July 27, 2004

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on July 27, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chair Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Pastor Eric Anthony of Shiloh Christian Center in Melbourne, Florida.

Commissioner Ron Pritchard led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the Minutes of April 29, 2004 Special Meeting and May 6, 2004 Zoning meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: GIRL SCOUTS WOMEN OF DISTINCTION AWARD

County Manager Tom Jenkins introduced Margaret Skeen of the Girl Scouts Citrus Council.

Margaret Skeen advised the Girl Scouts is almost 100 years old, and has been in Florida for 50 years; they appreciate the opportunity to be here to honor one of the Commissioners, Jackie Colon, for her outstanding work in government; and they have two board members here from Brevard County, Sydney Crouch and Martha Schultz. She stated six of their board members are from Brevard County, including the president Gail Talbot, so Brevard County represents 25% of the 25,000-girl membership. She stated the Women of Distinction Award is in its seventh year; it gives them the opportunity to recognize women who can be role models for their girls; sadly they do not have enough positive role models; and they are not all going to grow up to be rock stars, models, or movie stars. Ms. Skeen stated they need to see women in action, and women working in the community; they have six categories; and Commissioner Colon has won in the area of Government for her outstanding leadership throughout her life. She stated she has done a number of wonderful things for nonprofits, has been recognized by her peers as a natural leader, and is an outstanding role model. She stated girl scouts used to be about cookies and now it is about careers; it used to be about badges and now it is about business; and they are proud to honor Jackie Colon as their 2004 Women of Distinction award winner for her work in Government; and presented the award to Commissioner Colon. Chair Higgs congratulated Commissioner Colon, on behalf of the Board, for winning the Women of Distinction Award in Government.

REPORT, RE: SKYDIVING

Commissioner Pritchard advised this Saturday he will be celebrating his birthday by jumping out of an airplane; if anyone hears any screaming from Arthur Dunn Airport about 10:30 a.m., it will be him; and if they want to come and witness something he has never done before and only plan to do once, he is supposed to be leaving the plane at 10:30 a.m. and landing softly shortly thereafter.

Chair Higgs stated that is exciting, and extended birthday wishes on behalf of the Board.

REPORT, RE: TOWN MEETING

Commissioner Colon advised on August 14, 2004 at 10:00 a.m., she will hold a town meeting in the Library on Fee Avenue and all are invited. She stated the subjects are hurricane prevention, fire prevention, and safety tips.

REPORT, RE: COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP MATCHING GRANT

Chair Higgs advised of a letter to Governor Bush that was emailed to the Commissioners, asking he certify the forwarding of the Community Partnership matching grant; and requested authorization to send the letter to the Governor.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize the Chair to send a letter to Governor Bush requesting he certify forwarding of the Community Partnership matching grant. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING CLOWNS WEEK

Commissioner Carlson advised it is a pleasure to see the six clowns that are here; they provide so much enjoyment; and read a resolution proclaiming August 1-7, 2004 as Clowns Week.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution proclaiming August 1 through 7, 2004 as Clowns Week in Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-155.)

A representative of the clowns thanked the Board for the recognition and gave gifts to each Commissioner. He stated anyone who wants to be a clown can attend a clown school in Cocoa conducted by QT, the upcoming president. He stated they are up to about 23 clowns; they have folks working with the Joe’s Club, Operation Hope, and hospitals.

Commissioner Carlson advised Dave, who is Duckweed, served with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and is retiring; he was the father of the St. Johns River, a 310-mile body of water; and the Board appreciates what he has done for the community and happy he made the transition to clowning.

MS. FRITZ KAWHOL, LIBRARY BOARD VICE CHAIRMAN, RE: PRESENTATION OF
PEN AND INK DRAWING

Ms. Fritz Kawhol, Library Board Vice Chairman, stated she is here to present the latest Florida scene print from Library Days in Tallahassee, which was held in April; Brevard County had 26 supporters in attendance; and they were able to see almost all of their Legislators. She stated this year they are happy to report their State Aid was approved at last year’s level, all from recurring funds, which everyone is happy about; so at least they did not lose ground. She presented the picture to the Board in sincere thanks for all its continued support of the public libraries in Brevard County; and stated without the Board, they would not have the kind of library system they have. She introduced the Library Board members Pat Freeman, Carol Hurst, Susan Margaritondo, Fernanda Safarik, and herself Fritz Kawhol. She stated the Library Board hopes for the Board’s continued support; and noted she speaks for many thousands of patrons when she says thank you.

Chair Higgs advised the pictures are of the wonderful turtles that visit Brevard County every summer; and they will be hanging in the Commission Offices if anyone wants to come by and see them. She stated the Library Board is a symbol of so many people who serve the County and citizens like the clowns; and it is nice to have them here and recognize their efforts.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING EAGLE SCOUT CHRISTOPHER NICHOLAS
MONTEPARO

Commissioner Carlson stated it is a great pleasure to recognize Christopher Monteparo who is here with his mother and brother Peter; it is a big occasion; and the Board is proud to recognize Chris for his long time in Scouts and achievement of the rank of Eagle Scout. She stated Chris is having his court of honor on Saturday at the St. Paul’s Methodist Church; and they are looking forward to that. She read the resolution recognizing Christopher Nicholas Monteparo for attaining the rank of Eagle Scout.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution recognizing Christopher Nicholas Monteparo for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout, and recommending all citizens acknowledge his accomplishments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-156.)

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Chris Monteparo, who thanked the Board for the recognition.

FINAL ENGINEERING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVALS, RE: PALADIN
ESTATES SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approvals for Paladin Estates Subdivision, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and developer responsible for obtaining required jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

TRI-PARTY ESCROW AGREEMENT WITH PINEDA PARTNERS, LLC AND COLONIAL
BANK, RE: IMPROVEMENTS IN GRAND HAVEN, PHASE 9

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Subdivision Tri-Party Escrow Agreement with Pineda Partners, LLC and Colonial Bank, guaranteeing infrastructure improvements in Grand Haven, Phase 9. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

EXTENSION AGREEMENT WITH VIERA BOULEVARD, J.V., INC., RE: IMPROVEMENTS
IN VIERA COMMERCE PARK

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Extension Agreement with Viera Boulevard, J.V., Inc., guaranteeing infrastructure improvements in Viera Commerce Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Agreement.)

RESOLUTION AND AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
RE: TRANSFER OF A. MAX BREWER BRIDGE AND CAUSEWAY

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution and execute Roadway Jurisdictional Transfer Agreement with Florida Department of Transportation transferring the A. Max Brewer Memorial Causeway and Bridge to the Department. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages
for Resolution No. 04-157 and Agreement.)

RESOLUTION AND LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY,
LLC, RE: MAINTENANCE OF GRADE CROSSING AT MP 143+619’

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution and execute License Agreement with Florida East Coast Railway LLC for maintenance of the public grade crossing at MP 143+619’, at Huntington Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Resolution No. 04-158 and Agreement.)

AGREEMENT WITH HERITAGE ISLE DISTRICT ASSOCIATION, INC., RE: RECLAIMED
WATER TO DEVELOPMENT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Reclaimed Water Major User Agreement with Heritage Isle District Association, Inc. for provision of reclaimed water to the development. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

CONTRACT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, RE:
CONTINUATION OF HOMELESS SERVICE COORDINATION AS LEAD AGENCY
FOR BREVARD CONTINUUM OF CARE COALITION

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Contract with Florida Department of Children and Families for continuation of homeless service coordination as lead agency for the Brevard Continuum of Care Coalition; and authorize the Chair to execute any future amendments to the grant. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Contract.)

USE OF COUNTY SEAL BY THE CENTER FOR DRUG-FREE LIVING, INC., RE:
SIGNAGE AT JEWELS’ CROSSING SITE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant permission for The Center for Drug-Free Living, Inc. to use the County Seal on signage at its Jewels’ Crossing facility in Cocoa. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL TO PURGE INACTIVE PATRON RECORDS, RE: LIBRARY SERVICES
COMPUTER SYSTEM

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant permission to purge 7,340 patron records that have been inactive since 1995 from the Library Services Computer System. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH PUBLIC DEFENDER, RE: LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF
INDIGENT DEFENDANTS IN COUNTY ORDINANCE PROCEEDINGS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Agreement with the Office of the Public Defender, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, to provide legal representation of indigent defendants in County Ordinance proceedings. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE AND SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE SESSION, RE: FRIEDMAN
v. BREVARD COUNTY, HOOD v. BREVARD COUNTY, AND VAN BLARCOM v.
BREVARD COUNTY

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize the County Attorney to advertise and schedule an executive session for August 10, 2004, at 11:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, to discuss strategies relating to Friedman v. Brevard County, Hood v. Brevard County, and Van Blarcom v. Brevard County litigation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF POSITION AND BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE: SCHOOL CROSSING
GUARD FOR MANATEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve one additional part-time permanent school crossing guard (Staff Assistant II) position for Manatee Elementary School, budget supplement, budget transfer, and Budget Change Request to be funded by the General Fund Contingency. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Budget Change Request.)

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to appoint Carmella Schinaris to the Port St. John Public Library Advisory Board, to replace Alice Crowell-Lance, with term expiring December 31, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve bills and Budget Change Request as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for List of Bills and Budget Change Request.)

AGREEMENT WITH STATE ATTORNEY, RE: PROSECUTION OF COUNTY ORDINANCE
VIOLATIONS

Walter Pine of Titusville, stated he is concerned with the agreement in part because of the changes to the Code Ordinances and some of the issues that are actually written into it; one section says the State Attorney shall not be an agent or any form of a representative for the County in regards to these matters, in regards to prosecuting people for Code violations; but then it specifically says he can enter into plea agreements. He stated the original duty for Code violation prosecutions is with the County; if the County gives it to the State Attorney, he cannot legally have the agency to do Code enforcement plea agreements because that originally lies with the County Courts. He stated years ago when there were city and County courts, they did the Codes; so he is very concerned about the issue that the Board is restricting the agency of the State Attorney while at the same time saying that he should enter into plea bargains. He stated that could end up being a situation, if somebody were to challenge it, because the authority originates with the County Commission as to whether he can actually enter into a plea bargain. He stated they have seen arguments similar to it in other counties; some have been sustained and some have not; and he does not know how it would work in this situation. He stated the other thing he is concerned with is the definition of a criminal infraction; there are financial limits to the level and types of infractions; and inquired, with the current proposal, to change the infractions from $250 to $500 to $1,000, $5,000, and $15,000 for Code violations, is the Board going to be in fact pushing the violations to a level of a criminal violation to be processed by the State Attorney, or how would that work, how is it defining infractions, is it limited to the Florida Statutes, is it limited to those that are specifically stated as being criminal Codes, are they including, like when someone steals something below a certain amount it is one type of infraction and if it is above a certain dollar value it is another type of infraction; so he is very concerned that the Board define the definition of criminal infraction. Mr. Pine stated there are a lot of transient people who live half the year here; the grass grows up and maybe their yard maintenance crew goes out of business and they get a Code violation fine for not cutting their grass; and inquired if they are now subject to a criminal infraction as opposed to a civil infraction. He stated that is a significant thing and needs to be looked at; the definition of criminal infraction being prosecuted by the State Attorney is something that needs to be looked at; and requested the Board set the agreement aside and look at it, not just what it contains but what it does not contain; and also, in view of the proposed changes in the Code Ordinance that the Board will be hearing today, there are other laws that will impact the agreement. He stated he does not think the Board asked for all the records and as far as they know, they have not been made available to the Board; the Board needs to be aware of the other laws that impact the Code violations and how they can change their nature; and it does not want to put people in jail for failing to mow their grass. He stated until the issue of agency and what a criminal offense is, he would ask that the Board not sign the agreement until it has all of it put in one neat package and they know what they are getting.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it is essential to take action on the agreement today; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding the issue came to the County as of July 1, 2004. Commissioner Scarborough stated then it would be good to do it today; and inquired if Mr. Knox could touch on the subject. Mr. Knox stated, the major concern he heard from Mr. Pine was over the authority of the State Attorney; what may not be known to most people is that the Florida Constitution and Article V make the State Attorney the prosecuting official in the State for violations of the laws, not the County; so in essence, the way things are structured, they are just giving the State Attorney what he already has, which is the authority to prosecute Ordinance violations, crimes, and everything else. He stated the Board is just paying him for it, which happened since Article V has been altered by the Legislature to put that burden on the County. Mr. Knox stated the only other way to handle it is to have the State Attorney deputize one of the lawyers, maybe in his office, or some other lawyer, who would be an assistant State Attorney for the purposes of prosecuting Code violations; and frankly, the Board is doing that with the State Attorney and Public Defender in a much less expensive way than hiring someone to do it.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated it is a continuation of what the County is doing; because of Article V, the Board now has to enter into an agreement with the State Attorney; but the State Attorney has always carried out those functions on behalf of the County so it is nothing new.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Pine raised another issue about the dollar value increasing to the point where it could be interpreted as becoming a criminal offense. Mr. Knox stated he is not sure exactly what Mr. Pine was talking about, but the definition of a criminal offense is set forth explicitly in Chapter 775 of the Florida Statutes; and County Ordinance violations are typically not criminal violations. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it would not matter what the amount of the fine is; with Mr. Knox responding that is correct; and County Ordinance violations are defined as a separate category of offenses. Mr. Jenkins stated it used to be part of what the State Attorney did, but as a result of Article V, the County has to pay for it; and the monies go to the State. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it is then reimbursed to the State Attorney; with Mr. Jenkins responding the State uses it to fund all the different court functions. Commissioner Pritchard inquired where was the revenue stream prior to Article V; with Mr. Jenkins responding the State funded most of the State Attorney’s Office; the County funded some miscellaneous expenses and the Public Defender; but primarily they were funded by the State. Mr. Jenkins stated Article V overall is almost a wash; and there is no major impact one way or the other as a result of it, when looking at the totality of everything the County has in its proposed budget.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with the State Attorney to prosecute County Ordinance violations. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TRANSMITTAL OF TWO ADDITIONAL 2004A COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENTS TO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider transmittal of two additional 2004A Comprehensive Plan amendments to Department of Community Affairs; and advised of the time certain and time lighting system.

Commissioner Scarborough advised there are two items; and for clarity sake, the Board may find it beneficial to take them separately. He stated one is north of Cocoa and the other is an area south of Titusville; and if the comments are on one and then the other, it may be more coherent. Chair Higgs advised she cannot find a way to distinguish that from the speaker cards, so it would be better to move through the cards. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board wants to deal with Item VI.E.4. at the same time because it seems to deal with the same subject; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that is a separate issue.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it would help with the understanding if speakers would identify the area they are speaking to such as north of SR 528 annexation or the annexation south of Titusville, or whether it is Amendment 2004A.4 or 2004A.5.

Attorney Jack Kirschenbaum, representing G&D Developers, requested his client’s properties be removed from the transmittal of properties north of SR 528 included in Amendment 2004A.5. He stated on page 4 of 4 in the center is a street called Roundtree Drive; his client’s properties are those just south of that street; the tax parcels going from left to right are 515 and on the eastern portion there are two horizontal strips of property, which are not his client’s properties, but directly below that is Parcel 514; and below that, with the diagonal property line between them, are Parcels 542 and 525. He stated those properties were acquired over a period of time and assembled for the purpose of development; and they enjoyed a very favorable development scenario. He stated the parcels were purchased with the existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use designations in place; over time, the western portion of the property has evolved into commercial use on U.S. 1; and the amendment before the Board would split and literally eviscerate the development potential of the property. Mr. Kirschenbaum advised the property on the east side is zoned EU; the property on the west side is part AU and EU; and under the amendment, the EU portion of three or four acres, would retain its capacity to enjoy up to four units per acre residential, but the AU portion would not be capable of being zoned anything in excess of one unit per acre. He stated that will destroy the overall development potential of the property; the ownership and development of property is a cherished constitutional right; and when the Board amends its Comprehensive Plan causing rezonings to occur, it has to be careful as to what effect it has on properties. He encouraged the Board to exclude those properties from the transmittal to avoid the affect of dividing, severing, and leaving the properties incapable of any cohesive concurrent development. He stated if the effect of the amendment causes the properties to be less productive than properties surrounding it, the properties would be singled out to have a less dense development scenario than all the properties existing around it and already developed. He stated the properties immediately to the north enjoy about six units per acre; the properties to the south enjoy between four and six units an acre, by his looking at the neighborhood; and the effect of the amendment would reduce the density of his client’s property below what is presently there, rendering no consistency with adjacent surrounding properties. He stated for those reasons, they request those tax parcels be deleted from the transmittal. Mr. Kirschenbaum advised George Papp is a principal of G&D and has no further comments.

