MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

August 23, 2006

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on August 23, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were: Chair Helen Voltz, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

 

 

Chair Voltz requested the panel introduce themselves to the Board.

 

Tom Ecshenberg, Mayor, Town of Malabar; Tony Sasso, City of Cocoa Beach; Georgia Phillips, City of Rockledge; Rick Holtz, City of Cocoa; Bob Hope, Vice Mayor, Cape Canaveral; Ron Swank, Mayor, Titusville; Dave Renault, City Manager, West Melbourne; Carol McCormick, Mayor, Palm Shores; Pat Woodard, Deputy Mayor, Palm Bay; Chris Shenault, Town Manager, Town of Indialantic; Jack Schluckebier, City Manager, City of Melbourne;  Donnie Price, Commissioner, Melbourne Beach; Lisette Kolar, Interim Council, Town of Grant-Valkaria; and Jim Nolan, Senior Mayor, Indian Harbor Beach, introduced themselves.

 

 

 

County Attorney Scott Knox stated everybody is together today because of two Charter Amendments sponsored by a group of petitioners who recently asked the Board to sponsor those Charter Amendments; one deals with Save Brevard, and the other one pertains to annexation; and the Commission forwarded the amendments to a legal panel for review in accordance with the Charter provisions.  He stated the legal panel has conducted its review and the results are that all three members of the panel feel both amendments do not meet the requirements of the Charter in the sense they are inconsistent with State law.  He noted the conclusion was that the Save Brevard Amendment is too difficult to fix, whereas the annexation amendment may be fixed.  He advised two members of the panel are present for discussion.

 

Chair Voltz stated since the Charter Amendments have been found to be illegal, they cannot go on the ballot.  Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the amendments could be made legal, and that is what should be pursued.  Attorney Knox advised the amendments cannot be put on the ballot until they have been reviewed by the legal panel and two out of three panelists say they can be put on the ballot.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to hear from the legal panel and from the County Attorney as to what could be done to the amendment to get it on the ballot.

 

Attorney David Tolces, Legal Panel, stated the parameters contained in the Save Brevard proposal are inconsistent with the Florida Constitution and State Law, and it cannot be fixed.  He advised the second amendment, as far as adopting an exclusive method for voluntary annexations, something similar to what has been proposed, could be presented to the voters, but the premise is based on the assumption that when a municipality is going to annex a property into its boundaries, it is immediately going to affix a new zoning and land use designation; and in theory, a city could annex a piece of property without changing the land use or the zoning, and that would impact having the County Commission determine an affected area, as far as who would be the voters entitled to vote in that referendum on the annexation.  He advised the Board would need to address that issue as if there is going to be an exclusive method of voluntary annexation and it has to recognize that the land use and the zoning may not always be changed.  He noted if the Board is going to adopt standards as to a specific affected area, those standards should be based on some type of objective data, so that somebody who reads the Charter can understand whether or not they will be in an affected area, and not leave it to the determination of the County Commission; and there could be concerns about gerrymandering voting rights with respect to an affected area if the Commission determines an area is too big or small.  He noted those are concerns that may not make it improper, as adopted, but the application may cause some great legal concerns with respect to annexation processes; and with those two general concepts, the Board could adopt, as provided by State Statutes, an exclusive method for voluntary annexation and it could be something similar to what has been proposed, but it needs to be substantially reworked before it is brought back to the Board.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it is doable by August 31, 2006; with Attorney Tolces responding the legal panel can come up with an exclusive method of voluntary annexation for Brevard County; however, is it consistent with what the petitioners have proposed.  Commissioner Scarborough stated that is irrelevant because they did not bring a petition forward, which the Board would be bound to, but it is the Commission’s prerogative and it could decide not to proceed.  He inquired if there is something the Commission could consider; with Attorney Tolces responding the Board could consider it, and it would be up to it to provide the County Attorney or the legal panel with the parameters it would like to see included.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board asked the legal panel to come up with a methodology if there was a problem and to see if it was curable; and inquired if that was communicated to the panel; with Attorney Knox responding it was communicated and Attorney Tolces has identified the two issues he would want to see changed.

 

Attorney Audrey Harris stated the legal panel suggested a change that should be made to the Annexation Amendment, which would be the removal of the provision relating to contraction; and Section 9.4 is controlled by general law and is something that would be inconsistent and it would have to be removed.

 

Chair Voltz inquired if the Board has time to put anything on the ballot this year; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding the Supervisor of Elections gets the ballot language on any proposals for referendum 60 days before the election, so there is a deadline coming for that; and the beginning of September is when he would have to get something to the Board.   He noted it would have to be a quick turnaround if the Board wants to do something this year; otherwise, it would have to call a special election to have it done.

 

Commissioner Colon stated the Board needs to have feedback from the citizens who put together the petition; the Board decided at a previous meeting there needs to be another kind of wording initiated by the Board of County Commissioners; she is aware the Board has the power to put anything on the ballot as long as it is legal; and there were some Commissioners who felt the Board was ‘wordsmithing’.  She stated the Board needs to allow Mr. Myjak to address the Board. 

 

 

Mike Myjak stated in the 15 years he has been a resident of Brevard County he has seen the densities double, and the schools and roads deteriorate; the natural resources and land are being consumed and converted into cash as quickly as possible; and while that gives the illusion of a prosperous economy, it is short lived.  He advised the Second District Court of Appeals stated the most significant feature of Charter Counties is the direct constitutional grant of broad powers of self-government, which include local citizens’ power to enable the Charter County to enact regulations of County-wide effect, which pre-empt conflicting municipal ordinances.  He stated his Group met over two years ago and have worked diligently in those two years to craft two amendments to the County Charter, in an attempt to control urban sprawl, manage growth, and to find a way to allow the infrastructure and resources to modulate how fast they grow.  He stated before he formed a Political Action Committee, he took the proposed amendments to the County Attorney and the annexation amendment was drafted by the County Attorney’s Office; and it is a surprise to him that both amendments came back with legal issues.  He stated his Group has since spoken to Attorney Lesley Blackner, and have crafted an alternative to the voluntary annexation; the Board asked the legal panel to offer solutions to fix the amendments, acting on behalf of the citizens who thought that is what they would be getting; it is not what they got and not what the Board received; and in his opinion, the legal panel should not be paid for not having done the job, as it is a breach of contract.   Mr. Myjak stated his Group has come up with a third solution, one that was recommended by Commissioner Colon, to investigate what happened in Seminole County and how it addressed the issue. 

 

Lesley Blackner stated she is an attorney with Blackner, Stone and Associates, from Palm Beach County; and she is also the President of the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment, which is a Statewide ballot initiative to amend the Florida Constitution and put proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments directly to the electorate.  She stated she has looked at the amendments and the packets of legal opinions the Board has received, and she agrees with much of what the attorneys say, but unfortunately, Save Brevard did not have benefit of legal counsel; and she does not think the effort was in vain, because they are here today with an opportunity to make history in Brevard County and do something to protect Brevard from uncontrolled growth.  She stated the Board has been handed two decisions, one from the District Court of Appeals, which came down in late May, and one that came down last Friday from the Second District Court of Appeals in Lakeland; and both decisions show the rapid evolution of Charter Law.  She stated Save Brevard’s new Charter Amendment is called the Brevard Rural Lands Charter Amendment, and it is modeled by the Seminole County Charter Amendment, which was upheld in May by the Fifth District Court of Appeals.  She stated in the Seminole County case the Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled a County Charter Amendment that designates a portion of the county as rural lands and provides that Comprehensive Plan designation shall remain with that designation even if the land is annexed into a city.  She noted the only way a land designation can be amended is by a vote of the County Commission, so even if Melbourne annexes County land, if the land is in the area designated by the Charter Amendment, that designation remains.  She stated with Save Brevard, she and her client took the finding by the Second District Court of Appeals that states it is okay to require unanimous Commission approval for a land use change; but if an area’s designation is critical to the preservation of the community, and if there is a community consensus that the area is important and they want to protect it, then the bar should be raised for a land use change; and the applicant for the change should have a heavy burden to demonstrate that the change is going to benefit the community.  She stated the updated Save Brevard Charter Amendment states once the rural land area is designated by the County, it is going to take unanimous approval by the County Commission to change that designation.  She stated the Charter Amendment would solve many of the problems Mr. Myjak’s group is concerned with and they know it will work legally; and she sees no reason why it is not submitted to the electorate.

