The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on October 24, 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 Homer Murray of Calvary Baptist Church, Melbourne, Florida.

Commissioner Randy O'Brien led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the Minutes of July 20, 1995 Workshop, July 25, 1995 Regular Meeting, July 31, 1995 Workshop, and August 2, 1995 Emergency Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: DELETION OF AGENDA ITEM

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Item III.B.4. is the Lease Agreement with Club Car, Inc.; some issues were raised that will require further research by Mr. Nelson; and recommended the item be deleted from the Agenda.

The Board deleted Item III.B.4. from the Agenda.

Commissioner Scarborough pulled items III.A.10 and III.D.2.

Commissioner O'Brien pulled Item III.A.14.

Commissioner Cook pulled III.A.12, and III.D.10.

DISCUSSION, RE: POLICY OF ABSENCES AT COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Commissioner O'Brien advised of a problem with a policy that says three absences by appointees to committees would lead to dismissal; the alternate is a non-voting member and does not need to attend; but the policy says he has been absent three times and has to be dismissed as an alternate; so it should be put on the Agenda to be reconsidered.

Chairman Higgs instructed the County Manager to put it on the Agenda for discussion.

APPOINTMENT, RE: MPO CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to appoint John Malone, 598 Coconut Street, Satellite Beach 32937, to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Citizens Advisory Committee, replacing B. B. Nelson. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: BILL FROM DR. PODNOS

Commissioner Cook advised the bill from Dr. Podnos at $275 an hour was pulled the last time from the Bill Folder; and the response from the County Attorney was that he contacted Bonnie Callin and she said it usually takes four or five hours. He inquired why staff did not contact Dr. Podnos because that was a guess on her part.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised typically she talks to the bill submitters, and typically his office calls her to find out what the story is behind approval of a bill.

Commissioner Cook recommended Mr. Knox find out if Ms. Callin talked to Dr. Podnos; with Mr. Knox responding he will.

DISCUSSION, RE: PET GOATS IN GU ZONING CLASSIFICATION

Commissioner Ellis advised he sent a letter to everybody concerning the presence of goats in GU zoning; in the Districts there are parcels of GU zoning that are scattered; a lot of times they are small acreages; many of the areas have been assumed to be agriculturally zoned, but technically they are not; and they could pursue agriculture if they obtained a conditional use permit. He stated in this case, the goats have been on the property for three or four years; Code Enforcement cited the person and gave him two weeks to get the goats off; in two weeks he cannot get a CUP to keep the goats on the property; and he does not know where he can store the goats until he gets all the paper work done. He recommended Code Enforcement hold action for 60 days and resolve the matter.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct Code Enforcement to hold citing Mr. Hunter for 60 days in order to resolve the matter of goats on GU property.

Chairman Higgs advised Mr. Frank Hunter is present; the general policy is not to take speakers under Reports; and inquired if Commissioner Ellis wants to recognize him; with Commissioner Ellis responding if everyone is in agreement, then it can go forward. He noted sometimes people cannot afford the $400 for a CUP; and recommended a report be returned to the Board from Code Enforcement and scheduled as a regular agenda item so Mr. Hunter can speak to the item.

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

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - LORETTA SANDLER, PRESIDENT OF UNITED ORDER TRUE SISTERS, INC., RE: RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING 150TH BIRTHDAY

Commissioner Cook read aloud a resolution recognizing the 150th Birthday of the United Order True Sisters, Inc. and commending the Order for its charitable works in the community; and presented the Resolution to Loretta Sandler.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution recognizing the 150th Birthday of United Order True Sisters, Inc. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 95-292.)

Loretta Sandler advised they work with hospitals and hospices and anything that help people; there are 130 volunteers in Brevard County; and they work out of their homes.

RECOGNITION, RE: STUDENT COUNCIL FROM JUPITER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Chairman Higgs recognized and welcomed the Student Council from Jupiter Elementary School in Palm Bay; and stated it is wonderful for young people to understand what other people in the community are doing, particular for children. She stated the Student Council represents third, fourth, and fifth graders in Jupiter; the Board is proud to have them there; and recognized teachers Kay Paul and Joralette Pate.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING FLORIDA MARLINS OF BREVARD

Chairman Higgs advised the Florida Marlins were requested to be recognized by several organizations in the community; and the organizations are Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Brevard, Crisis Services, March of Dimes, Brevard School Foundation, Space Coast Early Intervention Center, Special Olympics, United Way, Exchange Club/Yellow Umbrella, Friends of the Children of Brevard/Guardian Ad Litem, and Community Foundation of Brevard County. She stated representatives of some of the organizations are present; and requested they come forward along with Ken Lehner of the Florida Marlins. Chairman Higgs advised it is a good time to recognize baseball and what the Florida Marlins have meant to Brevard County; and read aloud the resolution recognizing the Florida Marlins, and presented it to Ken Lehner.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution recognizing the Florida Marlins of Brevard for their dedication and continued support of the community causes through their giving of time, services, and money; and expressing best wishes for their continued success in all future endeavors. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____for Resolution No. 95-293.)

Libby Donahue, representing Crisis Services of Brevard and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, advised they have worked with the Marlins for the last two years on an event; the Marlins have been tremendously supportive; and they appreciate all they have done, not only for their agencies, but also for other agencies in the community.

A representative of Space Coast Early Intervention Center advised it is a pleasure to be here in front of all the people to thank Ken Lehner for what he and his staff has done; every year he opens up the Stadium to the Space Coast Early Intervention Center which allows them to touch thousands of people; and they have raised so much money. She stated given the fact that government funding for children is being cut, what Ken does through his organization truly makes a difference and shows his commitment to the future of Brevard County; and on behalf of the children and families and the Center, she wants to thank him. She noted they need more people like Ken.

Linda Fliss, representing Guardian Ad Litem Program in Brevard County, thanked Ken and the Marlin Foundation for being their friend and partner; and stated through their efforts and generous contributions, they hope to keep insuring the quality of life for the abused, abandoned, and neglected children. She thanked Mr. Lehner for his community spirit.

Wanda Spear, March of Dimes, advised they could not do anything without Ken Lehner and his support; he is always there for them; and when she was asked to come and speak, she cleared her calendar to be here, because anything Ken needs she is there for him, as he is there for them.

A representative of Big Brothers/Big Sisters told Mr. Lehner they really appreciate everything he does and look forward to working with him in the future.

Ken Lehner stated it is always nice to come to the Commission meeting with friends; and thanked the Board for the Resolution.

Chairman Higgs advised there are many organizations in the community, and it is nice that the Board has a chance to recognize them.

PRESENTATIONS, RE: 1995 NACO ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

Chairman Higgs advised the Board also has a chance to recognize contributions of staff who have done outstanding work and were recognized by the National Association of Counties (NACo); each year NACo conducts a program in which it recognizes innovative programs and projects; since the inception in 1970, it has highlighted thousands of initiatives that have helped counties enhance the quality of lives in their communities; and the programs recognized in Brevard County are Court Alternatives Volunteer Program, Project Pathway, Development Review Process, and Occupational Safety and Health Programs Manual. She presented the awards to Joan Madden, Chief Mark McMichael, Ralph Brescia representing John Sternagel, Greg Richards and Romeo Lavarias, and Les Forsberg.

The Board gave the staff members a round of applause.

RESOLUTION, RE: NAMING PINERIDGE COURT

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution naming a private 50-foot wide road right-of-way located in Section 5, Township 23S., Range 35E. as Pineridge Court. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____for Resolution No. 95-294.)

RESOLUTION, RE: NAMING RUE DE NANCY

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution naming a 25-foot wide flag lot stem located in Section 7, Township 30S., Range 39E. as Rue De Nancy. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Resolution No. 95-295.)

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: VIERA, TRACT N, PHASE II, UNIT 6A

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant final plat approval for Viera, Tract N, Phase II, Unit 6A, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and approval not relieving the developer from obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

UNPAVED ROAD AGREEMENT WITH DOUG AND SHELLI WILLIAMS, RE: BOUSQUET ROAD

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Unpaved Road Agreement with Doug and Shelli Williams to construct Bousquet Road to the standards of Ordinance No. 93-27 to obtain a building permit. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____for Agreement.)

RESOLUTION RELEASING CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE: VIERA, TRACT N, PHASE II, UNIT 5

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract with The Viera Company for improvements in Viera, Tract N, Phase II, Unit 5 dated November 1, 1994. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Resolution No. 95-296.)

CONTRACT WITH DEERFIELD GROVES PARTNERSHIP, RE: IMPROVEMENTS IN SUNSET LAKES, PHASE II

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Contract with Deerfield Groves Partnership, guaranteeing sidewalk improvements in Sunset Lakes, Phase II. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Contract.)

CONTRACT WITH PETER D. WOODS, RE: IMPROVEMENTS IN STILL POINT, PHASE 1

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Contract with Peter D. Woods, guaranteeing sidewalk and infrastructure improvements in Still Point, Phase 1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Contract.)

DESIGNATE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR, RE: AGENT FOR CLASS B BINGO LICENSE

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to designate Hugh Muller, Director of Facilities Management, to act as the County's agent and apply for a Class B Bingo License for two senior centers leasing facilities from Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, RE: PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES FOR FY 1995-96

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Contract with Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services providing funding for public health services for FY 1995-96. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Contract.)

BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE: ESTABLISHING BUDGETS FOR FLORIDA GREENWAY GRANT

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Budget Change Request amending the budget to establish revenue and expenditure budgets for Florida Greenway Grant. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Budget Change Request.)

PERMISSION TO BID, RE: MALABAR ROAD, FROM I-95 TO CURVET CIRCLE WEST

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to bid widening of Malabar Road, from I-95 to Curvet Circle West; award the bid to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder; authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract; reallocate $1,000,000 from Malabar Road, Phase II to Malabar Road, Phase I, to offset increase in cost of the project due to expansion of project limits; and execute Interlocal Agreement with City of Palm Bay for installation of waterline in conjunction with the road widening project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages _____ for Bids, Contract, and Agreement.)

APPROVAL OF FINAL PAYMENT TO RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, INC., RE: JOHNS ROAD DETENTION POND

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to release retainage and final payment to Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. of $30,314.83, for Johns Road Detention Pond upon submission of all documents required by the Contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION AND LEASE AGREEMENT WITH TEMPORARY LIVING CENTER, INC., RE: OPERATION OF HALFWAY HOUSE IN MALABAR

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution and execute Lease Agreement with Temporary Living Center, Inc. to operate a halfway house on Steele Street in Malabar, from October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages _____ for Resolution No. 95-297 and Lease Agreement.)

RESOLUTION, RE: AMENDING LIBRARY SYSTEM SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution amending the Schedule of Fees and Charges for overdue, damaged, or lost library media and other library services, and providing an effective date to maintain proper and efficient operation of the Brevard County Library System. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____for Resolution No. 95-298.)

PERMISSION TO PROCEED WITH EVICTION, RE: REMAINING TENANT AT A&A PLAZA

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to authorize the County Attorney's Office to initiate eviction proceedings against Zonnie M. Wilson and Theophilus Wilson, d/b/a American and West Indies Restaurant, from the A&A Plaza at 955 E. University Boulevard, Units J and K, Melbourne, Florida. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENTS WITH AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, RE: GOLF CARDS

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Agreements with American Cancer Society, to allow the use of Cancer Golf Cards at The Savannahs at Sykes Creek, Spessard Holland, and Habitat at Valkaria Golf Courses, from May 1, 1996 through November 30, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages _____ for Agreements.)

AGREEMENTS WITH AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, RE: GOLF CARDS

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Agreements with the American Lung Association, to allow the use of Lung Golf Cards at The Savannahs at Sykes Creek, Spessard Holland, and Habitat at Valkaria Golf Courses, from May 1, 1996 through November 30, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages _____ for Agreements.)

AGREEMENT WITH SPACECOAST CLOGGERS OF TITUSVILLE, RE: USE OF SANDRIFT RECREATION CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Agreement with Spacecoast Cloggers of Titusville, for use of Sandrift Recreation Center to provide clogging activities from November 1, 1995 through October 31, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

AGREEMENT WITH PROGRESS SQUARE DANCE CLUB, RE: USE OF SANDRIFT RECREATION CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Agreement with Progress Square Dance Club, for use of Sandrift Recreation Center to provide square dancing activities from November 1, 1995 through October 31, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

RESOLUTION AND AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF TITUSVILLE, RE: USE OF INSPECTION STATION ON SINGLETON AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution and execute Agreement with City of Titusville for use of the Inspection Station on Singleton Avenue, with the City paying all costs, including, but not limited to custodial and utility charges, and stormwater assessment. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Resolution No. 95-299 and Agreement.)

WAIVER OF MUSIC REGULATIONS, RE: NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN FESTIVAL AT WICKHAM PARK

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to waive provisions of Article IV, Brevard County Code, to allow musical entertainment at the Native American Indian Festival on December 1, 2 and 3, 1995, at Wickham Park, subject to the sponsors obtaining all State and local regulatory permits, and providing security, port-o-lets, traffic control, clean up, and comprehensive general liability insurance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH BEACHES LITTLE LEAGUE, RE: USE OF FLUTIE COMPLEX

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Agreement with South Beaches Little League for use of Flutie Athletic Complex to provide organized and supervised baseball and softball for youth, from May 15, 1995 through May 16, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

APPROVAL OF SPECIAL TRIP FUNDING, RE: SENIOR CITIZEN DAY AT BREVARD COUNTY FAIR

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve special trip funding of $1,200 for SCAT to provide transportation services to Senior Citizen Day at Brevard County Fair on November 7, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF PROGRAM, BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, AND POSITION, AND AGREEMENT WITH CSC, RE: VOLUNTEERS IN MOTION PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the Volunteers in Motion Program; execute Purchase of Service Agreement with Community Services Council, Inc. at $140,000 for Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) to provide transportation services; approve Budget Change Request amending the budget and establishing a grant funded part-time program coordinator position; and authorize release from the freeze of a Vehicle Operator I position, and conversion to a Special Projects Coordinator I position, from October 25, 1995 through June 30, 1997. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages _____ for Agreement and Budget Change Request.)

APPROVAL, RE: TDC FY 1995-96 CATEGORY B BEACH CLEAN UP GRANT PROGRAM HANDBOOK

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the Tourist Development Council (TDC) FY 1995-96 Category B, Beach Clean Up Grant Program Handbook providing eligibility requirements, types of grants, criteria for evaluation, instructions and application forms. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION, RE: CATEGORY B BEACH IMPROVEMENT GRANT FUNDS AND EXTENSION

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Brevard County Natural Resources Management Division for an additional $63,450 of Tourist Development Council Category B, Beach Improvement Grant, and extending the Agreement through December 31, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Amendment.)

PERMISSION TO SOLICIT PROPOSALS, EXTEND CONTRACT WITH YORKE-DOLINER, AND APPOINT SELECTION COMMITTEE, RE: PURCHASE OF SCRAP METAL

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to advertise request for proposals for purchase of scrap metal recovered from the Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, appoint Solid Waste Management Director, Solid Waste Operations Director, Recycling Coordinator, and Purchasing Director to the Selection Committee to evaluate and recommend a proposer to the Board for award of contract; and extend the current Contract with Yorke-Doliner Company until a new contract is executed. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO PURCHASE, RE: TRANSFER TRAILERS, OFF-ROAD DUMP TRUCKS, AND FRONT-END LOADERS WITH ATTACHMENTS

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to purchase replacement equipment of three solid waste transfer trailers, two off-road dump trucks, and two front-end loaders with attachments for Solid Waste Management Department. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION TO OBTAIN APPRAISALS AND NEGOTIATE PURCHASE, RE: PROPERTY ADJACENT TO CENTRAL DISPOSAL FACILITY

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to authorize staff to obtain appraisals and enter into negotiations for purchase of approximately 40 acres of property adjacent to the Central Disposal Facility landfill in Section 21, Township 24S., Range 35E. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE DEBIT ACCOUNT WITH EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY, RE: UTILIZATION OF E-PASS SYSTEM

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to authorize Solid Waste Management Department to establish a debit account with the Expressway Authority in order to utilize the E-pass system for the State's toll roads. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, RE: 1992-1995 SUPER ACT

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Amendment No. 3 to Agreement with Florida Department of Environmental Protection modifying the scope of work to reflect actual work completed by the County during the contract period FY 1994-95 for the 1992-95 SUPER Act Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____for Amendment No. 3.)

AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, RE: PETROLEUM CONTAMINATION SITE CLEAN UP

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Agreement with Florida Department of Environmental Protection for petroleum contamination site clean up funded under the 1995-96 SUPER Act at $315,311.70. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, RE: STORAGE TANK SYSTEM COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Agreement with Florida Department of Environmental Protection, providing for a $198,500 grant for the storage tank system compliance verification program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

APPROVAL TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT ENTRANCE ROAD AND CONVEY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, RE: SPACEPORT COMMERCE PARK

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the Spaceport Commerce Park Authority's recommendation to permit TICO Airport Authority to design and construct a new entrance road from SR 407 to Spaceport Commerce Park and convey necessary road right-of-way to the City of Titusville after project completion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE SETTLEMENT, RE: WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM OF LARRY ELLENBURG

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to authorize Risk Management to negotiate a settlement through Gallagher Bassett Services of the workers' compensation claim of Larry Ellenburg who was employed by the Solid Waste Management Department when he injured his back. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF QUOTE #Q-2-5-124, RE: GOLF BALL RECOVERY

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to award Quote #Q-2-5-124, Golf Ball Recovery, to Sport Supply Group, Inc. d/b/a Second Chance Golf Ball Recyclers, Inc. for golf ball retrieval services at The Savannahs at Sykes Creek, Spessard Holland, and The Habitat at Valkaria Golf Courses. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST AND AWARD OF PROPOSAL #P-3-5-13, RE: COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH SYSTEM

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Budget Change Request to transfer $100,000 from Reserves to Operating Equipment in the Public Safety Budget; and award Proposal #P-3-5-13, Computer Aided Dispatch System, to Logistic Systems, Inc. at $257,660. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Budget Change Request, Proposals, and Recommendation.)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH AT&T CORPORATION, RE: DISPUTED CHARGES

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Settlement Agreement with AT&T Corporation to settle disputed charges of $1,662.64 due to 15 fraudulent telephone calls billed to an account paid by the County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

PERMISSION TO BID, AWARD BID, AND EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE: CENTRAL FLEET SYSTEMS DIVISION ADDITION

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to bid, award bid, and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract for construction of additions at Central Fleet Systems Division. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages _____ for Bids, Recommendation, and Contract.)

CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 TO AGREEMENT WITH PAVCO CONSTRUCTION, INC., RE: NORTH BREVARD PUBLIC LIBRARY

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Change Order No. 4 to Agreement with PAVCO Construction, Inc. for construction of North Brevard Public Library, increasing contract price by $8,253.83 for waterproof membrane, additional gypsum wallboard systems and electrical work, and modifications to the column enclosure. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Change Order No. 4.)

CHANGE ORDER NO. 10 TO AGREEMENT WITH BROWN & ROOT BUILDING COMPANY, RE: HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE V. MOORE JUSTICE CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Change Order No. 10 to Agreement with Brown & Root Building Company, for construction of Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Justice Center, increasing contract price by $24,316.88 for cast in place beams, Warren Technology Type VS diffusers, and to delete pistol locker and stand in main entrance lobby. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Change Order No. 10.)

NOTICE OF CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH REAL PROPERTIES MLP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, RE: BUILDING IN COCOA FOR STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Written Notice of Contract Renewal with Real Properties MLP Limited Partnership for the building at 11 Riverside Drive in Cocoa for the State Attorney's Office and Parks and Recreation Department at $23,796.12 and extend the term to January 31, 1997 and month-to-month thereafter until the move to the Government Center. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____for Notice.)

AGREEMENT WITH DICTAPHONE, RE: MAINTENANCE OF E911 LOGGING RECORDERS

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Agreement with Dictaphone for maintenance of E911 Logging Recorders for one year at $343,793.25, with options to dissolve the Agreement under mutual consent and pay the maintenance fee on a quarterly basis. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WITH DAIRY ROAD PLANT FARM, INC. ET AL, RE: DAIRY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Mediation Settlement Agreements with Jerry Lee and Marie Sigman for Parcels 143, 846, and 656, with Yuell G. and Elizabeth L. Lanier for Parcels 171, 635, 175, and 637, with Harbin W. and Emogene Reed for Parcel 822, and with Garland F. and Eloise Withrow for Parcels 161, 666, 163, 854, and 667 required for Dairy Road Widening Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

MOTION AND STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND FINAL JUDGMENT WITH THOMAS A. REICH, RE: DAIRY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Motion and Stipulated Order of Taking and Final Judgment with Thomas A. Reich for Parcel 186 required for Dairy Road Widening Project at $900 in the case of Brevard County v. Dairy Road Plant Farm, Inc. et al. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

MOTION AND STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND FINAL JUDGMENT WITH XI DELTA ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF CHI PHI, INC., RE: DAIRY ROAD WIDENING

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Motion and Stipulated Order of Taking and Final Judgment with Xi Delta Alumni Association of Chi Phi, Inc. for Parcel 811 for Dairy Road Widening Project at $3,000 in the case of Brevard County v. Dairy Road Plant Farm, Inc. et al. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to appoint/reappoint the following:

North Brevard Commission on Parks and Recreation

Gigi Henkel, 4977 Bridge Road, Cocoa, 32927

MPO Citizen Advisory Committee

Mike Brady, 6630 Arequipa Road, Cocoa, 32927, replacing Ron Heimann

Mary Tees, 5115 Fay Boulevard, Cocoa, 32927, replacing Loys Ward.

Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS, RE: BREVARD WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to appoint James Dwight, Florida Air Academy, 1950 S. Academy Drive, Melbourne 32901, to the Brevard Workforce Development Board, with term expiring June 30, 1998; and appoint Judy Spencer, P. O. Box 1270 Cocoa 32923, with term expiring June 30, 1997. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET TRANSFERS

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the bills and budget transfers as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages _____for List of Bills and Budget Transfers.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY IN MISSION LAKE VILLAS - THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEER

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating right-of-way in Mission Lake Villas as petitioned by Thompson & Associates, Engineer.

Assistant Public Works Director Ron Jones advised the petitioner requested vacating right-of-way along Forest Lake to provide additional space for a 400-seat church; and staff recommended the applicant design and construct a five-foot pedway to replace the 12-foot concrete pedway which was constructed by Southern Bell then abandoned when they had an alternate access for services to their facilities. He stated design of the pedway would need to incorporate the existing drainage and landscaping within the right-of-way. Mr. Jones advised staff requested an alteration of the submitted legal description to limit the vacation request to the westerly portion of the property from the eastern edge of the existing bikepath facility to allow for future expansion, widening, or turn lanes in the future, and an easement for the existing 18-inch force main. He stated if the applicant were to revise that, the easement would not be necessary; however, none of the requested information has been received, and the applicant's representative has indicated the applicant will design and construct the pedway if the vacating as requested occurs; so staff recommends denial.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the recommendation of denial is because staff did not receive the information or commitments it felt necessary; with Mr. Jones responding that is correct.