Anne Nelson of Titusville, stated the County’s Planning and Zoning Office informed them about a proposal for Comprehensive Plan amendment 2004A.4 that has been generated for property located in Section 26, Township 22S., Range 35E. located on the original U.S. 1 in Titusville, renamed Riveredge Drive. She stated the amendment proposes to change the Future Land Use Map designation on the property from neighborhood commercial and community commercial to residential 2, with a maximum density of two dwelling units per acre; and the proposal includes four acres that are owned by her, her husband Roland Nelson, her brother-in-law Bruce Nelson, and his wife Michelle Nelson. She stated they purchased the property two years ago in July 2002 for $200,000; they pay taxes of approximately $5,000 per year; it was zoned BU-1 and GU-1; and originally they purchased it so they could build their two homes on the front two acres that have 200 feet of frontage on Riveredge Drive and two offices for businesses on the back two acres located off the old County road next to the current U.S. 1. Ms. Nelson stated no matter what they decide to do in the future as owners they want their property zoning to remain the same; and they want to keep their property rights and be allowed to potentially build commercial buildings and/or multifamily units at six units per acre. She stated not only are they property owners in the City of Titusville and Brevard County, they are also licensed business owners in the City and County; she and her husband have owned their businesses for over 21 years; they feel as property owners they have a right to request, whether it is in the City or the County to build on their property anything that is reasonable and in accordance with the zoning; however, since purchasing their property two years ago, they realized over 1,000 hours of disagreement between Laura Ward, a property owner on Riveredge Drive, along with her associates and the City of Titusville on what the property owners should be allowed to build on their street. Ms. Nelson stated the street is an example of shoreline mixed use; there are several businesses that are currently operating on the street; the Holiday Inn graces the entrance along with multifamily three-story condominiums, which consist of over 42 units on the riverside; and there is the New York New York restaurant in the building that has been a restaurant of one type or another since at least 1979. She stated there is also a local tavern, several professional offices, and the State Girls Home on the street. She stated what they have seen the Titusville City Council vote on has been one compromise after another with Ms. Ward and her Riveredge Drive associates; the City has actually changed the density of SMU from 15 units per acre, down to nine units, and finally to six units per acre; and some property owners and Ms. Ward are still unhappy with the reduction and are now trying to reduce the density to two units per acre. She stated there are three parcels that are of concern to Ms. Ward; those are the ten acres adjoining her property, the four acres that she owns directly across the street from Ms. Ward’s home, and the 31 acres at the end of the street; and she feels that Ms. Ward has been spoiled since she inherited the property from her parents, and she and many of the homeowners on Riveredge Drive have enjoyed many years of being surrounded by several large parcels of vacant land and now are unrealistically resisting growth. She stated for some reason the Planner Stacey Ranger has written a staff report recommending these parcels and a few smaller parcels be changed to R-2; Ms. Ranger assured the committee that the owners of the properties on Riveredge Drive wanted those changes and that there would be no resistance to the proposed change; and on May 25, 2004, the Board agreed to generate the Comprehensive Plan amendment 2004. She stated she is here as a property owner to tell the Board she is against the future designation being passed; most of the street is already in the City of Titusville; she understands the Titusville City Council and the Board are committed to work together to make decisions about enclaves of properties that are surrounded by parcels that are in the City; however, she has not seen the City and County working together. Ms. Nelson stated Laura Ward and several owners have been very prejudice in their viewpoints and made it very difficult for the City to approve property owners’ annexations into the City; however, it is apparent to others and her, now that they have exhausted many of their avenues into the City, that there seems to be a new plan to use Laura’s position as a volunteer on various committees working with the County employees and her dedicated work with election efforts in District 1 to influence staff to write reports that coincide with her personal agenda to have the properties on Riveredge Drive rezoned to R-2. She stated she would like to tell the property owners to be careful what they wish for; reducing the future use of their property to two units per acre is not something they really want to propose; and maybe one day they might want to build a new home, since many were built prior to 1960, and might want to build a detached mother’s quarters for their parents just like their friendly neighbor Laura Ward has on her property. She stated Ms. Ward has two homes built on less than one acre; some of the homes are built on filled land; but last week she asked the property owners and her to agree to the zoning changes to two units per acre. She stated Ms. Ward’s estate is three stories high, but she asked them to agree to two stories.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the commercial property Ms. Nelson may wish to develop in the future fronts on Riveredge Drive; with Ms. Nelson responding they have 200 feet of frontage on Riveredge Drive; and they wanted to build two homes on it when they originally purchased their property. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it is on the east side of Riveredge Drive; with Ms. Nelson responding all their property is on the west side of Riveredge Drive, and the east side is just frontage that they own. Commissioner Pritchard stated Ms. Nelson said two residences fronting Riveredge Drive and behind those the office buildings; and inquired where would the access to the office buildings be; with Ms. Nelson responding they should have access off Riveredge Drive just like other businesses that are currently there. Commissioner Pritchard stated there are others that obtained access off U.S. 1; with Ms. Nelson responding the back parcel of their property is attached to old County road, which they could apply for a variance and get entrance behind Honeycutt and Associates’ building.

Bruce Nelson of Titusville advised Anne Nelson is his sister-in-law; the City of Titusville has been working on this area for a long time; he feels the County is rushing to make the changes without working with the City; and the City has been doing a tremendous job. He stated they purchased the property together and originally they were going to put residences on the front; there is an old railroad property that has been abandoned in the back portion that could be an entrance for a commercial building; but the County and the City need to work together rather than jumping into this and making amendments to the Comprehensive Plan at this time, as they may not be beneficial to everyone.

Kohn Bennett of Merritt Island, Officer of Riveredge Development LLC, advised Riveredge Development is a property owner in the north Comprehensive Plan amendment in Titusville, which is depicted in red; explained a map showing Riveredge Drive off U.S. 1, the Holiday Inn, multifamily condominiums with two and three stories zoned for 15 units per acre in the City, other commercial uses, a gas station, and then their property that lies in Brevard County; and identified the parcels that are already in the City of Titusville. He stated they learned about the Comprehensive Plan amendment approximately three months ago and oppose the inclusion of their property in the amendment under the designation of R-2, which is proposed for two units per acre; they currently have an annexation request and rezoning request pending with the City of Titusville; and both applications were filed in early July. He stated the engineers have been working on it; they have an engineered site plan that they have been working on for many months; they are proposing a multifamily six units per acre development within all the parcels with access on U.S. 1; and pointed out the access cut across both lanes and the second and third accesses. Mr. Bennett stated SMU zoning in the City of Titusville allows for six units per acre; their proposed development order is for 5.25 units per acre; therefore, the inclusion in the County’s Comprehensive Plan amendment at two units per acre would be inconsistent and devalue their property and the ability to develop it should there be some problems in their annexation request. He stated he realizes that going at the same time could cause some confusion on the State level; the County would be transmitting its Comprehensive Plan amendment with R-2 and the City of Titusville would be transmitting its small scale plan at six units per acre; and if the County transmits their property, it would be bifurcating the property, and they would have a portion with industrial zoning and a portion with two units per acre, which is very inconsistent with the overall neighborhood. He stated there are two enclaves; and explained a zoning map of the enclaves, areas with 15 units per acre, 9 units per acre, 6 units per acre, then 1 unit per acre. He stated if the County took the entire area and made it two units per acre, it would be inconsistent and would not provide a transitional zoning; and suggested 15 units per acre at the north end, transitioning to one unit per acre at the south end. Mr. Bennett again requested their property be removed from the Comprehensive Plan amendment because they currently have an annexation request with the City of Titusville, or that the Board amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow six units per acre density on their property. He stated he has a letter from appraisers Tuttle Armfield Wagner stating the value of the property would be greatly diminished if the density was reduced to two units per acre.

Brad Missimer, President of Twin Lakes Residents Association, advised he represents 44 homeowners about the Cocoa amendment; four or five of them live directly on the river; and most of those in the Subdivision go up the hill towards U.S. 1. He stated one house was built in 1904 when they did not have density problems; it is like an estate; and around 1965, a developer came to Brevard County and had a vision of a Subdivision north and south and that everybody would have a third of an acre except for some of the frontage on the river. He stated there are several other subdivisions along Indian River Drive, including Briarwood, Parkchester, Brookhill, Sabal Chase, and High Point; they are all about the same density with one third of an acre lots; some are more and some are less, but the average is about three units per acre. Mr. Missimer stated he read in the newspaper that housing prices are up 25% over last year and sales are up 35%; it is a housing boom right now and property values are unbelievable; and a small lot on the river can go for half a million dollars. He stated the reason he is here is because about six months ago he was made aware that Mr. Papp wanted to put 256 units on 13 acres; and when the meeting was held, there were about 150 to 200 people who came to voice their disapproval of that plan. He stated everybody is talking about what is reasonable; the recent subdivision developed by Midpoint Construction along City Point Road is one unit per acre and across the street is two units per acre; and that fits with the land that is between SR 528 to the north and between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive. He stated nobody had a problem with that; they did have a problem with the 256 units; and if the 13 acres is developed reasonably with two or three houses an acre, just the houses on the 600 feet of frontage of the 13 acres would pay back the $200,000 Mr. Papp paid for the 13 acres. He stated he is happy for him that he has 13 acres and will make a lot of money; he is not afraid of change and would like to be Mr. Papp’s neighbors; but the residents and neighbors support the zoning amendment that restricts development of high-density condominiums on the land north of SR 528 and between U.S. 1 and the Indian River.

Larry Swonger, Vice President of Briarwood Manor Homeowners Association, representing about 30 homeowners, advised Briarwood Manor is in the southern amendment in Cocoa; a portion of the Future Land Use Map, which has been right-sized in the amendment, contains outdated classifications; and some developers were using that fact to argue they should completely ignore the Future Land Use Map and use the land for whatever purpose they thought they should, and basically bypassing the intent of the entire long-range planning process. He stated they request the amendment be sent to Department of Community Affairs right-sizing the Future Land Use Map of the affected area and preserving the integrity of the long-range planning process; and it will ensure the community has ample opportunity to address any changes that are made to the use of the affected properties. Mr. Swonger stated the parcels Mr. Kirschenbaum asked to be removed from the amendment are zoned low-density residential and agriculture; the amendment does not change that; it just right-sizes the Future Land Use Map to coincide with the current zoning; and if they want to change the zoning, they would have to go through the entire planning process as it should be, instead of ignoring it. He stated Mr. Kirschenbaum also stated that development potential of those parcels would be eviscerated; there are still plenty of development potential for that, which would match the existing use of land in that area as single-family homes and low-density housing; and there is no reason the property needs to be rezoned for 256-unit condominiums to be developed. He stated he does not think that stretch of Indian River Drive can handle development of that magnitude because there are no shoulders on the road, no sidewalks along any of the area, and the pedestrian traffic and additional vehicle traffic would be too much for the community to handle. He requested the Board send the amendment on, including those parcels that Mr. Papp owns, because all the amendment does is make sure the Future Land Use Map matches the current zoning and the community has the opportunity to address developments of the properties included in the amendment.

Tom Harmer, City Manager of Titusville, presented documents to the Board and the Clerk; and thanked the Board for the opportunity to address the issues. He stated the first item is a two-page letter that the Board may already have in its packet; it is a letter from him to County Manager Mr. Jenkins dated June 24, and he has a couple of maps he would like to reference in his comments. He stated City Council asked him to come before the Board and present its concerns regarding the transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan amendment; and read a portion of the letter into the record as follows: “The City Council expresses its concern that the Commission would consider changing the land use for this portion of unincorporated Brevard without first joint planning the issue with the City. As you are aware, this is an existing enclave. It is actually two separate enclaves of the City; and the City has held several public hearings regarding annexation and future development in this area. During these deliberations, the County staff monitored the discussions and provided a written report to the County Commission. In that report dated July 15, 2002, the County staff indicated the density of any residential development on these unincorporated properties would be restricted to approximately six units per acre. Further in the summary section of the report, the County staff indicates that the new zoning designation being considered by the City Council will seek to incorporate residential densities of up to nine units per acre; and that the City staff’s proposal would result in development at a scale and density which will provide a transition between the multifamily and office uses at the northern limits and the detached single-family character in the central and south reaches.” Mr. Harmer advised the first map is of the City of Titusville; he highlighted in blue the city limits; in yellow are the two enclaves; it is not south of the City; it is really in and surrounded by the City; and the second map highlights Riveredge Drive to show the Board the existing zoning that is in place. He stated there are a ten-acre parcel and four-acre parcel in the northern end of the enclave; the City has a current annexation petition from the applicants who own the ten-acre parcel as well as other annexation petitions from other property owners on the street; and he had the pleasure of facilitating and conducting a neighborhood meeting last week. He stated Todd Corwin was at that meeting; they had about 30 participants; and concerns about providing some type of transition because the street is unique and there may not be one fit for the whole street were evenly split; and they recognized the City’s efforts to reduce the density from 15 units per acre to now six units per acre in the shoreline mixed use area on a local road such as Riveredge Drive. Mr. Harmer stated the County’s Land Use CRG heard the item at its last meeting and recommended the parcels be removed from the amendment; and it is the City’s recommendation that the Board send it back to County staff so that the transitional area can be jointly planned by the City and County. He stated to proceed otherwise would create an opportunity for further conflict between the two governments as the properties annex into the City, some of which have existing annexation petitions in place.

Attorney John Evans, representing Riveredge Developers, presented documents to the Board but not the Clerk; advised he will address Amendment in the Titusville area; and stated the map marks his client’s property in green, but more significant is the surrounding zonings in the City, which will be in place regardless of what action the Board takes today. He stated at the town meeting, Mr. Harmer asked how many people wanted the property to become R-2, and there were 14 votes; he asked who wanted high-density on the north to six units per acre that his client is asking for with a lower density to the south, and that received 12 votes; and he asked who wanted to leave it as it is, and that received four votes; so there is a split in the community as to what should happen there. He stated they submit that R-2 is not compatible with surrounding City zonings; if the property is zoned R-2, and he attempted to bring in commercial next to R-2, the Board would vote against his client saying it is clearly incompatible; however, that is what the Board is doing by placing estate use next to industrial and high-intensity commercial which is inconsistent with the County’s plan. He stated they believe any re-designations of the Land Use Plan to R-2 would be inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Evans stated under Florida law, the Board is held to a strict scrutiny standard; it must be in strict compliance with its Land Use Plan prior to making any changes; he would submit the Board has at least two issues--Policy 3.B of its Land Use Plan that says, “If the land value is reduced more than 5% that is an inconsistent land use change designation,” and the letter from Tuttle Armfield Wagner, which indicates there will be a significant reduction in his client’s value if this amendment takes place. He stated if the Board changes the Comprehensive Plan to R-2, it will create a large number of nonconforming lots in the area; there are numerous parcels at the south end that are less than half an acre; and that is a matter the Board needs to address. He stated they believe R-6 would allow for transition from a higher density to the north, medium density in the center, and lower density in the south; the County’s Land Use Plan calls for a transition between intense zonings and residential; therefore, they believe the current R-2 proposal is inconsistent with its Plan, but R-6, that Riveredge Development is requesting, is consistent. He requested the Plan be amended to provide for R-6 as to his client’s property.

Janice Booth of Cocoa advised she, her husband, and her daughter have lived in Brookhill Subdivision for 13 years; they are also involved in real estate in the area; and last year she was able to pass the licensing exam as a real estate agent; however, she did not activate her license and does not use it at the moment. She stated she is deeply concerned about the development going on around her; it is time everyone else needs to be deeply concerned; she understands change has to happen and it is important; the real estate events she has been involved in have been to improve the quality of life where she lives; and the wisdom is crucial at this time. Ms. Booth stated there have been times when mistakes were made in zoning; the Board has to have the strength to change those mistakes and correct what was done wrong; and she has watched wetlands go away and large developments go up, but she also watched places like Sabal Chase be developed in the best way possible. She stated just because they can do something does not mean they should do it; that is a critical element of what they are asking for; and she would like to see her area retain the quality of life that they had when they first came there. She stated they left Clermont because what was going on there was outrageous and not conducive to the way they wanted to live; they live in a neighborhood that has privacy without walls and gates; they do not have to have security guards standing at the gate; and they have never had multifamily dwellings. She stated from looking at the County records, she knows the developers who bought the large tract bought it at an excellent price; any fool can make money with that property and with the zoning being much more conducive to residential; they do not need condominiums there; there are many other places that are more suited for condominiums; and they need single-family residences in their area and need to build property values so that their schools will improve. Ms. Booth stated she has watched Cocoa High School and Laurie Baccus struggle to make that school a valuable tool in the community; her daughter went through that school and graduated as a high school student and received her AA degree as a college student; there are great things possible in Cocoa; but only with the active involvement of the residents and the Commissioners. She requested the Board consider keeping the residential nature of their neighborhood, as there is room for profit for everyone.

Beverly Sudermann, representing Indian River Neighborhood Association, advised the Association is comprised of individual homeowners along the Indian River north of SR 528; in addition, they formed an alliance with existing Homeowners Associations in the neighborhood, Parkchester, High Point, Twin Lakes, Sabal Chase, Brookhill, and Briarwood Manor; and they support Amendment 2004A.5, which includes the area from SR 528 south to the Indian River on the east, U.S. 1 on the west, and coming to a point at Four Corners Fire Station on the north. She stated they are all united in their desire to see their neighborhoods retain their essential open spacious character and preserve the quality of life along the Indian River that they all enjoy; and requested the Board approve inserting a Future Land Use Map amendment in 2004A Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. She stated the citizens also desire that future zoning and development discussions require individual involvement; and the Association requests the Future Land Use Map be right-sized to correspond with zoning classifications of underlying properties. Ms. Sudermann stated at present the Future Land Use Map density for their area is set at four units per acre except the strip of commercial use on U.S. 1; most of the land in their community is zoned EU or AU by the County; they would like to see the prevalent County zoning and Future Land Use Map density limits brought in line; and they would like the right-sizing initiative to set the Future Land Use Map densities at one unit per acre for properties zoned AU and two units per acre for properties zoned EU or smaller. She stated the citizens request is in response to a recent annexation proposal in the area that has sought to substantially increase densities by comparing the proposed City density to the County’s Future Land Use Map designations while ignoring the County’s underlying zoning classifications; and they want to insure that future development proposals are required to be discussed in an open public forum with multiple opportunities for input from residents of the community. Ms. Sudermann stated the citizens represented by the allied homeowners associations believe the right-sizing action will enable a better response to future growth pressures and will take into consideration the neighborhoods essential character; and the neighborhood current zoning pattern, not the current Future Land Use Map densities, best reflects the character. She stated the citizens also desire that the future zoning and development discussions require the involvement of the amended Comprehensive Future Land Use Plan to help protect property values, quality of life, and the neighborhood environment; and requested the Board consider their proactive proposal. She stated she represents over 50 homeowners along the river, and they support the amendment; there are a couple of Homeowners Association Presidents or Vice Presidents who were not able to attend the meeting and sent letters they would like the Board to have; and presented the letters to the Board, but not the Clerk.

Mitzi Robinson of Titusville, representing Hidden Creek Homeowners Association, advised she owns two pieces of property in Hidden Creek Subdivision, which is at the very end of Riveredge Drive; she is Secretary/Treasurer and her husband is Chair of the Architectural Review Board of Hidden Creek; the Subdivision was originally developed through Brevard County at the time before it was annexed into the City of Titusville; and at that time it was developed, it seemed that the Board’s plan was for it to be two units per acre because that is how it was approved by the County. She stated years ago Riveredge Drive was old U.S. 1; she has a bridge on her property that is dated 1948, which was the old Department of Transportation U.S. 1 bridge; and a maximum of two units per acre is what the Board was planning in 1999. She stated most of the area has developed or seems to be developing as single-family residences; there are some commercial properties there now, but they have no problem with the existing commercial properties; unfortunately the road dead ends because at the time NASA Causeway was put in, U.S. 1 was vacated. Ms. Robinson stated there is a house at the end of the road; it was the first house developed in Hidden Creek, so there is now only one way into Riveredge Drive and that is off U.S. 1; and it makes for a very troublesome road as far as emergency vehicles and traffic in general, as there are no sidewalks and very little soft shoulders. She stated over the past two years, they have attended numerous meetings regarding this issue; the problem is the City of Titusville has decided it wants to live in Miami and approved condominiums up and down the Indian River; she grew up in Titusville as did her husband, and returned after a short stint in Gainesville and Orlando because they wanted their children to be raised in a nice community; but unfortunately, it is the last strip of road in Titusville where they can put a single-family residence on the river, as everything else is going commercial or multifamily. She stated having the proposed development would put a burden on a dead-end road; she bought the property and brought her children back to Titusville not knowing what was going up there, but hoped the City had a plan that it was going to be a nice residential street since it was no longer U.S. 1; and they would if the County would follow through as required by Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.2 and save the lands east of U.S. 1 along the Indian River from encroachment of commercial and high-density development and preserve the area for single-family residential use. She requested the Board designate the lands along Riveredge Drive as single-family residential two units per acre.

 

Jim Hildebrand of Titusville stated his wife could not be at the meeting so he will read a letter she wanted to submit, and read as follows: “We appreciate the City of Titusville conducting the recent Riveredge Drive meeting. At the meeting questions were asked in a confusing manner and several people objected. It seems the questions were designed to solicit a particular response desired rather than simply asking what we wanted developed on Riveredge Drive. I want to make it perfectly clear that the single-family homes are what should be on the street all the way down, or multifamily at the north end will simply retard the development of single-family homes on the rest of the street. My neighbors signed below feel the same way about this and want this matter of official record regardless of what went on in the neighborhood meeting.” He stated Mr. Evans mentioned some numbers of a vote; the problem is he got them backwards; the Board’s representative Todd Corwin was there and can validate how the numbers went; and they stand in support of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2004A.4. He stated it is the last bit of river edge property that can be developed as high-end residential on the south end of Titusville.