 

Commissioner Colon asked Deputy Mayor Pat Woodard to tell the Board what has been going on in the past year; with Mr. Woodard responding he would like Geo Ropert to address the Board on his behalf.

 

Lead Brevard Vice President Geo Ropert stated the Space Coast Growth Management Coalition was formed in 2005 in response to a request by the Board of County Commissioners to address the issues of annexation; the Coalition is comprised of representatives from the Board of County Commissioners, the Brevard County Planning and Zoning Department, the School Board, and elected officials and staff of several municipalities, including Cape Canaveral, Cocoa, Cocoa Beach, Melbourne, Palm Bay, Rockledge and Titusville.  He stated Lead Brevard is a neutral party at coalition and has not supported nor opposed the views of the entities represented; and it has encouraged the continued dialogue in spirit of communication that is so important in achieving the shared vision of a preferred future, which would be one that relies on inner-governmental cooperation and joint responsibility for the smartly managed growth of Brevard.  He noted in the 16 months he has been attending the monthly Coalition meetings, he has seen a team of people diligently working together to identify and resolve conflict that in the past would have been settled in courts of law.  He showed a map reflecting the future annexation plans of the Cities of Rockledge and Cocoa.  He stated recently the City of Melbourne passed an initiating Resolution 1993 for the purpose of opening dialogue with the County Commissioners regarding the creation of an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement and the designation of a Municipal Service Area as allowed per Chapter 171, of the Florida Statutes; and this will provide a flexible process for adjusting municipal boundaries and address a wider range of the effects of annexation, and will encourage inter-governmental coordination in planning, service delivery, and boundary adjustments, and reduce inter-government conflicts and litigation.  He stated there is progress being done by the Coalition, and the County and Cities are working together to plan for the future of Brevard; it is a process that requires the dedicated time and energy of each participant; and the members of the Coalition should be applauded for what they have accomplished. 

 

Carol McCormack, President of Space Coast League of Cities, and Mayor of Town of Palm Shores, advised Professor Bruce Rogow will speak on behalf of the Space Coast League of Cities.  She read Professor Rogow’s credentials and accomplishments. 

 

Professor Bruce Rogow stated he has never seen a situation in which such a rapid and pre-emptory decision would be made on something as substantial as amending the County’s Constitution; he read the opinions of the legal panel and thought they were good; and obviously the two proposals are terribly flawed and the thought that this is something that would be taken up in the next week to 10 days and to be put on the November ballot is extraordinary.   He stated it is his opinion that the second proposal is also incurable and if it is to be cured in some way, the review it must go through would be something that would take longer than 10 days.  He noted taking something from another County’s case and incorporating it is not the way to approach a Constitutional Charter Amendment; and his suggestion would be that if there is something to be pursued, then the usual course of legal review is what should be done.  He noted the process Brevard County uses is very good, in sending it out to an independent panel to be reviewed.  He  stated that  is  a very helpful  process and the three  opinions  offered  were

very thoughtful and helpful; and if anything is to be done, then the process has to start all over again.  He reminded the Board there is a Resolution in Brevard County which mandates 60-days notice to municipalities if they are to be affected by any Ordinance that would or could be approved by the County Commission, and it is Resolution 95-280; certainly an amendment to the County Charter would be something that would fall within the purview of the 60-day notice requirement; and to have notice given today, August 23, 2006, would run afoul of that, as this is something that requires very considered review.  He stated the municipalities are committed to the best for Brevard County and are committed to their own integrity and to protecting the interests their own Charters carry for them.  He stated what is best for the County is to look at the proposals, send them out, and have further review and discussion of them after everyone has had an opportunity to think about the consequences of them.

 

Commissioner Colon stated the biggest complaint has been that the Joint Planning Agreements Brevard County has are weak, and does not have the kind of substance the Board has been seeking.  She stated when discussing the growth management coalition there is the fact of a lack of trust between the County and Municipalities; and the municipalities were not comfortable sharing a lot of their information with the County because they were concerned there would be retaliation once the County knew how far they wanted to annex. She noted it took nearly a year to get to a point where that trust was going to have to be earned by both sides.  She inquired if there are things other communities are doing that Professor Rogow can suggest Brevard County do to give comfort to both sides and the constituents.

 

Professor Rogow commented he does not have a name of a county or municipality that has worked out this situation in the way Brevard County is thinking about.  He stated as a lawyer, he looks at this from the perspective of is it going to pass muster; but it was not going to pass muster and that is how he came to view the two proposals; and the new proposal does not address the building of good faith and cooperation between the parties. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she is also concerned with the fact that when the Board had this discussion a year ago, one of the directions given to the Coalition was to give the Board an opportunity not to have all the annexation that was getting out of control.  She inquired if Professor Rogow is stating there is not much a community can do other than sit down and not be able to put a contract together that would be binding and not just a feel-good one.

 

Professor Rogow stated he did not say there was nothing a community could do; the question Commissioner Colon is asking is a political question for the people who are the elected representatives of the various municipalities; and the people in the municipalities are also voters in the County and so they all share the same County goals because they elect County Commissioners. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the City of Melbourne proposed an Interlocal Boundary Agreement to the Board, and in it there is a possibility to do a lot of things, whether it is concurrency standards or service provisions; and inquired how astute is Professor Rogow on that particular change to the Statute and if he has any perspective on it.  Professor Rogow responded his focus was on the constitutionality and legality of the two proposals; these kind of questions are beyond anything he is prepared to address at the moment; and he is not an expert in the land planning and comprehensive land use plan.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has the same question as Commissioner Carlson, regarding Chapter 171, part 2, which states, “Interlocal Binding Agreements allows for city and county to enter into a binding agreement that addresses municipal boundaries, service areas, impacts of annexation, land uses, and the process of annexation”.  He commented the City of Melbourne initiated this action; and the Board needs to talk about Chapter 171 and the affect it has because it is law and it is in effect and it is something that can be employed.

 

Professor Rogow stated that is another reason why this needs to be looked at in light of the other alternatives that are there and not rush into approving a proposal that has been placed on the agenda this afternoon.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated unless the Board deals with the legal issue it becomes problematic to get into the substantive issue; and he would like further comments from County Attorney Scott Knox.  He advised the question is should the issue be reconvened at a later date, or is this beyond asking them to come back on the 31^st; and until the Board gets past something that has the ability to pass the legal requirements, the merits of it are irrelevant.

 

Chair Voltz stated she knows everybody wants to speak, but she does not know how relevant it will be; with Commissioner Scarborough inquiring if Attorney Knox is able to indicate anything at this time; with Attorney Knox responding if the Board is going to move forward at all, it has to decide whether it wants the existing annexation provision that has been proposed to be revised, in which case the Board will have a week to do that, or it can review the new proposal.  Chair Voltz stated at the same time, the cities need to speak up and let the Board know their feelings on the second proposal. 

 

Paul Gougelman stated with regard to the Interlocal Service Boundary Adjustment Act that was passed by the Legislature in 2006, there is no other location in Florida, to date, that has put that into effect; Brevard County is lucky, because the genesis of that law was from a committee of County and City Managers, the League of Cities, and the Association of Counties; Dr. Schluckebier was one of the members of the committee who helped draft the original proposal, and if anyone knows how that law operates and how it was intended to operate, he is the best source of information.  He stated there is a provision in Chapter 163, Section 163.3171 of the Florida Statutes, and that enactment was part of the original growth management law and it talks about cities and counties forming provisions by agreement for determining who will have jurisdiction over what pieces of property, from a land use planning and development standpoint, what regulations will apply, when they will apply, and the idea is that perhaps in the unincorporated area there needs to be a joint panel or a municipal panel; and in the incorporated areas there needs to be some sort of County review panel, and the idea is to break flexibility.  He noted everyone in Brevard County has become concerned about growth management, but the idea of a joint planning agreement is the right way to go, whether using provisions under the Interlocal Boundary Adjustment Act, or if using the Chapter 163, Section 163.3171, will get them where they want to be; and they need to not be hasty in running forward with solutions just because people are concerned with growth management.  He reminded the Board the City of Melbourne approached Brevard County in 1999 about a Joint Planning Agreement, and it was rejected because the County was not ready yet, but the County has changed a lot since then; and as the Chairman of the original Charter Commission, he would urge the Board not to rush the process.  He stated the Board is amending the County’s Constitution and it needs to be careful; and the message is that consensus is the way to do it. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not think Chapter 163, Section 163.3171 has been working; and he is going to base that on the litigation that the County had with one of the municipalities regarding annexation; the DCA basically stated the home rule goes to the City; and the level of frustration has manifested into Save Brevard.  He noted the County does not want the issue of density; and they all realize growth is coming and it is here, but the issue is managing.  He commented if the agreement is not going to be binding then annexation falls by the wayside in terms of density, and that is the concern everyone has.  He requested Dr. Jack Schluckebier inform the Board about Chapter 171 and why it will work.

