MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA October 10, 1995

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on October 10, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Board Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Mark Cook, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Reverend Buddy Creel, First Assembly of God Church, Cocoa.

Commissioner Ellis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the minutes of the July 18, 1995 Regular Meeting and the July 19, 1995 Workshop Meeting, as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the Board talked at the last meeting about scheduling an Economic Development Workshop for October 17, 1995; Mr. Lugar checked with the two primary companies; due to scheduling conflicts, neither company will be able to be present on October 17, 1995; and requested the Board cancel the workshop, and direct staff to reschedule for another day.

Chairman Higgs inquired if any Commissioner has a problem with that; with no response being heard.

APPROVAL, RE: MOVING ITEM ON AGENDA

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Bistline is present for Item VI.B.2, transfer of parks in District 2; he has a School Board meeting this afternoon; and requested the item be moved up on the Agenda. Commissioner O'Brien stated it can be done now if the Board desires. Chairman Higgs suggested allowing Mr. Bistline?s presentation after Personal Appearances.

REPORT, RE: RAIN

Commissioner O'Brien stated it is raining in District 2; the ground is getting wet; and it is headed for more flooding if it keeps up.

APPROVAL, RE: MOVING ITEMS ON AGENDA

Commissioner Cook requested Items III.C.2, III.C.3, III.D.2, III.D.10, and III.E.7 be pulled for discussion. He advised he received a letter from Property Appraiser Jim Ford requesting he be notified when there are land changes; and requested the County Manager look into that.

Chairman Higgs stated she received the same letter and referred it to the County Attorney for action; and the County Attorney will advise if the Board needs to take any action.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - EARTHY SPAULDING, LEROY DARBY, DELACIE PHILLIPS, AND PETER PHILLIPS, RE: RESOLUTION CO-SPONSORING AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE SUMMIT AND PARENTS SUMMIT-UP

Earthy Spaulding, representing the African American Male Summit and Parents Summit-Up, introduced Leroy Darby of the Publicity Committee, Delacie Phillips of the Neighborhood Councils Committee, and Finance Secretary Peter Phillips.

Commissioner Cook read aloud a resolution approving co-sponsoring the African American Male Summit and Parents Summit-Up.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution approving co-sponsoring the African American Male Summit and Parents Summit-Up. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Resolution No. 95-284.)

Commissioner Cook presented the Resolution to Ms. Spaulding. Mr. Darby expressed appreciation to the Board.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - TOM SWITZLER, RE: RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING NATIONAL PHARMACY WEEK

Commissioner O'Brien read aloud a resolution proclaiming October 22 through 28, 1995 as National Pharmacy Week.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt Resolution proclaiming October 22 through 28, 1995 as National Pharmacy Week. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Resolution No. 95-285.)

Tom Switzler, representing the Brevard County Pharmaceutical Association, expressed appreciation to the Board; and explained the progress made by the pharmacy profession in recent years. Commissioner O'Brien presented the Resolution to Mr. Switzler.

APPROVAL, RE: MOVING ITEM ON THE AGENDA

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to pull Item III.D.1 for discussion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs advised Items III.C.2, III.C.3, III.D.1, III.D.2, III.D.10, and III.E.7 will be discussed at the end of the meeting; and the rest of the Consent Agenda is approved.

CONTRACT WITH PULTE HOME CORPORATION, RE: INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS IN ISLAND CROSSING SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Contract with Pulte Home Corporation guaranteeing infrastructure improvements in Island Crossing Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Contract.)

CONTRACT WITH AQUARINA DEVELOPMENTS, INC., RE: SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS IN RIVER OAKS, STAGE 3, TRACT II AND TRACT II, UNIT 1

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Contract with Aquarina Developments, Inc. guaranteeing sidewalk improvements in River Oaks, Stage 3, Tract II and Tract II, Unit 1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Contract.)

EXTENSION AGREEMENT WITH PARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RE: IMPROVEMENTS IN LIGHTHOUSE LANDING

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Extension Agreement with Park Development Corporation guaranteeing improvements in Lighthouse Landing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Extension Agreement.)

CONDITIONAL WAIVER OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINES AND RELEASE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD LIEN, RE: 1455 HIGHLAND COURT, COCOA

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to grant conditional waiver of administrative fines and execute Release of Code Enforcement Board Lien on property located at 1455 Highland Court, Cocoa, subject to the property being brought into full compliance with County Codes on or before January 8, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE: FUNDS FOR HABITAT ROAD CONSTRUCTION MSBU PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Budget Change Request providing funding in the amount of $440,000 from the Commercial Paper Program for Habitat Road Construction MSBU. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Budget Change Request.)

AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH BREVARD WOMEN'S CENTER, RE: COUNSELING SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Agreement with South Brevard Women?s Center to provide counseling services from October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996, at a cost of $4,220. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY PSYCHIATRIC CENTER HOSPITAL, RE: CHILDREN'S BAKER ACT SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Agreement with Community Psychiatric Center Hospital to provide Baker Act services for children from October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996, in an amount up to $93,840; and authorize the Chairman to execute any amendments necessitated by changes in State funding, contingent upon approval by the County Attorney and Risk Management. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____for Agreement.)

CONTINUING AGREEMENT WITH CIRCLES OF CARE, INC., RE: STATE-MANDATED MATCHING FUNDING FOR BAKER ACT PATIENTS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Continuing Agreement with Circles of Care, Inc. for State-mandated matching funds for Baker Act patients from October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996, in an amount up to $560,000; and authorize the Chairman to execute any amendments necessitated by changes in State funding, contingent upon approval by the County Attorney and Risk Management. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

AGREEMENT WITH MEDICAL EYE BANK OF FLORIDA, RE: TISSUE BANKING SERVICES FOR MEDICAL EXAMINER

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Agreement with Medical Eye Bank of Florida for tissue banking services through the Office of the Medical Examiner. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

RENEWAL AGREEMENT WITH BREVARD ACHIEVEMENT CENTER, INC., RE: SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY-DISABLED CITIZENS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Renewal Agreement with Brevard Achievement Center, Inc. to provide services for developmentally-disabled citizens from October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996, at a cost of $75,037. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

RENEWAL AGREEMENT WITH ARC-BREVARD, INC., RE: SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY-DISABLED ADULTS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Renewal Agreement with ARC-Brevard, Inc. to provide services for developmentally-disabled adults from October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996, at a cost of $25,570. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Renewal Agreement.)

RENEWAL AGREEMENT WITH CIRCLES OF CARE, INC., RE: COMPREHENSIVE MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Renewal Agreement with Circles of Care, Inc. to provide comprehensive mental health program services from October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996, at a cost of $288,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Renewal Agreement.)

RESOLUTION, RE: 1995 COUNTY EMPLOYEES UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES DAY

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Resolution proclaiming October 12, 1995 as the opening day of the 1995 County Employees United Way Campaign activities. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Resolution No. 95-286.)

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO GRANT AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES, AND APPROVAL OF BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE: GRANT FOR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED ACCESS EXPRESS PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Amendment No. 2 to Agreement with Florida Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services for the physically handicapped access project grant of $76,271; and approve a Budget Change Request increasing the budget by $50,000, from $26,271 to $76,271. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages _____ for Amendment No. 2 and Budget Change Request.)

RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION, RE: ESTABLISHING NORTH BREVARD COMMISSION ON PARKS AND RECREATION

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Resolution amending Resolution establishing the North Brevard Commission on Parks and Recreation increasing membership from five to nine, clarifying the functions, and making other minor changes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Resolution No. 95-287.)

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, RE: EXTENDING GRANT FOR PALM BAY REGIONAL PARK

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Florida Department of Environmental Protection, extending the grant for Palm Bay Regional Park until November 1, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Amendment to Agreement.)

APPROVAL OF BUDGET CHANGE REQUESTS, RE: CDBG FUNDS FOR SIMPSON AND COCOA WEST COMMUNITY CENTERS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Budget Change Requests providing Community Development Block Grant funds to purchase equipment for Simpson and Cocoa West Community Centers. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages _____ for Budget Change Requests.)

AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, RE: DERELICT VESSEL REMOVAL GRANT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Agreement with Florida Department of Environmental Protection for a Derelict Vessel Removal Grant of $7,050; and grant permission to bid the removal services and award to the low bidder. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

APPROVAL, RE: TRANSPORTATION OF ARTIFICIAL REEF MATERIALS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to grant permission to bid transportation of artificial reef materials to the artificial reef site, award the contract to the low bidder, and authorize the Chairman to execute Contract with the successful bidder. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages _____ for Bids, Recommendation and Contract.)

REVISED POLICY BCC-29, RE: EMPLOYEE INNOVATIONS PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute revised Policy BCC-29, Employee Innovations Program to clarify language and ensure consistency between the policy and procedures. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Policy BCC-29.)

REJECT PROPOSAL #P-4-5-21 AND AUTHORIZE RE-BID, RE: MAINTENANCE OF FAY BOULEVARD MEDIAN STRIPS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to reject the only proposal from Fun City, Inc. at $22,536 for maintenance of median strips on Fay Boulevard; and grant permission to re-bid. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF QUOTE #Q-4-5-129, RE: RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINTENANCE FOR SOUTH PATRICK SHORES, PHASES I AND II

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to award Quote #Q-4-5-129, Right-of-way Maintenance for South Patrick Shores, Phases I and II, to Atlantiscape at $6,420 from District 4 Beaches Road and Bridge MSTU. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BLUE JEANS FOR BABIES MARCH OF DIMES EVENT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to authorize the March of Dimes Blue Jeans for Babies Event scheduled on October 20, 1995 in support of the March of Dimes National Campaign for Healthier Babies Month. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

UNDERGROUND CONDUIT INSTALLATION AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, RE: HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE V. MOORE JUSTICE CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Underground Conduit Installation Agreement with Florida Power & Light Company for the Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Justice Center. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

CHANGE ORDER NO. 9 WITH BROWN AND ROOT BUILDING COMPANY, RE: HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE V. MOORE JUSTICE CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Change Order No. 9 with Brown & Root Building Company for the Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Justice Center to accommodate owner direct purchases; and authorize transfer of funds to the direct purchase account. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Change Order No. 9.)

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH BREVARD BUSINESS TELEPHONE SYSTEMS, INC., RE: SERVICE, EMERGENCY REPAIR, AND LIGHTNING PROTECTION FOR TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Brevard Business Telephone Systems, Inc. to continue providing service, emergency repair, and lightning protection for telephone equipment not covered under the existing Southern Bell Maintenance Agreement at $5,989.68 annually. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Amendment to Agreement.)

ACCEPTANCE, RE: QUARTERLY BUDGET AND FINANCIAL REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 1995

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to accept the Quarterly Budget and Financial Report for the quarter ending June 30, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING SOUTH MAINLAND LIBRARY EXPANSION FUND COMMITTEE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Resolution recognizing the South Mainland Library Expansion Fund Committee and its fund raising efforts to expand the library. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Resolution No. 95-288.)

APPROVAL TO SUBSTITUTE REVISED SITE PLAN, RE: DAIRY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT/JOINER, GODWIN, JOINER PARCEL

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve substitution of site plan to contract with Joiner, Godwin and Joiner for purchase of property required for Dairy Road Widening Project to correct a scrivener?s error. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENTS AND MEDIATION SETTLEMENT STIPULATIONS FOR DELAINE HENDRICKSEN AND DORATHY WELLS PARCELS, RE: DAIRY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT/DAIRY ROAD PLANT FARM, INC.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Stipulated Final Judgments and Mediation Settlement Stipulations for DeLaine Hendricksen and Dorathy Wells? Parcels for the Dairy Road Widening Project/ Dairy Road Plant Farm, Inc. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT, RE: INTERNAL AUDIT FOLLOW-UP ON CONTRACTOR LICENSING

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to acknowledge receipt of the Internal Audit follow-up on Contractor Licensing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to reappoint William Reaves, 3900 Hammock Road, Mims, and George Broyles, 5540 Hastings Street, Cocoa to the North Brevard Commission on Parks and Recreation; appoint Susan Cossey, P.O. Box 267, Cape Canaveral and Lynda Weatherman, 6767 N. Wickham Road, Suite 306, Melbourne to the Spaceport Commerce Park Authority; reappoint Walt Johnson, 801 Marina Road, Titusville to the Tourist Development Council; appoint Ralph McCoig, Jr. to the Affordable Housing Task Force; and appoint Wendy Knippel, 1036 Pelican Lane, Rockledge to Keep Brevard Beautiful. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH CANAVERAL PORT AUTHORITY, RE: TRANSFER OF JETTY PARK, PORTS END PARK, AND PATRICK PARK

Commissioner O'Brien advised the book with this Agenda item is on its way from his office; and requested the Board consider this item later. He noted there are two things he wants to change in the lease.

Chairman Higgs stated as soon as Commissioner O'Brien gets his information, the Board will consider this item.

RESOLUTION, RE: ACCEPTING BEVERLY ENTERPRISES, INC.'S OFFER TO PURCHASE MERRITT ISLAND NURSING CARE CENTER

Stuart Campbell, 424 Church Street, Nashville, Attorney, stated he was present in May, 1995; and with him today is Schuyler Hollingsworth who is the Treasurer of Beverly Enterprises and Jim Pietrzak who is the Director of Development for Beverly Enterprises. He stated in May, 1995 they made a request for the Board to consider purchase of an existing nursing home facility by Beverly Enterprises; at that meeting, it was the desire of the Board to find a local appraiser to appraise the interest of the County in that facility; and Mr. Robert Houha, who was selected by the County, has performed an appraisal of the facility showing a value of $616,000, based on the County?s interest in the building. He stated the bond financing permitted the County to retain ownership of the facility in 1999; based on that interest of the County, Mr. Houha arrived at a value of $616,000; and Beverly Enterprises is willing to pay that appraised amount to the County at this time to gain control of the facility. He noted as part of that transaction, Beverly Enterprises would also pre-pay the outstanding bond issue which is in the approximate amount of $580,000; and he is here today to request the Board?s approval of a resolution authorizing that transaction. He stated it would involve a lease agreement with Merritt Island Health Authority, a sub-lease of the property from Merritt Island Health Authority to Beverly Enterprises, and the entering into of an option agreement with Merritt Island Health Authority. He stated when he was before the Board in May, 1995, he explained that under federal tax laws, the facility has to be leased for a minimum period of 90 days before it can be purchased by either Merritt Island Health Authority or Beverly Enterprises; and that is what the lease is designed to do. Mr. Campbell stated the option agreement gives the County the right to force Merritt Island Health Authority to purchase the facility 91 days after the documents are signed for $616,000; the County Attorney has reviewed the documents and made changes to them which are acceptable; and he is ready to answer questions about the documents or the structure of the transaction.

Chairman Higgs stated Mr. Hollingsworth submitted a card; and inquired if he wishes to speak; with Mr. Campbell responding not unless there are questions about Beverly Enterprises.

Commissioner Cook stated initially he had no problem with this, but late yesterday he got a copy of Mr. Maxwell?s reply with regard to the discrepancy between the assessed value and the appraisal; the Property Appraiser is willing to reply to that, but will not have it instantaneously; and on cases like this where someone is challenging the assessed value of a property, it should be a normal thing to get the Property Appraiser involved so the Board will have all the information before it. Chairman Higgs stated no one is challenging it; but there are two separate appraisals. Commissioner Cook inquired if Chairman Higgs has read the letter; and stated Mr. Maxwell is challenging the assessment and saying it is overvalued. He stated the Property Appraiser should have the opportunity to tell the Board why there is such a discrepancy between what Mr. Maxwell appraised the property at and what it is appraised at on the tax rolls; and his concern is there are several hundred thousands difference between the two appraisals. He inquired if the assessment has ever been challenged by Beverly Enterprises; with Mr. Campbell responding as far as he is aware, it has not been. Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Houha is present; with Mr. Campbell responding he is not. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the facility is taxed; with Mr. Campbell responding yes, and Beverly Enterprises does not intend to challenge the assessed value. Mr. Campbell advised the reason for the distinction is that Mr. Houha?s appraisal is based on what the County would receive in 1999, which is basically an empty building with the real property; and he assumes the basis for the assessed valuation is because there is an ongoing business there, and that is because Beverly Enterprises has the license and the CON to operate the nursing facility at that location. Commissioner Cook stated the Property Appraiser says that is not what accounts for the difference in assessment, and just the improvements in the property are what is being assessed and not the ongoing business. He stated that concerns him because Mr. Maxwell also makes reference to that in his letter; he does not have a problem with what the Board is doing; Mr. Campbell may be correct that the price is a fair one; but he would like to get a response from the Property Appraiser to have a basis for response. He inquired if this has to be done today. County Attorney Scott Knox stated the County does not have any time limits, but Mr. Campbell may. Mr. Campbell stated he would like to finalize this today if possible; a local appraiser appraised the property; the County?s instructions went to the appraiser to appraise the County?s interest in the facility; and he assumes the local appraiser knows how to appraise property in Brevard County. He stated as far as the assessed value, what happens today, and what the County approves today will not affect what Beverly Enterprises does in the future in terms of owning the property and paying whatever the Property Appraiser assesses the value to be. Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem with the transaction; however, the Property Appraiser should be given the opportunity to respond since there are hundreds of thousands of dollars difference between the appraisal on the tax rolls and what Mr. Maxwell appraised it.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the facility is located in Merritt Island; and any funds derived should come to District 2. He advised of his personal conflict with the Property Appraiser; and after meeting with Mr. Lugar and looking at other properties, he determined that $616,000 is the proper assessed value of the facility.

Commissioner Ellis stated what Mr. Maxwell appraised is the value of the building if it is empty with no ongoing business; when Mr. Ford appraises Publix, it is not just the building but everything on the shelves; and this is the same situation.

Commissioner Cook stated his discussion with Mr. Ford was that it was the property and the improvements; he asked that Mr. Houha be here; and inquired if Mr. Campbell was unable to contact him. Mr. Campbell stated he talked with both Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Houha, and they had a conflict. Commissioner Cook reiterated he has no problem with the deal; but he would like to give the Property Appraiser time to respond; and this can come back at the next meeting. Commissioner Ellis suggested it come back this afternoon; with Commissioner Cook responding it is fine, if the Property Appraiser can respond that quickly. Commissioner Cook stated he would also like Mr. Maxwell to be present if it is possible in case the Board has questions; and if it can be completed this afternoon, he has no problem with that. He stated there is such a discrepancy between what is on the tax rolls and what the County is going to be paid for it; and the public deserves all the information. Chairman Higgs stated she talked with Mr. Houha in regard to their appraisal and read the appraisal including comparables that are presented to substantiate the price; and she does not have a need to have Mr. Houha or Mr. Maxwell present because she has their written report as well as the market analysis, etc. She stated whether the Board wishes to have Mr. Ford respond is another question; but she has no need to hear anything further. Commissioner Cook inquired why Chairman Higgs being satisfied would preclude anyone else asking questions. Chairman Higgs stated it does not preclude asking questions; but the report is here, she has talked to the people, and she is comfortable that she understands the information she has been given.

Commissioner Cook stated it may be that the Board decides to go with Mr. Houha?s appraisal, but without the additional information from the Property Appraiser, there is no explanation for the difference in the appraisals; and the Board needs to make sure it understands the information. Commissioner O'Brien suggested scheduling this item as a time certain at 4:15 p.m. Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Campbell is able to stay until the Board can get information; with Mr. Campbell responding it would be difficult for everyone to stay, but some could. Chairman Higgs requested Mr. Jenkins check with Mr. Ford to see when the Board can get that information; with Economic Development and Legislative Affairs Director Greg Lugar responding he will call Mr. Ford immediately.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board will take no action at this time until it gets the information; and inquired what time is Mr. Campbell?s flight; with Mr. Campbell responding 2:30 p.m. Mr. Campbell stated he will attempt to get the appraiser to come to the meeting. Commissioner Cook stated if he could come at noon, that would be fine. Chairman Higgs stated the Board will try to get the information from the Property Appraiser as soon as it can.

DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION/PARTICIPATION, RE: SCRUB HABITAT CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Graydon Corn, 3690 Aurantia Road, Mims, stated the information in the backup material identifies public meetings on December 7 and December 14; and he would like that to be corrected so he can plan to attend.

Harold Fuller, 424 Dorset Drive, Cocoa Beach, stated he read the letters; and they should be more emphatic about this being a complex situation. He stated it is not just a matter of accepting or not accepting the plan, or being a volunteer or not being a volunteer; there are a lot of extenuating circumstances and many factors involved; it is impossible to transmit this in a letter; and the people should be advised to be present to understand all the ramifications of the decision. He stated the letter should make the public a little bit more informed that there are a lot of variables.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer stated the Board asked how much money is available for the public notification effort; the funds remaining are approximately $7,000; and to go beyond that, it will be necessary to identify a funding source for the additional funds. He stated staff also included a letter received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Board requested clarification about parcels two acres and less; and the response from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates if the County includes in the permit to exempt parcels two acres or less, and the permit was approved as written, then those parcels would not have to mitigate for the duration of the permit. He stated four options have been listed for public notification based on the Board?s discussion; they include letters, post cards, or television approaches; and the options have been explained along with costs. He stated if the Board decides it wants to proceed with notification, it should determine which notification it is most comfortable with; and staff also included the options for the public hearings. He stated the Board may wish to schedule the public hearings for the Board to adopt or not adopt the Scrub Conservation Development Plan (SCDP) or it may wish to wait for the information that will come back in the public information meetings so the Committee and staff can respond to it and develop additional information prior to the public hearings. He stated if the Board wants to set the public hearings, they could go out with the notices; but if the Board wants to just schedule public information meetings and then wait to respond to those, it will not be possible to list the dates of the public hearings on the public notices. He stated staff listed four options, but others could be developed.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve sending the post card listed under Attachment C, Option 3, to 26,000 parcels.

Commissioner Cook stated he would prefer to do overkill rather than underkill on something like this; and the post card is short, simple and to the point. Commissioner O'Brien requested the motion include putting the sentence ?as a result, the future use of your property may be affected? in bold. Commissioner Cook accepted the amendment to the motion. Commissioner O'Brien stated the fewer words the better because people have time to read it; if the Board starts making this full of words, people will throw it away; it is better to be simple and to the point; and he likes that. He stated in terms of the public hearing issue, he has a concern that by the time the post cards are printed and mailed, it will be the first week in November, and by the time the people who may be affected have time to call in and read the information, it will be the first week in December, and if they are snowbirds, it could be January or February. He stated the public hearings should be extended out into February, 1996 to allow people plenty of time to read the plan. Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Cook is suggesting going to the 1-800 phone line alternative. Commissioner Cook stated he will leave that open for the Board to decide; if the Board wants the 1-800 phone line, that is fine; but he is willing to consider another suggestion.

Commissioner Ellis stated he does not want to delay this any longer; and the County needs to move forward with some kind of notification. Commissioner O'Brien stated notification is not the problem; and it is the public hearings the Board is talking about. Commissioner Cook stated Commissioner O'Brien wants to change the dates on the public hearings. Commissioner Ellis stated if the schedule keeps backing up, it will go to 1997.

Commissioner Scarborough stated his concern is if the Board does not go with the 1-800 phone line and just sends a post card out, it will not tell the public a lot; and for a little bit of additional money, a letter can be sent which will give a lot more information. He stated if the Board approved going with a 1-800 number, he could see going with a post card; but how is the County going to respond to the thousands of calls that will come in. He stated people will call the Commission Offices and the County Manager; and if the Board does not send out enough information, it may have to come back, readdress it and send out something subsequently.

Commissioner Cook stated he agrees with Commissioner O'Brien that the shorter and simpler it is, the better it is; a letter may or may not get read; and anything that is put in a letter will be subject to criticism. Commissioner Ellis noted that is also true with the post cards also. Commissioner Cook stated the less you say, the better; the post card tells people their property may be affected by the plan, and if they want additional information, they can call a 1-800 number; and it will also give the dates of the public hearing. He stated the Board is advising of the dates of the public hearings and providing a 1-800 number for additional information.

Chairman Higgs stated she does not have a serious concern about doing a post card; the ability of staff to handle the calls and requests for information will be critical to how the citizens feel about the plan; and the meetings that are outlined for November 8 and 9, 1995 are important to include in the notice, whether it is a post card or any other means. She stated people need to have an opportunity to interface with an individual who can answer their questions and provide some additional information from those people who are not supporting the County having a plan; those informational meetings need to be included; and the County needs to include a number where people can call or write. She stated the content of the letter giving that information is important. Commissioner Cook inquired why could that not be on a post card. Chairman Higgs stated if that can go on a post card, she has no problem with that. Commissioner Cook noted a post card is cheaper; he does not think that can be explained in a one-page letter; and he has no objection to adding the items Chairman Higgs indicated, but a post card is the way to go. Commissioner O'Brien stated Commissioner Scarborough is right about the phone number, but it does not have to be a 1-800 number. He suggested having a phone number the people can call to get more information, information in a printed form that can be sent to citizens, and a secondary number with voice mail or a recorded message. He noted it does not have to be a toll-free number, just a number that can accept one phone call every ten seconds, and spread it out so the message can start all over again. Chairman Higgs stated staff outlined an option for a recorded message, possibly in coordination with Florida TODAY, and also a recorded answering message at a phone line in the Office of Natural Resources. Commissioner O'Brien stated he would not trust Florida TODAY.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a cost savings in going to the post card over the letter; but if it is possible to inform more people with the letter, then there would be less staff time used; and that would reduce the residual cost of people calling. He stated even if the County has the elaborate, expensive system, people may call their Commissioner if they do not understand the message; and there will be people who will want to visit their Commissioner. Commissioner O'Brien suggested putting the message in Spanish also.

Commissioner Cook stated his concern is different people are going to interpret the letter differently no matter how objective and neutral the Board tries to make the letter; and the post card lets people know their property may be affected by the plan the Board is considering, that they can make a phone call to get additional information, and that there will be public hearings and informational meetings on certain dates.

Commissioner Ellis stated the first paragraph on the top post card is needed; people need to be notified that with or without the Scrub Conservation Development Plan, their property is affected by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He stated if he got the post card under Option 2, he would throw it away because he would not think it affected him; the first paragraph on the card under Option 1 informs the property owner that he is a potential owner of scrub habitat that is enforced by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and a federal permit is necessary to develop the land. Commissioner Cook inquired if the thresholds are changing on threatened species; with Commissioner Ellis responding no, nothing is changing until Congress has the will to make changes. Commissioner Cook stated there is a proposal coming from the Department of Interior. Chairman Higgs advised it does not affect scrub jays; and explained the proposal. Commissioner Ellis noted there are a lot of proposals in Washington, D.C. that never do anything. Commissioner Cook requested someone else come up with something. Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Cook is withdrawing his motion; with Commissioner Cook responding no. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board is looking to do a post card, but there are two suggested post cards. Commissioner O'Brien suggested taking the first paragraph from the post card under Option 1 and cutting it down to say, ?Your property may have scrub habitat and may be occupied by endangered or threatened species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requires property owners with scrub habitat to apply for a federal permit.? Chairman Higgs suggested going with the post card under Option 1; with Commissioner O'Brien responding it is too wordy, and people will not read it. Commissioner O'Brien stated there are a lot of senior citizens who need glasses to read, and the print is so small that they cannot read the post card. Chairman Higgs suggested using the first post card in the size that is outlined; stated people can read it; and the post card should include information on the informational meeting, the possibility of writing to get more information, and a local phone number. Commissioner Cook stated his concern is if it is too wordy, there will be a problem; the second paragraph in the top post card is part of the reason why people should support the Scrub Conservation Development Plan; but that should not be in the post card. He stated he would not have a problem including the first paragraph; but he wants to get as many people participating as possible; and whatever mechanism can achieve that is good. He stated if the telephone lines are jammed with people wanting to know more about the plan, then the Board has done its job. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board needs to let people know that they are affected right now with or without the Scrub Conservation Development Plan. Chairman Higgs stated the County has to be sure it can handle the demand of calls; she has no problem notifying everyone; but there have to be multiple ways to handle the calls. Commissioner Scarborough stated when people get the card advising the County is considering a plan, they will say the County is always considering a plan; the card does not contain enough information; and the letter would concern him, as a property owner, more than a card. Commissioner O'Brien suggested a card saying, ?The Brevard County Commission via this notice is informing you that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has declared scrub habitat may have endangered species and your property use may be affected also by a plan, entitled ?Scrub Conservation Development Plan?, and public hearings will be held on a certain date, and your property may contain scrub habitat. This may financially affect you, and as a result the future use of your land may also be affected.? Commissioner Cook suggested going to the larger size. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board can go with larger size and larger print; and all it is adding is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has declared scrub habitat may have endangered species, and your property use may be affected. Commissioner Ellis suggested doing the simple thing by inserting the first paragraph of the first card onto the first paragraph of the second card.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to amend the motion to include the first paragraph from the first card on the second card.

Chairman Higgs stated that includes the informational meeting and the local phone number. She stated the post card would read, ?Property Notice, Brevard County, Florida?; then it would have the first paragraph; it would inform the property owner his property may be affected; it would advise of informational meetings and public hearings; and it would provide telephone number for additional information. She stated the return address would be Natural Resources; and the people would know who to write. Commissioner Cook stated that is the first paragraph of the first post card inserted on the second card. Chairman Higgs stated it would be sent to all affected property owners; and that would be at a cost of $7,484.