Victoria Weinberg of Titusville presented documents to the Board but not the Clerk; stated she has lived on Riveredge Drive for 21 years watching shuttle launches from her front yard; and she lives in a building of ten units built in 1979 on the north end of Riveredge Drive before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. She stated having her driveway on U.S. 1, all vehicles leaving and entering Riveredge Drive pass by her unit; and it is her hope that Towne Realty would reconsider its high-density construction and build beautiful single-family homes to enjoy the riverfront magnificence and still achieve its monetary gains without destroying their neighborhood. She read a letter from a neighbor on Riveredge Drive as follows: “To Whom It May Concern: The Riveredge Condominium Association supports Laura Ward and the Riveredge Drive neighborhood group in maintaining the residential character and quality of life on Riveredge Drive. Preserving this quality on Riveredge Drive adds to the character and value of the community on the Indian River. Respectfully Ron Caswell, President, Riveredge Condominium Association.” She stated the crusade to safeguard Riveredge Drive’s unique priceless value as a riverfront neighborhood rests on the Board’s decision today.

Tiffany Johnson of Titusville stated she is a property owner in Brevard County; she went to the homeowners meeting two weeks ago; and a dear friend of hers, Lula Smith, expressed her concerns that she would like to express to the Board although she is not representing Ms. Smith. She stated Ms. Smith is a retired real estate agent in Titusville; she worked for Ms. Smith when she first started in real estate; and she knows her opinion is sincere and honest. She stated Ms. Smith owns the north piece of property in the Comprehensive Plan amendment; and she expressed to her that what the other ones spoke about, it first started out as 15 units per acre, then 9, then 6, and now 2, in her way she said it is just robbery. She stated everyone knows when they invest in real estate they expect to get more out of their money, not less; now the Board is talking about commercial property rezoning going to residential and the land use going from 15 to 2 units per acre; so the Board can see Ms. Smith’s point in that perspective. Ms. Johnson stated she has attended a lot of City Council meetings, P&Z meetings, Charter Review Commission meetings, and Board of County Commissioners meetings; and it is becoming aware to her that they are having a problem. She stated first of all, Attorney Severs is going to talk about it later this afternoon probably; there is a lawsuit against the City because of an annexation; and Laura Ward was part of that and requested it be done. She stated joint planning is a big issue; the City of Titusville is trying to do that; the joint planning agreement the City presented to the County talks about the particular piece of land that is going to jeopardize possibly the joint planning; and that concerns her. She inquired if it is happening in Titusville, is it going to happen to all the cities in Brevard County, and is there ever going to be any joint planning if residents come in and sabotage it. Ms. Johnson stated the agreement states the property is an enclave and it should be addressed; the City is addressing it; it is six units per acre; now the residents want two units per acre; and that makes her try to understand why the proposal of growth management was brought in front of the Charter Review Commission. She stated with incidents like this, they might need a Charter Review Commission appointed not elected. She stated she has seen the City trying to work with the County; it is possible; and there are community meetings, Council meetings, and meetings between the City and County; and if the Board has that growth management, it may lose all that; and that scares her. She requested the Board turn down the amendment.

Connie Pontius, resident of Riveredge Drive, advised she was at the May 25, 2004 meeting with a group of residents of Riveredge Drive, but they did not get a chance to speak because there was no one in opposition; she is in favor of the low-density residential zoning; she has the last BU-1 lot on the east side; it used to be the old marina; and they made it into a single-family home. She stated Riveredge Drive is in a state of transition to single-family homes; that is what almost all the people who live there have been telling the City Council for the past two years; unfortunately, the first neighborhood meeting just took place a week ago. She presented and explained pictures of the homes on the street; stated there are 16 single-family homes with people living in them right now; there are six being planned that are in the City Planning Office; there are seven lots in Hidden Creek yet to be developed; there is multifamily building on the east side built in the 1970’s with 32 units, which is a good place for it because it is right off U.S. 1; and there are townhomes of ten units, vacant land, several single-family homes, New York New York restaurant that used to be Harold’s and has been there for many years; a cleared lot next to it that had cottages that were torn down, and she believes the permits have been pulled from the City to put in three single-family homes; and more single-family homes and the marina, which is her home. Ms. Pontius stated on the west side are a couple of office buildings on U.S. 1 that have access to Riveredge Drive, seven single-family homes, the Walker Facility, another single-family home that is going to be torn down, three single-family homes proposed to go in there and three more planned that do not have permits, the Bavarian House Pub, a single-family home behind the Pub, another single-family home next to the Pub, then Hidden Creek Subdivision at the end of Riveredge Drive. She stated half the homes are on the east side and the other half on the west side; there are seven more that are going to be constructed; so all together counting the single-family homes that are going to be constructed in the next few years, that is 30 homes. She stated single-family home development on decent size lots make most sense for the half mile narrow dead end local road; it will have the least affect on future traffic; and requested the Board pass the amendment as is, not change it, not leave any properties out, and do not leave the planning to the City of Titusville because it could be 20 years before all the land is annexed. She stated she loves Titusville but does not plan on annexing into the City; she is more than satisfied with the County’s services; in the past two years, anybody who bought land in the area would know the residents wanted single-family and not multifamily or commercial development; and Mr. Bennett’s project was turned down in August but he went ahead and bought the land in January.

Commissioner Colon asked Ms. Pontius where does it play in regards to the item before the Board for rezoning. She noted she can see the east and west areas. Ms. Pontius stated Hidden Creek is at the very end of the road. Chair Higgs stated they move from north to south. Commissioner Colon inquired where does what the Board is discussing today fall, because it is talking about Riveredge Drive so in her mind she is trying to protect the integrity of Riveredge Drive and trying to figure out exactly the properties that they are discussing in regard to transitional and where they are on Riveredge Drive. She inquired if they are on the north portion. Chair Higgs stated both the east and west sides of Riveredge Drive are represented in the pictures; and Hidden Creek is at the south end. Commissioner Colon inquired where do the properties in question fall. She stated there are folks upset because of the rezoning that will take place; and inquired where would that come in; with Chair Higgs responding it is a land use change not rezoning. Commissioner Scarborough requested Ms. Pontius show Commissioner Colon on her map where the green properties are; and Ms. Pontius explained the properties to Commissioner Colon.

Laura Ward of Titusville, resident of Riveredge Drive, advised she is the spoiled brat mentioned earlier who did not inherit anything and bought the property from her parents; and they were depression-era people, and made them pay off a mortgage in seven years. She stated they have been talking about this issue for two years; they have been before the Board many times; they appeared at public hearings over eight times; they have been asking the City of Titusville for small area planning for their neighborhood for over two years; and finally they are actually getting there and are excited about that. She stated they are pleased the City held neighborhood meetings and is moving towards joint planning agreements, more particularly a small area plan for Riveredge Drive; Towne Realty, which is one of the largest property owners on the street with ten acres zoned IU, has had a contract on the property for about a year and a half, and maybe as much as two years; they did close on the property in January; but in July, in the middle of public hearings, they made application for annexation. She stated in the course of that, she had the opportunity to meet Mr. Bennett of Towne Realty and found him to be very pleasant; they discussed the possibility of him considering single-family project for the site and about things like reconfiguring the road so he could have more direct waterfront; and Mr. Bennett said he would consider that, and she believes he is sincere and will look at that. She noted what he decides to do would be his decision; however, if the large piece of property came into the City as a single-family development, if it is feasible for Mr. Bennett to do that, it would mean they could quit this forever because what happens with that property will set the tone for the rest of the development in the area. Ms. Ward stated the map the Board is looking at shows red dots as single-family homes; the blue dots are commercial; the red dots on the bottom are in Hidden Creek; they are also in the City; and the red dots shown line up with what Ms. Pontius had done earlier. She stated the yellow dots are the important ones because those are the properties that are in the City of Titusville and are being proposed for development; some have been permitted for single-family development; they are excited about the six on the west side of the street that just went through the P&Z at the City; and they are 2,800 square-foot homes with pools which is the kind of development they would love to see there. Ms. Ward stated what they hope will happen is that the Board will transmit the amendments because there is time between transmittal and adoption for the City, residents, and County to get together and do a small area plan that will iron out some of the questions of possible transition, etc. She stated they need for the Board to transmit the amendment in its current form to make its statement of what should be on the street; the property like the Nelsons is just below Towne Realty’s site; through a small area plan they could be worked out so they could have residential on Riveredge Drive and a portion of the property near U.S. 1 could be developed commercially; and all that can be worked out in joint planning between transmittal and adoption.

Commissioner Colon stated Ms. Ward gave the Board a scenario where Riveredge Drive would still be protected and yet allow the rest of the properties to be able to develop; and inquired what would happen if the Board supports letting the amendment go to transmittal and there is no consensus in the community in regards to the process. She stated that seems to her the way to go to be a win/win situation for all parties by allowing the community, City and County to figure out if there could be more planning. Ms. Ward stated the only reason they are talking about planning is because of the action the Board is taking; and she does not think it should stop that. Commissioner Colon stated that was not her question; and inquired if the Board sends the amendment to transmittal, is there no stopping it; with Planner Todd Corwin responding once the amendments are transmitted to Department of Community Affairs, it sends it back with comments; then staff re-addresses the comments and brings the report to the Board for adoption probably around December. Ms. Ward stated it can be changed prior to adoption. Commissioner Colon stated when it is transmitted, time is of the essence because they can only send those certain times of the year. Mr. Corwin stated per Florida Statutes, twice a year they can amend the Comprehensive Plan; however, in the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, there is a transmittal public hearing to send the amendments to Department of Community Affairs for comments; Department of Community Affairs has approximately 60 days to review it; and once it sends the comments to the County, there is another 60 days for the County to adopt it; so from the day of transmittal, there is approximately four months before the amendments are adopted. Ms. Ward stated the Board will have four months to get the little things ironed out, but they need the vision from the County of what they hope will be single-family low density development; the City and the County can get together and work out what they want between them; and the Board can adjust or tweak it prior to adoption. Commissioner Colon stated Ms. Ward mentioned the Nelson property; and inquired about the property to the north; with Ms. Ward responding that is Towne Realty’s property and they hope Mr. Bennett will continue to consider a single-family project there. Ms. Ward stated all the yellow on the map is zoned for multifamily high intensity or commercial in the City; the only areas they have for single-family is the tiny pink historic area at the top; and it is built out and fully developed.

Larry Gold, President of High Point Homeowners Civic Association, advised on behalf of the residents he wants to convey their concerns; High Point consists of 92 single-family homes located along the Indian River just north of SR 528; and most of the residences are within the City of Cocoa with a few homes on the western border that are still within the County. He stated High Point residents are concerned about recent annexation proposals to seek to substantially increase density, proposals that threaten their desire to retain an open and spacious environment along the Indian River; and after talking to his neighbors from the City and the County, they wish to express their support for the Future Land Use Map amendment 2004A.5. He stated they support bringing the Future Land Use Map densities in line with the prevalent County zoning; and they also support right-sizing initiatives with setting future land use densities at one unit per acre for property zoned AU and two units per acre for properties zoned EU or smaller. Mr. Gold stated on all the issues presented by the Alliance of Homeowners in the area, the residents of High Point stand united. He stated leaving Quigley Bay in Cocoa and driving north along River Drive, people will see the most beautiful homes to the left; if they look to the right, they will see one of the most beautiful and spacious areas of the intercoastal waterway, the Indian River Lagoon; and if they overburden or damage River Drive or that area, it would be a lost treasure to Brevard County. He stated this is an opportunity for the citizens, with the Board’s help, to step back, take a breath, and look to their future that will preserve the quality of life along the Indian River.

Norman Lowry, President of Brookhill Homeowners Association, stated he represents over 40 families and they support the initiative plan in Cocoa as written to limit development of the property along Indian River Drive. He stated they are concerned about the explosion of growth in the County, especially opposing the northern portion of the County of multifamily establishments; and they still, with their fellow homeowners associations, the Alliance of Independent Neighbors, would like to see the plan as proposed in 2004A.5 to go forward as written.

George Louis of Titusville advised he has lived on Riveredge Drive since 1958; he had a business on it; and the Board is reducing it to two units per acre. He stated they sold 345 acres south of NASA bridge; there will be a road access in there sooner or later; and he heard Laura Ward and other people object to this for two or three years. He stated the City had one meeting and was going to get James Fairlong to put up some condominiums; Titusville messed them up; and Laura Ward got in it with other neighbors and it just went all out. He stated it needs to stay like it is as BU-1 commercial.

Rose Easley of Titusville, representing Riverview Townhomes, presented documents to the Board but not the Clerk; and stated she wants to talk about the property owned by the Nelsons. She stated two years ago the property was owned by investors who rented two of the three residences located on the site; it had always been used residentially; and when the new owners rented it out, they rented it to a cement contracting business. She stated the people seemed to be using the home and site as a staging area; and if the Board would flip through the photos, it will see the building supplies, trailers, etc. on the property in violation of the County Code. She stated the County is trying to get them to come up to Code; they have no business license; the trailers were pulled to the back; and they run a 400-foot line for water, drive back and forth through the woods to the trailer, and ran a sewer hose from the trailer to the sewer. She stated through their complaints, the County made them move the trailer out; but there are two other RV’s on the property; and a trailer court is not in their zoning classification. She stated they need the Board’s help to keep further business development off Riveredge Drive; there are two large parcels on the verge of development, the Nelson’s property and Towne Realty or Riveredge Development’s property; the ten-acre parcel is undeveloped land; the street is going to develop as residential; and it is just a matter of how many units per acre. Ms. Easley stated there are three townhome developments at the north end that was done before Titusville had its Comprehensive Plan in 1988; Mr. Bennett pointed out the townhomes at the north end zoned for 15 units per acre; the first ones are sitting on approximately three acres and there are 32 units; so that is less than 15 units per acre. She stated the second one sits on two plus acres and has only ten units; the third one is the one she lives in; and it is over an acre with only five units. She stated even though it is zoned for 15 units, it is not developed to that extent; the developers realized they needed to preserve the density on the small road; and they request the Board to add the street to the Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.2, which prohibits business encroachment on the river, and to rezone it and hold the traffic down on the north end. She stated every car that comes and goes has to pass her house; the townhouse that has ten units in it has so many people driving through its yard that it had to put up large coquina rocks to keep people out of its yard; and there is a lot of reckless driving on their street.

Paul Green of Cocoa, advised he is a native and has been here 81 years; and this is his first time since 1968 of trying to preserve Indian River Road. He stated it has much significance and history of the County; it is the old Sharpes area; and the City Point Road was on maps prior to the Civil War. He stated the area is the highest natural point of the East Coast of Florida; and what he is asking and always asked for is to preserve that area of Brevard County, and protect the area so they can maintain the type of lifestyle and social and historical significance of the area. He stated people bike and jog on their roads; they come from all over the country to go from Cocoa to Williams Point; and the reason is the significance and beauty of the area. He stated if the Board begins to allow a great deal of multifamily units, it is going to ruin the area; and requested the Board kill the golden goose. He stated he appreciates the Board because it has always been very conscious of what they ask for.

Sheila Sanders, representing Sabal Chase Homeowners Association, advised President Mark Wagner could not be here today; the Association is comprised of 15 lot owners in a new development west of Indian River Drive on Sonya Drive; and their neighborhood is in agreement with the proposed amendment to protect the area on Indian River Drive. She stated they are very much in favor of low-density housing north of SR 528, west of Indian River Drive, east of U.S. 1, and south of the area below the point where Indian River Drive intersects U.S. 1 at Four Corners Fire Station; and they are vehemently opposed to high-density housing in the area. She stated they are concerned about the impact of increased traffic, the environment, and the quality of life along Indian River Drive; it is a beautiful area; and they desire to keep it that way. She stated they would greatly appreciate the Board’s support of the proposed amendment; they are grateful to be heard, and feel it is vital to voice their concerns and opinions and for government officials to be fully aware of and responsive to their input.

Tom LaForge of Titusville advised he has lived on Riveredge Drive for approximately 12 years and adjoin Laura Ward’s property; he has seen a lot of transition through time and people coming in looking at property, different concepts and viewpoints, and different proposals on what they should do with the neighborhood. He stated his house is about to fall apart; Mr. Bennett came in two or three times; he respects what he has done; and he respects Ann Nelson’s presentation. Mr. LaForge stated everyone on the street is concerned about doing the best thing; he is an environmental engineer and teaches college part-time; he is concerned about the impact on the environment; and across all sectors from the State to the County, the Indian River Lagoon is a big concern because it is an estuary that ranks among the top 24 in the northern hemisphere regarding wildlife. He stated he is for the lowest density possible, quality, and preservation of one of the last gems in Titusville; and whatever the City, County, or a coalition of both want to do, they want the best for their environment. He stated he liked what Mr. Bennett said about his proposal; he hopes he can go single-family that would be best for the environment; and he would look to Mr. Bennett for advice on building his home because he likes the way he does business and has some good plans. He stated they need to consider impacts of ingress/egress routes once they do the projects; that is a big concern also; the Nelsons could have two residential homes on their property; and he does not know about the business end, but it is something to consider at a minimum. He stated they have to live together on that street; they do business together; and he wants to preserve the environment the best way they can. He stated Ms. Ward wants to know if she can have her pictures back.

Commissioner Scarborough stated they are here discussing this issue because the County failed in not doing planning; in a real sense, it has not been at the locations between Rockledge and Melbourne and the lagoon south of Titusville with how to zone along the lagoon; and it had struggled once, and got Doug Robertson to set up an analysis. He stated there was a consensus that evolve; it is a problematic issue because they could have the most intense commercial on the west side of U.S. 1 then move to commercial; and along the lagoon, they had the feeling that came out of the discussion that it should be single-family, but the Board did not incorporate it. He stated that was the tone that was evolving over the conversations. He stated further back the Board talked about the South Beaches; with the South Beaches it had a very eclectic environment very much like south of Titusville; and one thing the Board heard was it may adversely affect property rights. He stated to the contrary, after the Board set basic measures of what should be there, property values increased because people had assurance they were not going to have diminution of their values because something contrary to what they needed occurred. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is also important to understand that property owners can petition cities and have their properties annexed to get that jurisdiction; so the question is why here and why now. He stated there should be an ability while these are intact to come to the County and for a statement to be made; not that it is the final definitive statement because nothing is ever definitive in zoning and planning; it is always in a state of flux; but they find the subtle indications allow people to invest in certain ways and have certain assurances and actually enhance the ability for things to improve. He stated there are two different issues between North Cocoa and South Titusville; as they get into discussions, it may be beneficial to break the two apart; and since it seems to be less controversial in the north Cocoa area, he would suggest taking Commissioners’ comments on that first.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2004A.5, regarding the North Cocoa area, for transmittal to Department of Community Affairs.