 

Melbourne City Manager Dr. Jack Schluckebier stated he hopes Melbourne will be on the leading front, trying to work cooperatively with Brevard County as one of the first City/County cooperatives and binding partnership agreements regarding boundary adjustments and future services; and when people are seeking when looking to annex they are looking for municipal services.  He noted Chapter 171 spells out a number of suggestions for boundary adjustment; the binding method is one of the newest tools in Chapter 171; and Melbourne would like the opportunity to put it to good use.  He noted another method in Chapter 171 is voluntary annexation, and there is a specific provision in Chapter 171 that says Charter Counties may have an exclusive method of voluntary annexation in their Charter; and the method is not subject to later ordaining by an ordinance, it has to be in the Charter.  He commented the issue cannot be resolved in eight days, as it took two and a half weeks for it to go through the Board’s panel of attorneys and come up with a conclusion, so it would be a relief to the cities if the County Board would throw in the towel on this round but could get the cities’ commitment to go to the next step; and that is what Melbourne plans to do.  He stated he cannot answer a specific question about how they can solve growth management issues and density issues, and unfortunately this is Florida and this has been happening here for 35 years.   He added Melbourne is not on the rapid pace of growth as there is steady sustainable growth, and they want to keep it that way.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he thinks property owners are not looking for municipal services, but density, and he is basing that on what has happened with previous annexations; if a developer cannot get the density he wants through the County, then he will annex through the city, who will make the developer have city sewer; and that is what the Board sees occurring continuously, and that is what he is concerned about.

 

Dr. Schluckebier stated the City of Melbourne is ready to cooperate with the County Commission; he recalls at the meeting last year, the goal of the growth coalition was to try to push various cities into Joint Planning Agreements; and as Mr. Ropert reported there has been substantial progress on that, and if the Board of County Commissioners now desires to move to a more restrictive context, the City’s Growth Management Task Force will do that cooperatively with the County Commission. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the ways to focus on that is instead of looking outside the boundaries for opportunities, look within the blighted and disturbed properties and the abandoned shopping centers; and some of them can be razed and new structures can be rebuilt.  He noted they all need to be focused on what is in, and one of the problems the Board is going to have is that with the recent increase in the various fees, a change of use is going to incur huge impact fees that may discourage some of what they are talking about and may encourage someone to go out for cheaper land in the sprawling areas instead of the redevelopment  areas  or   the  blighted  or  disturbed   areas;   and  the  Board  needs  to   start

addressing how best it can have the infrastructure within developed, rather than moving out and creating a sprawl they do not want to see.

 

Commissioner Colon stated the Cities of Rockledge and Melbourne have always been in the lead in regards to the Joint Planning Agreement; even though the petitions are not legal, the Board of County Commissioners still has the authority to put a referendum on the ballot; and her interest is to find out if there is the same sense of enthusiasm and cooperation with the other municipalities.  She commented any time the City of Melbourne has annexed into the County, the citizens have voted in favor, and it has been a positive transaction.

 

Dr. Jack Schluckebier stated if a proposal was designed, there are several models to follow; Volusia County is undergoing a Growth Management Commission; Pinellas County, seven or eight years ago, had that with respect to voluntary annexation; and for a while it seemed to help them at their level.  He commented the City of Melbourne is willing to work with the County Commission on any of the models; and if the Board of County Commissioners would like to narrow its direction to the Growth Management Task Force, Melbourne is ready to go to work on the new sets of orders.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she appreciates the City of Melbourne stepping forward, and with Melbourne in front now with the Interlocal Boundary Agreement, it is essential to move the conversation forward.  She noted the City of Melbourne has submitted to the County Commissioners an initiating resolution to get it involved; and inquired if that same resolution can be part and parcel to the same resolution that all the cities come together so there is one resolution that identifies concurrency standards and provision solutions.  She stated with all the people upset about growth management, the only feasible way to go forward to get community involvement and understanding is if they all go forward together and not just the City of Melbourne; her concern is that if the City of Melbourne does their due diligence and does a good job, there will be a different standard for the Cities of Melbourne, Palm Bay, Rockledge, and Titusville and everyone will do it, but there will not be any more than what there is now, which is inconsistencies, and that is what creates headaches for County and City government.  She inquired if there was an approach the City of Melbourne could use to make the County Commission and the other cities feel more comfortable going forward with the Coalition.

 

Dr. Schluckebier stated the new law allows some giant opportunities that have never been on the books; and Melbourne does not desire to have the Resolution include the whole County, as it does wish to bargain on behalf of the other 15 cities, nor be in the middle of those conflicts.  He stated the City of Melbourne will cooperate with others on generic answers, but in the future if the County wants to work towards an exclusive method of voluntary annexation that took in the requirements of the new tool in Chapter 171, there is great latitude to do that, but it cannot be constructed in the next eight days.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired how Dr. Schluckebier sees a consistent standard across the Board for all municipalities and the County to deal with when it comes to school capacity, water, and transportation; with Dr. Schluckebier responding those issues have finite time tables which everyone must adhere to, and all local governments will start to scramble very soon, as the rules are a lot different than they were 24 months ago.  He stated he has not heard many objections to small amounts of acreages being annexed, but when annexing thousands of acres there are many objections; and he suggested the Board craft a proposal that starts at some level of acreage.  Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has not had time to read the new submittal of the rural land proposal; understanding what the implications are has some merit; and it takes some issues out of the focus they are all worried about in terms of the large annexation issues. 

 

Dr. Schluckebier stated it is true there was litigation between the City of Winter Springs and Seminole County, but before all of that happened, the County, of its own volition and own time through appropriate land planning and its own comprehensive plan, established a rural area; so the question the court was asked in that case was quite different than the issues in front of the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners.  Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board could take Senate Bill 360 and the new language and couple them together and go forward, that would be a good plan, because then comprehensive plans could be brought in and they all can work off of similar levels of service. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he thinks the problem is more than annexation; and he has been advised that if no further zonings occurred in the County properties, there could be a doubling of the County population.  He commented the problem seemed most profound where the cities were excluding County residents from actually appearing to discuss the impacts of annexations and increased densities have occurred; and in that regard the cities have responded quite differently.  He stated there are many cities and the County has to deal with all of them, and the issue becomes can they all compel into local agreements; the concept is not the Interlocal Agreement, but that the cities become profoundly involved in what is happening in the County; and what has happened in unincorporated Viera has profoundly affected the capacity of Rockledge to do things.   He inquired if they can or cannot have a legal response in a timely manner, and if not, then there will be plenty of time to do it right and in a different manner.

 

Chair Voltz stated there is a special election in the Presidential Primary in March, 2008, and that is possible; and the money is not there.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it may be better to handle some growth problems than pay for growth because it was not managed correctly. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated everyone in the County is concerned about this issue and not just the people in the unincorporated areas; the Board received a letter from the Supervisor of Elections Office stating the signatures were verified for the proposed Charter Amendment; and there was close to 5,800 signatures from all five Districts.  She stated it affects citizens in city limits as far as how far the utilities go, and there are some municipalities that because the growth has gotten out of control, they have taken the situation in their own hands and started charter schools.  She inquired how serious the municipalities are about attempting to go forward, and she would like to hear from the municipalities next, to hear how serious they are in regards to the issue; and stated she is willing to pay whatever it takes to have a special election if the municipalities are not serious, but she hopes the municipalities have the same enthusiasm as the City of Melbourne.  She noted the Board has some good working relationships with some of the municipalities who have stepped up to the plate, and the Board wants to see that team effort across the board. 

