September 30, 2003

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on September 30, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Nancy Higgs, and Susan Carlson, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Bob Kassner, Deacon of First Baptist Church, Barefoot Bay, Florida.

Commissioner Jackie Colon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the Minutes of July 22 and 29, 2003 Regular Meetings, July 24, 2003 Special Meeting, and August 7, 2003 Zoning Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: AGENDA ITEMS

County Manager Tom Jenkins requested Item III.B.2., Agreement with Caribbean Conservation Corporation, Inc. for Services at Barrier Island Ecosystem Center, and Item VI.F.4., Citizen Request, Michael S. Minot, Esquire for Barbara Parsons, for Extension of Permit to Allow Trailer on Property, be withdrawn from the Agenda.

The Board by consensus withdrew Items III.B.2. and VI.F.4. from the Agenda.

REPORT, RE: NORTHEAST FLORIDA MENTAL HOSPITAL

Commissioner Scarborough advised it has come to his attention that the Northeast Florida Mental Hospital may be planning to be privatized; it could probably have an impact on Brevard County; and requested Assistant County Manager Don Lusk do some research and return to the Board with some information.

The Board by consensus agreed to allow Assistant County Manager Don Lusk to do some research into privatization of Northeast Florida Mental Hospital and return to the Board with a report.

REPORT, RE: RIVEREDGE DRIVE

Commissioner Scarborough advised Laura Ward sent him a memo regarding Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.12; the Board took action regarding three different areas to bring into the statements of the Comprehensive Plan; staff prefers to do it sequentially; and since there are some dynamics in the area of Riveredge Drive, he would like to have staff proceed first in that area to see how it works, then proceed with other areas.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to proceed with Riveredge Drive as the first area to implement protection of riverside lands from encroachment by commercial uses. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: SALES TAX REFERENDUM PROJECTS LIST

Commissioner Scarborough stated when they did the Parks referendum, he was opposed to putting together a brief outline of different projects that were being proposed; he never wanted to market it because he thought it was inappropriate to use taxpayers’ money to talk them into a tax; however, some people are inquiring if they will get information on the sales tax projects. He stated he knows there is a website; and inquired if it is the Board’s intention to authorize publication of information, not pro or con, but the proposed projects.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has no problem providing information as long as it includes the annual operating and maintenance costs and every cost associated with the various projects. He suggested a draft of the proposed booklet be given to Commissioners so they can review it prior to it being printed.

Commissioner Scarborough stated that should be a fair description of each one, and staff can put it together and bring it to the Board for review. He stated he would like to have it like they did for the parks, showing one area first and then another so people do not have to spend hours trying to find the particular project they are interested in.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to provide a draft booklet of proposed projects for the sales tax referendum to the Board prior to it being printed. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: HISTORIC MARKERS FOR COCOA VILLAGE

Commissioner Pritchard thanked the Board for its support of the Resolution requesting Department of Transportation to erect brown historic markers designating historic Cocoa Village as a historic site along I-95 and SR 520; and stated the signs are supposed to be installed by the end of September 2003.

REPORT, RE: BROADCASTS OF CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETINGS

Commissioner Pritchard advised the Charter Review Commission (CRC) has begun its deliberations; he sent a memo to Mr. Jenkins asking about the possibility of making sure that all

the meetings of the Commission are broadcast; he knows the Board took the position of not considering televising meetings that would have a cost associated with them; however, the meetings held in Viera can be broadcast at no cost. He stated there are three meetings that will be held outside of Viera; suggested those meetings be held at the Titusville, Cocoa Beach, and Palm Bay Council Chambers that already have videotaping capabilities; and advised staff would need to get their permission. He stated he requested the County Manager explore those options, but somehow the request got convoluted and he received a letter from Suzi Travis, secretary of the Charter Review Commission, through Anselmo Baldonado, but the message was not exactly what Mr. Baldonado wished to say, based on the conversation he had with him yesterday; and he is in favor of the proposal. He stated he also spoke to Don Lusk yesterday and asked him if he could come up with the potential cost of broadcasting the meetings, but he does not know if Mr. Lusk had the opportunity to do that. Assistant County Manager Don Lusk advised they need to do more research on the suggestions and work with the Cities, but that should be a much lower cost than discussed with the CRC earlier.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he wanted to bring to the attention of the Board and County management that there appears to be an opportunity to broadcast the meetings so the public can become more aware of what the process is; and hopefully there will be little if any cost to do it. He stated he would appreciate staff getting back with him as soon as they come up with a number so the Board can ensure those meetings are accessible to the public. Chairperson Colon stated they are no different than the redistricting committee meetings that were televised; but the Charter Review Commission was concerned about cost.