Commissioner Pritchard stated only a small part of the area is incorporated into the City of Cocoa; 98% is in the County; and since it is different and unique in that the Titusville area had the City involved in community efforts, in the Cocoa case the County does not. He stated if the Board does not do something that is more responsible for the citizenry, then it is not taking appropriate action. Chair Higgs stated it is all in the unincorporated area because the Board cannot change the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Pritchard stated there is a portion that is within the City limits. Chair Higgs stated none of the items before the Board are in the City.

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

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to trace the area in Titusville under Amendment 2004A.4; after coming off SR 50, the first development is Kennedy Point, which is a condominium on the lagoon; south of there they have a park with boat launching facilities, then a motel; and circling around the motel are a number of condominiums. He stated moving down the road there is one of the most eclectic and diverse areas anyone could find; and part of the problem has been that it has not been defined. He stated as the Board defines it, it will find investors feeling comfortable about moving in there; he does not think there is anything wrong with their prior thoughts that they have a movement of density, commercial activity as they move from the lagoon to U.S, 1; so they really have a deepening of the property, as they move further down, with the capacity for it to be further and further removed from U.S. 1 and the traffic. Commissioner Scarborough stated the issue was brought up about going into joint planning with the City of Titusville; the answer is yes; but at issue is whether or not the joint planning should occur before transmittal of the amendment. He stated Tom Harmer and he met on that and he told Mr. Harmer that was fine, and inquired if the City was going to defer the annexation during that period; and he said no, they could not. He stated therein lies his dilemma because if the properties are annexed into the City, they will not be a part of the thought process; and inquired if the two or three major parcels are taken into the City, how much of the property would be left; with Mr. Corwin responding the two properties are about one-third of the area being discussed. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would profoundly remove from discussion a third of the area; and the County would basically not be a part of it. He stated that is okay if the Board does that, but he would prefer to go ahead and transmit, understanding they have the full ability, when it comes back, to restate with the full understanding of their negotiations with the City; and with the understanding it could all change when it comes back, so he will move for transmittal.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve transmittal of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2004A.4 to the Department of Community Affairs.

Commissioner Colon stated the community feels Mr. Bennett is a man of integrity and is willing to work with them; she wants to make sure, in the process of protecting the integrity of Riveredge Drive, that they are also not hurting him; she is uncomfortable with that because it is a fine line; and she wants feedback from Mr. Bennett in regards to the possibilities. She stated he mentioned an entrance from U.S. 1 and one from Riveredge Drive; she has a concern about that as far as the bigger picture; but also if there is a possibility of single-family homes on Riveredge Drive. She stated the Board is trying to get creative in the County and working with developers to make sure it is a win/win situation; and she is dealing with an issue right now in West Melbourne just like this one where they are trying to make sure it is compatible with one and a half acre lots on one side and the rest of the property at a higher density. She stated they are trying to get creative so that it is a win/win situation for both parties; and this seems similar to that issue, so she wants to get feedback from Mr. Bennett about some other possibilities.

Mr. Bennett advised his first application a year ago was for a larger project in density and size; it was for three six-story buildings with 100 units, which were on the road; and listening to the residents, they believed the current annexation and plan that is before the City of Titusville is exactly what Commissioner Colon said is a good compromise. He stated there will be two-story buildings with five units in each building; they have gone from six stories to two stories and 100 units to 55 units; and they believe that meets the concerns. He stated driving down Riveredge Drive and looking at their property, one would see four buildings that look like large homes; and as far as single-family development goes, that is a recent conversation he had with Ms. Ward. He stated he found her to be very engaging and very considerate, and they discussed the possibility of single-family development; but there are quite a few obstacles to it. He noted they are looking into it, but he cannot commit to that at this point; however, if it turns out that it is a better project, he would look at it very hard because it is easier to build a project of lesser density than what is zoned than to go the other way around. Mr. Bennett stated he cannot tell the Board today that R-2 is proper; and they believe it is not and feel R-6 is a better transitional zone since R-2 and single-family is on the south end of the street. He stated the main access would be from U.S. 1; it will have a guardhouse; and all guests must come through that. He stated there is another access in the south on U.S. 1 again, and a third access on Riveredge Drive that is gated; only owners can use it with a garage door opener; so there is minimal traffic impact to Riveredge Drive from his project.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Ms. Ward mentioned that you two talked about looping the road; and inquired if that is under consideration; with Mr. Bennett responding that is one of the things Ms. Ward mentioned if he was interested in a single-family development if the road could be moved to the west, which is of interest, but a large undertaking to come to the Board to vacate and move it. Mr. Bennett stated he does not know if all the residents and businesses to the south would agree; plus there are utilities, force main, sewer, water, etc; and they have to look at all those things. He noted he has people looking at it right now but he does not have an answer today. Commissioner Scarborough stated the more land one has on the lagoon, the greater the value there is to the land. Mr. Bennett stated that would be looking at six homes; the question is can six homes offset the cost; he has to look at that very carefully; and at this point he is not prepared to represent that it is a viable opportunity.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what effect would the Comprehensive Plan amendment being submitted have on the City of Titusville when it annexes the area; with Mr. Corwin responding when the City annexes property, it establishes its own Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations after the annexation occurs. Mr. Corwin stated in this instance, the County’s Land Use designation would remain in effect on those properties until the City changes its plan; and it depends on whether or not it is a small amendment or large-scale amendment. He stated in a small scale amendment of ten acres or less, that process could be very quick and take a matter of months. Commissioner Pritchard stated what the Board is doing by transmitting the amendment is notifying the City of Titusville that it is what it thinks it should be, but there is no standing behind it once the City annexes the property; with Mr. Corwin responding the amendment would establish the land use character for the County enclave; but once it is annexed, the City would be charged with giving it its own land use designation; and once the City designates the land use, it would be within its jurisdiction to establish whatever it would like. Commissioner Pritchard stated so the City can change everything the County is forwarding; with Mr. Corwin responding yes, the City can establish its land use based upon the policies within its Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Pritchard inquired why is Commissioner Scarborough pushing it; with Commissioner Scarborough responding because the Board failed to have land use designations along the lagoon. Commissioner Scarborough stated a $650,000 house on a very diverse street that has not defined itself indicates to him the potential for value is enormous; and there is so little waterfront property in North Brevard. He stated Merritt Island has a lot of waterfront; the Riveredge Drive area is a jewel; and he does not think the Board wants to do anything but welcome Titusville to do the right thing with it. He stated to say this is the best the Board can do is a failure. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Commissioner Scarborough believes if the Board takes a position and forwards the Comprehensive Plan amendment it is sending a message of what it thinks it should be; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes, but with the full intention of working with the City and the community. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is an enclave and will be annexed; all those factors will take place; but for the County not to take a role is even worse. Commissioner Pritchard stated the letter of transmittal Mr. Harmer wrote says the City held several public hearings regarding the annexation and future development in the area; it was brought up at least by one of the speakers that were it not for the County at least making an effort in submitting a Comprehensive Plan amendment, that perhaps the comments might not have come about; and inquired if Commissioner Scarborough conceives that the Board’s involvement in this is moving the City and residents into a joint planning agreement on something they can all live with; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he would like to think the County can play a constructive role. Chair Higgs stated the Board initiated discussion about a joint planning agreement with the City of Titusville some time ago; with Mr. Corwin responding that is correct; and there is a joint planning agreement that is in their office and being reviewed by County departments.

Commissioner Colon stated she is trying to look at the whole picture; even though the Board is trying to protect the integrity of Riveredge Drive, all the folks have come out; and she does not want them leaving with a false sense of security because once the City of Titusville goes through annexation, they are back to square one because the City can change it. She stated she is concerned because the citizens will have to appear once again before the City Council of Titusville, and go through this excruciating process all over again. She stated it looks good on paper, but the Board is not going to accomplish anything; it is going to leave ill feelings on both sides; and that is what is going to happen. Commissioner Colon stated people can shake their heads that it is not going to happen, but it will leave ill feelings because she comes from a municipality and was a Councilwoman for five years; and the problem was always lack of communication between the City and the County. She stated they will see it even more as the years go on; she wants to protect Riveredge Drive and wants to see single-family homes there; and inquired what is the Board accomplishing once the City gets involved. She requested Mr. Harmer give the Board feedback on how receptive the City is in regards to protecting the folks on Riveredge Drive.

Mr. Harmer advised they are very small enclaves surrounded by the City; the City has not just started joint planning, it has been in negotiations with the County for years and were asked to be in line behind other cities of when their joint planning agreement would be approved; but they had neighborhood meetings in the Fox Lake Road and Parrish Road areas, and now Riveredge Drive area. He stated the Council in the past two years, since 2002, has looked at that area and differently over time based on input from the residents; it was originally 15 units per acre and was changed to 9 then to 6 last year; and the recent neighborhood meeting they had will then be carried back to the County and ultimately to the City Council with recommendations on further annexations. He stated one of the concerns is if the County goes to two units per acre on the entire street, he would have concerns and share with the Board if that is adopted and they annex property and assign it something else other than two, the City would be in dispute with the County over increasing the density and school concurrency. He stated if the Board lowers the density to two and the City changes it to four or six, he hopes they do not end up in further dispute with the County or be set up for that in the future.

Commissioner Colon stated her concern is what has been the feedback from the City Council in regards to the concerns of the neighborhood; it is something she does not know because she is not on the City Council; and as Mr. Harmer heard today, from the discussions, the Board is very concerned about maintaining the integrity of Riveredge Drive, especially the history that was shared with the Board. She stated she is also uncomfortable with having the rug pulled from under the constituents and how closely will the City work with Mr. Bennett in regards to what they heard from the community. Mr. Harmer stated Mr. Bennett’s project was not accepted by the City originally based on feedback from the residents; his resubmittal was received a few weeks ago and is a totally different project based on direction he received from City Council and the neighborhood input; and now the City Council has a requirement when developments come in, they must go and meet with the neighbors before coming to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, separate from the City’s neighborhood meetings.

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

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board appreciates the City of Titusville being here and its concern; and welcomes the opportunity to meet with all those involved to see the best possible development for the community.

The meeting recessed at 11:26 a.m., and reconvened at 11:34 a.m.

ADOPTION, RE: TENTATIVE FY 2004-05 AD VALOREM MILLAGES

Commissioner Pritchard stated he wants to be assured of what is being said; he wants to make sure the listening audience at home has a clear understanding of what the Board is doing today; and the Board is talking about setting a tentative millage at a level that cannot be increased but can be reduced. Budget Director Dennis Rogero stated that is correct. Commissioner Pritchard stated the aggregate FY 2003-04 operating millage was 7.4 mills; the aggregate FY 2004-05 rolled back operating millage is 6.7 plus mills; and inquired what effect does the rolled back millage have and what was it rolled back. Mr. Rogero stated the aggregate rolled back millage will bring in the same amount of revenue received from the millages in the current year, excluding any revenue from new construction. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what does that mean to the taxpayer who has a house valued at $150,000 with no improvements and no tax increases; with Mr. Rogero responding if the rolled back rate is adopted, the homeowner will see a decrease in the tax rate.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the rate roll back to bring in the same amount of revenue; with Mr. Rogero responding 5.98%. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how did staff come up with that percentage; with Mr. Rogero responding they took the rolled back rate, valuations of the homes, put them against the valuations of the homes and current tax rate, so all things being equal with no new construction and lack of increase in valuation, the roll back rate will be about 6% less of a tax rate than what the Board has levied in the current year. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board is increasing that by 3%; with Mr. Rogero responding the Board is increasing it above the rolled back rate by 3%. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the net effect on a homeowner; with Mr. Rogero responding depending on the valuation of the home, it will still be a tax rate decrease. County Manager Tom Jenkins noted it is approximately a 3% decrease. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that occurs because there is a shifting from homes to other properties and homes are restricted to 3% increase; with Mr. Rogero responding yes, under the Save Our Homes legislation. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if other properties are not protected; with Mr. Rogero responding properties that do not enjoy homestead exemption or Save Our Homes limitation and commercial property will pay more.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the bottom line is if there were no increases in property valuations because no improvements were made, they are looking at a small decrease in the amount of taxes they will be paying from the County side; he understands the School Board is
proposing an increase; so when the property owners get their tax bills, they need to realize there are two sides to the bill as well as a municipal side if they live in the city. He stated the County is looking at providing a small decrease in the amount of money they would be paying all things being equal.

Chair Higgs noted she thought she heard that the School Board was actually decreasing its millage; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he thought it was increasing it. Chair Higgs stated she heard differently, and thinks it was a revenue increase but a millage decrease.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what additional funds would be available if the Board stays with the rolled back rate plus 3% but not include the voter-approved taxes; with Mr. Rogero responding the voter-approved portion of the levy, the increase from the current year to the tentative budget next year is $1.2 million. Commissioner Carlson stated she knows this budget is going to be a bit of a battle because Chair Higgs wants to get 107 positions for the Detention Center and would like to see the entire Detention Center issue put into the budget; and inquired if the Board stays at rolled back plus 3%, and had to fully fund the 107 new positions, how much would that bill be and what is the likelihood that the Board would be facing a significant tax increase next year if it stayed at roll back plus 3%; with Mr. Rogero responding if the Board adopts an aggregate operating millage and excludes the voter approved portion, it would get $1.2 million; if it chose to fund the remainder of the Sheriff’s Office request of 18 correctional officers and 33 civilian positions, phased in over the course of the next fiscal year, it would be just under $1.1 million; however, if the Board chooses to do that, the full year impact in FY 2005-06 would be over $2.2 million for the additional positions. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board would be able to stay within that roll back rate plus 3% and fund the positions; with Mr. Rogero responding the full impact in 2006 would compel an increase in taxes or reduction in other allocations. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board went to roll back plus 4%, excluding the items that were voted in, which would be basically equivalent to roll back plus 4% or about a 1% difference, would it still be able to reduce this coming year’s tax rate; with Mr. Rogero responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired by what percent and how would it equate to the average homeowners in terms of how much they would pay; with Mr. Jenkins responding it would be 2%. Mr. Rogero stated if the Board adopts a millage that is 4% above the rolled back rate, it would still equate to an approximate 5% below the current year’s rate.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much money is 5% below the current rate to the average homeowner of a $150,000 home assessment; with Mr. Rogero responding he does not know off the top of his head and would have to run that calculation.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board adopts the roll back rate plus 4%, still saving 5% on the tax rate, would that provide any other benefits when looking at the need to fully fund the Detention Center next year; with Mr. Rogero responding it would generate another $1.6 million that could be allocated. Mr. Jenkins stated the $1.6 million would be committed to be spent on correctional officers plus some because the budget does not include a full-year funding and will not help the following year. Commissioner Carlson stated her concern is looking at future funding since the Board does not know what is going to happen; it does not contemplate any infrastructure issues with the Detention Center and is strictly for positions; and trying to accommodate full-time positions next year is going to be a much bigger bite out of the budget. She stated the Board is not going to be in the same position next year and will not have the cards it is playing this year, which are the franchise fee issue and communications tax issue that may help dig out of a bad budget right now; so it needs to look ahead as well as at today.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board needs to look ahead, but it needs to look ahead in a different fashion; Mr. Rogero mentioned it either compels an increase or an allocation of service; and the Board may need to look at allocation of service and not hit it right off with things that impact the public most directly like libraries, police, and fire, like it tends to do. He stated what staff did with the 3% is what the voters wanted when they approved the Capit issue; it seems to fall in line with that; and to ask for an increase in the millage to accommodate what may be a potential cost without addressing what some of the savings may be and what some of the other revenue streams might be, in particular, the communication tax. He stated people may save $7 or $10 on their County taxes, but would be hit with $50 to $60 on the increase in communication service tax; and the folks need to realize one way or another, they are going to get proposals that are going to cost them money. He noted to equate a $7 reduction in taxes on one side and hit them with a $50 or $60 increase on the other side does not give him the warm fuzzies; and stated the Board needs to advertise the millage as is then deal with next fiscal year’s budget as it comes up through the same process as it has done this year.

Chair Higgs stated the voter approved taxes were not taken into consideration in the calculations; that equates to $1.25 million and should not be calculated in a percentage; so $1.25 million to fund the jail properly or at least fund the staffing level where it needs to be is important. She stated the current proposal is lower than the Board ought to go into in terms of tentative; it has two options that may or may not come through; both of them are not fully together at this point; so in setting a tentative millage slightly above what staff has proposed and pulling out the $1.25 million voter approvals is consistent with what taxpayers intended in their voting and also prudent in funding the jail. She stated the current proposal is not one the Board should move forward with; and it will have time, after setting the tentative millage, to go back to the rate proposed.

Commissioner Carlson stated she is curious about what Commissioners Scarborough and Colon feel like in terms of the tentative millage; it means the Board can always bring it down to the 3%, but if for some reason the two cards it is trying to play, the communication service tax and franchise fee do not come this year, it might leave the Board in a bad way for doing any sort of progressive or proactive funding for the jail; and that has been the Board’s priority this year.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Florida Power & Light Company franchise agreement and communication service tax would be recurring without additional action by the Board once they are enacted; and would the revenue be around $6 million if both of them came to pass; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes.

Commissioner Colon stated she was pretty clear back in January or February that she had no intentions of supporting the budget; so she does not think it is fair for her to be part of the discussion for those who are supporting the millage when they will not have her support. She stated that is why she has refrained from having discussions on the millage.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he supports Commissioner Pritchard’s position; and it is incumbent upon the Board, as it brings in more money, to define precisely where those monies are going to be spent. He stated anytime new monies come in, the Board needs to define where and how it is going to be spent; there are some things that concern him that he will bring before the Board as it goes into further discussions on the budget; but he is having a great deal of difficulty seeing the need to advertise more than what staff recommended and having to have full discussions. He stated Commissioner Pritchard said communications is a cost that is going to be borne by the people; the Board needs to explain to the people where those monies are going and why it is advantageous to the County; but he is having difficulty advertising a higher rate at this moment.

Chair Higgs requested a motion on the tentative millages.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to advertise the tentative millage rates as proposed by staff for FY 2004-05.

Chair Higgs stated she understands that the Board does not have to go through each millage rate and as provided in the attachment is sufficient.

Commissioner Pritchard stated regarding jail funding, what the Board has seen because of the position it has taken is that the Sheriff has shown, through Commander Futch, a willingness to start looking into his budget and coming up with creative ways to help fund the jail operations. He stated what he is seeing now is more of a spirit within the organization to delve into its own budget and come up with better ways to spend the taxpayers’ money.

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Scarborough and Pritchard voted aye; and Commissioners Carlson, Colon, and Higgs voted nay.

Commissioner Carlson stated she will put another motion on the table but is not sure how it will come out because it is confusing, that the Board go ahead with the tentative rolled back millages plus 4%, which still indicates a reduction in the tax rate and will give the Board the latitude once it determines if it gets the $6 million where it is going to use it; and if it is still falling short on the issues regarding the jail.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to advertise tentative millages for FY 2004-05 at rolled back rates plus 4% increase.

Chair Higgs inquired if the 4% is about the same as the $1.25 million staff accounted for as the voter-approved recreation referendum; with Mr. Rogero responding 1% above the rolled back rate would get about $1.5 million.

