The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on November 21, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Board Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Mark Cook, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson.

The Invocation was given by Father David Page, Holy Name of Jesus Roman Catholic Church, Indialantic.

Chairman Nancy Higgs led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

AUTHORIZATION, RE: MEETING WITH ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the St. Johns River Water Management District proposes to meet with County staff to develop alternative language addressing wetlands policy issues which would be submitted to the Board; the intent is to avoid the administrative hearing that appears to be imminent on recent proposed amendments; and requested authorization for staff to meet with the St. Johns River Water Management District staff.

Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem with staff communicating with the St. Johns River Water Management District staff to see what can be worked out; and it would be preferable to the administrative hearing.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize staff to meet with the St. Johns River Water Management District to review alternative language to address wetlands policy issues in the Comprehensive Plan, with the intent of trying to avoid the administrative hearing that appears to be imminent on recent proposed amendments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: PARK IN SATELLITE BEACH AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE

Commissioner Cook requested the County Manager provide a status report on the park in Satellite Beach at the Wastewater Treatment Plant site.

DISCUSSION, RE: INJUNCTION FILING FEE IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES

Commissioner Ellis requested the County Manager and County Attorney be directed to work with the Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts on the injunction filing fee. He stated there is no action the Board can take tonight because it does not know how many Ordinances will have to be amended to take fees off the one filing fee. Commissioner Ellis stated there are a number of Ordinances for the law library, legal services, etc.; and to lower the filing fee, it will be necessary to include an exemption.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the other option would be to set aside an amount of money to offset that so it stays the same; and can both options be considered. Commissioner Ellis stated it does not matter which option. Chairman Higgs stated the interest is in finding a way in domestic violence cases. Commissioner Ellis stated 95% of the fees are waived anyway; and the Board can do what it needs to do to get the fee lowered.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there should be no fee at all when it comes to spousal abuse; in the cases of a lot of the women who have to come forward, the husbands have the checkbook and money locked up, but continue to beat them; and that is not the way it should be anywhere. He stated the County Attorney and County Manager need to get together to make sure there is no charge across the board. Commissioner Ellis stated the Clerk?s Office has been good at working with people when they come in; and it is best to get the fee removed.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct the County Manager and County Attorney to work with the Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts on the possibility of reducing or eliminating the injunction filing fee in domestic violence cases or setting aside an amount of money to offset that. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES - JOHN ROBERT BURLESON AND TIMOTHY RAY JONES, RE: RESOLUTION FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF EAGLE SCOUT AWARD

Commissioner Ellis read aloud resolutions commending John Robert Burleson and Timothy Ray Jones for their achievement of the rank of Eagle Scout.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt Resolutions commending John Robert Burleson and Timothy Ray Jones for their leadership, charity, character, and perseverance in achieving the honored rank of Eagle Scout. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages _____ for Resolutions Nos. 95-313 and 95-314.)

John Burleson stated becoming an Eagle Scout is one of the greatest honors a boy can get today. Chairman Higgs stated the Board is very proud of what Mr. Burleson and Mr. Jones have achieved. Commissioner Cook stated it is quite an achievement and congratulated Mr. Burleson and Mr. Jones. Commissioner Ellis stated it is an honor recognized throughout the world. Timothy Jones stated it was a lot of hard work, but it was worth it. Commissioner Ellis stated all their work is behind the scenes, but the community appreciates the work Mr. Burleson and Mr. Jones have done.

Commissioner Ellis presented the Resolutions to Mr. Burleson and Mr. Jones. Chairman Higgs recognized Mr. Burleson?s and Mr. Jones? parents and Scout leaders.

RESOLUTION, RE: AUTHORIZING BORROWING OF $1,720,000 FROM COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution authorizing borrowing of $1,720,000 from the Commercial Paper Loan Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 95-315.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADOPTION OF VALKARIA SMALL AREA STUDY

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider adoption of the Valkaria Small Area Study.

Planner I Todd Corwin stated the Valkaria Small Area Study was developed over a 16-month period from August, 1993 to December, 1994; the report contains background information, Citizen Resource Group (CRG) recommendations, and staff recommendations; the CRG goal in the report was to preserve the rural residential character of the area; and staff, in responding to the concerns, used its professional expertise to help the citizens reach that goal through the staff recommendations. He stated the recommendations are divided into residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and conservation; and public comments and the LPA minutes are included.

Assistant Growth Management Director Peggy Busacca stated what staff is asking from the Board tonight is whether it would like the recommendations contained in the report to be put forward as part of the 1996A Comprehensive Plan amendment schedule. She stated if that happens, all property owners would be notified; there would be two series of public hearings before the Local Planning Agency (LPA) and the Commission; and adoption would be in late 1996.

Chairman Higgs stated if the Board determines to go forward on any or all of the amendments, this would be the first of the process; with Ms. Busacca responding that is correct. Chairman Higgs stated there would be two additional public hearings; with Ms. Busacca advising there would be two hearings in front of the Board as well as the LPA and CRG; and this is approximately one year from the effective date of the amendment. Chairman Higgs stated in dealing with the proposed amendments, her intent is to go through each of the recommendations that are in the front of the materials. Ms. Busacca stated the LPA did that effectively.

Chairman Higgs advised of the procedure to address the Board and the timing restrictions. Commissioner Scarborough requested each speaker identify what they want to address.

Tillman Galluccio, 7655 Babcock Street ELLIS, Palm Bay, stated his item is C3. He stated he lives at the corner of Babcock Street and Valkaria Road; he and his wife have lived and worked in Brevard County for 44 years; and they have lived at this site for the last 15 years. He stated the property has 330 feet facing Babcock Street, minus the 50-foot right-of-way, and 230 feet, minus the 50-foot right-of-way, along Valkaria Road; and he does not agree that his 1.5 acres should be considered as rural residential and included in the Valkaria Small Area Study. He stated Babcock Street is a state road and a major north/south highway, and is designated as a four-lane road in the future; Valkaria Road is also a major road linking Babcock Street to U.S. 1, and is also designated four-lane in the future; and traffic is heavy and increasing on Babcock Street and Valkaria Road. He presented a video showing the traffic flow on Babcock Street and Valkaria Road. He stated the traffic count on Babcock Street, from the corner of Valkaria Road north to Jaslo, is 11,676 vehicles average daily traffic; on Babcock Street, from Jaslo Street north to Malabar Road, is 14,556 vehicles; on Babcock Street, from Grant Road north to Valkaria Road, is 5,514; and on Valkaria Road, from the corner of Babcock Street, going east to U.S. 1 is 4,880. Mr. Galluccio stated he agrees with the Growth Management Department?s recommendations as to the properties in question; in 1990, a study was also made; and he had the property up for sale, but everyone wants it as commercial, not residential.

Bob Vaeth, 315 Humbert Street, Palm Bay, Mr. Corwin advised Mr. Vaeth?s item is C1 on page 20. Mr. Vaeth stated he has property in the corridor; the northern boundary is Malabar Road; the property is on Babcock Street; and down the street is a CUP zoning for a child care center, a BU-1-A zoning, and a BU-1 zoning. He stated this was awarded approximately six years ago; and the boundaries were ideal because there was a dedicated road to the rear, Malabar Road and Babcock Street in the front, and there was a cemetery at the rear. He stated the college was starting its buildup at that time; but GDC went into bankruptcy, and there was a standstill. He stated after GDC and Palm Bay resolved the issues about the land, Tallahassee started to work with the Florida Education Research Foundation; and Tom Adams is working directly with Governor Chiles on this. He stated five large buildings are being built along side Jaslo Street; there will be a total of twelve buildings built; Holmes Regional will be building the largest child care center in the County, and possibly in the State; there will be five buildings for research labs; Accudyne is already finished; and submitted pictures. He stated two of the buildings are finished; two more are getting ready to be started; and these are in the private sector where the money is already funded. He stated the college is in the public sector; it is working on grants to get dormitories, etc.; and South Brevard will have the largest technical college in the State which will draw people from all over the State. He stated his property is shown in the Malabar Road, San Filippo, Babcock Street, and Waco Boulevard quadrant; Waco Boulevard is the southern boundary; and his lot is only three-quarters of a mile from Jaslo. He stated the money is funded for Jaslo to be a three-lane boulevard; there will be more traffic lights; and the traffic count will only increase. He stated the previous speaker showed the Board what the traffic conditions are; and advised of the traffic counts. He stated there is a 100-foot right-of-way set aside across from Babcock Street to expand it into a four-lane boulevard; it is tenth on the list to be four-laned; and when that happens, it will not be a place to build a house and raise a family. He stated across the street, none of the houses border Babcock Street; they all border secondary roads; and the houses that do border Babcock Street in Palm Bay are going to be allowed to go commercial. He stated when he first read the report, he was amazed by what was left out of it; his first question was who would want to live in this traffic situation; and even though it was said it was only 10% utilization, it is 53%, and there was no traffic count when the report was written.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the CRG had the traffic counts; with Mr. Corwin responding yes.

Joseph Pivowar, 3725 Valkaria Road, Valkaria, stated he has lived in Valkaria for 23 years; it is a four-mile square area; there is an airport, industrial park, PGA Golf Course, etc.; but it has a rural residential quality that a lot of the people move to the area for. He stated when the CRG effort started, he asked staff whether the CRG recommendations would be overridden by other agencies; staff advised it would help with this problem; staff has provided all the data requested; the CRG invested 16 months in the effort; and tonight the Board will determine whether it was a good investment or a waste of time. He stated the biggest burden is a great potential; with Valkaria there is a lot of undeveloped property, so there is a great potential, but also a grave potential; and Valkaria can become a dumping ground for Palm Bay. Mr. Pivowar stated the industrial area along Old Dixie Highway has two septic companies, two concrete companies, and an asphalt plant; when those were zoned no one lived within 500 feet of them, and no one got any zoning notices; they were not there when the people moved there; and they fought them several times. He displayed a picture showing the close location to the residential area. He stated the CRG recommended the undeveloped areas be PIP because that puts minimum restrictions on there; the things that are down there now have no or minimal restrictions on them; there are open areas with sand, gravel, and asphalt; there is run-off going into Old Dixie Highway and into the drainage ditches that run along it, running into Goat and Kid Creek and eventually into the Indian River. He stated he sent pictures to the County Commission meetings where one of the facilities was built on the day of the zoning approval; the asphalt, septic tank and concrete companies do not look like the one in Palm Bay; they look like the old closed ones that are in Rockledge; and the CRG recommends restricting to PIP in this area. He stated the Board is aware of his feelings about the airport; one of the things he would like to see is an environmentally sensitive area; it is a large parcel the County can obtain; and he would like it to be kept recreational or environmental.

Rick Torpy, representing Herschel Pence, submitted paperwork to the Board. Mr. Corwin advised Mr. Torpy will be speaking about staff recommendation I.1 on page 28. Mr. Torpy stated the first item in the packet is a map that was distributed with this recommendation for the Future Land Use Map amendment; and explained the map. He stated the section being requested for change is a very small portion of the overall recommendations; and the P&Z Board has not followed the recommendations of the Committee. He stated from the north boundary of the industrial site to the south boundary of the existing residential community is over 4,000 feet; it is bordered to the east by the FEC Railroad, Old Dixie Highway and U.S. 1; and it is bordered to the west and south by undeveloped agriculturally zoned land. He stated downzoning from industrial to Planned Industrial Park has to work; if it does not work, it does not help anybody; and displayed photographs showing the existing uses of the property. He stated there is heavy industrial use from the asphalt and concrete plants as well as the plant owned by his client; there are heavy power lines; and there is an active spur line running into the property. He stated the recommendation, which has been made by the CRG but not by the LPA, is to take a section as PIP; and the problem is the concrete plant is already a heavy industrial use. He stated there is a large lake across Old Dixie Highway which will not be used unless someone fills it in; and it will act as a natural buffer. He stated there is an area which his client has historically used for storage; the area has already been cleared and has roads into it; and of the entire recommendation to downgrade to PIP, there is only a small section which is unused area. He stated another parcel is already zoned GU; and the Board just granted an upgraded zoning on another parcel in June, 1995. He stated PIP zoning would be for storage buildings and that kind of cleaner industry; and inquired who will put a mini-warehouse facility behind all the plants, noting it does not have access off Old Dixie Highway without coming through the heavy industrial uses. He stated it will not change the impact; Atlantic Ridge Corporation owns the property to the south; and the Corporation has submitted a letter opposing the change.

Doug Robertson, 100 Parnell Street, Merritt Island, stated he was requested by Mr. Torpy to review the request for Future Land Use Map change; the purpose of the change from the CRG and staff point of view is to provide a buffer between the heavy industrial uses and the vacant agricultural lands to the south; it is a good planning principle; but the question is where to draw the line. Mr. Robertson stated the existing Future Land Use designation of heavy and light industrial is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the property meets all locational requirements outlined in the Plan; and what is proposed does not attempt to bring consistency to the Plan. He pointed out the septic plant, concrete plant, outside storage areas and lake on the aerial photograph; stated PIP is to encourage clean industrial uses; and to encourage clean industrial uses behind the heavy uses is to encourage incompatibility with the existing land uses in the area. He stated he does not see why someone with a clean industrial use would want to be in that location; and the Board needs to look at those facts in drawing the line. He stated Mr. Pence?s property is a half-mile from the nearest single family house; the owner of the adjacent property to the south is against the change; and recommended leaving well enough alone.

Herschel Pence, 7580 Pinecrest Street, West Melbourne, stated he had his property rezoned in 1979; he has been paying taxes on it ever since; and he employs quite a few people who depend on this for their job. He stated this is like building a three-bedroom house when a couple first gets married; a couple does not need three bedrooms; but later they will need the three bedrooms. He stated this is the reason he got the property; he can put more people to work; he can use the property for storage; he paid the high rate of taxes; and the property cannot be used for anything else.

Mr. Torpy requested the section be left as it is currently zoned, and deal with future requests as they come up.

Bob Wattwood, 1825 South Riverview Drive, Melbourne, stated he is present on behalf of Craig and Bruce Graham who are the owners of Parcels 269, 507 and the east 200 feet of 510, all of which are zoned IU. Mr. Corwin stated this would be the same recommendation that Mr. Torpy, Mr. Robertson and Mr. Pence spoke to. Mr. Wattwood displayed an aerial photograph and pointed out the parcels in question. He requested the Board follow the LPA recommendation not to change the Future Land Use Map with respect to these parcels. He stated Bruce and Craig Graham are the owners of Brevard Rentals in Melbourne; they have rented construction equipment to contractors and individual homeowners in the County for over 30 years; their current space in Melbourne is becoming inadequate; and they bought the subject property in anticipation of using it for the benefit of their business. He stated as recently as June, 1995, the Board, following staff recommendation and LPA recommendation, approved industrial zoning for Parcel 507; and his clients entered into a Binding Development Plan with the County to develop the property to meet their needs. He stated it is now less than six months later, and the new proposal would modify the Future Land Use Map such that the property would have to be rezoned to PIP; that is not fair under the circumstances; and there have been no changes in the last six months which would warrant the adoption of the new proposal. He stated when he was before the Board six months ago, there was discussion about the buffering and performance standards; and he mentioned that the Code sets forth certain requirements which his clients have to meet. He stated there is also the natural buffering of the FEC Railroad and Old Dixie Highway as well as the FPL easement which is to the rear; performance standards are already set in the Code regarding noise, odor, glare and lighting and vibration; and the Grahams will have to meet all the buffering requirements and performance standards under the present zoning of the property. He requested the Board consider the fact that the Comprehensive Plan does speak to all properties along the FEC corridor as primarily being for industrial uses; and stated the Future Land Use Map changes, subsequent to the rezoning of this property, would constitute government action that would burden reasonable use of this property, thereby entitling the Grahams and others to relief under the new Private Property Rights Act which was passed by the State Legislature in 1995. Mr. Wattwood stated the effect of the new Act, the location of the property and what abuts it, the fact that the industrial area constitutes only a small fraction of the total area which is part of the Study, and fairness warrant the Commission abiding by the Local Planning Agency recommendation to leave the property zoned as it is.

Craig Graham stated he and his brother Bruce are the owners of Brevard Rentals and the parcels in question; the parcels were purchased between 1991 and 1994 for the purpose of building a facility for equipment rental business in Valkaria; the location in Melbourne is bursting at the seams; and relying on the Future Land Use Map, he and his brother purchased the properties and had them rezoned. He stated the last parcel they purchased was from Atlantic Ridge Properties; the owner was well aware of the planned use and the planned rezoning; and the former owner willingly provided his notes outlining his effort to have the property rezoned, indicating no objection to the rezoning. He stated they had the property rezoned and based their plans on it; and now it seems unfair that in the middle of the game the rules are being changed. He stated once the zoning was granted, they had to abide by all the zoning laws, and environmental laws; and it is unfair to have the zoning taken away later on. He noted they have not done anything wrong; they have not violated any laws; and they want to do business in the County and expand into the future.

Martin Hadley, 1479 Ashboro Circle, Palm Bay, stated he is President of the Valkaria Aviation Association (VAA); the Association had a chance to review the Small Area Study; and congratulated the individuals involved in the Study who did an excellent job. He stated the Association is concerned that the makeup of the Study Group did not include any party who had a vested interest in the Airport; and although the Study was done prior to the inception of the VAA, the best interest of the Airport was not represented or reflected in the Study. He stated the area the VAA is concerned about is on Map 14, the southern half to one-third of R3. He stated currently there is a problem at the Airport between residents and pilots; and read the staff recommendation for R3 on page 18, much of the Valkaria planning area is platted into one-plus acre residential lots; however, for the majority of property owners, these lots are inaccessible due to infrastructural deficiencies, and in addition, many of the lots lie in environmentally sensitive regions. He stated peppered throughout the Study is a call for passive recreation and preservation of environmentally sensitive lands; and requested the southern half of R3 be considered as passive recreation or environmentally sensitive lands, which would alleviate the encouragement of residential development right up to the Airport property line. He advised R3 is the area immediately east of the Airport. Mr. Corwin advised there are two recommendations numbered R3; one is the CRG recommendation, and the other is the staff recommendation; the CRG recommendation was for the area to be used for residential purposes which is consistent with the current Future Land Use Map; but the staff recommendation is to undertake a study to examine the feasibility of creating rural villages. Mr. Hadley stated in any case the recommendations point toward putting residences adjoining Airport property; there is already a problem; and to compound it by endorsing residential development right up to the Airport property is not logical unless the ultimate goal is to eliminate the Airport.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what else do you do with people?s property there. Mr. Hadley stated it would not be the first time the County acquired land from private property owners. Commissioner Ellis stated that potential is there with the scrub jays; but it seems that Mr. Hadley is requesting the County zone it for no use. Mr. Hadley stated he is merely observing that to encourage residential development up to the Airport fence line would encourage additional problems; and inquired if there is some way the property can be utilized in a fashion, other than residential, that will allow a reasonable buffer to the Airport without putting a house right under Runway 927.

Mark Cannon, 710 Spring Lake Drive, Melbourne, representing Valkaria Aviation, stated he wants to address CRG recommendations I-1 and I-2; the I-1 recommendation to change from heavy/light industrial is inappropriate with the existing uses there; the staff recommendation would be to water it down so much, that it would be unenforceable because there are so many exceptions; and he agrees with the LPA recommendation for I-1. He stated I-2 is his primary concern both from the aspect that it tries to eliminate PIP property and the staff recommendation which would eliminate the requirement to have 150 acres on the Airport property zoned for light industrial/commercial. He stated the Airport needs to have a significant amount of property zoned as light industrial/commercial to support it; and it is appropriate that the 150-acre requirement remain in there. He stated he agrees with the CRG recommendation to pursue acquiring all land designated as PIP in the vicinity of the Valkaria Airport for conservation or passive recreation; and it is not necessary to use the scrub jays as a reason to do that as the Airport can be used as the reason. Commissioner Ellis noted it would be for clear zone; with Mr. Cannon responding it would be for clear zone and to prevent encroachment. He stated if the County works with the FAA, it will be able to get funding, if it justifies it properly, to prevent encroachment of residential areas or other inappropriate or incompatible land uses with the Airport. He stated there is no formal recommendation or review by either the Valkaria Airport Advisory Board or the FAA in the documentation; and suggested that be done. He stated the Board should prevent encroachment of residential property on the Airport; there are options available to remedy that; and there is a new airport in West Palm Beach that acquired hundreds of acres of land around it just to prevent encroachment.