Commissioner Carlson inquired whether it is advisable for the Board to intercept a motion made by the CRC. She stated there were two outstanding votes, which were Ms. Lalmont and Ms. Rupe who voted against it; Mr. Baldonado is now for it, and she does not know what that does to the actual motion that was made on the 19th, and would like to get some legal advice on that. County Attorney Scott Knox advised the CRC operates independently from the Board of County Commissioners, so if the Board chooses to pass a motion or resolution suggesting the CRC hold its meetings on a televised basis and specify where or when those things can be done, the CRC can do it or ignore the Board; and it is up to the CRC. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board needs to provide a memo suggesting the CRC review it again; with Mr. Knox responding it is up to the CRC whether it wants to pick it up or not; the Board can send a memo or resolution to it saying it is making such and such dates available to televise its meetings if it chooses to use it; but if the CRC chooses not to do it, that is entirely up to it.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has a response from Attorney Watts of Cobb and Cole who is representing the CRC and says there was no impropriety in his request. Commissioner Carlson stated she is not stating that there is, she just wants to make sure the Board is not overstepping its bounds; it could say it would like to see the meetings televised, but the CRC has every right to say no; and that should not be construed to be anything more than a decision on its part. Commissioner Pritchard stated if it is the CRC’s decision not to televise what they are doing in light of the public interest and activity, then shame on them.

Chairperson Colon stated the Board has to be clear that there is not a lack of communication; Commissioner Pritchard is suggesting or trying to find out whether it was something the CRC might want to consider; and Commissioner Carlson is saying make sure the Board does not get in the habit of going against anything the CRC is going to do. She stated she supports it because based on what she read, the CRC’s concern was financial and making sure it did not cost a lot of money; and that is very kind of them. She stated they realize it is taxpayers’ money and that was their concern; there was nothing wrong with the Board sending a letter letting them know the Board is offering it to them; but she definitely shares Commissioner Carlson’s concern that in the future, once items get heated, and it might not be something the Board of County Commissioners agrees with, it has to make sure it does not cross the line. She stated that is not the case with this issue; all the Board is trying to do is offer the CRC an opportunity to be seen by the rest of the community; so far it seems like it is not going to cost a lot of money; and one thing staff is going to do is ask the Cities of Titusville, Cocoa Beach, and Palm Bay if the meetings that go out into the community could be televised by them. She noted she is not sure how they are equipped, and it may cost some money to them.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised to the best of his knowledge, he is not sure about Titusville, but Palm Bay pays somebody to come in and record its meetings; it is easy to do it in the Florida Room at Viera because everything is there and they already have the people; so he does not think there is an expense doing the meetings at the Government Center. He noted he is not sure if Titusville has a City employee who does it or an outsider.

Chairperson Colon stated she was disappointed when she read the letter; and after speaking to other folks on the CRC, they were also disappointed with how that letter came across. She stated it should be a lesson to everyone to be careful of how they put things in writing. She stated the Chairman of the Charter Review Committee and Commissioner Pritchard have spoken, and her understanding is they are on the same page.

Commissioner Carlson stated that is what she was after, when she read the letter, and the first issue was money budgeted for televised meetings; but the two other issues alluded to are strong-armed tactics or puppets of the Board of County Commissioners; and she does not want the Board looking like it is going to override any motions the CRC makes because that sends a negative message to the people. She stated it is an independent authority, and the Board needs to be careful about that.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Baldonado was surprised by the letter that was sent out through him; apparently that was not his intent; and he is fully in favor of televising the meetings. He stated it was a request on his part to make sure the meetings were televised so the public would be fully aware of what is going on and if there is a question of cost, then it is incumbent on the Board of County Commissioners to pay the freight. Chairperson Colon stated Mr. Baldonado is going back to the CRC for feedback because no one person has the right to speak for the Commission.

Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board is going to question what Suzi Travis put in the letter, it needs to get verbatim minutes from the CRC so it will know who said what; it sounds like Mr. Baldonado might have made the statement, so she is confused but has not talked to him; and she would appreciate it if the Board could get more details through the minutes.