Chair Higgs seconded the motion; and called for a vote on it. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Carlson and Higgs voted aye; and Commissioners Scarborough, Pritchard, and Colon voted nay.

Commissioner Carlson stated Commissioner Colon has to make up her mind. Commissioner Colon stated she made up her mind a long time ago. Commissioner Pritchard stated the problem is the Board is stuck and it is becoming a little shop of horrors again; it needs to bring the aggregate millage forward; and right now two of the Commissioners are looking at what is proposed and two are looking at a 1% increase; so somebody needs to do something. He stated all the Board is doing is allowing a tentative millage to be advertised; and it will have another opportunity later to say no.

Commissioner Scarborough suggested the Board come back to the item later in the meeting and go on to the next item. Chair Higgs stated she has a plane to catch this afternoon at 3:30 p.m.; and Commissioner Scarborough commented that is pushing it. Chair Higgs stated the Board has to get down to the nitty gritty and make a decision.

Chair Higgs inquired if the Board has an agreement with The Great Outdoors; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding no. Commissioner Scarborough requested where is the Board with The Great Outdoors issue and is it going to get here in a few minutes; with Mr. Knox responding they are down to two words, and if he cannot work out those two words, he will burn the agreement.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is anything else the Board can go to; with Chair Higgs responding there are plenty of things; and inquired when does the Board have to set the tentative millage; with Mr. Jenkins responding today. Commissioner Colon stated it does not have to be right now. Commissioner Pritchard stated if it is brought up after the Chair is gone, the Board will still not have the votes; it needs to decide what it is going to do; there are two views on the table; and the Board is hoping for a tie breaker. Chair Higgs stated her thought is the percentage is reasonable; the millage rate is reasonable; the calculation of $1.25 million, which was a voter-approved item is unreasonable and inconsistent; and she does not want to calculate that in the percentage.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the voters look at the bottom line; they know they are paying for this and that; what they are most interested in is not paying for as much as possibly can happen; and everybody has that perspective. He stated they usually think it is a great idea if someone else pays for something, but they do not want to pay; and there is a certain level that people will hit where they say enough is enough, and the Board needs to start looking within and doing things better. He stated there is a proposal on the millage; and the millage is going to give the people a slight reduction in their property taxes. Chair Higgs stated the proposal she and Commissioner Carlson are talking about will do the same thing; and there is no difference.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is only the tentative millage at this point; it is not the bottom line yet; it is subject to change; and the public hearings are to flush out some of the issues. She stated she just wants to give the Board some breathing room; it is still at roll back and if it goes at 4%, the argument is not including in the aggregate what the people already voted for; and what people are concerned about is how the Board deals with the General Fund dollars. She stated she was just trying to be able to run business in government the way it should be, given all the deficits it has accrued over the years of non-action in those areas of concern.

Chair Higgs stated the Board has a real situation that needs some correction in the jail; it relates to the safety of people who are outside the jail as well as those who are inside; and she is not going to approve a millage rate today that does not give some flexibility so that they can solve that problem. She stated if the Board is able to renegotiate the Florida Power & Light Company contract, then it will be in good shape; but the decrease that she and Commissioner Carlson are talking about is slightly less than the one Commissioner Pritchard is talking about; and it may not be the one they get to at the final budget hearing. She stated it would at least allow the Board some flexibility if it cannot negotiate with Florida Power & Light Company; and she would be wrong in not trying to solve the problems that are happening at the Detention Center as best she can, at least on the personnel side. She stated if the Board does not solve them, it will be paying huge amounts in the long run.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he agrees with Chair Higgs 100%, but thinks with the potential of $6 million coming on the table, the Board does not need to advertise an additional amount to handle that particular problem. He stated there are other problems he is going to suggest the Board handle as well; it is going to be able to handle a great many problems; so at this moment, he does not understand why it needs to advertise a rate when it does not even know what it is going to do with the money.

Commissioner Carlson stated Commissioner Scarborough is assuming the Board is going to get the $6 million; she would make a point right now that she does not have a problem going to roll back plus 3% if they can get that money; but if the Board does not get the money, it is just not using any foresight and may find itself in a dilemma. She stated she would hope the Board gets the $6 million or at least $3 million of it to make it a lot easier; and inquired if it does not get the money, what is the option. Commissioner Scarborough stated the communication tax is totally in the Board’s control. Chair Higgs stated it takes three votes. Commissioner Scarborough stated but it is in the control of the Board. Commissioner Carlson stated so is the budget. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is a matter of philosophy; and if it was the only option to take care of the jail, he could see being compelled to move in that direction, but it is not. Commissioner Carlson inquired what are the Board’s other options; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board discussed the Florida Power & Light Company contract and communications tax. Commissioner Carlson inquired is that going to be enough to deal with infrastructure costs and are the people going to vote for it after voting down all the other sales tax initiatives in the previous so many years. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to know where the monies are going to be allocated because the people have a right to know where the money is going. Commissioner Carlson stated she is in full agreement with that.

Chair Higgs stated she also agrees totally and has no problem with that; as the Board goes through the budget hearings, it will be talking about all those things; and she wants to know where the revenue is going to come from and unless the Board takes some middle of the road position today, it is closing out all the avenues. She stated she is not ready to say the communications tax is going to pass or that the Board will be able to negotiate the Florida Power & Light Company franchise contract; it does not have those yet; and they are not in the control of the Board at this moment, so it puts the Board in a dilemma.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the things the Board is not looking at is how the public feels about what the Board is doing with their money; and that is why there has been such divisiveness on what people will pay for, and vote for, and how much they are willing to pay. He stated the Board has an opportunity now to use the numbers without creating a potential for having another way to pay for something by increasing the millage in lieu of perhaps passing a communications service tax; he does not think it is the right way to do it; and the millage as proposed should be pushed forward. He stated if the opportunity for a communications service tax and franchise fees present themselves, they should be addressed also; but he does not think the Board should hedge its bet on their money. He stated he is locked into the tentative millage as it has been presented.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Scarborough recalls receiving a memo dated July 26 from Dennis Rogero talking about if the Board got the revenues, which accrued to $6.085 million, what potential expenditures might be; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he got many things and conversations with the County Manager and Department heads and he has things he is going to be proposing to the Board in addition to that. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Scarborough understands the suggestions from staff in terms of applying those additional dollars; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he is elected by the people and not by staff. Commissioner Carlson stated she understands that, but that is one thing they all got. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to discuss this because it needs to be fully discussed and appreciated by the people. Commissioner Carlson stated she has a question for Mr. Knox; and inquired, in terms of Commissioners voting for a tentative millage and the tax scenario, can he describe their powers and requirements of the job to pass the millage and doing the process it is doing right now. Mr. Knox advised Florida Statutes set forth the requirements the Board is going through right now; it imposes the duty on the Board to pass a millage; it also says what happens if it cannot come to agreement on it; and he believes it requires the Board to reinstall last year’s budget until it does come to an agreement.

Chair Higgs stated last year’s budget at this point would be the existing millage; with Mr. Knox responding he would have to check, but believes it would be whatever the millage rate is that was approved by the Board for the current year. Chair Higgs inquired if that would go forward to be advertised as the tentative millage; with Mr. Knox responding that is what the Board would have in place until it comes to an agreement on the new budget; and it would just carry over. He stated it is an interim measure until the Board agrees to what it is going to do; and it does have a duty to pass some kind of a budget and millage. Chair Higgs stated the Board has to pass a budget by October, but right now it has to set a tentative millage. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board does not set a tentative millage, will it stay at the existing millage until the Board makes a decision; with Mr. Knox responding he will check on it, but the Board’s ultimate duty is to pass a final budget; and if it cannot get agreement on a final budget, then it carries over this year’s budget into next year until it has an agreement on a budget. Mr. Knox stated in terms of a tentative millage, he would check on that; he does not think there is any sanction for doing the tentative millage other than it will mess up the time frame. Mr. Jenkins stated it has to be advertised by a certain date; with Mr. Knox responding that is correct.

Commissioner Colon stated she wants to be perfectly clear for those who have not been watching in the last three and a half years, and she was very honest with the Board; the first and second years she came on the Board, they worked very hard the entire summer on the budgets; she thought that they were dealing as a team; and in September, the rug was pulled from under them and Jackie Colon had to be the deciding vote. She stated that was done in the first and second years; and those days are over. She stated she feels she does not inflate the budget during the year so no one should expect her to support it in the summer for things that have been put there throughout the year. She stated she wants it to be perfectly clear to the Board and does not want to have any Commissioner push her because she has served as a team player and was totally disgusted when it came down to the nitty gritty in September and whether they were going to cut out deputies, cut the Fire Department, and lay off so many County employees. She stated it was horrible and disgusting; and there is no way she is going to be a part of that. Commissioner Colon stated she makes it perfectly clear to the Board that it spends money throughout the year so it should not expect her support during budget time; she owes the citizens that explanation and not her fellow Commissioners because they were sitting here when she was saying that; and she was not speaking Spanish, she was speaking English when she said that time and time again. She stated if folks get upset over that, it is fine; but she is going to stick to what she had said; she is not supporting the budget; therefore, the Board should not look to her for support. She reiterated that she made herself perfectly clear. She stated she knows her responsibilities; it is about accountability; she has asked questions time and time again regarding where the dollars are going and about transportation issues and how there were previous Commissioners that had made certain decisions in regards to how the monies are being allocated; and those questions were never answered. She stated after doing that for three and a half years, she has learned her lesson; the first time it is shame on everybody who was part of putting the budget together; but the second time it is shame on her; after a while she learned how the game was being played; and she chooses not to be part of that.

Chair Higgs stated she will go half way with the millage. Commissioner Carlson responded she wants to hear what Mr. Knox has to say after he reads the Florida Statutes.

Mr. Knox advised it seems to say that the Board has to pass a tentative budget; and if it does not come to some kind of agreement on a tentative budget, it just continues to work on getting an agreement. He stated that is the step that triggers everything else; it can adopt last year’s budget as an alternative to doing that. Chair Higgs stated Mr. Knox is talking about budget but this is very different and is about millages. Mr. Knox stated the adoption of the tentative millage rate today is what triggers all the steps the Board has to follow to get to the final budget; to the extent it does not do that, it does not have an agreement on how it is going to do that, it cannot initiate those procedures; so to the extent it does not do that, it might want to decide that it wants to vote in last year’s budget until it gets some agreement where it wants to go with this year’s budget, which includes the tentative millage. He stated the tentative millage adoption triggers a series of public hearings and notices, etc. that the Board has to follow; but it does not say it has to do that today or tomorrow. Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated it is 35 days after receipt of the certified tax roll. Chair Higgs inquired when was it received; with Mr. Whitten responding either June 29 or July 1.

The meeting recessed at 12:10 p.m., and reconvened at 12:20 p.m.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what millage would Commissioner Colon consider to get her affirmative vote; with Commissioner Colon responding there are three Commissioners who have to figure it out and not include her in any of it. Commissioner Carlson stated she is asking Commissioner Colon because she has not answered the question for the Board; she knows she said things over and over again and reiterated herself besides; but if she is interested in just roll back and no 3%, that would be nice for the Board to know that affirmatively, if that is what she is looking for. She stated if Commissioner Colon is looking for some other thing, at least one Commissioner does not understand where she is coming from even though she has said it over and over again; and she thinks there is a lack of understanding at least on her part. Commissioner Colon stated she has been pretty clear; one thing she noticed in the last few years that it is irrelevant and almost like a little bit of manipulation to get her to this point. Commissioner Carlson stated she is trying to be very straightforward in asking Commissioner Colon the question of what she is looking for in the budget; and inquired if she is looking for no new taxes, which would be roll back, which is a lot less than what they are dealing with in today’s dollars, or is she looking for roll back plus something or what is she looking for. She stated that is all she is asking and is being very straightforward.

Commissioner Colon stated it is very simple; what she is asking is for the Board not to be spending money throughout the year; the budget looks really good for some; but the Board has to pay over $3 million for Medicaid because the State is not picking it up; it is able to pay that with this budget because property taxes have gone up; and citizens are paying for that increase. She stated because now there are more dollars, the Board needs to do with what it has; and when it gets to the budget, it is almost like she is tuning everything out for the simple fact that it just feels like it does not matter what she has to say because the Commissioners are going to do what they want no matter what. She stated when it comes to budget time, she is very uncomfortable because it is almost like, “oh well, we will let Jackie do the dirty work”; and that is how she felt the first and second years. She stated when it comes to this budget, the other Commissioners can play their games of who wants what; it is almost like if they did not get their way, they would not play, and that is fine; but she is not willing to be part of that anymore. She stated regardless of what number she gives it is going to be irrelevant because Commissioner Carlson has a way of what she wants to see accomplished; there is nothing wrong with that; Commissioner Pritchard does too; and so does Commissioner Higgs and Commissioner Scarborough; but things that are important to her are not necessarily important to the rest of the Commissioners; so it is almost like why bother asking her because it does not matter.

Commissioner Carlson stated it does matter; she prides her office for the research they do and thinks every one of the Commissioners have hopefully done the kind of research to support a position; and they will come back with the homework they have done and say those jobs are not necessary, those cuts definitely need to happen, a plan of attack, or a solution, and not just say no. She stated no does not mean anything to her bosses and she has a lot of them just as Commissioner Colon does; and she tries to back up what she says with real solutions.

Commissioner Colon stated if Commissioner Carlson wants to talk about solutions, why was she part of the kind of discussions that took place during the budget time, and why did she not speak up and say wait a minute why are we not making decisions in July instead of waiting until September when they felt they had a consensus of where they were going and in regards to how everyone had carried themselves. She stated it seems like everyone has an agenda, whether it is the environment, roads, or whatever; she did not come in here with an agenda; she came in here to be a team player; and she felt the Commissioners were not the kind of team that she expected because it was almost like well Jackie will be the third vote needed to pass the budget. She stated she has already proven herself; she has proven herself the first and second years; but she feels the Commissioners are not going to be using her again to accomplish whatever it is they want; and that is basically how she feels. Commissioner Carlson stated she did not have any idea that the rest of the Commissioners have ever used Commissioner Colon. Commissioner Colon stated not Commissioners Scarborough and Carlson, they were pretty consistent in the fact that they were going to support the budget; and they had it all the way until September; and now that is why these discussions are very good that they are happening now in regards to where everybody stands. She stated she has been pretty clear with the Commissioners; they do not look at her for support because they are not going to get it; when people come before the Board and ask for $100,000 or $200,000 she has said to the Board stop adding stuff to the budget; it does not have the dollars; and it makes staff go nuts during budget time trying to come up with the money. She stated they are elected officials and are supposed to say no when people come before them; they do not have the dollars; they have not been doing that; and then comes budget time and it never fails, it is almost like Jackie, what do you want now when it does not matter what Jackie Colon has wanted all year. She stated she has learned quickly that is the case; that is basically how she feels, so why bother asking her. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Colon is going to do the job by not doing the job; with Commissioner Colon responding she does her job very well. Commissioner Carlson stated she knows they can go round and round on this issue, but she is still looking for an answer to her question, which is what would Commissioner Colon support. She stated if Commissioner Colon has a solution next year, like Commissioner Pritchard who has been trying to put out solutions to make cuts wherever he wants them in terms of his agenda, it would be helpful to know those solutions. She stated they have all tried to lay out where they are comfortable and where they are not; and she would like to see where Commissioner Colon is comfortable and where she is not specifically and how the numbers add up so they can all work with her instead of her feeling like she is alienated from the group, which is what she has always been because she always alienated herself.

Commissioner Colon inquired which part does Commissioner Carlson not understand; and stated the citizens want the Board to stop spending money and it is not doing that. She inquired if that is how specific Commissioner Carlson wants her to be. Commissioner Carlson stated if Commissioner Colon stands with the rest of the Commissioners, she has to tell them how she thinks it should change. Commissioner Colon stated she has told them not to vote on something; and if Commissioner Carlson looks at the voting record, it is four to one on many items. Commissioner Carlson stated Commissioner Colon is quiet and does not support her commentary; with Commissioner Colon inquiring what difference does it make. Commissioner Carlson stated Commissioner Colon’s bosses are looking at her and asking why is she not giving a straight answer. She stated she is looking for a straight answer. Commissioner Colon stated the truth of the matter is that they definitely like the way she has been very honest with the Commissioners from the very beginning. Commissioner Carlson stated she is the only one who is trying to come out and be honest with Commissioner Colon so they know where everybody stands.

Commissioner Colon stated the problem is when she came in, there were Commissioners, if they did not get their way, if their particular department, whether it was Natural Resources or some other, was not getting all the dollars they wanted, then they were not going to support the budget; she did not come here with any agenda or specific department; but she saw that and it was almost like she did not have to be part of that. She stated she does not want to be a part of that, so the Commissioners are on their own with those kinds of decisions; and for anyone to say what exactly does Jackie want, that is funny because the only time they want to know what Jackie Colon wants is during budget time. She stated throughout the year they can care less what she thinks; that is how she feels, whether it is right or wrong or indifferent; and her bosses know that and are happy with the fact that she stands on her principles, and does not flip-flop. She stated the Commissioners will know where she stands from the very beginning, so she has been very fair; and she did not string them along and say she is supporting the budget in July and August then have the rug pulled from under them in September. She stated she has not done that and do not plan to do that.

Commissioner Carlson asked the Chair if the Board could go to another subject so it can at least accomplish something; with Chair Higgs responding the Board ought to come to some agreement; and inquired if Commissioner Scarborough said he would not change from the proposed millage.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is struggling with the whole issue; conceivably one of the two options may not materialize; but the Board only needs for one of them to materialize for there to be the funds to have an extensive discussion. He advised Commissioner Colon that he does have an agenda; there is going to be an enormous hit on certain employees for health care, not just on the front end or the back end; and he plans to bring that before the Board. He stated there are other issues that he would like to bring forward and lead with a discussion of where monies are spent rather than where they will get the monies from; and every time the Board does the money first and then the expenditures, it loses the public opinion, because it is almost like get the money then figure out how to spend it. He stated if the Board had taken the time to describe for the people the needs and problems, the referendum would have been received differently; he learned a painful lesson in November of last year; and if the Board is to have credibility, it needs to take the time to define the needs and problems. He stated having a list from staff is not enough for the people to feel they are fully engaged in the process; Heidi has an interesting project in Melbourne, but he does not know the interest of the Board in moving in that direction; there are many things the Board needs to speak to and work on; and if it were prudent, it would take Commissioner Pritchard’s motion, pass it, and have an extensive workshop on “what ifs” and multiple facets of where monies could be spent because it is going to have a very difficult conversation even passing a 3% increase come the final hearing if it does not have justification. Commissioner Scarborough stated people want to know where the money is going to go; that has not taken place; the Board has Chair Higgs’ side, and that is a million dollars plus; and inquired if the Board gets another $6 million, where would the other $5 million go. Chair Higgs stated she is not sure that they would not roll back; she is not sure if the Board would say 1%; and she does not know if it would even want to levy it if it has enough money. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to think all of those things and put more in reserves; there are a number of different elements; but if the Board is driven by agendas, he does not apologize for having an agenda because he would like to believe that he has a passion for certain things as do other Commissioners. He stated they would not go through this process if they did not feel passionately about certain projects and certain things; there is nothing wrong with that and they do not need to apologize for it; but by the same token, they do not need to come in with a short timeframe and take an abbreviated list because it would be walking the wrong path again.