Johnnie Wimpee, 4100 Rosewood Avenue, Valkaria, representing the Valkaria Area Improvement Association, stated there have been several people speaking about changing the zoning on their property; the Association agrees with the CRG recommendations; I-1, which was mentioned earlier, is equivalent to 20% of all industrial properties in the County; and R3, which was established when the Airport was closed, was under Parks and Recreation. He stated currently the County supports Valkaria, Grant and part of Micco with two Sheriff?s deputies; there are several volunteer fire departments in the area; and there are roads and bridges in the area that have not been improved in several years. He stated there needs to be a study to determine the impact of changing the zoning on several areas of the County to commercial and the additional cost to the County to provide the infrastructure to support the additional growth beyond what the rural residential at one unit per acre would require.

Roy Pence, 4533 Canard Road, Melbourne, stated looking at the site that will be impacted by the proposed change under I-1, the property to the north is a used heavy industrial property; the property to the south is heavy industrial property; the property to the west is all AU and totally undeveloped; and to the east is Old Dixie Highway and the FEC Railroad. He stated the property is over three-quarters of a mile away from the closest neighborhood; the current zoning has been there since 1979; and prior to that time, the property was still used as industrial. Mr. Pence advised before that it was used as a sand mine to provide building sand for much of the construction in South Brevard. He stated the current zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Map; and the Future Land Use Map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the industrial designation on the Future Land Use Map meets the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan for this site; and if this is 20% of the industrial for the County, the Board should not do away with it. He stated industrial property is needed to be able to meet the infrastructure needs of the County; it is necessary for the County to exist; and although he can understand the concerns, he is not requesting for it to expand beyond what is already there. He stated the request is for the Board to allow what is there to continue.

Eric Pappas, 125 12th Avenue, Indialantic, stated approximately ten to eleven years ago when the Comprehensive Plan came along, all property owners participated in the zoning and proper land use planning; he had many meetings with staff; there were many discussions and investigations; and staff recommended the present zoning. He stated the property for which he is trustee is on Babcock Street; it is approximately five acres; it is abutted on the south by the cemetery and on the north by a day care center; it is vacant at the present time; and it is zoned BU-1-A, with 600 feet zoned BU-1. He stated ten years ago staff, the P&Z Board and the Commission recommended the zoning; and at that time everyone saw the need for the property to be BU-1 and BU-1-A. He stated there was a Contract with the Board at the time for modification of the north 200 feet to BU-1-A in order to accommodate the day care center. He stated after all the time and money they spent to get this done, they had a Contract with the Board, and felt everyone was happy; but ten years later, they are being forced to go through the same procedures. He stated Tom Adams wrote a letter indicating the growth is explosive in the area; it is only going to continue to grow more in the future; and Babcock Street is not conducive to any residential area. He stated he feels sorry for Mr. Galluccio because no one will want to buy his home on Babcock Street; no one wants to live on Babcock Street; no one can buy it for a business because it is zoned residential; and he is stuck. He stated there is a Contract with the Board and there should be some consistency and reliance on the Contract. He stated all the evidence indicates it should remain this way; and requested the Board not change the zoning.

Norman Eliassen, 2490 Lewis Street, Melbourne, stated his property is in the most northwest quadrant of this Study area; the Study has been going on for sixteen months; however, he does not recall see many of the people present tonight at the Comprehensive Plan sessions that went late into night. He noted Mr. Pence was at most of the meetings. He stated in talking with the City of Palm Bay, he finds that County staff did not have the courtesy to inform the City of the things it was doing; and Palm Bay has a major concern with what is going on. He stated none of the inherent interests other than residential have been permitted to participate. He stated the Private Property Rights Protection Act provides that when a specific action of a government entity has inordinately burdened an existing use of real property or a vested right to a specific use of real property, the property owner is entitled to relief, which may include compensation for the actual loss to the fair market value of the real property caused by the action of government, as provided in this Section. He noted he spent years discussing this before staff, Planning and Zoning Boards, and Commissions; and it gets under his belt to have to keep coming back for what he already has and has been working on for years. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board recommended complete denial of the Planning staff; and requested the Board deny the request on page 20 as to those recommendations.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board has a time certain at 6:30 p.m.; and the Board should break for that item and come back with the item being considered. Discussion ensued on whether to continue with the time certain or the current item. The Board reached consensus to continue with the current item.

Commissioner Ellis stated most of his concerns have to do with the Babcock Street corridor; and east of Babcock Street is extremely different from west of Babcock Street. Chairman Higgs inquired about the recommendations. Commissioner Ellis advised C1 is the Babcock Street corridor recommendation. Mr. Corwin stated C1 is the Babcock Street corridor; C3 is also located in that area; and several of the CRG recommendations address that corridor. Commissioner Ellis stated anyone in the Babcock Street corridor could annex into Palm Bay; with Mr. Corwin agreeing. Commissioner Ellis stated if the Board turns the Babcock Street corridor into residential under the County Comprehensive Plan, it will hurry that exodus into the City of Palm Bay; once that occurs, the City can continue to annex as long as it can be contiguous to those parcels; and explained how the same situation occurred on Wickham Road. He stated if the real goal is to keep rural residential on the east side of Babcock Street, the County needs to attempt to keep those parcels in the County because once they pass into the incorporated area, the parcels to the east of them can then be annexed in at higher densities. He noted Palm Bay is already four units to an acre; and he is concerned the County is going to hasten the property owners in the Babcock Street corridor to annex into the City of Palm Bay. He stated if the great fear is that Palm Bay is going to march east, what the County is going to do by identifying the corridor as residential is to hasten that. He stated there are going to be 50,000 to 80,000 people in Southeast and Southwest Palm Bay, when that area builds out; there must be 25 different streets coming out of Palm Bay entering onto Babcock Street; and the road is going to end up being five-laned. He noted it cannot be four-laned divided because there are so many streets and so many cuts; it will end up being five-laned with a continuous turn lane; and once the street is that width with that traffic, he does not understand how the County can expect there to be residential property on the east side. He noted 25 years ago, Wickham Road was a couple of gas stations and a lot of homes, and now the homes are gone, because as traffic increased, more property went into commercial; and he is concerned why the Board is looking at a plan that will have the opposite effect from what is intended. He stated if the Board adopts the plan, it will push properties prematurely into the City of Palm Bay to preserve commercial zoning; and once that is done, contiguous properties to the east will also annex into Palm Bay to get higher density residential, which is what happened on the west side of Wickham Road. He noted the areas annexed by the City of Melbourne, Longwood, Kingsmill, etc. are much denser than what the County has out there; and the effect of the CRG recommendation would be the opposite of what the CRG is trying to achieve.

Chairman Higgs suggested going through the recommendations, beginning with the first one.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he likes the idea of taking Babcock Street as a unit; he had a similar problem with Grissom Road in terms of development; the problem is there is a municipality on one side, and the County is on the other side; and that concerns him. He stated sooner or later the Board will have to talk about what type of commercialization will occur and what is best. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is looking at just a portion and not the whole thing; and he is afraid of where the Board is at this time, but having not attended any of the CRG or LPA meetings, he does not know if these things have been discussed. He stated the Board may be ahead of itself in getting all the players to the table.

Chairman Higgs inquired what does Commissioner Scarborough suggest. Commissioner Scarborough responded there are ways for commercialization to take place; and there are other ways that will end up with more problems than benefits. He stated when you do not have all the players at the table, sometimes you end up with things that you wish you had planned out beforehand. He reiterated he does not know everything that occurred in the CRG and LPA; but he is concerned with moving forward with the Babcock Street corridor tonight.

Chairman Higgs stated if Commissioner Scarborough wants additional study, she is not opposed to it. She stated she talked with the City of Palm Bay in regard to its plans in terms of commercialization, particularly in the area of the Town Center; that is approximately 2,000 acres; it is the plan of the City, although not a formal plan, to include commercial and industrial in that area; and that is a major commercial area that may affect the commercialization of other places along the way. He inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is suggesting tabling this issue at this time to get more information. Commissioner Scarborough stated everyone may be more knowledgeable than he is and may be satisfied; and explained what was done in Port St. John. He stated the comment has been made that Palm Bay was not a real party at the table; and if the Board is going to think it through, it may need to have a concurrent study as to where commercialization should occur.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if there was a parcel on the east side of Babcock Street that someone wanted to develop commercially, why would the City of Palm Bay turn down the annexation, when it could pick up the commercial property as well as all the taxes from the property while providing very little services because the property is on a County road.

Chairman Higgs inquired can the City of Palm Bay make a forced annexation of those properties. Commissioner Ellis stated it would not be a forced annexation. Assistant Growth Management Director Peggy Busacca stated a forced annexation can be done with a referendum. Chairman Higgs inquired a referendum by whom; and stated the property owners would have to agree to that; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Commissioner Ellis reiterated he is not talking about a forced annexation. Chairman Higgs stated if someone wants his property annexed into the City of Palm Bay, the County can say no. Ms. Busacca advised the County just responds to annexations. Commissioner Cook stated the County does not have a choice. Ms. Busacca stated the choice of that annexation is made by the City and the property owner. Chairman Higgs inquired if the County would have no option in that case; with Ms. Busacca responding the County simply responds to those. Commissioner Ellis stated if the County pushes people into annexation, it will have no control over anything that happens. Chairman Higgs stated she is not sure she agrees the County is forcing the people; but a study of the corridor may be important.

Commissioner Cook stated additional study of the corridor may be needed; some good points have been raised; and Palm Bay has not had adequate input. Chairman Higgs inquired if the City of Palm Bay had an opportunity to review this at all; with Commissioner Ellis responding Hank Simon is on the LPA. Mr. Corwin advised the City has not had an opportunity to review this. Chairman Higgs noted Mr. Simon is on the LPA, but the City has not reviewed it. Commissioner Cook stated it may be prudent to have additional study on this, and let the City have an opportunity to comment. Commissioner Ellis cautioned everyone to think rationally about what is in the City?s best interest; and stated it may be in the City?s best interest to have these properties annexed commercially into the City. Chairman Higgs stated there have been a couple of initiatives to come up with commercial zoning on the west side of Babcock Street which has not been supported by the citizens along that corridor; and the Board may be off base. Commissioner Ellis inquired where; with Chairman Higgs responding on the west side of Babcock Street, there has not been support. Chairman Higgs inquired if Ms. Busacca remembers when and where it has come up to change the zoning on the west side of Babcock Street; with Ms. Busacca responding she does not. Chairman Higgs stated she remembers there were approximately 60 people who showed up with a petition for Palm Bay. Commissioner Ellis stated the whole west side is virtually single family lots already platted. Chairman Higgs stated there is no support from the City of Palm Bay to go with the commercial zoning along there. Commissioner Ellis stated there is no place to commercially zone on the west side of Babcock Street. Chairman Higgs stated all of the single family homes could be converted to commercial; and when the proposals have come before the City of Palm Bay, there has not been support to rezone. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not know what could be done with quarter-acre lots; with Chairman Higgs responding a number could be put together. Commissioner Ellis stated none of those homes face Babcock Street; with Chairman Higgs responding some of them do. Commissioner Ellis stated he disagrees; they are on perpendicular roads to Babcock Street; and there is also a frontage road. Chairman Higgs stated there are some that face Babcock Street, although it is not predominant; but there are a number of them that face Babcock Street.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if there is concern about annexation and the Board defers this to Palm Bay, the City could give the Board an indication of its long-range desires for commercialization; and the Board could enter into an interlocal agreement if it would make it more comfortable. He stated at this time, there is a split recommendation from the CRG and LPA; and this is a big concern. He stated if the Board went ahead, it would just be asking for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; with Ms. Busacca responding that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board sent it to Palm Bay, could it come back in a timely manner to allow staff time to work on it. Ms. Busacca stated staff?s concern is how fast the City could respond; but it should be possible to get some recommendation within the next couple of weeks.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to refer the Babcock Street corridor item to the City of Palm Bay for its recommendation.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the request would include whatever clarification the City could provide on plans for commercial and industrial in the Town Center area. Commissioner Scarborough responded yes, and the request would include related items to the issue, including the City?s intention for annexation.

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

Chairman Higgs inquired with that motion, which items will not be considered. Mr. Corwin advised removing the Babcock Street corridor removes CRG recommendations C1 and C3 and staff recommendations C1 and C3.

Chairman Higgs stated no action is needed on CRG recommendations R1, R2, and R3 as they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he has a question on R3 which says the area in question should be utilized for residential purposes; but this pushes residential up against the edge of the Airport. He stated he has reservations about setting this up for future serious problems; and he cannot go along with the CRG recommendation. Chairman Higgs stated the staff recommendation for R3 is to undertake examination of the feasibility of creating rural villages; and inquired if that is to move it out of the flight pattern; with Mr. Corwin responding not particularly; the recommendations stand on their own; and he apologizes for the numbering system which is causing confusion. He stated CRG recommendation R3 was for the area on map 14; it was the CRG?s intent for this area to be used for residential purposes; it is currently residential on the Future Land Use Map; and it is currently being used for residential purposes with subdivisions in that area. He stated staff recommendation R3 is totally separate, and it is to examine the feasibility of a study to create rural village. Chairman Higgs stated the R3 recommendation from the CRG includes existing subdivisions, already platted and built. Commissioner Ellis inquired does the verbal description match the map. Chairman Higgs stated the written description for the CRG recommendation R3 is between Valkaria Road and the north boundary of the planning area; and the map does not seem to be consistent with that. Mr. Corwin stated it should say the area west of the FEC Railroad right-of-way. Discussion ensued on the description of the area. Ms. Busacca stated the area west of the FEC Railroad does encompass both the CRG recommendation R3 and R2. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it is west of R2; with Ms. Busacca responding it is. Ms. Busacca stated no action is needed if the intention is for this to remain residential. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not want to get the wrong description sent to DCA. Ms. Busacca stated the written description will be changed. Chairman Higgs stated it is all right through R3. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how many homes are there; with Chairman Higgs responding quite a few. Commissioner Ellis stated there are three or four streets running off Valkaria Road; most of it to the south is vacant; and a lot of it is scrub jay property. Commissioner O'Brien stated it would be more sensible to take the remaining road off Valkaria Road and not have continuous residential down there. Commissioner Ellis stated that was Mr. Cannon and Mr. Hadley?s point to take a look at some kind of purchase of that property, perhaps a combination of EELS funds and Airport funds. He stated the Board cannot take private property and zone it into a conservation easement; with Commissioner O'Brien agreeing the Board probably cannot. Commissioner O'Brien requested staff look at what can be done there and what costs are associated; and stated to put residential at the end of that runway means there will be 500 people before the Board in ten years. Commissioner Ellis stated if the Board does not put residential, it will end up with commercial or industrial extended beyond Old Dixie Highway, and it does not want to do that; and so there are only two categories, commercial and residential. Chairman Higgs stated to direct the Airport to investigate possible acquisition alternatives and funding for those is a good idea; and that was a recommendation of the CRG. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is anything else the Board can do; with Ms. Busacca responding there are a limited number of land uses that can be put beside an airport; and if the Board puts commercial or industrial, it will change the character of the area. Commissioner Cook stated the Board has to look at the possibility of acquisition. Commissioner Ellis stated if someone buys a home there, he will know where he is at; but the alternative is some kind of industrial; and the Board does not want to extend the industrial area further to the west. Commissioner O'Brien stated the FAA has already advised it is not going to shut the Airport; he does not want to encourage building more houses there; and in twenty years, there may be a new aircraft and it will be the rage to start landing and taking off at Valkaria, creating all sorts of social problems, just as the new watercraft are creating a new set of problems on the rivers. Chairman Higgs stated the Board will take no action on R3 but will direct staff to investigate acquisition.

Chairman Higgs stated CRG recommendation R4 is the portion of the U.S. 1 corridor from the Indian River to the FEC Railroad right-of-way between the first residential development south of Valkaria Road and the north boundary of the planning area shall be utilized for residential purposes. She stated that was recommended unanimously by the CRG; the LPA recommended denial; and inquired if it is currently a mixed use district on the river and on the west side. Mr. Corwin stated it is currently a mixed use district on the west side of U.S. 1; it is mixed use from the southern boundary which would be the residential development to approximately 400 to 500 feet north of Valkaria Road; and the remainder of the area is residential land use on the west side of U.S. 1 and totally residential on the east side of U.S. 1. Chairman Higgs stated it is totally residential on the river; with Mr. Corwin responding that is correct. Chairman Higgs stated she cannot support changing the land use on the river at this point; it needs to remain a residential land use; and a mixed use district is not needed on the west side, although that is what currently exists. Commissioner Ellis stated it is up against the tracks. Commissioner Higgs stated her recommendation would be to not accept the recommendation of the CRG or the LPA, but leave the residential use on the river and on the west side. Commissioner Ellis inquired if Chairman Higgs is recommending residential by the railroad tracks; with Chairman Higgs responding affirmatively. Commissioner Ellis stated he thought it was mixed use; with Chairman Higgs responding it is mixed use, but there is residential. She stated the character of the area abutting the FEC Railroad and U.S. 1 south of Palm Bay, there is a lot of residential in there. Commissioner Ellis inquired why not leave it as it is; with Chairman Higgs responding she does not believe all the commercial will be needed. Commissioner Ellis agreed; but inquired how many people will want to build a subdivision by the railroad tracks. Chairman Higgs responded a lot of people will. Commissioner Ellis stated the property may lie vacant for years.

Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Ellis.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs; seconded by Commissioner Cook, to deny the CRG recommendation to change the residential land use east of U.S. 1 to the river. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the CRG recommendation of residential land use to the north boundary of the planning area, to the first residential development south of Valkaria Road, the portion of the U.S. 1 corridor from the Indian River to the FEC Railroad.

Vice Chairman Ellis stated he does not support that; that area is bounded by U.S. 1; it has the railroad tracks through it; and into the south is the existing industrial area. He stated there is R-2 below it which is industrial; railroad tracks run through it; and U.S. 1 is on the edge on the eastern side. Commissioner Higgs stated she is talking about going down to the first residential development south of Valkaria Road and not going into the industrial development; and that is a separate set of recommendations. Commissioner Scarborough stated the area is from the northern boundary line to Valkaria Road, east of the tracks and west of U.S. 1; with Commissioner Higgs responding that is right. Vice Chairman Ellis stated he has reservations about going residential between U.S. 1 and the railroad tracks; there is a lot of highway to the east and railroad tracks to the west; and it does not make much sense to hold that down.

