently. He stated they also would receive the full benefits of the economies of scale of the operation and maintenance costs that the County has with the Barefoot Bay system; so under that scenario income would increase and expenses would be reduced; and they estimated a net income and cash flow of $193,000, which equates to a little over a $3 million present value of that income stream, given 30-year financing, that would probably support a purchase price of approximately $2 million. He stated they also hired a utility appraiser, experienced in appraising utilities; he used two different methods, a cost method and an income method; and he valued the utility at $975,000 and $1,029,000 to a private buyer. He clarified the first two evaluations were done based on the 2002 filings to the Florida Public Service Commission; and the utility appraiser used the preliminary raw 2003 income and expense figures provided by Burkim Enterprises in January 2004, so there was a difference in the database sets that the evaluations were based on. He reiterated the values given were $975,000 under a cost method and $1,029,000 under an income approach valuation; and under a governmental cash flow formula, where there is an ability to pay calculation based on County ownership, County rates, and County maintenance, they estimated the value to be $1,750,000.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board has any right to condemn or does this have to be an arm’s length transaction. County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Board has the option of purchasing it; and if it wanted to condemn, it probably could as it is a private system and the Board has the authority. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what would the number be if it
went through condemnation; with Mr. Knox responding he is sure the County’s number would be low and the utility’s number would be high, and it would end up somewhere in between; but he does not know what a jury would pick. Commissioner Scarborough inquired is there any obligation to a community to condemn when questions like these are raised; with Mr. Knox responding there is no obligation to condemn. Commissioner Scarborough inquired even under health and safety parameters; with Mr. Knox responding there is no legal obligation; and if it became such a problem that it could not function any longer, he is sure there would be sanctions from other agencies besides the County.

Chair Higgs stated one thing that has come up repeatedly in the meetings is the impact fee charge that people would pay as they hook into the system; and inquired are there scenarios the Board might consider that might reduce the impact fee charge for the water and sewer that people would pay if they would hook up to the Barefoot Bay system. Mr. Martens responded he and Mr. Knox have been discussing that; as late as 8:55 a.m. there was some glimmer of hope that they could work out something; there is a value to the property that the wastewater and water plants occupy that will not be needed if the systems are consolidated; and it is reasonable and hopefully possible to use that as a credit against the impact fees that they would pay on the Barefoot Bay system. Chair Higgs inquired how long would it take if the Board were to move forward to complete the engineering, design, and the interconnect to merge the two systems; with Mr. Martens responding the water system could be merged as quickly as 90 days if it was fast tracked; it is one relatively short section of pipe; in looking at it, they might want to do two sections of pipe; but 30 days to design, 30 days to review, and depending on the value whether it had to be bid or whether they could just take quotes and have Road and Bridge install it, 90 days is probably a reasonable fast track number. Chair Higgs inquired about the sewer, which is more complicated. Mr. Martens responded that would be four to six months as there is some additional construction that would need to happen.

Mortimer Rothstein distributed paperwork to the Board, but not the Clerk; and stated he also brought an exhibit. He placed two bottles of water before Commissioner Pritchard. He thanked Commissioner Higgs and her staff, all the other Commissioners, County Manager, County Attorneys, and all County employees; and especially thanked State Representative Ralph Poppell and his staff for helping with the EPA. He stated Burkim Enterprises purchased the water and sewer plant from the Gould family in August of 2000; they say they paid $250,000 for both; and they received a cash rebate of $19,470 from Connecticut General. He stated they also received a new $25,000 hydromatic tank from the insurance company, which they said was sabotaged by the residents of Snug Harbor. He stated there was a rate increase in July 2001 for improvements, new fences, medical insurance, and payments for a new truck, new phones, and new office equipment as well as expenses for traveling from Martin County. He commented on the $1 charge for reading each meter per month, sinkhole on the property, another increase in May, and charges for parking RV’s in the compound. He stated Burkim controls; the people do not control what they want; there are well and PC valve inspections every year; and this is paid forever, but they still have bad water with coliform, bacteria, rust, and too much THMS; their readings were above and beyond what was required; they received both EPA and Health Department readings; and inquired what else is needed. He stated the Fire Department must call the utility before it can open hydrants; and inquired what would happen if there was a fire. He stated Burkim needs to turn on the backup generators in order to build up pressure; he does not answer emergency calls on weekends; and he already notified Commissioner Higgs about that. He stated Burkim claims they put rags on his manholes to clog his waste plant; and inquired if the Board thinks they can lift manhole covers at their age. He stated Burkim, not the Fire Department, owns the hydrants; the park had three fires in the past year; and one did not have enough water to put it out. He stated Burkim does not carry insurance for personal liability; and inquired why not. He stated they have the best fire rescue service in the area; they have the fastest response and the best equipment; the County has the best water and sewage treatment plants with a full crew that works 16-hour days, seven days a week; but that is not the case in Snug Harbor. He stated Burkim has only one testing service a day. He recommended this cause not be lost, because once lost, it is gone and there is no coming back. He requested the Board purchase the Burkim Enterprises utility and bring it under the umbrella of the Brevard County/Barefoot Bay Water System.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the water in the jars is what Mr. Rothstein would normally get from his spigot; with Mr. Rothstein responding one bottle of water is from August 3; it is rusty and looks like apricot juice; and the other water, which is good drinking water, is from the Barefoot Bay library restroom, collected last Saturday.

Joe Donohue stated at times he cannot drink the water; he bought an evaporator to distill the water that he draws off the tap; and he has a reverse osmosis system, but it is still not good enough and the water bothers him. He stated he has a particular problem that no one else has; when he first bought his place, there was a little fence around the meter and electrical control panel; and there were two little wooden bridges that made it look like a Japanese water garden; but Burkim came along and installed a huge six-foot fence. He stated he pays taxes on this land, but cannot use it; and that aggravates him. He commented on workmen leaving rags and gloves when they leave. He stated he asked Burkim about the bridges and was told he took them; and he figures to sue to get the bridges back would cost approximately half the amount he paid for his place, so he decided not to do that. He stated he has not quite made the transition from up north as a permanent resident, but does plan on doing it; but when he gets treated like this, he does not know about coming here, and may buy someplace else. He stated he will be able to vote like everybody else in the room; they have to start helping one another; and he also tested the water. He stated he took a drink at the water fountain and the water was decent; but in Snug Harbor, they cannot even drink the water. He stated Burkim’s fence butts up against his shed, which is attached to his house. He stated Burkim sent a letter advising about the Patriot Act, and if anything is done to his fence or his pumps, it would be a terrorist act; and advised he cannot see Arabs coming all the way over here to destroy those little pumps.

Everett Vail stated he is a full-time resident of Snug Harbor, and is retired. He stated the bill that the County is going to present if this deal goes through is over $800,000; that is the cost to the residents of Snug Harbor; and that is way too much money for what they are going to get in return. He stated in return they are supposed to get better quality water; and that is it; but they
are going to lose their storage area at the same time. He stated many of the residents have boats or RV’s, which they store in the area that is owned by Burkim right now; and they will lose that area if the County takes over. He stated his main objection is the storage area and that the $800,000 is going to create a serious financial problem for a lot of the residents. He requested the County walk away from this deal and let it die.

Dick Tucker stated the residents are going to have to pay $1,700 plus $12 more per month for water that is only a little better; his water is fine so he has no objections to the way the water is right now; and if he wants good drinking water, he buys it, which is cheaper than $1,700.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Tucker has ever taken water from his tap that looks like the sample Mr. Rothstein brought; with Mr. Tucker responding no, he never had water that looked like that. Mr. Tucker stated if you put water in the basin, it looks yellow; but according to the papers they got, that is not going to change.

Chair Higgs inquired will there be yellow water; with Mr. Martens responding the water at the Barefoot Bay system is consistently like the sample that Mr. Rothstein brought in; there is very low turbidity; but there are approximately 15 units of color. He stated the water treatment plant project that is being designed for Barefoot Bay will reduce the color. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the clear sample is typical of the water the County would provide to Snug Harbor; with Mr. Martens responding that is correct, and the color numbers of some of the samples from Snug Harbor including one taken last Friday is in the hundreds. He stated there have been numerous times when there has been cloudy and high color water in an order of magnitude consistently more than what they find in Barefoot Bay. He stated it is his perception that the high color comes and goes, and is not a constant situation. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Martens has ever seem a water sample like sample 2, the discolored water. Mr. Martens responded he has one that looks much like that, that was taken Friday afternoon.

Joseph Siringo declined to speak.

Bill Bernazzani stated he was getting the feeling that Snug Harbor was being looked at as a foreign country; and he would like to apply for foreign aid. He stated a week or more ago the water system was purged and the water came through very dark at that time; and if the water sample was taken at that time, it would have been very bad. He stated it may have been the Fire Department working on the fire hydrants that had an effect on the water system. He inquired if the sewer water goes to the Brevard County Treatment Plant; with Chair Higgs responding no. Mr. Bernazzani inquired if it is taken care of by Burkim; with Chair Higgs responding yes, there would be a changeover of both water and sewer. Mr. Bernazzani stated it was not made clear in any of the papers that he read. He stated they got a paper from the Snug Harbor officials saying the residents would not get to vote on this; and he assumes from that, that the Board is going to make the decision. Chair Higgs stated that would be the assumed process they would take. He inquired if that is true, why were there meetings where the residents were asked to vote on this. He stated that does not seem like a good process; and it was almost deceptive. He stated if the residents of Snug Harbor were going to get to vote on this issue, it should not have been a voice vote at a meeting; and the Commissioners would not want their next election to be determined by a voice vote at a meeting. He stated he can go along with whatever the Board decides; but the residents should be allowed to express their preferences; and if they are not going to be allowed to do so, they should be told because nowhere has it said the Board is going to make this decision.

Commissioner Higgs stated there have been a couple of meetings with large numbers of residents; at the last meeting she asked folks to indicate their preference; and it was simply for her benefit to get a feel for an accurate count in the room at that time. She stated as they have gone through the process, it has been clear to the residents that the Board, unless it decides otherwise, would make this decision. Mr. Bernazzani stated it was misleading if the residents were told that they were going to be given an opportunity to vote and then the Board is going to make the decision. Chair Higgs stated it was simply to get an indication from those at the meeting as to how they felt; she does not think it was misleading; and if it was, she apologizes. Mr. Bernazzani stated maybe he was the only one who thought it was misleading; but he would like to ask that the Board reconsider the impact fee because the residents in Snug Harbor are not going to be flushing their toilets any more than they have in the past.

Attorney John Jenkins, of Rose, Sunstrom, and Bentley in Tallahassee, representing Burkim Enterprises, stated he wants to talk about three things today, who the company is, how it came up with the value for the system, and whether the County is paying too much or should make the decision based on whether it is a windfall to the utility owner. He stated his firm is out of Tallahassee, but has an office in Orlando; they represent as many private utilities around the State as any other firm; and they also represent a number of cities and counties in the State. He stated he was lead counsel on the Florida Water Utility acquisition on behalf of he larger governments that bought those utility systems last year, including Hernando County, Marco Island, Palm Coast, and Deltona. He stated Burkim Enterprises bought the system in 2002; it is a small utility operating company; they proceeded with upgrades to the facility; and they have doubled the investment they made initially in the form of the purchase price, which has resulted in rate increases. He stated the fact is there will continue to be rate increases; they will take two forms; and one is the indexing they do. He stated the first speaker referenced a recent rate increase, which was a cost-of-living increase that the PSC allows; it is usually in the neighborhood of 2% a year; they have done it for 2002, and will do it for 2003 in a couple of months; and then there will be other more significant rate increases that will relate to any additional costs to improve the water system. He stated there have been complaints from customers about the water quality; the Department of Environmental Protection is taking up that issue to the extent the utility is required to make system improvements; they can undertake those things, but there is no free lunch; and the costs will be passed on the customers. He stated that is the way Burkim does business; it is the way the County operates its utility system; and a year or so ago there was an issue with what they call a cross connection control program that required the residents to put in backflow preventers; there was criticism that was too expensive; and it was one of the issues that prompted the residents into coming to the County to ask it to buy the system. He stated the County came to look for a possible purchase; Burkim is an operating company, not a company that got into the business to turn around and sell the system to the County or anyone else; and the question is how they valued the utility. He stated they did it on a discounted cash flow basis; and compared it to buying a home, getting pre-qualified for a mortgage, and looking at income, expenses, and how much mortgage an individual can afford based on current interest rates. He stated that is how they come up with the value of the home they hope to purchase; that is the common way people determine how much they can pay for a home; and essentially they do the same thing in valuing a utility. He stated they prepared a report that looked at system revenues; they looked at expenses adjusted for County ownership; the County does not pay taxes or have a profit line item; there are certain other expenses that are adjusted to come up with a net cash flow; and on that basis and based on current interest rates, they determine what sort of bond issue can be and what sort of debt can be incurred. He stated that identifies the value of the system and is how they came up with $1.6 million.

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

Chair Higgs advised Mr. Jenkins’ time has expired. The Board reached consensus to allow more time for Mr. Jenkins to complete his presentation.

Mr. Jenkins stated it is the classic business school approach; when valuing a business, one frequently looks at the cash flows that will be received from operation of the business; and they are discounted back to come up with a value. He stated it is the method that has been done in Florida for the last 30 years; many, if not all, of local government acquisitions have been using that method to arrive at a value; they know they can run the utility at that price; it backs into it based on what one can afford to pay; and when the utility is operated, there will be sufficient revenues to pay the debt and expenses. He stated the method is accepted by the bond market when borrowing money to do the acquisition; and it is typically based on existing rates. He stated there are two other methods that are used as well as all sorts of sub-methods; the Board has that information in the handout; and the reason there are so many is because this is a special purpose property. He stated it is like a church; there is no ready market for utilities because it is an unusual piece of property; so it is necessary to look not just at comparables such as one would do with a house sale, but to look at other methods. He stated if they look at a cost method, that may be appropriate, but one could spend a million dollars on a system with only a hundred customers; the value is not going to be represented by the cost; and it will not be possible to pay for it from the customer revenues, so that is a difficult method. He stated comparable sales are useful, but the least reliable; one of the things in the handout is how other utilities were acquired by local governments last year from Florida Water Services and what they paid on a per ERC basis, which is like a per square foot basis if one was buying a home; and it is significantly more than their asking price. He stated there are also some comparable sales that would be provided by the consultant; some of those are unusually low; and one of them is a deal he was involved in with Bonita Springs Utilities. He stated that is the lowest comparable price; but it was not an arm’s length transaction; it was a utility and development project that went under and the bank foreclosed; and they were just trying to unload the system. He stated the Board could go back and forth arguing about the comparable sales; but those are less reliable methods than the cash flow approach; and that is how they came up with $1.6 million. He stated local governments do this because it is based on utility revenues; there are no other tax dollars coming in to support the purchase; and it is a self-supporting enterprise operation. He stated on that basis the County’s consultants came in pretty close to the $1.6 million, at least the accountants did; and the appraisers would have too, except they used a market discount rate of 5 to 5.5% and a much higher discount rate. He stated with interest rates close to 5% on tax exempt borrowing, they thought that figure was appropriate. He stated the price is reasonable; there are no other inherent risks in buying the business; it is a monopoly service; there are some deficiencies; and the company has agreed to update or to dig up some of the polybutylene pipes and replace them as a condition of the sale. He stated in general terms there is the question of whether the County is paying too much and whether it is subject to criticism because Burkim is making more money than people think they ought to make on this sale; and he suspects the Board will be criticized whichever way it goes on this decision. He stated he has been traveling around on utility business for the better part of 20 years; he has seen many opportunities; for example coastal real estate has jumped up in value; there are places near Tallahassee where five years ago a lot cost $10,000, but now costs five or ten times that; and he can kick himself all he wants for not having bought it sooner, or for the windfall the seller will receive; but that is the amount it will cost to acquire it. He stated the Board can make its decision on what it thinks will be the impact on Burkim, but local government has to make a decision on whether or not there is a need to acquire it as a governmental entity and whether it is feasible to do so.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what will the cost be to dig up the faulty pipes; with Mr. Jenkins responding between $35,000 and $50,000. Mr. Jenkins stated the company recognized the problem; and it is already two-thirds completed.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if this is what the water is like, without hooking into Barefoot Bay, what would be needed to take the system from the present water condition to acceptable water. Mr. Jenkins stated he is not in a position to tell the Board that today; the company recently received a letter from DEP; there was criticism of turbidity, color, and iron; and typically the system would have to have additional filtration or a reverse osmosis system. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the cost; with Mr. Jenkins responding they have an idea of the cost of the different systems, but have no idea which will be necessary. Mr. Jenkins stated if it is a lower cost filter, that could be $100,000 to $200,000; but if they are going to replace the system with a reverse osmosis system, that could be $500,000 or $600,000. He stated the technology is there; but he does not know that the company has identified through the engineers the best process and how much it will cost.

Commissioner Colon inquired what happens once DEP is involved and will they be fined; with Mr. Jenkins responding they could if Burkim is not meeting the legal requirements; and DEP could require them to enter into a Consent Order, which includes a compliance schedule and some undertaking to fix the problem. He stated if DEP finds them culpable, it would require payment of a fine; or DEP may be more inclined to let the company use the funds it has toward fixing the system.

Jerri Aldrich stated she is a resident of Snug Harbor and is also the President of the Snug Harbor Lakes Condominium board of directors and Snug Harbor Master Association, so she may be able to answer some of the questions relating to the boards and communities south; but first she will speak as a resident. She stated she would like to encourage the County to purchase the water system; she first became involved in April 2001; and from that time forward, it has been a continuous problem. She stated despite a reverse osmosis system and a water softener in her home, she does not drink the water and has a cooler they use for drinking water. She stated she has often seen off-color water; recently it has been that way consistently; and she does not know if she has ever seen water as clear as the water from Barefoot Bay. She stated government does not necessarily need to be involved in their lives all the time; but there are times when government needs to make hard decisions to protect the people, even when they are not sure they need to be protected, which may be the situation here. She stated there may be many concerns, especially about the impact fee; it is a real concern for some people; it is her understanding that the County may agree to help those people who are going to struggle to pay this by some type of reasonable and responsible funding; and for those whom that may not be enough, there has been mention of fundraising within the community to assist those who truly need some assistance. She noted those individuals are small in number, probably a dozen. She stated one of the meetings referred to was called on April 1, 2003 after they requested the County get involved in looking into acquisition of the utility system; and it was an information meeting. She advised she has a copy of the minutes of the meeting, which was extremely informative with both Commissioner Higgs and Mr. Martens providing a lot of information. She stated she is pleased to see the information has held up; the impact fees and fee increases reflected in the minutes are what is found today; so there were no big surprises between the April 2003 meeting and where this is today. She stated at the end of that meeting she asked the residents to indicate what they wanted to the County officials and the board of directors; she asked for a standup type vote to get some idea of what the community wanted because she did not want to represent something to the Board or the County that was not the will of the majority of the people in Snug Harbor; and the residents’ response was overwhelmingly in favor of pursuing the purchase of Burkim Water and Sewer Plant. She advised the response was so overwhelming, there was no reason to even attempt to count; the residents of Snug Harbor Village, which is under a homeowners association, should be offered an opportunity to vote on this; but they have not been able to have a legal meeting because of lack of a quorum. She stated the majority of the people in Snug Harbor have not changed their mind, and wish the County to acquire the utility.

Marie Bergamini stated she wrote to each of the Commissioners about how she feels about the purchase, and asked each to consider buying the water system. She commented on cancer; and stated she does not need extra health problems. She stated they cannot make people realize how serious the problem is; and inquired what can they do without drinkable water. She
stated she worries because when the 6,000 gallon pressure holding tank ruptured, it took six to twelve weeks to repair it; and they had only one tanker truck on call for fire protection at that time. She stated once when she was away, she came home not knowing the water had been shut down; no one notified her that she should be boiling water; and they were using the water for cooking. Ms. Bergamini stated the people they have to deal with are too casual about the seriousness of the situation; a letter that was sent to Governor Bush prompted a reply from the EPA on his behalf; and the writer said they asked Burkim Enterprises for additional information in July, but in September she was still waiting for that information. She stated if the people who are against the purchase think that Burkim Enterprises is going to pay for all those things Mr. Jenkins listed, they are wrong; the people will pay for it; and their impact fee may surpass the $1,635 mentioned. She stated there is no way Burkim is going to pay for it; and the people are going to still have to live with the situation. She stated she is not on the board of the condo or the master homeowners association; and displayed a file she is keeping on the water situation. She stated she should not have to do this; the people pay taxes; somebody should be doing this; and it should not be the public. She stated the people really need the Board’s help.

Alida Hirschfeld stated she lives in the Snug Harbor community; the first time she came before the Board it was to ask the County to consider the purchase of the Snug Harbor water and sewer facility; and she is here today to ask the County to purchase the facilities owned and operated by Burkim Enterprises. She stated the deplorable water they are forced to purchase is a disgrace to the community; and no one in this day and age in this country should have to consume drinking water that looks and tastes like one has not flushed the toilets. She requested the Board help by giving them drinking water; and stated her personal opinion is that the County should condemn the unmanned water system. She stated after many hours of the County examining the feasibility to purchase the water and sewer facility and several community meetings with Commissioner Higgs and staff, and after may questions on whether the people want the County to purchase Burkim Enterprises’ system, the community was asked to vote; and the majority of the residents voted for the County to purchase the water and sewer facilities from Burkim Enterprises. She thanked the Board, especially Commissioner Higgs and her staff, County staff, and the Snug Harbor residents who gave their time and efforts to have this become a reality; stated they hope today will be a milestone for the community; and urged the Board to vote for the County to purchase the Snug Harbor water and sewer facilities from Burkim Enterprises.

Commissioner Scarborough stated a couple of people spoke in opposition; called for those in favor of the purchase and those against the purchase; and a clear majority stood up in favor.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the folks are in opposition because of the impact fee; with an audience member responding yes.