Dick Thompson, engineer representing the petitioner, advised the Lutheran Church is requesting the vacating for expansion of the facilities according to a master plan; the County owns the property; but about five years ago, it was given to the County by the Suntree Development Group. He stated when they learned of that, they approached the people who said if they had known the church needed it and wanted it, they would have given it to the church; so their plans have been set around the vacation of a portion of the property. He stated they have tried to meet all the criteria of the staff; they were told the County needed at least a 120-foot right-of-way coming off Wickham Road; and they have planned to provide a 125-foot right-of-way according to the petition request. He stated staff reviewed it and requested his client limit the petition request to the edge of the 12-foot existing concrete strip which would serve quite well for inter-circular traffic for the parishioners to get to their vehicles in the parking lot to the rear of the proposed church; and they want to be able to drop off and pick up people at the church without going into the Forest Lake Drive traffic. Mr. Thompson advised it serves a purpose for the church and its expansion plans; the additional property they are requesting to the east of the concrete strip is about 30 feet; that leaves the County with 125-foot minimum right-of-way; and looking at the plan for distance from Wickham Road to 174 feet north of Wickham Road along Forest Lake Drive, they would be left with 170-foot right-of-way width. He stated in his judgment that would be sufficient for turn lanes that may be needed in the future. He requested the Board grant the petition so the church can better serve the community as it expands.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if most of the objections have to do with improvements that are already in the right-of-way; with Mr. Thompson responding all the improvements with the exception of the 18-inch force main were put in place during construction of the road and basically have existing long-term easements; they are on record and will be kept; staff requested he prepare an easement for the 18-inch force main; and he has no problem with that. He stated they do not plan to build anything above ground in the area because it is to serve as an access road, etc. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there will be a problem with the easements that are there, retention ponds, drainage and sidewalks; with Mr. Thompson responding the existing drainage should be picked up by the existing catch basins that feed into Mission Lake's retention system. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the County will have easements for everything; with Mr. Thompson responding yes.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the church will build the sidewalk if the easement is granted; with Mr. Thompson responding if the petition as submitted is granted, the church will design and construct the sidewalk; and if it is not vacated as they want it, they are not obligated to put the sidewalk in.

Chairman Higgs inquired about the wrong legal description; with Mr. Jones responding there is a legal description that needs to be provided for the existing force main which is in the right-of-way and there is no easement covering that facility; typically the County would receive the easement prior to recommending approval of the vacation; however, the vacation could occur contingent upon that. He stated the church had previously offered to provide a dollar amount per linear foot of sidewalk; there are existing drainage and landscaping within the right-of-way; and the sidewalk will need to be reworked and the facilities moved. He stated the existing pedway connection would need to be disconnected just from a liability perspective. Chairman Higgs stated she does not have a problem with the vacating if staff can nail down the items in writing before vacating the right-of-way; but not having it in writing and knowing specifically what they are going to do about the easement and sidewalk makes her uncomfortable today; so she would like to continue the public hearing until she has those things in writing. Commissioner Cook inquired why should it come back to the Board and make Mr. Thompson come back again and the church pay him, and why can't the Board do it contingent upon those limitations as indicated by Mr. Jones. Chairman Higgs inquired what contingencies would be nailed down; with Mr. Jones responding they need the 18-inch force main easement and need to review the proposed location and design of the sidewalk; and at the time the church constructs that facility, they would also inspect the construction to ensure it is built in accordance with County standards. He stated another issue that exists is the possibility that in the future the County may need to put a turn lane in and make some modifications; that is not likely based on the existing locations of the road facilities that space would be available; and that is why staff requested the vacation be pared down to the easterly edge. Chairman Higgs inquired if the vacating would prohibit a future turn lane; with Mr. Jones responding there is no plan at this time for a turn lane to be installed or for the widening of that road; however, should that be required in the future, this would not allow it to occur.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the County will still have 120-foot right-of-way; with Mr. Jones responding yes, but the majority of that right-of-way is already utilized by the existing road facilities; and in the location that it is currently at, in terms of the edge of the travel lane with respect to the right-of-way line, any future expansion to the westerly side of the existing travel lane would not be available and it would involve realigning the intersection.

Commissioner Cook inquired if staff expects that to happen; with Mr. Jones responding at this time staff has no specific plans, but he wanted to point out that the vacating will prohibit it in the future if the need arises. Commissioner Cook stated there is additional right-of-way on the south side; with Mr. Jones responding yes, but it has landscaping on it. Commissioner Cook stated the landscaping can be moved.

Chairman Higgs inquired how would staff phrase the sidewalk contingency; with Mr. Jones responding to have the petitioner submit a design in accordance with all local, State and federal requirements for a five-foot bikepath for review by the County staff, and for staff to inspect the construction. County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired how can the Board make a vacation dependent on something being constructed when they cannot build if they do not have the vacation; with Mr. Jones responding the location of the sidewalk could occur outside of the vacated area.

Commissioner Cook asked Mr. Thompson if it would be acceptable for staff to review the design plans for the sidewalk and to inspect the project; with Mr. Thompson responding definitely.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the vacation does not become effective until the resolution is recorded in the Public Records, so the Board can require a written agreement before that happens. Chairman Higgs inquired what type of written agreement; with Mr. Knox responding an agreement stipulating to the conditions the Board is discussing. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board gets the written agreement and vacates the right-of-way and the petitioner does not follow through, does it have legal remedies to ensure those things are built; with Mr. Knox responding it would have an enforceable contract. Commissioner Cook stated he is comfortable the church will abide by the agreement.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution vacating a right-of-way in Mission Lake Villas as petitioned by Thompson & Associates, subject to an easement being provided for the 18-inch force main; petitioner submitting design of a five-foot bikepath in accordance with all local, State and federal requirements for staff review; staff inspecting the construction of the bikepath; and the County obtaining a written agreement stipulating the conditions prior to the Resolution being recorded. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages _____for Resolution No. 95-300 and Agreement.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING DRAINAGE EASEMENT SOUTH OF PINEDA CAUSEWAY - THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEER

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating drainage easement south of Pineda Causeway as petitioned by Thompson & Associates, Engineer.

Assistant Public Works Director Ron Jones advised the petition is to vacate a drainage easement which the County condemned across a piece of property; subsequent to that condemnation, a 50-foot drainage easement was also obtained along the easterly boundary of the property; and staff requested the applicant's engineer to provide a simplified drainage analysis to show that the cross section that is proposed to be constructed by the applicant will be adequate to handle the flows, not only in the existing condition, but also with the rerouted drainage. He stated in the design they also requested an 18 to 20-foot maintenance berm be shown within that 50-foot section and a letter from St. Johns River Water Management District be provided stating permit requirements will be waived with respect to the relocation. He stated the information has not been received; so staff recommends the item be denied or tabled until there is adequate information to evaluate the request.

Dick Thompson, Engineer representing the petitioner, advised the petition has been under serious discussion to make sure they know all the factors; staff does not have a basic problem with the concept of vacating the easement, but they want to make sure there is adequate capacity in the remaining 50-foot easement that is about 100 feet away going to the same location; and he has a problem in that staff suggested his client grant more than the 50-foot easement because they want an 18-foot maintenance berm. He stated he has designed a 12-foot maintenance berm, and that has been the point of contention; it has a very gradual sloping swale; he has one in his backyard that is almost identical to it; and it only takes up about 15 feet. He stated it is not a deep swale, maximum depth from the top of the berm to the maintenance road is about 4.5 to 5 feet; so there is plenty of room within a 50-foot right-of-way to put a healthy drainage swale. Mr. Thompson stated right now there is a ditch with pepper trees growing in it; it has no configuration and needs to be cleaned out; and his client is willing to clean it out. He stated it is important to have this vacating approved because things are happening in that area; and if there is anything he can do to satisfy the Board and staff at this meeting, he would like to do so.

Commissioner Cook inquired what was the easement for; with Mr. Jones responding the 50-foot easement across the center of the property was a condemnation taking by the County; he has not been successful finding out why the condemnation took place; and Mr. Thompson's statements are accurate that staff does not have a problem with the vacating as long as there is some assurance that there is an adequate cross section in there and adequate easement to maintain the system. He stated previously the engineer recommended maintaining it from the FEC right-of-way that directly abuts the property; if FEC decided it was not happy with the County, that could be removed; and staff has not stated an easement must be provided, they merely asked that the analysis be done, and the cross section be plotted showing the distance. He stated if they can get it within the 50 feet and acceptable to the Road and Bridge Division, staff would recommend approval of the vacation. Commissioner Cook inquired if it is 50 feet for the ditch and easement for maintenance; with Mr. Jones responding yes, if the applicant can work within the 50 feet and provide adequate documentation that the needs of the County can be met, including a reasonable maintenance berm.

Commissioner O'Brien advised Mr. Thompson said 18 feet is incredible; and inquired why staff is not accepting 12 feet; with Mr. Jones responding from experience, the 12 feet is not acceptable because if there is any type of erosion, staff would have unsafe conditions for operators of the equipment to get in there and maintain the ditch; so they would have to go in and reconstruct the side bank prior to doing maintenance. He stated from past experience, when they did get an extreme event, it is entirely possible that they may lose part of the side bank; and if they limit it to 12 feet they would have to reconstruct the bank before taking equipment in to work the ditch. Mr. Jones advised 18 feet is what he considers minimum and what the County designs to; in typical surface water improvement projects that have been constructed in Port St. John area trying to address those same issues, that is the distance they have been providing; and it is a matter of professional opinion whether or not it is an adequate distance.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the width of the second easement is expanded slightly, would they end up with the same total area vacated; with Mr. Thompson responding according to the topographic data he collected, there is no real outlet to the crossing at the railroad; the only outlet is the 24-inch pipe that goes across the railroad; the elevation is higher so there is no water flowing through that easement; and it is not ditched or swaled at this time. He stated whatever they would create will be new in the easement. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the water from the other side of the railroad tracks would flow towards the Indian River; with Mr. Thompson responding yes, it sheet flows at this time.

Chairman Higgs stated she understood there is an outlet; with Mr. Jones responding staff reviewed the topographic data and utilization of the existing easement through the property, and does not agree there is a flow restriction; there is a breakdown and the ditch has meandered, and one place does have a high point; however, in low-flow conditions there would be no actual flow in that facility. He stated during high flow conditions, there will be flow; and should the vacation not take place, it would be his recommendation to reconstruct that facility. He stated staff has no objections to the vacation as long as the County's interest is protected with respect to the cross section within the existing 50 feet. Chairman Higgs inquired if staff can give the Board language that would accommodate Mr. Thompson's client and protect the County; with Mr. Jones responding staff previously requested a hydrological analysis adequate to demonstrate design of the proposed ditch cross section, including an 18 to 20-foot maintenance berm. Chairman Higgs inquired about the letter from the St. Johns District; with Mr. Jones responding the letter is a matter of normal course and easily obtainable upon having the calculations prepared; and he discussed it with the District and was told they would issue such a letter. He stated it is to protect the County's interest from any future considerations of a violation.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how wide is the ditch; with Mr. Jones responding there are two ditches, the one on the west side of the tracks is fairly shallow, perhaps 15 to 30 feet. Commissioner Ellis stated if it is up to 30 feet in the diagonal, they should be able to do it in 30 feet; with Mr. Jones responding with an appropriate cross section and adequate slopes for maintenance purposes, there is no reason that cannot be accomplished. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board could vacate the easement pending those conditions; with Mr. Jones responding yes, with the County Attorney's previous comments regarding holding actual recording until the information has been provided.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the property was acquired by condemnation; so in order to get good title to the property, the County would have to do a deed to the landowner as opposed to the resolution vacating the easement; and before the Board signs the deed, it could require those conditions. He stated the Board should authorize the transfer and execution of the deed instead of vacating the easement.

Mr. Thompson advised there is a land sale due for closure next week; there is no way a swale can be constructed in that period of time; and the landowner is here to commit to construction of the swale. He inquired how that can be legally worked out satisfactorily to accommodate both purposes.

Mr. Jones stated if the applicant would like to enter into an agreement with the County to provide that construction or put an adequate level of funding in an escrow or bond account, that could work; and staff has no objections as long as the analysis shows those conditions can be met. Commissioner Cook inquired if that is acceptable to Mr. Thompson; with Mr. Thompson responding it is.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt resolution vacating drainage easement south of Pineda Causeway as petitioned by Thompson & Associates, Engineer, subject to receipt of analysis of the design calculations on the drainage ditch and construction of a maintenance berm.

Mr. Jones stated it should be the review and approval of proposed cross section, including the maintenance berm as well as a bond for the construction if they wish to proceed with recording of the ditch.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what amount should the bond be; with Mr. Jones responding he has not done a fiscal analysis, but it should be about $3,000.

Commissioner Cook included the posting of a bond in the motion; and Commissioner O'Brien accepted the amendment.

Mr. Knox suggested the Board transfer the property by appropriate instrument and not vacate it; and to change vacating to transfer of the easement.

Commissioner Cook amended the motion to deny adoption of the resolution vacating a drainage easement south of Pineda Causeway and authorize transfer of the property by appropriate instrument, and to require an agreement with the landowner providing for review and approval of the proposed cross-section by staff, an 18 to 20-foot maintenance berm, and a bond in the amount of $5,000 posted by the petitioner guaranteeing construction. Commissioner O'Brien accepted and seconded the amended motion.

Commissioner Scarborough stated since the County acquired the property with an order of taking and paid $3,200 for it; should the petitioner reimburse the County that value; with Commissioner Cook responding that is fine.

Commissioner Cook amended the motion to include reimbursement to the County of $3,200 which the County paid for the drainage easement; and Commissioner O'Brien accepted the amendment.

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

The meeting recessed at 9:55 a.m. and reconvened at 10:07 a.m.

JOINT MEETING WITH CITY OF WEST MELBOURNE, RE: IMPACT FEE COLLECTION

Bill Lane, Mayor of the City of West Melbourne, 330 Campbell Drive, West Melbourne, advised he has counsel, staff and the City Manager here; he will give a brief overview and history; City Manager Mark Ryan will give the particulars of the City's concerns; and Assistant City Attorney Carl Bohn will close. He stated it is a privilege to be able to bring the concerns of the City of West Melbourne to the Board; and they are here because of a belief that action taken earlier this year by the Board concerning transportation impact fee was contrary to the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County. He stated the Board and City Council entered into an Interlocal Agreement on May 16, 1989; the Agreement was prepared by the County Attorney's Office and provided a condition that the fees of the program would not be altered without the County first performing a proper study to justify modification; and it is the City's contention that changes in the impact fee program were made without the pre-requisite study; therefore, the Board's action is in conflict with the Interlocal Agreement. Mayor Lane advised in 1994, then Commissioner Sue Schmitt-Kirwan proposed that an economic coalition be established in the County to evaluate how to bring value-added jobs to the County; each municipality participated in that coalition; and the final recommendation from the Coalition that there was an inequity in the fees charged for industrial uses throughout the County and it should be brought into line with the other counties was accepted by the City of West Melbourne. He stated in January, 1995, the Board directed its staff to discontinue collecting transportation impact fees on new industrial construction; in May, 1995, at the first reading of the ordinance, the desire to exempt industrial uses was expanded to include commercial uses; that expansion was made following the public hearing at which Mr. Ryan spoke in opposition to the change; and the ordinance was passed in May, but the effective date was September 1, 1995. Mayor Lane advised they have been working close with the County on Dairy Road in particular; they have spent seven years trying to get the project built; the transportation impact fee program has funded various portions of the City's share of the preliminary design and right-of-way acquisition for that roadway; and the change in the impact fee program seriously impacts the City's funding ability for construction of that very important project. He stated the City and County continually expressed desire to construct improvements to Sheridan Road, Wickham Road, Greenboro Drive, and Wickham Road intersections; the studies performed to date have shown a need for significant safety improvements at those intersections; however, the City is routinely told there are no funds to make the improvements. He stated the impact fees would have gone a long way toward making some of the improvements. Mayor Lane advised City Manager Mark Ryan will detail how that action eliminated approximately $70,000 in impact fees for commercial and industrial projects in 1995 within the City, and outline five other projects that are designed in West Melbourne which would have generated $280,000 in impact fees. He stated the fees are important to the community and the County if they are to improve transportation in the area; the program, as amended by the Board shifts the burden to him as Mayor; and he has to explain to his constituents why the residents are going to bear the burden when the residents and businesses should share equally the impact on roads. He stated he cannot say Toys R Us and Best Buy Center have no impact on the roadways and housing does; all those facilities generate equal traffic; most people employed by the new businesses were in the County so it did not generate new influx of people; but the facilities attract buyers from miles away and impact the roads. He noted Mr. Ryan will go into the particulars.

Mark Ryan, City Manager of West Melbourne, advised as Mayor Lane indicated, since the discontinuation of the impact fees, the City estimated $70,000 in transportation impact fees have been lost or will be lost in the immediate future. He stated the City estimates $48,000 in transportation impact fees in District 5 would be lost due to the Board's action; and of that amount, $26,000 are for projects that were already programmed for construction in the City. He stated $21,000 that should have been collected in District 6 will be lost; as of this date, none of those projects have been permitted for construction; and the City is aware that within District 5 there are various commercial developments currently on the drawing board which will significantly impact transportation facilities in that District. He stated the impact fees for those projects alone could reach $130,000; the City is aware of a large industrial park currently being designed in District 6 in the northwest part of the community; the number and size of those facilities could have generated an impact fee of $150,000; and West Melbourne is also concerned with the impact the Board's decision has on the future of the City. He stated with more than 50% of the City being vacant land, the potential for commercial and industrial development is enormous; yet the impact on the transportation facilities that go with those activities will go unnoticed; they will not be paying their fair share; and a good example of that is the vacant commercial and industrial properties abutting Palm Bay Road. Mr. Ryan advised when developed the land will impact Palm Bay Road, Hollywood Boulevard, Minton Road, and Dairy Road, all of which are County roads; and under the new program, they will pay no impact fees. He stated in contrast to that scenario is a new home constructed in a recently approved 600-unit subdivision must pay $855 in transportation impact fees; the entire subdivision will eventually pay $513,000, but a commercial shopping center to the south will pay zero. He stated the City could adopt a municipal impact fee to recoup some of the fees; however, it would be lower than the fee charged under the County's program and can only be used for local roadways; therefore, it is not a one-to-one swap. He stated the estimated cost to perform the pre-requisite study for such an impact fee is $20,000; that is an unbudgeted item in the City; some of the issues that the Board is considering is why did the City wait this long to come forward; they were waiting a decision from the Board concerning the Malabar case; and the City could have filed a macus curiai in that case but chose not to. He asked Attorney Bohn to make the final remarks.

Assistant City Attorney Carl Bohn advised as required by Chapter 164, Florida Statutes, the Legislature felt it necessary for governing bodies to meet and try to resolve differences such as the one explained to the Board today; and they welcome the opportunity and feel it will be productive in resolving their conflicts. He stated the County and City entered into an Interlocal Agreement; prior to the County being able to change the Agreement, an impact study had to be conducted which would justify a change in the Agreement; the City's position is the requisite study was not conducted; and by abating the fees and not collecting them since January, 1995, the City lost projects in existence of approximately $70,000. He stated they are also looking at projects that are known to be happening in the future of $280,000 plus or minus; and they cannot calculate the true long-term effect of this situation, but can calculate with some certainty the short-term effect plus the fact they are going to have to implement their own impact fee study which will cost from $30,000 to $50,000. Attorney Bohn stated they are looking at a short-term impact to the City of $400,000; an important matter is that they cannot recoup those impact fees they have lost since January; and requested the County assist them in trying to recoup the past losses and help them with reasonable future losses. He stated the City desires to resolve this problem amicably; it will benefit the County and City financially if they can get a reasonable solution of the matter; and it will relieve the new residential projects the City has ongoing. He stated again they are going to lose the impact fees they would have had from the new commercial and industrial uses; the burden is going to be placed on the new residential communities; they cannot recoup the money from the businesses; and they have to make it up somewhere, so they are asking the County for assistance in helping them resolve the dispute.

Attorney Bohn stated this meeting is significant; and it will not only resolve the dispute, but will keep ongoing the continued cooperation and relationship the City of West Melbourne has with the County.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how much money does the City claim to have lost from January to September; with Mr. Ryan responding prior to September 1, 1995, it is $7,200; however, in the last quarter of 1995, they had significant activity in the City. Commissioner Ellis stated the County gave the cities more than 60 days notice of what it was doing; and Melbourne implemented its impact fees. He inquired what does the City of West Melbourne want; with Mr. Ryan responding the City's contention is that the action of the Board is in conflict with the Interlocal Agreement that required a pre-requisite study.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he thinks the County did the study because it had all the information about impact fees brought to the Board; after discussion, review, and objective reasoning, the Board decided impact fees were inappropriate Countywide; and that is why it stopped collecting the fees. He stated the study was performed by the Board and it was an appropriate study.

Mr. Ryan advised the Agreement states the impact fee program benefit area and boundaries and rate structure instituted by the Ordinance will not be amended unless based upon an updated current and reliable impact fee study. Commissioner Ellis stated the Agreement says the Board has to have a study prior to an amendment on page 5, paragraph 4; however, the Board did not amend the fees, it abolished it. Mayor Lane stated technically it is not amended, but by abolishing the fees, it changed the Agreement. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not consider an ordinance amended if it is abolished; and inquired if the City looks at an ordinance it removes as an amendment; with Mayor Lane responding when the Board discontinued collecting impact fees that it collected in the past, that was a big change; and technically Commissioner Ellis is trying to skirt the issue. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board let everyone know well in advance what it was going to do in September; and the cities had time to take action and implement their own impact fee programs.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board has a right to terminate the Agreement in 90 days; and paragraph 13 on page 10 does not mention a study; so in some instances a study is not needed and either party has a right to terminate without a study.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Board has significant and major defenses to whatever action the City of West Melbourne may bring if it decides to do that; and its decision has to be made based upon the equities of the situation. He stated Impact Fee Ordinance is a regulatory Ordinance that the Board has the authority to adopt if it so chooses; and it cannot by contract agree not to exercise its regulatory authority. He stated that is basically the defense the Board has. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the County notified the cities well in advance of 90 days for September 1, 1995; with Mr. Knox responding yes, and he does not recall West Melbourne showing up at any of the public hearings on that Ordinance. Commissioner Ellis advised the Ordinance was adopted in May to be effective September 1, 1995 to give everyone 90 days or more to get their house in order if they wanted to adopt an impact fee program.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board knows it has needs and the cities have needs; the problem is there is a tremendous amount of benefit that accrues from having commercialization in Brevard County; everybody drives to Orlando to shop and eat; and although Brevard County has high wages compared to Osceola, Volusia, and Orange Counties, it basically has been hemorrhaging and losing dollars. He stated the defense dollars are not there and some monies that were originally coming into the County are not going to keep coming; the Board has heard over and over again that it has higher impact fees than other counties; EDC Executive Director Lynda Weatherman said she is about to lose something to Volusia County because it is not only meeting what Brevard County has, but giving $1,200 per new job that comes in; and it is becoming very difficult. He stated Brevard County cannot let Orange, Volusia, Osceola, and Indian River Counties take away business because the dollar amounts in the long run is to be gained by having ad valorem taxes. Commissioner Scarborough stated the McDonnell Douglas Plant that closed in Titusville was bringing in a million dollars a year in local revenue; and if business is scared away with impact fees, that hurts the taxpayers because the County would not be able to have lower taxes. He stated the County has not captured all it could; he wants to be fair with the City and work something out, but his feeling is in the long run, the best thing the Board can do for the taxpayers is create a commercial and industrial base and quit hemorrhaging.

Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem in trying to work something out with the City, but the time element concerns him; if the issues were going to be raised, they should have been raised earlier; the Board acted in good faith and within the parameters of the State law; therefore, under its regulatory powers, it has the authority to eliminate the impact fees for the reasons enumerated by Commissioner Scarborough.

Mayor Lane advised they are not disputing that fact, but are seeking relief and asking the County for help; they have lost a tremendous amount of money and are trying to seek some credits or relief against Dairy Road project and other projects within the City; and he agrees that they need those jobs in Brevard County. He stated the Economic Coalition said the inequities were in the industrial zones and not all the commercial zones. Commissioner Scarborough advised why the Board went further is because of a situation where a restaurant was about to expand and decided not to, and Commissioner O'Brien has experienced problems out at the Port. He stated a lot of local people may have expanded their businesses if it had not been for impact fees, so the Board felt if an existing business expands it can capture more dollars and be more than value added jobs that may have gone to Seattle.