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

Chairman Higgs stated the cost will be $7,484.72 which is not covered in the current budget. Mr. Peffer stated that would be the cost of the mailing, and there would be additional expenses for the telephone system. Commissioner Cook stated it would not be $10,000; with Environmental Specialist Tami Townsend responding it would be approximately $525 to $600 for each line.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve funding in that range from the General Fund.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it is possible to rent a machine that will answer 35 phones in a minute, and play 35 messages at the same time; with Environmental Specialist Tami Townsend responding BellSouth has systems that can be bought, but she did not talk to them about leasing. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is certain someone has one that could be rented for four months; and expressed concern about the November dates.

Commissioner Cook restated the motion is to achieve the task in the most cost effective way and fund the additional amount from the General Fund.

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

Chairman Higgs stated the informational meetings were scheduled on November 8 and 9 and the public hearings were scheduled on November 21 and December 7; with Ms. Townsend recommending the second public hearing be scheduled for December 14, 1995. Chairman Higgs inquired why not on December 7; with Ms. Townsend responding December 14 is scheduled, but if the Board wishes to have a public hearing on December 7, it would be just for the SCDP. Chairman Higgs inquired if the public hearings have to be within two weeks for land development regulations; with Mr. Knox responding yes, but the law just changed, and it may not be necessary to have two hearings. Mr. Knox advised the second meeting may be optional; and he will research that. Mr. Peffer inquired if this would actually be an LDR; with Mr. Knox responding it really falls into the Comprehensive Plan category and that adoption process should be followed. Mr. Peffer inquired if that would include the LPA, etc; with Mr. Knox responding yes. Mr. Peffer noted the Local Planning Agency review and things of that nature have been factored into the dates.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the card says there will be a plan and all the meetings; Commissioner Cook is concerned about advising of the cost of the plan; the letter includes the $5,000 plus the $100 per acre maintenance; and inquired if the Board does not want to let the owners know there is a cost to the property. Commissioner Cook inquired if Commissioner Scarborough wants to add that one sentence. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board wants to get people to call in, there needs to be more substance in the card. Commissioner Cook indicated he has no problem with adding that sentence to advise of the cost.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to add that the cost of participation is approximately $5,000 per acre plus $100 per year for maintenance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated there are two items which are time certains; and suggested holding the public hearings to allow the time certains.

DISCUSSION, RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AT SERENE HARBOR

Helen Smigowski, 984 Whisperoak Drive, Melbourne, stated she has been a volunteer and a member of the board of Serene Harbor for two years; they are making a positive impact against domestic violence in the community; and requested the Board look favorably on full funding of the shelter so the work can continue.

Mischel Ostovich, 450 DeSoto Parkway, Satellite Beach, requested the Board remember the women who are victims of domestic violence and their children who must watch the domestic violence; stated Serene Harbor offers them a safe haven; and funding is needed to purchase the building.

Stephen Bunker, 538 Narragansett Street NE, Palm Bay, stated he is a board member of Serene Harbor. He stated Serene Harbor is a grass roots organization, founded three years ago; they have played by the rules; the shelter was opened in 1993; and they have sheltered over 300 people in that time. He stated in April, 1995 the board raised money; it has completed over $80,000 in renovations at the site to raise the building to the quality that will allow it to pass HRS certification; they have been through the first half of the process; and now they are waiting for the HRS people from Orlando to come over. He noted they are not asking for a handout; they are accountable; the newspaper said there was concern about boards like Serene Harbor accountable; and they welcome any conditions with the Commission or staff to insure accountability for the CDBG money, which is federal money for a defined population which specifically names domestic violence shelters. He inquired what would be the quality of life in a community where women and children are beaten up and have no place to go because the community cannot find its way to get its arms around that problem. He encouraged the Board to join Serene Harbor in making the shelter possible for the citizens of the County.

Esaias G. Walker III, 520 Seabreeze Drive, Indialantic, stated the need for a domestic violence shelter is well demonstrated; 17% of inmate population in a prison in Ohio is for domestic violence; and the only option women have is fear. He stated Serene Harbor offers a haven and an option for the women to take; and having a shelter such as Serene Harbor is cost effective. He urged the Board to approve the funds for the shelter.

Harold E. Shaw, 1311 Continental Drive, Melbourne, stated he is a retired military officer and has no formal connection with Serene Harbor, but has been a supporter since the beginning. He stated there is a need that is not well addressed by the government; the women have few alternatives to seek assistance; often they do not file a complaint because they fear retribution; and the shelter gives them the alternative of a secure place where they can feel safe. He stated the government usually does not do anything due to a lack of funds or because they have not gotten around to it; and that is where the private citizens enter. He stated the private citizens are trying to provide a means that is not being provided elsewhere; it is important for moral reasons and because it is fiscally pragmatic; and the more the women are helped by private sources such as Serene Harbor, the less demand there will be on the Sheriff and the local police to go and quell disturbances. He stated if there is an alternative so women can get out and feel safe, it will save the County money in the end. Diane Dixon, 1201 Indian River Drive, Cocoa, Executive Director of Serene Harbor, requested the Board consider the request of Serene Harbor; and stated Serene Harbor has met with staff and done as directed by the Board to come up with options she hopes the Board can agree on. She stated six years ago, she was a social worker in the school system; she lived in Brevard County most of her life; and her father was born here. Ms. Dixon stated six years ago her life was very different; she had no idea what domestic violence was, what it was all about or how many lives it touched; when she became director of the Domestic Violence Program, she had to learn quickly what domestic violence was and how to impact that in the community. She stated she was appalled at the statistics and stories of women and children who had to flee because of fear and had no place else to turn except a domestic violence program; many women endure years of abuse because they have no place else to go; many years ago domestic violence was not even talked about; and strides are being made in the community. She stated the community needs the service; there are many people seeking domestic violence shelters; there is not a day that goes by that someone does not call for help; the 16-bed facility has been full from the day it opened; and the shelter needs the Board?s help. She stated Serene Harbor has worked hard to earn the support of the community; the community is behind Serene Harbor; and urged the Board to find a way to fund it.

Betsy Dickson, 38 Marina Isles Boulevard, Indian Harbour Beach, stated she has been trying to think what she could do to convince the Board that Serene Harbor is worthy and acceptable to receive this money; domestic violence victims and shelters are specifically mentioned in the CDBG language; everyone has talked about the important work of Serene Harbor; and she has talked to the Board previously on several occasions about the program. She stressed the importance of having a safe place for women and children to go; she understands it is difficult to understand why women do not go to their mother, sister or to her friends; but the most dangerous thing a women can do when in this kind of situation is leave. She stated if the woman goes to the most obvious place, she will be found; and a batterer will do anything he can to stop her from leaving. She stated it is difficult to understand if you are not coming from that mindset; but a batterer is not going to let a woman go because she knows the truth about him; and she needs to be in a safe place where she knows he will not show up, and if he did show up, there would be people to protect her. She stated if the batterer shows up at the woman?s mother?s house, there will be even more violence; and inquired how many times has it been in the paper about an estranged woman, her children and her mother being killed by her ex-husband. She stated for five years after her divorce, her ex-husband continued to threaten to kill her, and he was married twice in that time period; and while it is not the way she or the Commissioners might think, it is the way a batterer thinks, and women need a safe place to go. She stated Serene Harbor has helped almost 300 women in the last two years; the women, at the time they were helped, were unable to contribute anything to the community; and now they are contributing members of the community. She stated ten years ago she was not a valuable member of the community; she could hardly feed her children; and now she has a job and contributes to the economic viability of the community as well as doing volunteer work and education. She noted she is certainly more valuable now than she was ten years ago when she was in the battering situation. She stated she does not know what to do to convince the Board that this is needed and is the most economically feasible thing for the County to do; the Board requested Serene Harbor come up with options, which it did; and if the Board decides to go with the option of the deferred loan, Serene Harbor is willing to do a payback provision; but the Board needs to be convinced that Serene Harbor works and there is community support. She stated it is time for the County to step up to the plate; Serene Harbor is not associated with any church, although many of the local churches support the shelter; it is not reportable to any corporation, although many support the facility; and this is the people?s project. Ms. Dickson noted there are editorials in the newspaper every week regarding this issue; and she would like to know what she can do to convince the Board.

Micah Savell, 1370 Sarno Road, Melbourne, stated he has come before the Board a number of times to discuss priorities and where the County spends its money; Serene Harbor is asking for a meager request which pales in comparison to the money the Board is thinking about spending for the scrub conservation plan; it is $700,000 for a pair of birds; and he would like the Board to give the people much more consideration and approve the request.

Commissioner Cook stated at the last meeting the Board said it would try to work something out; there is no question that every member of the Board supports what Serene Harbor is doing; and there is no reason to think otherwise. He stated he finds some of the things he sees when he reads the newspaper to be incredible.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board asked she and Ms. Madden to serve on a Committee; they did as the Board asked; and the Board has five options which were developed by the Committee. She stated her preference was the deferred payment of $140,000; and that is consistent with some of the things that have been done under CDBG and would allow continued accountability of the group. She recommended option 1.

Commissioner O'Brien stated his appointee to the CDBG Board advised CDBG turned Serene Harbor down because it has no track record and is not State certified, and recommended County staff not be allowed to circumvent the CDBG Board. He stated the Board appointed the CDBG Advisory Board, and would insult the CDBG Board by going around its unanimous refusal to approve this funding in the first place. He noted this was information he was not aware of when the Board discussed this before. He stated there was a question whether Serene Harbor had solicited the State or anyone else for funding; and there were some commercial fundings that were giving some funding. He stated he has some serious problems trying to reach a decision this morning because of the turn of events of the CDBG Board; Ms. Madden was supposed to get this straightened out last night; and inquired what transpired. Ms. Madden advised she and staff reviewed the CDBG Advisory Board minutes of its May 16, 1995 meeting; and Mr. McDonald was not present at that meeting. She stated a quorum passed a motion to fund the Serene Harbor project for $140,000 contingent upon deed restrictions or whatever is being negotiated with the agreement to come back before the CDBG Advisory Board; and there was discussion on the motion, but it passed unanimously. She stated staff brought that recommendation to the Commission on August 8,1995 as part of the consolidated plan; and at that time, the Board requested it be pulled out and put into contingency while a contract was worked out with Serene Harbor. She advised staff proceeded to work out a contract; it was taken to the CDBG Board on September 14, 1995; and at that time the CDBG Board reversed itself and did not recommend funding. She stated that came back to the Commission on September 25, 1995; and at that Board meeting she and Chairman Higgs were directed to meet with Serene Harbor to work out a mechanism to get the organization funded. She stated they have proceeded with that; but she believes Mr. McDonald was not present at the meeting at which the motion was taken; and he is speaking from that platform.

Commissioner Ellis inquired under Option 1 what does the deferred loan mean, and does it mean that CDBG funds would be used to purchase the facility under the full $140,000. Ms. Madden stated deferred loans have been used on a regular basis in the areas of single-family rehabilitation and reconstruction; and HOME dollars have been used in multi-family deferred loan arrangements in at least two projects. She stated one of the projects is the CAN-AM Project; it is a for-profit organization; it has a deferred loan with a payback clause of $2,000 the first year and $3,000 the second year; and the other agreement under HOME is the Hungry and Homeless Coalition which is a $116,000 deferred loan with a payback clause. She stated one thing which is not included in the options the Board has but which has been discussed is that Serene Harbor is willing to do a payback on the deferred loan arrangement of a percentage, up to 20% per year. Chairman Higgs inquired if it is 20% of the entire balance; with Ms. Madden responding 20% of the balance. Commissioner Ellis stated that does not make sense financially. Ms. Madden noted it is 20% of $140,000. Chairman Higgs clarified Serene Harbor will pay on the $28,000 in an annual payment.

Commissioner Ellis stated a deferred loan is not much different from a grant. Ms. Madden stated it is different in the respect that along with a deferred loan there is an agreement that would be prepared that would place a lien on the property for the length of time the loan is there; there are some programmatic components that require that they perform the service for that length of time; and that is the only difference. She noted the other two options are partial outright grants and partial payments that the organization would make. Commissioner Ellis stated if the Board goes with Option 1, the County might as well take title of the property. Chairman Higgs stated under Option 1 if Serene Harbor does not perform the services continuously over the period of the loan, the County has the option of taking the property back; there will be lien on the property; and that has been her concern. Commissioner Ellis inquired how is the lien exercised; with Chairman Higgs responding there is a legal clause in the contract that if Serene Harbor continues the programs, the County is able to take back the property. Commissioner Ellis stated this is back where it started; it is 100% funding to buy the facility; and if the County is going to do 100% funding for this non-profit organization, how is it going to deny a half-dozen non-profits next year which will want 100% funding of their facility. He noted it is called a deferred loan, but is really a full grant; and his concern is it is one thing to give someone a hand up, but another thing to give them the whole facility. He inquired what will happen when the other non-profits come in and want the Board to fund 100% to buy their facilities.

Commissioner Cook stated some organizations have indicated they will request that. He stated it appears the first option is an outright grant; and inquired why did the CDBG turn it down the second time. Ms. Madden stated she has read a verbatim transcript of the meeting; the Advisory Board felt the facility was not located within a target area, though it does service people from the target areas; and the second concern was that there is policy not to purchase properties for not-for-profit organizations. CDBG Supervisor Denise Carter advised that is correct. Commissioner Cook stated there was some indication it was because of some Board action, which is inaccurate.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, to award Serene Harbor $35,000 down payment, pay the first year?s mortgage at $12,600, and guarantee the loan from Huntington Bank for five years. Commissioner Ellis inquired if that is Option 2; with Commissioner Cook responding it is a combination of Options 2 and 3. Commissioner Cook stated this will allow Serene Harbor to operate; it guarantees the facility can go on to serve the community; and it meets the Board?s requirement to honor the CDBG Advisory Board?s concerns.

Chairman Higgs seconded the motion.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the funding from the County will end up being a lien on the property if the property goes into foreclosure in the future. Ms. Madden stated an agreement such as the one that was brought to the Board on September 25, 1995 would be in order; and there is also the issue of the appraisal, survey, and other legal things that would have to take place.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the CAN-AM project did not go through the CDBG Board. Ms. Madden advised that was done with HOME dollars from HUD. Ms. Carter advised the combination of Options 2 and 3 speaks to public service dollars; and although those dollars are listed as an option, there were other agencies which applied for that money, and they were not recommended for funding. Commissioner Cook stated the mortgage payment can be from the General Fund for the first year, if the public service dollars are not available.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he cannot support the motion; Serene Harbor is wonderful; no one wants to have families which are being abused having no place to run to; but the CDBG Advisory Board has said no to this twice. He stated other projects have been turned down; and the Board is making an end run around its own advisory board. Chairman Higgs clarified the CDBG Advisory Board did not say no twice; it said yes the first time to the full $140,000; and the second time, it said no. She stated in terms of Mr. McDonald?s comments that a Commissioner might be spearheading this, if that Commissioner was alluded to be her, she was not doing that. She noted when this item was first heard, she also raised questions in terms of accountability; she has not been involved directly in this until the Board directed her to do the negotiating; and she has not been involved in pushing it, although she does support the cause. She noted there would have been nothing improper if she had been involved in the funding, but she was not. Commissioner O'Brien stated this is still CDBG funding; CDBG should solve the problem; it should tell the Board what to do; and the Board should not be making an end run around its own advisory board. He stated that is what the Board is doing; and inquired why the Board has the advisory board if it is going to make an end run around it. He stated staff has been driving this because of its emergency in terms of having to buy the building in the next ten days; it is not the Board?s fault that it is in this situation; and he cannot support the motion until the CDBG Advisory Board recommends a certain plan. Chairman Higgs stated staff is not driving it; the Board asked the Committee to bring this; and staff is trying to resolve this. Ms. Madden stated she is responding to what the Board requested at the September 25, 1995 meeting which was to bring this back at the first opportunity; and if it is on a fast track, it is at Board direction.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he agrees with Commissioner O'Brien; he hears from other advisory board members that the Board does not listen to them; overall policy is supposed to be from the Board; and if the Board wants to fund this, then the advisory board needs to set its policies within those guidelines. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can ask the advisory board for advice on how to structure it, but the ultimate decision whether to fund or not lies with the Commission. He stated the advisory board may disagree, but the Commission has to make that decision. Commissioner O'Brien stated he agrees; the CDBG Advisory Board should have come forward with its best recommendation; but the CDBG Advisory Board said no, it does not want precedent set by the Board buying property; and that is the feeling he has gotten from staff today.

Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand the point about the $12,600 because everybody has been through that process. Commissioner Cook stated it would allow them to escrow $800 a month in order to make the payments the second year. Commissioner Ellis inquired are there still service funds remaining that were not allocated; with Commissioner Cook responding yes. Ms. Madden advised there is approximately $20,000 in public service contingency; but what Ms. Carter pointed out is that currently resides in the acquisition, and a budget amendment will be necessary to accomplish that. She advised the Chairman of the CDBG Advisory Board expressed concern that other agencies had applied for money, all but the $20,000 was allocated, which is the 15% that is allowable for public service, and those agencies may have concerns about just pulling that money out. She advised the CDBG Advisory Board is scheduled to meet on October 19, 1995.

Chairman Higgs suggested going with the $35,000 down payment and guarantee, and then ask the CDBG Board to consider the $12,600 in public service funds. She stated the Board could do that today, and the other could go back to the advisory board for its consideration.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve $35,000 down payment for Serene Harbor Domestic Violence Shelter and guarantee of the loan from Huntington Bank for five years; and direct staff to request the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Board consider funding $12,600 public service funds. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

Commissioner O'Brien stated this is a win-win situation for everyone involved; there were signs that said approval of the agreement would result in layoff of thirteen full-time employees; but Mr. Nelson will transfer more than half of those employees to other jobs in the County. He stated this will also result in the receipt of $75,000 from the Port Authority; and inquired when that would happen. Harold Bistline, 1770 Michigan Avenue, Cocoa, Attorney for the Canaveral Port Authority, responded the Agreement provides that the $75,000 will be paid at the time the lease cancellation and the conveyance documents for the transfer occur. Commissioner O'Brien stated that will be around December 1, 1995; with Mr. Bistline advising it will be eight weeks after approval. Commissioner O'Brien stated on page three of the agreement, it says the Port agrees to provide the County an easement for access to the leased properties, as may be mutually agreed upon; but that is sometime in the future; and suggested specifying the easements now. Mr. Bistline stated that provision would only come into being in the event Jetty Park ceases to be used as a park; the Port has agreed to continue to use that area as a public park through 2015, which is the term of the existing leases; and the Port does not anticipate doing anything different at any time in the future; however, if the Port ceases using Jetty Park as a public park, the County would be provided with appropriate easements to get to the two parcels that the Port is requesting be leased to incorporate into the facility. Mr. Bistline stated that is the purpose of the easement language. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if good planning would be to put the easements in now. Mr. Bistline advised it is appropriate as outlined; the Port will master plan the park facility; it is not known now where everything is going to be; the Port is going to try to make this the finest public facility in the County; and it needs the leeway to carry that out. He stated he does not believe the Port could commit to an exact location, but the language does say it would be as mutually agreed upon, which should cover it. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what will happen if the County and the Port cannot mutually agree to anything; with Mr. Bistline responding the document also provides it is enforceable in a court of law, so the decision will be made for the Port and the County if they cannot agree. Commissioner O'Brien stated paragraph 6, page 3 provides the Port agrees to maintain the park, and during this period, the Port agrees to increase the current levels of public parking in order to provide greater access to the beach and fishing pier. He inquired if the period is the next 20 years; with Mr. Bistline responding no. Mr. Bistline stated the Port will master plan this; there will be consultants who will advise how the layout of the park should be; and the Port Authority is committing in this paragraph to increase the parking and make it better and more convenient to the beach and fishing pier; but where it will be will depend on the advice of the consultants. Commissioner O'Brien stated everything that was said is true except when the parking is to be increased; the agreement says during this period, up to the year 2015, the Port agrees to increase the current level of park parking; there is no real time period specified, such as during the first five years; and the Port could wait until the last week of the last year to provide fifteen more parking spaces. Mr. Bistline stated the Port has also agreed that between now and the effective date, which is eight weeks from Board approval of the agreement, that it will engage consultants to master plan this thing; the time frame was to accommodate the County which wanted to do this quicker than the Port wanted to; and the Port wants to move expeditiously so it can capture and be ready for the heavy RV season which starts approximately December 1. He stated the Port will also privatize this park and turn it over to an operator to make it a first class operation; and all these things will occur on the front end so it can be turned over to an operator. He stated it will be operated for the benefit of the citizens of the County and will also provide a payback to the Port; and the Port will be putting a lot of money into it because it will get a percentage of the revenue to repay the Port for the investment. He stated the Port wants to get this done, up and running as quickly as possible; and those are the assurances the Port can provide for the Board. He stated he drafted the agreement; he picked the language; and that is his intention. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Port would agree to an addendum providing a reasonable time limit for provision of public access parking. He stated his concern is Beach and Riverfront money has been expended on property south of Port Canaveral; the public wants complete access to the beaches; and he must guarantee that in the document. He stated the verbiage is very gray; he understands a specific date cannot be given because it has to be master planned; however, an addendum can be worked out with a finite figure such as three years. Mr. Bistline stated the Canaveral Port Authority already approved the language of the agreement, and if there are going to be amendments to the language, it will have to go back to the Port Authority on October 25, 1995, at the earliest. He stated he understands the Board?s concerns; Mr. Bancroft has been working on this with County staff; and he can confirm the intention to move forward as fast as possible. He stated it is in the Port?s interest to get this up and running; and requested the agreement not be amended, and the Board rely on the Port?s expressed intentions. Commissioner O'Brien stated what Mr. Bistline is saying is ?trust me.? Mr. Bistline responded the document also covers the Board?s concerns.

Commissioner Cook stated he had concerns as well; many were as Commissioner O'Brien expressed; and one in particular is the twelve acres of Beach and Riverfront that was purchased by the County. He stated that should not be part of the agreement; that property was purchased under a separate program with the expectation it would be used by the County for beach and riverfront access and recreation; and his concern is the Port agrees to provide the County with an easement for access to the leased properties if they are not used as a park, or as mutually agreed upon, which is an open term. He stated the agreement runs twenty years; it could be that the twelve-acre parcel will be there twenty years undeveloped for use as a park under these conditions; and there was an expectation that some of the property under the Beach and Riverfront property may be used prior to that. He stated the County could go twenty years with the property being undeveloped; the twelve acres was bought under Beach and Riverfront; and it should not be part of the agreement. He stated Mr. Bistline indicates the Port intends to privatize the operation and maintenance of the park properties; and if all that is going to be done is to privatize, the County could have done that and be making the money instead of the Port. He stated the Port plans to make an investment and a return off the investment which is fine; and inquired why could the County not have done that. He noted this is an oceanfront park; it will be a money maker; and if the County had done that, no one would have been laid off. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County cannot afford to do this; it will cost approximately $1.3 million to fix the park up; and the south properties that are being thrown into the deal would generate sufficient revenues as an enterprise funded type of park to be able to afford to operate. Commissioner Cook stated he does not understand why the twelve acres was thrown into the pot; with Commissioner O'Brien responding it will never be developed if it is not. Mr. Bistline stated the twelve acres that the County purchased has severe restrictions on what can be done with it because of the scrub habitat; and the Port believes if it can incorporate that into the Jetty Park facility and use it in a way that is appropriate and lawful, it will be possible to do more things out there than can be done now. He suggested it may be possible to have passive recreation; and right now the County is not doing a thing with the property. Commissioner Cook stated under the agreement the Port does not have to do anything with it for twenty years either; he knows the Port has intents; but the agreement comes down to the written page. Mr. Bistline stated the Port will be constrained by the law and regulations about what can be done with the property; and the Port would be constrained to use it in accordance with the bond resolutions. Commissioner Cook stated when the people voted on the Beach and Riverfront referendum, they expected the Commission, not the Port Authority, to determine how the property would be used. He stated he is concerned that the twelve acres was purchased under the Beach and Riverfront Program which was approved by referendum; and the Board should be deciding how the property is used, and not deeding it over to the Port Authority. He stated his other concern is that the Port Authority is just going to privatize all the Jetty Park operations and make a return on that; and he would like to see the County privatize it and make a return, making a profit for the taxpayer. He noted he understands it would take some investment to do that; but in the long run, it could be something that would be very beneficial to the taxpayer. He stated after it is privatized, the rates will be whatever the individual or corporation needs to charge to make a profit, and that could significantly raise the rates. Commissioner Cook stated this is an oceanfront park; the location is incredible; it cannot help but be a moneymaker if managed and maintained properly; and his concern is how much the rates are going to jump to where it may not be feasible for Brevard County residents to even use it.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated he got an opinion from Holland and Knight yesterday concerning the 12.73 acres purchased under the Beach and Riverfront Bond Program; and it says if the transaction is not handled properly, the County may end up redeeming a portion of the bonds that were issued because of disqualification of the tax exempt status of the bonds. He stated he has no problem with the Port Authority leasing the 12 acres from the County; but if it is going to be privatized in the long run, that would trigger the change in use that may affect the tax exempt status of the bonds. He stated if the Board does go forward on the 12.73 acres, it will need to include something in the agreement saying it is subject to the tax counsel saying it will not affect the tax exempt status of the bonds.

Commissioner Cook stated that was part of his concern; since this is going to be privatized, it could have a direct relationship on the bonds, if it is not handled correctly; and his preference is to delete the twelve acres. He stated the twelve acres were added in as the process went on; the original intent was just for the Jetty Park area; and inquired why is the County throwing in twelve acres that County taxpayers paid over $800,000 for. Mr. Bistline noted the Port is also throwing in $75,000. Commissioner Cook reiterated the County paid $800,000 for that twelve acres; the Board is throwing it into the mix; and there are concerns about the bonds and the entire operation because it is going to be privatized. He stated right now this is a public facility operated for the citizens of the County; once is it is privatized, that control will be lost; and he is not sure that is in the public interest.

Commissioner Ellis stated other Beach and Riverfront purchases have been handed over to other entities such as Castaways Point in Palm Bay, so there is precedent. He stated the County does not have the money to put into Jetty Park; and even if the County thinks it can make a profit on Jetty Park in the long run, it does not have the initial capital upfront to try to get a return on the investment.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve execution of Agreement with Canaveral Port Authority for transfer of Jetty Park, Ports End Park, and Patrick Park.

Commissioner O'Brien stated what people do not understand is when he and Mr. McLouth negotiated this, the end result included the twelve acres and $75,000 for the construction of a park on the Barge Canal; and the public is the winner on this deal.

Mr. Knox recommended adding verbiage in paragraph 4, ?subject to bond counsel issuing an opinion that a change in use will not affect tax exempt status of the Beach and Riverfront Bonds.? Commissioner O'Brien accepted the verbiage as an amendment to the original motion; with Commissioner Scarborough indicating acceptance of the verbiage.

Commissioner Cook inquired why is the Board giving the $20,000 that is left in the Enterprise Fund to the Port; with Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson responding the original Contract required that all the money that was earned with the enterprise operation stay in the Port; and the County has never been able to extract any money or take any of the resources out of there. Commissioner Cook inquired if the Port is getting the additional $20,000 that is in the fund now; with Mr. Nelson responding yes, but those are the resources that it takes to operate now. Mr. Nelson advised right now it is on a break even basis; and historically the County has borrowed money from the General Fund until the high season for camping which is January 1 through March, at which time it is repaid.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to approve execution of the Agreement, with insertion of language in Paragraph 4, ?Subject to bond counsel issuing an opinion that a change in use will not affect tax exempt status of the Beach and Riverfront Bonds.? Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Higgs and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Cook voted nay.

The meeting recessed at 10:54 a.m. and reconvened at 11:08 a.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: AGENDA

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are people present from the Chambers of Commerce who have an item on the Agenda; and suggested the Board consider the item after lunch. Chairman Higgs advised there are three time certains, and it is not appropriate to take another item now. Commissioner Scarborough clarified he is not requesting the Board consider the item now, but the first thing after lunch; with Chairman Higgs responding that would be fine. Commissioner Ellis suggested taking up the item after the first two time certains.

AWARD OF BID #B-4-5-108 AND AGREEMENT, RE: GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE SERVICES

Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson stated the Agenda item covers all the issues; staff requested permission in July, 1995 to solicit bids for privatization and a report has been provided. Chairman Higgs advised the audience of the procedure to address the Board.

Gil Ryan, 290 Eagle Lane, Merritt Island, representing the Savannahs Golf Association, stated he is present to talk about proper golf course maintenance; the golf courses have not been making money; and the main reason why the Savannahs and the Habitat at Valkaria Golf Courses have not been making money is because of the condition of the courses. He stated he has worked with two different Commissioners in trying to solve the situation; some of the Commissioners may have seen photographs of the condition of the courses; and it is not necessarily all the fault of staff. He stated there was not proper supervision of the Savannahs Golf Course when it was built; and recommended the Board adopt privatization of the golf course maintenance, with proper supervision. Mr. Ryan stated proper conditioning of the golf courses will bring them up to a level where they can become profitable; one Commissioner will not play golf at the Savannahs because of the condition of the golf course; and this is a sad situation. He stated the Savannahs is a unique situation; there are two maintenance contracts in existence; the lands around the building are maintained by privatization, and is in excellent condition; but the golf course itself is a Laurel and Hardy operation. He stated the work has not been supervised properly; and the advisory board recommends adopting the proposed privatization situation. He stated someone always gets hurt when changes are made; the employees will be hurt to some extent; but progress has to move on. He stated the County cannot anchor itself to the dark ages; and requested the Board consider privatization to solve the golf course problems. He stated right now the golf courses are providing more services to the public than the majority of the parks; and requested the Board give consideration to the contribution that golf courses make to the public.