Chairperson Colon stated it has been a learning experience for all involved; there is no more he said and she said; and they are welcome to come before the Board of County Commissioners and have the discussion.

REPORT, RE: BREVARD CULTURAL ALLIANCE BUDGET AND GRANT PROCESS

Commissioner Carlson stated Item III.A.18., is the Brevard Cultural Alliance’s budget and Item V.A. is the grant process; and it seems premature to pass the budget before talking about the grant process and those dollars associated with it. She stated the $56,000 is part of the budget; if the Board thinks it is prudent, that is fine; but it did not seem quite right. She stated it does not mean the Board is not going to pass it, but it needs to do one before the other because it has not released the grant dollars from the budget.

REPORT, RE: PROPERTY RIGHTS AND ANNEXATION

Commissioner Carlson advised her office put together a resolution regarding water service to some residents to put all the information on paper; and she was going to bring it to the Board in the form of a resolution, but decided she needed additional input from the County Attorney; and presented documents to the Board, but not the Clerk. She stated it basically talks about the issue of rights; and she needs clarification on property owners’ rights as they pertain to annexation and water and sewer utility franchise areas. She stated the Board had discussions and approved the Melissa Court Parkway and Turtle Mound MSTU projects; the City of Melbourne came in and said it is not going to allow those services unless they annex; she heard arguments regarding whether that is legal or not legal; and the issue of utility franchise areas came up also. She requested Mr. Knox put together a report that discusses property owners’ rights as they pertain to annexation, water, sewer, and all utility franchise areas.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Carlson is asking that the Board vote on the resolution; with Commissioner Carlson responding no, it was just for information; she was going to bring it to the Board as a resolution but did not get it in on time; and if the Board gets a report from Mr. Knox, it might clarify some things.

Chairperson Colon inquired if the City of Melbourne has a copy of the proposed resolution; with Commissioner Carlson responding no, but it knows everything about it and she will make sure it gets a copy today and a copy of Mr. Knox’s report.

REPORT, RE: FAC POLICY-MAKING MEETING

Commissioner Carlson advised she attended the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) Policy-making meeting last week and wants to bring a couple of things that came up to the Board’s attention. She stated there was a lot of discussion about annexation; there was a big fight about it last year without much coming out of the Legislature that helps counties; but she wanted to bring to the Board’s attention constitutional amendments that have gotten quite a bit of attention and speed. She stated she does not have the ballot language but has a handout; it is Floridians Against Inequities in Rates; and it has to do with sales tax exemptions.

Commissioner Carlson stated the other amendment was interesting and is being touted as having significant impact to counties; and read a portion of it as follows: “Establishes that before local government may adopt a new Comprehensive Plan or amend the Comprehensive Plan the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of local government by referendum.” She stated it has significant impact and a lot of momentum; it is called the Florida Hometown Democracy Constitutional Amendment; it has gotten a lot of attention from FAC; and it should be taken seriously as it could impact the Board’s abilities to review Comprehensive Plans and will take the Department of Community Affairs out of the equation. She stated if there are questions about those amendments, she would suggest Commissioners contact Carol Bracy, FAC’s Government Liaison.

Commissioner Carlson advised the last item was interesting since the Board is having difficulties with cost shifts from the State; it talks about State budget update, what is going on with the Legislature, etc.; and maybe Senator Haridopolis can allude to some of the details. She read the first sentence stating, “Informing the 2003-2004 State budget, $1.1 billion dollars in nonrecurring revenues were used to fund recurring programs”; and that is what the State has to deal with this coming session and how it is going to pay for the $1.1 billion that is not recurring.

REPORT, RE: AGENDA ITEMS

Commissioner Pritchard pulled Item III.B.7., Agreement with Circles of Care, Inc. for expanded forensic services at Brevard County Detention Center, and Item III.F.1., Renewal Agreement with Spearman Management, Inc. for State lobbying services for discussion.