Chairman Higgs advised nobody is arguing about industrial and commercial impact fees; that is not the contention; the important issue is that the Board has a process for amending ordinances; and that process requires notices so that people can be present to discuss the issues. She stated the initial notice was a change that was suggested by the Economic Coalition which brought impact fees in line with what actual impact fees were, but she is not sure that is the issue. She stated the issue is the Board had an Agreement with the cities to have an ordinance in place that states specifically if changes are made to the rate structure they would not be amended unless an updated current reliable impact fee study is made; and that was not done. She stated the Board had an obligation to inform its partners between January and May, prior to any action to change the fees; it acted in May, and from May through September did not collect any further industrial impact fees although it did collect commercial fees; but the real issue is the notice and whether or not the Board lived up to its Agreement made with the cities. She stated as a government, it has to stand by its agreements.

Commissioner Ellis advised the Board clearly noticed the cities well over 90 days in advance what it was going to be doing on September 1, 1995; with Chairman Higgs responding she does not dispute that. Commissioner Ellis stated the City of West Melbourne's losses before September 1 was about $7,000; with Mr. Ryan responding it is about $70,000. Commissioner Ellis stated that includes after September 1; but the City had over 90 days to put together its own impact fee ordinance; Melbourne did it, so it was not an impossible task to do; and inquired if the City feels the Board has an obligation to continue paying it impact fees after September 1st. Chairman Higgs responded no, but the Board has an obligation to live by its agreement. Commissioner Ellis stated when the Board dealt with Malabar, it dealt with impact fees that would have been collected prior to September 1st; and he does not have a problem dealing with that for the City of West Melbourne, but that is as far as the County should have to go. He reiterated all the cities had plenty of notice to enact their own ordinances if they so desired.

Commissioner O'Brien stated West Melbourne had time to create its own impact fees and could have created higher rates than the County's rates. Commissioner Ellis stated it could have used the same impact fee study because Melbourne did. Mayor Lane advised Melbourne updated the study in order to do its impact fee program; but to his knowledge, the agreement with the County has not been terminated as of this date. Chairman Higgs inquired if notice was given to the cities that the Board was terminating the agreement; with Mr. Knox responding part of the package handed out by Mr. Swanke indicated there was notice. Chairman Higgs stated there was notice to amend the ordinance; and inquired if there was notice to terminate the agreements; with Mr. Knox responding not that he knows of. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board was adjusting the rates it would have needed a study, but eliminating the rates did not require a study because the study would show the County would get zero revenues; the reason for the study is to have a basis or justification for the rates; and that is what drives the study. He stated he wants to honor the agreement and be fair to the City of West Melbourne, but he does not want to be stuck; if the Board wants to give the City $7,200 that is fine; but it should not compensate the City beyond the agreement because it could get in a posture where it will undo everything it has done legally.

Commissioner Cook advised the cities had to be aware that the County was not collecting impact fees; there was media coverage and there may have been a representative from the City at one of the public hearings; and eliminating impact fees is not an amendment and would not require a study. He stated the study is to justify rates; if there are no rates, there is no need for a study; so that is an adequate defense. He stated he would be happy to look at $7,200 with the stipulation the Board is not admitting to anything in particular; and the County Attorney can come up with language to settle this dispute and be fair to the City.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve payment of $7,200 to the City of West Melbourne for loss of impact fees from January to September 1, 1995.

Commissioner O'Brien advised there were letters from the Planning and Zoning Division to City Manager Mark Ryan of West Melbourne dated September 29, 1994, January 10, 1995, January 26, 1995, March 30, 1995, and April 21, 1995 that the Board was going to consider an amendment; and the amendment is zero.

Commissioner Ellis advised the City knew when the Board met in May that it was going to do it; the defense may be there for earlier meetings; but when it met in May to discuss impact fees, it was widely reported what the Board was going to do; and at that point, they had three or four months of history that the Board was not collecting impact fees on industrial development. He stated it is hard to plead that someone did not know when clearly what the Board was going to do in May was known; the Board gave over 90 days notice because that was a discussion at the May meeting; and the cities were not there, even though they were noticed that the Board was going to wait until September 1st which would give over 90 days notice to all the cities to implement their own programs. Mayor Lane stated they were fully aware of what the Board was doing, they were not noticed on any termination of the Agreement; and to this date there has not been a notice to the City on termination of the Agreement. Commissioner Ellis inquired if that is Mayor Lane's preference to terminate the Agreement; with Mayor Lane responding certainly not, and inquired if that is what the Board wants to do. Commissioner Ellis stated he prefers to terminate the Agreements rather than every time the Board tries to act it has to get 12 cities to agree. Commissioner O'Brien stated the City can admit it still has an Agreement with the County, but the established rate is zero.

Commissioner Cook stated the City was aware the County was not collecting the impact fees, and in essence it is a defacto termination. He stated he does not have a preference whether to give the City credit or the dollar amount of $7,200; the City mentioned credits; and if that is its preference, he has no problem with it; however, he wants it to settle a potential lawsuit. Mr. Knox advised Commissioner Cook made that abundantly clear, and that proposal would not be admissible in any kind of evidentiary proceeding.

Chairman Higgs inquired how much industrial impact fees would have been collected in the City from January through September 1st; with Mr. Ryan responding they projected $7,200; there were two projects, one commercial at $7,200 and the other industrial at $2,712. Chairman Higgs inquired if the total projects the Board abated collection of impact fees on is $9,912; with Mr. Ryan responding that is correct.

Commissioner Cook amended the motion to pay the City of West Melbourne $9,912 instead of $7,200; and Commissioner Scarborough accepted the amendment.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. Chairman Higgs stated she supported the motion because it is fair; however, she still believes the Board has not fully honored its Agreement. Commissioner Ellis inquired since all the cities were notified what the Board was going to do, why didn't someone show up in May. Commissioner Cook stated the Board is acting in good faith with the City to settle a lawsuit; and it can be in credits or monetary. Mayor Lane stated he will take the proposal to the City Council and give it every consideration and let the Board know what happens.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the next step is to look into termination of the Agreements with all the cities; and repeated previous remarks about having to get all the cities to agree in order to take action. He stated the Board would be better off to impose fees in the unincorporated areas and allow the municipalities to take care of their own; and he does not want to enact ordinances that affect cities because the Board would end up having to consult with 13 other government entities.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board agreed to notify cities 60 days in advance of any ordinance it would do; that part of the communication is the important part; and with West Melbourne, the Board did more than that, because there are copies of letters sent to the City on eight different occasions that something was up and actions would be performed. He stated he does not want to exclude the cities from every agreement; the one-cent sales tax for the jail may come up and the Board would need to include all the cities in an agreement; so he does not want to exclude them at all. Commissioner Cook stated if Commissioner Ellis is talking only about impact fees, then the Board can look at reversing all of those and let them establish their own ordinances; with Commissioner Ellis responding the Board is going to reach the point where it cannot do anything without satisfying everybody. Chairman Higgs stated it is an agreement between two legal entities; and for an agreement to be amended, it takes two parties; and the Board amended the ordinance and never dealt with the Agreements. Commissioner Ellis stated the cities had an option for over 90 days when they were notified what the Board wished to do; and they could have protested or gone their own way. Chairman Higgs stated the Board has an Agreement that says if it changes things it does studies. Commissioner Scarborough stated the study would say nothing because the Board is not collecting impact fees; and inquired what would a study say beyond that; with Chairman Higgs responding she does not know what a study would say, but the point is the Board has an Agreement with the City that it would proceed with the program based on that Agreement.

Commissioner Ellis stated if the Ordinance is substantially modified by the Board, in order to allow municipalities sufficient time to determine whether to terminate the Agreement and opt out of the impact fee program implemented by the Ordinance, the County agreed that the Ordinance as amended shall not take effect in a municipality until at least 45 days after adoption; however, the Board waited over 90 days before the Ordinance went into effect. Chairman Higgs stated no, in January the Board abated the impact fees totally. Commissioner Ellis stated the issue with West Melbourne is after September 1, 1995, because the Board has already taken care of the issue prior to September 1st. Commissioner Cook reiterated that the study is to justify rates, and if the rates are eliminated, there is no need for a study.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT IN BAREFOOT BAY, UNIT 1 - GEORGIA METCALF

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility easement in Barefoot Bay, Unit 1 as petitioned by Georgia Metcalf.

There being no comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easement in Barefoot Bay, Unit 1, as petitioned by Georgia Metcalf. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Resolution No. 95-302.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM COASTAL SETBACK LINE - ROBERT L. HUGHES

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a request from Robert L. Hughes for a variance from the Coastal setback line.

Robert Hughes, 1628 S. Mitchell Street, Melbourne, advised the variance request is from the 25-foot setback line and not from the Coastal Construction Control Line; the area of the beach has not been experiencing the gradual erosion that has been occurring in the northern beach area; the house will be built on a piling structure as required by State regulations; and the structure is about 25 feet deep and will fully support the house should there be an erosion of the swale beneath the house. He stated the ability of the house to withstand the extreme forces of a hurricane will not be changed if it is located at the Coastal Construction Control Line or 50 or 150 feet back from it; it would be substantially the same; and the home will become his permanent residence after construction.

Commissioner Ellis advised the area has had accretion; they are adding sand in the area; unlike the areas to the north, the beach is building up in that area; and the house will be no closer than surrounding houses.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised as Mr. Hughes noted, his request is from the County setback line; and he would place his home in compliance with the State's Coastal Construction Control Line. He stated the County initiated an additional setback after the Thanksgiving Day storm of 1984 where it experienced 25 feet of erosion in some areas; the proposed structure would comply with the elevation requirements of a 100-year storm event as it will be built on pilings; and it will also be in compliance with 140 degree wind load and other requirements such as turtle lighting, etc. He stated the applicant's lot is narrow; it is only about 55 feet; and his immediate concern is that because he is between two adjacent structures, it will create a tunnel effect for him if he sets the home back in compliance with the County's requirement; and it would restrict his view of the ocean. He stated the area is accretionary according to data staff obtained from studies it did on the beaches and information from Department of Natural Resources in Tallahassee; his home would be no closer than existing houses; unfortunately, when they looked at the proposal, they did note he can build his home in compliance with the County Code because it is not a hardship; the location would be more to a set of considerations than a building hardship; so that is the issue.

Commissioner O'Brien advised in the south part of the County, the beaches are increasing in size and the ones that are south of Port Canaveral, because of the jetties, are severely shrinking. He stated the effect of the jetty is obvious; the aerial photos show Canaveral Air Force Station where the natural beach sticks out a good quarter of a mile; and beyond the jetties it shrinks that quarter mile and stays that way until just south of Patrick where it starts to increase in size.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if staff would agree in this case it is an unusual distance from the Coastal Construction Control Line to the actual dunes; with Mr. Peffer responding yes. Commissioner Ellis stated normally the Coastal Construction Control Line is closer seaward than what is on the lot; to the dune line there is about 75 feet; and it is a long point to the beach due to the fact they have picked up more beach over the last 15 years since the Coastal Construction Control Line was set.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to grant a variance from the 25-foot coastal setback for Robert L. Hughes pursuant to Ordinance No. 85-17, Section 8. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE PROVIDING SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE CRITERIA AND PROHIBITING AFTER-THE-FACT FLOOR SLAB ELEVATION VARIANCE

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance providing surface water drainage criteria, prohibiting after-the-fact floor slab elevation variance, and providing penalties for violations.

Charlene Ormsby, 4983 Falcon Boulevard, Cocoa, presented paperwork to the Chairman, and stated the ordinance is an amendment to Section 22-48; she is glad to see things are beginning to be done and hopefully accomplished today; and it is something that is drastically needed. She stated she agrees with it in concept, but there are a few things that would give it more teeth. She stated Section 22-48 (b) could include, "Florida registered engineer report to reflect the site drainage plan using symbols showing direction of flow of water runoff, and this water runoff or the placement of land fill material should not adversely affect the applicant's or surrounding properties and/or structures under normal rain considerations." Ms. Ormsby stated even with normal heavy storms, water accumulates in her yard; people seem to get it worst than she has; and adding that statement would refine the article. She stated (c) is good as written; and (d) should include a time limit for the offending permit holders, if any violations occur, to take care of it. She stated there is nothing that says they have to address it by a time certain; it could be 50 years if they can get away with it; so there should be a way to address it. She suggested the Board set up a fund to help address pre-existing problems because the amendment does not affect homes like hers that have already been built or had other homes built around it. She stated she appreciates what the Board is doing because it has been going on for more than a decade; and she is glad the Board is aware of it.

Chairman Higgs inquired what was the first amendment recommended; with Ms. Ormsby responding the ordinance requires a Florida registered engineer's report certifying that the structure would not be subject to adverse impact of stormwater under conditions of a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall. She stated that is a worst condition; storms that would not qualify under the 25-year rainfall flooded her yard anyway; and that is not covered under the current wording.

Commissioner Ellis advised that section deals with homes built below the crown of the road. Ms. Ormsby stated okay, but it is still a good thought.

Harry Fuller, 424 Dorset Drive, Cocoa Beach, representing Space Coast Builders Association, advised they worked on the plan and is not sure what they came up will satisfy everybody's requirements, interest, or sense of security, but it is a system that does something which the County does not have now, and puts the responsibility on the permit holders who are doing the construction to solve the problems as far as inundating their adjoining neighbors. He stated it is a great system in which there will be a legal way for someone to get Code Enforcement to tell a permit holder he has complaints and the ordinance requires he not flood his neighbors. He stated they also came up with a number of plans on ways to solve the flooding and transfer water off the property to a positive outfall in places where they have outfall situations; and they hope the Board will give it a chance to see if it will work. Mr. Fuller stated they think it is a reasonable solution in keeping the cost down on homes and putting the responsibility on the permit holder; it keeps it from being a civil matter between neighbors because the County can step in if it is creating a problem and recommend ways out of the problem; and it is a probable solution to the problem. He stated Commissioner Cook asked about the $200 an inch penalty; he worked the calculation out on a 1,600 square-foot home under air or 2,000 square-foot home under roof; and he will be glad to provide that to the Board. He stated that will vary from home to home based on the size and whether they fill a whole lot or just the portion required for the home; he took the minimum condition of just the home itself of 1,600 square feet and 400 square-foot garage; and with compaction requirements and testing plus $5.00 a yard for fill, it will come to about $126 per inch to do the job. He noted it will vary depending on how much of the lot is filled. He stated they in the business do not think it is a bad problem and that it is a reasonable penalty; and they hope the Board will accept that for a 2,000 square-foot home.

Commissioner O'Brien commended everyone who worked on the ordinance for doing a good job; and stated he has a few questions. He stated Section 1, Part A, Section 22-48(d) states, "excluding the floor of a garage when used solely for parking vehicles elevated at least ten inches above the crown grade of the public thoroughfare." He inquired if that excludes the floor of the garage and if the garage floor can be at ground zero; with Community Development Engineer Mahmoud Najda responding the garage floor would not be at ground zero because it has to be elevated from the road going into the garage; but if the builder/owner chooses, it can be lower than ten inches above the crown of the road if it does not have utilities connections and electrical connections. Commissioner O'Brien stated if he had a yard at ground zero, the street the lot is up against has a crown of ten inches, but the crown may be higher than the entire yard, so when it comes down to utilities, they are just going to dig a ditch and drop them in and cover them back up.

Mr. Fuller advised the ten inches above the crown of the road is a FEMA requirement; FEMA says any living area has to be ten inches above the crown of the road; and they do not count garage floors as living areas as long as they do not have any functioning systems in them such as a water heater. He stated if a water heater is put in the garage, then the floor has to be ten inches above the crown of the road; and if they do not put the water heater in the garage, then the garage floor can be lower than ten inches from the crown of the road.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what would happen five or ten years later if someone wants to convert the garage into living quarters and the garage floor is not ten inches above the crown of the road; with Mr. Najda responding they have to go through the Building Division and from there it is routed for review and caught; so they have to comply with current regulations. He stated Mr. Fuller mentioned that the ten inches is a FEMA requirement, but it is not; it has been the Department's requirement; and FEMA may require a higher elevation than that. Commissioner O'Brien stated the next sentence says, "except that such requirements may be waived prior to construction by the County Manager or his designee if natural drainage permits." He inquired if that is true even if houses are built in the flood plain; with Mr. Najda responding if it is in the flood plain they cannot get a waiver and have to build at whatever is the strictest of the three requirements; and if they are on a septic system, they have to build to the strictest of the three, which is ten inches above the crown of the road, meeting FEMA requirement which is above the 100-year flood plain, or septic tank elevation as required. Commissioner O'Brien inquired about a dirt road; with Mr. Najda responding instead of building ten inches above the crown of the dirt road, they add base materials and asphalt materials, and go ten inches above that. Commissioner O'Brien stated the $200 per inch penalty is for violations for every inch vertically; if a general contractor built the house and came up four inches short of the ten-inch requirement, he would only pay $800 and the person who owns the house will be stuck with a house that could possibly flood and cannot sue the GC because he already paid the fine; and suggested the Board consider $200 for the first inch, $400 for the second inch, $800 for the third inch, $1,600 for the fourth inch, $3,200 for the fifth inch, $6,400 for the sixth inch, and doubling that number for every inch less than ten inches above the crown of the road. He stated the ordinance also says, "no after-the-fact floor slab stage variances shall be granted in violation of FEMA requirements in areas designated by FEMA as flood hazard zones." He inquired what would happen if the slab has already been laid and comes up three inches short, they ask for a variance and the Board says no, it cannot give a variance because it is in flood hazard zone, so tear everything down and pour the next three inches or whatever, can that be done; with Mr. Najda responding they are obligated under FEMA not to allow any houses to be built below that requirement. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is not complaining about that, but wants to know how to cure the problem. Assistant Public Works Director Ron Jones advised in addition to that, the County currently is enrolled in the Community Rating System which allows for a 10% reduction across the board for all residences within the County; Public Works is in the process of modifying that to attempt to obtain another 5%; and that would immediately invalidate this particular provision as the County previously agreed not to vary within the flood zone. Commissioner O'Brien stated if someone ends up with a slab that is two inches short of the crown of the road, can they pour two inches over the slab that has already been cured; with Mr. Najda responding yes they can, if they have not passed a certain construction condition. He stated what would happen in that situation is that if they violate the regulations and prove that drainage wise they are okay and meet FEMA requirements, they have to pay the fine and a statement would be given to them that the house flood wise is accepted. He stated the issue of the fine is so that they would not get away with after-the-fact waiver requests. Commissioner O'Brien advised the ordinance says, "any intrusion of water on adjacent private property shall be the responsibility of the permit holder to resolve"; if the permit holder is the builder, after he completes the job and leaves, there is no one to resolve it when it rains hard and causes intrusion of water on adjacent private property; and suggested the responsibility be on the person who owns the property. Engineering Design Director Ralph Brescia advised it is written to set up a situation where the builder/homeowner has to resolve the drainage problem up front; at a later date, if it is a drainage problem, the County has a tool where the Code Enforcement staff will go out and enforce it as a regular code violation; it would go to the Code Board, and the person would have a fine and certain time limit to correct the problem; but initially the ordinance is to set it up so that the builder is responsible for the drainage problems. Commissioner O'Brien stated it bothers him because there will not be intrusion of water until it rains and the permit holder may be gone and the consumer stuck with a real problem; so he is trying to find some wording to fix that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated that is part of common law and does not have to be written in an ordinance. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it has to define what permit it is; with Mr. Najda responding it is the building permit holder. Mr. Brescia advised on the page before the section it mentions "all building permit holders are required to provide. . ."; that is a continuation of the sentence; and it is something the Building and Construction Advisory Committee felt comfortable with and the County Attorney's Office reviewed as well. Mr. Knox advised they looked at it; what basically happens is the permit hold, which is the contractor and possibly the property owner, goes away; the only real course of action is against the property owner; and that is what the common law allows a person to do anyway. Commissioner O'Brien stated he hopes the Board will reconsider the fine because unless the consumer is protected, the ordinance does not have teeth.

Commissioner Ellis stated the only two times he has seen this, not only did the contractor come in, but the owner came in supporting the waiver; so if excessive fines are laid down, the homeowner is the one who will end up paying the bill. He stated the fine accrues to the County not the homeowner; and increasing the fine will not protect the homeowner because it would go into the County's coffers. Commissioner O'Brien inquired about suing the surveyor if he made an error; with Commissioner Ellis responding he is not an attorney, but looking at what the County ordinance is, if the fine is escalated it would probably penalize the homeowner because it would be passed on to him. He stated the ordinance is okay for some symptoms, but problems still exist of how to not have adjacent parcels with septic tanks 30 to 40 inches apart in elevation. He stated that is the problem that generated the ordinance; and inquired if Lot 2 has a septic tank that works, why does Lot 3 have to be 30 inches higher. He stated the Board needs to get the septic elevations in line with existing systems and lots in neighborhoods that have not shown failures. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Septic Tank Task Force is studying that. Commissioner Ellis stated staff is still going through and setting those elevations, but does not take into account surrounding properties and what their failures have been; after the recommendations from the Task Force, the Board would have more information available on failure rates; and he does not understand why a home being built in the middle of five other homes that never had a history of septic tank failures should be 30 to 40 inches higher or that the septic tank be set that much higher. Commissioner O'Brien stated that is not what this ordinance is about; it deals with the level of the floor; and the Board will take up the septic tank issue later today. Commissioner Ellis stated the level of the floor of a house is set by the septic elevation; that problem does not exist in areas with sewer; and that is because the septic tanks are being set at different elevations. He stated it is a good ordinance to deal with the symptoms, but the Board needs to address the problem itself which is why does it have adjacent lots with septic tanks three or four feet different in height.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if ten inches above the crown of the road is good enough or should it be 12 inches or 14 inches. Commissioner Ellis stated the flooding issue is not the ten inches issue; in Ms. Ormsby's neighborhood, they are above the ten inches; but the issue is some are 24 inches, 48 inches, and all kinds of different heights. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board could set a maximum elevation; with Commissioner Ellis responding he does not know, but it needs to work with Consumer Health to set a policy it can work with within HRS Rules so they do not have that kind of difference in septic elevations. Chairman Higgs advised the Board needs to deal with this ordinance then deal with that as a separate issue. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the ordinance ever read 14 inches above the crown of the road or higher than ten inches; with Mr. Brescia responding he does not know if the County had it higher, but some municipalities in the County have it as high as 18 inches. Commissioner O'Brien stated his house is on a canal and 14 inches above the crown of the road, but he had water in his garage; with Mr. Najda responding it depends on the type of soils in the area. He noted Suntree requires 16 inches minimum.

Chairman Higgs inquired if setting the elevation of the slab requires being a certain distance above the crown of the road and having a septic fall based on how far above the water line; with Mr. Najda responding the drain field must be 24 inches above the water table and have a fall of about 18 inches from the house to the drain field.

Commissioner Cook advised Mr. Fuller convinced him the $200 penalty is okay, and it will raise the cost to the building about $500 to $1,000 which would raise the price of a new home by that amount. Commissioner Ellis stated that is only if they get a P.E.; with Chairman Higgs responding they do not need a P.E. unless they pour the slab too low and want to go ahead with it. She stated they would need an engineering report to show the drainage and say it is not going to flood. Commissioner Cook stated it would be hard for him to say which way the flow is going in his back yard, but he guesses that can be done. He inquired if the elevation can be changed to 14 inches; with Mr. Brescia responding it would have to go to the Building and Construction Advisory Committee for a recommendation. Chairman Higgs suggested asking staff for a report.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt an Ordinance of Brevard County, Florida, amending Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article II, Technical Codes, Division 1, Generally; specifically amending Section 22-48(b), Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, to provide waiver of lowest floor elevation pursuant to specified guidelines and to provide a fine for violations of lowest floor elevation; creating Section 22-48(c) to prohibit after-the-fact variances in violation of Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements; creating Section 22-48(d) to require site drainage plans for one or two family dwelling properties to insure that surface water runoff or the placement of fill material shall not adversely affect surrounding properties and/or structures; providing for severability; and providing an effective date.

