MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

July 16, 1996

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on July 16, 1996, at 9:00 a.m., in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Mark Cook, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O?Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Truman Scarborough, District 1.

Commissioner Mark Cook led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Orlando Dominquez, Mario Baldoni, Joshua Shepherd, and Tom Marsh, representing Brevard County Fire Rescue, competed in a skills contest with paramedics from around the Nation and Canada; and Brevard County?s team came in second place and almost won. He stated they received a trophy in recognition of their skills; and requested the Board acknowledge their efforts which are indicative of all paramedics serving the public in Brevard County.

The Board recognized and commended the Brevard County Fire Rescue Team that competed in a skills contest and came in second place.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised a group of volunteers are working with the Sheriff?s Department to put in a substation in Port St. John; they have an old school portable and would like to get it up and operational, but will need a waiver of the building permit fees.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to waive building permit fees for Port St. John Sheriff?s Substation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised a television show "The Cape" is being filmed in Brevard County and is having a significant economic impact on the community; and they need to utilize Rotary Park on Merritt Island on July 22, 1996. He suggested posting signs several days in advance and closing the park on that day; and noted the County will receive a donation from the TV series which could be used to improve the Park.

Commissioner O?Brien recommended not only posting signs saying the Park will be closed, but also calling a variety of facilities, especially day care centers and sending letters out to give good advance notice because a lot of children use the Park. He indicated the producer may wish to give coupons for free Dairy Queens or something for that day the children cannot use the Park.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize closing of Rotary Park on Merritt Island on July 22, 1996, for filming of "The Cape" TV series; and direct staff to post signs several days in advance and notify day care centers and other facilities that the Park will be closed on that day. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Florida Power & Light Company has not responded, so staff requested the public hearing be continued until July 23, 1996.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utilities and drainage easement in Villa De Palmas, Sykes Cove, Section 2, as petitioned by John R. and Margaret G. Smith until July 23, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O?Brien requested Item VI.E.5, Discussion on Recommendation to Pro-actively Seek Out Unlicensed Contractors Countywide, be removed from the Agenda as the problem has been solved.

Commissioner O?Brien pulled Items III.E.1 and 2 from the Consent Agenda.

Commissioner Ellis pulled Item III.B.2 from the Consent Agenda as two organizations were not recipients of CBO funds last year and he wants more information on the services they provide.

Commissioner Ellis pulled Item III.B.5 as he received a letter from Cocoa Beach Library Board indicating unexpended local construction funds are not available for library projects.

Chairman Cook advised 56 residents are being recognized as community and personal heroes who were honored by carrying the Olympic torch through Brevard County on July 6 and 7, 1996; and the Board is proud of their accomplishments and contributions to the community. He introduced each

torch bearer, including Rob Rains, President of the United Way of Brevard, who facilitated the event with Judy McGinty.

Mr. Rains advised the whole process of the torch coming through Brevard County was a thrill for everyone involved and a real tribute to the community; an extensive selection process was performed as there were many nominated and a few selected. He stated they were pleased and impressed with the people who came out and lined the streets.

Chairman Cook advised the Board will send certificates of appreciation through the mail to all the participants.

Chairman Cook expressed appreciation to County staff, primarily the EOC staff who spent hours manning phones and getting information out to the public during the threat of Hurricane Bertha.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution naming a 25-foot wide flag lot stem in Section 16, Township 20G., Range 34E., as Roberge Lane, with no maintenance by Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution naming a 60-foot wide unpaved road right-of-way in Section 1, Township 24S., Range 35E as Al Klinefelt Way, with no maintenance by Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution naming a 20-foot wide access in Section 19, Township 26S., Range 37E as McKenzie Circle, with no maintenance by Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant final engineering approval for Summers Creek, Phase II, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable, and Board approval not relieving the developer from obtaining all necessary permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant final plat approval for Forest Lake Village, Unit 3, and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and Board approval not relieving the developer from obtaining all necessary permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Unpaved Road Agreement with W. A. Hammer Homes, Inc. for a building permit off Farnsworth Avenue constructed to the standards of Ordinance 96-25. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approval staff?s recommendation for settlement of all outstanding issues and payments for all contracts, including MacAsphalt, Inc. for Wickham Road Widening Project, Phase IV, and accept MacAsphalt, Inc.?s offer to furnish installed asphalt at approximately $21,523.00. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve revised Policy BCC-18, Real Property Acquisition. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolutions, execute Quitclaim Deed, and execute Subordination Agreement with Florida Department of Transportation for the SR 513 (South Patrick Drive) Improvement Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to reappoint Bernice Jackson, Housing and Human Services Director, to the Nominee Qualifications Review Committee for District 7 Health and Human Services Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve payment of $2,018.27 plus interest to Pence South Brevard Sewer and Septic Tanks, Inc. for replacement housing project for Mamie Booth, subject to issuance of a release of lien on the home located at 226 Lincoln Street, Cocoa, Florida. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with Central Brevard Humane Society, Inc. to operate the Central Brevard Animal Shelter in Cocoa for $4,077.75 per month, from October 1, 1996 through September 30, 1997. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with Central Brevard Humane Society, Inc. to operate the South Brevard Animal Shelter for $8,961.00 per month, from October 1, 1996 through September 30, 1997. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Budget Change Request transferring funds within the Library Budget to Fund 1150 with no increase in the Budget, to purchase computer equipment for the Library Computer System. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with Titusville Police Athletic League, Inc. for $10,000 assistance in funding improvements to the Teen Center in Titusville. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Budget Change Requests to close Fund 1190, Port St. John/Canaveral Groves MSTU, establish budget for Fund 2530, Port St. John/Canaveral Groves Debt Service, and establish budget for Fund 3450, Port St. John/Canaveral Groves Construction Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve additional school crossing guard positions and Budget Change Request to transfer funds for the positions. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve purchase of a pumper tanker vehicle from S&S Fire Apparatus Company at $146,153.00 off the original 1995 Bid #B-1-5-70. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to bid remounting of one fire engine, and authorize award of the bid to the lowest responsible bidder. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Renewal Agreement and Amendment #003 to Rate Agreement with Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for SCAT to provide service to developmentally disabled clients, extending the Agreement to September 30, 1996 and adding a client satisfaction survey requirement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution and execute Bill of Sale and Waterline Easement to City of Cocoa, revising the legal description for the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center waterline and maintenance Easement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Change Order No. 4 to Agreement with Priority 1 Construction for construction of the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center, adding fire protection system design changes, and release retainage and final payment to the company. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to bid construction services for the closure of the east slope at the Central Disposal Facility Landfill, and award the bid. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to advertise public hearings to consider resolutions establishing Solid Waste fees, service charges, and assessments, and to adopt the budget for FY 1996-97. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Special Disposal Service Agreement with Mims Citrus Growers Association for disposal of citrus waste at the North Brevard Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to advertise request for proposals for engineering services to perform a geological evaluation at Sykes Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to bid materials for construction of North Merritt Island Reclaimed Water Main Extension, and authorize award of Contract to the lowest responsible bidder. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to accept Easement from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida for access to property adjoining the Detention Center for construction of laundry and storage facilities. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider transfer of the non-exclusive cable TV franchise from Brevard Spacecoast Cablevision, Ltd. d.b.a. Discovery Cable to Genesis Communications L.L.C. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to award Bid #B-5-6-71, Port St. John Stormwater Project C, to low bidder M.D. Utility Contractors at $359,985; and authorize the Chairman to execute an Agreement with the contractor. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to award Proposal #P-1-6-21, Property Insurance Brokerage Services, to best ranked proposer A. J. Gallagher at estimated annual fee of $45,000; and authorize the Chairman to execute an Agreement with Gallagher. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to advertise request for proposals for general liability reinsurance, auto liability reinsurance, workers? compensation reinsurance and liability claims services. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to advertise request for proposals for boiler and machinery insurance, effective October 1, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve settlement of Workers? Compensation Claim of James Ray who was injured in an accident on October 24, 1988. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to appoint and/or reappoint the following:

Environmentally-Endangered Lands Procedure Committee

Jonnie Swan, 1525 S. Tropical Trail, Merritt Island 32952 replacing Karl Eichorn.

Rich Gramling, 230 Forest Avenue, Cocoa 32922, replacing Dick Gregory.

Code Enforcement Board

Sue Ford, 2275 Windsor Drive, Merritt Island 32952, replacing John Bunkley.

Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve bills and budget transfers as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution commending Josephine Lewis for more than 30 years of faithful service to Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Cook read aloud a Resolution commending Cecil Poteet for 19 years of outstanding public service, and presented the original Resolution to Mr. Poteet. Mr. Poteet advised he enjoyed working for Brevard County and being a part of it for almost 20 years.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to adopt Resolution commending Cecil Poteet for 19 years of faithful service to Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised at a Budget Workshop, the Board discussed refinancing of the Certificates of Participation used to fund the Government Center through traditional bond financing to generate cash availability; he sent a memo to the Board which was going to discuss it today; but in discussions with the Budget Office, they came up with an alternative the Board may wish to consider as part of its budget deliberations. He stated they propose to bring the alternative to the Board at the next budget workshop; and before discussing the COP?s, it may want to consider that option first.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the $60,000 to get a surety; with Mr. Jenkins responding there is a 1994 bond issue that is out there; and if the County buys a $60,000 surety, it would free up two million dollars in capital funds that could be used to offset some of the existing debts.

Commissioner Ellis stated he will not support it, as he made a motion to put in the bond covenants that the County could not buy out the final payment and use the money, but the motion failed. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the money is the final payment; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes, but what Ms. Wall tried to explain yesterday was that the debt service payment is built into the budget base and would not require additional dollars at the end of the bond indebtedness. Commissioner Ellis stated it would extend the bond payment one year; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes, instead of using the reserve, the Board would make a bond payment for the last year of the bond.

Discussion ensued on economic advantages, interest bearing funds, taking funds from a budget that a future commission would have available to pay off the debt, value of the two million dollars today and 20 years from now, and considering all the alternatives.

Chairman Cook advised the Board will discuss the issue during the budget process.

Terry Reed, Senior Vice President of Watermark Communications, and Chair of Brevard...Visioning Our Future, introduced Christian Peterson of the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium, and Pam Rajasekhar, an intern from Brown University, who assisted with the presentation. Ms. Reed advised Brevard. . .Visioning was born about three years ago in the hearts and minds of a handful of interested citizens who were concerned about the future of Brevard; a visioning seminar sent them thinking about a vision of Brevard that would be citizen-directed and implemented; and whether those citizens were a part of or working with organizations, businesses, agencies and governments, it began with a collective vision. She stated in the Fall of 1995, Brevard. . .Visioning Our Future formed with a steering committee selected to reflect the multi-faceted nature of Brevard; although it was a grassroots effort, expert counsel was needed to design and guide a process that would yield the best results; and Dr. Carl Moore of Western Network and the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium were contacted. She stated financial support for the process came in large part from the Board of County Commissioners; donations from the community came in monetary contributions, thousands of hours, and tons of supplies needed to reach the over 450,000 residents in Brevard County; and the goal of Brevard. . .Visioning Our Future was to hear the community?s vision of Brevard. She noted Chris Peterson will address the methodology and process used in their findings.

Christian Peterson advised a visioning process has two phases; the first phase is information gathering, and the second is implementation, which is the phase they are about to embark upon to enlist commitments from citizens, whether they are individuals, organizations, businesses, or government, to make the vision a reality. He stated they structured the information gathering process so that it would represent everybody in the County, and were not interested in getting the usual players to public meetings; and they structured it in a way that used small groups. Mr. Peterson stated they set up small groups around the County to allow everybody to get involved in the process; it allowed interaction among people and brought out feelings and attitudes about issues which would not have been gotten in a survey; so they got a much richer outcome with the small group process. He stated the community outreach portion of the process involved different aspects; communication was very important; they used as many different mediums as possible to get in touch with as many different people as possible; and they had three rounds of public meetings in two and a half months to keep the interest up and not drag it out over a long period of time. He advised they had over 40 meetings in libraries, schools, senior centers, government centers, and shopping malls; they went to the people rather than ask them to come to them; and they used radio, television, newspapers, newsletters, and speakers bureau to publicize the process. He stated meetings were held on varied days, times, and sites so everyone could access them easily; they tried to keep the locations neutral so people would feel comfortable; and they tried to include all the different communities in the process. Mr. Peterson advised the circle of connection or impact that the process had was 2,485 people who attended the meetings, over 150 volunteers trained as facilitators who worked at each meeting, 47 people trained as speakers who went to over 60 organizations and presented the vision process, 15 captains who served at community meetings, 25 individuals representing all different aspects of the community on the steering committee, over 75 businesses sponsored employee participation, and radio, television, etc. were involved; so they made every effort to reach as many people as possible and bring them into the process. He stated they had thousands of people involved; they have a list of 300 people who are ready to embark upon the implementation phase; and many organizations still want to participate. Mr. Peterson advised the information they gathered came in two different categories; two specific questions were asked at each meeting--what do you value most about Brevard County, and what are your desires for the future of Brevard County; and the information formulated 23 broad goals and 516 specific objectives for reaching those goals. He stated the report includes the information he presented; he understands the Planning Division has interest in citizen input for its Comprehensive Plan; so they will make that available to the County. He stated a portion of the information gathered involved the cities; some cities approached them and requested specific municipality information, such as what the people in their cities want for the future; and since it was a compatible request, they formulated a few questions to gather information for the cities which was distributed to all the cities regardless of whether they asked for the information or not. He stated Ms. Reed will talk about the next steps.

Terry Reed advised the best plans mean very little if not implemented; that is where a visioning process usually falls down; there is a lot of excitement to give ideas; but when it comes time to implement them, there are tremendous road blocks. She stated right now local governments and community organizations are working very hard to address community challenges; but funding and staffing may hinder greater progress. She noted with funding sources dwindling and needs increasing, Brevard. . .Visioning seeks to bring those two valuable resources to the forefront in order to build a strong community. She noted Brevard. . .Visioning was a product of the people; people came in with the anticipation they would be able to have an impact on their future, and what they said mattered to them; and they feel the continued mission of Brevard. . .Visioning would be to focus those resources of Brevard on the common goals for a brighter tomorrow. Ms. Reed advised Brevard. . .Visioning can play an important part in the community?s future by working to raise the awareness of existing resources, increasing citizen involvement, facilitating collaboration between existing efforts, and recognizing and encouraging those visionary efforts that are already happening in the County. She stated what they learned throughout the process was not easily put on paper; what is in the reports is what people said and the data of how it happened; and what they heard and what they saw were relationships forming. She stated neighbors who never spoke to one another formed alliances to make something happen in their neighborhoods; citizens and their leaders connected on an informal basis; leaders of unconnected groups talked about how they could work together; and that connection makes a healthy community. She stated it is the feeling of connection that promotes the public participation and gets people involved in their government with the belief that they as individuals can impact the future. Ms. Reed stated what they did not hear was more revealing; they did not hear the sense of value of public participation or that people felt they could make an impact; they did not hear people talk about their faith and trust in their local governments; they did not hear people talk about having a general awareness of some of the resources that are available; so there is a strong need for the community to be successful to reflect those common characteristics such as a strong civic culture, team work and sense of community. She stated there is a machinery for team work; they have individuals, agencies, governments, and everyone working on problems of today; and what they need is to connect those separate entities, to share their expertise, limited funding, time and energy, and strengthen public participation to build a community of Brevard. Ms. Reed advised the true impact of the visioning process is far more than data gathered; the visioning is spreading; they have heard cities and organizations use the same words used and introduced at the meetings; they have seen visionary efforts in neighborhoods happening; and people are starting to make small visions into large realities. She noted like the pebble thrown into a pond, the circles of impact continue to grow, and it will be an exciting time for Brevard; they intend for Brevard. . .Visioning to continually play a role in it; and thanked the Board for its cooperation and vision to let it happen for the citizens. She stated hopefully it will not go on a shelf. She presented the reports and Certificates of their thanks to the Commissioners for their participation, cooperation, and tremendous support.

Chairman Cook expressed the Board?s appreciation for their efforts and that of the community in participating in the visioning process.