REPORT, RE: RECOGNITION OF PEGGY BUSACCA

Chairperson Colon advised Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca is at home and not feeling well; she has some beautiful flowers and a Teddy bear and wanted to give her a surprise, but instead she was surprised because Ms. Busacca is not here. She stated the reason she is doing it is because she has the utmost respect for Ms. Busacca and to say thank you for her kindness, warmth, and professionalism shown to the citizens of the community. She stated sometimes they do not have the opportunity to say thank you enough to people who go beyond their duties; there are some employees who are extremely kind and professional; and it was important for her to say thank you to Peggy Busacca on behalf of her office. She stated Peggy has gone beyond what is expected of an Assistant County Manager; she has many times held the hands of a lot of citizens in the community, especially when there was a little turmoil in neighborhoods; and she is the person they always call and can count on. She noted she has been there with tissues when they had citizens who felt overwhelmed over all the things that happen in government; and it means a lot to her because those are her bosses. She stated it is not only for District 5, but she has done it for everyone; and on behalf of Evelyn, Rob, Mary, and herself, she wants to say thank you to Peggy and her staff for everything they have done for all the citizens. She stated they have a little token to say how much they appreciate her and God bless her. She noted they are all blessed to have Ms. Busacca in the County.

REPORT, RE: CITIZENS BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE

Commissioner Carlson advised Kim Zarillo sent a letter to Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten regarding a meeting of the Citizens Budget Review Committee, and is here today.

Kim Zarillo stated she received a memo from Mr. Whitten that Mr. Young, one of the Committee members, called a meeting; she was the only one not called; and she is not sure, but her question to the Board is if it would advise her or find out if it was indeed a public meeting. She stated she does not know anything about it; minutes were later sent; and to her knowledge, it was not publicly noticed, so she sent an email and a copy to the County Attorney’s office.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board can get a review of exactly what transpired with that issue. She stated the Budget Review Committee has been versed in the Sunshine law and meeting without public notice is a violation of that. She requested the County Attorney find out when, where, and whether or not there was staff to take minutes of that meeting. She noted Ms. Zarillo talked about minutes being published; she does not know who published them; and requested if they did, the Board get a copy of all that.

Chairperson Colon apologized to Carol Hayes who submitted a card under Commissioner Pritchard’s report on the Charter Review Commission (CRC) meetings.

Carol Hayes advised it is her belief that any group that accepts even one dollar of public money should be subject to the Sunshine law; and it should not be an option, it should be mandatory. She stated this is not the right place for any government-subsidized group to save money; she is glad the CRC seems to have come around and changed its original point; and she wants to thank Commissioner Pritchard for highlighting it and all of the Commissioners for supporting it.

FINAL ENGINEERING APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY,
RE: LAKE ANDREW DRIVE, PHASE 2

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant final engineering approval for Lake Andrew Drive, Phase 2, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable, and developer responsible for obtaining jurisdictional permits; and execute Contract with The Viera Company guaranteeing improvements for the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH BIRCHWOOD DEVELOPERS GROUP, INC., RE: BIRCHWOOD
SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Contract with Birchwood Developers Group, Inc. guaranteeing improvements in Birchwood Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH JOAN BICKERSTAFF, RE: ATTORNEY FOR CONTRACTORS
LICENSING BOARD

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with Joan Bickerstaff to represent the Contractors Licensing Board from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004 at $100 an hour. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

UNPAVED ROAD AGREEMENT WITH STEVE REYNOLDS, RE: OUTBACK AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Unpaved Road Agreement with Steve Reynolds for a building permit off of Outback Avenue, which has been constructed to the standards of the Unpaved Road Code, Section 62-102. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BINDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGREEMENT WITH BILL AUBLE, INC.,
RE: SAN SEBASTIAN PLAT NO. ONE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Binding Development Plan Agreement with Bill Auble, Inc. setting forth conditions for development of San Sebastian, Plat No. One. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO INCLUDE IN 2003B PLAN AMENDMENT PACKAGE, RE:
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize staff to include the proposed Transportation Element in the 2003B Comprehensive Plan Amendment package. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, RE:
LAKE GEORGE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with St. Johns River Water Management District to provide $200,000 for the Lake George Water Quality Enhancement Project, to partially fund the revised component of the previously approved North Merritt Island Stormwater Master Plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO OBTAIN LABORATORY SERVICES FROM ELAB, INC., RE:
ANALYSES FOR PERMIT REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAMS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize staff to obtain laboratory services from ELAB, Inc. through a Marion County Contract, to perform
drinking water and environmental analyses for permit reporting and monitoring programs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, RE: PALM BAY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement and Memorandum of Agreement with Florida Department of Transportation to provide advance right-of-way acquisition funds for Palm Bay Road Widening Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT WITH AMERICAN LIGHTING & SIGNALIZATION,
INC., RE: CONSTRUCTION AND REHABLITATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with American Lighting & Signalization, