MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

November 18, 2003

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on November 18, 2003, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Nancy Higgs, and Susan Carlson, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

 

 

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Susan Carlson, District 4.

 

 

Commissioner Truman Scarborough led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the Minutes of the September 4, 2003 Zoning Meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to select Commissioner Nancy Higgs, as the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners for 2004.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chairperson Colon passed the gavel to Chair Nancy Higgs who called for selection of a Vice Chair.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to select Commissioner Ron Pritchard as Vice Chair of the Board of County Commissioners for 2004.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Chair Higgs advised, on behalf of the citizens of Brevard County and fellow Commissioners, she would like to present a plaque to Commissioner Colon in recognition of the leadership she gave the Board, the ability to move it along when needed, her graciousness and fairness to all the citizens who came before the Board, and to thank her for that service.  She stated the chairmanship is without many thanks, but the Board thanks her and the citizens should do likewise; and requested a round of applause for Commissioner Colon. 

 

The audience applauded Commissioner Colon for her service as Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners in 2003.

 

Chair Higgs read the plaque as follows:  “In recognition of her service to the citizens of Brevard County as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, November 2002 to November 2003, presented November 18, 2003 by the Board of County Commissioners.”  Commissioner Colon thanked the Board for its kindness. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised he has a presentation that was put together by the ladies of District 2; and it is a book of essays and stories to perk up Commissioner Colon and brighten her days along with a card to thank her for the job she did the past year.  He stated it was his first year on the Board, and she gave him the opportunity to speak and to represent the people; and he appreciates that and thanks her for it.  Commissioner Colon thanked Commissioner Pritchard and the ladies of District 2.

 

Commissioner Colon advised it was an honor to represent the Board; it was quite interesting; they had their ups and downs; but it was something she will cherish because it was a great honor.  She thanked Mary, Rob, and Evelyn, her office staff, for their support in making it a wonderful year; and wished Chair Higgs all the best for the coming year.  She noted Chair Higgs has her support and she looks forward to serving under her leadership.

 

 

 

County Manager Tom Jenkins requested authorization to use the former Chairperson’s signature plates for checks until the new plates can be obtained with the new Chair’s signature.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize the use of the former Chairperson’s signature plates for checks until new signature plates can be obtained with the new Chair’s signature.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming November 2003 as National Epilepsy Month.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough advised the County does not have a joint planning agreement with the City of Titusville, but staff has met with residents about some annexations that are occurring; and recommended staff work on the issues as if there was a planning agreement and share the information with the City’s staff because it is a precursor to other things.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize staff to work with the City of Titusville’s staff on annexations as if there was a joint planning agreement.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised he made an error and wants to offer his sincere apology to the Sea Turtle Preservation Society.  He stated when the Board formed the Dogs on the Beach Study Committee, he erroneously gave the name of the wrong organization; he said the Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group and meant to say the Sea Turtle preservation Society; and in particular, Nancy Yates would be the additional representative on that Committee.  He stated as it turned out, the Turtle Coast Group declined membership; and recommended the Board include a representative from the Sea Turtle Preservation Society as a member of the Dogs on the Beach Study Committee.

 

Chair Higgs inquired if it is an additional member; with Commissioner Pritchard responding no because the Sierra Club declined membership so it keeps the membership the same.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to replace the Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group with the Sea Turtle Preservation Society on the Dogs on the Beach Study Committee, and appoint Nancy Yates to the Committee.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson advised there was an editorial in the Florida TODAY’s October 16, 2003 newspaper regarding the lack of urgency on the part of the County in pursuing the issue of sewage in the surf; the Board took action to spend $35,000 to hire an expert; and inquired what is the status of the report.

 

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised staff has been working with the National Oceanographic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) scientists to respond to questions put to them and to form a team of independent experts with expertise in ocean chemistry and those type of issues facing the County; and staff asked they respond to the proposal of forming a team and working on the issues.  He stated they have been in negotiations with NOAA; it is reviewing the County’s proposal; and staff is waiting for the response on how that will work.  He stated he is confident staff will be able to reach an agreement with the scientists because they have the expertise in that area; so the Board can expect to get a good independent review of the data that has been collected and the types of issues that may be of concern.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if staff has a time frame in mind; with Mr. Peffer responding he did, but it has already passed; however, he hopes within the next two or three weeks they will have the response.  Chair Higgs inquired if the Board could receive a report at the first meeting in December; with Mr. Peffer responding affirmatively.

 

Commissioner Carlson advised Siri German with the Strawbridge Art League is here to make a presentation.

 

Siri German, representing the Strawbridge Art League, advised the League is composed of over 250 members and is located in Henegar Center for the Arts in downtown Melbourne; and thanked the Board for its support and cordiality over the years.  She stated a free public event coming up is Art Works 2003 on November 22 and 23 from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; there will be about a hundred booths with artists working all kinds of media; and there will be refreshments and entertainment.  She advised the annual Vision 2003 Show will be held January 31, 2004 in the Grand Ballroom at the Henegar Center for the Arts from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.; and she hopes everyone will attend the spectacular affair, which is free to the public.  Ms. German advised they are having the Florida Florida Florida Exhibit, which combines literary with arts; it is prose as well as art; and it will be at the Henegar Center in the Grant Ballroom.  She noted their current exhibit is What’s In A Word, and it will be there through the month.

 

Commissioner Carlson encourage everyone to visit Siri German in the lobby and attend the events that are free to the public.

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson advised the significant environmental areas (SEA) proposed ordinance will be coming back to the Board in January 2004; it deals with scrub habitat; and she asked for reports previous to this, and believes staff is prepared to come back with legislative intent on a bald eagle management plan.  She stated it is addressed through various agencies, but not through the SEA ordinance; and requested staff bring back legislative intent on an eagle management plan for discussion purposes.

 

Chair Higgs inquired about the parameters; with Commissioner Carlson responding there are a few folks in the community who have been working on a bald eagle management plan and reviewing all those things; and Ed Slaney, Maureen Rupe, Amy Tidd, and others met with her and requested it come up at least as a legislative intent so the Board can discuss the potential of having an eagle ordinance.

 

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised with a legislative intent, staff would bring back some kind of legislation that reflects conversations of the Board that they try to embrace in a proposed ordinance.  Commissioner Carlson suggested staff summarize what they know today and from meetings with folks in the community, and bring back information as to what they would like to see in an ordinance.  Chair Higgs stated staff should also bring back whatever other options there might be.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to prepare a report on the proposed SEA ordinance, including an eagle management plan as an agenda item for discussion.

 

  

Commissioner Pritchard requested the verbiage that comes back to the Board be a balanced approach and not a one-sided approach to eagle management; and inquired if staff will have representatives of the entire community to provide input for that; with Mr. Peffer responding he is sure the report will come back with various different approaches that have been taken and the meeting will provide opportunity for input as well.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to see language come back with input and not have the decision made after input from one segment of the community.  He stated many times language that comes from that type of perspective is more in line with saying no to something than being an inclusive act to enhance the preservation of eagles as well as protect property rights.  Mr. Peffer advised he understands the direction was to bring back a report with options.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he wants to make sure the options include the segment of the community that is going to be affected by what the other segment may come up with.  Commissioner Carlson stated in previous opportunities, Mr. Peffer tried to make sure that all options covered the gamut of pros and cons; and that is what the Board is expecting.

 

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

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon advised there will be a fundraiser at Kiwanis Island Park on November 23 from noon until 3:00 p.m. for Elaine McClung who is battling cancer; and anyone who is fond of Ms. McClung and wants to help can call her office.

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon advised Thanksgiving is around the corner; and requested everyone keep the men and women who are overseas in their prayers because they do not have the luxury to be with family and friends during the holiday.  She suggested asking Patrick Air Force Base what the community can do to help their military and to reach out to the folks at the Base.

 

 

 

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised there are three employees with 25 years of service—Randy Thompson from Fire Rescue, Clay Henderson from Roadways and Landscaping, and William Quinn from Transit Services; and this is an opportunity for the Board to recognize those employees.

 

Mr. Jenkins advised Randy Thompson was hired in 1978 as an emergency medical technician and ambulance driver; he went on to paramedic school and became a State-certified paramedic in 1983; he recognized that the fire service and EMS were going to join career lines; so in 1985, Randy went to the fire school, becoming one of the County’s first firefighter/paramedics.  He stated Randy is the Chief assigned to D-22 in North Brevard; he is responsible for maintaining fire rescue standard operating procedures; he received numerous letters of appreciation from
the public for the lives he saved and homes he protected; and he was involved in the suppression activities of 1998 wildfires.  He congratulated Randy for 25 years of outstanding service.

 

Mr. Jenkins advised Clay Henderson was hired in 1978 as a maintenance worker at District 1 Road and Bridge Compound, progressed in his job and was promoted to Equipment Operator II, where he drove an 18-yard dump truck; and in 1993, he was promoted to Heavy Equipment Operator where he operated the Gradall cleaning ditches.  He stated in 1996, Clay was given the Leadman position to oversee numerous drainage repair and replacement projects, which resulted from Hurricane Erin in 1995; in 1998 he took over the responsibility of the Litter Patrol created by Commissioner Scarborough in North Brevard, where he utilized inmate labor to keep the rights-of-way clean from litter and illegal dumping; and Clay says that position is the best job he has ever had and he looks forward to continuing with Brevard County until his retirement.  He congratulated Clay on his 25 years of outstanding service.

 

Mr. Jenkins advised the last recipient is William Quinn, who he knows is a graduate of Florida Atlantic University because he and Bill graduated from the same college many years ago.  He stated Bill began his employment in April 1978 with Public Safety as a Traffic Records Program Analyst; he created the Brevard County System for the Florida Node System for identification of high-hazard traffic accident locations in Brevard County; and in 1980, he became the 911 Supervisor and developed the E-911 database and monitored the installation of the E-911 system used today.  He stated in 1993, Bill transferred to Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) in the Finance Section, and continues to provide accounting activities and manage grants and financial aspects of the County’s public transportation system, which is an award-winning system.  He stated Bill celebrates 25 years with the County; and congratulated him for his outstanding service.

 

Mr. Henderson thanked Commissioner Scarborough for everything; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he appreciates all that Mr. Henderson does in North Brevard.

 

Chair Higgs advised the Board appreciates the service of all its employees, particularly those who have served so long and so well; and thanked them for coming to the meeting and letting the Board recognize them.

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon read aloud a resolution proclaiming November 21 through 27, 2003 as Farm City Week in Brevard County and calling upon citizens in rural and urban areas to celebrate the achievements of those who strengthen and enrich our community and nation.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution proclaiming November 21 through 27, 2003 as Farm City Week in Brevard County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Commissioner Colon presented the Resolution to Bud Crisafulli and Lowell Loadholtz who thanked the Board for recognizing the agricultural and natural resources communities, the farmers, their families, and on behalf of the President Steve Crisafulli and 2,000 of the Brevard County Farm Bureau, they accept the Resolution.  He stated they will continue to work with the Board on many programs. 

 

Mr. Crisafulli stated the Commissioners could add their names to the list of people who contribute to agriculture; they appreciate the Board’s support in Brevard County; it is a great place to live; and they appreciate the County staff. 

 

Chair Higgs stated the Board is very grateful for the meals the community puts on their tables and other products as well.

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution commending Eric J. Hoppenbrouwer for attaining the rank of Eagle Scout.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution commending Eagle Scout Eric J. Hoppenbrouwer for attaining the rank of Eagle Scout and his accomplishments over the years.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Mr. Hoppenbrouwer who advised his project was to renovate the Church recreation area, basketball court and volleyball court; and scouting has helped him grow as a person and will help him be a good adult.

 

Chair Higgs stated the Board is pleased to have these accomplished people in Brevard County.

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution commending Michael A. Bryan for attaining the rank of Eagle Scout.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution commending Eagle Scout Michael A. Bryan for attaining the rank of Eagle Scout and his accomplishments over the years.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Commissioner Carlson advised Mr. Bryan’s project was to make a video tape of the history, proper display, and presentation of the American Flag; and he will present it to the Board.  Mr. Bryan thanked John Baugher for helping him with the video by taping and editing, and a lot of other work.

 

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Mr. Bryan; advised he did an excellent job; and everyone has learned more about the proper handling of the flag.  She inquired if folks would like to use it, how would they get in touch with him to get a copy; and suggested he give her and any Commission office the information because it is a super video.  Mr. Jenkins advised it could be put in the libraries where people could check it out. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she is proud that Mr. Bryan had taken the time to do the video; the bottom line of the video is answering the call to defend our freedom; and that is what it is about.  She thanked Mr. Bryan; stated the video was emotional to see; and she learned a lot from it.

 

Chair Higgs thanked Mr. Bryan for sharing the video with the Board; and stated anyone interested in it can call Commissioner Carlson’s office.  Commissioner Carlson stated they hope to get it in the libraries as well.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final plat approval for Sonoma South Subdivision, Phase 3, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of documents required for recording, and developer obtaining jurisdictional permits; and execute Contract with The Viera Company for improvements in the Subdivision.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolutions releasing Contracts with The Viera Company for improvements in Sonoma Subdivision, Phases 4 and 5, subject to developer obtaining required jurisdictional permits.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Plan Agreement with Robert A. Baugher for development of property located on the west side of SR A1A, north of Crescent Beach Drive.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.   

 

  

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Plan Agreement with Newton Land Development, Inc. and SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. for development of property located north of Sunrise Subdivision and east of Pinehurst Drive.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the project funding recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee, to appropriate $100,000 for intersection improvements at John Rodes Boulevard and Sheridan Road to be administered by Brevard County, appropriate an additional $8,035.43 for improvements to Delaware Avenue and Atz, Old Mission, and Booth Roads to be administered by the Town of Malabar; execute Transportation Impact Fee Trust Fund Disbursement Agreement with the Town of Malabar for $49,219.07 for the project; and authorize budget amendments to implement appropriations in FY 2003-04.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize Zoning staff to request a waiver of the 90-day time to review tower applications and authorize the Zoning Official to execute waiver forms on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Memorandum of Understanding with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for the Fox Lake Aquatic Habitat Enhancement project.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Interlocal Agreement with the City of Melbourne for Rio Lindo Maintenance Dredging Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU) project within the boundaries of District 5 and the City of Melbourne.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Coast Guard and Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, and Modified Sovereign Submerged Lands Easement with the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida  for Mathers Bridge replacement project.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution supporting the Brevard MPO membership apportionment plan adopted by the MPO on October 9, 2003, which calls for no changes to the current MPO membership structure.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, authorize amending the Brevard County Action Plan for FY 2003-04 by removing Child Care Association Program and adding Community Service Council’s Meals on Wheels Program to the public service allocation in the amount of $65,926; and execute Agreement with Community Service Council contingent upon approval of the County Attorney and Risk Management.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt the amended Citizen Participation Plan outlining citizens participation process for the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Program grants allocated to Brevard County by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Project Agreement with Department of Environmental Protection, extending completion date for Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Memorial Park Legislative Grant Project to January 31, 2004.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution authorizing leasing of buildings to not-for-profit corporation, and execute Agreement with Brevard Cultural Alliance for $191,249.96 to provide arts and cultural development services from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission for Fire Rescue to participate in the Wendy’s Christmas Promo by providing a fire engine and one driver to at least four and possibly as many as 19 Wendy’s facilities.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve donation of a 1991 E-one protector pumper truck, PC#334-0125, to Norfork, Arkansas Fire Protection District.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreements with Thomas Thompson, Laura Siemers, Kathleen Henretta, and Jack Hendren, and Amendments with Jeannette Congdon, Sam Bardwell, Sean Anderson, and Kenneth Studstill to provide legal representation for indigent persons in criminal conflict cases.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the sale of one surplus bus, PC#333-0101, to Palm Bay PAL for $850.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve advertising request for proposals, acceptance of proposals from qualified firms, and negotiations for acquisition of up to 13 replacement buses and up to four expansion buses; authorize advertising for bids and acceptance of bids from qualified firms for acquisition of up to 17 replacement vanpool vehicles and up to 10 expansion vanpool vehicles; and appoint SCAT Manager of Operations, representative of Ryder Transportation, and Transit Services Director to the Selection Committee.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment of Contract No. 7336 with Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, extending completion date for surveys of rare and endangered plant species project.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Assignment and Assumption of Contract with WCG, Inc. to WCG/Neel-Schaffer, Inc. for engineering consultant services.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise request for proposals from professional engineers for water and wastewater treatment plant engineering consultant services; and appoint Richard Martens, Ron Voll, Roy Conk, Stephen Peffer, and John Denninghoff to the selection and negotiating committees.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

  

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize Water Resources Department to purchase a dump truck and loader-backhoe from the State’s Contract.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to ratify emergency purchase of wastewater sludge disposal services in excess of $35,000.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Change Order No. 1 to Agreement with American Water Services Underground Infrastructure, Inc. for rehabilitation of gravity sewer project 7, decreasing the contract amount by $23,335.25, and approve final payment.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize staff to initiate negotiations with A. Duda & Sons for exchange of a portion of the South Center Regional Water Reclamation Facility property needed for the new site of the A. Duda & Sons Cocoa Ranch Office.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution authorizing renewal of Draw No. A-16-1 from the Tax Exempt Commercial Paper Loan Program; and authorize the Chair and County Attorney to sign the necessary loan documents, and staff to make necessary budget changes.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

  

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution recommending Avidyne Corporation be approved as a State qualified Industry Business and the necessary commitment of local financial support be waived and matched through the County’s Ad Valorem Tax Abatement Program.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize settlement of claims for Brevard County v. Butler, et al regarding Lilia Cordones, Trustee, in the amount of $1,000.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint/reappoint Mike Menyhart, Gail Schuneman, Brian Duffy, Tim Yandell, Ronald Cobb, Stephen Pinkowski, John W. Rice, and Ann Spencer to the Brevard Workforce Development Board, with terms expiring June 30, 2006.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint/reappoint Ned Keller to the Health Facilities Authority, with term expiring November 18, 2007; Bob Riley to the Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District Board, with term expiring December 31, 2005; Sandee Natowich to Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency with term expiring November 17, 2007; and Christopher R. White to North Brevard Commission on Parks and Recreation, with term expiring December 31, 2004.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve bills and budget change requests as submitted.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a public utility and drainage easement in North Port St. John, Unit One, as petitioned by Susie Bongers Verdier.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution vacating a public utility and drainage easement (Barclay Drive) in North Port St. John, Unit One, as petitioned by Susie Bongers Verdier.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a right-of-way (Pineapple Avenue) in Section 17, Township 21S., Range 35E., as petitioned by Bostic and Glenn and a request for waiver of fees.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution vacating a right-of-way (Pineapple Avenue) in Section 17, Township 21S., Range 35E., as petitioned by Bostic and Glenn; and to waive the fee.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating right-of-way in Section 26, Township 26S., Range 36E., as petitioned by Pineda Partners, L.L.C.

 

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

 

 

 

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a public utility easement (Brewster Road) in Putnam Park Subdivision, Unit 1, as petitioned by Edward and Maryann Kraft, and a request for fee waiver.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easement (Brewster Road) in Putnam Park Subdivision, Unit 1, as petitioned by Edward and Maryann Kraft, and to waive the fee.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

 

 

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution confirming the preliminary assessment roll for the Rio Lindo Maintenance Dredging Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU).

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution confirming the preliminary assessment roll for the Rio Lindo Maintenance Dredging Municipal Service Benefit Unit and recording of the assessments in the Brevard County Clerk of Courts Official Records Book; and providing an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance to include the Town of Palm Shores in the Law Enforcement Municipal Service Taxing Unit.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt an Ordinance amending Brevard County Ordinance No. 98-06, pertaining to the Law Enforcement Municipal Services Taxing Unit; authorizing inclusion of the incorporated limits of the Town of Palm Shores, Florida within the boundaries of the Brevard County, Florida; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider transmittal of the 2003B Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Department of Community Affairs. 

 

Jason Roof of Mims advised he is trying to build a house at his grandfather’s place; when they set up the conservation area at Seminole Ranch, they included his property inside the conservation area, which was privately-owned land; and they are trying to change the land use back to residential.  He stated he supports amendment 03B.3.

 

Mary Sphar of Merritt Island, representing the Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group, advised the Agenda package has two versions of the Comprehensive Plan amendment; the difference is one version retains the existing language on mitigation in Criterion B and the other strikes Criterion B; and the Sierra Club supports the proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.3 with Criterion B added back into the language.  She stated that version was recommended two-to-one by the CRG and nine-to-two by the LPA; and the proposed language on wetland permitting with the reinstatement of Criterion B will clear up differences of opinion on the application of the policy.  Ms. Sphar stated the Sierra Club was an intervener in the  challenge to the 1995B wetlands amendments; once the case was settled and the new language started to be applied, questions arose as to how Policy 5.3 affects the residential Policy 5.2.e.1, part of which states that lots platted in the future should have sufficient uplands for the intended use and for a buffer to preserve wetland functions.  She stated there are still differences of opinion of how those two Comprehensive Plan policies should be interacting; changing Policy 5.3 as recommended by the CRG and LPA is an excellent idea because it will clear up all ambiguities and allow the County to enforce the residential Policy 5.2.e.1 as it is currently written.  She stated the Sierra Club urges the Board to transmit to Department of Community Affairs the change to Policy 5.3 with Criterion B included.

 

Natural Resources Management Supervisor Debbie Coles advised staff can include both of those items and has no problem leaving Criterion B in if it provides additional clarity.  Senior Planner Todd Corwin advised Amendment 03B.7 is recommended for inclusion in the next amendment cycle due to a procedural issue.

 

Chair Higgs advised Amendment 03B.7 has been deleted; and the Board will deal with Amendments 1 through 6 separately.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2003B.1 for transmittal to Department of Community Affairs.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2003B.2 for transmittal to Department of Community Affairs.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2003B.3 for transmittal to Department of Community Affairs.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2003B.4 for transmittal to Department of Community Affairs. 

 

Chair Higgs recommended adding paragraph H. to Policy 2.8 with language that would indicate specifically projects contain what would be consistent with the State Growth Management Plan and would not further urban sprawl.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to include paragraph H. to Policy 2.8, with language specifically indicating projects would be consistent with the State Growth Management Plan and would not further urban sprawl.

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to ask staff to comment an any implications of adding that language; with Mr. Corwin responding the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan has to be consistent with the State’s Comprehensive Plan anyway; policies with the Transportation Element and Future Land Use Element do not encourage urban sprawl; so he does not feel there would be an issue with the added language; however, he would like the opportunity to check with the Transportation Management staff to verify that.  Commissioner Scarborough recommended the item be deferred until staff comes back with comments.

 

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised it is a transportation planning function, but he does not believe there would be any significant ramifications.  He stated they try to avoid urban sprawl in constructing public roads so that is an acceptable modification.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to bring it back to the MPO and see if it has any effect on what the MPO has designated.  Chair Higgs stated if it were transmitted, it could be pulled when it comes back for adoption.  Mr. Corwin stated that is correct, as this is the transmittal stage and the Board will see it again in February or March 2004.  Commissioner Pritchard noted that will work.