Derek Busby, Program Director for the Indian River National Estuary Program, advised the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) is the result of five years of hard work by a lot of technical experts, agency and government personnel, and citizens; and they used a process like the visioning process and the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium many times. He requested a proclamation of support of the goals and objectives contained in the plan which are aimed at protecting and restoring the Indian River Lagoon as an important resource for Brevard County and the region; and stated the proclamation does not commit the Board to a specific funding level. He stated the costs and estimates of potential costs to restore the Indian River Lagoon are provided in the plan; the actions are voluntary on the Board?s part and on the part of each of the counties; and they look to the plan to provide guidance and technical expertise and support as the County moves forward to help restore the Indian River. He noted the Indian River Lagoon runs from Ponce Inlet in the north to Jupiter Inlet in the south, and is approximately 156 miles long; their program encompasses that entire area, all or part of six counties from Volusia through Palm Beach; Indian River and Martin Counties have adopted the same proclamation; and each county is being asked to do the same. Mr. Busby advised the National Estuary Program (NEP) is authorized by the Clean Water Act administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, and is an interesting experiment in bottoms up management, providing local guidance to deal with local issues. He stated in that sense it is an experiment by the federal government to provide funds and a catalyst program to allow local interests to come together and determine their own fate. He stated it is one of 28 Estuaries of National Significance in the country; and they hope to turn planning into action, especially through development of partnerships with the various players involved. He noted the players are those primarily who sit on the Policy Committee, and that is the Counties involved; Brevard County has been involved since the very beginning; and Florida Department of Environmental Protection, St. Johns River Water Management District, South Florida Water Management District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are some of the agencies that have been involved in the process through time, and the top group they deal with daily. Mr. Busby advised the County has a unique and valuable resource; that resource is threatened; and EPA was convinced that they have a good chance of success in developing and adopting the plan and implementing it. He stated it is unique primarily because of the diversity of the estuary; there are over 4,000 different species of plants and animals; and that is caused because it is very long and covers two different biological provinces. He stated there is no other system in North America that has that kind of biological diversity; it is also unique because of the plumbing situation; there is very little mix between the ocean and freshwater; and that is different from a lot of estuaries around the country. He noted there is a rapidly increasing population base; over 1.2 million people live in the basin now; and a man said he was born in 1910 and there were 875 people in the basin at that time; so he has seen a lot of change. He stated they have to create land for people to live on; Florida is wet and to create livable area requires ditching and draining; and because of that, they have increased their drainage area from 1,000 square miles to 2,300 square miles which all empties into an area of about 350 square miles; so they have a lot of area draining into a small water body. He noted with that comes pollutants that are on the land and run off into the estuary and much more fresh water. Mr. Busby advised there has been a change in the landscape because so many people are moving into the area; they are taking land out of agriculture and open space and converting it to residential land; and that increases the pollutant loadings that enter the estuary. He explained slides of pollutants non-point source, stormwater runoff, and wastewater plants; and stated legislation gets wastewater plants out of the lagoon and is doing well with that; the overall pollutants are going down because of that legislation; stormwater is still going up; and that is their main issue for the lagoon. He stated the plan addresses that clearly; there are three particular areas of the plan, living resources, water sediment quality, and public participation and support; and there are 15 action plans and 69 separate recommendations. Mr. Busby advised the Action plans address point sources, septic tanks, freshwater and stormwater discharges, marinas and boats, biological diversity, land acquisition, wetlands, seagrasses, impounded marshes, endangered and threatened species, fisheries, public education, the future implementation of the plan, data management, and monitoring. He stated the counties not only have an important role to play in implementing the plan, but they have a leading role; and Brevard County had significant contribution already to what has occurred through many of its programs. He stated Brevard County has EEL?s Program, Surface Water Improvement, and Comprehensive Planning that addresses natural resources, and it is grappling with resources such as manatees and habitat protection of scrub jays; much of what is in the plan is to help support that kind of effort in the future and keep that effort going. He explained a slide of the large agricultural drainage ditch and stormwater ponds located primarily in the western portion of the basin to address regional flood control, water quality, and water supply issues that are underway in many parts of the basin; and stated one project is being worked with the Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District, and the C-1 is being worked with St. Johns River Water Management District and the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Busby advised often there are no real engineering fixes, and to avoid more regulation, education provides an opportunity to reduce pollution at the source at a low cost. He stated Brevard County has Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program to teach people how to be better stewards within the water shed; there are 20 baffle boxes which catch sediment running into the lagoon and have reduced it by over 240 tons already; and those projects were done in partnership with the Water Management Districts. He stated they are reconnecting impounded marshes and bringing them back into the system; and the Water Management Districts, County, NASA, and the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, all had an important part in planning that effort. Mr. Busby advised Brevard County is also part of the mangrove planting project; a lot of those things are underway; and they want to see them continue. He stated they want Brevard County to continue to address stormwater management, attempt to clean up muck in drainage canals; and the good thing about the plan is the County gets partners to do those things. He noted Water Control Districts, EPA, U. S. Fish & Wildlife are at the table with the County representatives working on the problems together instead of working on them individually. He stated the price tag is 88 million dollars over five years; $51 million is new cost and $36 million is programmed in someone?s budget now; from a national perspective it is very good; and there is a high percentage of activity already underway, but there is still a challenge ahead. Mr. Busby advised it is not a regulatory program; it is voluntary; they hope the Plan will provide the County guidance to determine what is the best way it can help to address the issues involved in the Plan; people are willing to pay for clean water and good habitats to live in; and stormwater management seems to be the thing they are willing to pay for the most. He stated they did a survey of 1,000 residents up and down the region; it indicated a strong desire by the public to pay for those activities; there is an economic incentive because the Lagoon is worth over $700 million to the region per year; and people want to preserve the fishing industry, sport fishing opportunities, tourism opportunities, recreational boating, and the ability to see nature. He noted that is a summary of a five-year effort.

Margaret Hames, 667 Acacia Avenue, Melbourne Village, read a letter into the record from the Indian River Audubon Society, as follows: "Dear Brevard County Commissioners. We have taken the time to review the final draft of the Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Please note the following statistics extracted from the CCMP. The Indian River Lagoon has more species than any other North American estuary. The diversity of the seagrass in the Indian River Lagoon is greater than that found in any other U.S. estuary. The lagoon provides 717 to 730 million dollars per year to the regional economy. The region attracts 5.9 million tourists and half a million salt water anglers annually. The projected growth rate of the Indian River Lagoon area is 60% for 1990 to 2010. The Indian River Lagoon, an estuary of national significance, is in trouble. It is quite clear from the date and anyone who?s lived here a while that its natural resources are straining to maintain the fragile balance of life under the stress of mankind?s impacts. Not only are the problems identified in the CCMP such as stormwater runoff, freshwater discharges, septic tanks, marine activity, and over exploitation, but real solutions are offered, solutions that include a combination of activity such as eco-system management, land acquisition, restoration, public education, and incentives for good stewardship. We consider the effort to provide cost estimates for implementing the various action plans within the IRLCCMP quite commendable. This plan in doing this went beyond what any other plan of this sort has ever attempted. Many potential funding sources were also identified. As with any project of this magnitude, there?s bound to be those who disagree with some items. We recognize a tremendous amount of work that went into developing the IRLCCMP and chose not to nitpick at selected items. Remember the action plan outlined within the plan are recommendations. We need to act now to protect the lagoon?s natural resources in order to sustain our own economic and recreational uses of the IRL. We applaud the efforts of all those who participated in developing the CCMP. We hope you will give the IRLCCMP the support it deserves. Sincerely, Diane Stees, Conservation Chair, Indian River Audubon Society." Thank you.

Ms. Hames advised Ms. Stees is a NASA engineer and that is why there are all the acronyms.

Ed Palmer, 1881 Pineapple Avenue, Melbourne, advised the proposal to save the Indian River Lagoon is one of the most important ones the Board can address; it will cost money; but the County cannot allow the continued pollution of the Indian River because it is a priceless asset that is going down the drain because of pollution. He stated it is more than 150 miles long; six counties are involved that border the lagoon; it has to be addressed on a regional basis; and no county in isolation of the others can solve the problem with pollution. He advised of the newspaper item on the issue; stated it is more than just an environmental issue; $700,000,000 is a lot of money; it is a factory that produces products for the people of Brevard County; it is a food chain that produces clean and safe products; it is not only an intercoastal waterway; and it has shrimping, clamming, fishing, tourism, recreational benefits, boating and canoeing, and waterskiing. Mr. Palmer stated it supports a lot of people in Brevard and adjacent counties who make their living directly or indirectly from the beautiful waterway in Brevard County and elsewhere; and it provides many jobs for the area plus a lot of entertainment. He stated sometimes, as with other facilities, outside influences undermine and degrade production capacity, and pollution has to be addressed and remedial action taken to resolve the issue; the County must turn it around to prevent further deterioration of this valuable asset; and saving the estuary can be called an environmental issue, but it is much broader in scope. He stated the economy will falter if it is not addressed; and recommended the Board approve the plan for the citizens of today and the future citizens of tomorrow.

Margaret Broussard, 3660 N. Riverside Drive, Indialantic, representing Marine Resources Council, advised the Indian River Lagoon is the greenway of the Marine Resources Council; it is the most important and like a land trust; almost all the people live within two or three miles of the Lagoon; and she lives on the river but does not use fertilizer and left natural vegetation along the shoreline and planted mangroves to do her part to restore it because she was alarmed with the changes she saw in the 29 years she has been here. She stated shrimp, clams, oysters, crabs, fish, ducks, and wading birds have all declined; but they can come back just as the ospreys and pelicans are coming back if the County stops some of the harmful practices and start helpful practices like those described in the proposal. She stated the economic benefits of the lagoon justify the expense of implementation; and the lagoon is a resource the County cannot afford to lose.

George Rosenfield, 1289 Bonaventure Drive, Melbourne, advised he remembers the Indian River Lagoon before mosquito control and when Cocoa was the salt water trout capital of the world; and he is a volunteer scientist with the Marine Resources Council. He stated the first draft of the CCMP was in January, 1995; Chapter 3, page 25 credited the Marine Resources Council (MRC) for its earlier work on the Indian River Lagoon which ultimately led to the establishment of the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program (NEP); and Section D, Chapter 11, included a nonprofit for implementing the CCMP. He stated the white paper of July, 1995, was a description of a nonprofit for implementation of the CCMP; in November, 1995, the Marine Resources Council prepared a white paper; and in December, 1995, the Council presented a proposal to the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program Policy Committee as the independent nonprofit organization to implement the CCMP and proposed a merger of the NEP and MRC staffs. Mr. Rosenfield advised the final draft of the CCMP is now under discussion; the Indian River Lagoon NEP has merged with the SWIM Program under the St. Johns River Water Management District; and there is no mention in the current document about a nonprofit or background credit to MRC for all its early work. He stated there would be no NEP if it was not for the MRC; now another government agency, the Water Management District is asking the County and populous to give it more money for something it should have been doing in the first place; and the District is already a taxing authority, but may be looking at this new source of funds without increase of taxes as a variable gold mine. He stated government agencies have demonstrated lack of regard for the public, evidenced recently by Department of Environmental Protection?s science study on aquaculture leases for clam bed expansion in the Indian River Lagoon; and it did the study, but did not do the environmental impact statement and did not inform the public through public hearings on that statement, therefore, the public acme to the County meeting ill informed. Mr. Rosenfield stated he supports the CCMP; and inquired what was the rationale for changing from a nonprofit to a quasi-government agency, and why not the Marine Resources Council.

William Kerr, 325 Fifth Avenue, Indialantic, Chairman of the Citizens Action Committee of the National Estuary Program, and lifelong resident of Brevard County, advised they have about 28 to 33 people on the committee over the past five years volunteering their efforts to get public input for the plan; it is a compilation of scientific studies and all the work that was done before the National Estuary Program up through today; and it is a well thought out plan that has been passed by numerous agencies and the public in numerous meetings all up and down the 150 plus miles of the lagoon. He stated the amount of money it will take to implement the plan is about ten million dollars a year in addition to what has already been generated; and that is for a benefit of 733 million dollars, which is an investment of about one percent. He noted to invest 1% and reap those rewards is a good investment. Mr. Kerr advised a partnership has been forged for five years with all the agencies involved in the lagoon; there is open communication with those agencies so that everybody can work toward the same goal using the plan and everybody?s money, not only the five counties; and once the County accepts and adopts the plan, it will be easier to go to the agencies and request funds for support of the plan. He stated there are no negatives to the plan; there are studies of constituencies supporting the plan; and requested the Board support it.

Kenny Boyd, 1465 S. Lester Court, Merritt Island, advised there are people swimming in the lagoon now and doing well waterskiing; it seems unusual and maybe arrogant to not have public comments prior to getting the Board?s approval of the plan; a public hearing on the plan has not been conducted; and they said public participation was solicited very aggressively, but it seems to be the opposite. He stated he asked to be on the mailing list many times and never received literature from them unless he called for a specific item; he is not optimistic about jumping on the band wagon for the plan; and he has concerns about the estimated costs and the limit of freshwater discharge into the lagoon. He stated historically the Indian River lagoon was primarily a freshwater lagoon and only with the construction of ports and inlets by man did the salinity increase; and although the salinity increase is localized by the inlet proximities in some areas, over the entire range of the lagoon habitat and seagrass beds have changed drastically. Mr. Boyd stated he finds it unusual to decrease the amount of freshwater influence and increase salinity when historically it would have been the opposite; and he wonders how it compares to the Governor?s and public?s to reduce rules and downsize government. He noted it seems to contradict that philosophy. He inquired what kind of regulations are to be expected of a resource protection zone; where will they be; how big will they be; and will he be allowed in them. He stated the NEP wants to protect the lagoon for the public, but if they are not able to enter it and take resources out, will it still be of value. He inquired what is the need for the County?s approval if the plan has no regulatory authority; and if it is just a guideline for people to go buy, why can?t the NEP just produce it and give it to the County and say they hope the County will consider the recommendations when making laws and regulations.

Pat Poole, 805 E. Palmetto Avenue, Melbourne, advised the Board is here to listen to the public and not serve special interests; people who care about the environment are not special interest groups; and the environment is the most important thing anyone can have. She stated she has lived here since 1929 and what she has seen happen to the Indian River is a shame; and to let it happen for economy sake, to develop and pollute and almost turn it into a cesspool is terrible. She advised of her early experiences of swimming in the clear lagoon and living off the land; and stated people are greedy and want what they want now with no thought about the future. Ms. Poole stated a lot of children are staying in Brevard County because it is one of the best counties in the United States; that is why people want to come here; but if there are no controls and contributions to take care of what is here, it will be gone. She stated it is important, but the Board has delayed things that should have been moving such as the plans for the manatees and scrub jays; and if it keeps on, there will not be much to worry about.

Chairman Cook asked Mr. Busby to respond to Mr. Rosenfield?s questions.

Mr. Busby advised reference to the Marine Resources Council is still in the plan and was not taken out; it is on page 38 and gives plenty of credence to the work it did; and as far as utilizing the MRC as an implementation mechanism, that is still occurring. He stated the MRC has the opportunity, just as many other organizations in the basin, to be involved in the implementation of the plan; it is not the only organization in the basin; the topic was discussed for quite a long time; and Commissioner Higgs was involved in those discussions as to what exactly would be a proper structure for implementation. He stated there was no real resolution on the structure through a nonprofit function, in part because of the geographic limitations of the various organizations; each organization typically had an area they worked in; they had certain topics they felt were most important to them; and there was no over-branching organization that had interest in the whole lagoon, so it was decided at least initially, to combine the agency efforts and look to the MRC as an important partner in implementing the plan. He noted they need the MRC, Halifax Indian River Task Force, St. Lucie River Initiative, and all the other organizations that are doing great things.

Commissioner Scarborough advised it states that the CCMP does not obligate the entities to budget amounts, yet there is extensive discussion on the need to budget amounts to carry the thing forward; and inquired if the Board passes a plan contemplating expenditures of substantial sums of money it has not discussed how to fund, what is it doing. Mr. Busby responded they are not asking the Board to adopt the plan, it is asking for a resolution of support of the overall goals and objectives of the plan; so the Board is not making this its plan. He stated they would like the Board to consider itself a full partner in the effort in the future as they begin to implement it; and that is why they are here. He stated they could get the Governor?s Office and EPA to approve the plan and not talk to anybody, and have a state/federal management plan, but what good will it be without the cooperation of local governments; and that is why local governments have been involved in the process from the beginning. Mr. Busby stated he would like to have a contract that says the Board will budget so many dollars to the Indian River Lagoon over the years, but he recognizes it is dealing with balancing a lot of issues; it has a visioning process to balance the needs for roads, health care, paramedics, police, etc.; and they are asking the Board to consider the environment and the Indian River Lagoon on an equal basis and giving it some guidance to help. He stated they cannot dictate that the Board budget something; it cannot obligate a future board to funding; and that is recognized in the plan. He stated the estimates are to give some idea of the relative scale of what they are talking about; it is a planning guidance; and they cannot force the Board to plan and budget monies.

Commissioner Higgs advised the resolution that is part of the package says the lagoon comprehensive management plan provides a strategy for future protection and preservation of the lagoon as a treasure and reflects the commitment of the citizens; it does not ask the Board to commit funds; it commits the Board to a strategy for the future; and it would need a series of discussions about the plan to determine priorities the Board may want to take and define. She stated the action requested is to provide support for the plan as a strategy for protection; and she will move the resolution.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution of support for the adoption and implementation of the Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP).

Commissioner Ellis advised the survey that came with the package was not a scientific survey; with Mr. Busby responding it was a scientific survey conducted by a professional survey company. Commissioner Ellis stated according to the poll, only 17 to 18% of adults in Brevard County work full time; if it is a scientific poll, there should be scientific representation of people; and he does not believe the numbers are correct that of all adults in Brevard County less than 20% work full time. He stated there are parameters when using scientific polling on how to determine the population to get representative sampling out of the population; and if that has not been done, it needs to be advertised as such. Mr. Busby stated it was conducted according to standard accepted survey methodology. Commissioner Ellis stated it is impossible by the results they acquired to have been done scientifically. Mr. Busby stated a lot of the economic discussion is not to provide a cost benefit analysis of protecting the lagoon; and what it does is bring to light the important economic resource as well as cultural and social resources. Commissioner Ellis stated although the resolution is for support, the Manatee Protection Plan calls for adoption and implementation of this plan; and requested the County Attorney explain the difference. He stated he wants to ensure the Board is not locked into adopting every item in the plan; and it is one thing to support the principal, but if it adopts the plan, it needs to go through it item by item.

Chairman Cook advised he represents the Board on the Policy Committee, and Mr. Busby accurately portrayed what the Board is being asked to do today; it is not adopting the plan; the resolution adopts the goals and objectives of the plan; so it is not being asked to adopt the plan as such, but rather to pass a resolution of support. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it is a resolution supporting the principal of the plan; with Chairman Cook responding the principal of protecting the lagoon which is a vital resource and critically important to the environment.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the County Attorney concurs; with Mr. Knox responding from a legal standpoint the Manatee Protection Plan is an advisory document that is going to Department of Environmental Protection and not something that has regulatory effect; the Board is providing its perspective of local government to Department of Environmental Protection on what it would like to see; and Department of Environmental Protection will be responsible for implementing a speed zone or whatever if it so chooses and approves the plan. Commissioner Ellis inquired if Department of Environmental Protection can adopt this CCMP for the Board; with Mr. Knox responding some time down the road if it has the appropriate enabling legislation in place, it may be able to use it for enacting regulations, but it is not there yet. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the regulations will be done at the state level. He stated he does not want the County in a position where the state dictates to it what it will enact like the Manatee Protection Plan. Mr. Knox stated he does not see Department of Environmental Protection dictating anything under the CCMP.

Chairman Cook advised compared to other counties, Brevard County has done a lot toward preserving the Indian River Lagoon; a lot of effort and funding has gone toward it; so it is ahead of other counties in that regard. Commissioner Ellis stated Brevard County has expended more money than the other four counties combined.

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

Bruce Blihovde, Deputy Manager at Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge, presented a check to the Board, on behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Service, in the amount of $43,497.00, representing 3/4 of 1% of the assessed value of the lands taken out of the tax base, and from oil and gas leases, timber sales, permits, etc. nationwide. He noted the revenue is divided and given back to the counties for lands the Fish and Wildlife owns in those counties.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board will be discussing aquaculture leases; there were concerns expressed about leases in Body A; and inquired if the position is still the same; with Mr. Blihovde responding he was not involved with that. Commissioner Scarborough stated they are in the process of reverting the marshes back which will impact leases; adopting the CCMP will lead to support of that program; and to some extent it conflicts with aquaculture leases.

Commissioner O?Brien stated the CCMP affects aquacultural leases because it wants to enhance seagrass growth; the leases are only on bottoms that do not have seagrass; so as the grasses increase, the leases will have to decrease.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Busby or NEP will bring the plan back for specific analysis by the Board and adoption at a later date, or will the County have to schedule that; with Mr. Busby responding he will work with the County staff to put together a workshop to go through it in more detail. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to look at the implementation aspects.

The meeting recessed at 10:38 a.m. and reconvened at 10:53 a.m.