Donald Williams, 1335 North Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, stated he has been a member of the Savannahs Golf Course Advisory Board since 1951; and the Savannahs has been plagued by nothing but problems. He stated some of the problems have been overcome; however, he also is a member of several organizations; and after taking people out for a round of golf, they would never come back. He stated he cannot get anyone to play golf with him at the Savannahs; and it is deplorable for a County this size with as many people who enjoy the game of golf. He stated the Board must realize there is an income that is available when golf courses are properly maintained; and that can be justified by looking at the private courses which are filled up all the time. He stated some of the rates are some of the best in the County; but it is still impossible to get people to come and play. He stated the maintenance at the Savannahs is deplorable; and urged the Board to seriously consider the privatization of the Maintenance Contract that is before it. He stated his golf has dropped from Monday, Wednesday and Friday to Monday, Wednesday or Friday of any given month. He stated he always wished to live near a golf course; he is ten minutes away from the Savannahs now; and he cannot play there because it does not meet the standards of his kind of golf. He requested the Board give this its serious consideration; stated help is needed at the Savannahs if it is to survive; and Commissioner Ellis may be right about selling it.

Joseph Manahan, 1864 Hammock Road, Titusville, stated there are problems at the golf courses, but the problems are not the employees whose jobs will be affected; the problem is getting people out to play the courses; and what was said about the rates is not exactly true. He stated he played several courses in the County; the County?s rates are usually higher than some of the lower standard courses; and the County needs to look at different ways of bringing golfers to the courses. He suggested the Board look at senior citizens discounts, resident discounts, or offering annual memberships to County employees through payroll deduction. He stated management of the courses has been bad; complaints about the Savannahs are not just about maintenance but the design of the course; and the same managers will control the private contractor. He inquired how does the Board expect the private contractor to do any better than the employees are doing now under the same supervision. He stated the only way the golf courses are going to make money is to be more competitive in terms of rates and look at different ways to get people out to the golf courses.

Karl K. Thompson, 2907 Kensington Drive, Melbourne, representing the Space Coast Labor Council and County employees, requested the Board not cut the jobs. He stated the Board already gave away eighteen jobs today when it gave away Jetty Park; and requested the Board think before giving away the few jobs at the golf courses. He stated the Board heard a lot about control of maintenance; but the Board is giving away control when it gives the contract to a private contractor. He stated every time the Board enters into another contract, it ends up with another contract administrator, more attorneys being involved, and less control. He stated if the golf courses are not being maintained, the Board should find out why they are not being maintained and get them cleaned up; it is not that big a problem; and if it is, then the Board needs to look at the supervisors who are not taking appropriate action. He stated he had contractors work on his house; the Board just listened to all the problems with what is implied, what is actually written, and what will actually happen; and the County is going to lose control of the golf courses by contracting them out. He stated there will be an economic impact; the Board is giving away County jobs; they will be replaced by high school kids working in the afternoons without benefits; and he does not believe they will do a better job. He stated the other problem is the Board is not going to do away with the mid-level managers; the people who are not working now will continue in contract management; there are ten people who supervise the sixteen people who actually do the job; and he sees the same problem in Fire Rescue. He suggested the Board not lay off the person who is doing the job for the citizens, but look at the management to cut costs. He stated in Fire Rescue, five of the chief officers were given raises while the rest of the people were being told there was no money for raises. He noted there are other names for them such as position upgrades and past due promotions, but five people got significant raises in Fire Rescue. He stated a poor craftsman blames his tools, and a poor supervisor blames his laborers.

Lew Jamieson, 28 Colonial Drive, Cocoa Beach, stated he is sympathetic to the Board?s desire to save taxpayer money; but he is opposed to saving that money on the back of the County employees. He stated he studied numerous examples of contracting out of services by municipalities and other governmental agencies; a number were abject failures in the ultimate desire of saving taxpayer money; there are examples of contracting out golf course maintenance in the State that were failures; and requested the Board review those. He stated he does not know any of the employees; the employees are taxpayers and contributing members of the community; and as the ultimate employer of them, he chooses to be a responsible employer. He stated with the threat of layoffs over the heads of a number of individuals in the County, he does not think the taxpayers want to see these people operating under those same circumstances. He stated in reviewing privatization examples, often one element that is missing is a concern for the welfare of the current employees; and if the Board examines the bid before it, it will find there are no provisions or assurances for job security, wages and benefits of the people whom the County hired. He stated as a responsible employer, it is our responsibility and duty to look after the employees; any attempt at contracting out must contain some clause that assures these individuals job security will be protected; and he hopes the Board will consider that. He stated the Board heard why the golf courses are not performing up to their capabilities; the individuals from the advisory board at the Savannahs have indicated that supervision is the problem; and he agrees with Mr. Thompson that if the County needs to straighten out the problems, it needs to look at the supervisors. He stated these people do the job that they are asked to do; and if they are not performing up to their capabilities, the Board needs to find out why. Mr. Jamieson stated there are no assurances that contracting out will solve the problem; the problem is not unique to the County; and he hopes Brevard County does not follow the example of other counties by looking at the labor force as a solution to the problem by reducing wages and benefits. He urged the Board to reject the bid award and pursue other avenues of saving the taxpayers money.

Al Gross, 105 Bridgeview Court, Longwood, International Representative for the Labor International Union of North America, stated he was around twenty years ago when the LIUNA organized Brevard County; for twenty years there has been a good working relationship with the County; and the reason for that was because the LIUNA believes every worker must do an honest day?s work for an honest day?s pay. He stated the 35 or 40 people who are at the bottom of the totem pole are the ones that pay the freight when the word privatization comes up; they are the victims; and some of the managers who do not do an efficient job came up with the ideas of privatizing instead of following through. He stated the worker does not bear the ultimate blame; management does; LIUNA represents people all over the County; and inquired why does he not get complaints from any other area that the work is inferior. He stated the Board should reconsider the idea of privatizing; LIUNA ran an ad in the newspaper Thursday attacking privatization; and Congressman Weldon told a group of NASA workers that he would try to save them from privatization. He stated last year in Titusville, the Council voted four to one to privatize; but it was found that the workers were doing an excellent job; and Titusville reversed itself, and did not privatize its Sanitation Department. He stated LIUNA is involved in lots of things; he is here because he has dealt with the County for twenty years; and he pledges cooperative labor management like there always has been. He advised the City of Orlando instituted a Gain Sharing Program where management met with the workers, put all the pieces together, and then on the basis of production, bonuses were paid; the City saved over $1 million from the program; and each of the workers in the Parks Department got a $900 bonus, with no privatizing. He stated no private industry could do the kind of work that his people do. He stated the Board is jumping too fast; he is not saying the problem should not be solved; but he is saying the Commissioners must understand the employees are also citizens, and they will also hurt. He noted the employees are only making $7 to $8 an hour plus benefits; the privatizer will come in at $4.50 to $5 an hour; and he will bring more poverty to the County. He requested, on behalf of LIUNA, that the Board reconsider.

Micah Savell, 1370 Sarno Road, Melbourne, stated he is not a golfer, but had a lot of interaction through the years with people who played golf and wanted to be close to golf courses; he cannot attest to the quality of the courses as a player; but he can speak in terms of looking at the courses. He stated he also goes by what golfers tell him; and they advise the courses are substandard. He stated in 1991 and 1992 he spent a tremendous amount of time at the Savannahs watching as the course underwent a significant number of alterations trying to remove the fungus; and there has been a concentrated effort to make the necessary corrections and adjustments to get the courses into a playable and positive situation so it would not continue to be a drain on the taxpayer. He stated a previous speaker mentioned the employees are victims; if the golf courses are privatized, there will be jobs displaced; but he understood that if the courses are privatized, the employees will be offered positions with the new company with a time frame for performance; and all jobs need to be tied to some type of performance. He noted the taxpayers have fallen victim to this because they are still subsidizing a well intentioned plan for the golf courses. Mr. Savell stated he would like the Board to adopt the privatization plan with a caveat that the County employees would be given the opportunity to go to work for the new company with their continued employment to be based on some kind of performance standard to be determined by the new employer. He stated the privatization should be limited to a three-year trial program; they cannot turn this around overnight; and at the end of three years if the courses are not functioning, he would like the County to get out of the golf course business and leave it to private enterprise because private enterprise will correct the problem.

Chairman Higgs stated the provision in the contract is for the people currently employed at the golf courses to have an opportunity to work for the new vendor. Mr. Nelson advised each of the current employees will be interviewed by the contractor, and it is the contractor?s option to choose. Chairman Higgs inquired what is the period of time on the contract; with Mr. Nelson responding it is three years with option to renew.

Commissioner O'Brien stated all the Commissioners, especially he and Commissioner Ellis, agree about selling the Savannahs; every effort is being made to sell the Savannahs; and the County has to sell that golf course so a commercial company can buy it and spend $1 million to bring the course up to where it belongs. He stated it was a sad day when the County went into the golf business; the County has been throwing good money after bad for years; and it has to stop some place. He stated the government does not belong in a private sports business; if that was the case, since basketball is the biggest sport in the United States right now, the County should have plans to build its own arena to bring basketball to the County; but the County does not belong in private business. He stated the County has lost millions of taxpayer dollars by remaining in the business; it should not have been in the business in the first place; Cocoa Beach is another example of a community that is losing money on its golf course, and is having to raise taxes to take care of it; and the County is doing the same thing. He stated he agrees if the County is going to have the course, it should take care of it; but there are a limited number of golf players and there are 7,000 children who use the football fields, soccer fields, indoor and outdoor basketball courts, etc.; and $1 million is needed just in District 2 to bring those fields up to good playing shape. He stated two weeks ago the Board requested Mr. Nelson start finding a way to sell the course. Mr. Nelson advised staff has been working on it, and the County Attorney and Bond Counsel will be providing additional information. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Savannahs are sold within the next twelve months, how will that affect the contract; with Mr. Nelson responding the County has a 60-day option to terminate without cause or 30 days with cause. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there are three separate contracts or one; with Mr. Nelson responding it is one contract which covers each of the three courses. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is a specific dollar amount for the Savannahs; with Mr. Nelson responding yes, each of the courses was identified by price. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Savannahs was sold six months into the contract, the County could stop payment based solely upon that one course. Mr. Nelson responded yes, and the Savannahs would be $385,500 per year.

Commissioner Cook stated he agrees with a lot of the sentiments Commissioner O'Brien brought up. He noted he played the Savannahs one time; there was grass in the bunkers; he has never been on a course that had grass in his life; it may be a management problem; but there is no excuse for the deplorable shape the facility is in. He stated the problem is how the contract came about; people will not play on the course if it is not properly maintained; it will be impossible to get the number of people playing up under the current conditions; and he can understand that people will not play in tournaments there. He noted golfers will pay more to play on a nice course; but if the course is not playable and maintained to minimum standards, then people will not spend the money to play it, which is the problem. He stated the contract was in response to the problem; the Board has directed that staff pursue selling the facility; and inquired if Mr. Nelson is saying if that comes about the Board can terminate the contract for any reason within 60 days; with Mr. Nelson responding affirmatively.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what will happen if the County sells the Savannahs and finds out that the Habitat and/or Spessard Holland Golf Courses continues to lose $250,000 per year and it cannot be turned around; and at what point will the County say close the golf courses. Chairman Higgs noted Spessard Holland Golf Course is not losing money. Mr. Nelson advised the defining criteria is going to be the bond issue payments; the Board may close the courses and continue to make the payments; Habitat is $400,000, Savannahs slightly less than that, and Spessard Holland is $90,000; but Spessard Holland is making its payments. Commissioner O'Brien conceded that is the case at this time, but in five years that could change.

Commissioner Ellis stated whenever operational revenue drops below the operational cost, that is when you go to shut down; currently there are operational costs plus capital costs; and it cannot go further. He stated the biggest problem with the golf courses is the County is losing over $300,000 per year and the courses need over $500,000 in new equipment; and there is no money for it. He stated they are negative enterprise funds. Commissioner O'Brien stated this has been going on for years, and the County is already $3 million in the hole. Mr. Nelson stated it is not that much at this time; there was a period of time when the reserves from Spessard Holland Golf Course were used to offset; and therefore, it was not a loss to the General Fund; but that turned about two years ago. Commissioner Ellis stated it ate the reserves up; with Chairman Higgs advising it ate the reserves up, but did not transfer out of the General Fund except for the past couple of years. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what created the reserves. Chairman Higgs responded the income at Spessard Holland Golf Course created the reserves because that golf course was making money. Commissioner Ellis stated at Habitat for Valkaria Golf Course, there was money for a clubhouse at one time.

Commissioner Cook inquired if someone is not hired by the new contractor, will the County look to see if there are other positions available; with Mr. Nelson responding yes, there is a layoff procedure based on evaluations, veteran preference and longevity. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised he will also look for positions in other departments as well.

Chairman Higgs stated she will support the contract; she recognizes there are some issues for the people who are involved and perhaps negative consequences; but most of those can be solved through the participation of the contractor and internal policies. She stated the situation with the golf courses requires the County to do something serious; and the provision that the representative from Orlando talked about to work with joint labor management issues needs to be explored seriously, and look at other issues so the County can be ahead of the curve and make attempts to solve problems in advance.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated this is another situation where it is necessary to talk to the Bond Counsel to insure there are no problems with the tax free status of the bonds. He noted in this case, there is probably no problem, but he would like to make sure. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board is looking at the contract today without having that assurance. Mr. Knox responded he got a general opinion that probably governs this action, but he wants to make sure that the Bond Counsel is applying it to this situation. Chairman Higgs stated she is bothered that this has been on the agenda and now there may be a question; the Board could pass this with that proviso; but she is concerned that the Board does not have that definitive answer. Mr. Knox advised he did not have an answer to any of his questions until yesterday. Mr. Nelson stated the County already contracts a variety of services; and based on that staff is comfortable that there is no problem with that issue. He advised of services for which the County contracts; and stated the original Bond Counsel opinion was related to operation of the golf courses, which included sharing in profit; but the contractor will not share in profit as the County is paying for a specific service with specific criteria. He stated based on the original Bond Counsel opinion, staff was comfortable; he does not know of anything that has changed that; and the County Attorney is trying to be cautious to make sure that is the truth.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has seen the County not do a good job of maintenance, and he has also seen private contractors hired by the County do poor jobs; he will support the motion; but he does not think the Board can say the problem is taken care of because some people get contracts and do not make it any better. He stated the only way to do it is to continuously check the project; and this may not be the end of anything, but be another dead-end chase.

Commissioner Cook stated he wants to hold the management to a higher standard; he does not know how the golf courses, especially the Savannahs, fell into that kind of disrepair; and there has to be more accountability at the management level. He stated if the Board cannot get timely answers from the Bond Counsel, it needs to do something. Mr. Knox noted it is not a matter of not being timely; it is a matter of changes in the laws; and he wants to be sure the opinion does not contradict. Commissioner Cook stated Mr. Knox said his answers just came in yesterday; the Board meeting has been scheduled for some time; and if the Bond Counsel is not responding in a timely manner, Mr. Knox needs to inform the Board; with Mr. Knox responding he will. Mr. Knox noted the question that was asked was not on this particular contract; it was thought the contract was covered by a prior opinion; but after reading what he did yesterday, he wants to make sure it is not also covered by the new opinion.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he is not blaming the County Attorney, but in prior discussions about how to handle things, it was said that noon, Friday was the cutoff; and he does not want to receive any more faxes or junk mail about items. He stated if something is still in question on Friday afternoon or Monday morning, the item should be put off until the next meeting; for the Board to be good managers and good policy makers, all the information has to be before the Commissioners before they discuss any decision; and there cannot be questions floating. He stated in this item, there is still a legal question; it is not an important question because Mr. Nelson answered it very well; but this item should have been off the Agenda and addressed two weeks from now, so the Commissioners are confident they have all the information addressing all the side issues.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Knox is saying he is comfortable approving the agreement as it is or is he asking for a provision. Mr. Knox recommended the Board include a provision that the agreement is subject to the Bond Counsel saying it is not a problem under the current regulations.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to award Bid #B-4-5-108 to International Golf Management, Inc. at $1,165,000 for maintenance services at the Savannahs at Sykes Creek, Spessard Holland, and the Habitat at Valkaria Golf Courses; and authorize execution of Agreement with International Golf Management, Inc., subject to approval of the Bond Counsel. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

Commissioner O'Brien inquired how is the Board going to address policy about the type of policy which just came up. He stated the Board instructed Mr. Jenkins that after noon on Friday, there cannot be any more add-ons or information coming through, and yet the Board received late information again. He stated the Commissioners are getting more and more paperwork at the last minute; he does not have time to read that and go through discussion at the same thing; and the Board is getting useless paperwork that it does not have time to read at the last moment. He stated if the Commissioners cannot have the information by noon on Friday, the item should be withdrawn from the Agenda and rescheduled at the next meeting. Chairman Higgs stated the item is in the hands of the County Attorney, and he needs to respond in regard to the issues. She noted Commissioner O'Brien?s concern should be directed to the County Attorney and how the problem can be solved. Commissioner O'Brien stated the problem can be solved if the Board sets a policy that if there is not an answer by noon on Friday or the Board does not have the complete information to make a decision, the item shall be removed from the Agenda. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not want to do that. Mr. Jenkins stated there was an experience this week where one or two Commissioners met with staff on Friday or Monday, asked specific questions, and wanted answers; those questions were not raised until after the deadline; and in this instance, he had staff give the answers to the one or two Commissioners who raised the questions, but was reluctant to circulate the answers to all because he was concerned about criticism about providing things late. Commissioner Cook stated when a contract is on the Agenda, he assumes the County Attorney has looked at it; and if there are any questions, he assumes it has been researched by the time the Board gets it. He stated all questions should be answered, if possible, prior to the meetings. Chairman Higgs stated the Board requested clarification from the Property Appraiser, and a letter from Mr. Ford has been provided. Economic Development and Legislative Affairs Director Greg Lugar advised the Property Appraiser apologizes for not being able to be present due to a conflict, and requested the Board review his letter.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the County?s appraiser looked at the building as if it had been vacated and it had reverted back to the County, which is what would happen if Beverly Enterprises did not purchase it; with Mr. Lugar responding that is correct. Commissioner Cook inquired if Mr. Ford is saying he understands that, and the discrepancy is the fact that the Property Appraiser valued it as an ongoing commercial enterprise for that function. Mr. Lugar stated Mr. Ford does not necessarily disagree with the value set by Houha, but it is two different approaches; and the Board requested an appraisal for land and the building, not the business as it is currently run. County Attorney Scott Knox stated that is what happened; if the County gets this back at all, it will be in a shell condition; that is the way the Board has to look at it; and that is what was said.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to accept Beverly Enterprises, Inc.?s offer to purchase the assets (land and building) of the Merritt Island Nursing Care Center for the appraised price of $616,000 and proceed with the necessary legal steps to transfer title to Beverly Enterprises, Inc., with the funds to go to District 2. Motion died for lack of a second.

Chairman Higgs stated the thing to do would be to go forward with the contract and discuss the money as a separate issue. Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like to discuss where the money is going to go. Chairman Higgs stated the Board will bring that back for discussion. Commissioner Ellis stated there has already been discussion about taking $1 million out of reserve at mid-year; the appropriate thing would be for the money to go into the reserve fund; and at mid-year the Board can decide how much it really wants to take out of reserves. Commissioner O'Brien stated the money will be needed for the Justice Center or radios for cars or some other purpose; and that is where it will go.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to accept the offer of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. to purchase the assets of the Merritt Island Nursing Care Center for the appraised price of $616,000, and proceed with the necessary legal steps to transfer title to Beverly Enterprises, Inc.; direct that the proceeds be put into the Reserve Fund; and adopt Resolution approving all documents, instruments, actions and matters necessary or appropriate for the lease of Merritt Island Nursing Care Center, and authorizing an option to sell such facility. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay. (See page _____ for Resolution No. 95-289.)

The meeting recessed at 11:59 a.m. and reconvened at 1:02 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: TIMING OF RFP FOR HEALTH INSURANCE

Debbie Edwards, 3775 Quail Haven Drive, Mims, stated two weeks ago she appealed to the Board for assistance with an ongoing medical claim with Humana; as a result her claim was finally resolved last Friday after seven months; and since her appeal she has been contacted by other employees experiencing problems with Humana. She stated on behalf of some of those families she would like to read loud a letter from Mr. Maxwell which sums up the position of many of the County employees with regard to the total benefit package. Commissioner Cook inquired if this is the same letter he got on E-mail; with Ms. Edwards responding yes. Commissioner Cook advised he read the letter. Ms. Edwards stated that is the position of a lot of employees; and inquired why are the employees being limited in their choices, why are they having severely long delays in medical claims, and why are terminally ill patients being denied good quality medical care. She stated the employees and their families are important; she is before the Board only because the situation was resolved; and inquired why she had to go to such extremes to get her problem resolved. She stated she had an attorney; she went through Risk Management; and it was not until the Board took an interest that Humana did something. She stated Humana claims her provider did send the appropriate bills and that she did not take certain actions; but she did everything she could possibly do. She noted she has thick files on her claim; and the County does not need that. She stated the County has been a leader in the State for 35 years; but the County is not leading the State in terms of the way the employees are treated. She requested the Board remember that the employees count; they are taxpayers and voters; many of them have a lot of years in the County; and the employees deserve better than this. She stated employees and their families deserve to be able to go to a doctor who will treat their conditions; there are people who have been injured or ill out of state who had to come back to Florida to be treated because Humana is not licensed in some other states; and she does not think the Board understands what it has locked everyone into. She stated some research needs to be done before going ahead and continuing with this type of medical care.

Karl Thompson, 2907 Kinsington Drive, Melbourne, representing the International Association of Fire Fighters, requested the Board not cut benefits, increase costs, limit the doctors, or restrict the employees any more. He stated the employees are not getting the raises they need; they are falling behind; and now they are seeing increases and restricted doctors. He stated the only hospital the employees can go to in the County is Wuesthoff Hospital under the insurance plan; the other hospital is Sebastian River Hospital; and the other hospitals are not participating in the Humana Plan. He stated the employees are watching shrinking available pool of doctors; it is costing more; and the benefits are less. He noted his remarks could be repeated for the next issues on the dental insurance and retirees. He requested the Board think of the employees while making the insurance decisions.

Lisa Farrah, 960 Northbrook Drive, Ormond Beach, representing Humana, stated when people say Humana is limiting choices on doctors and providers, that is not the case; the PPO Plan gives freedom of choice to use any doctor they care to use anywhere in the world; and non-participating doctors are covered at 80-20 after meeting the deductible. She noted that is the kind of plan Humana sells all over; members are not penalized for going out of network for doctors visits; but if the employees choose to use a doctor on the list of doctors provided by Humana they only have to pay small office visit co-payments. She stated some people misunderstand the PPO; and some PPO plans do penalize for going out of network; but Humana does not. She stated the way the County?s plan was designed, there is little disincentive even when employees go out of the area for hospital stays; and the out-of-pocket expenses are the same, although there is an additional deductible. She stated she has been given a set of letters; she will be glad to respond to them once Humana has looked at the complaints; but in some cases, Humana has bent over backwards to resolve issues in a timely manner. She stated Humana did more than it should have in some cases; Humana wants to keep the County?s business; Humana wants the employees happy; and it does not do any good to write business and have the employees miserable. Ms. Farrah stated Humana is trying to work with some of the issues; physical issue has been an issue; and there have been some major exceptions to make the plan more flexible. She stated a lot of this has been brought on because the County went from a straight indemnity plan to managed care, which is different and will take some getting used to. She stated any company with the County when it made the leap from indemnity to HMO would experience problems; and any employee on HMO who is unhappy will be allowed to change to the PPO this year or next year, which is an exception that has been put in writing. She noted some people did not understand the HMO restrictions; and Humana does not want people to feel they were forced into a plan they did not understand. She stated people out of the area when medical issues come up are fully covered under the HMO or PPO plan; the co-payments for the HMO would be the same as in Brevard County; and under the PPO, Humana will pay the hospital just as though it was a Humana hospital. She advised there are cases where a person under the HMO who had an accident out of the area were moved back to the area when they became stable; many times the patients wanted to get back to where their family was; and Humana does not move people against their wishes or against the advice of their doctor. She stated as far as restricting the fire fighters? choices, there are no restrictions on the PPO; and Humana has offered Holmes, Wuesthoff, Sebastian, and Parrish hospitals, so there is only one hospital not available at participating level benefits under the PPO. She stated even the non-participating level benefits are very rich; it was possible to keep the rates down; and there will be no unforeseen increase. Chairman Higgs inquired under the HMO, what hospitals are available; with Ms. Farrah responding Wuesthoff, Parrish and Sebastian; but Sebastian will probably not be advertised as a participating hospital because some of the doctors in South Brevard do not admit to that facility. She explained how the hospitals were selected and the statistics.

Commissioner Ellis stated any individual under the PPO can go to any doctor he wants to under the 80-20; with Ms. Farrah advising they can go to any doctor in the world.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he requested the Board consider going back out with an RFP; and inquired if it is a nine-month time frame. Human Resources Director Frank Abbate advised from the start of the RFP process to selection would take approximately six months; once the selection is made, time is needed to develop the books to send out to employees, have the employee meetings, enroll the employees, and take the first month of deductions; and the total process would be approximately nine months. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board would have to go out next year anyway; with Mr. Abbate responding it is anticipated it would go out in March, 1996 which would complete the process by November, 1996 to start for the January 1, 1997 time frame. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is prudent to give staff instructions to proceed; that will allow plenty of time; and if the nine months rolls into a twelve-month period, it will not get backed up. He stated the more time there is, the more time there is for dialogue. Mr. Abbate stated once the RFP is done and the top two or three vendors have been selected, the County is in the position under Florida Statutes to negotiate individually with each vendor, which is what happened the last time. He stated the greater window there is to do that, the better position the County would be in. Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to instruct staff to proceed with the RFP for the year beginning January 1, 1997.

Commissioner Cook stated every Commissioner wants the best policy for the employees, but has to be responsible to the taxpayers. He stated his concern is if the Board goes out for an RFP, it relieves Humana of the rate guarantee. Mr. Abbate stated that issue was if the RFP goes out during the 1996 year to replace the plan during the year. Commissioner Cook inquired if it would be all right to do as the motion directs; with Mr. Abbate responding affirmatively. Commissioner Cook stated the Property Appraiser advises he was told it would be impossible to go out for a new solicitation; and inquired if that was also for 1996; with Mr. Abbate responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Ellis stated the 80%-20% part about the PPO is important; that was the factor that was considered when the County went to Humana; and under Gallagher Bassett when he had out-patient surgery at Holmes Hospital, the insurance paid 80%.

Commissioner Cook stated when he worked for the County for seven years, it was self-insured; and it was always 80%-20% with a deductible.

Commissioner Ellis stated people think under Gallagher Bassett it was 100% and 0%, but that is not the way it was.

Commissioner O'Brien read aloud a letter from a constituent advising of his problems with Humana which were only resolved after the intervention of Risk Management Director Jerry Jacobs. He stated the letter raises serious questions about the quality of the County?s benefits; many County employees, especially those with families, cannot afford the PPO co-payments, and must rely on Humana approved HMO providers; and there are serious reservations about the quality of providers under Humana?s programs. He noted he has a letter from Property Appraiser Jim Ford advising several of his employees had problems with Humana, the processing of claims has been unsatisfactory, and the savings to the County have been at the expense of benefits and services to the employees. He stated he received another letter from the Sheriff?s Office advising of problems with the health insurance; and outlined problems with claims and services. He stated he does not understand why errors continue to be made with the processing system. He advised of a 20-year employee whose dependent fractured some bones and was denied a splint because Humana claimed it was a dental problem, even though the doctor pointed out it was a medical problem. Commissioner Ellis noted it was a pre-existing injury. Commissioner O'Brien advised he received letters from employees concerning delays in the process; and employees are bearing more medical expense because of denial of claims by Humana. He noted several other governmental entities threw Humana out because of these practices. He stated another letter advises Humana has created hardships for many employees and that employees with simple problems are facing constant battles with Humana for payment of the simplest bills. He stated Humana is not only withholding payment, but medical treatment while it decides if the treatment is medically necessary; and inquired since when does an insurance company know more medically than trained doctors. He noted he has pages advising of problems Humana is causing. He stated Humana has let the County down to a large degree; the employees are not the highest paid in the world; there are many employees who make less than $20,000 a year; the Board should be looking out for the employee?s best health benefits; and the current plan has serious flaws. Commissioner O'Brien advised of his personal experience with another company. He stated in the next contract, he would like to see a spokesman for the employees, so if bills are not paid within 6 months, payment to the insurance company can be withheld until bills are paid. He stated if the insurance company cannot resolve the problems, the County has to resolve it for it to protect the employee from any more harassment.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how the Humana Medical Plan compares with the one in Commissioner O'Brien?s company. Commissioner O'Brien stated he has Travelers Insurance which pays 80%-20% up to $5,000, and then 100% after that; it is a good plan; accidental injury was 100% from the start; and he did not find it to be expensive in comparison to other plans. He stated the employees could go to any doctor or any hospital at any time, anywhere. Chairman Higgs inquired what is the deductible; with Commissioner O'Brien responding $250 per person. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the problem is with the 80%-20% split or that the company is not handling the claims. Commissioner O'Brien stated Humana is not handling the claims; HMO?s do not take care of the health of employees; the healthier the employees are, the less down time there is; and better quality service is a good investment. He stated the Canaveral/ Holmes Regional HMO was created by Health First; bastardizes the real ideal the public had in publicly building the hospitals in the first place; and the people are being told they cannot go to certain hospitals because of the HMO even though they paid taxes to build the hospitals.