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

Vice Chairman Ellis passed the gavel to Chairman Higgs.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board referred CRG recommendation C1 to the City of Palm Bay. She stated the Board does not need to vote on C2 because it is consistent. She stated C4 is the U.S. 1 corridor; the recommendation from the CRG is for the portion of the U.S. 1 corridor between the first residential development south of Valkaria Road and the south boundary of the planning area should be designated as mixed use district, except for existing residential areas; and this is the U.S. 1 corridor from the Indian River to the FEC Railroad. She inquired if the residential area along the Indian River at this point is zoned mixed use; with Mr. Corwin responding east of U.S. 1 in this location is currently residential; and west of U.S. 1 is mixed use. Chairman Higgs stated the mixed use is already there but is being expanded onto the river. Mr. Corwin stated the recommendation is the area should be designated for mixed use except for the existing residential areas which are currently being utilized for residential purposes, and it would expand the mixed use. Chairman Higgs stated if the mixed use is being expanded consistent with what she felt earlier, it should not be expanded along the river at this point. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the action on R4 removed the entire mixed use district in that area. Ms. Busacca advised that is true from the area between U.S. 1 and the railroad track. Commissioner Ellis stated the area for C4 is the same area; with Ms. Busacca advising this is south of that; the first recommendation went north of Valkaria, and this one is south of Valkaria. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is nothing that will be caught in a non-conforming use, and is it all vacant; with Mr. Corwin responding there are some existing businesses in that area. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there were any existing businesses in area R4; with Mr. Corwin responding he does not believe so. Chairman Higgs stated there would be a residential use on both sides. Commissioner Ellis stated if there is a business there already, there is a problem because it would be put into a non-conforming use. Commissioner Cook noted the CRG recommendation expanded the mixed use. Chairman Higgs stated the mixed use would be expanded to include the river; and she cannot support that. Commissioner Cook stated currently it is partly residential and partly mixed use; with Mr. Corwin responding it is mixed use west of U.S. 1 and along the river it is residential land use. Commissioner Ellis suggested leaving it like it is. Commissioner O?Brien inquired what is the distance from the highway to the river, 500 feet; with Commissioner Ellis responding it is not even that. Commissioner O?Brien stated it is a thin strip of land; and inquired if someone would want to build a house across the street from a 7-Eleven; with Commissioner Ellis responding he would if he could be on the river. Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the problem with leaving it the way it is; with Chairman Higgs responding she is concerned about the mixed use along the river, and she is not as concerned with the existing mixed use. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the mixed use district currently extends between U.S. 1 and the river; with Mr. Corwin responding it does not. Commissioner Ellis stated a large part of the area could not be developed even if someone wanted to; with Ms. Busacca agreeing. Ms. Busacca stated the Board can not follow the CRG recommendation and leave it the way it is.

Chairman Higgs stated the next items are I-1 and I-2 as well as the remaining staff recommendations. She stated I-1 is the PIP, heavy/light industrial use on that area; recently the Board did a rezoning on the tail end; this is an existing industrial area; and if the existing industrial area is maintained and not expanded, the character is there. She recommended leaving the existing heavy/light industrial the way it is, which is not the recommendation of the CRG. Commissioner Cook stated the character of the area has already been established and should be left like it is. Chairman Higgs stated the Board does not need to take action if it is being left as is; with Ms. Busacca advising that is correct, and it will also take care of staff recommendation I-1 as well.

Chairman Higgs stated CRG recommendation 12 talks about the PIP areas around the Airport; staff recommended an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1 which removes Criterion C, to delete the one specification that there shall be no fewer than 150 acres of light industrial/commercial use at the Airport; the CRG supported that; and she would also support it.

Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Ellis.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to remove Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.2 to remove Criterion C.

Commissioner Higgs stated this does not mean there would be no industrial but it does not set a minimum. Vice Chairman Ellis stated he does not understand why a minimum is in there.

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

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board already dealt with CRG recommendation 12 and has requested staff to go forward to see if progress can be made in regard to conservation areas and partnerships with the FAA and the EELs program. She stated staff recommendation REC1 is to designate the Habitat Golf Course as recreation on the Future Land Use Map.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to designate the Habitat at Valkaria Golf Course as recreation on the Future Land Use Map. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. Commissioner Higgs stated the final recommendation is CON1 to designate all lands in the planning area purchased by the EELs program as conservation on the Future Land Use Map.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to designate the lands in the planning area purchased by the EELs program as conservation on the Future Land Use Map. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Busacca stated staff recommendation R1 is to amend the Future Land Use density guidelines series from four units per acre to one unit per acre; this includes the Tadlock and Valkaria Heights Subdivisions; and the LPA recommendation was for approval.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve staff recommendation R1 as approved by the LPA. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Busacca stated the next recommendation is staff recommendation R2 to amend the Future Land Use Map Series from agriculture to residential for land currently platted as the Cypress Creek Subdivision. Commissioner Higgs stated this is an existing subdivision.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve amending the Future Land Use Map Series from agriculture to residential for land currently platted as the Cypress Creek Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated staff had one other recommendation.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct staff to undertake the examination of creating rural villages or hamlets in the study area. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Busacca stated recommendation C2 is to amend the Future Land Use Map Series from mixed use district to residential; and the LPA recommendation was for approval. She stated this is a 40-acre parcel currently designated as mixed use south of Valkaria and east of I-95. Mr. Corwin advised the item begins on page 22. Vice Chairman Ellis stated that is the corner. Ms. Busacca advised there is no intersection at that point; and it simply is a location.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to amend the Future Land Use Map from mixed use district to residential on lands described in Section 22, as recommended by staff.

Commissioner O?Brien inquired if the Board wants to do that since it will be looking at Babcock Street as an entity later on. Commissioner Higgs stated the parcel that is being described is up on Valkaria Road and not at the intersection; and if the Board wants to consider additional commercial in the area, this would not be the location. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board would want to go along the corridor. Ms. Busacca reiterated there is no intersection at this area.

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

Vice Chairman Ellis passed the gavel to Chairman Higgs.

The meeting recessed at 7:25 p.m. and reconvened at 7:37 p.m.

FORMAL PRESENTATION, RE: RECOMMENDATIONS OF EEO/MINORITY ISSUES TASK FORCE

Commissioner O?Brien stated this is an important topic for the entire County; it is a big topic; and it should have been done in workshop format so it could be discussed in detail. He stated he would like to do that if there is Board consensus, and is prepared to make a motion. Chairman Higgs stated there are a number of people who have been present for a considerable period of time; and suggested letting the speakers make their presentations. She stated if Commissioner O?Brien wishes to have a workshop or ask staff to come up with recommendations for actions under each item, the Board can consider that.

Gayle Cannon, 529 Southern Hills Court, Melbourne, stated she assumes the Board has read the reports; she was the Chairman of the Purchasing Services Subcommittee; and thanked Purchasing Director Jo Malota for all her help. She stated the Task Force feels it has done its task; it was not easy; but it has reviewed what information it could find. She stated the recommendations are valid; the Task Force does not know what the cost will be; Ms. Malota believes the items that are recommended could be done without a lot of work; and she is available to answer questions.

Kenneth Pinson, 1300 Armstrong Drive, Suite 102, Titusville, stated he will only comment as it relates to the Task Force in its entirety; and as the Task Force embarked on the review of the County?s EEO policies to determine fairness and equality of opportunity, he could not help but reflect on what the County represents to the State, nation, the world and mankind. He stated this is an area that possesses the most technological know-how and receives more international attention for the advancement of man?s horizons than any other location on the face of the globe; from nowhere else in the world has man been launched, landed on the moon, and returned safely to the earth; and it is within this spirit of man?s destiny that the County must lift itself up from the business as usual and train its eye on the assurance that all receive a fair opportunity in all dealings relating to the business of the County. He requested the Board review the recommendations of the three Subcommittees which will be presented. He stated he would welcome a workshop.

Lew Jamieson, 28 Colonial Drive, Cocoa Beach, stated he was the Chairman of the Contracting Subcommittee of the EEO Task Force; the recurring obstacle the Subcommittee had in its search for MBE/WBE participation in County contracting was a lack of verifiable, substantive data to document minority participation; and the Contracting Subcommittee focused on ways to develop data to insure minority and women?s participation as well as a means to identify and certify who is a MBE/WBE enterprise. Mr. Jamieson stated it has been an exhausting process for the Subcommittee, and it is grateful for the assistance of County staff, particularly Mary Bowers and Joseph Vislay.

Oscar Gamboa, 305 Emerson Drive, Palm Bay, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment, stated the Board has been given a report; and the Commissioners can read the mission and vision statements at their leisure. He stated the members of the Subcommittee on Employment expressed concern about the apparent inequality that exists in the County?s workforce in utilization of African-Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, women and Hispanic Americans. He presented a chart; and stated white males in the County are shown as having no problem being hired at a consistent rate that is almost 100% of their applications. He stated African-American males were also hired at a good rate; and Hispanic males and other males are shown, but for them the train did not come. He stated when it is shown as other males, it is omitting Asian and Pacific Islanders as well as Native Americans who are constituents in the County. He stated white females are represented well in the hiring vs. applicant population; African-American females are more or less better represented; and the other three groups do not get a fair share of the employment. He noted it is not because there were no applicants; in the civilian labor force of Brevard County, the Hispanics appear at a rate of 3.2% as of the 1990 census; it is now almost double that in the area of Palm Bay; there has been quite a growth of Hispanics coming into Brevard County as well as Orlando and other areas; and Spanish is heard in every store in Palm Bay. He stated Native Americans and Asians are also represented; and if other races represent .6% of the civilian labor force, then Native Americans and Asians, male as well as female, represent another 3% at least. He stated there is data for the hiring for one year, which is all the Subcommittee could find. He thanked the Human Resources Office for its help in obtaining information. He stated with the help of staff, the Subcommittee was able to discern certain things; of the total number of applicants listed under the other male category, only one was hired; of 204 Hispanic male applicants, only three were hired; and they were represented in all the different occupational codes the County utilizes. He stated if half of the applicants were not qualified, if there had been two or three individuals hired, it would have been fair according to the Civilian Labor Force data from the 1990 census. He stated the goals are to recruit and hire qualified individuals representative of the County?s diversity, consistent with opportunities available and meeting, as a minimum, the Civilian Labor Force numerical requirements. He stated they are not asking for more than what is due to them, but just what is due to them. He stated to insure that the County?s work environment is free of discrimination, sexual harassment, and cognizant of the needs of individuals who are challenged, on a quarterly basis, the progress of the County?s hiring practices and affirmative actions should be subjected to evaluation in hiring and promoting activities. He stated management should actively foster improvements in the cultural climate, equal opportunity, and diversity thrust by its example; there should be performance evaluations of the managers and supervisors who do the hiring; and the Assistant County Managers, County Manager, and Directors should be required to pursue equal opportunity in hiring and promoting. He stated the members of the Subcommittee on Employment are concerned about the inequality that exists in the County?s workforce in terms of utilization of African-Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, women and Hispanic Americans. Mr. Gamboa stated after reviewing and comparing the applicant versus hiring data for the period from July 1, 1994 to July 7, 1995 and the County?s Affirmative Action Plan, the Subcommittee became aware that some of the minorities in the County are severely under represented and under utilized; and based on this information, the Subcommittee has concluded that equality in employment does not yet exist for all citizens of Brevard County. He stated they are bewildered and victimized by the sign or by omission; and requested the Board use its collective power to bring redress to these issues. He offered the services of the Task Order Subcommittee to the Board to remain on call to monitor on a quarterly basis the progress in the hiring practices of the County. He stated there are qualified individuals who can analyze the data provided by the Human Resources Department; and recommended meaningful changes to significantly reflect a much more equitable presentation of minorities in the workforce by initiating, instituting and aggressively promoting the hiring of all under utilized minority groups. He stated they will assure that all citizens are represented on an equal basis. He noted the data is five years old; and the numbers should be updated as soon as possible as new data is available. He stated the Board recognizes the concerns regarding improvement of the County?s hiring practices and advancement policies; and requested the Board provide a guiding spirit to achieve significant strides in these areas so the diversity of the employees reflects the diversity of the constituency. He stated the Subcommittee would support having a workshop in this area.

Joaquin Caro, 475 Goldsmith Avenue, Palm Bay, stated it has been an honor and privilege to be able to serve on the EEO Task Force; the motives of the people on the Subcommittee on Employment were right; numbers do not lie; and if the Board looks at the numbers, it is clearly stated that many minorities are under represented. He stated the Board is committed to the welfare of the people; his vote is one of confidence; and he believes the Board will take the necessary courses of action to improve significantly the hiring, promoting, and the retaining of minorities, based on the recommendations of the Task Force and the information. He recommended the County reflect more of the diversity of the County; and stated this is of primary importance to every minority. He stated he is for a workshop so the Board can get down to business and detail.

Samuel Lopez, 2129 Royal Poinciana Boulevard, Palm Bay, stated there are a lot of injustices that have been done; and displayed a file showing people who applied for jobs with the County and never got a response or a job. He noted the file would be thicker, but he gave some of the papers to Chairman Higgs. He advised he is for the workshop; the vote of the Task Force was 6 to 4 for a disparity study; and what they would like to do is bring all the issues out to see if a solution can be found. He stated there are a lot of prime movers in the room; they are people who understand the politics and the need to sit together as a group to find a solution to the problem of disparity in the County; and a workshop is the best thing because it will allow more time. He stated some groups feel this has gone too far, that no one wants to listen, and the next thing is to go to court to get this resolved; but he is still willing to sit down with the Commissioners to try and work out a solution. He thanked Human Resources Director Frank Abbate and staff; and requested extension of the Task Force so all the people who never got a chance to come forth and put themselves on the record can have that opportunity. He stated he would like this completed so there can be a solution to this problem.

Commissioner Ellis stated when he looks at Mr. Gamboa?s information and the statistics from the Civilian Labor Force and compares that with the statistics of who was hired, they are close. Mr. Gamboa stated it is for males only, and that is why it appears to be close; but in conjunction with females, it only comes up to 1.6 in the area of Hispanics. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the other groups are okay, but the Hispanics are much lower; with Mr. Gamboa responding the Hispanics, Native Americans and Asians.

Chairman Higgs stated the numbers on Mr. Gamboa?s matrix are the numbers that are indicative of applications and hires; and the data does not represent those people currently in the labor force with the County. Mr. Gamboa stated the Subcommittee decided to only bring forward the hiring policies and practices as they are taking place. Commissioner Ellis noted that makes sense. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Subcommittee did not investigate the current labor force; with Mr. Gamboa responding the Subcommittee investigated the labor force and they are below 80% in some of the areas. Chairman Higgs inquired 80% of what; and stated she is looking at some numbers that were provided, and what Mr. Gamboa is saying is not consistent with what she is seeing in terms of the current labor force. Mr. Gamboa stated the current labor force still has under representation on the Hispanics, Native Americans and Asians; and the Board only has the hiring figures in front of it. Chairman Higgs noted she has that information. Commissioner Ellis stated Native Americans represent only .5% of the labor force. Mr. Gamboa stated on the data he received, Native Americans were lumped with other; and the Subcommittee did not know which employees were Native Americans and which were Asians or Pacific Islanders. Commissioner Ellis stated he did see that the number totaled more than 100. Commissioner Ellis stated where the disparities were needs to be clarified; and they were not necessarily across the board.

Commissioner Cook stated looking at the applicant pool, 85% of the applicants are from one race; and the hiring patterns reflects that. He stated the only numbers where the applicant pool does not match the hiring patterns is in the area of Hispanics. Human Resources Director Frank Abbate stated the applicant flow for Hispanics in the period of time which was being considered was about half of what might have been expected, 2.7% instead of 5.2% for Hispanic males; to get the number from 2.72% to the full applicant flow would involve hiring only two additional Hispanic individuals; and that is the kind of difference that might be expected if the system was perfect in representing the true flow of applicants. Commissioner Ellis stated the problem is there is a small sample size. Mr. Abbate stated that is the other issue because 204 Hispanic applicants are being compared against 3,915 total male applicants, and there were a total of 113 hiring decisions.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated looking at the data which is the County?s existing work force versus the labor market in the County, while the application rate was low for Hispanics, in such areas as officials and administrators there was a percentage higher in the existing total work force than what there is in the labor market; and advised of the statistics for the County?s work force. He stated the numbers concluded in July, 1995; when the new Affirmative Action Plan came out for the current year, the data on Hispanics was identified as an area the County needed to work on; and in the last four months, six new Hispanic employees have been hired. He noted the Task Force did not have the benefit of that information when it made its report; but there has been additional success in recruiting and employing Hispanics. Commissioner Cook inquired where does that bring the ratio to the applicant pool with the six additional Hispanics. Mr. Abbate responded if the additional four months were added, the hiring of the six individuals is significantly above the applicant flow for that group; and a computer run of that information has been provided. He stated staff will continue to compile that information on a quarterly basis; and that information is part of the Affirmative Action Plan which the Board adopted in July, 1995 with the assistance of the Task Force in reviewing that document. He stated the document was submitted to the Board and supervisors were provided with training; and areas in the organization where there was under representation by the 80% or 4/5 rule were pointed out.

Commissioner Ellis stated although the County hired 200 people, there were 6,200 people who were not hired; and it is not uncommon to see a stack of applications from people who did not get hired because only 3% of the people who applied were hired. He stated in terms of not getting interviews, in his previous job, he had to hire engineers; and he would go through dozens of resumes, but only bring in four or five people for interviews because there was not time to interview thirty engineers for one position. He stated it is not uncommon for a small number of people to be interviewed for a job because there is not time to interview everyone who applies.

Chairman Higgs stated a number of recommendations have been brought to the Board by the Task Force and the Subcommittees; and suggested directing staff to respond to each of the recommendations with suggestions of what could be done and how much each would cost to implement. She stated that could be brought to the Board for discussion; and the Board can take definitive action on which of the recommendations to implement and how to implement them. She stated that could be done in a workshop session.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not have a problem with staff coming back; and suggested getting the recommendations back from staff before scheduling a workshop. He stated it might be more appropriate at that time to discuss the issue. He stated Mr. Abbate indicates the hiring practices fairly represent the applicant pool; but if there are areas the Board needs to work on to have more outreach, that is something the Board needs to look at. He stated he had concerns in the past about awarding contracts not only to minorities, but to small business in general, and one of the areas he would like to look at is the bonding for projects, etc. He stated if the bonding requirements are too high, it excludes small business people; he has no problem in having staff comment on the recommendations and acknowledge them today; and when they come back, the Board can make a decision whether it wants to move forward with a workshop.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to acknowledge the recommendations of the EEO/Minority Issues Task Force; express appreciation to the EEO/Minority Issues Task Force; and direct staff to respond to each of the recommendations and provide suggestions to the Board, including costs for implementation, and report back to the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Cook thanked the EEO/Minority Issues Task Force; stated his appointee did not miss a meeting; and he appreciates the hard work of the members of the Task Force.

AGREEMENTS WITH SERENE HARBOR AND HUNTINGTON BANK, RE: FUNDING FOR DOWN PAYMENT ON PURCHASE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER

Assistant County Manager Joan Madden stated staff was directed to work out the details of the Serene Harbor property loan; the contract for services and loan guarantee agreement are presented for approval; and there are three options for the funding. She stated the contract purchase price suggested earlier was $140,000; the appraisal that came in was $122,000; and HUD regulations prevent the expenditure of more than the appraised value. She stated the review of the appraisal by another appraiser confirms the first appraisal of $122,000; the Board formerly voted to appropriate 25% of the contract price or $35,000 as a down payment; 25% of the appraisal price is $30,500; and the Board needs to clarify whether the intent was 25% of the contract or 25% of the appraisal. She stated the Board will need to fill in the remaining numbers on the loan guarantee depending on what action the Board takes on the down payment issue. She noted staff was directed to go back to the CDBG Advisory Board for its recommendation on expending $12,600 of public service funds for operations for Serene Harbor; and on October 19, 1995, the CDBG Advisory Board voted unanimously to decline public service funding for the 1995-96 budget year.

Chairman Higgs stated the actions needed are the amount of dollars, clarification of the amount of the down payment, and a recommendation on whether the CDBG Advisory Board recommendation would be accepted by the Board.