 

Chair Voltz stated it is clear that everyone is concerned about growth.  She stated the City of Palm Bay annexed 1,600 acres in the Micco area; and the reason Grant-Valkaria incorporated was because of their concern about encroachment of the cities.  She stated that is going to be a problem and it is happening in Mims with the City of Titusville encroaching on them; and she does  not   believe  the   Commissioners   are  here  to   propose  a   unilateral   mandate  on the

cities, as they are here as a cooperative effort in joint planning, because if the Board cannot joint plan, it is not going to get done.  She advised everybody needs to get together and plan appropriately because that is the only way Brevard is going to stay Brevard and not become Broward.

 

Town of Malabar Mayor Tom Eschenberg stated he has heard that the Save Brevard amendment is dead, but he has not heard the Board say that; and Malabar does not have anything to do with annexation, because with the incorporation of Grant-Valkaria, it is now surrounded on three sides.  He commented it seems to him the Commission is trying to save Brevard from runaway growth, and all of the bad cities are annexing all of the land and growth is out of control with no services to support it; and stated that is not true, and the County Commission is just as guilty, if not more so, with the runaway growth and the Board could set an example.   He noted the requirements in the Save Brevard Charter also apply to the County and it did not meet the requirements, so it was putting the same thing on itself; and based on the statistics he has seen, Brevard County is number two behind Palm Bay in issuing permits in the County, and the Board can set its own requirements and lead by example if it so chooses.  He commented what the citizens of Grant-Valkaria were really trying to do when they incorporated is have some control over their land and they really wanted protection from Brevard County, and it all started when the County rezoned some land in the Valkaria area from one-acre lots to quarter-acre lots. 

 

Chair Voltz commented the Board has never done that.

 

Mayor Eschenberg stated the property is just south of Malabar on the corner of Valkaria Road and Weber Road.  He stated Grant-Valkaria wanted control over their own land and they did not want the County Commission going in.  Chair Voltz stated the focus today needs to stay on how the cities can work with the County.  Mr. Eschenberg stated his only point is that if anyone is guilty, the County Commission joins the cities.

 

City of Satellite Beach Vice Mayor Dominick Montanaro stated this meeting is a good opportunity for everyone to share their ideas and visions.  He stated he sits on the State Environmental Quality Board for the Florida League of Cities; and water and growth management are the two biggest issues the County faces at those meetings.  He noted the fact that all of the municipalities are present shows they are interested in working with the County on whatever issues it needs to discuss; growth management is a big issue; and the Board will find that the cities are as committed to working the issue with the County, as it is with them.

 

City of Cocoa Beach Commissioner Tony Sasso stated a comment was made that some cities cooperate and some do not, but they are all in the same County, and they represent all of the citizens who want someone to stand up and handle the growth.  He stated the City of Cocoa Beach is all about growth management, and have been through all of this, and have had Charter Amendments and issues come up that were fought in court and won; and they are happy to work with the County as well as the rest of the cities and residents they represent.

 

City of Rockledge Mayor Larry Schultz stated when the County Charter is changed, the Board needs to take its time and there should not be any kind of rush to judgment on changing the Charter.  He stated he thinks the two proposals they have seen are seriously flawed and there is not time to fix them; and any new Charter Amendments need to be looked at extensively.  He commented the City of Rockledge has always cooperated with the County and it has had a JPA

(Joint Planning Agreement) with the County for years; when people want to annex into the City of Rockledge it is voluntary and in many cases they come to the City Council and are granted densities that are at, or less, than the County’s densities.  He commented one reason people come to the City of Rockledge is because the City can provide them services and the City has a much smaller staff, less red tape, and it takes a lot less time and money to move through the City’s planning process rather than it does the County’s.  He stated as far as cooperation in the future, the City has been supportive of the growth management coalition, and they want to work with the County on areas of mutual interest, annexation or otherwise, and are willing to devote the time and energy to do that.

 

John Tecanich, representing the City of Cocoa, stated the City of Cocoa is committed to working in a cooperative manner to try to address the issues; and for the same reasons developers and property owners want to go to the City of Rockledge to annex, it is the same reason in the City of Cocoa, and he would challenge the County Commission to look at the annexations of the City of Cocoa, as many of them have involved a decrease in density or maximum level of density capacity.  He noted the City of Cocoa does not yet have a JPA with the County, and they have been working on one, but it is in the middle of litigation.  He noted after the last meeting with the County, the City of Cocoa outlined, in a detailed letter to Robin Sobrino, the issues the City believed needed to be addressed on JPA’s, and each Commissioner was copied and faxed the letter by him personally; the City also discussed four annexations which were underway prior to the July 12^th meeting; and since those four annexations have occurred the City of Cocoa has processed one annexation.  He stated consistent with his meeting with Ms. Sobrino, the City has provided more than a month and a half advanced notice of the annexation; and to say the cities have not responded, he can say that Cocoa has responded; in addition, Cocoa has sought the transfer of ownership and responsibility of road right-of-ways, and has always communicated that Cocoa would take responsibility for roads it annexes and not leave the County with the burden of maintaining the roads.  He noted the City of Cocoa also has, in good faith, prepared a future annexation boundary map and has held firm on that.  He added the City of Cocoa has been sensitive and understands the concerns people are communicating, specifically the individuals and the citizens and the groups they represent, and the City has tried to be conscious, and the City Council, along with City staff, is committed to working to resolve the issues in an amicable manner.

 

Cape Canaveral Vice Mayor Bob Hope stated there is a serious problem with growth in the County, as they all know; Cape Canaveral has been working very hard to control growth, and it has a very strong Planning and Zoning Board which the City operates under, and builds an average of 10-units per-acre.  He noted the roads in Cape Canaveral are well maintained, but there are three County roads the City is going to take possession of to repair those roads because they are in dire need of repair; and in that respect the City is working with the County to alleviate the road problem.  He commented two years ago the City had a referendum for annexation which failed, but at that time, the City gave both entities, the County and the City of Cape Canaveral, the opportunity to vote on that referendum and the City paid for it.  He noted Cape Canaveral is part of the League of Cities and is willing to cooperate in any fashion it can.

 

Titusville Mayor Ron Swank stated he agrees with Commissioner Colon that there needs to be trust between the County and the Cities to work together; and if there are JPA’s, and agreements to give notice to each other and it is not followed, or when something is moved at the last minute, it hurts the trust.  He commented Titusville worked on its JPA for several years and it had some teeth, but between the County saying no, and then making proposals back and forth, the JPA got to where it is; and it takes two to negotiate.  He  stated in regards to growth in other areas of the County, Viera is not a city and it does not have to annex property to expand because it is unincorporated, whereas if a city were to expand, it would have to annex.  He commented there has been quite a bit of growth in North Brevard and that growth is impacting the northern most high school in the County, which is Astronaut, which is at 100% capacity; and all of North Brevard is feeding into it, yet nowhere in the seven-year plan is a mention of the first classroom being added to the North Brevard area.  He stated there needs to be a trust between the County and the City, rather than the City feel like it is being told what to do, because the City is Chartered also and it has certain home rule powers through the State also.  He stated the City is trying to work with the County and a lot of people do work well together.

 

West Melbourne City Manager Dave Raynal stated his interest today was that the Charter Amendments did not happen and were not going to be pursued, as the amendments seemed hastily put together and a forced issue from his perspective.  He stated the process seemed flawed when the cities were responding to issues of drastic changes in the way that zoning and annexation rules were being considered; and although he is new and does not know the past of the County and Cities, the City of West Melbourne is willing to work with the Commission to better plan the area in and around the City.  Mr. Reynal stated West Melbourne is as concerned as others are with the growth that has happened in the area; and he would like to work with County staff and County Board on managing growth in the area.  He commented the public expects and deserves the local governments to cooperate and work together actively in their best interests and not governments’. 

