The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 21, 1996, at 9:00 a.m., in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Mark Cook, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O?Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Pastor Jim Leftwich, Harbor City Baptist Church, Melbourne, Florida.

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Minutes of February 13, 1996 Regular Meeting and February 20, 1996 Regular Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS VACATING EASEMENTS

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised staff has not received all the documentation required for vacating easements as petitioned by William Kerner, River Moorings, Inc. and Henry and Leslie B. Bursian, and recommended continuation of the public hearings until June 4, 1996.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to continue the public hearings to consider a resolution vacating public utilities and drainage easement in Canaveral Groves Replat, Unit 3, as petitioned by William Kerner; resolution vacating public utility easement in River Moorings Subdivision, as petitioned by River Moorings, Inc.; and resolution vacating public utility easement in River Moorings Subdivision, as petitioned by Henry and Leslie B. Bursian, until June 4, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: PROPOSED CRACKER BARRELL RESTAURANT ON SR 50

Commissioner Scarborough advised he received calls to have the Board oppose the Cracker Barrell on SR 50; however, it does not concern the Board because it is in the City of Titusville. He noted the Board has taken a position to encourage development to bring jobs and tourist dollars in, and to increase the tax base.

REPORT, RE: POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Commissioner Higgs advised she will not vote on Items III.E.1. and III.E.2 as a company she owns stock in has done work with the Workforce Development Board.

APPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to appoint Martha Russo, 420 Sunset Boulevard, Melbourne Beach 32951, to the County Library Board, replacing Ellen Johnson, with term expiring December 31, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to appoint Bob Wilson, 801 Juniper Drive, Barefoot Bay 32976, to South Mainland Library Advisory Board, replacing Irving Wardle, with term expiring December 31, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT FROM J.P.O. DEVELOPMENT JOINT VENTURE, RE: BEACH ACCESS AT JADE PALM CONDOMINIUM

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to table acceptance of Easement from J.P.O. Development Joint Venture for beach access at Jade Palm Condominium until June 4, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: AUDITOR SELECTION COMMITTEE

Chairman Cook advised he was appointed by the Board to the Auditor Selection Committee; there was a letter from Property Appraiser Jim Ford indicating there may be questions regarding the Charter and State laws on how the committee is composed, and a need for an ordinance to designate the members of the Committee; and recommended the County Attorney investigate that. County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Statute that normally would require the Board to provide an auditor selection committee in accordance with the terms of that statute only applies to non-charter counties, so the means for selecting the committee is left open to the Board. He stated one way to do that is through an ordinance if the Board wants to do that.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board has to do an ordinance or simply appoint the members by motion; with Mr. Knox responding it does not have to do an ordinance and there is no specified procedure because the statute does not apply to Brevard County. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Mr. Ford spoke to Alan Watts who was the legal advisor that helped to draft the Charter; and it was Mr. Watts? suggestion that an ordinance be written. Commissioner O?Brien stated if it is not needed there is no good reason to create it. Chairman Cook advised they will need some authority from the Board regarding the selection committee and if it wants to keep the same committee.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to approve the Auditor Selection Committee as designated on May 7, 1996, composed of representatives of the Constitutional Officers and the Chairman of the Board; and if the County Attorney finds a legal problem with that, to report back to the Board for further directions; and to extend the contract with the current auditing firm. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: REFINANCING OF EELS BONDS

Chairman Cook advised the Board delayed the sale of the EELS refinancing bonds and saved an additional $154,000 and raised an additional $119,000 for the EELS Program; and extended appreciation to Financial Advisor Tom Holley and Finance Director Stephen Burdett for their efforts.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - RAY BOOK, FLORIDA SPACE COAST COUNCIL, RE: RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING MANAGEMENT WEEK

Chairman Cook read aloud a Resolution proclaiming June 2 through 8, 1996, as Management Week in Brevard County, and congratulating all management for their efforts.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution proclaiming Management Week in Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ray Book of the Florida Space Coast Council of the National Management Association thanked the Board for its support on behalf of the nine chapters and all managers throughout Brevard County.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - JOHN SWINESBURG, RE: RESOLUTION COMMENDING ARC-BREVARD, INC.

Chairman Cook read aloud a Resolution commending ARC-Brevard, Inc. for 40 years of service in Brevard County to individuals with developmental disabilities.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution commending ARC-Brevard, Inc. for 40 years of outstanding service in Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH JERJEF CONSTRUCTION, INC., RE: INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS IN VILLAS AT SUNSET POINT

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Contract with Jerjef Construction, Inc. guaranteeing infrastructure improvements in Villas at Sunset Point. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE: IMPROVEMENTS IN TRACT I, THE GREENS COMPLEX

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Contract with The Viera Company, guaranteeing infrastructure improvements in Tract I, the Greens Complex. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH CLASSIC FIELDSTONE, LTD., RE: IMPROVEMENTS IN SUNTREE ESTATES, PHASE II

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Contract with Classic Fieldstone, Ltd. for infrastructure improvements in Suntree Estates, Phase II. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REVISED POLICY BCC-57, RE: INITIATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW OR AMENDED ORDINANCES

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve revised Policy BCC-57 regarding initiation and development of new or amended ordinances. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACCEPTANCE OF STAFF REPORT, AND PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, ORDINANCE AMENDING IU AND IU-1 ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to accept staff?s report and grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the IU and IU-1 zoning classifications. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVER OF WAITING PERIOD, RE: ZONING RE-APPLICATION FROM ED FLEIS

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to waive the six months waiting period for a denied conditional use permit, to allow Ed Fleis to submit a CUP application for a lower additional building height for High Point Condominium. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING, RE: VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCESS EASEMENT AND PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN THE CLOISTERS, PHASE I - MONGNOOCH R. DUNN

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Resolution setting the public hearing for July 9, 1996, to consider vacating a right-of-way access easement and public utility and drainage easement in The Cloisters, Phase I, as petitioned by Mongnooch R. Dunn. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING, RE: VACATING PUBLIC UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN LAKE POINTE, SUNTREE PUD - EDWARD HUNTER- SPINDLER

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Resolution setting public hearing for July 9, 1996, to consider vacating a public utilities and drainage easement in Lake Pointe, Suntree PUD, as petitioned by Edward A. Hunt-Spindler. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT MODIFICATION #2 WITH RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, INC., RE: MINTON ROAD WIDENING PROJECT, PHASE II

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Contract Modification #2 with Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. for Minton Road Widening Project, Phase II, at $4,550 for traffic signal at Minton Road and Americana Boulevard. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT MODIFICATION #1 WITH RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, INC., AND BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE: MALABAR ROAD WIDENING PROJECT, PHASE I

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Contract Modification #1 with Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. for Malabar Road Widening Project, Phase I, at $62,763.27 and three days for construction of re-designed utility project; and approve Budget Change Request. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID, AWARD BID, AND EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE: TRANSPORTATION OF BODIES FOR MEDICAL EXAMINER

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to grant permission to bid transportation of bodies for Medical Examiner, award bid to lowest responsible bidder, and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract with the successful bidder. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO PUBLISH AND ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: FY 96-97 ACTION PLAN FOR CDBG FUNDS

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to grant permission to publish the FY 1996-97 Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and to advertise a public hearing to adopt the Plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH GENESIS HOUSE, INC., RE: GRANT TO UPGRADE EMERGENCY SHELTERS

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Agreement with Genesis House, Inc. to provide construction upgrades to three temporary shelters at $42,750. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPLICATION, CONTRACT, AMENDMENTS, OR ADDENDA WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, RE: FUNDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND FOSTER GROUP HOME BEDS AT COUNTRY ACRES PARENTAL HOME

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to authorize the Chairman to execute an Application to Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for funds for residential and foster group home beds at Country Acres Parental Home; and to execute Contract, and any future Amendments or Addenda. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVER OF MUSIC REGULATIONS, RE: FAMILY CONCERTS AT F. BURTON SMITH REGIONAL PARK

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to waive provisions of Article III, Section 10-79, Festival, to allow musical entertainment at the Family Concerts at F. Burton Smith Regional Park on June 15, 1996 and August 17, 1996, subject to the organization providing set up and clean up, clean up deposit, and general comprehensive insurance, and obtaining all regulatory permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVER OF MUSIC AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE REGULATIONS, RE: EAST COAST ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY FUND RAISER AT WICKHAM PARK

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to waive provisions of Article III, Sections 10-79 and 78-109, to allow musical entertainment and sale/possession/donation of alcoholic beverages at the East Coast Zoological Society/Brevard Zoo Fund Raiser at Wickham Park on May 27, 1996, subject to the organization providing security, traffic control, clean up and general liability insurance, including liquor liability, and obtaining all regulatory permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT TO AMEND EXISTING CONTRACT WITH YMCA OF BREVARD COUNTY, INC., RE: USE OF TITUSVILLE HIGH AND MADISON MIDDLE SCHOOLS POOLS

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Agreement to Amend Existing Contract with YMCA of Brevard County, Inc. for use of Titusville High School pool and Madison Middle School pool for its aquatic program, through May 31, 1997 at $7.00 an hour. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONFIRM ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 96-17 AND INCLUDE IT IN LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE IN 1997, RE: OBJECTING TO ADMINISTRATIVE FEES FOR LEASES, SUBLEASES, AND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS ON STATE LANDS

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to confirm adoption of Resolution No. 96-17 objecting to administrative fees for leases, subleases, and management agreements on State lands; and authorize including the Resolution in the 1997 legislative package. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION TO OBTAIN APPRAISALS AND INITIATE NEGOTIATIONS, RE: PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO MELBOURNE TRANSFER STATION

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to authorize staff to obtain appraisals and initiate negotiations to obtain an option to purchase approximately 23 acres of property adjacent to Melbourne Transfer Station. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

TASK ORDER NO. 6 TO WORK ORDER NO. 1 WITH POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC., RE: CONSULTING SERVICES FOR LEGAL DEFENSE OF PRINCE CONTRACTING, INC.?S CLAIM

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Task Order No. 6 to Work Order No. 1 with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. to provide consulting services for the legal defense of Prince Contracting, Inc?s claim regarding Sarno Road Landfill site improvements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, BILL OF SALE, AND WATER LINE EASEMENT TO CITY OF COCOA, RE: POTABLE WATER TO HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION CENTER

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Resolution authorizing the transfer of an easement interest to City of Cocoa; and execute Bill of Sale and Easement to the City to provide potable water to the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID, RE: BIO-SOLIDS DISPOSAL SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to grant permission to bid disposal of wastewater bio-solids. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: CONSIDERATION OF USBI COMPANY?S TAX ABATEMENT APPLICATION

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Resolution authorizing a public hearing to consider adopting an ordinance to exempt USBI Company from select ad valorem taxes, and request the Property Appraiser to provide a report prior to the public hearing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: CONSIDERATION OF EXCELL AGENT SERVICES? TAX ABATEMENT APPLICATION