Michael McDonald, P. O. Box 541442, Merritt Island, stated he is Commissioner O?Brien?s appointee to the CDBG Advisory Board; he has been on the advisory board since 1991; and he was asked to serve in that capacity to help what HUD came up with as a premise to help alleviate or eliminate some blighted conditions in the community. He stated the intent is to provide safe and decent living conditions for individuals, and also to provide some communities with the amenities which other communities take for granted, like paved streets, sidewalks, and proper drainage. He stated he has two points of concern about Serene Harbor; on October 10, the Board decided to fund Serene Harbor against the advisement of the Advisory Board, which voted unanimously not to fund at that time; and the decision not to fund at that time was based on policy and procedures. He noted the policies and procedures for receiving CDBG funds were approved and set in place by the Board; and the Board set a precedent by allowing a non-profit group to receive funding without following the set policy and procedures that all the non-profit groups have been going through for the last six years. He stated the Board went against a unanimous ruling by the Advisory Board; and he had some problems with that. He noted the CDBG Advisory Board members are appointed by the different Districts in the County; and Serene Harbor was allowed to circumvent the CDBG resolution and policies and procedures. He noted he was appointed in an advisory capacity; he has other family obligations and could spend a lot of his time at home; but he comes because he is compassionate and believes the CDBG Advisory Board has done a good job with the CDBG program. He recommended the Commissioners think with their heads and not their hearts; stated other non-profit groups could come to the Board; the Veterans Administration people have given up limbs to protect his right and others rights to talk; and many groups could tug at the heartstrings. He requested the Board look at the facts; two budgets have come from Serene Harbor; the first one in March , 1995 showed $217,500; in August there was a revised budget showing $112,108; the budget was reduced by more than half; and he thinks the Board was hoodwinked into agreeing with the memorandum that was sent to Ms. Madden. He stated the Commissioners? heartstrings were being tugged; domestic violence was an issue in the big trial in California; and those things worked on the Board. He stated if it was General Fund, which the Board is not allowed to use, he does not think the taxpayers would want the Board to support a business that is not capable of carrying itself. He stated as a taxpayer, he cannot see any governmental body guaranteeing a loan for a business regardless of how honorable its intentions are. He stated the Board would not do this with General Funds; and inquired why would the Board be willing to do this with CDBG funds. He stated the bank wants the loan guaranteed; and as a Board member, he would want to know why.

Chairman Higgs advised Mr. McDonald?s time has expired. Commissioner O?Brien requested Mr. McDonald, who is his appointee to the CDBG Advisory Board, be allowed to finish.

Mr. McDonald stated the bank wants to protect its interests; and the bank wants the government to cover the loan for Serene Harbor. He stated looking at the budget, Serene Harbor does not have the funds to pay; the bank sees that; and the bank decided if it could get the County to guarantee the loan for Serene Harbor then the bank?s interests are made, the property owner is paid, and if Serene Harbor fails, the County pays for the building. He inquired if Serene Harbor goes under, where does the building go. He requested the Board look at the real numbers and determine if Serene Harbor can meet the mortgage payments; and stated if it cannot, the County and the taxpayers will be paying it. He stated he is not against Serene Harbor, but has a problem with the way it circumvented the policies and procedures, and is against any governmental body supporting any type of business. He stated he does not think the Board would be acting in the best interest of the County if it starts guaranteeing loans for businesses.

Commissioner Ellis stated when this first came to the Board in August, 1995, it was a Consent Agenda item; what the Board was presented was that the item had been approved by the CDBG Board; he pulled the item off the Consent Agenda to question the amount of money for the building; and the Board has received conflicting information. He reiterated the first time, the Board was told the CDBG approved this, and the second time it disapproved it; and there has been conflicting information from the Advisory Board. Mr. McDonald responded the first time it was approved was at a meeting he missed; he is one of the most vocal members on the CDBG Board; but due to other obligations, he missed that meeting. He stated Serene Harbor submitted two different budgets to the Board; he is concerned the Advisory Board did not get all the accurate information the first time; and if a mistake was made the first time, the Advisory Board has to admit it was a mistake and change the recommendation. Commissioner Ellis stated 85% is the capital outlay for the target areas; at first there was support, and then no support; and that is why the Board got caught in the middle on this issue. Mr. McDonald reiterated there has been conflicting information; Serene Harbor was asking for $140,000 and now the appraisal shows $122,000; and the Board voted to give $35,000 for the down payment, and now Serene Harbor wants guarantee of the loan. He stated Serene Harbor is being given 20 to 25% of the cost of the building; now it wants the County to cover the whole building; if Serene Harbor cannot pay, the County pays; and as a taxpayer, he cannot swallow that.

Commissioner Cook stated the guarantee was not through CDBG. Ms. Madden stated it is proposed that be guaranteed there, but those dollars could be set aside out of General Fund or other sources. Commissioner Ellis stated it could not be done with CDBG. Commissioner Cook stated he assumed it was being guaranteed through the General Fund; the original motion spoke about bringing the $12,600 from the General Fund, but it was suggested it be sent back to the CDBG Advisory Board; and if the Board moves forward, neither the guarantee nor the $12,600 will come out of CDBG funds. Commissioner Ellis stated it cannot because it is tying the hands of the Board for years in advance. Commissioner Cook stated that is not going to happen.

Commissioner O?Brien stated on page 4, under loan guarantee, it says ?to Serene Harbor?s mortgagee, its heirs, successors or assigns, such sums as will be sufficient to make up any such deficiency, the funds being pledged to make the guarantee shall be provided from the County?s CDBG funds.? Commissioner Cook stated that needs to be changed because it was never the intent; and it cannot be done anyway. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board takes applications every year and decides where to spend the money; and if the Board is going to tie them up for five years, the CDBG Advisory Board might as well just meet once every five years.

Chairman Higgs inquired can the Board use the CDBG funds as the guarantee as outlined on page 4. Ms. Madden stated it is allowable, and it is currently dollars that were originally in the $140,000 that were allocated, so that is still in Contingency.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board would have title to the property as its collateral for guaranteeing the note; with Ms. Madden responding there are deed restrictions for a 10-year period of time. Commissioner Ellis stated he meant beyond that; and inquired if there is a default and the County has to make good on the note, does the property then revert to the County so it can sell it to get its money back; with Ms. Madden responding it does.

Betsy Dickson, 38 Marina Isles Boulevard, Indian Harbour Beach, stated Mr. McDonald said the funds were to create a safe place in unsafe areas; and there is no place more unsafe than for a woman when her husband is going to come home and beat her. She stated she has advised the Board how many women are killed every year by their husbands; it is not a joke; it is very unsafe; and the women need a safe place to go. She stated a woman cannot just go next door or to her mother or sister?s house because her husband will kill her there; and she can provide documentation to prove this. She stated Mr. McDonald keeps referring to Serene Harbor as a business; she has difficulty thinking of this as a business because Serene Harbor does not take any money from the residents; all the money is raised in the community; she does not make any money off of it; and she has another job which she works during the day. She stated all of this is volunteer time; and she gives a lot of her own personal money toward it. She stated as far as asking the County to help purchase this building, Serene Harbor tried a lot of other things; the first year and a half that Serene Harbor was open, it was in a building that was donated by one of the Serene Harbor Board members, completely free so shelter could be offered; and the person making the donation was not a wealthy person. She stated Serene Harbor is not trying to take something from the rest of the County; it is trying to help the rest of the County; and the indigent, the minorities, etc. are equally represented in the people whom Serene Harbor helps. She stated she does not think they are being selfish in asking for this small amount of money; the guarantee is more of a moral obligation; and Serene Harbor is not expecting the County to pay the mortgage payments. Ms. Madden stated the contract calls for Serene Harbor to make monthly payments against the mortgage. Ms. Dickson stated that is Serene Harbor?s intention; and she thinks Mr. McDonald has a misconception about what is being done at Serene Harbor.

Diane Dixon, 1201 Indian River Drive, Cocoa, stated she is the Executive Director of Serene Harbor; Serene Harbor did not circumvent any process; and it has applied, followed the deadlines, and done everything that has been requested. She stated Serene Harbor applied for the CDBG funds; it is an eligible expense; Serene Harbor receives some CDBG money from Melbourne and Palm Bay; it is one of their targeted groups of people to serve; Victims of Domestic Violence are mentioned in the guidelines; and this is not a misuse of these funds. She stated the Board has already had these discussions; the budgets were explained; the $217,000 budget was a budget Serene Harbor was asked to put together showing if it had funding from all of the sources at the level requested; and it does not reflect what the budget actually is or will be any time soon. She stated the budget was a projection based on receiving as much money as requested from all sources; and the $112,000 budget is a more realistic picture of the actual funds Serene Harbor is receiving and expending.

Mischel Ostovich, 450 DeSoto, Satellite Beach, stated on October 10, 1995 when the Board voted to provide the down payment and guarantee the loan, it was sent back to work out the final things; and that has been done. She expressed appreciation to staff. She stated the guaranteeing of payments for a year became a moot point; and that issue has been dropped as Serene Harbor expects and is capable of making its own payments. She stated all Serene Harbor wants is what was voted on at the October 10, 1995 meeting which is the down payment and the guarantee of the loan, which has been worked out between staff and Huntington Bank; and they are ready to go to closing on this tomorrow.

Commissioner Cook stated the appraisal came in at $122,000; with Ms. Madden advising that is correct. Commissioner Cook inquired if that will be the purchase price of the property; with Ms. Madden responding the purchase price is under contract for over a year and is $140,000. Commissioner Cook stated he cannot support paying over the appraised value. Ms. Madden noted HUD regulations prevent that. Chairman Higgs stated the County does not have to guarantee that. Commissioner Cook stated the Board is guaranteeing the payments for five years on a $140,000 loan. Chairman Higgs advised that is not correct. Ms. Madden stated the loan will be $122,000; and there is an $18,000 commitment that will need to be made by the agency. Commissioner Cook inquired if the $18,000 will be committed from other sources; with Chairman Higgs responding that is right. Commissioner Cook stated the first year?s mortgage payments will be dropped; and he is willing to go forward with the original motion, dropping the $12,500 as a part of it. Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Cook?s motion would be to approve the contract with the $36,000 down payment. Commissioner Cook stated it was $35,000; and he would be willing to go forward with the $35,000 for the down payment and guaranteeing the loan for the five-year period but dropping the payment of the first year?s mortgage.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded for discussion by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Agreement with Serene Harbor to provide funding for down payment of $35,000; and execute Agreement with Huntington Bank for loan guarantee for a five-year period.

Commissioner Ellis stated he does not see a default provision in the Agreement where the property would revert to the County if Serene Harbor defaults. Commissioner Cook stated it is on page 5. Commissioner Ellis stated that is if they cease to provide the services; and inquired if Serene Harbor ceases to make the payments, but continued providing the services, is the County going to continue making payments for the remainder of the note. Commissioner Cook stated the County is only guaranteeing for five years; with Commissioner Ellis responding the County is guaranteeing $87,000. Commissioner O?Brien stated there is a provision for reversion of assets on page 12, paragraph 21. Commissioner Ellis stated he read that also, but there is nothing in the Agreement that talks about the property reverting to the County if Serene Harbor defaults and the County has to make the payments. Commissioner Cook stated the bank would evict them; with Commissioner Ellis advising the bank would come to the guarantor to make the payments. Commissioner Cook stated the County is only guaranteeing five years; with Ms. Madden advising that is correct. Commissioner Cook stated the default would have to occur within the five-year period. Commissioner Ellis inquired how long is the note; and stated it is an $87,000 note. Ms. Ostovich advised it is a 30-year note with a 5-year balloon. CDBG Supervisor Denise Carter stated it is on page 5; and read aloud the provision. Commissioner Ellis stated that is dependent on the first clause, which is ?should Serene Harbor cease to provide the services, the Agreement will have been breached?; and inquired what if Serene Harbor continues to provide services, but does not have the money to meet the mortgage payment. Ms. Carter stated after 30 days, the County would come in and pay $87,000 plus any amortization on the loan. Commissioner Ellis stated Serene Harbor would still have title to the property; with County Manager Tom Jenkins advising unless there is a provision to deal with that. Chairman Higgs inquired is the Agreement adequate, and what does it say will happen. Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson stated it is probably adequate to protect the County?s concerns, but additional language can be added that would provide that if Serene Harbor breaches the Agreement in terms of non-payment, this clause would also apply. Commissioner Ellis stated if Serene Harbor ceases to make the payments and the County as guarantor has to make the payments, then the Agreement will have been breached. Chairman Higgs and Commissioner Cook indicated agreement to add the sentence. Ms. Ostovich noted it is not a problem for Serene Harbor. Chairman Higgs stated it will be ?should Serene Harbor cease to provide the services of a domestic violence shelter or cease to make payments during the ten-year period, this Agreement will have been breached.? Commissioner Ellis stated it would be for however many years the loan guarantee is for. Ms. Wilson suggested it say ?timely payments.? Chairman Higgs stated that will be added.

Commissioner Cook stated his motion was for the guarantee to be from the General Fund and not CDBG funds.

Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand how the appraisal came back at $122,000; when this first came up in August, 1995, the Board was told the contract had been signed for $140,000, and that after the contract was signed, while they were renting, they put $47,000 into the facility. He stated he does not understand why if the contract was signed at $140,000 and $47,000 was put in that the appraisal came back at $122,000. Ms. Madden stated the only explanation is the appraiser who did that appraised it as residential property. Commissioner Ellis stated that is what it would be sold as. Ms. Madden noted it is not all zoned residential. Ms. Ostovich stated the value to the property is aggregate living; it happens to be in an area that looks like houses; so the value to someone like Serene Harbor for aggregate living is difficult to find. Ms. Ostovich stated it took two and one-half years to find the type of parcel; when the appraiser went in to appraise it, he appraised it as single residential; and the value is not in residential but in aggregate living. She stated if Serene Harbor defaulted and the County had to sell the property, it would sell it as aggregate living to make its money. Commissioner Ellis stated it is not zoned for aggregate living; it falls under group home under the Statutes; and a group home can be set up in residential. Ms. Ostovich stated Serene Harbor had a problem in Melbourne; and it had to get special zoning in case it found something. Commissioner Ellis stated in the County, if someone meets the guidelines for group homes, it cannot be denied in residential; with Ms. Madden advising that is correct. Ms. Ostovich stated she knows of one house that could have been sold if it could have gotten a zoning change for group living, but they could not get the zoning changed and it could not be sold. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it met all the Statutes for group home; with Ms. Ostovich responding yes, and it is way in a residential area, but they could not get it rezoned. Commissioner Ellis advised the County went through this before with another property; and the Statutes were clear that a group home was permitted, and the County could not stop it. Ms. Ostovich stated she is not saying Commissioner Ellis is not right; however, it was difficult for Serene Harbor to find a location; and to make it a group home is where the value is. She stated $122,000 was a fair price for a home of that size in that neighborhood. Commissioner Ellis stated $122,000 being a fair price implies that it was probably worth $80,000 or $90,000 before Serene Harbor put all the money into it. Chairman Higgs disagreed; and stated if someone puts improvements into a home, they do not recoup the value of that. Commissioner Ellis stated certainly it would go up; with Chairman Higgs responding maybe 25%. Ms. Ostovich stated that would only be true if the appraiser considered the fact that there is a commercial septic tank versus a single family septic tank; there are a lot of things Serene Harbor did because it is a group home that the appraiser did not add value to it; and Serene Harbor is making up the $18,000 difference. She stated Serene Harbor did not have time to do anything about the appraisal; it got backed up to the last minute; and it could not fight it. Chairman Higgs noted the bank did not require an appraisal; with Ms. Ostovich responding the bank did not require an appraisal.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired in five years is there going to be an $87,000 balloon payment; with Ms. Madden responding yes, less any payments Serene Harbor has made. Commissioner Cook stated the County is not guaranteeing the balloon. Commissioner Scarborough stated any time there is a balloon payment, the borrower is in a vulnerable position again; and inquired to what extent will the Board be called on again. He noted it is a legal guarantee; the bank does not have to foreclose; it can look to the County to make payments under that obligation; and in five years, unless there is an Agreement to refinance the money to pay that off, this will be back before the Board and there will be more pressure on the Board for continued involvement. He inquired what is Serene Harbor?s intention with regard to the balloon. Ms. Ostovich stated in five years or less, the balloon is not going to be a problem; Serene Harbor looks forward to paying this off sooner; the County is not liable for the balloon; and she does not want to come back to the Board. Commissioner Scarborough stated once the County puts money into a transaction, it is locked into continuing. Chairman Higgs stated the County has funded a number of organizations. Commissioner Scarborough stated if he is sitting on the Board, he will not see this lost because the Board failed to get involved, even to the extent of fully funding it. Commissioner Ellis stated if the balloon defaults, then the Agreement is breached and the property reverts to the County. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what will the County do with the property; and stated the County will turn around and give it to Serene Harbor. Commissioner Ellis stated that depends who is on the Board. Chairman Higgs stated it is her understanding that the Board in the past has supported non-profit organizations in their facilities; and inquired what is the precedent for doing this. Ms. Carter responded the list she read previously was a list of properties and construction projects for non-profit groups; and there was a project prior to the CDBG Advisory Board being created where funds were used to build a food bank. Chairman Higgs stated the County has participated in facilities for non-profit groups; with Ms. Carter clarifying the County has participated in projects for non-profits, but never in a loan guarantee for a non-profit. Commissioner Ellis inquired was not the food bank the only structure; with Ms. Carter responding no. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it was the only one outside a target area; with Ms. Carter responding the food bank was outside the target area, but it is in a very low income area. Chairman Higgs stated the County has participated in other structures; with Ms. Carter responding yes.

Commissioner Cook stated the concern is the guarantee. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not like the transaction any more; the price is too high; the guarantee can backfire; and the County could end up eating something that is expensive. Commissioner Cook inquired about dropping the guarantee. Commissioner Ellis suggested dropping the balloon. Commissioner Scarborough stated the trouble is Serene Harbor has the balloon; and if the County puts the money into it, it will not lose its money by not picking it up. He stated once the Board puts the $35,000 into it, it will keep the rest of it. Chairman Higgs stated she is not sure that is a bad principle to go on; if it gets to the point that there is a viable domestic violence shelter that has survived on its own resources for seven years when it gets to the balloon payment, the non-profit group will have done a tremendous job and service; and if all the County has invested is $35,000, it got a good deal. She stated if the County has to assist with the balloon payment in five years, that might be appropriate; and $35,000 over five years is only $7,000 a year to assist in providing the services of a domestic violence shelter. Commissioner Ellis stated the County is not the only government entity that will be providing assistance.

Commissioner Cook stated he is bothered about the $18,000 difference between the appraisal and the price; the guarantee is something the County put in; if it needs to drop the guarantee, then if Serene Harbor had problems, it would have to come to the Board or go to somebody else; and the intention is to make the payments. He stated if the Board drops the guarantee, the only exposure will be the $35,000; and if Serene Harbor is going to perform the services it says it will, that will be money well spent. Chairman Higgs stated she is not sure Serene Harbor can make the loan without the backup of the guarantee. Commissioner Cook inquired if the Huntington Bank will not entertain it without the guarantee; and stated the County is providing the down payment of $35,000. Commissioner Ellis suggested having a straight 30-year note without having a balloon payment; and stated it cannot be more than a couple of hundred dollars a month?s difference. Commissioner Cook inquired if there is any chance the owner will negotiate under the $140,000, with the appraisal; with Ms. Ostovich responding no, and Serene Harbor is making up that difference. Commissioner Cook stated there is some concern about the guarantee; obviously Serene Harbor intends to make the payments; and inquired if the bank will give the loan without the guarantee. Ms. Dickson advised Serene Harbor has not been in existence long enough to have a track record of established income; and that is the reason for the guarantee. Chairman Higgs stated few people who do not have a track record of income can go to a bank and get a loan without having someone backing them up. Ms. Carter stated there was a three-way conversation last week with the attorney representing the bank who indicated that the bank would not issue a loan without a guarantee from the County. Commissioner Cook inquired if Commissioner Ellis had the idea of dropping the balloon payment; with Commissioner Ellis responding it could go to a straight 30 years, and the only difference between a balloon and a straight 30 years is you are not making the principle payments, but on a 30-year mortgage that would not be more than a few hundred dollars a month. Commissioner Cook inquired if that would be beyond the capacity of Serene Harbor. Commissioner Scarborough stated Serene Harbor is amortizing over 30 years to balloon in five years; and they are making principle payments, but it balloons in five. Commissioner Ellis inquired why would it balloon; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it is done that way sometimes, so it is amortizing over 30 years with a balloon at five years. Commissioner Ellis stated normally when you have a balloon, you are only making interest payments; with Ms. Ostovich advising Serene Harbor will be making principle and interest payments; and at the end of five years, it will not owe $87,000. Commissioner Ellis inquired why is there a balloon clause in the contract; with Ms. Ostovich responding in five years Serene Harbor will be in a position to handle that, paying the balloon, and having no more payments. She stated it was agreeable with the bank and with Serene Harbor; the County agreed to go with the five-year guarantee; and that was all the time Serene Harbor would need. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the balloon clause can be removed from the contract; with Ms. Ostovich responding she does not know; she cannot speak for what the bank is willing to do in terms of paperwork; the paperwork has been sent to the bank; and the closing is tomorrow at 1:00 p.m.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would be more comfortable with a 30-year mortgage with no penalty for pre-payment; and that would allow Serene Harbor the option of paying anytime it has the money. He stated otherwise Serene Harbor is going to come up to the balloon payment; if at that time, interest rates have gone up, Serene Harbor is going to be adversely affected; and if there is a problem with the lending institution, it may be necessary to refinance, necessitating thousands of dollars in additional closing costs.