Commissioner O'Brien recommended amending the motion to ask the Building and Construction Advisory Committee if 14 inches is not excessive. He stated ten inches bothers him after what happened in Melbourne, North Merritt Island, Cocoa and other areas this year; it was unusual to have that amount of rain; however, the County will continue to grow; and it is time to raise the level of houses to protect the consumer.

Chairman Higgs recommended staff provide the Board with a report on height alternatives for discussion to see if it wants to go through with that.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____ for Ordinance No. 95-52.) DISCUSSION, RE: BROADCASTING OF COUNTY COMMISSION MEETINGS

Commissioner Cook advised he received positive response from people about the pilot program; they felt they could participate in the process; elderly people for physical reasons cannot make it to the meetings, watched and called the Office; and he is pleased that they had an opportunity to see their representatives do their jobs. He stated they felt they were better informed on the issues and did not have to rely on one source to get their information, so it is a positive thing.

Commissioner O'Brien advised he got additional information on the item this morning and did not have time to really look at it, read it, and compare it, except to find what he thinks is a mathematical error on page 2. He stated $89,800 less 30% does not equal $26,940. Chairman Higgs advised subtracting $26,940 from $89,800 leaves $62,860.

Norma Savell, 3500 S. Courtenay Parkway, Merritt Island, President of Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights, stated this will be an expensive item for the County, but the cost is well worth it; it is a lot less than 90 million dollars for a bird project; those who work long hours or who have families to care for, elderly, bed-ridden, those who hate attending meetings, and the interested public in general, should be able to keep up with what County government is doing; she would rather see it broadcast on WBCC if that is the only channel that all Brevard, rich or poor, can see from one end to the other; and recommended editing be prohibited except for the long pauses, meals, and breaks. She stated she wholeheartedly supports it.

Hans Shurenmann, Cape Canaveral, advised he is for broadcasting Commission meetings because it is important that everybody knows what is going on; and there is always a lot of coverup. He stated every citizen who works or is retired should have access to all the public records via computer with no charge; he is not talking about people who need information for professional use, he is talking about residents who simply want to have access to the records; and it is time to broadcast Commission meetings and provide access to public records via computer.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board went for the used equipment with 30% discount, what would be the disadvantages; with Sharon Luba responding the equipment is sound; the only assurance Brevard Community College wants is to make sure the signal quality is good; and it was in good condition. She stated the High-Tech Trader in Tampa is one of the largest in the State that deals with those types of equipment; it said it is good equipment; and a lot of stations, because they have capital money, turn around their equipment generally on a year or two basis. Commissioner Scarborough stated with the equipment, there are different levels of light required in the Chambers; and inquired if the $62,000 would buy low-light equipment or high-intensity lights; with Ms. Luba responding it is special lighting. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it would be the softer lights; with Ms. Luba responding yes.

Commissioner Cook advised any time the Board can give additional information to the public, expand public participation, and let the public know more of what the Board does, it is a valuable thing for the public. He stated he would support moving ahead with the used equipment.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve $73,360 from General Fund Contingency to purchase used equipment to broadcast County Commission meetings.

Chairman Higgs inquired about annual recurring costs. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the remote controlled cameras are the most cost effective; and they may try to train existing employees to operate it, but there will be physical work that has to be done. He stated as they progress, they will come back with specifics. Chairman Higgs inquired if the recurring cost is $18,000; with Commissioner Cook responding yes, until they have the government channel. Chairman Higgs inquired if the $18,000 will also come from contingency; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes.

Commissioner O'Brien advised the report states, "plus retrofit costs, retrofit of Chambers to accommodate equipment, upgrade air conditioning unit to maintain a constant temperature, electrical wiring, and additional soundproofing, walls and glass"; and inquired what are the walls and glass; with Ms. Luba responding that is for the control room. Commissioner Cook stated that does not necessarily have to be done. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what wall paper is being removed. Chairman Higgs inquired if the wall has to be painted; with Ms. Luba responding yes, the problem is with the quality; and it needs to be a blue color to broadcast better.

Chairman Higgs advised the motion is to proceed with used equipment at $73,360 and recurring cost of $18,510; and called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

AGREEMENT WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA, RE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Agreement with Economic Development Commission of East Central Florida, providing $250,000 for EDC to attract new industry and help retain existing business and industry in the County, and provide criteria to measure performance for FY 1996.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board agreed that a Commissioner should sit on the EDC Board of Directors; with Economic Development and Legal Affairs Director Greg Lugar responding that is correct; the Board requested a Commissioner be placed on the Executive Committee; and the EDC Board of Directors on October 5, 1995, voted unanimously to do such. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board thought that $30,000 a year rent was excessive in comparison to other agencies throughout the County, and that they should take action to change that; with Mr. Lugar responding Ms. Weatherman is here to discuss it, but he believes they agreed to terminate the lease once the period has expired.

Commissioner Cook inquired if they plan to seek less expensive offices; with Chaz Hoyman responding yes; they have a contract that runs through November, 1996; it was a three-year contract; they have gone back to the landlord and asked if he would allow them out of it, but he would not; he would allow them to downsize into another space, but he wants another three-year contract; they discussed it; and chose to work to the end of the contract then find other space. Commissioner Cook inquired if EDC notified the landlord they will terminate the contract at the end of the period; with Mr. Hoyman responding no, under their contract they have to give him six months notice; but they are not going to renew the lease.

County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired what is the square footage; with Mr. Hoyman responding it is over $30,000; it is about $10 or $11 per square foot, but he is not sure. Commissioner O'Brien stated he has 17,000 square feet in Cape Canaveral at $5.00 a square foot.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired when will EDC make a formal request to the Board for an appointment of a County Commissioner; with Chairman Higgs responding it is not a designee, it is a Commissioner. Mr. Hoyman stated it is in the by-laws that the Board has the power to appoint someone; and requested the Board appoint a Commissioner.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Ellis voted nay. (See page _____ for Agreement.)

Chairman Higgs advised the Chair has appointed Commissioners to Committees based on their desires, and has the prerogative to appoint; at this point Commissioner O'Brien is the representative; and she assumes he will fill that seat until November when the new Chairman takes over. She stated she will appoint Commissioner O'Brien to serve on the EDC Executive Board.

Commissioner O'Brien congratulated the EDC for its willingness to cooperate.

DISCUSSION, RE: VASZARY v BREVARD COUNTY/MATHERS BRIDGE RESTAURANT

Chairman Higgs advised the request is whether the Board wants to send the case to F.A.C.T.; and inquired if the County Attorney has a recommendation.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the claim is $525,000; if they were to prevail on that claim, the County's deductible is $100,000; the suit is not well founded; so if it is referred to F.A.C.T., they will be defending it and have control over the $100,000 settlement figure.

Commissioner Ellis stated at the end of this suit if the other people prevail, would the County have to buy the property; with Mr. Knox responding if it was an inverse condemnation theory that they prevailed on, the County would have to buy it; but if it was a civil rights claim, the County would not have to buy it and they would end up with the property and money. Commissioner Ellis stated if it is inverse condemnation, the County could end up with the property for $100,000; with Mr. Knox responding if it is civil rights the Board would end up with nothing. Chairman Higgs inquired what is it; with Mr. Knox responding they have alleged both right now.

Commissioner Cook inquired if it is civil rights, could the County pay damages and still not own the property; with Mr. Knox responding yes. Commissioner Ellis stated on inverse condemnation he would prefer to go to F.A.C.T. because the worst case scenario would be paying $100,000 for the property. Commissioner Cook stated the case should go to F.A.C.T. Chairman Higgs inquired if F.A.C.T. can settle the case; with Mr. Knox responding F.A.C.T. does not have to come to the Board before they settle the case. Commissioner Cook stated it seems like the County has a strong case, but no one knows what happens with juries. Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the County Attorney's recommendation; with Mr. Knox responding he can handle it if the Board wants him to, and he thinks he can win it. Commissioner Ellis inquired what would be the cost to the County even to win the case; with Mr. Knox responding it is hard to judge what it is in staff time, but out of pocket costs could be about $10,000 for expert witnesses. Commissioner Ellis stated if staff is working on the case, they would not be working on other cases; and perhaps it may be more economical to turn it over to F.A.C.T. Commissioner Cook inquired if the Board could acquire the property for $100,000; with Mr. Knox responding he does not see that, and he tried to get them to come down below $250,000 and they would not do that.

Chairman Higgs advised the F.A.C.T. people have a propensity to settle, looking at $100,000 liability, and she would rather have it in-house and not comfortable with settling they have done in the past. Commissioner Cook stated he agrees F.A.C.T. does have that propensity, but his concern is this has been going on for years and if they were to prevail, the County would be out a considerable amount.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to forward the Vaszary v Brevard County/Mathers Bridge Restaurant lawsuit to F.A.C.T.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if F.A.C.T. can arrive at a settlement and the County have no option; with Mr. Knox responding that is correct. Commissioner Ellis inquired if F.A.C.T. could handle the inverse condemnation and County handle the civil rights or will they be tried together; with Mr. Knox responding he asked F.A.C.T. if he could do some representation in their behalf in the past; they do not want to send things back to the County because they are afraid the County has a conflict when it comes to settling cases because the County does not necessarily see it in terms of their economics when the County settles cases. He stated they look at it from the standpoint of what they will spend to defend it and if they have to spend more to defend it than it is worth, they will settle it within $100,000. Commissioner Cook inquired if there is interest on the Board of looking at up to $150,000 to acquire the property, or is there no chance; with Commissioner Ellis responding he does not think they would sell it for $150,000. Commissioner Cook stated that could be explored and referred to F.A.C.T. Commissioner Ellis stated if the Board wants to go that route, he does not mind trying to negotiate, then it is better to stay in-house. Commissioner Cook stated the Board could cap it at $150,000 and let the County Attorney go forward to see if he can settle for that; and if he cannot settle it, refer it to F.A.C.T.

Chairman Higgs called for the motion to refer the lawsuit to F.A.C.T. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Cook and O'Brien voted aye; and Commissioners Scarborough, Ellis and Higgs voted nay.

Chairman Higgs inquired if another motion is necessary or does the County Attorney assume he will defend it; with Mr. Knox responding he will make that assumption unless there is another motion forthcoming. He stated if the Board wants to authorize a proposed settlement, this would be a good time to do it because he could make that up front and cut the attorney's fees.

Commissioner Cook stated he is willing to go up to $150,000 to acquire the property and make it a passive park.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize up to $150,000 to acquire the Mathers Bridge Restaurant property.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what was the appraised value; with Commissioner Ellis responding around $250,000. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why is the Board only offering $150,000 when the property is appraised at a quarter of a million dollars; with Commissioner Ellis responding there is no use for the property. Commissioner Cook stated the idea is to tear down the building because it has a lot of problems and Code violations; and if the Board wants to go up, he will go to $175,000.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to amend the motion and authorize up to $175,000 to acquire the Mathers Bridge Restaurant property.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would prefer to get real numbers on the table rather than waste the County Attorney's time.

Chairman Higgs inquired if staff remembers the prices; with Assistant County Manager Joan Madden responding she does not remember, but could get that for the Board. Mr. Knox advised the appraisal was well over $500,000; and they were offering to settle at $275,000.

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

Mr. Knox stated he assumes the motion authorizes the offer to cover attorney's fees also; with Chairman Higgs responding that is correct.

CANCELLATION, RE: WATER WITHDRAWAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to cancel water withdrawal permit applications submitted by South Brevard Water Authority. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 94-26, REGULATING DEVELOPMENT IN WEST CANAVERAL GROVES

Commissioner Scarborough advised they discussed advertising broadly; Ms. Busacca is having a meeting with the community; and inquired if it will be advertised broad enough that it will encompass the community concepts; with Assistant Growth Management Director Peggy Busacca responding there are two ordinances that are going forward; what she is asking for today would allow a change in the date to bring the people in West Canaveral Groves into compliance; the other ordinance would change the Zoning Code that would create a zoning category; and that would be broadly advertised. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a lot of dynamics with this; and the Board wants to do the least amount it can, but yet it has to cover all the bases or end up with piecemeal problems. Ms. Busacca advised staff will make sure the ordinance is advertised in a way that would address the problems that are brought up at the public meeting next week.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 94-26, regulating development in West Canaveral Groves. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVER OF BREVARD COUNTY CODE, RE: 2ND ANNUAL HEMP AWARENESS FESTIVAL

Jason Campbell, 2006 Grant Place, Melbourne, advised he is once again requesting a permit for the 2nd Annual Hemp Awareness Festival; his attorney and Florida Cannabis Action Network has written a ten-page document; they are asking for a waiver of musical regulations for sound amplification equipment; and they have never asked for alcohol to be there, so that is not a problem. He stated rather than take up a lot of time and say things he said before, he would just request a decision from the Board on the permit.

Commissioner Ellis inquired about a letter from the Melbourne Police Department; with Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson responding he has a letter from the Melbourne Police Department and has confirmed that they would provide the service, Mr. Campbell will pay for the service, and they felt it was sufficient.

Chairman Higgs advised the other question was where will the revenues go; with Mr. Nelson responding the Board asked that Mr. Campbell develop a non-profit organization; he indicated he was developing a non-profit status; and that should clarify his non-profit status. He stated Mr. Campbell indicated to staff he received some paper work and is proceeding in that direction; he is consistent with a lot of other organizations they deal with from time to time in that regard; and he wants to make sure it is a clarification of his status as opposed to developing it.

Commissioner Cook stated the item says, "The Board of County Commissioners requested these items"; that is inaccurate because the Board took no action at the last meeting; so there was no actual request for those things. He stated there are different types of nonprofits; and inquired what type is this and is it a 501(c); with Mr. Campbell responding right now there is no nonprofit status; that takes approximately three years for the IRS to review; they are still in the formative process; and they have a d/b/a bank account, but there is nothing other than that. Chairman Higgs inquired if they are filing the papers for nonprofit status; with Mr. Campbell responding yes, they are filing with the State for nonprofit status; after three years, they will receive a 501c(3) nonprofit I.D. number; and they are filing for fictitious name status. He stated until then their financial consultant, Frank Brunn, Tax Consultant in Melbourne, told them to get a federal employee identification number; so that is what they are in the process of doing and filing the paper work for that.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the waiver is to allow music at the festival, and not to allow the festival itself; with Mr. Nelson responding that is correct; however, there are two issues; one is the use permit; and based on a failure to perform last year, staff has denied the use permit which is appealable to the Board of County Commissioners. He stated that related to security and discussions on what would be adequate security; and the question was asked of Melbourne Police Department which indicated four officers and a supervisor, as well as associated equipment. Mr. Nelson stated staff denied the permit, and the Board needs to respond to that; and the other issue is the waiver of the music amplification. Chairman Higgs inquired if staff needs two actions from the Board; with Mr. Nelson responding yes.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Melbourne Police Department's policy is to be paid up front before they perform a security service; with Mr. Nelson responding he does not know that for a fact, but can check on it. Mr. Campbell advised he received a phone call yesterday from Lieutenant Bob Bowen from Melbourne Police Department that said yes; he talked with Kathy Baker of the City Clerk's Office and asked her to confirm that; and it is definitely yes, they have to pay for it ahead of time. He stated last year it was paid two days before the festival occurred on November 18, and the festival took place on November 20; and he arranged it with Kathy Baker to have the same arrangement as far as payment of the fees to the City. Mr. Nelson stated they monitor to make sure that is in place the day of the activity, and have the ability to cancel accordingly.

Commissioner Scarborough requested a copy of the letter from Melbourne Police Department; with Mr. Nelson responding he will provide copies to the Commissioners.

Nelly Strickland, 536 Mendel Lane, Titusville, advised the former Commission made a bad decision last year when it gave a permit for the hemp festival; that is a marijuana festival; and she hopes the Board does not feel bound by the poor decisions of the past. She stated the silent majority is not in favor of that type of thing; and requested the Board not allow the marijuana festival to recur. She stated the drug is against the law; the Board is here to uphold the law; last year there were problems and the police were involved; and voting for it will set another precedent. Ms. Strickland urged the Board not to promote drug use; stated it makes no sense to spend money to place police officers in schools to prevent drug use and give permits to promote it; and requested the Board vote no on the hemp festival. She noted it would be nice if the vote was unanimous to show that the Board does not favor drug use.

Commissioner Cook advised the track record of last year disturbs him; and it seems like the Board is sending mixed messages to the children by asking them to say no to drugs, stay away from drugs, this is your brain on drugs, etc. then approving a hemp festival. He stated he understands Mr. Campbell has committed to work within legal parameters, and he appreciates that; he does not want to object to anyone's right to assemble which they still have; they can go to the public park and assemble; they can come to their government and ask that the laws be changed if they seek to do that; that is under their constitutional rights; but the Board does not have an obligation to allow them to have music or to collect money; and at this point he does not know where it will go. He stated they do not have a nonprofit status which concerns him; so he cannot vote in favor of the permit.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Mr. Nelson spoke of a letter from Melbourne Police Department, but he got a copy of an internal memorandum from Lt. Bowen to Chief Chandler; and inquired if the County received a letter; with Mr. Nelson responding no, but he called and confirmed they still found that to be acceptable. Commissioner Scarborough stated an internal memorandum is a report to one person about facts or information; a lot of it is just relaying what he has been told by somebody else, an analysis of shifts, and an analysis of cost; and that is not a commitment from one government agency to another. He stated he thought staff would get something a little more than that, because the memorandum does not bind Melbourne PD. Mr. Nelson stated staff called Melbourne PD to confirm that they would provide the service, but he does not have a letter in that regard.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if they will need a permit to assemble even without the music; with Commissioner Cook responding he does not think so because it is a public park and they can invite their friends out to Wickham Park any day of the week. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not think they can use the pavilion without a permit; with Commissioner Cook responding they can use it on a first come/first serve basis. Mr. Nelson advised the Ordinance says if they get together in a meeting setting, they are required to have a permit; if they start advertising and everyone shows up at Wickham Park, they are impacting all the other users of the park as well; therefore, they are required to obtain a permit. Commissioner Ellis inquired if they need a permit if they do not advertise; with Mr. Nelson responding it becomes more vague at that point; he is not an attorney, but the Ordinance states, "No person shall conduct or participate in any public meeting, assemblies, entertainment, tournament, religious gatherings, demonstrations, parades, processions, or meetings on any subject, religious, social, political, or otherwise in any park area, recreational area, unless a permit from the Division has been issued for such meeting, assemblies. . ." Commissioner Cook stated he questions the validity of that; and Commissioner Ellis stated he does also, because no matter what it is, they have to get a permit just to show up.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to deny the waiver of Brevard County Code, Article IV, Festivals, to allow musical entertainment at the 2nd Annual Hemp Awareness Festival at Wickham Park on November 11 and 12, 1995, and deny any and all permits.

Chairman Higgs stated she cannot support the motion although she agrees with the mixed messages the Board would be sending; however, even though she does not agree with the cause, there is a constitutional right to discuss those issues; so she will not support the motion.

Commissioner Ellis stated he does not think the Ordinance itself is lawful that people have to have a permit to assemble. He stated the last time they had a patronage rally, he was castigated for that. Chairman Higgs stated she supports the rights of either of those groups to assemble. Commissioner Cook stated freedom of speech is very important, and that is not his purpose in opposing this item. He stated he will have a separate motion on that.

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

Commissioner Cook stated he would like the Board to direct the County Attorney to look at that section of the Code regarding permits for assemblies because from a constitutional standpoint it would seem that people should have the right to go out there; and maybe it is something the Board should look at. County Attorney Scott Knox advised he will look at it. Commissioner Cook stated collecting money and having bands and all that is a separate issue. Commissioner Ellis stated the way the Ordinance is written, to go out there and meet on any issue requires a permit. Commissioner Cook inquired if the Board concurs with the County Attorney looking at the Ordinance; with Chairman Higgs responding that is fine.

Mr. Knox advised if the Board were to interpret that Section to allow gatherings that are informal, such as what it was discussing before, that probably goes a long way towards helping the application of the Ordinance in terms of its constitutionality. Commissioner Cook stated there are things the Board needs to look at; if there are 1,000 people out there, there should be some sort of parameters; and he wants to make sure the parameters in the Ordinance are the types that are constitutional and defensible.

The meeting recessed at 12:10 p.m. and reconvened at 1:16 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: RESPONSE TO MAYOR BROOM'S LETTER ON CONSTRUCTION OF MALABAR ROAD, PHASE 1

Chairman Higgs advised she drafted a letter to respond to Palm Bay; and if the Board has something to add that would be fine.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to authorize the Chairman to send a letter of response to Mayor Broom, City of Palm Bay, regarding construction of Malabar Road, Phase I.

Commissioner Ellis stated he did a letter to the newspaper which stated his position; the County cannot start construction until it has all the right-of-way; that was a hard lesson learned on North Courtenay Parkway; if the County tries to pull that same trick with MacAsphalt or Ranger or other major companies, it will face heavy penalties from the contractor; there is still one piece of property; it is going through the quick take procedure; and unless it is a governmental entity that deals in condemnations, it may not realize that quick take is not quick and it is in the courts. He recommended adding there is one remaining parcel and the condemnation procedure is underway. He stated everyone came in and negotiated except the one parcel, and the County is in court with the owner of that parcel.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the normal time for a quick take procedure; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding typically it will be a minimum of about 120 days, maybe six months; but the County may get this one faster because it is one owner and he talked to the attorney about stipulating to a taking and he tentatively indicated he may go along with that.

Commissioner Cook amended the motion to include that condemnation proceedings are underway on the one remaining parcel under the quick take procedure and even the quick take procedure could take approximately six months; and Commissioner Ellis accepted the amendment.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Mayor Broom wanted to address the Board; with Mayor Broom responding he did not know if the letter was going to be read publicly or not. Chairman Higgs advised the letter will be sent.

Micah Savell stated he wants to speak because he was at a Palm Bay City Council meeting last week, and listening to the people down there talking, they, like a number of other communities, seem to have taken on a feeling that it has become a we versus they mentality; and that the County is treating them like stepchildren. He stated he understands that there is only one piece of property that is holding up the program; sounds like things are going to move forward; and encouraged the Board have the County Attorney crack the whip and give those people relief because there are probably 50,000 people down there who are severely hampered with traffic congestion getting to and from their homes to work places and schools; and the amount of money that one piece of property will cost to resolve compared to the minimal difference that is going to be saved by letting this thing drag on, and possibly a higher cost as it has dragged on for a long time so far, he would like for the Board to move it to a high priority and give them some relief.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Ellis knows what higher priority means; with Commissioner Ellis responding no, he understands his comment that they may be developing a we versus they attitude because some of it showed up in a newspaper article when the Wickham Road contract was set back in August, 1992; and Commissioner Scarborough was the only Commissioner on the Board when that occurred. He stated since the Wickham Road Contract, there has been only one major road contract let by Brevard County in the last three years, and that is Minton Road in Palm Bay; so if there is an impression that the County has been taking all the road money and sending it to Melbourne, Merritt Island or Titusville, that is totally incorrect. He stated the County has not done any major road projects since Wickham Road except Minton Road.

Commissioner Cook advised Wickham Road will open to four lanes tomorrow morning, and there will be no opening ceremonies.

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

REPORT, RE: SEPTIC SYSTEMS TASK FORCE

Mary Tees, member of the Septic Systems Task Force, thanked the Board for its interest and staff for its extreme patience and understanding of their inexperience. She stated the members of the Task Force came with their own agendas and worked with a real spirit of cooperation to put a nice report together which they feel will benefit the County in the long run. She stated it is in a unique position, not only because it is a coastal county, but because it has two beautiful Rivers to worry about; and what the Task Force is looking for is no septic system failures at all. Harry Fuller, 424 Dorset Drive, Cocoa Beach, representing Space Coast Builders Association, advised when the Board puts a committee together and puts people who are involved in the industry who vote when the process generates increased costs for a system and increased profits, those votes should not be had. He recommended from now on, rather than leave the impression of possibly having a committee that may have a conflict of interest in its vote that involves some kind of industry, the Board should look at making those people technical advisors and letting them assist the committee that does not have any interest which way it goes other than what they think is the right way to go. Mr. Fuller stated the Task Force has a good bit of the industry on it; there were votes taken; he was not at any of the committee meetings, but has been asking questions about what went on; and he understands one of the votes on Priority 2 items was on tank sizing. He stated the sizing was a four to four vote; and when he asked who voted for what, he got the answer that the representatives of the industry voted for it and the non-industry people voted against it; so that leaves the impression that maybe there was something to be gained by the industry.