Commissioner Ellis stated if this is going to RFP, he would like the Board to be specific on where it is going with the RFP; and what it would be looking at would be something like 80%-20%, with a $250 deductible, and all hospitals and all doctors.

Commissioner Cook stated if Commissioner O'Brien wants to look at something like that, it is something that can be worked out; for years in the County, it was 80%-20%; he was not on the Board when it reverted to the HMO; and he is not a particular fan of HMO?s. Commissioner Ellis stated the PPO was supposed to be the same. Commissioner Cook agreed the PPO was supposed to give the same latitude the employees had under the other system; and the Board can look at other alternatives. He stated the Board wants to insure there is good health coverage; he does not want to be in a position of forcing people to go to an HMO; that is what the School Board is considering because of cost; and since this is all taxpayer supported, the Board does have to factor in the cost of the insurance. He stated he wants to make sure the County maintains the flexibility that it does not force people into the HMO?s.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has concerns; it is not unique in the County because he has seen national articles; a stream is being guaranteed to certain doctors; the doctors who are most interested in the stream are probably the ones who have not been able to create a practice; so the market place deselected the doctors because of their capacity to practice. He stated the stream is being put into the doctors who have been deselected; and inquired if that doctor can handle the capacity and can he treat well. He stated the doctors are given disincentives to refer patients on; and there have been cases where deaths and other tragic events have occurred. He stated regardless of cost savings, the RFP should have minimal standards; an HMO can be included; but it should have some parameters that the community will find acceptable. He stated he would like to see the RFP come back to the Board. Commissioner Ellis stated when this first came up and the Board looked at the PPO, it was supposed to follow along with the service the County had before. Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants to effect cost savings, but wants to know the product being offered is acceptable. He stated in District 1, there was a suggestion there would be more doctors coming under the HMO; some people signed up last year; Humana has been good in allowing people to select out of the HMO into the PPO; but now a problem is developing with Holmes Regional Hospital. He stated people who want to be treated at Holmes Regional Hospital will need to be in a PPO program rather than an HMO program; and inquired if this is a real selection or are there problems with it. Commissioner Ellis stated it may be that people do not understand the HMO, and may need to go to the PPO. Commissioner Scarborough stated those are the things the Board needs to set out.

Chairman Higgs stated one of the things the County wanted to be able to do was make dependent coverage more affordable; the HMO did that; and inquired if there has been an increase in dependent coverage. Mr. Abbate responded there was an increase in January 1, 1995 of 500 additional dependents; and he assumes that was caused by the reduction in the dependent care rates which accompanied the introduction of the Humana Plan. He advised the dependent rates dropped back under the PPO, but significantly more under the HMO because it is a lower cost plan; there were a lot of families that could not afford coverage previously; and they joined with the premiums that were offered for dependent care under the HMO. Chairman Higgs stated she is glad that was added; and it is important. She stated there are a lot of problems; they need to be solved; but there are also 500 more dependents who are able to be covered because there has been an alternative added. She stated she is ready to go out for RFP for 1997; but the Board should not just focus on the problems. She stated the Board was trying to provide a similar plan under the PPO to what was existing and also provide the HMO alternative so more people could be covered.

Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem with the RFP coming back to the Board; the Board needs to maintain the opportunity for selection with the employees; the problems the Board has heard today have to be addressed and corrected; and he will support the motion.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what are the parameters of the motion. Chairman Higgs stated the motion is for the RFP to be developed and come back to the Board; with Commissioner Scarborough advising that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board would proceed at this time because it has the ability to negotiate with these; the longer period the Board gives staff, the better program it will be offering to the employees next year; and to defer this activity will be detrimental. Commissioner Cook stated that makes sense; and it will have no impact on the current Contract; with Mr. Abbate advising that is correct.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Board needs to give staff some direction on what it is looking at; and the Board wants to be able to compare like plans. Commissioner Cook stated that is why the RFP is coming back to the Board. Commissioner Ellis stated the PPO might be set up as 80%-20%, $250 deductible, trying to get all the hospitals and most of the doctors, and for the HMO, who would offer the County the best deal. He stated when the Board comes to the HMO/PPO decision again, it should explain to the employees the differences between the HMO and PPO. Commissioner Cook stated it could be 80%-20% with a deductible, and you can go anywhere you want and pick any doctor you want; and that should be a part of the consideration. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board would be amenable to including a provision in the Contract for a defined employee advocate to look out for the best benefits of the employee. He stated a time frame should be established for invoice resolution; it should be paid totally or denied totally; and the employees should not be waffled back and forth. He stated the letters point out common problems in all policies where people are shifted from phone to phone, people do not call back, etc. He stated he has been through this numerous times in industry. He stated the employee advocate should have the authority to either force the insurance company to pay the bill or force it to say it is not going to pay at all, at which point the County can sue if it is wrong. He stated the Board signs contracts in construction that provide if the company is late, it is fined; and to keep the insurance company?s feet to the fire, if the insurance company does not resolve a bill within six months, it should be fined for each day the problem remains unresolved. Chairman Higgs suggested having staff bring back information on how that can be done. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board would agree to look at a plan whereby the employee would pay 80%-20% up to $5,000, then 90%-10% up to $15,000, then insurance would pay 100% after that; and stated that would cost the employee $2,000 up to $15,000. He noted if someone breaks a leg, he will have to pay $600 to set it and $7,000 or $8,000 for physical therapy; when he broke his leg, it cost him $112,000 to be able to walk again; his physical therapy costs were close to $65,000; and under his insurance plan, he paid the first $2,000, and after that the company paid 100%. He stated the employees deserve that; it is a benefit that the employees work hard for; when the Board gives the employees raises, it is a dime; and it is not right to charge them more for insurance. He stated he wants to put money back into the employees? pockets rather than take money out. Commissioner Ellis stated the problem has been more administrative than the 80%-20% and the PPO. Commissioner O'Brien stated even with the 80%-20%, if someone has an accident such as the one he had, the employee would have to sell his house to pay it. Chairman Higgs noted there is a cap; with Ms. Farrah advising it is $700 out of pocket. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Humana pays 100% after that; with Ms. Farrah responding affirmatively. Commissioner O'Brien stated he likes that plan. Commissioner Cook stated the problem has been with individual cases having problems being administered; and it is not the plan itself. He stated he has worked a lot of places; and the County?s benefit package is good. Chairman Higgs stated she would hate to describe to the RFP a 90%-10% or an 80%-20%; she would like to see what comes in with the proposals; and in some cases, 75%-25% is an option with a cap of $1,000. She stated that should be left open to the RFP process to see what the Board likes. Commissioner O'Brien stated when the Board does that, one company may have a much better plan, but may want 75%-25%. Chairman Higgs stated then the Board would negotiate. Commissioner O'Brien stated no fixed figure has been laid out in advance so everyone is comparing apples to apples; and the Board should decide what plan it wants going into the RFP, so it does not come back with a hodgepodge that is baffling. He stated the Board should specify what coverage it wants so each insurance company will cover all the listed things. Chairman Higgs suggested going ahead with the motion to do the RFP, and have staff come back to the Board with all the different options available. Commissioner Scarborough stated rather than coming back with an RFP, staff will come back with options and some minimal parameters. Mr. Abbate stated that would be fine; he understands what the concerns are; and staff will come back with options that address them.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there is one thing he would like to address that insurance companies do not address; the County has 1,943 employees under the Board; if any employee needed new medical treatments that are considered experimental, the insurance companies would refuse to cover them; and he would hope the Board would look at that as being a special problem, and set aside 2% of the entire cost in a special fund to cover illnesses not otherwise covered. He stated he does not want to see people dying because that was not included in the insurance. Commissioner Cook stated he does not want to see that either; and inquired if Commissioner O'Brien includes that in his company; with Commissioner O'Brien responding there is a special set aside. Commissioner Cook stated it could run millions; and there has to be a cap. Commissioner O'Brien stated a cap can be set; but he has $50,000 set aside in case an employee has a special problem that the policy will not address because it is an experimental treatment. Commissioner Ellis stated it is all right as long as there is some kind of cap because that could be open-ended. Chairman Higgs stated that can be included in the options for the Board to look at.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to go ahead with the RFP and for staff to come back with options. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis stated when people want to collect information on the County system, there is a tactful way to do so; and it is not necessary to go into a sermon. Commissioner Cook agreed there does not need to be any grandstanding; and it was inappropriate. He stated what offended him was that because of the position the Board took, that somehow it did not have the employees? best interests in mind; and there may be disagreement on what is the employees? best interest, but everyone has the employees? best interests in mind.

APPROVAL, RE: TDC CATEGORY A PROMOTION AND ADVERTISING GRANT PROGRAM HANDBOOK Chairman Higgs stated she pulled this item from the Consent Agenda; it is advertising a grant program; it is open only to Chambers of Commerce; and she has a philosophical difficulty with that. She noted she has pulled this every year for the last three years; she does not believe that a category of organizations should be the only ones able to apply for this kind of grant fund; she is happy that $120,000 is being set aside for promotion and advertising; however, it should be a more competitive process as opposed to being open only to the Chambers of Commerce.

Rick Fleming, 2000 South Washington Avenue, Titusville, President of the Titusville Area Chamber of Commerce, stated he understands Chairman Higgs has a philosophical concern; thanked the Board for the past year?s amount; and advised of an incident whereby a businessman from North Carolina was enticed to relocate to Titusville with his authentic paddle wheel boat as a result of advertising by the Chamber and TDC. He noted the businessman was disappointed in his own community that his Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Council were not working together to promote the area or the area?s attractions; he was thrilled to see that happening in Brevard County; and after visiting the area, he was pleased with the other amenities and higher tourist numbers. He noted the businessman anticipates generating approximately $500,000 in revenue in his first year, and going up from there; and the County can look at collecting $30,000 or more in sales tax as well as property taxes on the boat and bed taxes. He stated it is important for the Board to recognize the partnership between the TDC and the Chambers of Commerce; and encouraged the Board to continue the grants. He noted they are applied evenly; there is no discrimination against members or non-members; advertising is done cooperatively; and none of the money is ever used for anything other than for advertising.

Eileen Koetter, 1675 South Fiske Boulevard, Rockledge, representing the Cocoa Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, stated she agrees with everything Mr. Fleming said; and urged the Board?s approval to continue the partnership.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Chambers of Commerce have a unique roll in advertising; the TDC has a committee; the Chambers have their own network; and the Chambers are formed by the business community to promote the community. He stated for there to be a partnership in the sharing of funds between the TDC and the Chambers seems to be natural; and it probably augments what the TDC does in a constructive way.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve the 1996 Category A Promotion and Advertising Grant Program Handbook.

Commissioner Ellis stated the TDC went through the whole thing and got nowhere on going out for proposals.

Chairman Higgs stated the only thing she would do is to take out the requirement that it be a Chamber of Commerce.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he will probably support the motion; but something is going wrong in the process. He stated statewide tourism is up; but in Brevard County is still sliding down; he is certain the TDC is aware of it, but it is not addressing it; and whatever is being done with this money is out of focus and wrong. He stated tourism should be going through the roof with the amount of money that is being spent; and that is his only complaint. He stated he is not saying there is anything wrong in using the Chambers of Commerce, but the approach may be wrong; and he hopes Commissioner Ellis will take this back to the TDC to analyze the goals and priorities that have been set to increase tourism.

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

DISCUSSION, RE: PROCEDURES FOR ENACTMENT OF COUNTYWIDE ORDINANCES AND MUNICIPAL PARTICIPATION

Rocky Randels, 308 E. Central Boulevard, Cape Canaveral, President of the Space Coast League of Cities, stated Paul Gougelman, Attorney for the League of Cities, and Mitch Barlow, Attorney for Indian Harbour Beach and West Melbourne, are present with him. He stated the request of the League of Cities is for some procedures to be put in place to consult with the municipalities prior to the County adopting, amending, changing or repealing Ordinances which are effective within the municipalities; the municipalities understand the County has the authority under the Charter and under the Laws of the State to adopt Ordinances; and requested the County consult with the municipalities prior to enacting an ordinance unless it is an immediate issue of health, safety or welfare. Mr. Randels stated the League of Cities is requesting the Board direct staff to research the current Ordinances which apply to the cities which they may not be aware of.

Mitch Barlow, 123 Fifth Avenue, Indialantic, City Attorney for West Melbourne and Indian Harbour Beach, stated it was his experience in those cities and those that he shared with Mr. Gougelman in the cities which he represents that started the ball rolling on this request. He stated they got into this immediately post Charter on some of the Ordinances the County adopted which were effective within the cities; and the concern is there may be indirect conflicts which are not directly covered by the Charter. He stated a number of Ordinances were reviewed; some were clearly Countywide in scope and interest and should be uniform; but there are others that are controversial, such as the Nudity Ordinance and Bingo Ordinance, which have different reactions in the different municipalities depending on their geographical location; and it was necessary to do some in-depth research to determine whether the Ordinances should or should not be applicable within the cities, and whether there is a public purpose, if the cities wanted to declare that the Ordinance would not apply in a given city. He stated the problem is the cities are not always aware of the kind of Ordinances the County is routinely adopting; since the Charter came into effect, it has been more common in the County Ordinances, to have a statement that it is effective in the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the County; the problem is the cities do not always know when the Ordinances affect them; and what they are seeking is a way where the cities would be aware of the proposed ordinances and able to respond with organized input. He stated his cities went in different directions on the Bingo Ordinance and the Nudity Ordinances; both of his cities opted out of the Nudity Ordinance, but not out of the Bingo Ordinance, yet Rockledge did opt out of the Bingo Ordinance; and those are the kinds of things that need to be addressed to come forward with an approach where, in the non-emergency cases, the cities are provided with 60-days notice. He noted even if the Board disagrees with the cities, they will at least know the Ordinance is in effect.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Bingo and Nudity Ordinances were widely covered in the newspapers for months; and no League of Cities representative came before the Board to speak about any of the issues being covered. Commissioner Cook noted not one city commented on either of the ordinances. Commissioner Ellis stated the only city that ever commented on an ordinance bailed out after the ordinance was passed.

Mr. Barlow stated the League was aware the Ordinances were being considered; but he is not sure at the time all the publicity was going on that the city councils were aware that they would apply within the cities. He stated there are many Ordinances the Board adopted in the past that specify they are effective only in the unincorporated area; and it is not that the cities may not be aware of a high profile ordinance, but they may not be aware of whether it is going to be effective in the cities or not.

Commissioner Cook stated since the Charter was adopted, the Ordinances have been Countywide; and copies of the ordinances could have been provided if the cities had called the County. Commissioner Ellis noted there have only been a handful of Ordinances adopted since the Charter; and they have all been highly visible.

Mr. Barlow noted this is not really a post-Charter problem; the Charter reflects the existing law prior to the Charter in that the Board could always pass Countywide uniform ordinances.

Commissioner Cook stated he attended most of the Charter meetings as a private citizen; there was an intent to make ordinances Countywide; but he understands the notification problem; and he would want the comments from the cities anytime the Board is going to pass an ordinance.

Mr. Barlow stated the Sheriff has made it clear that when an ordinance is effective within a municipality, he expects the municipal police department to respond; and if the municipalities do not know that an ordinance is going to be effective within the cities, they cannot respond.

Commissioner Cook stated it is hard to believe the municipalities would not know; there have been three or four Ordinances adopted; most of them have been high profile and covered in the press; and if there is an interest on the part of the cities, he cannot imagine why they would not call to check on whether the ordinances were going to apply to the cities; but the County received no comment from the cities. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board got the same letter from West Melbourne concerning the impact fees; and that was a high profile issue for six or seven months.

Paul Gougelman, 1825 South Riverview Drive, Melbourne, thanked the County Attorney for working with him to try to bring the package to the Board today. He stated the problem has little to do with the Charter; the Charter is manifesting pre-Charter law; and there is no real difference in it. He noted there have been thousands of County Ordinances that have been adopted that have been made effective within the incorporated areas; but in the future there will be opportunities when the Board will find it appropriate to adopt ordinances which have Countywide effect; and there should be a mechanism whereby the Board will have as much information as possible before making the final decision on whether to adopt an ordinance. He stated the municipalities are not present to tell the Board what it should or should not do; but it is trying to set up a method for intergovernmental relations and communications. He stated one of the problems he noticed in the past is the cities have been unaware that the County had this power; many people have worked hard within the League of Cities to explain this is something that has been in the Florida Constitution for some time, and that the County in the past has adopted Ordinances before the Charter and made them effective within the incorporated areas; and that raises the first problem which is all of the Ordinances are not known. He noted he is aware of some of them such as parking tickets, animal control, hazardous materials cleanup, and impact fees, but there may be additional Ordinances that he is unaware of. He requested the Board direct staff to supply a list to the League of Cities of Ordinances which are effective within the incorporated area. He noted the League of Cities does not have a representative at every County Commission meeting; it is not able to ascertain every ordinance the Board may be adopting in the future; some may be very non-controversial; but it may be helpful to have municipal input in formulating the final version of the ordinance; and requested the Board adopt the ordinance supplied by the League of Cities. He stated the County Attorney has supplied an alternative which is to adopt by resolution rather than ordinance; and it includes an additional paragraph that says if there is a notice problem it will not adversely affect the County?s adoption of an ordinance. He stated this was brought to the attention of the Board of Directors of the League of Cities, and it requested the ordinance be presented to the Commission for adoption. He stated it is appropriate for it to be done in the form of an ordinance because this is not a temporary or administrative measure, but something that is permanent in nature. He stated Henry Hill, City Manager of Melbourne, requested he advise that the Melbourne City Council has expressed interest in the concepts being presented, although it has not specifically reviewed the ordinance.

Micah Savell, 1370 Sarno Road, Melbourne, stated he was under the impression that the cities were notified, just as the public is notified, of any pending changes on ordinances or other things that would affect the cities and their citizens. He requested the County not add further burdens for notices or obligations than it already incurs; and stated it is incumbent on the cities to take the initiative necessary to stay in touch.

Commissioner Ellis stated he has no problem with an ordinance or resolution; he has not voted for any of the ordinances that have come through which have been applied Countywide; and he agrees the County should stick mostly to the unincorporated area. He stated his concern is if this is done by ordinance, he does not want the cities to come in six months after the fact advising they did not know because some secretary threw the letter away when they were mailed. He stated West Melbourne is crying about the impact fees, but it was in the newspaper, notice was mailed, and people were notified; and that is his concern about doing anything official.

Commissioner Cook stated that is why he would like to do this by resolution; the municipalities should be notified; that is important; and the County Attorney advises legally the resolution would be the proper way to go. He stated he notified every municipality in his District by letter about the DRI and never got a response.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Resolution establishing procedures for enactment of Countywide ordinances, requiring notification of municipalities. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Resolution No. 95-290.)

Chairman Higgs stated the County will be notifying the cities and following the procedures. She thanked the speakers for their initiative in bringing this to the Board.

Mr. Gougelman requested the assistance of the Board in terms of researching what Ordinances are effective in the incorporated areas. Commissioner Ellis inquired if that would be pre-Charter; with Mr. Gougelman responding he assumes pre-Charter, and does not know what the Board has done post-Charter. Commissioner Cook stated if the Board decides to adopt a Countywide ordinance, it will have to be Countywide, and it would be up to the cities to opt out. He stated he does not want there to be any confusions to think that some cities can opt out of an ordinance but other cities cannot; it has to be across the board; and either the ordinance will only apply to unincorporated areas or it will apply to the whole County. Chairman Higgs inquired if that is right; with Commissioner Ellis responding the ordinance cannot be written to say excepting Melbourne and Palm Bay. Mr. Gougelman stated the County Attorney has opined that; but if you get two lawyers in one room, you will get three opinions.

DISCUSSION, RE: AGENDA ORDER

Commissioner Ellis requested the Board consider the items on which cards were submitted.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to work through the Agenda based on the cards first. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated the items on which there are cards are V.G, VI.A.2, VI.E.6, VI.E.10, III.B.3, III.B.4, III.D.1, and V.C; and she will be proceeding in that order.

APPROVAL, RE: AUTHORIZE CONTRACT WITH DELTA DENTAL

Chuck Maxwell, 140 Minna Lane, Merritt Island, stated he is speaking as an employee and not representing the Commissioner?s Office. He noted he provided documents yesterday regarding his experience with the Delta Dental Plan; the Plan specifies that the cost to him for bridgework prescribed by the dentist would be $195 three times; but the estimate from the dentist, who was the only Plan dentist in Merritt Island, was $275 three times for the same procedure. He inquired why there was a difference with no insurance pickup; and the dentist responded the Plan was describing a treatment that no one would give, and he sent a copy of the manual supplied by Delta Dental which he claimed said that if Mr. Maxwell wanted to get the work done, it would be optional and the insurance would pick up nothing. He stated since that time he has spoken to representatives of Delta Dental, and has been advised the reason for the difference is the work that was done on Mrs. Maxwell and the additional work. He stated he advised Delta Dental that no work had been done on his wife; this surprised Delta Dental; and he was advised the case would be taken to a Vice President. He stated that was the point of his E-mail correspondence; and apologized to those Commissioners who took personal offense. He stated it is important to understand the frustration of coming up against a wall; Delta Dental has a Contract with the County; it says certain things will be done and the cost; but the dentist says he will not do it for that price and blames Delta Dental. He stated a complaint mechanism is needed; he did not know who to call; and the E-mail message tapped into the reservoir of frustration on the part of the employees. He stated whether their complaints are right or wrong is not the issue; there is frustration because there is no complaint mechanism that the employees trust; and it is within the Board?s power to create the mechanism within Human Resources so people can address the health issue when they have a complaint, and the County can evaluate the complaints and act as an advocate. He stated he was told it was between him, the dentist and the Plan; but this is a County benefit; and he would like to be able to go to the Human Resources Office with his complaint. Mr. Maxwell stated when the County talks to an insurance company it is more important than when an individual does. He stated the Resolution the Board passed to expand the RFP is the smartest thing he has heard as far as insurance is concerned. He stated there are tremendous plans out there; and the County does not have to be limited. He stated he hopes three things will come from his experience; the first is that there will be a complaint mechanism developed which employees can utilize without fear; the second is that the Insurance Committee should be expanded so there can be additional expertise to look at the insurance plans and companies; and the third recommendation is to develop a role, once a complaint is evaluated, as an advocate for the complainant.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated he suggested the concept of having an advocate to Human Resources; and staff will proceed with having that in place. Commissioner Cook inquired if someone would be designated within the Office currently; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes. Mr. Jenkins stated historically the County has gotten information and tried to connect the employees with the company, but what he is proposing is to have a strong advocate if the problem is evaluated and found to be valid.

Sharon Hart, Account Executive for Delta Dental, stated Delta Dental is aware of the situation with Mr. Maxwell?s spouse; Mr. Maxwell sent in lots of material; and Delta Dental is in the process of evaluating that and talking to the dentist who is involved to find out what transpired. She noted Delta Dental has contracts with the dentists; there are certain policies and procedures that are agreed upon; and Delta Dental would like to meet with Mr. Maxwell to try to resolve the problem. She stated Delta Dental has been with the County for two years, and hopes to be with it two more years; it is possible to change carriers every year; but it would probably result in the same set of problems because pre-paid dental is very different and unique. She stated it involves a contract between the carrier and the dentist; it is not possible to control the personalities of the dentists; Delta Dental does not dictate how the dentists practice; but there is an understanding of what Delta Dental would like to see, and the dentist is free to upgrade procedures as he sees fit. She stated Delta Dental goes in with a fair dental plan; and it is hoped that the dentist will abide by the agreement. She noted she is in close contact with Risk Manager Jerry Jacobs and Human Resources Director Frank Abbate; they have done a good job working with Delta Dental; and Delta Dental is interested in how to solve problems as efficiently and fairly as possible.

Commissioner Ellis advised he had no problems with Delta Dental.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize the Chairman to execute Contract with Delta Dental as the successful vendor for a fully-insured indemnity dental plan to replace the self-insured plan effective January 1, 1996; and designate an employee advocate within the Office of Human Resources.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there are some serious problems sprouting from this; he does not have a solution; and inquired what the County pays per year to Delta Dental for dental insurance. Mr. Abbate responded there are 1,100 employees participating in the pre-paid plan; and it is approximately $1.7 million. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County is paying close to $2 million for a product which can be determined and measured; and read aloud from a letter from an employee outlining problems at United Dental Care in Eau Gallie. He read aloud from another letter advising that Dr. Stanton in Titusville is dropping out of the Delta Dental program in October, 1995 due to problems with the Plan. He stated there are numerous letters outlining problems; and a good deal of the employees are upset with the Delta Dental Plan. He stated he owns a small company; his firm has a very simple plan; he allows $1,000 per year per family for dental care; it can be used any way the employee wants; and someone needing $2,000 worth of bridgework can have it done in December and submit the remaining $1,000 in January. He stated the County employees are told it is $150 maximum they will have to pay; but that is not the truth and not what is really happening; and employees are paying a lot more than $195 for each item or dentists are making two items out of one. He stated a strong advocate is needed for employees; and penalties have to go both ways. He stated if the insurance companies are not paying the bills, someone is needed to deal with them, and the insurance company should not be paid until it gets its act together. He noted every contract is a two-way street.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if it is possible to let people continue to select the self-insured indemnity plan, and increase the rate. Mr. Abbate responded what the Board has before it is the indemnity plan, not the Delta Dental pre-paid plan; it is a higher cost plan with a $50 deductible and a $1,000 benefit; and virtually all dentists in the County are covered under this program. He noted the indemnity program is totally different from the managed care project, so there will be two different Delta plans. Commissioner O'Brien noted Dr. Stanton in Titusville is getting out of the Plan. Commissioner Ellis stated when this came out he selected the indemnity plan so he could go to his normal dentist and not have to go to United Dental Group and see whoever happened to be on call that day; and that is the way he understood the program was still going to be set up. Mr. Abbate stated the Delta Dental Managed Care Program, which the Board approved several weeks ago, is that plan; this plan is the traditional Gallagher Plan but instead of being administered by Gallagher Bassett as a self-insured plan, Delta Dental will be providing it as a fully-insured indemnity plan. Commissioner Ellis stated if an employee goes with this plan, he can still go to whatever dentist he wants; with Chairman Higgs advising an employee is free to use his dentist with this plan. Mr. Abbate stated there will be two different Delta Dental plans, and that is where the confusion might be.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired about having an advocate, and is that part of the contract with Delta Dental. He stated Delta Dental has not lived up to the other plan, much less the enhanced plan; and without some kind of protection for the employees, the Board has just shot itself in the left foot. Mr. Abbate stated a performance standard can be addressed with Delta Dental. Ms. Hart stated one of the things that came to the table this year in bidding on the indemnity plan was a willingness to do a performance contract, and if Delta Dental does not deliver what it says it is delivering, it will be penalized. She stated this was done with Orange County; there is a three-year contract with Orange County; certain policies and procedures were included; and there are penalties if they are not met. She stated there is a misconception; there is a bigger picture; and she could address it one on one with Commissioner O'Brien. She noted she is not a dentist; Commissioner O'Brien is not a dentist; but Delta Dental has set standards for the managed care plans. She stated Walt Disney World has the Delta Dental managed care plan; with Disney if it is not done right, you are out of there; and Delta Dental has been with Disney for seven years. She stated Delta Dental knows there are some situations with some dentists; new managers may not realize what the plan is; and it may not be handled correctly in some offices. Ms. Hart stated Delta Dental is on top of this; it cannot fix something unless it knows it is broken; and Delta Dental was not aware of some of the things Commissioner O'Brien addressed today. She stated there are phone numbers on the enrollment materials and the ID cards so employees can call if there is a problem; and if something is broken, Delta Dental wants to try to fix it to the best of its ability; but if a problem is not brought to Delta Dental?s attention, there is no way to fix it. She stated Delta Dental wants the County?s employees to be happy; it has not sold the County a bill of good and not delivered; and there are a lot of happy employees. She advised in meetings this summer, the only people who came to talk to Delta Dental had positive things to say; the meetings were publicized; and only one out of all the employees had a small problem.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Delta Dental would accept the same performance standards it gave Orange County; with Ms. Hart responding affirmatively. Commissioner Cook stated he would like to include that in the motion. Commissioner Ellis and Commissioner Scarborough accepted the performance standards as part of the motion. Commissioner Cook stated he supports the motion; if there is a problem with performance, that needs to be solved; but if County employees compare their benefits with the private sector, they will find the benefits compare favorably.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board would be amenable to having an employee advocate poll all employees once or twice a year about problems experienced with the dental plan. Mr. Abbate stated that was done three months ago and will be done again in December. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it was done three months ago, why does the Board not have the results of the survey. Mr. Abbate advised it was attached to a prior Agenda Request, but he would be happy to provide copies. Commissioner Cook inquired if that is done as an ongoing process; with Mr. Abbate responding affirmatively. Commissioner O'Brien stated he got some detailed complaints about disastrous results; and inquired if Mr. Abbate has gotten the same complaints. Mr. Abbate stated employees do bring concerns to his attention; employees are invited to include their name and number on the survey; and each employee who expresses concern is individually contacted by Risk Management to follow up on the concerns. He stated he will continue to do that on a six-month basis, and will report the conclusions to the Board. Commissioner Cook stated the new designee of an advocate within the Office of Human Resources should help.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ contract.)