Commissioner Cook stated he concurs; and withdrew his motion.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to authorize the Chairman to execute Agreement with Serene Harbor to provide funding for down payment toward the purchase of a domestic violence shelter, with a reverter to the County if Serene Harbor defaults on the mortgage; declining funding the $12,600 first year?s mortgage payments; and authorize the Chairman to execute Agreement with Huntington Bank for the loan guarantee, with the mortgage to have no balloon payment or penalty for pre-payment, and not be guaranteed with CDBG funds.

Chairman Higgs stated she does not know where that puts Serene Harbor; and if the Board approves this motion, Serene Harbor will have to negotiate with the bank in the morning. Ms. Ostovich advised the bank is waiting for her call. Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages ____for Agreements.)

The meeting recessed at 9:04 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m.

Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson requested a clarification of the motion on the previous item; stated Commissioner Cook included a provision that would withdraw the CDBG money as a source to guarantee, but did not articulate what the source of the funds would be; and inquired what was the intent. Commissioner Cook responded at the beginning of the discussion he said General Fund, and that was his intent. Commissioner Ellis suggested franchise fees. Ms. Wilson stated the ad valorem tax could not be used; with Commissioner Cook responding it would have to be non-ad valorem. Ms. Wilson stated she would have to look at the other non-ad valorem sources in terms of being able to use that as a guarantee, and get back to the Board momentarily. Chairman Higgs stated Commissioner Cook is comfortable saying non-ad valorem sources as the source of the guarantee; and Ms. Wilson will clarify to be sure that is something the Board can do.

DISCUSSION, RE: VOTER TABULATION EQUIPMENT SELECTION COMMITTEE

Chairman Higgs stated the item before the Board is the voter tabulation equipment; and there are a number of speakers. She stated Mr. Galey has presented the Board with several people to serve on the evaluation team, Mr. Allender, Mr. Broom, Mr. Byron, Mr. Kelley, and Mr. Oates.

Ida Blickley, 4475 Swift Avenue, Titusville, recommended learning to use the voting system the County has. She stated when the County buys the wrong ballots, they will not fit the system; and there was a lot of that in 1992. She stated the only thing she will go along with are precinct counters; and the only way she will go along with them is if they are hooked up to the disc, drop your card in after you vote, and not hooked up to the Supervisor of Elections Office. She stated she wants the elections given back to the taxpayers.

John Simmons, 405 Banyan Way, Melbourne Beach, stated the Brevard County election process is complicated and complex; and he knows this because as a member of the Citizens Election Study Panel, appointed by the Board, he studied the election process for 6 months following the 1992 election. He stated he can understand why the Supervisor of Elections and many citizens would like to see a better, more modern, more efficient, and accurate accounting system; but inquired if the systems being offered are any better than the current punch card system. He stated the proposed systems are old technology; and inquired if the Commissioners would buy a computer for their homes that had technology that was five to ten years old. He stated what is being discussed is an electronic, computer based system; a vote counting system using mark sense leaves a lot to be desired; there are a lot of elderly people in the County who vote; they have problems with the punch card system the County has now; there are a lot of over votes and under votes because the punch is not in the right place; and inquired what makes the Board think that a mark sense system where someone has to take a felt pen and fill in an oval or draw a line between two points will be any easier for people or give any better vote counting. Mr. Simmons inquired if there have been any audits of the mark sense system to see if the intent of the voters was carried out in the count; stated it would not be the fault of the County equipment, but that the voters had a system that they were not able to use properly. He stated an audit could be made of the trial run that was done by the Supervisor of Elections in Cocoa in 1994; and the system should be audited to see how effective it was. He stated Mayors of the municipalities will be appointed to evaluate two proposals for a new vote counting system; and inquired what experience do these individuals have that make them qualified to do a technical evaluation of the vote counting proposals, and if they do not have knowledge of computer systems or vote security, how can the Board expect them to become qualified to make an intelligent evaluation by November 27, 1995. He stated even if they have consultants to advise them, they should be allowed three to six months to do their jobs properly; the evaluation committee would want to receive oral briefings from the proposing vendors, visit other counties with systems like the ones that are being proposed to find out the problems, limitations and unexpected costs, and conduct research to find out what technology is being developed that will make the present systems obsolete; and he does not think the Board should restrict itself now to systems which have been certified because there might be better systems that are in the process of certification. He stated the committee should review in detail the proposed plan for using whatever system it might select; and it should do a cost analysis to determine the total cost of the proposed system including the cost of the equipment, maintenance, spare parts, cost for adding new precincts, and cost impact on the Supervisor of Elections Office. He submitted eighteen written questions for consideration by the committee which the Board will appoint.

Bea Polk, 101 River Park Boulevard, Titusville, stated there is not much she can say after Mr. Simmons; he worked on the Citizens Election Study Panel; and she is not sure if the report of the Panel was ever read by the Commissioners, but it should have been because now there is a problem and no one knows what to buy. She stated her main concern is total cost; and the five people Mr. Galey recommended for the committee do not have the qualifications. She stated the Board is going to rush into this system like it did the last one; she is sure the current system can be used for another year while the new systems are studied; and the Board needs to know the total cost and the security and honesty of a system. She stated less than four years ago, Mr. Galey said in court that the other system was the best in the world; and now he is saying we need a new system. She stated if the Board pulled all the bills on the current system, it would be surprised how much it paid for it; before the County spends $1 million or $2 million on a new system, it should try to find out what system it needs. She stated she has always wanted precinct counters, but does not want them hooked up to anyone because modems can be used any way by whoever has them; it is a dangerous situation; and recommended the Board read The Vote Scam Book. She stated if the voters have to mark the ballots and it takes three days to count, the Board should not worry about the newspaper wanting the vote more quickly, but should be worried about the honesty of the system and the price it costs the taxpayers.

Bill Tolley, 4250 Pinewood Drive, Melbourne, stated he does not have to list all the background experience he has had in the election process as well as the vote counting process going back into 1992 and 1994; and he would like to have a much faster system since in 1992 and 1994 he had to wait until 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. for results. He stated Florida TODAY endorses everything the Supervisor of Elections is proposing including the appointment of the committee, but there is a glaring error of omission; it talks about the accuracy and fastness, but it does not mention security; and the order of priority in evaluating any vote system is security, accuracy and speed, because if the ballots are not secure, the accuracy of counting the ballots becomes secondary. He stated the proposal is that there be advancements in the technology utilized with the elections system; that may have much merit; but any advancement is going to have a greater involvement in the use of computers and software. He stated this brings him to his basic concern about security; every system that has been proposed is a proprietary system; the source codes are not open to the public or to the scrutiny of anyone outside of the vendor; and this raises a serious fundamental question about such systems. He recommended the Board move in a direction that opens up the process; stated there was a judge in 1992 who said there is no higher fiduciary responsibility in this land than the sanctity of the vote; and that is an important thing for the Board to observe. He stated the system belongs to the people; it is not the Supervisor of Elections? or the County?s system; and the openness is important. He stated a previous speaker said this area has the world?s most technologically advanced knowledge; and everyone should receive a fair opportunity in what we are doing. He stated the Board puts taxpayer money into economic development; if this is the heart of technological advancement with NASA and myriad electronic companies, many deeply involved in software and advanced electronic systems, vote counting should be a piece of cake; and on behalf of the Brevard County Manufacturers Association, he would encourage the Board to appoint a group of technologically proficient individuals to evaluate the next evolution of some systems, and take an economic development action to move in a direction of possibly funding development of a system that would create jobs in the County and leap the state of the art so the County would be out front.

Supervisor of Elections Fred Galey stated the two systems which he recommended are precinct ballot counters; they are marked by the voter; nobody touches them except the voter; they are counted as they are dropped in the ballot box; and inquired what could be more secure than that. He stated the only time it is hooked up to a modem is after the results of the precinct are published and available in the precinct; and then it is transmitted into the central site. He stated there is a lot of technology coming along; but the issue tonight is whether the Board is going to appoint a committee to evaluate or decide to design its own system. He stated the two systems that are recommended are certified by the State; they have been tested many times; and even the current system, which was looked at by the committee, counts accurately. He stated the committee which the Board appointed hand counted the ballots; everything that was counted was exactly as it was reported; it did not change who won; and that is part of the problem. He stated exactly what was voted by the voter is what was reported by the machines; and that is what would be reported by the precinct tabulators which he recommended. He noted he recommended them three years ago; there are counties which are switching to them now; it is good technology; there is more advanced technology coming along that does not use ballots; there is telephone voting that is available now that has been tested; but there is no security there because anyone who has your code can vote for you on the other end of the telephone, and you have no identification. He stated there are companies that have developed all of this; it is time to move forward; it can be delayed as much as the Board would like; but there is not much time if it is going to be used for the March 12, 1996 Presidential primary. Mr. Galey stated it is necessary to make investment to either use the current system or continue to evaluate what is available now; one of each of the systems is set up in his office now; they have been there for some time; and none of the people who have spoken tonight have bothered to come and look at them. He stated the systems that are available work very well; and Orange County, Volusia County and other counties have been using the systems. He stated he has recommended precinct ballot tabulators; the voter marks it; it is counted as the voter drops it into the ballot box; and inquired what could be more secure.

Commissioner Scarborough stated some of the speakers have called for people with technical expertise; looking at the proposed panel, there may be some technical expertise and knowledge, but not to his knowledge; previously the Board was able to look at several different pieces of equipment; they were set up for the Board, and anyone who wanted to do so was able to play with it and ask questions; and if that was done again, it would be possible to move a lot further along. He stated he does not think what the committee recommends will amount to that great an endorsement since they do not have the technical expertise on voter equipment; and suggested bypassing the whole process by putting the equipment out and allowing people to ask their questions. Mr. Galey noted the equipment is available now; and both of the companies are prepared to make a presentation to the committee or anyone who wants to attend. Commissioner Scarborough inquired why have the committee. Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Scarborough wants to bring it right to the Board. Mr. Galey indicated he is willing to bring it right to the Board. Commissioner Scarborough stated his problem is whether any member of the committee has an expertise in voter equipment; the appointees are fine, honorable gentlemen who serve the community in many ways; but as far as having technical expertise, Commissioner Ellis has a better understanding of some of the technologies than the appointees.

Commissioner O?Brien stated he agrees with Commissioner Scarborough to a point that there is another way of doing this that would satisfy half of the problem; the most common thing is to include members from the cities to try to make a decision on the kind of voting machines they want because they will be used in the cities as well; but people are needed who are technologically smart about these things. He stated the newer machines are electronic and computerized; the Board does not know anything about these things; and suggested sending a letter to NASA requesting a volunteer to look at the machines and advise if it is possible to cheat with the machine or not. He stated the Board can request the Harris Corporation send someone who knows about optical scanners to advise how the machines can be used to cheat. He suggested the Board call on Accudyne or other companies which have high tech people who know more about this; and stated the corporations in the County will cooperate and offer personnel to look at these things and how they are going to work, and make the first decision based on whether it is possible to cheat with the machines. He stated if they determine one system is safer, the Board will have five good citizens who are not elected officials, but have a high tech knowledge in their background, to certify whether the machines are good. Mr. Galey stated they can be appointed to the committee to evaluate the machines at the same times as the other five people; the State and the Division of Elections has the toughest evaluation process in the nation; Wiley Labs has tested these machines; they have been certified and tested, and have gone through the process of all the evaluations, votes and security; and that is why they are required to be a certified machine before a county can even consider it. He stated if the Board wants to go through that process, it can do so at the Board?s pleasure. Mr. Galey stated he has made a recommendation to the Board; the Board is the only one that can buy the machine; and he will use whatever machines the Board provides to tabulate the election results. Commissioner O?Brien stated after reading books such as The Vote Scam, The Stealing of America and others, there is a pervasive scare out there; it is necessary to make sure what is going on so the election is not totally stolen away or manipulated; and the public has to trust that every vote counts and is counted, and he knows Mr. Galey wants the same thing. Mr. Galey stated that is absolutely true; that is why the proposed machines were taken to the different malls in the County so the people could look at the machines; and they were eight to one in favor of switching after using them.

Commissioner O?Brien inquired would it be difficult for the County Manager to contact NASA, Rockwell, Harris, Accudyne, etc. to request they send an employee who knows about optical scanning, computer hardware and software, to volunteer to be the first flight of engineers to take a look at the machines to determine whether the machines can be used in any kind of cheating scam in voting and how. He stated the next committee of Mayors and others that Mr. Galey recommended can be reassured it is a good solid system. County Manager Tom Jenkins responded he can do so within a day or so.

Commissioner Cook stated he is open to suggestions; he does not see anything wrong with the Board having a committee; Mr. Galey can form his own committee; it can come back with its recommendation; and since the County has to put a considerable investment into it, he sees nothing wrong with the County forming a committee. He suggested one appointee per Commissioner is fine; but there is nothing wrong with having two committees. Chairman Higgs disagreed with having two committees.

Commissioner Ellis suggested appointing the five proposed members of the committee, and on November 28, 1995, each Commissioner appoint one more member to the committee; and then the committee can start on November 29 rather than November 27, 1995. He stated that only bumps back two days on the time line; each Commissioner will have an appointment plus the five from Mr. Galey; and if Commissioner O?Brien wants to find a software programmer, and Commissioner Cook an electrical engineer, each Commissioner will come back with one appointee. He stated the problem with Commissioner O?Brien?s idea was as soon as the County calls NASA, it will become in a NASA bureaucracy as to which engineer to send. Commissioner O?Brien stated if the County calls seven companies, it will get five volunteers, and even three volunteers is fine if they have the high tech expertise. He stated the voting machine is the most important piece of equipment the County is ever going to buy; and the public needs assurance. Commissioner Ellis stated when he worked at KSC, he programmed software that blew a rocket out the sky, and certainly an error on that software was more critical than an error on a voting machine; and he can go through it himself if he has to.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants to move forward with this; and he buys off on having technical people look at it. Mr. Galey stated he has no problem with that; and both companies are willing to have technical people to go to their factories to look at them. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does like the fact that there is equipment for the Board to review and ask questions about because there is a lot of difference when the Board gets a technical recommendation but does not have the equipment to look at side by side with staff there. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is where he wants to be at the end.

Chairman Higgs stated she had the opportunity to work with both pieces of equipment; she does not need to do that again; but she needs a recommendation to evaluate.

Commissioner Scarborough stated a recommendation from the people Mr. Galey has proposed is irrelevant; he does not know if Mr. Allender was chosen by the City of Titusville, but he does not serve on the City Council of Titusville; and inquired why is the Board looking to these people. He stated the most important thing is to bring forward the most technical expertise as quickly as possible, and let the Board ask simultaneously in a public meeting the questions. He stated Chairman Higgs may ask a question and he will not hear it; Commissioner O?Brien may have another question; and he has come to a lot of meetings totally convinced of what he was going to do and turned 180 as a result of questions someone else asks, which is why the Board has to meet in the sunshine. Commissioners Cook and O?Brien agreed.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not want to rush a decision of this magnitude just because the Presidential Preference Primary is coming up, although that is the goal; this is an important decision; and he will be happy to go with the pleasure of the Board, whether each Commissioner appoints a technical person or some other suggestion. He stated some technical expertise is needed, and that is independent of anything else; and that is no reflection on the individuals Mr. Galey proposed. Mr. Galey stated it is the Board?s committee to appoint and the Board?s system to buy.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve having each Commissioner appoint one member to the Voter Tabulation Equipment Selection Committee at the November 28, 1995 meeting to add to the five members recommended by the Supervisor of Elections.

Commissioner O?Brien recommended the appointees have some kind of technical experience. Chairman Higgs voiced objection to the recommendation. Commissioner O?Brien stated the only reason the Board is doing this is to not only evaluate the machine but to have a reasonable assurance about the electronic machines which have some inherent problems; and he is not knowledgeable about this. Chairman Higgs stated her other concern is the financing and whether this is a cost effective measure as proposed by the vendors; she is interested in someone who will look at that aspect; and she does not want to be locked into who she can appoint. Commissioner Ellis stated the other problem with depending too much on technical people is if they cannot see the software, they cannot evaluate it. He stated if he could see the software, he could see what the internal controls are against tampering; a lot of times tampering is not intentional as a bit can be dropped in the system and cause a change in the counter; and the biggest thing is to get off the proprietary software and be able to have someone analyze the software and do a failure analysis on it. Commissioner Scarborough suggested amending the motion to include that in addition to the five appointments that Commissioner Ellis serve on the Committee. Commissioner Cook stated he concurs because Commissioner Ellis has a computer background. Commissioner Ellis and Commissioner Cook agreed to include the amendment as part of the original motion.

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

Mr. Galey inquired when the Board would like to have the two systems demonstrated. Chairman Higgs inquired if that would be for the Board; with Mr. Galey responding for anyone who wants to look. Commissioner Scarborough suggested Mr. Galey make the calls and get them in; with Mr. Galey responding he plans to do it on Friday, December 1, 1995. Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson stated the real provision the Board is dealing with is a Constitutional provision under Article 7, Section 10, which indicates no County shall become a joint owner with or stockholder of or give, lend or use its taxing power or credit to aid any corporation, association, partnership or person; and the reason the CDBG funds were put in the contract is because that is specifically allowed with respect to CDBG funds by the federal government. She stated that was the intent when that was put in and was why they did not use other sources of funding.