Chairman Higgs stated that is not exactly true. Mr. Fuller stated what he read in the paper work said it was a four to four vote. Chairman Higgs stated Mr. Baker voted in favor and Mr. Pence voted against the tank sizing. Mr. Fuller stated he does not have the records and asked which way they voted. Chairman Higgs stated she wants to make sure the record is clear. Mr. Fuller stated that was not in the record presented to the Board; all he saw was in the book for the public to look at; it was a four to four vote; and repeated previous statement about who voted for what.

Mr. Fuller advised there is a concern about tank filters; tank filters cost about $30 and are there to help save the drain field; and when he asked a member how much experience the County had with tank filters, there has been some, but nothing to go on as a track record. He stated maybe with filters they would have tanks pumped every year or two as opposed to 15 or 20 years if the tank is working right; so they need to look at a track record to see if it says there will not be impending problems. He stated they endorse record keeping; the $8,350 that was specified for a software program is well worth it; and the Board should support keeping records and accountability. He stated soil excavation inspection may not be worthwhile; he assumes it is going to be required for unacceptable soils and conditions like hard pan; but if they have good sandy percolating soil, they should not be required to have that inspection. He stated they dig a perc hole and make that determination, so it should not be required again. Mr. Fuller stated they have been complaining about the size of inspection fees for a long time; it is not compatible with what the Building Department charges for inspections; that inspection is a lot simpler than what a building inspector does when he goes to a home; so if there is going to be an inspection fee added, it should be like all other fees which is about $21 or $22. He stated well permitting program sounds like a good idea, but it may not work because it is too easy to pump down a well any time and anywhere without asking anyone to do anything; there is a certain amount of permitting required by the Water Management District; and there is some evidence that is being done without permits in some cases. He stated he would like it if it would work 100% because that is the only way they have of keeping up with the situation of knowing where the wells are so they do not put septic tanks close to them.

Roy Pence, 4533 Canard, Melbourne, advised he had the opportunity to serve on the Task Force and want to thank the staff for doing an outstanding job in helping a diverse group with differentinterests and backgrounds understand the issues and come to a consensus everyone feels comfortable about. He stated Brevard County has led the state in septic tank regulations for a long time; drain field sizing was well ahead of what the State required for many years; Brevard County has required baffled tanks for many years prior to the State requiring it; now the State requires that or filters; so the County has always been on the leading edge of requirements for utilization of septic tanks to protect the environment. He stated it will be less expensive and better for the homeowner to pump a septic tank more often than it would to replace the drain field which is extremely expensive; and the purpose of the filter is not to allow solids to get in the drain field thereby destroying it. Mr. Pence advised County staff provided a failure report; he wants to make sure there is no misconception that there was a high rate of failures in Brevard County; it is about .7% according to the failure report; and that indicates Brevard County is lower than a lot of other areas in the State. He stated as for the previous speaker's concern about a conflict of interest, he hopes the Board will continue to include affected parties in those types of task forces and study commissions; he would hope it includes builders when addressing building issues and impacting the building community; they are the experts and their voices should be heard and their votes taken; so he would encourage the Board to continue to do what it has done in the past and include affected parties in those different types of task forces.

Ed Fleis, 1090 A1A, Suite 2200, Satellite Beach, advised the County has a qualified staff that provided the Task Force with a great deal of information and was very helpful throughout the process; the Task Force represented diverse interests; who were particularly involved in septic tank construction provided valuable input; and he never saw the interest in trying to increase costs of septic systems and installation. He stated it was much more what can be done to make septic tank systems more effective; and particularly with the failures that are occurring in drain fields, not septic tanks. Mr. Fleis advised they did reach a consensus on most of the recommendations; the one item that had a four to four vote on, and he was in the group against the larger septic tank size, was the possibility of going overboard; there are certain standards set by 10.D.6. that are very conservative; and Brevard County has also been very conservative in the items it required to upgrade septic tank systems. He stated the Task Force had mixed opinions as to whether or not that is something to require in the future; they could not reach a consensus on that issue; but their objective was what things can be done that will reduce septic tank failures in the future at a minimum cost; and they have provided positive recommendations for the Board to consider.

Commissioner Ellis advised the Board received 11 recommendations; he supports all except #5, well permitting and #10, tank sizing; and Mr. Fuller's comments should be well taken on #4 that after the perc hole is done, the sanitarian should be able to determine whether or not the soils inspection would be necessary. He stated he agrees that sandy areas are determined when they do perc tests; and there is no point to have them come back and do a soils test. He stated the fee should be $20 instead of $50. He noted he will support all the recommendations except 5 and 10 and with modifications to 4.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Fuller made a statement about the various soils; the report says the majority of soils in Brevard County are considered unsuitable for septic systems and must be replaced due to sporadic horizon commonly referred to as hard pan, or because of the clay layers;so it is the opposite of what he said. He stated what bothers him about this is, if he heard the comments correctly from the Task Force, the use of tank filters would encourage the use of soils that are still not quite adequate or correct for septic systems; and that leaves Pandora's box wide open for a contractor to cheat by using sub-grade soils for sand as its fill and the filters will keep the system going but eventually will fail because it was incorrect in the first place. Commissioner Ellis advised the State has soils requirements for what can be put in; and #11 is to re-evaluate the soils requirements. He stated the soils may have met State standards, but still not work out well for the septic system; and #11 is to review the State standards and see if the State specifies soils that may work in Leon County but not in Brevard County.

Commissioner Cook stated he questions the statement that most soils are unsuitable for septic systems in Brevard County; that does not comply with the soil survey; and inquired what it was based on; with Greg Wright responding the soil survey published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service indicates that the vast majority of soils in Brevard County are considered severely limiting for septic systems. Commissioner Cook inquired if most of Brevard County is hard pan or clay layers; with Mr. Wright responding it says severely limiting due to hard pan, clay, muck, high water tables, and various different things. Commissioner Cook requested a copy of the survey. He stated he does not have a problem if the Board wants to move forward with the exceptions; he does not agree with #10 and agrees with modifying #4; and he does not want the charge to homeowners to escalate beyond a point that is reasonable.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there was a four to four vote on #10; and it says, "This will allow for increased wastewater holding times and therefore improve effluent quality reaching the drainfield." He stated the Board should look at consumer protection and make sure that anybody who buys a home has a septic tank that is more than appropriate for the needs. He noted some of the tanks are still in use and overflowing because they are full of rain water; but the holding time was not sufficient enough either. Commissioner Cook stated his problem is that it is another $100 added to the cost. Commissioner O'Brien stated that is his problem also, but at some point the Board has to look at quality for someone who is buying a system versus the low cost. Commissioner Ellis advised a family of six would need a larger tank, but not a family of one; so there are a number of other issues, besides the tank size, such as number of flushes, etc.

Mary Tees advised a family of four can live in a house and never have a problem for two years; and the next family of four that flushes the toilet every three minutes could suddenly have septic system failure; and it depends upon water use. She stated all the members of the Task Force did not get what they wanted; they wanted meters to figure out how much water went in from the well; there were other things they did not get because of cost or the permitting process being too difficult; and the larger the tank the more time the solids have to settle out and not hit the drain field, filter or no filter. She stated they also discussed staggering tanks, putting more than one tank in; that consideration was thrown out simply by cost; and the septic industry would have like to have seen it, but the Task Force could not afford to do that. Ms. Tees advised as far as hard pan goes, they can put a septic system in and drain field with 24 or 36 inches of sand, whatever the Code calls for; if they have a hard pan, it does not mean anything; the water is going to destroy it; and if they dig six feet or 20 feet and take everything out at the time of land clearing and use those soils to fill the land for the house, then put in good sand where the septic system is going in, they would have a better system in the long run. She stated that is what they talked about, not the type of sand, but digging the hole big enough so that they are sure to get pass the hard pan and do not have failures.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the perc test determines where the hard pan is and how deep they have to go; with Mr. Wright responding that does not verify that it is dug out, and that is what the inspection is for. Commissioner Ellis stated in an aquifer recharge area they would not hit hard pan; with Ms. Tees responding it would not be required then, only on land they think is necessary.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the inspection will only take place on sites where it is determined necessary; with Mr. Wright responding that is correct. He stated the estimated additional cost is $50 per system requiring excavation inspection and would not apply to every system. Commissioner Cook inquired if it will require additional personnel; with Mr. Wright responding with building slowing down, they have adequate staff to do it.

Chairman Higgs inquired if staff expects it to cost $50; with Mr. Wright responding the past two Environmental Health Directors did cost analyses and estimated the cost for one site inspection at approximately $50. He stated they talked to the Building Division which indicated it is losing money every time someone goes back for a re-inspection because they only get fees in the low $20's.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to delete #5 from the Septic Systems Task Force recommendations. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to delete #10 from the Septic Systems Task Force recommendations.

Commissioner Cook stated adding $100 to the permit cost to the homeowner is a lot of money to add in one fell swoop; and if it is sized correctly in the beginning, there should not be a problem. Chairman Higgs stated it is not one fell swoop; most of the homes are financed over a number of years; and she cannot support the motion. Commissioner Cook stated they would be paying thousands of dollars instead of just one hundred dollars; with Chairman Higgs responding no they are not. She stated adding interest to the $100 over a period of 30 years or the life of the mortgage is about $3.33 a year; so it is not an exorbitant cost, but to replace the drain field will cost more. Commissioner Cook inquired what would it cost to finance $100 for 30 years; with Chairman Higgs responding about $300.

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

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to modify #4 to provide that inspections will only be done on an as-needed basis and the fee be $20.00.

Chairman Higgs advised #4 says only as needed. Mr. Wright advised it will not be required in all cases, and that was the understanding of the Task Force. Commissioner Ellis stated the item is not clear that it will not be required everywhere. Chairman Higgs stated she is not sure $20 will cover the cost. Commissioner Cook inquired what should it be; with Chairman Higgs responding $30. Commissioner Ellis recommended $25, and Commissioner Scarborough recommended $22.50. Mr. Wright stated the cost from the analysis estimated $50 to send an inspector out in a County vehicle, travel time, time on site, benefits, administration, overhead, etc.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion and $20 fee. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Cook and Ellis voted aye; and Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, and Higgs voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to establish the inspection fee at $30.00. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve the recommendations of the Septic Systems Task Force as amended, deleting 5, amending 4, and accepting 10. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis inquired when will it go into effect; with Mr. Wright responding they have to modify the Ordinance and go through the public hearing, so he does not know the time frame. Chairman Higgs instructed staff to outline the activities for the Task Force so they know what is happening to their recommendations, including times, dates, etc.

Commissioner O'Brien recommended letters be sent to the members of the Task Force thanking them for their efforts; with Chairman Higgs responding the Board can do that.

DISCUSSION, RE: SCRUB CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

Micah Savell, 1370 Sarno Road, Melbourne, advised he is a member of Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights, but is speaking for himself; and he is surprised that the recommendations came back so soon, because he thought staff was going to finish revisions to the Plan and property owners were going to be notified and given an opportunity to discuss the plan's merits and pitfalls before it was implemented, and public hearings would be held. He stated since he does not own scrub habitat, he can understand why he was not notified, but he would like to have a copy of the revisions to study; he heard the Steering Committee reconsidered the funding and spreading the cost across a broad base of the public; if the plan is for the public good, then the public at large should pay for it; and if that is the avenue the Committee is going, he is grateful and thinks it is appropriate. He stated since they do not have the revised up-to-date plan today, it would be inappropriate for the Board to move forward until that has been completed and distributed so they can understand what implementation really means. Mr. Savell stated he understands the core area is 8,023 acres, and there are alternate areas for a total of 13,714 acres of scrub habitat; some areas have birds and some do not; and inquired how the new funding source will work and what will be the effect on the property owners, when and if the plan is implemented, and the lines are drawn around the core and alternate areas. He stated he heard there has been a change between the core and alternate areas and there are phases I, II and III; he needs those items to adequately respond or look at with some degree of objectivity; and inquired if anyone measured the impact that it is going to have on property owners affected if the plan is adopted. He inquired if the citizens are entitled to at least as much consideration as has been given to the birds. He stated at least $300,000 has been spent on them so far, and the public is entitled to a similar amount; originally they were told there would be 5,100 parcels affected, then 6,800, then 26,338, and now it has been revised to 8,600; they do not know unequivocally; and what they and the Board are being told is what the Committee thinks will sell. Mr. Savell advised originally they were told the plan would exclude property under two acres in size; some of that information was mis-information used to lull people into thinking they were not affected; they feel there has been a tremendous amount of deception involved; and an extraordinary effort has gone into avoiding the property owners who are going to be affected by the plan. He inquired why those people are denied the right to be heard; and stated it is because there are no adequate answers to provide them that exhibit common sense. He requested the Board give those directly affected an opportunity to be heard and voice their opinions at the ballot, and give them enough information to make a quality decision. He stated they should be informed of all the merits and benefits or lack of as far as the plan is concerned. Mr. Savell stated Chairman Higgs has given a tremendous amount of her time and energy in pursuit of the adoption of the SCDP; her footprints are all over the plan; and they have witnessed the forceful and passionate way she has pleaded and explained the benefits, acted as interpreter for other Commissioners, and re-explained all the people's comments and what they meant, as if some of them needed a little help understanding the language or possibly had a deficiency. He stated he is not being critical of Chairman Higgs and wishes everyone was as decisive and forceful and fought for their projects like she does; and looking at EELS, CARL, and Beach and Riverfront Acquisition Programs and the purchases made in the County that happened in District 3 compared with the rest of the County, they will see that she has been tenacious for those things she believes in for the people in her District; and she lets the chips fall where they may come hell or high water. He stated because of her long and strong involvement with the Steering Committee and her position as Chairman of the Board, he wonders if there is a conflict on her part in dealing with this issue; the information that has come down has a lot of fact and fiction; she has a great deal of zeal; and her emotional involvement with the project may limit some of her objectivity and poses a potential for real conflict. He requested Chairman Higgs and the Commissioners consider that as they move forward on this issue.

Commissioner Ellis advised he agrees there has been a lot of conflict, especially fact versus fiction; however, for someone who has been very strong for property rights, he does not find that fiction coming from Chairman Higgs' work on the Committee. He stated that is not to say he does not think there are other people on the Committee who put out some information which is absolutely false and knew it to be false; but that has not come from Chairman Higgs. He stated one of the Commissioners should be on the Committee; no matter which one of them would be, there is going to be some kind of a conflict with something that happens; and the important thing to keep in mind, even though Chairman Higgs serves on the Committee, is that the Committee serves as an advisory group to the Board and final decision will be made at the Board level. He stated even if he was sitting on the Committee and thought everything on there was wrong, the final decision still would rest with the Board; people tend to confuse advisory committees with committees that actually make final decisions; there is a big difference between an advisory committee and this Board or the MPO that actually make final decisions; and those two need to be kept separate.

Commissioner Cook stated he concurs with Commissioner Ellis; they all sit on different committees; Commissioner Ellis is on the TDC and Commissioner O'Brien is on the EDC, and he is on the Water Board; and from time to time issues come back to the Board for final decisions; so it is not unusual to have a Commissioner on a Committee who fights for the recommendations that come back to the Board. He stated that does not mean it will necessarily pass; there has been some mis-information; Ms. Zarillo's comments in the newspaper were reckless and irresponsible, but that did not come from Chairman Higgs; so those two issues need to be kept separate.

Commissioner Scarborough concurred and stated they are trying to put a Commissioner on the Executive Board of EDC, but that does not mean the Board will agree with that Commissioner when recommendations come to the Board. He stated Commissioner Ellis was put on the Finance Committee, and the Board knew he was going to give them a lot of trouble and he has; sometimes they put people on committees because they have strong feelings about the issues; then when it comes to the Board, the chips can fall where they may, and that is okay.

Bart Reiter, 4800 Ocean Beach Boulevard, Cocoa Beach, advised two words that seem to be alluding people in the ever-changing 1990's are "common sense"; in relation to the scrub jay issue, he feels if they are going to be hit with a fee, which is bad enough, they should be notified; and he stands by his conviction that the people who are affected need to be notified. He stated there has been a play on numbers; originally the plan was supposed to be like a levy, but a lot of people realized when the School Board bond referendum was defeated that maybe they could not get the 100 or 200 million dollars for the birds; and now there is talk about using state programs such as CARL and EEL funds, but they all come from the taxpayers one way or another. Mr. Reiter stated it is an important issue, but the well being of everyone in the community is more important; if everyone was fed and had good schools and adequate housing, then he would say go ahead and do what can be done for nature; but right now spending $300,000 for new habitat for a pair of birds is like building prisons to lock up criminals instead of educating people. He stated the $300,000 could send ten needy children through four years of college; the Board needs to go back to simpler ideas and times; and if it wants to do something about the scrub jays, it should do it like they do at churches, and have the members and friends of the scrub give 10% of their total income to buy the land that is needed. Mr. Reiter stated if the Board deals with common sense and not the passionate ideas of what they believe in and not the radical views, maybe it can come to an agreement. He stated he has not been here in a while; the last time he was at a meeting a lot of people screamed at him as he was leaving; he is an ordinary average guy; and if they do not agree with him that is fine, but they should not make him nervous by following him to his car and saying he is wrong and does not stand for the population. He indicated the Board should remember the Boston Tea Party.

Deanna Reiter, Martesia Way, Indian Harbour Beach, advised one of her problems is notification; she hopes the people who have scrub land will be notified; and with Brevard County having 37% of its land base as tax exempt, the County does not need to take more private property and add it to that incredible high percentage of tax exempt land. She stated the Board needs to make sure the 26,000 landowners are notified; the planners and Commissioners stated publicly they are going to notify them; and requested the Board stand by that commitment and let those people know. She stated the notification should include all sides of the debate and not just that the program is voluntary, and should include as much information as possible. Ms. Reiter advised the Endangered Species Act is being revisited in Washington right now; they are working on emphasizing cost benefit analysis utilizing sound scientific data and staying away from emotionalism; and she hopes the Board can do that also. She stated she loves Commissioner O'Brien's idea to save money by catching the scrub jays and moving them to Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge; maybe that cannot be done; and if there is merit in it, a lot of money can be saved.

Commissioner Cook noted one of his constituents recommended bird feeders in everyone's back yard, but that may not be practical either.

Harry Fuller, 4254 Dorset Drive, Cocoa, representing Space Coast Builders Association, stated he is unclear about the plan; mitigation is extortion; and the definition of extortion does not change because of something the public wants. He stated what is being proposed by the Committee is to let P-2000 and CARL funds replace all the funding that was going to be given up by people who use and own scrub property. He stated the Board needs to decide whether to keep pushing the plan or wait to see what happens in Washington; Fish and Wildlife Service may not have authority to even require this; the bird is not endangered, it is threatened; so the Board may want to wait to see if the plan needs to be there at all. He stated if the County says it loves the birds and no matter what Washington does it wants to save the birds, then it has another problem; and that problem is how to pay for it. Mr. Fuller advised some Commissioners today sit on the Board because there was a real hubbub about the Government Center; even though he did not see any dollars come out of his pocket, it was a big question about should the people have voted on it; it was originally $18 million and finally went to $28 million after paying all the interest; and now the Board is talking about $90 million still not coming out of anybody's pocket. He inquired if there is a precedent that says it does not matter whether it comes out of anyone's pocket or not; and if the County is going to spend that kind of money, should the people vote on it. He stated it sounded like everybody insisted on voting for the Government Center; if the County is going to spend $90 million, it should consider allowing people to vote on that because they do not know if it is worthwhile; and maybe the Board needs to find out if people really want it. Mr. Fuller advised before it is over, they may not see re-authorization of the Endangered Species Act, or if it is re-authorized, it could be something in a very subdued form; he read the Republican Party position on it and agrees with it totally; so if they are in power and are going to follow their policy position, the Board may not have a problem here at all. He recommended before getting wrapped up in a lot of money and concern, the Board wait to see what happens in Washington; and it should also consider the fact that $90 million is a lot of money and there are a lot of other priorities besides birds, such as beds for prisoners, children to be fed, etc. He stated they received one letter from Fish and Wildlife Service saying yes, it is exempt and another letter from a different division that handles the legal aspects saying no that is not really right; so the Board may have to go to Atlanta to get a decision, but it should not trust decisions no matter where they come from even if it is received. He recommended the Board find out where it is going with the plan, and if it really needs the plan.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Endangered Species Act does not go away, where would they go from there; and stated that is his concern with waiting on Washington to act.

Dick Thompson, 630 Heron Drive, Merritt Island, advised he has been working in the County for betterment of government for 30 to 40 years and is still at it; he is concerned about the scrub jay plan; Fish and Wildlife Service came at them with a letter written by a bureaucrat; and to his knowledge, the Board has never challenged that letter to prove it was wrong. He stated it would be mal- or mis-feasance if the Board does not challenge that letter on behalf of Brevard County citizens; and it is not too late to do so. Mr. Thompson stated the legal cost compared to $90 million, not counting the $1.8 million in tax revenue that will be reduced from the County and School Board budgets when the properties are taken off the tax rolls, is a small portion; and to challenge the letter seems to be the Board's responsibility.

Commissioner Ellis advised Mr. Thompson talked about challenging the letter, but there has been more to it than the letter; Fish and Wildlife is active in the County; and a number of property owners had to come in with habitat conservation plans. He stated Wal-Mart was one of the larger ones; and inquired under what grounds does he recommend challenging the letter when they are already taking action in the County. Mr. Thompson stated the letter ought to be challenged because along with it they are taking the property rights away in Brevard County, be it Wal-Mart or him and his properties. He stated the bird is not endangered, only threatened, and should not cost that type of money or cause that kind of concern. Commissioner Ellis advised it is being done with gopher turtles by the State Department of Environmental Protection, and it is not a threatened species; they are species of special concern and have not even made the threatened list; but the State is already acting on gopher turtles. He stated he could understand it if the State Legislature challenged it on the Tenth Amendment grounds or in Washington; but he does not see what kind of legal challenge Brevard County would make. Mr. Thompson stated he talked to several lawyers about it; they have not studied the law all the way back like they would have to do in order to mount a challenge; but it is their opinion that there is no reason why the County cannot at least get it brought to the appellate level or the supreme court level at a time when it is being debated in Congress and when it may not even have such a law to worry about in the future. He stated it could affect the outcome of that type of activity if it is challenged, not just by Brevard County but across the country; and here is a good place to start. Margaret Hames, 667 Acacia Avenue, Melbourne Village, requested the Board approve the three recommendations made by the Steering Committee at its meeting last week; the Committee, after two years of work, have presented a draft form of the plan to the Board that would satisfy the conflict between development and environmental protection; and there was a great amount of discussion about it. She stated the people who spoke against that are speaking against a second alternative plan that has been offered by the Steering Committee; she does not know if they are just saying no to everything or if they are seeking a solution to a problem that exists because Fish and Wildlife Service did direct the County and cities that they would be liable if they issue permits; so the Steering Committee worked a long time to come up with a plan, and now the Board is taking a recommendation from an individual to notify in great excess the number of affected property owners. She stated the Committee recommended the Board reconsider that notification because it would be spending tax money to notify people who are not affected; there has been an analysis of the unmapped scrub in the County that is smaller than two acres, and it has been determined that there are about 400 acres of scrub that have not been mapped; and if those 400 acres are divided into one-quarter acre lots, then the Board has only 1,600 people in excess of the 8,000 that was supposed to be notified in the first place. She stated there should be funds from the federal government in the Steering Committee's budget to take care of that; and inquired why did the Board accept the recommendation of someone who had not participated in the process all those years to notify unnecessarily people who are not affected. She stated that is a waste of taxpayers money; the Ad Hoc Committee and Steering Committee have always taken the position that all affected property owners would be notified; and requested the Board reconsider that. Ms. Hames recommended the Board consider the plan and the three phases that have been proposed; it was carefully worked out; she is sorry some people do not seem to understand it; but there are a lot of things she does not understand like the 26,000 notifications; however, the plan does relieve local monies from being spent. She stated previous speakers said that is great they are going to get it for nothing; that is fine if that is the way they want it; but this provides a way of solving some of the problems; and inquired if the Board does not go with either one of those plans, what is it going to do. She stated the problem is still there with Fish and Wildlife Service; the law may or may not go away, depending on what Congress does; it has yet to be seen what they will do; so the Board will just sit here and assume that liability until something happens. She stated this plan was an effort to reach a solution to the problem by consensus; it is very discouraging for those who worked for solutions to problems to be knocked down all the time as radicals and environmental extremists; and she resents that. She requested the Board reword any notification it sends to affected property owners because it should be a balanced notification; and it should reflect just what is being proposed for adoption and should be factual. She requested the Board accept the recommendations of the Steering Committee which represent all the interest in the County, not just special interests.