Chair Higgs stated she will support the proposed rate at this time, but will not support it at the final hearing if the jail is not adequately covered. She stated she will support the proposal because the Board has to get off square one, so she will compromise this time. Commissioner Carlson stated she understands and does not have a problem doing the same thing; but she is disappointed that the Board tends to be more shortsighted than she would like it to be. Chair Higgs stated going forward with a little more in the tentative rate does not mean she would support it, but it gives the Board the flexibility; and that is why she wanted to do it. She requested a motion from the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt the tentative FY 2004-05 ad valorem millages as proposed for the purpose of notification to taxpayers by the Property Appraiser; instruct staff to complete the Florida Department of Revenue Certifications of Taxable Value Form DR-420; and direct staff to deliver the millages to the Property Appraiser. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Colon voted nay.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING INGRESS/EGRESS AND PIPELINE
EASEMENT IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 21S., RANGE 34E. - CREECH ENGINEERS

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating an ingress/egress and pipeline easement in Section 1, Township 21S., Range 34E., as petitioned by Creech Engineers, Inc.

Cynthia Streeter requested the public hearing be continued until August 24, 2004.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating an ingress/egress and pipeline easement in Section 1, Township 21S., Range 34E., as petitioned by Creech Engineers, Inc. until August 24, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS IN
FAWN LAKE PUD, PHASE TWO, UNIT 3 - DARLENE TINDALL

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility easements in Fawn Lake PUD, Phase Two, Unit 3, as petitioned by Darlene Tindall.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easements in Fawn Lake PUD, Phase Two, Unit 3, as petitioned by Darlene Tindall. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-159.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PORTION OF ROOSEVELT AVENUE
IN KELLY PARK SUBDIVISION - RADOVAN CVETKOVIC AND ZVONIMIR MATKOVIC

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a portion of Roosevelt Avenue in Kelly Park Subdivision, as petitioned by Radovan Cvetkovic and Zvonimir Matkovic.

Radovan Cvetkovic of Cocoa Beach advised he intends to build a small business, Cyberspace, and therefore requested vacating of the right-of-way; there were objections from surrounding property owners; objection #1 says, “eliminates further large obstructions. . .Access from the back of our property to Sea Ray Drive will not be available by way of the north end of Roosevelt and London Boulevard.” He stated objection #2 states, “drainage of surrounding properties will be affected since the property drains to this area and out of Sea Ray Drive” contradicts objection #1; and objection #3 says, “creates a dead end street with no cul-de-sac.”, which does not make sense. Mr. Cvetkovic stated another part says a study is currently going on in the SR 528 area; that is irrelevant because his property is far away from SR 528; and there is a big chunk of land in between and Sea Ray Drive, which is probably not going to be affected by any development on SR 528. He stated the part of Roosevelt Avenue they are trying to vacate is actually a swamp and bushes and is not in service; the County does not intend to approve it; therefore, they were encouraged to ask for the vacating. He stated the property owners of surrounding businesses are not using it at all; and they have access from North Banana River Drive that is sufficient for any traffic. He stated on several occasions he tried to contact those property owners and finally managed to meet with Keith Notary; and when they spoke, his major objection is nothing through the area because it would increase their taxes, which again does not make sense. He stated building his business will definitely increase the value of property in the area; and they will employ at least ten people.

Keith Notary of Merritt Island advised he owns the building adjacent to Mr. Matkovic’s property and has been working with zero mission composite carbon epoxy parts for the last 14 years at that location; in 1996, he purchased his present location adjacent to the old location of a single bay work unit; and it has allowed his business to grow, not only in the number of parts and personnel, but in the part sizes as well. He stated the parts he personally negotiated to start assembling next year will require 18-wheel trucks to transport them to their point of sale; those will be carbon tub structures used in a variety of industries; and at present, one lane of Banana River Drive is blocked during loading of large trucks. He stated there is a carpet installer that takes in deliveries; that is where they do their loading and off loading; there is rarely a problem with the current traffic flow to the industrial zone north of his property on Banana River Drive; but as traffic flows increase, the logical alternative would be to load the trucks on his driveway and exit out the back utilizing the wider easements of Roosevelt Avenue and Sea Ray Drive rather than the five-foot narrow intersection of Roosevelt Avenue and Dover onto Banana River Drive. Mr. Notary stated he also objects to a dead end road ending at his property thus making his driveway a continuation of Roosevelt Avenue by default and become an alternative route out of the industrial zone on the north side of his property; and leaving Roosevelt Avenue as is gives the industrial zone a flexible harbinger into the future. He stated Mr. Cvetkovic’s statement about when they met about his objection to increased taxes was just lightly touched upon; and they spoke about other reasons, besides what he presented, as to why he objects to the road being vacated.

Charles Chandler of Merritt Island advised he owns about 18 lots on the other side of Dover and two other lots; one is on Roosevelt Avenue; the lot in front of him is leased and belongs to the Port Authority, which he can use to get out on Dover; but if he did not lease it, he would be locked in on Lot 20. He stated the diagram has it as Lot 16 being his property, but it is Lot 20; the petitioners’ property is zoned GU; and inquired if they can build the kind of Cyberspace place with that zoning. Chair Higgs advised the Board is not here on a zoning issue and it would not be appropriate to comment on that. Mr. Chandler stated on the paper he got it says GU. He stated he would be locked in on the lot that he owned for 30 years and is being used right now because he leases the property in front of it on the street from the Port Authority. He stated if he did not lease it, then he could never get out of there.

Commissioner Pritchard advised the area is on the north end of Banana River Drive; some of the buildings have been there for a long time; and as it was pointed out by the folks who have been there for a while, it is active and is in a bit of transition. He stated there will be other commercial activities that will be part of the complex; quite a bit of it right now is vacant land; and it would be wrong to vacate part of Roosevelt Avenue, so the petition should be denied.

There being no further comments heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny the petition to vacate a portion of Roosevelt Avenue in Kelly Park Subdivision, as petitioned by Radovan Cvetkovic and Zvonimir Matkovic. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHT–OF-WAY IN NEW
MELBOURNE BEACH - STEPHEN AND DEBORAH SEILER

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a right-of-way in New Melbourne Beach, as petitioned by Stephen N. and Deborah B. Seiler.

Commissioner Scarborough advised it is in District 3; and inquired if Chair Higgs has any objections; with Chair Higgs responding she has no objection, but there is one objection from an abutting property owner.

Deborah Seiler advised there was a letter from Mr. Hathaway saying he was concerned about the future traffic patterns and requirements in their fast growing area; those concerns have already been reviewed by Department of Transportation, whose prime directive is to consider future traffic patterns; and it granted its consent as an adjacent property owner because the property is adjacent to SR A1A. She stated those concerns were addressed by the developers of New Melbourne Beach and Crystal Lakes; 80 years ago, when New Melbourne Beach was platted in 1923, SR A1A was a dirt road; the developers could never have imagined the volume and speed of traffic that the road would some day bear; and 30 years later, in 1956, when Crystal Lakes was platted, there had already been considerable growth in the area, so the two developers jointly concerned about the potential hazard of the north end of Malabar Boulevard turning into an off ramp for SR A1A traffic decided to convert Lot 22, which is adjacent to SR A1A from residential to a dedicated right-of-way, which is now Spoonbill Lane. She stated that is now the main north entrance to Crystal Lakes. Ms. Seiler advised 40 years later a turning lane was added to further slow down the traffic turning into Crystal Lakes; the main objective was to not have cars coming 55 mph veering off into the neighborhood; and in 1956, they never saw any reason to replat an already 30-year old subdivision to clarify the change, but they did not do title searches, buy title insurance, do surveys before building, or many other procedures considered standard today. She stated today she is asking the Board to formalize what was intended by the community founders so many years ago.

Chair Higgs stated sometimes it is not good to give away right-of-way; and inquired if it would be divided among the property owners that abut it. Ms. Seiler stated she believes it will revert back to the Subdivision. Chair Higgs stated she sees no reason why the County would open up Malabar in that area; and inquired if there are any reasons traffic-wise, that it would do that; with Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff responding he does not see anything that would cause the County to open it. Chair Higgs stated it would cause another conflict point within 100 yards; with Mr. Denninghoff responding it would introduce a number of unsafe operational issues on SR A1A. Chair Higgs stated she supports the vacating.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution vacating a right-of-way in New Melbourne Beach, as petitioned by Stephen N. and Deborah B. Seiler. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-160.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PORTION OF PUBLIC UTILITY
EASEMENT IN RIVERS EDGE SUBDIVISION - RODD AND MALINDA NEWCOMBE

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacation a portion of a public utility easement in Rivers Edge Subdivision, as petitioned by Rodd A. and Malinda M. Newcombe.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution vacating a portion of a public utility easement in Rivers Edge Subdivision, as petitioned by Rodd A. and Malinda M. Newcombe. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-161.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE VI, DIVISION 2,
CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 2, Article VI, Division 2, Code Enforcement Procedures.

Dr. Marcie Kinney of Valkaria requested the Board consider Options C and G in terms of changes to the anonymous complaints in Section 2-173 of the Code Enforcement Code. She stated within less than a year, her home has been the subject of numerous Code Enforcement complaints; and many of them were frivolous, but some were valid. She stated clearing trees on her property is frivolous; a trailer parked on the road is valid and they corrected that; commercial vehicles stored on her property was frivolous; dumping landclearing debris was valid but frivolous because it was stumps she saved for her garden; digging trenches in County right-of-way without a permit was frivolous; digging and placing objects in County right-of-way was valid because she placed some native wildflowers on the road side; and improper parking and storage of recreational vehicles was valid but frivolous. She stated the point is not so much that numerous complaints were filed against her household, but rather that the vast majority of the complaints were frivolous; and once the complainant was told the particular complaint was not valid, he consistently re-complained requiring numerous complete investigations. She stated while he initially began his complaints anonymously, he has since become more forthright and identified himself as the complainer; and with that said, it is important that the Board consider adopting Option C because Section 2-173(e) only refers to anonymous complaints and does not address named complaints. She stated without Option C, once an anonymous complainer is limited, he will then file only named complaints; and Option G is necessary because the County Manager needs a mechanism to curtail frivolous complaints and frivolous named complaints as well. Dr. Kinney stated while it is true the County Manager can restrict all complaints using Option C, after two frivolous complaints, what if there was actually a problem that needed to be investigated; for that reason the Board should always allow name complaints and have them sign and identify themselves; and fining frivolous ones would avoid the problem. She stated she gave the Board a copy of the complaints in May; there were 32 items on the list; they had two complaints, which were the false 911 calls; and she offers it as an analogy to the fines that she hopes the Board will institute from Option G. She stated they were roasting marshmallows in their backyard on two different occasions; and on the first occasion, the Malabar Fire Department responded and had a valid issue they needed to deal with; but the second time they falsely called 911; and she verified with the Fire Marshal’s Office that they did falsely call 911. She stated the second time they called, the Brevard County Fire Department came out; and after she asked the Sheriff to go and speak with them and explain it is a crime to have false 911 calls punishable by whatever means she gave the Board in the first memos, the false 911 calls stopped. She stated for those reasons she thinks the Board needs to institute something on the County level; it is a deterrent; and as a professional economist, she thinks it is very important to institute something because deterrents work. She stated tremendous costs are being placed on County Government because of consistent and persistent frivolous charges; the Board must place limits on them; there were about 6,000 anonymous Code Enforcement complaints filed over a period of time; and of those, there were a few people who really placed a burden on the system. She noted her neighbors are an example of that; they imposed 22 times the amount of time cost that the normal person would; and although fines would not go toward those costs, the deterrent effect will reduce the complaints.

Curt Lorenc of Valkaria stated before the Board is a complete rewrite of the Code Enforcement Ordinance; basically it is a violation of State law; the ordinance says it is pursuant to State Statute 162; and AGO’s 95-09, 84-55, 2000-177, and many others make the point over and over again that there is no delegated authority from the State to the counties and cities to alter, add to, or modify in any way the Florida Statutes, so the Board cannot put any additional requirements in the ordinance that are not in the Florida Statutes. He stated there are a couple of Commissioners in favor of proactive enforcement; the way he reads the State Code Enforcement Statute, it is proactive; and that is the way the Board needs to enforce it. Mr. Lorenc stated also before the Board is consideration of going to a maximum fine of $5,000 a day and $15,000 for irreparable issues; those fines are ridiculous; the average person could not afford them; and he does not think Code Enforcement is supposed to be a revenue stream for government. He stated it was set up specifically to enforce the Codes and not become a revenue stream; and there is another issue contained in the ordinance that is regarding the constitutionality of putting liens on homesteaded properties. He stated Brevard County does not check the public records to see if a home or property is homesteaded prior to putting a lien on it; the Board cannot put a lien on homesteaded property; it is specifically spelled out in the Florida Constitution Article X, Section 4; and there is quite a bit of case law on it. He stated what he learned recently is people can sue Brevard County for punitive damages and recover attorneys’ fees if liens are put on their homesteaded properties; and inquired if Brevard County would consider correcting the problem and removing those liens on people’s homesteads. He stated the ordinance violates State Statute 162 in many areas; and requested the Board give direction to staff to bring it back and put the exact words of Chapter 162 into the ordinance.

Janis Walters of Valkaria presented handouts to the Board, but not the Clerk; and stated she sees no substantial difference between the proposed ordinance amendment today and the one the Board sent back two weeks ago; and it is truly bizarre that County legal staff has presented the Board with a Code Enforcement code that is apparently in violation of Florida law. She stated case law and several opinions by the Attorney General’s Office make it very clear that governmental entities considering Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes for enforcing its codes must adopt it in its entirety or not at all; and municipal governments may not amend it either by addition or deletion. She stated that was made clear in AGO 84-55 that states, “No provision of Chapter 162 delegates any power to the local governments or the governing bodies to enact any legislation to anywise alter, add to, modify, or deviate from the terms of Chapter 162.” Ms. Walters stated that statement is repeated in AGO 2001-77, which states, “A municipality is authorized to utilize a different method of enforcing its codes; however, if it utilizes the provisions of Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, as the means of enforcing its Codes, it does not have the authority to alter the statutorily prescribed enforcement procedures set forth therein.” She stated that is still relevant today; there has been no change in Chapter 162 that would allow Brevard County or any other government entity to pick and choose the elements of Chapter 162 that it wants to use and include additional provisions or make modifications to the language. She stated in addition to the concerns she spoke about and submitted to the Board in writing two weeks ago, she has three more to point out; the first is with regard to anonymous complaints; the current Code Enforcement system is reactive; it responds to complaints and is not proactive; the Code Enforcement officers do not look for violations and try to correct them; and what happens when they start punishing the complainants, everything will grind to a halt. She inquired how would the Board evaluate what is valid or invalid; and how is an ordinary citizen to know how to interpret the Code without assistance from County staff. Ms. Walters stated Senate Bill 192 authorizes the change from special master to special magistrate, but that bill does not become effective until October 1, 2004; the last page of the ordinance says, “This ordinance shall become effective as provided by law. A certified copy of the ordinance shall be filed with the Secretary of State within ten days of enactment”; so the change in language from special master to special magistrate should be done after the effective date of the Senate Bill. She stated Section 2-174(c)(4) indicates that a Code Enforcement lien may be assigned to a third party where it states, “Any time before commencement of a foreclosure action or assignment of the lien to a third party, a respondent may request the Board of County Commissioners to reduce the amount of the lien.” She stated Florida Statutes Section 162.093 states, “A lien arising from a fine imposed pursuant to this section runs in favor of the local governing body; and the local governing body may execute a satisfaction or release of lien entered pursuant to this section. After three months from the filing of any such lien, which remains unpaid, the enforcement board may authorize the local governing board to foreclose on the lien or to sue to recover a money judgment.” She stated that is all the Board is authorized to do; there is nothing in Chapter 162 about assigning the lien to a third party; and that is clearly laid out in AGO 2001-09, which states, “This statutory scheme does not contemplate the enforcement of liens or issuance of satisfaction or release of code enforcement board liens by private third parties outside the control of a local governing body.” Ms. Walters stated with respect to choosing the higher maximum fines authorized under Chapter 162, the Board would need a super majority to pass the higher fines.

Chair Higgs’ absence was noted at 1:04 p.m., and Vice Chair Pritchard chaired the remainder of the meeting.

Thelma Roper of Titusville stated she strongly disagrees with the increase in the penalties and thinks it will do more damage than help; the Board is going to run into issues and areas where it would want to try and assist rather than penalize; and it is going to really penalize those areas. She stated from sitting and listening to this issue and from firsthand knowledge of some other issues that have gone on in other areas of the County, she feels that some of it is a reaction to feuding neighbors; one or the other keeps calling Code Enforcement over and over again for whatever reason; and it is not just Code Enforcement but they do it to the Sheriff’s Department also with anonymous complaints on issues. She stated if the Board increases stuff every time there are two feuding neighbors in the County, it would be in trouble; the rest of the County will be in dire trouble; that is part of what is going on here because they have so many feuding neighbors; they figure the best way to get around it is to call Code Enforcement; and they are going out there on those calls so it is running the cost up. Ms. Roper stated because of feuding neighbors, something else needs to be worked out; and it needs to be pointed out to them that it needs to be worked out and that is not the proper venue to do it. She stated she does not like the changing of special master to magistrate; in the law dictionary and Webster’s dictionary, magistrate is for criminal offenses; Code Enforcement violation is a civil offense not a criminal offense; therefore, it should not have been changed from special master. She stated she understands it is a legislative issue, but the Board is jumping the gun a little bit; and it needs to hold off on that and give the people a chance to find out and go to their legislatures to see if they can reduce it so that it is not a criminal offense. She stated she is getting sick and tired with everybody legislatively changing everything there is, from a civil infraction to a criminal infraction; and she would advise the Board not to pass the ordinance today as it sits, do nothing with it, and turn it down all the way around.