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Resolution authorizing a public hearing to consider adopting an ordinance to exempt Excell Agent Services from select ad valorem taxes, and request the Property Appraiser provide a report prior to the public hearing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACCEPT WITHDRAWAL OF LOW BID AND AWARD BID #B-2-6-77 AND CONTRACT, RE: CENTRAL BREVARD REFERENCE LIBRARY RENOVATIONS Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to accept withdrawal of low bid from Cal Star Construction for Bid #B-2-6-77, Central Brevard Reference Library Renovations; award second low bid of Watauga Company at $97,129; and authorize the Chairman to execute an Agreement with Watauga Company for the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF BID #B-2-6-117 AND CONTRACT, AND EXECUTE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, RE: ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS TO CAPE CANAVERAL PUBLIC LIBRARY

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to award Bid #B-2-6-117, Additions and Renovations to Cape Canaveral Public Library, to Priority One Construction at $810,000; execute Agreement with Priority One for the project; and execute Interlocal Agreement with City of Cape Canaveral for its contribution of $123,870 for the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF PROPOSAL #P-1-6-04 AND CONTRACT, RE: DEBT COLLECTION SERVICE

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to award Proposal #P-1-6-04, Debt Collection Service, to top ranked proposer CCB Services, Inc. and authorize the Chairman to execute a Contract with CCB. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DEDUCTIVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 24 WITH BROWN & ROOT BUILDING COMPANY, RE: HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE V. MOORE JUSTICE CENTER

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Deductive Change Order No. 24 with Brown & Root Building Company, for Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Justice Center, in the amount of $76,033.03 to accommodate owner-direct purchases; and authorize transfer of the funds to the direct purchase account. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CHANGE ORDER NO. 25 WITH BROWN & ROOT BUILDING COMPANY, RE: HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE V. MOORE JUSTICE CENTER

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Change Order No. 25 with Brown & Root Building Company for Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Justice Center, in the amount of $3,142.69 to install ductile water pipe and mechanical joint fittings. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: MACHINE MAINTENANCE SYSTEM

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve changes in the Machine Maintenance System for repair of office machines. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH BREVARD WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, RE: DESIGNATING LOCAL SUB-STATE GRANTEE FOR TITLE III EDWAA FUNDS

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Agreement with Brevard Workforce Development Board designating it the local Sub-State Grantee for Title III EDWAA funds. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs abstained.

APPROVAL, RE: REVISED PRECINCT BOUNDARIES LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve revised precinct boundaries legal descriptions due to splitting of Port St. Johns precincts. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REVISED POLICY BCC-26, RE: UNIFORM ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve revised Policy BCC-26, Uniform Advisory Board Appointments, regarding appointment of chairs for advisory boards. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET TRANSFERS

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve bills and budget transfers as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY IN MAP OF DELESPINE ON INDIAN RIVER - JAMES W. PEEPLES, III

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a right-of-way in Map of Delespine on Indian River as petitioned by James W. Peeples, III.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to adopt Resolution vacating right-of-way in Map of Delespine on Indian River as petitioned by James W. Peeples, III. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 93-27, ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS ON PRIVATE ROADS, UNPAVED ROADS AND EASEMENTS

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 93-27 regarding issuance of building permits on private roads, unpaved roads, and easements.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt an ordinance creating provisions for the issuance of building permits on private roads, unpaved roads, ingress/egress easements, and flag stem/flag lots to public roads; providing waivers and appeals; deleting Section 62-2110, Division 6, Article VI, Flag Lots; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; and providing for an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION AND GRANT APPLICATION TO FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT RE: SHERIFF?S MARINE INTERCOASTAL ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised he received a letter from the Sheriff proposing to reduce the request from two to one vessel in recognition of the need to prioritize F.I.N.D. grants. Commissioner O?Brien stated the maximum allowable grant is $35,000; the request is for $1,157,000; and not only did the Sheriff ask for two boats, the City of Melbourne is asking for boats at $26,250. He recommended approving the application as is and let F.I.N.D. cut it if it wants to.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution authorizing a grant application to Florida Inland Navigation District (F.I.N.D.) for $103,152, to purchase two patrol vessels for the Marine Intercoastal Enforcement Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: DONATION OF LAND AT WICKHAM PARK TO ALZHEIMER?S ASSOCIATION

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised staff?s report has an alternative to the Park site if the Board is interested in looking at the existing Road and Bridge property on Wickham Road. He stated it is conceptual at this time, and they would need to meet with Public Works to determine the size, location, etc.

Chairman Cook stated that would be the best way to go. Commissioner Higgs inquired if staff suggested that to the Alzheimer?s Association; with Mr. Jenkins responding no.

Commissioner Ellis suggested the option of the sewer plant site in Satellite Beach where the City has soccer fields but not on the entire parcel. Commissioner Higgs stated they are interested in the Wickham Road corridor.

Discussion ensued on the Road and Bridge site and possible problems with heavy equipment and existing buildings, donation of Wickham Park site setting a precedent, possible use of retail areas that have closed, no interest from the Association for property on the beach side, and donating the land to the City of Satellite Beach.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct the County Manager to work with Joseph Steckler of the Alzheimer?s Association to consider the Road and Bridge site off Wickham Road, and return to the Board with a report. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: TOPE STREET

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve installation of speed humps on Tope Street.

Commissioner Ellis expressed concern about spending $2,000 for a speed hump for two vehicles and no money for pipes; stated the total vehicle count is 10 in the morning and 9 in the evening; and that could justify speed humps on every road in the County. Commissioner Scarborough stated one vehicle can kill children. Chairman Cook inquired if other alternatives were looked at; with Traffic Engineering Director Bill Osborne responding yes, additional speed limit signs; and staff recommended denial of each speed hump request.

Mr. Osborne advised the request has been in house since October, 1995; a moratorium was put on speed humps for the study; and this is a housekeeping issue to clean up the requests that were in the office.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if it meets the warrants for a speed hump; with Mr. Osborne responding the only thing Tope Street met was the 75% of the residents requesting it. Commissioner Ellis stated staff should not waste time and money on these requests to do traffic counts, etc. because the Board always approves them; so all it needs to do is the survey and bring it to the Board for a vote.

Discussion ensued on speed humps moving traffic to parallel roads, safety aspects, graduated response to the requests, additional signs, contacting the Sheriff?s Department if there is a speeding problem, and speed humps being the last resort.

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

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: FAIRBRIDGE STREET

Commissioner Higgs advised the survey was done on October 10 and 11, 1995 which is seven months ago; there was one problem vehicle; and recommended staff go back to the neighborhood and check on it again.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table request for speed hump on Fairbridge Street; and direct staff to go to the area and check on the request again. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. RESOLUTION AND BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE: PURCHASE OF ROAD AND BRIDGE EQUIPMENT THROUGH COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM

Public Works Director Henry Minneboo advised the request is to purchase a Gradall for the North area at $215,000 as a replacement, one new Gradall with an extended boom for Central area at $240,000, replacement of two Menzi Mucks for Central and South at $190,000, for a total of $835,000. He stated over a three year period it will be approximately $307,000 each year. He stated the option is a totally dedicated additional drainage cleaning crew of four individuals, two Mack dump trucks, and a Gradall at a cost of $365,000, or $134,000 each year for three years.

Commissioner O?Brien stated that is far from the $800,000 per year that was before the Board last week; and his major concern was tying up funds for three years, not knowing what could happen in that period of time, and if the money would be needed for something else.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if this item assumes when the Board gets to the capital improvements budget for next year, it will not be able to do that. Public Works Finance Director Jim Helmer advised the $850,000 capital outlay budget has not made it through the County Manager?s review yet. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated it would be unlikely the County could afford both. Commissioner Higgs stated she wants recognition of that at this point, and recognition that the personnel who will staff the crew will come from existing positions; with Mr. Jenkins responding they will come from existing position dollars, and they may take one higher paying job and split it into two jobs. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is the priority of Public Works in the next fiscal year in terms of what needs to be done; with Mr. Minneboo responding yes it is. Commissioner Higgs stated she objected at the last meeting, but the cost has been decreased, it will be paid over three years, the equipment will last long past three years, so she will support the issue.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Options 1 and 2 for purchase of Road and Bridge capital equipment; adopt Resolution authorizing the use of commercial paper to fund the purchase; and approve Budget Change Request for the item. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis asked for equitable funding between the MSTU?s and General Fund; with Mr. Jenkins responding staff will come back with a funding plan. Chairman Cook stated it will be difficult to fund additional equipment in the budget request for next year.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY IN INDIAN RIVER GROVES AND GARDENS - TERESA SPIEGEL

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a right-of-way (Fairchild Drive) in Indian River Groves and Gardens, as petitioned by Teresa Spiegel.

Allen Smith, 3201 Fairview Drive, Melbourne, advised the area has growth ten feet high and growing; and he was told the land had to be deeded back to Mr. Spiegel because it came from him, but it may have come from the former owner; and according to the law, it goes to the abutting property owners. He stated three months ago when Mr. Spiegel received the zoning he wanted, it was subject to him cleaning up that road and landscaping it; three months have passed and he has not done a single thing; so he assumes Mr. Spiegel does not have the zoning because he did not do what he was supposed to do. Mr. Smith indicated not many people object to Mr. Spiegel having the property, although some may want it; but the law needs to be checked to see what it really says to avoid future problems. He inquired if Mr. Spiegel will get the zoning although he has not cleaned up the property.

Commissioner Ellis advised the right-of-way still belongs to the County; if it is not vacated Mr. Spiegel would need a use agreement to landscape it; so the landscaping is tied up until the Board makes a decision. Mr. Smith stated nothing was said about that when he got the zoning; they expected it to be done before it got too dry and cause fires; pollution, noise, etc. was also mentioned to be reduced; and he does not mind the vacating if Mr. Spiegel does what he promised to do.

County Surveyor Beverly Sutphin advised she discussed the issue with the County Attorney?s Office before; and since the road came from the Plat that Mr. Spiegel is in, it has to go back into that Plat and wholly back to Mr. Spiegel?s property. County Attorney Scott Knox advised that is correct. Mr. Smith stated the law says, ?will be thereby surrendered and would vest in the abutting fee owners?; it sounds like people on either side of the right-of-way; and suggested it be checked out.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the best way to ensure it is landscaped; with Commissioner O?Brien responding they cannot do anything unless it is vacated. Chairman Cook inquired what would the proper wording of the motion be to accomplish the landscaping; with Mr. Knox responding it could be a requirement imposed as a condition of the vacation.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to adopt Resolution vacating right-of-way (Fairchild Drive) in Indian River Groves and Gardens, as petitioned by Teresa Spiegel, with the stipulation that it be set up as a landscape buffer between the Spiegel?s property and abutting residences; maintained by Mr. Spiegel or whoever purchases his property; cleaning of the property begin within 45 days and landscaping begin within 180 days of the vacating. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE, AND EASEMENT WITH FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, RE: PAVING OF EAST RAILROAD AVENUE

County Attorney Scott Knox advised paragraph 8 of the Agreement provides for proration of taxes which is inconsistent with the law that the County is required to file; it has to escrow the taxes; and recommended deletion of paragraph 8. Commissioner Scarborough stated Florida East Coast Railway Company agrees with the deletion.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to execute Contract for Sale and Purchase and Easement with Florida East Coast Railway Company for paving of East Railroad Avenue, with deletion of paragraph 8. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: HOLIDAY CLOSINGS FOR LIBRARIES

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Library Board and Director were making the decision to close the libraries on a Sunday preceding a Monday holiday to give library employees a two-day holiday as opposed to just the legal holiday; he felt it was a significant service issue and that the Board should make the decision; it went to the Library Board; and now it is before this Board.