Commissioner Scarborough requested time to think about the issue; and inquired if the Board can discuss this at the end of the meeting. Chairman Higgs noted there are people present who have been waiting for some time. Commissioner Scarborough stated he needs time to think of options and is not comfortable with it; but if the Board wants to vote, he can vote against it. Commissioner Ellis suggested moving forward with other items.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - JACK ARNOLD MAGGARD, RE: UNPAID SPECIAL WATER ASSESSMENT LIEN

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Maggard wishes to reschedule his personal appearance. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Mr. Maggard had to leave.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - MARY GERRISH, RE: NOISE ORDINANCE ON PET RESORT KENNELS

Mary Gerrish, 4921 Rosewood Lane, Melbourne, stated she lives in the Live Oak community which is a residentially zoned area next to the Pet Resort, which is located in the Wickham Road Business Center. Ms. Gerrish distributed a packet of information pertinent to the problems of the homeowners. She stated she moved into Live Oak on March 22, 1995; the nightmare began on Easter weekend in April; at that time she complained to the Pet Resort about the barking dogs; and the response she received was that the Pet Resort had been there for eight years and Ms. Gerrish should have thought of that before moving in. She stated she went to Code Enforcement, Planning and Zoning, Animal Control, and the Melbourne Police Department; she was told to call the Sheriff?s Office; and it was explained that there is a Noise Ordinance, and that a Deputy Sheriff would come out and file a complaint which would eventually be handled by the State Attorney. She stated on July 6, 1995 at 6:30 a.m., she called the Sheriff?s Office; a Deputy Sheriff responded immediately, filed the complaint, and advised her she would be hearing from the State Attorney?s Office; but now seven months later, she is still seeking relief. She stated over 200 homeowners are being subjected to the noise pollution created by improperly licensed Code violators; and requested the Board refer to a transcript which she did of the August 22, 1995 Board of County Commissioners meeting. She stated she was unaware of the August 22 meeting as at that time she was still waiting to hear from the State Attorney?s Office. She stated the Board has been misinformed; she is disturbed by the tone of the meeting and some of the comments made; and hopes that the tone and comments were due to the fact that the Board was misinformed. She advised of Mr. Friedland?s comments at the August 22 meeting. She stated Mr. Wenzel was cited under Ordinance No. 93-09, and was ordered to appear before the 18th Judicial Court for violating the Noise Ordinance. She stated Mr. Friedland said it was not brought before Code Enforcement; but it was brought to the attention of Code Enforcement by she and her husband, and they were told Mr. Wenzel was not in violation. She stated Mr. Friedland said the Wenzels have invested their life savings in their business; and inquired what about the homeowners? investments. She stated Mr. Friedland said the Wenzels are looking for relief; but it is the homeowners who need relief. She stated Mr. Friedland said the noise was generated in the normal course of business for a lawfully permitted, properly zoned business; and her husband will elaborate on that statement. She stated Mr. Friedland said the person who complained moved to the area knowing that the business was already there; but the people had no way of knowing that a noise polluter was illegally operating a kennel in the Wickham Road Business Center which is zoned IU, not AU. She stated Mr. Friedland called the situation absurd; but what is absurd is that Mr. Wenzel has been allowed to continue the noise after being cited by the State Attorney?s Office on July 6, 1995 for Code violation; and Mr. Wenzel is still a Code violator with no end in sight. She stated this is back door politics while the homeowners are being denied due process under the law; and it is very serious. She stated Mr. Friedland said the State Attorney is willing to work with us; and inquired by whose authority is the State Attorney willing to work with Attorney Friedland and Mr. Wenzel, the defendant. She stated the State Attorney?s commitment is to protect and serve the citizens of the State, not to protect and serve defendants; and she is sure the State Attorney?s Office does not know that the relief Attorney Friedland is seeking for his client is to make an emergency exception to the Noise Ordinance. She stated a copy of a fax and a letter which were sent to Attorney Friedland from Attorney Kyle King was provided in the packet; a copy of Mr. King?s letter was sent to her by Assistant State Attorney Oscar Hotusing who supposedly was handling the case for her; Attorney King incorrectly stated the facts; the Pet Resort is not an existing lawfully permitted business in the industrial zone classification; and nowhere does it state that dog kennels are allowed in IU zoning. She stated Commissioner O?Brien provided an example at the August 22 meeting, but it is not at all like the situation the Live Oak homeowners find themselves in. Ms. Gerrish stated Live Oak is a residentially zoned development; they did not know the Pet Resort Kennels were there violating the Noise Ordinance; they did not know that the dogs being housed at the Pet Resort are allowed to run in and out of an area outside the kennel, day and night, unrestricted; there is no way to restrict the animals to inside the building; and Mr. Wenzel does not care about the neighbors because he lives in Rockledge where he is able to enjoy peace and quiet. She stated Commissioner O?Brien referred to loss of revenue at the August meeting; but a seller?s disclosure statements has been included in the packet; and the highlighted areas refer to problems that will be experienced in trying to sell their homes if the Noise Ordinance is not upheld. She noted many young military homeowners live in Live Oak; some of them are expecting to move within a few years; many have young children; and inquired if this is the way we treat our servicemen. She stated they have invested in the community and pay taxes here; and inquired if this is the way the County rewards them, by making a special emergency exception to the Noise Ordinance. She stated one military wife has a husband who is a pilot who flies secret missions; often he gets called in the middle of the night to fly; most of the time he leaves unrested due to the barking dogs; and inquired if the Board can imagine the ramifications of that. She stated there are many retirees living in Live Oak who had expected to enjoy a peaceful retirement; and inquired what about them. She stated the homes right now are seriously devalued and unsalable; most are under one year old; and inquired who has the emergency. She stated exempting dog kennels in IU means that the surrounding areas will never be able to be zoned residential; and inquired why would the Board do this for Mr. Wenzel and all kennel owners henceforth. She stated something is wrong. She stated one person at the August meeting apologized to Mr. Friedland for having to come in for something so silly; and inquired who said that and what does that statement mean. She read aloud the charges against Mr. Wenzel.

Commissioner Scarborough noted the Clerks have a keen ear in ascertaining who is speaking; the minutes generally reflect that; and Ms. Gerrish can get that information. Ms. Gerrish stated she has the tape recording, and she transcribed it. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Clerks have the ability to recognize the voices of the Commissioners; and that may be the best course. Ms. Gerrish inquired if none of the Commissioners own up to saying that. Commissioner Scarborough noted the number of hours spent in Commission meetings; stated it is difficult to remember what statements were made; and he does not recall. Ms. Gerrish reiterated she has the tape which the Commissioners can listen to.

Kenneth Gerrish, 4921 Rosewood Lane, Melbourne, stated he will be addressing zoning, licensing and permitting as well as some of the remedies available regarding the Pet Resort. He stated he reviewed Section 62-1543, Light Industrial (IU) Zoning Classification; the Wickham Road Business Center was rezoned IU in 1982; IU zoning does not permit a kennel as a permitted use; and requested someone explain why the kennel is there today. He stated the only permitted use is in a PA-productive agricultural zoning, AGR zoning and AU-agricultural residential zoning where it is a conditional use. He stated permitted uses and structures must comply with performance standards set forth in Division 6(3), and take place within an enclosed building; and IU zoning does permit a dog and pet hospital and beauty parlor grooming. He stated Pet Resort Corporation is a private Florida corporation owned by Mr. and Mrs. Wenzel; it was incorporated in 1985; the property was purchased by the Pet Resort Corporation in April, 1985 for $38,000; it had a use code of 1100 fora store; and a 1,260 square-foot building and six dog runs were completed in August, 1987. Mr. Gerrish stated Mr. Wenzel received an occupational license in September, 1987; and the use listed on the license application was pet training and grooming, which was a clever approach by Mr. Wenzel to cover up his real intended use as a dog kennel. He stated dog kennel is a non-permitted use since pet grooming would be classified as a pet beauty parlor which is a permitted use in IU zoning; Mr. Wenzel does not presently have any signs or advertising mentioning a pet training service; but he does advertise in the yellow pages and with business signs that he does provide pet boarding and has a kennel operation, both of which are illegal activities. He stated Mr. Wenzel advertises his business as Pet Resort Kennels; but preliminary checks indicate he may not have properly registered with the State of Florida for a fictitious name, which is another violation. He inquired how could Mr. Wenzel operate as a dog kennel for eight years without the knowledge of the Planning and Zoning, Code Compliance, and the Sheriff?s Department, especially since there were dozens of complaints to County officials about dogs barking. He stated Planning and Zoning advised Mr. Wenzel is permitted; and Code Compliance advises he is in compliance. He stated there is something wrong here; and he hopes the Board can enlighten him on this issue. He stated they have proceeded with their complaints as allowed under the law; the Sheriff was notified; the complaints documented that Mr. Wenzel was cited by the Sheriff for violation of Noise Ordinance No. 93-09; and he thought the State Attorney?s Office proceeded to prosecute, but this did not happen. He stated the people are being denied their due right of process under the law; the State Attorney, County Attorney, and the Board of County Commissioners have violated the rights of the people by attempting to cut a deal for the benefit of the defendant and his attorney; and they do not intend to have this happen. He stated the Fourteenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights assures that the state and local governments are bound to respect the rights of the people.

Commissioner Scarborough requested staff respond to the question regarding the IU zoning issue and that the original license was just for grooming activities. Assistant Growth Management Director Peggy Busacca stated it is the interpretation of the Zoning Official that a pet kennel is a permitted use in IU zoning. Mr. Gerrish stated it does not say that in the law; with Ms. Busacca responding it is an interpretation. Mr. Gerrish stated it is not the proper interpretation. Ms. Busacca stated it is possible to put the interpretations in writing, and they can be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Scarborough suggested Mr. Gerrish talk with Ms. Busacca about how to make that appeal.

Richard Nibeck, 4925 Rosewood Lane, Melbourne, stated he and his wife moved to Live Oak in June, 1995; they retired to Florida, bringing with them all of their assets to invest in the community for the rest of their lives; and they are voters and taxpayers. He stated when they purchased their home they were aware of the industrial park behind their lot, but they were assured that the zoning for light industry would not be detrimental to their property values or planned lifestyle. He stated they later learned that one of the businesses was a dog kennel, but they assumed it was operated within the law and with good neighborly intentions; and it was not until October, 1995 when they started sleeping with their windows open that they learned they were wrong. He stated up until that time they were occasionally inconvenienced by annoying noises; but with the weather change, the persistence of barking and howling on repeated occasions drove them from their back porch during the day and awoke them at night; and weekends are the worst. He stated the nerve jamming fracas can last for hours, and can occur at any time, day or night; and other noise pollution such as planes or trains can occur periodically, but are short episodes. Mr. Nibeck requested the Board do what it can to determine whether Pet Resorts is a lawfully permitted and properly zoned business, and if it is legally and properly licensed, that the Board do what it can to achieve noise containment in accordance with the law as it now exists so the rest of the citizens in the community can enjoy their investment.

Chairman Higgs stated on August 22, 1995 staff was directed to come back to the Board; and inquired if they came back. Ms. Wilson stated on November 28, 1995 permission is being requested to advertise amendments; it is part of the Noise Ordinance and Animal Control Ordinance; and there is some overlap in both Ordinances dealing with the noises animals make. She stated staff is coming before the Board on November 28, 1995 to request permission to advertise some amendments for clarification; and that may be one opportunity for the Board to address this. Chairman Higgs stated on November 28,1995 what the Board directed on August 22, 1995 will come back, and at that time the Board will direct staff whether it wants to advertise; when an Ordinance is changed, it has to be advertised to the public; and on November 28, 1995 at a public meeting which everyone is welcome to attend, the Board will determine if it will proceed on the course of action which it started on August 22. She stated nothing will be done until November 28, 1995; at that time the Board will review the issues; and if the Board wishes to continue on the course of action, it will advertise another public meeting to consider the change.

Commissioner Cook stated the point is this will come back to the Board a couple more times; nothing has been done; and the public hearing process is for both sides of the issue to come forward and for people to present their views. He stated the people should get a written decision from the Zoning Official regarding the Pet Resort; and if they do not concur with that decision, they can appeal to the Board of Adjustment. He stated that would be something to take a look at; in the meantime, the Board needs to find out from staff if this is a lawfully permitted endeavor; and on November 28, 1995 the Board will look at whether it is going to advertise any changes to the Ordinance. He stated as a last resort, the Board can look at noise containment in conjunction with the owner; and he can understand that the noise is a concern and is affecting quality of life.

Commissioner Ellis stated there are two questions; one is how this specific kennel can be in IU zoning; and the general question is the Noise Ordinance amendment. He stated the Noise Ordinance amendment is what the Board will be addressing on November 28. Chairman Higgs noted there is also an animal control portion. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not want to give the impression that what the Board will discuss on November 28 is this particular kennel in this zoning. He stated the Board needs to get a letter from Zoning on how you put a kennel in IU zoning; that is not the issue being discussed on November 28; and he wants to make sure the two issues are separated so when the Board meets on November 28, the issue being discussed is amendments to the Noise Ordinance, not this particular kennel at this location in this zoning. Chairman Higgs stated she would like to have the report on those issues because it will shade her thoughts in regard to the process. Commissioner Ellis suggested they be set up as two items.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Commissioners have been given a letter from the Assistant County Attorney advising the County Attorney?s Office has been directed to prepare an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 93-09 to allow an exemption for existing lawful permitted businesses in industrial zoning classifications; that is what the Board told Attorney Friedland; however, on November 3, there was a letter from the State Attorney?s Office advising the Board has determined the operation at Pet Resorts does not violate any Ordinances; and that is not true.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct the County Attorney to contact the State Attorney to advise that the Board has not determined that Pet Resorts does not violate any Ordinances.

Commissioner Ellis stated he still supports amending the Noise Ordinance; it affects everyone; the motion is to look at one location; and he wants to be sure when the Board discusses the Noise Ordinance, it has two separate issues. Chairman Higgs stated the motion is to tell the State Attorney that was not the determination of the Board. Commissioner Scarborough stated the State Attorney has not understood the Board action.

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

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Ron Burch, Code Enforcement, is attempting to meet with the owner of Pet Resort as well as the developer of the subdivision to see if they are willing to financially participate in some sort of a mitigation; there is a distance that separates the two entities; however, it is primarily water which amplifies the noise. He stated staff is working with them to see if they will voluntarily try to mitigate the noise, which may help some.

Chairman Higgs stated on November 28, 1995 the Board will get a report, deal with the issue, and determine whether to go forward.

DISCUSSION, RE: AGRICULTURAL PETS ON GU PROPERTY

Frank Hunter, 5485 Evinrude Road, Melbourne, submitted a petition signed by neighbors who do not consider his animals to be a nuisance. He stated there was a complaint about someone discharging firearms in the neighborhood; and when the complaint was made, that person made a complaint about his animals. He stated his property has GU zoning; it was platted in 1956 before the Zoning Codes came about; and his property has been GU since 1958. He read aloud from the Zoning Code; and stated customary accessory use meant that people could continue their ordinary life with their cows, hogs, gardens, etc. He stated he is one of the few Florida crackers left that lives this lifestyle; and he wants to live his life the way he was raised to live it, not the way some northerner thinks he should. He stated he has many wild animals in his yard; his subdivision points a mile out into the wetlands; and he has deer, raccoons, possum, etc. He inquired how is he going to separate his two miniature goats from all of the other animals in his yard. He stated the Grandfather Clause of 1995 says they can go back to the date his property was platted, and that was no zoning; and inquired how can the County tell him he cannot have a couple of little animals in his yard that are environmental weed eaters. Mr. Hunter stated his animals are on his property legally; he has been harassed for many years by Zoning; and he has a great deal he will show at a later date relating to harassment by Code Enforcement.

Commissioner Ellis stated he wants to find a resolution to the problem; there is property in the County which is zoned GU; it was zoned a long time ago, and is on smaller lots; there are some such lots in Canaveral Groves, and some are on the finger developments; and the way the rule is now for GU, agriculture is a conditional use which means an individual would have to pay $398 to get the conditional use permit, even if all the individual has is a single pot-bellied pig. He stated that is the heart of the problem; agricultural pursuits are considered to be any number of farm animals; but if this was a permitted use with conditions, the Zoning Official could determine the number of animals, allow the permitted use, and the individual would not have to go through the $398 fee. He stated if someone has 100 acres of GU property and wants to run herds of cattle, it is appropriate to have a conditional use permit; however, someone could have a home and a pig, or a tropical bird. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has a problem with tropical birds; and suggested referring the issue to staff to come back with some ideas. Commissioner Ellis stated if an individual has 100 birds, that is agricultural; but if someone has two birds, that is different. Commissioner Scarborough stated that can be in residential neighborhoods anyway because people can have birds as pets. Commissioner Ellis stated he wants to refer this to staff so they can come back with ideas so if people have a couple of animals, they do not get caught with the $400 fee.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to review possible solutions for resolutions to the problems regarding agricultural pets on GU property and report back to the Board with recommendations. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated staff will try to come up with some ways to address this problem.

Mr. Hunter inquired if this will come back before another meeting; with Chairman Higgs responding yes.

Commissioner O?Brien inquired if Mr. Hunter?s entire problem is just two miniature goats. Mr. Hunter responded the problem is there has been a lot of gunfire in his neighborhood; and the complaint on his animals was done in retaliation to the complaint about the gunfire.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to defer Code Enforcement action on agricultural pets on all GU properties until after this comes back from staff. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: TERMINATION OF VETERINARY CLIENT DISCLOSURE

Commissioner Ellis stated when he spoke with his veterinarian earlier in the year, he spoke about the possibility of veterinary client disclosure coming up; and he got two letters from Titusville veterinarians advising Animal Control is going after the lists. He stated what the County wants, more than the licensing, is the vaccination of animals; he is concerned if licensing is pushed too hard, it may result in fewer vaccinations; and the County should not be pulling client lists, even if the Florida Statutes allow it. Commissioner O?Brien stated he tends to agree with Commissioner Ellis; and one of the suggestions made in the letters was that there should be specific places set up for animal registrations. Commissioner Ellis stated veterinarians do it now for free. Commissioner O?Brien stated if someone has a dog or cat who has had rabies shots, he will have a receipt; that could be taken to the Clerk of the Courts Office or some other designated office to register the animal for $3; and the cities could be involved too. Commissioner Ellis stated right now it is done right in the veterinarians office.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Ellis is advocating that the County not require people to abide by the State law; with Commissioner Ellis responding he is advocating that the County not require the veterinarians to turn over their list of clients to Animal Control. Chairman Higgs advised that is State law. Commissioner Ellis stated the State law says the County may ask for it, not that it must ask for it. Assistant County Manager Joan Madden stated she will defer to the County Attorney, but the law says ?upon vaccination against rabies the licensed veterinarian shall provide the animal?s owner and the Animal Control Authority with a rabies vaccination certificate.?

Commissioner O?Brien stated all the veterinarians are being asked to do is send to Brevard County a list of those people who had their animals vaccinated. Ms. Madden stated the veterinarians have a secondary concern which they will speak to, and that is once the lists get into Animal Control and become public record, they can be accessed by anyone for whatever purposes. Commissioner O?Brien inquired what other purposes; with Ms. Madden responding marketing and sales. Commissioner Ellis stated by computer matching all the tags and vaccinations, he can find all those people without tags and track them down. Commissioner O?Brien stated if an animal is not vaccinated, there is no record; and if there is no record, there is no match. Commissioner Ellis stated if the animal is vaccinated but does not have a license, there can be a computer match of the list of vaccinated animals with those with licenses to determine all those without licenses; and then the County can go after all the violators. Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Ellis is saying the County should not abide by the law. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not agree with the law and does not mind not abiding by it. Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Ellis is saying not to abide by the law; with Commissioner Ellis responding yes, he is.

Commissioner Scarborough requested the Board hear from the veterinarians.