Walter Pine of Titusville stated he talked to a lot of people about the ordinance, and thinks people are missing the point; the public with one voice said no more taxes; they were saying no more dollars; and one of the justifications for increasing the fines is that the Board wants to find a way around people. He stated the funding streams are supposed to be in the control of the Board not in the control of the executive staff; by creating these excessive fines, the Board is putting the funding streams in the staff’s control; and that is wrong because it is supposed to be in the hands of the Board. He stated the front page does not mention most of the changes that the Board is making; and inquired why is it hiding them, why are they not on the front page, and why did the Board not notify the public that the changes are in fact there. He stated the system already provides for protection against those problems; the County can file injunctions, restraining orders, and all kinds of things; and so can individual citizens. Mr. Pine stated the interesting thing about this is, rather than fining people or taking away their rights to make a complaint, if the Board files an injunction against somebody for filing false complaints, and they file another complaint, their defense is very simple; they told the truth and they were correct; there is no problem; and everybody’s rights are protected. He inquired if the Board takes action such that it would substantially hamper individuals’ rights, why is it doing that when there is already a system in place for it, which is a private right of action; and stated there is no need for it. He stated there is a significant question in the increase of the fines of up to $1,000 for the first offense, up to $5,000 for a subsequent or repetitive offense, and $15,000 for an irreparable offense; it does not say whether the first offense was done by the current landowner; it could have happened ten years ago; and now it is the second offense on that property. He stated there is no definition. Mr. Pine stated he went to the County and asked them to show him where the law requires that they change special master to special magistrate; it was a simple public records request; to date nobody has shown him that; and it seems to him rather than coming here and saying it, it should be in the files somewhere. He stated today he went through Peggy Busacca’s file and it was not in there; last week he asked Terri Jones for it and it was not in there; she told him to look on the Internet when he asked for it; and he asked for a written response saying she did not have it, and she refused to give him a written response. He stated when the Board makes a decision it should be fully informed; it should be able to read the law; it should be part of the situation; the public should be able to see what they are saying is directing the action; but it is not available. He stated there is a lot of discussion that needs to take place; there are some improvements that need to take place; they have no doubt about that; and he opposes anonymous complaints. He stated the potential abuse of anonymous complaints, especially when it goes into creating a revenue stream, is unbelievable; it should not be tolerated because if he wanted to hire three more people next year all he had to do is find more anonymous complaints this year; so there is a potential abuse that should not be tolerated. He stated he would strongly recommend that all complaints have to have a name attached; he does not think they have to be signed or notarized, but each complaint should identify the complainant; it is not that difficult to ask for it; if somebody will not put their name to it, then the County should not send a Code Enforcement officer out on it. He stated if they file numerous false complaints, then either the property owner has a right to file a civil action against them or the County can file an injunction. He stated should they file a complaint correctly and within the limits of the law, that action preserves their rights; it does not inhibit them; it does not cause a problem; and it does not put it in the administrative hands of the County. He stated there are well-defined issues of law; and inquired why is the County rewriting the ordinance; he has a problem with that; the very people who are involved in rewriting the ordinance are the people who actually prosecute before Code Enforcement Board; and that means essentially the prosecutor gets to write the rules. He stated that taints the process; whether it is done in good faith or not, it taints the process; all the issues should be discussed at public meetings and public comments should be made thoroughly on all of them; and requested the Board turn down the ordinance and return it for public comment.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board tabled the public hearing on the ordinance the last time so legal issues could be reviewed; it got pretty complex, particularly with Ms. Walters’ questions; and rather than going down the list and asking questions here to define everything, one fundamental question needs to be answered and that is why are they doing it. He stated there are issues on anonymous repetitive complaints and not how they are handled; he is willing to address that today; one of the legal issues relates to the magistrate language that does not take place until October; and inquired if the County enacts the ordinance now, is there an inconsistency in the way it words the ordinance and the Florida Statutes. He inquired if Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones would feel more comfortable having another week to respond in writing to Ms. Walters’ questions.

Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones stated the special magistrate definition takes into account what the special master is; the term special magistrate includes the term special master; and that is part of the change to the Code.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Ms. Walters said the effective date of the legislation is October and the ordinance would take effect before then; therefore, the Florida Statutes would be reading one way and the ordinance would read another way; and inquired if that creates a dilemma; with Ms. Jones responding no, it is just a label and they could include the other label in the ordinance.

Vice Chair Pritchard inquired if the ordinance is in violation of State law; with Ms. Jones responding no, it is not, it gives the Board options; the State law gives the Board a skeleton; and the Board can flush it out like the proactive issue. She stated it does not have to be proactive; the Board decides what enforcement is going to be; and if it is going to be reactive because of budgetary concerns, it is allowed to do that. Vice Chair Pritchard inquired if it puts a lien on homesteaded property; with Ms. Jones responding they do not put liens on homesteaded property; a sample lien was provided for the Board; the lien clearly states that it is only effective as long as the property is not homesteaded; and that is brought up by case law. She stated they can record it; it does not cloud title of any property; and it is unenforceable against the homestead. Vice Chair Pritchard inquired how are the fines collected; with Ms. Jones responding they have a collection agency that tries to collect the fines; they do put liens on property; the property can be personal property and nonexempt property; and the liens are enforceable for 20 years. Vice Chair Pritchard inquired if someone sells the property, can the County collect the fine at that point; with Ms. Jones responding if it is non-homestead property, the title company will forward that to the County. Vice Chair Pritchard inquired if it is non-homesteaded property, as soon as the property is sold, would the County then be able to collect the fine; with Ms. Jones responding most title companies will not write a title policy if there is an outstanding lien on it unless they follow the DeMira v. Volusia County case, where the property owners have to file a declaratory judgment proving it is their homestead. Vice Chair Pritchard stated it was also brought out that the average person could not afford the fine of $1,000 a day for example; and inquired who would be charged $1,000 a day or even $500 a day; with Ms. Jones responding the increased fines are for enhanced threats to health and safety; what was in the legislative intent was mostly Fire Code violations; for instance, a nursing home had multiple Fire Code violations and $250 a day was not enough to spur them to quickly react; and the increased fine will work the slum lords and those kind of enhanced threats. She stated the special magistrate has to find an enhanced threat to health and safety to impose the fine, such as an open swimming pool that would threaten the lives of children and people of Brevard County; but the majority of the fines will stay at the minimum. She stated the maximum fine today is $250; and most of the fines are $25 a day because they are not enhanced threats. Vice Chair Pritchard requested examples of the types of violations that would generate $25 a day fines; with Code Enforcement Manager Bobby Bowen responding maintenance of property, junk vehicles, and failure to mow lawns. Mr. Bowen stated the special magistrate would typically issue a fine of $25 a day, but that is only after he has issued a date to bring the property into compliance before that fine would start. He stated the Code Enforcement officer gives a reasonable period of time to come into compliance; and if they do not, then it goes to hearing; and the hearing officer and special magistrate would give another date; and it is after that date the fine would kick in. He stated if they bring the property into compliance, there is no fine; and if they bring the property into compliance under the officer’s direction, there is no fine and no hearing.

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

Commissioner Carlson stated she does not know where Commissioner Scarborough went, but he had some concerns; and she does not have any problem with Option C, which is to clarify language to limit unfounded complaints. She stated she does not think Option G is something that is going to be enforceable; but she can support Option C and will make a motion on that or wait for Commissioner Scarborough to return. Vice Chair Pritchard requested waiting until Commissioner Scarborough returns, but he appreciates knowing where Commissioner Carlson is on the issue. He inquired how difficult would it be to enforce Option G; with Mr. Bowen responding it would be most difficult; it is not unusual for Code Enforcement to receive complaints from citizens who foresee that there might be Code violation, and not that the call is frivolous or unsubstantiated. Mr. Bowen stated people do not know the Code in its entirety when they see something; staff goes out and investigates based on their complaint; and it is for staff to determine whether or not there is a violation of the Codes, unfounded, unsubstantiated, and whatever. He stated it goes with the territory; they know they are going to get complaints when they go out and it is unfounded or unsubstantiated; but that is the nature of the beast.

Vice Chair Pritchard stated Mr. Pine commented on anonymous complaints becoming a revenue stream, but he has not seen that happen; and what he has seen is that someone will get cited for something, generally by an anonymous complaint, and they decide to make their life’s work of turning in different complaints whether or not they are founded or unfounded. He stated it happens frequently that someone rides around the neighborhood for the next few months and points out everything they can because they are going to make Code Enforcement give them something to do; he is not sure that anonymous complaints serve the benefit that the Board alleges they do by giving someone an ability to file a complaint but not have any retaliation from the neighborhood. He stated he can understand the concern the person would have for his or her own welfare, but it seems as if it is an abused privilege that the Board has allowed and maybe it should consider dropping anonymous complaints. Mr. Bowen stated he does not see it like that; they have on occasion someone who will tell them he is going to keep them busy for the next year and phone in complaints; but it has been his experience that those are few and far between. He stated he ran the numbers twice, and 94 to 96% of the cases they are involved in have no hearing and no fines; that leaves 4 to 6% that they have to take to hearings; and they may come into compliance prior to the hearings. He stated they deal with a very small number of people who do not bring their properties into compliance. Mr. Bowen stated Orange and Volusia Counties are operating under the fines being proposed to the Board today; those fines could have been changed in 1999, but were not; and they need to bring fines to the place where the special magistrate has the latitude, based upon the merits of the case, to determine whether or not it is a health and safety issue. He stated it is not giving the staff any revenue; and the special magistrate makes that determination based on the facts of each case that comes before him. Vice Chair Pritchard stated if someone with a vendetta of retaliation against a neighbor travel throughout the County and calls in complaints, the increase in violation reports could increase the workload and Mr. Bowen would be looking to increase staffing; and some of that could be based on just someone who is angry at whatever happened to him or her. Mr. Bowen stated looking at the history of the Department over the last five years, the number of cases have been fairly consistent; and in 1997 they had six officers and today have 8 officers, so they have increased staffing by two officers in six years, which is not bad.

Commissioner Colon stated the Board should protect anonymous callers; Code Enforcement knows who they are and their credibility; in all the years she has worked as a public servant, she found that being able to be anonymous is crucial because there were times when there were drug activities going on and they were dealing with dangerous folks who could care less about how their homes and properties looked; and if the person did not put in a complaint, it could have led to something even worse. She stated those folks who do not care about what their homes look like are usually those would could care less about the law and do not want to follow it; and it usually is not a big percentage. Commissioner Colon stated she has found in her office when those calls come in they call Code Enforcement, and Code Enforcement goes out and talks to them to fix the problem, and it has happened; they have dealt with those types of issues and the citizens were amicable and fixed the problems; but the Board needs to be careful because it may be opening Pandora’s box by not allowing anonymous calls because they do not have the manpower to cover every area. She stated she does not see anything wrong with citizens going around neighborhoods and spotting boats and cars and things like that parked illegally because staff does not have time to do that and they are not proactive. She stated the Board needs to be careful because she had quite a number of situations where she was glad her office was able to call Code Enforcement and ask them to go out there and look at the problem and handle it without it becoming a dispute; it is horrible to have neighborhood disputes; and she is sure every Commissioner has experienced that and had to go in and be peacemakers.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board needs to set some limits; she does not believe it needs to get rid of the anonymous calls, but she does not think one citizen should be able to use the existing Codes to the level where they become harassment of another citizen. She stated they all have rights to have Code Enforcement do its job; when an issue is out there, it needs to be fixed; but it needs to be fair; and the way the ordinance reads now, there is not enough limitation on it. She stated Option C sets some limits and provides everyone with a little more peace of mind. Ms. Jones advised in talking with Chair Higgs after the Agenda Report went out, she suggested Option C include “no violations have been identified within a one-year period,” if the Board chooses to add a time period between frivolous anonymous complaints. Mr. Bowen stated when they get unfounded anonymous complaints, in this case it would be two if Option C is passed by the Board, they will flag the address; and they actually do that now.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is happy with Option C limiting to two anonymous complaints in one year; and inquired if that is what Commissioners Carlson and Colon are thinking.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, amending Chapter 2, Article VI, Division 2 of the Code of Ordinances, concerning Code Enforcement Procedures, specifically amending Section 2-166, Short Title; Section 2-167, Definitions; Section 2-168, Authority and Intent; Section 2-169, Special Magistrate; Establishment; Qualifications; Section 2-170, Powers; Section 2-171, Legal Counsel; Section 2-172, Jurisdiction; Section 2-173, Enforcement Procedures; Section 2-174, Conduct of the Hearing; Section 2-175, Enforcement Costs; Section 2-176, Administrative Fines; Cost of Repairs; Liens; Section 2-177, Duration of Lien; Section 2-178, Appeals; Section 2-179, Notices, and Section 2-180, Provisions Deemed Supplemental; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing for inclusion in the Code; and providing for an effective date, as amended, to include limiting two anonymous complaints in one year. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Ordinance No. 04-28.)

APPROVAL, RE: REVISED TOURISM DEVELOPMENT OFFICE AND TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES MANUALS

Tourism Development Director Rob Varley advised the Operating Procedures Manuals were brought to the Board before; Chair Higgs wanted to revisit it, so it was taken back and worked with her; and the Tourist Development Council (TDC) asked to look at it one more time before it was brought back to the Board. He stated the TDC has looked at the Manuals and unanimously voted to approve them as written; and they divide the Tourist Development Office, which is staff, from the Tourist Development Council, which is the advisory council for the tourism industry. He stated they addressed changes regarding audits, travel justification, return on investment, etc.; those were placed in the document; and they continue to have the TDC as the advisory council to make recommendations on contracts and TDO’s travel schedule for the year.

Commissioner Carlson stated one change she was concerned about is when groups come for TDC dollars, there is a requirement that they spend money outside the County for advertising; and a lot of the groups are small and do not have a lot of money to spend outside the County much less in the County to do the kinds of things they need to do to bring people into their facilities. She inquired if accommodations have been made for those groups, if the TDC would allow them to use the dollars they get through the grant process to leverage advertising dollars that TDO has in its budget, and how would that be incorporated into the process. Mr. Varley advised so much of their advertising dollars are cooperative advertising; they do a tremendous amount of advertising in the Orlando market; and when they do an ad in the Orlando Sentinel, they have a section where they can promote events at no cost to the organizations. He stated another thing they are trying to do with the smaller organizations is help them in designing a product or working towards developing a brochure and distribution using their advertising agency. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is after they get the grant dollars; with Mr. Varley responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired if they can prove that they are going to put dollars outside the County, is that when TDO says it can help them do that; with Mr. Varley responding yes. Mr. Varley stated a lot of the small organizations have to produce a flyer to tell people about their events somehow; and even though they distribute a lot of those flyers within the County, if they distribute to tourist-oriented locations and give it to the TDO to distribute outside the County, that would qualify.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the revised Tourism Development Office Operating Procedures Manual and the Tourist Development Council Operating Procedures Manual. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Manuals.)

RESOLUTION AND LETTER, RE: INITIATING CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS
WITH CITY OF TITUSVILLE ON REZONING ANNEXED PARCELS

City of Titusville Attorney Dwight Severs advised pursuant to the direction of the City Council on June 22, 2004, he appears before the Board concerning the issue of rezoning annexed parcels, which will also cover the special appearance that is the last item on the Board’s agenda, as they are one and the same. He stated on May 25, 2004, the Board authorized filing of litigation against the City; and inquired why is the County suing the City when the City tried to work with the residents of the City and County in adjoining areas to work out all the disputes that existed and hired an outside facilitator and naively thought it worked everything out. He stated the City took the County staff's suggestions and adopted an open space RE Zoning Ordinance that required setting aside 50% of the land as open space on the Holloway property in the Carpenter Road area. He stated the first Exhibit of the document before the Board is the original authorization; the second Exhibit is County staff’s analysis on the Holloway property; and the first document suggests it is primarily being initiated because of concerns of property located in the Carpenter Road area. He stated County staff’s analysis was done under the County’s zoning; it was for 73 units; the proposal is for 73 units; and the City Council was applauded after it adopted the RE Zoning Ordinance, which is very unusual. Mr. Severs advised the County staff’s report indicates the current zoning is 697 and the proposal is 697; and not only did they adopt a new Ordinance restricting development to residential estate zoning, there was a Binding Development Plan entered into, which requires the payment of school impact fees if the County imposes them. He stated the second page of Exhibit 2 highlights that the City adopted an open space Ordinance; Exhibit 3 is an interlocal agreement that the County, cities, and School Board signed dealing with school concurrency; and requested the Board look at section 6.8 and see exactly what it says as far as school concurrency. He stated they do not mind mediating, but really wonder why they are even in a conflict resolution process when he does not believe there is a conflict; and dealing with school capacity, they have the same number of units for the property as the County would have, so there is no increased capacity. He stated another issue was urban sprawl; the County’s land use for the property shows two units per acre; the City restricted it to one unit per acre; the City has adequate public services available for the property; water lines go by it and police cars probably go by it every day; and fire trucks are down the street at Fox Lake Road and Harrison Street. He stated the City is mystified as to why it was sued and why it did not receive a phone call or asked about the issues because it could have clarified them over the phone rather than being sued. Commissioner Scarborough responded the Board was on a short time frame; and instructed Mr. Knox to explain the situation.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised when the County first heard about the annexation and what was going on in Titusville, he does not think all the agreements it has now had been done; the big issue at that time was school capacity; and by the time the County actually found out about what the City had done, it had a very short window before the deadline to file a challenge; so the Board authorized a suit on the basis of school over-capacity. He stated he raised that issue in the complaint and subsequently learned that the City had resolved some things; so perhaps some of the things have been taken care of and that is why he is looking to resolve the dispute through mediation.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Roy Crawford was in the audience when the issue of whether or not the County needed to file a suit was raised; he went back and talked to him; it was put in the record that the Board would not file a suit, but it had a very short window to file a suit; so he is not saying that in itself was sufficient, but there was discussion when City staff was present that the County would be in a very short timeframe. He stated the second issue is if there is a need to pursue any mediation or have all the issues been resolved; and inquired if that is a planning or legal question. Mr. Knox stated it is probably a planning question; his office alleged certain things in the complaint; they may or may not have been resolved; and he has not done a lot of work on the discovery issue since he has not pursued the suit.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised there were three issues: (1) school capacity, (2) an enclave, and (3) density; it is her understanding that the agreement the City has come to with the developer addresses two of those issues; however, the enclave issue is still outstanding. Mr. Severs stated he would have to look back at the complaint on the enclave issue because he does not believe it was alleged as an issue, but he could be wrong.

Commissioner Scarborough stated they all have more constructive use of their time and if this can be disposed of, it is in all of their interest; and inquired if taking action today the Board would not have to do anything today. Mr. Knox stated the Board does not have to do anything; the resolution is a mechanism that is required by Florida Statutes if it is going to pursue the suit or if it plans to resolve the suit; so it can do it either way. Commissioner Scarborough suggested County and City staffs meet and resolve the issues, and put the item on the Agenda to dismiss the suit, as it is not the Board’s desire to sue the City. Mr. Severs stated they could have easily answered some questions in advance, but he is not sure that they all get the same information. Commissioner Scarborough stated one question remains, and that is the enclave; and it is one of those issues that is more a statutory question. Ms. Busacca advised Stacey Ranger told her the Parrish Road and Singleton Avenue areas still have discrepancies in the density that would be permitted under the County’s Comprehensive Plan versus the City’s Comprehensive Plan; so they have some things to talk about. Commissioner Scarborough stated on August 10 the Board will be considering impact fees for schools, so the whole school issue in the future may become moot as to increase in density because by implicitly entering into agreements with developers, they have indicated they could proceed if they paid in something as if there was an impact. He stated the school issue conceivably could cease to be an issue; so if they can settle things, he would like to settle them. Mr. Severs noted when requested, the City Council immediately adopted a Resolution encouraging the adoption of a school impact fee.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he and Mr. Severs had a conversation that he would like to put on the record; he said the reason his office got tremendously involved was because certain people from the County went to the City Council meetings and were advised they needed to contact the County because they were not represented by the City and the City did not care. He stated he knows the attitude has changed tremendously; but that in fact put into motion a great deal of their conversations and led to some of these actions. He stated there is a different attitude today and he would like Mr. Severs to take to City Council that the Board sincerely appreciates its willingness to work with County residents as they impact County residents. Mr. Severs stated in this particular interest, in his 33 years as City Attorney for Titusville, he has never seen the City work harder to satisfy County residents on a controversial issue. Commissioner Scarborough stated there were comments made that those individuals were advised by the City to seek recourse through the County. Mr. Severs stated he understands that, but his office is always available if the Board has a question about what one of the Council members said or did not say and whether it reflected the views of the Council. He stated if there is a need for clarification on the issues, he is available.