Chairman Cook advised long weekends could be a time when people would want to use the libraries; it is convenient for the library staff to be off two days, but it could be a time for good utilization of libraries; and if they were closed, the people could not use them. Commissioner O?Brien stated one way to prove that is to get the actual count of the number of different people, not the same person who comes in twice in one day, on the Sunday, to give a realistic look at how many people use the libraries on those holidays. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board could see how it works over the Memorial Day holiday and have it come back if there is not a lot of attendance; however, if it is a popular day, the Board needs to serve the public.

Commissioner Ellis stated the calls he received were from parents and children trying to do research during the school year and not during the summer months; he does not know how Memorial Day will work because it is a week before school ends; but September, October, November and January holidays students are in school and may want to go to the libraries to do research. Chairman Cook stated he had concerns expressed by senior citizens.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to direct staff to keep the libraries open on Sunday, May 26, 1996, and report to the Board on the door count for the weekend prior to Memorial Day compared to other weekends; and authorize the County Manager or his designee to temporarily close libraries if necessary. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: ORDINANCE NO. 87-32, FIRE PREVENTION CODE

Larry Shaw, 3275 Suntree Boulevard, Melbourne, Vice President and principal of BRPH Architects and Engineers, introduced Randy Thron, Vice President and architect, and advised their office is 14,000 square feet; they are currently putting an addition on the building of 8,000 square feet; and the County Code allows 15,000 square feet of space per floor for a two-story structure before requiring an automatic sprinkler system, but only 15,000 square feet for a one-story structure. He stated the 8,000 square feet will require them to install an automatic sprinkler system not only in the addition but also in the existing structure which will disrupt operations; so the only way to do it would be nights and weekends at great cost. He stated one-story structures are safer from a fire-fighting access point; the Standard Building Code allows 17,000 square feet without access and 34,000 square feet with fire access around the building; that is what they fall under; so they can build 34,000 square feet on a single floor without the automatic sprinkler system. He stated the Ordinance is excessive and more than doubles the requirement of NFPA and the Standard Building Code; they have a 24-hour security system and fire alarm system that is monitored; and they do not want to tear out the building to put in a sprinkler system. He noted their insurance company does not offer anything to do that; and suggested the Board modify the Ordinance to allow 30,000 square foot one-story structures with fire access not be required to have sprinkler systems.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to hold meetings with interested parties, including the Brevard County Manufacturers Association and Building and Contractors Advisory Board, to review and discuss Ordinance No. 87-32, Brevard County Code 50-42, Sprinklers and Alarm Requirements, and return to the Board with recommendations.

Commissioner Ellis inquired why is there restrictions; with Chief Dick Taggert responding the Ordinance is based on a staffing and equipment level on fire trucks; Brevard County does not meet the level required; and to offset the expense of staffing and assist staff, the Board adopted a Sprinkler Ordinance. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not see the connection.

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

DISCUSSION, RE: FIRE CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS

Commissioner O?Brien inquired who will be the members of the Fire Code Board; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding the existing Contractors Licensing Board serves as the appeals board for the Building Official, and it would be a logical extension of that Board. Commissioner O?Brien agreed.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to authorize utilization of the existing Contractors Licensing Board, modified to include members with expertise in fire safety standards, as the Fire Code Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 10:29 a.m., and reconvened at 10:45 a.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: COUNTRY ACRES PARENTAL HOME OPTIONS

Marilyn Hooper, 1515 N. Indian River Drive, Cocoa, representing Country Acres Auxiliary, advised Country Acres is a worthwhile investment of public funds; it provides shelter, counseling, and guidance for children who have been identified as abused or abandoned; and the Auxiliary is committed to providing all possible resources to the children through financial and volunteer support to the residents and staff at Country Acres. She stated the citizens here who offer their support represent many others who committed themselves to serve Country Acres; most of the municipalities in Brevard County adopted Resolutions recognizing Country Acres as a community-based facility serving all the children of Brevard County; and they celebrated 25 years of existence this past Christmas.

Michael Bowen, 514 Delespine Avenue, Titusville, Chairman of the Country Acres Advisory Board, advised the Board supports continued operation of Country Acres under its present circumstances; echoed Ms. Hooper?s comments that the Board provide necessary services for needy children who are abused and abandoned; and stated the Board is ready to assist the County to assure continuation of the Parental Home.

Phil Penley, 705 Blake Avenue, Cocoa, Subdistrict Administrator for HRS, advised for many years they have contracted with the County for foster group home services at Country Acres; it serves 25 children that for the most part could not be placed in a regular family foster home; they have about 160 children in family foster homes in Brevard County and Country Acres, and two other group homes take the rest of those children; and the Department and State want to continue the relationship that is more than 20 years old. He stated from all their reviews, audits, and monitoring of Country Acres programs, they find it to be an exceptional program that meets the needs of the children; provides extraordinary service in terms of mental health counseling and things they are able to provide through Circles of Care, and from the State?s perspective it is a viable service and serves the children. He stated the State wants to continue the contractual relationship with the Board for the service.

Commissioner Ellis stated his concern is the expenditure per child because one-third of the residents are from Orange County; and Brevard County should seek reimbursement from Orange County for the number of children it receives from that County. He stated HRS is all of Subdistrict 7, but Brevard County could seek some form of reimbursement for the children it accepts from Orange County and trade off for any Brevard County children who go to Orange County. Commissioner Ellis advised $400,000 from the General Fund go to Country Acres; and one-third of the children are from Orange County, so Orange County Commission should cover some of the costs at Country Acres.

Chairman Cook indicated staff should explore that possibility; and inquired if there is a count of how many children are accepted from Orange County and how many are Brevard County residents; with Housing and Human Services Director Bernice Jackson responding she does not have the count at this time, but can find out when they do the accounting. Commissioner Ellis stated the numbers the Board has are based on percentages; and the percentage Brevard County sends out are extremely low in relation to what Orange County sends to Brevard County; with Ms. Jackson responding that is true. Commissioner Ellis recommended staff do an analysis on how many children are sent out of County to be cared for versus how many are accepted; and not send a bill to Orange County, but negotiate with it about sending a bill to get reimbursements.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Brevard County has 25 beds; one third of that is 8 beds; and Orange County has 100 beds with only two from Brevard County. He indicated staff should inquire about reimbursements.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to negotiate with Orange County for reimbursements for its children at Country Acres Parental Home. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to support continuation of Country Acres Parental Home operation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is a dispute regarding the billing at Hacienda Girls Ranch for beds that the Board allocated that were not used; with Ms. Jackson responding yes, and the County Attorney?s Office is reviewing that; a letter has been issued relative to the current Contract; and if the items of service are met, the payment will be made from the County. Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the difference between Hacienda Girls Ranch and Country Acres; with Ms. Jackson responding Country Acres accepts boys and girls, and Hacienda accepts only girls; Country Acres has contracts with the State, and Hacienda does not have that partnership; and the level of service for children are different at each facility. Commissioner Ellis inquired if different types of children are sent to the different facilities; with Ms. Jackson responding yes.

Commissioner O?Brien inquired if part of the motion was to engage HRS in working with the County to increase its funding for residential groups; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to authorize negotiations with Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to increase funding for alternative group home or individual foster care placements at Country Acres Parental Home through change in legislation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: JUVENILE COURT

Public Defender James Russo stated he is against juvenile court remaining at the Sarno Complex and not moving to the Justice Center. He stated they were looking forward to the move to combine the offices and have more efficient administration; and by keeping juvenile court at Sarno, he will have to divide the office to keep staff at the Sarno Complex. He advised there was discussion about a juvenile assessment center at Sarno; Brevard County is a big county, and he is not sure Sarno is the best place for Titusville, Palm Bay, or any police department; and it should be analyzed when it gets to that point.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how often the six people in the Public Defender?s Office work on juvenile court issues; with Mr. Russo responding approximately 80% of the week. He stated he plans to keep the misdemeanor staff at Viera and send them to Melbourne Courthouse as they are needed 10 to 15% of the time; whereas, in juvenile court, they need to be there all the time. Commissioner Ellis inquired if they have to be there all the time, what is the problem of the juvenile court staff being stationed at Sarno; with Mr. Russo responding he does not want that to happen. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Ellis and Mr. Russo on setting up two offices with equipment and support, and the difference between Juvenile Court and trials at Melbourne Courthouse.

State Attorney Norm Wolfinger advised one of the problems with organizing the court system is they do not know from one day to the next where they will be; the Board laid the ground work for a new courthouse and has provisions for a juvenile division; and it is preposterous to put the juvenile court away from the Justice Center. He stated if the Board wants to build a separate building because of concerns of having juveniles in the same building with adults, that was never brought up during the years the Justice Center was an issue; if the decision is made to keep the juvenile court at Sarno, he would want his misdemeanor division at Sarno also; but they should not be split up all over the County like they have been for years. He stated the assessment center is important to be implemented in Brevard County; he met with a representative of Secretary Calvin Ross who was encouraged about the County having a location for an assessment center and indicated support to meet with the County, School Board, Sheriff, Police Departments, and his office to put it together; so he would not want the County to get rid of Sarno Complex. Mr. Wolfinger advised his office wants to be at the Justice Center with the Juvenile Division; and the idea of the Justice Center was to centralize the court system.

