The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on August 13, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Helen Voltz, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O?Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Mark Cook, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

Community Development Administrator Peggy Busacca stated at the July 30, 1998 Zoning meeting, the Board requested staff provide information about obtaining services of a consultant to look at towers; staff only had time to contact one consultant about what could be done for the Board; and there are two approaches. She stated a case by case study of the individual sites would cost approximately $2,500 per application and take two to three weeks; and the second method would be a larger area study which would take approximately six to eight weeks and cost no more than $30,000 for the North Brevard area. She stated as a consultant, this would not come under the necessity to go through the procurement process, but as an engineer it would have to go through the proposal process; and after speaking with Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley, it is her opinion that much of what the Board is requesting are actually engineering rather than consultant services. She advised she contacted a County which uses the service of CIS, Inc. and it was pleased with the services, but provided a long list of other consultants. She stated the Board tabled two zoning requests for conditional use permits for towers to the August 27, 1998 meeting so that does not allow very much time to go through the process to get a consulting engineer to do the work the Board has described.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the letter from CIS talks about there applications that could be reviewed; and suggested doing them in combination rather than one at a time. He stated if they could be done combined for $5,000 to $8,000, it makes more sense; and he does not know if it is necessary to do all of North Brevard, but just the most favorable area. Ms. Busacca advised CIS, Inc. does this work for other governments including St. Johns County and Fernandina Beach; but the issue is whether this can be done without going out for proposals. Commissioner Cook stated he would be uncomfortable with that; the Board should follow the procedure; and suggested doing something on an interim basis. Commissioner Scarborough stated the rezoning applications will have to be tabled for six months; otherwise, there will be three different proposals being handled concurrently with conflicting information. Ms. Busacca advised the Statute does allow for the Board to certify a valid public emergency, which would then allow it to go forward and contract with individuals without going through the process.

Chairman Voltz stated there are three cases before the Board immediately that need to be taken care of; and inquired in the future, will this have to be done every time. She stated if it is necessary to wait for an RFP, the process to get a tower will be long. Ms. Busacca stated what staff envisioned was getting a contractor, and then on a case by case basis, they would serve as the County?s continuing engineering consultant on the issue.

REPORT, RE: CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR TOWERS AND ANTENNAS (CONTINUED)

County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired who is going to pay for it. Ms. Busacca advised there may be consultants needed for other conditional use permits, and the Board may want to discuss a fee to go with the consultant.

Commissioner Cook inquired if there is a way to do something on an interim basis because this will be an ongoing contract that needs to go through the process.

Commissioner Higgs suggested declaring an emergency because there is a pressing need before the August 30, 1998 Zoning meeting. Commissioner O?Brien suggested tabling the items further and going through the bid process. He noted the Board has been advised by its attorneys about the lack of competent substantial evidence from experts on its side; and this is an opportunity to have a competent substantial expert taking a position on the County?s behalf. He stated to be prudent, the Board should table the items until the problem of the bid process is solved. Chairman Voltz inquired if the Board should take care of the three now; with Commissioner O?Brien responding they should be tabled until the Board can get the right answers. Commissioner Scarborough stated Aerial APT seemed most insistent on the Board proceeding; and inquired if the Board goes through the process, would Aerial APT have a right to start an action against the Board because the item is tabled. Mr. Knox inquired how long has it been since the item started; with Ms. Busacca responding this is the first time it was tabled, and it has been in the process for two months. Mr. Knox advised there are cases on moratoriums which indicate six months is okay. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board approves the one shot route, the Board will not be sued by Aerial APT, but someone who may want the business could complain. Chairman Voltz suggested they could be done simultaneously. Commissioner O?Brien stated he wants to hold off on everything because it creates a level playing field for everybody; and if the Board does the one shot, it will have three of them out there, and then three more. Commissioner Higgs noted Mr. Kirschenbaum and Mr. Nelson are on their second tabling. Ms. Busacca stated when it comes to the Federal Communications Act, it is not the tower speculators, but the telecommunications company; so, the Aerial APT would be a different legal standard than the tower speculators.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve a one-time consultant for Aerial APT and simultaneously go out for RFP for a permanent consultant.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the reason he is doing this rather than follow Commissioner O?Brien?s suggestion is because of the risk of litigation; and there is a greater propensity to be up against a suit by people wanting to permit a tower than by people complaining.

Chairman Voltz stated this is something new which the applicants now in the process did not expect; and it may be unfair to them. Commissioner Cook stated it is bringing in the horse after the barn door is closed. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to proceed expeditiously with the information, and Aerial APT consented to the delay at the meeting.

Mr. Knox advised of the need to declare an emergency.