 

Palm Shores Mayor Carol McCormack stated the Board can see that everybody is here in the spirit of cooperation and they do want to work together; and the Town of Palm Shores is trying to eliminate the blight, as there are blighted areas that have been worked on and they are trying to have community redevelopment, so their growth is on a small basis; and their annexations have been on a small basis, but the reason they are doing that is to eliminate the blighted areas.  She commented the Space Coast League of Cities and all of the Cities are trying to rebuild the trust; and Mr. Swank was correct in stating the County does not seem to trust the Cities and the Cities do not seem to trust the County.  She stated the Cities are there to show the Board they are interested in trying to resolve the issues, but she does not think the two amendments are the way to do it.

 

Palm Bay Deputy Mayor Pat Woodard stated everyone is concerned with growth management, and he does not think the proposals that were set forth dealt with growth management.  He noted there were 6,000 signatures on the proposal, and it said, “Are you in favor of preserving a quality of life”, and if the proposal was phrased as, “Are you willing to pay $100 million to bring levels of service up to where they want it to be”, there may have been different results.  He commented a year ago the Board wanted to do JPA’s, and he knows that being the biggest city also brings with it a lot of the blame, so the City did a JPA and outlined some areas it will not annex; it was never the intention to annex the Grant-Valkaria area; and the reason Palm Bay has thousands and thousands of acres annexed into Palm Bay is because that is where thousands and thousands of acres are, and all of those annexations are voluntary.  He stated Palm Bay has very different needs than the rest of the County does; and it has infrastructure problems it has to address and it is helping to address those problems with some of the annexation and construction that is going on by extending the lines.  Mr. Woodard noted Palm Bay joined the Growth Management Coalition and has been an active part of it, trying to find solutions, and he realizes they are not moving as fast as the County would like them to, but government is very slow.  He stated trust is the key on both sides; the County has to be able to develop relationships with the Cities; and the Cities have to be able to develop relationships with

the County.  He stated they started designing maps, and worked on land use problems, they then found out the County Attorney actually helped draft the proposal; and he would like the County Attorney to comment on that.  He noted then the Board instructed the review panel that if the proposal was legally insufficient, then it should fix it for the Board so it can be put on the ballot anyway.  He stated it is time for the County and the Cities to come together and start establishing trust.

 

Indialantic Town Manager Christopher Chinault stated Indialantic is dependent on other cities, and they do not see a lot of growth or annexation opportunities, and they are not looking to change anything.  He stated he is concerned because sometimes many municipalities will get painted with the same brush and they are not all the same, and maybe the Board and the Cities can deal with the issues one on one with the jurisdictions where there are issues.  He noted the Charter Amendments seem like they need to be pursued in a more proper and thoughtful manner; and when the County changes its Charter, it changes the Charters of all of the Municipalities.   He added the Town of Indialantic is happy to assist any way it can.

 

Dr. Jack Schluckebier stated he appreciates the Board’s active listening in the process; and he would like to mention the rights of people, who, for the most part, are not here today and will not be heard unless he puts a plug in for them;  he read, “Whereas, if approved by voters the proposed exclusive method for voluntary annexation within Brevard County would impair the rights of thousands of property owners to simply petition for annexation and develop properties within municipalities to obtain higher level municipal services”; and for all of the discussion about growth management and the need, if there was a vote today, it would be unanimous that they need to improve on all that; however, the Legislature adopted the Bert Harris Property Rights Act, and there is a balancing act that they have to balance the rights of the private property owners as well; and that does not mean giving in to countless thousands of density upgrades. 

 

Melbourne Beach Commissioner Donnie Price stated he is encouraged that this meeting started with a thread of “them” against “us”, and now he is hearing the word “trust”, and he has learned there is no trust unless there is respect and the County electorate and the City electorate are the same people; so the County and municipalities represent the same people, and he does not think there is any question in Brevard County that growth management is on the top of the agenda.  He advised the Board to be careful when it tries to legislate through changes in the Constitution, and it is almost always in error.  He stated he is encouraged and he knows the commitment is here to represent the citizens of the County and Cities, and he knows the vast majority of the people are very concerned about growth management.  He stated the Counties and Cities need to trust each other and come together and satisfy this pressing need called Growth Management; it cannot be legislated, and any attempt to legislate it and bypass each of the chartered entities in Brevard County will only result in a busy court system and busy attorneys; and the bill for all of that will come to the pockets of the people who are already stressed.  He advised the Board to think carefully about what has been proposed here today; and the Board has already received a copy of a Resolution from Melbourne Beach which unanimously opposed those proposed amendments to the Brevard County Constitution.  He stated with all the recent changes in legislature, the County and Cities are in a position to take the lead in doing something about growth management. 

 

Lisette Kolar, Town of Grant-Valkaria, stated the Town wants to thank the County and Cities for helping it to get  on its feet.  She  stated  by its Charter,  the Town of Grant-Valkaria’s  growth is controlled and it is to remain rural; it takes six of the seven Council members to increase the density, so it does not anticipate huge amounts of growth, and that was the reason it incorporated.  She stated with all due respect to Mayor Eschenberg, it was the encroachment of Palm Bay and the action of the County that made them incorporate.  She stated the Town has an Interim Council, not an elected Council, and it feels it could not comment on the actions today.

 

Indian Harbor Beach Mayor Jim Nolan, Sr. stated his City is over 50 years old and is almost 100% percent built out; and he thinks the City has a good working relationship with the County.  He noted Indian Harbor Beach does not have a growth issue problem, and its citizens are satisfied with the services; the City’s only concern is if anything is done to the Charter, as the City has been debt free for years, and it is doing well and would like to be left alone.  He stated undoubtedly, Brevard County has a growth management problem, and he would advise the Commission to work slowly and cooperatively with the municipalities and solve the problem.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board does not have capacity then it appears there will be an extended discussion, and the Board does not even know the full implications of Chapter 171, and how it could improve the capacity to deal with the issues; and the issues are more complex than just annexations and JPA’s.  He inquired if the Board can hear from County Attorney Scott Knox.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Board needs four votes to get the referendum forward; and the legal panel can return something to the Board that will pass constitutional muster in seven days, but they are not sure it will be what the Board wants.  Chair Voltz stated if the legal panel comes back to the Board in seven days, whatever the Board decides to do has to go back to each city and let it decide, as they represent a lot of people, and they should be able to take any issue back to their Councils to discuss.   She stated the County does not need to be in lawsuits over the next 20 years over the whole issue; she has petitions she will turn over to the Clerk’s Office against the two referendums that were presented today, and she has emails for and against the petition, but it is dead now and if the Board is going to do  anything it is going to work with the Cities; and if the Commissioners are not willing to work with the cities to make sure everyone is on board with what the Commission is doing, then this whole meeting has been a waste of time.   She stated City Councils must approve of what the Board does or it will end up in lawsuits. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated people have mentioned the impact Viera causes, and she discussed it during the DRI meeting, but she did not feel the Board took a strong look at what is going on, because it is affecting Rockledge, and Melbourne.  She commented Lead Brevard is now helping the Board closely, and the Summit will be in December; and the Board has discussed growth management at the Summits many times.  She stated what the State is saying is that the School Board, the Municipalities, and the Counties have to come together and figure everything out as a team; and the next Summit will be in November and Lead Brevard will be helping with that.  She added the Summits are not supposed to solve the problems of the world, but they bring everyone together; and she hopes Chapter 171 is the topic of discussion at the next Summit.  She inquired how much involvement the County Attorney had in the drafting of the proposed amendments, and if he shared with the group they would have to get their own counsel.

 

County Attorney Scott Knox stated he helped draft the annexation proposal over two years ago and there was discussion over the group getting their own counsel.  Chair Voltz inquired if Mr. Knox formulated the proposal, and now it has come back illegal; with Mr. Knox stating one section is illegal.

 

Titusville Mayor Ron Swank stated the original Summit was put together by Mark Ryan, who was City Manager of West Melbourne; and the original Summit was such that everyone sat at a round table and have been able to talk, and since then the Cities are sitting in chairs and the County Commission is on the dais, and it is perceived as the Board is telling the Cities, as opposed to asking the Cities.  He noted that is a perception that has been a problem and if the Board wants to continue the Summits, that is something that needs to be addressed.