 

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

 

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board will get feedback from the MPO; with Commissioner Carlson responding if there is a question, there will be ample time to get with Bob Kamm and see if he has any issues before it comes back through the cycle.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03B.5 for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chair Higgs advised it does not include the item the Board will deal with this afternoon; and inquired if the Board chose to insert it into the Comprehensive Plan, can that be done at adoption; with Mr. Corwin responding yes.

 

Ms. Coles advised there is a scrivener’s error in the amendment; and B should be stricken since it will be one paragraph with A.

 

Chair Higgs inquired if the language on page 56 in paragraph B will be part of paragraph A; with Ms. Coles responding yes. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if paragraph B is being included in paragraph A; with Ms. Coles responding there will be no paragraph A as it will be one paragraph under Policy 5.3.  Commissioner Pritchard stated as was brought out, it shows two, one with A and B and the other with B stricken.  Commissioner Carlson stated the motion is to approve 03B.6 with the language in paragraph B.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the point of having the separate paragraph about wetland mitigation; with Commissioner Carlson stating it is no longer separate.  Commissioner Pritchard stated what he is asking of staff is the previous paragraph talks about mitigation, priorities, minimization of impacts, etc.; and inquired what is the purpose of having the line about providing for mitigation as designated in the Conservation Element.  Ms. Coles stated staff feels it is duplicative, but if it adds clarity, they are fine with it.  She stated it does not add or detract from the intent of the policy.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired which one is current, A or B; with Ms. Coles responding on paragraph 56, if the underline and strike through are taken out, it would be the original policy.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired which one is currently in effect; with Chair Higgs responding the language in B is in the Comprehensive Plan; underlined language on page 56 is what is added; and it is changing the way it is structured to be one paragraph.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it is adding the underline language on page 56, what is the purpose of having what was in paragraph B included in that language; with Ms. Coles responding to provide additional clarity.  Commissioner Carlson stated the CRG and LPA perspectives are what is suggested; it provides them more clarity; and she would recommend going with their suggestion.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03B.6 for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated, in regards to the Comprehensive Plan, one of the things that the Board was pretty clear on, in regards to once something is put in the Comprehensive Plan, and the entire process, is how difficult it is for this afternoon’s subject, in regards to the Palm Bay Parkway; and inquired if the Board can be sure to get that feedback.

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated Chair Higgs requested tabling of this item; and inquired if she has any comments in regards to the item.

 

Chair Higgs advised she looked over the item; the Board is simply acknowledging receipt of the Ordinance; the land use is not considerably different in regard to the West Melbourne annexation; she also has some questions on where the City is going in some parts of the County with annexations; but in this case she has no further questions.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance #2003-23 from the City of West Melbourne, annexing three tracts of land on the south side of Eber Boulevard and east of Hollywood Boulevard, west side of Minton Road and south of I-95, and west of Minton Road and south of Flanagan Avenue, totaling 161± acres.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Natural Resources Management staff Sherry Williams advised the issue of prohibition of use of local roads as haul routes per the Land Alteration Ordinance has posed some problems for some proposed land alteration activities.  She stated on December 23, staff sent a memo to the Board outlining some options for consideration; the issue came back to the Board on September 16 where it directed staff to provide some options in changing the Ordinance so it would address the use of local roads as haul routes under certain circumstances; and staff’s proposed language is provided in Attachment C.  She stated if it meets the approval of the Board, staff requests approval of the legislative intent and permission to advertise the proposed changes.

 

Eamon Wright requested the Board vote favorably on the language; it deals with his property; and he would like to get the job finished that he was initially trying to do.

 

Ralph McCoig of Rockledge thanked the Board, County Manager, and County staff for drafting the language.  He stated they came before the Board requesting permission to dig a pond on their property and remove the dirt down Burgess Street to another piece of property owned by the same owners; and he would like to make sure they can do that under the new language; with Ms. Williams responding yes.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated there are multiple options; and inquired when Ms. Williams answered Mr. McCoig, was it meant in a  generic fashion or what did it mean; with Ms. Williams responding his particular case is addressed under B, subparagraph 1, where it talks about other properties; and there are three inclusions staff is proposing for that section to address the various types of land alteration activities that may be within the County.  

 

Commissioner Carlson recommended consistency throughout the Land Alteration Ordinance and Zoning Regulations; and unless the Board has a problem with that, she will move that with Option 3. 

 

 

Ms. Williams advised staff is proposing all three items be included in the Land Alteration Ordinance.  Natural Resources Management Director Conrad White advised subparagraphs A, B, and C are not options, but are included as changes to the Ordinance.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated because of zoning changes, there is a potential, where there are commercial/industrial properties, of the local roads going through residential areas; he is not completely happy closing off that as a possibility with the current language; so he will vote against it.  He stated paragraph A says, “the primary purpose of a local road shall be determined by the Transportation Engineering Department who may request the applicant to provide applicable traffic study and other related information”; and to him that is information gathering and does not prohibit the potential of having the anomaly of commercial/industrial property running a road through residential property.  He stated the Board needs to say it is not going to allow that to occur because that is an explosive issue; and he is not happy with the language.  Chair Higgs inquired if A was deleted would Commissioner Scarborough find it acceptable; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he is not opposed to A, but there needs to be more work on it; and suggested it be tabled for staff to provide additional work on it.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is not happy based on Attachment A; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he is looking at the proposed ordinance which is Attachment C; paragraph 2, subsection A, which he finds insufficient because it is purely information gathering and not prohibition. 

 

Chair Higgs inquired if the Board took out A and only dealt with B would that be satisfactory; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it is not bad if the event does not occur; if it runs strictly through commercial/industrial property on a local road to an arterial road that is not a problem; but there is a possibility of something occurring that is going to devalue and adversely affect other property owners.  Chair Higgs inquired if Commissioner Scarborough thinks there is language staff can work on; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he knows there is.

 

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised this is the legislative intent; if staff mis-characterized the Board’s intent, they are flexible to embrace other things; and one thought the Board might want to consider is incorporating some kind of approval that would require a public hearing and allow people who might be affected by the permission to come and speak.  Commissioner Scarborough stated that is not where he wants to go. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not have a problem tabling A, but the Board can move on B and C because he would hate to hold up the property owner from digging the pond he wishes to dig.  He stated A can come back later and the Board can address it at a later meeting.  Chair Higgs stated she is not sure the Board needs to do C and perhaps only B is necessary.

 

Mr. White suggested changes to A to read, “The land alteration activity is within a commercial/industrial zone parcel or lot and whose proposed haul route does not include travel on local roads that service existing residential areas.”

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he can live with that; it is close to where he wants it to be; and the Board can tweak it at the public hearing.  Mr. White stated they will also need to reformat the numbering.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the legislative intent for amending the Land Alteration Ordinance, amended to read:  “land alteration activity is within a commercial or industrial zone, parcel, or lot, and whose proposed haul route does not include travel on local roads that service existing residential areas”; and grant permission to advertise the proposed ordinance for a public hearing.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Amy Tidd of Rockledge, vice chair of the Recycling Citizens Advisory Committee (RCAC), thanked the Board for approving 8 of the 16 recommendations of the RCAC; and stated they are back to have the Board look at the rest of the recommendations.  She stated the important thing to look at, when considering the RCAC’s proposals, is that they were presented as a package and not as individual items; the reason she is saying that is because the RCAC was tasked with improving recycling in Brevard County in a cost efficient manner; and it meant for its suggestions to be considered together with the cost of some being covered by the revenues of others.  She stated she wants to go over some of the recommendations she wants the Board to consider implementing today; III.C. is the official green procurement policy; it would be a great step to have the official green procurement policy implemented; and there are many recycled products and more energy-efficient products that the County could buy to improve both its bottom line and the environment.  Ms. Tidd stated the federal government has committed to buying recycled copy paper; if it can make it work, the County could also; it could be buying only energy star products and appliances that use less energy; and if it committed to buying only energy star products, it would burn less electricity, reducing its electric bills for the life of the appliance.  She stated fluorescent bulbs could also be covered in a green procurement policy; and it would be a great step in showing Brevard County’s commitment to the future.  She stated item III.D. refers to recycling office paper in all County facilities; it is a viable option; there are many administrative officers that are not covered; right now the County only recycles in the three main administrative buildings and courthouses; and there are many other offices, such as Parks and Recreation, that are not included in the office paper recycling program.  She stated they are saying it is not cost efficient; and if they cannot have the paper picked up, it can be brought by employees to the Government Center, as most employees go there quite often.  She stated paper generated by a building is a large quantity; her house alone generates three bags of office paper; and inquired how much could all the offices be generating.   Ms. Tidd advised item IV.B. is to request the Board initiate mandatory commercial recycling in the future, then the County should also be required to recycle in all its buildings.  She stated item IV.A. is to convert all Solid Waste accounts to individual calculations; they asked Mr. Rodriguez what his time frame was to do that; and he said three years.  She stated they support his coming back with a four-year timetable.  She stated when the RCAC looked at mandatory commercial recycling, it thought that recycling could be increased significantly if the County had a mandatory recycling commercial program even if it did not have enforcement; some counties have it on their books and do not hire enforcement officers; but it would be more effective to hire three Code Enforcement officers.  She stated the County would be receiving revenues from the increased tipping fees from C&D as a way to balance out the cost of a commercial recycling program; the Board approved their recommendation on the C&D tipping fees on September 15, with estimated revenues at $1,187,000; so that increase has already been approved and right now the Board has that money flowing into its coffers; and requested the cost of the recycling program be covered by those fees.  She noted even if the Board has Code Enforcement at $149,900 it would still leave over one million dollars for Solid Waste’s operation requirements.  She thanked Mr. Rodriguez, Pam Shoemaker, and all the other staff members for their input to the RCAC; stated they spent many hours on the committee, which took away from their regular work; and they are committed to increasing recycling in Brevard County.  She stated the RCAC appreciates the Board allowing it to come back in a year to assess the adopted regulations; and they hope all the effort that has gone into this program will increase the County’s recycling education and improve its recycling rate, which is already better than many counties.

 

Bette Danse, chair of the Recycling Citizens Advisory Committee, advised she has given the Board recycling proposals that it saw before; it was Commissioner Carlson who requested that she put them together and show them again to the Board today; and hopefully the Board might find some time today to consider them.  She stated if the Commissioners went over them and the email correspondence regarding them, perhaps the Board would choose one, two, or three that it could agree on and put that through as its own recommendation.  She stated as chair of the committee, she is pleased to go through the deferred recommendations very quickly with the Board; and if it puts them next to the deferred recommendations status report that Mr. Rodriguez has supplied, the Board can perhaps make better sense of all of it.  She stated the Board was also given the mandatory commercial Ordinance from Alachua County; the following are requests to the Board, specifically the Solid Waste  Department status report:  I.A. is a request that the Board expedite the information flyers and change the language to before or by 2005; she had a great meeting with Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Shoemaker yesterday; they discussed a lot of the issues; and if it is possible for the Solid Waste  Department to get those flyers out sooner than 2005, the RCAC would certainly appreciate it.  Ms. Danse stated I.B. requests the Board to ask for sufficient monies to be used ASAP for monthly recycling news in newspapers, television ads, and signage; Saturday was America Recycles Day; they knew about it in Washington D.C. because Senator Jeffers was there again with his national bottle bill; and it is very promising that the whole country will adopt a national recycling bill, but as far as Brevard County, other than the two events that Ms. Shoemaker and Mr. Rodriguez participated in, who knew about America Recycles Day since there were no advertisements.  She stated there are no Brevard Recycles signs in the remodeling of Building A or in any County buildings; signs in front of Building A and new Solid Waste sign in front of the Department door do not say recycling, just Solid Waste; so someone entering the building trying to find the recycling department would not be able to find it.  She stated item II.A., as far as the school system goes, they are making progress; and Brian Blenis of the RCAC and School Staff Engineer has been charged with initiating the school program, but it will not start until January 2004 because it will take a while for them to get going.  She stated the letter in the Board’s packet from the Superintendent of Schools, who responded to the Solid Waste  Department’s letter, says any assistance the Board of County Commissioners could provide would be greatly appreciated; she does not want to pass by that because it is important; and requested the Board call a meeting among the Solid Waste  Department, RCAC volunteers, Dr. DePatri, Ed Curry, Brian Blenis, and his assistants to determine areas in which assistance could be given.  Ms. Danse stated Item III.A. refers to the September meeting with the recycling coordinators from municipalities, which was poorly attended; some of the contacts are city employees who answer the phone with no training in recycling; as recycling contacts, which she prefers to call them, they deal with their citizen concerns daily; and issues often go unresolved.  She stated Waste Management does not have a phone friendly system; sometimes they are on the line for 20 minutes to half an hour before they even know where to find the recycling person; they are into solid waste but not recycling; and Tammy Ferrante who is the Waste Management Customer Service Supervisor for Brevard County Recycling is located in Tampa.  She requested the Board call for quarterly meetings among the Solid Waste  Department and RCAC volunteers with the city recycling contacts and recycling representative from Waste Management, which would mean Waste Management has to find a recycling representative who will show up for the meetings.  Ms. Danse stated Central and North areas steel can curbside pickup to be done by Progressive Recycling was approved in August and is still in limbo; Progressive Recycling still has not purchased the magnet machine and is in negotiations with Waste Management; yet years ago on the SCGTV, Progressive said it would happen shortly.  She requested the Board review the Waste Management contract and compose an addendum to require future contracts to be put out to bid to prevent stalled contract negotiations such as the steel can curbside negotiations.   She requested the Board require Waste Management to have a local customer service supervisor for Brevard County recycling and to assist in recycling and not just have a presence in the community as the current contract language states.  Ms. Danse stated item III.B. relates to recycling bins at libraries; four libraries have jumped on the recycling bins, but there are 19 libraries in the County that are not doing it; and they will work on it if the Board intercedes.  She stated right now there are outside roll-off recycling bins for those who complained about not having room; restaurants advised they have no room to put recycling bins, but they should find the room; and if the Board of County Commissioners says it wants them to allocate one place for the bins, they would have to find a way.  She requested the Board ask the rest of the libraries to allocate space for recycling bins.  

 

Chair Higgs advised the Board has a time certain and will stop this item at this point, take a five-minute break, and continue it this afternoon after the time certain, so it can be on schedule.

 

 

The meeting recessed at 10:29 a.m., and reconvened at 10:38 a.m.

 

 

 

Chief William Farmer introduced Assistant Chief Dennis Neterer, new Operations Chief, who assumed the responsibilities after the passing of Assistant Chief Tim Mills.  He stated on October 21, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners tabled the agreement with the City of Cocoa for fire and emergency medical services and requested the County Attorney’s office to create language to limit the County’s liability should any lawsuit be successful saying the City of Cocoa is not allowed to outsource its fire service.  He stated the Board additionally asked the City to answer pension and salary issues and ensure those pension and salary issues were communicated to the firefighters; those two issues remain with the City; and the City is prepared to do a presentation to show what it has done and to answer the Board’s questions. 

 

James Holt, Cocoa City Manager, advised the Mayor was going to make the presentation and will be here shortly; this is about the third time they have been before the Board referencing the issue of fire service; it is a very serious situation for the City of Cocoa; and they have provided all the data that supports the proposal they are requesting at previous meetings.  He thanked Chief Farmer for his assistance to the City, and thanked Public Safety Director Jack Parker for allowing the Fire/Rescue staff to entertain the concept.  He stated at the last meeting both sides gave their presentations, facts, and emotions; the City feels it is a win-win-win situation, not only for the City, but for the County and firefighters; and it is probably the best solution that could take place, as the City is looking at three options.  He stated (1) is to negotiate a new contract that will severely restrict salaries, manpower, and services to the citizens of Cocoa; (2) is to transition the Department to the County, which the City feels is a win-win-win situation; and (3) is to farm out to a private source.  Mr. Holt stated the RFP is prepared and ready to go out tomorrow, depending on what occurs today; also the Union negotiations letter setting up negotiations for the next contract will be going out tomorrow; and the City urges the Board to do what is in the best interest of not only the citizens of Cocoa, but also the County residents in the enclaves.  He stated it will assist both the City and the County; and Wendy Widmann is here to answer the questions the Board asked at the last meeting.

 

Wendy Widmann, Administrative Services Director for the City of Cocoa, presented documents to the Board, but not the Clerk; stated the City of Cocoa has come to the Board and asked for its help; the City cannot afford, due to budget situations, to continue its fire department at its current cost; and this is a salary savings for the citizens of Cocoa and an opportunity for the County to recoup some of its costs for providing fire rescue services in the City of Cocoa.  She stated the City will have to cost out about $60 million in the next ten years to provide this service versus the County’s proposal at $36.5 million; and the County will be paid instead of subsidizing services in the City.  Ms. Widmann advised on October 21, 2003, the Board told her and the City management staff that they needed to get the pension issue resolved; she went back to Ward Foster, who is the 175 Pension attorney, within the same week to get information; within three hours she received information back; but after reviewing it closely, she determined it was not the information she requested, it was only part of it.  She stated she called Mr. Foster, asked him for all the information, and sent him a letter asking for the additional information; he informed her he could not give her that information because he was instructed by the Firefighters Union Pension Board not to give the information out and it had to go through Pete Pryor, who is the third-party administrator for the Pension Board, not an attorney; and he would review all the information and forward it to Mr. Foster.  She stated she called Mr. Pryor’s office after informing Mr. Foster it was a public record file and he is subject to the same public records laws that the City is; he informed her that he was given very clear instructions by his employer, which is the Pension Board, not to give the information out; so his hands were tied even though he had the information the City needed in order to resolve the pension issue.  Ms. Widmann stated she then decided to go to Mr. Pryor, even though she felt it was not right, in order to try and get the issue resolved; Mr. Pryor’s office said she had to submit the request in writing and they would not take it over the phone, so she did that; and they called her back and said she needed to be more specific and include in her request specifically what she wanted, not generalizations, and she did that.  She stated Mr. Pryor forwarded her request to Mr. Foster a few days later; it is now the 18th of November and she has not heard anything from Mr. Foster; consequently the City has not been able to get the pension issue resolved.  Ms. Widmann advised they did have an informational meeting with the employees to go over the benefits and other issues that affect them; however, they could not resolve the pension issue, but did inform the employees that because they were not able to get the information, they were not able to determine if it was cost effective to do some of the proposals the Union asked the City to do in terms of a buyout for some of the employees who are close to retirement.  She stated they were not able to cost out whether it would be cost effective, which is not the only choice the City has if it decides to terminate the Pension Plan; the Pension Board is the one that determines whether the City pays out annuities to all the firefighters, whether they get a cash value in the Pension Plan, or whether they keep the trust closed, but let people eligible for retirement draw from it.  She stated the City does not have the option, whether or not it will pay the annuities; it is the Pension Board that directs the City to do that; and the City has made every effort to try and get it resolved.  Ms. Widmann advised Jim Tolley, District Vice President of the IAFF and Vice President of the Local Union came into her office on Monday; they had a good negotiation session; and he asked that the City keep the 175 Plan open.  She stated the City would like to do that; however, it feels it is more important that the issue get resolved; and it has been inundated by  firefighters requesting it be resolved.   She stated the City Council directed staff to go to privatization if this request falls through; and the employees being affected need to know whether they are going to be employed by the City, County, private sector, or unemployed as of January 1, 2004 or when the private sector contract goes into place.  She stated this is a safety issue; the Board has seen many employees crying; and she does not want to see employees crying because the City cannot afford to have the employees needed to provide safe and efficient fire service for the citizens of Cocoa. 

 

Deputy City Manager Clarence Hulse advised Councilman Adamson could not be here today and wanted him to express to the Board how important this is to him; and he feels the City of Cocoa citizens would like to have the same services that the citizens in Suntree, Viera, and other unincorporated areas have.  He stated at the last meeting the Board had a number of concerns; the City staff has tried to resolve all those issues; they asked for information but did not get it; and it is time to move on.  He stated today the Board will hear the pros and cons about the contract, but at the end of the day, he hopes it is a win/win situation for everybody involved—the citizens, City, and firefighters.  He stated the Fire Chief will tell the Board he probably does not want a private service because it creates a lot of service issues; so he would like to request the Board to vote affirmatively for the contract. 

 

Commissioner Colon inquired how is the petition going to affect the City regarding legalities of putting the referendum on the ballot; with City Attorney Anthony Garganese responding their understanding is there is a petition to amend the City’s Charter that is floating around the community; but the petition has not been submitted to the City with the requisite signatures so it is premature to get into that at this time.   Commissioner Colon stated it is not premature if there are already 1,000 signatures on the petition and the City is about to get it next week; so she just wanted to get an idea of what happens and what does the City have to do.  City Attorney Garganese stated generally if the requisite signatures on the petition have been obtained, then there would be a special election to consider the referendum question or the referendum question would be placed on the ballot at the next general election for the voters to consider.

 

Chair Higgs inquired in Mr. Knox’s research, and what implications does the petition have that the Board should know about at this point; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding it is hard to speculate what would happen if there is an election and it passes and there is a contract signed with the County; the Board would have an issue whether or not the election supersedes the contract; that would be a legal issue that would have to be fought out some place; and that is the only issue he can see.  Chair Higgs stated there are representatives from a couple of groups as well as individuals who wish to speak; and inquired if the Board wants her to proceed through the cards in order or proceed with the groups.  The consensus was to proceed with the cards in the order received.

 

Bob Gardner of Merritt Island stated there is an important poster on the back wall of the Commission Room entitled Brevard County Vision; it says a community which excels provides for the health of its citizens, financially supporting a quality lifestyle, creating cooperative government partnerships; and the mission is to enhance Brevard’s quality of life and the values are honesty, accountability, quality, leadership, openness, and innovation.  He stated the City of Cocoa is here because it is trying an innovative approach to tackle a very difficult situation on a regional basis; there are many government services that could afford this opportunity; and intergovernmental cooperation is number one here today.  He stated the usurpation of fire and emergency medical services meets all of Brevard’s credos that he mentioned; acceptance of the services contract is truly innovative and demonstrates innovative leadership and the highest level of cooperative governmental partnership; and that is available for the Board to choose today.  He urged the Board to vote yes on the contract.

 

Mark Floyd of Lake Worth, Attorney and prime service counsel to the Board of Trustees for the City of Cocoa’s Retirement Plan, advised he is in an unusual role because he is not here to advocate one way or another; he is here for information purposes; and he believes a letter from him has already been distributed to the Board giving notice of some of the issues the City is facing or will face if the transfer of services is implemented.  He stated he wrote about the concerns in the letter and most deal with concerns the City of Cocoa has; however, the Board of Trustees asked that he come here today and make sure the Board is aware of the issues.  He stated he has the letter if the Board wants it, and he will answer questions if the Board has any. 

 

Mary Lorkovic of Cocoa advised she has been a resident for 33 years and conducted a survey; she went to the low-income areas; and all those she contacted favored the County taking over the contract.  She stated she is on a fixed income and cannot afford the fire service they have now; the transfer will be better for the citizens of Cocoa; and they have a low-income segment where 94% of the cost has been for EMS.  She stated she had that service in August; the people came to her rescue; the contract will provide $34 million over 10 years; and that is something the County is not getting now, so it would behoove the Board to think about this when it decides yes or no on the contract.  She noted she hopes the Board will make it a definite yes.