Ed Julian stated there are too many unanswered questions; he has invested in a reverse osmosis system and also put in a water softening system; and now he’s being threatened with a pump that is going to cost him $60 or $600. He stated people are complaining about the condition of the water; he had problems when he first moved into the Snug Harbor development;
he could not boil potatoes because they tasted so bad; and that is when he put in the osmosis system. He stated with all the improvements he made now, he has $2,500 invested in getting clear water to drink and cook with; there are still many questions that have not been answered; Burkim Enterprises is using every effort to force its price on the County; but the price is excessive.

Jim Arpino inquired if the Board really believes the water shown as a sample is the type of water they are getting; and stated it is not true, and he does not have a problem. He stated he has one problem; he moved there in 1994; and his first problem was this past October when he got some brown water after the hydrant was flushed. He stated he flushed out his tank twice and it went away; and they are going to get that type of problem whether Burkim gives water or not.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the samples are typical of year-round sampling; with Mr. Martens responding yes, in the Barefoot Bay system. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the one on the right; with Mr. Martens responding that was taken Friday afternoon on Chasta Road in Snug Harbor at the house of a friend of a friend who volunteered to allow them to take a sample. Mr. Martens stated they took two samples; when they first turned on the spigot, it came out twice as dark; but after they let it run for a while, it cleared up, so they brought in only the good one. He stated he does not believe this is the water that the water plant produces every day; but all water that comes out of water treatment plants has some small particles that escape the plant; and that is why hot water heaters should be drained every six months because there will be a layer of sediment in the bottom of the hot water heater. He stated during the flushing incidents, the water is stirred up; and that is his perception in listening to the people over the last year as they have these episodes when they get brown water.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one gentleman brought up that Snug Harbor would lose a storage area where they currently have boats and RV’s; and inquired why is that. Mr. Martens responded right now Burkim Enterprises leases storage space on the wastewater treatment plant site; if the County acquired the system, consolidated it, declared the land surplus, and liquidated it, that area would not longer be available for storage any more and would be put to some other use; but that does not mean that another arrangement could not be made in the Barefoot Bay facility. He advised Barefoot Bay has an RV storage area immediately adjacent to the wastewater plant; the Barefoot Bay system owns a considerable amount of land near the plant; and those arrangements could be made; but until there is some further direction, staff is hesitant to get into too much detail planning. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if they plan to sell the parcel currently used as storage; with Mr. Martens responding he has heard that the wastewater impact fee is burdensome; and the best way he can think of to reduce that burden is to convert the value of the land into an impact fee credit. He stated if they retain the land under the utility ownership, the salvage value of the land would not be available to offset impact fees.

Chair Higgs stated for the past several years, they have heard from the people of Snug Harbor; it is an issue of importance to the long-term health and safety of the community and also to the property values; and the community wants to be able to offer good services to potential buyers. She stated she looked at the quality; she listened to the people; and there is an opportunity at
this point to acquire the system. She stated she is concerned about the impact fees and will do everything she can to reduce it; and if the County does not acquire the system, the people will see improvements but will pay for them. Chair Higgs stated they will not be able to install irrigation wells, which the County would allow them to do, which would offset some of the cost; and they will have to put in backflow prevention devices at considerable individual cost. She stated in the long run, the cost of being part of the bigger system will be much more in the community’s favor than remaining where it is today; she understands the troubling nature of the appraisals; but she believes they will support the acquisition. She stated everyone has read the ranges; it is unfortunate there is not one setting the value; but the ranges give clear indication that it is in the best interest of the system; and the County can cover the cost.

Chair Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chair Pritchard.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve acquiring the Snug Harbor system from Burkim Enterprises as outlined by staff.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are some uncertainties as to how to handle impact fees; and it probably needs to come back for finalization because there are a lot of different complexities. He recommended staff proceed, but before concluding the deal, have the numbers come back, and have them respond again to the specific numbers. He requested that be part of the motion. Commissioner Higgs inquired who would respond; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the folks who are going to be impacted.

Commissioner Colon stated she understands where Commissioner Higgs is coming from in regard to the safety; and the Board has heard a lot of testimony. She stated what she has a problem with is the people who purchased the system being allowed to get away with something that she thinks is criminal; they are not drinking the water; and it seems like they do not care. She stated she wants to support moving forward; but she would also like to make sure that Burkim Enterprises does not get away with what they are getting away with; and the Board needs to make sure that it follows up with regard to DEP and the kind of fines that they should get for what they are doing to the people in the community. She stated they are getting off the hook too easy; and inquired while the Board is trying to figure this out, what happens to the good folks. She stated Commissioner Higgs is trying to do the right thing in protecting the folks from her District; but by the same token, she is uncomfortable that Burkim bought a system for less than $300,000 and will be making a profit of over a million dollars when they did not do anything to protect the citizen. She stated that is criminal in her eyes; and she wants to at least look at how much the impact fees will cost because a lot of the folks are sensitive in regard to the price. She stated they should move forward in trying to get the community clean water; and inquired what can the Board do about what Burkim is doing. County Attorney Scott Knox stated DEP has taken jurisdiction over it; he is sure DEP will continue to pursue it as long as this is in the negotiation stages; and that is probably something the County can look at while it is working on trying to come back with a contract proposal, which is what he supposes the Board would like to do so it has something for Board approval at the end.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in the beginning there was thought of condemnation; and inquired if there is evidence of the failure to produce good water and actions being taken by State agencies, would that assist in the valuations. Mr. Knox responded what twill be valued is the system in the condition that it is in, so to the extent it is going to require repair work, that will diminish the value of the system overall compared to what the Board would pay for something. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that is regardless of the cash flow concept; with Mr. Knox responding there are several ways to do it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated as part of the motion he would like to get a report back from the County Attorney as to the feasibility of condemnation; and inquired can they do a quick take on this as easily as a slow take. Mr. Knox responded they can do a quick take; but if they are going to consider condemnation, they may want to consider slow take because that will establish the value and the Board will not have to go forward at that point if it is too much. Commissioner Scarborough requested a memorandum on that option as well.

Commissioner Carlson inquired whether it is quick take or slow take, what does that mean in terms of the length of time it is going to spend in court if it is condemned; with Mr. Knox responding if it is a quick take, the County would obtain title to the property very quickly; and if the Board started today, it would probably get it within six months. He advised if they go with slow take, the County would not get the title until it goes through the jury trial process or is settled somewhere along the line, so it may take a year to a year and a half, and then in the end the Board would decide if it wanted to pay the price the jury comes up with. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board decided it did not want to pay that, could it go forward with a straight purchase, and would that take an additional amount of time. Mr. Knox stated assuming the County did not want to pay what the jury came up with and wanted to settle it after that at some other price, it would take an additional negotiation period to come up with a contract, but he would not think it would take that much longer. Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees with Commissioner Scarborough’s thought in terms of getting something back on the condemnation perspective because she feels the same as Commissioner Colon; she thinks it is criminal that it has gone on for so long; and it is too bad that a trial takes so long because the community would have to deal with the water quality for another year; and however the Board can expedite it is critical. She stated the people who have been doing this somehow should pay; and if it puts the County in a better position in terms of a jury trial, that may be the way to go.

Commissioner Higgs stated she thinks everyone received the information from Representative Poppell; they have met with DEP and Representative Poppell has tried to protect the interests of the folks through that avenue; and she appreciates what everyone is saying because they want that to happen. She stated as she understands, if it went to slow take, the facility would still be in the hands of the current operator; with Mr. Knox advising that is correct. Commissioner Higgs stated a quick take would mean the County would get it immediately; with Mr. Knox responding relatively speaking.

Commissioner Higgs restated the motion to direct staff to proceed with getting a contract and the County Attorney proceed to contract for acquisition and bring that back in a couple of weeks. Mr. Martens advised the next meeting is April 13. Commissioner Scarborough stated they can put it on the Agenda when they get it at the earliest date; and it will be a contract for acquisition and a report from the County Attorney. He requested they do the best they can with impact fees if they are going to proceed. Commissioner Higgs stated there will be a discussion on impact fees. Commissioner Scarborough stated the public can come back and be part of the discussion. Commissioner Higgs stated they had great assistance from the people of Snug Harbor in disseminating information; and they will do the same process to be sure everyone is informed.

Vice Chair Pritchard stated he has a problem with rewarding a utility company for poor performance; he is going by the cost of the purchase and the additional investment, which is roughly $600,000; and they are asking $1.6 million. He stated when he looks at the net revenue by merging the systems of $45,000 a year, then he is brought back into the realization that sometimes government is good and sometimes government has to take a position of providing an overall umbrella service; and in this case, utilities happens to be one of those services. He stated utilities should not be privately owned; they should be operated by government; so he is torn by the amount of money generated for profit by a company that had poor performance and on the other side by doing what would be in the best interest of the community. He stated the Board should do as Commissioner Scarborough suggested, come back and work on both sides of the issue, work on developing a contract, and work on developing a little more potential for a less costly acquisition. He stated if the fines from the EPA are going to be in excess of a certain amount for the system that is currently in service, that should be part of the negotiated price for the system, thereby reducing the overall cost to the County and the community. He stated one of the major features that has hung people up is the impact fee, which is substantial; and they should get the best deal possible.

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

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board will be proceeding and advising the community as steps go forward; and she appreciates everyone coming today.

Vice Chair Pritchard passed the gavel to Chair Higgs.

The meeting recessed at 12:14 p.m. and reconvened at 1:16 p.m.

REQUEST FROM SHERIFF’S OFFICE TO RESCIND RESOLUTION NO. 90-118, RE:
BUDGET SUBMITTAL DATE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS (CONTINUED)

Chair Higgs stated Thelma Roper and Walter Pine wish to speak on this item; and Bea Polk has already spoken.

Sheriff’s Finance Director Deborah Barker stated this is an issue of policy; the request is not politically charged and there is no other motive; Chapter 30, Florida Statutes, provides that the Sheriff’s Office annual budget is due to the Board of County Commissioners on June 1 of each year; but for some reason, which she is not aware of, a Resolution was adopted in 1990 that changed that to require Constitutional Officers, including the Sheriff, to submit their budgets by May 1st. She stated she does not know the reasons behind the change; it may have been so the Board could have the information as quickly as possible; it is a 14-year old Resolution; and she would like to go back to the Florida Statutes’ provision and submit the Sheriff’s budget on June 1 instead of May 1. She noted she is speaking on behalf of the Sheriff, and not the other Constitutional Officers. She stated they are asking to submit their budget in accordance with the Florida Statutes on June 1; the reason is efficiency; and the Budget Office would confirm this. She stated many of the rates are not valid or are apt to change such as health insurance, FRS, etc.; they are still working on blending rates, health insurance rates, getting accurate vehicle, liability, and property insurance rates; they put a budget forward on May 1; but many of those significant items change rates, so they have to do a completely revised budget and submit another budget to the Budget Office. She stated it is causing her staff to do two budgets; it is more work for her staff and for the Budget staff; and it also is an opportunity for things to fall through the cracks. She stated an example was the balance due on the medical contract last year; it was submitted in one budget but not in the other; it was just a miscommunication, not intentional on anyone’s part; and everyone recognizes the trouble that issue caused at midyear last year. She reiterated the request is for efficiency, to have the best information available; and suggested instead of rescinding the Resolution that the Board amend it to just exclude the Sheriff’s Office. She stated she is not here on behalf of any other Constitutional Officer; and she does not know the original reason it was changed from June 1 to May 1.

Walter Pine stated he is opposed to any change in the presentation of the budget by the Sheriff; the record is not clear why it was changed; but it is clear that the citizens changed it for a reason. He stated the early submission gives a chance to look over things; a lot of things get submitted at that time; a lot of things go on; and every business has to deal with potential changes in cost. He stated everybody has to deal with that when they budget or make proposals; and shortening the time period means staff, when they compile the budgets and prepare for the total budget, would have a shortened time period. He stated the point is the public has the right to scrutinize the budgets; they are quite complex; and by shortening the time period, the public has less time to look at the budgets and digest them. He stated it is difficult enough for the Board; and requested they imagine how it would be for someone who does not have the assistance of staff. He encouraged the Board to retain the current submission requirements to provide the public access and opportunity to scrutinize the budget; stated he realizes that puts a burden on the Sheriff’s department; but he does not think it is an unrealistic burden in the scheme of things. He stated he does not believe it is sufficient at this time because nobody can explain why the Resolution was adopted in the first place; and if the Board is going to overturn or alter an Ordinance, one of the first things to be concerned about is why the public wanted it the way it is now because there may be a very significant reason for it to be there that is as justified today as it was when the Resolution was passed. He stated without consideration of that, it is saying the Board can pass something ten years ago and forget about it today; and that is not the way it works. He stated the Board should be concerned as to why it was passed; it should remain consistent to those issues until it finds some reason not to be; and requested the Board keep the requirements the same.

Thelma Roper stated her biggest concern is if the Sheriff’s Office wants it, why is it not being done for all of the Constitutional Officers; and why is the Board overturning the Ordinance. She stated if the Sheriff has a need for a waiver or extension for a particular year because of something that happened, that should be done on an issue-by-issue basis; if it is just a general rescinding or exempting just the Sheriff, she would not be in favor of that because, as Mr. Pine said, it was adopted for a reason. She stated whatever the reason was, she does not know at this point, but she does not think the Board should do this just because one Constitutional Officer has come forward and asked for extra time. She reiterated it should be done on an issue-by-issue basis individually, not just rescinding the Ordinance; and she would be opposed to taking that action at this time.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Ms. Barker says it is for efficiency reasons and that it is best to wait until there is the most accurate information available so there is no inadvertent omission; and inquired what effect does it have on the Budget Office if the Sheriff’s budget is submitted in June instead of May and then changes are made after the May submittal. Budget Director Dennis Rogero stated one of the main benefits from his perspective for the Sheriff submitting at a later date would be the presumption that the information being given to them is more accurate. He stated the Sheriff is heavy in terms of compensation and benefits expenses; even the slightest change during the process has a domino effect; and it can have very extensive manpower demands to change things like that. Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the other offices; with Mr. Rogero responding the other offices do not have that level of demand in terms of actions needing to be taken to correct their budgets; their budgets are not that big; and they do not have that many employees. Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated the other officers are the Clerk of Courts and the Supervisor of Elections; the Supervisor is a much smaller office; and for the Clerk, in the up and coming year, they will only be concerned about County Finance and the Clerk to the Board, so they are much smaller budgets. Commissioner Pritchard stated his only concern about a later submittal is having less time to review and go through it; but from the other side, there will be more accurate information to go through instead of spinning wheels looking at one submittal and then another. He stated he is sure whatever is submitted in June will probably be revised in July or August because of more information coming in; with Mr. Rogero responding it will continue to be revised, but they are trying to mitigate the level of revisions.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the different between this year and the last few years; with Ms. Barker responding it has always been an issue; she asked several years ago because the Statute clearly states that it is June 30; and it took a couple of years to figure out why there was a May 30 deadline. She stated she asked Mr. Whitten and Mr. Rogero; and they had to do some research because they did not know why. She stated as things get more complex and dollars get more lean, they are all looking for the most accurate information available; and it has been on her list of items to bring before the Board. She noted she talked to Mr. Whitten and Mr. Rogero about it last year; they agreed with the concept; but they recommended waiting until this year. She stated based on the fact that they are scrutinizing more in efficiency matters, this seemed like the right year to do it; nothing substantial has changed except that she realized how much time it was taking for the additional submittal; and she did not see any purpose. She stated she does not know why the amendment was ever put in the Resolution; fourteen years ago perhaps there was not good communication; but now the Sheriff’s Office works closely with all the Commissioners and with the budget staff. She stated the Board knows what the Sheriff is going to be submitting because they meet and there are open communications, so nothing is a shock to the Budget Office or the Board because they know philosophically what the Sheriff is going to be looking for.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it might be more appropriate to give them a trial this year to see what effect it would have rather than amending the Resolution; and if they run into a problem, then next year they will have learned their lesson.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant an exception to Resolution No. 90-118 to allow the Sheriff to make his budget submittal on June 1, 2004 instead of May 1, 2004, as a trial. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Colon voted nay.

CITIZEN REQUEST - TIMOTHY POWELL, RE: AMENDMENT TO CODE FOR PARKING IN
BU-1 AND BU-1-A ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS

Attorney Philip Nohrr stated he is representing Home Depot; Mr. Powell is a representative of Wal-Mart; and as their issues are the same, he will address the Board, but Mr. Powell is available for questions. He stated Home Deport, Wal-Mart, and Sears are currently the subject of Code Enforcement action for operations that are normal to their type of business; they are big box retailers; but unfortunately they are violating the existing Zoning Code. He stated in order to come up with a resolution that will address the issues Countywide rather than just their three stores, they are asking for an opportunity to work with staff to prepare modifications to the Zoning Code, which could then be presented to the Board for review and input. He stated they have talked to staff, and staff indicated a willingness to work with them; the operations of big box retailers have changed over the years; and trying to squeeze them into a BU-1 zoning classification has some inherent conflicts. He stated with performance standards they might be able to come up with a resolution acceptable to staff and the Board, which will get them out of violation of the Code and allow them to have normal operations. He stated he would be pleased to take questions; and all they are looking for is an opportunity to work with staff.

Tim Powell stated he has been working with Fay Graham who is the legal counsel for Sears; Ms. Graham indicated Amy Jamison might be present today to answer questions; and he is not representing Sears, but they are involved in the same issue and he has been copying them on correspondence. He advised the County encouraged him to contact Sears; and as Mr. Nohrr said, all three of them have the same issue.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the operations of the big box retailers like Sears, Wal-Mart, and Home Depot have evolved over the years; but Code has not kept up with their operations.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to development Code amendment language to acknowledge certain operational conditions within the BU-1 zoning classification, specifically the use of containerized storage units or semi-trailer units for temporary storage of goods by “big box” retailers. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott inquired if staff would consider abating the pending Code Enforcement violations until a return with a staff report. Chair Higgs inquired if that is included in the motion.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct that Code Enforcement violations be abated until the timely return of a staff report. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

County Attorney Scott Knox requested the Board dissolve the Snug Harbor Negotiating Committee.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to dissolve the Snug Harbor Negotiating Committee. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

STAFF DIRECTION, RE: DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR THE GREAT OUTDOORS
RV - NATURE AND GOLF RESORT CONTINUED PROCESS OF PERMITS

Chair Higgs stated there are a number of cards; people are all around the building in various rooms; and Commissioner Pritchard figured out that 90 cards equates to approximately seven hours. She advised of the procedure and time limits to address the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Bob Wilcox has a presentation; the developer is represented by counsel; and Mr. Torpy is representing some of the people who wish to pull building permits. He stated for the sake of discussion he wants to make sure Mr. Wilcox and his presenters come forward and then the attorney and the developer; and beyond that there may be some legal and factual questions that are really not at issue. He stated the question of compliance is a factual issue for the Board; and requested Mr. Knox touch on that before the Board starts as it may help everybody understand where the Board is on this issue.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the guiding principle the Board is going to be facing today is whether or not the developer is currently in substantial compliance with the Development Order; under Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes, which deals with the development of regional impact, there is a provision that says, “local government shall not issue any permits or approvals that provide any extensions of services if the developer fails to act in substantial compliance with the development order”; and that is the issue the Board will be addressing today. Mr. Knox stated in terms of substantial compliance, the best way to go at that issue is to imagine this is an examination with 100 points as the maximum; that would be absolute compliance; and if the Board finds that fire safety is not complied with and that is a major issue to the Board, if they drop below a 90 or 95 at scale, there would be an issue of whether there is substantial compliance. Commissioner Scarborough requested Chief Farmer present his findings at this time.

Chief Bill Farmer stated there are five bullets in the memo he sent to Mr. Knox on March 9; and the first one basically says that, in his opinion, the DRI was created to provide a consistently available water resource for firefighting. He stated The Great Outdoors does not meet that resource; the plumbing is broken and needs to be fixed so often that it is not available or there is an automatic clause that does not allow a pump to shut off immediately to provide water resources; and for whatever reason the 750 gallons per minute that is needed to fight fires in that area for the DRI is not available; but there is a belief, because citizens drive through and see fire hydrants, that those hydrants are available for firefighting. He stated the fact that it is not consistently available is a life safety issue.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this is not an easy decision; everyone wants to accomplish one thing, and that is to have a fire safe community; and that is shared by everybody regardless of perspective. He stated the developer does not want to see all the residents at the Government Center; if someone has opportunities to build, it does not behoove them to have the opportunity to pull a permit in an area, which because it cannot be properly managed firewise, probably lessens the value and puts the homes at risk; and the purpose today is to comply with Florida Statute and find resolutions in a win/win fashion. He stated they are going to try to work through this for everybody’s benefit and make this a fire safe community.

Chair Higgs stated she understands they have taken some action to insure the safety of the residents. Chief Farmer stated while the residential area is supposed to have a water resources, they are treating it as if it does not; they have moved a tanker over to that area; it will be at Station 24 on SR 407 and SR 50, so there is a more immediate response; and they have increased the number of engines that will be going to that location. He stated they are treating the community as if it does not have a water resource.

Chair Higgs stated she is taking the cards in the order she was given them.

Mason Williams stated since there are so many cards, he would like to reserve a couple of minutes at the end if he needs to come back and address anything. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is here to resolve questions; and he does not want to preclude a speaker from coming to conclusions and he does not know what Mr. Williams will offer, so it would behoove the discussion to have Mr. Williams come back up. Commissioner Carlson stated there are four attorneys dealing with this item; and inquired will the same structure be given to all of them. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to be fair to everybody; it is not a zoning issue where there is a win/lose; and everybody needs to recognize that. He stated the ability to find prompt solutions is what they are trying to accomplish and perhaps by the end of the day they will all win.

Mason Williams, representing the developer of The Great Outdoors, advised there are really three issues before the Board; and they are ready to do whatever the County would like them to do. He stated they have told that to the CSA (Community Services Association) and the Board; there are three issues that relate to solving the problems; and the question comes down to whether the County is able to provide fire services out there. He stated he heard Chief Farmer say he is providing those services out there; and there are a lot of areas in the County that are only served by a tanker truck while they have potable hydrants, reuse hydrants, and tanker trucks throughout this neighborhood. He stated the neighborhood is being served; the issues are a height variance for a water tower that the CSA wants and allowing fire protection for the potable hydrants, which is not currently allowed under the CO; and the CSA will be asking for a moratorium on building permits. He noted the developer only has four lots left there; so the request for moratorium affects more people than just The Great Outdoors. He stated they are willing to put in the potable system; there are only about 278 lots on the potable system out of 1,407; and of those 278, 104 are simply concrete slabs, so the potable system only involves 10% of The Great Outdoors. He stated they are willing to put in the booster pump system that is currently at Aquarina; it would take six months; and the CSA asked for a water tower, but that would take 15 to 18 months to put in. He stated they are willing to do that if the County gives them time to do it; but it seems inconsistent to reject the booster pump that could be done in six months in favor of the water tower, if there is a fire safety issue there. He commented on the reuse system being semi-automatic, a separate reuse water line taking 16 to 18 months to put in, and a switch to potable water. He stated their position is that they are willing to do either one, but one is cheaper than the other; if CSA wants the more expensive option, they are willing to do it, but would like them to contribute to the cost. He stated there is an eight-inch loop there that needs to be closed; the County asked for that; they did not have to, but they applied for the permit; and it was denied because the CSA would not sign it. He stated they would have begun work on that last week if the CSA had signed it; and what they need to move things forward to a solution is to amend the Development Order to go to potable hydrants and allow the water tower height variance that is needed.

Bob Wilcox, CSA Manager, submitted paperwork to the Board; stated he is licensed in the State of Florida and manages a community comprised of 1,400 units; the 1,400 units are in a homeowners association that they oversee; and he is not just a community manager, but a city manager. He stated there is a small city there; as manager, he has fiduciary responsibility to insure that he notifies the public if there are problems; and in addition he has to seek all assistance possible to make sure there is a fire-safe community. He stated the first picture is a picture of a house with a fire hydrant in front of it; when the house was on fire, he was standing between the house and the hydrant, and there was no water because the reuse system is not very dependable. He stated there are three major problems; first there is a reservoir pond they cannot trust; numerous times he has informed Chief Farmer that they were low on water; and this is something they are very concerned about. He stated the other issue is the infrastructure is in poor condition; it breaks down all the time and has leaks; and three or four times a month, there are five to seven streets without water, which is as many as 833 units without water. He stated the infrastructure for the reuse system is deficient, so he decided to go to potable; the area shown in yellow already has potable; and he thought it was a good idea to get the fire hydrants off the insufficient reuse system; but the potable system does not have any pressure or enough flow to take care of the Fire Department, so he is stuck in the middle with an inoperative poor system. He stated the records show there have been a number of breakdowns with the reuse system; he is stuck with an insufficient potable system; and he had nowhere to go. He stated they had to do something because the community is unsafe and an accident waiting to happen, especially with their proximity to the St. Johns River to the west. He stated it is a clear recipe for disaster with brush fires; they appreciate the County’s help with tanker trucks; but a tanker truck in a brush fire is not going to be effective because there are miles and miles of fire burning. He stated they made numerous attempts to deal with the developer; they have been sharing these problems for ten months; and they need a change in course and to get some solid date. He stated the Association owns the system, the infrastructure, and the hydrants; they have to have the ability to look at whatever the developer may create to correct his violation of the DRI; and they need the right to make sure that the system is going to be good over the long range. He stated they need to get the potable system back up; they would like to go potable; and they need the County’s help. He stated they are asking the Board to give all the assistance possible to help the 250 to 275 people who are present today to make it work; they would like to put in a water tower; and in the attachment is a letter from Caldwell Water Towers advising it would take six months to get a water tower here ready for water; and inquired what else do they need. He stated they need to move it over from the reuse system onto the potable system, which is not an easy task; and the CSA appreciates everything the County has done and wants to have a safe community.

Dr. Fred Leiser stated he is on the Board of Directors of the CSA; and they are a small village that has turned into a small city. He stated the developer’s original DRI was issued in 1990; there were 2,000 sites approved; and it was then just for RV’s with a maximum stay of six months. He stated at that time 15,000 square feet of commercial was designated; another 17,800 square feet for the resort facilities including the clubhouse, manager’s house, etc.; and there was an 18-hole golf course. He stated fire protection was mandated at 750 gallons per minute flow and 20 psi required for fire protection, with an automatic shutoff of the sprinklers; and each site was required to have either a fire extinguisher or a 100-foot garden hose. He stated at that time there were approximately 200 sites; in 1991, the developer put in a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC), to add 2,000 square feet to the resort support facilities and cabins for short-term use, comprising no more than 20% of the maximum size of 2,000, which meant 400 cabins were authorized; and the cabins were not to exceed 1,000 square-feet. He stated no other elements of the DRI were changed; that means the fire protection remained at a garden hose and a fire extinguisher with a reasonable guarantee of 750 gallons per minute flow and 20 psi. Dr. Leiser stated the next NOPC came in 1994; the only changes were to the short-term use cabins, which increased in size from 1000 square feet to 1,200 square feet; and there were no other modifications, so they were back to the garden hose/extinguisher and 750 gallons per minute at 20 psi. He stated they were at 525 lots at that time. He stated in 1996 there was a third NOPC; the only change was to extend the effective period to December 30, 2001; no other changes were made; and they went to 700 units. He stated the fourth NOPC came in 1998; and there was a considerable change from the previous. He stated they added 10,000 square feet to the commercial area, added 10,000 square feet to support facilities, and deleted a size limitation on the maximum square footage of cabins, which thereafter were named resort homes. He stated they deleted all the limitations on the length of the permitted stay, which was six months; and now individuals were allowed to stay as long as they cared to. He stated they also allowed the development of an additional 72 acres to increase the maximum percentage of resort homes from 20% to 50% of the total RV sites in the project, which extended the effective date to December 31, 2006, and established a buildout date of December 31, 1996. He stated they further extended the restrictions on downsizing to 2006; but there were no fire suppression changes. He stated they live in a community with inadequate fire protection; all of the homes are built with studs and vinyl siding; and only one home is concrete block. He stated the people need the Board’s help.

Todd Kinsey, Maintenance Supervisor of The Great Outdoors, stated he has over 12 years experience in maintaining infrastructure of that community, which includes the sewer, potable water, and reuse irrigation systems; and he is currently licensed by the County in underground utilities. He stated he would like to inform the Board of the unreliable reuse fire protection system; and in the notebooks, the Board will find records that indicate the problems with the system over the past 14 months. He stated there have been 78 different failures associated with the reuse fire hydrant system; 37 different times one could walk up to one of the hydrants, open a cap, turn it on, and there would be no water coming out; and nine of those times lasted over 24 hours. He stated during the month of February alone, the system was down four different times; the average down time was more than 45 hours; and on February 7, the system was down for over 73 consecutive hours with no water. He stated the reuse pumps for irrigation run ten hours a night on scheduled irrigation programs; and that is not including all the time in the day the system is being used. He advised three weeks ago, one of the reuse pump motors failed, which caused the reuse fire system to have inadequate pressure for 14 days while the pumps were being repaired. He stated he would also like to speak about the automatic feature required by the DRI, which does not exist; when the County Fire Department came out and tested the hydrants, it tested one of the hydrants with the reuse irrigation system on; and the results were that fire hydrant number four was putting out 340 gallons per minute with 4 psi, which is not in compliance with the DRI. He stated in that same reuse fire protection system there are 57 residential irrigation clocks; to supply adequate pressure to that system, it would be necessary to shut the clocks down, which takes over two hours to do; and in June 2000, the reuse irrigation pumps failed due to a low wet well, meaning no water was available for the hydrants. He stated that is when he went to the developer and asked if they could stop installing the sod and landscaping for the new lots; and the response was that to get CO’s for the new houses, the sod had to go down. He stated based on the 12 years he has been maintaining the reuse system, there has been a serious problem with it; and the community needs the Board’s assistance to make whatever necessary changes are required to provide a fire safe community for the residents of The Great Outdoors.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are two fire hydrant systems; there is the potable system, which is not correctly contracted with Cocoa and the reuse system, for which there is a dual use; and that is with the golf course that has the capacity to utilize the water, dropping the water pressure, without a capacity on Mr. Kinsey’s part to effectively cut off the irrigation process. He inquired what is the amount of time to cut down the irrigation to make pumping effective; with Mr. Kinsey responding just on the residential clocks alone, it takes over two hours; and explained the procedure with the golf course. Mr. Kinsey stated the residents are not asking for anything special; and they are just asking for a system that is in compliance with the DRI.

Dick Seaman stated he has been a resident of The Great Outdoors since 1995; and he is currently the representative for District 9 CSA Board of Directors. He stated they have 15 hydrants on the potable water system that are not authorized by the Cocoa Water Authority; three of those were the originals put on with verbal permission; and their experience with the developer tells them that anything verbal is not worth the paper it is written on. He pointed out the three hydrants on the map; stated they do not have sufficient water pressure; there is chart in the book that shows the 15 hydrants that are on the potable water system, which were tested by the County Fire Department; and the results of the test are on the chart. He noted hydrant 36 is the only one that has over 20 pounds of pressure; however, while the water pressure is adequate, the gallons per minute are way under 750 gallons per minute. He stated none of the other hydrants on that system, even though not authorized by the DRI or the water company, have the requisite pressures or flows, so they do not have adequate fire protection. He stated the potable hydrants are shown on the chart in yellow; and that area is a minimum problem. He stated the other areas are all on the western edge of the property; and it is bounded by the St. Johns River Water Management District property, which is all highly wooded and a real fire problem at times. He stated they have worked with the St. Johns River Water Management District and have done some prescribed burns; they have also done some prescribed cutting to lessen the fire safety problems; however, if there is a fire there, the prevailing winds come from the west and would blow the fire right into their community. He stated a water tanker from the County Fire Department will probably last three minutes; and if they do not have any pressure in the hydrants, they will burn up. He stated Florida is the lightning capital of the United States; and when lightning hits in the St. Johns River Water Management District area, The Great Outdoors is at great risk. He stated in the wintertime, they do not have rainfall, everything dries out, and they are at risk again. He stated the DRI specifications have not been adhered to; the developer will say that at the time he built this and the DRI was put into effect there was no such thing as an automatic shutoff, even though it was required; but this is not true. He stated the reason there was no automatic system was because the builder determined in a business sense to hook up the fire hydrants, the golf course sprinklers, and the residential sprinklers on the same system; and had they kept the fire hydrants separate like they should have, there would not have been a problem. He stated the community is in need of the Board’s help; and they need to have their concerns before the public.

Bill Scaringe stated he is a full-time resident of The Great Outdoors; and is also a retired professional mechanical engineer and past director of the State Division of Building Construction, so he has considerable experience in the permitting area. He stated The Great Outdoors was built originally as an RV resort; and it has evolved into a major community with some expensive stick-built homes. He stated when he and others moved there, they expected, since they were paying a premium for the homes, that they were getting a premium development. He stated he reviewed the DRI application and the permit in the file; and he noticed the developer did not comply with the DRI requirements, especially in the area of the automatic shutoff for the sprinkler system. He stated he heard that compliance is not possible, but that is not true. He stated the white tab in the books is labeled system alternates; and page 2 has some diagrams that he developed showing how the system should have been installed with a separate hydrant loop and a separate sprinkler loop, with the hydrant loop extended from the sprinkler system loop upstream of the feed so that pressure and flow sensors could be put in the line to the hydrant system. He stated those sensors could control a motor-driven valve to the sprinkler system, thereby providing the automatic shutoff system and eliminating the problems. He stated what was done is illustrated by diagram B; the sprinklers and hydrants were put on the same line and the same loop; and that water line cannot be shut off because it shuts off the hydrants and the sprinklers. He stated they must have the hydrants on a separate system from the sprinklers; they are connected on the same line because it was the cheaper solution; but it is not in compliance with the DRI requirements. He stated compliance is possible by installing a new loop to supply the hydrants or by connecting the hydrants to the potable main, which he heard Mr. Williams say would be more expensive, but he is not sure that it would not be less expensive because the water main already extends around the whole development. He stated once that is done and all the hydrants are connected to the potable system, it must be connected to an elevated water tank system; and it should not be connected to a drought-prone lake. He stated when there are droughts, there are high fire risks; and that would be the worst time to be hooked up to a lake that does not have any water left in it. He stated the developer suggested a booster pump to solve the problem with the water pressure; the underground piping system was never designed to be operated on a booster pump system; the piping is in soft dirt; and there are no thrust blocks or collars to absorb the surge pressure of a pump system. He stated they are going to turn the system over to the homeowners to operate; and they will be faced with endless repairs as are currently occurring in the golf course, which is why the other system is down. He stated the proper solution is the elevated tank so there will be water onsite at all times; there would be minimum pressure surges, and therefore fewer breaks; and there would be minimal health risks because of the breaks. He requested the Board enforce the DRI requirements, hold any future permits until the developer agrees to the fixes, and have him install an elevated potable water supply system and move the hydrants to that potable system.

Bonnie Groves, president and chairman of The Great Outdoors Community Services Homeowners Association, stated she represents the sea of yellow ribbons that are occupying all the space today; and they are requesting the Board to support them in their efforts to correct the deficient fire suppression systems. She stated they understand why people are present on the other side today; they understand the realtors, builders, and developers are here to protect their livelihood; but they are present to protect their lives and their property. Ms. Groves stated Mr. Williams has said they only have four lots left for the developer; and obviously, this is not of much interest to him because it will hurt others more. She stated in fact, the developer owns 55 lots under the name of TGO Partners Ltd, so out of the 95 lots, they own 59; and those corporation papers are in the back of the handout. She stated they heard discussion from Mr. Williams about the willingness to correct the potable water system and to get it made legal; and they understand that. She stated he also said it only affects 10% of the people; however, it is vitally important that the developer fix the system before adding any more land to the DRI. She stated he would have to fix the system anyway, and this is not out of the goodness of his heart. She stated the developer would not talk to them until they passed a resolution saying they would not oppose the DRI. She stated the reuse system serves about 80% of The Great Outdoors; it has massive problems that the Board heard about; and what they have are two systems, potable hydrants that always have water but do not have volume or pressure and reuse hydrant, which have pressure and volume, if they have water. She stated the Association has accused them of being obstructive; they told them from the beginning that they wanted engineered plans; and they are tired of getting “throw it in the ground, and this is what you get” systems. She stated they discovered the problem ten months ago; but they have not seen one plan. She stated in terms of the loop system that they oppose, what they got was an aerial photograph with a line drawn through it; and they said, “this is what we are doing.” She stated they had no right to sign the DEP permit; they are not the owners of the system; the residents are the owners of the system; and they refused to sign it. She stated they falsely signed it as the owners of the system and sent it to DEP; and the DEP rejected it for that reason. She stated she was asked yesterday if the Association had given up its rights to enforce the systems shortcomings since they were not discovered at turnover; this is a study that was commissioned by the transition team; the experts did not find what they are talking about today, but the citizens did through due diligence when they tried to find out what was going on. She stated they are governed by Chapter 720, F.S. as a homeowners association, which exempts any development created under a DRI from having to comply with the requirements for turning over plans, specs, permits, etc. She stated they repeatedly asked the developer for volunteer turnover, but were refused or ignored; every buyer should be able to rely on DRI assurances regardless of the time elapsed; and they would like to put the delays behind them and move on to a solution that works. She stated past experience indicates that the developer only acts when under pressure; therefore, they are asking for DRI compliance with fire suppression systems, which supply the required 750 gpm at 20 psi; and that was a low figure only approved because at that time they were going to be an RV park with people living temporarily in RV’s and leaving for the winter. She stated they also ask that the County enforce Florida Statute 380.06, which prohibits issuance of permits and approvals if the developer has deviated substantially from the Development Order. She stated these are not the only substantial deviations from the DRI; these are just the only ones that concern water. She stated she spent 12 years in elected office and years on the boards of various organizations; and she is asking the Board to help with protection of the health and welfare of the citizens of The Great Outdoors.

Commissioner Colon stated she is sure Ms. Groves would want the Board to stay focused; she was under the impression there were a few issues today, not just an elevated potable tank; and inquired if this will be coming back to the Board. She stated if that is the case, she wants to be able to focus on the tank; and inquired if the developers are refusing to comply with the recommendations. She stated she read that the developer wants to turn the cost to the residents, and that is where the discrepancy is. She stated Ms. Groves believes the developer should pay 100%; and inquired if there is any wavering in that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is the potable system from Cocoa; they will have to rework the deal with Cocoa; and there is the question as to whether they can go to the additional height, which was solved by staff saying yes, they could move ahead. He stated even if they put in the tank, a substantial portion of the system is not on potable hydrants; there is a need to comply with the DRI; and they will not have their solution. He inquired what will they do next; and stated his thought is to find as many solutions as possible because people may find tomorrow it is not raining and want to be on the golf course. Ms. Groves advised the people who are present decided to cancel golf even before they knew it was going to rain and they also cancelled bingo for tonight. She stated there has to be some solution; they talk about the switch to potable taking six months; but they do not understand why it is going to take that long because there are two eight-inch mains that come down each side of the development, and if they break into those mains to put the potable hydrants, they would be instantly on potable water. She stated if they have to re-pipe through the section shown in the map in blue, it does not belong to them any more; a lot of it belongs to the golf course; and the golf course has already said there is no way anyone is digging up the course. She stated there are three owners and that is why they felt it was important to give the background because most places do not have the kinds of complications that they have. She stated the developer controls the pump and has retained ownership of the source of the potable water; so the people do not control it. She noted the golf course has first rights to the reuse water by a shared use agreement.

Don Adams stated he is a full-time resident of The Great Outdoors, and has been there since 1997; and he lives 120 feet from the St. Johns River Water Management District property. He stated in September 2002 there was a tremendous thunderstorm with lightning that set a fire across the street in the St. Johns River Water Management District property; they put three 100-foot garden hoses together and were able to put out the fire; but if it had been 3,000 feet in the property, there would have been no controlling it. He stated they put it out with a garden hose in ten minutes; it took ten minutes for the fire trucks to get there; so they already had the fire out when they arrived. He stated the Fire Department did a great job once it got there making certain the fire stayed out. He stated if it had been farther in, it would have been up to the Fire Department, but it would not have had adequate water to do it, so those homes could have been burned because of one lightning strike. He stated he would appreciate the Board’s help in trying to resolve this because he lives on the front line.

Linda Utz stated she is not here to talk about the technical problems; there are two systems, a potable system and a reuse system; and both have deficiencies, which have been well addressed by others. She advised of her experience in the 1985 fire in Palm Coast, which resulted in the loss of 152 homes; and stated she was left with a feeling of paranoia relating to fire. She stated in 1998 there were horrendous fires in Flagler County and she was evacuated; she and her husband called home every day to see if the answering machine would work, and if it worked, they assumed they still had a home; however, while crossing I-70 in Kansas, their RV caught fire and burned to the ground. She stated they got out with just the clothes on their backs; and they had actually taken things out of the house and put them in the RV to protect them from the fires in Palm Coast. She stated it was not a happy experience; it left her paranoid of fires; and they moved further south to The Great Outdoors. She stated she ran for the board of directors only to find herself involved with the fire suppression system; and it is more than she ever wanted to know or have to learn about. She stated the people need the Board’s help; the systems have to be fixed; they were required in the DRI; and they could have been installed in the beginning. She stated they asked the developer to negotiate with them; things change from day to day; and they are reluctant to ask for the holding of the permits, but have no other way.

Bob Strand stated he lives in The Great Outdoors; and he was the owner of the house that caught fire, and the Fire Department successfully put it out, primarily because they got there very quickly and were able to put it out with a limited amount of water. He stated he was surprised to find that the hydrant had no water in it; like Ms. Utz he is a two-time loser because he had a fire a year and a half earlier in an RV; and he is also paranoid about fire. He stated they need help to get the system fixed; if several houses caught fire, there would be no way to save them; and commented on the brush fires on the St. Johns River Water Management District property.

Francine Novakoff stated she is a board of director member for District 8; she has lived in The Great Outdoors for six years; but she has been in the County for approximately 20 years. She stated she was not worried about buying into The Great Outdoors because she knew it was under the jurisdiction of the County; most of the people in the community are retired and many are handicapped and housebound; and they would need assistance in any emergency such as a fire or hurricane. She stated she trusts the County to do what is right.

Bill Hoblitzelle stated his points have been covered, so he will forfeit his time.

Ralph White stated he will yield his time since his points have been covered.

James Purcell stated when he first bought here, he had a good size house built; there was a fire hydrant two houses away; and he assumed that would give him protection, but has found it does not. He stated the people at The Great Outdoors are like the big box retailers who spoke earlier; they have gone from just RV sites to the big homes they have out there now; their fire needs have also increased; and they have to have a solution to protect their homes.

Keith McDonald stated he has lived in The Great Outdoors since 1989 and in Brevard County for 41 years; and the biggest problem with The Great Outdoors is that it started as a small community until the mid-1990’s, but it has changed to a destination park where people live full-time. He stated the DRI has not kept up with what the developer decided to develop; and that has caused a lot of concerns. He stated he lives full-time in an RV; he fills his water tank; and quite often he does not have enough water pressure to take a shower. He noted that is the potable water system; the other system is more scary; and something needs to be done. He stated he backs the CSA.

Martha Verity stated she backs the CSA.

Ernest Cobb stated he supports the board of directors.

Sid Peterson stated he is an attorney with the law firm of Deloach and Peterson PA in New Smyrna Beach; and they represent Land Planners and Associates, Inc., which is a major contractor/builder at The Great Outdoors. He stated he is not familiar with the developer situation; but he is familiar with the 88 people his client has directly under contract to imminently move to The Great Outdoors. He stated he understands the CSA is looking for a way to enforce the development regulations; but he is not sure it is fair to penalize the people who have made the same decision to move to this wonderful community, so he is asking for the Board’s help. He stated his client is just one contractor; he believes there are four contractors; and presently his client has two permits he is waiting on, three applications ready to go to the County for permitting, 11 homes presently in the drawing stages, and 33 other people under contract planning and designing, for a total of 50 people. He stated they also have 38 homes presently under construction; and those people are going to be looking for a CO within months. He stated his client’s livelihood is building homes; but they are also talking about the livelihood of 88 people who want to move into the community; and he is not sure denying the permit is fair to them. He stated from an economic standpoint, the 88 homes represent over $18 million that is going to go forward to the Commission; his client owns 29 lots that he has over $1.8 million invested in that he has not built on yet; and his client employs 266 people at The Great Outdoors. He stated this is a huge economic situation; and they are asking for help to figure out how these people can get and maintain their permits.

Chair Higgs inquired who is Mr. Peterson’s client; with Mr. Peterson responding Land Planners and Associates Inc., which is a Florida corporation.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is perplexed; as soon as the people buy the house, they are going to be in the audience with the others; furthermore, Mr. Peterson’s clients probably have some duty to the persons to fully advise them of the condition; and if they are so advised, they might not be so willing to go ahead and build at this juncture. Mr. Peterson stated he would agree as of March 4, when they received a letter from the County; starting March 4, his client will begin to face the possibility of incurring substantial damages; and that is why he is here. He stated there is more at issue; there are 88 people who also want to come into this community; there is a way to do that; and the Fire Chief already said he can provide the services with the additional tanker. Commissioner Scarborough stated others may have heard that a bit differently. Mr. Peterson stated he understands that, but those people are in so they are fine; and 88 people who did not know about this are not fine. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not know that they are fine at all; and therein lies Mr. Peterson’s dilemma, because he puts his client at risk as he sells properties to people. Mr. Peterson noted he is not the developer, nor is his client; and they bought the lots just like the other people did. Commissioner Scarborough stated by the same token if those houses were lost to a fire, they may seek damages against Mr. Peterson’s client. Mr. Peterson stated after March 4, he would totally agree; they are going to have to go to every one to a tune of $8 million and tell them; and somebody is going to have a recourse for that $8 million. Commissioner Scarborough stated these people are not the ones that sold the lots to Mr. Peterson’s client, others did.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Peterson can point out on the map the people he represents in terms of the contracts that he is talking about; with Mr. Peterson responding he cannot specifically point it out. Mr. Peterson advised his client owns 29 lots and he has 38 presently under construction; and he assumes it is the area shown in yellow, but is not sure.

Bruce Brown stated he is a resident of The Great Outdoors; before the meeting a woman was passing out yellow ribbons and handed one to him; he said no thanks, but she urged him to take one; and when he said no again, she asked if he was with them or against them. He stated he did not answer, but will answer now; he is neither; and he recognizes that the developer needs to bring the fire system into compliance; but he has not heard anyone saying anything otherwise. He stated his concern is his friends who are in the process or under contract with Land Planners; many who are building already live in the park, but put their properties up for sale; and some have sold, so those people need their houses. He stated a house that is begun today will not be finished until October for occupancy; if people are held up for six months, they will miss all next winter; and he hopes the Board will find a way to help with the fire protection problem without unduly hurting a lot of people who are waiting to get a house built. He stated he understands that the CSA wants to hold the developer’s feet to the fire; if he cannot build, he will comply; and inquired if there is a less extreme way to do that.

Dick Loehr stated he lives in The Great Outdoors; he does not even have an RV, but likes the people; and everybody, especially having heard the information from the Fire Chief would agree there have been some severe deficiencies in the robustness of the fire suppression capabilities. He stated there also have been some implications that there may be some sanitary problems with the fresh water system; these things first surfaced ten months ago; and time is of the essence. He stated no matter what comes up, they end up in an endless dance with the developer that leads nowhere; there are attorneys flying in from the side; but people’s lives and property are at stake. He stated this has been known for ten months; people in the sales office are also residents; and they know this is a problem. He stated the developer knows it is a problem; the builders know it is a problem; and yet they go on their merry way increasing the population even though there is a looming disaster. He stated they need leverage over the developer to get him to comply with the basic things in the DRI; that is what it comes down to; and they should not even be here talking about this as it should have been settled a month after it was discovered. He stated they should get some engineers together, design it, sign off on some papers, and go ahead.

Robert Zeimet declined to speak.

Frank Ieradi declined to speak.

Doris Moran stated she and her husband live at The Great Outdoors; they retired from the federal government; and the number one concern at the federal government level was the safety and security of the employees here and abroad. She stated they lived fulltime in their RV and traveled around the country; when it was apparent to them that they had to have a home, they knew that The Great Outdoors provided security; and they selected a home in close proximity to a fire hydrant. She stated they applied for fire insurance with State Farm; and inquired if the insurance companies find out that they do not have adequate fire protection, how is their insurance policy going to be affected. She stated they all have a huge investment; they answered the insurance company questions in good faith; and inquired are they going to cancel their policies and will they have coverage if there is a fire.

Robert Young declined to speak.

Robert Brown stated he agrees with the board of directors, but declines to speak.

Linda Somers stated she supports the CSA board.

Jane White stated she supports the CSA board; and advised there is only a one-way entrance/exit at The Great Outdoors.

Arthur Perry stated he agrees with the points made by the general manager of CSA.

Betty Perry stated she supports the CSA.

Norm Berkowitz stated he is a resident of The Great Outdoors and is president of condominium 11, representing 60 property owners and residents; and all of them are concerned with their lives first, and their livelihood second.

Jim Ludlow president of condominium 15, stated it consists of 50 resort homes, which are all over 3,000 square feet on Grand Haven Drive; and he lives at the end of the street. He stated there are approximately 100 people in the condominium; and the condo contains the highest value, the largest homes, and the largest taxes in The Great Outdoors. He stated most of the homes are well over 3,000 square feet; and they also are bordering on a major conservation area to the west and southwest, consisting primarily of brush and bushes, rather thickly forested. He stated the agreement allows them to cut down some of the close brush to the homes; but it is only allowed every two years; and that is simply not enough. He stated they cannot protect themselves that way; and they certainly do not have sufficient water. He stated just a small brush fire with strong southwest winds would put five or six homes in danger almost immediately; their protection comes from two fire hydrants on that street, #23 and #24; and the flow of water there was tested at 455 gallons per minute at 19 psi and 580 gallons per minute with 12 psi. He stated to be safe they need 750 gallons; they do not even have on average 65% of that; and homes of this size really need 1,000 gallons per minute. He stated the Fire personnel will tell the Board that; and if everyone had known that they were going to build 3,000 to 5,000 square-foot homes all in a row, they would have certainly asked for 1,000 gallons per minute on those fire hydrants with sufficient pressure behind it. He stated they have about half the fire suppression capability they need; and he is scared. He stated he hopes the Board is scared enough to help get resolution with the developer to get this fixed; it would take less than a month to form an airtight agreement with the developer with a performance bond required; they have been around this thing again and again; and the developer keeps changing his mind about what he will do, so they need the Board’s help

Harry Tolles stated he agrees with most of the previous speakers, except two.

George Dauth stated he lives at The Great Outdoors; being an RV park, there are a lot of large vehicles with large fuel tanks; and if someone is worried about their house going up, they should also be worried about the RV sitting next to it with 100 gallons of fuel in it. He stated in regard to the disclosure issue, he purchased his home a year and a half ago; it is his understanding that although the Board just found out about the fire and water problems ten months ago, that the developer may have known before then. He stated he is not saying he was taken advantage of, but people who have purchased since then, even from prior owners, there should be consideration of the issue of disclosure because if someone sold a house knowing about the problem and did not disclose, in Michigan, they would be liable, although he does not know about the laws in Florida.

Charles Utz stated there was an attorney making an appeal for the builders and developers; and he does not know whether the Board is aware, but the developer, the real estate salesman, and the builder are pretty much the same people, so when one cries for the other, they are pretty much crying for themselves. He stated he moved down from New Jersey five years ago; like many people, he was not concerned about fire protection because he saw fire plugs around, and assumed they worked; but he now finds out that they do not have enough water and that his house is greater than 500 feet from a fire plug, so in addition to not having water, he is going to have to watch them lay a lot of hose before they can even turn the water on. He stated he is not sure how many of the Commissioners have been out to The Great Outdoors to see the types of structures they have; there are homes that are up to $700,000 in cost; so he is not talking about a small home that one might find in Titusville, but about a substantial expense. He stated in addition most homes have an RV parked in the driveway; many of the RV’s cost from $250,000 to $750,000; and a fire would result in a $1 to $1.5 million loss. He stated they are 15 feet from their neighbors; if the wind is right, a few houses could be lost; and that could be millions of dollars lost. He stated they all know what the insurance company’s reaction will be to this; they are going to go crazy if there are four or five losses of several million dollars; and they are going to look to subrogate when they find out this was a known consideration. He stated they are going to look to get their money back somewhere; and it would behoove the Board to make this right before there is a tragedy.

Ron Roney stated he supports the CSA Board of Directors; and requested the Board consider the moral obligation of the developer.

William Smith stated he has lived in The Great Outdoors since 1989; when someone builds behind a property and raises the land a foot higher and runs water on someone, that is against the law of Florida; but Mr. Swann did this for five years. She stated Mr. Swann promised the property owners that he would take care of it; but in five years, nothing has happened. He stated it has taken them ten months for the other problem; and maybe they can get something done. He stated he concurs with what has been said by the CSA board at The Great Outdoors.

The meeting recessed at 3:00 p.m. and reconvened at 3:12 p.m.

Chair Higgs advised Nancy Kennedy, Paul and Kay Duvall, Plummer and Audrea Smithers, Elaine Custer, Mr. and Mrs. Green, Mr. and Mrs. Seward, Cam Pelletier, Justine Nackman, Bob and Nancy Bell, Audrey Pisarz, Nancy Strand, Lillian Davis, Frank McBride, Victoria Gould, Jim Darling, and Ken Walters feel their positions have been expressed; they support the CSA; and they do not wish to speak.

Ed Nackman stated he lives in The Great Outdoors, and has lived there since 1996. He stated he has seen the development of the community from about 400 RV sites to what it is now, over 1,000; and the concern is not about the value of the homes or the value compared to other homes in the community, but the safety of the people in the development. He stated it is about compliance, performance, and good faith; and when one comes to make amendments to a DRI knowing what the future will be better than the people who will be receiving the DRI, that may be a problem because before long the DRI will not fit the development that ensues. He stated he hopes the Board will insure the developer will perform, comply, act in good faith, and be forthright about what the future development is to be, so that the DRI will match what is to be, and they do not have to come back and complain that what they have does not match the DRI.

Elaine and John Stewart advised they support the CSA.

Doris Farris stated she also supports the CSA board.

John Gould stated based on his previous experience with the developer, both verbally and in agreements such as the DRI, which the developer has continually violated, he would be a fool to believe any words or written agreements from him. He stated if the Board decides to issue the permits, he would strongly suggest that any agreement be in writing and be backed by performance bonds to back up both performance and timing of performance.

Sandy Dunlop stated she supports the CSA.

Bob Hicklin stated he moved to The Great Outdoors three years ago; they own a single pad where they put their motorhome; they have been retired for ten years; and prior to coming to The Great Outdoors for the winters, they spent time in Boone County, Indiana where they are full-time volunteers for the Red Cross. He stated his job is with the Disaster Action Committee in response to fire, flood, and emergencies of all kinds; and a lot of coordination is done by the Emergency Management people in Boone County to assure that police, fire, sheriff, and other emergency services all work together. He stated a disaster can occur at any time in these politically troubled times; and he believes they are on the cusp of a major disaster. Mr. Hicklin advised there is only one road going in and out of The Great Outdoors; there is potential for tremendous congestion; and if a fire started and a wind blew across The Great Outdoors, the one tanker truck would be running back and forth trying to put water where it was needed. He stated there are a lot of motorhomes at The Great Outdoors, ranging in size from 17 feet to 45 feet; they are not easy to move around; and it takes them a while to even get started and get the brakes released. He stated the people would want to escape with all their possessions; they have everything they own in their coach; and requested the Board imagine all of the motorhomes firing up trying to find their way out of The Great Outdoors with the potential congestion and limited egress. He stated they have the makings of a very severe disaster; and there would be enough liability to go around. He requested the Board support the CSA board; stated they have learned the hard way what it takes to influence this developer; and recommended the Board help find the solution to the problem before a lot of people get hurt.

Barbara Stevens stated this is their fifth year in The Great Outdoors; and she supports the CSA board.

Don Wallace stated he supports the CSA.

Charles Rehrig stated he agrees with the CSA.

Graham Dunlop stated he supports the CSA board.

Lewis Soars stated he is one of hundreds of people who live at The Great Outdoors; he moved in and had a fire hydrant less than 50 feet from his house, so he figured he was safe; but then he found out the purple hydrants were reuse water, which has less capacity, so he has less protection than he thought. He stated the problem is not just the possibility of fire, but they could lose their homeowners policies because of lack of fire protection; and if they lose those policies, if someone had an accident on their property and sued them, they would not have any insurance to cover it. He requested the Board follow the advice and requests of the CSA board, which is doing a good job and needs the Commission’s help.

Dick Mumma stated he supports the position of the CSA board.

Ron Brown advised of his prior position as Public Works Administrator in Lee and St. Lucie Counties; and stated he cannot remember a public hearing on a development order that brought out this number of people. He stated he was a registered engineer in Florida, and practiced engineering for over 40 years; and it is hard to understand why they are here. He stated there is a Development Order; it is not in substantial compliance; and it is just a matter of getting it fixed. He stated the issue is doing that without injuring a lot of people and also saving a lot of property that is in jeopardy. He stated many engineering efforts have gone into this so solutions are known; and if they are not known, they could be known within 30 days. He stated the Board has the opportunity to set a mandate for the developer to develop the plan or time line using the engineering talent of a registered engineering firm; and he should get on with it. He stated the developer should put up a performance bond that would hurt him if he fails; and then it will be done in short order and the Board will not see the people back again. He stated on the potable water system, they have heard about looping; but there is more to looping then just the fire supply. He stated hydrant exercises also flush the lines and get out the dirt; and it helps from the sanitary standing, so they do not have contaminated water. He stated there are a lot of things that need to be done; solutions would be arrived at if they follow through with what the CSA board is recommending; and he supports the CSA board.

Marietta Fliehler stated she supports the CSA board.

Perry Stewart stated he has been on the other side with angry citizens, some of whom were armed, when he was in the Army Ammunition Plant System; the citizens implied they were polluting the water and taking away jobs; their general counsel advised they would never solve those kinds of problems with a lawyer, but would have to go down and gut it out; and they did that over the years. He stated he is wearing his yellow ribbon sideways, and he advised his wife he may not have a ride back. He stated his right foot is planted in The Great Outdoors and his left is in Dayton, Ohio; but in the last few months, he has made as much investment in The Great Outdoors as he has in his home in Dayton. He stated the Board is being defeated piecemeal because there is no overall fire protection plan for The Great Outdoors. He stated there are homeowners responsibilities that have to be taken; the Board heard how high the density is; and construction is amenable to the rapid spreading of fire. He commented on testing of B-52’s; stated it was similar to what they have in some of the resorts; and when he drives down Coach Club Drive and looks at some of the RV’s there, it brings flashbacks of that test to his memory. He stated there are three major parts to a fire protection plan; first is the layout and plan; the next thing is development of an overall plan with agreement of the objective; and in this case there is no common agreement of the objective in the parties. He stated what they have is discussion of some possible solutions in pieces; they need development of a fire overlay; and commented on the military term “ground truth.” He stated he talked to someone in Station 24 and was very impressed with the backup; he looked at capacity and asked about response times; and the average response time in Brevard County is 2.5 minutes higher than it is in Beaver Creek, Ohio, but it is not that bad. He stated the road network is not great; and work is needed on that. He stated the first part is the owner’s responsibility as part of the community; and there is a responsibility to not only save people and property, but to remove flammable objects from ones immediate property if it can be done safely. He stated the RV’s have 75 to 125 gallons of fuel; two cars is an additional 40 gallons; and the houses are 15 feet apart. He stated the second part is great; he looked at the pumper; and commented on P-2 fire trucks. He stated he is happy with the second piece and the two pieces of equipment; the response time is approximately 5 to 7.2 minutes, which he verified in his car; and he is satisfied. He stated the next phase is called knock-down before the fire spreads; the response time is between 5 to 12 minutes to the end of Plantation to perform that; and all of the discussion so far has been on this part. He stated if there is a major fire spreading or a brush fire, an effective and continuous source of water with good pressure is needed; the tanker trucks will pump out in approximately 3.5 minutes at full pressure; they do have the capability to pump from the ponds; but they need to have a continuous source after that, if the fire is spreading or there is a brush fire; and that is where the developer comes in. He recommended the developer lay out a plan; stated this is being defeated piecemeal by jumping from one piece of the solution to another; and the plan and the cost should be laid out and scheduled.

Margaret Kanischak stated she is in agreement with the CSA board.

Jerry Kanischak stated he is a resident of The Great Outdoors; one of the things that has been asked is for the Board to deny permits; and that is going to be hard to swallow because it hurts a lot of the residents. He stated the request was not done lightly; it was done in desperation; and if the Board is going to continue to grant permits, it must find another alternative to provide an incentive to the developer to provide detailed plans, specifications, analysis, schedules, times, and some sort of penalty so if the developer does not comply with all of that, there will be recourse and not just a lot of words going back and forth.

K. A. Ringbakk stated he supports the CSA board.

David Craig stated he supports the CSA board.

John Grieb stated he supports the CSA board.

Arthur Foster stated the only comment he would like to make is in reference to the structure of the tower; there is a lot of stock in what Mr. Scaringe said about the elevated tower; and the only way to guarantee an unrestricted flow of water during any kind of disaster is by elevated source with hydraulic pressure and plenty of water in a tank. He stated if there are booster pump systems, they will have to rely on electricity; if they do not have electricity, then they need generators; and if the generators do not start, they are nowhere, so the tower is definitely the way to go.

Bernard Murphy stated a lot of the people living at The Great Outdoors have never heard some of the comments made today about fire hydrants and pressure; and he supports the CSA board.

Gene Aske stated he supports the board.

Marian Berkowitz stated she lives in The Great Outdoors and chairs the emergency response team-medical response team within the community; the only thing she has seen done quickly in The Great Outdoors is house building and sales; and the reason they are all present today is because they would like to see that same timely manner applied to their fire system and not add houses that will make the problem worse. She stated any help the Board can give to stimulate the growth of the fire system to match the growth of the housing, she would love to see.

Jerry McNally stated he supports the CSA board, and his wife, who is upstairs in a wheelchair, does as well.

Walt Helm stated he lives in The Great Outdoors; when he first moved there he had a yellow fire hydrant; and he thought he had fire protection, and so declared on his homeowners policy that he had a fire plug within 500 feet of his house. He stated all of a sudden it was painted purple, so it is not a fire hydrant any more according to NFPA; and if he perjures himself this year when he redoes his policy, he is probably in trouble. He stated he is well versed in the emergency and critical water supply systems, having participated in the design of Complex 39A north suppression system at the Cape; there is a very high water tower at each of the complexes; and they looked at booster pump systems to supply this water for the north suppression system, which is critical; if the boosters ignited and there was no water to the platform, it would buckle and try to go into orbit with the booster; so this was a very critical water supply. He stated booster pumps do not work; they have many failure points; and so they went to water towers because gravity does not fail; and for every four feet of elevation, it picks up 1.7 pounds per square inch of pressure. He advised he is a retired mechanical engineer and a Florida certified general contractor; and if he were the general contractor at The Great Outdoors today, he would have his attorney draw up a letter for his signature divulging everything that was said at today’s meeting and send it to those people who he was under contract with, because he would be very vulnerable at this point.

Lynn Hansel, Vice President of The Great Outdoors, stated in January he was asked to begin to research the possibility of constructing an elevated water tank at The Great Outdoors; he contacted some of the water tower companies, namely Pittsburgh, Caldwell, and Chicago Bridge; and after talking with all of them about scheduling, he went to County staff to ask how he could build a 120-foot tower. He stated there were some Zoning Ordinance questions that have now been solved in large part due to Commissioner Scarborough, although it may still take Board action. He stated with regard to the elevated water tank, they have been told today that it could be in service within six months; if so, that is great; but the best he has been able to come up with is between now and the end of next March one may be able to be built. He stated if it is determined that pilings are necessary for the support of that structure, he has been told by Caldwell that would add another 60 to 90 days to the construction process. He submitted a tentative schedule; stated there might be a tower in place by the end of March 2005, but it may be the end of June 2005; and if someone can do better than that, he would like to get that help.

Commissioner Scarborough presented Mr. Hansel with paperwork from the packet from Caldwell Tanks. Mr. Hansel stated his schedule contemplated up to nine months from the same company; but the letter he has been given indicates six months. He noted that is based on when all the engineering is done, when DEP permits it, when the site plan is approved, and when it is bid out, so the construction phase may be six or nine months, but everyone is aware of the things that lead up to getting that construction underway.

Ron Reynolds stated he lives at The Great Outdoors; he just purchased there in September 2003; and he was an inspector for the City of Cocoa underground, building inspector in California, and superintendent for underground construction for Nevada Pipeline. He stated it does not make any sense to run a whole community through a four-inch water meter out of 12-inch lines; he is not an engineer; and inquired if they put a booster system on, are they going to collapse the lines to supply water through a four-inch main. He stated he worked the reuse system for the City of Cocoa; and there is no backflow preventer system at The Great Outdoors that he has seen other than the City of Cocoa’s main line coming in. Mr. Reynolds stated there are cross connections; they could be drinking reuse water now; and there is no control over that. He stated he saw several ditches open recently; sewer lines were on top of water lines, which is against the code; reuse water was running right next to potable water; and electrical lines were running through the middle of all of them, which is appalling. He stated if he knew then what he knows now, he would never have purchased in The Great Outdoors; but he is there now and intends to stay. He stated he would like to see the Board try to get these things corrected and to see some research done on the best way to go about it. He noted the engineering for a tower will take the same length of time as for a booster pump; and it is just the construction of what will be done afterwards that is different.

Larry Roberts stated he is a professional engineer with Roberts Engineering of Orlando; and his principal goal is to endorse the CSA recommendation of the tower.

Richard Torpy stated he is here on behalf of a group of people; and there are only three things he knows from what he heard today. He stated number one is the fire prevention system at The Great Outdoors is bad; number two, is the property owners are apparently worried and being injured by that; and the third thing is today they cannot solve how to fix the problem because it apparently involves engineers and is a convoluted problem. He stated they know it needs to be fixed immediately; and that is why the people are here. He stated the Board has been asked to do three things today; and the first is to approve the height of the tower. He requested the Board not forget, as part of its deliberation today, to do whatever it has to do to allow a tower to be constructed because that is one of the solutions being sought. He stated the next thing the Board has been asked to approve today is an amendment to the DRI to allow conversion from a reuse fire prevention system to a potable water fire prevention system, if that is a good option; and if the engineers and everyone decide to do that, he is asking the Board to allow that today so the system can be fixed. He stated the third thing the Board has been asked for, he cannot support; and that is to continue in place the moratorium that was created by the March 4, 2004 letter by Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca saying no more building permits would be issued. He stated last Thursday he was contacted by a small group of people asking him to represent approximately 50 lot owners; by Monday that number grew to 120; and as of today, the number is 180 lot owners. He stated the only difference between his clients who are lot owners and the residents who are present is timing; and as Commissioner Scarborough pointed out yesterday, if his clients had built their houses, he would be representing people sitting in the audience. He stated they have the same concerns, but there is one difference; if there is a moratorium in place, his clients cannot move where they want to move; the Board has to decide if that is the appropriate remedy; and to do that it has to look at who is at fault. He stated there has been finger pointing all over the map about who is at fault; but unfortunately one party at fault is the County. He stated the DRI was approved in 1990; since that time there have been 16 separate phases, called condos, that have been approved by the County, so the lots within those phases could be sold; and each time one of the phases came to the County and was presented to staff, they had to look at it to decide whether the lots within that phase complied with the DRI and other Code requirements. Mr. Torpy stated apparently the County decided they did comply because those lots were released and the developer was allowed to sell them; and inquired why the County approved 16 different subdivisions if the system was that fatally flawed. He stated they know it needs to be fixed; but they do not need a knee-jerk reaction to say no one else can build a house in The Great Outdoors. He stated he is sure many of the people in the audience believe that is going to put pressure on the developer, but he does not believe that is true; his understanding is although the developer has more phases he wants to develop, he has not come in for the ability to sell or even develop those phases; and this understanding is the developer only has four lots left to sell, so stopping building permits will not affect the developer. He stated it would affect the people who own the lots and want to move there; the real question on the moratorium is safety; and inquired can the County protect these homes today. He stated Chief Farmer said he has moved apparatus up to the area so that can happen; if it is not enough, he can move more out there if he has to in order to protect the people; but the Board should not stop the people who legitimately relied on the permitting process and bought lots from moving forward. He stated they are talking about millions of dollars of property and lots of people’s dreams that are going to be stopped because of the fire prevention issue; and requested the Board not stop the issuance of building permits in The Great Outdoors. He stated if the equipment Chief Farmer has there will suffice, that is great; but there is another solution, which is to provide fire apparatus.

Chair Higgs stated there was a large stack of cards; and inquired if she missed anyone who still wishes to speak; and no response was heard. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board was going to let Mr. Williams speak again and a representative of the CSA.

Mason Williams stated someone came before the Board and made a comment that the reuse system could be made automatic; and he wants to put on the record that it is not only their engineers, but the County Fire Chief and CSA’s engineers agree that the system cannot be made automatic; and he can submit the letter of January 9, 2004 concerning that. He stated the Development Order with regard to the automatic system is not enforceable; a solution has to be found to that; and if it is not enforceable, the Board cannot base denial of permits on it. He stated he was concerned that they will not agree to do anything; in October 2003 he got a letter from the CSA attorney saying they had agreed to put in either a water tower or the booster pump system; and they proceeded on that basis and have worked toward doing that. He stated they got sidetracked simply because of the question regarding the water tower and that they could not get a variance; so they went back to the booster pump question. He stated they were willing to do either one; but as Mr. Hansel advised the water tower is going to take 15 to 18 months to get permitted and built, and they can solve this in six months with the booster pump, which is the same booster pump the County already has down in South Brevard. He stated they want to do the water tower because it is what CSA desires; but for CSA to say there is a fire safety danger out there and yet reject a fix that can be implemented in six months is very inconsistent; and he hopes the Board recognizes that. He stated they are willing to do the water tower solution, but it will take longer; and they have to have relief from the County for the permit denial to the third parties, otherwise they will implement the six-month solution. He stated that solution is the one the County has now in South Brevard; and it is a reasonable solution; but they want to do what the community wants. Mr. Williams stated they need to focus on the issues; the reuse has been there for 12 years; it must be maintained; it cannot be automatic; but right now they are manually shutting down the irrigation pumps. He stated a gentleman said it takes two hours to turn off the lot irrigation; but those are not all running at the same time; they have zones just like a sprinkler system; and the critical issue is turning off the golf course, which requires a switch; and they are doing that. He stated it is not a violation of the Development Order to do it that way if it is impossible to do it automatically. He stated 10% of the lots are on the potable system; and inquired if there are neighborhoods and houses in this County that have fire protection that is less right now than The Great Outdoors and are those areas unsafe. He stated he thinks the answer is no because there is a fine fire department that is ready to respond to the fires; the same is true at The Great Outdoors; and that is critical to a solution because if permits are denied, there are going to be a lot of people harmed other than the developer who only has four lots. He stated Mr. Wilcox said this is a small city; and because they are like a small city there are going to be breakdowns in equipment and lines just like the County; and that is why the County has a big maintenance crew. He advised of a letter from Mr. Wilcox in the March 12 newsletter to the entire Great Outdoors community indicating challenges they faced to keep the park functioning such as water leaks, broken gates, mechanical failures, pool and wastewater treatment plant problems, fountain failures; and equipment breakdowns; and stated there are a litany of breakdowns that happen in the County that are normal to a large operation; and that is why they have fire coverage that is ready to respond even if there are breakdowns. He stated they want a solution and welcome Commissioner Scarborough’s involvement in mediating a further solution. He stated they are committed to doing whatever the County wants them to do; and as far as making sure the developer will do that, with the eight-inch loop, it would be going right now if CSA would allow it. He noted there are 200 additional lots that are not platted that they will not submit for platting before this is solved, if that is what the County desires; they want to get this solved; there are some difficult answers; and they welcome Commissioner Scarborough’s involvement.

Bob Wilcox stated the statement is about running a city; there are a number of issues that have to be done and things that have to be fixed; but when a city is confronted with a major failure, like the automatic feature that does not exist, they need a fix. He stated Mr. Williams said they can just turn off the clocks; but there are 57 of them; if there is a fire, they would have to drive through the community, figure out which of the 57 clock sequences are on throughout the community, find those clocks, and turn them off; and that takes time so it is not the proper system. He stated the CSA wants to be part of the solution; it wants a fire safe community; and that is all they are asking for. He stated they talk about the water tower; Caldwell Tanks told them that the water tower could be here in six months; and regardless they want a system. He stated gravity never fails; and the citizens of the community need a fire safety system. He stated they need cooperation with the developer and the Association to sit down and hammer out the issues; but they need to be in the loop because they own the system and the city.

Chair Higgs stated one of the questions was whether there are other neighborhoods in the County that have less fire protection than The Great Outdoors, and if so, can Chief Farmer explain that. Chief Farmer stated with regard to water resources, the answer is yes, there are places in the County that do not have potable or reuse systems; but the difference is the people who live there know that they are buying, moving into, or living in an area that has restricted water resources; that was experienced in 1998 with Scottsmoor, for instance; and they just adjust their operation for that. He stated the other question was whether the County can continue to protect The Great Outdoors for whatever length of time it takes to fix the problem; and if the Board tells him to do that, he can do it, so that is not an issue. He stated he would like it to be fixed sooner rather than later; but he understands the Board wanting to be customer friendly and work with the contractor and developer; and he can maintain the operation as long as the Board tells him to. Chair Higgs inquired where is the tanker from; with Chief Farmer responding there are two tankers; and the first is 24 coming out of SR 405/SR 50 area. Chair Higgs stated that is where it is now; and inquired where is it normally; with Chief Farmer stated they got a new tanker in Suntree, and took the old tanker to the Bellwood area. Chair Higgs inquired if this had not come up, where would it have gone; with Chief Farmer responding they were talking to the Scottsmoor volunteers to see if they would be able to operate it out of Scottsmoor, but they delayed that to take care of The Great Outdoors issue. He advised additionally there is another tanker coming out of Station 22 in Mims to back up as well; and both are 3,000 gallon tankers so they can do a shuttling program.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is a tanker in the Suntree location; with Chief Farmer responding affirmatively. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the other two are positioned to assist The Great Outdoors; with Chief Farmer responding yes, and to continue to assist Scottsmoor as the one from Mims can go to Scottsmoor. Commissioner Carlson stated the developer said if the Board keeps in place the moratorium, they would do the ground system; and inquired can they do that given the fact that in the letter from Ms. Busacca that talks to the developments of regional impact, it says that local governments shall not issue any permits or approvals, or provide an extension of service if the developer fails to act in substantial compliance with the Development Order. She noted the Board has not decided if that is the case or not. Mr. Knox stated the Board has not decided that issue; as it stands now there are certain criteria the fire protection system has to meet that are set forth in the Development Order; and one of those cannot be met because according to at least one side, it is not possible to meet that condition; the other several conditions can be met, but are not being met right now; so the answer is whatever it takes to meet those conditions is what they can do. Commissioner Carlson stated that does not really answer the question; with Mr. Knox advising if it is something that has 750 gallons per minute at 20 pounds of pressure, it meets those conditions. Commissioner Carlson inquired at this time, can they continue with the moratorium or do they need to lift it because it sounds like it is substantial, based on the language she just read. Mr. Knox responded if the Board decides it is substantial, then it can continue with the moratorium. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Williams said they would go ahead with the booster pumps and apply for the permits; and she is confused as to what they could or could not do. Mr. Knox inquired if they put in the booster pump is that going to require an amendment to the Development Order; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Mr. Knox stated the short answer is they cannot put that in unless the DO is amended. Chair Higgs stated for any other alternative, they must amend; with Ms. Busacca advising an amendment to the Development Order could not be done today because there has to be advertising and that sort of thing; and there was a request to amend the DO today, but it has not been properly advertised.

Commissioner Scarborough stated they are ending up where they began; there has been a lot of discussion about what discretion the Board has; and whether people like it or not, the Board does not have a lot of discretion. He stated the Board could determine that they are not meeting the DRI requirement of 20 psi at 750 gpm; but if they bring it up to that level, they have met the DRI; and he does not know the measure in which the community wants to participate in having more sophisticated or better systems. He inquired if there is a Commissioner who thinks they are close enough to 20 psi at 750 gpm that the Board can say that is substantially close and not violating State law; it is not a matter of what people want, but a matter of legal responsibility under the law of the State of Florida; and if a Commissioner thinks that, he would be interested in hearing their views. He stated he has not heard anybody give any competent evidence to the contrary; they started out with comments from Mr. Wilcox and from Mr. Knox that led him in that direction; and that defines the problem, but does not define the answer. He stated he welcomes the opportunity to work through as many things as possible; the comment was made in one meeting that they were not able to meet in agreement; and he made a suggestion. He commented on a list from the CSA, meeting agreements, and difficulty or ease of filling in the blanks. He stated the DRI is something they have to bring to the Board; the DRI amendment will be dependent upon some agreements; and one of the attorneys mentioned they could go ahead and approve tank height today so that would be taken care of; but he does not think they are going to accomplish as much as they would like to because this is one of those things that they are going to have to work the issue and bring it back.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is suggesting doing a mediation between the developer and any other entities; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he just meant to stay in the loop because the more they know about moving a DRI through, working with Cocoa, and all of the issues, the more likely a solution is going to occur rapidly. He stated it is a win/win if they move rapidly, but a lose/lose if they move slowly; and he is prepared to make a couple of motions. He stated maybe the Board will not be happy with what he is going to say; but he does not believe the DRI requirement of 20 psi at 750 gpm is being substantially complied with; and he does not see any reason to reverse the Brevard County staff decision on the moratorium on building permits.

Commissioner Pritchard stated there are some permits that have been placed in the system for expansions on existing property; and this holds up everything that is being done. He stated this is an issue of compliance, performance, and good faith; what brought him to Brevard County government initially in the early 1990’s was a problem he had with a subdivision; because of that he got very active and involved; and he sees the same thing here. He stated promises were made and not kept; the folks moved into a neighborhood where there is not sufficient fire protection; but many of them have said they should have an agreement, performance bond, and schedule as to how it will be implemented so there is a fire safety system, then they could issue
permits. Commissioner Pritchard stated if there is a moratorium, that holds everybody’s feet to the fire, but it also delays people being able to move into the neighborhood; if they are able to work concurrently issuing permits, having the agreement, having the performance bond, and having things moving on continuously while still having fire protection, then it can move forward instead of holding it up another 30 to 90 days.

Mr. Knox stated he has a recommendation, which is consistent and a compromise between no permits and letting it go forward; based on what staff has said, a development order amendment and a new set of engineering plans will be required; and requiring posting of a bond would be an alternative available to the Board. He stated the Board could take the position that no one could get a building permit, CO, or anything until the bond is posted, and the development order, engineering plans, and proposed development order change are submitted, which would be done simultaneously. He stated once that is done, they can go back and start getting building permits and CO’s; at that point a schedule should be set out that they have to comply with and it should be a condition of the bond; and if they do not comply to the schedule, then they would be in violation of the bond and the County can take over and finish it.

Commissioner Colon stated Commissioner Scarborough is right in the sense that the Board needs to do this right in a very comprehensive way because there are many issues; and she started asking in the very beginning exactly what the people wanted. She commented on the need for a bulleted list of things to be done; and stated it is important for the Commissioners to support Commissioner Scarborough as this is in his District ad he wants to make sure it is done right the first time. She stated the Board will not have to deal with permits or anything like that later on if everything is done correctly today; and she is not willing to lift the moratorium. She stated the Board should support County staff so this can be done right; and the Board should give direction today to bring together the Fire, Zoning, and Legal Departments. She stated this is a huge matter; it needs to be done completely, not half way; and she is very sensitive to those folks who are willing to come into this community. She stated she does not blame people for wanting to be part of this community; but they really need to be careful what they wish for; and she is willing to support Commissioner Scarborough on what he wants to do.

Chair Higgs requested Mr. Knox outline his alternative. Mr. Knox stated what he would suggest as possible conditions of any action by the Board would be that no building permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for lots in The Great Outdoors until a bond has been posted, engineering plans submitted, and an application made for an amendment of the Development Order to reflect the proposed engineering plans as submitted; condition B would be the developer shall post a performance bond in the amount of 125% of the reasonable estimated cost of a fire protection system that meets the flow and pressure requirements of the Development Order; and the bond shall be conditioned upon completion of a fire protection system that meets the pressure and flow requirements of the existing Development Order in accordance with the following schedule. He stated the schedule would include having the engineering plans submitted by a date certain together with a proposed amendment for the Development Order; construction would begin within a set number of days of approval of the engineering plans; and construction would be complete within a certain number of months after the day of commencement of construction. He stated failure of the developer to comply with any of the conditions set forth would constitute a default of the bond conditions and authorize the County to make demand upon the developer or the surety for the full amount of the bond.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the thing that bothers him is there are certain State requirements; however, what Mr. Knox is proposing is to proceed with this as a possibility of occurring if certain events transpire; and the moratorium would continue until such time as these things are in place. He stated he knows the distance between The Great Outdoors and Mims; and quite a few structures could be lost by the time equipment got down there. He stated it is totally different than having a hydrant 50 feet away; this is not good; and the Board does ot need to think about how bad it is, but how it could be made better. He stated he would support a motion on Mr. Knox’s suggestion.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to support the County Attorney’s recommendation as stated.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board wants to hear from the CSA chairperson to see if this is something that is okay to start with.

Bonnie Groves stated it would be something they want; it is what they proposed as one of the options in their board meeting; approximately 500 members were there; they had to talk them into the alternative; and they would be pleased with that. She stated what they are saying is it is acceptable until they come to a negotiated settlement within a certain amount of time. She stated Mr. Williams suggested a booster system; and his letter says they agree with the booster system with storage. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is not what the Board is saying; first they have to come to an agreement; and it is up to them to come subsequent to this meeting. Ms. Groves stated that will be negotiated; she cannot assure Commissioner Scarborough of that right now; but that is very much what they want.

Mr. Williams stated it is overkill; they are talking about buildings that are underway out there; and a building that is being built now needs fire protection, but the Board is denying someone from taking occupancy of his home. He stated if the Board adds a certificate of occupancy requirement to this, that is going way beyond where the Board needs to go. He stated obviously he disagrees with where this is going; the booster pump solution would solve the problem in six months; the CSA board said no, it wanted a solution that could take a year and three months to a year and a half depending on whether pilings are required; so the basis for this is that it is unsafe out there, but they are being told they cannot solve it in six months with a system the County has in Aquarina. He stated he does not think the Board is going to be able to tell them if they have to go into a proceeding on this; and that particular condition would require it because the Board is forcing them to go to a solution that puts everyone in jeopardy longer with permits denied, when they could solve it in six months.

Commissioner Scarborough stated all the Board is doing is saying find a solution; he does not know the facts or the engineering; but he does know they will be back, and at that time, the Board would like to see solutions. He stated if there is not a solution, then they will continue the moratorium, which they are legally compelled to put in place. He noted he may be wrong, but that is what he believes.

Mr. Williams stated he understands that; and the solution they are going to come back with is a booster pump and switchover to potable hydrants because they can get that done in six months, so that is where this is headed.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if that requires an amendment to the Development Order; with Chair Higgs advising either one requires an approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Carlson stated this will be back; with Chair Higgs responding that is correct. Commissioner Carlson stated it is not going to be a very productive meeting, if that is the case.

Mr. Williams stated the amendment would allow them to have potable hydrants and the 750 gpm and 20 psi requirement would be met; and they can do that with a booster pump. He expressed concern about being held in jeopardy for an additional year; with Commissioner Carlson responding it does not have to be a year; this is the jumping off point; and it is up to the developer and the community to get together and devise a solution to bring back that everyone will say is okay. Mr. Williams stated that is not what he heard.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Knox suggested as soon as the agreement is reached, they would not be in jeopardy. Mr. Williams stated he did not understand that. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is what Mr. Knox was saying; that is what gives him some consternation; and that is why he was reticent to give that direction because he does not know if he has the legal authority to do it; but he thinks Mr. Williams got more than he thought he was going to get this afternoon. Mr. Williams stated his understanding of the motion was no CO’s or building permits would be issued until it is solved, so he misunderstood; but he still thinks the CO requirement is a bit much.

Commissioner Pritchard stated that is what he was going to question; the problem with withholding a CO is that it is holding someone else’s foot to the fire; and that person has a mortgage and construction loan he may be paying. He inquired how the CO requirement came into this.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not have a problem with the CO because the construction is already started; it is out there; and it is at risk. Chair Higgs suggested dropping it. Commissioner Pritchard agreed they should drop the CO requirement. Chair Higgs stated they are dropping that requirement; they are talking about a schedule and performance bond; and it is coming back to the Board. She inquired if they are talking about amendment to the Development Order being initiated by the developer, because that would be necessary; with Mr. Knox responding yes.

Commissioner Colon inquired how many days; with Mr. Knox responding they cannot pull any permits until they do it. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is up to them to bring it back to the Board, so it is in their hands. Mr. Knox stated they will need some kind of estimate as to how long it will take to get engineering plans back. Mr. Williams responded he cannot give that estimate today; he would have to confer with the consultants on that; but they will move as quickly as they can. He stated the only other caveat he has is that the developer is a corporation and only owns four lots; he is not sure what bond they can obtain; but he will check into that.

Chair Higgs stated there was a question about moving on the water tower; and inquired if the water tower was the solution, would they need to amend the Development Order or Code to change the height or could that be done under the current Code with the Board having the ability to interpret that. Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated the Board has the ability to interpret that; and the spirit of the Code is that the Board would be in a favorable position to make that interpretation.

Chair Higgs stated she agrees under the DO and the DRI that if the agreement came back on the height, she would support the water tower as the solution; and she wanted to go on record that she would do that if it came back in a timely fashion with a realistic schedule.

Commissioner Colon stated she had shared with Mr. Williams that this would be coming back because it is quite complex so he should not be surprised. She stated if Mr. Williams truly cares, he will make it possible to get all the paperwork and get together with the community; and it is really up to everyone to work together to fix this, but the sooner they get it, the sooner they can move on.

Commissioner Colon seconded the motion.

Mr. Knox stated the motion was to approve the proposal he read into the record; and the only thing that was missing from it was the timeframes; and what they can do is work with the developer on those time frames and bring them back to the Board for ratification. Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Knox restate the entire thing. Mr. Knox stated the proposal was: Condition A, no building permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for lots in The Great Outdoors until a bond has been posted, engineering plans submitted, and an application for an amendment of the Development Order to reflect the proposed engineering plans as submitted; Condition B, the developer shall post a performance bond in the amount of 125% of the reasonable estimated cost of a fire protection system that meets the flow and pressure requirements of the Development Order; and the bond shall be conditioned upon completion of a fire protection system that meets the pressure and flow requirements of the existing Development Order in accordance with the following schedule. He stated the schedule would be engineering plans submitted by a date determined by the Board together with a proposed amendment for the Development Order; construction would begin within a specified number of days of approval of the engineering plans, and construction would be complete within
a specified number of months of the day of commencement of construction. He advised failure of the developer to comply with any of the conditions set forth would constitute a default of the bond conditions and authorize the County to make demand upon the developer or the surety for the full amount of the bond.

Ms. Busacca requested the motion be modified; stated Chief Farmer advises it is possible for a solution to come in that would not require a Development Order amendment; and the motion should be “Development Order amendment, if required.”

Commissioner Scarborough stated he will include that in the motion.

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion, as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve the additional height for the water tower, if that solution is approved. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 4:33 p.m. and reconvened at 4:43 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: LAW LIBRARY FUNDING

Thelma Roper stated the law library has been an issue for her within the past few years; she wants to see the County keep the law library; she heard the funding had been cut and there may be a problem with keeping them open; and she is concerned because they are very helpful to the citizens at large. She stated a lot of people go to the law library; she is in there a lot; and the people she sees most using it are the average citizens. She stated she discussed with Commissioner Scarborough that when there are books that are duplicates that are going to be disposed of, she would like to see them donated to non-profit agencies that might be willing to keep them in the area so they can still be used by the public. She stated she looked at the suggestions, but had a hard time deciding which one she would choose; and she mainly came down to advocate that whatever is done, something is done to keep the law library because it is important to average citizens.

Walter Pine stated he has spoken to Commissioner Scarborough at length about the law library; it is important that everyone be aware that there are a lot of resources that are available at the law library that are not available anywhere else; and one very important resource is the staff. He stated the staff is very capable and helpful to the average citizens; if the law library does not remain as it currently exists, even if the books are moved to another library, that resource would be lost; and for those citizens needing assistance in finding things involved with the courts or the legal system, that is an invaluable resource. He stated the Board needs to be sure it funds that so it can keep it at no less than it currently is; and it should also be funded so they can create some equal access. He stated some of the large print viewers need to be made available; there are some other improvements the librarians have desired for some time that make things more accessible; and there is a recurring issue with some of the publications. He stated the resource is something the Center for Civil Rights Advocacy has referred people to; and no citizen has ever been turned away or left dissatisfied. He stated staff has been helpful; the books and materials are there; and he will not say they get everything they need because there is a learning curve to it, but they get what they need for the moment. He encouraged the Board to look at not just the choices given but continuing to provide the level of service currently provided and improving that. He stated the fact that it is maintained at the courthouse makes it accessible where it is needed; and encouraged the Board to maintain its current location. He stated he understands there are going to be a lot of things that will be subject to discussion regarding this; and it might be wise to create a committee for this including the staff of Library Services and the law library staff, because they have a lot of good and appropriate ideas. He stated there is some time before funding ends; and suggested doing that in addition to any other action the Board may wish to take. He stated he supports the law library and Library Services; and requested the Board pay close attention to keeping the service at the level it currently is, and improving it, if possible.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated he was visited last week by two members of the Board of Trustees; and they requested, if the Board continues to look at this, that they have an opportunity to participate in any kind of study or discussions that occur about the future of the law library. He stated it may be a little premature yet until the Legislature finishes the current session and everyone knows how things are going to shake out. He stated there is always a possibility that the Legislature might fund it; it is a Statewide issue being discussed; and the Trustees would like to be a participant in any type of consideration that is going to occur about the law library.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Jenkins is suggesting tabling the item; with Mr. Jenkins responding he is suggesting it be delayed for several months to see what happens.

Commissioner Carlson suggested putting it on the list of requests. Mr. Jenkins stated it is funded through September 30 so it will be part of the budget process. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board is going to get a lot of requests coming in, but no one knows what the State is going to do; they were provided with a tentative list of where it was thought there would be cost shifts from the State and where that burden was going to fall; but she does not have a problem working on this to see if there are other solutions than the County funding it. She noted there are a lot of things that people are going to be asking for funding in the budget cycle; and this should go in the same pile so it can be sorted and prioritized.

Commissioner Scarborough stated at the law library there are just average people looking at materials; individuals should have a right to be able to access the law without having to go to an attorney; and even if one has an attorney, he or she should be able to access. He stated Mr. Pine touched on having staff there to direct someone to the materials; that is a basic service of civilization for people to access and understand the law independently of having to pay a lawyer; and he knows the Library Services Director feels that way and is doing all she can, but she has a budgetary constraint. He stated there is an obligation. Mr. Jenkins stated the Trustees told him that over 50% of the usage is by private citizens as opposed to attorneys.

Chair Higgs stated the reason for the Trustees as a separate entity is because of the funding mechanism; folding it into the library system seems to be the only way to fund it; and if that is the only way to fund it, it needs to be folded into the system and not be a stand-alone entity.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are people in the public who will be vitally impacted.

Chair Higgs stated it would make no sense to have a separate entity when the separate entity brings nothing to the table; they certainly could have an advisory board as is done with other libraries; but she cannot see any reason to have a separate governing entity if they are folding it into the library system; with Mr. Jenkins responding unless they could come up with ways to generate additional revenue. Mr. Jenkins noted if it is in the library system, it is called the Brevard County Free Library System, so they lose revenue opportunities there as part of their legislation; and the trustees may want to schedule appointments to talk to the Commissioners as well, so the Board does not need to make the choice today.

DIRECTION, RE: TREE REMOVAL PERMITTING WITHIN THE LAND CLEARING AND
TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE

Thelma Roper stated when she saw these items, it raised some flags because they have been watching and participating in all the stuff on what used to be the SEA and CEO ordinances; and she sees what the Agenda Report says, but they are also looking at the process going on right now within the County to consolidate all the environmental Ordinances. She stated rather than addressing any of this now, it would be better to bring all of the Ordinances in side-by-side; there are 13 different Ordinances; this is just a small part of it; and recommended bringing the Ordinances in side-by-side, making sure it is well publicized, and letting the public hash it out. She stated there are people interested in the Ordinances who could not come today because they did not find out about this in time; she got calls as late as this morning from people just finding out about it; and she does not see why the Board is doing this piecemeal when it has already let the public know it is going to be consolidating all of these. She recommended doing them all at once; stated it will save time and make it a lot easier; and the issues can be addressed appropriately with better public response than the Board is going to hear today.

Walter Pine stated there is not a lot more to say; but there are some important issues. He stated development has hit Brevard County lately pretty hard; there is a lot of development and growth, especially in North Brevard, that is coming new to the area; he understands there are issues and concerns; but he is also very concerned with public access. He stated this is clearly part of the area that was dealt with under the SEA ordinance; and apparently there was a meeting last week that Natural Resources was unaware of with Mr. Jenkins and five members of the community where they decided that the Ordinances that are to be consolidated are going to be rewritten by Mr. Knox and the attorneys. He stated some of those may engender significant definition and policy changes; and policy issues belong with the Board and before the public. Mr. Pine stated he understands there may be various opinions; but there are already a lot of disaffected members of the public; if the Board is going to do its best to make sure that everybody gets to be heard, it does not matter which side of the fence it is listening to or which small groups it is listening to; and it is important that the general public gets to express their views and instruct the Board on how they wish public policy to be handled. He stated this item is a perfect example; people work for a living; most of them are in District 1, which is more heavily impacted because it is not as developed as the other areas; and he had numerous calls. He stated the Board needs to take the time and have some public hearings; everyone needs to hear what the impacts are; development has already occurred in Melbourne; and now there is going to be the heaviest regulation burden on the rural areas that are not currently developed. He stated if he kept his property undeveloped for his children or it was not in great demand, then he would be subject to heavier regulation at a future date; and if the Board is going to place heavier regulation on people, they should be entitled to some compensation. He stated if the Board is telling them they cannot develop for a limited period of time or cannot change the zoning for a period of time, which is not what the people had expected, it would be a significant change; the people would not know what was in the works; and he does not know how many people have already received letters of some type of agreement. He stated there is a problem with the notice to the general public and their ability to attend meetings because they are being held during the hours when most people work; people who depend on these properties and incomes are the people who have to work for a living; they cannot take time off to come to the meetings; and requested the Board have public meetings and withhold any decision or combine this issue with the ongoing consolidation of the rules with Natural Resources. He stated the Board should hold public meetings, give the public additional opportunity for response in a more positive light than the SEA ordinance was, and have a less adversarial process; and it may be able to come up with some very good processes and ideas. He stated he appreciates what the Board has done; but it is important that the members of the public, particularly those in North Brevard, be given an opportunity to have input where they otherwise have been denied or feel they have been denied because the ones who are going to be heaviest impacted are those in the rural areas west of I-95.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated he and Mr. Jenkins met with some people last week; they decided the best course of action was for staff to try to put together a consolidation of Ordinances in a framework that would allow them to identify issues that needed to be addressed; and that is the policy issue Mr. Pine is talking about. He stated for example, there may be ten Ordinances; each one may have a definition of the term “lot”; and there may be ten conflicting definitions of that term, so he proposed to put all those definitions in one place and look at what the conflicts are and what they need to do to them. He stated nothing is going to change; and they are trying to identify the problems.

Chair Higgs requested clarification of the intent that staff wanted to consider; with County Manager Tom Jenkins advising this actually came from the Board. Chair Higgs requested staff clarify what the Board is giving direction on. Natural Resources Management Interim Director Virginian Barker stated Commissioner Pritchard requested staff bring back an item that would
allow the removal of citrus trees where owners chose to do such; and when they started working on bringing that item back, they were also aware there was an issue with removal of any trees in certain circumstances, so they chose to combine those two issues and provide a single solution, which would be developing a tree removal permit that would allow people with specific individual trees they wanted to remove for specific reasons to apply for a tree removal permit. Ms. Barker stated individuals would be allowed to replace those trees as long as they replaced them with native species on some alternate location on the lot that was more convenient to the use they were seeking.

Joyce Gumpher, Allen Engineering, representing Attorney Richard Amari, read aloud a letter from Mr. Amari as follows: “Dear Chair Higgs, I recently learned of this agenda item. Unfortunately I had a prior commitment, which precludes my attendance. The subject of tree preservation is near and dear to my heart. As a person involved in land development in this County, I have long been a believer that trees are an important part of our community and deserve special attention. This belief is evident in my two projects, the Woods of Iroquois and the Woods at Crooked Mile, each of which gets its namesake from my painstaking efforts to save trees by implementing design and construction criteria with that goal in mind. I do not subscribe to the practice of clear-cutting subdivisions. Unfortunately some property has certain characteristics that do not lend themselves easily to tree preservation. Also interaction with other land development regulations often makes it difficult, if not impossible, to preserve trees. Your current Ordinance is unworkable. Unfortunately there are many situations where a tree must be removed. Many sites begin with less than the 25% site area canopy coverage. Read literally your Ordinance prohibits the removal or the relocation of even a single tree in that situation, yet, often site characteristics exist that require tree removal for any reasonable development to occur. Your staff has tried diligently to address this situation, but does not have the tools to do so. I believe that it is in this vein that this subject matter is before you. The subject is very important and merits your attention. Much of your staff’s proposals have merit. I recognize some of it from previous discussions with your staff. I do believe, however, that there are many instances deserving attention that have not yet been addressed. While I believe your staff has made a very good start at proposing solutions to a serious problem, I submit that the proposal needs input from the development community. I ask that you authorize your staff to develop a proposal and invite participation in the process from the public. Meaningful participation necessitates adequate notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Time certain meeting would be helpful so that interested persons could arrange their schedules to participate. This is a very important topic, and I hope you will give it the time and the attention it deserves. Sincerely Richard Amari.” Ms. Gumpher submitted a copy of the letter to the Board, but not the Clerk. She stated speaking as an engineer, she does a lot of site layouts for developers; and the tree canopy issue is a major problem in new site development; existing site conditions related to design criteria for stormwater, finished floor elevation, and site requirements often prohibit the preservation of existing vegetation onsite; and she would suggest the tree canopy landscape Ordinance be revised or expanded to address the problem illustrated in Figure B of the staff report to provide the 25% canopy preservation objective. She suggested the following: tree replacement with new plantings of the same or equal species at the rate of 150% of the diameter at breast height of the trees to be removed; using a minimum of 4-inch diameter at breast height; dealing with heat islands and the landscaping buffer; and providing sufficient tree plantings to achieve a canopy equal to 25% of the site within ten years. Ms. Gumpher noted the report said five years, but it is difficult to get full canopy within five years. She stated in the staff report the 5% that was mentioned in issue 3, item 2, says 5% more than what exists at the time of development; and that should not be a condition because if one starts with 100%, it is difficult to increase it, and if there is zero, 5% of zero is still zero.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Pine mentioned all this consternation; and they have gotten a lot from people who were very concerned about the SEA ordinance. He stated one elderly gentleman came in; his wife had gotten some information at the bowling alley; he had a single-family home; and he was almost in tears over the issue. He stated he would like to know how the Board thinks; Mr. Pine has been part of the discussion and knows the concerns in District 1; and what he is reading is a liberalization where people who have a tree that is a problem for development of a small lot will be allowed to do more. He stated Commissioner Pritchard brought up the issue of citrus trees; there is a high degree of sensitivity when these things come up; and suggested it could have been depicted with site plans and photographs of sites so people could see what the Board is talking about. He stated there will be people who will read this and think the Board is talking about the SEA ordinance today; it has nothing to do with that methodology; and if anything, it allows for liberalization more than a conservative approach.

Chair Higgs stated when Commissioner Pritchard brought it up, some amendment made sense; she is a total supporter of preserving trees and canopies; but there seems to be some sense in making some amendments to allow people to do this in a more simplified fashion; and she thinks the Board should go forward with it. She stated it may be some time before the consolidation is done; there are some easy uncomplicated ways to make things easier and more logical for residents; and recommended going forward. She suggested staff craft the legislative intent and bring it back to the Board so it does not scare people that the Board is doing something horrible; stated that would be a logical way to do it; and then it does not preclude anybody from having a conversation with the Commissioners, and makes it easier for folks to deal with their own properties.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when it comes back, there needs to be an understanding it is not just the Board; staff briefed all the Commissioners; but there is a community that has a right to know what they are talking about.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Option 2, to direct staff to develop Legislative Intent to amend the Land Clearing and Tree Protection Ordinance to provide a tree removal permit option under limited circumstances and to require replacement of removed trees with native species.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that is with the proviso that it come back with legislative intent; with Commissioner Carlson responding that is Option 2. Chair Higgs inquired if Commissioner Scarborough wants pictures; with Commissioner Scarborough responding affirmatively. Mr. Jenkins noted he is not sure if pictures apply in this case because it is removing one tree and putting another up. Commissioner Scarborough stated in all cases, they can find a picture.

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

DIRECTION, RE: AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS REGULATED BY LAND CLEARING AND
TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE

Chair Higgs stated this is the item Ms. Gumpher was talking about so the Board will include her comments regarding this item.

Natural Resources Management Interim Director Virginia Barker stated currently policy regarding land clearing and tree protection allows an exemption for people coming forward for agricultural or silvicultural uses of their lots; if they then change their minds a week later, after they have cleared the property, the trees are gone and there is no canopy left to protect under the existing land clearing and canopy protection rules; so what they are proposing is something that is done in many counties that try to protect canopy. She stated if an owner gets an agricultural exemption he would then be limited from applying for a rezoning or other development activity for a five-year period; and in that way they will not have people going to get their clearing for agricultural purposes and then turning around a week later and developing the site to get around the other requirements.

Chair Higgs stated while the first item may have made it easier for people, some people would consider this to be making it more difficult.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is not looking for a loophole; and inquired if someone were to purchase property, zone it agricultural, and clear everything with full intent of doing something in ten years, where are the teeth in what is being done here. Commissioner Carlson stated there are no teeth in it right now. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is a five-year program; but in the sixth, seventh, eighth year and so on, they have a cleared field and no canopy. Ms. Barker stated they are not trying to discourage agricultural uses in any way. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is not trying to discourage agriculture either; he is trying to discourage someone who has a forecasted use of property as a lot-on-lot subdivision, but knows he is not going to do it for six years and is trying to get around the rules; and suggested having it apply if the same owner applies for rezoning. He stated he is looking for a way to prevent someone coming in and clear-cutting. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board could do what Collier County did, which was make it ten years. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is just looking for something besides an ability to circumvent the intent; with Commissioner Carlson responding that is what they are trying to do.

Assistant County Manager Steve Peffer stated in the scenario described in year six, they would still have to meet the landscaping requirements, so even though an area might have been clear-cut, any development that they propose would have to meet the County’s landscaping requirements and it would not remain bare in the subdivision scenario that was envisioned.

Commissioner Carlson stated it would alter the short-term perspective of those who cleared the land and decided a year later to do a subdivision.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired where is the prohibition to cut down the 100-year old oak tree; with Commissioner Carlson advising there is not one now. Chair Higgs stated that is someplace else. Commissioner Carlson stated if they have an exemption, they can cut everything.

Chair Higgs stated the proposal they are talking about is a change to the agricultural exemption; and there are four speakers.

Walter Pine stated there needs to be more communication with the public; but the question is what is the Board accomplishing here. He stated if the Board puts a five-year moratorium and somebody clears something for agricultural, they may clear it in good faith, but three months later because of change of property values and offers for their property that they cannot ignore, they would lose the right to develop. He stated the Board is taking away the right to develop the property for five years; and that is a taking because the right to develop is considered a property right. He stated he believes that trees need to be saved; and presented a scenario where five people buy and clear homesites, but a developer buys all five and consolidates them. He inquired if they had been agricultural, does that mean the developer cannot do anything for five years. He stated the Board is saying if he has agricultural zoning, he cannot benefit from his property the same way as someone who built a home on his property; and there is a question as to what the Board is doing. He suggested it be made voluntary; stated there are a lot of people who are desirous of saving natural resources; with the assistance of the County and not placing another financial burden on them, they are more likely to participate; and the Board may find there will be a greater deal of participation and a longer time period than the Board is asking. He stated there should be a voluntary component to this; it is clear that agricultural land for farm use is exempted by State law; but the Board is going to tell the same people who have sought the protection through the State legislation that the County cannot mess with that but will take the development rights for five years; and he does not think that is right. He stated there are other solutions and options that are just as viable; and inquired if the Board does this, what has it gained. He inquired if they come back and seek a zoning change from agricultural to something else, is the Board going to deny them the zoning change for five years as well. He inquired what if someone dies and breaks up the property for their kids who want to turn it into homesites; and stated that does happen in the real scheme of things and is common in this area. He stated people retire, they buy ten acres, they pass on, and then the children want to split the property into different lots to live there; and inquired if that happens and it is zoned agricultural, where is the problem. He stated there are a lot of unresolved issues that need to be discussed; and inquired what are they accomplishing other than placing more rules out there that really do not do a lot. He stated he has a real problem when government messes with people’s property rights, especially when it is an involuntary application; it is clear the agricultural zonings are intended for a specific purpose such as raising cattle, farming, etc.; people who are taking advantage are not using the properties for those purposes, so those properties should be zoned appropriately; and that is a zoning issue, not a natural resources regulation issue. Mr. Pine inquired if someone is going to clear for agricultural purposes in good faith, why should the County be messing with them. He stated the Board is talking about saving plants and trees; but if a cow or horse is put on the property, it is going to eat everything that is there, so the County has not saved anything. He encouraged the Board to take a much closer look at this and ancillary issues of property rights, what is being taken away from the people, even if only for a temporary period of time, and whether or not people are willing to voluntarily comply. He stated if people do it by their own consent, the County has not violated their property rights; and requested the Board consider that.

Doug Sphar requested the Board close the agricultural exemption loophole that allows a property owner to obtain an agricultural exemption, clear the property, and then immediately apply for a zoning change for development; and stated regulation, as written, does not favor good faith operators of agricultural operations. He stated looking at the three agenda items, there does seem to be a tilt in the items toward favoring clearing and replanting rather than preserving existing canopy; but replanted trees take decades to achieve a canopy functionality of mature existing trees. He stated trees in urban areas function like public utilities in reducing stormwater runoff, improving air quality, and reducing energy consumption. He stated he has a concern that long-term benefits to all citizens are being sacrificed to provide short-term expediency to those who clear and develop land; studies using satellite imagery reveals nationally canopy coverage has decreased by 21% over the past decade; and requested the Board not take any action that would significantly contribute to further loss. He stated here in Brevard there is concern about air quality; trees are very efficient air cleaning machines because they sequester many pollutants; and USDA Forest Service has developed a methodology to assess the air pollution capacity of urban forests with respect to these pollutants. He stated in Denver, Colorado trees annually move over one million pounds of pollutants. He stated the Forest Service research shows large trees shade houses, which can reduce air conditioning bills significantly; and this reduces the demand on power plants that produce the air pollution. He stated studies sponsored by NASA determined that clearing trees have made temperatures in Atlanta from five to eight degrees hotter than outlying areas; and this results in urban heat islands that generate increasingly violent thunderstorms over the City, contributing to flooding. He stated trees provide habitat for wildlife, especially birds; Brevard County is on the eastern flyway for migrating birds; and tree canopy provides a value that extends beyond the boundaries of the County. He requested the Board close the agricultural exemption; and submitted an article on tree canopy that was in the Orlando Sentinel.

Thelma Roper stated where she grew up in North Brevard there is a lot of agricultural land; some of it has been there for years, cleared and utilized; but some of it is new agricultural lands. She stated there are aging persons who may pass on soon; she is concerned about people who have an expectation of what they will leave their children; for some of them who have participated in the agricultural industry for years, the property is their inheritance; and whether it has been utilized or not, when that property is inherited, the person inheriting it should receive an exemption. She stated if the parents just cleared it before they passed on, the people inheriting it should have the exemption because there is not the same expectation or person dealing with it; and the value for them may be different. Ms. Roper stated the value of the land for the parents may have been in actually working the land; but for the children, it may not; and she does not think the rights of inheritance should be taken away. She stated one of the rights of inheritance is to develop the property as the person sees fit.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when he talked with staff that was one of the problems that needed to be handled. Natural Resources Management Interim Director Virginia Barker stated page 3 of the staff report asks for instituting a five-year limitation for conversion of the properties to non-agricultural uses; but number 4 asks for consideration of cases such as bankruptcy or property sold for settlement of an estate, specifically to address the issue brought up by Ms. Roper. Ms. Barker noted a Commissioner brought up protection of very large beautiful oak trees on the sites; the County is not allowed to do that if it is a bona fide agricultural use; but it is feasible if it is being cleared for something like a horse pasture; so number 3 asks for preservation of protected trees on land cleared for domestic agricultural uses.

Commissioner Colon stated she has some concerns about the direction the Board is heading; and it should be careful about putting too much in an ordinance. She stated this is talking about agriculture; and she hopes the Board gets feedback from the agricultural community on how this would affect them. She stated she is not saying the Board would not move forward even after getting the feedback; but there is no rush; and she is concerned about lumping everything together and then having some repercussions because of it.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Pine said this is a zoning issue instead of a natural resources issue; and inquired is it a zoning issue more than a natural resources issue; with Ms. Barker responding that depends on one’s perspective; and if someone is trying to protect a natural resource, that makes it a natural resources issue. Commissioner Carlson stated it is a natural resource issue that becomes a zoning issue. Commissioner Pritchard stated what they are doing is going from one zoning classification to another; and he would like to address this in the proper venue. Assistant County Manager Steve Peffer stated there may be both issues involved; the purpose of the land clearing Ordinance is to prevent speculative land clearing where someone would come in and blitz an area, then put up a for sale sign claiming it is raw land; that can happen in the case of the agricultural situation as it exists now; and the issue Commissioner Pritchard is talking about is there could be a zoning change from AU to some residential, commercial or industrial use, which would be necessary for the development; however, there could also be another situation. He stated they are trying to protect the resources; and that is why this is a natural resources Ordinance. He stated the land clearing Ordinance is saying it does not want to see the trees removed unless there is a bona fide agricultural reason for doing that; and it is reasonable to expect that would occur over a period of time if it is really a bona fide activity. He noted in most, but not all cases, that would require a zoning change, although some property might already be zoned AU. He stated the Ordinance is in place to protect the resources; there are other issues that could be involved in the development world; and when the development order is brought about, that would involve rezoning as well; but for the time being, unless it is going to be in agricultural use for a period of time, one should not be able to get an exemption and should have to go through the land clearing process, which would include a development order. Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated he agrees with that point of view.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he appreciates that, but it seems like this may be something under the consolidated environmental Ordinances; and it may make more sense when it is seen in the holistic sense instead of separately.

Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have any problem with any of the recommendations; but her concern is on the front page of the agenda item, the fourfold increase in agriculture exemptions that have occurred over the last year. She stated she would support a motion for option 2, to develop legislative intent with the recommendations that were brought forward; they were talking about 84 exemptions that cover 1,600 acres; and she would love to see a breakdown to see whether those are really large landowners or a lot of small landowners. She stated they were trying to provide incentive for those who would skirt the current regulations and clear-cut, and then come back the next year wanting zoning because their plans changed; but what has been done with the recommendation is it has caught all the hardship issues that could have happened over time. She stated it may be that the agricultural exemption and the use of that was properly applied; they may have cleared an area for cows and pasture, but did not affect too much in terms of trees, etc; she does not see a problem with the recommendations going forward to legislative intent; and if the Board needs to bring back agricultural interests, it can bring them back then. She recommended they be contacted so the Board can have their perspective as well.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he agrees with what Commissioner Carlson said; if there are two people living next door to each other with tracts of land and one person wanted to develop and go through the process, he could clear but there are rules; and the other person may be a wheeler-dealer who wants to do clear-cutting and asks him to get an agricultural exemption, and then sell it to him. He stated there are a lot of triggers that may indicate what is happening; but at the same time there are persons who are legitimately impacted by a problem such as the one Ms. Roper brought up. He stated it is not like the Board is creating a new rule; but everybody should live by the same rules; and that only makes sense. He stated as long as everybody has a chance to look at it, it is appropriate to get the legislative intent and share it with those persons who have an ability to see it from their perspective.

Chair Higgs stated Commissioner Carlson said she would support moving forward to do legislative intent, and bring that back to share with the community. Commissioner Carlson stated yes, using the recommendations brought forward and publishing the meeting as they normally do, but also contacting the agricultural interests so they can come and have their say, if they wish.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board approves the legislative intent, it can be distributed.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to develop legislative intent to amend the Land Clearing and Tree Protection Ordinance to place time limitations on rezoning or other development activities, with restoration required if development is sought prior to expiration of the time limitation; and return to the Board for review and input from the public including those with agricultural interests. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Colon voted nay.

DIRECTION, RE: CANOPY PRESERVATION, ADVERSE SITE CONDITIONS, AND USE OF
LANDSCAPE BETTERMENT PLANS

Chair Higgs stated this would allow the use of betterment plans and some other changes.

Natural Resources Management Interim Director Virginia Barker stated the land clearing and tree protection Ordinance requires the preservation of 25% canopy, if present on the lot; in the landscaping Ordinance, there is a provision that allows developers to submit a betterment plan where the location of landscaping might be difficult or the landscaping requirements might to be difficult to meet; and they have an alternative of providing a substitute plan, which would supposedly be better and result in better landscaping than required by the Ordinance. She stated they would like to take the concept of the betterment plan and apply it to land clearing and tree protection as well so that sites that have their canopy distributed in such a way that makes it difficult or impossible to develop the site would be allowed to relocate some of the canopy to allow the site to be developed. She stated in the staff report they have included how the betterment plan would be applied, the kinds of cases where it would be applied, and criteria that staff would use for evaluating whether the proposed betterment plan is indeed a betterment in terms of landscaping and canopy protection.

Chair Higgs stated this would allow people who are developing property to have great flexibility in meeting the intent of the Code.

David Sims, landscape architect with Kimley Horn and Associates, stated they are currently working on a project locally that involves the need to do a betterment plan and to resolve these issues quickly; every site is different; and he is pro-preservation of trees. He stated he has done a lot of projects in the community that are successful as far as preservation; but each site is individual in terms of what kind of vegetative cover there is, what the topography is, and what the agency requirements are going to be, so they never know if one or a combination of requirements or adverse conditions will affect the site and ability to save trees. He stated typically they try to save everything unless the vegetative cover is not as good; and they have come to an agreement listening to and working with staff closely for the last three to four weeks and to some great solutions to mitigate what they cannot preserve onsite; and they are good solutions, which they have no problem following through with.

Walter Pine stated every time he turns around, there are more and more regulations; and the Board has forgotten the lesson it was taught a little while ago, which was less taxes, less government, and more freedom. He stated this proposal is the first he has seen that actually gives people more freedom; but it needs to be done in such a way that an individual could effect a betterment plan by themselves without additional cost. He stated he wants to make sure that when they go through this process, they are not required to hire six professionals; a betterment plan and allowing people greater latitude to save the resources is going to be good if it is done in a fashion that is economically feasible for those individuals that would use it; and if it is made such that it is not economically feasible to a large portion of the people, it has, in fact, been made unavailable to them. He stated it is important to develop some educational materials and application processes that would allow an individual to evaluate their own property and submit a betterment plan of their own design; and it should not be too difficult to educate the public on what the desire is. He stated it does not seem that the Natural Resources people trust the public too much, but he does; and with some education and educational materials, they will do just as well if not better than expected. He stated one of the things that is often missed is that there are always going to be abuses; but there are also people who will go far beyond what is necessary; and usually good outweighs the bad. He stated this should be written in such a way that the average citizen can effect it him or herself, because if it is going to create something more generally available that loosens the regulations, it has to be available and usable by everyone. He noted providing a jet plane to some one is no good if they do not know how to fly.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Option 2, permit the use of betterment plans for landscaping, land clearing and tree protection when the site characteristics adversely affect plant viability or preservation as outlined in staff’s report and direct staff to proceed with codifying the Board’s intent. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: FUNDING FOR ENERGY RESEARCH PROPOSAL FOR 2004 FEDERAL
LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated this is an additional item that was pulled previously to allow staff to do some more work on it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Frank Kinney was present and the Board took some action, so this is just rewording.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve inclusion of the expanded “Funding for Energy Research” proposal for the 2004 Federal Legislative Package. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SELECTION OF INDEPENDENT LEGAL REVIEW PANEL, RE: CHARTER REVIEW
COMMISSION PROPOSALS

Chair Higgs stated the Board needs to choose three people for the independent legal review panel.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the County Attorney has a recommendation. County Attorney Scott Knox recommended Doren, Wolfe, Rost & Asway Attorneys; Stenstrom, McIntosh, Colbert, Whigham, Residhmann & Partlow, P.A.; and Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A. Commissioner Scarborough stated those are the firms he is writing down; with Chair Higgs responding those are not the firms she is writing down.

Chair Higgs stated she is concerned that there is a Mr. Musto listed in the back; and inquired if he is a sole practitioner. Mr. Knox stated he was a late addition. Chair Higgs inquired how should she deal with Mr. Musto; with Mr. Knox responding however Chair Higgs chooses to. Chair Higgs inquired if he is part of the group because he is not listed; and they need to be sure all Commissioners evaluate Mr. Musto. Mr. Knox stated he did consider Mr. Musto’s application in making his recommendation. Chair Higgs inquired why is he not listed. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised no one from Purchasing is present. Commissioner Carlson stated it was in the package. Chair Higgs stated it was not listed on the cover page; if someone was not careful, he might have missed the application; and the Board should wait and do this on March 18, 2004.

The Board reached consensus to consider the item on Thursday, March 18, 2004.

CITIZEN REQUEST - GLEN KEMP, RE: SARNO ROAD LANDFILL

Glen Kemp submitted paperwork to the Board, but not the Clerk; and stated he emailed the Governmental Accounting Standards Board asking them to address a question about reporting of the operating performance of the Sarno Landfill, known as the Northeast Expansion. He stated there have been reports circulated showing an allocation of what amounts to a property tax revenue to this operation; and this would be improper. He stated not only has the Governmental Accounting Standards Board said so, but he also consulted an auditor with Purvis, Gray and Company in Gainesville, Florida; that firm specializes in doing audits of county and city governments, auditing eight different counties and over 30 cities in the State of Florida; and the conclusion is that it is improper to include it as revenues for the Sarno Landfill. He stated it is totally improper to include an allocation of tax revenues; the tax revenues are not operating revenues; and in his opinion, it is a subsidy that is being used by the Solid Waste Management Department to over-report the actual performance of the operation there. He stated the subject came up on the Melbourne Area Association of Realtors (MAAR) website; somebody from the County communicated that they did not want that kind of discussion going on to that website; there was some kind of implied threat of lawsuit; and MAAR change its policy, which is a matter of record. He stated he is concerned about how this decision to acquire the Sarno landfill has been characterized in the past; he is a local real estate appraiser; he worked for one of the two appraisal firms that performed the appraisals when the Gleason tract was acquired; and up to this date, he has chosen not to comment on the subject, but after
he saw the discussion going on at MAAR-talk, he decided to come forward. He stated there are problems with the review appraisal that was hired by Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE); it did not do its job; and it should address standards violations and uniform standards of professional appraisal practice; and it did not. He stated the review appraiser accepted the assignment under the premise he was going to reach a conclusion about wrongdoing; but no appraiser is qualified to comment on wrongdoing as that is a matter for criminal experts to comment on. Mr. Kemp stated a review appraiser should confine his report to whether or not the appraisal met standards; whether or not he felt the conclusions in the appraisal were reasonable, reliable, and verifiable, and the veracity of the appraisals. He stated in reading the report, he can only tell the Board that did not occur; instead, the review appraiser came to a conclusion that there was no way the two appraisers could have engaged in wrongdoing; and part of his rationale for that conclusion was because he said the appraisal fees were reasonable. He stated that shows that he was not competent to comment on the subject of wrongdoing; and his explanation of why he thought there was no wrongdoing was simplistic. He stated he should never have commented on it and should not have accepted the assignment if it was a requirement that he reach a conclusion about wrongdoing because that is not the purpose of an appraisal review; but the FDLE investigator did not know that. He stated the FDLE investigator was looking for someone to give him direction; that is what the review appraiser did; and requested the Board consider ordering a truly independent appraisal review by someone who does not know either one of the appraisers and is not from this area. He stated FDLE attempted to do that; it should be someone who is willing to sign a statement saying they do not know the appraisers or that they know one or both appraisers but will not allow to bias their appraisal review, so that the Board would be informed as to whether it could rely on the appraisal review. He stated he has doubts about whether the appraisal review was unbiased; he cannot comment on the two appraisals publicly because he is biased; and when an appraiser comments on another appraisal, the Board is supposed to be able to rely on that comment. He stated the appraiser has to follow the standards, which says if one is going to make a public statement about an appraisal, that is effectively an appraisal review. He reiterated he is biased; and suggested the Board consider getting a true independent appraisal review done.

Commissioner Colon stated she is glad Mr. Kemp mentioned that he worked for one of the two appraisers; the Board is trying to find out who is friends with whom; and there is nothing wrong with trying to get an independent person to do it one more time. She stated they went outside the County in one of those cases; then it seems that it did not happen; and there is nothing wrong with the Board looking at this. She stated there is something she is uncomfortable with; when County staff sent the Commissioners a copy, they also sent a copy to both appraisers to make sure they knew this subject was going to be discussed in case anyone needed to defend themselves; and inquired what are the odds of an appraiser immediately sending the fax to one of the Gleason folks to let them know this was on the agenda. She stated she thought the appraisers worked for the County, and not the other folks; and she is able to prove where it was faxed in error and was never supposed to come to her fax machine.

Mr. Kemp stated Commissioner Colon is confusing him.

Commissioner Colon stated what happened was County staff submitted the fax to both appraisers to let them know Mr. Kemp would be speaking to the Board and recommending the Board go outside; as soon as they did that, one of the appraisers faxed the Gleasons this information; and she can prove it because she has the fax that was received. She inquired does it prove anything; and responded no, but it leaves her with a funny taste in her mouth because it leaves her wondering whose side everybody is on. Commissioner Colon stated the Board was under the impression there were supposed to be two independent appraisers working for the County Commission; but then they are immediately letting the Gleason folks know what is going to be on the agenda; and it does not prove anything, but leaves her with a horrible feeling. She stated that is why she would be comfortable going outside; it is worth the money; and she is usually saying no to spending money, but this is something that is definitely worthwhile.

Mr. Kemp stated he also became aware of that fax; it went to the developers who purchased the Gleason tract and then sold it to the County; and the same appraiser also purchased an office building from that developer subsequent to doing the appraisals. He inquired was the purchase okay; and responded he does not know, but it looked okay on paper. He stated if he was going to avoid the appearance of impropriety, he would do everything in his power to not look like he had a business relationship with a private party who is going to benefit from the County’s decision; but instead this particular appraiser purchased an office building from the developer who sold the Gleason tract to the County in 2003. He stated he does not think he would do that because he would not want it to look as if there was something wrong; he is not saying there is anything wrong; but inquired why is there not an attempt to avoid the appearance of impropriety. He stated the whole thing is just a little too cozy.

Chair Higgs noted that was about three years after the actual transaction; with Mr. Kemp responding that is correct. Chair Higgs stated in the fourth line of the Yahoo email, Mr. Kemp asks can property tax revenues that are charged to property owners be reported as operating revenue; but in the technical sense, those are not property taxes but assessments on property. She inquired if Mr. Kemp could ask the question differently and see if he responded the same way. Mr. Kemp advised that is a fair and valid question; he had a subsequent conversation with the CPA with Purvis, Gray and Company, Jerry Handley; he is the one who specializes in audits and is the auditor for Osceola County and for St. Cloud; and he referred Mr. Kemp to GASB, statement 33. He stated it is compulsory collection that everyone has to pay; so it qualifies as a non-exchange transaction and can never be classified as operating revenue.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what the cost of an independent appraisal revenue would be; with Mr. Kemp responding it would be speculation on his part; he does not know how much was charged the last time; and that might be a reference point. He inquired if FDLE picked up the tab or did the County; with Chair Higgs responding the County paid for it. Mr. Kemp stated the cost is probably on the record. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if anyone recalls what the amount was; with Mr. Kemp responding it should be significant from the standpoint they have to review two appraisals. Mr. Kemp stated to the extent they do not have previous experience in appraising a landfill, they should disclose that in the appraisal review and list the steps they took to insure competency to accept the assignment.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired is there any idea what the cost of an independent appraisal review might be; with Assistant County Manager Steve Peffer responding it is speculation at this point, but it would probably be in the $25,000 to $35,000 range. Mr. Peffer stated there are a couple of things he would like to get on the record since this issue has come up; and with regard to the notion that tax revenues are supporting the landfill, the landfill is supported through two major mechanisms of revenue. Mr. Peffer stated the first is from the gate charges and people that come in; but more directly, most residents of improved properties pay an assessment, which comes on the tax bill, but is not a tax and is a fee for use of the landfill. He stated the County also does that with its stormwater fees and other fees; they are non-ad valorem assessments for a service; and the service that is provided in the landfill is the disposal of solid waste for the residents, so it is completely appropriate to apply those revenues to the revenue stream of the landfill operations. He inquired how else would it be done, and how would the Board not count the major supporting revenue that keeps the landfills operating. He stated it is just a misinterpretation to say that those non-ad valorem assessments should not be included when looking at the revenue streams for the landfills. He stated regarding item two, the Board was provided with a little information on it; but he wants the Board members who were here at the time to recall that when they were going through the FDLE investigation the issue of an appraisal review came up; the Board was considering hiring its own independent appraiser to do its own appraisal review; but the Board decided that since the FDLE was going to do a review of the entire transaction, it would empower FDLE to do that appraisal review. He stated staff provided the Board with a copy of the letter from Commissioner Scarborough who said the Board would pay for whatever additional review of the appraisal FDLE felt was appropriate, and that he had personal conversations with the lead investigator, Agent O’Connor, concerning that. He stated the Board allowed FDLE a free hand; the Board said it would support the costs because FDLE was operating under a budget at the time and the Board did not want it to feel constrained by its own budget; so the County stepped forward and allowed them to do it. He stated FDLE decided the level of appropriateness of that review; he is not going to take position with Mr. Kemp’s thoughts either way; and if the Board thinks it needs to go further, that is its decision. He stated this was reviewed by FDLE; it received further review from the State Attorney; and they felt what was done was proper. He stated if the Board feels it needs to spend more money to get another thought, that would be up to the Board; but it seems the Board has already made the effort to assure there was a thorough investigation.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Kemp’s comment was that FDLE did not have the capability to do an appraisal review. Mr. Kemp stated he does not think they understood that a real estate appraiser is not qualified to comment on the subject of wrongdoing; it was a criminal investigation; and the only thing the appraiser could do is tell them that he found problems or did not find problems in terms of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. He stated when one looks at an appraisal, one sees either a major problem or a series of minor problems that could lead to a misleading conclusion; someone else reading it could get a different conclusion about the value estimate or the reliability of the value estimate or even how to interpret the value estimate, which was one of the problems. He stated a review can only tell whether they violated the standards or not; it cannot reach a conclusion about criminality; that is beyond the scope of an appraisal review; and no appraiser has that expertise because they are not lawyers or law enforcement people. He stated they are simply appraisers; their expertise
should be confined to the appraisals; but FDLE did not understand how to instruct the appraiser. He stated the appraiser says he was told to reach a conclusion about whether there was any wrongdoing; so there were two mistakes. He stated FDLE should have never asked him to do that; but FDLE did not know it should not ask that. He stated the appraiser should never have accepted the assignment under that scenario; he should have said he could give an appraisal review but could not reach a conclusion about wrongdoing that was beyond his professional ability. Mr. Kemp commented on qualifications to do certain jobs; and stated real estate appraisers should never hold themselves out to have an expertise they do not have. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Kemp mentioned that he would be prejudiced in conducting this type of appraisals because he has prejudices; with Mr. Kemp advising he is biased. Mr. Kemp advised he used to work for one of the appraisers and knows the other one; they are both competitors of his; and it would be grossly inappropriate for him to perform those reviews. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Kemp does not read too much into the chain of events as it happened all the way through FDLE; with Mr. Kemp responding he has performed his own review of the two appraisals, but will not disclose his findings unless it becomes a matter of litigation.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the Board might want to take Mr. Kemp’s issues regarding the actions of the Gainesville appraiser and present them to the appraiser. Mr. Kemp advised the appraiser is from Lakeland. Mr. Jenkins stated they could present the issues to him to respond to the concerns.

Chair Higgs stated she has a question on the revenue side; there are actually two auditors, an internal auditor and an outside auditor; and suggested getting their opinion on the issue of revenue.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he ran into a problem with the appraisal on the Pritchard House that the Board was talking about acquiring; the appraiser appraised the land; and he came to find out that the appraiser had no idea about appraising historic buildings. He inquired how many people really know how to appraise a landfill; and stated this is some of the issues because it is unique property. He stated it would be interesting to find out who has appraised landfills in the State of Florida; and commented on the appraisal on the Pritchard House that was totally erroneous. He stated the Board went to FDLE because it was being asked to do it independently; FDLE was asked by the Board; and the Board paid for the appraisal. He stated maybe FDLE did not understand what the appraisal was all about; he is not saying there was any impropriety or anything wrong, but it was just methodology; and maybe the question was not asked correctly.

Mr. Kemp stated Commissioner Scarborough’s point is well taken about the historical home; people think that if they go to a real estate appraiser that he can appraise anything; but they are limited by their training and experience. He stated their standards specifically instruct them that they must make sure they are properly qualified to accept an assignment; they are free to turn down an assignment if they do not think they are qualified to do it; and they can disclose that they are not qualified but are taking steps to insure they are qualified. He stated on the appraisals they consulted a consultant who was an expert in landfill operations, which is where they got a lot of their data from. He stated he believes that expert worked for the developer who sold the property to the County; and inquired was that an independent consultant and should the appraisers have disclosed that relationship in the appraisal so the public could be properly informed. He stated disclosure was the issue; the more that is disclosed, the better informed the consumer is; and advised an example is buying a building from the appraiser, although that was after the fact. He stated these things should be disclosed so the County can decide how much it is willing to rely on the appraisal; disclosure was the single biggest problem; and he did not see where either appraiser said they had previous experience in landfill appraising. He stated if they did not have that experience, they should have disclosed that fact and told what steps they were going to take.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Kemp has been very clear that he is biased and that it would be imprudent for him to do anything on anybody’s behalf; and she is sure he would agree on that; and inquired as far as what they were talking about in terms of getting the revenue data back, what was the other piece. Chair Higgs stated there are two other pieces; Mr. Jenkins suggested contacting the appraiser who did the review appraisals and asking questions; and then she asked about going to the two auditors who are professionals in the community and asking them how to properly account for revenue to a landfill and how to properly account for assessment revenue in the general accounting standards. She stated a motion would be appropriate.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Kemp is trying to be honest in saying he has a bias; and inquired if it would be appropriate, when the Board writes to the appraiser that FDLE hired, to ask if he does not have experience in appraising landfills, to assist in getting the names of some people who have that experience. He stated he does not want to go back to square one; and if the Board is going to ask the question that Mr. Kemp is asking, the next thing would be who can do it correctly.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to contact the Lakeland appraiser who was hired by FDLE to do the review appraisal on the Sarno Landfill and present Glen Kemp’s issues to him, for his response, concerning expertise and qualifications to do landfill appraisals; request the appraiser, if he does not have landfill experience, to identify appraisers in the State who have that experience; and request the County’s auditors to report on how to properly account for revenue to a landfill and how to properly account for assessment revenue in the general accounting standards. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Colon thanked Mr. Kemp for coming forward and sharing the information with the Board; and stated the Board has to watch for even the possible appearance of impropriety.

CITIZEN REQUEST - TIBBY PARKER, RE: EXEMPTION OF PUBLICLY OWNED GOLF
COURSES FROM NOISE ORDINANCE, SECTION 46-147

Tibby Parker on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Barefoot Bay Recreation District, stated she has shared some supplemental data with the Board to clarify this matter; there are a couple of common issues they are dealing with on all County golf courses; and one is that the noise Ordinance prohibits mowing within 500 feet of any residential property throughout the County. She stated certain courses received much heavier play in the winter months; an issue unique to the Barefoot Bay Golf Course is that it is a very small course; it is referred to as an executive course; and it covers only 66 acres as opposed to a regulation course that covers approximately 200 acres. She stated no area of the Barefoot Bay Golf Course is outside the 500-foot limit; and therein lies the hitch for the golf pro and superintendent. She stated they start tee times every seven minutes; that means eight foursomes start within an hour; and that is 32 golfers. She stated by starting tee times at 8:00 a.m., they have a potential loss of revenue of $31,000; and while that may not sound like a lot of money, to the golf revenue for Barefoot Bay, it is a 6% impact, which has to be made up somewhere. She stated that means the citizens are going to have to pay that amount either in increased greens fees or in having some other service cut. She stated they looked at every opportunity to perform the greens mowing at other times of the day, especially in the winter months when there is no other time to do the greens mowing; they do the fairway and bunker repair while the golfers are on the course; but the greens mowing has to be done in the morning before the golfers start. She requested consideration be given to all public courses; she recognizes there are also many private courses in the County that are governed by the Ordinance; but requested consideration be given to Barefoot Bay in considering some relief from the Ordinance.

Commissioner Carlson inquired where does Ms. Parker come up with $31,000; with Ms. Parker responding they have a mixture of golf memberships and greens fees, so they calculated that over all the potential tee times and divided it, so it is $31,000 per year for one hour’s play.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has a letter from Mr. Gogats saying he was awakened at 5:30 a.m. by lawnmowers; and inquired if Ms. Parker is aware of it. Ms. Parker stated she is aware, and has seen Mr. Gogat’s letter. She stated she has been working with Code Enforcement; and they have been in compliance. She stated Mr. Gogats did not indicate any dates or time of day in the memo she saw, so she is not sure which complaints have actually been processed by Code Enforcement. Commissioner Pritchard stated he was raising this as a comment; Mr. Gogat says they were mowing at 5:30 a.m.; the Ordinance says one cannot comment prior to 7:00 a.m.; and it goes further on to say that Code Enforcement has not been out there to do anything about it. He inquired specifically what is Ms. Parker seeking, and is it to mow earlier than 7:00 a.m.; with Ms. Parker responding they desire 6:00 a.m., which would allow them to make up the lost revenue. Commissioner Pritchard stated the greens are mowed every day; and inquired how often are the fairways mowed; with Ms. Parker responding depending on rain and growth patterns, approximately two to three times a week with different equipment. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the greens are also located within the 500-foot perimeter or is it just the fairways; with Ms. Parker responding there is no area that is exempt from the Ordinance because of the small size of the golf course. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there have been any complaints about the 6:00 a.m. mowing schedule. Ms. Parker stated the golf course mowing crew violated the Code sometime last fall; when it was brought to their attention, they immediately came into compliance; they had misinterpreted the 500-foot limit to mean 500 feet from where the mowing occurred and Mr. Gogats home; but Code Enforcement explained that the 500-foot limit applies to every square inch of the golf course so they have been in compliance, but it is creating a hardship on the taxpayers. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there have been any other complaints from homeowners regarding early mowing; with Ms. Parker responding no. Commissioner Pritchard stated his concern is the neighborhood and having lawns mowed at 7:00 or 6:00 in the morning; he can understand the economic reality of the $31,000 potential loss; but he is wondering if there is going to be any discomfort to the neighbors from the early mowing; and what Ms. Parker is telling him is that no one has complained other than Mr. Gogats. Ms. Parker stated according to their records, only one person has complained; and she spoke to Commissioner Higgs about this as well. She noted most people who live on the golf course are members and are paying their way. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is a golfer too, but likes a 10:00 a.m. tee time; this is going to be written for all public golf courses; and inquired what effect is this going to have on the Savannahs, Habitat, and Spessard Holland golf courses. He inquired what are their operation schedules and would there be any complaints; and stated he knows many of the fairways on the Savannahs are within 500 feet of homesites. Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson stated because those courses are larger, they do not have the same extent of problem; but there is a problem when the equipment at Savannahs starts up in the morning and goes out to the greens; and they have gotten an occasional complaint just driving by to get to the holes that they can legitimately cut. He stated if they cannot cut hole one first, it creates a situation where the golfer who goes off early will be faced with a green that is almost unputtable because of the longer grass. He stated an earlier start time would be beneficial. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what will the neighbors say if they start running the mowers at 6:00 a.m. instead of whatever time they are starting now. Mr. Nelson stated in the past it was not an issue; but as there has been turnover of the houses to non-golfers, it is now an issue. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what time does the County do its mowing at the Savannahs, Spessard Holland, and Habitat; with Mr. Nelson responding they will start at 6:00 a.m. on the holes they can cut; but they have to leave the maintenance area, which at the Savannahs is the biggest issue. He stated they do not cut the fairways at that time of day; and it is a much smaller mower that cuts the greens. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the only complaints are about getting from the maintenance building to the first green; with Mr. Nelson responding in the last three years, that was the only complaint they had, although previously there was a complaint associated with one green. Commissioner Pritchard suggested changing the hours on a trial basis to see what happens.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is having trouble with where this is heading; looking at Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones’ memo, right now one can do operations like a sports activity and it is okay; but when one begins to talk about the County’s golf courses, the question turns to maintenance of golf courses elsewhere; and the justification that is being used is dollars, which is a dangerous justification. He stated any commercial activity could justify unloading trucks next to the grocery store sooner because it saves money to do it sooner; while it seems fairly benign, the Board needs to be careful because the justification is dollars; if dollars become the justification for disruption of the peace and quiet of a community, it can become a justification for anybody in the commercial sense to come in with the same legal argument to apply to them; and therefore, he does not support the plan.

Chair Higgs stated she does not recall having heard complaints from anyone about the golf course and the mowing until the recent one; and she thinks the Board will hear quite a few complaints when it is necessary to raise the rates to cover the additional revenue needed to maintain the course. She stated at least in the case of Barefoot Bay, the community is aware of the issue because it went before the District and was on TV, so people know the issue. She stated if the Board moves forward to get the staff report, which is what the District is requesting, it gives them a chance to fully look at the implications of it; there is an elected body asking the Board to look at this in a way to meet the needs of the public and its impact to the public; and it is a fair question for the District to ask. She stated having heard so few complaints over the years, she does not think it is a big issue; and if the Board moves forward to get the report, it can let the District take a look, and then it can move forward from there. She stated she would like to see the Board direct staff to get the report.

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

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there has been a loss of revenue of $31,000, how long has this been going on; and stated she is assuming the golfers have been getting the impact of that right along. She inquired why now versus any other time, and is it because someone is complaining. Chair Higgs noted the impact is recent. Commissioner Carlson stated it is a yearly impact of $31,000; and the golf course has been there a number of years. She inquired if the golf course was abiding by the rules for a number of years; with Ms. Parker responding she does not believe so; and explained how golfers were started simultaneously from the front and back to maximize the use. Ms. Parker stated they were trying to get the needs of all the golfers met by just doubling up on the course; in order to not lose more than $31,000, they would have to buy another greens mower at $16,000 and double up on the fleet of greens mowing in front of the golfers just to get the greens mowed. She stated as Mr. Nelson said there is different equipment used on greens than on fairways and rough, so the whole strategy behind getting the course ready for play gets complicated when it is a very small course.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to prepare a report for the Board on exemption of publicly-owned golf courses from the Noise Ordinance. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough and Carlson voted nay. Chair Higgs noted there is a tie vote.

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

Chair Higgs called for a revote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough and Carlson voted nay.

APPROVAL, RE: SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL 2308, THE FLORIDA FOREVER ACT

Chair Higgs stated this is to advise the Legislative Delegation that the Board supports shared title.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he will support this even though he believes the County should have sole title; but this is a step in the right direction.

Chair Higgs stated if the cost is shared, the title should be shared. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board has been sharing cost and giving the title to the State, so he thinks the Board should share the cost and keep the property in the County’s name.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve support of Senate Bill 2308; and direct the Legislative Coordinator to inform the Brevard Legislative Delegation of the Board’s position. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LETTER OF SUPPORT, RE: CANAVERAL PORT AUTHORITY REQUEST FOR
LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS DURING 2004 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

Chair Higgs inquired when the Board supports a public body, does it get in a position of being in competition with them for limited funds. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated this is for a reclaimed water aquifer storage and recovery project; and if the County had such a project, it would be in competition; but the County does not have such a project. Chair Higgs inquired if the County is trying to get any DEP grants; with Mr. Jenkins responding not for reclaimed water aquifer storage and recovery.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve sending a letter of support to the Florida House and Senate Appropriation Committee members, on behalf of the Canaveral Port Authority, for a Department of Environmental Protection Grant in the DEP budget for the 2004 Legislative Session. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Colon commented on being sick last week, missing the workshop, and the compassion of her fellow Commissioners.

ACCEPTANCE OF INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT, RE: PARKS AND RECREATION
REFERENDUM LAND ACQUISITION

Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson stated he is here to defend not doing anything wrong; as the Board saw in the audit, the auditor did not find any issues, but did make a recommendation to consider centralizing the purchasing or land acquisition process; and he requested they continue to be allowed to do the acquisition. He stated when they get involved in the land acquisition for park land, it is unique; staff has the expertise to do the discussion with the property owners; and they also run into things that only they would know the answer to. He stated for example the seller may want to know what buffer is going to be put into the park that might impact his neighbors because the seller still has an emotional attachment to those who live around him; they may want to know what kind of park it is going to be or whether it can be named for someone in the family; and they may want to know whether there will be access to water and sewer. He stated those are all things that have come up during the course of the discussion that staff has been able to respond to; and having someone who is not involved in the process means they are going to have to come back to staff each time a question comes up. He stated it is to the County’s advantage to have the ability to conclude negotiations in as few meetings as possible because it moves the process along, which is better for the public; and it also gets all the answers out on the table so they are able to deal with those issues. Mr. Nelson stated the issue of water and sewer can actually be a negotiating point in terms of land value; the owner may be willing to sell for a lesser value if he knows he has access to water and sewer; and staff has the ability to do the purchases. He stated they have been very successful so far with some pretty complicated purchases; and they would like to continue to do that because it moves things along quicker. He stated the other comfort level he wants to give the Board is that all the issues have come back to the Board; and in a lot of cases, there have been public meetings to discuss the acquisitions, which differentiates them from some of the other groups doing acquisitions. He stated there are also a lot of options for inland acquisition of parks; they can move things around; when building a road, it has to go from point A to B and the Board is told how much land is needed for that road; however, in parks, there is the ability to do things differently, move things around, and benefit what may be the remaining parcel a particular seller still owns. He stated there are a lot of reasons for staff to stay involved; and it would be very difficult for someone not involved in the parks process to understand and be able to negotiate those issues.

Commissioner Colon stated no department dealing with land acquisition should be exempt; it would protect the departments to completely hand it over to the proper department to handle it; and while she understands what Mr. Nelson is saying about building rapport, she feels it should be centralized.

Mr. Nelson stated he is very sensitive to recent history of some of the acquisitions; it makes them better prepared to make sure the Board is fully apprised of what the deals contain; and the people who are doing the acquisitions in his area have the expertise. He stated they could do the job in a centralized setting just as well; however, he uses them for other things. He stated there are not enough land acquisitions historically to warrant them just doing the one job, so they do other things as well. He noted he has taken the real estate course, so there is expertise there to make the Board comfortable.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board were to make any changes, there are two things that would be of concern to him; in District 1, there has been a lot of opportunity for community input into the process; and advised of notifying people of a problem with a land purchase in the north area near a school and getting those people together. He stated having different people with different perspectives and having the community involved in how the project comes together cannot be lost without sacrificing the quality of the project. He stated the Sarno landfill was not a publicly oriented project; if they had tried to get a committee together, they would have had difficulty getting volunteers; but on the contrary, when going to a park that has Little League and soccer, there is no trouble getting all kinds of people with all kinds of ideas, so the dynamics need to always include the public in the thought process.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated he wants to clarify that all other departments are going through the centralized land acquisition at the present time; and one option is, if the Board wants to allow the parks to negotiate, would be to have the land acquisition office do a review and report to the Board on the acquisition. He stated Parks and Recreation could still do the contract, but there would be input from the centralized land acquisition.

Walter Pine stated he has been unable to get a complete copy of the audit; and he has gotten copies from at least one Commissioner’s office, but pages are missing. He stated in the audit, where they do the test case, there is nothing that tells where the tasks or recommendations came from, so there is no way to verify the source of the recommendations; and the public has no way to go back to look and see the process. He stated the checks and balances that the public deserves are not currently in the audit; and encouraged the Board, if this is the standard for the audit, to have those areas where they do the samples to be outlined so the public can go back and see whether the audit has properly responded to the issues that were found, and whether there are more issues. He stated if one of the samples that was taken was one where there was ongoing litigation, the question is whether it was properly summarized, properly approached, whether the public feels there were additional issues, and whether the standards are met for internal audits. He stated now that he has a complete audit, he will check that. He stated audits are not just to provide recommendations; they are also a public document and should be useful to the public; and the public should be able to follow some realistic checks and balances. He stated in the future the audit should be signed by the auditor; he cannot go back and find out what the samples were because he does not know who worked on the audit; so there are some checks and balances that could be improved. He requested the Board not approve the audit at this time until there is a chance to compare the full audit to audit standards.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the requested action is to accept the internal audit report; but that has also evolved into a discussion of the recommended action, negotiating land acquisitions. He stated the committee recommended the County further review the benefit of centralizing; that is appropriate because there is always a concern about the emotional interest that there may be in purchasing a specific piece of property; and he would like to make a motion to accept the report and that the County further review the benefit of centralizing the negotiation and review phase of the land acquisition process for Parks and Recreation.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to accept the Internal Audit Report of Parks and Recreation Referendum - Land Acquisition; and direct that there be a further review of the benefit of centralizing the negotiation and review phase of the land acquisition process for Parks and Recreation.

Commissioner Carlson stated on issue three, comprehensive tracking tool, it says management’s response in terms of including additional areas to track, which is site review by aerial, site property review and beneficial interest, and disclosure affidavit; and she is not sure how they fit. Mr. Nelson stated those have already been done; but the auditors recommended adding some things to the tracking. He stated it was not that those things were not being done, but they wanted it to be put on a form and tracked; and that has been done. Commissioner Carlson inquired if they also include the three at the bottom under management review; with Mr. Nelson responding staff has done everything that was recommended.

Commissioner Colon inquired if this is not giving the direction of having Parks and Recreation be part of the centralized process, or is it just to get feedback. Commissioner Pritchard responded the recommendation was to review. Chair Higgs stated it says to further review the benefits of centralizing the negotiation and review phase. Commissioner Pritchard stated that was the recommendation; with Chair Higgs responding they will further review it, so it is not changing what is being done, but just reviewing. Commissioner Colon stated she did not want further review, but wanted it to be clear that Parks and Recreation should not be exempt from the same process, so she will not support the motion. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is all for having the best process possible; but Parks and Recreation is a very consumer-driven function whose actions are consumer-driven; and if Commissioner Colon wants to make it very mathematical and mechanical, she will find there are others who will want to know why they are not part of the process anymore. He stated Commissioner Pritchard’s motion encompasses the possibility of keeping everything alive and accomplishing all objectives.

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

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: CHARGES FOR DOCUMENTS

Bea Polk inquired what does the County charge per hour for getting documents; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding nothing. Ms. Polk stated three County Commissioners voted to approve the CUP for a fourth of an acre in the boondocks on SR 46; all of the documents were not there; hers was missing; and she needs paperwork concerning the tower property, which in 2003 had its value lowered after the CUP was removed and all invoices and contracts for the last five years concerning any or all lobbyists for the Brevard County Property Appraiser’s office, as well as completed forms DR-420, 422, and 403 for the last five years concerning tax values. She stated after talking to the State, she figured there was not much to it; but she got a bill saying that it would be 4,460 pages at fifteen cents per page and an estimated time and cost of 37 hours at $11 an hour, coming to $1,074.50 just to get the information to prove whether she is right or wrong. She stated money is not much concern in this County the way it is paying some people; and since the Board is the one that gives the Property Appraiser all his money, she is asking for some help. She stated she collected quite a bit of money so people are concerned; she is talking about $1,074.50 for public records; and she called the State, which advised her to go back and look at all the paperwork being done. She stated tomorrow she will get it; and if not, at the next meeting, she will be back asking for more help. She stated the State told her if she was paying, it should be the lowest paid employee doing this kind of work; she remembers doing it many years ago when she worked for the courts; and she never charged because she was not allowed to. She stated once she gets paperwork from the County, she usually shuts up; and if she does not get the paperwork tomorrow, she will be back.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: NOTIFICATION OF THE PUBLIC

Thelma Roper stated she has been before the Board on a lot of issues; and the Board had a lot of hard issues today; but when issues come up on the agenda, they would be better responded to if the word was gotten out to the public. She admitted she does not know a better way to get the word out to the public; but one suggestion would be for each Commissioner to have his or her staff notify people in the community they know are interested in certain subjects. She stated one might expect development and agricultural persons in the community to take an interest in the tree ordinances; and if they were notified that there was going to be something on the agenda, they could research the data and decide whether it was pertinent or not. She stated it is hard to notify everybody; but the offices could email people to let them know that something is on the agenda. She stated the Board needs to do something to get information out to the public when things are going to be on the agenda; and if it is sending notices to the newspaper, they are not getting there because they hear all the time that people did not know something was on the agenda. She reiterated the Board needs to do a better job of getting the information out.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCES, APPRAISALS, AND
FORMATION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT

Walter Pine stated he is concerned about the issue of the SEA’s ordinance, which has been split up; but it seems like there is still a problem with getting information out. He stated he received an email from Virginia Barker guaranteeing that no meetings had occurred on any subject that was covered by the SEA’s ordinance; but he met with the County Manager the same day and found out meetings had occurred, so there is a problem with communications. He stated there was a meeting with five people; actions were going on; and his concern is for the public-at-large to get the opportunity to be a participant in this and that they get the information. He stated the County is not going to get over the bad sentiments unless it starts telling people what is going on and making them feel they have the opportunity for equal participation. He stated the second thing is the email situation; he knows the Board voted for that; he asked to be involved; and he is concerned about the parameters being used. He commented on the public not getting the opportunity for input, issues such as dual archiving, maintaining public records, and email not meeting public records standards. He requested the Board form a committee or provide a method so the public can participate. He stated in terms of the appraiser issue Mr. Kemp brought up, there is the Appraisal Foundation located in Washington, D.C.; and suggested taking the issues Mr. Kemp brought up and sending them to the Foundation with a request for a declaratory statement. He stated the Foundation is the professional regulatory board; it can tell whether or not that appraiser was within the professional standards; and if he exceeded the professional standards or was outside the professional standards, the appraisal is void, so that is a quick and easy solution. Mr. Pine advised the Foundation sets the standards for the nation; and there is an enforcement board within the State of Florida. He stated the next issue is legislative intent. He stated the Board just discussed all these things about natural resources; the Board is sending it back to Natural Resources Management for legislative intent; and he thought that was a legislative function. He stated the intent is the discussion that goes on before the Board; and the intent comes from the public informing its elected officers, not from staff generating language. He stated the formation of policy is the Board’s job; if the Board does not want to do it, it should let people know as there are others who will do it; and the Board should quit passing the buck. He stated the intent is supposed to be the result of the public’s desire and the public informing the elected officials; that discussion goes on with the elected officials; and when the Board passes it over to staff, which does not think it has to be done in the sunshine, he has a problem because formation of legislative intent is supposed to be in the sunshine.

Chair Higgs stated the Board directed staff to come up with some language and to specify what the Board was talking about; that will come back for the Board to formulate firm policy; and that is the purpose of the legislative intent. She stated it happens in the public; everybody will be here to see it and talk about it; but they will get it more specifically so there can be some agreement; and that is what intent is about.

WARRANT LIST

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.

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

_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)