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF VESTED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, RE: SOUTH SHORES RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION

Edward Fleis, 1090 A1A, Suite 200, Satellite Beach, representing Floridron South Shores Limited, stated the request before the Board today is clarification of front setbacks in one of the sites of South Shores, Riverside Subdivision west of A1A. He requested the clarification be made that all residential units be allowed to be built with a 20-foot front setback. He stated this part of the development has been designed under the RA-2-10 standards; the roads and utilities are in; and on June 6, 1995, the Board granted vested rights to this site which allowed amendment of the site to a maximum of 98 units consistent with RA-2-6 and RU-1-7 zoning criteria. Mr. Fleis stated the one problem is the RA-2-6 allows a 20-foot front setback, but RU-1-7 has a 25-foot front setback; at this time they are unsure what the market is; but townhomes would be next to single-family homes, and there would be a required 5-foot stagger difference in the front setback. He requested the Board clarify a minimum 20-foot front setback consistent with the RA-2-6 zoning apply to all residential units in Riverside Subdivision.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to clarify the approved amendment of the vested development plan for South Shores Subdivision to provide ability to construct all residential units within the South Shores Riverside Subdivision with a minimum 20-foot setback, consistent with the RA-2-6 zoning classification. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: GREATER PALM BAY SENIOR CENTER EXPANSION

Chairman Higgs stated the Senior Center has requested the Board look into expanding the facility at their cost; it is a County facility; and the Senior Center would like to get the Board?s permission before expending funds.

Earl Hill, 1275 Culver Street NE, Palm Bay, Project Manager for the Greater Palm Bay Senior Center, stated the Commissioners have a copy of the brochure; and read aloud a letter to Chairman Higgs as follows:

Because of the tremendous growth of the South Brevard area and the growing membership of the Greater Palm Bay Senior Center, which is expected to reach 4,000 members in the near future, we have reached a point where we can no longer properly provide our growing membership with space to pursue our many activities. We now provide twenty different activities for our members. Because of this we believe we should look into the possibility of expanding our building. Our Board of Directors at their last meeting voted to conduct a study on the feasibility of adding a 30 x 30-foot room. We do not want to commit to spending money on engineering drawings and other expenses on this project until we know how the County feels. In order to get the County?s feeling on such a project, a letter was sent to Mr. John Godwin, Brevard County Facilities Maintenance Director, requesting his feelings on this matter. While not opposing such a project, Mr. Godwin felt it would be better if we made our inquiry to the Brevard County Commission.

Mr. Hill noted the Senior Center is self supporting; it gets no funds from the State, County or City; and if the Commissioners visit the facilities they will see what a beautiful place it is and the services that are performed. He noted they are not asking for any money to build this room; but if the Board would like to provide financial support, the Senior Center would accept it.

Chairman Higgs stated the Palm Bay Senior Center does a wonderful job which the Board appreciates.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the request of the Greater Palm Bay Senior Center to proceed with expansion of the Center, with the membership to pay for the architectural and engineering service as well as the improvements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 2:43 p.m. and reconvened at 3:00 p.m.

AGREEMENTS WITH HACIENDA GIRLS RANCH AND NEW LIFE OPTIONS, INC., RE: RESIDENTIAL SERVICES FOR GIRLS AND SERVICES TO BRAIN/HEAD INJURY SURVIVORS

Chairman Higgs stated she pulled Items III.B.3 and III.B.4; she has no problem with either program; but her concern is she wants measurable objectives to know what the programs are doing. She noted this was also her concern with Project Star; and she wants to see that the Board get the measurable objectives so the people will be accountable for what they are doing.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to execute Agreement with Hacienda Girls Ranch, Inc. for residential services for girls in the amount of $39,921 from October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996, subject to Hacienda Girls Ranch providing measurable objectives to the County within 60 days; and execute Agreement with New Life Options, Inc. for services to head/brain injury survivors in the amount of $15,626 from October 1, 1995 through September 30,1996, subject to the Center providing measurable objectives to the County within 60 days.

Commissioner O'Brien stated five girls at $39,921 is approximately $8,000 per girl; and inquired if it is five girls at a time.

Phil Kolodziej, Executive Director of the Children?s Home Society, stated he has been retained as a consultant for Hacienda Girls Ranch; a new Executive Director, Mr. Fishpaw, has been hired; but yesterday was his first day at work. He stated the contract that has been submitted is for five girls for six months, but he would prefer the Board look at it as 912 units of service, with each day being a unit of service. He stated that way if a girl needs to be at the Ranch for nine months, it will work out better, and the Board will know what it is getting for its dollar, rather than kick the girl out at six months. He stated it is approximately $43 a day which is close to the HRS rate; but the actual cost of delivering service is closer to $80 per day. He noted Hacienda Girls Ranch does fundraising and receives other income.

Commissioner Cook inquired why would they not be available for HRS funding or private insurance; with Mr. Kolodziej responded several of the girls have not been through the adjudication process; they have been identified by the County as homeless; but they are not eligible for HRS funding. Commissioner Cook inquired if until they are adjudicated they are not eligible. Mr. Kolodziej advised they have not been adjudicated delinquent and are not eligible for HRS. Chairman Higgs inquired a girl has to be adjudicated delinquent to be eligible for HRS funding; with Mr. Kolodziej advising they must also be in State custody. Mr. Kolodziej stated the girls have been identified as homeless and are the responsibility of the County. Chairman Higgs stated there is a unique population of young women who need to be served; this grant will make available that service, whereas HRS and others will not; and this is closing a gap in the system.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they are orphans; with Mr. Kolodziej responding not necessarily; some have parents; but they are unable to provide the care the girls need.

County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if the motion is to also quantify the goals that are in the contract; with Chairman Higgs responding yes, and the outcomes. Assistant County Manager Joan Madden stated it is specifically the outcomes the Board is after. Chairman Higgs stated she is looking for what is being produced with this money.

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

Commissioner O'Brien stated the agreement is evaluations, referrals, advocacy, self-support, vocational adjustment training, case management, placement referral, and consultation to five head/brain injury survivors; and inquired if that is five people or thirty-five people across the year. Melody Keeth, representing New Life Options, Inc., responded what the County is being asked to pay for is five survivors who do not have another funding source; if another funding source can be found, that is used; and services will not be provided with County funds if the individual can get services through another avenue. She stated the Agreement was broken down into unit costs, and requested the Board pay $15,626 which is the cost of serving five people for one year. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is $3,000 per person; and inquired what is done. Chairman Higgs stated what she wants clarified in the final contract is what the County is getting for those dollars. Ms. Keeth stated she brought with her the program evaluation system service description tables; and they break down what is received for leisure services, intake and orientation, and vocational services. She stated it lists the program objectives, the measure, who it is applied to, the time of the measure, the data source, who it is obtained by, and minimum and optimum goal expectancies. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Ms. Keeth is the President; with Ms. Keeth responding she is the Executive Director and Kathy Casey is President and Founder. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Ms. Keeth is salaried; with Ms. Keeth responding most of her work is in-kind; and the clinical director has given totally in-kind services.

Commissioner Cook stated Ms. Keeth gets a paycheck; with Ms. Keeth responding it depends on what the funding sources are; and her biggest paycheck would not make a car payment. Ms. Keeth stated there was an article in the newspaper about a Palm Bay High School graduate who had seven brain surgeries; she has to go back to John Hopkins to have her eighth brain surgery, and needs help; their home is being foreclosed; New Life Options called the family to get a list of the immediate needs; and Ms. Casey called the mortgage company and the bank that holds the car loan and got it taken care of for six months to give time to get back on their feet after the surgery before they have to start making payments again. She stated after the immediate needs are taken care of, they go on a waiting list; and when their name comes up on the waiting list and there is a case manager and funding slot to deal with them, New Life Options provides the one-on-one services to help them get back to work and life. She stated they assess the home situation to determine what is missing that is needed to be independent, what is missing in the vocational environment, what are their goals and how can New Life help them get there. Commissioner Cook stated this grant will not do salaries; with Ms. Keeth responding the only salaries that come out of it are case management and possibly program oversight. Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem approving this, but in the future, in addition to the outcomes the Board should get a copy of the budget for the organization. Ms. Madden stated all the organizations which have applied and were funded have submitted full budgets, and those are available in the Department. Commissioner Cook stated it would be nice to have that as a backup.

RESOLUTION, RE: ESTABLISHING REVISED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE COUNTY

Brigadier General William S. Hollis, 3035 A1A, Melbourne Beach, representing BIPPA, stated BIPPA is concerned about the organizational chart that has been presented. He stated the reason for organizational charts is to achieve effectiveness, efficiency and economy; the proposed organizational chart does not do that; and as taxpayers, BIPPA objects because it is a waste of money. He stated the Board should delay adoption of the organizational chart or reject it because it is illegal; the chart shows the Board superior to the County Manager; but Charter Government says these are co-equal functions. He stated the Board hires and fires the County Manager, but he is the chief executive officer of the County, and he cannot be inferior to the Board. He stated it is a violation of the principles that were set forth by the Charter Commission and the check and balances that were built into the Charter. He stated the chart should be deferred or rejected because it is premature; next week there will be a presentation of the Growth in Government Committee; and the Committee may have offerings the Board may wish to consider prudently that may affect judgment on the chart. He stated the chart symbolizes poor management; there is an expression, ?let the manager manage?; that is a bad axiom; and it should be ?let the good manager manage.? He stated the Board should shift or eliminate all unfit resources; and this is a prime example. He advised as his last position before retirement he was on the graduate faculty of Florida Institute of Technology as a Professor of Management; and he has never seen a worse organizational chart than the one that is proposed. He outlined his background in management; and reiterated this is the worst chart he has ever seen, and is a waste of taxpayer money. He stated there are eighteen departments supervised by the County Manager; this is a gross violation of the span of control principle; at upper level of management, the number of direct subordinates should be limited to nine; and what is proposed is twice the maximum of what is good management. He noted the rule is 5,000 years old and comes from the Bible, Exodus 18:13. General Hollis stated tasks of the same or similar nature should be grouped together and assigned the same position; and this is being violated. He stated Commissioner Ellis, with his business background, knows this was violated; and he put it into writing when there was separation of the Code Enforcement Department and the Building and Landscape Departments. He stated this is bad management; and the taxpayers object to it.

Commissioner Cook stated this is based on the recommendation of the County Manager; and he is unclear how this could be in violation of the Charter. General Hollis stated the chart shows the Commission as superior to the County Manager which is contrary to the Charter. He stated the Charter is based on the federal model of the tripartite system of government; the legislative body makes the laws; the executive body executes the laws; and the judiciary applies the laws. He noted in the County there is not a pure judicial function, but there is a legislative body and an executive body; and this is a separation of powers with checks and balances. Commissioner Cook stated what the organizational chart is showing is what the elected representatives are, and going from that the County Manager implements the policies enacted by the Board, so his mandate is to enact the policies the Board creates. He inquired if General Hollis agrees with that; with General Hollis responding no, the only thing that is over the two bodies is the Charter; the Charter is the Commission; and at the federal model, you never see the Congress over the President. General Hollis stated the Executive Branch has a duty to execute the laws passed by the Congress just as the County Manager has a duty to execute the laws passed by the Board, but he is not the Board?s inferior; and according to the Constitution only we, the people, are over the three branches of government. He stated it is the same way here; and the Charter is the Constitution of the County. Commissioner Cook inquired if General Hollis agrees that the President is the Chief Executive Officer; with General Hollis responding definitely. Commissioner Cook stated the President is an elected official; and inquired under General Hollis? reasoning why would the Supreme Court not be at the top of the organizational chart rather than the President since the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. General Hollis stated they are only temporarily in that position of interpreting it because Supreme Courts change and different interpretations come; Congress can pass laws that tend to move around what the Supreme Court had said; and that is the system of checks and balances.

Commissioner Cook stated at the top of the chart it says Board of County Commissioners and it should say Brevard County Government. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated he agrees.

Mr. Jenkins stated the County Attorney and the County Manager, which are shown in the Charter as separate functions, are appointed; and there is a separation on the chart between elected and appointed. He stated he has seen hundreds of organizational charts of cities and counties with charters; typically the city manager is separated from the elected officials on the chart; just as easily the box could be placed at the top; but historically there has been that separation. He stated there are eighteen departments; according to the Charter, they all report to the County Manager; historically a number of those agencies have reported directly to an Assistant County Manager; the Assistant County Managers and six or seven other people report directly to the County Manager; and that puts his span of control well within the guidelines. He noted the prior organizational charts showed the Assistant County Managers in charge of groups; but the new concept provides greater flexibility in that a department or function could be assigned to an Assistant County Manager without having to amend the chart. Mr. Jenkins stated Ms. Madden will continue to supervise those agencies she currently does; Mr. Peffer will continue to supervise those agencies he does; and at the present time, he has assumed the three departments previously supervised by Mr. Sprague as well as Human Resources, Management Services and Economic Development. He stated on the issue of landscaping, he is aware of Commissioner Ellis? stated position which is to reassign all of the functions of Natural Resources; but the Office of Natural Resources continues to have a number of regulatory functions; and by assigning the landscape function to the Office of Natural Resources, it has been possible to effect economies and efficiencies. He stated the Office of Natural Resources has a staff person who is in the One-stop Permitting Center to review things; the Landscaping Section also used to have someone sitting there; but the change has the Natural Resources staff person, who is already there, do the review for landscaping when doing the other reviews; and the individuals are qualified to do both reviews. He stated there used to be landscaping inspectors who went into the field to do inspections; there are already engineering inspectors in the field; they are the last ones to go onto a site prior to getting signed off on completion; those engineering inspectors have been trained to do the basic landscaping inspections which are required at that phase; and that was an opportunity to save staff positions by having existing inspectors do the inspections instead of having duplication. He stated it is an effort to eliminate duplication and have fewer people carry out the same responsibilities; but staff has not proposed that any of the functions be diminished or lessened or that the level of inspection be reduced.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the only difference he sees in the organizational chart is the assignment of specific control to the Assistant County Managers; and he does not know if that creates any confusions.

Chairman Higgs stated the point General Hollis is making is important; the chart really does not reflect the way the County Manager is operating; and if there is going to be a chart, it should reflect the way the government works. She stated it may be easier for people to understand if the chart reflects the way the County actually operates.

Commissioner Cook stated something can be put out indicating that; but the proposed chart gives the County Manager leeway to assign people within his department or switch positions; and he should have the leeway to do that. He stated if the chart designates who is over who, then the County Manager will have to request the organizational chart be amended any time he makes a change; and the proposed chart would give the County Manager the needed flexibility.

Chairman Higgs stated she has no objection to the County Manager making those changes; she will give him that flexibility to organize as he sees fit to accomplish the mission; but the actual chart does not reflect the reality of the way it is being managed.

Mr. Jenkins stated the chart is unique and may be trendsetting in that it connotes a different image; management is changing; it is an evolutionary process; and the concept of a triangle is outdated in terms of current management trends and techniques. He stated there is a greater emphasis on managers functioning as coaches and leaders, and less on giving direction, empowering employees to have more authority to make decisions; and the chart sends a message that the Manager is not necessarily on top dictating down, but in the center of the organization attempting to be a facilitator and coach.

Commissioner Cook stated as the Charter indicates, Mr. Jenkins is the person the Board holds responsible if there is a problem in County government; the chart indicates that; and it is an attempt to flatten the organization a little, which is currently a practice that experts are recommending. He stated there have been changes in management style; it is slightly different from what there has been in the past; and it is certainly different from what the military uses. He stated if there is a problem the County Manager is the person the Board turns to because he is in charge of the organization; and he has no problem with the chart.

Mr. Jenkins stated the Board should consider this concept versus a flat horizontal line going from left to right; that is what it used to be; and the new chart is trying to send a different philosophy.

Chairman Higgs stated she understands sending a different message; she has no problem with the County Manager being the coach; but in reality, the County Manager cannot have eighteen people reporting directly to him. She noted the reality of the County organization is there are Assistant County Managers who are serving as the coaches and organizers; and that is the way it functions. She stated the chart is not reflective of the way the County is operating; she agrees the old way of operating is not always the best way or the only way; but there are still a couple of Assistant County Managers who are doing significant management functions. She advised she will not interrupt the way the County Manager manages the organization.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Resolution revising the organizational structure of County Government, changing the top of the organizational chart to read ?Brevard County Government? instead of Board of County Commissioners.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if at some time in the future it is possible to show the flow from the Assistant County Managers that would be helpful. Mr. Jenkins responded that could be done easily. Commissioner Cook stated the Board could pass this and then Mr. Jenkins could send out a chart designating who has what functions; and every chart does not have to be approved by the Board. Commissioner Scarborough stated people come into his office to get the charts; a lot of people want to know who reports to whom; and the proposed chart is ambiguous. Commissioner Cook stated the County Manager can send out another chart which the Commissioners have in their offices showing the functions as he designates them; and the Board can adopt the Resolution today. Chairman Higgs stated she would be concerned that the Board is going to pass a form that is going to get changed; the motion is to adopt the Resolution; the chart is a part of that; and she does not know that the Board should do this until the chart reflects what the County is doing. Commissioner Cook stated the Board is giving the County Manager the maximum flexibility to do his job; the organizational chart does that; but if the Board wants to start saying who the County Manager puts over different departments, then it has violated the spirit of the Charter. He stated if the Board passes this the way it is now, that gives the County Manager the maximum flexibility to do his job; and if he wants to send out a chart next week showing who is assigned to the Assistant County Managers, he has that option, and should have that option without having to come back to the Board for permission. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a problem with the resolution because it is an action of the Board; it identifies the chart as Exhibit A; and if Mr. Jenkins comes out with a new Exhibit A, that would be contrary to the action the Board took. Commissioner Cook stated he does not think so; with Commissioner Scarborough disagreeing. Chairman Higgs stated the resolution says ?a chart reflecting the organization is, as described by this resolution, attached as ?Exhibit A? and is incorporated herein as an integral part of this resolution.? Commissioner Cook stated every function of every employee is not being delineated in that exhibit; by the County Manager showing the employees are under the County Manager, he can assign whatever functions to those employees that he wishes to assign; so that is not in violation of the exhibit. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is not his point; and Commissioner Cook said next week the County Manager could come out with another chart. Commissioner Cook stated he did not mean the whole chart, but just those people who are within the County Manager?s portion of the chart; and the County Manager can assign those people whatever duties he wishes. Chairman Higgs stated the resolution says any temporary or task limited work group may be identified at the discretion of the County Manager. Commissioner Cook stated it is temporary; and suggested giving the County Manager more flexibility. Chairman Higgs stated she will give the County Manager whatever flexibility he wants as long as he accurately describes what the County is doing. Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the purpose of locking the Assistant County Managers into certain areas; what if the County Manager decides three weeks from now that he needs to have Ms. Madden work with Mr. Abbate on Human Resources; and will the Board then have to go through another work chart. Commissioner Scarborough stated Paragraph C covers that. Commissioner Cook stated that is temporary; and inquired why cannot the County Manager put Ms. Madden over Human Resources. Commissioner Ellis stated the Assistants should be used as assistants rather than a link in the chain. Commissioner Cook stated what he wants the County Manager to do, since he is responsible for the County government functioning, is to use his Assistants in his office and assign whatever duties to those individuals that he has to in order to get the job done; and if the Board can give Mr. Jenkins the maximum flexibility to do that, he is not worried about whether he comes out with a memo saying someone is in charge of this or that.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to amend the motion to delete Subparagraph E on Page 4 of the Resolution, deleting the reference to Exhibit A. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Higgs, and Cook voted aye; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

Chairman Higgs called for vote on the motion to adopt the Resolution as amended. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay. (See page _____ for Resolution No. 95-291.)

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - JASON CAMPBELL, FLORIDA C.A.N., RE: PERMIT APPLICATION FOR GATHERING AT WICKHAM PARK

Ed Leinster, 1302 East Robinson, Orlando, Attorney, stated he was asked to be present by Jason Campbell, NORML, and the ACLU; he had discussions with Assistant County Attorney Katherine Harasz and County Attorney Scott Knox; and due to concessions made on behalf of Mr. Campbell and his group, there may not be the logjam there was before. He stated he looked at Wickham Park and understands the fencing situation and what happened last year when someone from High Times lit a joint on stage; and he understands why that caused the County problems. He stated Mr. Campbell proposes there will again be no alcohol at the event or marijuana or any other drugs, in so far as anyone can control that; it could not be controlled at Octoberfest; but an effort will be made. He stated fencing will be in a position so no one can come in through the back; the event is not encouraging marijuana smoking; and he is not present to promote or discourage marijuana use. He noted he is a criminal lawyer, and if drugs were legalized, he would go out of business. He stated he is a First Amendment proponent, a due process proponent, and an equal protection proponent; and his association with NORML has nothing to do with the marijuana issue. He stated the people setting up for Octoberfest are intent on drinking as much beer as they can. He stated the only issue that might concern the County is whether people are being invited to smoke marijuana inside Wickham Park; but they are not. He stated Mr. Campbell may not have communicated very well, and there may be confusion; there is an agenda about hemp that he knows nothing about; and he is not interested in that agenda as far as making clothing out of hemp or its medicinal uses. He stated from his discussion with the County Attorney, it is clear a flat ban on the festival will not work legally; he wants to work with the County; and he does not want to fight with the Board. He stated Mr. Campbell does not care about having alcohol at the festival; there will be security via the Melbourne Police; and tickets will be sold to pay for the security. He inquired if there are any concerns he can allay.

Chairman Higgs noted the Board does not have anything before it other than Mr. Campbell?s request for discussion concerning his permit application; and the Board does not know what permit he is requesting at this time.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not know which attorneys Mr. Leinster talked to; and he has no correspondence from the County Attorney?s Office.

Mr. Leinster stated there was a hemp festival last year. Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Campbell is requesting a waiver of something. Mr. Leinster responded he is asking for a permit to have another festival; it was flatly rejected; he has been through the objections the County had; he knows what happened last year; and Mr. Campbell wants to have the festival, but to comply with whatever concerns the County has. Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Campbell wants a waiver of music and alcohol or just music. Jason Campbell responded he wants sound amplification equipment to maintain order at the large gathering as well as possibly musical entertainment.

Commissioner Ellis stated part of the issue at the last meeting was the admission charge; there was a conflict between the promoters as to where the money went; if they came in requesting use of the Wickham Park Pavilion, they would be just like anyone else; but the festival is being run as a commercial enterprise and the park is being rented for that. He stated at the last meeting the Board inquired about the 501(c)(3) status as a nonprofit entity. Mr. Leinster advised Mr. Campbell is not formally organized as a nonprofit corporation at this time; but it can be done almost overnight; and Mr. Campbell?s tax status is dependent on another organization. Mr. Leinster stated the County Attorney?s position is that the First Amendment issues may be more tightly controlled in a profit-oriented context than in a nonprofit-oriented context; and he disagrees with that, but is not here to fight that issue. He stated Ms. Harasz is concerned about security; security costs money; and Melbourne Police has dictated the cost for security will be $2,934, which has to come from somewhere. He stated Ms. Harasz abandoned the notion that tickets could not be sold, and stated she would talk to Mr. Knox, but that it would not be a problem. He stated he came only to argue the issues of people breaking the law by smoking marijuana on the premises and being encouraged to do so because this is a hemp festival and the lack of security. He stated he spoke to Mr. Knox before lunch and was under the impression they were closer on this than what Commissioner Cook indicated.

Commissioner Cook stated he is not aware of any discussions taking place; the ticket selling was a concern as well as the fact that it is not a 501(c)(3) organization; there was concern about the track record of last year?s event where there was an arrest; and he does not think Mr. Campbell is being denied his First Amendment rights because he can go to Wickham Park now and assemble. He noted no one is denying use of the park; but the Board is denying a special permit to have music; and inquired if Mr. Campbell has given up the idea of alcohol. Mr. Campbell advised it has never been an issue. Commissioner Cook reiterated the Board is not denying a First Amendment right; Mr. Campbell has use of the park; he can tell people he is going to be at the park and can say and advocate whatever he wants; but he cannot break the law or have illegal activities at the park. He reiterated the Board is not impinging on Mr. Campbell?s First Amendment rights if it denies him a permit.

Mr. Leinster stated he disagrees; Octoberfest has as much noise as a band can create and endorses the idea of beer drinking; but if someone was arrested at Octoberfest, it would not be a basis for denying Octoberfest the following year. He stated last year there was an isolated incident; a maverick advocate with his own agenda took the stage and poisoned the well; and now what the Board is trying to do is nullify everyone because of that incident. He advised Mr. Campbell and others are not endorsing smoking marijuana; there are a million products, medicinal issues and other things that are clearly First Amendment issues; and that is what they will be there for. He stated the music is simply entertainment; it will not cause any more problem than Octoberfest or another of the other events at the park; and the problem attaches to the fact that is called marijuana or hemp.

Commissioner Ellis stated where it breaks down is that it is a concert to make money, and last year the money disappeared. Mr. Campbell stated there is a concern about Mr. Doming; and Mr. Doming has taken the position of dealing with all the political aspects as well as the financial aspects. He stated after the Hemp Festival last year, Mr. Doming called him and his brother to advise he was unhappy with their disorganization, even though the festival was a success, and was firing them. He stated the letter says they were on Mr. Doming?s payroll; but there was never a payroll; they were not working for Mr. Doming; and they were all working together. He stated now all the money is in Mr. Doming?s possession; he has full control of it; there was no agreement signed; and it was easy for Mr. Doming to take the money and invest it in his personal stock market account. He noted he, his brother Gerard Campbell, and his fiancee Michelle White have gone to many events with their own money; and the only reason they are charging for the event this year is to pay for the security and the cost of having the event. Mr. Campbell noted he has not received a letter from Mr. Doming; there is no money to start out with; and he would like the opportunity for the group to prove itself by taking the proceeds from the event and forming a nonprofit organization for the sole intention of mass education relating to hemp. He advised the reason he is doing this with his own money is that there is no money from last year as it is in a bank account in Mr. Doming?s name; and he offered to have Mr. Doming help out. Commissioner Ellis stated Mr. Campbell has not formed a nonprofit organization; he understands Mr. Campbell is saying the proceeds are for the festival; and inquired what will stop Mr. Doming from showing up next year and saying Mr. Campbell and his brother took the money and skipped with it. Mr. Leinster stated he is having a problem with that as a County issue; if the Neo-Nazi Party wanted to charge $5 a ticket to speak at the park, whatever they did with the money would be up to them; the issue would be freedom of speech; he does not know why a member of the hemp festival group chose to embezzle; but that has nothing to do with whether there was a permit to speak in the park. Commissioner Ellis stated the difference is when you are charging money, you are a business; and the question is whether a business has the right to use a County facility to run that business versus just using the facility to have a demonstration or speeches. Mr. Leinster stated a business does not have the absolute right to use the park; but if the arbitrary denial of the use of the park is because of the marijuana issue, then it is back into the First Amendment. He stated it is a tempest in a teapot as far as the nonprofit organization issue; Mr. Campbell is in touch with a tax specialist; and it is an easy thing to accomplish. He stated the event is scheduled for November 11 and 12, 1995; and if the nonprofit status is an issue, it can be overcome in a week?s time.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Board considered this application once before and turned it down primarily based on the occurrences that took place last year; he was approached by staff members to find out in what way this could come back; and he advised Mr. Campbell needed to do something to address the Board?s concerns and make a different application. He stated the context in which the discussions about security and drug sniffing dogs came up was whether that would be sufficient to constitute a new application; he advised it would not; he cannot approve permits; it is the Board?s responsibility; and that is why it is at this meeting.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the County has an application; with Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson responding a second application was forwarded. Mr. Nelson advised the second application was the same as the previous one, but indicated the group was going to be not-for-profit; but the basic conditions that led to the original denial were not addressed. Chairman Higgs inquired under what conditions could the group or any group have a meeting at Wickham Park with a loudspeaker. Mr. Nelson responded they would need a permit to have a meeting; if someone shows up as an individual and wishes to express his beliefs, that is one issue; but if people are invited and it is advertised, that becomes a meeting which requires a permit. He stated the reason for that is the health, safety, and welfare issue, to make sure that 1,000 people do not show up with inadequate restrooms, etc. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board approves all permits for meetings; with Mr. Nelson responding within County parks. Mr. Nelson noted there is a whole list of activities going into the social, religious, etc.; and it is necessary to get a permit. Chairman Higgs inquired if a loudspeaker requires a waiver; with Mr. Nelson responding amplification of voice or music requires a waiver; and the reason for that is to insure it does not infringe on other people?s rights to quiet enjoyment of the park. He stated if someone went to the middle of Wickham Park and set up loud speakers with a Harris Corporation picnic next door, there would be major issues related to those types of uses; and the County wants to make sure one park user does not impress overly on another park user. Chairman Higgs inquired if the meeting permit and amplification permit are the two things that are needed; with Mr. Nelson responding yes. Chairman Higgs inquired if the waiver of music is needed; with Mr. Nelson responding the waiver is required if the music is a primary activity; but the group is saying it is a secondary activity, and therefore the waiver would not be required.