Commissioner Scarborough advised he met with Sam Ackley, City Manager of Titusville, and asked whether the City will take the road as part of the development because it would be in the City; the City agreed to the development if it was a collector road only; the size of the road is not adequate under County or City standards; so it should be tabled so they can go back and work it out.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to deny final engineering approval for Oak Grove Road paving until the City of Titusville and developer work out acceptance of the road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Bob Wellen, 4499 Bowstring Court, Titusville, representing Brevard County Manufacturing Association, requested the County seek an Attorney General?s Opinion to grant an exemption from the date criteria of the Ordinance requesting tax relief under Florida Statutes 196.1995 dealing with economic development ad valorem tax exemption. He requested the opinion recognize the date that Ordinance No. 95-07 was adopted by the Board as a master ordinance to include three companies as applicants under the umbrella Ordinance, and that the opinion state that those companies were qualified as of the date of adoption of the Ordinance and remained qualified regardless of the date that the specific Ordinance was issued. Mr. Wellen requested the opinion be issued timely as the Statute only grants exemptions for ten years and following a majority vote in favor of such authority which was held in 1994. He introduced Tracy Winters of J. W. Performance Transmission located in Rockledge.

Tracy Winters, 1826 Baldwin Street, Rockledge, advised it has been approximately one year since they started the process of tax abatement; on July 21, 1995 she had a meeting scheduled with Maurice Roy and was called on July 20, 1995 saying it was canceled due to not having all the information; and the next meeting was scheduled in January, 1996. She stated they submitted a check for the tax abatement application and have not heard anything since then, so they are wondering who is doing what and where they are as a company. Ms. Winters stated through the whole process she became very disgusted and filled out an expansion magazine for seven States on what opportunities were available; she had excellent opportunities from other places in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi; and she received over 40 packets with opportunities that were overwhelming. She stated it is silly to think they are trying to grow and prosper and are not being helped here; they manufacture automatic transmissions, torque converters, and component parts which make up eight product lines; they have distributors throughout the United States and overseas; only 10% of their business is in Brevard County, so the location does not have a real bearing; and although they would like to stay here, it is becoming almost difficult because they feel they have to fight to get ahead.

Chairman Cook inquired if Ms. Winters dealt with Economic Development Commission or the County; with Ms. Winters responding she was dealing with the Economic Development Commission which tried to get it approved, but the County would say something is not right with the form, and they could not do that. She stated they have waited a long time and do not feel they have gotten anywhere with it. Chairman Cook inquired if Economic Development Commission said the County is holding it up; with Ms. Winters responding Economic Development Commission has tried to pursue this and the County has also, but there is a lot of confusion in developing it, and maybe both parties are at fault, and she cannot say whose fault it is.

Economic Development Director Greg Lugar advised in the case of J. W. Performance, its application was submitted to the County in January, 1996; that is the month Economic Development Commission met and made its recommendations; and the legal opinion submitted by Department of Revenue?s Counsel basically advised that a company is still eligible provided the exempting ordinance is adopted prior to substantial completion or installation of a project. He stated two companies submitted applications that in essence had completed the work prior to the applications being processed; and that is the case with J. W. Performance and Marshall Manufacturing.

Bob Wellen advised part of the problem is the way the Ordinance and Florida Statutes read; and it is difficult for anyone to figure out what is required. He introduced Jim Watts, Vice President of Marshall Manufacturing, Florida Division.

Jim Watts, Vice President and General Manager of Marshall Manufacturing, Florida Division, a Division of a Tennessee Corporation, advised he is not a stockholder in the corporation which was started when the CEO attended an auction sale in 1972, and purchased a few machines and a 15,000 square-foot manufacturing plant in Rockledge. He stated he was hired to oversee the startup of the satellite plant; since then they have moved to Cape Canaveral and purchased the old Chrysler Building which was 39,000 square feet in 1980; and with the recent expansion of 11,000 square feet, they now have 50,000 square feet, 50 plus employees, and a payroll of approximately 1.5 million dollars a year. He stated while considering expansion in early 1995, it was brought to their attention that Brevard County passed a tax abatement Ordinance that they could qualify the expansion under; and although it was not the only reason for the $400,000 expansion, he used it as part of the reasoning for the expenditure when addressing the board of directors to okay the funding. Mr. Watts advised the original Ordinance said they had up to 12 months to apply for the tax abatement; the contract was let in June 1995, and the certificate of occupancy (CO) was issued in February, 1996; they contacted Economic Development Commission in December 1995 and got the paper work in February, 1996, filled it out, and paid the $300 application fee; and on March 1, 1996, he attended an application review meeting with the bond committee and answered all the questions. He stated on April 11 the Economic Development Commission asked for additional information and application due to changes at the County level beyond their control; they provided the information on April 12; and in late April, they were told their application was denied because they got their CO before they filed their application. Mr. Watts advised the original Ordinance said they had a 12-month window; they would not have wasted time and money had they known the Ordinance was changed and they were caught in the middle; and requested they be given consideration due to the confusion in implementing the Ordinance. He noted the intent of the citizens of Brevard County when they passed the tax abatement was not to have this confusion. He stated he is Past President of Brevard County Manufacturing Association and was on the board of directors for three years of Brevard Economic Development Council which became Brevard Economic Corporation, so he is familiar with the workings and worked diligently to simplify some of the processes to bring in new businesses to the area; and the area needs more manufacturing if it is going to survive long term.

Dale Baswell, representing Hydro-Aluminum, stated there has been a lot of confusion; the Ordinance was adopted on February 21, 1995; the CO was granted on May 24 on the equipment which they are still working on; but they were denied exemption on the building. He stated he has a letter from the Brevard County Attorney dated January 5, 1996 saying Hydro-Aluminum is eligible as long as it meets other criteria such as not on the tax roll, which it was not, and application within one year of completion of construction, and it was submitted to Economic Development Commission in 1995. Mr. Baswell offered to Economic Development Commission and Mr. Lugar, to work on a team to help smooth the process out and make it easier for new and expanding businesses.

John Creech, Executive Director of Brevard County Manufacturing Association, advised before the ad valorem tax abatement referendum was put on the ballot, he was involved in background work and legislatively supporting the referendum. He stated from the time it passed, he was directly involved with the three companies as well as others, the Economic Development Commission, and the County in trying to establish a process by which companies can seek applications; and the three companies were biting at the bit to apply for the abatement at the time the voters passed the referendum. He stated he was involved in the Visioning process, and one of the highest needs stated was to create high-wage jobs which come from manufacturing; and when the referendum was passed, the voters made a statement to the County that they need to help the manufacturers in the community. Mr. Creech stated the County has put a lot of effort in developing the process by which application is made for abatement; Economic Development Commission has worked hard also; but the Association has fallen short in not getting more involved in the process at an earlier date. He stated it does not matter whose fault it was; it has cost the companies money and significant time, and denied their abatement; and they want a solution. He stated the message sent to the manufacturing community is we want to help you but you have to jump through hoops and nobody has the clear answers; and the message that needs to be sent is that the County will go to bat for them at any length. Mr. Creech requested an Attorney General?s Opinion (AGO) asking for exemptions for the three companies based on adoption of the master Ordinance. He stated they could go further and ask for blanket exemption regardless of the date of adoption of the master Ordinance, and say in November, 1994, the voters said they wanted to grant abatements to companies that were eligible and expanded after that date. He stated if the County argues with the State and loses, it would at least make a statement to the manufacturers that it wants to help them.

Chairman Cook advised the Florida Statute is one of the reasons that brought this up; the Board has been proactive in creating jobs and assisting companies; and has put in a lot of effort to expand the economy and create jobs. He requested Mr. Knox explain the status of the applications.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised it all arose out of a Department of Revenue Attorney?s opinion that was sought by the Property Appraiser because he was confused about how things were supposed to work; and that attorney issued an opinion saying the Ordinance had to take effect before the substantial completion of any expansion or new project. He stated that is where the particular companies were not qualified because their applications came in at or after the substantial completion had taken place. He stated they are now asking the County to request an AGO as to whether or not the original master Ordinance, which was adopted at or about the time the companies were working on their expansions, can be used as a basis for granting them exemptions. He stated that is an issue that has not been considered by anyone that he knows of and something the Board is able to ask the AGO for at this point.

Chairman Cook stated that would be the rational thing to do and to get additional clarification. He stated the Board is not assessing blame, but it is not the first time he has heard other people say the Economic Development Commission said it is the County?s fault; and he is not sure whether it is or is not, but it needs to be addressed.

Commissioner Higgs advised about a month ago the Board recognized there was some confusion, and directed staff to bring back recommendations to clear up the process, so it has taken action even before today.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to direct the County Attorney to prepare a letter to the Attorney General requesting an opinion to get some clarification on the date criteria of the Ordinance authorizing ad valorem tax abatement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O?Brien inquired about asking the Legislators if it wants to amend the Ordinance passed by Brevard County; with Commissioner Ellis responding the Ordinance was defined by Florida Statutes. Mr. Knox stated the first step would be to get an AGO which may resolve the whole issue; and if it does not work, the next thing would be to go to the Legislative Delegation and ask for a grandfather clause to recognize those companies that came in during that scenario. Commissioner O?Brien stated the inordinate amount of time it takes after application is submitted is disturbing; seven months have passed and it is still unresolved; and the Board should direct staff and Economic Development Commission that 60 days from the date of application to finalization should be sufficient. Chairman Cook stated the Board asked that the procedure be addressed; and inquired what is the status of that; with Mr. Knox responding a draft was sent out about a month ago to the Commissioners and Economic Development Commission; they met with Mr. Wellen and Mr. Creech last week to work out some concerns; and he received their letter a few days ago and will work in their changes and get it to the Board next week or the week after. Chairman Cook recommended the letter to the Attorney General ask for an expedited opinion if possible.

Mr. Wellen stated most of the companies in Brevard County are small in terms of staff and do not have time to spend trying to figure out ordinances and Florida Statutes; so if the Board is going to amend the Ordinance, it should develop a simple one page checklist that can be handed out by Economic Development Commission, at the time a building permit is issued, or wherever it makes sense, so that the average person can understand what he needs to do if he has a business that qualifies. He stated those are the kinds of things Mr. Baswell mentioned he would be willing to serve on a committee for and Mr. Watts and Ms. Winters also volunteered to work on a committee. He stated those are people who have been through the process and understand the pitfalls, and they will give their time to see that the next guy has an easier time of it.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the applications were not held in abeyance, but based on the legal interpretations, they were not being processed. He stated the Economic Development Commission was less familiar with the legal issues than County staff; that was part of the confusion for those people going through the process with Economic Development Commission; when it got to the County, staff had the unpleasant task of telling people they had a legal problem; so it is important to correct that legal issue if possible. He stated some of the applications made through Economic Development Commission were incomplete and took time to get complete information which the Board expected. Mr. Jenkins advised the immediate solution is to have the County process the applications from the beginning; Economic Development Commission was told that it would not have to review the applications, the County will do it and send it to them for their Board?s review; and by having the review process coordinated by one person, that should eliminate a lot of the confusion they experienced in the past. He stated he will have Mr. Lugar meet with the Manufacturing Association to identify any additional problems that can be eliminated, and move forward that way. Chairman Cook stated it sounds good.

Chairman Cook advised John Anderson informed me for the time being they would like to withdraw renaming Lake Andrew Drive to Andrew Hillman Drive and will let us know what happens.

John Anderson advised because of a conversation he had with Commissioner O?Brien, he discovered Lake Andrew Drive was named after the Duda family patriarch. He stated he spoke to Mason Blake and thought it would be important to be sensitive to the Duda family and not pursue the renaming of the road.

Commissioner O?Brien advised when the Board renamed St. Johns Street as Judge Fran Jamieson Way, the Duda Company and The Viera Company were upset because St. Johns Road was named after Mr. Duda. He stated when he spoke to Mr. Anderson about renaming Lake Andrew Drive, he asked him to call them to find out if it was named after one of the family members, and it was.

Warren Smith, Director of Business Development for Waste Management, Inc. of Florida, advised the Board has a tremendous asset in the Central Disposal Landfill; the landfill can be reconfigured to provide over 50 years of life; County staff may disagree, but there is available many more years of life at the existing facility; and the benefits are substantial cost savings to the County, keeping the money at home, and Brevard County maintaining total control of its solid waste disposal system. He stated the County has accomplished a lot over the last year in the RFP process, but with a little more effort, the County could cover all the bases; and requested the Board consider a new RFP to maximize the CDL site and not make it too complicated or expensive, to find out what all the options are and the costs to the County. He noted if the Board does not like what it gets under a new RFP, it could do it itself, and they are willing to take that chance.

Attorney Clifton McClelland, representing Waste Management, advised the cost savings available, by sticking with the proposal Waste Management made, are very substantial, so much so that it would be reflected in the average rates each year; so as a matter of public policy, the Board deserves to go back out with an RFP and look at the proposal.

Winston Gardner, representing Waste Management, advised he has not seen the recommendation but assumes it rules out the Sanifill site and concentrates on the Okeechobee site; the Okeechobee site will be there, but what the Board has now is one bidder; and it is hard to have competition with only one bidder. He suggested the Board hold the one bidder aside because there is no incentive for serious negotiations, and issue a new RFP to see what other opportunities are available at the Cocoa site and introduce competition into the equation which may result in a better price.

Mark Roth, 2777 Allen Parkway, Houston, Texas, representing Sanifill, Inc., managing partner of Brevard County Landfill Company, requested the Board override the recommendation of the Selection Committee; and stated contrary to what Waste Management said, the Board still has two options and two bids. He stated the Selection Committee fell victim to public resentment of waste disposal facilities and was pressured into making its recommendation; public issues generally come out because they do not understand the issues; most waste disposal facilities are controversial; but the environmentally-concerned citizens who stated their points of view were mostly emotion and not technical. He stated they failed to realize the area proposed for a landfill is not pristine nor environmentally sensitive due to agricultural and ranching activities that destroyed the wetlands; and their proposal included funds to restore those wetlands. Mr. Roth stated people failed to recognize there is an uncontrolled burn facility less than half a mile from Deer Run Subdivision; they failed to acknowledge the uncontrolled runoff that may get into the C-54 canal from agriculture, ranching and residential uses; and their facility, although controversial as most projects of its type are, is sound, well sited, and serves the best interest of the majority of Brevard County citizens. He noted the issues raised by private citizens are generally addressed during the permitting of the facility and not by the Selection Committee which was appointed to recommend what will benefit the County in the long run. Mr. Roth advised review of the numbers of what has been proposed and what Chambers is proposing will show they can give the County what it needs, save the County money over the long period, and give it control of its solid waste system. He requested the Board defer the proposals at this time for further review, create a non-county employee selection committee that would not succumb to public pressure, and hold a workshop to discuss the issues.

Commissioner Ellis advised the County did an economic analysis on a system-wide basis before it even had public comment; and they worked with the results of that analysis. He stated there is not an uncontrolled burn facility north of Deer Run; it was supposed to be a curtain incinerator permitted through Department of Environmental Protection and they had uncontrolled burns in violation of the permit; but they are not permitted to go out there and burn at will.

Thomas McDevitt, 13955 113th Street, Fellsmere, representing People Against Landfills, advised he lives close to the area proposed by Sanifill of Texas for its facility; the Sanifill representative is is not from this State and does not know about its environment; and the best option is Chambers which the Selection Committee looked at. He stated a facility in South Florida takes waste and burns it to create energy which communities can use; Sanifill was poorly prepared and did not know the type of area they were proposing to put their landfill; and it is a very sensitive area. He stated he and his wife volunteer for Department of Environmental Protection and St. Johns River Water Management District, and are in the process of establishing a horse-riding trail and other things on 22,000 acres which were purchased to be kept in a pristine condition; and it is a mistake for the Board to consider turning something beautiful into a regional waste distribution site. Mr. McDevitt stated there are a lot of problems the Board is not aware of, such as how the area will be accessed; Sanifill wants to table the issue so it can get back into the ball game and maybe even relocate the site; and he objects to that and hopes the Board does not consider Sanifill?s proposal. He stated they do not know about the underground rivers and the environment, and they want to put an untested liner in the ground that has not been proven in this State.

John Moyle, representing Chambers, waived his time to be heard, and stated he will respond to questions.

Bill Gresham, representing Chambers/USA Waste, advised the RFQ and RFP process has been long and expensive for all parties; it was composed of all the major waste companies in the United States; and in response to the opportunity for the Central Disposal Facility, exporting the South County waste by Chambers will give more life to the facility and more time for the Board to look into that. He stated the RFP process resulted in two viable bids from the private sector which met the contractual and risk liability requirements of the County; at the Selection Committee meeting, the Committee concluded its work and recommended approval of Chamber?s proposal and to authorize negotiations; and they concur with the recommendation, and would like to proceed. Mr. Gresham stated their proposal has a good and competitive price, is a cost-effective method of handling Brevard?s solid waste, and proposes an excellent private/public partnership where government will manage and the private sector will provide the professional services. He stated the Board?s approval today would allow the Solid Waste staff to work with them without restrictions inherent in the gag rule, and they can respond to questions and negotiate a tailor-made agreement which will optimize the solid waste management system for South Brevard County. He noted the results of the negotiations could be presented to the Board in a workshop format if desired for discussion and approval. He stated today they have a team here and are prepared to answer any questions the Board may have; and commented teaming up with Chambers/USA Waste today could answer many solid waste management questions for the next 100 years in Brevard County.

Cindy McDevitt, 13955 113th Street, Fellsmere, representing People Against Landfill, stated she is one of those stupid common folk who go on emotions more than technical data, but she notices her surroundings and what is going on; and it is interesting to see why BCLC is still being considered especially after being blatantly caught in so many lies. She stated they have no concern or interest in the environment or quality of life here, being they are from Texas and none of this will affect them; and knowing how important integrity and honesty is, the Commissioners should see through them and not let them seduce anyone into believing they are a reputable company. She noted Chambers was vocalized as being the company of choice; if it is so important to have another landfill, South Brevard would be a very bad choice as it is a very environmentally sensitive area; and the St. Johns District and Department of Environmental Protection have targeted the area for conservation. Ms. McDevitt stated if the Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan goes into effect, the landfill would be detrimental to the health of the area; and if the Board needs a landfill, the most logical choice would be behind the Government Center which is centralized and have good roads in and out, and everyone works indoors so it would not affect them. She stated a big point seemed to be control of its own destiny; and inquired if destiny is being in control of the garbage or taking care of the environment, people, and quality of life. She stated there is no need for a landfill anywhere in Brevard County; Chambers has taken care of that; and they were very professional versus BCLC or Sanifill which would end up costing much more in money and quality of life in Brevard County.

Gerald Gresh, representing Florida Waste Services of America, advised he is a partner in BCA landfill proposal before the Board; and there was a substantial cost analysis performed on all the proposals. He stated with the system, as it is operated with a transfer station taking waste to the County facility, versus Chamber taking waste out of the County or developing a new site, the analysis had different percentages going to different sites; and in every case, their proposal was the least costly to the people of Brevard County. He stated the first case was no transfer station and taking 60% directly to the South County facility and 40% to Central; the next case was to continue operations or build a new transfer station and take it to the Central facility; and the third case was Chambers proposal which is what the consultants determined, but the environment keeps coming up. Mr. Gresh stated the environment of the C-54 canal is being degraded now by the land they propose to use as a landfill; they propose to upgrade it and stated that in their proposal; and the County will have control. He stated it is important to have control over the long-term destiny and not rely on a site 90 miles away; so they would like to have consideration of the most cost-effective proposal that was submitted.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board has a whole list of things to consider, it owns some property and needs to determine if it should proceed with it; it also may want to eliminate Sanifill?s proposal; and it could go out with an RFP for the Central Disposal Facility. He inquired if the Board intends to discuss all those options today; with Chairman Cook responding they are complex issues, so he is open to suggestions from the Board. Commissioner Scarborough recommended discussing all the options. Chairman Cook stated it should schedule a workshop even if it decides only to discuss Chambers? proposal because it is a massive proposal; Deseret property may warrant more discussion to decide what the Board wants to do with that; and if the Board wants to take Sanifill out of the equation, it could address that also. Commissioner Ellis stated that decision can be made today. Commissioner Scarborough recommended disposing of Sanifill and discussing the other options. Commissioner Ellis stated the big advantage of Chambers? proposal is it does not preclude the option to optimize the Central Disposal facility.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to eliminate Sanifill?s proposal for solid waste disposal services within the South County service area.

Commissioner Higgs advised the recommendation from the Selection Committee was to begin negotiations with Chambers Waste Systems; and that is the motion that needs to be made so the Board will know specifically all the aspects of that contract.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Sanifill?s proposal is too disruptive to the community to warrant pursuing it further, therefore, he is ready to abandon it and look at the other options of Deseret property, expansion of the CDL, and Chamber?s proposal. He suggested the Board start negotiations with Chambers and the Mormons on repurchase of the Deseret property, and put out an RFP to expand the CDL; and it would move forward with all three options simultaneously. Chairman Cook recommended disposing of Sanifill?s proposal first.

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

Commissioner Ellis recommended a motion to authorize negotiations with Chambers. Chairman Cook inquired if the Board wanted to review all the options that are left at the workshop. Commissioner O?Brien recommended waiting until the workshop rather than wasting time negotiating with Chambers and at the workshop decide not to go with that proposal and go with the Deseret property. He stated he is not willing to give up the Deseret site at this time as a viable way to provide this service.

Discussion ensued on consideration of the three options available, the need to have the details of those options in order to make a final decision, and negotiations with Chambers to have a price to work with.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to direct staff to seek the best deal from Chambers.

Chairman Cook inquired if staff will make a presentation at the workshop on what Chamber proposes and what it will cost, and on Deseret property options and expansion of the Central facility. Commissioner Scarborough stated the motion is to seek the best deal from Chambers then come back and amplify that.

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

Commissioner O?Brien suggested a workshop on the 3 options, explore them thoroughly, and look at financial comparisons on the use of Deseret property versus Chambers? plan or any other plan.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to schedule a workshop on Solid Waste Disposal Services within South County Service Area to discuss the Chambers? proposal, use of Deseret property, and expansion of the Central Disposal Facility, including financial comparisons.

Commissioner Ellis advised there is more involved than the cost per ton; how much is pulled out of the Cocoa facility raises the cost per ton; and inquired if the waste stream is large enough to justify two full service landfills. He stated when the analysis came back on two full service landfills, which would have been Sanifill and Cocoa, there was almost no difference between that and Chambers; in one option Chambers was actually two cents cheaper per ton; and if the Board goes back to Deseret property, it will pull a large waste stream out of Cocoa, so the Cocoa cost per ton will rise significantly since much of the cost involved are fixed capital or fixed operating. He stated reducing the tonnage will have minimal effect on reducing operating cost. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board does not hold the Deseret land for free; there is an opportunity cost involved with holding an eight-million dollar property; and that is about $400,000 per year in interest.

Chairman Cook stated the decision on the Deseret property should have been made two years ago, but since it was not, it is important enough to consider it when making a decision on the future needs of the County. Commissioner Ellis stated not making a decision there does not come without cost. Commissioner Higgs stated the land was purchased in 1991 and may be something the County may want to use, so she wants to look at it again as an option. She stated the Board needs to make a good decision about what to do with solid waste; and it deserves serious analysis before selling the land back. Chairman Cook stated it may not be viable to use the Deseret property; however, the Board needs to make a final decision before it disposes of the property.

Commissioner O?Brien stated the motion is to schedule a workshop to discuss Chambers, Deseret, and other options such as Cocoa landfill expansion.

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

The meeting recessed at 12:02 p.m. and reconvened at 1:08 p.m.

Commissioner O?Brien advised he discussed putting reuse lines under the Barge Canal and down Courtenay Parkway with Richard Martens; Mr. Martens left the impression it is not feasible for the residents to do that; but after further discussion and thought, he recommended a survey be done and the item return to the Board after the survey. He stated if a survey is done, an honest decision can be made for reuse water on South Merritt Island.

Water Resources Director Richard Martens inquired if the Board had comments on the wording of the questionnaire; with Commissioner O?Brien responding it could ask four questions--(1) Do you currently water your lawn with city water, yes or no; (2) do you currently water your lawn with well water; (3) if available, would you use reclaimed water for your lawn, yes or no; and (4) would you be willing to pay $15 a month for unlimited use of reclaimed water. He stated the unlimited use statement may be deceiving because there are times when there will not be enough reclaimed water to put into the system. Mr. Martens stated he has that problem in the South-Central service area where they have a very large reclaimed water distribution system; but for the foreseeable future, he is not sure Merritt Island would experience that. He stated they do not run short on the South Beaches because the service area is limited; and he can strike "unlimited" and use "unmetered" instead. Commissioner O?Brien stated that would be better.

Chairman Cook inquired if $15 would pay for the installation of the project; with Mr. Martens responding yes, but it would require a high percentage of participation in excess of 85%. He stated they are still working on the numbers; there is no preliminary design; the numbers are budget level numbers; and they will not have hard numbers until they have a preliminary design.

Discussion ensued on a $125 connection fee, and decrease in water bills.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct staff to send out a questionnaire asking residents four questions and if they would be willing to pay a $15 a month fee and one-time connection fee of $125 for unmetered use of reclaimed water; and return to the Board with a report in October, 1996. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to authorize advertising a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Coastal Setback and Control Lines. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis recommended acceptance of the donation and approval of a marker recognizing Ms. Kosinski.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to acquire a bronze plaque honoring Ms. Kosinski and Patsy?s Shell Shop paid for from District 5 Beach and Riverfront funds; and request the Historical Society provide a legend for the plaque. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to accept a Trustee?s Deed from the Estate of Patricia Kosinski donating 3.3 acres of beachfront property to the County for Canova Park, subject to reservation and rights of re-entry, and authorize staff to obtain title insurance for the property. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Amendment to Contract with Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. to provide additional engineering services for Dairy Road South Widening Project at $112,844. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Amendment to Contract with Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc. to provide additional engineering services for Malabar Road Widening Project, from I-95 to Curvet Circle West, at $1,450.50, and from Curvet Circle West to Minton Road, at $255,506.20. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to begin review of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the Comprehensive Plan in October, 1996, with a workshop. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson advised of a request from the City of Cocoa which owns Provost Park which is maintained and operated by the Special Taxing District, to name a pavilion for Dennis Smith who was a victim of violent crime.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to authorize naming a pavilion at Provost Park, the Dennis Smith Pavilion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Bruce Feher advised his wife is employed by the Brevard Workforce Development Board, therefore he has an interest in the situation; in November, 1995, Mr. Noren, the former head of the Board, was released; close to that time the Chairman of the Board, Linda South, assumed the responsibilities of interim president; the newspaper said she would be involved in seeking a professional leader for the Board; and as of this date, he has not seen or heard anything. He stated November, 1995 to July, 1996 is a long time; and he would like to know if interviews were conducted, how much longer will the community need to have an interim president, and if the County Commission has any way to expedite the process. Mr. Feher advised most of the employees are required to have experience and a college degree; and a position of that nature requires a serious professional to guide the Board in the proper direction to serve the citizens of Brevard County.

Attorney Dan McDermott, 1970 Michigan Avenue, Cocoa, representing the Brevard Workforce Development Board, advised the former Executive Director resigned in November 1995; however, State legislation was being modified dramatically, and came down earlier this year in legislative form. He stated Enterprise Florida has taken a larger lead; and there has been significant changes in the organization of the State with respect to JTPA funds. He stated because of that, the Board appointed Linda South to take leadership of the organization upon Mr. Noren?s resignation; she did not assume anything, the Board asked her and she accepted; and she has done a fantastic job since then. Mr. McDermott advised because of the time delay in the legislation coming down and the perceived changes at the federal level, the Board decided to leave her in an interim position until the dust settled. He stated the position has been advertised; a selection committee of the Board has been formed; and it is anticipated by September 1, 1996, an executive director will be on board. He noted the individuals appointed by the County Commission will be making the selection of the executive director. Commissioner Ellis inquired if something will be submitted to the Board later; with Mr. McDermott responding it was anticipated that there would be additional issues raised, so Ms. South put together a package on some of the awards the Brevard Workforce Development Board has recently received; last week the Board received one of 12 grants nationally to place one-stop career centers in low-income housing areas; it is the only Board in the southeast that received such an award; and there are a number of other awards the Board received. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the packet includes a track record of the number of people processed and budget results; with Mr. McDermott responding he is not sure that is in the packet, but they are always available to give the Board that kind of information.

Linda South advised they are at the end of their one-year plan; she has performance standards for the last 11 months in the packet; those standards are set by the Governor for seven key areas; service delivery may miss, exceed, or excel those standards; and Brevard exceeds the standards in three areas and excels in four areas. She stated the current performance data is quite solid; and it is verified by agencies and not her words. Commissioner Ellis inquired if they have the number of people admitted, number trained, and number of completions; with Ms. South responding she did not prepare that package, but would be delighted to do so if the Board wants it. She noted Mr. Feher?s letter was specific about asking the Board to write the Governor to disband the Workforce Board; it is a new board; and the objective is to choose its own executive director in the interim status she has held since November, and during significant legislative changes. Ms. South advised the packet indicates the quality of the organization, national recognition received, and status of audits; the organization is a fine organization and has been operating extremely well in the last few months; and if the Board has questions about the number of people and cost per placement, she will get those for the Board. Commissioner Ellis stated it would be a bottom-line analysis of how things are going.

Commissioner O?Brien advised he would like to see what the executive director is paid, what secretaries are paid, what the overhead cost is, and specific information, because it is tax dollars and incumbent upon the Board to ask those questions. Chairman Cook suggested that information be provided to all Commissioners. Ms. South stated she would come before the Board and give it all the data it wants if that is the proper format.

Chairman Cook advised he has concerns that he did not want to mix with Mr. Feher?s concerns because it has no relationship to what he has; it has been a compressed process as mandated by the State; and his concerns are the level of participation by appointees and the give and take of information. He stated he has concerns about the JEB Board in general; and maybe the additional information will help allay some of those concerns. Ms. South advised if she is told exactly what the Board is looking for, she will get all that information, as it is readily available and easy to get. Chairman Cook stated millions of tax dollars will go through the Board; and it is appropriate, since the Commission appointed the members, to take an active interest in what is going on.

Commissioner Ellis stated he would like to see last fiscal year?s expenditures, the number of people enrolled in the program, number of people completing the program, placement of people completing the program, the average wage, and the follow up on those people. Ms. South advised she can be at the next meeting with that information for the Board or she can give it to the Commissioners individually and speak with them one-on-one.

Chairman Cook stated it has not made the 60% private business/industry, and that is another concern; with Ms. South responding they are still accumulating the nominations and are close to having the number they need. Chairman Cook stated there seems to be very few organizations where the nominations are coming from; and inquired who chose those organizations; with Ms. South responding they were prescribed by the JTPA law as being a general business organization or an organization that receives businesses as membership; and they have gone before multiple different organizations. Chairman Cook inquired if JEB is under that same constraint; with Ms. South responding the sitting of the Private Industry Council for which the JEB assumes the responsibility is prescribed under federal JTPA so the appointment to that board must follow JTPA law. Chairman Cook stated he is anxious to get the 60% otherwise they will get the same people and influence and perspective. He stated opening up the perspective is very important. He advised when people come on and are new to the process, they cannot understand what is happening and end up being told what they need to do.

Ms. South advised it is the Board?s intent to come to the Commission one more time with the entire board after it has met. She stated when the Commission seated the Board there were some statutory additions to the Board such as specific community based organizations; in order to get the business seats up to 60%, the Commissioner requested they take 12 more nominations; the last time they came to the Commission they were having difficulty getting those total nominations; and she is about five short right now and utilizing all the Chambers, Economic Development Commission, Manufacturing Association, and Leadership Brevard to get those nominations in. She stated it requires a lot of effort on the part of the Board; they have been doing a significant amount of Board training that requires contribution of busy people?s times for large blocks of time in order to get them up to speed to conduct very important business of the Board; and it is a balance between hitting those and being respectful of their time as volunteers on the Board.

Chairman Cook stated as the governing board they are there for a reason and should participate and if someone has joined the Board, it should be an act of participating. He stated it is not ceremonial; millions of dollars will be dispersed through that Board, so they should take an active interest; and if they cannot, then they should resign and allow the Commission to appoint somebody else. Ms. South agreed.

Commissioner O?Brien advised the letter from Mr. Feher states "if in fact a relationship does exist between County Commissioners, Paxen and BWBD, some could consider this involvement a conflict of interest;" and inquired what that is about.

Commissioner Higgs advised the company in which she owns interest and which her partners and she own is called the Paxen Group; they have done business in employment and training in the County since the early 1980's; they do business around the southeast and nation; and she will provide a packet which includes a list of every vote that has been taken dealing with any of the employment and training funds and issues. She stated the packet also includes a memo from County Attorney Scott Knox on conflict of interest; it explains that she does not have and has not had a conflict of interest; and it includes a letter from the Division of Ethics dealing with the issue of whether or not she did have a conflict of interest, and she does not. Commissioner Higgs stated she has done nothing improper, illegal, or unethical in any of her votes or non-votes; and the issues raised have no substance. She stated she wants the Board to have the packet; she will have it in her office if anyone wants it; and it will be part of the public record.

Commissioner O?Brien stated he did not know Commissioner Higgs? company was the Paxen Group; no one responded to the last paragraph, so he thought it was important to respond; and Commissioner Higgs has declared a conflict of interest whenever it came up and has put it on record, so he has no problem with it.

Mr. Feher stated he would be interested to know if the awards were received as a result of Ms. South?s efforts or because of efforts prior to her taking over. He stated he finds it very interesting, as stated in his letter, that Ms. South?s qualifications would not qualify her for a job as an employee in most positions there, because in order to be employed, a person has to have experience, background, a college degree for most jobs, and they have someone without all of those getting executive pay. He stated he does not know what her salary is, but he is sure she is not doing it for free. Chairman Cook stated all the information requested will be public information and that is one of the questions Commissioner O?Brien asked; so it will be available to Mr. Feher at that time.

Mr. McDermott advised if Mr. Feher or any Commissioner has questions regarding anything about the operation, they will be happy to respond; only upon receiving the letter did they know Mr. Feher had questions; and he takes personal exception to the allegations made about Ms. South?s qualifications and ability to lead. Chairman Cook inquired if the decision on the director?s position has not been made; with Mr. McDermott responding they are in the process of doing that.

Chairman Cook inquired if Legendary was pulled or is it back on; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding it is back on.

Commissioner Scarborough advised in talking to the County Manager, they can go with Windover Trail; everybody out there likes it; so he will move approval of that.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to adopt Resolution naming a 66-foot wide road right-of-way in Section 29, Township 22S., Range 35E. as Windover Trail. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Priscilla Griffith, President of Partnership for a Sustainable Future, Inc., advised the Partnership is a coalition of organizations and individuals concerned about the future of Brevard County; and they are convinced that the only way Brevard County can deal with growth without compromising those qualities which make the County such a desirable place to live is to incorporate the principles of sustainable development into the policies, goals, and objectives of the long-range comprehensive plan. She read as follows: "Sustainable means using resources wisely for today and tomorrow; and sustainable development is ?that which meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.? The Governor?s Commission for Sustainable South Florida recently issued its initial report. What the report has to say, with some changes in wording, applies to Brevard County. We must restore the Indian River Lagoon and other eco-systems to provide adequate supplies of clean safe water for the natural human and economic systems. We must prevent and reverse pollution in our air, land, and water, plants and animals to achieve and maintain a clean and healthy environment. We must limit urban sprawl through the use of rational and coherent land use planning. Such planning would protect environmental resources and encourage re-design and re-development supported by good public transportation. We must protect wildlife and natural areas and provide natural and recreational areas for public use. We must create sustainable quality communities and jobs, providing lifelong education and training to ensure a better educated and higher paid workforce while improving the quality of life through better health care, housing, safety, and cultural progress. We do not want Brevard County to degenerate into a polarized divided community of special interest groups fighting each other over increasingly scarce resources. We do not want polluted waters, fouled beaches, floods, loss of plants and animals, and increasingly divided society, economic disparity, and crime. Brevard County citizens do not want this fate for our County. Florida TODAY?s Brevard pole ?96 revealed that residents are deeply concerned about crime, the environment and the economy, and they are willing to sacrifice economic growth in favor of the environment. Such a sacrifice is not necessary if we follow the common sense principles of sustainable growth. Preserving the environment will provide economic growth. We ask that the County Commission exercise the wise leadership that this County needs and lead the quest for sustain ability in Brevard County.

Chairman Cook expressed appreciation to Ms. Griffith for her presentation.

The meeting recessed at 1:56 p.m. and reconvened at 2:08 p.m.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised at the end of April, 1996, the Board raised questions and issues regarding the leasing process and requested a response from the State; staff sent a letter and the State responded; and Mr. Berrigan from Florida Department of Environmental Protection is here to discuss it and answer any additional questions.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the memo has five issues, and it may be best for the State to respond to each issue.

Mark Berrigan, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, advised he will respond to the letter from the Chairman to Kathy Carter, Clerk in the Office of General Counsel, which identifies six items; at previous meetings Commissioners had problems with a number of those items; and he did not digest them or condense them so they are long and general. He stated they provided a statement of the Department?s policy, explaining the statutory references for individual issues, how they are handled in the lease, and the rationale for that, and provided some options. He advised the first issue is Brevard County asserts that the standard lease term of ten years with a ten-year renewal option is too long a period to commit to public lands; the policy is they recommend the lease term of ten years, but they can recommend lease terms of less than ten years; and the Department would consider the will of the Board in making a recommendation for approving aquaculture leases for shorter terms. He stated the Board should provide justification for asking for it because the leaseholders would be held to a different standard than those in the other parts of the State. He stated another option would be the status quo option which would be to continue the lease terms of ten years; and in dealing with renewals, they could set conditions. Mr. Berrigan advised the second issue deals with subleasing; the Board was concerned about subleasing and historical events with subleasing that have been unacceptable; the present policy is that it is a condition of the lease that the leased area be subleased, assigned, or otherwise transferred; and that is backed up in statute that provides that the leases can be assignable in whole or in part. He stated they could prohibit subleasing; it is something they can deal with in the lease; or they can provide for subleasing under specific conditions such as prior approval of the Board of County Commissioners, which would be another level of review besides the Department. He stated they could include additional fees if there will be subleasing so that there would be equitable compensation; and a problem with subleasing has been that the State is not always getting a fair shake for the lease that is made at a low rate and subleased at a higher rate. Mr. Berrigan advised Issue 3 deals with lease fees which is a multi-faceted issue; and it deals with lease fees may be too low, should be raised to more accurately reflect the market value of the lease, and should be competitively bid to allow market demand to determine the fees. He stated there are a number of statutory references that show how the lease fees are set; the policy is set at $15.00; the State looked at a combination of factors to determine the value that it is accruing from the leases; and the State does not feel it is not necessary that it accrue or generate revenues directly from the lease, but supporting the business and making the business successful will in turn generate new dollars in taxes that will provide revenues to the State in other ways. He advised the fee is set at a minimum of $15.00, so there is latitude to adjust the fee; and the options that are presented in dealing with lease fees are to continue to charge a low annual rental fee, negotiate a higher annual rental fee with riparian and non-riparian applicants who nominate the specific sites, and to seek competitive bids for leases that are designated in high density lease areas. He stated those options are currently available; none are really innovative; but they would not require substantial change in policy. Mr. Berrigan advised Issue No. 4 is that a portion of the fee should be returned to local governments; the current policy is that fees collected for shellfish and aquaculture leases are deposited in the Marine Biological Research Trust Fund; and that is a statutory requirement. He stated there are no provisions to provide those funds to counties; however, with statutory amendments, the criteria could be changed, or allocations from the Marine Biological Research Trust Fund could be established such that monies are returned to counties. He stated the options provided were to seek appropriate legislation to establish a surcharge to be returned to counties or seek appropriate legislation to provide for funds to be appropriated to the counties from the Marine Biological Research Trust Fund. He noted another option is to establish a local fee to be levied on aquaculture leases through a county ordinance, or to establish an aquaculture fee through an occupational license or county activity fee. Mr. Berrigan advised Issue No. 5 concerns leases containing revocation clause should the leaseholder be convicted of a crime against an upland property owner which results from activities relating to the lease operation; that issue is separate from activities that the Department and Division of Marine Resources are associated with in that it would probably involve civil actions or unlawful actions that would probably be covered under other jurisdictions; and there are statutory references that deal with what the lessee can do on the lease, but there is very little statutory requirement for or prohibitions against what he does at other times when he is not operating on the lease. He noted there are conditions of the lease that can be established to set up what can be done on the lease, and those conditions can include what can and cannot be on residential docks, etc., such as a lease could not be accessed directly from a residential dock, or a residential dock could not be used for commercial purposes such as unloading clams, etc. He stated just because a lessee has a residential dock does not mean he can do something of a commercial nature on that dock; but from a legal standpoint there is a question of jurisdiction as to what they can do to a lessee who is involved in a civil action of the other nature. He stated the options that were looked at are, from a legal standpoint, to add conditions to the lease that would provide revocation of the lease when the leaseholder is convicted of a crime against an upland property owner; but they would have to determine the legal jurisdiction of those things; however, the Department could take administrative action which could say it felt the action was of a nature that affected the relationship as leaseholder and lessee. He stated he is not familiar with any administrative actions that have been taken in the cases of aquaculture leases, but has been told they have been taken in cases of other types of leases; so there are administrative options. Mr. Berrigan advised the final Issue is one that deals directly with resource management and involves the question if the State should disclose its overall Brevard County aquaculture leasing and management plans, as the Board may wish to establish limits on the total acreage committed to leases and needs to know what the potential lease acreage may be. He stated he has provided a draft of an earlier report that outlines the steps that could be taken to establish a management plan for aquaculture in Brevard County; the Department would encourage the development of a plan and the contributions and cooperation from the Board of County Commissioners and staff of the County; and the Division of Marine Resources, in commenting on this, felt that they would be presumptive in trying to present an aquaculture management plan to the County without that cooperation. He stated the scope of that answer is in the form of suggesting a way to go; and they would be happy to cooperate with the County in any way they can to bring a management plan to fruition. Mr. Berrigan advised there is a requirement within the State for them to assist in development of State Aquaculture Plan; he is dealing with three or four other counties in developing county aquaculture plans; so it would be very timely; and all the counties could probably contribute substantially to what is needed to bring about a State Aquaculture Management Plan. He stated aside from the management plan, there was a request to provide the near term plan and acreage requirements; those are presented in the options as being decided on a percentage of available acreage that would be put into aquaculture leases; and the percentage could be based on the total aquatic acreage, total area and individual shellfish harvesting areas, total area open with individual harvesting areas, or percentage of the area that is actually suitable for shellfish aquaculture. He noted Tables 4, 5 and 6 are attempts to summarize the amount of acreage that is currently being leased and the amount of acreage that will be leased with the pending applications; and Table 6 shows what an aquaculture plan proposed cap would be as an example. He stated in each case they have shown what the percentages of the total areas are, the total shellfish harvesting area is, but not the individual percentages of individual harvesting areas because it made the tables too complicated to follow; however, they can be figured out because the total acreage for each respective shellfish harvesting area is given. Mr. Berrigan advised key points are that the 35 aquaculture leases in the County make up less than one-tenth of one per cent of the total shellfish harvesting area; the total shellfish leases in the County are 77, and account for 728 acres; and that accounts for less than one-half of one per cent of the total aquatic acreage. He noted combined with the pending leases, it would be eight-tenths of a per cent, so they are still less than one percent of the total aquatic acreage; and the cap that is given in parenthesis of another 200 acres spread throughout the County, would raise the total to less than one per cent.

Gray Brewer, 4225 Indian River Drive, Cocoa, advised his father purchased a nine-acre parcel in 1965; worked it as a horticultural nursery; and there are two existing riparian aquaculture leases that are one-half mile north of the property of about one acre each. He stated they are very small leases compared to the five acres that is normally given; they experienced some neighborhood opposition; but now they are productive enterprises and do not seem to bother anyone on the riverfront. He inquired why a government would pay to bring jobs to Brevard County and train people to be productive then turn around and not approve the leases to employ themselves. He stated a non-objection is all they are seeking from the Board; he has been dealing with Department of Environmental Protection for the last two and a half years; his is the longest lease going; and the clammers are caught up in a conflict between Department of Environmental Protection and the Brevard County Commission. He requested a non-objection from the Board to continue his riparian lease and provide himself with employment so he can keep the land in his family.

Barry Moore, 465 Milford Point Drive, Merritt Island, President of the Florida Shellfish Farms Association and member of the Florida Aquaculture Association, read an excerpt from a news article that came out in Seafood Leader, as follows: "With so many competing interests, environmental protection versus economic growth, commercial and recreational fishing, etc., finding points of consensus in the Chesapeake is no easy task. Among the few, not many show more promise than aquaculture. For evidence consider Cherrystone Aquaculture Farms in Cheriton, Virginia. The extensive clam beds in sheltered waters off Virginia?s eastern shore. The company is already a major producer of little clams with 1994 production of 20 million clams worth 3.5 million in sales. With the year old hatchery up in the road in Willis Wharf, the company plans to boost these numbers to 80 million clams and 12 million dollars. You might think such an aggressive road plan would invite the ire of environmental groups. Think again. In fact Cherrystone was named in 1994 "Conservationist of the Year" by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a major environmental organization dedicated to saving the Bay. The company noted Chesapeake Foundation Chairman Thomas Stoner at the time clearly demonstrated that a healthy environment and a vibrant economy are two sides of the same coin."

Lucy Horsch, Secretary of Florida Shellfish Farmers Association, advised she is a clam farmer in Body C, and thinks the Commissioners who rejected the leases are misguided in their concerns and have become mired in details and lost sight of the bigger picture which is that clam farming is of great benefit to the ecology of the lagoon and economy of Brevard County and the State of Florida. She stated the biggest threat to the health of the lagoon is stormwater runoff which brings dirt and fertilizers to the River; the resulting algae blooms kill fish and harm seagrasses by diminishing sunlight penetration; and clam farming can do its part to rectify that at no cost or risk to anyone by the farmer. Ms. Horsch stated each adult clam filters 25 gallons of river water a day, removing offending algae and suspended solids, so it would seem only wise to have more clams and more clarification of the water. She stated the struggling seagrass beds in the lagoon would benefit greatly; their plantings provide new areas of habitat for the protection of many juvenile species; the clam beds attract fish and fishermen, ad crabbers love to frequent the leases; and they provide jobs, buy boats and houses, and bring new money into Brevard?s economy. Ms. Horsch advised the leases are only allowed in areas where there are virtually no seagrasses or wild clams; the public is allowed full access to fish, swim, and boat over the leases; and the Board heard all that before but still it objected. She stated the Board does not feel the leasing program is administered properly; however, Department of Environmental Protection has amass a lot of experience statewide in dealing with clam farming leases; and there are sound reasons for leases being five acres and the term being ten years with a ten-year renewal. She advised they need at least five acres to raise a large enough crop to make a living since losses can be high and they cannot plant too densely; they need ten years with a ten-year renewal to give farmers a chance to start up and get going; and it takes years to get any real profit back, especially since the lowered salinity is making their crops grow even slower than usual. She noted as with any farming endeavor, there are bad years that knock them back; it is obvious to them and Department of Environmental Protection why a ten-year term with ten-year renewal is essential; and if the term is shortened, it will hand them a prescription for failure, whether they are existing farmers, new farmers, or out of work netters. Ms. Horsch advised some of the lease applications are from existing farmers who need to expand or diversify to escape from fresh water intrusion; without the sweat, toil, and pioneering efforts of those people, the industry would not exist; and the Board would not be able to contemplate re-training netters as clam farmers. She stated the existing farmers should not be penalized by denying them what they need to continue in the business; the Harbor Branch training site is separate from any of the leases currently before the Board; those leases do not usurp the training site in any way; and the applicants she spoke to are willing to forego the ability to sublease and to pay a fee to the County in order to perform their aquacultural activities. Ms. Horsch suggested the Board establish a County aquaculture registration with a revocation clause if it is legal; Department of Environmental Protection is proposing to raise the lease fees to $50 per acre per year for the first five years of the term and $100 per acre per year for the next five years; and perhaps that will satisfy the Board?s desire to see higher lease fees. She stated she does not understand the Board?s attitude that it has to protect the people of the County from the clam farmers; the new State aquaculture bill deems aquaculture to be in the public interest and mandates that State agencies foster the development of the industry; but Brevard County seems to be doing just the opposite. She stated whatever the Board decides, she wants it to know that she is very proud of what she does and only wish the Board was also.

Nicholas Hill, 4945 Owens Avenue, Grant, advised he is a third generation lease person; his grandfather grew oysters in Virginia; and he grew up on leases and have been around them all his life. He stated his father grew oysters on two leases in Brevard County totaling 230 acres in the 1960's and 1970's; as a displaced fisherman, he has gone to Harbor Branch Seminar and checked that out; and the Brevard County Workforce failed to appropriate the money that was there to do the program in Brevard County. He inquired if, as a displaced fisherman, he can still acquire some of the lease bottom that is already being given by the Board on September 26, 1995, and if so, what procedure does he have to follow to get it. Mr. Berrigan advised Department of Environmental Protection has an area set up for that; there is a representative here from Harbor Branch, Mike Ednoff; and he could probably bring Mr. Hill and the Board up to date on what they are doing with the training program. Chairman Cook instructed Mr. Hill to meet with Mr. Ednoff.

Carole Pope, 715 Rockledge Drive, Rockledge, advised she is a property owner on the Indian River and wants to congratulate the Board in having a little hesitance and taking a look at all the issues. She stated she head all the promises in the past that everything is good for the Indian River; she agrees with aquaculture as a way of the future and is not opposed to it; but the Board needs to ensure the rules it puts in place are going to accomplish what is truly going to be good for the Indian River and will not destroy further seagrass beds. She stated as a waterfront property owner, she is skeptical over any board that continues to talk about how much good it is going to do for the Indian River because in the 25 years she has lived there she has seen nothing good that it has done yet; it has been total degradation; and the water quality in front of her house is a disgusting sewer. She stated if the leases can help, the Board should move with it; but she also appreciates the fact that it sounds like there are some questions; and it is not just let the marketplace determine what is going to happen to the Indian River. She suggested the Board use caution and be sure that whatever is going in place has proper regulations and that it is going to accomplish what the Board wants it to accomplish, it will provide jobs and a good basis for clams, and it is something that is not going to be further damaging to this resource that is stressed to the point that it is almost unrecoverable.

Commissioner Scarborough advised once a lease is granted, the leaseholder has certain proprietary rights that the State cannot take away; and requested Mr. Berrigan describe the statutory authority for that. Mr. Berrigan advised there is a provision in 18.21 that says the Board of Trustees would not approve any activities that would degrade water quality and have a negative effect on aquaculture leases, so it has to do with items that come before the Trustees. Commissioner Scarborough advised there was a letter from the U.S. Department of Interior regarding Body A; they were concerned about some of the activities they were doing to restore 22,000 acres of mosquito control impoundments on Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge; and inquired if the federal government would be restricted in restoring 22,000 acres because the Board granted leases in Body A and if there was a scientific connection; with Mr. Berrigan responding the answer is probably yes, but it would be in such a way that he does not believe they could legally degrade water quality in Body A. He stated it is not whether or not there is a lease there, it is a shellfish harvesting area; and it is already a very sensitive environment. He stated for them to affect those leases, they would have to negatively affect thousands of acres; and he does not believe that would be allowed. Commissioner Scarborough stated what the federal government is doing is in line with what the Board endorsed earlier; and he does not want the Board to take a contrary position on the lagoon on the same day.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is financial compensation to the farmers if the crop is lost in the first 18 months; with Mr. Berrigan responding not that he is aware of, but there is a representative from the Department of Agriculture, Alan Peirce, who could answer that question. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is crop insurance that a shellfish farmer would have; with Alan Peirce responding not through the State of Florida, but there are federal crop insurance programs; and aquaculturists are eligible to purchase those. He stated they are not under the main program, but they are under a non-assured crops program that is called the NAP which is a federal program. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is compensation if a farmer loses a crop; with Mr. Peirce responding potentially, and there are people here who are applying for funds because of crop losses from last year?s hurricane who may be able to answer that question better. Commissioner Higgs stated Department of Environmental Protection outlined its policies and rationale, but it has not proposed coming to any kind of accord; and it has a policy, and the Board has concerns, but they do not seem to come up with any solutions. Mr. Berrigan advised he asked each Commissioner what he or she thought a compromise position could be; in some cases they did discuss where that was; in other cases it was left to him; and this could be a shortcoming in the report because he felt it would be presumptive for him to provide that. He stated he thought a better position was to provide options and allow the Board to deal with its staff to do that, so he did not try to make recommendations.

Commissioner O?Brien advised he was not in favor of the length of the lease term of ten years with a ten-year renewal, but after reading the report has a tendency to agree with Department of Environmental Protection; he prefers to see a ten, five and five, but the ten and ten is an attempt to assist the emerging aquacultural industry. He stated the agency developed its position with the intent of promoting success within that industry; any deviation from optimal condition leaves no recovery time under the shorter lease term; it is conceivable that they can see a crop this year and the next year a hurricane or storm dumps fresh water in and wipe out the crop; so he is not against the original lease term. Commissioner O?Brien stated the report indicates if the Board requests the Trustees not to allow subleasing, they would not allow it; Section 253.71 provides that leases granted shall be assignable in whole or in part; and Section 18.21 provides that each lease document shall contain a statement that the lease may be assigned, transferred in any manner in whole or in part. He stated options on page 5 say that the Board has the option of prohibiting subleasing or providing subleasing under specific conditions; therefore, persons that are subleasing unlawfully would not be able to apply for aquacultural certification and would not be able to sell aquacultural products. He stated the Board was firm about not wanting subleasing; the Trustees were saying they can prohibit it; so what the County needs from the Trustees is a document or contract that says it shall not sublease; and if the County has that in hand, the item is solved. Mr. Berrigan advised he would have to ask for the procedure to go to the Trustees first, otherwise they would amend the recommendations they provide to the County and include those recommendations on the new leases which would all contain those provisions and allow the Board to go over those provisions. He noted the Commissioners have not had an opportunity to review the provisions of the lease, and that would have helped had they done that earlier. Mr. Berrigan advised they could put the recommendations together, develop another lease agreement that has the provisions in it that the Board wants, and allow the Board to look at those and see whether or not the conditions were satisfactory before they went to the Board of Trustees. Commissioner O?Brien stated that sounds acceptable, but hopes the Board does not have to wait another 60 days to get an answer. He stated a copy of the lease did not come earlier to show things they could work on at the meeting and start solving the problems; instead they are extending the problem again, and the Board was trying to resolve it as fast as possible. He requested Mr. Berrigan speed up the process and put it back on the Board?s agenda as soon as possible. Mr. Berrigan stated he would be happy to do that if the Board provides him with the option it has selected. He stated he knows the Board wants to prohibit subleasing, and they can draw up a document that will reflect every one of the Board?s options. He stated he will have to find out the procedure for getting that approval from the Trustees because it is out of the ordinary; but the last lease that went to the Trustees was from St. Johns County and the Trustees more or less went with the will of the County. He stated all the provisions the County wanted were included in the lease agreement; and that is the way that was done, so they would change the lease agreement and the recommendation stayed pretty much the same, so there is a lot of flexibility there.

Commissioner Ellis advised the Board needs to decide what additional restrictions it is going to request, something firm and specific, so that all the people here can move forward with their plans.

Commissioner O?Brien inquired if anyone disagrees with the ten and ten lease term; with Commissioner Higgs responding yes. Commissioner O?Brien inquired if Commissioner Higgs wants five and five or seven and seven. Commissioner Higgs stated she has a concern with the ten and ten because it is tying up the bottom land with one individual farmer for 20 years; that is an unrealistic term; and if a ten-year term is needed for a business plan, then do not make it renewable and give them one ten-year term. Chairman Cook inquired if it would come back to the Board for re-approval and would not be an automatic renewal; with Commissioner Higgs responding ten years is too long. Commissioner Ellis stated if someone plants an orange grove, it takes seven years before he can start harvesting oranges; with Commissioner Higgs responding the person owns the land and it is not public land. Commissioner Ellis stated if the clam farmers could buy the land they would, but they cannot, and that is why they have to go through all the bureaucracy to go to work. Commissioner Higgs stated it is public land which the State is leasing for one individual for 20 years; that is where she has difficulty; and she would prefer five and five, seven and five, or one ten-year term so other people can have the same opportunity to have a business which may be highly lucrative. Commissioner O?Brien stated he has spoken to a few farmers, and a seven-year term would require five favorable growing years; an eight-year term will provide some opportunity to overcome poor growing years; and a ten-year term is adequate to spread the risk or compensate for bad years. Commissioner Higgs recommended one ten-year term. Commissioner O?Brien stated a ten-year term provides a chance to overcome poor years and improve the chance for success; he would prefer to see the aquacultural business be successful; and if the Board is going to give the leases, it should at least give them a chance for success. Chairman Cook stated ten years is adequate. Commissioner O?Brien stated ten years is adequate and less than that is not adequate.

Chairman Cook inquired if the Board wants to obligate future boards to pass ten-year terms. Commissioner O?Brien recommended asking Department of Environmental Protection to grant the first ten years and the renewals come to this Board for approval. Commissioner Higgs stated if someone wants to get a lease in ten years, the person still will have a lock on that piece of land. Chairman Cook stated the information said a ten-year term was reasonable for a business to be successful; and if that is reasonable, going beyond that is pretty generous. He stated it is something that has potential of being extremely lucrative, which is good, but it is a public resource; and inquired how long should they obligate a public resource to one individual.

Commissioner O?Brien stated the reason he agrees with the second ten years is because if after the first ten years the lease is successful, they have an investment in trucks, vehicles, cleaning equipment, and contracts for sale of the clams; they are in an industry to try to make a living and be successful at it; and if they are not successful, they will not renew their lease. He stated if they are successful, it becomes an economic engine, so why would the Board want to displace those who have shown success. He stated he would not want to look at someone after ten years and say the Board is not going to renew the lease and wants to let "Joe Blow" have the lease now. Chairman Cook stated they could probably rebid and would not be excluded from having the lease again. Commissioner O?Brien stated the lease should be ten and ten.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if ten years is needed to make it economically feasible, then they have to go to that level, but beyond that he loses the reasoning except that the person has the right to rebid as anyone else. He explained provisions of the lease law; and stated he does not see a need to be beyond ten years unless there is something in the documents that he did not see.

Commissioner Ellis stated one thing that has been exaggerated is how lucrative or potentially lucrative this can be; if that were the case, the Board would have thousands of people competing for those leases; it is hard work and a very risky business; and he does not want anyone to get the impression that essentially they are handing over the keys to a gold mine that is full of gold. He stated the Board acts like it is a sure thing and they are all going to make thousands of dollars, but that is not the case. Commissioner Higgs stated she recognizes it is risky, the aquaculture industry put out a newsletter talking about a cash balance and what they can get, a closing cash flow at the end of so many years, and the farmers planting millions of clams and harvesting 600,000 leaving a balance of $48,000, net return of $38,000, or $35,000; so it is going to be lucrative if it works. Commissioner Ellis stated if everyone believes they can make $100,000 a year growing clams in the river, the Board would have a packed house with people wanting leases. Chairman Cook stated there is a potential there; with Commissioner Ellis responding there is a potential for everything. Chairman Cook stated he does not think the Board would be questioning it if it was not a public resource; and that puts it on a different level. Commissioner Ellis stated it is not a sure thing; with Commissioner Higgs responding nothing is sure in business; she is not guaranteed a return; and no one else is guaranteed a return.

Chairman Cook stated they now can apply to the federal government for relief if their crop fails; with Commissioner O?Brien responding it is not 100% relief, and they are lucky to get back what they put in the ground. He stated those people could start planting their clam crops and five years from now, because of salinity change, the clams will not grow, and it will take ten years to get any kind of business up and going. Commissioner Higgs stated by the fifth year it shows a cash flow; with Commissioner Ellis responding that is with five straight years of perfect conditions. He stated if there was not a lot of risk involved, the Board would see thousands of people here competing for the leases. Chairman Cook stated the Board is trying to work out something to allow those people to go forward and be successful; it has a disagreement on how much time; he cannot see the future and know what impact the industry will have on Brevard County ten years from now; and he is not willing to take future boards a decade from now and say live with his decision regarding this issue. He stated he supports ten years and want the people to have a reasonable chance at success; they feel ten years is necessary to have a reasonable chance to succeed; so he is willing to go with ten years. Commissioner O?Brien inquired if there is a compromise position.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve one ten-year term for aquaculture leases in Brevard County.

Mr. Berrigan advised this issue came up at the last Trustees meeting on aquaculture leases in St. Johns County; the renewal is based on the agreement of both parties; the Board of Trustees has acknowledged the importance of local rule on those leases; and if there is reason not to have a lease renewed, the Board?s considerations would be taken into the recommendation for renewal. He stated it is not a guaranteed renewal; it is a renewal based on the agreement of both parties which means it can put new restrictions and new prohibitions in the lease; but it does not tell the individual at the end of ten years he does not have a future.

Commissioner O?Brien stated at the end of ten years the Board of Trustees could say it wants to collect fair market value for the property from that point on if the aquaculture is showing great success.

Chairman Cook called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs and Cook voted aye, and Commissioners O?Brien and Ellis voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to prohibit subleasing of aquaculture leases in Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O?Brien advised the next item is the lease fees. Chairman Cook advised one of the alternatives Mr. Berrigan mentioned was to seek competitive lease bids for high density areas; and inquired if that is being done in other places; with Mr. Berrigan responding they have not done that in other places; it is an alternative where they could competitively bid areas the State designates, but they have not done it. He stated they have done competitive bids for several leases in Brevard County that were in Body C, but those were leases that were previously approved by the Board at the County level and the Board of Trustees. He stated they were either terminated by the applicant or the State and were unoccupied, so they were competitively bid; however, where an applicant identified or nominated a site, they have not competitively bid those. Chairman Cook inquired if it was an option; with Mr. Berrigan responding it is an option.

Commissioner Ellis stated if the State is going to do competitive bids, then it should not hold those people to two years worth of paperwork and business plans which is the current situation; and rather than put the money into the lease, they put it into bureaucracy. He stated it is not a situation where they walk in, put $15 down and go; they have to prepare a business plan and go step-by-step with Department of Environmental Protection before they get the lease; so if they go with competitive bids, they should get rid of all the bureaucracy. Commissioner Ellis inquired how long does it take the people to get a lease; with Mr. Berrigan responding it has taken well over a year, but with competitive bid they would have to provide a business plan. He stated they would not just take the highest bid; there would be other qualifiers; they would have to understand the nature of the business and provide a business plan; and the highest bid with a reasonable business plan would be the qualifier. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Berrigan can provide copies of the business plans; with Mr. Berrigan responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if one business plan is acceptable, why is it not a boilerplate business plan; with Mr. Berrigan responding in most cases it is. Commissioner Ellis stated it takes over a year so it must be more than turning over a boilerplate plan. Mr. Berrigan advised a lot of it is the process; the business plan is more of a production requirement; if the leaseholder is not following the business plan, then he is out of compliance; so it gives an enforcement tool and something to monitor.

Discussion ensued on competitively bidding aquaculture leases, eliminating bureaucracy, streamlining the process, competitive bids favoring big business over small business, lower rent providing financial jump start, the process to obtain alcohol licenses, selection by drawing, business plans, monitoring on an audit basis, establishing a cap on leases in high density areas, competitive bidding of failed leases or leases terminated for non-compliance, dealing with a public resource fairly, spinoffs from aquaculture leases, Port Canaveral operations, prohibiting subleasing, entry level fee and random selection, and no shortage of resources or surplus of applicants over leases.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how many more applications does the State have; with Mr. Berrigan responding less than half a dozen for Brevard County. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Berrigan anticipates a larger number would come in; with Mr. Berrigan responding they can establish a cap similar to what they have done in another county, and applications will come in swiftly to take advantage of the ones that are remaining; and if the Board wants competitive bids, it could set aside a certain percentage of the acreage to be bid over a period of time. Commissioner Higgs suggested allocating the remaining 25% by some date for people to submit business plans, application fees, etc. then draw for the leases up to the cap. Mr. Berrigan stated that is logical and intuitive, but they do not have a procedure in place to allow them to do that; and they would have to go to the Board of Trustees to get conceptual approval.

Commissioner Ellis stated they do not have enough applicants to fill up the remaining 25%; with Chairman Cook responding once they set a cap they will have a rush of applicants from all over the State. He stated he would consider the lottery idea or competitive bidding; and it is a public resource and should have a mechanism to insure everybody has an equal opportunity.

Discussion continued on competitive bidding, cap on leases for different water bodies, and a lottery process.

Commissioner Higgs stated there are 668 acres leased out in Body F from a total of 6,381; that is more than 10%; and that has caused her great concern. Commissioner Ellis stated that includes perpetual leases that cannot be used for clams today. He stated hundreds of acres of totally unproductive leases that were issued years ago cannot be used for clams; and to count them as clam producing leases is misleading. Discussion ensued on non-productive leases, competitive bids, imposing a cap, and safeguards against speculation.

Chairman Cook advised if it is the intent of the Board to go with a cap, it needs to look at options such as competitive bids or the lottery system as a matter of fairness, and some conditions the Board is comfortable with that would allow people to go forward and also meet the test of fairness. He stated if the Board is not ready to decide on a cap, it may have to get more information from Mr. Berrigan on what they recommend would be logical or not logical, and come back in the near future.

Commissioner Ellis advised the proposed cap by Department of Environmental Protection is 200 additional acres; the river is almost 150,000 acres of water; and he wanted to put that in perspective when talking about leasing out the whole river because it is only a fraction of a percent. Chairman Cook commented the point is who will get the 200 acres.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the cap is set by the Board of Trustees and can it change; with Mr. Berrigan responding the cap would be established by the Board of Trustees through the aquaculture management plan; it would become part of the material that is reviewed in the recommendation; and if the recommendation found that the application or activity would not be in compliance with the management plan, they would recommend denial of the lease. Commissioner Higgs stated then the 200 acres is a perspective and not established by the Board of Trustees, so the Board has no assurance that it would be the permanent cap. Mr. Berrigan stated he cannot be presumptuous and provide the Board with what the Board of Trustees will do with the land; they have that flexibility; but what they have done in the past and are proposing to do is work with the counties to establish management plans to control the growth of aquaculture; and that will become the guiding criteria for Department of Environmental Protection in making recommendations of approval or denial. He stated the Board of Trustees can overrule any recommendation made by the Board of County Commissioners or the Department of Environmental Protection; they are simply staff for the Trustees; and anyone can go to the Trustees and plead their case. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Department of Environmental Protection will do the management plan; with Mr. Berrigan responding they would cooperate with the counties and prefer that the counties do it with their help.

Mr. Berrigan advised it does not have to be complicated; and if all the Board is trying to do is set a cap, they could bring in a few advisors and work with the Board to develop that. Chairman Cook stated it is not as complicated as the Board may be making it; and the Board could set some conditions of what it feels are necessary. Commissioner O?Brien advised Department of Environmental Protection is willing to work with the County to develop a management plan which would put a cap on the properties, identify where they are, who holds the leases, and the maximum amount of leases that would be granted; and that could be done within 30 days.

The Board discussed a realistic cap, how many acres are leased, and conflicts with open clammers.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to work with Department of Environmental Protection to solve the management problem and prepare a management plan that sets a cap.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how long will that take; with Commissioner O?Brien responding 30 days, then it will come back to the Board. Commissioner Ellis inquired how many days after that before a decision is made; with Chairman Cook responding he would assume the Board could make a decision that day.

Commissioner O?Brien suggested the Board of Trustees be advised of the discussion on the fee structure, bidding, etc. and Mr. Berrigan return with firm answers of what it will or will not do. He stated he wants to know if the Board of Trustees will allow the County to perform a lottery, perform a bidding process, or establish the rate of rent per acre. Mr. Berrigan advised the Board of Trustees is in recess until September 17, 1996. Commissioner O?Brien inquired how many members are on the Board of Trustees; with Mr. Berrigan responding seven elected officials, the Governor and Cabinet, Commissioner of Education, Commissioner of Agriculture, Comptroller, Secretary of State, etc. Chairman Cook inquired if Mr. Berrigan can come back and advise the Board what he believes would be acceptable or not; with Mr. Berrigan responding what has been discussed is possible; they could do it all and recommend going with the County except the lottery; there is no procedure for doing a lottery; and it would require a policy decision as to whether or not that is a suitable way to deal with sovereign lands. He stated they can do the competitive bidding; the three options that are laid out are options that are provided for in Rule and Statute now; so they can set it, negotiate it, or competitively bid, or any variation thereof.

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

Commissioner Scarborough advised the lease should contain a revocation clause if the leaseholder is convicted of a crime against an upland property owner resulting from activities related to the lease operation; that is of concern to property owners around Body C; they have endured a lot of threats, not necessarily from the aquaculture industry as opposed to open clammers; and they are concerned about trespassing on their properties, threats of violence, etc., so he would like to see that pursued.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to request Department of Environmental Protection consider how it could implement a revocation clause if a leaseholder is convicted of a crime against an upland property owner resulting from activities related to the lease operation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O?Brien advised another issue is that a portion of the fees should return to local governments; and their answer said that under the law, Department of Environmental Protection can only collect its own rent and cannot return a portion to local governments unless they adopt local ordinances to do that. He stated the reason Brevard County should have some kind of revenue is in the event the business creates substantial damage to the Indian River; the State fund will not take care of that; and the County will be stuck with the task. He stated over the years the clammers may ask for more police enforcement which the taxpayers would have to pay for; they may ask to have a storm drain moved that is forcing freshwater into the leased areas; and if the Board had a portion of the funds as an enterprise fund it could react to what clammers may need. Commissioner Ellis stated the County does not pay for Florida Marine Patrol; with Commissioner O?Brien responding it pays for a deputy sheriff who may have to respond to crimes committed against lessors.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board has finalized an annual fee and intends to go with $15 and $5; with Mr. Berrigan responding $15 per acre plus a $5 surcharge goes to the bond that would be used to clean up anything that they had to clean up. He stated the $5 surcharge goes into a trust fund and acts as the bond. Commissioner Higgs stated $15 is incredibly low. Chairman Cook stated if they go with competitive bid, it would be open to whatever the market would bear; but if they go with a lottery then a fee would have to be set.

Commissioner O?Brien stated he needs to retract what he said previously, as Department of Environmental Protection can establish a surcharge to be returned to the County; and he feels the County should have a surcharge of about 20% of whatever the lease is. Mr. Berrigan advised he does not find fault with that, but it would require some legislative housekeeping and going back to the Statute that directs how the trust fund is allocated to put a provision for the money to go back to the County. Commissioner O?Brien inquired what have other counties done; with Mr. Berrigan responding no other counties are getting anything back, but others have brought up the same issue. Commissioner O?Brien stated it is a growing industry, and somewhere down the road there may be demands placed on the County to support the industry through policing, clean up, ambulance service, etc.; and there should be some kind of funding to respond to their needs. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to know the basis for collecting a fee.

Commissioner O?Brien requested Mr. Berrigan bring back an answer regarding a portion of the fee being allocated to the County in 30 days when he returns with other answers.

The meeting recessed at 3:57 p.m. and reconvened at 4:17 p.m.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table Contract Option and Certificates of Public Necessity for Coastal Health Systems, Inc. until July 23, 1996, at a time certain. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Frankie Schott, 3545 Heather Lane, Micco, read a letter from Richard Flecher, dated July 16, 1996 to the Commissioners, as follows: "I have been a resident of Micco for 28 years and built my current residence on 10th Street in 1989. I regret I cannot attend this meeting. Due to restrictive health problems I am physically unable to attend. I did not think it would be necessary to address this site, I never thought it would materialize. When I built my home, there was no plan to put a park practically in my backyard. Yet, the original location for a community center in Micco Park was changed because people that did build their homes around a park did not want the extra activity a community center would bring. Commissioners, I can assure you, I do not want the extra activity in my neighborhood either. Summer programs with the children being escorted between the two locations does not seem to be a viable consideration at all. I owned and operated a landclearing business in this area for 25 years. I am very familiar with the site you have purchased. The runoff from 10th Street naturally flows to this property. In my professional opinion you can buy and prepare land at Micco Park for less than what the preparation alone will cost for these wetlands. Respectfully, Richard L. Flecher." Ms. Schott advised she reviewed the options on the Agenda and has another option for the Board to consider; one and a half acres west of Micco Park is for sale for $23,000; the water table on that land is five and a half feet; and the County could purchase it with the remainder of the $90,000 already set aside for land purchase and use the wetlands it already purchased for mitigation. She stated no more tax dollars would be needed. She noted the County would have approximately 13 acres of high and dry land for a park and community center; and requested the Board add that option to the ones it will be considering today. Ms. Schott stated she has a memo from Denise Carter concerning mitigation; the County is considering mitigation for Allen Avenue site to be at the Habitat Golf Course; and inquired if the Board insists on using the wetlands at Allen Avenue for a community center, why not mitigate in Micco and buy land in Micco Park to make it larger. She inquired where is the money coming from for the mitigation. She noted her disappointment in Commissioner Scarborough and Commissioner O?Brien who said they would go along with what Commissioner Higgs wanted as the issue was in District 3; and stated it makes a sham of the hearings if Commissioners are willing to let someone else make decisions. She stated Commissioner Cook said at a previous meeting, "common sense tells you a community center belongs in a park;" but he voted to put it someplace else. Chairman Cook stated there was a referendum; with Ms. Schott responding there was a straw ballot that the Board insisted on making a straw ballot so it would not be bound to it. She stated Mr. Koraly has asked the Board on two separate occasions what is the economical, logical, practical reason for putting a community center at Allen Avenue; no one has given an answer to that; so she assumes there are none unless the Board is willing to answer it today. She stated the real estate agent that is representing the owners for the Subdivision has sent a letter concerning the lots that the Board is considering today; in that letter he refers to the lots as wetlands and as a buffer between the Subdivision and the community center; the drawings that the engineering firm the Board hired used the lots for the community center and not as a buffer; so there is a misunderstanding as to what the area is going to be used for. She stated three lots will cost over $60,000; and inquired if the Board is going to use it as a buffer or build on it. She noted the developer is expecting it to be used as a buffer and not for the building itself. She presented copies of documents to the Board on the lot she mentioned for $23,000.