REPORT, RE: CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR TOWERS AND ANTENNAS (CONTINUED)

Motion restated by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to declare an emergency, approve a one-time consultant for Aerial APT, and simultaneously go out for RFP for a permanent consultant. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Cook and O?Brien voted nay.

County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired whether the Board wants to pay or direct staff to develop a resolution to pass the cost on. Commissioner Scarborough stated since the people are in the process, the County cannot come back and add to their costs; but as it proceeds the cost of the consultant services can be a cost to the people; and inquired if that can be done. Mr. Knox advised he will research the issue.

Commissioner Cook stated he is concerned because the applicant will have to pay for their own consultants, and this would make them pay for the County?s too. Commissioner Higgs advised in other Planning and Zoning cases, the consultants are not being paid by the applicant; and she wants a standard that is fair across the Board. She stated if it is an overall fee, that is one thing, but requiring applicants to pay the County?s consultant makes her uncomfortable. Commissioner Scarborough agreed with Commissioner Higgs.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the County Attorney to research the issue of payment of consultant fees, and put the issue on the Agenda for discussion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Busacca requested clarification of the study area. Commissioner Scarborough stated for the purpose of this particular one, this would be from the TiCo Airport area to SR 528. Ms. Busacca expressed concern that an area this large can be done within two weeks; with Commissioner Scarborough responding if it cannot be done, staff can bring it back to the Board at the August 18, 1998 meeting for the Board to redefine the area. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to do big sections if possible so there are not multiple studies; and the Board can narrow it down if it has to.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to appoint Pat VanSickle, replacing Dr. Fred C. Leiser, Jr., and Vince Labon, replacing Al Notary, to the Charter Review Commission.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Charter Review Commission is done; with Commissioner O?Brien advising it is not over. Commissioner Cook inquired if the original appointees resigned; with Commissioner O?Brien responding affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Charter Review Commission is still in existence; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding technically it exists.

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

Public Works Director Henry Minneboo stated the Board requested data; and hopefully, the Board can make decisions or provide direction related to the future of the road program. He stated in 1988 the Board realized the problem with roads, and created a method to finance the road system; the Local Option Gas Tax, Constitutional Gas Tax, and Impact Fees were used; and this provided an opportunity to catch up with the road program as it applied to the entire County. He stated the Commissioners have been provided with a list of what was accomplished. He advised of projects completed including Grissom Road from SR 405 to SR 528, the four-laning of North Courtenay Parkway from the Barge Canal to the KSC gate, widening of Minton Road from SR 192 south to Malabar, Wickham Road from Aurora Road north to I-95, and most of the segments of Malabar Road. He stated the program is now coming to a close; and advised of the status of existing projects including Dairy Road South Widening Project, South Courtenay Parkway, Malabar Road Widening Project, Port St. John Connector Road, Croton Road Widening Project from Johnson Junior High to Lake Washington, and South Wickham Road from SR 192 to Nasa Boulevard. He stated the list shown as Attachment VI is an accumulation of all the thoughts; it is not prioritized; and a significant amount of refinement needs to be done. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the cost projections are just raw estimates.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Minneboo showed him the project list day before yesterday; it has not been discussed in detail; there are some fundamental problems in how the projects are described which would cause turmoil in the community if the list proceeded forward for discussion; it is overreaching in its concepts; and it would probably result in a rejection of the entire concept of this manner of funding the Gas Tax. Chairman Voltz requested clarification; with Commissioner Scarborough responding there are things that are said and implied that are fundamentally beyond the scope of the discussion as it is today; and it draws conclusions. He stated hooking the I-95 interchange on the west side to Golfview is a fundamental decision that has been minimally discussed, and is fraught with controversy. He stated the County had the good fortune to acquire Fay Lake Park; a lot of people are proposing taking the connector road through the park area so there is no interchange going down to a single family street; and by going through County property that can easily be avoided. He stated the Fay Lake Park Committee wants to be sure the Board does not create a bad environment; a lot of times there are roads in parks that have a park environment; and it could be a limited access road. He stated Mary Tees has indicated some other concerns. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board needs to talk about specifics today; with Commissioner Scarborough advising he does not want anything to be done with the list except to throw it in the trash. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want this to proceed; and he is not endorsing anything further concerning the list. Commissioner Cook stated he supports Commissioner Scarborough other than Croton Road which should be done as soon as possible, but there is a need for community input. Commissioner Higgs stated she thought the Board was going to talk about what needs to be done in a broad manner. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is politically dangerous for him to vote in favor of anything if the list remains part of the package.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to eliminate the list shown as Attachment VI.

DISCUSSION, RE: TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS (CONTINUED)

Mr. Minneboo stated the list was what the Board collectively asked staff about. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is not true; it has been discussed in general terms; but staff jumped the gun.