Dr. Jeff Godwin, 4020 South Babcock Street, Melbourne, representing the Brevard County Veterinary Medical Association, stated in 1994, the Florida Legislature passed a Statewide rabies law which was designed to establish a rabies requirement in those counties that did not have an animal control ordinance or a rabies vaccination as part of the animal control ordinance; but the Legislature recognized that many counties already had animal control ordinances, and allowed those to stay intact. He stated a provision was inserted in the Statute at the last minute requiring veterinarians to turn over the names and addresses of all clients who have animals vaccinated against rabies to the county?s Animal Control Agency; on October 5, the Brevard County veterinarians received a letter from the Animal Control Supervisor requesting the client names and advising the veterinarians would be punished if they did not provide them; and the veterinarians are upset by this action. He stated Chapter 828.27, Florida Statutes, says the governing body of a county is authorized to enact ordinances relating to animal control or cruelty, and it outlines the citation provisions; and his understanding is unless the County Ordinance specifically requires the veterinarians to turn over the lists, then Animal Control cannot cite veterinarians for not doing it. He stated the veterinarians may be in violation of the Florida Statute, but that would require the State Attorney?s Office to prosecute that. He stated the veterinarians want (1) the County to not pass any ordinance requiring veterinarians to turn over the names of clients who have had animals vaccinated against rabies and have not purchased licenses; (2) that Animal Control be directed not to request such client lists when there is no such County Ordinance; and (3) that the budget for Animal Control be entirely funded out of General Revenue. He stated the dog and cat licenses are not a fair tax; it is paid by the conscientious pet owner who has his animal vaccinated, and wants to abide by the law, but they are not the ones who are causing the problems that Animal Control is having to service; Animal Control is providing service to the entire County population including wild animals, animals running loose, animals who do not have owners, and animals owned by irresponsible pet owners; but they are not the ones paying the tax. He stated there is no relationship between payment of tax and receipt of services; and that is why it is unfair and should not be pushed. He stated strict enforcement of license requirements will cause those of limited income to stop vaccinating their animals; and this could cause some serious public health concerns. He stated rabies vaccination can be had in the County for as little as $5, but if veterinarians have to tack the $10 license fee on top of that, some people will not be able to get the rabies vaccine. He stated this represents a 200% tax on a service, which is excessive; the veterinarians will continue to offer the tags and encourage their purchase; but they do not want to be placed in the position of betraying client confidentiality by turning in the names of those who do not buy license tags. He stated the reason they are proposing to fund Animal Control from General Revenue is because that would reduce the pressure on Animal Control to penalize veterinarians who are trying to protect the health of the public and their pets. He stated the other concern is that once the client lists are turned over, they become part of the public record, and can be used by competitors; and explained how such lists have been used. He stated another concern is people who want to steal pedigree animals of a certain type can get the information from the lists. He requested the Board not pursue this in the County as part of the Animal Control Ordinance, and consider funding the budget for Animal Control from General Revenue.

Dr. Richard Sproc, 1130 Woodchuck Court, Titusville, stated he is a veterinarian; the goal is to immunize people?s animals against rabies; and it is the responsibility of the Board to provide for the safety of the animals from the threat of rabies and provide for the public health. He stated the other goal is to provide Animal Control services to all the citizens of the County; and it is not just for the people who own dogs and cats and are conscientious enough to get rabies vaccinations for them, but for others who do not get the vaccinations, and for people who do not own pets. He stated there is no reason for the County, Animal Control, and the veterinarians to be at loggerheads over these services; this is a situation that came up this year as a result of mistake by the State Legislature; it is not simply a matter of the veterinarians turning over a mailing list to the County; and the ramifications start from that point. He stated the State rabies law was modified for the purpose of improving the public health in the State; and the provision that veterinarians shall turn over lists of all clients who have their pets vaccinated for rabies was not understood to be used as a mailing list by Animal Control in its effort to raise funds through tag sales, nor was it ever dreamed it would be used for some of the other purposes that have become possible through the Public Records Access Law. He stated the provision in the State law was attempted to be corrected this year; it was temporarily derailed; and it is expected to be modified by the 1996 Legislature so that it is no longer under Public Access Records. He stated the State law being used by Animal Control to demand the lists says the veterinarians shall provide this information, and specifies the type of information needed in case there is threat of a possible rabies exposure to a person or pet through a wild animal or dog bite in investigating to make sure the animals were vaccinated and the owners protected. He stated the flawed provision in the State law does not provide for any time period; it says the veterinarians shall provide this to the County Animal Control; but it does not specify that it shall be done monthly, quarterly, yearly, etc. He stated any request from the County that veterinarians turn the lists over monthly did not come through the State law; the State law provides that it does not interfere with pre-existing Animal Control laws in each County which might be more stringent; and it also does not provide that each county must enforce this. He stated he does not understand how the statement that veterinarians shall turn this over to Animal Control with no specified time period to do it means that the Board must direct Animal Control to demand this information and use it for the purposes of tax collection from the people who did not purchase tags. He stated veterinarians want to have as many people as possible vaccinate their animals for rabies; and they would like to see Animal Control funded to do all the things that it is supposed to do for the County, but the way to do that is not through the tags. He stated the tags provide a proportion of Animal Control funds; it is a significant amount, but a smaller portion of where the funds come from; and a much fairer way to fund would be through General Funds. He stated this will solve the problems if it can be done in the long term; but in the short-term the veterinarians need relief from this action being taken against them by Animal Control. He stated he does not see that the State law directs the Board to enact an ordinance which says Animal Control must get these lists from the veterinarians every month, and must fine them if they are not turned over; and it is not included in the County?s Ordinance to enforce this at this time. He stated he has a client who has fallen on hard times; he has two dogs who have chronic skin disease; to comply with State licensing laws, he must examine the animals at least once a year to give prescriptions; and he insists on vaccinating for rabies because the County wants this to assist with public health. He stated he made a deal with the man today to give two free examinations if the man will pay for the two $7 shots for each of his animals; that will allow the man to have money left over to pay for the medicines; and he is not going to demand that this man also buy the County tags to get this service done. He noted this is not an isolated incident; there are a lot of people who can afford a little bit for their pets; and he has insisted they get the rabies shots that are due to protect themselves and their animals, to protect him from liability, and to help the County protect the public health. He stated if he is forced to turn over the list, next month Animal Control can cite his client and fine him up to $400 unless he pays the $20 for the animals; and this is a ramification Commissioner O?Brien may not have realized when he referred to this as just turning over a mailing list.

Commissioner Cook inquired is the County compelled by the State law to do this; with Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson responding there is nothing in the Florida Statute that specifically says the County must go forth and get this list, but it says the veterinarians shall provide the owners and Animal Control with a rabies vaccination certificate which must contain certain information. She stated the Statute does specify all the information that the veterinarians are concerned about; however, it has a provision which makes it a civil infraction, so putting someone in jail for violation is not an option, but it does provide for a fine. Ms. Wilson stated the intent is for the veterinarians to provide the information on a regular basis; it says upon vaccination for rabies; it could mean within a day or two from the vaccination; and the Legislature left that open to make it somewhat flexible. She stated with respect to the comment that the County had not adopted that ordinance, that was an issue she raised when she first read the Agenda item; but the Animal Control Ordinance does take into account that there may be amendments to the Animal Control Statute, and gives sufficient leeway to take enforcement under the current Ordinance. She stated an argument could be made that the better practice would be to specifically adopt changes; and advised the County is safe enough with its Ordinance. She stated the Ordinance says that it has to be done within so many days; but the spirit of the law is that the County has to obtain these lists.

Commissioner Ellis inquired since it is a State law, is it not a State responsibility to enforce; with Ms. Wilson responding that argument could be made, but the provision talks about a civil infraction; and other provisions of the Animal Control Ordinance give the County the authority to take enforcement action with respect to civil infractions of the Ordinance. She stated she does not know of any State agency that has authority; she is not sure if the State Attorney?s Office has authority; and the legislative intent comes back to the county?s agencies that adopt by ordinance. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there was a constitutional amendment about the State passing mandates to the County without providing funding; with Ms. Wilson responding there are some exceptions dealing primarily with Article 5 which is the judiciary funding; but she does not know that this would be one of the things that would be contemplated under Article 5. Commissioner Ellis stated it is a State mandate; there should be State funding; and the County has plenty of leeway to not enforce this.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the reporting bothers him; government ends up having the collection of revenue and the continuation of operations a higher priority than health and safety which started the whole issue; and now the legitimate pet owner who does not have the money but has a pet that is vaccinated can be tracked down through this mechanism, while the pet owner who does not take the time to even come in is not going to be in the system and cannot be tracked down. He stated the pet who has been vaccinated has met the needs of society and is not a problem, but if the pet owner has not paid the County the money, that becomes the criminal act rather than violating health and safety, so the money issue is in front of the health and safety issue.

Chairman Higgs stated no one knows that is what will be done with the data that is collected; and a conclusion is being reached that has not been established.

Commissioner Scarborough stated a person who had his pet vaccinated but did not buy the license was in violation of the law; what the County wanted to drive was identification of the vaccinated pets as opposed to the non-vaccinated pets; but since the County has decided to hook the money to it, it has become an issue; and what occurs is veterinarians are acting as bill collectors for the County. He stated the veterinarians are already doing the vaccinations; they will continue to do the licensing for the County; and at $5 a shot, the veterinarian is probably not making any money on the shot anyway. Chairman Higgs noted she knows of no veterinarian who is charging $5 for that shot. Commissioner Scarborough stated someone said it was $5 for the shot; with a member of the audience advising the charge is $5 to $10 per shot. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County has created a disincentive because it is worried about money; and any time an apparatus is created that runs contrary to health and safety, it is incorrect.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to suspend any additional collection of license fees for rabies.

Commissioner Ellis stated he cannot support that. Motion dies for lack of a second.

Commissioner Cook stated from what he heard tonight, the County would be on solid ground to say this is a State responsibility. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is a separate issue; and inquired why should the legitimate person have to pay and the illegitimate not. Commissioner Cook stated he needs to know the impact on funding of Animal Control. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if he stops at a traffic light tonight and pays a fine, while the person who runs the light does not, is that fair. Commissioner Cook stated people who do not own pets might not think it is fair that the money comes totally out of General Fund. Chairman Higgs noted they are not creating the problem. Commissioner Scarborough stated the complaints on pets generally come from non-pet owners who are concerned about health and safety issues; so this apparatus is not just for the legitimate pet owner but for the community at large so there are not rabid animals.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Animal Control gets the lists, what will it do with them. Animal Control Director Robert Griswold responded at this point, they are collected and nothing has been done with them. Chairman Higgs inquired what is the plan; with Mr. Griswold responding at some point the State wishes Animal Control to be able to properly identify ownership and the vaccination status of an animal during the course of a bite investigation. Chairman Higgs stated all the County is going to do is hold the lists so if it is tracking down a bite, there would be a method for doing that. Mr. Griswold stated that is the primary purpose for the information. Chairman Higgs stated she wants to know what the County is going to do with the list. Ms. Madden advised there is no intent to aggressively pursue individual licensees for the fee; and she does not think that is the problem with the veterinarians. She stated the problem with the veterinarians is that it becomes part of the public record.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the dog has no license, what value is the list. He stated it is of no value; and if the County is going to use the list, it will have to be computer matched with the licenses.

He stated it does not bother him to have tag revenues go to supplement General Fund because a lot of the people who call, but do not have dogs, are concerned about licensed animals; as a dog owner, he licenses his dog so that if he runs away and is picked up, he can be brought back; that is a cost that he should pay; licensed dogs also bite people; the tags are approximately one-fourth of the funding; and when animals are running wild, pet owners with licenses do have responsibility because many times there may be a licensed dog with a litter, and if they hand out the puppies, some may or may not get licensed. He stated he does not have a problem with tag revenues supplementing Animal Control; that is proper; but he has a problem with the lists because computer matching is the next step.

Commissioner O?Brien stated the Board could amend the ordinance to keep the lists proprietary where they will not be reviewed as a public document. Commissioner Ellis stated the lists do not serve a value; and the only thing that is of value is if the dog is picked up on a bite and has a tag.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board cannot make something that is a public record not a public record; and only the State Legislature can do that.

Commissioner Cook stated he would have to think about doing away with the funding; that would have to come back to see the impact; but he would be happy to make a motion to discontinue the collecting of the lists because an argument can be made that it is a State function, if it has to be done at all.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to discontinue collection of shot records from veterinarians.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the motion can be amended to add ?to the extent allowed by law.? Commissioner Cook restated the motion to discontinue collection of shot records from veterinarians to the extent allowed by law.

Chairman Higgs stated the motion is to discontinue the collection of shot records to the extent allowed by law; and that does not make any sense. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board does not put that in, it may be walking into an action by the Board that is violating the Florida Statute. Chairman Higgs stated it is because the State law says the County shall do this. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is Chairman Higgs? belief, but that belief may be wrong; and the Board will make a determination of what can and cannot be done, and that is the action it will take. Chairman Higgs stated the wiser action may be to ask the County Attorney to research the issue fully and come back to the Board rather than the Board flying by the seat of its pants. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is not going to violate the law by this. Chairman Higgs stated the motion is to not do something to the full extent of the law; someone can research it and say one way or another; and inquired why not bring it back to the Board with a report from the County Attorney about what the law really is. Commissioner Ellis inquired why not end it tonight by saying the County is not going to take the lists. Commissioner Scarborough stated he cannot support that. Commissioner Cook stated the motion is to suspend the collection of the list unless the County Attorney advises that would violate the law. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is comfortable with that. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board wants an Attorney General Opinion; with Commissioner Cook responding if that is necessary. Commissioner Scarborough stated the laws are ambiguous, and if the Board has to request an Attorney General Opinion, that is fine. Chairman Higgs stated a County Attorney should bring an opinion back to the Board so staff is not left with an unclear opinion which the Board may not support. She stated no action should be taken tonight; there may already be a State opinion that would clarify this; and there is an absence of knowledge at this point. Commissioner Cook stated he is happy to have the County Attorney come back with an opinion but the motion is to suspend any actions.

Commissioner O?Brien stated he has questions about the motion; he understands what Commissioner Scarborough is saying; but without some form of a list coming back from the veterinarians who collect the fee, there is no accountability. He stated the veterinarians could be collecting hundreds of dollars in fees and not turning them in. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is a separate issue, and has already been taken care of. He stated all the Board is talking about is taking records and making them public records for no purpose but for collection of revenue.

Ms. Madden advised there is accountability for the veterinarians; they sell numbered tags and submit those numbers with the money; and there is a good audit trail and good accountability.

Commissioner O?Brien stated he does not mind following the motion; and inquired if the Legislature changes and allows the list to not be public record, can the motion be amended so that when that occurs it will come back for another hearing. Commissioner Cook stated he sees no reason not to. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not want to get into the cross matching. Commissioner Scarborough stated this can be rescheduled if the Legislature takes action; and anything can be put on the Agenda. Commissioner Cook stated he would like to stay with the motion. Commissioner O?Brien stated staff can put it on the Agenda if it is changed.

Commissioner Cook restated the motion to discontinue collection of shot records from veterinarians to the extent allowed by law.

Chairman Higgs stated she is not going to support the motion; that is not a wise way to do business; and the Board should get multiple interpretations, if necessary, so it will know exactly what is to be done and can direct staff in that fashion.

Commissioner Ellis stated he supports the motion because Animal Control will begin enforcing the Statutory provision beginning November, 1995; and that is the letter the veterinarians are getting.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board could get an opinion from the County Attorney to allow it to assess what the law says and then make a determination. Commissioner Cook stated staff still has the option to advise the Board this does have to be implemented; and the Board can consider it at that time. Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Cook is saying he wants it to come back; with Commissioner Cook responding no. Commissioner O?Brien clarified what they are saying is to be decisive tonight, but if the Board is found to be in error by the County Attorney?s Office, the County Attorney will bring it back to the Board; and if the Board is not in error, there is no problem. Chairman Higgs stated this reminds her of when the Board abated the collection of the Transportation Impact Fees; and she is not sure that was the wisest decision. Commissioner Ellis stated he still thinks that decision was right.

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

DISCUSSION, RE: MEETING RECESS

Commissioner O?Brien requested the Board take a break. Discussion ensued on whether to recess the meeting. Consensus was reached to continue with the Agenda.

DISCUSSION, RE: INSTALLATION OF NET AT HOOVER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL RECREATION AREA

Commissioner Ellis stated there is a problem at Hoover Junior High School; nets cost $10,000; but that is small price to pay to keep someone from getting hit with a softball; and it is a health and safety issue.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, to approve funding of approximately $9,882.50 from Contingency for installation of a net at Hoover Junior High School.

Commissioner O?Brien inquired if this is a Parks and Recreation budget item; with Commissioner Ellis responding it is not budgeted. County Manager Tom Jenkins suggested looking first in the Parks and Recreation budget, and if it cannot be found, to take it from Contingency; with Commissioner Ellis agreeing that is fine.

Richard Whittington, 494 North Harbor City Boulevard, Melbourne, stated a year ago he wrote to the Board regarding the problem with the Hoover Junior High School Sports Complex; he went to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting last year; the Advisory Board agreed unanimously that there was a serious problem; and at that time, it was indicated that there was no money in the budget, but hopefully in 1995 there would be money. He stated a month ago the problem came up again; and explained the situation. He stated a second letter was written to the Board; there is a distinct and real problem; and the parents may take it into their own hands. He noted one of the gentlemen on his son?s soccer team was hit by a ball; if he is there, there will not be any balls thrown back into the baseball field area that are hit into the soccer area; and warned any ball that is hit 350 feet and hits a five-year old?s skull is going to cause major problems. He stated he hopes the Board can find the funds to prevent a potential catastrophic injury to some of the younger children in the neighborhood.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve installation of a net at Hoover Junior High School recreation area; and authorize funding of approximately $9,882.50 from the Parks and Recreation budget, if possible, and if not, from Contingency. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - MAURENE RUPE, RE: ST. JOHNS RECREATION MSTU

Maurene Rupe, 7185 Bright Avenue, Cocoa, President of the Port St. John Homeowners Association, stated the residents of Port St. John imposed a tax upon themselves to pay for a community center and ball fields; then they found themselves with a $1.2 million overage; to decide on the allocation of the overage, a committee was formed, of which she is a member; and in the past few weeks the controversy and contention in Port St. John over this issue has led the Homeowners Association to conclude this is a decision that should be made not by the taxpayer, a committee, special interest groups or community leaders. Ms. Rupe advised the community supported the MSTU because they were told of the needs; and the Port St. John Homeowners Association unanimously voted to request the Board arrange for the taxpayer in the MSTU District to vote on the overage. She stated the Association suggests two options on the referendum, either to take the $1.2 million from the debt and decrease the taxes or buy the 200 acres at the end of Fay Boulevard for green space. She stated the 200 acres has a 27-acre lake and would be a great asset, and could be utilized by everyone in Port St. John; the purchase would also resolve the dangerous shooting practice in that area; and when Golfview is extended to the I-95 interchange, land acquisition would not be an expensive problem. She stated if the Board agrees to a referendum, the Association requests the County Attorney talk with the property owners on a contract contingent on the result of the referendum; and there is support throughout the community for this option. She stated the Association asks that the community center and ball park facilities proceed without any further holdups; they are going from meeting to meeting, getting frustrated and uncivil to one another; and the only way to resolve this is through the democratic process. She read aloud a letter from Bill Hurst, President of the Port St. John Senior Citizens Center, advising a motion was passed at the meeting of the Port St. John Seniors, Inc., to support the position of the Port St. Johns Homeowners Association regarding any funds found to be in excess of those needed to build a community center and those facilities as provided for in Phase 1. She read aloud a letter from Mary Tees, Vice President of the Homeowners Association and Co-chairman of the Incorporation Study, as follows:

Now that Port St. John has reached a certain maturity in terms of development, the time has come for the residents to look into other forms of government. The Homeowners Association is seeking aid from County government in gathering information for a study into the incorporation of Port St. John. We believe it is time that we have a direct influence on the future of Port St. John, especially in zoning changes. We feel that in the near future tremendous pressure will be put on our residential community that could lower our standard of a family-oriented development. Being mindful that no step of this magnitude should be taken lightly or in haste, we are proposing a step into a situation similar to Deltona. This would give the community a time to mature and toughly evaluate the incorporation study before a costly election is out on the matter. An advisory board comprised of the residents could speak with a greater representative voice than that of the Homeowners Association. We strongly seek the aid and counsel of the County Board of Commissioners in this endeavor in what could be a strengthening of the political process in Brevard County.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Ms. Rupe wants the Board to act on both items tonight; with Ms. Rupe responding the last item was just for the Board?s information. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is his intention to make motions on both items.