Commissioner Cook inquired if this is denied, will the Board have to address it at every meeting if the group continues to make application, and at what point will it stop. He stated the Board talked long and hard on this the last time it came up; the Board expressed concerns because there was illegal activity at the last event; the group is asking for permission for the same event; and the track record indicates there is a problem. Mr. Nelson advised when the second application was received, it was denied based on the fact that there was no change substantially; and that is why it reappeared under Personal Appearances.

John Hadaway, 1671 North U.S. 1, Sebastian, stated at last year?s event he provided cellular equipment and beepers for use of communications during the operations; he has also done this for other groups; quite often he gets his cellular equipment back with long distance calls on them, but his equipment came back from the Hemp Festival intact, which is different from when there is alcohol involved. He noted he is not saying any of the organizers were involved with the smoking of marijuana; but they were conscientious in taking care of his equipment and did not abuse it. He stated it was not Mr. Campbell who had all the equipment; it was given out; and even though Mr. Campbell did not dictate to be conscientious, the people were conscientious. He noted he is a businessman from Sebastian; his business is communications; there may be some people who do not understand the ramifications of illegal marijuana in society in the form of higher budgets for police; and he advised the Sebastian City Council of this when it was working on the proposed City budget. He stated he did some research on police cots to the community; in the 1950's and 1960's, prior to drug usage, the police force in Sebastian accounted for 40% of the expenditures, but 50% of the revenues; now the police get 35% of the overall budget, but account for less than 1% of the revenue; and that is a tremendous statistic. He stated it would solve a lot of budgetary problems if people?s eyes were opened to the real problems of the community, and not sold out by the rhetoric that is heard every day about the illegality of marijuana and other drugs. He noted his happiest days was fifteen years ago when he stopped drinking alcohol which is the worst drug of all.

Michael Hadaway, 461 Avocado Avenue, Sebastian, stated he is the owner of Indian River Rods; he custom builds fishing poles; and if anyone has seen offshore fishing tournaments, they have probably seen his poles. He stated his poles are unusual; they have been donated as awards to the junior anglers at fishing tournaments; and he also builds an unusual pole which is wrapped in hemp making it a much stronger pole which lasts longer. He stated when he went to the Hemp Festival last year, he did not have these poles; but he has built up an inventory of the poles hoping to sell them this year. He stated now he is going to be stuck with all those poles which he will have a hard time selling in his little shop in Sebastian. Mr. Hadaway stated he has been to other fish and tackle shows where there has been beer flowing; he has seen more drunks at those places; there have probably been more arrests at those type of shows; and he would like to be able to sell his product at the Hemp Festival. He advised he does not smoke marijuana.

Glenn Pinfield, 827 Barbados Avenue, Melbourne, stated he listened to a tape of the meeting last month in regard to this issue, and to paraphrase Will Rogers, ?I don?t make jokes. I just watch government and report the facts.? He suggested maybe the Bill of Rights should be changed to read ?Void where prohibited by the Brevard County Commission.? He stated he was at the festival last year; and it seems like people are talking about two different festivals. He noted he was at the festival, but none of the Commissioners were, even though they were all invited to come to learn the truth about marijuana. He stated he participated in a band that played at the festival; the band is scheduled to play again this year; and if it does not get to play this year, it will view it as a violation of its First Amendment rights since one of the ways it uses its freedom of expression under the First Amendment is through music to express its political beliefs and philosophy. He stated as far as a riot or anything like that at last year?s festival, that is slander and heresay after the fact because of the political agenda of certain people in the County; and the only thing he heard from the police and park police was that it was much more peaceful than Octoberfest. He stated some Commissioners said last year?s event was an invitation for people to break the law; that is a complete and total lie; and every piece of promotional material that was put out simply said to come and be educated about hemp. He stated the County supports Octoberfest which is an invitation to law breaking; the whole festival is based around drinking beer; there are signs all over the County showing people with a beer mug; and a lot of people go to Octoberfest, drink, and then drive home. He inquired if the County is going to be liable when someone gets in an accident and kills somebody on the way home from Octoberfest. He stated people have expressed concern with profit making as though if you are making a profit, you no longer have any First Amendment rights; that is the most un-American piece of nonsense he ever heard; and a lot of people in the entertainment industry would be surprised to know the First Amendment no longer applies to them. He stated it is not the County?s business where the money goes; the County is more Draconian than the IRS; there was talk about having a problem because there was no agent of the County overseeing the taking of money; and he wonders if someone from the IRS is present every time the County takes money in, and whether the County Commissioner is working for free. He stated one of the Commissioners said they are upset because it was implied there was payoff to have the event; but there is a payoff because the event?s sponsors are forced to hire police, give a kickback, and pay fees. He stated if the festival has to make money, that is the reason why; if someone implies they have to pay off, that is a matter of free speech; and to paraphrase Commissioner Scarborough, ?if you do not like that, sue the person.? He stated Commissioner O'Brien stated he cannot allow free speech for people who disagree with the government policy of fighting a war on drugs; but that is incitement to riot because the Bill of Rights was written so that people could express their disagreement with government policy and try to make a change. He stated the Board should find out the facts before making decisions based on ignorance; and suggested reading the book The Emperor Wears No Clothes which contains a lot of information on marijuana. He stated the Drug Enforcement Administration?s Chief Administrative Law Judge, after reviewing documents over the course of a couple of years, said that marijuana is one of the safest, therapeutically active substances known to man; and instead of making a decision based on ignorance, political expediency, and local politics, the Board should base decisions on facts and quit breaking the law by violating the U.S. Constitution, which overrides any laws the Commission makes.

Micah Savell, 1370 Sarno Road, Melbourne, stated he is a taxpayer; he does not have a dog in this fight; and he strongly takes issue with the last speaker on whether the Board has the right to approve or disapprove an activity in a public park. He stated there are a lot of private properties that a business operating for profit can lease; they can do whatever they want on their own facilities; and if a nonprofit group has the proper documentation, that is one thing; but this group should seek another facility on private lands for its for-profit meeting.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Campbell met with him and Mr. Knox; Mr. Knox touched base with the Melbourne Police; and requested Mr. Knox share that with the Board. Mr. Knox advised he called the Melbourne Police Chief who, through his staff, had been talking to Mr. Campbell; and although there have been discussions about security at the festival, there are some details that have not been worked out. He stated the discussions had been broad without any real conclusion.

Mr. Leinster stated he did not come to insult the Board; he is not suggesting the Board operates in bad faith; he talked to Ms. Harasz in good faith; and his impression was if he worked with the County, provided security, and no one got up and smoked a joint, which no one wants to happen, that everyone could work together. He stated the group has not achieved nonprofit status; but that can be done. He stated Mr. Campbell asked if he could submit a permit with Parks and Recreation and was told to forget it, and that nobody connected with his organization would get a permit. He stated he is ready to work with the Board to let the group have the festival; it is a clear First Amendment issue; and requested the Board not bar them because it sounds like marijuana. He stated if there is security, it has to be paid for; and it is a catch 22 situation because if they are nonprofit and have no money, they cannot have security. He requested the Board tell the group what it wants; if it wants fencing, it will get fencing; if it wants police security, it will get the security; but the group would like the right to get the permit, and the Board can let it know what it needs to do. He stated he is here to work with the Board not against it; and requested the Board let him know what needs to be done.

Commissioner Cook stated he is not privy to the discussions Mr. Leinster may have had with the County Attorneys; but the issues seem to be the same that were presented the first time when the permit was denied. He stated he sees no real change; and the concerns he expressed in the first hearing are the same that he has today.

Commissioner Ellis stated it does matter where the money goes; the group has no right to run a business on public property; he does not have a problem with groups raising money for one cause or another; and that is where the First Amendment rights lie. He stated if someone wants to run a concert and charge admission every Saturday for 52 weeks on public property, it does matter where the money goes; and that is his only concern. He stated security has been handled; it will be better this year than last; there have been efforts to stop any illegal activity; and he understands the First Amendment rights; however he is concerned about First Amendment rights for someone running a business on County property. Commissioner Ellis stated the group should be set up as a nonprofit organization, and rent a pavilion to put the festival on.

Commissioner Scarborough stated on one hand the Board is asked to look at the security; apparently there has been some dialogue; Mr. Knox has made calls about the security issue; but that has not been resolved. He stated he would be looking at it differently if the Melbourne Police Chief said he was convinced the whole thing was worked out. He stated the nonprofit issue is twofold; it is possible to incorporate as a nonprofit corporation of Florida quite simply; but to get 501(c)(3) status with the Internal Revenue Service takes more time. He stated to get 501(c)(3) status, it is necessary to be audited by the IRS; to say something is a nonprofit organization does not have the same level of assurance as having 501(c)(3) status; and those two issues are being confused. He stated maybe the group is heading in the right direction, but he does not see it being there at this time.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the group could designate where the proceeds would go; and stated it is the same thing as when someone has a music festival or something at one of the County parks to pay someone?s medical bills, etc. and designates where the proceeds are going. Commissioner Scarborough inquired has that been done; with Mr. Nelson responding the County does not designate, and it is up to the organizations to designate where the money would go. Commissioner Ellis stated the groups designate that when they come and apply to the Board; there are festivals all year long; and they always designate where the fundraising money will go. Commissioner Scarborough stated a lot of the organizations are set up under one of the sections of the Internal Revenue Code already; and inquired what would prevent him from having a festival to celebrate aspirin this week and charge admission, and next week one to celebrate Excedrin. He inquired how would you have the legitimacy of the private activity from the freedom of speech activity; and at what point do you want to satisfy yourself. Commissioner Ellis stated he would be satisfied if he saw where the proceeds go.

Chairman Higgs stated she cannot determine where the proceeds go; but if there was a legitimate nonprofit group established under the laws sponsoring an event, and if the security arrangements were compatible with the City of Melbourne, then she would be willing to support a meeting permit and amplification permit for the organization to meet. Mr. Leinster inquired if Chairman Higgs would want a letter from the Melbourne Police; with Chairman Higgs responding she would want that and an indication of the organization sponsoring the event. She stated there are some First Amendment issues; she does not want to sit on anyone?s First Amendment rights; and she would support this if the things she mentioned previously could be cleared up.

Commissioner Cook stated nobody wants to sit on anyone?s First Amendment rights; the group still maintains the ability to go assemble and have free speech; but this is a County facility; and his concern is that this is making a commercial enterprise out of a County park. He stated the Board needs to look at the entire thing because it does not know where the proceeds go; and if it is going into someone?s pocket or bank account, there is a difference between that and going to strictly a nonprofit corporation. He stated his main concern is that it appears to be a commercial activity; they may make a profit; and their track record concerns him. He reiterated they are not being denied the use of a park; they can go there now and use the park; and the park is open to the public.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, to reconsider the issue of the permit application provided the Board receives a letter from the City of Melbourne Police Department indicating it is satisfied with the security arrangements, receives indication that the nonprofit status is squared away, and is informed where the proceeds are going to go.

Commissioner Ellis stated at that point he will be satisfied that it is a First Amendment issue and not just a commercial enterprise.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Ellis is talking about having 501(c)(3) status when he says nonprofit status. Mr. Knox advised the group can file a not-for-profit corporation; and inquired if the Ordinance requires 501(c)(3) status; with Mr. Nelson responding it does not. Mr. Nelson stated the Board on at least three occasions has decided because of the occasional fundraiser for families it would not make those requirements; so it would be contrary to what is currently required.

Commissioner Ellis indicated his criteria are designation as not-for-profit, designation where the proceeds are going to go, and a letter from the Melbourne Police Department that it is satisfied with security arrangements.

Chairman Higgs seconded the motion.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Chairman Higgs voted against this the first time. Commissioner Ellis inquired if Chairman Higgs can still second; with Commissioner Scarborough responding she can. Commissioner Cook inquired if someone can second a reconsideration if he or she voted against the original motion. Mr. Knox advised typically this would be a motion to rescind; and reconsideration has to be done at the same meeting. Chairman Higgs noted the Board is going to look at this at the next meeting because it does not have the information today. Commissioner Ellis stated if the Board does not get this information, the point is not to even look at it; with Chairman Higgs agreeing. Chairman Higgs inquired if she can second the motion; with Mr. Knox responding if the motion is changed to rescind the previous action. Chairman Higgs suggested a motion to consider this item at the next meeting if the Board receives all the items.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, to approve consideration at the next regular meeting of the permit application of Jason Campbell for a gathering at Wickham Park, if Mr. Campbell submits proof of nonprofit status, designates where the proceeds will go, and submits a letter from the Melbourne Police Department that it is satisfied with the security arrangements.

Mr. Knox stated he understands the motion to rescind the previous action. Chairman Higgs stated the Board is not ready to do that until it gets the information.

Commissioner Scarborough seconded the motion. He stated it will get on the Agenda based upon the criteria. Commissioner Cook stated the Board will have a serious problem denying this once the group has met the criteria; and that criteria will not satisfy his concerns. Chairman Higgs agreed that is true.

Commissioner Ellis stated he needs to see that the money is not being made and that is a legitimate First Amendment issue; and the security issue would not matter because even if you are trying to raise money for crippled children, there can be a riot.

Commissioner Cook stated the issue he is concerned about is the track record from the last event; taking those types of things into consideration is not impinging on anyone?s First Amendment rights to assemble or free speech; and what the Board is concerned about is whether to allow the event to have music with amplification and whether they can charge for tickets.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Campbell asked under what circumstances the Board would listen to his discussion; the Board is saying it will consider it at the next meeting if Mr. Campbell submits a letter from the Melbourne Police Department; and that does not compel any Commissioner to vote for or against it.

Commissioner Cook stated if the Board sets criteria today, that would compel it to accept the application. Mr. Knox stated if the Board decides it does not want to approve next time, he will have a more difficult time with it because the Board is telling Mr. Campbell to get this information and come back, and the Board may look favorably upon it, or at least consider it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated any time he can vote for a motion to reconsider but then subsequently vote against the motion. Mr. Knox advised the better approach, if the Board wishes to look at another application, is to get another application; and the problem is the Board went over what needed to be done.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion did not carry. Commissioners Higgs and Ellis voted aye; Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien and Cook voted nay.

Mr. Knox stated Mr. Campbell submitted an application which did not change anything except the corporate status of the applicant; but now he can come back with a new application with new suggestions as to how to handle security, fencing, etc. Commissioner Scarborough stated the elements which Commissioner Ellis spelled out are pertinent as a part of a new application; and inquired if Mr. Campbell comes back with a new application, will the Board be compelled to look at it. Mr. Knox stated the Board would probably look at a new application and make an informed decision based on the proposal.

Chairman Higgs stated the motion to suggest new criteria has failed; but the County Attorney has advised a new application may be submitted. Mr. Knox stated Mr. Campbell needs to file a new application with the supporting documentation that has been discussed.

Mr. Leinster stated he did not hear Mr. Nelson say the applicant needs nonprofit status, because the other organizations were not formally established as nonprofit, and the Board just needs to know where the money is going. Commissioner Ellis stated Mr. Nelson stated the other groups were not-for-profit organizations but did not have 501(c)(3) status. Mr. Leinster stated he did not hear anybody say it had to be a nonprofit corporation either. Chairman Higgs stated it would make the Board feel more comfortable; and Mr. Nelson can explain after the meeting what organizations have been described in the Ordinance as nonprofit organizations. Mr. Nelson requested clarification; and stated the way the County Policy reads is that it has to go toward a charitable cause. Mr. Leinster stated that is fine; the group does not have to be nonprofit but can submit a letter saying where the money is going to satisfy Commissioner Ellis without being a formally established nonprofit corporation; and otherwise it is a denial of equal protection. He stated what the Board has done is a de facto denial because the event is set for November 11 and 12, 1995; and what the group can do to satisfy what the Board just said is submit a Melbourne Police Department letterhead and verification where the money is going, without being a nonprofit corporation; and it can apply for a permit without staff advising the group will not get a permit no matter what because it is a marijuana organization. He stated he would like this to be approved or disapproved and not ignored; otherwise he will be prepared with a Writ of Mandamus, and will go that direction. He stated he has tried to be nice about this; but he is walking out feeling like he has been kicked.

Chairman Higgs stated she is sorry Mr. Leinster feels that way; but the Board had no information other than what Mr. Campbell provided.

Mr. Leinster stated he is going to do what he said he would do, and what he thinks the Board said.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Nelson just said it had to be used for a charitable purpose; and requested a definition of charitable purpose. He stated Commissioner Ellis requested the group define where the money is going; it can say it is for a fishing trip in the Bahamas; that is defining it; but the question is whether that is a charitable purpose. Commissioner Ellis stated that would be reason to turn it down. Mr. Nelson stated if the group turns in another application, it will come to the Board rather than staff taking a position because he is not comfortable usurping the Board?s powers.

DISCUSSION, RE: VACATING UNUSED COUNTY RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO MELBOURNE-TILLMAN WATER CONTROL DISTRICT

Commissioner Ellis stated there have been high water problems in the June Park area; June Park was platted many years ago; there are a number of unused rights-of-way; and those could be vacated to the Melbourne Tillman Water Control District so it can widen canals for additional storage capacity. He stated there will be public hearings and notification in order to vacate.

Chairman Higgs stated she does not have any problem with it; but the easiest way would be to come up with a use agreement because there could be situations where the right-of-way might go to the abutting property owners and not to the Melbourne Tillman Water Control District. She stated if there was a use agreement with the Melbourne Tillman Water Control District, it would be possible to do it more simply. Commissioner Ellis stated that is fine. County Attorney Scott Knox advised that would be the preferred course; and otherwise it may end up with a situation where Melbourne Tillman Water Control District cannot control the portions of the right-of-way that have been vacated and have gone to the abutting property owners on the other side.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if it would be split 50-50; with Mr. Knox responding yes. Commissioner Cook inquired if the use agreement would come back to the Board; with Chairman Higgs responding yes. She stated it may come back at the next meeting and the Melbourne Tillman Water Control District could get on with its work.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the County Attorney to work with the Melbourne Tillman Water Control District to develop a use agreement for use of unused County rights-of-way for additional drainage. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated the agreement will come back to the Board on October 24, 1995.

The meeting recessed at 4:35 p.m. and reconvened at 4:52 p.m.

Chairman Higgs stated Kim Zarillo submitted a card but was unable to stay, and requested the Board send notification to property owners that will only be affected by the Plan as it would be a misuse of funds to send notices unnecessarily to property owners who will not participate in the Plan. She stated Margaret Broussard was present earlier and submitted a card requesting the Board not spend money to send out unnecessary notification cards or letters to those with less than two acres or to those with other species or habitat issues that are not SCDP concerns, as the list of 26,000 is too extensive and includes people with ESA and wetlands, and notifying all scrub owners could backfire and make the Commission look foolish.

Micah Savell, 1370 Sarno Road, Melbourne, inquired if the Board has prepared the final cut of the notification, and can that be reviewed by the public. County Manager Tom Jenkins provided Mr. Savell with a copy of the notification.

Chairman Higgs suggested adding ?the U.S. Fish and Wildlife requires property owners with scrub habitat to apply for a federal permit prior to any future development of their land? instead of ?prior to developing their land.? She stated there are parcels in Port St. John and Palm Bay where people have put homes; they might get these notices; and if it said ?prior to any future development of land,? that would clarify that if they are in an existing home on an existing parcel, they do not have a problem unless they want to do anything. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board went over this when the Scrub Jay Ordinance was before it; and if he lived on a scrub parcel in an existing home and went to clear scrub for his swimming pool, he would need a permit.

Chairman Higgs stated any future development on the parcel would need a permit; and adding that language will clarify.

Commissioner Ellis stated Graydon Corn has his home on eight acres in Scottsmoor, and he will need to understand that the only part that is not affected is where the home is.

Chairman Higgs stated that is what she was trying to clarify so people would not be misled.

Mr. Savell stated the Board needs to notify all 26,000 owners. Chairman Higgs stated the Board voted to do that earlier in the meeting. Mr. Savell stated some people who are on parcels under two acres will be affected; he met last week with Tami Townsend, Scott Baker, Steve Peffer, and Commissioner Cook; and he tried to get it cleared up as to who would be affected and who would not be, and it was determined some of the landowners under two acres would be affected. He noted he has said that the core acre was going to be 4,500 to 4,700 acres and the alternates were going to be 4,500 to 4,700, and then there would be an additional 4,000 acres that were going to be released; however, as he now understands it, the core area that is going to be determined to be utilized is 9,000 acres, and the other 4,000 acres are going to be released. He stated the 4,000 acres that are going to be released will be the part that has to be mitigated or voluntarily mitigated; and the other 4,000 acres will not be released in their entirety. He stated the dates proposed for the public meetings are November 8 and 9, 1995; the documents, which are in draft form, are constantly being revised; and he would like the dates of the meetings be held in abeyance until the final draft is finished by Mr. Baker so there is time to review it.

Commissioner Cook stated he agrees the final draft should be done prior to the notices going out; and once the notices go out, the plan cannot be changed because people would be getting all sorts of plans and not know what changed.

Mr. Savell stated there has been a lot of miscommunication; everyone is moving in reaction to everything else; and requested the public meeting dates be held until the plan is final. He stated in the notification which talks about the initial cost, there needs to be an insertion that it may become a lien on the property. He noted he understands that is voluntary, but it is a key issue, and the public needs to be made aware of it.

Chairman Higgs stated the Committee will continue to meet to talk about feedback that it is getting and improvements that can be made; she understands Mr. Savell?s concern; but it would be wrong for the group to quit looking at different alternatives and feedback on the plan. She stated there may be a draft plan that would be considered the document, but the Committee will continue to discuss issues. Mr. Savell stated his concern is that he has dissected the 200-page document; and every time he brings up an issue, he is told it has been changed and is no longer relevant, etc. He stated before it is possible to talk to people, there have to be definitive parameters; when the Committee meets on Thursday and changes the parameters of the document, and then the public meets on the following Tuesday to discuss it and is told that the discussion is no longer relevant, the public is left hanging out there because they were not privy to the changes. He stated they want the time to look at the document, study it, and develop questions.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer suggested coming to a hearing draft, subject to change by the Board after comments; and then everyone would know what they were talking about by title.

Commissioner Cook stated that is important; and changes can be made at public hearings. Chairman Higgs stated that is fine.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wishes to add the ?lien phrase? in the item. Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem if the Board wants to add it; the cost for those participating in the plan is approximately $5,300 with $100 per year for maintenance; and it will create a lien on the property. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it will create a lien or may create a lien. Commissioner Cook stated for those who participate it will create a lien; with Commissioner Ellis advising unless the person pays it, so it may create a lien. Environmental Specialist Tami Townsend advised the property owner would have the option of paying upfront and not having a lien put on the property. Commissioner Cook stated it should say ?plus $100 a year for maintenance and may create a lien on their property.?

Commissioner Ellis stated the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has still not stated it is releasing property that is two acres or less from requirements for endangered species; and until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tells the County it is not going to look at those properties anymore, the County has to notify all scrub owners. Commissioner Cook noted the Board voted to do that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he revised the verbiage and made it shorter by approximately one-third; and Ms. Madden is making copies for the Board.

Commissioner Cook stated the notice says ?presently the plan is in draft form and has not? and the word ?not? should be emphasized in darker lettering because people may be confused and think this is something that has already happened. He stated it says ?accepted by the Board? and suggested it say ?accepted by the Board of County Commissioners.? Chairman Higgs suggested it say ?by the Commission?; with Commissioner Cook responding that is fine.

Chairman Higgs stated the issue still to be discussed is what to do about the public hearings; she heard sentiments during the earlier discussion to go after January, 1996; and Mr. Peffer advised it may have to go to the Local Planning Agency.

Mr. Peffer stated now that the language has been finalized, the Board still has the decisions on scheduling to include; and then the cards need to be printed and mailed. He stated it is also necessary to set up telephone lines; and he would want to have the lines established with a telephone number before the cards are sent out. Mr. Peffer stated sufficient time needs to be provided to respond to the requests for information; people will want to call in; and time will need to be provided for them to successfully get their call answered as the lines will be busy if they are all calling at once. He stated time needs to be allowed for citizens to visit the library and read the plan; an ordinance needs to be drafted to be considered during the public hearings; and pursuant to the Board?s policy adopted earlier, the municipalities should be provided with a 60-day period of time to respond to the proposed ordinance which will have an effect on the cities. He stated all of those issues should be factored into the deliberation of when to hold the public meetings and the public hearing.

Chairman Higgs inquired how long will it take to get the cards ready to mail; with Mr. Peffer responding the first thing that has to be done is get the phone lines established so those numbers can be put on the card; Ms. Busacca has advised there is a contract with someone who may be able to assist in getting the cards published and sent out; and it will probably be two weeks. Chairman Higgs stated that gets to the end of the month which does not leave much time before November 8 and 9, 1995. Mr. Peffer stated Mr. Knox has advised the LPA would not be required; but it is an option for the Board to consider if it wants that body to review, discuss, and bring recommendations.

Commissioner Cook stated he is not concerned if the LPA looks at this if 26,000 cards are being mailed out to the citizens.

Commissioner Scarborough read aloud the verbiage for the post card. Commissioner Cook stated it should be ?future development of your land.? Discussion ensued on whether to wait for the verbiage to be typed and copies distributed. Commissioner Scarborough continued reading the verbiage. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board puts a bunch of meetings in the notice, it will just confuse people.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is including the public hearing date. Commissioner Ellis stated those are needed. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board gets into the public discussion and goes off in a totally different direction, it would have already advertised the public hearing and may not be ready; and that is his concern. Commissioner Cook stated the Board could still go forward with the public hearing and cancel them. He stated Commissioner Scarborough has done a great job, but would like to keep the public hearings as part of it. Commissioner O'Brien stated he likes it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve sending a post card notification with the following wording:

Please be advised that property you own may have scrub habitat occupied by endangered or threatened species, protected by the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requires property owners with scrub habitat to apply for a federal permit prior to future development of their land. Future use of your property may be affected by a Scrub Conservation and Development Plan.

Participation in the Plan will cost approximately $5,330 per acre, plus $100 per year for maintenance which may create a lien on your property. The plan is in draft form and has not been adopted by the Commission. Informational meetings will be held on (date to be added) from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Government Center in Viera. Also, two public hearings are scheduled for January 16 and 31, 1996. For additional information call (number to be added) or write to the Office of Natural Resources Management, 2725 St. Johns Street, Building B, Viera, Florida 32940.

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

Chairman Higgs stated the Board is backing into the November 8 and 9, 1995 meetings; and the Board may have to look at other dates. Commissioner Scarborough stated his concern is if there is a good public meeting, it will not be possible to get staff and people together to put ideas together before the public hearing; and if they are stacked on top of each other, people wait and go to the public hearing rather than going to the public meeting. Commissioner Ellis suggested holding the public hearings in early December. Commissioner Scarborough stated there needs to be time in between the public meetings and the public hearings.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if the post card goes out in the next two to three weeks, people need at least three weeks notice because some people do not live here, some are on vacations, some are on business trips, etc.; and he does not want people to get home, find the card, and have the meeting already be over. He stated advanced notice of this is very important; if the phone lines are working, people can call in and get as much information as they need; and then they can decide whether to come to the meetings. Commissioner Cook suggested having the first two meetings in January, 1996 for the public hearings. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Board wants special meetings; with Commissioner Cook responding no. Chairman Higgs advised they will have to be night meetings; and suggested the evening meeting in January and then a week later. Commissioner O'Brien suggested having the meetings in February, 1996. Discussion ensued on dates for the meetings. Chairman Higgs inquired if the meetings should be held in a larger facility; with Commissioner Cook responding the meetings can be accommodated at the Government Center.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve public hearings on January 16 and 31, 1996 to consider the Scrub Conservation and Development Plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Peffer suggested holding the informational meetings in December, 1995. Chairman Higgs stated they should be held as quickly as possible, allowing sufficient time from the time the notice is mailed; and she would hate to see them delayed to mid-December. Commissioner Cook suggested holding them in late November. Chairman Higgs suggested late November and early December. Mr. Peffer stated he will schedule them for late November and early December. Commissioner Cook stated the earlier the better because it will give people time to digest all of this. Chairman Higgs stated it might get some good ideas flowing. Mr. Peffer inquired if the Board wants to be at the informational meetings, and should they be coordinated with the Commissioners? schedule. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to be present. Commissioner Cook requested Mr. Peffer coordinate if possible.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he was informed by Southern Bell that there is a machine which the County could rent that could answer 60 calls a minute and play the tapes; but he does not know the cost. Mr. Peffer advised staff is working with them.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the informational meetings will be an opportunity to explain the plan but also an opportunity for people to ask questions; and inquired how will the meeting be structured. Chairman Higgs stated the Board needs to let staff set that up; it was the Board?s direction that those people who were concerned about the plan needed an opportunity to speak; and staff can draft a sample agenda for those meetings for the Board?s review. She stated the Steering Committee will want to be there and can answer questions as well as the staff. Mr. Jenkins stated he would prefer staff not be advocating. Chairman Higgs stated someone has to explain the plan for informational purposes only; and the advocates would be other people.

Mr. Savell inquired if it can be arranged so that people who have had an opportunity to study the plan can have more than five or ten minutes rebuttal. Chairman Higgs stated that is what the Board is talking about doing. Commissioner Cook stated he would like to see, if there is another side to the story, that they have ample time to present their concerns. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is looking forward to the open public debate.

DISCUSSION, RE: CATALOGUE OF MAJOR DRAINAGE DITCHES AND CROSSINGS

Commissioner Ellis stated cataloguing of major drainage ditches and crossings to Districts 3, 4 and 5 is because District 4 dumps into District 5 and then District 5 dumps into District 3 in South Brevard. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is any problem in including all Districts because it would be good information for all Commissioners to know what is in all Districts. Commissioner Ellis agreed; and stated the reason he did this just as a cataloguing is that a basin study would not happen soon, but this could be done in a short period of time so the information would be available before the next rainy season. He stated Gary Garrison is present representing the Melbourne Tillman Water Control District; and the District has set up a system like this for the entire Melbourne Tillman Water Control District.

Chairman Higgs inquired how much will this cost.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the requested funding is from the Districts 3, 4 and 5 MSTU?s to be matched by gas tax; but the Surface Water Improvement Program is charged with this. Commissioner Ellis stated a number of drainage systems connect with the incorporated areas; it is not as true in Merritt Island as it is in South Brevard; and the gas tax is paid for by everyone. Chairman Higgs stated she would be concerned how the MSTU money is used because that is clearly unincorporated money. Commissioner Ellis stated that is why he had the gas tax match. Chairman Higgs inquired how much will it cost to catalogue the major drainage ditches and crossings. Assistant Public Works Director Ron Jones advised it can be done with internal staff; it will not be necessary to go to an outside consultant; and it would primarily be a matter of having manhours to do the task. He stated the Surface Water Improvement Division could handle all the data input; and the funding source should be the Surface Water Improvement Division because this is one of the tasks the program was created for. Commissioner Ellis inquired if Mr. Jones would need temporary help; and stated he does not want to have an engineer inputting on a terminal. Mr. Jones stated a number of positions from all over the County could be used; and it is not a rocket science type situation to measure a culvert and document its location. Commissioner Cook stated it should be funded from Surface Water Improvement. Commissioner Ellis reiterated the Surface Water Improvement is only imposed in the unincorporated area; and part of the effort will include the incorporated area. Chairman Higgs suggested using gas tax and the Surface Water Improvement funds. Commissioner Ellis stated Horse Creek would be followed from the incorporated and the unincorporated area. Mr. Jones stated staff has already initiated the process of coordinating with different municipalities in different areas to obtain what information they have on file already. County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if it would be gas tax or General Fund; and advised gas tax is not being used for that function. He noted Road and Bridge and Engineering operate from the General Fund; and it might be a combination. Chairman Higgs stated then it could be General Fund and Surface Water Improvement; with Mr. Jenkins advising there is the possibility of a combination including gas tax. Commissioner Cook inquired if staff has any idea what it will cost. Mr. Jones stated he would estimate between $50,000 or $75,000 in time. Commissioner Ellis stated people are already on the payroll. Mr. Jenkins stated existing people will be used to do it. Chairman Higgs inquired if the cataloguing is necessary to do the drainage model; with Mr. Jones responding absolutely. She stated she does not think anyone would be against the drainage model and working with the St. Johns; and inquired if the Board should proceed with both items; with Commissioner Ellis responding as long as the items are not tied to each other. Commissioner Ellis stated Item VI.E.6 can be done in-house, but he wants some help on VI.E.7.

Public Works Director Henry Minneboo stated it is critical to catalogue the major drainage ditches and crossings as there are only one or two employees left who understand where most of the water goes.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to compile a catalogue of major drainage ditches and crossings in all Districts, with funding to come from General Fund and Surface Water Improvement funds. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: DRAINAGE MODEL FOR BREVARD COUNTY

Commissioner Ellis stated if there is no problem the drainage model could be done Countywide; but a general drainage plan is needed. He stated in his office he has an expensive study that was done four or five years ago for a half square-mile in Indialantic; and for that cost, the whole County could have been done. He stated the whole County needs to be done, but the areas that have been flooding especially need to be done.

Commissioner Cook stated the St. Johns River Water Management District may be in a position to fund this; Mr. Swann indicated that flooding was its original mission; and he has no problem with that. He inquired if Mr. Jenkins? memo is being incorporated as part of VI.E.6; and stated he has questions about the methodology that has been outlined. Chairman Higgs stated Item VI.E.7 stands by itself. Commissioner Cook inquired if the attachment to VI.E.6 was for informational purposes and is not being endorsed. Mr. Jenkins stated staff felt this is how to go about doing a Countywide drainage plan; and that is where the memo came from.

Commissioner Cook inquired why would the St. Johns River Water Management District maintain the data base and not the County. Mr. Jenkins stated staff proposed that because it would be the County and the cities; the one entity which was left off which should be added is the Melbourne Tillman Water Control District; and the thought was for the County, the cities and the Water Control District to work cooperatively. He stated since St. Johns River Water Management District has the resources, it was thought that body would keep the data base; the other entities could tap into it; and eventually the goal is to get this on the County?s GIS System. Commissioner Cook stated his original thought is it should go on the GIS System. Mr. Jenkins stated the thought was for the St. Johns River Water Management District to do a lot of the basic work as it will be municipal work as well as County work.

Commissioner O'Brien stated St. Johns River Water Management District collects $28 million from Brevard County; and it should kick back $50,000 to take care of half the problem it caused.

Commissioner Cook stated no dollar amount is included in the item; and inquired if staff wants to pursue discussing it.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct staff to work jointly with the St. Johns River Water Management District, the Melbourne Tillman Water Control District, and the cities to conduct a drainage study of the entire County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis stated it is critical before the next rainy season that the County have the elementary drainage set up for the entire County.

Commissioner Cook stated Mr. Jenkins will be coming back to the Board after discussions with the St. Johns River Water Management District and the cities about the funding mechanisms. Mr. Jenkins stated staff will proceed immediately with the cataloguing component of it.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated it is not necessary to have a public hearing before the Local Planning Agency (LPA), but it does have to be referred to the LPA for recommendations. Chairman Higgs stated there will be time to do that following the informational meetings; and inquired if the LPA meets in December. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not know if the LPA meets in December; with Chairman Higgs responding it can be taken to the LPA in November. Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem, but this is not land development. Mr. Knox stated he does not want to run into an argument down the road that the Board did not do something as a land development regulation because that has come up in other contexts. Chairman Higgs requested the County Attorney find out if it could be referred to the LPA at an appropriate time in November, December, or January, and if that cannot happen, to advise the Board at the next meeting so it can reconsider the time frames that were set.

DISCUSSION, RE: FUNDING OPTIONS TO EXPAND BREVARD COUNTY DETENTION CENTER

Chairman Higgs stated the item is to look at funding options to expand the Brevard County Detention Center; she has looked at the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports; and debt service payments over the next five years continuously go down, from $35 million to $32 million. She stated prior to making a decision in regard to going to sales tax referendum, the Board needs to look at the money it has and its bonding capacity; if it saves $2 million for three years and bonds $7 million, that will provide $13 million needed to build the expansion; and she would like to get the information from the Financial Advisor on what the Board?s capacities are before making a decision to go to referendum.

Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem getting additional information; but his concern is what has been done so far should have taken care of the problem for the next two years; and the Board needs to look beyond that in terms of what else needs to be done. He stated if the Board is looking at a $30 million expenditure, there should probably be a referendum. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Charter demands it.

Chairman Higgs stated what she is suggesting is to save for three years, and build one pod, which has an estimated cost of $13 million; and that way there will be half of the money saved and bonding capacity for half. Commissioner O'Brien agreed. Chairman Higgs stated if half is paid from savings and half paid out of excess capacity, the Board is not increasing, but is paying things off. She stated it is not increasing debt; it is a sound financial plan; and before jumping into a referendum on sales tax, the Board should eliminate all other possibilities.

Commissioner Ellis stated he looks at it the other way around; if the Board jumps into property tax, it will eliminate all other possibilities; with the property tax issue, it is a twenty-year debt service; sales tax takes nine months; and sales tax is the first place to go rather than the last.

Commissioner Cook stated the original jail construction was based on a one-year tax; that is the place the Board should look first; and people should have their input on it.

Commissioner Ellis stated falling debt service may be true, but as soon as the jail is built, it will have to be staffed. Commissioner Cook agreed the operating expenses will go up. Commissioner Ellis stated operating expenses will eat up debt service savings in a heartbeat.

Chairman Higgs stated if the Board looks at the excess between what it is taxing in property taxes and what it is spending, it can start saving the excess; and it would still have the excess to operate.

Commissioner Ellis stated it is $4.5 million dollars a year additional for two pods. Chairman Higgs noted she was talking about one pod; with Commissioner Ellis advising that is still $2.5 million. Chairman Higgs stated there is almost $2.5 million now that is the difference between what is collected and what is spent.

Commissioner Ellis stated in a few months the County is going to spend $1.5 million; with Chairman Higgs advising she does not know if the County will or will not, but it made $616,000 today. Commissioner Cook suggested it could be used for tax relief.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Item VI.E.3 deals with the Citizens Jail Advisory Board; enough information has not been developed; Commissioner Ellis has a concept of what is really needed; Chairman Higgs has another concept that perhaps all of it needs to be spread out over a period of years; and the Board has not reconstituted the Citizens Jail Advisory Committee. He stated that is the first thing that should be done, and have the Committee come back with recommendations on how to solve the problem. He stated the members of the Committee have experience; they are all still living in the County; half of them have indicated they would be willing to serve again; and there are only a few people left who have that kind of knowledge.

Commissioner Scarborough stated with the Charter it should go to the public; and inquired if there is some way to structure it so a person could opt for Chairman Higgs? recommendation as a means of financing as opposed to the other recommendation, and yet have it be a referendum. He inquired if there can be a valid referendum inquiring if someone is in favor of doing the jail, and if so, if they would be in favor of doing it with sales tax. He stated that way someone could indicate they are in favor of the jail, but could vote against the sales tax and throw other financing options back to the Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated a previous Board did something similar when it built the Government Center; and the public really wants to be asked the question. He stated the question is whether the public is willing to spend $30 million on a jail; and the Board has to make a decision whether it is going to be via sales tax, property tax, or ad valorem tax. He stated it is the Board?s responsibility to ask that question. He noted Chairman Higgs? idea is good; one of the most important things the County can do is continue to pay down debt; and he does not want to see the County get further into debt with little to show for it. He stated a cash rich County is one that has no debt at all; a cash rich County can do all kinds of things; but if it keeps paying debt and interest, it will be broke forever, and unable to get out of it.

Commissioner Cook stated the question needs to be asked straight out; that is doing a service to the public to ask the question directly; there is two years grace time; the Board does have the luxury of putting it on the March, 1996 Presidential Primary to find out what the people think; and that would be the preferable course of action.

Commissioner O'Brien stated that is a good idea; and it could be a straw ballot to see if the public wants to go to referendum on jails. He stated the biggest crime being committed today is battering of women; if there were larger jails, Tallahassee could pass a law to have batterers arrested like California does; if there is a place to put them, it will start reducing the problem; and it would kill a bunch of birds with one stone, but it should be done the right way.

Chairman Higgs stated within existing resources, if the County continues to prudently spend the money, there is revenue to pay for the jail; and she does not have a problem with going to referendum on either issue; but the public wants to see resources used prudently and does not want to look at other taxing mechanisms.

Commissioner O'Brien stated that is a valid point and he agrees; but he does not trust the budgeting process. He inquired how far will the parks deteriorate before the $1 million is needed; stated if the drainage system falls apart, $1 million will be needed; and the County will get into a position that will be difficult to get out of.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, to authorize a referendum in March, 1996, the Presidential Primary Ballot, on the jail issue.

Chairman Higgs inquired what will be put on the referendum; with Commissioner Cook responding the ballot language would have to come back to the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to see it proposed in a two-part question, first asking whether the people favor the County undertaking a capital improvement of a certain amount to build additional jail space, and then asking if the County undertakes the project whether the people favor the sales tax. He stated it would be a sales tax referendum, and some place in the information it could be explained that there are other mechanisms that would be utilized if the vote is positive on the first question and negative on the second. He stated he is not clear on how it should be written to not confuse people; but people need to know there are other options; the people need to be involved; and that is what was heard in the Charter vote.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if Commissioner Cook is talking about a straw ballot or a real referendum in March, 1996; with Commissioner Cook responding a real referendum. Commissioner Ellis stated if there is going to be a real referendum, interlocal agreements with the cities need to be signed; and people are not willing to pay one cent for eighteen months instead of nine months so the cities can shift their general funds somewhere else and not have to use them for the police departments; with Commissioner Cook agreeing. Commissioner Ellis stated it is imperative to have the interlocal agreements with all the cities because the County provides the jail for everybody in the incorporated and unincorporated areas. Chairman Higgs stated the County will have to go to the cities prior to going to ballot to get interlocal agreements, putting all the funds toward the jail. Commissioner Ellis inquired if that can be done; with Chairman Higgs responding she does not know. Commissioner Scarborough advised that probably cannot be accomplished prior to March.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board still has not gone to the Citizens Jail Advisory Committee for help in making that decision. He expressed desire to make a motion to re-establish the Citizens Jail Advisory Committee and direct it to come back to the Board within 60 days with valid options including wording.

Chairman Higgs advised there is a motion on the floor.

Commissioner Ellis seconded for discussion the motion to authorize a referendum.

Commissioner Cook stated there may be some reason the referendum cannot be accomplished by March, but the Presidential Preference Primary would be the best mechanism for the referendum. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has no problem trying for it; and inquired if the motion could be contingent upon an interlocal agreement with the cities. Commissioner Cook stated he will make that part of the motion.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the motion is to build two pods; with Commissioner Cook responding two pods, one year, one cent. Commissioner Ellis noted it will not require a year. Commissioner Cook agreed; but stated the simpler the question, the better.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to authorize a referendum in March, 1996, contingent upon the County acquiring the necessary interlocal agreements with the municipalities, to ask the voters to approve a one-cent sales tax increase for a period of one year to fund a two-pod expansion at the Jail. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien and Cook voted aye; Commissioners Higgs and Ellis voted nay.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is one thing that concerns him; if it is defeated in March and the Board decides to use a financing plan such as the one Chairman Higgs suggested, it is going to be questioned on whether the public voted against the financing plan or the construction project; and the only way he is going to be able to vote for Chairman Higgs? financing plan is to put it back out for referendum in November, 1996. He stated if it is done as one question, he will have a problem going to alternative financing.

Commissioner Ellis inquired under Chairman Higgs? plan what would the County bond against. Chairman Higgs stated there is excess sales tax; the indication from Mr. Holley was that there is excess sales tax capacity; and her plan is based on what she sees in the CAFR. She stated the ability is there; but her recommendation would be to get it from the Financial Advisor.

Commissioner O'Brien noted the Board authorized the Supervisor of Elections to buy new machines; with Commissioner Ellis responding not yet. Chairman Higgs clarified the Board authorized going out to RFP. Commissioner O'Brien stated when someone votes, he can vote for the President of the Republican Party or Democratic Party; it is possible to vote for more than one thing; and suggested putting down Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, vote for one. Commissioner Cook stated he is not sure that can be done. He stated the Board owes it to the public to be straightforward and aboveboard; and the public will say yes, it is a good idea for jail expansion, or no, it is not a good idea. He stated it should be one year for one cent; but if it gets into too many options, it will be confusing to the people.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he agrees it will be confusing; but it will put him in a place where he will not be able to vote for another plan, even if he supports it, if there is a negative vote because he will not know if the vote was against the jail or the financing. Commissioner Cook noted it is contingent upon being able to work out the interlocal agreements with the cities to return their portion.

Chairman Higgs stated the County faces that dilemma in regard to the COP?s; Tom Holley advises right now the market is great; the County could get $2 million out of the reserve and save $150,000 a year if it refinanced; and that is a significant payment on one pod. Commissioner Ellis stated that is not free money; it is the last payment. Chairman Higgs stated if the County refinances, it does not have a last payment; if the COP?s are refinanced, $2 million could be taken and applied to the jail; and the Board will not have the last COP payment that it would have the way Commissioner Ellis is talking about it. Commissioner Ellis stated the reserve is what makes the last COP payment; and if that is pulled out, it obligates the Board to one more year of debt service to pay the $2 million. Chairman Higgs stated the value of the $2 million today against the construction of a jail versus nineteen to twenty more years is considerable. Commissioner Ellis stated the County will draw interest on that, so the present value cannot be used because it is an interest bearing account, not an escrow account. Chairman Higgs stated the rate of inflation for construction is approximately 10%; the return on the $2 million is approximately 5 to 6%; and there is a gap in the difference there. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what would happen if the public passed the sales tax for one year for one cent, and rather than bonding the debt, the County waited until it is all collected. Commissioner Ellis stated that is what would be done. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County could pay cash for the jail. Commissioner Ellis stated the tax could be stopped early, if the money is collected early. Commissioner O'Brien stated there is no twenty-year scheme; it is a one-year deal; and he does not want to see the County have any more natural gas problems. Commissioner Ellis noted it is up to one year. Commissioner Cook stated the motion was up to one year; and if the money is collected in ten months, the tax stops in ten months. Chairman Higgs suggested putting the refinancing of the COP?s on a referendum in March, 1996; with Commissioner Ellis advising the Board has been there and done that.

DISCUSSION, RE: RETIREE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR HEALTH INSURANCE

Commissioner Ellis stated for the amount of money being spent, he does not see anything gained here. Commissioner O'Brien agreed. Chairman Higgs inquired what Commissioner Ellis means about the amount of money gained; with Commissioner Ellis responding looking at what is received from retirees and the number of retirees, there is not enough to be a significant difference. Chairman Higgs stated in 1990 the current rates were set; she understands it is not a lot of money; but the rates have not been changed since 1990. She stated in 1990, it was $135 and $62.50; it has not changed; and a small cost of living increase beginning in 1996 would be appropriate. She stated when the County changed providers, it went from $95 and $62.50 for dependents under 65 and dependents over 65 to $28 and $21; and she does not know how that occurred; but it was a vast change. She stated she is not asking the Board to consider huge changes, but at the end of the year, the Board should consider a cost of living increase over all because it has not been changed since 1990; the Board should seriously look at the $28 and $21; and inquired how the County got those figures. Human Resources Director Frank Abbate responded last year when the Insurance Committee looked at the various proposals that came in, it looked at what the employees and retirees were paying in terms of dependent coverage; the employee contributions were reduced from $142 to $110 and from $110 to $80; some members of the Committee expressed concern that the retiree dependent rates should be reduced as well; and as a result of the discussion, the Committee recommended the rates that are shown. Chairman Higgs stated if she was an employee with a dependent, she would be paying $80 a month; but if she was a retiree with a dependent, she would be paying $28 or $21 a month; so the current employees are paying more for dependents than retirees are. She stated it is not an issue of not being fair to retirees but an issue of trying to be fair to the whole system; and having the same rate for six years does not make good sense.

Commissioner Cook inquired what is Chairman Higgs recommending; with Chairman Higgs responding a cost of living increase beginning in January, 1996 and look at rates on dependents under 65 and over 65 at least going back to what they were prior to the changes in the plan. Commissioner Cook stated the rates have not increased since 1990, and the dependent rate has gone down. Chairman Higgs stated the dependent rate last year for those over and under 65 went from $95 to $28 and $62.50 to $21. Commissioner Cook noted that is a huge reduction. Chairman Higgs stated the dependent under 65 that the employee would pay $80 for, costs the retired person $28.

Commissioner Ellis stated retired over 65 is pretty much the only one that counts because there are only four under 65. Chairman Higgs stated the information does not say how old the dependents are, which is the issue.

Commissioner O'Brien stated people on retirement are on fixed incomes; and inquired if someone works 30 years, what percentage of the last paycheck would the retiree get; with Mr. Abbate responding under the Florida Retirement System it is approximately 1.6% for each year of service in the regular service and 3% in the Special Risk Group. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the average person would get approximately 50% after 30 years; with Mr. Abbate responding someone retiring after 30 years would get a little less than 50%. Commissioner Cook inquired for someone here less than 30 years, is it 1.6%; with Mr. Abbate responding yes, if the retiree did not take any of the options to provide for spouses or others, and typically it is less than that. Commissioner O'Brien stated there is not much in it to begin with, and the County is trying to hit the retirees with $10 more or $5; and retirees deserve more respect than that.

Commissioner Ellis stated the total revenue for retirees over 65 and their dependents is only $100,000. Commissioner O'Brien agreed there is not enough to worry about.

Chairman Higgs stated it is not a lot of money; however, the principle of having collected the same thing since 1990 and then in 1995, having the dependents of regular employees paying significantly more bothers her.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the retirees are on limited income; it is half or less of what they used to make; and with the cost of everything else going up, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. He stated if they have a dependent, it is usually a child with a health problem or a handicap and that is why they are still a dependent. Commissioner Ellis noted it could be a spouse. Chairman Higgs stated she does not hear any Commissioner indicating an interest in taking action. Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not see any real savings. Commissioner Cook stated his concern is the fixed income of the retirees. Chairman Higgs reiterated it has not been changed since 1990.

DISCUSSION, RE: LICENSING OF TAXICABS AND MOTOR VEHICLES FOR HIRE

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated staff is advising it is not sure how effective the existing Ordinance is; and it is either a matter of getting rid of it or strengthening it.

Commissioner Cook stated he had concerns; the fee could be made $15 to cover the actual cost; checking the driving record of the individuals is good; but he is not sure what character background checks would entail. He stated it does not make sense to him; but he can understand the motor vehicle inspections and covering the cost of the permit with a $15 fee. He stated the County can get too restrictive on this.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Options 2 and 3, maintaining the status quo and directing staff to increase the $10 permit to $15 to cover the actual cost associated with the inspection and amending the current Ordinance to provide for license and character background checks and motor vehicle safety inspections.

Commissioner O'Brien stated his mother used to take a cab from Cape Canaveral quite often; but she is afraid of the cabs; and it has gotten to the point where she will not take a cab any longer. He stated one of the drivers used to work for his company; he had mental problems and had been in and out of jail many times; and he should not be driving a cab. He stated the background checks are very important.

Chairman Higgs stated $15 would not cover the mechanical and safety inspections; and inquired what the cost would be to do Options 2 and 3. Code Compliance Director John Sternagel responded there would be a significant increase in the added cost; the motor vehicle safety inspection would be conducted through SCATs or Fleet Maintenance; and there would be an added cost that could be $50 to $100. Commissioner O'Brien stated other states have vehicle inspections at local gas stations; and inquired why should the County have them go to SCATs or bring SCATs to the taxicabs. He suggested having a checkoff sheet that must be signed by a registered mechanic or reputable firm; and if they are going to try to scam the system, the County will catch them quickly.

Commissioner Cook stated Option 3 will be onerous; the County does not need to get into the business of motor vehicle safety inspections; the State did away with that; and it would be cost prohibitive. He stated character background checks would be onerous; they are not required on everyone who has to have a County license; and it could get ridiculous. He stated this is specifying one group of people, and saying the County is not too happy with it so it will put extra requirements on; that is not fair; it is not the way to go; and the County cannot afford to do it. He stated checking the driving record is not expensive; it can be easily done; and that is a good idea. Commissioner Cook stated that should be the extent of what the County does, and it is the extent of the County?s obligation.

Commissioner Ellis stated he can understand adding a license check, but that would be it; and inquired if the character background check is done, what would be done with the report. He stated it would be necessary to rewrite the Ordinance to address all the factors listed in Option 3. Commissioner Cook inquired what if someone has been adjudicated. Commissioner Scarborough stated he agrees with Commissioner Cook; something is needed; but he would like to see the driving vehicle and the motor vehicle check. He stated he knows elderly people who rely on cabs to get around; and he would not want them to get into something where the person is a habitually bad driver and the equipment is bad. Commissioner O'Brien noted senior citizens are the highest users of some of the cabs aside from some of the people at the Port.

Mr. Jenkins stated one of the points the staff was trying to make to the Board was that it needs to look at what the benefit of the existing Ordinance is; the Ordinance is putting people through hoops; and he does not know that the County gets anything out of it. He stated one of the options is to eliminate the Ordinance; but staff is suggesting if the Board thinks the Ordinance should be in effect, it should make it more meaningful. He stated if the Ordinance is not going to accomplish something, the question is why have it.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he is willing to amend the motion to provide for license and character background checks; and the argument is what the background check does. He stated a reputable firm will look at the background check when hiring; but without the Ordinance, companies will not do that check.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to amend the previous motion to provide for license and character background checks and a $15 fee.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the vehicle inspection. Commissioner O'Brien stated he will not include that unless the Board can find a way to make that financially feasible for the company to do that for itself. Commissioner Scarborough stated his concern is more with the vehicle than the driver; and inquired if a driver is bouncing checks, is that really relevant. Commissioner O'Brien stated the company can determine whether elements of the background check are relevant.

Commissioner Cook stated private companies accept some of this responsibility; a background check may show someone has done something wrong in the past; but typically these jobs are the only jobs some people can get; and inquired if they should be denied employment if they bounced a check in the past. He stated if they cannot make a living, they may go back on the street and sell crack; and it could get ridiculous if the County starts denying people based on the background checks. He inquired how will the County justify that and what kind of lawsuits will there be; and stated he does not see how the County can do this. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County can make the companies do that, requiring them to provide proof of a background check and make sure the drivers have licenses. Commissioner Cook inquired how much would it cost for a private company to have a background check, and would it be a substantial expense. Mr. Jenkins stated if the Board is willing to settle for a computerized data base check, it would not be a substantial expense. Chairman Higgs inquired what happens with the check, and will the license be denied, or does the Board just want to be sure the company has that information. She stated if there is something substantive the Board can do in terms of safety, she could go along with it. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is not for the County to do background checks; it is for the employer to do it in order to make a valid decision about who he is putting behind the wheel in a car for hire; and he may hire a shoplifter, but not a child molester. Chairman Higgs stated the company will have complied with the Ordinance if it can document that it has done a background check; and then the employer can hire whoever he wants. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board can make a list of offenses which would prohibit someone from being hired. Commissioner Cook inquired if Commissioner O'Brien wants the government telling him who he can hire in his private business; with Commissioner O'Brien responding sometimes he wishes it would. Commissioner O'Brien stated the elderly or handicapped people can be intimidated; and the County is saying companies can hire anyone they like, put them in any kind of car and call it a taxicab company.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct staff to draft language amending the Ordinance regulating taxicabs and motor vehicles for hire to include that Code Enforcement check taxi meters, insurance as required by the State, lettering on the vehicles, schedule of rates being posted, and current occupational license, and requiring companies to check on the driving records of drivers.

Mr. Jenkins stated he is not sure a company can check on a driving record; and the County may have to do that. Commissioner Ellis stated anybody can do that. Commissioner O'Brien stated as an employer, he does it all the time for insurance reasons. Chairman Higgs stated this is directing staff to amend the Ordinance, and this will have to come back to the Board; with Mr. Sternagel advising that is correct. Chairman Higgs stated staff can research those provisions and bring them back to the Board. Commissioner Cook stated it would not be the County?s decision; and if the company checks the driving record, it would still be up to the employer to make the decision as to hiring the individual.

Commissioner O'Brien stated in various cities, medallions are issued; and inquired if Mr. Sternagel has any more information on that. Mr. Sternagel stated, in general, the requirements of the City of Chicago, Illinois are vehicle safety inspections, driver license background checks, criminal record checks, monitoring of liability insurance, administrative hearings, inspection of meters for usage, type and calibration; all drivers are required to take a four-day training class and pass a written examination; and once all the criteria is satisfied, a medallion is issued to the vehicle and driver. Commissioner Cook inquired at what cost; with Mr. Sternagel responding he did not get a determination on the cost. Mr. Jenkins advised it is a significant cost. Commissioner Cook stated in New York City it is in excess of $50,000 per cab; so people in New York City who used to be able to pull themselves out of poverty by driving a cab and starting their own companies can no longer do it because of the cost; and Chicago is similar.

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

DISCUSSION, RE: FUTURE STATE AID AND STATE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FOR LIBRARIES

Assistant County Manager Joan Madden stated this is a request that the Board or Chairman be directed to contact the Legislative Delegation and the Governor to request support for State aid and the State construction grants. She stated the Secretary of State is requesting funding only for the top listed library construction projects; the Cocoa Beach Public Library project is listed sixth; fifteenth is the Eau Gallie Public Library; and seventeenth is West Melbourne Public Library. She noted while there are three projects on the list, they are not first; and the Secretary is requesting only 9.8 cents per local dollar spent which will result in $100,000 less than this year. She stated the item is a request for a letter from the Board supporting the additional dollars be appropriated at the State level for the projects.