Commissioner Ellis advised Sarno has court facilities and space available for the entire juvenile court; and inquired how will the misdemeanor staff be tied in with the juvenile section; with Mr. Wolfinger responding he does not want to have offices in three different locations. Mr. Wolfinger stated if juvenile court stays at Sarno, people from North Brevard will have to drive to Sarno; and if a temporary fix is to keep juvenile court at Sarno until his office moves to the Justice Center, he would want his misdemeanor staff to be at Sarno rather than at Melbourne Courthouse. Commissioner Ellis inquired how many State Attorneys work in juvenile; with Mr. Wolfinger responding 29. Commissioner Ellis stated there was concern about office space; with Mr. Wolfinger responding it is easier to run an office with 29 people in the next building; and changing assignments and courtrooms and courthouses has a tremendous effect on the entire system, including the Clerk?s Office, Public Defender?s Office, and his Office. He noted the Justice Center was built to include juvenile court, and that is where it should be. Commissioner Ellis stated once they move from Sarno it will be final and they cannot go back; they have a judge who will stay and is doing a good job; and inquired what does it matter if all the people who work on juvenile issues are in one place. Mr. Wolfinger inquired why did the County build a centralized Justice Center; with Commissioner Ellis responding the Bar sued the County and that is how the new facility came about. Discussion continued between Commissioner Ellis and Mr. Wolfinger on moving juvenile court into the Justice Center, a separate wing to separate it from adult courts, insufficient space, selling Sarno Complex, and the proposed juvenile assessment center.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to proceed with plans to move juvenile court to the Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Justice Center.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the thought was to keep high traffic courts in the communities; however, juvenile court serves the entire County. Commissioner Ellis stated a large number of juveniles are brought in by the Department of Juvenile Justice; and regardless of where the facility is, they are being transported. He stated the Constitutional Officers need to understand if everything comes to the Justice Center and there is problems with space, there are no plans to build another building at Viera.

Commissioner Higgs advised the plan was that high traffic County courts would stay in the communities; one reason to centralize was to have backup for juvenile and family court which the State Supreme Court mandated; and moving juvenile court to the Justice Center will comply with the mandate. She stated all the planning was to bring juvenile court to Viera; it is a solid proposal and makes sense because the juveniles who are treated as adults will be in the facility; so the Board needs to go forth with that plan. Commissioner Ellis stated the family court concept and centralized court departed with Judge Barkett and is not being followed any more by the court systems in Florida. He stated judges are going back to splitting their duties between civil and family court because the burden is too great to do just family court; and a lot of the reasons the County was sued has fallen by the wayside through rulings of the Florida Supreme Court. He stated part of the original lawsuit was that family court had to be together, and that is not being followed today. Commissioner Higgs stated the ability at the Justice Center of using backups for handling juvenile cases is important. Commissioner Ellis stated delinquency and dependency is split between Judge Johnston and Judge Jacobus; and until Judge Johnston took over, they were rotating judges through juvenile court. He stated this is the first time they have a single judge who will accept the responsibility and stay with it for a period of time; and it is good to have consistency primarily for repeat offenders.

Chairman Cook called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

BOARD DETERMINATION, RE: WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA?S REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PROPOSAL #P-1-6-14, SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES, SOUTH COUNTY SERVICE AREA

Attorney Mitch Barlow, representing Brevard County Landfill Company, a joint venture bidder with Sanifill, Inc. and Waste Services of America, urged the Board to follow the guidelines the County set out in the Request for Proposal on the Solid Waste Disposal Services for South County Service Area. He stated Waste Management requested it be allowed to submit a base proposal belatedly after the opening of all the other bids; and the facts are set forth in staff?s reports from Richard Rabon and Lisa Barr of the Selection Committee. Mr. Barlow advised Waste Management failed to submit a base proposal that was required by the RFP; it was asked about it at the Selection Committee meeting on May 3, 1996 when all the bids were opened; and at that time Waste Management indicated it would not submit a base proposal. He stated after the Selection Committee found it was not in compliance with the RFP, it verbally offered to submit a base proposal; it had available the bids of other bidders, Chambers and his client Sanifill; once it had the cost data, it could submit a base proposal that would not be accepted; therefore, Waste Management used the belated submission to get to an alternate proposal it wished to submit to the County. He stated throughout the whole process, the County consistently stated a base proposal was absolutely mandatory at several meetings with all prospective bidders; at one time there were nine prospective bidders; and Waste Management asked if the base proposal could be eliminated and was repeatedly told the base proposal was mandatory. He stated there were nine prospective bidders; of those, there were only three that submitted bids; and it is possible that several vendors who submitted no bids would have submitted bids had they known the base proposal requirement could be eliminated. Mr. Barlow advised one no bid vendor, Ogdin, submitted a letter to the Board saying if it changes its mind, it is compromising the bid process, suggesting Ogdin may have submitted a bid had it known the base proposal could be waived; the base proposal from Waste Management was ten times the base proposal submitted by Chambers and his client; and indicated it was offered to the County only to get beyond the base proposal to the alternate proposal. He stated by not submitting the base proposal in the first place, Waste Management was not offering to accept all the obligations surrounding the base proposal until it knew the cost submitted by the other two vendors; and it is unfair if Waste Management?s proposal is accepted under conditions where it knew what the other bids were before it submitted a base bid. He stated he is aware of the language in the RFP that talks about waiver of irregularities, but as he outlined in his letter to County Attorney Scott Knox, a unit of government can waive the irregularities which are procedural in nature or relatively minor, but he does not believe the law allows a waiver of a major requirement. Mr. Barlow stated the language of the RFP and the statements of the County during various meetings that led up to the submission of the proposals, made it clear that a base proposal was a mandatory requirement; and to accept Waste Management?s proposal at this time would effectively waive that mandatory requirement that eight other bidders understood was supposed to be submitted. He stated Waste Management?s proposal was found to be not in compliance by the Selection Committee; the question whether to accept it has been forwarded to this Board; and it is appropriate for the Board to find that Waste Management?s proposal is not in compliance.

Commissioner Ellis stated having the cost data available is irrelevant when Waste Management came in with a base bid ten times that of the other bidders; however compliance is another issue. He stated it is a legal issue whether to let it back in, but it is not realistic to think Waste Management?s intent was to wait until the other bids were opened to submit a base bid based on those other companies? bids. Mr. Barlow stated the two companies that submitted base bids did so accepting all the obligations associated with the contractual documents; and if someone does not want to comply with the contractual documents, the easiest way to do that is to submit a base bid ten times the other bids because they know it will not be accepted. He stated they did not offer to submit a base bid until their entire proposal was found to be not in compliance for lack of a base bid; then they said verbally they would submit $300 a ton and would get it to staff on Thursday; and when they did submit it, it was $328 a ton. He indicated once Waste Management saw the other bids, it could submit something that is clearly unacceptable as a vehicle to leap forward; with Commissioner Ellis responding they did not need to see the other bids to put in a bid for $328 a ton.

Attorney Clifton McClelland, Jr., representing Waste Management, Inc., advised although this is a procedural matter, the consequences of the decision is a minimum of $15 million because the alternate his client submitted is the low alternate for the County?s treatment of solid waste. He stated on May 1, 1996, each vendor was required to submit a response to the RFP; Sanifill/Brevard Landfill Company submitted a proposal which lacked the security requirements; they did not have the letter that the surety would provide the bonding for the job which is one of the requirements of the RFP; and according to the case law, that is considered a classic omission, and if the Board wanted to throw their bid out, it would classically be sustained. Mr. McClelland advised Chambers submitted a bid which omitted two important things, the map required under the RFP as to where the waste would be disposed of, and the letter from all municipalities and counties through which the waste would be hauled. He stated attached to his handout is a letter from St. Lucie County which indicates as of last week they have not remedied that omission. He stated his client failed to submit the base bid; the matter went to the Selection Committee; the Selection Committee waived the omission for Brevard Landfill Company/Sanifill, Inc. and Chambers? omission of not having a map, but the records do not indicate the Committee waived not having letters from local governments through which the waste will be hauled; however, it posed for the Board the proposition of whether or not Waste Management?s proposal should be disqualified. He stated the reason they want Waste Management?s bid disqualified is that it is at least 40% below everyone else?s in terms of the alternate; and the law he outlined for the County Attorney is his basic position. Mr. McClelland advised the Board has a provision in its RFP which reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to reject all vendors and all vendor submittals, to waive any irregularities, or to accept proposal packages which serve the public interest; and accepting the low bid serves the public interest. He stated the primary case in Florida law regarding government bidding, and probably the most authoritative pronouncement, is the Florida Supreme Court case in Liberty County; he cited it in his memo to the County; a bidder failed to submit one of the two alternates although the bid documents required both alternates; the District Court threw that out; but the Supreme Court allowed that waiver of not submitting on the first alternate, and basically established the public policy is when the board wants to exercise its discretion in the public interest, it is allowed to do so. He stated the next most significant case has been the Intercontinental case which he cited in his brief; and read the statement from that case which said, ?There?s a very strong public interest in favoring saving tax dollars in awarding contracts. There is no public interest, much less a substantial public interest, in disqualifying low bidders.? He stated that is the position the Board is in today; and if it disqualifies Waste Management, it disqualifies the low bidder.

Warren Smith, Director of Business Development with Waste Management, Inc. of Florida, gave his background and professional experience in siting landfills and major disposal facilities, and advised the reason they are the low cost provider is because Waste Management attempted to be as responsive as possible to the RFP for a new landfill on Deseret Ranch property, and was the only company to propose a new landfill on the County-owned site. He stated like the other two proposers, they did not provide all the required information, but they cured the deficiency to their proposal during the Selection Committee meeting, just as the other two proposers were allowed to do. He stated one of the advantages of an RFP process is to get alternative solutions, better and cheaper solutions, and solutions the County may not have considered; the RFP allowed for and encouraged submission of alternatives; and that is what they provided and what they are asking the Board to evaluate and consider--the optimization of its existing Central Disposal Facility. Mr. Smith advised the existing landfill can be redesigned and operated to last almost 55 years by optimizing the use of the existing property; Waste Management, its engineers and scientists spent substantial time, money, and resources putting together a practical and implementable low cost proposal; and it included optimizing the existing site. He stated it is easier to develop and get permits for an existing site than a green field site such as Deseret Ranch property; and the advantages to the County are significant permitting risk reduction, availability of Deseret Ranch property for other alternatives or to sell it back to the Mormon Church and gain 8.25 million dollars, ease of implementation, ease of getting a permit for expansion of an existing site, and the County maintains control. He stated there are also major capital cost savings; the cost to design, permit, and build a new landfill could be $10 to $13 million; operational cost savings alone compared to other proposals could be $3 to $5 million per year; and landfill operations modification savings, through more efficient use of the property and elimination of the costly shredder facility, would also gain financially for the County. Mr. Smith advised the numbers on the savings to the taxpayers are rough because they did not have the opportunity to get all the details, and neither has the County staff, on the economics of the various proposals; but over the initial term of the RFP, that is the five-year term, it could mean $15 to $18 million in operating cost savings, and $10 to $13 million plus in capital cost savings. He noted it could also gain $8.25 million in sale of Deseret Ranch property back to the Mormon Church; and if the County took the money from the sale and what is saved by not building a new landfill, and invested it at a modest 5% over 20 years it would have over $54 million in the bank. He stated because of all those advantages, they ask the Board to at least look at what they have to offer; it spent almost $800,000 to do the RFP process, started with 11 to 12 vendors, qualified 9 vendors, and received 3 responses; and if it eliminates Waste Management, it will only have two vendors and would not evaluate the best and cheapest alternative. He requested Waste Management be treated no different than the other two bidders, and that the Board look at its offer.

Winston Gardner, Jr., 3585 S. Atlantic Avenue, Cocoa Beach, representing Waste Management, advised he is not sure if the Board can permit the Deseret Ranch property; they have 8.25 million dollars of County money sitting in an interest bearing account that has already generated over 3 million dollars; and John King said it is set aside for his legal funds to fight the permitting process. He stated Sanifill proposes to permit an area adjacent to the C-54 canal which drains into the Indian River right in the middle of an area where the County and St. Johns River Water Management District have spent millions of dollars buying numerous environmentally sensitive property close to the head waters of the St. Johns River; Chambers wants to transport through numerous jurisdictions it apparently has not coordinated with; and the Board has not looked at the price yet. He stated during the RFQ process Sanifill was disqualified by the Selection Committee as being deficient, but the Board decided to consider its submittal because of a letter from Ms. Lisa Barr which pointed out the County had the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to reject any and all vendor submittals, waive any irregularities, or accept qualified packages which in its judgment under all circumstances best serve the public interest. He stated that language is similar to Section 8 of the RFP; and on the face of it, the Board is about to disqualify its cheapest alternative which will cause it to spend at least $15 million it would not have to spend. Mr. Gardner stated he does not know what that will amount to on the Solid Waste Disposal fee that shows up on the ad valorem property tax bill, but the Board should consider it; and that consideration would serve the best public interest.

Bill Gresham, 10800 NE 128th Avenue, Okeechobee, representing Chambers Waste, advised the RFQ and RFP process was professionally written and managed; Chambers Waste tried to respond in the same professional manner; it was noted by the Selection Committee that they failed to include a route map from the South Transfer Station to their regional landfill in northeast Okeechobee; and he wants to apologize for that failure. He noted he submitted a map at that meeting. Mr. Gresham advised for the other submittal they did not do, at the pre-proposal meetings and by addendums, he only had to get permission if he was going to use county roads; federal and state highways were not required; and they did get permission for one county road which they would be using. He stated the objective of the RFP process was to receive proposals to handle solid waste in the South County service area with the least amount of risk to the County; their route was described in the proposal, but without a map; they would use I-95 south for 55 miles, State Highway 70 west for 26 miles, and Burman Road north for 4 miles; omission of the map did not affect the capital cost or any environmental risk; and they agreed to the County?s base proposal contracts with or without the map. Mr. Gresham advised Chambers would gladly respond to an RFQ/RFP request for the purpose of privatizing Brevard County?s current landfill operation; at this time it has no idea if that direction is environmentally or economically feasible for the County; but it will participate in any new RFP.

Mark Roth, 2777 Allen Parkway, Suite 700, Houston, Texas, Vice President of Sanifill, Inc., advised they are the managing partner of Brevard Landfill Company LLC; and he thought the item was to discuss a single issue of whether or not to accept Waste Management?s proposal and not to talk about the technical merits of any project compared to the competition. He stated if he had known that, he would have brought the ample information to show the Board what Waste Management is telling it may not be exactly true. He requested the Board consider the narrow issue; and stated there were requirements stipulated in the RFP; two vendors agreed to them, such as the base price proposal; they agreed to sign the documents; and Waste Management only agreed to it after it realized there was a possibility it would be removed from the process.

Bill Redman, 254 W. Keene Road, Apopka, representing Browning Ferris Industries, advised he faxed Mr. Rabon a letter based on the possible privatization of the Central Landfill Facility, and that Browning Ferris would look at the whole issue in a totally different light and would be willing to enter into a different RFP process. He stated the BFI understood all the ramifications of the initial and decided to do a no response at that time; and even though the process did encourage alternatives, it did not request proposals for redesigning of the Central landfill or privatization of that. Mr. Redman stated all the bidders would probably have looked at the issue completely different on the basis of privatization.

Commissioner Ellis advised at the workshop he expressed concerns that by demanding the base bid, it would end up with no bidders, and essentially that is what happened; when it got to the Selection Committee, there were only two bidders in compliance, Sanifill and Chambers; there was no map with Chambers bid, but there was only one way south to the Chambers? landfill, so that was not a major concern; and the Committee did not feel it was proper to make a decision on the no base bid from Waste Management, so it bumped it up to this Board which was adamant during the workshop that there be a base bid to submit alternates. He stated he thought other companies would do what Waste Management did and at the last minute submit a base bid that was totally irrelevant to any other cost data to be able to get its alternate in, but the other firms chose not to do that. He stated Waste Management did come up with a base bid during the meeting that was totally out of line with anything realistic; and what it submitted as an alternate is optimization of Cocoa landfill. Commissioner Ellis stated the fact that it comes in for less money is obvious because the Board knows the Cocoa landfill is cheaper than a new landfill; and the only thing new is the 55-year life cycle. He stated the theory of having a new landfill, or going with Ogdin Projects, Inc.?s incinerator, or taking trucks to Okeechobee, was to extend the use of Cocoa landfill by taking South County trash somewhere else; after sitting through this process for three years, he has ideas of where he would like to go, but they are not pertinent to this issue which is to reject or accept what Waste Management has done; it has an alternate that bears looking into; however, the Board was adamant at the workshop about the base bid being required.

Commissioner Scarborough advised some people opted not to submit proposals because the Board was so adamant about the base bid; it supposed to do the best for the taxpayers, but if it discouraged some people from bidding because of that mandate, then it may not have done the best thing for the public; and inquired if there was a flawed process and should the Board go back out with another RFP. Commissioner Ellis stated he did not want the mandatory base bid, but Chambers and Sanifill?s bids are valid, and Waste Management?s alternate is valid if the Board did a separate RFP for optimization of the Cocoa landfill. He stated what Waste Management proposed is valid, but it would fall in line if the County did a separate RFP to optimize Cocoa landfill more so than when it wanted to look at alternates for a South County facility.

Chairman Cook advised he is not happy with just two responses; they may be the best alternatives, but he was hoping to have more options to choose from; so it may be better to go back out and if some of the other companies want to bid on optimizing the Cocoa landfill, they should. He stated the Board?s responsibility in the end is to the taxpayers; it cannot be a slave to any procedure when it comes to spending tax dollars; and even though the two bids may be the best responses, he is not happy with not having more responses to consider.

Commissioner Higgs stated the important decision to make today is whether or not to waive the discrepancies in the bid from Waste Management and accept it; the Board spent a lot of time at the workshop on what needed to be in the RFP; it said it had to have a base bid; and she has no doubt that had to be a part of it. She stated she understood Commissioner Ellis? concerns at that time, but felt people would submit very high base bids in order to get in; and she does not understand why Waste Management did not do that initially to qualify. She stated it would not be proper to allow the submittal of Waste Management?s proposal at this time; after the Board makes that decision, it needs to look at the proposals it has and allow the committee to evaluate them; and it has the right to reject any or all vendors? submittals. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to evaluate what it has as qualified bids and determine if those are in the public interest; there was long discussion at the workshop and a clear statement of what it wanted in the proposal; and she does not understand how anyone could have misunderstood that the base bid was required.

Chairman Cook stated it was very clear, so he does not see how it could have been misconstrued; it still comes down to how the Board is going to get the best deal for the taxpayers; and if rejecting the bids and going back out and letting other companies bid on optimizing Cocoa landfill, then he will be happy with that. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board will not know that until it reviews what it has. Chairman Cook stated he is not happy with two responses for a project that will cost millions of dollars. Commissioner Higgs stated that is what the Board wanted, and that is why it went to extensive lengths to get a broad response and allow different types of technologies, yet it did not get that; but it has an obligation to review what it has and determine if one of those is in the best interest of the public. Chairman Cook stated that is one way to do it, and another way is to get as many responses as it had hoped for, and open up the process to allow another option so other vendors could respond.

Commissioner Ellis stated there are two options to the system?s solution; one is a new facility whether it is off U.S. 192 in South County or Osceola County, and the other would be Cocoa landfill optimization in conjunction with taking far South County trash south to Okeechobee. He stated if the Board took Palm Bay area and transported the material to Okeechobee and took Melbourne area to the optimized Cocoa landfill and rebuilt the transfer station south of Palm Bay, it could achieve a long life at the Cocoa facility; however, optimizing Cocoa alone will not do it. He inquired if the Board does not build a new landfill, how will it work a hybrid. He noted Cocoa optimization should be a stand alone bid.

Commissioner Higgs expressed concern that the Board is going beyond the immediate decision of whether or not to allow Waste Management?s proposal to be considered; and recommended the Board look at other suggestions separately with a different set of facts and bring together the same experts before another RFP is sent out. She stated the Board has to also evaluate the two proposals that were qualified by the committee, so it cannot narrow that choice today; there are other possibilities in terms of North County and Seminole County; and if the Board wants to re-evaluate whether or not it has enough proposals, that should be done at a separate meeting. Commissioner Ellis stated if the Board opens it up to Waste Management, it will be dropping the base bid requirement and would need to open it up to other proposers or not let Waste Management in and go with Sanifill and Chambers. Commissioner Higgs recommended evaluating the two qualified proposals to determine if it is in the public interest to proceed with those.

Commissioner O?Brien advised anybody who knows the rules of bidding and leaves an important part of the bid out, should not be considered; it should have been disqualified from the onset; there was a date and time set and parameters and rules laid out; and he cannot support Waste Management?s proposal being considered; however, if the Board reviews the other bids and finds the expense is not in the best interest of the public, it has room to change its approach and try again to get the best deal for the taxpayers.

Discussion ensued on whether or not to accept Waste Management?s proposal, evaluation of the two qualified proposals, two responses not being adequate, going back out with a revised RFP, and other options that could be considered. Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to reject the proposal of Waste Management, Inc. of Florida for Proposal #P-1-6-14, Solid Waste Disposal Services for South County Service Area, as it was not in compliance with the format requirements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to place an item on the May 28, 1996 Agenda to look at all the options on how to proceed with solid waste disposal services in South County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH BREVARD WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, RE: DESIGNATING ADMINISTRATIVE ENTITY FOR JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT TITLE II FUNDS

Chairman Cook advised the Board has voted on this previously and has to ratify it due to a new JEP Board; Ms. South is here to answer any questions; and it is important to work towards the 60% business people on the Board.

Linda South advised they will be contacting general business organizations to solicit additional nominations; and they contacted NASA for a representative. She stated the criteria to serve on the Board is to be a CEO or senior official with a firm of five employees or more. Chairman Cook asked Ms. South to explain what the action will accomplish; with Ms. South responding it will ratify the actions taken by the Board on March 5, 1996 which set the Brevard Workforce Development Board as the administrative entity for Title II dollars and Sub-state Grantee for the Title III dollars. She stated it is necessary to bring it back to this Board to comply with the Florida Legislative Workforce Florida Act of 1996 which was signed into effect on April 30, 1996, and requires the actions taken by this Board be ratified by the new JEP Board Chairman. She stated that action was handled at the first JEP Board meeting; the new JEP Board had to review and ratify the actions taken by the old PIC Board; and the actions taken in March were ratified by the Commissioner O?Brien expressed concern about the item coming back to the Board several times; with Ms. South responding if the Board passes it today, it will not be back for two years. Chairman Cook inquired if it is an automatic renewal; with Ms. South responding it has an annual renewal that automatically renews unless the Board chooses not to renew it. Chairman Cook stated it needs to come back to the Board for review periodically, and passed the gavel to Vice Chairman O?Brien.