Commissioner Ellis stated with the $1.2 million excess funds, they are working through the Finance Committee to do the bond issue to pay for the improvements in the park; and if there is a second referendum, it will end up having to do two bond issues. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is a blessing to have more money come in, but there was a suspicion that people who were involved in it knew there was going to be an extra $1.2 million and kept it quiet from the community. He stated in spite of accusations, nobody had any knowledge there was going to be an extra $1.2 million; and the only way to extract themselves from this is to say the people voted for this, there is an extra $1.2 million, and the people can decide to have a lower millage rate or approve additional projects. He stated he and Ms. Rupe have had a lot of meetings; they have contacted the Supervisor of Elections; it appears that by mid-January, the Board needs to make a determination and send Mr. Galey some ballot language; and what Ms. Rupe is asking for tonight is for the Board to agree to send ballot language to Mr. Galey, if they come up with ballot language. He noted Mr. Jenkins advises there is minimal costs to add a referendum to the election. Commissioner Ellis inquired does the original referendum language allow purchase of more property off-site; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes, that is not the problem. Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is suspicion in the community that there was something contrived when there was nothing contrived. He stated there has been a consensus to proceed with what was approved by the original referendum; no one wants to revisit the old referendum; even the people who did not agree with the referendum are agreeable with going forward with the projects; and all that is in question is the new projects. Commissioner Ellis inquired what kind of ballot language would there be. Commissioner Scarborough stated what he thinks the people are asking for is whether the residents want a refund; if the answer is yes, it does not go any further; and then if that one loses, it would go to question two which could be a one question or a multi-question item. Commissioner Ellis stated if the answer is not to refund the money, then there would be other options. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be whatever the homeowners want to put on the ballot; and the community will come together over this because it is going back to the people who paid the taxes. Ms. Rupe stated there are a lot of special interest groups who are coming because they have heard of this money. Commissioner Ellis stated the only thing is this would occur in March; and the bond issue could not be done until after the referendum. Commissioner Scarborough stated that may be a lesser concern; and to bring the community together may be more important than having a ball field at this particular point. He noted he is not saying this will hold up the project.

Chairman Higgs stated the project could use commercial paper or a loan from the Utility Fund to finance for the first three months, if necessary, and then go with the bond issue.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a legitimate concern; but until it is known what happens with the referendum, how much to bond will not be known. Commissioner Ellis stated this is more for the residents than for the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to authorize staff to work with the community, the Parks and Recreation Board, and other interested persons in forming ballot language. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to authorize staff to work with the Port St. John Homeowners Association and other interested persons to analyze questions to be studied and the possibility of creating an incorporated Port St. John.

Commissioner Ellis stated he does not mind doing this, but it will be necessary to take a serious look at the financial feasibility. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is where they will go first.

Chairman Higgs requested Commissioner Scarborough restate the motion. Commissioner Scarborough stated the motion is that staff be authorized to work with these people on this particular question. Chairman Higgs inquired what staff. Commissioner Scarborough stated it will include GIS and County Attorney?s Office; it may include visiting with people in Daytona; there may be a desire to take someone from the Planning Department; and he does not know who, but would like to keep it open. Chairman Higgs stated it may be an expensive endeavor to do the study; and the Board should know the fiscal impact. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not think it will be expensive. Commissioner Ellis stated the first thing to be looked at is fiscal feasibility; and he is afraid there will not be a fiscal feasibility because of the lack of commercial. Commissioner Scarborough stated GIS is already looking at some of these things and will have it in a couple of days. Chairman Higgs noted Commissioner Scarborough has already done this, and wants the Board to say it is okay. Commissioner Scarborough stated under the Charter, he has the ability to ask questions of staff; and he is fully charged to ask all these questions without violating the Charter; but when the idea of a new city in the County is beginning to be undertaken, it is best that the Board know that these questions are being asked. Chairman Higgs stated in order to answer the questions in a substantial and accurate way, it may take some funding from the Board to provide the necessary help. Commissioner Scarborough stated if it gets to a major expenditure of funds, he will bring it back before the Board. Commissioner Cook stated Suntree has been looking at something similar and has its own committee.

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

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - RICHARD LeANDRO, RE: POSSIBLE LAWSUIT AGAINST PARRISH MEDICAL CENTER

Richard LeAndro, 4242 Pondapple Drive, Titusville, stated he is familiar with what goes on in North Brevard; he has lived in the County for four years, and has been active in local government; and he has been buffaloed by what goes on at the Parrish Medical Center. He noted he attended many meetings at the Medical Center; and he has seen board members half asleep in their chairs who have voted on issues as they were told to do. He stated Rod Baker is a public official; he does not know how a public board can dole out public money to a private board and then have that board spend money in competition with other businesses, other hospitals, etc.; and he does not think the Commission could do that. He stated as a public entity he does not think the County could hand out contracts without competitive bidding; but it is done by the hospital. He stated he worked for a company for 42 years; he was paid his wages because he was a good employee; but if an individual is a good employee at the hospital, he is entitled to special compensation such as yearly bonuses, golden parachutes, etc. Mr. LeAndro reiterated it is a public entity; and there is so much mistrust in the North Brevard community about what is going on at the Hospital that the Board should appoint either citizens grand jury or have the County Attorney sue the Hospital for a complete set of documents on where the money flows and who it is flowing to. He stated in the future the Commission is going to see an effort by the Hospital Board to build a new facility; it appeared before the City Council last week to advise it was going to bring in consultants to figure out what is best for the Hospital, modernize it, update it, or build a new facility; the City brought in consultants as well; and when consultants are brought in, they sell the most expensive plan because it is their ultimate goal to be able to bid on the plan. He noted that was the case with the $68 million wastewater treatment plant; as North Brevard Coordinator for Ross Perot he organized an effort to stop that and develop a new plan which cost $28 million; and it would behoove the Commission, on behalf of all the taxpayers, to have a true investigation of what is going on at the Hospital. He stated apparently the County and the City cannot get the straight information; but it is the Board?s responsibility to launch an investigation, and if anything is wrong, to sue the Hospital and the North Brevard County Hospital District Board members who are handing out the unbelievable wages and benefits to Mr. Baker. He stated the County Manager does not get the salary or fringe benefits that Mr. Baker does; the Assistant County Managers do not get the salary or benefits that the Deputy Administrator for the Hospital gets; and as a public employee Mr. Baker should not be entitled to any benefits that other employees are not entitled to.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the subject of Mr. Baker?s salary has come up in the last few months several times; the County Attorney has been asked to look into a litany of issues; the side by side board was done some years ago by the Florida Legislature; he does not know if anyone else was involved with it; but at that time he wrote letters to the Legislative Delegation questioning the wisdom of the action. He stated this is an ongoing process; and the Board does not have the answers so he cannot say the job is over; but other people have come forward with concerns.

Mr. LeAndro stated the Board will continuously have people coming to it unless it goes there and finds out what is going on with taxpayer money.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired when the County Attorney will be getting back to the Board with information on Jess Parrish. Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson responded in the middle of next week. Mr. LeAndro noted this is not the only issue; and inquired where are all the public funds going. Commissioner Scarborough stated if Mr. LeAndro has additional items he wants the Board to look into, the County Attorney is the one who has been doing the contact work.

Commissioner O?Brien stated the Board may want to ask the County Attorney to look into the lawsuit that the citizens put on the Everglades Hospital in Palm Beach. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not know anything about that one. Commissioner O?Brien stated it was done in July, 1994; it ended up as a public hospital; and the courts ruled against the hospital. Commissioner Ellis inquired who sued, the County; with Commissioner O?Brien responding no, a citizens group sued. Chairman Higgs inquired what did they sue the hospital for; with Commissioner O?Brien responding it was a class action suit for taking a public hospital, adding a layer of a private corporation to run it, and having a second layer of another profit-making corporation as well as some other non-profits which were being funded through the second company. Commissioner O?Brien stated it got to the point where the public had no input to the hospital and could not run its own hospital. Chairman Higgs requested the County Attorney get a copy of that.

Nelly Strickland, 536 Mendel Lane, Titusville, inquired how long it took Commissioner Scarborough to get to the Government Center; with Commissioner Scarborough responding 35 to 40 minutes. She stated there are a lot of disgruntled employees at the hospital; everyone is aware of the salary of the CEO, and they are not happy about it; there are nurses who are working a double shift; and when she goes in with her second heart attack, she does not want one of those nurses tending to her, but one who is fully awake and aware of what is going on. She stated the cure for all this is to put Bea Polk on the North Brevard County Hospital District Board; she can hold her own on the Board; and she will be looking at it from the inside, which sometimes changes a person?s mind. She stated Ms. Polk will keep the members of the Hospital Board on their toes; there are a lot of shenanigans going on; the Hospital put an addition on the building two or three years ago; and it added only an emergency room and two cubicles. She told the Board about her visit to the emergency room and the lack of equipment.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how long ago was Ms. Strickland?s visit to the hospital; with Ms. Strickland responding a year ago. Ms. Strickland suggested the Board appoint Bea Polk to the North Brevard County Hospital District Board; and stated the Board does not like the idea because the Hospital Board will not like it. Commissioner Ellis stated that is a good idea because the North Brevard County Hospital District Board is trying to drum out the only person who does not agree.

Bea Polk, 101 River Park Boulevard, Titusville, requested that someone check where the money is going; stated there are thousands of dollars going from the Hospital to the side by side corporation; they say it is not private and there are minutes; but there is no input on where the money goes. She stated the Hospital Board also decides what doctors come to the community; if the doctor is not liked by the Board or the side by side corporation, he does not come to the community to practice; and if someone is well liked, he is offered a big bonus. She stated the taxpayers are being taken; the community has realized it has been taken; the County Manager, who has more employees and responsibility, makes about half what the Hospital Administrator does; the Board should give the County Manager a bonus and deferred payments; and inquired if this can legally be done with taxpayers? money. She stated some Board members talk about a private hospital, but she is not talking about a private hospital; she is talking about taxpayers? money; and she does not stick her nose in the business of a private hospital. She inquired how long will the people own the Parrish Hospital; Mr. Baker says there will be a new hospital right there; but she has not heard the North Brevard County Hospital District Board approve it; and inquired if that is true or is it smoke to shut everyone up. She stated Wuesthoff Hospital has purchased land; she believes that Parrish and Wuesthoff are going in together; and inquired where are they going. She expressed concern about the job which was given to the person who helped get the law through; and stated the job was never advertised and the application was signed after the person was hired. She inquired where is the taxpayers? money going; does the Board know; and advised the Titusville City Council does not know. She stated she understands the North Brevard County Hospital District Board is appointed by the Commission; and inquired when is the Commission going to go to the State to get some of the laws changed to protect the taxpayers. Ms. Polk stated the North Brevard County Hospital District Board advises only the money paid in by the taxpayers belongs to the taxpayers; but if someone has a business and puts money into it, he owns the business; and the taxpayers own the business. She stated she will not stop asking questions; to get on the North Brevard County Hospital District Board, a person has to be approved by three other Board members; there are two appointments coming up; and she does not know what will happen; but it may be possible to get a change.

Commissioner Ellis inquired when are the next Board appointments; with Ms. Polk responding December, 1995. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County Attorney advises it is not a North Brevard appointment, but a Commission appointment, so Commissioner Ellis has as much right as he does to make an appointment. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there will be two Commission appointments; with Commissioner Scarborough responding two people have asked for reappointment, Willie Turner and Jay Parrish.

Ida Blickley, 4475 Swift Avenue, Titusville, read aloud from the Minutes of the North Brevard County Hospital District Board a motion authorizing a grant of $87,500 to the North Brevard Medical Support, Inc. contingent on the North Brevard Medical Support, Inc. matching the grant, with the grant payment to be paid in four equal installments. She stated according to the draft minutes from the meeting of North Brevard Medical Support, Inc.,Mr. Librizzi stated since it looks like the County will not be getting a V.A. hospital, the North Brevard Medical Support, Inc. may consider support of the veterans and authorize transfer to North Brevard Medical Support, Inc. of the District?s interest in Space Coast Hospital Services, Inc., and the transfer would be in the form of a grant subject to such conditions that may be placed by the Board in the next 90 days. She stated Mr. Jones discussed the Agreement drafted as a follow-up to the Board action in June, 1995 to transfer laundry services to the North Brevard Medical Support, Inc. She stated she is watching the same thing happen that happened twelve years ago when the private board stole the hospital and put its name on the deed; this time the assets are being transferred to the private board without changing the deed; but once the money is gone, there is nothing left. She emphasized everything is being transferred to the private board. She advised private doctors purchased an MRI machine; the private board is saying it was given the MRI machine; and she finds it hard to believe any doctor would give away an MRI machine. She stated she is concerned about where the money is going; and she is afraid she is going to wake up and see the same headlines she saw 12 years ago that this is no longer a public hospital. She stated it took about six months to get into court; and that is when Judge Goshorn ordered the Hospital be given back to the public, and everything was changed back again. She stated the same thing is happening again; and the money is disappearing to the private board again.

Commissioner Scarborough stated an opinion will be coming from the County Attorney; and requested Ms. Wilson convey Mr. LeAndro?s questions to the County Attorney, so he can respond in a separate memorandum. Chairman Higgs inquired if that will be placed on the Agenda. Commissioner Scarborough stated first the Board should get the memorandum; he will circulate it to interested parties; and then it would be appropriate for it to be placed on the Agenda. Commissioner Ellis inquired about the possibility of collecting resumes from the public to make the Board appointments. He stated most appointments are individual appointments; but for the group appointment, the Board could put in the newspaper that it is collecting applications and resumes for the appointments.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to direct staff to advertise in the newspaper that the County will be accepting applications for the two appointments to the North Brevard County Hospital District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson stated staff explored the possibility of extending the closing to allow additional time to look at other options; but the owner of the property has already given an absolute extension until tomorrow, and is not willing to extend past that date.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the issue is that the Board may not guarantee a loan for a private entity; with Ms. Wilson responding the Board cannot used its taxing power or credit to pledge or guarantee it. Chairman Higgs stated Ms. Wilson believes the CDBG money could be used to pledge because it is a different source of funds. Ms. Wilson stated HUD has already approved this source of funds for this type of project.

Commissioner Cook inquired is the County not still guaranteeing it. He stated if the problem is the County entering into some sort of guarantee, even if it uses CDBG dollars, it is still entering into guaranteeing the loan. Ms. Wilson stated HUD still has control over those dollars; and it is shown in the Contract that it is dependent on the appropriation of those dollars and HUD continuing to approve the project. She stated the Board is agreeing to set those funds aside; and HUD has agreed they can be set aside. Commissioner Cook inquired if language can be inserted into the Contract that it is subject to the availability of funds. Assistant County Manager Joan Madden stated originally it was subject to the CDBG funding being available; it is reflected on page 4 of the Contract; and read aloud the language from the Contract. Ms. Wilson advised there is also a provision on page 12 of the Contract; and read aloud the language.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board could guarantee with CDBG funds, and agree that if it is ever necessary to use the CDBG money to cover the guarantee, that General Fund money would be moved to replace the CDBG funding used. He stated the CDBG Board would not have to allocate a reserve each year for the guarantee, but could use all funds available. He stated if something goes wrong in July, the CDBG money would provide the guarantee, but in return, the General Fund would make up the difference if one of the CDBG Board?s allocated projects was short. Ms. Wilson stated her understanding was these monies are currently in the budget and will be set aside. Ms. Madden advised they are in contingency for CDBG in the current year?s budget; originally $140,000 was appropriated for this project; $35,000 is to be expended in the down payment; and the other $105,000 is still budgeted in a contingency fund. Commissioner Ellis noted that is only for this year; with Ms. Madden responding affirmatively. Commissioner Ellis stated staff expects to sweep that in next year?s budget; with Ms. Madden advising it could be carried forward. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not want to tie their hands and make them have to carry that reserve forward. CDBG Supervisor Denise Carter stated the way it will be set up is for five years, it will be necessary to set aside whatever money is necessary to pay off the loan if the payment is 30 days late. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it is a federal rule that the full amount has to be set aside; with Ms. Carter responding the bank is asking that be done, and it is in the Contract. Ms. Carter stated it is necessary to have a provision to pay if Serene Harbor did not make the payment; if it was obligated to a project, it would not be possible to move so quickly; and the only way to insure that it will be possible to expedite and pay the bank on time would be to set aside the money for five years. Commissioner Ellis stated in the event of a default, the Board should not have to reserve the whole remainder of the note; and it would make sense to only reserve a certain number of payments. Ms. Carter stated the agreement is that the County would have to pay off the balance of the loan and any amortization. Commissioner Ellis inquired if Serene Harbor misses a payment, is the whole loan due; with Ms. Madden responding yes. Commissioner Cook inquired if it would also be the entire interest; with Ms. Carter responding yes, if there is any amortization, the Board would have to pay that also. Chairman Higgs stated it would be accumulated to that point; and inquired if it would be $105,000; with Commissioner Ellis responding $87,000.

Commissioner Cook stated he is concerned about tying up that money for five years; and if language is included on page 4, subject to the availability of CDBG funding, if there was a default, the Board could address supplementing General Fund into the CDBG. Commissioner Ellis stated then the Board would liquidate the property to put the money back in General Fund. Commissioner Cook stated that language should be inserted on page 4.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to insert language on page 4 of the Contract, ?subject to the availability of CDBG funding.?

Commissioner Ellis stated he wants it to be clear to the CDBG Board that it does not have to set the reserve aside every year. Commissioner Cook stated that is the purpose of the motion. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated if the Board approves the motion, then it will be understood that the money does not have to be set aside. Ms. Madden stated should the default happen and it is necessary to do that, the CDBG will request a transfer from the General Fund to CDBG. Commissioner Ellis stated the County will then be asking for title of the property and liquidation. Chairman Higgs inquired if that will meet the bank?s requirements; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes, and if it is a motion, it will be on the record that it is a policy decision. Commissioner Ellis stated Ms. Madden and Ms. Carter will explain it to the CDBG Board. Commissioner Cook stated the new motion supplants the original motion because CDBG fund is used as the guarantee without encumbering those funds.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is inappropriate for a Commissioner to commit to do something in a budgetary fashion before having the hearing; and if the Board says it will replenish CDBG with General Revenue, it may be violating the law. He stated he would prefer to do it the way Commissioner Cook said and assume the Board will act responsibly. Commissioner Scarborough stated if something comes up, the Board will deal with that problem with all the facts available at that time.

Chairman Higgs inquired if everyone understands the motion; with Ms. Wilson responding she does not. Commissioner Cook advised on page 4 language will be inserted, ?subject to the availability of funds.? Chairman Higgs stated the language will be ?the funds being pledged to make the guarantee shall be provided from the County?s CDBG funds subject to the availability of those funds.? He stated if something arises, the Board will address it at that time. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board gets into this deal, it will stay with it; and it is unlikely that the Board will bail out. Commissioner Cook stated this way the CDBG will not have to encumber those funds year after year.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages _____for Agreements.)

Chairman Higgs stated she assumes the Chairman is certified to execute the Agreements; with Commissioner Cook responding that is right.

DISCUSSION, RE: ATTENDING FACT ANNUAL MEMBER MEETING

Chairman Higgs stated the Board has been invited to attend the Florida Association of Counties Trust Board of Trustees meeting. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated in the past the Risk Management Director has been sent to those meetings, when it is advantageous to have him there.

APPROVAL, RE: SUPPLYING PICNIC TABLES TO RON JON SURF SHOP

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve supplying 12 or more picnic tables at $10 each for a free community event on November 25, 1995, sponsored by the Ron Jon Surf Shop.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the County has ever done something like this before to a private group. Commissioner Ellis noted the County rents the pavilions.

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

DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL, RE: ELECTION OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to appoint Commissioner Cook as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Vice Chairman Ellis is definite that he does not wish to be Chairman; with Commissioner Ellis responding he cannot do it.

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

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to appoint Commissioner O?Brien as Vice Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis stated it is impossible to be Chairman during an election year.

Commissioner Ellis read aloud a plaque recognizing Commissioner Higgs? service to the County as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners; and presented it to Commissioner Higgs. Commissioner Higgs expressed her appreciation.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 12:13 a.m. on November 22, 1995.

__________________________________

NANCY N. HIGGS, CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

ATTEST:

__________________________

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK

( S E A L )