 

Commissioner Colon stated there have been six or seven Summits and that instance of the Commission on the dais and the Cities in chairs only happened one time in the Board’s chamber, and at the last Summit, in Cocoa, everyone was sitting at the same level, at one table.  She stated the Summit Mr. Swank mentioned was started by her, in her office, with the City of Melbourne, Palm Bay, West Melbourne and Melbourne Village, and Indian Harbor Beach; she started the Summits when she first came into Office; everyone in her District would meet on a quarterly basis; at that time there was going to be a Summit that would just be South Brevard, and then the City Managers asked her what she thought of a Summit that would include the entire County; and that is how it originated.  She commented something that was so small originated in her office and has grown into something that she hopes when she leaves, will be continued; and it is important to have those discussions.  She stated for those who do not know, the Summit brings together State Representatives, School Board members, the Mayors of the Cities, and the County Commissioners; and it meets twice a year. 

 

Mayor Swank stated it is a good program, and he would encourage it.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the JPA’s are a nice tool, but they are not binding, and that is the problem; the Board can enter into a JPA and then one or the other party could enter out of it; he thinks Chapter 171 is the answer and it is the most effective tool the Board can have, as he does not see where it would be litigious; and it has the positive effect to produce what it is the Board wants, which are binding agreements that are going to designate municipal service boundaries, service areas, impacts of annexation, land uses, et cetera.  He commented it appears Chaper 171 is going to be the key to coming up with a solution of how to manage growth in Brevard County; otherwise, he is concerned, and he holds the Charter dear, as it is not like a covenant in a homeowners association, but is a vehicle that has power and is not to be treated lightly; and he wants to be sure what the Board puts to the vote of the people is something that is meaningful and can be enacted. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated trust of the people is a critical piece and the only way to have that is to create the ties that bind; and there needs to be a binding authority that gives the people an understanding of what is going to happen in the future, and not just today.  She stated the Board has a meeting on October 12, 2006 at 1:00 p.m., which is the first workshop with the Commission  to talk about the extension of the DRI; and it is potentially a substantial deviation of the existing Viera DRI, which still has 8,000 units to be developed; there is a consideration for an additional 12,000; and the west side of I-95’s complexion is going to be very different and some serious and potential positive things may come out of that development, if it passes the  muster.  She stated  not only the  County  Commission,  but  the citizens and the cities that are concerned about how the current DRI has impacted them need to have their voices heard.  She stated at a recent East Coast Regional Planning Council meeting, it took five DRI’s and looked at their total impact instead of looking at them individually; and there was a working group and a consultant was hired who reviewed all of the DRI’s and came back with suggestions which were incorporated into every DRI.  She stated it is true that all of the development that has come out of Brevard County, the biggest percentage is in Viera; stated Viera was created many years ago and it has only recently taken off; and the development west of I-95 will impact all of them. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there are four Commissioners who would like to meet on August 31, 2006 with the perspective of looking at something that could be legal and proceeding just on the annexation issue.  He noted if there are four Commissioners, it appears the Board can move ahead with that one item; if there are not four Commissioners, it looks like the Board will enter into discussion; and he agrees that Chapter 171 is important, and there are things in Chapter 171 that will go beyond the annexation.  He inquired if the Board is interested in moving forward with what the panel can give it, and something that can go on the ballot in November; and stated he is interested in doing it.  He commented people do not trust leaders, they trust the law, as the law is the way the country operates; but if there is not four votes, then there is no reason to ask the panel to come back on August 31, 2006.

 

Chair Voltz stated several attorneys have stated there is not enough time for the Board to do something, and get it back to the cities; the cities have asked the Board not to do anything with it until they have looked at it; and she does not think there is enough time.  Commissioner Colon stated a lot of people took off from work to come here today and speak, and they should be given the opportunity.  Chair Voltz stated she disagrees, and there is nothing the Board can do, unless Commissioner Scarborough wants to make a motion.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the continuation of the annexation referendum only if there are four votes to carry it; and ask the panel to return to the Board with language as soon as possible and provide that language to the cities.  

 

 

David Tolces stated the legal panel is happy to draft a new referendum at the Board’s direction, but he is concerned if the panel can provide the Board with something that meets its desires and the community’s desires.  Commissioner Scarborough responded that is why there needs to be public discussion.

 

Commissioner Colon stated it needs to be clear the Board is not discussing the wording of the petitions, as both are illegal; and people need to learn that anyone who puts together a petition in Brevard County needs to hire their own counsel.  She stated what Commissioner Scarborough is referring to is that the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to put one together from scratch.  Commissioner Scarborough clarified the legal panel has reviewed two proposals; one of them is impossible to make work; the other one could work, and that is the annexation proposal; and the panel can do that and bring it back to the Board on August 31, 2006.  He commented it seems to be inappropriate to hear a lot of discussion on something the Board cannot legally do.

 

Chair Voltz stated first and foremost what has been discussed today is cooperation and joint planning;  and  this  is going  to be a rushed issue  that the Board is going to try to rush to get on

the ballot without the opportunities for the cities to look at it, and she will not support something that will be rushed and that the Board may end up in court for; and until there is an opportunity for all the cities to look at it, she is not supporting it.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the proposal were to come back on the 31^st, and the panel reviews it and decides it did not like it, can an injunction be filed that would prevent it from going on the ballot; with David Tolces responding to the extent the proposed ballot language is consistent with State law and it is internally consistent with the State Constitution and Florida law, then it could go on the ballot.

 

Professor Rogow stated it could be subject to an injunction; and one of the issues is the 60-day rule in the County’s own Resolutions, and if the panel comes back with something on August 31, 2006 it has to be distributed so people can look at it and address it and then discuss with the Board the positives, negatives, and possible violations.  He stated under Brevard County’s Charter if two people say yes, it can be put on the ballot.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the issue is now the Board’s prerogative and it can reject a proposal for any reason it wishes; Professor Rogow stated the legal panel looked at the proposal and said the ballot title and proposal are no good; and now there does not seem to be any ballot title and proposal.  He noted he understood one of the panelists say he does not know what it is the Board wants, because that has not been laid out; at least before, the Board had the proposal and the legal panel could say yes or no; and he thinks what the Board is really asking for is legal advice.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a difference in changing the substance and changing the legalese; and for him the question is if the substance has been changed, and if the substance is moved to the extent it is a different intent with different ramifications, that is where the public discussion needs to occur, as opposed to something that cannot get on the ballot from the beginning.  Professor Rogow stated usually what happens is there is a ballot title and proposal, and then the panel would take a look at it and say if it is good or bad; and what he hears now is the Board asking the panel to rework proposal two to see if it can pass muster, but the Board is not giving the panel a ballot title, as it is asking the panel to do the legal work; and he heard from the panel that it does not know what the Board wants.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired in adjusting the legalese to make it work, has the substance been adjusted to the extent it is no longer acceptable; and noted only after the legal panel comes back to the Board, can it have the dialogue on the subject.  Professor Rogow stated if the panel comes back on the 31^st, there has to be dialogue as to whether or not it passed muster for the Board.  Commissioner Scarborough stated at that point there is an ability to have a public discussion on an issue the Board can take action on.  He noted it is beyond the Board’s capacity, under the Charter, to put this on the ballot unless it is adjusted; however, the Board could gain the ability to discuss it if the legal issue is corrected.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if a new proposal comes back on the 31^st and the cities object and decide to file for an injunction because of the 60-day rule, would that prevent it from being placed on the ballot; and stated he believes the answer he got was that it would not prevent it from going on the ballot.  Attorney David Tolces stated it could go on the ballot, but it could always be subject to the cities filing an action for an injunction and whether or not it succeeds or not is up to the judge.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired of the hearing time on an injunction; with Professor Rogow responding it could be quick; and if the proposal is brought back to the Board on the 31^st and it said it wants to approve it and put it on the ballot, and then if the League went into court to seek to adjoin, then it would not be on the ballot for November.  He noted the Commission could appeal that and ask that the injunction be reversed. 