Commissioner Cook stated he has concerns; there was a letter that went out from Ms. Stewart indicating the Legislative Delegation had not been supportive of the funds; and he hopes that was not the intent of the letter. Ms. Madden stated the letter was that the Secretary of State wanted to get information through the Legislative Delegation; and it would come through that process rather than from Ms. Stewart?s desk. Library Services Director Kathryn Stewart stated that statement was made for the Legislature in general; and it was not specifically about Brevard County. Ms. Stewart stated when the State Library called, it was indicated it was looking for support from the total Legislature, not just Brevard County.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he got a call from Representative Futch who inquired if the Merritt Island Library Tax District receives the entire 9.8 cent match or does it go to the General Fund. Ms. Stewart stated the 9.8 cents would go to the Library District, not the Merritt Island District. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Library District is all of Brevard County; with Ms. Stewart responding it is all of Brevard County; and Merritt Island gets a portion of that, but not the whole 9.8 cents. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how the Board can put pressure on the Legislative Delegation for the $5 million; and stated he understands Representative Futch would do that by his interest that is shown; but can the Board get support of the others. Ms. Madden stated it could be done by a presentation at the Legislative Delegation meeting; it was not part of the Legislative Package; or it could be done by letter from the Board. Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like to see it done both ways; the squeaky wheel gets the grease; and a letter is not sufficient to get the message across how strong the Board feels about this.

Commissioner Scarborough stated each Commissioner could call some members of the Delegation; nothing is accomplished in the formal meetings; and he would like the Board to express concern because the County first appears as item 6 with the other two projects at the bottom. He inquired if there is any reason the projects are not a higher priority; with Ms. Stewart responding staff does not know what the State criteria is for reading the various libraries. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is something the Delegation could ask when it calls.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct that each Commissioner contact the State Representatives in their respective Commission Districts requesting support for State Aid and State Construction Grants and follow up with fax communication.

Chairman Higgs stated each Commissioner will call those Representatives in his or her District. Discussion ensued on which Commissioners will call which Representatives and Senators. Commissioner Ellis stated the only reason he would do it is because if the money is going to be handed out, the County should get it, but philosophically he does not believe the State should be paying for local libraries.

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

APPROVAL, RE: OUTSIDE PROCUREMENT COUNSEL FOR RFQ/RFP PROCESS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES FOR SOUTH COUNTY AREA

Commissioner Cook inquired if there is no one in-house who could perform this function; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding this is a $100 million project; and he knows of no County that has used in-house counsel to do this because it is such a complicated area with so many pitfalls. Chairman Higgs inquired what will the consultants do; with Mr. Knox responding negotiate the contract. Chairman Higgs inquired if the consultants will do nothing to that point; with Mr. Knox responding they are also looking at the RFP?s and RFQ?s now at no cost to the County. Commissioner Cook inquired if there will be no billing until they begin negotiation; with Mr. Knox responding until they are on board to analyze the bids. County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if the consultant is involved in the drafting of the RFP; with Mr. Knox responding that has already been sent up for review, but the County is not being charged right now. Chairman Higgs inquired how the people were selected; with Mr. Knox responding the firm was recommended and he has seen their work in Pasco County and other counties. Chairman Higgs stated the County has always gone out in a competitive process; with Mr. Knox responding there are only two or three firms that do this. Chairman Higgs inquired if Holland and Knight can do this; with Mr. Knox responding possibly but Verner, Kiipfert, Bernard, McPherson and Hand were recommended by Mr. Dee who has worked with them.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the agreement is for $185 to $225 an hour; with Mr. Knox responding that is their range, but Mr. Broom has agreed to $185. Chairman Higgs inquired how much does the County pay Holland and Knight; with Mr. Knox responding $185 per hour, but there is a new proposal which he will bring to the Board in the near future. Chairman Higgs inquired what will Holland and Knight charge; with Mr. Knox responding they will do a blended rate which means different people at different levels at $150 an hour. Commissioner Cook inquired if the other firms which do this can be quoted, even if it does not go out to bid. Mr. Knox responded that could be done.

APPROVAL, RE: OUTSIDE PROCUREMENT COUNSEL FOR RFQ/RFP PROCESS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES FOR SOUTH COUNTY AREA

Ellis inquired if the Board can award this based on price. Mr. Knox stated there are two or three firms which do this; and the range will be the same for each; but there are not many people specialized in this kind of practice. Chairman Higgs inquired how can the Board do this without a competitive process. Mr. Knox stated the Board is hiring a lawyer. Chairman Higgs stated this is still a procurement; with Mr. Knox responding it can be done competitively if the Board desires, but it does not have to be. Commissioner Cook stated he would prefer getting quotes from the other firms rather than accepting a sole source attorney. Commissioner Ellis stated his only concern is if this is going to be bid, and then the RFP will be done, it will be a year and a half before there is a decision.

Chairman Higgs stated staff is going to get some hourly quotes and come back at the next meeting.

DISCUSSION, RE: COST OF COPYING DOCUMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve leaving the cost of copies at 15 cents.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like for the first few copies to be free; and explained the problems involved with the bookkeeping. Commissioner Cook agreed the first 50 copies should be free; and stated some people paid $15.75 for scrub jay information. Chairman Higgs inquired if it would be the first 50 pages annually; with Commissioner Scarborough responding 50 pages per person per month. Commissioner Cook stated if it is a problem, staff will advise the Board; but the Board owes this to the public. Chairman Higgs stated 50 copies per month is too much.

Assistant County Manager Joan Madden advised there are copy machines on the floors of all the libraries; and she wants to be sure the policy does not apply to them. Commissioner Scarborough stated it does not apply to libraries; and it is to accommodate public information of public documents as opposed to someone wanting to get copies of magazine articles. Commissioner Scarborough stated in his office it is more costly to do the accounting than to give the copies. Commissioner Cook agreed with the first 50 copies per month being free. Chairman Higgs reiterated that is too many. Commissioner Cook stated if it is a problem, staff will come back to the Board. Commissioner Scarborough suggested 30 copies per month per person; with the Board reaching consensus to have the first 30 copies per month per person to be free.

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

DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION, RE: COST-CUTTING IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS

Commissioner Ellis expressed approval of recommendation 4, to remove officials? names from County stationery. He stated recommendations 2 and 5 are management decisions which can be made by department managers; and both are good ideas. Commissioner Ellis stated recommendation 1 will not work; he does not want to go with recommendation 3; and recommendation 4 definitely needs to be done because he cannot see dumping stationery after each election. Commissioner Cook stated there is no additional printing cost. Commissioner Ellis stated he is sure Commissioner Cook does not use stationery that has the former Commissioner?s name on it; with Commissioner Cook responding he did.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve recommendation 4, to remove officials? names from stationery.

Discussion ensued on ways to economize on stationery costs. Chairman Higgs stated it would not preclude if an individual wanted to have the names on his or her stationery. Commissioner Cook stated if an individual Commissioner wants it, he or she can pay for it. Commissioner Ellis stated the top of the stationery would not change, but the names at the bottom include the five Commissioners, the County Manager, the County Attorney and the Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts. Commissioner O'Brien suggested deleting the Commissioner?s name from the top right hand corner and the department name because names can be added if someone has them scanned into his or her computer. Chairman Higgs suggested getting rid of the four-color seal. Commissioner Cook inquired if the seal is needed, and why cannot plain paper be used. Chairman Higgs stated letterhead is needed. Commissioner Ellis stated the reason color is needed is so that when someone walks in with a copy, it can be disputed. Chairman Higgs suggested going to a gold seal. Commissioner O'Brien advised the County seal has sixteen different colors and the printing costs are outrageous. Commissioner Cook stated the motion should include removing the officials names from the stationery and using a gold seal. Chairman Higgs stated that is assuming using the gold seal would actually reduce costs. Commissioner Cook stated it is contingent upon it being a reduced cost. Chairman Higgs stated she is not talking about gold leaf, but just gold color. Commissioner Ellis accepted the changes in his motion; with Commissioner Scarborough accepting as seconder.

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

Commissioner O'Brien suggested a new seal in one color.

DISCUSSION, RE: CITIZENS JAIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct that the Citizens? Jail Advisory Committee be re-enacted, with each Commissioner having one appointment. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: INSTALLING COMPUTER TERMINALS IN COMMISSION MEETING ROOM

Commissioner O'Brien advised of newspaper articles on efforts to maintain a paperless operation in Windsor, Connecticut and Tallahassee, Florida. He stated if the Board took that approach, it would reduce paper use by 95%; and explained how documents would be found through use of computers. He requested staff research the issue and come back to the Board on the cost and what would be accomplished by going paperless with 90% of the documents. Chairman Higgs stated she does not object to doing that as long as she has a portable computer with sufficient battery power. Commissioner O'Brien stated Chairman Higgs could have that or there could be terminals at each Commissioner?s place in the Board room. Chairman Higgs reiterated she wants one that is mobile. She stated Commissioner Ellis takes his agenda to dinner; and he needs to be able to take his computer. Commissioner O'Brien stated those documents that someone wants can be printed out, but not every document will need to be printed; and if someone brought up something at the meeting, it could be printed in the Board room. County Manager Tom Jenkins suggested it could operate from laptops. Commissioner O'Brien stated laptops are $3,500 each and the clarity is not that good. Chairman Higgs reiterated she wants something she can take with her. Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner O'Brien intends to make a motion. Commissioner O'Brien stated he wants to get the feel of the Board. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not care if Commissioner O'Brien wants to do it for himself, but he does not personally want to do it. Commissioner Cook stated he does not have an interest in it. Commissioner Ellis stated he has no objection to Commissioner O'Brien getting information on the costs. Commissioner O'Brien stated the only way to look at it would be to have the seven terminals built into the desk in the Board room with printers; and explained the advantages. Commissioner Cook stated cost would be a consideration. Commissioner O'Brien explained how the agenda items could be typed directly into the computer rather than making hard copies for each Commissioner. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has problems with going to computers.

DISCUSSION, RE: GOLF COURSE LIABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

Commissioner Ellis stated Mr. Pinchera advises he lived in the mobile home prior to the Spessard Holland Golf Course being built; and if that is the case, the owners of the golf course should be responsible for fixing Mr. Pinchera?s mobile home. He stated if someone builds a home on an existing golf course, that is just like building next to a railroad track, highway or airport; but if the golf course moves in next to someone, then it should be liable if windows are broken.

Commissioner Cook stated he thought Spessard Holland was built in the late 1960's; with Commissioner Ellis advising the golf course was built in the late 1970's. Assistant County Manager Joan Madden advised her recollection is it was in the 1970's. Commissioner Ellis stated it was bonded in 1976 and built in 1977. Commissioner Cook inquired if the County is going to pay Mr. Pinchera $500 every time a golf ball hits his house; with Commissioner O'Brien suggesting the County buy the trailer and move it. Commissioner Ellis stated Mr. Pinchera has three windows broken; and he has erected a net at his own cost. Commissioner Cook expressed concern that this will be an ongoing thing. Commissioner Ellis stated the County built the golf course which created the problem; at the Harbor City Golf Course on Lake Washington Road, there is a 50 to 60-foot screen hanging on telephone poles to keep the balls on the driving range; and if the County does not want to keep compensating people, it should put in a net at Spessard Holland.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve compensation of $500 to Mr. Pinchera.

Commissioner Cook stated he would prefer to look at the cost of putting the net up because the County will keep compensating people until the problem is solved; but in thirty years, Mr. Pinchera is the only person who has requested compensation. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not know where Mr. Pinchera sits on the course, and he may be in a high profile area. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the County is buying a golf ball easement for the $500; with Chairman Higgs responding no. Chairman Higgs stated Mr. Pinchera contacted her in 1993; and explained the actions she took at that time to respond to the problem including getting an opinion from the County Attorney that the County was not liable and contacting Risk Management about a claim. She stated she is sympathetic to Mr. Pinchera, but wonders about liability for other claims on other golf courses. Commissioner Ellis stated in this case, Mr. Pinchera was there before the golf course; and if the County puts up a golf course, it has an obligation to protect existing properties. Commissioner Cook stated he would like to see documentation from Mr. Pinchera that he spent $500 to replace windows; and he would like staff to investigate the cost of putting up a barrier. Chairman Higgs stated the County has offered to take action to protect Mr. Pinchera?s trailer from stray golf balls; staff helped him put up a net to solve his problem; and she does not know that the County should compensate him. Commissioner Ellis stated the County needs to do what was done at the Harbor City Golf Course. Commissioner Cook stated he would at least like to see the costs; and he would be more comfortable if he thought this was only going to be paid one time and the problem would be solved.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct that Pat Pinchera be compensated $500 for damage to his home by golfers at Spessard Holland Golf Course.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the average person is going to say it is only $500 out of an immense budget; Mr. Pinchera is an 85-year old man who did not choose to be next to a golf course; and this is the decent thing to do.

Chairman Higgs stated this is asking to compensate everybody; and the Board cannot even document that golf balls broke Mr. Pinchera?s windows. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Chairman Higgs wants to hire private investigators. Chairman Higgs stated it is a dangerous precedent. Commissioner Cook requested the motion be contingent on Mr. Pinchera signing an affidavit that he spent $500 on repairs for his house; with Commissioner Scarborough accepting that as part of the motion.

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

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct staff to investigate the possibility of putting up nets at Spessard Holland Golf Course to prevent future damage. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: CELEBRATE THE ST. JOHNS RIVER CLEANUP

Chairman Higgs stated Leroy Wright addressed the Board; she then got a letter from Representative Everett Kelly about appointing someone to the Celebrate the St. Johns River Cleanup; and Mr. Wright requested a representative of the County serve on the Coordinating Council and the County waive the hauling fees and the fee for F. Burton Smith Park. She stated it was estimated the landfill and hauling fees would be less than $250; the F. Burton Smith Park fee is $162; and it would not be a significantly large amount for what will be done. She requested Mr. Jenkins appoint a staff member to serve on the Coordinating Council.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, to direct the County Manager to appoint a staff member to the Celebrate the St. Johns River Cleanup Coordinating Council, and waive fees for use of F. Burton Smith Park and the landfill, and hauling fees.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the desire is to have someone from staff or a Commissioner. Chairman Higgs stated a staff member to coordinate things. Commissioner Scarborough stated F. Burton Smith Park is in Commissioner Cook?s District; and suggested appointing Commissioner Cook who can then work with staff.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised the County does not have authority over the hauling fees; there are franchise collectors; and an arrangement would have to be made with the haulers. Chairman Higgs inquired if the County can work with those people to take care of that; with Mr. Peffer responding staff will contact them to see if they are willing to waive the fee.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to appoint Commissioner Cook to the St. Johns River County Coordinating Council; waive fees for use of F. Burton Smith Park and the landfill for the St. Johns River Cleanup; and direct staff to request the haulers waive hauling fees for disposal of accumulated waste from the cleanup. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVE SELECTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS, RE: APPRAISAL SERVICES

Commissioner Ellis stated his concern is only one of the appraisers of the three is an in-County appraiser; and there should be at least two available.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he spoke with Gary Cunningham who is concerned that some of the people coming in from out of state do not always give the best appraisals; and he agrees with Commissioner Ellis.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Mr. Minneboo is saying a lot of the people who wrote the letters have changed their minds; with Public Works Director Henry Minneboo responding no. Mr. Minneboo advised staff spoke to one individual about it; and there were three letters of concern. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Minneboo told him some of the out-of-County appraisers have better programs to do this with. Mr. Minneboo stated all of the individuals making presentations had expressed a significant knowledge of the County. Chairman Higgs stated the County Attorney served on the Committee; and inquired what advantages do the two out-of-County firms have. Mr. Knox advised he looks at this from a legal standpoint rather than cost; Clayton, Roper & Marshall has its own in-house planner, engineering staff, and graphics staff; and those are things the County can use in condemnation cases that are not available from local appraisers. He stated if he goes against Stumpy Harris in a case where he is using hired guns from Orlando, he would like to at least be on equal footing. Chairman Higgs stated she received calls and talked to two of the firms that were listed; and inquired if she has a problem voting on this item since she talked to those people. Mr. Knox stated it is Board policy; and if they just called to talk, it does not make much difference as Chairman Higgs is disclosing it on the record.

Commissioner Ellis stated not everything is a condemnation.

Commissioner Cook suggested instead of three one-year renewals it be a one-year contract and go out again next year. He stated that gives more firms the opportunity to compete if it is done on a yearly basis; but the way it is done now ties it up for three years. He stated since only one local firm is involved, he would like to give the local firms a shot at it next year and the year after; and it would be more competitive to do this on a yearly basis. Mr. Minneboo stated the negative to that approach is the fact that there are overlaps on these jobs; and part of the Agenda item is to extend the contract of Tuttle, Armfield, Wagner Appraisal & Research, Inc. He stated once the County is into a project over a year?s time, it is difficult to cut off the firm at the end of the period. Commissioner Cook stated anyone currently working on a project could be extended by bringing the contract back to the Board; that would not be a problem; and his concern is how to keep the process competitive with local firms being involved. Chairman Higgs stated they will stay involved because they want the business. Commissioner Cook stated if the County was doing it on a yearly basis, they would, but the County is going to tie it up for almost four years. Chairman Higgs stated the Board does not have to do the full four years; it requires a negotiated yearly contract; and the renewal options are down the road. Mr. Jenkins inquired since there are some continuing cases with Tuttle, Armfield, Wagner Appraisal & Research, Inc., would it be possible to go to four firms. Chairman Higgs noted that would be two in-County firms and two out-of-County firms; but it does not comply with what was originally committed. Commissioner Cook inquired if the three one-year options come back to the Board; with Mr. Minneboo responding yes. Commissioner Cook stated that is fine; and suggested going with the top four firms. Commissioner Ellis stated staff can still select the appraiser; it is not like a towing service for the Sheriff where they go in order; and either the top four or top five would give a couple of local appraisers. He stated it is not just condemnation cases; there is land acquisition; and suggested having the top five with staff having the discretion to use who it wants. Chairman Higgs inquired how would the firms be selected; with Mr. Jenkins responding they would rotate unless there was a specialized need. Mr. Knox stated that is the way it would work.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve one-year contracts with Robert W. Houha, MAI; Clayton Roper & Marshall; Callaway & Price, Inc.; Tuttle, Armfield, Wagner, Appraisal & Research Inc.; and W. H. Benson & Company for continuing appraisal services; and direct that next year the contracts come back to the Board for renewal. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Contracts.)

RENEWAL AGREEMENT WITH SALVATION ARMY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER, RE: SHELTER SERVICES

Commissioner Ellis stated he worked on this with the Salvation Army; and it was agreed that the large home, when it was renovated, would be the shelter, and the small home would be used as single-family transitional housing. He stated the single-family transitional housing should be used for a single family, not the legal definition meaning three adults, not related, etc. Commissioner Ellis stated he would like the language that was in the letter from Ms. Busacca, which is the small house would be transitional housing for one family and the larger house, which is currently vacant, would be used as the shelter. Assistant County Manager Joan Madden stated that is fine.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize Renewal Agreement with the Salvation Army Domestic Violence Shelter stipulating that the small house will be used as transitional housing for one family and the larger house, which is currently vacant, will be used as the shelter. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO WORK ORDER NO. 1 WITH POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC., RE: ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AT SARNO ROAD LANDFILL

Commissioner Cook inquired if all the damage was due to the heavy rains. Solid Waste Management Director Richard Rabon responded most of the damage was during Hurricane Erin; it was very extensive; there was a lot of heavy construction; and practically the entire construction project was washed away. He stated it has delayed the project a couple of months or more; and it is necessary to extend the time that Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. will be on the job. He stated he is trying to minimize the time by putting County staff with them to cover some of the time; but approximately 95% of the construction services have been used up; and it would be at the point of substantial completion except for the hurricane damage. He stated it has gotten messy with the contractor over the claims having to do with the damage and whether or not it will be covered by insurance; and it will be a several hundred thousand dollar issue before it is all resolved. Commissioner Cook stated that is his concern; this could snowball into costing a significant amount of money; the rainfall had a certain relationship to some of the problems; however, he is concerned that the County not get stuck with exorbitant bills. Mr. Rabon stated he is working closely with the County Attorney?s Office to make sure all the bases are covered and that charges are properly placed; and the Addendum will go a long way in helping to do that. He stated the County needs to stay on top of this, document everything it does, and respond to everything the contractor is saying; and that takes more engineering time than it normally would.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is any FEMA money since the hurricane caused the damage; with Mr. Rabon responding possibly. Mr. Rabon stated it has to be sorted out as to what is insured and what is not, and whose insurance will cover what; once that is resolved, the uninsured damage could be picked up by FEMA; and a preliminary claim has been filed. Commissioner Cook inquired if there is possible reimbursement; with Mr. Rabon responding affirmatively. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if money is needed for both stormwater management and improvements to the Sarno Road Landfill; with Mr. Rabon responding he is asking for Engineering Services to help inspect the contractors? construction for those improvements; it is almost through; it began in March, 1995; it was well on its way to substantial completion in August when the hurricane hit; and it has put things back a couple of months. Mr. Rabon stated the additional engineering construction services money is needed for inspection of the construction to help get to the point of substantial completion.

Chairman Higgs inquired if $62,000 is needed; with Mr. Rabon responding it is not to exceed $62,000; that much may not be necessary; and it will depend on how fast it gets to substantial completion. Chairman Higgs stated if there is $62,700 in the contract, she thinks there will be $62,000 worth of services on the job; with Mr. Rabon responding it is possible. Commissioner Ellis suggested cutting it in half. Chairman Higgs stated if it was cut in half, Mr. Rabon would have to come back to ask for the rest. Mr. Rabon stated the Board could do that; but staff has looked at this carefully and the number is good. Commissioner Cook suggested not to exceed $50,000; with Mr. Rabon responding that is fine.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Addendum No. 3 to Work Order No. 1 with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. to provide additional construction services at Sarno Road Landfill not to exceed $50,000, due to extensive damage from Hurricane Erin and Tropical Storm Jerry. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Addendum No. 3.)

CHANGE ORDER NO 1 TO AGREEMENT WITH PRIORITY 1, RE: CONSTRUCTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION CENTER

Commissioner Cook inquired if this is the same situation as the previous item; with Solid Waste Management Director Richard Rabon responding approximately half of it is the same. Mr. Rabon advised the other half was due to delays caused by design related problems and the permit process; this type of facility is odd; it is called a household hazardous waste facility; but it falls somewhere between hazardous and non-hazardous; and the mixing of the two has caused some regulatory problems and added expense. Commissioner Cook inquired about the design problems; with Mr. Rabon responding it gets into the interpretation of what meets the Code; and re-designs cause delays and incur cost increases.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he, Mr. Rabon and Lisa Barr got involved in the same thing in 1983 trying to get this built in the first place; and it is still not done. Mr. Rabon stated this is the second one; the County has outgrown one; and this will serve as the center focal point for consolidating everything from the north and south areas of the County. He stated the community will find this useful; but it is a complicated process.

Commissioner Cook stated if someone designs something to meet the Code, and it does not, the County is paying for it to be re-designed. Mr. Rabon stated that is not what has been done; the contractor is who will be paid; it has been discussed with the engineers who have designed this; there was a lump sum contract for design; and they are not being paid any more money. He stated the added costs are for the changes that have been made to the construction itself.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Change Order No. 1 to Agreement with Priority 1 Construction of Brevard, Inc. for construction of Hazardous Waste Collection Center. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Change Order No. 1.)

AGREEMENT WITH PUBLIC DEFENDER, RE: LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENT DEFENDANTS

Commissioner Cook stated this is an item the Board does every year; and the Public Defender made a recommendation to the judges. Chairman Higgs advised the Board received a response from Judge Moxley, and he said no.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Agreement with the Public Defender for legal representation of indigent defendants from October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996, at a cost of $305,000 due to insufficient funding by the State.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board keeps funding this, when will the State increase the funding; with Commissioner Ellis responding never. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County will be paying this perpetually unless it begins cutting it a little each year; and suggested funding a little less this year and a little less next year to see if the State starts funding more. Commissioner Ellis stated the State will not; and Mr. Russo advises the cases will go to attorneys and the County will be billed. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if this was in the annual budget; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding yes. Chairman Higgs stated the Public Defender can seek relief from the case load in court; everybody will have to go to court to fight about it; and the court will order the County to pay. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what would happen if the County had a trial like the O. J. Simpson trial; with Mr. Jenkins responding the County would be broke. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there has ever been a trial of that magnitude in the County; with Commissioner Cook responding the Cruse trial. Mr. Jenkins stated the Cruse trial was not as expensive as the Simpson trial, but it was a big trial and probably the most famous one the County had.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

Commissioner Ellis requested staff send Commissioner Cook a copy of the letter from Judge Moxley. Commissioner Cook noted he has not seen that letter. Chairman Higgs stated Judge Moxley said they could not predict, nor did they want to tie in, what the judges? sentence would be at the outset.

CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 WITH MCDEVITT STREET BOVIS, AND RELEASE OF FINAL RETAINAGE, RE: GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS CENTER

Commissioner Cook inquired if the County is getting a credit for undersize trees; with Facilities Construction Director Joseph Vislay responding that is correct. Commissioner Cook inquired if staff has signed off on everything McDevitt Street Bovis is required to do; with Facilities Management Director Hugh Muller responding affirmatively. Commissioner Cook inquired if there is nothing outstanding that the company would have a liability to repair; with Mr. Muller responding he is not aware of anything else. Commissioner Ellis stated the County has the as-built documents; with Mr. Vislay responding that is correct. Commissioner Cook stated there is a list of documents to be received; and inquired if all have been received; with Mr. Vislay responding the County has all of those. Commissioner Cook inquired if they are available for public inspection; with Mr. Vislay responding yes.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if this relates to the Government Center; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding it refers to the Government Center Complex. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why are there undersized trees, and how did that happen; with Mr. Jenkins responding the County took a credit instead. Commissioner Ellis noted the hurricane took most of the trees out.

Commissioner Cook inquired what does the Change Order accomplish; with Mr. Vislay responding it closes out the project, releases the retainage, and executes the last Deductive Change Order. Commissioner Cook stated he will vote against this because he still cannot get an explanation of why the building faces west.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Deductive Change Order No. 1 decreasing the contract total by $29,472, and approve release of final retainage in the amount of $205,558 to McDevitt Street Bovis for the Government Operations Center.

Commissioner Ellis stated the County needs a substantial reason not to approve this; it has the as-built documents; that was always his biggest concern; and he can understand not closing out if there is a reason, but he cannot see holding it open indefinitely without reason.

Commissioner Cook stated he asked months ago why the building faces west, and has not received an answer. Mr. Jenkins stated he was aware that Commissioner Cook asked about the Courthouse, but not the Government Center. Commissioner Cook stated he sent a second memo asking specifically why the Government Center faces west. Chairman Higgs advised that is not McDevitt Street?s issue; and inquired if there are other issues in regard to the building. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Cook wishes to table the item to the next meeting to get the answers. Chairman Higgs inquired what are the questions. Commissioner Ellis inquired if McDevitt Street Bovis made the decision which way to turn the building. Commissioner Cook noted McDevitt Street Bovis might have the answer. Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Cook indicated he has other questions. Mr. Jenkins stated McDevitt Street Bovis did not design the building, but only built what was designed; the Statute of Limitations is soon expiring for McDevitt Street Bovis to resolve this matter; and the company indicated that if this was not processed in a timely manner, it would have no choice but to take legal steps to protect the Statute of Limitations issue. Commissioner Cook stated one of his main questions is why the building faces west; it is a legitimate question; and he has asked it in a series of memos without getting an answer. He stated it is worth getting an answer especially when the Courthouse faces another direction; it seems to be a hodgepodge of government buildings facing every which way; and he wants to know the reasoning behind having taxpayers come in the back door to the Government Center. Commissioner Ellis noted it is impossible to turn it around now.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table consideration of Change Order No. 1 and Release of Final Retainage to McDevitt Street Bovis for the Government Operations Center until October 24, 1995. Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Higgs, and Cook voted aye; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated if McDevitt Street Bovis resorts to legal action, there will be an issue of attorney?s fees which may be covered in the Contract. Commissioner Cook inquired if the company will do that in two weeks; with Mr. Knox responding it depends on when the deadline is. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if anyone knows when the deadline is. Commissioner Ellis inquired what are the questions. Commissioner Cook suggested bringing it back sooner. Mr. Jenkins stated he misunderstood Commissioner Cook?s questions; he thought he was asking about the Justice Center, not the Government Center; and it will be necessary to write to the architect in Jacksonville to inquire why the building faces west. Commissioner Cook suggested using the telephone.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET TRANSFERS

Commissioner Cook stated on page 370 it shows 3.5 hours at $500 an hour; and that is a little high. He requested page 370 be deleted to get an explanation.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the Bills and Budget Transfers, deleting page 370 for an explanation of the rate.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he received complaints concerning the timeliness of the County?s payments to some of its vendors; and inquired if there is a fast pay system. He explained problems with payment to the Canady Corporation. He requested staff check to see if fast pay is really working, and if it is not, what can be done to fix it. Commissioner Ellis stated Purchasing is getting the Bill to the Finance Department; but the Finance Department is sitting on the bills because it has up to 60 days, and by sitting on it, the money accrues in an interest bearing account. Commissioner O'Brien suggested something could be done to change that system. Commissioner Ellis stated the Finance Department needs to be directed to pay the bills as they are received. Commissioner Cook stated since that is under the Clerk of Courts, he does not know if the County can direct that. Commissioner O'Brien requested the item be placed on a future agenda for full discussion. Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: ATTENDING ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MEETING

Commissioner Ellis stated staff will be meeting with the local St. Johns River Water Management District staff on the wetlands changes; and a Commissioner should attend that meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize Commissioner Ellis to attend the meeting with the St. Johns River Water Management District staff to discuss wetlands changes.

Chairman Higgs noted Commissioner Ellis supports the majority position. She called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m.

_____________________________

NANCY N. HIGGS, CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

ATTEST:

___________________________

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK

( S E A L )