Commissioner Higgs advised she will not vote on this item as her company does do business in this area and it would be a potential conflict of interest.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to execute Agreement with Brevard Workforce Development Board designating administrative entity for the Job Training Partnership Act Title II funds, with the stipulation that it comes back to the Board every two years. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs abstained.

The meeting recessed at 12:18 p.m. and reconvened at 1:15 p.m.

RESOLUTION FROM CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, RE: CHERIE DOWN PARK EXPANSION

Commissioner O?Brien advised the City wants the Board to apply for P-2000 grant funds to purchase 3.5 acres adjacent to Cherie Down Park.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to acknowledge receipt of Resolution from City of Cape Canaveral requesting the Board apply for Preservation 2000 grant funds to expand Cherie Down Park; and direct staff to work with the City to apply for grant funds. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: MELBOURNE CLERK?S OFFICE

Commissioner Ellis advised the Clerk?s Office in Melbourne Courthouse may close; and recommended the Board send a formal letter to the Clerk requesting he work with the Board to keep the Melbourne Clerk?s Office open, as it has a large amount of traffic there. He stated people come in to pay traffic fines, record deeds, get licenses, etc.; and if the Office is closed, all that traffic will come to the Justice Center.

Chairman Cook advised some discretion has to be left with the Constitutional Officers; and if the Clerk feels he wants to close the Melbourne branch office, it is up to him.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Clerk?s Office should be near the public, and it makes sense if it is feasible; however, if the Clerk cannot do it, the Board cannot mandate it, but a letter to the Clerk requesting he consider it is appropriate.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how much will it cost to keep the Melbourne Branch Office open; with Commissioner Ellis responding the flip side is how much will it save moving it. Commissioner Higgs stated the Clerk must have court clerks, etc. at Melbourne Courthouse; he will bring other services to the Justice Center, and will continue to operate out of Titusville; but it will cost additional dollars to keep personnel in Melbourne. Commissioner Ellis stated the Clerk?s budget for next year is more than it was this year; and inquired why would it cost more to run the Office in Melbourne Courthouse when the equipment is already in place and he will not have to outfit a new office. Commissioner Higgs inquired if passports and child support would stay in Melbourne; with Commissioner Ellis responding the entire Rockledge Clerk?s Office will be coming to Viera; and if a portion of the Clerk?s Office mainly deals with the public and not the court system, they would not need to be at Viera. Chairman Cook suggested getting more information from the Clerk.

Commissioner Ellis stated if the Clerk cuts all the positions, then he has justification combining child support and passports; however, the Budget submitted has the same number of employees, so some of them can stay in Melbourne. Commissioner Higgs advised some time ago the Clerk requested additional funds to keep those offices open, so the Board needs to ask him what it will cost. Chairman Cook stated it should not cost anything else, but the Board needs a response from the Clerk; and if it will cost more money, he would have serious concerns about it. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Clerk?s budget to come to Viera offers no savings, then why should they not stay in Melbourne and be convenient to the public. He stated if the Clerk is saving 10 to 12 positions, then it would be a tradeoff with public convenience; but if he is combining all the personnel from the Courthouses and bringing them to Viera, then there is no point in bringing all of them. He stated other Constitutional Officers have branch offices in other parts of the County. He stated the Clerk?s proposed budget for next year has a 5% increase, so there is not a lot of personnel savings by bringing them to Viera; consequently, he could keep the Melbourne Courthouse Clerk?s Office open and be more convenient for the public.

Chairman Cook stated he has no problem if there is no additional cost, but the Board owes it to the Clerk to get a response. Commissioner Ellis stated that was his point for recommending a letter be sent to the Clerk. Chairman Cook inquired if he should ask what are the savings or additional costs to stay in Melbourne, and what it will save to come to Viera; with Commissioner O?Brien responding the motion should be to inquire if his budget includes the move to Viera or staying in Melbourne because if there are savings by consolidating at Viera, that should be reflected in his budget. Chairman Cook stated he would include that as part of the letter.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to authorize the Chairman to send a letter to the Clerk inquiring about the cost to close the Melbourne Courthouse Clerk?s Office and move to the Justice Center, the cost savings to be realized by such a move, and the additional cost to keep the Melbourne Courthouse Clerk?s Office open. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS v. BREVARD COUNTY/ VALKARIA AIRPORT AMENDMENT, WETLANDS POLICY AMENDMENT NON- COMPLIANCE

County Attorney Scott Knox advised Department of Community Affairs found the Board action on the Comprehensive Plan amendments not in compliance, which triggered an administrative proceeding; the proceeding attracted interveners who raised additional issues to those raised by Department of Community Affairs; and the issues are Valkaria Airport amendment, Wetlands Policy changes, Port St. John connector road, and the 99 duplicative polices that were removed. He requested guidance from the Board on how it wants to proceed to defend the Board?s actions or negotiate settlements with Department of Community Affairs.

Chairman Cook advised the Board worked hard to have a unanimous consensus on the final modification to the Wetlands Policy; he got the impression from staff it would be acceptable to Department of Community Affairs; and inquired what happened that caused Department of Community Affairs to reject it. Assistant to the County Manager Peggy Busacca advised during discussions of the Board, staff was never certain whether the date the Board adopted for residential densities would be acceptable because it had some debate with Department of Community Affairs on that, and also the use of the term ?planning interest? as opposed to ?public interest.?

Commissioner Scarborough stated Department of Community Affairs did not have a problem with the Port St. John interchange, but the interveners did; the Wetlands Policy may be an issue for negotiation; and the Valkaria Airport issue should be challenged because there are legitimate reasons. He recommended taking the items one at a time in sequence.

Chairman Cook advised there is an overriding question on how to deal with the interveners, because if the County negotiates with Department of Community Affairs and all the interveners, it may never come to agreement on anything. He inquired what is the State law on that; with Mr. Knox responding if the Board negotiates a settlement agreement with Department of Community Affairs and cannot come to agreement with the interveners, it can enter into a compliance agreement and adopt it as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which would trigger another hearing process that the interveners can intervene on; and the ultimate result may be an administrative hearing with the interveners and Department of Community Affairs aligned with the Board if it agrees with the Board?s position. Commissioner Higgs stated there are a few issues that can be resolved with Department of Community Affairs on the wetlands issue.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct staff to negotiate the Wetlands Policy amendments to the Comprehensive Plan with Department of Community Affairs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to direct the County Attorney to defend the Board?s position regarding Valkaria Airport Plan Amendment.

Commissioner O?Brien advised FAA, FDOT, and other groups feel the end of the runway should be commercial and not residential; and inquired why is the Board fighting it to turn it into residential; with Commissioner Higgs responding there is an opportunity to have agricultural use within the residential land use designation, so it is appropriate; the whole area is being planned in the Small Area Plan; they saw less commercial being put around the area than is provided for in the amendment; so she will support defending the residential designation. Commissioner O?Brien recommended leaving it agriculture; with Commissioner Ellis responding it cannot be designated agriculture, but agricultural use is allowed in residential. Commissioner Higgs stated the land use designation would be residential, but the zoning could be agriculture. Commissioner O?Brien stated he does not comprehend why the Board would want to put residential at the end of a runway. Commissioner Higgs stated the predominant character of the area is rural residential.

Chairman Cook advised Department of Community Affairs wants to force the Board to put an industrial park in the middle of a rural residential area.

Discussion ensued on the residential use around Valkaria Airport, the number of homes that are there now, location of the property, expansion of industrial use north of Valkaria Road, south of Valkaria Road being business and north being residential, industrial not right for the area at this time, residences located in the flight path, and updating the Comprehensive Plan.

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

Mr. Knox advised Department of Community Affairs found the Port St. John interchange in compliance, but the interveners raised it as an issue of noncompliance in their petition for intervention; and inquired if it is accepted by Department of Community Affairs and goes to the hearing officer, does the Board want to defend its decision.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to authorize the County Attorney to defend the Board?s position regarding the Port St. John interchange road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Cook advised staff is working towards a resolution with Department of Community Affairs on other items; and if they do not come to a resolution with all the interveners, then the solution with Department of Community Affairs would come back to the Board for a decision.

Mr. Knox advised the last issue is the removal of 99 duplicative policies which the interveners claim were not duplicates.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to authorize the County Attorney to defend the Board?s action on removal of duplicative policies. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES - TONY AND HELAYNE RAY, RE: LEASE OF COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY

Helayne Ray, 200 Sandy Shoes Drive, Melbourne Beach, representing her family and her neighbor?s family, presented pictures to the Board, and advised they live on either side of a public utilities and road easement, and want to ensure no structures will be built next to their homes for recreational use, such as docks, picnic areas, steps to the river, fishing piers, etc. She stated Mr. Minneboo told them the County will not issue a permit for permanent structures in the right-of-way, but they heard comments from State officials that there could be a way around it; and their concerns are devaluation of their property, loss of security, and possible public nuisance. Ms. Ray advised of research done before purchasing their property, being told it was a public utilities and road easement and would not be used for anything but that, and design of their home based on that information. She stated on April 24, 1996, a roadway and easement permit was issued to Sunshine Homes, Inc. which installed a picnic table and three benches for use by the public; and the same company had the State visit the riverfront area and was told if the County would lease one foot at the edge of the right-of-way the State would grant them a permit to build a sitting platform, fishing pier, etc. She stated they are concerned that in the future the lease may be granted by a different Board without knowledge of the situation; the County has leased a right-of-way to a business in the past; so they would like to apply for a 99-year lease for the one foot of riverfront on the public utilities and road easement to keep the shoreline in an unimproved condition. She stated they want the acceptance or denial of the request recorded so they do not have concerns about it being addressed in the future; and inquired will the decision be final for them and any future parties.