George Koraly, 9868 Riverview Drive, Micco, advised more than two years have passed since the Micco homeowners were awarded a HUD grant for a community center, and the Board approved building the center in Micco Park; his concern is the waste of taxpayers money with the cost of a referendum; and conflicting engineering reports, paved roads, land purchases, and mitigation make it difficult to keep up with the convoluted proposals. He stated funds that were committed were adequate to purchase available parcels adjacent to Micco Park for a community center; and the cost of preparing the Allen Avenue site is going to be considerable if permits allow the development. Mr. Koraly read an excerpt from Ron Jones? document stating, "Both state and county ordinances require new developments to drain or retain and treat runoff prior to discharge from the site. These requirements are placed upon new developments as the result of controlled discharge of pollutants into our receiving bodies of water." He stated one of the recommendations by the engineer was to accelerate the drainage from the marshlands to lower the water table in the area; the photos of 8th Avenue graphically show the elevation problems; and information from St. Johns River Water Management District indicates concerns as to the feasibility of the project. He stated it has become a fiscally irresponsible development; the Micco homeowners need and were awarded the funds for a community center; however, he must say do not build it and waste taxpayers money. He stated he will keep informed by obtaining a tape of this hearing; and requested, under the Freedom of Information Act, the accounting records of all funds spent on the project if it goes forward.

Peter Player, 3685 Main Street, Micco, advised he is against the purchase of any additional land at the Allen Street site as the parcel is not needed and will waste taxpayers money. He read from an article from TODAY Newspaper on budget items, and suggested a tax watchdog committee in each District. He stated what started out to be a simple positive endeavor of building a community center in Micco Park for children?s activities has become a guideline of how to waste tax dollars; taxpayers cannot afford the wasteful policies; and every wasted dollar hurts all of them and deprives those on fixed incomes and struggling to make ends meet due to higher taxes.

Cheryl Bruns, 9737 Riverview Drive, Micco, presented pictures of the property the Board is looking to buy and property it already bought; and inquired if anyone contacted the St. Johns River Water Management District to get its input on how usable the properties are; with Assistant County Manager Joan Madden responding negatively. Ms. Bruns stated a representative who has worked with the St. Johns District is very familiar with the area and made a field trip last week to address some of the concerns of the lake at the end of 10th Street; he found a club culvert identified as the culprit which the neighbors disagree with; and he called her to report the finding and discussed the water table in the area. She stated she mentioned how the County planned on lowering the water through culverts; and he remarked that nothing short of a large canal running to the river will lower the water in the area. She stated the ludicrous system the County operates under allows the Commissioners to purchase land that a State agency can deny building permits for without mitigation, increasing the taxpayers burden of already frivolously spent money; and the same system allows a Commissioner to capriciously use constituents to acquire federal funds for the District. Ms. Bruns stated Ms. McCullers who sits on the CDBG Board and South Mainland Community Advisory Board stated at several meetings, "We always knew the community center would never go in Micco Park." She stated that is the route of the division and ill feelings in Micco today and for the past two years; the events that have transpired since the money was awarded in 1994 would land a private citizen with a real estate license in jail; and violation of a fiduciary relationship, culpable negligence, malfeasance, misrepresentation, every day fraud, and misfeasance, since public officials are included, apparently do not apply to politicians. Ms. Bruns requested the Board not waste any more tax dollars on the ill-conceived abusive project that neglects the original intent of providing a suitable building to allow summer recreation activities for the children in Micco Park.

Patricia Barnes, 3855 10th Street, Micco, advised she is vehemently opposed to the use of grant money for the recreation center on Allen Avenue site, and is deeply disappointed with the manner in which the ballot was worded along with the literature and the light in which the issue was presented or mis-represented. She stated the drawing showed the larger Micco Park site as being smaller on paper and the smaller Allen Avenue site as being larger on paper; so it was mis-represented. She stated in February, $4,000 was spent on a rushed engineering project which stated the land around Micco Park site was more favorable for expansion, but none of the residents were notified about that. She stated the County is considering purchasing six acres of wetland property that is currently a habitat for countless varieties of Florida wildlife, among them ospreys and scrub jays; and inquired if it is being done for a second access for Allen Avenue or to validate the overall poor use of grant money. Ms. Barnes advised when San Sebastian Subdivision began development, shortly after that 10th Street was under four feet of water; despite the efforts of residents, it took six weeks to get anyone to move; and it took another six weeks for the area to drain off. She stated since then the property along the north and west has been built up to prevent any more flooding; and now the yards of properties already developed has water standing, but the undeveloped and built up property is dry. She stated there is clearly a drainage problem in the area; and St. Johns District needs to be advised of it; not only did they pave 10th Street after the fiasco, but now the asphalt runoff goes to the lake polluting it and 10th Street properties have standing water with as little as three inches of rainfall. Ms. Barnes stated the residents would rather see the grant withdrawn than to have a recreation center half a mile away from the Park; and it seems ludicrous to have a beautiful park already equipped with a lake, exercise facilities, playground, barbecue grills, etc. and buy property away from it to have the children traipse back and forth along the railroad tracks. She stated the Allen Avenue site will not be for the children because parents will not want their children hiking back and forth in unpredictable weather; it will be a bingo parlor or gossip hall; and she does not want her tax money spent on that garbage.

Jeanne Osborne, 100 Cherokee, Barefoot Bay, advised her understanding is the facts are that Allen Avenue site was selected by the committee that carefully studied all the possibilities; it was approved by a straw ballot of the voters within the HUD designated area; and it was approved by the Board and the CDBG Board, so they should move forward with the project. She stated she understands the Briere lot which was a section of land they had requested originally is not available at this time; the land that is available and has been purchased is sufficient to go forward; and if more land is being offered to the north for other purposes along with the community center for the same amount of money that the Briere lot would have cost, it would seem logical; but she is not locked in and neither is the committee, as they are happy with the land that has been acquired. She requested the Board help them move forward with the project.

Ed Arens, 3700 Bay Street, Micco, President of Micco Homeowners Association, agreed with Ms. Osborne and stated hopefully they will have a community center in the near future.

Wally Kramer, 9606 Mockingbird Lane, Micco, advised very few concerned taxpayers envisioned the size of a community center; it would dominate even an enlarged Micco Park; and it will add to the traffic which is bad now. He stated it would ruin Micco Park which enjoys low-cost maintenance and has a certain clientele who patronize it. He stated a community center at Allen Avenue will stand on its own merit and will act as a base for SNAP Program, adult and children education, meeting facilities, and storm shelter for impaired and handicapped citizens; however, in the adjacent natural wildlife areas he envisions small lakes, walking trails, picnic tables, outdoor classrooms, and primitive camping areas which they do not have in Micco. He suggested enhancing the wetlands with approval of St. Johns River Water Management District; and stated they have no big rewards for the tax dollars they contribute, so he hopes the Board will push this project ahead.

Commissioner Higgs advised, based on the information she has, the lot is not acceptable to the seller who was going to sell Lot 6 in Briere Subdivision to the County; the option is if the Board wishes to consider the six acres at $23,000, they would offer a second access; and if there is mitigation, it would allow mitigation adjacent to the property as a natural area. She stated the land that has already been set aside by the County at the site the voters indicated they wished would be more than adequate; and it would be enhanced by the additional property, but it is not essential for the community center. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board is going to consider the additional six acres, it does not have an environmental assessment on that; and there are some wetlands, so there would be potential mitigation.

Chairman Cook inquired what is the remainder of the $90,000 allocated to purchase the property; with Beverly Sutphin responding $17,000 because of additional expenses such as a $4,000 survey and the environmental audit of Micco Park and Allen Street site. Chairman Cook stated he is not willing to go beyond the $90,000 that was committed. Commissioner Ellis stated if there is any thought to buy the six acres, it would be a set aside area because they could not extend 8th Avenue through that property. He stated it would cost a substantial amount of money to extend 8th Avenue, mitigate out, and do the site work. Commissioner O?Brien stated Mr. Minneboo said it would be $30,000 to do 8th Avenue. Chairman Cook stated the people said it is acceptable and the project can go forward; and he is willing to support going forward with what is there. He stated Micco Park made sense, but there was a straw ballot and the people indicated they wanted Allen Avenue, so he will support that. He inquired if a motion is necessary to move forward with the Allen Avenue site; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding no action is necessary. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board is interested in an offer with the remaining monies, it can consider that.

Barry Cabanis, 230 Marlin Drive, Merritt Island, President elect of Merritt Island Rotary Club, requested the impact fees be waived for Rotary Park; the Park has been developed primarily through funding and labor by the Merritt Island Rotary Club; they have a good relationship with Parks and Recreation which has been a big help and work closely with them; and if the Rotary Club does the labor and gets the items donated, they can make the funds available for that park to go even further to improve it.

Commissioner Ellis advised the Board went through this with the Greater Melbourne Soccer Association; the impact fee was one thing that could not be waived; however, that was on private property; on the Rotary Park issue, he is still trying to figure out if there is an impact fee, why the Rotary Club would be responsible for paying the impact fee to build four pavilions within the park.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised somebody has to pay it; and if the Club does not, the County would have to pay it through Parks and Recreation.

Commissioner O?Brien stated if the impact fee cannot be waived, the filming of the Cape will take place at Rotary Park in the next few weeks; they could rent the park for $467.20 for the day; and they would be acceptable to making the donation to pay the impact fee. Mr. Cabanis stated that would be nice and they would do whatever it takes to help. He stated that is an idea, and they hope to facilitate that. He stated the Club has made substantial improvements to the park, and it is one of the nicest parks on Merritt Island.

Commissioner Ellis stated it should be assessed to Parks and Recreation. Mr. Cabanis stated that is true it probably would be assessed to Parks and Recreation, but they are using some of their funds for the park and the idea is we can take their funds and buy equipment and materials and put it in themselves rather than pay the impact fee. He stated even though it would come from Parks and Recreation, it would be from the funds set aside for Rotary Park. Commissioner Ellis suggested increasing that fund by $500. Commissioner O?Brien suggested requesting the producers of The Cape if they would mind participating in the community, and if they are willing to pay the impact fee or most of it; and if not, try to convince the Commissioners that Parks and Recreation pay it because the Rotary Club has put in $20,000 into the park.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct Bonnie King to negotiate with the producers of The Cape to pay the impact fee for Rotary Park; and if they do not, that Parks and Recreation pay for it. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Workforce Development Board had a meeting at 5:00 p.m. today and would like to withdraw the item and resubmit it at a later date.

Commissioner O?Brien stated he would not support providing a room at the Government Center for the Workforce Development Board as there is room at Brevard Community College and other places. He stated Viera is already crowded as it is with the Justice Center staff, and before long there will not be enough room for the Government which is what the building was for. Chairman Cook stated Brevard Community College offered space at $5.00 a square foot or something very reasonable.

Chairman Cook advised he received a response from Virginia Wetherell, Secretary of Florida Department of Environmental Protection; and he talked to Kirby Green, Deputy Secretary, who will try and come up with dates when he can meet with Department of Environmental Protection regarding the Manatee Protection Plan.

George Reynolds, 1395 Glen Haven Drive, Merritt Island, representing Citizens for Florida Waterways, advised their mission statement on the Manatee Protection Plan is: "Missions of Citizens for Florida Waterways, to provide a voice for equitable balance of environmental resource protection, the need for responsible use of Florida waterways, thus promoting a positive co-existence among recreational/commercial boaters, marine industry, property owners, and the marine environment." He stated regardless of what people think, they are not anti-environment; and congratulated the Board on its responsible effort for balancing and trying to improve the Manatee Protection Plan. He stated when Florida is spending two thirds as much money on manatees as for education of children, which is 8.2 million dollars or $303,125 per manatee, and Sea World is getting $130,000 to $140,000 per manatee a year, and there are hungry, homeless, poverty low-income people, there is something wrong with the picture. He indicated well-meaning but over zealous environmentalists as paid appointees do not represent the people, but the Board hopefully represents its constituents. Mr. Reynolds requested the Board stay with its convictions to represent the people.

Jeff Pira, 441 W. King Street, Cocoa, President of Citizens for Florida Waterways, advised the Contract with Department of Environmental Protection dated May 5, 1993 was a financial contract and did not bind the County to create a Manatee Protection Plan; it was a voluntary thing; they want to see a plan in place; however, letters like the one from Virginia Wetherell stirred his urge to tell them to reject the plan completely if that is their response to the County trying to compensate and adjust the plan to a tolerable level. He read excerpts from an article, Court Challenges, from Boating Magazine, regarding manatee speed laws being challenged in the courts, manatees not being endangered but exaggerated into a crisis by environmentalists bent on stopping growth and who think animals are more important than man, no reliable population census was done, and every census of the animal in the State have shown an increase in total count, from 225 in 1973 to 856 in 1992, and 2,600 in February, 1996. Mr. Pira stated the manatees are not the only ones benefiting from the manufactured crisis; Save the Manatee Club?s tax records for 1994 showed the organization raised $770,000 from memberships, investments, fees, government contracts, etc.; nearly $336,000 went to manatee education, $186,000 to conservation, $108,000 for membership services, $272,000 for salaries including $43,000 for the executive director and $58,000 for employee benefits, and $260,000 for accounting fees, office rent, supplies, postage, etc.; and none of the monies was used for saving the manatees.

Kenny Boyd, 1465 S. Lester Court, Merritt Island, advised Virginia Wetherell has a problem with the Board?s choice of a Manatee Coordination Committee versus a paid employee; and he does not see how anyone in their right mind can think one person is better than a group of five. He stated that one person may abuse the position and teach children things that may not be true. He advised of his child?s experience with a project to identify things that were bad for the environment, and he circled a propeller and said the teacher would give him a bad grade if he did not circle it. He stated the boating registration fee issue may have been worded wrong, because the request was for more marine patrol officers, but not to fund them. He stated the slow speed zone at the north end of the Barge Canal is a small zone for them to be so objectionable; it is similar to the one that went through an administrative hearing where the hearing officer blasted Department of Environmental Protection on a number of issues, including economic impact statements; and their testimony was that they put part of the speed zones as fast and part as slow for political concessions. Mr. Boyd stated they do not have the authority under Florida Statutes for political concessions; and their authority is for manatee protection. He stated the Board endorsed the NEP Plan this morning, not saying it is in favor of it; but it is a lot for anyone to review; and it was not out of press until recently.

Ron Pritchard, 495 Mohawk Trail, Merritt Island, advised he was part of the Manatee Plan in Broward County and was amazed when he and his wife moved to Brevard County to find that it was not enforced here; and the reasons they chose the area are because of the environment, water, and what appeared to be a rational decision on the part of the Board to keep the waters available for people who want to enjoy them. He stated boaters do not go out with the intention of running over manatees or create havoc to the environment; and if there is an area that is congested and requires boaters to slow down, it should be posted as congested and not as a manatee zone. He stated the issue became anti-boaters in Broward County; the manatee became the flagstaff because it was a popular issue; and the majority of the members of the Manatee Club do not boat and live in areas that are not adjacent to salt water habitats. He stated they do not participate in the sport that many of them do, but they have found something they enjoy which is saving the manatee; however, the

manatee is not an endangered species. He stated it is a convenient hook for those who do not want boats, noise, and congestion, and cannot get support any where else. Mr. Pritchard advised Broward County Commission rolled over; most of Broward County is shut down with idle speed and no wake; but Brevard County has an opportunity to continue with its open-mindedness and keep its decisions rational realizing the effect it will have on boaters, marine activities, and other marine resources.

Carole Pope, 715 Rockledge Drive, Rockledge, advised she lives on the Indian River, and is here to speak not only for the manatee, but also the people who have their hooks into using manatees because they like to use the waterways in non-motorized boats. She stated people who come before the Board are nice and are going to do good for the environment; they do not speed, do not harass people in canoes, and are nice people who enjoy boating; unfortunately, on the weekends especially she sees boaters slaloming into little children and causing a lot of noise and speeding. She noted Broward County?s description by the previous speaker is the picture of the future unless Brevard County does something about it; it has the opportunity to set aside certain areas; and it is at the point where it needs regulations. Ms. Pope stated a man?s death this past week is being attributed to hitting the wake of another boat; he was not following regulations on the necessity to wear a life jacket; and those regulations are already in force. She stated the boaters come before the Board and say they do not want more regulations; a lot of people who drove cars in the early part of the Century did not want regulations either; but the more boats on the waterways the more the Board needs to have regulations; and that is the price everyone has to pay for population growth. She stated the manatee is the flag that pays the ultimate price; the business that the manatee is not an endangered species is baloney and is being thrown out as a red herring; and it is endangered and its population is very low. Ms. Pope stated manatees are contributors to the total environment of the Indian River Lagoon; if they are lost, it will destroy another layer of the lagoon; so their protection is important as well as the protection of every child on a sail board that is swamped by outboard outlaws. She suggested a solution of designing certain areas where boaters can speed as much as they want to, keep the manatees out of those areas, and let the rest of the people enjoy the waterways. Ms. Pope advised without regulations there will be erosion problems; wakes cause problems for river banks, especially those without bulkheads; and addressing the manatee is addressing the quality of life, the lagoon system, and the price of growth. She stated the Barge Canal needs to have restrictions not just for the manatees but for small boats; and requested the Board look at this as an overall issue of what is happening on the waterways and have some regard not only for boaters but also property owners and people in small crafts.

Commissioner O?Brien advised there have been regulations on the Barge Canal for a long time; they allow 25 mph in the channel about 50 feet from the shoreline on either side; and he agrees with that. He stated there is a mish-mash of no wake zones and 25 mph zones on the waterways; one zone which is incredulous is where Sykes Creek meets the Barge Canal; it is no wake by Sea Ray, then 25 mph, then no wake again, then 25 mph, then no wake again; and it makes no sense. He stated boaters who come down Sykes Creek to the Barge Canal slow down and look both ways; and when they do that, if there are manatees present, they will see them. He stated they should be allowed to go 25 mph in the channel. Ms. Pope stated if it was a no wake zone it would be easier for people in that constricted area, not only the manatees. She stated there should be no wake within a certain number of feet from land. Commissioner O?Brien advised the Board did not reject that part of the

plan; there is a distance from shore with no wake; and the 25 mph is only in the channel itself which is a fair compromise.

Discussion ensued on manatees being contributors to the waterway system, jet boats without propellers, population growth, pollution, stormwater management plan, the Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan, and consideration of other issues not only the manatees.

Chairman Cook advised the letter says, "Without increased law enforcement and innovative public education, the Ad Hoc Committee?s approach no longer appears to be balanced," which puzzled him; the increased law enforcement must relate to the Board?s decision not to increase boater registration fees because the additional marine patrol officers is a State function and should be funded by the State; in the legislative package, the Board asks for additional marine patrol officers; and to his knowledge no other county in Florida funds marine patrol officers. Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer responded he is not sure, but believes there is one County that does, but that was only a mechanism available to the Board. Chairman Cook advised the other issue is the innovative public education; because the Board chose to set up a committee that would assist in manatee education instead of hiring a paid education coordinator, it no longer appears to be balanced; and he is disappointed with that reasoning because it does not do violence to the plan that the letter seems to indicate.

Commissioner O?Brien stated the Board said it does not want to fund extra marine patrol because it is the State?s police force and it should fund it; but it did not say it did not want more officers. He stated it was a smart idea to have a committee of five at no cost to go to the schools and educate the children; and he cannot agree to add another person when the Board wants to downsize government. He stated the plan is better with five instead of one teacher, and they could get volunteers who would go to the schools and teach the children about manatee safety and preserving the species. He stated the Board wants to protect the manatees, and its ideas are better than what was in the plan.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Department of Environmental Protection will adopt any plan it wants to; with Mr. Peffer responding Department of Environmental Protection makes the final determination regarding the waters of the State; the manatee plan was an effort to work with the County to get input on the plan; but ultimately it is their decision. Commissioner Scarborough stated what concerned him is the Board was willing to proceed with public hearings to get different approaches to manatee protection, but Department of Environmental Protection is not willing to listen; and inquired if there should be community participation or is it a closed process that should be left to the Chairman meeting with the Department of Environmental Protection Secretary on a negotiated settlement.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the plan is a product of the Contract with Department of Environmental Protection which gave the County grant funds and said it wanted an approved manatee protection plan; and approved means whatever Department of Environmental Protection approves. He stated after looking at the contract documents, he feels what the Board is required to do is provide Department of Environmental Protection with a reasonable manatee protection plan. He stated if Department of Environmental Protection wants to reject it, that is its business, and if it wants to approve it, that is its business. He stated if the Board wants to work something out so Department of Environmental Protection is happy with it, that is also an option; but there is nothing that requires the Board to submit something it is not happy with, as long as it is reasonable.

Commissioner Higgs stated the letter from Ms. Wetherell invites the County to meet with the Chief of the Bureau of Protected Species, and it should do that and see what happens before doing anything else. She recommended Chairman Cook talk to Mr. Arnold and see where they are, and what resolutions may be possible to the areas of concern. She stated the Board did not adopt the NEP this morning, it adopted a Resolution saying it likes the strategy for protection; and it needs to meet and discuss that plan later. Chairman Cook stated according to Mr. Green, he will be able to meet with Secretary Wetherell. Commissioner O?Brien stated the Board established an innovative public education process, and if the State wants to meet the County half way, it should increase law enforcement. Commissioner Higgs stated it could be a give and take situation, and suggested the Board agree to that action and see what happens.

Commissioner Ellis stated what the Board talked about was simple, not limiting the number of parking spaces at boat ramps, not closing some boat ramps, not paying for marine patrol, etc., but by the comments, it seems the Board cannot recommend changes that significantly decrease manatee protection and weaken the draft plan; and it seems that Department of Environmental Protection will accept changes but only those that are more rules and not less. He stated if that is what it means, they should specifically say that they will not take any changes unless they are stricter. Chairman Cook stated that is why a face-to-face meeting is important. Commissioner Ellis stated his concern is it will not be in writing so it would not exist; and it is imperative, after the Chairman meets with Department, that they put in writing what they tell him in a face-to-face meeting. Discussion ensued on the procedure and comments contained in Ms. Wetherell?s letter.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to authorize the Chairman to meet with Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Virginia Wetherell on the manatee protection plan, and authorize travel to Tallahassee for the meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Pat Poole advised she attended the first manatee meeting in Brevard County and other manatee meetings; and nobody worked harder than Department of Environmental Protection which sent its people from place to place asking what the people wanted. She advised of early experiences with manatees, mentioned the consequences of growth and progress and the need for regulations, stated Indians used canoes and did not hurt the manatees, and that everybody wants to come to Brevard County because of the environment, and if the Board is going to ruin it, she would prefer it roll over and do what Broward County did than to be known as the worst county in Florida for killing manatees. She stated as each species go, a part of the habitat goes; and when they are all gone, people will not be able to breathe and will be gone too. Ms. Poole stated Brevard County has a chance to work with Department of Environmental Protection; people do not like regulations, but they are drinking on the waterways and polluting the waters by putting drainage from growth into the River; Melbourne has had no wake zones within the city limits; and it should be that way all over. She stated the river is getting shallow and making it almost impossible for the manatee to move fast enough; and suggested digging out places for the manatees to go in Crane Creek. She recommended the Board work with Department of Environmental Protection and not let it give the County the rules but meet and make rules they can both agree to. Chairman Cook stated the Board is trying to come up with a reasonable plan.

Mr. Knox advised the plan from the County?s perspective is not a regulatory instrument from the County; however, Department of Environmental Protection could use some of the things in the plan as a basis for rule making. Commissioner Ellis inquired why is the Board doing the plan if it is not a regulatory instrument; with Mr. Knox responding because it had a contract with Department of Environmental Protection to get local input on something they are probably going to do down the road. He stated Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction to enact rules and regulations, site marinas, govern boat speed zones, etc., throughout the State; and what it has attempted to do in the Contract is seek local input on those rules and regulations. He stated they are seeking a plan from the Board to help them develop rules in the future. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it is adopted by Department of Environmental Protection, the Harris-Byrd Act falls on Department of Environmental Protection; with Mr. Knox responding to the extent that the Board does not get involved with it, yes; but if it gets involved by passing additional regulations or more restrictive regulations, then that burden falls on the County. Chairman Cook inquired if recommending a plan would expose the Board; with Mr. Knox responding no.

Commissioner O?Brien advised Finding 8 of the Emergency Services Audit states, "The Volunteer Fire Departments do not meet the reported requirements of the Agreements with the Board. The Board distributes approximately $60,000 each year to the Volunteers. These Agreements require that the Volunteers provide monthly reports of the calls to which the Volunteers responded and a monthly summary of training. Of the five Volunteer Fire Departments reviewed, four did not submit reports during the audit period. The fifth had not submitted a report since 1993. Without these reports, the Department cannot provide assurance that the Volunteers are properly trained and are providing the contracted services. Further, the Agreements specify that the monthly payment may be withheld if these reports are not received." He stated there is an appearance that the record keeping is falling apart; if the County is paying the volunteers, it should know if they are trained or not; and staff has not been doing that.

Chief William Farmer advised the audit report is not up to 1996; it is for the period 1992 through 1994; staff has withheld payments from the Volunteers for failure to provide anything, from training reports to maintaining their equipment; and they have done that in the past and will continue to do it. He stated there is a one for one exchange at every Chiefs meeting once a month, where the volunteers hand their reports to staff and staff gives them their checks; so the problem has been resolved.

Commissioner O?Brien advised Finding 9 states in part, "The finding is the Department is not properly administering five vehicle lease agreements that provide liability insurance and fuel. However, the amounts billed to the Volunteers for insurance were not equal to the amounts transferred. As a result, the Department is not being reimbursed in a timely manner for these expenditures. However, the Risk Management Division did not include three of the vehicles on the billing list and misclassified the remaining two." Mr. Farmer advised staff has been working with the Volunteers because they need them; the collection of that money did occur; it crossed fiscal years, and that is why the payment was not seen in the specified audit period; but they have corrected that situation with the present agreements; and it is not an issue in 1996. Commissioner O?Brien stated the County has been dealing with Volunteers for 30 to 40 years; and those problems have to be solved by contract management by someone who knows what he is doing and gets it done. Mr. Farmer stated it is not an issue at this time; the agreements are in place; and there is the one for one exchange.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the audit identified payments received from the Volunteers were not necessarily recorded in the fiscal year that it should have been; it did not say staff did not receive the payments; they have received all the money which was recorded and identified; however, it did not happen within certain time periods or in a timely fashion from the auditor?s perspective. Commissioner O?Brien stated there is also an appearance that the bills are not being sent out in a timely manner, therefore they are not being paid in a timely manner. Mr. Jenkins advised the books are closed on September 30, and if the payments came after that, they were recorded in the wrong fiscal year, but they were received. He stated the audit period was for 1992-1994, and Chief Farmer has indicated all the corrections have been made.

Commissioner O?Brien inquired why is the Board receiving the audit in 1996 if it was for the period ending 1994; with Mr. Jenkins responding it is a post audit. Assistant County Manager Joan Madden advised the audit was conducted in 1995 covering the time frame of 1992 to 1994. Commissioner O?Brien stated if the audit was done in 1995, the Board should have gotten the report in 1995 at least 60 days after the audit was completed.

Commissioner Ellis advised Finding No. 6 deals with allocating costs; and inquired if Harbor City area is in the Central Benefit Unit; with Chief Farmer responding yes. Commissioner Ellis inquired why does the audit refer to eight EMS personnel assigned to Central Benefit Unit stations when there are no County personnel assigned to Harbor City or any fire stations in that unit because they do not run ambulances. Chief Farmer stated his supposition would be some individuals who were at the North stations were temporarily assigned to the Central Unit at a fire station. Commissioner Ellis inquired if they were floaters; with Chief Farmer responding they may have been. He stated cross mingling occurs quite often due to overtime, and requires budget transfers to keep the documentation straight. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand how they could have eight full time personnel in Central paid for out of the North Unit; with Chief Mark McMichael responding that is a problem that was brought to the Board on July 13, 1996 at a workshop; and it is being looked at by the fire chiefs and committees assigned to look into solutions to the problem. Chief Farmer stated the Department would like to look at an emergency services fee; it is one of the things they are looking at in the model so they do not have the constant paperwork between the three benefit units and fire MSTU; and it has been a concern for some time. Commissioner Ellis stated staff needs to be very specific in its response to that finding in the audit and needs to correct that situation.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to acknowledge receipt of the internal audit conducted of the Public Safety Department for the period October 1, 1992 through June 30, 1994; and request the Clerk complete and present audits to the Board during the year following the audit period. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis advised he has a letter that conflicts with the Agenda Report; the Agenda states unexpended local construction funds may be available for other library projects; and the letter from the Friends of Cocoa Beach Library states the money received from the State can only be used for the libraries that it came for and no other money could be moved from another capital project. He inquired if $1.6 million is set aside for Cocoa Beach Library and a $400,000 assistance grant is received from the State, and if that leaves $200,000 more than is needed for Cocoa Beach Library, would they have to find ways to put it back into that library; with Library Services Director Kathryn Stewart responding that is not correct.

Chairman Cook inquired if unexpended local construction funds that may be available can be moved to other library projects; with Ms. Stewart responding yes, but the grant funds can only be used for the library that it has been budgeted and approved for. She stated if there is extra money after the design process and construction process, that money could be used for another project; and that is how other libraries were done in the past. Chairman Cook inquired if the unexpended funds would come back to the Board for approval on how they would be expended; with Ms. Stewart responding yes. She noted land was purchased for other facilities from money left over from Satellite Beach and Palm Bay Libraries.

Commissioner Ellis stated if there are funds available, that money could be allocated to Scottsmoor Library rather than a millage increase.

Mayor Joe Morgan, City of Cocoa Beach, advised he understands the Board may approve an Agreement with Florida Department of State, Division of Libraries and Information Services, for a grant for West Melbourne, Eau Gallie, and Cocoa Beach Libraries. He stated it has been great to have partners like the Board; the City has been delighted to put $200,000 into the project; and the residents have raised $225,000 to build a fine library in their community.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreements with State Library of Florida for public library construction grants of $400,000 each for West Melbourne, Eau Gallie, and Cocoa Beach Public Libraries for a total of $1.2 million. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis advised Family Counseling Center is a new organization, and did not have information on what it does; and he wants more information on that. He stated the second is Alco-Rest, and he prefers not to spend funds on that facility.

Assistant County Manager Joan Madden advised Mr. Caldwell, Executive Director of Family Counseling has been here all day if the Board wants him to address what they are doing, or Mr. Trigg can do it in a briefer format. She stated while it is new to asking for funding from Brevard County, it is a 25 to 30-year old organization in the County, and provides family counseling.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised this is not the final award; and that will not be done until the Budget is approved.

Bob Caldwell, 139 Rockledge Avenue, Rockledge, advised Family Counseling Center was established in August 1964, so this August it will be 32 years in the community; they provide mental health services, substance abuse, consumer credit counseling, and a DUI program; and the program they are requesting funding for would come under mental health services for juvenile sex offenders. He stated the Department of Juvenile Justice estimates there are 2,334 youthful sex offenders in Brevard County, ages 8 through 17, but Brevard County is no worse than other counties; the number is high for all the counties in Florida; and there are only 200 juvenile sex offenders in the entire State who are receiving treatment at this time. He stated it is estimated that a juvenile sex offender has at least seven victims; if they become adult sex offenders, it is estimated they would have 380 victims; and the five years of treatment that is required to treat an adult sex offender costs $200,000. Mr. Caldwell advised they propose to begin to treat 30 juvenile sex offenders in Brevard County; they came up with that number because the School System identified 30 youth who need treatment at this time; their staff is qualified to provide therapy and treatment to juvenile sex offenders; and they are certified, trained, experienced, and work with not only youth but also adult sex offenders. He stated that is the program they are asking funding for.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how is a juvenile sex offender defined. He stated there are only 70,000 children in the public schools in Brevard County; and he is leery of HRS?s numbers. Mr. Caldwell stated those are Juvenile Justice?s numbers; with Commissioner Ellis responding it is the same. Mr. Caldwell advised he does not have their definition on how they got the number, but those would be youth who have engaged in sexual activities that were not wished by the person they gave it to. Commissioner Ellis inquired why they were not in detention; with Assistant County Manager Joan Madden responding many of those are probably familial and are not prosecuted, but it does not mean the juvenile does not have a problem that needs to be corrected.

Commissioner O?Brien advised 30 youth five days a week would treat six patients a day, eight hours a day. Mr. Caldwell advised the proposal is to have a full-time project coordinator who would also be a therapist, and a part-time therapist who would cover the entire County; it would be community based in that services would be provided in the schools, homes, and offices; and they anticipate each youth would be seen weekly in individual counseling, in group therapy, and in family therapy. Commissioner O?Brien stated there are only 30 hours available plus driving time to get to the schools, etc. and he is concerned that there would be only ten minutes to spend with the child; with Mr. Caldwell responding they anticipate one person to cover from Titusville to the Central area and one for the South area; however, they do not know where the students will be until they get the referrals from the Juvenile Justice Department. Commissioner O?Brien stated it is an important service, but by looking at the scope, there is not enough hours in a day to see each patient once a week. Mr. Caldwell stated in many instances the youths and parents will come to the offices; and if there are three or four youths in one school, there would be a considerable time saving.

Rob Rains, 707 Turnberry Drive, Melbourne, President of United Way, advised he served on the CBO Advisory Board as the United Way representative; and this is the second year of the process and they made drastic improvements with feedback from agencies and some Commissioners, and help from County staff. He stated the CBO Board had 28 agencies requesting $1,329,000 plus; and it recommended funding 15 agencies at $383,913, almost a million dollar reduction. He stated the seven members of the Board reviewed all the budget information and spent a lot of time looking over the requests; and they initiated a rating system and rated all the agencies based on what they heard at the presentation and what they saw in the budget proposals and how they responded to the questions. He stated the rating system was used as a tool, and they then developed consensus recommendations. He stated there were seven no votes on how much they were going to give each agency. Mr. Rains advised the key priorities were: (1) by funding the request, did they leverage County dollars, like Meals on Wheels funding brings in money from State and federal sources; (2) does it alleviate future County funding; and if they fund a program they are helping a target population if it saves court costs, incarceration costs, that was another priority; (3) services to children, disabled and elderly; people who cannot help themselves; and (4) filling an unmet need in the County so it would not duplicate an existing service. He stated the Family Counseling Service out of the 28 agencies, their proposal came in 5th because it would alleviate future funding, it was a service to children many of whom were battered themselves, and it was fulfilling an unmet need in the County; and it was worthwhile to support it. He stated Alco-Rest, there are things going on with that shelter and program; it is more than just a substance abuse shelter; and they are building a halfway house and program for people with substance abuse problems but also a homeless shelter for families which does not exist in the central part of the County. Mr. Rains advised they proposed funding a modest amount for the operation of the shelter. Chairman Cook inquired if the building is located in Cidco Park; with Mr. Rains responding it is at Five Points on SR 520, west of U.S. 1.

Commissioner Ellis stated the information he has says the money was for substance abuse; with Mr. Rains responding that is their core program. Commissioner Ellis stated when the agencies came to make presentations, they said what they would use the money for, so what is the $12,000 supposed to be used for; with Mr. Rains responding the Board wanted it used for operating funds for their alcohol/substance abuse program. Mr. Trigg advised it also will help them to service x number of clients in terms of preventive treatment and medication if necessary. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not support it because there are better places to put the money rather than for people who tend to throw things away.

Chairman Cook advised the Board can acknowledge the recommendations, but it cannot approve the funding until it is made a part of the budget. Ms. Madden advised the number has been built into the budget and will be discussed at a workshop. Chairman Cook inquired if the Board wishes to accept the recommendations; with Commissioner Higgs responding the request is to accept and approve.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, to delete Alco-Rest, Inc. from the recommendations of the CBO Advisory Board. Motion died for lack of a second.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to accept and approve the 15 selected organizations to receive funding for FY 1997 as recommended by the CBO Advisory Board at a total of $383,913.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the ranking did not show the names of who voted; and requested that information be sent to the Commissioners. He stated different people have different ranges in voting which can allow greater latitude to push their priorities; and inquired if the methodology was discussed; with Mr. Rains responding yes, different people have different standards, but by averaging the rankings, it was used as a tool and not the absolute system. Discussion ensued on the ranking method. Mr. Rains stated he was impressed with the Advisory Board who were dedicated and put a lot of time and energy to try and use tax dollars in the best way possible; so he appreciates the Board supporting the recommendation that came out of that work. Chairman Cook stated the Board appreciates their efforts.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there will be performance base contracts so if the agencies do not perform they will not receive funds; with Mr. Trigg responding that is part of the negotiating process when they meet with each organization; and the measurable outcomes will be reviewed and agreed upon and be part of the contract. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they will be things staff can measure and monitor the contracts by; with Mr. Trigg responding yes.

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

Commissioner O?Brien advised Finding 7 says drugs found at the death scene was not properly controlled; it is the same exact finding that was made last year; and it says the MEO concurred and has taken action to resolve the finding.

Housing and Human Services Director Bernice Jackson advised the audit is a follow-up by the auditors to see if the MEO complied with the first findings; and they concurred the corrections were made and they are now in compliance.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to acknowledge receipt of the follow-up internal audit of the Medical Examiner?s Office. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. REPORT, RE: FUNDS FOR BEACH RESTORATION

Commissioner O?Brien advised the House Appropriations Committee in Washington passed a 4.5 million dollar bill for beach restoration; and 4 million dollars is for sand transfer and .5 million dollars is for mitigation solutions. He stated this is the first money coming to Brevard County to save the beaches; and the Port and Board worked hard on it.

Chairman Cook advised Commissioner O?Brien?s efforts have been at the forefront of that funding, and he has done a great job.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 6:38 p.m.

ATTEST: _________________________________

MARK COOK, CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_________________________

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK

(S E A L)