 

Chair Voltz stated if the Board is talking about litigation, then it has totally negated what it has done here today.  Commissioner Colon stated the Board has to be careful, because the issue is not just about the ballot before them, it is about the County Charter which is very specific, as it has to have a certain amount of signatures; and the Board sent it to a panel to review it.  She noted if the Board of County Commissioners decides it does not like a particular amendment, then all of a sudden it is going into very dangerous territory for the simple fact that the Board can turn around and put a Charter together and say the citizens wanted it and completely muddy the waters.  She noted the issue is not just about the petition the Board is looking at today, as it is about any petition that comes before the Board of County Commissioners; therefore, today, it has to be clear about where the Board is going.  She stated the County Commission has the authority to put something on the ballot, and at that point, it is given to the constituents to vote on it.  She commented if the Board wants to consider a different wording, that wording has to be discussed today; the citizens need an opportunity to look at it; and the cities need to be given the courtesy to look at it also, so that on the 31^st there can be the kind of discussion where everyone realizes it is a brand new discussion.  

 

Titusville Mayor Ron Swank inquired if a new amendment comes back and needs to be reviewed, should it have to go to a different legal panel; with Chair Voltz noting she would think that it would.  Chair Voltz stated there are too many questions today to move forward on this issue.

    

Pat Woodard stated the Independent Review Committee was mentioned and inquired if the Board wants an Independent Review Committee, and if it does, how can it ask the review committee to craft the amendment.  Chair Voltz stated the Board will have to send it to an independent committee; and timewise she does not think it will work.  Chair Voltz noted there was not a second to Commissioner Scarborough’s motion. 

 

Chair Voltz stated she thinks it is important for the cities to look at the proposal; and the Board would like feedback from the cities, and then it can go from there.  She stated the Growth Management Coalition is where this started and that is where it needs to finish; this is about working together and cooperation and if the Board begins to put out things the cities can litigate, then it has accomplished nothing, and the citizens are going to end up paying a lot of money for legal fees and there will be total confusion. 

 

Mr. Swank inquired if the proposed amendment requires a motion of act that it does not meet by the County Commission and shall not go on the ballot; with Chair Voltz responding it has been  presented to the Board as a petition and inquired if the Board has to make a motion to reject it; with Attorney Knox responding no, it is rejected by Charter.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board and the cities need to think about what will come away as an action of the whole meeting process for the Coalition; and there needs to be a directive from the Coalition to make sure there is a time constraint so they all can evolve into what they are all saying they want to evolve into, which could be a hybrid of Chapter 171 and Senate Bill 360; and the County’s and Cities’ staff need to get together and figure out the details of Chapter 171.  She stated in order to retain the trust of the citizens, the Board needs to put something on the record today that states it is going to go forward and do something in a positive manner. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if 60 days is enough time for the Cities’ counsels to review the amendment; with several cities responding at once no.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it may be unfair to move the subject beyond what this language is to other issues, because the Cities cannot meet with their counsels.  He noted it is not a question of whether the County and Cities trust each other, it is whether the people of Brevard County trust the County and Cities.

 

Carol McCormack stated one of the reasons many cities lost interest in the Summit is because they felt they did not have any input into the agenda or discussion; the trust has to be a two-way street, and the cities have to be able to suggest items they feel are necessary on the agenda, whether they are large or small; the whole issue needs to be revisited, and the League of Cities would like the Commission to come to a Board Meeting with it; and she offers the invitation to the Board. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated there is a lack of communication, because the agendas for the Summit have been put together with the City Managers and whoever the president is at the time; with Carol McCormack responding there is a lack of communication between all of them.

 

The Board recessed at 4:18 p.m. and reconvened at 4:30 p.m.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated when the Cities’ representatives left, there was no action taken; she spoke to a couple of them about what the action should be; and the suggestion was for the County Commission to have one or two more meetings with the Cities of Cocoa, Rockledge, Palm Bay, Melbourne, and Titusville, where they all can talk about Chapter 171 and have someone external to the group come in as an expert on the language, and discuss and answer all questions about it.  She stated she would like to make a motion to set up a meeting in the near future with the five cities to have an educational meeting. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to schedule a meeting within approximately 30 days with the Cities of Cocoa, Melbourne, Rockledge, Palm Bay, and Titusville to discuss the new Florida Statute 171, Interlocal Service Boundary Agreements; and have someone who is external to the group come in as an expert on the language.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Laurilee Thompson stated her group is here to tell the Board about some of the exciting endeavors that can happen in their community, to imagine a place where one can take a voyage transcending history through the past, present, and future of Brevard County; and to start the journey at the Chain of Lakes.

 

Ms. Thompson showed the Board a video presentation of the Chain of Lakes Project and provided some history of the project and the area.   She stated the people of North Brevard request the Board give them the opportunity to vote on their future, and take a journey with them to explore the possibilities.

 

Ted Beck, Chairman, North Brevard Commission on Parks and Recreation, stated a search for a home for the Titusville Soccer Club led to the Parks and Recreation’s purchase of a 90-acre parcel for the athletic field north of Brevard Community College.  He noted beyond the County park a partnership has evolved consisting of approximately 300 acres owned by various public interests; at the southeast corner is a new $80,000,000 Parrish Medical Center, and to the north is Brevard Community College, which will be able to access the lake system developed by St. Johns River Water Management District; and east of the County park are two acres of property purchased by the St. Johns River Water Management District for environmental preservation. He noted the Water Management District has also extended its lake system to the south side of Brevard Community College; the hospital and the Water Management District will be purchasing property directly to the east of the hospital; and the lake system will be expanded farther to the south.  He noted the college has agreed to allow them to build a community center and an amphitheatre on its property; the community center will be available for meetings, weddings, receptions, and conferences; it will be built to meet all the requirements for use as a hurricane shelter; and the amphitheatre will provide a place for outdoor concerts and other open-air events.  He stated the Chain of Lakes has expanded far beyond the 90-acre County recreational facility; it was made possible through the contribution of funds and lands by the hospital, the college, and the St. Johns River Water Management District; and there is now an opportunity to further build on the relationship and create something truly unique in the State of Florida.

 

Roz Foster, President, North Brevard Heritage Foundation, stated her group has collaborated with Brevard Community College and Parrish Medical Foundation to create a complex that blends interpretive history with senior health and wellness services; and it consists of authentically restored  and replicated structures at the Chain of Lakes.  She stated her foundation needs the infrastructure to start the process of brick-paved streets, gas lights, gardens, and water amenities to create historical ambience; at Heritage Park shell paths lead to the palmetto huts and cracker houses of pioneers, shotgun houses of grove workers, and clapboard homes of city dwellers; and there is a citrus museum, an 1890’s school house, and a pineapple field station with a working windmill.  She noted visitors will be able to ride a ferry across the lake to visit a trading post and listen to the stories of Indians, watch an archeological excavation in progress, and also enjoy a restored train depot complete with rails and crossing lights.  She noted on Main Street, brick paved avenues will be lined with flickering gas lights, gardens, and fountains; there will be an old-fashioned carousel, coffee and sweet treats at the bake shop, and a family inn, fire hall and a hardware store.   She commented the community deeply cares about its unique heritage; they have the land, historic structures, and the manpower; and now they need the infrastructure to start the project and provide a quality environment.

 

Pat Manning stated she represents the senior citizens of North Brevard, and she would like to tell the Board about some of the services that will be at the health village.  She noted the health village will bring together innovative medical services and promote healthy aging; and through advanced medical technology and healthcare services, they hope to achieve a better quality of life.  She advised a Parrish Senior Consultation Center will provide a fellowship-trained geriatrician; and the center will help to provide the health and well-being of older patients who have physical, cognitive, or social problems that interfere with healthy, independent living. She noted there will be Parrish Senior Solutions where seniors can go to get information, services, and help for their health and related needs; and it will be staffed by a licensed, clinical social worker who will provide services that will arrange for help in filling out Medicare paperwork.  She stated next, there  will  be a  palliative and comfort care  center to  help  seniors  address  symptoms of chronic or terminal illnesses; the out-patient center will be designated and designed in coordination with Hospice, and will be staffed by physicians, nurses, and other health professionals who will help with pain management, spiritual counseling, and many other family issues related to chronic illness and end of life decisions; and they also hope to have an inn and hospitality house which will give relatives a place to stay.  She noted the health village will also have rehabilitation services, a balance clinic, and other therapies such as aquatic therapy; and rehabilitation specialists will provide these services to ensure seniors remain mobile and independent.  She advised the Parrish Foundation has a vision, and for everything to become a reality they need the infrastructure.