Chairman Voltz called for a vote to remove the list. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated the list represents the needs of the area; she will take this as a valid representation of a large amount of needs; and the Board can specifically go on from there.

Chairman Voltz stated the projects in her District are fine.

Commissioner Higgs stated there are some projects in District 3 she wants to move on, and others that may have to wait. She stated the issue is whether the Board wants to find a way to finance any of the projects.

Mr. Minneboo stated staff is asking to move into the next millennium for a bonding program for roads, get substantial input from the public, and establish a list of projects. He noted Mr. Holley is present to provide information on bonding.

Chairman Voltz stated this will not go to public hearings until the list is recreated. Mr. Minneboo stated if the Board finds a mechanism for funding, then it can work out a list at a later date. Chairman Voltz stated that later date should be at the public hearings. Commissioner Scarborough stated it needs to be project driven. Commissioner Cook stated in a workshop recently the Board was told money was available in the excess Gas Tax for Croton Road without additional bonding. Commissioner Higgs stated she thought that was money for design; with Commissioner Cook advising it was for construction too. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board will work rapidly to define what it thinks is appropriate and give it to the community; there have been no meetings on this issue; and it is a touchy issue. Commissioner Cook agreed it must be project driven; and stated each Commissioner should meet with his or her community to see what is essential, and then the Board should schedule a workshop. Chairman Voltz stated she does not know if the Board needs to schedule a workshop on the projects. Commissioner Scarborough advised of the need to meet with the people to define project needs. Commissioner Higgs stated the expansion of Palm Bay Road has been through many hearings, and there is no question about it; and there are several others that people will immediately indicate they want to be done. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if two weeks would be sufficient to get ready. Commissioner Cook stated he has several projects, and needs additional time; and suggested 30 days. Mr. Jenkins suggested each Commissioner bring his or her list back, and prioritize based on available money.

Discussion ensued on prioritization of projects and scheduling another workshop.

Commissioner Higgs inquired about the bonding program; stated one of the criticisms of the first bond issue was that the money was not used efficiently; and inquired if it can be bonded in steps; with Financial Advisor Tom Holley responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it becomes inefficient to do it in three issuances. Mr. Holley stated if there is a pot of money that costs 5%, and it is possible to invest it at 5%, then there is no inefficiency in having a pot of money, if it is spent

DISCUSSION, RE: TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS (CONTINUED)

wisely; however, the problem is not the money, but the way it is expended. Mr. Holley stated right now the Board could reinvest the unexpended balances at the same percentage and not have a loss; if the Board issued $70 million today and needed $20 million this year, $20 million the next year, and $20 million the following year, that would be the most efficient way to raise the money, from a cost perspective; and explained the advantage of one bond issue with reinvestment at the same rate. He stated right now the County?s long-term cost of money is 5%; the State Board of Administration is at 5.50% reinvestment rate; and there would be no loss on the funds.

Commissioner Higgs stated that is today?s environment; the Board is talking about $60 million which it is not ready to spend in the two-year period; and the market will change. She inquired if usually it can be reinvested at a better or equal rate; with Mr. Holley responding that is typical. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the County is likely to lose if it does one issue; with Mr. Holley responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the cost of one issuance is less expensive; with Mr. Holley responding yes. Mr. Holley advised the cost of issuance is approximately $125,000 per bond issue; and the Board can pay it once or three times.

Discussion ensued on fixed costs, variable costs, and total costs of issuing bonds.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the County did not lose money in the 1988 issuance by doing it all at once; with Mr. Holley responding the 1988 issuance was before his time, and he does not know about it, although he could find out for the Board. Mr. Holley stated on the 1994 issuance, the County has not lost anything. Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Holley provide information on the 1988 issuance. Mr. Holley stated the highest rate in 1994 was 5.1%; since 1994, the State Board of Administration has never gone below 5.1%; and the County has not lost money.

Mr. Holley presented five options showing how much money would be available in the year 2000; and outlined the components. He stated they did everything from no new debt, refunding the LOGT

to extend the gas tax to 2011, doing Constitutional Fuel Tax bonds for 20 years, combination of options 2 and 3, and extending the LOGT another five years and then bond back. He advised the cost of money is approximately 5% per year; if the project costs are more than 5% a year, it would be prudent to do this; but if they are not, then some proportionate pay as you go makes sense. Commissioner Cook requested elaboration. Mr. Holley reiterated the cost of funds is 5%; if the project costs are more than 5%, then it is prudent to pay them today; but if the cost of projects is less than 5%, then the projects could be done pay as you go. He noted it does not take into account the inefficiencies caused by traffic delays which is additional cost; and it is not factored in because it is too debatable.