 

Don Pierce of Port St. John, representing Titusville firefighters, stated they wanted to show their support for their brothers and sisters and request the Board table the agreement and let Judge Moxley go through it and the citizens speak.  He stated he grew up in Cocoa; his mother and stepfather still live in Cocoa; he walked the neighborhood and talked to people he grew up with; and they were 100% against it.  He stated every person he talked to was against it; and he hopes the Board will wait and let the citizens make the decision. 

 

Friley Knight of Cocoa stated he is a native of Brevard County, moved to Cocoa 43 years ago, retired from Rockwell in 1998, and his hobby is staying in tune and involved in Cocoa’s administrative activities.  He stated he has not missed many Council meetings, has been Cocoa’s representative on the MPO Citizens Advisory Committee, is a member of Cocoa’s U.S. 1 Redevelopment Agency; and prior to that, he was Chairman for some years of the Beautification Board.  He stated he is presently Chairman of the Cocoa Transportation Volunteer Group and an active V-Cop.  He stated he is very informed on the Fire Department’s contract issue; and the Fire Department’s Union, poor Council decisions, and recent economic downturn have put Cocoa in a financial stranglehold.   Mr. Knight advised his letter that was delivered to the Commissioners’ offices requested the Board vote in favor of the contract with the City to provide fire and first responder services; the contents were sanctioned by City Manager Mr. Holt and previously by the Finance Director; and he is confident the information is factual.  He stated the board’s positive vote on the contract is what the citizens of Cocoa need; the County’s Fire Department Chief Farmer agrees it will also benefit the surrounding County enclaves; and he recommends approval.

 

John Titkanich of Cocoa advised he is a resident and employee of Cocoa; the decision before the Board is a difficult one; the request is entirely consistent with the goals and objectives set forth in the Strategic Plan of Brevard Tomorrow; and that is especially true when considering the desire to eliminate duplication of services and desire to promote cooperation among County and municipal governments.  He stated currently the City is in a financial situation where it can no longer afford its Fire Department in its current form; the City Council and City Manager can further cut back and institute additional layoffs; but it would be a cost to the public with a reduced level of service to bring it in line with where they need to be from a budgetary standpoint.  He stated contracting with Brevard County makes good financial sense and good public policy; closely related and probably more important is the issue of level of service; and approval of the contract will increase the level of service being provided to Cocoa citizens.  Mr. Titkanich stated the Cocoa Fire Department only offers basic life support (BLS), whereas Brevard County offers advanced life support (ALS); and it is extremely important because in a case of medical emergency, it could mean a difference if the situation demanded a higher level of patient care.  He stated from the County’s perspective, it makes financial sense when considering the County responds to 94% of the City’s emergency medical calls, so essentially it is subsidizing the City for medical emergency services; and being paid for service it currently provides to Cocoa at no cost would be a savings of $34 million to the County over ten years.  He stated to provide a greater level of service will benefit the City and County through the ability to provide a more comprehensive and coordinated regional approach to fire service delivery; it is critical when considering the response time in the event of a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or serious fire; and it will also benefit the residents of the enclaves and will allow the County and City to provide a greater web of protection by being able to backfill for one another.  He requested the Board put good policies before politics; stated there have been attempts and stall tactics; the City has given out over 2,400 public documents; and inquired how many more can be reviewed before they can come to the realization that a decision is a necessity for the City.  Mr. Titkanich stated the City Charter, specifically the provision relating to the fire department, is written so a ninth grader can read and understand it; and the Union filed a lawsuit seeking an interpretation of the Charter, which is nothing more than a stalling tactic.  He inquired if they were so concerned, why did they ask for two continuances instead of just letting the judge rule, and how much discovery needs to be done when trying to interpret a simple sentence in the Charter.  He stated the City, in respect to the referendum, is providing assurances to the County by indemnification and protection assurances in the contract; and with regard to the pension question, the City would have been able to provide the Board with the information, but unfortunately, it was not provided the information by the Fire Union or Pension Board.  He stated the City had to generate an official demand for public records and as of this morning, still has not received information; and once again that is a stalling tactic.  Mr. Titkanich stated this is a difficult time for everyone in the City, both employees and residents; and inquired if the City privatizes the fire service, how will that affect its ability to offer a seamless and coordinated regional approach to fire service delivery.   He noted it would undermine and not be good for the City or the County because private companies only respond to citizens for whom they are being paid; and requested the Board not allow the City to go down that road.  He stated personally he does not want to see privatization because protecting lives and providing fire service is a public good and belongs in the hands of the public sector; he knows it is a difficult decision, but if at all possible, he requests the Board to separate the emotions and politics and make a decision that is in the best interest of the City and County, and especially the residents.  He requested the Board vote in the affirmative for the contract.

 

Vince Allen of Rockledge, representing the City of Cocoa, advised the supporters of the fire service contract are asking the Board to do a difficult thing, put aside emotions, personal feelings, and political fears, and approve a business transaction that is opposed by one of the most powerful special interest groups in the country.  He stated the burden of leadership carries additional weight for the Board today because with significant change comes a certain amount of trauma and anxiety; it carries more weight today because of the tradition associated with local fire departments and because it affects families and people in a very real way; and their fear of change is very real to them whether it is justified or not.  He stated the decision before the Board is very important to many different people for many different reasons; the supporters of the contract, including his own fire chief, have all worked very hard to provide the Board with the facts and figures it needs to make that decision; and the contract will provide better overall service to the Cocoa and enclave residents at a lower total cost.  He noted the human and political elements of the decision are what make it so difficult; it is a rare thing when a governing body is afforded the opportunity to make a decision that is perceived by everyone to be perfect; and the supporters of the contract believe the proposed agreement provides the best long-term benefits for most people.  Mr. Allen stated the Brevard County Fire Rescue contract provides an avenue to the changes that must happen and to the long-term success that should happen; and requested the Board accept the burden of leadership that is being placed on it today and approve the contract.

 

Bruce Tate of Cocoa, representing the Committee to Preserve the Cocoa Fire Department, advised they were concerned about the City Council’s efforts to eliminate the Fire Department; and as a result of the City’s actions, a group of citizens formed the committee to preserve the Cocoa Fire Department for the purpose of circulating a petition that will require the City Council to hold a referendum election so the citizens of Cocoa can decide whether they want to keep the fire department.  He stated they started collecting signatures the past weekend; and he is pleased to announce that they have already collected more than enough signatures to require the City Council to place the Charter amendment on the ballot for the citizens of Cocoa to decide.  He requested the Board delay its decision on the contract until the citizens have had their opportunity to let their voices be heard on this extremely important issue.

 

Glenn Rubar of Cocoa, representing the Cocoa Fire Department, advised he is a lieutenant with the Cocoa Fire Department and heard a lot of interesting facts; and requested the Board table the issue and let the citizens of Cocoa make the decision.  He stated the City has its financial problems, but the firefighters should not be held accountable for that; and if the Board would take into consideration tabling the issue until the citizens can vote, the firefighters would appreciate it.

 

Greg Abernathy of Cocoa advised he has a special edition of the FYI letter that came out and read it yesterday; he read some of the contract the County proposed and listened to the City people say they should change to the County Fire Department; and he does not understand why there is such an emergency to change if they are so comfortable with the numbers that they are presenting as facts.  He requested the Board allow it to go to the voters and let them decide; stated the numbers he read in the FYI letter are not factual; he has been in business 17 years; and if the County’s salaries are almost compatible with the City of Cocoa’s salaries, but it is going to run on a proposed budget of $36 million compared to the City’s budget of $64 million, those are not factual numbers.  He stated another thing that was not put in the budget and that the taxpayers need to be made aware of is that they are also starting 2003-04 with a budget of $3.3 million and the County’s budget is $2.9 million; but the City is giving the County $330,000 initially to take over right away and giving its fire trucks to the County then will pay to lease them back.  Mr. Abernathy stated in looking at the contract with the County, the City seems to put in what looks good and what scares people in Cocoa; Section 6.3 states, “the City further agrees to pay the County any unbudgeted percentage increases due all or in part to increases to the FRS.”  He stated it also states the 15% increase is in addition to the automatic 5% increase, which gives the County a 20% increase.  He stated the City Council had an $8 million surplus six years ago; it blew that because it cannot control money; but it does not mean the City has to rush to judgment and get rid of the fire department.  Mr. Abernathy stated he has never seen a management staff that would turn one department against another; the City says it is going to lose 50 jobs and give up projects because of the fire department; however, it is the only City Council in history that voted itself full medical benefits while telling the people it is in a budget crisis; and the Council has not deleted its benefits.  Mr. Abernathy stated the City of Cocoa, for 20 to 40 years, did not have an Assistant City Manager; he is not saying it did not need one, but it did not have one for about 40 years, and now it does.  He stated the City is going to keep the fire chief on staff, but that is not in the budget, which is another $100,000 a year; the true numbers need to come out; they cannot buffalo the taxpayers in Cocoa; the facts will come out; and all he is asking the Board to do is to let the taxpayers decide.  He stated he read that Brevard County is responding to 94% of the City’s calls; the City acts like the County is bringing in fire trucks to the calls; it is bringing in ambulances; and it gets paid for every ambulance call it makes.  Mr. Abernathy stated on the bottom of the page it says the average Cocoa Fire Department annual salary is $36,000 a year, which he believes is a fair living; other employees in Cocoa make $26,000 a year; the Fire Department works ten more hours a week; every fireman works 50 hours a week; and the average Cocoa employee works 40 hours a week; so they cannot put propaganda out on the street and it not catch up with them.  He stated he would vote to go with the County if every Commissioner would say he or she will hold to the budget that the City wrote, but they all know it cannot be done.

 

Rich Siwica, Counsel for Cocoa Firefighters Association IAFF Local 2416 of Orlando, stated he wants to give the Board an accurate rendition of what is going on with the litigation.  He stated they filed the lawsuit as previously described; the City did not file a motion to dismiss, which one would file if the case is simple and obvious; and if that was the case, the City would have filed a motion to dismiss, instead, it filed for a summary judgment, which says it has all the facts.  He stated the problem with that is there was no discovery; they have a right to take discovery to determine the precise nature of the Fire Department that is going to be retained by the City; they asserted their right to do that; and the judge agreed that the City was acting prematurely in attempting to resolve it when it tried to and sandbagging the firefighters; and the judge postponed it, so the case is pending.  He stated they are confident they will prevail in that case; if there are any new documents negotiated between the City and the County, they have not seen them; they have not been provided anything; and at the earliest, the hearing should be in the middle of next month.  Mr. Siwica stated at the same time, they have the citizens demanding the opportunity to vote on the issue; that is pending as well; and in the meantime the firefighters, as individuals and employees of the City, have been entirely left out of the loop.  He stated they were supposed to have a negotiation session today on the issue of the pension plans, which the City canceled; he heard all the comments about Ward Foster who is not an attorney and is an actuary; Mr. Foster supposedly is not giving information; and he does not know what they are talking about and does not care because the information they need comes from the State since the State administers the 175 Municipal Pension Plans as well as the FRS Plans.  He stated the information the City needs to obtain to communicate to the firefighters resides with the experts in Tallahassee; and last week the City finally asked the State a series of 30 parts or subparts of questions about what is going to happen to the firefighters’ pension and pension rights, what should they do, how does it work, can they do this, and can they do that;  and the City does not have the response from the State and remains completely in the dark as to what the pension rights are going to be.  He stated if and when those answers come back, there may be follow-up questions.  Mr. Siwica stated the fact is that letter should have gone out months ago if that is what the City wanted to do; again the letter is dated November 7 and he understands it was sent out last week; be that as it may, they do not have any answers and the questions the Board wanted resolved remain unresolved.  He stated there remain a lot of open questions and  things; inquired what is going to happen to the firefighters on workers compensation who are not eligible to apply under the last permutation of the contract that he saw because they are not able to work unless they recover six to twelve months from now; and are they going to be able to  come over to the County or are they out the door simply because they suffered a line-of-duty injury.  He stated those are examples of the many things that are out there; in the meantime the City has initiated a vicious misleading publicity campaign about this issue, threatening privatization, misrepresenting what the facts are, and using public monies to take the side of one faction of citizens against another, which happens to be improper under Florida law; and the City has budgeted to retain its fire department this year.  He stated the City has set aside the money to pay for its fire department; and all they ask the Board to do is table this issue, let the citizens vote on it, and let the judge decide whether the Charter requires the existence of a fire department, or better yet, kill it and let the City come back if ever it has its ducks in a row.

 

Chair Higgs advised she continues to receive cards; and inquired if the Board wants to cut it off at this point or continue to receive them.   Commissioner Carlson stated all the speakers should take a moment to put in cards now and those cards be brought to the Chair, which would be an appropriate way to go.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can receive cards for the next five minutes so anyone who needs to put in a card should do so now; and after that time, there will be no more cards accepted.  Chair Higgs advised the audience if they wished to speak to indicate that in the back of the room by giving a card to staff.  She stated the cards will be cut off in five minutes.

 

Jim Tolley of Palm Bay, representing Cocoa firefighters, thanked the Board for consideration of their request to delay any action at the last meeting; and stated Cocoa employees are faced with big questions, the staff as well as the firefighters; they made some headway to answer some of those questions and met with Ms. Widmann and Mr. Hulse; and it was a productive meeting.  He stated they wanted to get some things in writing of what the City was willing to do; and pending some variations, Ms. Widmann sent them in writing the City’s willingness to keep the pension plan open, which is beneficial to the employees should the transition occur; however, there were some conditions.  He stated she requested they agree to some conditions that the employees cannot agree to without answers to the questions Mr. Siwica mentioned; those are basic questions they wanted answered months ago; and they have been sent to the State for answers.  He stated the two plans are different; one is the FRS Plan and the other is the Chapter Local Law Plan; and they have two different sets of Florida Statutes to deal with them and two boards in Tallahassee that handle them.  Mr. Tolley stated they cannot ask the Division of Fire Police Pension about FRS and how they would transition over because they do not control that; so the letters were sent to both groups; there are assumptions; if they were to transition, how would it happen; if they were to terminate, how would it happen; that will change the concessions employees may or may not be willing to make; and that is a very important decision for each employee as it affects their families and goals.  He stated the firefighters should be allowed a secret ballot vote without pressure; those results can be certified to the City just like the collective bargaining agreement ratification; the questions need to be answered; and inquired should the contract go forward and the referendum turns it around, how does the County undo all that and how does it take people out of the FRS plan if they moved over, and is that a loss of time.  He inquired what would happen to the County employees who moved into the Cocoa stations; stated there are a lot of logistical problems that are unanswered; and if the
contract is delayed, they can get answers to those questions.  He stated the Board should not be in a hurry to do something that is wrong; and he appreciates its support and asks for its support again in delaying this issue pending answers to the questions and proper resolution.

 

Martha Franco of Cocoa advised she has been a citizen of Cocoa since 1963; she was before the Board in the summer requesting it do something about Dixon Boulevard and has not seen any activity whatsoever; and she voted for the penny tax hoping the Board would allow something good to happen.  She stated God puts all people on this earth not to take up space but to do what they can for mankind; it is not who they are but what they are that counts in life;  and he who resists change has nothing to gain.  She stated she is here to state her concerns and feelings regarding the City of Cocoa’s proposal to contract with the County to have fire and EMS services in order that the residents can be afforded the best quality care when and if the need arises.  Ms. Franco stated her knowledge of what is going on is based on factual information and observation, and not hearsay; she has been involved with the City for a number of years serving on boards and going to meetings; and it is unfortunate that the Fire Department provides only BLS and for some unforeseen reason has not kept up with upgrading its training, yet the cost of operating the Fire Department has skyrocketed over time and is an unbelievable cost.  She stated she needs streets paved in her community; and the City could use that money wisely.  She stated a job of any description is a commitment, which should require honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, caring, knowledge, dependability, responsibility, and willingness to fulfill the duties, which are required, and continuously improve oneself to do a better job.  She stated at the City Council meeting, the County Fire Chief assured Cocoa firemen that they would be offered a chance to seek a position with the County if they meet the qualifications; she would think County and City firemen would be doing the same work; Cocoa firemen are fighting to remain at Cocoa Fire Department, but the citizens of Cocoa at some point and time may be fighting for their lives; and Cocoa citizens deserve the best sources available.  Ms. Franco stated the City of Cocoa officials and staff have done extensive research and study regarding the proposal; it is in the best interest of Cocoa citizens that the Board base its decision on logic and not emotion; and if the County takes over, it would seem to her that it would alleviate some problems.  She stated they do not know where the City ends and the County begins in some areas; the County is across from the Fire Department so it would save time and money;  seconds do count when life is concerned; and she appreciates the County’s interest and concern.  She requested the Board approve turning over Cocoa Fire Department to the County.

 

Ben Kiszkiel of Palm Bay, representing professional firefighters, advised they are here to support that the Board not vote at this time to take over Cocoa Fire Department; they feel their right to exist is by their citizens’ votes; and the City is giving the equipment and stations to the County, but they are the citizens’ equipment and facilities.  He stated they obtained over 1,000 signatures this weekend; it is a vote on two unions, not only the one that is being destroyed by the Board if it votes yes; and the union that is absorbing them is taking an impact too.  He stated he understands it is tough because the City keeps holding over the Board’s head privatization; and inquired how many private companies are going to bid on a contract when they do not know if they are going to have it based on court cases.  He stated the County Attorney cannot say what is going to happen with the referendum and whether or not the City has to abolish the Department or put it back in place; and all he is asking is for the Board to wait until the court
decisions are made and let the voters of Cocoa vote whether or not they want to maintain their Fire Department.

 

Kevin Sullivan of Cocoa thanked the firefighters union for filing the lawsuit; stated it is not a class action lawsuit but it could be; the union is paying for the attorney; and they wish them the best of luck.  He stated he has attended City Council and Board of County Commissioners meetings on this issue; it appears Mayor Parrish is about to write a blank check to get rid of the Fire Department; and he wants to say a few words about something that is more important than money, and that is the vote.  He stated the cornerstone of America is the right to vote and make your vote count; in 1988, he voted for the referendum to approve a Charter Government in the City of Cocoa; in that Charter was the creation of a fire department; and to his knowledge and belief, that 1988 Charter has never been judicially construed or overturned by either the courts or voters.  He stated the Mayor’s attempt to circumvent his 1988 vote by keeping the fire chief only, terminating the employees, and giving away all the equipment goes against the spirit and intent of his vote; and requested the Board not become part of that circumvention and protect the integrity of his 1988 vote.

 

Allen White of Cocoa Beach Firefighters Association advised he is a Cocoa firefighter and spoke to the Board a month ago on this same issue, offered a word of caution, and talked about the hostility on the part of Cocoa; and the Board got a taste of that too.  He stated he urged the Board to slow this issue down and it did; the Board recommended Brevard County Fire Rescue get together with the Cocoa firefighters and discuss issues about insurance, pay, hiring provisions, and pensions; and if he recalls correctly, pension was an important subject to the Board.  He stated they did discuss insurance, had many meetings with many different entities including the County’s Fire Department; and they discussed pay, which had some considerations such as one-for-one in years served.  He stated they discussed hiring provisions and testing, which has the possibility of taking place after hiring as a benchmark for employees who go over to the County.  Mr. White stated they heard about the contract that came out around November 13; they have not been provided with a copy of that, so he has no idea if any of those things were entered into the contract; and that is a good indication of how well they have been communicated with on the part of Cocoa.  He noted they understand the County has a copy of the revised contract, but they do not; the City did not find it important enough to attend the pension meeting during the first week of November; it was the Pension Board meeting where all the professionals involved in their pension were there and the City could ask questions that the Board told them to ask; but instead, the City orchestrated a meeting on November 14 involving an attorney named Jeff Coltune.  Mr. White stated he called the 175 Pension office and FRS and nobody knew who Mr. Coltune was, and he is not affiliated with either of them; he is not part of their Pension Board either; but he was going to talk to the firefighters about their retirement and how it may or may not roll over.  He stated there were no answers at that meeting; it was a smoke and mirrors meeting; the City sent its questions to the State; and the answers to those questions were not available at the 14th meeting.  He stated if pensions were a priority, the information would have been requested far before the 12th and 14th of November.  Mr. White stated the City has sent a negotiated offer to roll their 175 plans over into the County employment with a request that they drop the litigation issues and citizen initiative, which they have no control over.  He stated there is a claim of better service on the part of the County; it is a good headliner, but better service not only includes the level of medical training, it also includes department management of response protocol, the availability of responding units, regional experience, fire experience, and local knowledge; and nobody knows Cocoa like the Cocoa firefighters do.   He stated he came here mainly to offer a possibility of bringing to the table a mediator that is an authority on this subject; the name of that mediator is Brevard Tomorrow; they can facilitate solutions; they will allow all the facts to be entered and bring in all the authorities to be heard from; and if the Board wants to do that and wants the employees treated fairly and the citizens of Cocoa taken into account, then it would bring in a mediator.

 

William Armistead of Cocoa Beach Professional Firefighters, requested the Board table the issue for the same reason it tabled it the last time.  He stated none of the issues have been resolved; all the jobs are not secured; the retirement issues are unresolved; and the interpretation of the Charter is yet to be determined.  He stated they have a petition that states the citizens want to have their voices heard; and the Board should table it so they can be heard.

 

Shawn Riggan of Cocoa Beach Professional Firefighters Union 3570 advised they are here to support their brothers and sisters of the Cocoa Union and preserve their jobs; they walked the streets Saturday and Sunday, and donated their time along with others from Titusville, Palm Bay, Melbourne, and Rockledge; and every person they talked to except 3 or 4 were willing to sign their petition.  He stated most of them were against the management of Cocoa.  He stated they want to leave it in the hands of the people and let them make the decision on the Fire Department; this is a democracy; and requested the Board allow them to have a voice.

 

Mayor Judy Parrish, City of Cocoa, advised what is being asked of the Board today is to provide the best service at the most reasonable cost to the citizens of Cocoa; that is all they are asking for; and they are not asking the Board to worry about the firefighters pension plans.  She stated a lot of information has been put out; there is a request to wait for the referendum; the referendum is not about the Charter or whether it is to go with the County; the referendum is to make it mandatory for the firefighters to be Cocoa employees so they keep their jobs.  She stated what the City is asking is they apply for jobs, change their tee shirts and go back to work with the County; and she is not sure what the big concern is about because they can go to work with the County tomorrow with a Brevard County tee shirt instead of a Cocoa tee shirt.  She stated the same four or five people show up at every Council and Board of County Commissioners meeting and knock on all the doors pushing for this, but the citizens of Cocoa are tired of being held hostage by one department; they do not like her because she is the one who stands up and speaks out; she is proud of that because somebody has to; and all she is asking today is for the Board to provide good ALS service to the citizens of Cocoa and save them $2 million a year.  She stated all the facts in the FYI letter are true; they had to put it out because every day they were going door-to-door and to grocery stores saying the City was going to cut services; and the citizens of Asbury Arms were scared to death.  She stated they either have to cut services or find a way to do it better; this contract is better than privatization; that is the City’s option; and it will eliminate duplication.  Mayor Parrish advised all the numbers include the start-up costs, trucks, and stations; they are going to pay for annexations whether they do it as a City or the County does it; and the 15% cap is 15% and there is no open checkbook.  She stated there was just under a 14% increase last year; that is about the rate the City is growing at; the 15% cap assures the City does not go over that; and any new growth, services, and equipment, the City has to pay for regardless of who is providing the service.  She stated it will free up some of the County firefighters to serve other areas of the County instead of duplicating behind the Cocoa firefighters; it makes so much common sense that she has a hard time with all the gray areas, lawsuits, games, and stalling tactics; it drives her crazy and does not serve the citizens or the City; and it makes government look like idiots.  Mayor Parrish advised the County staff supports the contract; the City staff supports it; the citizens are sick of hearing about it and do not want a fire tax next year to pay for the firefighters; but those are the options facing the City, the County service, a fire tax, or privatization.  She stated the City would like for the County to provide the service.