Tom Ward, 185 Sandy Shoes Drive, Melbourne Beach, representing Sandy Shoes Homeowners Association, read a letter as follows: ?Dear Commissioners. It has been brought to my attention that private individuals intend to pursue obtaining permission for the Brevard County Commissioners to lease a portion of the Indian River right-of-way at the west end of Sandy Shoes Drive for the express intent to prevent its use by the general public. I urge you to deny this request. I believe a public right-of-way belongs to the citizens of Brevard County to afford them the ability to enjoy the abundant natural resources the Indian River Lagoon offers. Not everyone in Brevard County is fortunate enough to own riverfront property; however, in long range planning Brevard County has set aside public rights-of-way to enable its citizens to appreciate the natural beauty of the marine environment, its sunset, wildlife, and sincere tranquility provided by its shear presence. It would be a travesty to prevent the citizens of Brevard County access to what is rightfully theirs.? Mr. Ward advised he has 15 letters from Merritt Island to Floridana Beach dealing with this issue, and pictures of the property in question. He stated the County has been generous to the Rays and allowed them to put their driveway on the public right-of-way; and the two parties have attempted to take over the property by putting in lawn sprinklers, sodding it, and disguising its use as a public right-of-way. He presented and explained the pictures, and stated he does not know how their property can be devalued when the right-of-way was there before the house was built; and he and his neighbors are not public nuisances. He stated there is a small area for people to enjoy the right-of-way; and the term utilities and road easement concerns him because he has been dealing with public right-of-way. He presented the letters to the Chairman.

Buddy Braunlich, 150 Sandy Shoes Drive, Melbourne Beach, advised he supports the Homeowners Association?s request to deny the lease; and re-enforced that there has been appearance that the public right-of-way to the river has been taken over by the homeowners. He stated members of the County who drove by it said they could not recognize the public right-of-way as it looked like private property; the fact that there is a driveway there makes it look like private property; and there is a permit pending approval by the Office of Natural Resources for additional structures on the property by the Association. He requested the Board deny the lease.

Robert Dyer, 170 Sandy Shoes Drive, Melbourne Beach, stated he agrees with his neighbors and objects to the 99-year lease, as people die or leave, and the County will be tied to a 99-year lease. He stated there is the possibility of using the area to float a boat; if there was a platform to get to the river, they could use that resource; but right now it is unavailable to them.

Richard Bresson, 125B Sandy Shoes Drive, Melbourne Beach, advised he is responsible for development of the subdivision; when he purchased the property in 1986-87 the public right-of-way was in existence; and he was assured ocean to river access. He stated all the lots on Sandy Shoes Drive have ocean access; and now there is a potential of the river access being taken away. He stated he had a deed that listed every lot on Sandy Shoes Drive which is now Plat of Playton Subdivision No. 1; and his deed was subject to restrictions, easements, and reservations of record which meant he could not do anything to prevent public access. Mr. Bresson stated he tried to use the public right-of-way for access to Lot 21, which is the Rays? lot, but was denied because it was a public right-of-way; and he was asked to give an easement through Lot 19 for their driveway. He stated the County allowed them to build a house that could not use the easement he gave them for their property; they were given a certificate of occupancy before any driveway, concrete, or sod was put in; and when he saw what was going in the right-of-way he objected and was asked by the County to allow them to put up to six feet of their driveway on that right-of-way. He stated he was told they could develop the right-of-way for the convenience of the subdivision at their expense; and a suggestion was made by the County, and consented to by the Rays, that they put a wall down the right-of-way to tell people between the walls is the public right-of-way. He stated the motel people for years had access to watch the sunset; and they have asked what happened to the right-of-way because it looks like a lawn; and with cars parked in the driveway, it has the appearance that it no longer exists. He stated it was suggested to put a yellow stripe down the right-of-way, but they chose not to do that. He requested the County not compound the mistakes and maintain it as a public right-of-way.

Walter Marszal, 205 Sandy Shoes Drive, Melbourne Beach, presented pictures to the Board, and stated when he purchased his house, the grass was there, the sprinklers were in, and it was his sprinkler system that was watering the easement which was done by the person he purchased the house from. He stated when they fixed the embankment, they destroyed the lawn and replaced the grass that was already there; they never considered it to be private; and he never had problems with the neighbors using it, but some of the things they are suggesting such as putting in a fishing pier, would invite other people into the area. He stated they live there and would have to deal with those people; and if it is open to whoever wants to come there he would not have the safety for his children any more. He stated he called the State, County, and others and found out nobody could do anything with the easement; now the Association wants to do something with it; and the reason the Rays want the 99-year lease is to prevent that from happening. Mr. Marszal stated as for parking cars there, the Rays make it a point to park in their garage and not on that portion of the driveway since it is part of the easement; it is 1,200 feet from A1A; and once it is noted, they will have the same problems as Ocean Park, and his personal and family safety will be in jeopardy.

Suzanne Marszal, 205 Sandy Shoes Drive, Melbourne Beach, advised when they purchased the house, they had contact with the County, State, real estate people, and title company, all of whom stressed that nothing permanent could be built there because it was a public not private easement. She stated they had a dock and retention wall put in; and part of that permit was to maintain the 15 feet, which meant they had to sod it back to its original condition.

Commissioner Higgs advised the request is for the Rays to lease one foot for 99 years; that is not appropriate; and suggested Mr. Minneboo address what has been permitted in the past and what their intentions are.

Public Works Director Henry Minneboo advised historically the County has never allowed objects in public rights-of-way; with subdivision signs they encourage utilization at the extremities of the rights-of-way or easements; and he can recall only one time that the County leased public lands for several years for a parking lot. He stated because of the liability, they have discouraged anything within a public right-of-way; and with a right-of-way that goes to the river, it is more of a concern. He stated the County has never allowed a dock utilizing public rights-of-way.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised if the Board plans to lease any land to a private party, it has to put it out to bid; and as to impact of the lease, he would have to review the granting document which is not part of the package.

Chairman Cook stated he supports Commissioner Higgs because it is a public right-of-way and no permanent objects are allowed on those rights-of-way. Commissioner Higgs inquired if staff approved the permit for bushes and a picnic table; with Mr. Minneboo responding yes, but they were specific that the picnic table be removable. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is an application from the Homeowners Association or contractor for a dock or steps to a dock; with Mr. Minneboo responding the Office of Natural Resources called his office regarding that, and he indicated to them Public Work?s position on the issue, specifically that they do not allow docks on public rights-of-way. He stated he does not know if they moved forward with the application. Chairman Cook inquired if staff anticipates approving a dock; with Mr. Minneboo responding no. Commissioner Ellis inquired if that would be a DEP issue; with Commissioner Higgs responding the dock would be, but what they have to come across to get to the dock is the public right-of-way or easement. Mr. Minneboo stated they do not allow attachments to the public rights-of-way. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board can assume no permit would be issued by Public Works or Natural Resources for a permanent structure in that right-of-way.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny the request of Tony and Helayne Ray for a 99-year lease of one foot at the end of a public right-of-way. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL ENGINEERING APPROVAL, RE: OAK GROVE ROAD PAVING

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Hospital Board is in the process of discussing building an entirely new hospital; staff is not certain if the road would be used to access the proposed hospital; and it may be advantageous for the road to move under the City of Titusville?s jurisdiction. He stated he would like to meet with the City and Hospital officials with Mahmoud Najda, to determine if the City is interested in taking over the road.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to table final engineering approval for Oak Grove Road Paving until June 4, 1996, and authorize discussions with the City of Titusville and North Brevard Hospital District Board to determine if they will take over the road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

JOINT USE AGREEMENT WITH SCHOOL BOARD, RE: USE OF FACILITIES

Commissioner Scarborough advised staff recommends Option 1 which is to approve the revised Agreement and consider implementing and funding of the pilot program; however, the Board does not fund something for next year until it has gone through the budget.

Chairman Cook inquired where will the $192,000 come from for the pilot program; with Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson responding that is not identified at this time; and the intent is to have the Board look at that during the budget process. Chairman Cook stated he would agree to go forward with the process, but cannot guarantee $192,000 to fund it. Mr. Nelson stated the main issue is to get the Agreement, and allow the Board to consider a pilot program during the budget process.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Joint Use Agreement with the School Board of Brevard County for use of facilities, with the understanding funding for the pilot program will be discussed when the Board considers the FY 1997 budget. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT, RE: PROPOSED FY 1997 BUDGETS FOR SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT AND COUNTY COURTS, AND SHERIFF

Chairman Cook advised the Board had Budget Workshops to consider not raising the millage, and possibly reducing the budget; and inquired if the same thing has been communicated to the Constitutional Officers. He stated there are significant increases in their budgets; and inquired if a request was made to them to try and come in along the lines of reducing the budget.

Budget Director Kathy Wall advised staff notified the Constitutional Officers, and has been working with each Officer to ensure that happens.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can acknowledge receipt of the proposed budgets and comment to them that the Board wants them to reconsider their proposed budgets.

Commissioner O?Brien inquired how will the Board keep taxes the same or lower them if every Constitutional Officer increases their budgets by 5.4%, 6% and 3%.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to acknowledge receipt of FY 1996-97 proposed budgets from the Supervisor of Elections, Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts, and Sheriff; and authorize the Chairman to send letters to each Constitutional Officer requesting they reconsider their submitted budgets. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT, RE: INTERNAL AUDIT FOLLOW-UP OF COASTAL HEALTH SYSTEMS OF BREVARD, INC.

Attorney Leonard Spielvogel, representing Coastal Health Systems of Brevard, Inc., advised he will respond to any questions the Board may have.

Commissioner O?Brien advised he did not have time to read the entire letter, but was upset with what he found in the audit; Finding #2 states Coastal is charging BLS trips at the ALS rate of $250 instead of $135; and that is what it is billing Medicare and Medicaid. He stated part of the letter said Coastal examined 1,078 billings or 12% of 8,650 trips billed in 1992 and found that refunds of $50,000 were due in 463 cases; however, the auditor found Coastal limited its refund examination when certain institutional payers such as Medicare and Medicaid were the primary insurers. He stated if Medicare and Medicaid were over billed, they would not get refunds, and that is wrong, because if they were over billed, that money is due back to the federal government.

Attorney Spielvogel advised the April 25, 1996 letter came from Mr. Cunningham to Chief Boykin responding to the draft audit which said they are going to do what the auditor asked them to do. He stated Mr. Cunningham was Director of Public Safety when the item came before him on the billing of Coastal; he recommended the account be audited because he felt it was being mishandled; and it was his suggestion that resulted in the audit of Coastal for the period October 1, 1991 through June 30, 1993 which found the over billing of approximately $50,000. He stated the CEO of Coastal was separated from that position, and Mr. Cunningham, who retired from the County, took it over and repaid the money. Mr. Spielvogel advised the County allows it to bill for ALS regardless of what is carried in the ambulance; and Coastal is examining every account. He stated the auditor expressed concern about the mileage; people report that information at the end of the run; sometimes it is above what it should be, and sometimes it is below; and they will make that information available to the Public Safety Director. He stated the letter from the Chief was dated April 6, 1996, and Mr. Cunningham?s response was April 25, 1996; and they are going to do all those things. He suggested the Board authorize or require specific mileage runs between institutions so there is a set number of miles from Wuesthoff to Holmes; however, it should apply to everyone who transports, be it emergency or non-emergency. Mr. Spielvogel stated monthly reports will be sent to Chief Boykin, and they will be glad to send copies to the County Manager and anyone else the Board directs; his concern is the confidentiality of the information contained in the run reports; and recommended a procedure to control that because run reports have confidential patient information.