Discussion ensued on traffic delays, fuel costs, sizes of cars, different levels of project urgency land costs, costs of deferring projects, and getting ahead of the transportation curve.

Mr. Minneboo stated retention ponds are a big issue in Palm Bay; staff is trying some unique approaches to purchase retention ponds now; and later the roadwork will be aligned to what the County already has.

DISCUSSION, RE: TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS (CONTINUED)

Commissioner Cook stated the Board knows the options, but until it knows what projects are essential and which are not as essential, the Board does not have much to do. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs answers to the question of how much more it will cost each year; and it is estimated at 5%. Chairman Voltz stated in five or ten years, the minimum would be up 5%. Commissioner Higgs inquired what can the Board manage over a ten-year period. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to set some parameters; the connector with the interchange is a health and safety issue because there are schools there; and he will argue that as a higher priority item. He stated the projects need to be broken up so the Board can determine the main projects for the County. Commissioner Cook stated it cannot be a wish list, but must be essential projects. Chairman Voltz stated the issue is what can be effectively managed over the next ten years; and that would be the amount of money needed. Commissioner Scarborough commented on using in-house staff and others coming in on a part-time basis. Commissioner Higgs stated the County cannot use $20 million in one year; with Mr. Minneboo agreeing. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the County has the ability to do two major projects a year. Mr. Minneboo stated when the program started in 1988, there was a debate whether to increase the size of staff or let the engineering side out to others; and that has proven to be the best approach. He noted the acquisition has been the toughest; and outlined various difficulties. Chairman Voltz stated even if the County cannot construct the projects, it still knows what it needs to do and should buy the land beforehand. Mr. Minneboo stated that is only related to retention ponds; and the problem is until the engineering is completed, they do not know where the property has to be. Jim Helmer advised the engineering on several projects could be done at the same time with outside consultants; with Mr. Minneboo advising they could do five projects at one time. Commissioner Scarborough stated then staff could do acquisition and stockpile projects. Mr. Minneboo stated the County did $99 million of projects in ten years; and they are more organized now. Mr. Jenkins stated Mr. Minneboo believes he can do better than that. Chairman Voltz advised staff has done a great job on the projects.

Discussion ensued on projects, School Board working with the Commission, moving forward with project list in 30 days, projects coming from the people, need to meet with the constituents, and value of involving the general public.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize funding of the Tower Study from General Fund Contingency. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Don Griffin stated the City of Rockledge has been pushing improvements on Barnes Boulevard; it is based on an assumption that The Viera Company is going to put an interchange in; and it has come to their attention that there is a possibility it will be delayed until 2008 and beyond. He stated there will be other impacts on Barnes Boulevard, and the capacities will be greater than anticipated; it has been on the ISTEA funding list for approximately ten years; and the chances of that being funded are slim. He stated the City of Rockledge requests that Brevard County fund a corridor improvement study for Barnes Boulevard to see whether it needs to be three or four-laned, or just have intersection improvements.

Commissioner Cook advised when he brought this up a couple of years ago, the City did not support DISCUSSION, RE: TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS (CONTINUED)

it. Mr. Griffin stated at that time, they thought the intersection was going in, but now they have been blind sided by The Viera Company on the intersection. He stated the City of Rockledge is under a joint study with the City of Cocoa on Florida Avenue Corridor Improvement Study; and the Rockledge City Council voted last night to dedicate any transportation impact fee monies for making the improvements that would come out of the study, which would alleviate some of the problems on U.S. 1. He stated next week the U.S. 1 Corridor Improvement workshops will be at Port St. John, Cocoa and Rockledge.

Mary Tees commended the Board for meeting to decide how it will get the money for the projects; stated that is the main concern of the people in Port St. John; and they have been pleading for the West Connector for ten years to alleviate the problems of the children in the area. She stated regardless of which projects are first, money should be there so the people can be assured certain projects will be done at certain dates; and inquired if the Board extended the Local Option Gas Tax, why has it not committed to the money. She stated it is wrong to not say to developers that certain roads will be approved in a certain year; it is difficult for Mr. Minneboo to put a comprehensive plan together if he does not know what money he will get; and the projects are important, but the Board has to look at funding. She suggested the Board follow Mr. Holley?s advice, and let the public know the money is committed and the projects will be done. She stated it may be necessary to spend money now to save in the future; and recommended the funding be on the books so it is possible to estimate when particular projects will be done. She stated if developers know what is being purchased and being done, they will be more comfortable about doing things in the County; and advised of the inability to serve tourists without infrastructure and Mr. Minneboo?s need to know where the money is for the projects.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

___________________________________

HELEN VOLTZ, CHAIRMAN

__________________________ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

( S E A L )