Commissioner Ellis recommended staff review how the 26,000 names were generated on the computer printout for Mr. Savell. Commissioner Cook advised Ms. Hames it was a unanimous decision by the Board to contact all 26,000 property owners. Chairman Higgs stated she voted for it, but would like for the Board to look at that again. Commissioner Ellis stated it is important to go over why it generated 26,000 names, because Mr. Savell did not go to the Property Appraiser and ask for the 26,000 names at random.

Chairman Higgs advised the 26,000 names came from a map that includes every parcel in the polygons and all the area around it touched by scrub jays as they fly by; the land may be occupied by a Wal-Mart, parking lot, etc.; and the areas colored are scrub parcels. Commissioner Ellis inquired if they are over two acres; with Chairman Higgs responding yes, and if the Board takes the 8,600 unmapped scrub parcels that are in the reserve and not mapped areas, and multiplied that by four, it may add as many as 2,000 parcels; so if they go to 10,000 that will take in all the scrub and all the parcels that are directly affected in the reserve and all other scrub that is not already mapped. She stated the 400 to 500 unmapped scrub parcels include Palm Bay, Canaveral Groves, and Port St. John; and they do not have that in the data base, but it is a finite number of people; and the 26,000 came by taking everything in the occupancy polygon outlined on the map.

Commissioner Ellis stated there are more than 1,500 lots for 53 birds in southeast Palm Bay according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and that has been a bone of contention for two years. He stated Fish and Wildlife Service still says even if they are on a quarter-acre parcel, they are not exempt; and they will not come to the table and release those parcels. Chairman Higgs stated they are not being permitted today; with Commissioner Ellis responding only because U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said it does not want to look at parcels under an acre and does not have enough time; but it has never told those people they are exempt from the regulations.

Environmental Specialist Tami Townsend inquired if the notification will be done under the Endangered Species Act or the Scrub Conservation Development Plan; with Chairman Higgs responding the Board is talking about parcels and not notifications right now; and inquired if they take the 8,600 people, Palm Bay, Port St. John, and Canaveral Groves landowners and notify all those people, who would they miss; with Ms. Townsend responding there are some properties on the South Beaches and North Mims which they can pick up through aerial survey REDI Books.

Commissioner Ellis stated if there are 53 families in the southeast part of Palm Bay, and it takes 25 acres for a family of scrub jay, that alone is over 1,000 acres, so there are more than 400 acres. Ms. Townsend stated they did a preliminary survey and Brian Toland who is a member of the Scientific Advisory Group, looked at the Palm Bay area; she has his hand-written notes; he took the soil maps and the REDI Books and came up with a certain amount of acreage that would be regulated under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that were less than two acres and had scrub habitat; but she does not know if it was exactly 400 acres. Commissioner Ellis stated if there are 53 families he would expect to see about 1,000 acres which is far in excess of 400 acres Countywide; the County would not have to notify everyone under an acre if U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would send a letter saying they are not affected; but the Service adamantly refuses to send that letter to the County. He stated the County requested several times, but the Service has not shown any rationale. Chairman Higgs stated even if those people who have less than two acres are notified, it would still not be at 26,000.

Stephen Tatoul advised in the City of Palm Bay in the area of occupancy, there are 53 families; that does not mean there are 1,000 acres of scrub; when Ms. Townsend and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service member did the aerial photo survey of Palm Bay, they only turned up about 300 acres of what would be classified as scrub subject to regulation; and the scrub jays do not have 25 acres per family. Commissioner Cook stated they are living in people's backyards; with Mr. Tatoul responding that is correct and they are not affected by the regulation according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Tatoul advised U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is only able to release those folks with permits; it has said in two separate communications that it would release them with signed permits; but it cannot simply release them. He stated not every acre of land in the scrub jay occupancy polygons is scrub; in fact very little of it is because it is so highly fragmented and includes parking lots, gas stations, wetlands, pine flatwoods, and those things that are not affected by the regulation; and the total, according to staff's report, is between 400 and 500 acres in those three areas--Palm Bay, Canaveral Groves, and Port St. John. Commissioner Ellis inquired how can 300 acres of scrub support 53 families; with Mr. Tatoul responding it is not supporting them, they are going right down the tubes; and that is what is happening.

Commissioner Cook advised that is the largest concentration of scrub jays on the map in the south end of the County, and it is in the most fragmented part of the County but they are surviving; with Mr. Tatoul responding no, they are not; the scrub jays that are displaced from other areas will go in the suburban areas because it is the only place they can find openings; it is called an ecological sink; more scrub jays come in and they go right down the tubes; and all the studies of abandoned scrub jays in suburban areas have shown that they disappear within a couple of years. Commissioner O'Brien suggested capturing the scrub jays and bringing them to the Refuge.

Chairman Higgs suggested the Board come up with a number that is based on fact. Mr. Tatoul advised there are about 300 acres of scrub. Commissioner Ellis stated there is no scrub on the map on Valkaria Road, between I-95 and the Airport. Mr. Tatoul advised parcels of two acres or less total 300 to 350 acres, and another 100 to 150 acres are in Canaveral Groves/Port St. John area.

Commissioner Ellis stated when the scrub jay ordinance came up, everybody who was going to be affected was in a polygon; when the ordinance came up about a year ago, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended everyone in the polygon be affected by the ordinance; and he does not understand why everybody complains about notifying 26,000 people because they will help to get the plan passed. He stated a person with 1/4 acre in Palm Bay would want the plan to pass to make sure he is not affected; he gets upset when someone talks about malfeasance; if they own scrub they are affected by the plan even if they own 1/4 acre; and to say they are not affected is not correct.

Micah Savell stated Mr. Tatoul said they had two letters from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service saying under one acre was going to be exempt and would not be bothered provided the plan is adopted. Mr. Tatoul stated whatever the plan asks for, if it were permitted, that would be the case; and what the plan is asking for is anything two acres and under be exempt from everything. Mr. Savell inquired if any Commissioner saws anything from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that stated that; with Commissioner Ellis responding they know what is in the plan; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not said it is exempting anything right now with no plan; but his point is, if they are under two acres and are exempt under the plan, they are still affected by the plan and should be notified.

Mr. Tatoul stated the big question is how many of the 18,000 property owners above the 8,000 actually have scrub; with Commissioner Ellis responding that is not the way it has been portrayed in the media; it came from one person on the SCDP Committee going to the media saying that none of those people are affected by the plan; and that is not true. Chairman Higgs requested the Board get to the facts of the issue and forget the 26,000 and anybody's numbers and get to who it has to notify and who will be affected and have scrub property. She stated they do not want to be complete fools by notifying Wal-Mart and other people who have parking lots; so if they took the people in the reserve and the other scrub they know exists, by mapping capabilities they can identify those scrub parcels which they believe are 400 to 500 acres, then they would be notifying those people affected by the plan. Commissioner Cook inquired how was Mr. Savell given 26,000 names when he asked for scrub owners; with Ms. Townsend responding in January, 1995, they were discussing a scrub ordinance and notifying people of the Endangered Species Act; and they generated a mailing list at that time with the best available data they had to notify people.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board wants to notify the same people; with Ms. Townsend responding that is the question; if the Board wants to notify people of the Endangered Species Act, the 26,000 names is the data staff has available; however, the Board may need to put disclaimers in the notice because it could be notifying people who have developed property and wetlands that are not affected. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it would be proper to send notices to undeveloped parcel owners of the 26,000; with Ms. Townsend responding that may be what the Board wants to do if it notifies people of the Endangered Species Act; and if it is going to notify people of the scrub conservation development plan, then it may want to notify the 8,600 owners. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand how the two can be separated, because if the SCDP is passed, it has ramifications on everyone who is affected by the Endangered Species Act. Chairman Higgs advised they want to notify those people who own scrub and are going to be affected by the plan or lack of a plan. Commissioner Ellis stated the 26,000 names generated will be affected by the Endangered Species Act. Chairman Higgs stated the plan and money is to notify people of the habitat conservation plan or pending plan; they want to notify people with scrub and those in the reserve areas; and they want to notify people outside the reserve designs who have scrub because that is who are potentially affected by the Endangered Species Act. She stated they know there are 8,600 owners in the scrub design and there are about 500 acres outside of the design, and those are the people they want to notify.

Micah Savell requested to interrupt discussion and stated obtaining those names came at the first public hearing in Melbourne; he requested a list of those people who were going to be affected; at that meeting it was stated and published that there were approximately 5,100 people to be notified; and he asked for the list because he was going to take it upon himself to notify those 5,100 people since the County had not seen fit to do so in the last two years. He stated he did not order the list or the criteria of the list; he said he would pay for it when it was received; he called Ms. Townsend and she made arrangements for him to get that list; and spending $4,000 to notify all those people is not a big issue since millions of dollars are involved. He stated there must be something beyond the surface of why the people are being denied the opportunity of being notified; he did not do the list, the County did; and everybody on that list should be notified.

Commissioner O'Brien stated no matter what property it is, if it has potential of being affected, the property owner should be notified; they could be sent a post card to call a number and given instructions to dial 1 if the land is undeveloped and dial 2 if it is developed; and they would receive the appropriate information. Commissioner Ellis stated if a gas station is on a ten-acre parcel and the back eight acres have not been developed, it could make a difference; with Commissioner O'Brien responding the message can refer to those situations.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not understand the fear of notifying everybody; it is a 90 million dollar project; and inquired what is the fear of letting as many people know as possible that the Board is considering this. He stated a disclaimer may have to be put in the notice if the property is developed, but he does not understand how it could be a problem notifying people, and would rather notify more people than have a property owner come in and say he was not notified.

Chairman Higgs stated she does not have a problem notifying everybody; she voted on the 26,000 names and has no problem notifying those who are going to be affected; but she has a problem notifying people who are not going to be affected, people who have developed their properties or have land that is totally irrelevant to the issue. She inquired how can they get at the right number. Commissioner Ellis inquired what will it cost to get to that number; with Chairman Higgs responding she does not think it will cost that much because they can take the number they already know are in the reserve design and add 500 unmapped scrub. She inquired how long will it take to get that number; with Ms. Townsend responding she does not know how long it will take for staff to take the biological information to the GIS and overlay it to get the property information, but she is sure it can be done. She stated by getting the scrub in Port St. John, Palm Bay and the South Beaches, they would get 99% of all the scrub throughout the County; they can do that through aerial survey interpretations and not have to go out and ground truth; and that should take about a week or two. Chairman Higgs inquired if it would take a month or two to get an accurate list of all the people who are potentially affected, including those with two acres. Commissioner Ellis stated that would have been a great idea six months ago, but there are public hearings on his calendar for November. Chairman Higgs stated November was for informational meetings. Commissioner Ellis stated those are dates to put on the card; with Chairman Higgs responding the card has not been mailed yet. She requested the Board do it right and tell all those people potentially affected by the HCP or Endangered Species Act in relation to scrub. Commissioner Cook stated there was no problem until the Board decided to notify all 26,000 people; he has not seen a governmental body get in trouble for notifying too many people; but he has seen them get in trouble by people saying they did not know government did that to them. Chairman Higgs stated half of the 26,000 people will be unnecessarily notified and will come upon the Board and say why were they notified when clearly they were not affected. She stated it is one issue that needs to be resolved today.

Lori Wille, Riverside Drive, Melbourne Beach, stated the people should be notified as soon as possible; there are meetings scheduled for public input; and those people have not had ample timeto know what the letter means that they will be getting. She stated they need to research it and find out what the SCDP is all about and what the HCP is going to ultimately contain. She stated she has not seen any amendments and does not know what was changed other than what was issued on the 200-page original plan. She inquired if the Steering Committee believes it has a balanced fair consensus for a long-term solution why are they already making changes to the long-term solution and how often will the changes be necessary, and if the Board believes the plan is good for all the people affected. She stated there are many conflicts of interest within the Committee so she cannot see how they can use the word "fair" unless they mean what is fair for their personal interests. Ms. Wille stated the two developers that were working for the property owners had personal problems with scrub habitat; they cannot get a fair agreement with them because they are more or less looking out for themselves; they found a solution for their problems; and she does not see how that is fair for all of them. She stated they have the environmentalists on the other side who just want to take, take, take; and there was not one person on the Committee who looked out for the citizens, property owners, and taxpayers. She stated there was a letter that was sent to the Commissioners from an unidentified retiree living in Titusville; and she read it and wished the Commissioners could all see as clearly as he does. She inquired if all the Commissioners believe the information they have given people on the bird needing protection. She stated she does not believe the majority of what she has heard because none of it has been accurate; there have always been other numbers to factor in; and it takes $90 million and give it to a program that is not justified by the numbers. She stated they were told the manatee cannot live in cold waters and needs protection; she does not know how much money was spent to bring one manatee home from Maryland that had found its way northward into colder waters; and they tagged it, but this year they traced it to Rhode Island. She inquired where do the facts really come from on the scrub, has anyone spent time with the bird to learn its characteristics, and will society crumble if the bird relocates itself as it has on its own for years.

Dolores Kane, 5425 S. Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, inquired if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has any jurisdiction over that land and what happens when the County says it is scrub land; with Commissioner Ellis responding if the property owner clears the land he will be fined. Chairman Higgs stated they will enter into an agreement with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in terms of how that land will be managed, and as long as they comply with the permit, they would have no interference from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ms. Kane inquired if they can change their minds on the management; with Chairman Higgs responding no. Ms. Kane stated she cannot understand why they would charge between $5,000 to $20,000 an acre when the land may be worth $10,000 an acre, and it seems exorbitant for them to charge that kind of money for an environmental permit. Chairman Higgs stated Ms. Kane may be referring to the cost paid by people to get their mitigation arranged; and it depends on the parcels and specifics of the consultant, etc. Ms. Kane inquired if the entire 9,000 acres has to be done or is it an over-kill. She stated over one-third of the property is in government hands; there is a lot of low land and wetland they cannot use; and inquired if they have to give that much over to the bird and how much will be left for people. She stated it is 14 sections of land; it is twice the size of the City of Rockledge; and there are 53 birds living on 400 acres; Mr. Tatoul said they were going down the tubes; but she does not believe they are doing that. She inquired if they need 25 contiguous acres since the bird flies and can go anywhere, has that been determined, does it have to be contiguous, or does that make a difference. She stated she read that 750 acres would guarantee the survival of the bird; and inquired if a study was done to determine how much land is really needed to guarantee the survival of the bird and would they need to go into that much money and that much land. Ms. Kane stated it would be nice to have parks and nature areas; there was an idea of letting someone who does not want to sell his land to turn 10% over toward wildlife and get 105 off his taxes; and they could take care of the property themselves and would not have to pay $100 an acre for someone to take care of it. She stated private owners generally take better care of their property than government does; and inquired how much will it cost the County if the property is taken off the tax rolls. She stated it may be two million dollars now, but in ten years it could be ten million dollars; and inquired if the County is rushing into something that has not had a lot of thought.

Hank Hurley, 109 E. Nelson Avenue, Melbourne, advised his comments are in line with the last two speakers and he endorses their questions and would like to get them answered. He stated there has been a lot of mis-information; it behooves the Board to follow a thorough investigation of what is going on and get the facts out front to let the people know what the numbers are; they cannot decide how many property owners there are; but he understands there is about 600 square acres of land in Brevard County and 37% belongs to government. He stated about 90,000 acres are developed; that leaves a lot of land that nothing is being done with; there are a lot of scrub, wetland, and natural habitat; and inquired why should government grab another 13,000 acres and spend $90 million dollars. He stated he hesitates to endorse anything until there is a good plan which is not here today; the Board has a moral obligation to notify all property owners, those that are actual or suspect that may have property affected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and let all the questions come out and get answered so everybody has a good chance to hear what is going on and get the facts. He recommended the Board notify all property owners.

Norma Savell, 3500 S. Courtenay Parkway, Merritt Island, President of Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights, inquired if government should force people to part with what they want to keep; and would people vote for any environmental program if they imagined government coming after their own American dream. She stated environmentalists already claimed the wetlands with their intentionally confusing definitions, and the uplands, high sandy ridges, waterways, mountain ranges, and desert; and inquired if there is anything left. She stated the Press and the environs cannot stand it when they say they are environmentalists; everyone shares a love of nature; that is why the environment is a cunning method of cloaking socialism; they cannot have it both ways; the differences between the two movements are becoming clearer; the ecos believe property should belong to the government or society, leaving people as pons; and such property will not produce taxes and will cause death of the economy. She stated they believe in Constitutional rights as Americans to own property, to grow and produce crops, trees, have businesses, jobs, homes, and to pursue happiness; the country needs the ability to pay taxes and keep the Nation's economy healthy; and taking of the scrub is another example of why people who understand might not want anything growing on their property. Ms. Savell stated the result of the law is for landowners to keep anything desirable mowed and cut so that animals and ecos will not want it, just the way they understand some of the enviros keep their acreage severely mowed and cut back; the environmental movement is not of the people; the Endangered Species Act was inflicted on them by a liberal Congress; many were kicked out in the last election; others are dropping out like the losers they are before a second shellacking; and after protection was granted to the eagle, the symbol of our Nation, carpetbagging lawyers used that Act to force changes through the courts. She stated they keep hearing about protecting the public's interest; the public is interested in freedom to own their homes and property; environmentalists want the Board to rush approval of the scrub plan so they can present their next species which are also dying out; and that species will need different environments requiring another taking. She stated intimidation, scary facts, and scientific factors are their tools; the science factors are their favorite because they hope to talk over the heads of others; and as one environmentalist said patronizingly to a non-believer, "We common folks just have to take the words of these highly-educated experts." She stated admissions by eco-statisticians and news accounts say some times the facts are exaggerated because they do not have the time or personnel to verify everything; and a Brevard eco-leader said, regarding endangered species, "we can consider them ours no matter whose land they happen to be on." Ms. Savell stated she believes most of the Commissioners are fair enough to wait for notification of affected landowners before voting on the SCDP; and inquired what kind of plan is it anyway when it was presented to the three areas of the County and the cities as completed but never stopped changing except for the land gram. She indicated somewhere lines are being drawn through it right now and more lines inserted; it cannot be voted on until it is finalized and displayed for public inspection, otherwise what exactly would the Board be voting on; and the citizens with affected property have a right to voice their feelings in public hearings. She stated if the Board decides to notify less than the 26,000 owners, then the public should be provided with a letter exempting anyone who was not notified and maybe that will encourage enough notifications to go out and they would get the right number; but on the notification, they should omit the phrases, "you need do nothing at this time," and "this is a volunteer program." She stated those are psychologically designed for artificial comfort and reassurance; and she does not have time to talk about the tremendous cost of the increased taxes, maintenance, and so forth. She stated Chairman Higgs, during the Board hearing when the notification letter was originally discussed, said she felt too bias for the plan to sign letters to impacted property owners; and for that reason, they request she refrain from voting on the issue.

Chairman Higgs stated that was not her statement; and her statement was that people might view her as being very bias about the plan. She stated there are three items to conclude, and requested the Board focus on those items.

Commissioner O'Brien advised the SCDP Committee is still working on the plan which is in draft form; and if there is going to be changes to the draft form, those pages could be a different color and replace the old pages to show where the changes were made. He stated a draft can be changed any time; that is why it is called a draft; but the final form should not be changed. He stated the CARL money idea could have been added and inserted in the books they have and at the libraries so people could look it up and know there were changes from October 24, 1995, whereas in July, 1995, they were proposing to charge $5,000. He stated it is the format used he has a problem with because the Board should not be called upon to make a decision on a draft form. Chairman Higgs stated notices are going out that reference particular things, so it puts it in a different category that the Board may want to deal with; and the Board approved a notice a week or so ago that designated particular monies and things. Commissioner O'Brien stated perhaps that notification is still correct because the CARL method of paying for it is still in draft form; the book is in draft form; he has a binder in his office called SCDP draft; and it has not been adopted yet. He stated part of the draft stipulates how they want to buy the property; now they come back and say they want to do it a different way; and the Board has to approve either way. Chairman Higgs stated that is correct, but the notice the Board authorized to go out identifies a particular funding method. Commissioner O'Brien stated the CARL money is still taxpayers money; there should be public debate; perhaps the whole plan should go to referendum; if it has financial impact on the County it may have to go to referendum; and he is concerned about breaching the Charter.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Board needs a final plan to send to referendum; and no matter what it does, it has to have a final plan. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is imposing this on the County, why is it not buying the land and why is the County trying to buy the land; with Commissioner Ellis responding that is his point and why he supports Option 1 which eliminates the fee for property owners. He stated moving the funding source to the state or federal government puts the dollar burden on the regulating agencies; and they can either put up their money or go home. He stated if the agencies tell someone they cannot use their property, then they need to pay them for it; Brevard County did not enact the Endangered Species Act; it is just a participant; whether willing or unwilling is not relevant; and voting down the HCP does not make the Endangered Species Act go away. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is the big rush when Washington is still deciding on the Endangered Species Act. He stated there are changes ahead; he feels like he is being bulldozed and pushed by this whole thing; and having to do it right away may cause problems in the future. Commissioner Ellis stated if the local fees are eliminated and the Endangered Species Act goes away, then it will be up to the Legislature or whoever decides to appropriates the P-2000, CARL money, or whatever they are going to spend to come around; and if the Endangered Species Act goes away for scrub jays, then he expects the plan to go away and intends to move to insert a clause that if the scrub jays are removed from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement, then the whole plan will dropped. He stated the mitigation requirements are going to be dropped by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, so even if the plan is there it will not matter, and people can use their property the way they want to.

Commissioner O'Brien advised Richard Omari had an opinion on the Property Rights Act of 1995; he did not have a chance to understand it completely, and sent it to the County Attorney; and inquired what were the concerns. County Attorney Scott Knox advised it goes back to his discussion in workshop session; once the Board adopts the plan and designates a core area, it is going to be susceptible to an argument that it has somehow devalued that property and somebody is going to come in and make a claim on the basis that the Board did devalue the property; and it either has to pay at that point, whether it is ready to pay or not, or come to some sort of accommodation to satisfy the property owner. Commissioner Ellis inquired how does designating property as a core area devalue the land tomorrow as opposed to its condition today. He stated as of right now the property is devalued because of the rules of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and if the plan passes and the property falls into the core area, it is no worse off tomorrow than it is today. Mr. Knox stated he does not agree with that because if it is in a core area, he has substantially less of a chance of getting a permit from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service than if he had marginal habitat property in another part of the County. Chairman Higgs stated no other CARL project being considered for purchase by the State is experiencing that kind of interpretation by anyone; with Mr. Knox responding no one has been able to raise it up to this point.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if that burden would fall on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service since it will make it more difficult to get a permit if the County designates the core area; with Mr. Knox responding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in trying to preserve the best habitat possible for the scrub jay, would be looking more cautiously on properties in the core area. Commissioner Ellis stated he did not bring his list, but has changes he wants to put in the plan; one change was those owners with properties in the core area would be able to mitigate out of the core area, because his concern is that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could say if they are in the core the mitigation would be 10 to 1. Commissioner Cook stated once the Board designates a core area, it is the County's liability because it is designating that area. Commissioner Ellis stated right now it is under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to designate every piece of scrub as core area and they are all treated the same.