Commissioner O?Brien stated he is glad they will address the 3,721 of the 4,799 billings which may be due refunds; however, another part of the Audit that concerned him states, ?We question why Coastal excluded most of the 1,085 billings in its Medicare/private insurance classification. Only two of these billings were examined in detail. Coastal refunded $115 in one trip because the patient, not Medicare or private insurance had paid the overcharge. We question the validity of Coastal?s assumption to not examine all possible over billings, particularly when the patient or the secondary insurer could have paid the over billing and be due a refund.? He stated the audit mentions more than one of a series of over billings; Mr. Spielvogel said they are allowed to charge ALS rates regardless of what they are transporting; however, if they are running a BLS unit, he hopes they are charging BLS rates instead of perpetuating robbery of Medicare and Medicaid.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the County runs ALS equipped units, and there is a cost associated with that; if they were able to operate only BLS units, they could bill BLS rates; but they actually run ALS units. He stated sometimes when they get on the scene, they may only require BLS, but when they are dispatched, they do not know what they will need when they get there. Commissioner O?Brien inquired if they send two-tier responses with the fire truck and ambulance; with Mr. Jenkins responding the fire truck is the first responder. Commissioner O?Brien stated the fire truck is always ALS and the ambulance BLS; with Chief Farmer responding no, the fire engine is BLS 98% of the time, as they only have one or two ALS engines; they do not have BLS emergency medical service units because they are all staffed and permitted at ALS level; and that is why all the County?s transports are billed at the ALS level. Commissioner O?Brien suggested Chief Boykin review the document that was sent to his Office concerning two-tier response because it stated every fire truck had ALS people for heart patients, and ambulances were generally BLS.

Commissioner O?Brien recommended Coastal advise the Board in writing what it intends to do for all refunds to Medicaid, Medicare, and people who overpaid. He stated 3,721 of the 4,799 billings were reviewed, but 1,085 Medicaid and private insurance billings were excluded; and they should not be excluded. He recommended Coastal respond to charging BLS trips at ALS rates, how many trips were charged at ALS rates and were actually BLS trips, and the variations in mileage for routine ambulance runs. He explained runs from Wuesthoff to Merritt Manor Nursing Home and discrepancies in mileage and charges; and stated someone is due a refund which was not addressed in the audit.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct that any and all refunds, whether due to Medicare, Medicaid, or people, be paid; the mileage discrepancies be corrected, and anyone due a refund for mileage be paid; and a report from Coastal be made to the Board in 30 days.

Attorney Spielvogel advised the motion asks for a report from Coastal, and it can respond to the Board?s questions to see if it is satisfied with the answers.

Commissioner O?Brien amended the motion to obtain a response from Coastal first, and information on how many people it owes money to. Commissioner Scarborough did not accept the amended motion; and stated if there are refunds due, he wants them paid. Commissioner O?Brien stated he wants them paid and a response from Coastal.

Mr. Spielvogel advised they are recalculating all the billings; and if they have over billed, it was inadvertent; he cannot defend the mileage runs, but someone is being under-charged and someone is being over-charged; however, it has not been intentional, but it has been sloppy and needs to be corrected. He stated that is the reason they are suggesting fixed distances implemented by everybody who transports. He noted they will correct it and get back with a response.

Commissioner O?Brien stated his motion is to ensure all refunds are made, the difference between ALS and BLS billings be reviewed to make sure they have not over-charged, any Medicare and Medicaid overcharges be refunded to the federal government, and the Board get a full report from Coastal Health Systems, Inc.

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

Commissioner Ellis inquired about the Meyers-Baker Act where ambulances are being used for transport when they do not need to use ambulances, and will it be addressed in the RFP so they do not end up in ambulances if they do not have to be. Chief Farmer advised the Department is anticipating writing an RFP for the Meyers-Baker Act and presenting not necessarily utilizing ambulances as the most efficient way to run the system; they did surveys of other systems; and some use unmarked police cars and ambulances. Mr. Spielvogel recommended unmarked police cars or ambulances as opposed to one or the other. He expressed concern about the procedure that would be followed transporting those clients under the Act?s requirements because they have to be restrained. He stated if they are put in a police car, they would probably be handcuffed because he does not think the Sheriff would want to run the risk; many of those clients have unpredictable conducts; Coastal has a concern about transporting more than one at a time; and it may be the solution to ask the Sheriff to handle the transport. Mr. Spielvogel stated he heard suggestions to put them in vans; if they will be restrained to limit their motion and ability to create havoc in the vehicle, he does not know if that can be done in a van; there are certain protocols that deal with ambulance transport; and that has to be looked at carefully, because if it is done wrong, it will subject the County and transporter to a lot of liability. Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the billing procedure for Meyers-Baker Act transports; with Mr. Spielvogel responding he does not know, but they get a certain amount from the County. Commissioner Ellis stated he is not concerned what vehicle is used but is concerned about how much is billed; if there is a fleet of ambulances, he can understand why they would use an ambulance instead of a van because it is available; but he does not want to pay ambulance rates if they do not have to have an ambulance. Mr. Spielvogel stated the reason they do not use vans is because they do not have the authority to do in a van what they can do in an ambulance because of medical protocol; they can restrain someone in an ambulance for their own benefit; but they do not believe they can do that in a van; and they could be exercising police powers that they do not have. Commissioner Ellis requested information on what other jurisdictions are using to transport Meyers-Baker Act clients be provided to the Board, including how they are billed and what they are transported in.

Chairman Cook recommended it be added to the request for a response.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to add to the information requested from Coastal Health Systems of Brevard, Inc. how they bill for Meyers-Baker Act transports and what they are transported in.

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

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the RFP will be ready by the end of this fiscal year or calendar year; with Chief Farmer responding they propose to present the RFP to the Board this summer.

AWARD OF PROPOSAL #P-2-6-19 AND CONTRACT, RE: CUSTODIAL SERVICES FOR GOVERNMENT CENTER AND MOORE JUSTICE CENTER

Chairman Cook advised the estimated cost is $173,000 annually; and something that big should not be on Consent Agenda. He inquired if the length of the contract is one year; with Facilities Management Director Hugh Muller responding it is one year with option to renew for another year. Chairman Cook inquired if the option is exercised by the Board; with Mr. Muller responding yes. Chairman Cook advised the contract is 4.4 cents per square foot, and other areas range from 2.7 cents to 3.5 cents per square foot, so it is on the high side. Mr. Muller stated because of the quality of cleaning and the type of facilities they will deal with, such as holding cells at both the Justice Center and Government Center which are often trashed, and because they are required to provide better supervision of the cleaners at night and have people available during the day to clean up things that happen at both locations, the cost is higher. Chairman Cook inquired if it will entail a full-time person at each facility; with Mr. Muller responding yes.

Commissioner O?Brien inquired if the cost is shared with the Sheriff or Justice Department; with Mr. Muller responding no, the County maintains the buildings used by the Sheriff. Commissioner O?Brien inquired if the County maintains the jail at Sharpes; with Mr. Muller responding yes, his budget takes care of the maintenance, and the trustees do the day-to-day cleaning of the jail. Commissioner O?Brien stated the Board looks bad if it raises taxes while others like the Sheriff and judiciary raise their budgets any time they wish because the Board gets hit with the bill. He stated they do not pay a share of the cleaning they require; the Board has to raise its budget to take care of them; and things like custodial service should be included in their budgets, so when people run for office they can defend themselves like the Commissioners have to.

Chairman Cook stated the County pays 3.5 cents a square foot now; and 4.4 cents is significant for a building that large. Pat Moore advised the County has been on a low bid acceptance process on previous contracts; this was a request for proposal deliberately done to raise the standards of cleaning; the County had companies with two-year histories and unsatisfactory performance; so it went with the RFP and chose a company with the strongest proposal to raise the standards of cleanliness to an acceptable level; however, that also raises the price. Mr. Muller advised the proposal is the second low and not the most expensive, and the County will get value as well as good cleaning. Chairman Cook inquired if the County used the company before; with Mr. Moore responding Servicemaster is a national company with billions of dollars in assets and backed up as a franchise corporation which guarantees to back up the County?s specification requirements. He noted the County will have better success with Servicemaster than companies that have limited experience and smaller facilities. Mr. Muller stated the County has not used the company before, but its references checked out great. Chairman Cook stated he has not had problems with the maintenance of his Offices; with Mr. Muller responding he gets complaints on a daily basis on the same areas of the Government Center.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the standards for cleaning office spaces as opposed to public spaces going to be equivalent to what it is in other County buildings, or is there a different level of service; with Mr. Muller responding it is the same level, but staff hopes the company will accomplish that level, as at other locations the current company has not met the specifications on a frequent basis. Commissioner Higgs stated some spaces are not cleaned every day; and inquired if the judicial spaces will be cleaned every day; with Mr. Moore responding they do some kind of cleaning every day in every space; the schedules vary; and the judges rooms and courtroom areas get more intensive cleaning than general office areas. Chairman Cook inquired why is that; with Mr. Moore responding because of the crowds that use the areas, and to keep the courtrooms as presentable as possible.

Discussion ensued on the level of service for high traffic areas and office areas, the escalation in cost, the efforts to build a facility with low maintenance, difference between custodial and maintenance services, higher percentage of public areas, higher quality of service than the existing service, and keeping one person at each facility at all times.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to award Proposal #P-2-6-19, Custodial Services for Government Center and Moore Justice Center, to Servicemaster at estimated $173,016.00 annually, and authorize the Chairman to execute a Contract with Servicemaster.

Chairman Cook inquired about the difference between the low bid and this bid, what was the determining factor, and why the low bid was not accepted. Mr. Moore advised the Selection Committee had several criteria, and price was only one; the reason it selected Servicemaster over Jenko was that Jenko had not performed contracts of that magnitude; and one contract it did have of similar type it was having problems with. He stated the reference contacted said Jenko was responsive but still had problems. He stated the only other contract it had was cleaning floors in Walgreen Drug Store which is not considered comparable to the Justice Center or Government Center; so its basic experience level and scope of work on other contracts did not match the requirements. Chairman Cook inquired if the local franchisee of Servicemaster had that experience; with Mr. Moore responding not to his knowledge, but the company has. Chairman Cook stated he cannot support it with no justification to select other than the low bid. Commissioner Scarborough stated Jenko received 16 points and Servicemaster received 6 points; it is not like they were 6 and 7; and it was substantially a higher vote of the Selection Committee for Servicemaster.

Mr. Moore advised Jenko offered 17 employees to do the work with one onsite manager from 1:00 to 7:00 p.m. which would not cover either shifts satisfactorily; and Servicemaster offered 16 employees with three working supervisors that would cover all shifts, so the County will get better supervision.

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

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 3:07 p.m.

MARK COOK, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

ATTEST:
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK (S E A L)