Commissioner Colon advised Commissioner Scarborough has been on record time and time again of never trying to sue another government entity; she wanted to reiterate that because that is how she feels; and they should always be able to work things out with municipalities and the State.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution initiating conflict resolution proceedings with the City of Titusville, and authorize a letter to the Mayor of Titusville advising of the proceedings. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-162.)

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: COMFORT STREET

Fran Wales of Palm Bay advised the major problem is the cut-through traffic; for some reason, the area gets a lot of cut-through traffic; and there are a lot of young children on the street. She stated people who do not live on the street are not as concerned as those who do; everything has been complied with that was requested; but unfortunately the County was looking at something a while back and a lot of the requests for speed humps were postponed or delayed. She stated people are still waiting thinking that it would come by natural course; it has taken a lot longer than they anticipated; so she hopes they do not have any problems.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised the petitioners complied with the requirements spelled out in the Policy; unfortunately, the speeding indicated in the speed study is below the 60% requirement and it is unusually low in the percentage that exceed the speed limit by 10 miles per hour. He stated they checked the records on the 24-hour count at two different locations; they had two speeders in excess of 10 mph at one location and one speeder at the second location; they usually only record peak hour conditions; and those showed zero speeders over 10 mph, although there were some speeders. He stated it does have the ability to be a cut-through street, but it is not a major cut-through street.

Commissioner Scarborough stated having the numbers to review helps the Board in decision-making, but there can be an anomaly on certain days; all the votes were yes’s on this item and there were no no's; so he would look to the community and approve the request.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve installation of speed humps on Comfort Street in Port St. John. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Colon inquired if the kind of flexibility County staff needs to make those decisions has been provided; with Mr. Denninghoff responding yes, it is in the policy that was approved in May. He stated the Board directed staff to use the old policy for those that were backlogged and bring them forward under the old policy; and this request falls into that category. Commissioner Colon stated she does not want County staff to be in the position it has been put in, in the past; it was not fair; they are the experts when it comes to safety and traffic control; the Commissioners are not engineers; and she wants to make sure they have that flexibility. Mr. Denninghoff noted the policy addresses that issue.

ACCEPT RIGHT-OF-WAY DEED AND WAIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
TITLE SEARCH, RE: WICKHAM ROAD TURN TAPER

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept a Deed for right-of-way on Wickham Road from the Mission Lake Villas Homeowners Association, and waive Phase I environmental assessment and title search requirements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Deed.)

APPROVAL, RE: HOME CONSORTIUM FY 2004-05 CONSOLIDATED ACTION PLAN

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve the proposed HOME Consortium Consolidated Action Plan for FY 2004-05; authorize the Chair to execute required certifications, application for Federal Assistance, and Form SF-424; and authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute CDBG and HOME Programs Grant Agreements upon receipt from HUD, Disbursement Agreement with four cities of the HOME Consortium, and Contractual Agreements identified in the Consolidated Action Plan, contingent upon approval by the County Attorney and Risk Management. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 2005 LEGISLATIVE
ISSUES SURVEY INPUTS

Walter Pine of Titusville stated once again he is here asking about something he does not know about because there is no record; there is nothing in the book that tells him what this is about; and there is nothing that explains to them what was actually discussed, what meetings were held, and what the intent of these actions of the League of Cities are or what input they had. He stated once again the Board is ratifying decisions made by a body that citizens of the County do not get to see; the League of Cities has its own meetings and they are not told when those are going to be; they are not told what the subject matters are; and they are not offered the opportunity to speak. He stated it is a way of circumventing the citizens input process and their right to instruct their elected officials under the Constitution. He stated he is not sure what the issues encompass because he asked and nobody said anything; and the League of Cities has yet to send him anything, rather the League of Counties (not Cities); and it is very important to encourage public debate on those things. Mr. Pine stated when it was brought back from the League of Counties at least they should have substantiating minutes and the discussion that occurred made available to the public; it should be back there in the book at the very least; and additionally, he would suggest and would argue that in order for the public to have its input and its Constitutional right to instruct its elected officials, those issues have to come individually before the Board and not as a large list of very important items. He stated it is supposed to be the constituency governing itself and not the County Commission by virtue of the League of Counties governing them; they need to make sure they have that input and they are not having it here; so he would encourage the Board to get the appropriate background data on it and make it available to the public and give them an opportunity to comment on each issue rather than pass them in the massive package; and requested the Board postpone it until they can find out what is going on and have a real discussion on it.

Legislative Coordinator Carol Laymance advised it is the annual survey that the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) does on an annual basis; it sends out a questionnaire to all 67 counties and request input on specific questions; and all it is, is to gather information from various counties so that FAC can put together its legislative package for next year.

Vice Chair Pritchard inquired who has the opportunity to fill out the questionnaire; with Ms. Laymance responding the FAC staff. Vice Chair Pritchard inquired who on County staff when it is sent to the County fills out the questionnaire; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding in many instances various County Directors provide their input, he edits them, then it comes to the Board, who are the elected representatives of the people of Brevard County. He stated those are primarily staff’s proposed responses to the various survey questions; and the Board has the opportunity to affirm, modify or do whatever it wants with them.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board needs to take action on it today; with Ms. Laymance responding FAC gave the County a deadline to return it by the first week of August. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board can supplement it and provide additional comments; with Mr. Jenkins responding it can always do that; and if the Board has something a week or two weeks from now it wants to add, it has the ability to do that.

Vice Chair Pritchard advised he reviewed the items as did other Commissioners; it is a very broad-based response to what the County perceives future issues are going to be, where it is now, and concerns that it has, for example, a response says, “The current court case appears to have made it more difficult for citizens groups to equally participate in quasi-judicial proceedings”; and that is the type of responses being sent. He stated a coalition of counties come up with the agenda package then it is forwarded; and inquired if Mr. Pine has a copy of the County’s responses. Mr. Pine stated the point is this is the perfect place for public comment; the Board is talking about where the County wants to go; well, the County includes the people; and this is one of those places where the people should be able to put in comment, but they were not asked to do that. Vice Chair Pritchard advised Mr. Lusk has a copy of the responses at the back of the room so Mr. Pine can have his opportunity to provide input. Mr. Pine stated it is not just him, but the entire community he would hope. Vice Chair Pritchard stated he agrees, but Mr. Pine will have his opportunity.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve the survey input and recommendations on various legislative issues for 2005, and authorize sending it to the Florida Association of Counties by August 6, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTIONS, RE: CALLING FOR SPECIAL ELECTION ON CHARTER AMENDMENTS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution calling for a special election on November 2, 2004 on whether the Board should amend the Charter, Section 7.4, to increase interval between appointment of regular Charter Review Commissions and increase time allowed for review; Resolution calling for a special election on November 2, 2004, on the question of whether to amend the Charter to incorporate the Preamble into Section 1.1; and Resolution calling for a special election on November 2, 2004, on the question of whether to amend the Charter, Section 5.4.2, Article 5, to require publication of notice of disclosure of percentage of any tax increase. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Resolutions 04-163, 04-164, and 04-165.)

CITIZEN REQUEST - ALFRED HERNANDEZ, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER

Alfred Hernandez of Cocoa advised his story began a few weeks ago when he submitted an agricultural permit exemption to build a pole barn and a fence on his property; it went through several agencies; and when it got to Natural Resources Management, it was denied on the basis that he would have to remove trees to put his pole barn up. He stated what he found amusing was that the denial was based on an aerial survey; he explained that he did not have to remove trees to do it, but he decided to take the position of so what if he needed to remove a tree. He stated he was informed that he would be fined $1,000; and he was also informed that under the Ordinance for tree protection and land clearing, as a landowner of one acre or more, he was prohibited in any way, shape, manner, or form from removing a tree. He stated other citizens who own less than an acre can do what they want; he finds that unfair; and commended Commissioner Pritchard for taking the initiative to rectify the situation. He stated he knows there has to be public hearings on the issue; however, he is not prepared to wait to see if and when it is resolved and he can cut his tree down. Mr. Hernandez stated he submitted, under the Ordinance, an application to have an administrative waiver; that was denied on the basis that the structure was involved with wetlands and scrub jay habitat; and he felt neither one was true. He stated he backed off on cutting the tree and miraculously the Natural Resources staff signed off and he no longer had wetlands or scrub jay habitat on his property, and received a permit to put up his pole barn; however, he does not have the legal ability to cut the tree down. He stated he wants the tree out of his way prior to putting up the structure. He stated what he finds really amusing is that if he chose to go through the process of a regular building permit with the drawings, engineering seals, permit fees, inspections, etc. he would fall under a different Ordinance; and under that Ordinance he would only need 240 tree points. He stated when he moved in 12 years ago, he planted over 50 trees; and taking a conservative view and considering them planted trees, he has 393 points; and if he were to transfer the property over and buy it back, it would be considered preserving those trees and would have over 1,300 tree points just for the trees he planted and not in the trees that were there when he purchased the land. He stated in light of the fact that he is asking to cut one 60-point tree, anyone with landscape experience would agree he has a jungle; and requested the Board approve an administrative waiver so he can cut down one tree. Mr. Hernandez requested the Board, when it considers amendments to the tree protection Ordinance, to consider the Landscaping Ordinance also because if a person meets the law with 240 tree points under one Ordinance that person should only need 240 tree points under the other Ordinance and should have the ability to cut down a tree. He stated he finds the inconsistency perplexing; so he is here to ask the Board for a waiver to cut a tree down on his property and to encourage it to rectify the situation and make the land clearing and landscaping Ordinances mesh. He noted the land and trees are the same, so he does not see how the Board can treat them differently.

Interim Natural Resources Director Virginia Barker advised as Mr. Hernandez explained, he first requested an agriculture exemption that allowed the construction of the pole barn and the fence as well as land clearing for the tree; staff explained the process that they have for reviewing that sort of request; Mr. Hernandez did not want to go through that procedure; so after several emails, they eventually came to the agreement that he would apply for the agriculture exemption for the pole barn and fence without removal of the tree, which did not require inspection of his site. She stated given that he would sign a letter stating it was his responsibility to check with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the scrub jay issue and that he would locate the pole barn outside of the hydric soil area that is on his property, inspection would not be necessary and they would be able to grant him the agriculture exemption without land clearing. She stated he did file the proper paperwork for that request and the request was granted.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the Board directed staff to move forward with amending the Ordinance and requested extensive public input; she believes Sherry Williams has completed a number of public meetings; the Ordinance will be moving forward; so Mr. Hernandez has identified a glitch as an issue, but would like to do it before the Board considers an amendment to the Ordinance.

Vice Chair Pritchard inquired if the location of the tree prohibits the construction of the pole barn; with Ms. Barker responding no. Vice Chair Pritchard inquired, in cases like this, where Mr. Hernandez has planted so many trees, is there opportunity to count them as tree points; with Ms. Barker responding it is not written within the current Code. Vice Chair Pritchard stated will it be presented in the Code when it comes back to the Board; with Ms. Busacca responding the Board has not directed that, but staff can come forward with a legislative intent for it to discuss if it would like. Ms. Busacca stated the concept of landscaping and land clearing, although sometimes go hand-in-hand, do not necessarily link. Vice Chair Pritchard stated maybe they should be linked. Ms. Busacca stated if the Board would like to direct that, staff is working on three legislative intents now and can move forward with that. Ms. Barker stated the County Attorney’s office is working on a consolidated environmental ordinance that is supposed to provide that linking function for those two Ordinances as well as all the other Natural Resources Ordinances.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when they had the public meetings there were not many people who showed up, but they had interesting conversations; Sherry Williams was there; and there was a lot of confusion as to how those two Ordinances link. He stated he fears for discussion at the Commission level because of a failure to step back and see the big picture; there is an essential concept that the Board does not want to see land wiped out and clear cut; but by the same token, if Mr. Hernandez has a so-called jungle he created, the Board should not have to talk about a single tree; so there has to be some concept of when there is a problem and when there is not a problem. He stated when he first came on the Commission, there were a lot of things discussed; Sylvester Rose, who has since deceased, was the Horticulture Agent; and he had an essential concept that still rings true in his mind today. He stated Mr. Rose’s concept is to have a certain canopy, and once the canopy is reached, they should be exempt; Mr. Hernandez has a jungle and more than meets the environmental requirement; it cleans the air, puts oxygen in the air, quiets the sound, and is good for the human spirit; and once they hit a certain threshold the trees become less relevant than if he had an open area of land. He stated when he drives in Viera, there are not trees being removed, but there is a tremendous need for planting of trees; and sometimes to go to Mr. Hernandez’s house and remove trees may end up with something much more effective than staff can imagine, so there needs to be something.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to instruct staff to proceed with the thought process of the need to plant trees and the need to remove trees in its process of amending the Land Clearing and Landscaping Ordinances. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant a waiver to Alfred Hernandez to remove one tree in order to build a pole barn on his property. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH THE GREAT OUTDOORS RV/GOLF RESORT, ET AL, RE: FIRE
PROTECTION SYSTEM

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the agreement has been signed by all parties except the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to execute Agreement with The Great Outdoors Premier RV/Golf Resort, Inc., Land Planners and Associates, Inc., and The Great Outdoors Premier RV/Golf Resort Community Services Association, Inc. for the provision of a fire protection system for The Great Outdoors DRI; and authorize the Vice Chair to sign the Agreement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

CITIZEN REQUEST - JINGER KNOX, RE: RESURRECTION RANCH

Jinger Knox advised the Board directed the neighbors of Pinewood Park Subdivision and Resurrection Ranch to negotiate an agreement to allow the Ranch to operate under its current conditional use permit; and when the Board gave that direction, it also stopped all enforcement action against the property owned by Happy Landing Homes, which is the corporation that owns Resurrection Ranch. She stated it has caused a problem for other members of the neighborhood and created a situation with Code Enforcement being called all the time, similar to the issue discussed by the Board earlier; and it has led to situations that are not conducive to negotiations, which became very evident in the last meeting held last week. She requested the Board provide all parties involved in the negotiations with the same protection provided to Resurrection Ranch, which would require it to direct staff to dismiss all Code Enforcement actions retroactively against the neighborhood of Pinewood Park to the date of the original complaints against the Resurrection Ranch. She stated it would serve to heal old wounds and make negotiations less threatening and more fruitful for all involved; and hopefully they can get a win/win situation.

Vice Chair Pritchard requested an explanation from staff of what happened.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised in May 2004, there was an issue about Resurrection Ranch; and at that time the Board directed staff to work with the residents and the Ranch to come up with some conditions, bring them to the Board, and the Board would perhaps use those to modify the Ranch’s existing conditional use permit. She stated at that time, the Board also abated the Code Enforcement Special Master’s hearing; since that time, staff has met with members of Resurrection Ranch and the neighbors; it looks like they are actually coming to some agreement as to resolving some of the issues; however, staff has continued to investigate the issues against the Ranch that had been brought forward by the neighbors, although no special magistrate hearing has been scheduled. Ms. Busacca stated in addition to that, several of the neighbors also had Code Enforcement complaints filed against them; and what Ms. Knox is saying is that it is very difficult when part of the community had the Code Enforcement hearing abated and part of the community is being expected to go forward to the special magistrate, which is not putting them on equal ground during the negotiations. She stated although what Ms. Knox asked for and perhaps what she wanted was to drop all complaints, what the Board did was abate the special magistrate hearing for Resurrection Ranch.

Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem abating it for the neighbors and put them on equal ground until the problem is solved; and that would be best for the community.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to abate all Code Enforcement actions in Pinewood Park Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS - WALTER PINE, RE: VARIOUS ISSUES

Walter Pine of Titusville inquired if Commissioner Carlson left; with Vice Chair Pritchard responding she had to leave. Mr. Pine stated the Vice Chair is supposed to announce that; with Vice Chair Pritchard responding he just announced it. Mr. Pine stated Commissioner Colon and he had their differences, but he supports her and her comments today in regards to the taxes; people have been very eloquent in their statements no more money until they see some changes in government; unfortunately, the Board adopted a budget today or a tentative budget that would increase the money; and the people have made it very clear accountability before increase. He stated regarding the issue on Code Enforcement, what the Board adopted is absolutely ridiculous because he has property in unincorporated area and what he is going to do every year in January is call and file two anonymous complaints on his own property, which will solve the problem, and everything else has to be sworn to. He stated it is interesting how the Board is going to get someone to swear to an anonymous complaint; the nature of an anonymous complaint is they do not know who is doing it; so that is ridiculous. He stated there is a loophole so big that he is going to walk through it every time; anybody who wants can walk through it; he will file two complaints and everything else has to be sworn to; that is not protecting anybody’s rights; and that is creating greater abuse. Mr. Pine stated about the last meeting, he asked County Attorney Scott Knox for instructions or policies of how to file for declaratory statement; at the last meeting the Board changed the order of the meeting so that public comment was before a time certain; some months ago they argued for two public comment periods; one time certain and the other at the end of the meeting; and they were told at the end of the meeting was all they needed because they could comment on everything then. He stated at the last meeting, the Board made that statement a lie because it moved public comments previous to time certains and the public was not allowed to respond. He stated in particular, Commissioner Pritchard’s comments about Ms. Busick, he was supportive of the comments regarding Ms. Busick; however, there were proposals that did belong in the Charter such as issues of ethics, truth and accountability in government; and Commissioner Pritchard’s comments were not applicable to those because those do belong in the Charter. He stated the Board completely ignored any request to create additional ethical requirements or any further accountability for its employees, staff, and itself; that is interesting because an honest man has no fear of accountability; he has no need to worry about it; and all the accountability in the world cannot hurt an honest man. He stated as long as there is justice involved, they have nothing to fear; so he will be seeking to challenge that because people who are disabled and who watch the time certains and under the representation of the Board came at the last time certain so they could make public comment at the end of the meeting and were denied access. He stated the Board made a rule that created certain rights and perceptions by the public and then it violated the rule, which denied people access; and it cannot have it both ways. He stated the Board has to be consistent in the way it applies its rules; the people have rights; the Board cannot one day do it one way and the next day do it another way; and that is why it is supposed to put it in writing. He stated he needs all the directions and policies and procedures for applying for an administrative declaratory statement as one of the things he has to meet, according to some of the stuff he read in his research, so that he will have fulfilled administrative recourse and he can challenge what the Board has done; so he needs those instructions.

Vice Chair Pritchard stated the Board will see that Mr. Pine gets the information he requested.

PUBLIC COMMENTS - FRAN WALES, RE: APPRECIATION

Fran Wales advised she just wanted to thank the Board for the speed humps on Comfort Street.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m.

ATTEST: __________________________________
NANCY HIGGS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)