 

Chair Higgs inquired if Chief Farmer has anything he wants to bring to the Board’s attention; with Chief Bill Farmer responding Cocoa is moving its trucks to County service; the County will utilize those trucks for the life of those vehicles; and once the vehicle is no longer useful, they will begin putting County vehicles in Cocoa, and that is when the lease occurs.  He noted that is listed in Appendix E of the contract.  He stated workers compensation is addressed in Section 7.6 of the contract; any City firefighters currently out on workers compensation who are released to return to full duty will be given up to one year from the date of the signing of the agreement to apply under the same circumstances; so staff has taken that into consideration.  Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Knox has any legal issues to bring to the Board’s attention; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding if the Board decides to enter into the contract, there is a tweak of indemnification language he will bring to its attention.  Chair Higgs requested the language now; with Mr. Knox responding it has been run by the City and the Council agreed to it; and they added to paragraph 19.4 of the revised agreement, “monetary damages arising out of the County’s entry into this agreement, including any alleged impairment for beach of contract.”

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated while Section 19.4 indemnifies the County from any liability in a court action, court costs, damages, etc., it would not in any way indemnify the County for disruption to reverse the activity if some action occurred through the courts, referendum, etc.; and inquired if there is language in the contract to that effect.  Chief Farmer stated he is not sure it could be put in writing.  Mr. Knox stated Section 19.5 covers the ways that the parties further agree that the County has no obligation for and no responsibility to fund any costs associated with the City’s re-assumption of responsibility to provide services governed by this agreement in the event such event occurs that relates back to the determination that this agreement is somehow invalid.  Commissioner Scarborough stated that talks about the County with the City’s costs, but he is talking about the City paying the County’s costs because there would be a cost to the County and operational impact.  He stated the Section talks about the County having no obligation as opposed to the City having an obligation for operational impacts and the costs related thereto.  Mr. Knox stated the previous line says the City agrees to fully reimburse the County for any and all costs associated with the preparation for and actual provision of services under this agreement, which had been expended by the County, and goes on to say the County does not have any obligation in the event it occurs.  He stated the City is going to pay if it has to reassume the responsibility.  Commissioner Scarborough stated if the County incurs expenses in the reversal, he does not see that covered in the contract.  Chair Higgs suggested checking with the City Attorney to get clarification.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not think there is any obligation on the part of the City to assume operational impact costs of having to re-establish the County’s system afterwards if a reverse occurs.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is saying Section 19.5, where it says, “the parties further agree that the County has no obligation or responsibility to fund any costs associated with the City’s re-assumption of responsibility” does not cover it; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the City assumes the responsibility for the County’s costs if it falls apart.  Chair Higgs stated the City will assume the responsibility for the County’s costs.  Commissioner Carlson stated Commissioner Scarborough said it does not state that in the contract.  Commissioner Scarborough stated there are several ways it could be handled.  Chair Higgs stated the Board will discuss where it wants to go and come back to that language if it seems that is where it is going.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated there was an issue about testing after hiring; and inquired how is that possible; with Chief Farmer responding staff has agreed and spoken to the City firefighters who attended the meeting Friday, that they will hire all the personnel who pass a criminal background check, drivers’ license check, background check, and medical physical; then through Human Resources, they will give job offers; and those who come on board would then be tested.  He stated any of them who fail the minimum standards will be put through a remediation process to bring them up to speed.  Commissioner Pritchard stated Ms. Widmann made some good points about the pension and not getting information, and the firefighters had a good point that the information should have been asked for earlier; and inquired where does the County stand if it moves forward and accept the fire service responsibility for Cocoa, when the City obtains the pension information; with Ms. Widmann responding there are two issues; one is the FRS letter she sent about two weeks prior to the final letter that went out; and Cathy Smith from FRS called her and said she has been getting so many calls from so many different sources that she did not want and did not want Pat Schroeder from 175 to answer any more questions except from one source in writing; so the Union provided her some questions that she sent to the State.  She stated they decided not to answer her fist letter and wanted to get everybody’s questions in one and will respond and send them directly to everybody, so they will all have a copy of it.  Ms. Widmann stated the second issue in terms of the pension under the current proposal, it is terminating 175; however, as Mr. Tolley said, the City is in negotiations and will continue to negotiate until January 1, 2004 to try and work that out; however, at the rate they are going, they will have seven firefighters planning on leaving in January; and her concern is what grade of fire department with minimal staffing is it going to be and how difficult it will be to recruit firefighters when they know  the fire department is going out for privatization or waiting for November to have something happen.  She stated there is still a safety issue involved. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the employees on workers compensation will still be funded during the one-year transition; with Ms. Widmann responding they have to follow workers compensation laws; the firefighters will receive medical and pay until workers compensation reaches its maximum; and it follows its own procedures in terms of what the outcome for those employees will be.  She stated if they are released for full duty within a year, they would be able to be considered by the County; and if they are not, they follow workers compensation rules and get pay as well as their medical indemnity.  Commissioner Pritchard stated in the FYI letter from the City, the Cocoa special fire tax assessment estimate is a significant jump in 2006-07 from projected annual fire budget of $4.4 million to $6.7 million.  Ms. Widmann advised that is the year the City anticipates, if the County does not take over, it would have to build a new station and require ALS; if the City cannot afford it, the State is going to come in and say it has to do it; so that is an expensive venture and although they were conservative in factoring that in, they did put it in.  She stated the current budget is for 37 employees, whereas the County’s budget is for 35; and they also have four or five administrative employees on top of the firefighters.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if overtime has become an issue with operating the fire department because of workers compensation or lack of adequate staffing; with Ms. Widmann responding it is a myriad of issues; Mr. Holt gave the fire department three additional employees in hopes the overtime would decrease, but in fact it increased; so she cannot say it is totally because of staffing.  She stated the City is doing a review because of comments and concerns raised by people and is investigating to see whether some of those problems are deeper.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired how is the County able to provide the service to Cocoa for $3 million; with Chief Farmer responding there will not be duplication of some services in the sense of a senior command staff and administrative staff; there is also a difference in firefighters salaries; the Cocoa Fire Department step plan is based on the firefighters/EMT and while the spine of the County’s step plan is based on firefighters/EMT, it puts its money on firefighter/ paramedics because that is the pay class it wants; and so there is a difference in salaries.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the County’s proposal takes into account the Cocoa firefighters becoming paramedics; with Chief Farmer responding yes.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the $36 million over ten years reflects the 5% increase per year; with Chief Farmer responding yes. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the City is projecting $6.7 million in 2006-07 and $5.9 million in 2007-08; and inquired if that is for the new fire station; with Ms. Widmann responding correct.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired other than that, is the City projecting a 5% or 10% increase per year; with Ms. Widmann responding the City did an analysis over the past ten years to see what the average increase was; it was 9.46%;  so the City used that as a projection after looking at the history of the past ten years.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired why would the City project 9.46% when the County’s projection is 5%; with Ms. Widmann responding some of it are decisions that were made in terms of engines and equipment that were not budgeted, increases due to contract negotiations, overtime, which has been spiraling out of control, and other issues.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the County’s proposal includes the lease agreement for engines; with Chief Farmer responding no, the proposal does include the lease option in Appendix E; however, the fee for service in the County proposal does not include that; so there would be an additional charge if the County puts lease vehicles in the City stations.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired what would the increase be; with Chief Farmer responding it depends on the year of the vehicle.  Chief Farmer stated there is a depreciation matrix that shows year one at $2,300 added to the annual fee for service to the City; and if it was a ten-year old truck, it would be $1,531.  Ms. Widmann stated they did not add any vehicles other than the ones at the new station, so the City’s estimate does not include new vehicles.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Chief Farmer was aware of that; with Chief Farmer responding no.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she had a question the last time regarding the agreement in terms of providing early retirement and health insurance; and inquired if that was included in the conversations because she does not see it in the contract.  She stated they talked about Section 7.9 including that, but it does not talk about that at all; it says pension funds, retirement, leave, and/or salary benefits; and she does not know if it was lumped under that or how it was addressed.  Chief Farmer stated at Friday’s meeting, the City shared insurance information with its staff; so it would be better for the City to answer that question.  He stated Jerry Visco was at the meeting and shared the County’s insurance proposals; so they got both sides.  Ms. Widmann stated in terms of health insurance, the City Manager has said anybody who retires and is eligible within five years to retire will be given the health insurance.  She stated the City, for any employee hired before 1991, gives free health insurance for life at no cost to the employee; so that is a valuable benefit that they understand the employees want.  She stated it is not in the proposal, but it is something the City negotiates and if there are other parameters they want the City to consider, the City is open to them. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what effect will the proposed referendum have on the County moving forward with the contract; with Mr. Knox responding if the Board signs the contract, the issue would be whether or not the referendum can impair that contract; and under Florida law, that is a balancing test.  Mr. Knox stated the court has to decide that, if there is a lawsuit, which he assumes there would be if that happened.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired how long could that drag out; with Mr. Knox responding if that were the scenario that played out, it could be in court for a while trying to figure out whether or not the contract supercedes the referendum; he would imagine if the referendum passed, there would be an injunction filed by the firefighters against the County and City  trying to stop the contract from being implemented; and it could play out pretty quickly if the judge denies the injunction.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired what if the County were not providing the service and the judge did not deny it; with Mr. Knox responding if the charge was not to deny or were to deny the injunction and the contract were to proceed, the chances are the County would ultimately have a better chance of prevailing because the balancing interest goes to what is taking place as well as what the agreement is between the parties.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the County is providing the service and the vote does not support that and the judge does not support that, what would happen; with Mr. Knox responding if the County is providing the service and the judge does not agree it can do that, it gets reversed back to the City subject to any appeals that may go on.

 

Commissioner Colon stated she is definitely proud to say that she has always supported the fire department and law enforcement 100%; those people go to places, save lives, and protect homes; that is something to be proud of; she is married to someone who is in law enforcement; so she has a pretty good perspective.  She stated the Board is here to talk about a contract; one thing she tried to stay away from when she met with both sides was the personal part of it, and wondered how it got so ugly regarding personal attacks; and she advised both sides that she did not want to hear about that and did not want to get involved with it because it is not her business.  She stated she read the FYI letter; the City has a wonderful community that is being pinned against each other; that is horrible to see; but one thing they talked about at the last meeting was the pension plan and that has not happened.  She stated the Board was also concerned about a lawsuit and what would happen to the County; the County is not Cocoa and operates differently; the Board is proud of that; anyone who comes to Brevard County and becomes part of the County’s Fire Department would be extremely blessed; and she says that very proudly because the County has a very professional and warm group.  Commissioner Colon stated regarding the contract, there are a lot of questions, so she would not support it; it does not make the Commissioners idiots, it makes them good stewards of the taxpayers’ money; and it does not make her someone who comes across as just emotional or who is not doing her job.  She stated she is here to look after the money of the citizens of Brevard County; that is her job; and because there are so many questions, there is no way she could feel comfortable going forward with the contract.  She stated she wants to find out what happens if there is a lawsuit; a lot of people threaten to sue any agency, so that is nothing new; but she is talking about this issue which is a real issue; it is a City Charter and the petitions are ready to go in; and there were comments that they did not know about the petition, but they were fully aware there was a petition.  She stated the Board would love to help the brothers and sisters to be part of its Fire Department, but the questions have not been answered; and it has to make sure that they are.  She stated the Board is welcome to go forward, but she is very uncomfortable not knowing if the judge will rule against the contract; and she would like to know where the money is coming from regarding the litigation and the whole process of the firefighters becoming County firefighters and where do they go from there.  She stated she does not know what decision will come from the Board, but she wants to say if it happens, based on the folks she met and has the utmost respect for, she would be more than happy to make them part of the County’s family.  She stated she is not saying she would support it today, but the Cocoa firefighters would be proud to be with the men and women of the County’s Fire Department. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the legal issues have been resolved; with Mr. Knox responding with exception of the one mentioned earlier, which is what happens if the contract is signed, the County takes it over, and it goes back to the City because of some reason beyond the County’s control.  He stated the other issues are well resolved in terms of who is responsible for what and what happens if the County has to incur costs as a result of the transfer.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that is something that can be resolved in the next few days and can be a condition of moving forward or is it something that needs to wait until the Board gets additional information; with Mr. Knox responding there are any number of options; the Board can wait to see what happens with the pension fund or referendum; the pension issue is covered by the contract and whatever costs are associated with it, the City is going to bear; and as far as the referendum is concerned, the Board can wait for that to happen or make the contract contingent upon the referendum taking place and turning out favorable to the transfer. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the City Attorney has an answer; with City Attorney Garganese responding he read the language that was proposed regarding any cost incurred by the County in the event the City has to resume fire service and emergency medical services; and it says, “any cost to the County caused by the City’s resumption of responsibility of providing fire service in the City, regardless of the reason, shall be paid by or reimbursed to the County by the City.”  He stated that language is acceptable because it is consistent with the intent of Sections 19.4 and 19.5, which is that the County would not incur any obligation in the event it is reversed in any court proceeding.  Mr. Knox noted that was his language.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated this is an issue that runs on both sides of the table; it is emotional because of what is going on; and there are issues of litigation, but unfortunately it is difficult to escape litigation, no matter what they choose to do if there is a problem; but beyond that, it is also a business decision and a question of whether or not the County can provide a higher level of service, what effects it is going to have on the firefighters of Cocoa, how they can come on board, and how they can be treated; and it appears the majority, if not all, those issues have been resolved.  He stated Chief Farmer and his staff are to be commended for what they have done; he hopes the Unions are going to be able to work things out better should the Board go ahead with the contract; but he has to look at what is best for the citizens.  He stated he fully realizes the Commissioners are stewards of the taxpayers’ money; and when it talks about providing a higher level of service for less cost, he has to question why the County would not be considered stewards of the public’s funds by doing that.  He stated that is what the Board is doing; there have been a lot of concessions made; he was a firefighter for 27 years and has been on both sides of the table; and his concern was always what is in the best interest of the firefighters and in this situation it is also what is in the best interest of the taxpayers.  He stated he believes having the County provide fire service at a higher level ALS, with better response time for ambulance and transport is in the best interest of the community; so he would move to go forward with the contract.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded for discussion by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize staff to move forward with the Contract to provide fire service for the City of Cocoa.

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not have a good feeling about it; the issue is going to be pretty much debated in the City; he would feel better if it was contingent upon the referendum, which could take place at the Presidential Preference Primary; and as far as the County’s liability, it needs to specifically address the cost of restructuring post activity, which is not in the language.  He stated no one can tell him there is not going to be collateral disruption in staff time and personnel if they go through the event; and unless they can tell him the County cannot be harmed and all of it allows the County to recapture ascertainable costs at best, he cannot support it. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has the interest of the community in mind and has to deal with that; but her biggest concern is answers to questions that have not been forthcoming in terms of the retirement issues.  She stated she has similar concerns about the language holding the County liable for any costs for restructuring or unstructuring that might occur; her question has always been how is the Charter laid out in the City and how is the County approaching that Charter; and the courts are going to rule whether or not it is constitutional or unconstitutional.  She stated that is a big issue that needs to be played out before the Board moves forward with the contract; there is not a rush; there is a budget in the City to run the fire department; and the Charter needs to be addressed because it is an important piece that the community voted on.  She stated she does not feel comfortable voting on the contract today although many of her concerns were addressed.

 

Chair Higgs advised it seems there are not three votes to proceed; and it also seems clear the citizens of Cocoa are going to make the decision, not the Board of County Commissioners or the Union; and if it is a fruitful decision and the issues are resolved, the Board would be willing to look at it again.  She stated there are some advantages for everybody, but the issues have to be resolved, not by the Board nor the City, but by the citizens when they vote.  She suggested Commissioner Pritchard remove the motion from the floor at this time; with Commissioner Pritchard agreeing.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he believes the citizens of Cocoa will take the initiative on this; and he wants the information presented to them fairly and the numbers represented fairly so the citizens can make an informed decision.  He noted from prior experiences, he feels the citizens will opt to go with the County.

 

Chair Higgs stated the Board’s position in regard to the contract is clear; the cost and everything that can be presented should be given to the citizens in terms of what they want to do; so at this time the Board appreciates the parties being here and making their presentations.

 

 

The meeting recessed at 12:14 p.m., and reconvened at 1:03 p.m.

 

 

Chair Higgs advised she would like to complete the discussion about recycling; the Board received information from the two previous speakers; and inquired if Mr. Peffer needs someone else from his staff for this discussion; with Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer responding he would like to have Mr. Rodriguez present.  Chair Higgs inquired if he is coming; with Mr. Peffer responding he will call him now.  Chair Higgs stated since staff is not ready, the Board can proceed with discussion on the Palm Bay Parkway issue, for which she has three speaker cards.  Bette Danse stated she did not finish her presentation.  Chair Higgs stated Ms. Danse completed her five minutes; and if the Board wishes to let her have additional time, a motion would be in order.  Ms. Danse commented from the audience, which was inaudible; and Chair Higgs advised her she was out of order.  Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem with Ms. Danse going ahead and finishing up what she was going to say, but she does not know how much time Ms. Danse will need.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be good if Mr. Rodriguez was here before Ms. Danse started.  Chair Higgs stated the Board will proceed with the next item on the Palm Bay Parkway Management.

 

 

 

Annemarie Burrows of Palm Bay, representing a Homeowners Association, stated since the other Commissioners voted on this issue, she will be addressing Commissioner Scarborough, and requested he cast his vote for controlled access.  She stated it was stated by at least one Commissioner that they want and need a fast way out of the western part of Palm Bay via the parkway; she is on the board of directors of her local Homeowners Association and also went door-to-door talking to people last year and asking them to sign a petition that was presented to the Board requesting a way out of northwest Palm Bay; those people did not really care about a fast way out, all they knew is that they wanted a way out; and almost anything would be faster than it is now.  She stated driving from the western end of Emerson Drive where she lives to Minton Road intersection, which is 3.5 to 4 miles, takes about a half hour because of the mass of cars exiting in that direction at least five days a week; that is just the morning crowd leaving for work; so the Board can imagine the nightmare it would be if all the people tried to get out at one time in case of an emergency.  Ms. Burrows stated there was also talk about six-laning Minton Road to help with the exodus; and that does not have to happen if the parkway is built with controlled access.  She stated the County and the cities involved with the project will have ample time to discuss and implement laws as to where the accesses to the parkway will be allowed in the future; being a new road they can control the zoning and development along the eastern side of the parkway; and requested the Board cast its vote for controlled access to the parkway, help keep the cost down, and get the citizens of Palm Bay a much needed roadway as soon as possible.  She requested the Board not put any more stop sticks on the roadway to further delay its progress.

 

Allan Whitehead of Melbourne, representing several people involved with the Platt Ranch who own property along the corridor that has been selected for the building of Palm Bay Parkway, advised the Platt Ranch is about 4,800 acres and one of the largest and last surviving agricultural entities in southern Brevard County; and the route that has been selected for the parkway is the worst possible route that could have been selected for the Platt Ranch because it bisects the Ranch.  He stated the issue before the Board is whether or not, when the road is built, it should be controlled or limited access; and looking back at the original plan for the road and the original reason for beginning a study on the road, it was a threefold purpose.  He stated #1 was to move people from Palm Bay to jobs in the Melbourne area with a high-speed limited access capability roadway; #2 was to provide for evacuation route in the event of an emergency; and #3 was to diminish or decrease urban sprawl as much as possible.  Mr. Whitehead stated the only way that can be accomplished is through making the road a limited access roadway; if it is a controlled access roadway, then two of the three goals are not going to be met because there is not going to be a high-speed evacuation route, and it will not reduce traffic or serve the purpose Palm Bay wants it to serve; and it is going to move the problem from Palm Bay, probably make it worse, and place it into the County area.  He stated urban sprawl is going to be encouraged more with controlled access than with limited access; and the Platt Ranch and the folks he represents are clearly against the roadway in any form, but if it has to be built, they request the Board strongly vote for a limited access roadway.

 

West Melbourne City Manager Mark Ryan congratulated Commissioner Colon for her excellent job as Chairperson of the Board; and stated he looks forward to a fantastic year under the leadership of Chair Higgs.  He stated today the Board is debating whether to construct the Palm Bay parkway as a controlled or limited access facility; Brevard County, Palm Bay, and West Melbourne all have recognized that both alternatives have merit; however, the municipal staff has expressed the concern that mandating limited access will increase the cost of the proposed facility, initiate extensive litigation, and cause delays to the much-needed facility.  He stated it is important, particularly in light of the funding constraints, that everyone is faced with in Florida; it is not easy to get federal funding for road projects; and Bob Kamm and the MPO staff indicated at the November 13, 2003 meeting that the design for the roadway will cost $7 million.  Mr. Ryan advised at the same meeting the MPO adopted a Resolution indicating the right-of-way cost only for controlled access is $11 million; the right-of-way cost for limited access is $19 million; and that is $7.8 million more for a limited access facility.  He stated the construction cost ranges from $23 million for the first phase, $17 million for the second phase, and $14 million for the final phase for a total of $54 million; the Department of Transportation Work Program for 2004-09 contains zero dollars for the parkway, none for design, none for right-of-way, and none for construction; and as a municipality they are concerned that the limited access alternative, which may have merit, will cause further delays to the project.  Mr. Ryan stated no one knows where the money is going to come from; and what they have developed is a mechanism that may win for all parties and allow for construction of a high-speed facility with minimal growth impacts.  He stated the City and County employees developed a draft interlocal agreement that provides how they are going to address access to the roadway as well as growth management in the area; and they believe the draft agreement is the framework for allowing the project to continue and perhaps allow it to occur in their lifetime.

 

Sue Hann, Deputy City Manager for Palm Bay, advised when the Board last addressed this issue, several Commissioners expressed concern about preserving the high-speed through travel nature of the roadway; and City Manager of West Melbourne Mark Ryan took the lead in developing a conceptual interlocal agreement that would clarify and define the land use and access constraints that would likely address the Commissioners concerns while still pursuing the primary goal of moving forward with the roadway as soon as possible.  She stated the Palm Bay City Council reviewed the conceptual interlocal agreement and authorized the City Manager to negotiate with its other partners, West Melbourne and Brevard County, to develop the final version; and Palm Bay concurs that the preservation of the roadway for its intended use is critically important.  She stated their only reservation is that they should not box themselves in to a limited access scenario when design of the roadway is not even funded in the Department of Transportation  Five-Year Work Program; and requested the Board consider directing its staff to work with Palm Bay and West Melbourne to conclude work on the interlocal agreement for future consideration and to pursue Comprehensive Plan strategies and land development regulations that will preserve the right-of-way for the parkway through the unincorporated areas.  Ms. Hann stated in five or more years, when the right-of-way for the parkway is acquired, there will likely be development pressures in the unincorporated areas; and encouraged the Board to do what it can in the planning arena to designate the parkway transportation corridor and proposed pond sites to improve their chances of seeing the parkway constructed.  She requested an opportunity for all jurisdictions to work together to develop a suitable access plan rather than designating controlled or limited access at this early stage; and stated they would be better served by an interlocal agreement that addresses the concerns and provides clear direction to Department of Transportation regarding the access to the parkway and the type of right-of-way acquisitions.  Ms. Hann noted there is also an opportunity to consider linking the parkway with the County’s Washingtonia Avenue extension project; while the Washingtonia project is not limited access, a link to the parkway could provide a western access road from Palm Bay perhaps to Viera; and hopefully the County Planning staff is also looking at that opportunity.  She stated while determining future access points is an important issue, the more important issue today is to manage the most immediate threat to the parkway, and that is development that may prohibit future implementation of the parkway.  She advised Palm Bay is moving ahead with corridor designation and local regulations to preserve the right-of-way within those areas that are within its jurisdiction; and the City would encourage Brevard County and West Melbourne to work with it to insure that they are all focused on preserving their ability to build the road in the future rather than debating the long-term access issue at this point.  She stated if they take a comprehensive and cooperative approach to managing the corridor now, they will ultimately provide a better  transportation facility that will serve their citizens well.  She stated Palm Bay concurs with Mr. Ryan’s remarks and appreciate the effort he has put forward as well as County staff, in trying to work through the access issue and growth management issues raised by the Board; they did a credible job so far; and the City would like an opportunity to pursue that to its conclusion.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated they may have to trade off capacity issues in the future as Palm Bay continues to grow because with more interruptions of traffic, it will begin to get the dynamics of slower  traffic; and with the plan that is being evolved, they are trying to capture both the capacity to move forward and to save time to preserve the future viability of the road as development continues in the future.  He inquired if that is the purpose of the interlocal agreement; with Ms. Hann responding Palm Bay would like to work with West Melbourne and Brevard County to address both long-term growth management implications of the road as well as try to minimize the cost implications of designating the road specifically as limited access.  She stated they would like to preserve the through travel nature of the roadway and want to specifically designate access points that will be needed, but make sure that those are limited without designating limited access right-of-way acquisition and incurring those costs.  She noted they are trying to reach a middle ground that addresses everyone’s concerns while still minimizing the cost of the project. 

 

Chair Higgs stated she does not understand what Palm Bay envisions north of Emerson; it is flushed out a little in #2 and #3; and inquired if Ms. Hann can give her more information; with Ms. Hann responding they talked about some concepts where they would have no more than two access points between the northern boundary of Palm Bay and U.S. 192.  Chair Higgs inquired if that is north of Emerson; with Ms. Hann responding yes.  Ms. Hann stated there is more of Palm Bay north of Emerson, but she would not envision another access point in Palm Bay; and there would be two additional access points that would accommodate more than likely the Platt family’s interests and the interests of some of the other smaller property owners towards the north end of the roadway.  Chair Higgs stated it is a rural roadway that would have less than three miles between the accesses; and inquired if three miles is the spacing standards; with Ms. Hann responding that is the spacing for interstate interchanges; median opening spaces can be much less than that; but with three miles they would have a mile between access points, which is more than enough to accommodate the intersections. 

 

Mr. Ryan stated they do not know what development pressures the Board will be faced with in that area or what Palm Bay would face; and they want to leave that option open as a potential where all three entities would agree on future access points between Emerson and U.S. 192.  Chair Higgs inquired why not one access point; with Mr. Ryan responding they are saying up to two and not that it will be two; however, it  gives leeway for Brevard County, Palm Bay, and West Melbourne ten to twenty years from now to have two intersections if need be.  Chair Higgs stated the interlocal agreement could be changed; with Mr. Ryan responding they are also looking to put it in as Comprehensive Plan amendments.  Chair Higgs stated those can be changed also; with Mr. Ryan responding yes, and other parties could challenge Comprehensive Plan amendments, including other governmental agencies. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated even if the Board applied limited access, it could still be subject to change although the limited access would require additional right-of-way purchase and all kinds of requirements; but in terms of the agreement, she has questions about #3.  She stated the access point issue is something that could come up ten or fifteen years from now and have all three parties deliberate on it to determine if they are appropriate, so they do not necessarily have to be in the agreement now.  She stated #5 says, “Additionally all parties agree that if any jurisdiction wishes to amend the Comprehensive Plan provisions affecting the subject areas, such proposed amendments must be reviewed and considered by each jurisdiction”; and she would think they would want to make the language stronger and say “shall” be reviewed and considered, and that it has to be a vote by all parties in the affirmative, not just reviewed and considered.  Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board wants to continue with the interlocal agreement and continue to iron out some of the issues as long as it has the consideration for making sure the access is limited but actually construed as controlled with the constraints that a limited access roadway would have to protect growth impacts and things like that, she does not think it would be a problem moving in that direction.  She stated another question is if there is an intent to dedicate the road to the State, is the State taking roads that are limited access, and are there any requirements or reasons to think that putting themselves in the position of pure limited access could help in the overall cost down the road.

 

Transportation Planning Director Bob Kamm advised there is language in the Florida Statutes that stipulates what criteria a road must have in order to be considered eligible for inclusion on the State Highway System.  He stated they all felt the Max Brewer Causeway in Titusville clearly met the letter of the intent of the State law, yet it took almost five years to convince Department of Transportation to accept the transfer; he does not think at this point the parkway is as strong as the Causeway was; but he is not saying it could not eventually get on the State System.  He stated it would be a far greater challenge than the Brewer Causeway was, so he is not optimistic about it; and given the financial situation of the Department of Transportation, it is not openly accepting new roadways for inclusion in the State system. 

 

Fran Wales stated this issue has been going on for years; years ago there was a study group that Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs served on; and people came out because it has a lot of concerns for a lot of people.  She stated the best resolution they could come up with was to add additional turning lanes on Minton Road; they talked about doing the parkway or beltway; and she remembers at the time they kept making comparisons to Grissom Parkway.  She stated she drove down Grissom Parkway; when it goes into the area of Port St. John, there are driveway cuts about every feet if not closer; and they did not want that many driveway cuts and wanted a road they could go 55 mph on.  She stated it was two lanes that had capabilities of being widened to four lanes; that is what they talked about in the mid-1990’s; and she hopes, having worked with Ms. Hann for years, that the Board would listen to her suggestions.  Ms. Wales stated Ms. Hann has good knowledge and good background of the County and road needs; she has a lot of concern for safety as well; and in all the years she worked with Ms. Hann, whenever she brought safety issues to her attention, she took very positive and prompt actions on those issues.  She encouraged the Board to listen to Ms. Hann and her suggestions and ideas; stated they are some of the best she has heard in a long time; it is a tough issue; but if they do not make the suggested improvements now, 20 years from now she would hate to think what their children will have to deal with.  She stated she grew up in South Florida and does not want to see Brevard County end up like South Florida; and good planning means they can have growth today and still avoid the mess of South Florida.

 

Commissioner Colon stated she wants to encourage the Board to move forward with the interlocal agreement among the three parties and work in a comprehensive and positive manner; so that is her motion.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to move forward with the interlocal agreement with Cities of Palm Bay and West Melbourne on the Palm Bay Parkway project, and to work together in a comprehensive and positive manner.

 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she can support the motion but does not want access points in #3 and that the governing bodies would be required to approve any changes to the Comprehensive Plans; and inquired if Commissioner Colon would include that in her motion; with Commissioner Colon responding yes.  Chair Higgs advised that would take out the access points; with Commissioner Carlson responding it is proposed to be put in the Comprehensive Plans; and looking so far down the road for funding for the project, things might change given the body politic; so it does not need to be addressed in the agreement.  Commissioner Carlson stated it is a point of controversy as well; and if the community wants the roadway to go in a positive direction for their needs, then they need to reduce the problems in terms of access points and make sure the trilateral document reflects a requirement for approval by all three governing bodies.  Chair Higgs stated her concern is if they do not enumerate some access points and limit access points through the interlocal agreement and Comprehensive Plans that will be established now for that roadway, it will open it up to anything.  Commissioner Carlson stated the ones that exist now are Emerson, Pace, and Malabar Roads.  Chair Higgs stated those are enumerated and have always been the understanding; and what #3 says is there will be up to two additional access points.  Commissioner Carlson stated that is what she wants to remove.  Chair Higgs inquired if Commissioner Carlson is saying no access points; with Commissioner Carlson responding yes, except those that have been enumerated in #2.  Chair Higgs inquired if Commissioner Carlson is willing to say no access points, but a controlled access road; with Commissioner Carlson responding that is based on the overall cost; the design will still be $7 million; she is trying to put all the constructs in the agreement and basically what it does is go around limited access because of the requirements for limited access and the costs associated with it, but the road would have the same restrictions. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it is true that the more access the roadway has, the easier it is to take possession of the rights-of-way, and the more constrained it is, the process becomes more problematic; with Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff responding generally speaking that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough stated when talking about less access points, it gets into the issue, particularly with Mr. Platt, where it becomes more difficult rather than easier to acquire right-of-way; he is not ready to delete #3 unless Mr. Denninghoff is able to analyze it, get back with the Board, and advise if there is a cost saving or is it going to cost more.  Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem with that.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can proceed with the interlocal agreement and get a report back from Mr. Denninghoff. 

 

Mr. Kamm stated his concern, without thinking this through, is that between Emerson and U.S. 192, if the Board administratively says it is a limited access road, but yet goes forward with acquisition and does not pay for acquisition of limited access rights, it may be in a difficult legal position.  He stated it is like saying they cannot have access but the Board is not willing to pay the price to acquire those rights from the owner.

 

Mr. Knox stated if the Board is going to make it a limited access highway, there are certain procedures it has to go through and certain designations it has to make; and it will pay accordingly; so that needs to be thought out carefully before deciding which why it wants to go.

 

Chair Higgs stated she thinks what the Board is saying is it would be interested in proceeding with the agreement with Palm Bay and West Melbourne; that it has concerns with preserving the speed on the road and does not want to make a mistake in regard to item #3; so maybe it is in a position to give staff direction to further work on the interlocal agreement and come back with details as they evolve.  She stated there are concerns about the accesses and either not designating or designating them and what the implications are.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated allowing staff to move forward with the interlocal agreement is the best way to handle it; and he is concerned about not allowing for any flexibility in terms of what may occur in that end of the County.  He stated this project has been around for ten years,  and look what has happened in those ten years; but no one knows what is going to happen in the next ten years as they do not even have the $7 million available for the design of the project; so having the interlocal agreement worked out and allowing for flexibility is the best course.  Commissioner Colon stated it is important to come together and be able to plan for the future;  having the three entities come together is the best approach because they are going to see how it will affect all three entities; and that is the most positive thing the Board can do today. 

 

Chair Higgs stated she is willing to support moving forward today and getting staff to look at the agreement; she is concerned about growth management and urban sprawl ramifications out there because it could ruin the investment in the roadway; and they do not have to have four units an acre every place in the County.  She stated if the Board can move forward and pin down the land use and keep from having urban sprawl, then she is willing to consider what the details would be.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she assumes staff will review items #3 and 5 a little more in depth and the legal ramifications Mr. Kamm brought up; but in terms of growth management, it would behoove the Board to talk in terms of zoning in the immediate area and look at a small area plan to redefine what it wants to have there to help preserve the right-of-way needed for the future.

 

Commissioner Colon stated that is why it is important for that dialogue to take place; this item has taken over a decade; she feels comfortable the MPO gave direction with the Resolution going to the State; and today the Board is not taking any major actions but is saying it wants all the agencies to come together so they can see what is the best way to go forward.  She stated again she wants the Board to take into consideration protection of the agricultural lands; that is a key issue; and when they talked about it at the MPO meeting, she told the attorney to keep a close eye on that because it is important to make sure there is access for the cattle and to get that in writing.

 

Chair Higgs advised there is a motion to direct staff to proceed to work on the interlocal agreement with the fundamentals that are there and the concerns that were brought up by the Board; and called for a vote on the motion.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated when there were only four Commissioners here and Commissioner Scarborough was not here, it was not obvious that the City of West Melbourne, the City of Palm Bay, and the County were all working together; and she thinks it is obvious now with the agreement because she feels more comfortable now than she did before, so she appreciates that. 

 

 

 

Bette Danse read the following committee recommendations:  “III.C.  Request the Board to adopt a policy whereby the County shall adopt all recycled content commodities; III.D.  Request the Board mandate that all office paper be recycled in all County facilities either weekly or monthly, depending on amount being generated.  Pickup by East Coast Paperstock or Progressive Recycling.  Fire stations mandate monthly pickups at meeting locations.  Request other facilities and also churches do the same; IV.A.  Request Board approve use of individual calculation, which is fairer than the current billing practice.  Target those generating the most garbage and show with greater recycling, the lower the solid waste cost, particularly fast food restaurants.  Request Board investigate ways to offset the impact on those businesses most affected.  The cost of mailing informational brochures could be cut if email addresses are required; and IV.B.  Request Board approve a mandatory commercial ordinance.  Ms. Danse stated the reference letter from Sally Palmi of Alachua County has the Ordinance attached to it; Ms. Palmi corresponded with her off and on over the past year; and Ms. Palmi said,  “Currently they borrow code officers when a citation is necessary.  Our experience has shown once a warning letter is issued compliance is just around the corner.  We are training one staff person as a code enforcement officer just for citation purposes.  Compliance monitoring is done by regular staff, so we don’t really have to have three code compliance code enforcement officers.”  She stated she checked on it, and the base salary for a code enforcement officer level I is $11.82 an hour; the highest pay is $21.42; and requested any officer hired remain in the Solid Waste Department so he or she deals with Solid Waste and recycling issues.  She suggested the Board consider part-time officers instead of full time so no benefits would have to be paid out.  Ms. Danse continued reading the following:  “IV.C. Volunteer Speakers Bureau. Requests are met by paid staff is in noncompliance with approved recommendation the Board did in August for volunteers.  Request the Board allow volunteers to reach out into the community to assist and educate service and business groups.”  She stated there are some people in the Solid Waste Department who are doing that; and the Committee would like to do more of an effort to have the volunteers involved.  She continued reading:  “The Bureau would also serve as an adjunct to the mandatory commercial ordinance as part of the educational process when groups sign up for permits.  V.C. Manned reuse centers.  Request Board approve a pilot program at both landfills.  VI.A.  Glass cullet in roadways.  Dr. Paul Consentino, FIT Civil Engineer, recommends stockpiling glass cullet for use in road base and/or subgrade layer of roads.”  She stated it has been used in Palm Bay; there are three road layers; the asphalt, road base, and the bottom layer, which is the subgrade; and Dr. Consentino said subgrade is the best way to go because the gullet cannot be used in the road base.  She stated the Committee  recommended adopting an ordinance now so that they could have the glass gullet stockpiled and it would replace transporting the glass to Jacksonville and the costs involved; and she believes the Solid Waste Department is trying to figure out how much that actually is.  She stated with a lot of roads going in the County Subdivisions, Canaveral Groves is still an issue.  Ms. Danse stated Broward County has a glass crusher purchased by BFI for $250,000; she does not think that is what the Board wants to do; but she wanted to let it know it is there; and Brevard County can hire someone to come in and crush the glass.  She requested the Board further investigate this and the financial impacts, and draw up an agreement with Palm Bay to stockpile glass cullet, which averages 2,300 tons a year to be used for roadways and subdivisions throughout the whole County.   She stated it comes out to about 3 miles of roadway that it could be used for; but when considering not having to pay to transport the glass to Jacksonville and using the materials, that will certainly help.  She stated VII.A. and B. are about the committee; there are other committee members who would have liked to have been here but were unable to; they express their gratification to all of the Commissioners for allowing them to form the committee; and they hope the Board will seriously consider the rest of the recommendations presented.  She stated although the committee is not meeting now, it will reconvene next year; and requested the Board acknowledge they are still members of the committee, she is the chair, and as continuing members they are volunteering to the Board to assist in recycling issues.   She stated the recommendation approved in August was to permit RCAC members to assist as individual volunteers in implementation of the recommendations approved.  She stated she just found out about the BRAVE program and having to deal with going through a particular program to be a volunteer; it is hard to get people to volunteer; so she requests the Board not make the BRAVE job description mandatory since it could discourage volunteerism.  She stated she has been asking around and does not know of any other CAC  members that have gone into the BRAVE program; and requested that volunteers either from the RCAC or the general public not be required to jump through the hoops and go through the current chain of command from the County Recycling Coordinator to the Solid Waste Department Director to the Assistant County Manager to the County Manager and back to the Solid Waste Director; and recommended they get approval from their District Commissioner or the Solid Waste  Director.  She noted she spoke to Mr. Rodriguez about that.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she can make it in the form of a motion to bring a report back that deals with the issues; she sees a lot of good things that can be executed right now and not cost the County anything; but there is required planning and review of costs in case there are any costs.  She stated the initial commentary by Ms. Danse was that there would be offsetting of the costs; she has a question about the million-dollar savings or whatever that was that was brought up; and requested Mr. Rodriguez address that issue.  Mr. Rodriguez advised when the Board increased the charge for clean concrete and renovation for commercial properties, it was estimated that the revenue increase would be a little over a million dollars at that time; staff has received some increase since then; but it is too early in the year to know how close they will be with the estimate; however, there is revenue there.  Commissioner Carlson requested Mr. Rodriguez comment on the green procurement issue; with Mr. Rodriguez responding the green procurement policy the Department has is a funnel or collector of information for Purchasing Services.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated all the items that are listed were approved by the committee; there was a total of 15 or 16; and some of those are coming back for another review.  He stated he still has a problem with mandatory recycling program for commercial properties; and volunteerism is great, incentives are great, but he is not wild about mandatory even though he recycles at home by choice.  He stated he does not like the heavy-handed action of forcing someone to recycle; and inquired if there is some way to provide incentives.  He stated if there was a ten-cent deposit on bottles, there would be no bottles to recycle; they would be picked up the same as aluminum cans are picked up; and inquired if there is something other than mandatory that can be done and could the County provide incentives instead of enforcement.  Ms. Danse stated the committee talked about it and that is how it came up with the volunteers speakers bureau that Alachua County is using very successfully, where members go out into the community to assist and educate; and that is why she has the information from Alachua County and its Ordinance.  She stated Alachua County is doing a tremendous job with the Ordinance; Ms. Palmi said it is not like they are going out like trash police and looking for people; but if a complaint comes in, they have something on the books that they can use to address it.  She stated they borrow code officers when a citation is necessary; and once they issue a warning letter, like a kid in school, once they get sent to the dean or assistant principal and come back, they watch out because if not, they get kicked out; and the Board could suspend licenses and do different things.  Commissioner Pritchard stated that is precisely his point; it becomes heavy-handed enforcement; and there is also an issue of cost.  He stated the Alachua County Ordinance says, “the cost of which shall be billed and collected by the permit holder”; so it is going to cost the commercial operation; and inquired how much would it cost the average commercial operation in order to participate in a recycling program.  Ms. Danse stated they would have to investigate how much the cost would be for the individual business; but as far as Alachua County goes, they are saying it worked so well, but the beginning was hard.  She stated it is always hard in the beginning; change is hard, but just having one staff person as code enforcement officer for citation purposes, the word spread fast; and inquired how hard is it to recycle.  Commissioner Pritchard stated what he looks at from a business perspective is the cost of doing business, which is going to change if the cost increases; so that means someone has to charge more for the product or create another revenue stream.  He stated he does not have a problem with the rest of the recommendations, but has a problem with that one because of that; and he has questions that he would like answers to before he feels comfortable moving ahead with that item.  He stated those questions are what is the cost to the business to participate in recycling, and what is the County’s cost in allowing businesses to discard materials that end up in the landfill.  Commissioner Pritchard stated glass cullet is a great idea; it might be to the County’s benefit to invest $250,000 to get its own glass crusher if the benefit to the road improvement program is there; so there are questions he has and wants answers to before he can feel comfortable moving towards that issue.  He stated mandatory is still a problem because he believes in enticement not enforcement.  Ms. Danse stated she believes Solid Waste  has figures that will show if the business starts recycling, the collection and disposal costs would be less; so they would be saving money. 

 

Chair Higgs advised there are time certains at 3:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m.; and requested the Board consider making motions on this issue.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve all the recommendations with the exception of mandatory recycling program until the Board gets additional questions answered.

 

 

Chair Higgs stated there is a motion and a second to have staff move forward and come back with how to proceed so the Board can have a final look at it.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the ones that are ready to go now can go, such as recycling office paper in County facilities, etc.; and all the libraries should be encouraged to recycle.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated some of the recommendations are going to cost the County and are not going to be positive costs; recycling may be worth the cost; but staff should come back with more definitive costs; and the Board should discuss the cost benefit if it is going to follow yesterday’s dialogue.  He stated it is incumbent upon the Board to come back and see a cost benefit analysis.  Commissioner Pritchard recommended that be done on every item that has an associated cost and bring it back to see what the cost is and what the benefit is.

 

Commissioner Carlson suggested bringing every item back to confirm that the ones that do cost something will show it and how that can be offset and those that do not cost anything, the Board will know that for sure.  She stated she seconded the motion and agrees with the motion of getting the cost analysis back; and in terms of mandatory, she has a question for Mr. Rodriguez.  She stated currently commercial entities can get white paper recycling bins; and inquired if it is a matter of service, will the Board readdress those in the Solid Waste Contract with Waste Management.  She stated there are issues that would require some review in terms of how they are going to adapt to doing things and how much it is going to cost.  Mr. Rodriguez stated he does not think it would require any changes in the Contract or in the way they do business; there are some issues they have done cost analyses on that are controlled by Solid Waste; but there are other issues that will affect other Department budgets.

 

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

 

 

 

Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Washburn advised the site plan for Parkway Business Center Complex North was approved in 1993; and there was a note on the site plan, which was consistent with the wording of the Ordinance at that time, that if a building permit was not issued for the principal structure within 18 months from approval of the site plan, then the site plan would be null and void.  He stated the sketch with the Agenda item shows what the applicant has done on the site; he built two buildings shown as 4A and 4B; and he built parking, driveways, and retention pond.  Mr. Washburn advised he wants the Board to tell him if it considers the site plan expired because it is unclear to him what the principal structure actually means in this case.

 

Chair Higgs inquired if there is any definition in the Code of principal structure; with Mr. Washburn responding no. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated there were no retention ponds and entranceways, nor all that has been defined; and it appears the applicant overbuilt with the contemplation of more improvements.  He stated the developer does not need that many retention ponds for two buildings; so he does not feel short-changed because the developer did go out and overbuild.  He stated he did proceed substantially with the infrastructure improvements for multiple buildings based on the original site plan; therefore, he does not have negative feelings about it. 

 

Chair Higgs inquired if it is about the site plan having expired; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the developer ventured forth and incurred costs.  Chair Higgs inquired if the Code says it expires if a certain thing is not done, would it be a different venue or different way of looking at this, such as a vested rights as opposed to the site plan coming to the Board; with Commissioner Scarborough responding conceivably.

 

Dan Wegerif, representing Parkway Business Center, advised he appreciates the Board hearing his petition for interpretation of the site plan approval; and he represents a small family-owned business.  He stated they have a small tract of land on North Merritt Island of approximately ten acres; ten years ago they received approval of a site development plan; the original plan was phased; they completed the first phase, which included two buildings; and in addition, the built two retention ponds, three driveways, utility implementations, and approximately half the paving as required to complete the project.  He stated property on North Merritt Island was slow for commercial development opportunities until the bridges were completed; and after that was done, they had more inquiries and have had more requests for buildings on the property.  Mr. Wegerif stated they have completed a substantial portion of the structures, and complied with the intent and provisions of the site plan; and additional review of the site plan would appear to be double jeopardy.  He stated to the north they have an overflow that separates their property from a business property; to the east there is approximately a quarter of an acre buffer that separates their property from North Courtenay Parkway; to the south is another environmental buffer of approximately .15 acre to Duval Street; on the south side of Duval Street is another industrial parcel; and to the west is a 2.2-acre wetlands buffer.  He stated including the two acres of retention area, over 52% of their property is pervious, leaving less than 48% for future development; they believe there is no negative impact to their neighbors by allowing them to continue with the site plan the way it exists; and stated that is their petition. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised he agrees with Commissioner Scarborough that what was done did overbuild at the time and that the anticipation was to continue development, but because of circumstances, most frequently caused by the bridge, the Board should allow the site plan to remain in effect and allow the developer to continue with his project.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the Agenda item talks about the principal structure; it is obvious that structures 4A and 4B have been developed; and inquired how is staff defining principal structure in this case; with Mr. Washburn responding that is the reason he brought it to the Board; the principal structure is somewhat nebulous; there is no definition in the Code; however, there are not many of this type of site plan.  He stated probably when someone wrote it into the site plan provisions, he or she contemplated a single building on a site; this particular site plan is a situation staff does not encounter very often; and that is why he brought it to the Board.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if 4A and 4B can be construed as principal structures since they were built first.  She stated it is an assumption, but if it is not legally defined, then the Board needs to define it.  She inquired if there could be a presumption as to how a site plan is developed to determine that; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding he is not sure how the Board would define principal structure for purposes of this particular site plan; but he will tell the Board that he has a question about the provision that restricted the building permit to specified data or 18 months after approval; and inquired if that is still intact; with Mr. Washburn responding no, it has changed since 1993 and reads better, but not a whole lot better.  Mr. Knox inquired what is the time limit today; with Mr. Washburn responding three years and it is still principal structure, so staff needs to fix that provision in the Code.  Mr. Knox stated since they do not have elucidation on what principal structure is, it is up to the Board; it can define principal structure as actual building or look at the overall site plan and the improvements that have been made.  Commissioner Carlson stated the Board probably needs two motions, one to have staff come back with a report on the legalities that would define principal structure in these types of cases.  She stated based on the investment the developer already made, and even though eight years have passed since anything has been done on the property, there has been a large investment in retention ponds and wetland issues to continue the whole project; so she will support moving on with it, but changing the language in the Code to make sure principal structure is defined so they do not get in this position again.

 

Chair Higgs inquired if the proper way of handling this issue is a vested rights determination since there is no adequate definition of principal structure; with Mr. Knox responding the Board can take that position; however, if there was opposition to it, the opposition would say it would become null and void as built into the building permit the developer received; and it is hard to say they relied upon something that they knew was going to be void at a certain time.  Chair Higgs inquired if the language says it is dead; with Mr. Knox responding that is what Mr. Wegerif is here for; he is saying the principal structures have been built as far as he is concerned; and he is asking the Board to agree with him.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the use of “principal structure” was contemplated to mean the developer substantially met most of the thresholds.  He stated the Board could say 50% of the principal structure was built and 50% was not on this site plan; but nonetheless, the developer has put in external components, which is a commitment that meets the intent of saying principal structure.  He stated without using the words “principal structure,” the Board can say he met the legislative intent of that by making improvements to the roadways, drainage, and everything else that was needed to put in the principal structure. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to determine that Site Plan SP #93-07-002 for Parkway Business Center Complex North has not expired based on external improvements made on the property meeting the legislative intent of a principal structure and roadways, drainage, and other improvements made by the developer.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board wants to deal with the principal structure; with Chair Higgs responding the Board has already asked Mr. Washburn to do that.  Mr. Washburn stated staff will come back with recommendations from the Committee on Subdivision, Site plan and Signs; and he will add principal structure to that.

 

 

 

Michael Herring of Port St. John advised there were two dissenting votes on speed humps for Everglades Street east of Ackerman Avenue; those voters wanted to file a motion not to move forward with the speed humps; and Traffic Engineering felt it was better to divide the requests into two areas because west of Ackerman Avenue was 100% in favor of the speed humps.  He stated the problem with speeding on Everglades Street is primarily west of Ackerman Avenue; the two dissenting voters tried to get a petition signed to reverse the request, but did not meet the signatures required to overturn it; and he is here representing the residents west of Ackerman Avenue who were 100% in favor of the speed humps.  Mr. Herring stated Everglades is a long straight street with a posted speed limit of 25 mph; there are many families with small children on the street; and they routinely have vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 10 to 20 mph.  He stated they also have a problem with off-road vehicles, four-wheelers, and motorcycles zooming up and down the street; many parents have called 911, the Sheriff’s local precinct, and the Sheriff’s Department special task force; they have done everything they could, but the problem is twofold—(1) limited manpower, and (2) response time.  He stated when a vehicle is traveling 45 mph through a residential neighborhood, by the time they contact the Sheriff’s Department and they respond, the vehicle is long gone; so there is nothing that can be done by calling the Sheriff’s Department, therefore, speed humps are their last option.  He requested the Board vote in favor of protecting the children on Everglades Street.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what would be the implications if the Board approved the speed humps on the west side and denied those on the east side of Ackerman Avenue; with Traffic Engineering Director Dick Thompson responding he does not think there would be negative implications, and it is something that is viable to do. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny speed humps on Everglades Street east of Ackerman Avenue, and approve speed humps on Everglades Street west of Ackerman Avenue. 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if they should be handled separately since they were separate items on the Agenda.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny request for speed humps on Everglades Street east of Ackerman Avenue in Port St. John.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve speed humps on Everglades Street west of Ackerman Avenue in Port St. John.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated based on the Board’s deliberations at the workshop, she would like to see staff come back with wording for the current Ordinance that talks to MSBU’s in terms of having the neighbors pay if they choose to have speed humps.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he would be glad to go there, but it is labor intensive to set up an MSBU; and the cost of the speed humps may not justify using an MSBU.  He stated it is one thing if the neighbors want to contribute a portion upfront, but setting up an MSBU is expensive.  Chair Higgs stated for $2,000 speed humps it may not be worth it, but the Board can get a report on that.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt a Resolution establishing a fee schedule for concurrency review activities based on approved program change for FY 2003-04.

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired where does Transportation Planning derive its revenue from; with Transportation Planning Director Bob Kamm responding its revenue is from federal and State transportation planning grants.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if part of the grants are drying up and they need to establish fees for concurrency review; with Mr. Kamm responding the grants come to the MPO for transportation planning for all of Brevard County including the cities; the Federal Highway Administration advised staff that charges being levied for support of the County’s concurrency management program, which will benefit just one governmental entity, will no longer be considered eligible expenses; so they are proposing a fee to cover the cost associated with their support of the concurrency program, which is a mandatory State program. Commissioner Pritchard inquired who would pay the fees; with Mr. Kamm responding they propose $21 for commercial review and $15 for residential review.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it is a user fee; with Mr. Kamm responding yes.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if the fees are consistent with other communities around Brevard County; with Mr. Kamm responding he did not research it that way and thought the methodology the Board laid out was to look at the costs to provide the service of traffic counts and staff support and base the fee on the historical costs associated with providing the service to the Planning and Zoning Office.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much is the annual cost to provide the service; with Mr. Kamm responding the fees will raise $43,000 a year.   Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that is what it costs staff to do the service; with Mr. Kamm responding it will cover about half of the cost for annual traffic count program that provides the base data for the database to monitor concurrency and the balance of $9,000 would be staff time.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there is no other way to cover the expense; with Mr. Kamm responding he is not sure he can say there is no other way, but there is a concurrency review fee now for Planning and Zoning and since the service his staff provides is part of the activity necessary to maintain the mandatory program, it occurred to him that the most logical and consistent thing to do was to add on to the existing concurrency fee to cover cost of the additional services that his office provides.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if otherwise the choice would be the General Fund; with Mr. Kamm responding he would think so since it is a mandatory requirement from the State that they maintain the concurrency program.  Commissioner Pritchard stated what he is getting at is if there is no way to absorb the cost for the work in the office’s budget; with Mr. Kamm responding given that his office is grant funded, they do not have other revenues to turn to, to pick up an ineligible expense; so that is why they are proposing creation of this revenue stream to cover that expense.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired who pays the fee and is it applied to a house, pool, dock, or something like that; with Mr. Kamm responding the applicant pays the concurrency review fee.  Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised a permit that is issued for something that would increase traffic would undergo concurrency review; but a swimming pool or dock would not, only the primary structure.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it would affect change of use; with Ms. Busacca responding if it has to undergo concurrency review.

 

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

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the TDC FY 2003-04 Advertising Media Plan; authorize the Tourism Development Executive Director and County Manager to negotiate advertising rates and execute agreements with vendors; and approve purchase orders to advertising vendors for ad placement costs over $35,000.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Tourist Development Council (TDC) to continue to elect the Chairman of the TDC.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Circles of Care, Inc. to provide Baker Act Services for children and adults from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004 at $1,393,000.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment 1 to Agreement with International Golf Maintenance to provide golf course maintenance services at the Savannah’s, Spessard Holland, and Habitat at Valkaria Golf Courses, extending the terms and compensation for services through November 20, 2004.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to bid and award bid for transportation of excavated material from Fox Lake to the Central Disposal Facility.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution qualifying Avidyne Corporation as an eligible business under the County’s Tax Abatement Program, and authorizing a public hearing to consider adopting an exemption ordinance.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Gus Kyriakus, Director of Engineering for Avidyne, advised Avidyne is a newly-formed avionics company based in Lincoln, Massachusetts; it has a total of 90 employees including 12 in the new office in Palm Bay, which is almost two years old; and they currently provide avionics for small airplanes, which is actually growing in this economic climate.  He stated due to the growth, they intend to add quite a few more jobs, mainly high-tech engineering jobs; and they are currently evaluating sites for expansion in Melbourne, Lincoln, and Boulder.  He stated he is in favor of Melbourne having been a resident since 1998; and they are looking forward to
incentives to proceed.  He stated they expect, over the next three to four years, to add 180 jobs and are looking to build on the Airport with a hangar and engineering facilities; and they appreciate the Board’s support. 

 

  

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida approving the issuance by the Brevard County Housing Finance Authority, individually or jointly with another Florida Housing Finance Authority or solely by such other Florida Housing Finance Authority of not to exceed $50,000,000 Single-family Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Series 2004, to be issued for the principal purpose of financing the purchase of single-family, owner-occupied homes for persons of moderate, middle, or lesser income within the Authority’s area of operation; and providing an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, approving the issuance of not exceeding $7,600,000 Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds of the Brevard County Housing Finance Authority, Brevard County, Florida, for Wickham Club Project; and providing an effective date; and authorize the Authority to apply for an allocation with the Florida Division of Bond Finance.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, approving the issuance of not exceeding $15,000,000 Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, of Brevard County Housing Finance Authority, Brevard County, Florida for Clearlake Crossings project; and providing an effective date; and authorize the Authority to apply for an allocation with the Florida Division of Bond Finance.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the remaining audits of the calendar year for Parks and Recreation Construction and Roadways and Landscaping.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

 

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised of an email from Commissioner Scarborough advising of conflicts on March 28 and April 1; and recommended moving March 25 to March 18 and April 1 to April l5.  He noted April 1 is during Easter break week.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if it is possible to move May 28 to May 18 and May 27 to May 20.  Chair Higgs inquired about the budget workshop; with Mr. Jenkins recommending moving it to after the MPO meeting on May 13.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the 2004 Board Meeting Schedule as amended, moving March 25 workshop to March 18, April 1 zoning meeting to April 15, May 25 regular meeting to May 18, May 27 zoning meeting to May 20, and May 20 workshop to May 13, 2004.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the recommendations of the Cultural Grants Panel to allocate $11,765 to Cocoa Village Playhouse, $7,353 to WFIT, $11,765 to Brevard Symphony Orchestra, $5,147 to Melbourne Municipal Band, $10,294 to Melbourne Art Festival, $5,147 to Brevard Symphony Youth Orchestra, $10,294 to Surfside Players, $11,765 to Henegar Center for the Arts, $8,824 to Space Coast Art Festival, $8,824 to Space Coast Pops, $5,882 to Very Special Arts, $5,881 to Brevard Museum of History and Science, $10,294 to the Museum of Art and Science, and $11,765 to Titusville Playhouse.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize settlement of claims with James and Carole Pope for $6,500 and reconstruction of a public beach access dune crossover in the Brevard County v. Butler, et al Case regarding Shore Protection Project North.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to add the Veterans Memorial Center Museum to the Legislative Appropriations Request as well as the building of the Alzheimer’s facility.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

  

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he understands the item is looking for two services, proposals for bond counsel and for disclosure counsel; and it was recommended to him that they do one then do the other and not include both together.

 

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised staff considered that, and they do not care how the Board does it, but he has one observation he would like to share with the Board.  He stated if they are done at the same time, some firms will choose to go for disclosure and some will compete for bond counsel; but if they are separated, every firm will go for the first service and whatever is left over will bid on the second one.

 

Chair Higgs inquired if one firm cannot have both services; with Mr. Jenkins responding typically they would have two different law firms doing the services, but the Board can do it either way.

 

County Attorney Scott Knox recommended the Board hire two bond counsels and rotate them to get expertise in one area that the other firm may not have.  He noted if they are done separately, it would eliminate two firms for disclosure counsel; but it is up to the Board.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if they would get the candidates they want doing it separately; with Mr. Knox responding the Board would have a greater variety of firms to pick from separately.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize the County Attorney to issue a notice of intent to the law firm of Holland & Knight of the County’s intent to go through the request for proposals process for bond counsel services; authorize advertising separate requests for proposals for bond counsel and disclosure counsel; appoint the County Attorney or his designee, County Finance Director, and Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten or his designee to the Selection Committee to review and rank proposals, and submit rankings to the Board of County Commissioners for final selection; and appoint the same persons to the Negotiating Committee to negotiate contracts with selected firms or individuals.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired which service would be done first; with Mr. Knox responding bond counsel. 

 

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten advised the disclosure counsel contract expires in January, and that is why it is before the Board today.   Mr. Knox stated the Board could extend the contract.  Mr. Jenkins suggested six months to give staff plenty of time to go through the process.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to extend the contract with disclosure counsel for six months.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

The meeting recessed at 2:29 p.m., and reconvened at 3:00 p.m.

 

 

Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Washburn advised the Board asked staff to return with a report on alternatives for waiving or exempting the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency (MIRA) area from the requirements of the Change of Use Ordinance; he listed the alternatives on the Agenda Report; and suggested Items g. through i. could be considered for waiver.  He stated a. through e. should not be waived as they relate to health and safety issues; but the Board would have the wherewithal to waive the remainder of the items or exempt MIRA from those parts of the Change of Use Ordinance.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if those items are signage, landscaping, drainage, and parking and loading; with Mr. Washburn responding yes.

 

Doug Robertson, Consulting Director to MIRA, advised approximately one year ago the County adopted the Change of Use Ordinance; the Ordinance required staff review for every occupational license that is applied for to see what the change of use for the building is; the review is done by almost all the Land Development Department staff; and everyone gets a chance to look at the new use and see how much it is or is not in compliance with the new Codes.  He stated that is their first concern because the buildings are old and it would be expensive to comply with the new Codes; and sometimes they simply cannot get there.  He stated the Code does not specify what degree is required to meet the new Code; if it is determined by staff that the new use generates more traffic, it requires a site plan for more stringent review; the site plan process becomes expensive with an application fee, cost of preparing the site plan, and most importantly,  the time lost in rents while going through the process.  He stated what brought MIRA’s attention to the concern was Merritt Park Place; it is an old single-family subdivision that has been converted over the years and transitioned to commercial use; MIRA saw the need to improve the infrastructure in Merritt Park Place to support the commercial character that was evolving; and it built new streets, provided onstreet parking, provided sanitary sewer system, stormwater drainage system, and landscaping; and they tried to serve the area with the type of services that would be commensurate with commercial uses.  Mr. Robertson stated their initial request to the Board was to exempt Merritt Park Place from the Change of Use Ordinance because of its unique character and because they have a significant public investment in infrastructure improvements in that area; but as they were more informed and educated about the nature of the Ordinance, they became concerned that it could have an adverse economic effect to the after-redevelopment area.  He stated they saw the potential for owners of properties to resist in investing in their properties to improve them for fear they would not be able to rent the properties; and they have had that situation, which the Board may hear about from other speakers.  He stated from MIRA’s standpoint, they feel they did a good job in providing the infrastructure for Merritt Park Place and throughout the redevelopment area; they improved the functionality and appeal of the area; and they have programs available that service commercial uses.  He stated they feel they are accomplishing their goals and perhaps the Ordinance could be counterproductive to their efforts.  

 

Virginia Schenck stated she bought a crack house in Merritt Park Place in the 1980’s; and on the other property she bought, she built a building that is now used as a Christian home school.  She stated the Board of Realtors is across the street from her properties; she had problems with the property at 60 N. Grove Street; the parking is bad; and without some change, she cannot rent those properties.  She stated she spent a considerable amount of money making them attractive for business and her home; she lost one renter who wanted to sue her for $10,000 but settled for $2,500; and she wants to rent her properties and get on with it so she can have money to pay her taxes. 

 

Paul Vavala, Real Estate Broker with Minicus Vavala Properties, advised they have offices in Rockledge and Merritt Park Place; and he wants to tell the Board a story about opening the Merritt Island office.  He stated they purchased a small building on McLeod Street in Merritt Park Place in October 2002; they never thought they would have problems converting the dilapidated residence into a commercial facility; he was familiar with MIRA and previously served on the MIRA Board, so he knew its pet project was to convert the buildings for commercial use; and it has been going on for five or six years.  He stated immediately after closing, they proceeded to renovate the building, spent a good bit of money on the interior, and thought that applying for an occupational license would be a formality; however, he was wrong, and they were informed that a new Ordinance passed a month before they purchased the building.  He stated they were told through MIRA that they could not convert the building from residential to commercial; they thought they were doing exactly what MIRA and the environment needed, which was to upgrade a rundown building for a nice commercial purpose; the house was dead in the water for eight to nine months; and for a small business like his, it is very costly.  Mr. Vavala stated if they had any idea that they were going to encounter that kind of a problem, they would never have purchased the building; but since then, they have worked through the County employees, and with their help they opened their office 11 months after purchasing the building.  He stated he cannot tell the Board how expensive it was for the building to sit empty for 11 months.  He stated they won beautification awards for the buildout; presented pictures to the Board of the before and after project; and noted that is what they thought was the intent of MIRA at Merritt Park Place.  He stated they were frustrated for 11 months, but they were successful eventually at a huge expense to them; and he is shocked that they cannot go in and buy a residential building in Merritt Park Place, convert it to commercial use, and do the kind of work they did there without the prolonged procedures they had to go through.

 

Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Vavala had the proper zoning on the property; with Mr. Vavala responding the zoning was fine and was BU-1 when they purchased it, so it was not an issue; however, converting it from residential to commercial use was the big problem.

 

Beth King, former Director of Merritt Park Place Group, advised it was a group of local residents and business owners who came together to improve Merritt Park Place; and the Ordinance has been a major problem, not only in Merritt Park Place, but all over Merritt Island, especially the parts that have been redeveloped.  She stated her business is across the street from Mr. Vavala’s building; it was a crack house; and it was very nice to have someone come in and renovate it and do the beautiful job that he did.

 

Ralph Perrone of Perrone Properties of Merritt Island, stated they buy properties, and a lot of them happen to be in MIRA’s redevelopment area; some of them are in Merritt Park Place as well; they take properties and refurbish them; and lot of them that they did are on Courtenay Parkway as well as in Merritt Park Place.  He stated recently they had four properties under contract, but canceled two because of the Ordinance; the other two were too far into the process so they went ahead and closed on those; and the Ordinance concerns them to the point that they may not be able to rent some of their properties, which has hurt them.  He stated he has one property zoned BU-1 and rented it; and the tenant had to go through the Change of Use Ordinance procedure, which took seven weeks.  Mr. Perrone stated when they are given directions on what to do, they do it immediately; it was reviewed by seven County agencies; when they went back, they were asked to do more, which they did immediately; and when they went back again, they were asked to do some more.  He stated he lost $8,000 in rent, which is a lot of money to him.  He stated he talked to Mr. Washburn about it and he assured him he would help him and it would improve the situation; if they had not gotten some help, they would still not have a tenant in that building; so the Ordinance is affecting them and what they buy.  He stated every building they buy increases the taxes 30 to 50%; one of their properties went up 500%; so they are also doing a good thing for the community, but the Board has stopped them from doing any more.

 

Mike Selig advised he is a member of the MIRA Board and LPA, a commercial real estate broker, and owner of a lot of commercial rental property in Brevard County; and what he is seeing as a commercial broker is one of the first questions that an investor or commercial property purchaser asks him, is it in the County or one of the cities.  He stated a lot of people tell him if it is in the County, they do not want it; there are so many ways that the Board has put them in jeopardy; it does not only apply to rentals; and the Board only heard some of the horror stories on delays and expenses in Merritt Park Place.  He stated people come to the MIRA meetings every month and ask for help because they are having difficulties and properties are sitting empty; some of them are elderly and rely on the income to live; they have owned the properties for years; and now they are forced to spend thousands of dollars to bring them up to a different standard.   He stated he would not argue it is a better standard, but it is a different standard; most people who owned property for years and years feel they should be grandfathered in; and they should not have to comply with every Ordinance just because the tenants change, and bring the buildings up to current code.  He noted that seems unreasonable.  Mr. Selig stated sitting on the LPA yesterday, they want to charge an impact fee every time a property changes use; if the Board is going to approve more impact fees, that would be another nail in the coffin; and he does not know if the Board is trying to make the cities rich, but most people he knows are not going to want to buy property in the County for investment or to run their business because when they get ready to sell, they do not know what they will encounter as far as expenses.  He stated if the property is zoned for retail and a doctor wants to buy it for his office, he may find out he has thousands of dollars in expenses not only in renovations of the property, but in time delays and not being able to open; the Board has created a monster; and it is going to cost the County in the long run if it does not do something to nip it in the bud. 

 

Deena Hanson advised she rents one of Ms. Schenck’s properties and did not know she had a problem until she went to pay for her occupational license in early 2003 and was told there was a change of use law she had to comply with.  She stated the property she is at is beautiful, quaint, elegant, and everything she wants it to be; she has an art and framing studio, so it is very conducive to art; it is a wonderful area; and every person who comes into the area only wants to make it better.  She stated before she moved in. Ms. Schenck insisted on recarpeting, repainting, and installing a new back door to make her feel more comfortable; her customers love it; and everything is better because of where she is now.  She stated Ms. Schenck is a wonderful landlady and does everything she needs to do to make everybody happy; she follows the rules; and requested the Commissioners come to visit and check out the area and see what it is all about to help them make the decision. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised there is a request from someone who spoke earlier.  Chair Higgs inquired if Commissioner Pritchard wants to recognize him; with Commissioner Pritchard  responding he does. 

 

Mr. Perrone advised one thing he did not explain is that they did major remodeling and brought everything up to Code on the property that had the change of use; the fire department approved the plans and all the agencies of the County approved the plans; and then they found a tenant and that is when all the problems started.  He stated they spent $65,000 to $75,000 remodeling the building and met everything that was required; and then it took seven weeks to get approval for a tenant to move in it.  He stated it is not a Code issue because they did meet the Code and do that with all their properties.

 

Carol Evans stated she moved to Brevard County in 1988 and hoped to make it her permanent home; she made investments in the County before, and purchased a building at 265 Barnes Avenue about a year and a half ago when it was occupied; and when the building came up for rent, she found an interested national tire company wanting a long-term lease.  She stated in order for her to comply with the new Ordinance, it would have cost her $140,000; and because of that she wants to sell her building and invest in another building in another place.  She stated it is not going to change the use because it is just another retail company.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated MIRA is located in his District, and because it meets down the hall from his office, he is often part of the discussion and has a good idea what is going on and the difficulties that it faces.  He stated when this item came up for discussion, he was involved with it; and he advised one of the difficulties they face when they have an area that is blighted or disturbed and want to renovate it and enhance the area as well as the tax base is that sometimes there are so many loops that are prohibitive that people do not want to do it.  He stated that is not the purpose of a redevelopment agency and redevelopment area; and if the Board is going to designate something as falling into that category, then it should do what it can in order to make the transition a little easier.   He stated they are not asking for exemptions that would allow for more blighted property to be created; what they are talking about are enhancements that take place; he has not run across one property within the Merritt Park Place or for that matter anywhere else in the redevelopment area that has not been enhanced through the process they have to go through; but he has run across a few that have gone nowhere because of the process as it currently exists.  Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Washburn mentioned the Board could consider waiving f, g, h, and i, as being non-safety issues and something he could live with for property in the MIRA area; they relate to signage, landscaping, drainage, and parking and loading; and inquired if those items were exempted for MIRA, would it do what Mr. Robertson would like to have done;  with Mr. Robertson responding it would help significantly because a lot of those items they cannot make meet the current Code.  Mr. Robertson stated they understand the safety issues cannot change; but the others they would like to see modified.  He stated everyone wants to thank Mr. Washburn and County staff because they have been easy to work with; and it was not staff, but the process they were concerned about.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has been presented with some options; it has an environment of older properties and substantial investments; and it needs to look at flexibility to bring them up and utilize them.  He stated that scenario does not exist exclusively on Merritt Island, and it does not include all the properties on Merritt Island; there are properties elsewhere in the County that could easily fall in the same category; so he is of the opinion that it is not a MIRA issue, but something that is more pervasive that occurs anywhere there are similar properties.  He stated he would feel more comfortable if staff would define it as older properties of a certain age and in certain capacity to meet certain requirements, or where they put in a certain amount of investment that is more than the tax rolls, and some other parameters that are more than just being a rehabilitated shack and continue as a shack.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the last thing the Board would want to do is waive the requirements and maintain inferior conditions as opposed to making substantial improvements; he knows that is not where staff is in the thought process; but that is where he thinks the Board needs to be.  He stated if it is important in one area of Merritt Island, it should be important in the rest of the County.

 

Mr. Washburn stated the only difference he sees is when it is a redevelopment area, in particular Merritt Park Place, the Agency has already gone in and expended funds on infrastructure, which would differentiate that from an older area some place else in the County.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated MIRA includes a larger part of the Island where they do not necessarily have that issue; some people contend that some places on Merritt Island are far from meeting the definition of being a depressed area; and Merritt Park Place is only a portion of the MIRA area and not the entire area.  Mr. Washburn stated if the Board wants to, it might consider dealing with the Merritt Park Place area then have staff come back with additional criteria that would address the remainder of the MIRA area plus older areas throughout the County.  Commissioner Scarborough stated that would be fair.  He stated he dislikes being led in the direction of having multiple rules in the County; the rules in the South Beaches should not be different than rules in the North area or mainland; there is something good about having uniform rules in the County, otherwise it would have different rules in different places, which is confusing.

 

Chair Higgs inquired if MIRA has any plans to put additional parking in Merritt Park Place because that seems to be a stonewall for a number of properties as they are developing.  Mr. Robertson stated they have done that with onstreet parking.  Chair Higgs stated it is still limited for each parcel.  Mr. Robertson advised they are very deep lots of 150 feet in depth; structures are placed close to the street; and backyards are available for parking and are being converted to parking as they speak.  He stated the real advantage of putting in the sewer system was to free up the back yards from septic tanks to do the parking; so it is helping them a lot as far as parking accommodations.  Chair Higgs stated there are some very nice restaurants in the area; and as they get more customers, she is concerned about parking.  She stated she can support looking at the Merritt Park Place area for exemptions, but thinks MIRA has to be a bit more aggressive in providing alternative parking that may be suitable for the whole area.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees with what has been said so far, but wants to make sure she understands, based on some of the input from the folks, what the real problem is in terms of change of use when they have zoning approval and have gone through the site plan process and have everything checked off.  She inquired how is it that they get hooked up on the change of use; with Mr. Washburn responding they do not go through the site plan process.  Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Perrone said he had gone through the process and everything had been checked off, all the building inspections and other stuff to create that commercial property; and he had the right zoning and had it signed off by all the agencies.  Mr. Washburn advised what happens is they get an occupant for the building; and when the occupant comes in for an occupational license, it triggers additional review as to whether or not it meets parking requirements and other things; and that is the issue because it has not gone through the whole site plan process and falls out.  He stated the owners of the building just obtained a building permit for the renovations.  Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the example Mr. Perrone used is that he came in to renovate a building so internal renovations and perhaps some external work were done, but there were no site plan related improvements, just simply the structure; and the Building Department reviewed that the renovations to the structure were sound and met the Code. 

 

Chair Higgs inquired if the Board were to waive all or some of the change of use requirements for Merritt Park Place only for signage, landscaping, drainage, and parking and loading, will staff come back with clarification and more definition of that or is staff asking the Board to waive all the criteria.  She stated she is not sure the residents who have significant investments in their properties are ready to accept waiving all the requirements because they want to see the rest of the properties come up to standard.  Mr. Washburn stated if the Board waives the signage, landscaping, drainage, and parking and loading requirements, they still have to meet the requirements of a through f.  Chair Higgs stated if the Board waives the signage and landscaping requirement, the people who invested in signage and landscaping to comply with the regulations are going to be concerned; and it could have detrimental effects on the people who invested in their properties.  She stated it may be detrimental to their efforts if the requirements are waived without further guidance.  Mr. Washburn advised it is only for the signs that exist.  He stated if somebody converted a residence to a commercial establishment or for professional use, he or she would have to meet the signage requirements that are on the books; but if they had an existing sign, that part would be waived. 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if it would be specific signage in regards to what MIRA dictates; with Mr. Washburn responding yes.   

 

Mr. Robertson stated the existing buildings cannot be brought up to Code, but anything new would have to come up to Code.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he likes the idea of allowing Merritt Park Place to have exemptions and looking at the rest of the MIRA area for potential exclusions as well as the rest of the County; and if that is Commissioner Scarborough’s motion, he would second it.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to waive signage, landscaping, drainage, and parking and loading requirements of the Change of Use Ordinance for Merritt Park Place; and direct staff to look at the rest of the MIRA area and the entire County for potential to include exclusions as well.

 

 

Chair Higgs requested Commissioner Scarborough include in the motion to ask the MIRA Board to look at those four standards to be sure they are protecting other properties because she is concerned that the waiver is too broad; and that the MIRA Board send a letter to the Board of County Commissioners ensuring that the waivers are not going to be detrimental to other properties.  Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Robertson take that under advisement and make sure the Board is not destroying people’s investments and that the next guy who comes in does not have some gaudy thing that MIRA does not want there.

 

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

 

 

 

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating rights-of-way in A&B Bruners Resubdivision and A. L. Bruners Resubdivision as petitioned by FBC of Brevard, Inc. and accepting rights-of-way; and a rezoning request and binding development plan with FBC of Brevard, Inc. for property south of the City of Cocoa Beach. 

 

Attorney Richard Amari, representing FBC of Brevard, Inc., advised they are requesting rezoning of property, which he will explain on the board; it is south of Cocoa Beach where A1A comes back together, and is sandwiched between Jack Baker’s Lobster Shanty to the south and Cocoa Beach Trailer Park to the north.  He stated the property is approximately 6.76 acres and currently enjoys a split zoning; the north 2.4 acres is BU-1 with residential 15 and community commercial; and the southern 4.27 acres is zoned RU-2-15 with split land use designations of residential 15 and neighborhood commercial; and they are requesting to rezone the entire parcel to RU-2-15.  He stated the request comes with a proposed binding development plan (BDP), which they presented to staff signed and with recording fees paid; it proposes to limit density to 77 residential units; and the reason that is important is because staff determined that conceivably they can develop 77 units on the proposed parcels today, with 13 units on the BU-1 parcel and 64 units on the RU-2-15 parcel.  He stated it is important to note that they are not increasing density beyond what they already have today.  Mr. Amari advised the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board heard some objections, and unfortunately they got a recommendation for denial; the main reason was that many residents objected to the increase in density; however, there will be no increase in density as they agree to keep it right were it is today.  He stated staff pointed out there is no school capacity issue; there is no increase in density in the coastal high-hazard area; they agreed to limit access to a single entranceway in the BDP except what may be otherwise required by Brevard County for emergency vehicles; and the purpose of that was to recognize the concerns of the residents who complained about traffic.  He stated they have a proposed entranceway about 4/10ths of a mile away from the entranceway that the residents of River Falls use.  He advised they agreed to construct a wall; currently there is a wall that the residents of River Falls own that lies across the property boundaries; it is perhaps eight feet tall and sits on a three-foot berm; it extends all the way across the boundary lines down to their property; and in the BDP, they propose to extend that wall further south to the waters of the Banana River to address the concerns of the residents that the residents of their condominium not access their property.  Mr. Amari advised they also requested vacating of two rights-of-way that burden the property, Palm Avenue and Summer Street; those are undeveloped unimproved rights-of-way that are not enjoyed by anybody at this time, but they apparently did provide access at one time.  He stated because several parcels to the north have already vacated that access, it is no longer serving as an access; and requested the Board approve vacating those rights-of-way.  He stated they propose to give the Board a dedication deed to the south 50-foot right-of-way and agree to improve that right-of-way; they have attached a sketch of the improvements with a trail leading to the river and a raised deck across the wetlands to the river’s edge assuming they can permit it; and all of that is in the BDP.  He noted they delivered to staff the dedication deed, affidavits, title reports, surveys, and everything for the deed; and they gave staff an easement for drainage across Palm Avenue per staff’s request.  Mr. Amari advised the only other issue raised was traffic capacity; it is not an issue; staff report indicates they are currently at Level D and will stay at Level D, going from 62.3% to 63.8% maximum volume; so traffic concerns along A1A are not a concern.  He stated there is an issue of whether or not the rezoning would be compatible with surrounding land uses; they will introduce testimony from Rochelle Lawandales of Lawandales Planning and Associates during rebuttal to show the Board that the property is consistent and compatible.  He stated the Board received a letter of objection from Mason Williams raising some issues that are non-issues; those code sections he cited in his letter of objection are not relevant at the zoning stage; he objected that the parcel is separated by a road and they are transferring density from the south parcel to the north parcel; they are not doing that for zoning purposes, and in fact they agreed they would only have 13 units on the BU-1 parcel for zoning purposes; and they realize if the Board does not vacate the roads, they cannot transfer more than 13 units to the north parcel.  He stated they would have to bring a site plan that is acceptable under the County’s Land Development Regulations; the objections of Mr. Williams, which also include breezeways and spacing between buildings, are site plan objections; they are not impediments nor are they conditions precedent to zoning of the property; so it is not appropriate to address those at this hearing.  Mr. Amari stated the letter also states that their closest building, which would be the northernmost building along the water’s edge, lies 40 feet to the parcel in River Falls; his client owns that lot and does not object to the proximity of the building to his lot; and that building lies 100 feet to the closest house in the River Falls Subdivision.  He requested Joyce Gumpher testify regarding the distance.

 

Joyce Gumpher with Allen Engineering, advised the distance from the proposed building to Lot 16 in River Falls is 160 feet; and the distance from Lot 16 to the proposed building is 179 feet; and that information was taken from the recorded plat of River Falls.  Mr. Amari inquired if that is the closest house in the Subdivision to their closest building; with Ms. Gumpher responding yes.

 

Mr. Amari stated all the substantial evidence before the Board indicates it is a good zoning that should be approved; Linda Olsen is their environmental consultant from Environmental Services, Inc. and can answer any questions the Board may have on environmental issues; and Ms. Gumpher can address any engineering issues that may be raised.

 

Dr. George Schlossnagle of Cocoa Beach advised he lives in River Bend Condominium south of the proposed development and sees the project as positive for the area, and it will increase his property values as well as make the area better.  He stated when people see a vacant lot, they have questions of what is going on that lot; as an individual, he thinks it is a good project; and as a professional engineer licensed in Florida for more than 20 years, and from his career in community planning and environmental engineering, he sees it as a very positive project.  He stated there are a number of invasive species in the Cocoa Beach area; and the project will eliminate some of those species and return the area to a more natural environment.

 

Tracy Dix of Cocoa Beach advised she and her husband own the Trailer Park, which is directly to the north of the project; they are proponents for the development; they feel it will be nothing but an asset for the area; and they are residents of south Cocoa Beach.  She stated the property is very wooded and home to many homeless people who not only reside in the woods, but in their trailer park; so they feel it would be an asset to the community and south Cocoa Beach; and requested the Board grant the rezoning today. 

 

Attorney Mason Williams, representing River Falls Estates Association as well as being a resident of River Falls Estates, submitted original petitions opposing the rezoning and letters from 15 residents; and he wants to state for the record that the residents and Association objected to the time of the meeting being during the day because they would have probably had 12 to 15 more people as they did at the P&Z hearing, which was held after hours but had work conflicts.  He stated the petitions represent 50 or 60 folks opposed to the request; and he also submitted a petition opposing the closing of Summer Street and Palm Avenue with 70 signatures and a letter from Postman Osman objecting.  He stated one of the big problems the homeowners have is that it is not compatible; and explained a document identifying River Falls Estates in blue, the rights-of-way proposed for vacating in yellow, and the subject property in orange.  He stated the developer continues to talk about split zoning as if it was one property; before the Board is the northern parcel; the southern parcel is not before the Board on this rezoning request; and on the road vacating only the yellow area is before the Board.   He stated all the discussion about joining the parcels or trying to join the parcels is what they are attempting to do to maneuver around County policy and Code to develop the property as if it was one parcel.  Mr. Williams stated the developer is trying to build a 45-foot tall, 60,000 square-foot plus building within 40 feet of a single-family subdivision; that is not a compatible use; and the intensity and character are dramatically different.  He stated the developer is asking the Board to approve a 45-foot tall 60,000 square-foot building leaning over the Subdivision; that is not compatible use under the code; and it must be compatible under Section 62-1151.  He stated the community opposes the project; nobody spoke in favor of it at the P&Z meeting except a couple of people to the south; and it is the northern owners in single-family homes that have a huge problem with it and had justifiable expectations that the parcel would be treated as a single parcel with a 13 single-family home subdivision underlying it; and that is what they anticipated there, or comparable retail use, which is generally one-story structures.  Mr. Williams advised the reason he wanted to talk about the other issues is because the developer indicated he has been working with staff on issues like drainage and site plans; he has developed a site plan and wants a BDP; so whatever the Board does here will have some impact on what he is able to do.  He stated what the developer is proposing by joining the two parcels is not giving the 30% breezeway; breezeways must equal 30% of the lot width or 77 feet; they are providing about 40 feet and none on one parcel.  He stated they have the buildings touching with no breezeway; and they exceed the 35 feet maximum height.  He stated it is interesting that they did not bring to the Board the elevation they showed the P&Z Board depicting a huge building four stories high with towers on the end that exceed 35 feet maximum height.  He stated there are significant environmental issues on the property with floodplains, stormwater recharge area, Class II waters, and wetlands; and nothing is proposed in the BDP to deal with them.  Mr. Williams stated as to the vacation of the road, obviously the community opposes that, and a number of people are here to speak against it; he submitted the petition to the Board signed by people in opposition; and they want to lodge another objection because the notice that was given on the road did not depict it properly.  He stated it depicted the road as barely touching the river when in fact it fronts the river 94 feet; what the developer is proposing is to give the County 50 feet; so the Board would be trading 94 feet of riverfront for 50 feet and approximately 8,000 square feet less land, which is not a fair trade.  He stated they are trying to eliminate the breezeway, get the road vacated, and build a building on the property; he thought there was a moratorium on vacating riverfront rights-of-way; and the County policy included preserving environmentally-sensitive lands like that and not trading them away for development.  He stated there are wetlands all through the property they are talking about putting a building on; the building on the north parcel exceeds the density if the parcel is treated by itself; it is right in the middle of wetlands; and the Board needs to know what is going on with environmentally-sensitive lands.  He stated circumventing the County Code and policy should not be encouraged; there is a precedent here; and they object strenuously.   

 

Angela Bach of Cocoa Beach advised she and her husband are residents of Indian Village Trail, which is in the immediate neighborhood of River Falls Estates that is in question; and as long-time residents they do not oppose the new development.  She stated she saw the plans and drawings of the proposed buildings and they are very tasteful; and they believe the project will be an asset.  She stated judging by the recent growth in Brevard County, they believed at one point the property would be developed; and they would rather see it developed by a local contractor who might be more accountable to the community since he lives here.  She stated the buildings will not be an eyesore; and it would be wonderful to have those instead of taking the risk down the road of having bigger buildings and ugly concrete blocks.  She stated the area where the building is proposed is not a pretty area now; and she is hoping with the positive development, the surrounding areas will be cleaned up.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Ms. Bach lives on the north or south side of the property; with Ms. Bach responding on the north side.

 

Janice Kelly of Cocoa Beach advised she lived in Avon-by-the-Sea for 13 years and understands the Board approved a condominium project recently in Avon-by-the-Sea on the ocean; it is being built on the same block that she lived on for 13 years; and there is nothing but single-family homes there in the $300,000 to $500,000 price range.  She stated she cannot understand how the Board can approve a building like that at one end of the County and at the end of Cocoa Beach oppose it because of the homes in River Falls, which are not even close to the types of homes in Avon-by-the-Sea.  She stated she has owned a business in Cocoa Beach for 26 years and believes the condominiums will bring in nice families and enhance the community; the people will use the businesses that are already existing at the south end of Cocoa Beach, which is kind of a depressed area that needs some life; so the project is going to be good for that area.  She stated she does not see anything wrong with having condominiums there; they would like to see all single-family homes and not two or three-story buildings around them, but they do not live in a perfect world and it is not going to happen; so the better use of the property is to build the 77 units.  She stated the owner is making the most of his property and it is a good project, so she does not oppose it. 

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if the rezoning is before the Board for the first time; with Chair Higgs responding no, it was tabled.  Commissioner Colon inquired if it was denied; with Chair Higgs responding no, it was not discussed.  Commissioner Colon stated Ms. Kelly said the Board denied it; and inquired if she was talking about the P&Z Board because this is the first time the Board has heard the item; with Ms. Kelly responding that is correct. 

 

Charles Sherlock of Cocoa Beach advised he has lived in Brevard County 30 years and has seen development come and will see more of it; he rented a house that was brought over on a barge in 1940; it was an 800 square-foot house and had an eight-story condominium next door; and it did not bother him.  He stated he does not see what their complaint is; and he supports the project and likes the part about the improved river access because there is no river access for the public through that lot right now.  He stated it is a jungle and they cannot get through it; and the access they are planning to provide with a place to fish is a good thing. 

 

Paul Mouris of Cocoa Beach advised he is the former president and his wife has been president of the Homeowners Association for the last five years; River Falls Association consists of 27 homeowners; and the majority of them are concerned about the multifamily building being built in their backyards.  He stated there are probably 12 homeowners who could not be here because of the meeting time, but they adamantly oppose the project also; and the 73 condo units are not compatible with their single-family homes.  He stated when they chose their lot about nine years ago, they were impressed with the privacy of the area, the beauty of the environment with dolphins and manatees and every type of shore wildlife, and the beautiful lake with fish and wildlife.  He stated they never expected high-rises to overlook their homes; and he is concerned about the effects of 100-plus vehicles potentially polluting the environment around the Banana River.  He stated many will be within 40 feet of the water’s edge, which is a lagoon without tides or moving water; and he is concerned about their liability and safety should trespassers become injured on their property trying to fish from their lake.  Mr. Mouris advised they have a very active neighborhood watch program that prevents vandalism and speeders on their streets; and inquired what will the ripple effect be of 150 more people living less than 200 feet from their Subdivision.  He requested the Board reinforce the P&Z Board, and deny the request for rezoning.

 

Edward Bart, representing River Falls Estates, thanked the Board for the opportunity to express his views with respect to the request of FBC of Brevard, Inc. relating to rezoning and vacation of road rights-of-way for a parcel of land bordered by A1A, Spring Street, and Palm Avenue.  He stated prior to moving to Cocoa Beach from New Jersey in January 2000, his wife and he visited several areas of Florida on both coasts as well as different sections of Brevard County; they decided to buy a home in River Falls because the view from the front and back of the house was magnificent, and because of the single-family homes, natural Florida scenery of water, palm trees, birds, and great sunsets and sunrises.  He stated if the Board allows the rezoning to go forward, FBC plans to build tall buildings on the parcel that will be close to their Subdivision and will drastically change the views they have enjoyed for the last four years.  Mr. Bart stated they will welcome additional single-family homes on the parcel and even general retail commercial structures that do not exceed 35 feet in height, which is allowed by the current BU-1 zoning; and requested the Board deny the changes proposed by FBC.

 

Nick Witek of Cocoa Beach stated River Falls Estates is a small neighborhood of houses; and to envision looking up at a 45-foot tall building from his backyard is distressing to him.  He stated he has a swimming pool and a small yard; people on the fourth or fifth floors can peer into their homes and backyards; and that is what has him upset.  He stated he does not have a problem with development of the property; a lot of it is wetlands; and extending the wall through there leads to questions of how they are going to do that because it is a wetland.  He stated the developer thinks it is a positive influence and the neighbors to the south that already live in high-rise condominiums feel it is no problem; and they chose condo living, so looking at another condo is not a problem for them.  He stated some of the other people who spoke live on the north side of the property and do not have line of sight of the building so they will not see it, but the residents of River Falls Estates will; and as a result, he requests the Board deny the rezoning.

 

John Straiton of Cocoa Beach advised he lives in River Falls with his wife and son, and as a homeowner is also opposed to the rezoning.  He stated looking from the riverside, the area is one of the last natural environmental areas in south Cocoa Beach; and it should remain protected.  He stated if the developer gets the right-of-way vacated, the intent would be to get as much dense housing on that parcel as would be practical; and it would exceed the 13 units that is compatible with single-family residences.  He stated if the developer reaches his full intended capacity and purpose, it will increase the burden on infrastructure, particularly traffic on the roads in the area; he has a six-year old son who loves the beach and will be boarding buses; and it bothers him, particularly in light of the traffic situation on A1A, because on weekends it is like the Daytona 500.  He stated another point which was not brought out by the developer is the fact that the County is taking an environmentally natural area and putting at least a 45-foot high condominium on it; and as close as they are to the residents, it will be an eyesore.  He requested the Board deny the petition to rezone the property.

 

Floyd Miller of Cocoa Beach stated he agrees with those opposing the project; he lives across the lake and looks at the area from his pool area; and while he may not be able to see a 15 to 20-foot building, he thinks a 45-foot building will definitely change the skyline.  He stated the northern parcel was zoned for single-family homes or business at one time; it was not zoned for condominiums sticking up in the air; the P&Z Board had it right when it voted the request down; and anything that would happen in that area would lessen the view or aesthetics and the value of houses in River Falls.  He stated for that reason he wants to go on record that he is against the rezoning and hopes the Board upholds the recommendation of its P&Z Board.

 

Larry Walker of Cocoa Beach advised he lives near the proposed project, walked on the side of the project two weeks ago, drove all the surrounding roads and neighborhoods, and will give the Board an accurate description of what he found.  He stated the property is a tangle of undergrowth littered with trash dumped on it over the years; the County posted no dumping signs along the northern edge because of the ongoing illegal dumping; and Summer Street, which is under consideration for relocation to the center of the property, does not exist in the physical sense and is just lines on a plot plan.  He stated to get to the river from A1A along Summer Street or anywhere else on the property today would require a bit of persistence, use of a machete, and a little bit of courage.  Mr. Walker stated the adjacent neighborhood is behind an eight-foot wall separating it from all its neighbors and keeping it out of site of the subject property for almost all the homes; the neighborhood was developed from a similar parcel about 12 years ago; and total homes number less than 30, with most homesteaded at favorable assessed values according to the tax rolls.  He stated he lives in a condominium, but that does not make him a bad neighbor, contrary to what the opposition would like the Board to believe; the residents who already live in the neighborhood probably opposed the construction of his building 15 years ago; it is only natural to want to be the last family to move to a community; and it is often the case that the loudest voices in opposition of new development are residents who live in the previous new development.  He stated Florida TODAY had a recent Sunday front page story that the County is in desperate need of continuing revenue to maintain the infrastructure they all depend on; if the Board does not allow carefully planned and aesthetically pleasing development such as the one under consideration today, the tax burden on all of them will become heavier; and the proposed project is within all prescribed limitations set forth by the County.  Mr. Walker stated the developer has agreed to relocate the designated road, Summer Street, that never actually existed, to a new location about 100 feet south and make it user- friendly, which would provide the first public access to the river south of Ramp Road, 15 blocks to the north.  He stated the residents of the County sent the Board a strong message this month in the rejection of the sales tax increase; it is now its duty to act on their behalf to find other sources of revenue to maintain the schools, roads, jail, and staff necessary to adequately serve the County; and the proposed development is not an ugly shoebox high-rise that will detract from the beauty of the neighborhood.  He stated as proposed, it is a well thought out, carefully positioned, and architecturally pleasing four-story development, and as such will add much needed depth to the tax base.  He stated he does not know what they will sell for, but by his     rough estimate he expects new owners would pay over $400,000 in property taxes the first year.  He stated if current trends and condo ownership continue, they can expect the majority not to be homesteaded, assuring an ever-increasing source of tax revenue.  He stated if the Board rejects the request, it will satisfy a small group of people in a walled-off neighborhood of less than 30 luxury homes; and if it grants the request, it will be acting in the best interest of all taxpayers of Brevard County, including the opposing group.

 

Lisa Linkinoggor of Cocoa Beach advised her family has been in the area for almost 45 years; and contrary to what Mr. Walker said, there were dirt roads there on all the side streets.  She stated 16th Street and Minuteman Causeway were dirt roads; she used to fish from them; and she strongly opposes the development because of the height of the building.  She stated she is not opposed to development; her father was a contractor and built private custom homes; and she would love to see custom homes there.  She stated she is concerned about the traffic and deathly afraid of the speeds going past her home where her children and the neighbor’s children catch the bus; her concern is also an emergency that shuts down Patrick Air Force Base again and getting out of south Cocoa Beach and Crescent Beach area; and inquired how would all the people get out.  Ms. Linkinoggor stated those are the last few wetlands in the area; there is probably an Indian burial ground there because Indians camped on all those lands years ago; and people do not care, evidenced by what they did to the barrier islands.  She stated they built illegally; she was too young and naïve when it started and went away for 25 years; but now she is back and has been totally involved.  She stated she fought for the Mayor, the Congressmen, and is fighting for her neighborhood, her children’s future, and Cocoa Beach; she has a business and her neighbors and friends are in business in Cocoa Beach, but not at the risk of losing what little lands and woods they have left.  She stated she has lived by the trailer park for 45 years in her little rundown house, along with the condos and the multi-million dollar homes at the end of her street; that is what gives Cocoa Beach the character that it has and what brings people here instead of to Naples and everywhere else; but it is overbuilt and it is time to stop.  She stated 40 years ago Cocoa Beach looked like Vero Beach; people can cross Vero causeway and see nothing but beautiful green and half-million dollar and up homes; and what they see when they cross the causeways in Brevard County looks like prisons to her.  She stated she is not opposed to her neighbors who live in condos because she has a cleaning service and most of her work is in condos; but it does not have to continue on oceanfront and riverfront properties.  Ms. Linkinoggor stated she is fighting for all Brevard County residents; the Board should think about the animals and birds that are still on the property; she has crows and pigeons and used to have bluebirds, cardinals, and woodpeckers that she does not see anymore; but her concern is if A1A closes again, how will they get out, because they cannot get to the Pineda Causeway and would have to push their way through Cocoa Beach.  

 

Mr. Amari advised before he starts his rebuttal, he has a procedural question; there are two matters before the Board; one is the request for rezoning and the other is a request for vacating; and inquired if the Board is hearing them concurrently or are they going to separate hearings and the vacating will be heard after the rezoning.  Chair Higgs advised she thought the Board was hearing them concurrently, but perhaps Mr. Knox can advise what is appropriate.  County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Board can hear them concurrently; it heard mostly comments on the rezoning; and if there are any additional comments on the vacating that have not been brought out so far, maybe it could take those now.  Chair Higgs stated the cards she has indicate both items on them.  Mr. Amari stated he has no objection hearing them concurrently, but would like to point out that if they are voted separately, it is important to them that the rezoning request be voted on before the vacating request because it affects how the zoning happens if the rights-of-way are vacated.

 

Ms. Linkinoggor presented a petition from her neighbors to the Board.

 

Mr. Amari stated the Board heard some very passionate comments; residents are impassioned about what they believe affects their backyards; and first of all he would like to go through the red herrings Mr. Williams raised.  He stated there is no circumventing of the County Codes going on; everything they have done is straight by the book; all the concerns Mr. Williams raised are site plan concerns that will be addressed; and they have to be addressed or staff will not approve the site plan.  He stated the petitions handed out are not competent substantial evidence; about 20 of the signatures are people located in the trailer park; the owner of the trailer park spoke in favor of the vacating and rezoning; and as for the environmental issues, he has Linda Olson, an environmental specialist, who will answer any questions the Board may have, although they are more appropriately addressed at the site plan stage.  He stated they have 99% Brazilian pepper trees and nonfunctioning wetlands located on the parcels; they are only affecting one of the wetlands; and the other two will be preserved and one will be created to enhance and improve the wetlands on the site.  Mr. Amari stated currently the property drains stormwater into the Indian River untreated; and when they are done, they will have a stormwater treatment system in place with improved wetland vegetation that will improve the water quality and not degrade it.  He stated he heard about  traffic on A1A; if a subdivision is built near A1A, one would expect  traffic; and River Falls access is 4/10ths of a mile from their access.  He stated Rochelle Lawandales is going to address compatibility; and as for line of sight, they are not going to see the buildings.

 

Rochelle Lawandales of Lawandales Planning Affiliates, advised pictures tell the story better; and explained a concept plan of the project.  She stated it will be sited over the vacant parcel; looking down the road there is no building; from the pictures there are high-rise buildings all around the site; however, because of the wonderful thing called line of sight, as they get closer and closer down the road, those disappear below the horizon.  She stated the wall is very high; the picture indicates the roofline of the house that sits back there; one cannot see a window from that house through that wall; so the wall provides an extensive buffer and they propose to elongate the wall to the extent permitted all the way down to further buffer the Subdivision from the development.  He stated the picture shows very tall old trees; those will continue to provide a buffer for the property; and the photo shows the height of the wall and the top of the chimney but not the house on the other side of the wall.  She explained a picture of Palm Avenue and other portions that have already been vacated, a photo of the trailers in the trailer park to the north, the orientation of River Falls Subdivision running northeast to southwest and the homes facing certain directions and the wall, and the proposed condos’ orientation; and stated there will be very little if any impact.  Ms. Lawandales stated the lands on the east of A1A are much higher, run to the east of the wall, and are currently zoned BU-1, RU-2-10, and RU-2-15; they can go up to 45 feet; so the developer is requesting by right what can be developed legally under the current zoning, which is consistent with the Code.  She explained more pictures of the building, one of the homes, and the view of Summer Street, which will be the new entrance; and stated it will provide a safer and controlled access and connectivity between the north and south areas.  She stated there is no increase in density; the height is legal; there is no increase from what is currently allowed in the Zoning Code; and the lush landscaping, preservation, enhancement and creation of new wetlands, the 50-foot buffer, and the new access that will be improved for public use, are all factors that provide for a finding of consistency and compatibility.  She stated the development will have to be consistent with the County Codes.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how close is the wall to the 45-foot building; with Ms. Lawandales responding there is 40 feet from the edge of the building to the property line where the wall sits.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired how close is the closest home to the 45-foot building; with Ms. Lawandales responding the property is about 100 feet, and from building to building is 179 feet.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it would be about 139 feet from the wall and 179 feet from the building; with Ms. Lawandales responding yes.  Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Denninghoff draw a scale of eye sight if he is standing at five and a half feet from where his eyes are looking across the horizon and he has an eight-foot wall at 139 feet and a 45-foot high building; and inquired how much of the building would he see; with Mr. Denninghoff responding he will work on it and bring it back.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated they did not point out the property at the end of the Subdivision, which is owned by the same folks who represent the development today.  Ms. Lawandales stated the vacant lot is owned by the same owners of the subject property.  Commissioner Carlson inquired how many feet is it from the 45-foot condo to the nearest home; with Ms. Lawandales responding 179 feet.  Commissioner Carlson stated conceivably it could be a lot closer if they actually built on that parcel.  Ms. Lawandales stated if they built their home, that is correct; and Mr. Amari stated they had no objections to the project.  Commissioner Carlson inquired in terms of line of sight, if they built a two-story house, will they see a four-story building.  She stated there were comments about the breezeways; and requested Ms. Lawandales describe the breezeway, and if they get the vacation, how they have augmented or reduced the breezeway.  Ms. Lawandales responded the engineer could answer that better than she could.  Ms. Gumpher explained a drawing and identified the location of the breezeway in accordance with the Zoning Code; stated the line of sight is measured 250 feet back from the edge of the water and is where the breezeway is; and the 250-foot area is what is applicable for breezeway requirements.   Chair Higgs stated so they do not have to breeze all the way through the project; with Ms. Gumpher responding that is correct.  Commissioner Carlson stated she was under the impression they had to have gaps between the buildings for breezeways, otherwise she does not know what the word breezeway means if they do not have air flowing between the buildings.  Ms. Gumpher stated the Code is specific and says 250 feet back from the water’s edge.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is why the buildings are set back; with Ms. Gumpher responding that is correct. 

 

Chair Higgs inquired where is the end of the right-of-way for Palm Avenue; with Ms. Gumpher identifying the location on a drawing.  Chair Higgs inquired if Palm Avenue goes all the way down the property; with Ms. Gumpher responding down to the south right-of-way line.  Chair Higgs inquired how long is that; with Ms. Gumpher responding about 250 feet.  Ms. Lawandales stated only a portion of it is on the water.  Chair Higgs inquired how can that be; with Ms. Gumpher responding because there is a single-family lot between the right-of-way line and the river.  Chair Higgs stated Mr. Williams indicated there was more riverfront being vacated than they indicated; and requested he explain the discrepancy; with Mr. Williams responding looking at their site plan, the County’s right-of-way is the yellow and it is 94 feet; the County has 94 feet of riverfront currently; the hash marks show what they are planning to put into trade; and that is 50 feet of riverfront; so they are giving the County about half of what it has; and there is no obligation or duty on the part of the Board to give up 94 feet of riverfront or give someone 50 feet.  He stated he wants to clear up one fact; the eight-foot fence is not eight feet high; when one walks up to the fence on the lot, which he has done, and stands on tiptoe, the person can look over the wall; so it is about six feet high because the land in the Subdivision side is built up.  

 

Chair Higgs stated the applicant indicated the building on the BU-1 parcel has the ability to go 45 feet high today and have 13 units; and inquired if that is correct; with Planner Robin Sobrino responding they have the ability to build 13 single-family units on the BU-1 parcel; and in BU-1 classification, based on surrounding zoning, they are permitted up to 60 feet in height; however, any building that goes above 35 feet must have additional setbacks imposed; and being adjacent to single-family residential, it would have to set back twice as far as it is high.  She noted a 40-foot high building would have to set back 80 feet from the property line.   Chair Higgs inquired if the setback depicted on the drawing of the northern parcel would not be allowed; with Ms. Sobrino responding it is conceivable; however, the Zoning Department has not had the opportunity to review any site plans yet and nothing has been officially submitted so anything under discussion today has not been officially committed to by the applicant and any setbacks and breezeway requirements would be subject to site plan review. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the property requested for vacating is currently off the tax roll; with Mr. Amari responding yes, it is currently owned by the County.  Mr. Amari stated the point was made that the County has 94 feet of riverfront; what has not been considered is it has 94 feet of unusable river frontage; it is approximately 50 feet wide; and inquired what could the County do with it.  He stated it is important for the Board to consider that not only is it getting a 50-foot right-of-way on the river, but also an improved right-of-way with stabilized bikepath and decking across the wetlands giving access to the river’s edge all at the developers expense; so it would get an improved usable right-of-way for something that is currently not usable.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the two issues the Board is considering are the vacating and rezoning; the site plan is not an issue; and a lot of the concerns of the neighbors have not been presented to the County in terms of what they would actually be allowed to build on the property.  Mr. Amari stated they have to comply with the Codes when they submit the site plan for approval.  Commissioner Pritchard stated Ms. Sobrino said they can go to 60 feet; with Ms. Sobrino responding it is allowed in BU-1 zoning classification.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired how many units could they build in a 60-foot tall building; with Ms. Sobrino responding under BU-1 zoning right now, multifamily is not permitted; and all they could have is single-family homes.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if they could have a single-family home 60 feet tall; with Ms. Sobrino responding with those lot sizes she doubts that they would be able to do that.  Mr. Amari stated conceivably a commercial building could be 60 feet tall.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if they could have a 60-foot commercial building on that property; with Ms. Sobrino responding yes, and the way the zoning regulations deal with additional building height is that anything over 35 feet as they go taller, they have to set back greater from the property line.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if they could put a 60-foot building on the property zoned BU-1; with Ms. Sobrino responding conceivably yes.  Chair Higgs inquired what would the setbacks be; with Ms. Sobrino responding it would require 120-foot setbacks.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated there was a comment about vacating riverfront right-of-way in terms of the potential policy the County has; and inquired if there is any such thing on the books and has the Board actually acted upon it; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding yes, there is a policy and it was sent as an addendum.  Commissioner Carlson requested staff read the pertinent points of the policy; with Ms. Busacca responding it says, “all petitioners desiring to vacate public access to waterfront property will be notified that such requests will not be considered by the Board of County Commissioners unless such action is clearly in the best interest of Brevard County and Brevard County will determine if it is in the best interest to do that.”

 

Mr. Williams stated he is looking at the Code on BU-1 and it appears when it abuts RU-1 zoning the limitation is 35 feet.  Ms. Sobrino stated the zoning regulations specify certain specific zoning classifications; it does not state single-family residential zoning; therefore, the height limitations would be based upon the other zoning classifications that are part of the unincorporated Brevard County Code.  She stated since they abut RU-2-15 and BU-1 they would be entitled to go to a maximum of 60 feet; but on the other hand, the additional building height regulations, rather than specifying certain zoning classifications, specify type of development; and it says if they are adjacent to single-family residential development, they must adhere to the two-to-one setback.

  

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Denninghoff has something; with Mr. Denninghoff responding if he understood the question, Commissioner Scarborough wanted to know how far away the 45-foot building is.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he wanted to know how much of the 45-foot building would appear above the eight-foot wall.  Mr. Denninghoff stated he was not clear on what the distance from the wall would be; with Commissioner Scarborough responding 139 feet with an additional 40 feet back to the building; and from 5.5 feet, run out 139 feet to the eight-foot wall and 40 feet beyond that is the 45-foot building; and how much would he be able to see of the building.  Mr. Denninghoff stated he will work on that scenario.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated understanding the concerns of all involved, this is not the site plan stage of the process; he has a feeling there are going to be substantial changes in what is being currently proposed and what is going to be allowed by the Board based on the concerns of the neighbors; but he has a concern about having the potential of 60 feet on that site; and he would like to see preservation.  He stated what is being proposed is attractive, but he is sure they are going to see some changes in that; and what they are talking about today are vacating and zoning.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the rezoning request and adopt Resolution vacating the rights-of-way as petitioned by FBC of Brevard, Inc.

 

 

Chair Higgs advised the items should be voted on separately with the rezoning being first.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve the rezoning from BU-1 and RU-2-15 to all RU-2-15 with a binding development plan on 6.6 acres south of the City of Cocoa Beach owned by FBC of Brevard, Inc.

 

 

Chair Higgs advised she is concerned about the compatibility of the northernmost building; she understands the applicant is present and understands the issues; but perhaps they need to resolve some compatibility issues with more work.  Commissioner Colon inquired if it is specifically on that corner; with Chair Higgs responding yes.  Chair Higgs stated she would like to talk further on the vacating, but that area seems to be the one causing the most incompatibility in her mind; and they might be able to do some work on that.  Commissioner Pritchard stated when it comes back as a site plan there will be adjustments; with Chair Higgs responding the site plan does not come back to the Board. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated if Chair Higgs wants to do that, the Board needs to table it and get a binding site plan; otherwise, it does not get into the issue at all.  Commissioner Carlson stated she has the same discomfort, if that helps in the decision-making; and she has some discomfort with the vacating of the right-of-way.

 

Mr. Denninghoff advised from the last information he calculated, a person would be able to see approximately 36.3 feet of the building.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if from the first house the owners would see 36 feet above the wall; with Mr. Denninghoff responding if they are 135 feet away from the wall on the outside of the project and assuming they are standing at the same level as the base of the wall, the eyes are 5.5 feet high, the wall is eight feet high, and the building is 40 feet away from the wall, they would see 36.3 feet of the side of the building.  Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the further they move from the wall the less the wall will obstruct; with Mr. Denninghoff responding yes.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he cannot support it in the current format.  Commissioner Colon stated it probably needs some tweaking. Chair Higgs advised it does not seem to have three votes.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it is the zoning part the Board is having a problem with or the construction of the building; because if it is the construction of the building that the neighbors have problems with, it will be back as part of the site plan.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it does not come back to the Board  and if the Board wants the site plan it needs to have a binding site plan beyond the BDP and within that it can get to the particulars; otherwise it is going by the rules and will end up with what it is looking at now.  Commissioner Colon inquired if it is possible to give that direction if that is what the concern is.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to see it move and obviously it is not going to move unless they have a BDP; so that would be the direction he would go.  Chair Higgs stated it would be better to table it at this point and work out some of the details before awarding the zoning; that is the leverage the Board has and it needs to work out those things and see if it can get some compatibility because the zoning on the northernmost parcel needs to be less intense.  Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board goes through some of the site plan prerequisites, it will find they will not be able to build as close to where they want to build; unfortunately, the future land use does not get that good transition area from residential to multifamily; if they were to develop the south parcel, they could get 64 units on it potentially; and it would not have as much impact on the neighborhood.  She stated if they include the north parcel and increase the density on it, then they will have a higher impact and the higher compatibility issue; so bringing back a site plan would be appropriate.  Chair Higgs stated they could bring back transitional zoning that recognizes the area to the north.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to continue the public hearing on rezoning of property owned by FBC of Brevard, Inc. until February 5, 2004.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated Commissioner Carlson had concerns about the vacating.  Chair Higgs stated Commissioners can express their concerns about the vacating at this time and continue that hearing to the same meeting.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the only concern she had, based on the policy read by Ms. Busacca, in terms of vacating right-of-way on riverfront, is that she wants to be assured the improvement is in the best interest of Brevard County as a whole; and if there are existing improvements at the end of the one area, that it is something that would be balanced in terms of the public’s best interest.  She stated there was not a lot of talk regarding that because they did not get to that point; and requested staff bring it back in that context.

 

Chair Higgs requested Mr. Amari summarize what he is proposing on the vacation so the Board is clear what he will be doing on the new right-of-way. 

 

Mr. Amari advised the Board has an exhibit to the BDP that shows the proposed sketch; they would propose to stabilize a bikepath that runs from A1A back to the river; and when it gets to the wetlands, there would be an elevated walkway that would go across the wetlands to the river’s edge.  He stated they proposed that because of concern of the environment; they are willing to do more if the Board so requests; and he has a different drawing he could give the Board of what they are willing to do.  He stated they are willing to put concrete or asphalt parking spaces up at the front and are willing to extend a dock into the waterway if permittable; and it may raise additional permitting concerns since they would be adding impervious surface to the property.  He stated they were not sure what the Board would be looking for; what they originally proposed was a nature trail, bikepath, or walking path to get access to the river with a crossover of the wetland; and described the type of wood and nails they would use.  He stated the stabilized path would be five-inch coquina shell so as to be pervious rather than impervious; they can add asphalt if the Board would like them to do that at one-inch asphalt, six inch base and eight inch stabilized sub-base striped for five parking spaces; and they are willing to do that at their expense.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating rights-of-way as petitioned by FBC of Brevard, inc. until February 5, 2004.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon advised the City/County/School Board summit is Thursday at 8:30 a.m. in the School Board facility; and she will give a report on that at the next meeting.  Commissioner Carlson stated it starts at 9:00 a.m.; with Commissioner Colon responding entertainment by the children of Southwest Middle School will begin at 8:30 a.m.

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she would like to have a timeframe on the recycling projects the Board approved today so the Board does not look at it six months from now and say what is
going on.  She stated she would like to get a timeframe on how quickly they can institute those easy items and others that might cost something could come back with a report at the next meeting. 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:57 p.m.

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:                                                         _________________________________

                                                                        CHAIR NANCY HIGGS

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                        BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

___________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

 

 

     (S E A L)