 

Lloyd Morris, Commander of the Valiant Air Command War Bird Museum, stated his members are dedicated to inspiration, education, and above all, the preservation of military aviation history.  He stated the War Bird Museum began in 1973, and today more than 700 members operate a facility that houses more than 30 vintage military aircraft and thousands of artifacts; and they also present one of the top annual air shows in Florida which is viewed by thousands.  He noted there are individuals who would like to donate more aircraft, but there is no place to put them; if they are able to expand they will be one of the finest military aviation museums in the Nation and a premier Brevard County historical treasure; and the expansion can occur on the existing location and also provide a home for the U.S. Spacewalk of Fame.

 

Phil Kimbro stated he represents the Spacewalk of Fame Foundation and he would like to talk to the Board about their museum; and the Spacewalk of Fame Foundation Museum was formed in 2002 with the mission to preserve local space artifacts, oral histories of participants, and to educate the public about the histories and benefits of space flight.  He stated the museum places emphasis on the role of Brevard County residents who participated and witnessed the advancement of space flight; they now have artifacts which will fill 10,000 square feet of space; and with the recent move of the museum, much of that inventory is in storage.  He noted the items not only represent the history of space travel in the area, but also the people; a permanent space museum facility adjacent to the Valiant Air Command Museum would create an air and space combination that will enhance tourism, will provide a hands-on learning environment for the youth, create the proper facilities for preservation of these artifacts, and enhance the cultural foundation of Brevard County.  He commented the museum’s presence helps to assure that the stories and the artifacts of the people who actually did the work in Florida are preserved; sending men to the moon is one of the most amazing events that have occurred in human history; and the journey started in Brevard County.  He stated a new permanent home will ensure the preservation of Brevard’s unique history in the exploration of space; the Space Walk of Fame Foundation is an organization of volunteers; and they have the people and the memorabilia, but they lack the infrastructure.  He noted the Foundation has letters of support from Jim Kennedy, Director of Kennedy Space Center, and Fred Hayes, Apollo 13 astronaut.

 

Scooter Morrison, President, Indian River City Little League, stated he and others would like to thank the Board for the previous referendum; all of the improvements that were done have made the park so much nicer than what they have played on in years past; and so many more kids are now playing youth sports in North Brevard and they need more room.  He stated improvements passed in the previous referendum for W.W. James Field and Holder Park have been pretty  much  substantially completed;  however,  much  more is needed.    He commented

the fields are used five and six days a week; and the leagues can expand on land they already own.

 

Bonnie Fuller stated one year ago a two-mile paved multi-use recreational trail was built through the Titusville well field connecting Weusthoff Park to Imperial Estates Elementary School; and the trail has been popular with people of all ages.  She noted the County already owns the property between the Enchanted Forest and W. W. James Park; and a new connection would double the length of the trail, greatly enhancing the experience, and expanding the use of the Enchanted Forest and the trail.  

 

Lowell Gray stated he chaired the successful Titusville Waterfront Acquisition Referendum Committee in 2001; and nearly 64% of Titusville voters supported this referendum and ad valorem tax that went with it.  He noted the North Brevard voting public is committed to keeping the Indian River waterfront accessible to the public and utilized for water based businesses; North Brevard citizens have consistently been supportive of all actions to enhance public areas, public access and connectivity to the waterfront; and the public properties acquired on the riverfront to date have met with strong approval, and continuing gratitude for the government’s accomplishments.  He stated additional properties and improvements may now be achievable that would further compliment the utilization and connectivity of the North Brevard public and private attractions; and requested the referendum be approved for inclusion for the fall elections.

 

Al Koller stated he would like to ask the Board to authorize a referendum for the area depicted on the map; and in the process of developing the projects, ways have been discovered to tie them all together with cross-uses that enhance each one.  He noted the millage required to fund the work is estimated at less than $28 a year, per median homeowner; and the people of North Brevard have consistently approved funding for youth sports, health care, historic preservation, environmental management, and aviation and space programs.  He requested the Board let the people vote so that everyone will have the chance to enjoy these assets in the future. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to discuss the numbers in detail; suggested expanding the bonding capacity; and he would like to expand it to $40,000,000. Chair Voltz inquired if that is over 20 years; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board will not know how it all breaks out until it is passed.  County Attorney Scott Knox stated Commissioner Scarborough is referring to something similar that was done with the EEL’s Program; when EEL’s was approved, there was a $55,000,000 authorization; and the Board eventually issued $30,000,000 worth of bonds.  He noted a cushion needs to be built into the amount, and that is what the Board is talking about.

 

Commissioner Colon stated she is happy to see citizens here, and they are extremely respected by the Board of County Commissioners and the constituency.  She noted there will be an audit of Parks and Recreation; the Board wants to make sure it has learned from any mistakes that might have happened; and she is glad the cushion is there. She stated County staff has worked closely with the City of Titusville, and the City is the one who will have to okay some of the permits.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he has a letter from Tom Harmer in support of the Commission.  Commissioner Colon stated the project is incredible; for the citizens of the north part of the County this is a one-time opportunity; and she endorses it for the Board to move forward.

 

Chair Voltz noted the proposal is fantastic; she has had the opportunity to have been at some of the venues as they currently are, and the citizens of Titusville should be commended; and she would encourage to have the positive aspects of the community come through.  Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees with Chair Voltz that it is a great project; and the history museum and various historical places that are here are such wonderful assets, and to be able to bring space, the aviation piece, and then to encapsulate it in a senior sort of scenario is a marvelous model.  She inquired how this project works with the south and central parts of the County.  Chair Voltz stated she does not know and she does not want to muddy the waters. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve ballot language and adopt Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, sitting as the Governing Body of the North Brevard Recreation Special District, calling a bond referendum on November 7, 2006, or such other date as may be authorized by law, within the territorial limits of the North Brevard Recreation Special District on the question of shall the District finance the acquisition, improvement, operation and maintenance of waterfront, recreational, historical and cultural projects within the North Brevard Recreation Special District by levying a .52523 mill ad valoerm tax on all taxable property within the special district in order to issue and repay bonds in an amount not to exceed $40,000,000 at a rate of interest not exceeding the maximum permitted by law; providing for an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                                    for Resolution No. 06-232.)

 

 

Chair Voltz stated there is an item on the ballot for November’s election asking the citizens if the Board can spend money it is already getting, with no new taxes, no increase in money; and the Board is just asking if it can bond out the money it already has.   

 

Interim Parks and Recreation Director Don Lusk stated for the North, the recommendation is for $12,800,000; for Merritt Island it is $13,407,000; and for the South it is $60,270,000 million.  He stated this is under the same thought process the office had with the previously discussed referendum, with the idea that that much does not have to be borrowed, but will need the flexibility.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he realizes Merritt Island needs $7 million to complete projects; $13 million is the high side; and if the projects are able to be completed at $7 million, it can be done.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board could state in plain English that taxes will not be raised; and stated the citizens will see the word “excess” in the language and think the Board has excess money lying around.  Attorney Knox stated the Board can take out the word excess.  The Board discussed the language appearing on the ballot.  Commissioner Colon inquired if the Clerk’s Office has had time to look at the language; with Commissioner Scarborough advising the Board is meeting with the Clerk on August 29^th, so language can be changed and brought back to the Board by then.  Ms. Busacca noted at 1:00 p.m. on the 29^th is when the Board is hearing the Fire Services item, and it might be confusing to people to be discussing a fire fee, while the Board is determining language for a ballot referendum.  She advised the Board could discuss the referendum language further at the Landscape, Land clearing workshop; with the Board agreeing. 

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 5:13 p.m.

 

 

 

                                                                        ____________________________

                                                                        HELEN VOLTZ, CHAIR

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ATTEST:                                                         BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

 

__________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK 

 

        (S E A L)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.