Commissioner Cook advised whatever the Board does with the plan, it has to understand that under the new legislation from Tallahassee it can be interpreted as adversely affecting their property and could submit the Board to a liability for that. He stated someone could say he could not sell his million-dollar property because the guy he was selling it to went to the County and found out it was in the scrub core area and backed out of the deal. Commissioner Ellis stated that person can find out right now that his million-dollar property is already affected. Commissioner Cook responded he has to go to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; with Commissioner Ellis responding no. Commissioner Cook inquired what has the Board designated in the County; with Commissioner Ellis responding Brevard County handles it on the maps; and that has been his argument to get rid of the land clearing Ordinance two years ago because as long as it has a land clearing Ordinance it faces the liability. He stated when people go in for a land clearing permit, staff in Development Review will tell them if they have scrub or do not have scrub; and if it gets rid of the land clearing Ordinance and completely steps back, then U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would have to come down and enforce it. He stated until that happens, the County has injected itself into the process and has a liability. Commissioner Cook stated the Board has a Task Force reviewing that Ordinance now; it is going to come back with a recommendation; but the Board does not know what the Task Force will say until it comes back. He stated if the Board starts designating core areas as scrub habitat, the legal advice is that it could be increasing its exposure; and even if the Board goes with the first recommendation, it should start thinking about a referendum, because no matter what it does, even if it goes to CARL, it is spending $90 million of taxpayers money. He stated that is something the Board should consider no matter what happens. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not disagree with going to referendum.

Chairman Higgs advised Issue #1 says the County will go forward to the State Conservation Recreational Lands staff under P-2000, which has approximately five years left in its funding to ask them to fund this as a priority project; the priority would be the equivalent to those parcels the Board would designate as core area; the State CARL staff said they want eco-system type of projects; is sound biology about species and scrub eco-systems, so it is a good project; and whether they judge it in terms of the core or non-core, it is a good project for the criteria they have designated. She stated if the Board wants to go forward and do that and that becomes part of the plan, then it will affect the way the notices go out.

Mr. Knox advised he wants to give the Board both sides of the property rights issue; the law is presumed valid until it is determined to be otherwise; and the law is subject to be interpreted by the courts. He stated it was designed that way so no one really knows what the law means until the courts start looking at it. He advised as part of the analysis, there are problems with that law and it may not withstand challenge once it gets into the judicial ringer; but the point is it is there and presumed to be valid and the Board has to deal with it; but whether it thinks it applies or not is open at this point. Commissioner Ellis commented if someone has the money to sue the County under the Property Rights legislation for the Endangered Species Act, he would think that person may want to sue the State for the gopher turtles or other things that are out there. Commissioner Cook inquired about the guy who does not have the money to do that; with Commissioner Ellis responding then he is in trouble but he is that way right now; and if the Board votes down the HCP it does not make the Endangered Species Act go away. He stated as long as Brevard County issues land clearing permits, it will be in the loop. Commissioner Cook stated that is a separate issue the Board will deal with at some point. Commissioner Ellis stated it is not separate because if the Board is going to make a decision not to pass the HCP, it needs to eliminate the land clearing Ordinance; at that point it does not issue land clearing permits; everyone who owns scrub would be notified; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can enforce it for itself. He stated if the Board does not follow through with the second step, he has real concerns about not adopting the first step. Commissioner Cook stated he is not talking about not adopting the first step; if the Board wants to, he would be happy to change the plan to reflect #1 because he assumes it is still going ahead with notification and public hearings; at some point the Board may decide to go to referendum, adopt the plan, or not adopt the plan; so he would be happy to move forward with #1.

Commissioner O'Brien advised it says, "The Steering Committee recommends that the funding mechanism be a priority project under the Conservation Recreational Lands of the CARL Program"; and inquired if that guarantees CARL will do it; with Chairman Higgs responding no; the County has to get an application to CARL by December 31, 1995 to be considered; and that will take staff a while to put together which is one of the reasons the Committee wanted the Board to look at this now. She stated if the window is missed, it will be another year and only four years left of funding; but if the Board later on decides it does not want it after public hearings on the plan, it can withdraw the application. She stated if the Board approves #1, it needs to do something about #2 and #3 so the notices can reflect them. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the notification is because CARL is not a done deal; with Chairman Higgs responding it could say the County is pursuing State funding as an alternative for the plan. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is willing to look at additional wording to what the Board presently has, but the $400 stand out; with Chairman Higgs responding it is no longer part of the draft plan. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it could be put back into the plan; with Chairman Higgs responding yes, if the CARL funds are not approved.

Commissioner Ellis advised under no condition will he vote for a plan that has a fee; if the CARL money comes in, that is fine; but if it does not, he wants to make sure people are not left hanging, because the federal or State government should put up or shut up. Commissioner Cook stated if the CARL money does not come in, he was told they would go back and look at assessing a lesser fee; with Chairman Higgs responding no, they would go back to the plan. Commissioner Ellis stated that language can be put in the plan when it is submitted; with Chairman Higgs responding the HCP is not submitted until they know the funding mechanism; and what will be submitted now is the application to CARL. Commissioner O'Brien stated nobody likes surprises; and if the 26,000 people are notified now that CARL money is in the plan and it falls through, they will be looking at charging those people money; and it is important to be honest with everyone. Chairman Higgs stated she does not have a problem with that. Commissioner O'Brien stated Plan A is okay, but Plan B can really hurt them; with Chairman Higgs responding so will the status quo if they are affected; and they need to understand that. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there are three votes today not to impose fees; and if there are, the Board does not have to discuss fees because it will not vote for a plan with fees. He noted that will resolve Commissioner O'Brien's concerns. Chairman Higgs stated the Board could put in the notice that it is pursuing CARL funds and other alternatives may have to be considered; and in discussions with the property owners at the meetings, they will have the opportunity to be presented with the current scenario, possible scenarios, etc.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the Board applies to CARL by December 31, 1995 and identifies the core properties, does it leave itself potentially in a liability situation if someone's property has been identified as core area for acquisition; with Mr. Knox responding the property rights law applies to any action of government; and that is left open to debate as to what it means. Commissioner Cook stated his concern is if the Board designates a core area and applies for CARL money, it would still be taking a risk. He inquired if it would apply for the entire $90,000,000; with Commissioner Ellis responding the County will provide EELS money and the State and federal governments can pay the rest because it is their rules. Chairman Higgs advised the County will proceed with the CARL application; there is a proposal before CARL now in which EELS money is matched with CARL money; and that is the scrub jay refugia project that has been approved by CARL. EELS Coordinator Dr. Duane DeFreese advised that is correct, and the Maritime Hammock Project also has considerable scrub properties, so there is overlapping scrub properties in those projects.

Chairman Higgs advised the second phase is the purchase of the remainder of core properties, and the third phase is the purchase of alternative areas. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if that would use up all the EELS money; with Chairman Higgs responding no, EELS money is not in this project; but EELS has a scrub project that includes some purchases leveraged with CARL money. Commissioner Cook inquired if that is the $10 million; with Dr. DeFreese responding yes, as a 50/50 match for a total of $20 million. He stated they also have up to $10 million in the Maritime Hammock project which has a large number of scrub sites such as Coconut Point; and they would be added to the scrub contribution.

Commissioner Cook stated the County has identified $10 million for scrub through the EELS Program; it is now asking for $90 million from the State; and it is under a deadline to do it by December 31, 1995. He inquired why the Board cannot have a straw ballot in March at the Presidential Preference Primary to find out what the people want; with Commissioner Ellis responding the Board can have the real referendum in March. Commissioner Cook stated if that is the consensus of the Board, it should make that decision; with Commissioner Ellis responding he has no problem with that, but the Board needs a final plan to take to referendum; and it can make a commitment today that it will not accept a plan with fees.

Chairman Higgs stated if the Board is going for CARL funds it should make a decision on how the notification will read and the number of people to be notified. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if CARL funds require matching funds from EELS; with Chairman Higgs responding no matching funds are required for priority projects. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it is possible to get $90 million through CARL; with Chairman Higgs responding there is a possibility that CARL will fund the entire project. Commissioner Cook stated EELS is spending $10 million on it; with Chairman Higgs responding no, that project has been approved and should not be confused with this issue. Commissioner O'Brien stated scrub refugia is part of the EELS Program, but it is not the entire program; and it would not be right to take the rest of the EELS money for this project; with Chairman Higgs responding this project does not take EELS money. Dr. DeFreese advised it is not unusual in CARL Projects to bring phase projects to the table, especially large ones; they have an existing project that identified about 8,000 acres; and they are moving forward to acquire that. He stated if they bring it to the CARL Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, they may say they will look at Phase II which could be the remainder of core properties or whatever the Board decides. He stated contingent on getting successful completion of what is already core properties in EELS, this would put the Board in a position of having options, and it can withdraw at any time. He stated the first majority vote would be in June, 1996; the second majority vote would be in August; ranking would not be until a year from now in December; and the Board would not have available funding in the work plan, should it be ranked as a priority project high enough to be in the money, until June 1997. He stated the Board has a big window for decisions while the project goes through the normal loop; and if it does not make the first majority vote by June, the Board will know that also.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the County bought properties with CARL matching funds; with Dr. DeFreese responding yes, and they are doing that now because certain properties in the Archie Carr Project are actually priority projects; and they are negotiating to get some of the Coconut Point properties reimbursed at near 100% because they were in a priority project as well as a bargained shared match. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if CARL has paid any money to the County; with Dr. DeFreese responding they received a check for $100 and rejoiced because it is very slow; they have $11 million in the loop and are moving rapidly towards completion on a number of projects, and expect to see some reimbursements within the next six months. He noted hopefully as the project streamlines, they see a better return on the time line for reimbursements. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the County buys property under EELS for $10 million and CARL matches with $5 million but takes its time to pay the County, in eight years it could have doubled the $5 million it had; so it is taking it on the chin if CARL takes that long to reimburse the County; and CARL match is not worth the paper it is written on if it takes that long; with Dr. DeFreese responding that is correct, but they are hoping the process streamlines under the priority project, and it would be 100% CARL money. He stated it was a strategic decision not to leave the private property owners hanging for a 50/50 match at closing, so they moved ahead to get those projects closed and in public ownership. He stated they are working as hard as they can to get the reimbursement moving. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the County waits ten years it is not only out the $10 million but also the interest on the $5 million; with Dr. DeFreese responding they are losing interest while CARL has the County's money on reimbursement.

Commissioner Ellis stated the County can go with the CARL money and look at the plan to insert appropriate language that if CARL money or State money does not show up, they can put mitigation plans in the SCDP; the Habitat Conservation Plan is almost like a charter for charter government; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will either adopt or reject what is in the plan; so they can put appropriate language to deal with future mitigation if the Endangered Species Act is eliminated; but that is a different bridge to cross. He stated the issue today is whether to apply for CARL funds; and the Board may as well do that to see if they will vote for it.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve that the funding mechanism for implementation of the plan be a priority project under the Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) Program of the State of Florida.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if it is brought into the plan, he will support the original plan remain in draft and the CARL funds become a new paragraph. He stated any changes to the draft should leave the old part in the book for reference.

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

Commissioner Ellis advised #2 recommends the Board reconsider the notification to property owners if it desires to proceed with the CARL priority project; and recommended an insert of a sentence that says "the County is going to pursue CARL funds, and if successful, fees would not be considered," in addition to what is in the plan. Chairman Higgs stated the plan already has the $5,300; with Commissioner Ellis responding unless there are three votes agreeing not to implement fees under any condition, that is still a possibility; he is willing to say he will not implement fees under any conditions; and if there are two other votes, they can take that sentence out of the notice, but until then, it should stay in.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to add to the notification to property owners that the Board is going to pursue funding through CARL and if successful, there will be no fees required. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis advised #3 recommends the Board consider the number of notices to be sent; he prefers to mail all 26,000 unless staff can identify developed parcels; and any undeveloped parcels need to have the owner notified. He stated if the HCP falls through, whether by vote of the Board or referendum, the next thing the Board has to do is get itself off the hook as much as possible from liability under the Endangered Species Act which will involve two things; the Board will have notified every property owner who might have scrub jays that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is regulating them; and the next step would be to delete the land clearing Ordinance and let that be a direct matter between someone who was told they might have scrub jays and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Commissioner Cook inquired if staff can extract developed parcels from the 26,000; with Ms. Townsend responding she believes that can be done by the Property Appraiser's Office which has a code that shows buildings.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to notify all the property owners of the 26,000 with unimproved properties.

Chairman Higgs advised the motion would be less than 26,000, but she wants to notify everyone who has scrub and will be affected by the plan; the 26,000 names came from the early drawings where someone said the birds were in occupancy areas; but looking at the data they have today, they can take the areas they know are scrub and add those on the map and notify those people, and not take a broad brush and say notify everybody.

Commissioner Scarborough advised they could have a parcel that is partially developed; and if it was purchased as one parcel it will be shown as one parcel on the Property Appraiser's maps. He stated he does not want to notify people who do not need to be notified and get them unduly concerned, but he does not want to leave someone out who should be notified also. He inquired when is the first meeting; with Ms. Townsend responding the public information meetings are November 30 and December 14, 1995, and the public hearings will be in January, 1996. Commissioner Scarborough stated every time he thinks the Board has some conclusion, the issue comes back and staff says they did not do this or want to do that; he is concerned the Board is going ahead and people will be pushed and the wrong notice will be sent out; and it will be bad to include people who should not be included or exclude people who should be included. He stated he wants to see a list of who the Board is notifying, how it is described, and have staff spell it out to the Board and not just give them a blanket decision because it is not clear. Chairman Higgs stated if it is not clear, the Board should table the notice and number and bring it back with more information so it is not confused.

Discussion ensued on the schedule for information meetings and public hearings and the possibility of a referendum in March, 1996.

Chairman Higgs advised the Supervisor of Elections has to be notified 60 days in advance of the election. Commissioner Ellis stated they have to take the plan to the cities. Chairman Higgs recommended tabling until October 30 to make sure they have the number information so the notifications can go out. Commissioner Ellis stated he prefers to send them all out.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table #3, number of notices to be sent, until October 30, 1995 at 5:00 p.m., prior to the Zoning Meeting, with direction to staff to return with the number of owners who will be affected and number of owners of the 26,000 with unimproved properties who will be affected by the Plan. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

The meeting recessed at 3:49 p.m. and reconvened at 4:05 p.m.

APPROVAL, RE: TRANSMISSION OF STAFF REPORT ON STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF MELBOURNE AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

Dr. Glen Bryan, 5505 Sand Lake Drive, Melbourne, representing Lake Washington Property Owners Association, advised he is not here to ask the Board to vote against the settlement or to get the Board to do anything but help them because they depend on the Board. He stated they are County residents that surround the City of Melbourne project that has no business being in the City of Melbourne; they do not get notified about what goes on the property and have to continuously read the newspaper and hope something does not pass by them; they found out about this project late and went to City Council and asked them to postpone discussion until they had an opportunity to study it; and the City graciously gave them that opportunity and has worked with them nicely. He stated the Mayor and City Council have been wonderful, but they change; property owners do not change; and they are concerned about what is going on out there. He stated the Woodson property is flooded just as the area they live in adjacent to it is flooded; their houses are not flooded but the low land of their property is flooded; at least 3/4ths of the land is flooded and no one could traverse the property with a jeep at the present time or a month ago and will not be able to traverse it a month from now with a jeep, yet they are going to build homes out there. Dr. Bryan stated he does not have a problem with development and does not feel government should own everything or that people should not be allowed to use their property; but they have an obligation to those who have property next to the project developed by the same person and has a severe flooding problem. He noted they are not just flooded from the rain, but also from the Lake which has backed up onto the Woodson property; and inquired how will they retain all the runoff from the Lake. He stated they have to build it up to construct on it and displace that water; and that may be negligible, but unless they put their feet down and have some management, they will have continued problems. He stated the County's Riverine Flood Plan Residential Density Regulation calls for one house per ten acres if something is in the ten-year flood plain; he is not saying this project has to have one house on ten acres although he has property in another county that required him to have 20 acres for one house and it is not wetlands; so it is not unfair taking. Dr. Bryan stated there are rules set down to say how to develop wetlands; the land has flooded four times in the 12 years he has lived in Lake Washington; and that is more than a ten-year flood plain. He requested the Board look at that and consider the water they drink in South Brevard comes from Lake Washington and not from a well, and when there is flooding, whatever is on the ground or in the septic tanks they will be drinking in a matter of a week. He presented photos of a house on the corner of Buena Vista and another street, and noted he has pictures showing the street leading into the development totally under water. He stated the development is based on that street that does not meet proper planning; they cannot have a 70-unit subdivision when the main road looks like that; and emergency vehicles could not get down it. He stated they are not asking the Board to vote against it, but to make sure when the site plan comes up they give consideration to the environment and property owners who may be flooded by it, ad erll as the impact on the County in trying to maintain a road it cannot maintain right now.

Bill Woodson, 300 Baypoint Drive, Melbourne, developer and owner of the property, advised he met with Commissioner Cook and heard the concerns about access and traffic flow; and he understands the concerns. He presented a drawing to the Board and explained the access, the property outlined in red, and Jones Road on the south side of the property. He stated there was discussion about using Jones Road as an access; however, if he lived out there and needed to get to Harris in Palm Bay or I-95, if the south and north accesses were to be paved, he would cut through there; and a lot of other individuals would as well. He stated the red circles are actual residences along the route; there are seven or eight that would see the traffic from residents coming off Lake Washington Road; he has been working with the City on it; and what the City is trying to do is come to a resolution to let him use septic tanks versus City sewer because the closest City sewer is about two and a half miles, so his property is deemed undevelopable under the current Comprehensive Plan. He noted the City is trying to come to a resolution with DCA on that; and the City Council postponed it for the County's review. He advised his Engineer Robert Lee is present and can address the specifics.

Commissioner Ellis advised there is a long canal on the western side; and inquired if they plan to put drainage canals on the north and south sides. He stated when the Lake comes up, there is nothing anyone can do out there; but during heavy rains, when the Lake is down, if they had drainage canals on the north and south sides, they would carry the water to the Lake instead of dropping off the back of Sand Lake. He noted a lot of homes in the back of Sand Lake have water problems right now; and inquired if it is their plan to have drainage canals on the north and south sides.

Bob Lee, Consulting Engineer for Bill Woodson, advised they are at a very early stage of work on the project right now; and they are in the Comprehensive Plan amendment phase where the issue is whether septic tanks would be suitable for the property. He stated they have looked at preliminary planning concepts and believe, because the land fronts Lake Washington, that they would be able to handle stormwater from the property per current regulations and guidelines which would include a grading scheme, how the roads and lakes would be connected, and how they would affect adjacent and offsite properties; and all those things will be looked into as part of the design process. He stated it very well could be that they would construct some type of swale on the north and south sides to work out the drainage with the perimeter neighbors. Commissioner Ellis stated it would probably need more than a swale, and somewhere along the property, they would have to have a canal to carry the water from east to west. Mr. Lee advised he designed one project that backed up on a flood plain and used an overflow weir structure that sheet flowed across the marsh. He stated that would give final filtration of the stormwater to preserve the quality of Lake Washington; and any development would have to be constructed per additional stormwater requirements to satisfy the receiving waters.

Commissioner Cook advised Dr. Bryan mentioned the County reviewing and providing comments to the City regarding the site plan; and recommended the Board request the City, when it gets to the site plan process, to allow the County to review it. Commissioner Ellis stated County comments on the site plan should only be for areas that would affect the County residents such as external road hook ups and drainage, and not how streets are laid out internally. Commissioner Cook stated drainage and traffic are the key issues the County residents have concerns about. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wants to request the City of Melbourne to provide a copy of the site plan to the County at that time; with Commissioner Cook responding that is what he would like to do. Traffic Engineering Director Bill Osborne advised County staff will see the site plan because the owner will be required to get a roadway and easement permit from Brevard County to connect to the roadways and for any improvements that are done with respect to that. Commissioner Cook advised there is a 50-foot right-of-way from Jones Road; he does not know if it would increase traffic or relieve traffic coming through Lake Washington area; but that is something staff should look at. He inquired if staff had any thoughts on that; with Mr. Osborne responding no, he has not seen a concept plan on that, but it is something they will look at and coordinate with the City staff when it comes in for review. Commissioner Cook stated he wants to reduce impact on residents in the County from the development. Commissioner Ellis stated they have to analyze what they are doing with Jones Road, because as a paved road it may actually increase traffic on the other end by people short-cutting through Lake Washington area. Commissioner Cook stated someone called his office with that suggestion; however, it may be worse than it is now.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to request the City of Melbourne provide a copy of the site plan to the County for review and comment regarding traffic and drainage. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Lee inquired if the County will forward staff's report to the City that was prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Department along with the stipulation of the site plan transmittal to the County; with Commissioner Cook responding yes.

Dr. Bryan advised their main concerns are the entranceway from the north, flooding, and the area being inadequate for 70 units. Mr. Lee advised there is a current stipulation by the City of Melbourne to limit the density to one unit per two acres; Mr. Woodson has 135 acres which would make it 67 units; and currently they are looking at about 60 units which is reasonable.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve transmission of staff's report on the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between the City of Melbourne and Department of Community Affairs to Melbourne City Council for consideration during its November 14, 1995 regular meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH VERNER, LIIPFERT, BERNHARD, McPHERSON AND HAND, CHARTERED, RE: CONSULTING SERVICES FOR RFQ/RFP FOR SOLID WASTE PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Contract with Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand, Chartered, to provide consulting services for the RFQ/RFP process for Solid Waste Disposal Services for South Brevard. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____for Contract.)

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - ROBERT BEALS, ESQUIRE, RE: WAIVER OF SOLID WASTE IMPACT FEE FOR TECH-VEST, INC.

Attorney Robert Beals, representing Tech-Vest, Inc., advised Tech-Vest was assessed with a Solid Waste Impact Fee in 1990; Mr. Ed Hradesky, President of Tech-Vest, Inc., contested the fee in 1990 and addressed it to the responsible County employee and copied Roger Dobson who was Chairman of the Board; he raised two legal points, albeit not artfully since he is not a lawyer; but his position was he should not have to pay the fee because the building was already built and CO'd so he was exempt, and he did not get proper notice as required by the Ordinance. He stated Commissioner Dobson made a notation on the copy of the Ordinance saying he was exempt and to forget about it; nothing happened until 1994 when a letter was received by Tech-Vest saying it did not pay the 1990 Solid Waste Impact Fee; and Mr. Hradesky then enlisted his assistance and he went to battle with the County. Mr. Beals advised the County took the opposite legal position on the two points; they went back and forth for quite some time; and eventually the County filed a lien on the property for $4,128. He stated they cannot litigate a $4,000 case, and that is why they are here on an issue of fairness. He stated Tech-Vest developed vacant property that brings in tax revenues to the County of more than $50,000; four years went by in which Tech-Vest relied on the fact that it was a dead issue; and the County did not call or write for four years. He noted in law they call that estoppel, but he is not making a legal argument, he is making a fairness argument. He stated Mr. Hradesky's company should not be penalized for relying on the position the County took four years ago then have it reverse itself; and requested waiver of the Solid Waste Impact Fee.

Commissioner Cook advised he talked to the applicant; it has been going on for a long time; and from the back-up information he reviewed, someone said he was exempt. He stated Mr. Hradesky built on the property and four years later gets a notice of the fee; so he will move approval of the waiver as a fairness issue and not a legal issue.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to waive Solid Waste Impact Fee of $4,182 for Tech-Vest, Inc.

Commissioner Scarborough advised after discussing the issue with Mr. Rabon, he cannot support the motion. Chairman Higgs agreed.

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

Ed Hradesky stated he started seven small companies and probably took 120 people off the unemployment rolls; he has about 40 people working now; so since the Board was going to give McDonnell-Douglas $1,000,000, it owes him about $100,000.

Commissioner O'Brien advised Mr. Hradesky he has done a great job, and the economy of Cape Canaveral is picking up because of people like him.

DISCUSSION, RE: ADVERTISING TECHNIQUES FOR SMALL SCALE PLAN AMENDMENTS

Chairman Higgs advised staff is recommending sending notices and detailed maps to people within 1,000 feet and conform to State minimum requirements for small scale plan amendment advertisements.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to send notifications and detailed maps to people within 1,000 feet and conform to State minimum requirements for small scale plan amendment advertisements.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the display ad costs $890; with Planner II Mel Scott responding that is just the cost of the display ad. Commissioner Cook inquired if the County will recoup $530 with a smaller ad; with Mr. Scott responding if approved, the action would reduce the deficit the County is experiencing per application. Mr. Scott advised currently the application fee is $530; the cost with the display ad is about $1,500; and a smaller ad for about $40 and removing the display ad would reduce the deficit from $972 to $122.

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

PERMISSION TO PETITION CIRCUIT COURT, RE: INJUNCTION PROHIBITING FURTHER NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE

Commissioner Cook advised most of the people are elderly, not all of them, but the majority of them; and he wonders in some cases if the County may create a situation if they do not live where they are now, where will they go.

Commissioner O'Brien stated staff is not looking to move them out of their homes; they are seeking permission from the courts to clean up the areas; the video is very graphic; and one of the problems they have on Merritt Island is in the Newfound Harbor area. He stated that neighborhood has been struggling to pull itself out of being old Angel City; and they have made dramatic improvements along Newfound Harbor Drive and Angel Drive except for one house. He noted the man has mental problems, was arrested, and is on trial now; and if he goes to jail or the hospital, the property will stay the way it is until he gets out. He stated the man owes the County $467,000 in liens and the property is worth about $25,000; it has gotten to the point of absurdity; there is no way other than to get a court order to allow the County to bring trucks in and clean the place up; and they are not displacing the owner from his home. Gary Penna advised staff is recommending approval of Options A and B which is to get injunctive relief from the court and have the County get involved in the clean up of the property. Commissioner O'Brien advised it uses due process and at the same time provides a form of relief.

Commissioner Cook stated it is crazy to assess $467,000; at some point there should be a limit; the owner is not going to pay the fine nor for the improvements the County would make; and no one would buy a piece of property worth $25,000 for half a million dollars. Commissioner O'Brien stated the fine was $100 a day for seven years; there was no resolution; and unless the Board authorizes going to court and the clean up, it is silly to slap another lien on top of the present lien. He stated there are seven sites within the County that are incredible. Commissioner Cook inquired if the Board wants to put a limit on what it will pay to bring the properties up to Code. Mr. Penna stated after looking at the properties and going out there time and time again, they have become threats to the health and safety of the public. Commissioner Cook inquired how much is the County going to spend to bring them up to Code; with Commissioner O'Brien responding it would cost about $300 each. Chairman Higgs recommended a cap of $1,500 because they have to use County personnel and equipment.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve a cap of $1,500 each to clean up properties in violation of County Codes and are threats to the public health and safety. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis advised #6 is a vacant lot; the assessed value is $3,400; and inquired why would they cut the overgrowth if it is native vegetation and subject to a land clearing permit; with Mr. Penna responding the property was maintained, then they stopped maintaining it. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it was cleared before and grown back; with Mr. Penna responding yes. Ralph Brescia advised there is a house on the property that is not visible. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it is really assessed at $3,400 with a house; with Mr. Brescia responding yes, in that location. Commissioner Ellis stated in the City of Melbourne, if people do not cut their yards, the City sends someone to cut them and send the people the bills; with Commissioner Cook responding the County does not do that unless it gets to a situation like this case; and recommended approval to bush hog the property. Commissioner Ellis advised #7 says they reside in the home and are dumping sewage on the ground; and inquired if Consumer Health should correct that problem rather than Code Enforcement; with Mr. Penna responding they have the same problems Code Enforcement has when dealing with those cases; and if they cannot get the person to correct the problem, they run into the same thing Code Enforcement does. Commissioner Ellis inquired if Consumer Health can declare the house uninhabitable; with Mr. Penna responding under quite a few of the Codes they can do that; but the problem is the process of getting someone to do something about it; and after they studied it, they came up with the two options as the best options legally. Commissioner Ellis stated he can understand dealing with grass and junk in yards, but it is a clear threat to public health to have raw sewage dumped in the ground; and he is concerned that Consumer Health seems to have no teeth to force a correction of that problem. He stated if Consumer Health cannot shut them down, then there are other things that need to be looked at.

Commissioner Cook advised those are isolated cases; the individuals have neighbors who live in the area with severe health problems; and inquired what would it take to correct the violation. He noted it says cut the overgrowth and demolish the house; and if the County demolishes the house, the people would be homeless. Commissioner Ellis recommended CDBG emergency repair funds. Commissioner Cook indicated the house may have been repaired once, but he is not sure. Assistant County Manager Joan Madden advised if it is the same house and the same family, it has been in the system for six to eight years; at one time there was a plan to move them into a mobile home on the premises while the house was demolished and rebuilt; but the owner of the property refused to accept that offer, and there has not been a lot of cooperation from the people.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is money available to do emergency repairs; with Ms. Madden responding yes, but they need the permission from the person who owns the property; and if it is the same family, they have not been successful over the years in securing permission to do that.

Commissioner Cook stated the neighbors do not want the people displaced from their home; they have severe problems; but he cannot support demolishing the home and recommended directing staff to work out something to correct the situation. Ms. Madden advised it was not to demolish the house and displace the family; it was to provide a mobile home for them to live in on the property so they would not be displaced. Commissioner Cook stated he agrees with that, but where it says what would it take to correct the violation, the answer is demolish the house; and he cannot support that. He stated the County needs to cut the overgrowth and repair the septic tank, but there should be some social program or service that could help those people because they need help.

Commissioner Scarborough recommended part of the motion be that nobody be displaced. Chairman Higgs stated she does not know if that will work; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the report says demolish or repair the house so staff was looking at other options besides demolishing the house; and the Board needs to know more before authorizing demolition. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised if they have a problem, they will bring it back to the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize the County Attorney to file petition for injunctive relief on seven properties to enjoin respondents from continuing to violate the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County; and authorize staff to make reasonable repairs required to bring the properties into compliance and charge the violators the cost of the repairs along with previous fines, provided a factual finding by the Code Board has been made that the violations present a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare or if the violation is irreparable or irreversible in nature, subject to not displacing any property owners. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

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

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 4, Begin a rigorous "stop smoking" program which may reduce insurance benefits paid out.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not like the insurance benefits paid out may be reduced portion; with Commissioner Cook responding it says if employees stay healthy, the County would not have to pay out insurance benefits; and inquired if that is true; with Human Resources Director Frank Abbate responding it is an educational program to help employees stop smoking. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised it came from Human and Housing Services as an employee suggestion to the Board and did not come from Mr. Abbate's Office.

Commissioner Ellis stated it is a good idea and does not hurt anything. Commissioner Cook stated it is an educational program to help employees stop smoking and a positive thing.

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

Commissioner Ellis advised #5, shorten the work week to four days/ten hours a day, may not be possible for the entire County, but departments should be allowed to have employees work four days/ten hours if the department head chooses; however, coverage should be provided from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. five days a week. Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Ellis wants to move that; with Commissioner Cook responding the County Manager should come back with a proposal on that. Commissioner Ellis stated he wants to give Mr. Jenkins the flexibility to do that. Mr. Jenkins advised there are some, particularly in the field, where he authorized four ten-hour days; and Commissioner Ellis is recommending more flexibility in the office setting which he is not opposed to.

Commissioner Cook stated the City of Cocoa received complaints about its four-day week; and he does not mind giving the Manager flexibility to expand that, but an employee becomes nonproductive after a certain number of hours; so if the work day is extended, it lessens productivity. He stated that is a fact that studies have proven; that is why the ten-hour day is criticized; and his concern is if the County staff will be as productive serving the public. Commissioner Ellis stated they can be more productive if they can shut the phones off and do their work after 5:00 p.m. He stated if an employee comes in from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., he may spend from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. answering the phone and going to meetings and not have time to do his job; and for two hours he may be more productive when left alone. Commissioner Cook stated the major benefit to the public is to have access after 5:00 p.m.; he does not have a problem with the County Manager looking at it; but there are some problems. Commissioner Scarborough stated when he was with the City of Titusville, they went to four days a week and it did not work because everybody else worked five days a week; and if people cannot access government on Fridays, they get angry.

Discussion ensued on the pros and cons of a four-day work week, possible problems, loss of level of service, and having the County Manager return with recommendations on what Departments he would like to look at. Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to direct the County Manager to return if he wishes with recommendations for certain departments he may want to consider for ten-hour/four-day work weeks. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Scarborough voted nay.

Commissioner O'Brien advised he likes #3, minimize Board approval requirements to hold public hearings, but it is not explicit what they are talking about. Mr. Jenkins advised what staff is saying is any time a public hearing is advertised, it has to come to the Board for permission to advertise. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is silly to come to the Board for permission to advertise, and he has no problem eliminating that step. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wants to authorize Mr. Jenkins to schedule public hearings; with Commissioner O'Brien responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize the County Manager to schedule public hearings. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien advised #2, make administrative rezoning to implement Comprehensive Plan an administrative function as opposed to public hearing if possible and legal; State law requires public hearings on rezonings, but the Board could delegate the public hearing function to the P&Z Board on specific areas such as conditional use permits. Commissioner Ellis stated a lot of people are not happy with their administrative rezonings. Commissioner Cook stated the Board should keep that authority; and Chairman Higgs agreed. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the zoning meetings could be reduced to every two months instead of every month; with Chairman Higgs responding it is a nice idea, but she does not know how it can be done.

The Board took no action to change administrative rezoning to implement the Comprehensive Plan.

DISCUSSION, RE: FDEP LETTER ON ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE/ST. JOHNS RIVER

Chairman Higgs advised Mr. Leroy Wright could not be at the meeting; and inquired if the Board wants to table the item. Commissioner Cook advised Mr. Wright gave him a letter to give each Commissioner, and it can be held until the next meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table discussion on a Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) letter on the ordinary high water line in St. Johns River until November 14, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: ELIMINATE SALARY INCREASE FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board eliminated its salary increase once before when increases were not given to employees; they are retroactively giving some people as much as $600; but the Commissioners' increases from the State is more than $600. He stated it was a mess the last time with writing checks back to Finance, and taking more for social security than they should have, etc.; but with the Charter, the Board has the capacity to enact an ordinance to keep the salary constant at the level it was on January 1, 1995.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to authorize the County Attorney to prepare and advertise an ordinance to freeze salaries for Commissioners at the level it was on January 1, 1995.

Commissioner Cook inquired if that would be at the level prior to the recent increase; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes. Commissioner Cook stated compared to Constitutional Officers, he does not think the Commissioners are overpaid; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he is not comparing it to anyone else, it is just in fairness to the employees; and they are a part of the same team and should play by the same rules.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board can freeze the salaries of Constitutional Officers under the Charter; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no, the Board has no control over their salaries, but it can control the Commissioners' salaries by passing an ordinance. He noted they get their increase and it is up to them to rebate.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not like the idea; they make less than Kurt Easton at MIRA who makes $59,000 a year and has 1/25th the responsibility and 1/100th the task; and he does not like the idea that the Commissioners make less than Fred Galey, Jim Ford, and Sandy Crawford who all make $96,000 a year. He stated he does not want to diminish the job they were elected to do; they are paid far less than many other elected officials; their task and responsibility to the public appear to be much greater in magnitude in comparison to them; and the tasks and duties surpass a 40-hour week. He stated they have employees with less responsibilities making more than they do and he personally cannot see it. He noted it is a great gesture, but it is ridiculous and he does not think it is proper.

Commissioner Ellis stated he agrees with Commissioner O'Brien about Mr. Easton's salary, but that should have been addressed at budget time. Commissioner Cook stated that was just an example. Commissioner Ellis stated he knows that, but he thought the Board was going to address it during the budget process and did not; and he would not have a problem cutting his salary.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it is not just Mr. Easton; the Board cannot cut the Port personnel, or City Manager at Cocoa Beach; with Commissioner Ellis responding as Commissioners they are in a leadership position for the County, and when the troops are eating C-rations so does the general; the Board has a $600 cap on pay raises and it should have the same for Commissioners; but he likes going one step further and freezing it to emphasize they are all in the same boat together. Commissioner O'Brien stated they are in the same boat except that people like Mr. Peffer, Mr. Martens, Mr. Sternagel, Sue Hann, Mr. Managan, Mr. Boykin, Mr. Rabon, Chuck Nelson, Mr. Minneboo and Joan Madden make more than the Commissioners do. Commissioner Ellis stated they are a small percentage of County employees; with Comissioner O'Brien responding they are the top echelon and the Board is on top of them. He stated he does not regard himself as a bottom line pushing shovel $5.00 an hour employee of the County, and he does not regard himself as a fireman either; and he is not saying they are diminishing jobs, but there is no comparison and no parity between them and the Commissioners.

Commissioner Cook stated the people elect the Constitutional Officers at $96,000; he would put his workload up to them any day of the week and what they have to put up with; and this will remain in effect until October 1, 1998 because the Board can only address it in even-number years. Commissioner Ellis stated it comes up every year; with Commissioner Cook responding not according to the Charter.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he talked to the County Attorney, Frank Abbate, and Paul Gougelman; it is something that the Board would be doing in perspective to the seating of the new Commissioners; and January, 1997 would be when the raises would take place. Commissioner Cook stated the Charter says they can only raise the salaries in even-number years. Mr. Knox advised it says every two years in even-number years. Commissioner Cook stated if the Board wants to freeze it until 1998, that is fine. Commissioner Scarborough stated theoretically the intention is since this Board will be voting on it, the Commissioners would only receive the benefits if they returned to office; the Board should be a team with its employees; if they hold the line because the Board decided they should, then the Board should not take the benefit of having a raise from the Florida Legislature; he is not saying they should not get an increase when everybody else starts getting increases; but the overall mode of operation would be better. Commissioner Cook stated if the Board is going to do something, it should do it today. Commissioner Scarborough suggested writing into the ordinance that the increase would be effective January 1, 1997. Mr. Knox responded he thinks the Board can do that. Commissioner Scarborough stated that would be in the spirit of the Charter to defer the increase in salary until January 1, 1997, at which time the prevailing rate set by the Florida Legislature would become effective.

Commissioner Ellis advised the pay just moved from $52,000 to $55,000; and inquired if they are taking it back to where it was last month; with Commissioner Scarborough responding last month's salary should continue until January 1, 1997, then it will be whatever the prevailing rate is. Commissioner Cook inquired if it will be frozen at the current level; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes. Commissioner Cook stated there will be no increase, but no decrease either. Chairman Higgs stated she does not like going to the prevailing State rate because she does not know what it will be at that time. She stated it is an issue of fairness, and what the Board did for employees is good also for Commissioners. Commissioner Cook stated if the Board wants to look at a different plan for employees, it can do that; with Chairman Higgs responding the State rate may be a 10% increase in 1997. Commissioner Scarborough stated in 1997 the Board cannot address the issue and cannot get another increase until 1998, so it will always be in arrears; and if it does not increase to the current rate, it would be not one year behind, but perhaps three years.

Commissioner Cook stated it will always be behind under that scenario; if there is any portion a Commissioner wants to kick back as an individual he or she could write a check; so he will support the motion.

Chairman Higgs advised the motion is no increase for Commissioners until January 1, 1997, then it goes to the State rate; and called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: PROPOSED SOUTH BREVARD LANDFILL

Commissioner Cook advised the Board requested comments from the Deseret people, and they responded to Mr. Knox saying they would be willing to re-acquire the property at the purchase price set forth in the Settlement Agreement; and they seemed to have put some urgency on the fact that they would like to know something. He stated the herd development program they are currently involved in will have to be relocated or they have to make a significant investment if they are staying at the current location; so he wanted to get input from the Board because if it is not going to use the property, it has an opportunity to cut its losses and recoup the money.

Chairman Higgs advised Deseret did not give a particular time frame; with Commissioner Cook responding that is right, and that is why he wants to request the County Manager to explore it and bring back to the Board a time if they can give him that information. He stated if the Board needs to make a decision on the land, he does not want the opportunity to recoup the nine or twelve million dollars to be lost should the Board decide not to use the property. Chairman Higgs inquired if the motion is to ask the County Manager to get clarification from Deseret as to what they meant by their time frame; with Commissioner Ellis responding the Board will know when the RFP comes back for the proposed landfill whether it will use the property or not. Chairman Higgs noted it will not be until April, 1996. Commissioner Ellis stated it would probably be awarded by next summer. Solid Waste Management Director Richard Rabon stated they should be back in late March or early April. Commissioner Cook stated he wants to make sure there is enough time and they do not come back and say the County missed its opportunity.

Commissioner Ellis stated he is not sure the Board is in a position to sell that property until it votes on the RFP; so even if they said January, 1996 is the drop dead date, the Board would have to drop dead because it is not in a position to give up that property until after it resolves the whole landfill issue. Commissioner Cook stated it needs to be explored; and he just wanted to bring it to the Board's attention so it does not miss the window of opportunity to recoup the purchase price.

Mr. Rabon advised the County has a Use Agreement with Deseret to run cattle on the property; last year the Board gave them a one-year extension to December, 1996 to continue using that property because this is the time each year that they look at their budget; and if the Board is not going to extend it for another year, then they would have to expend funds to build other cattle-holding places and relocate their operation. He stated he thinks what Deseret is looking for is an extension of that Agreement for another year so they do not have to make that investment and would re-purchase the property at the original price. Commissioner Cook stated the Board needs to get clarification on that. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the letter mentions whether or not they would spend money on maintenance. Mr. Rabon advised that is what they referred to last year, so he assumes that is what they are doing. He stated he talked to Mr. King on the phone, and that seems to be what they are indicating.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board wants to extend the Agreement until December, 1997; with Mr. Rabon responding that would be fine. Chairman Higgs asked the County Attorney if that issue needs to be advertised; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding it should be put on the Agenda as a separate item.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to schedule the extension of the Lease Agreement with Deseret Ranches on the Agenda for November 14, 1995, regarding use of property for cattle grazing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENT, RE: CHAIRMAN OF MERRITT ISLAND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to appoint Richard Amari as Chairman of the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RENAMING MONTEGO BAY DRIVE WEST

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution renaming the north portion of Montego Bay Drive West as Montego Bay Drive North, and the south portion as Montego Bay Drive South in Sections 23 and 26, Township 24S., Range 36E. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page _____for resolution.)

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT, RE: STAFF REPORT ON ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS

Commissioner Scarborough advised he talked to his staff and they felt the County should take anonymous complaints because there is an elderly group out there that can be intimidated, and to not take those complaints would not be good.

Commissioner Ellis advised how he handles a person who does not want to make the complaint is that he, Beth, or Beverly would drive by the property and see the violation then file the complaint through his Office.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to acknowledge receipt of staff's report on anonymous complaints, and authorize Code Enforcement to continue not accepting complaints from persons who wish to remain anonymous. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE: ESTABLISHING BUDGET FOR SUNSHINE CYCLING SERIES GRANT

Commissioner O'Brien advised the Sunshine Cycling Series is an educational program; it seems the School Board does not want to take the program; and he does not like that because the County employees become teachers. He stated it is an important program that teaches children how to bike safely; the grant is $5,000; but the County does not belong in that kind of program and should give the School Board the grant and let it handle it; and if it says no, that is its choice if it wants to be the type of people who do not care about children's safety. He stated the Board should not be assuming the School Board's responsibilities.

Commissioner Cook advised it is just the unexpended funds of $1,755, and not $5,000.

Growth Management Director Susan Hann advised the Sunshine Cycling Series Grant was to produce the Sunshine Cycling Series; the proceeds from the Series, which is the balance of the funds at $1,755, were required to be spent on bike safety education programs; they have a cooperative program with the School Board; and the teachers participate. She stated the County does not teach the program; staff teaches the teachers to teach the program; and the County's primary involvement is to keep and maintain the bicycles and helmets. She stated she discussed this program with Ms. Myers who indicated they also use the bicycles for other bike safety programs the County operates outside of the school functions; so they keep the bikes for the School Board, but also use them for their own educational programs.

Commissioner O'Brien recommended offering those to the School Board and if the County needs the bikes it could ask the School Board to teach the County staff instead. He stated the County does not have teachers and should not be teaching programs. Chairman Higgs stated it is an important safety program, and she understands his frustration; however, she will support staff's recommendation.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct staff to go back and rework the Sunshine Cycling Series Grant with the School Board and let it run the program and apply for the grant on its own; and if the County has bicycle safety programs at the parks, the School Board can send a person to teach the teachers. Motion died for lack of a second.

Ms. Hann advised this item is to expend the balance of the grant that is already existing; there are no further grants; they can work with the School Board on who administers the program and will be happy to discuss it with them; but there are no additional funds at this time. Commissioner O'Brien suggested giving the money to the School Board and letting it buy the bicycles.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the County has been in the bicycle business in a lot of ways; it has Barbara Myers coordinating programs; and when children get off the School property, they become the County's responsibility. He stated the County has to put the roads and sidewalks in for schools that are opening; it has done all kinds of safety things for the children; and without Ms. Hann and Barbara Myers nothing would happen because it would fall between the cracks since the School Board has dumped it on the County and said it is our responsibility as soon as the children leave the school grounds. He stated the County needs to be there pushing it. Commissioner O'Brien stated schools have driver education programs; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that is something the students take as a course, but they do not have a course on how to get home from school and cross the street safely; and that is the County's responsibility to teach them that.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to contact the School Board to determine if it has an interest in administering the Sunshine Cycling Series Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE, RE: INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY BROKER TO MARKET SPACEPORT COMMERCE PARK

Commissioner Scarborough advised he has concerns about marketing the Spaceport Commerce Park; they are selling it parcel by parcel and talking to Central Data to expand its place; but what he wanted to do and envisioned was selling the whole park and getting out of the business entirely. He stated the last time it went to bid they did not get the people to bid that he wanted; McDonnell Douglas has an international firm selling its property; and the Board needs to re-think the whole thing and find a way to get people with interest the same way McDonnell Douglas did, because he would like to sell the entire park since the County is not capable of operating it. He stated he thought the Port was a viable entity, but staff went to the Port several times and it has turned the County down.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct staff to come back with a list of national brokers who can market properties nationally and internationally, and return to the Board with a manner in which it can seek their bidding on the project; and in the interim, continue to use the current firm to sell the property. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF BID #B-4-5-116, RE: VEHICLE MAINTENANCE

Commissioner Cook advised he has concerns when the low bidder is rejected because it will serve only one location; that should have been in the bid documents; and if the County is going to have people bid on a project, they should have something in the documents saying if they only have one location they will not be considered.

Management Services Director Michael Managan advised the bid documents stated, "A shop in each of the following areas is required: Titusville, Cocoa, Merritt Island, North Beach, South Beach, Melbourne, and Palm Bay." Commissioner Cook inquired if the low bidder did not have a shop except in the one location; with Mr. Managan responding only on Merritt Island, and staff felt they would lose their savings if they had to administer multiple contracts.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to reject the low bid of Mobile Express Lube of Merritt Island, and award Bid #B-4-5-116, Vehicle Maintenance, to the second low bidder Lubrication Specialists, Inc. at approximately $121,608 annually for an estimated 1,200 services of oil and filter changes and other related maintenance services on County vehicles. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages _____for Bids and Recommendation.)

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.

_________________________________

NANCY N. HIGGS, CHAIRMAN

BOARDOFCOUNTYCOMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

ATTEST:

_________________________

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK

(S E A L)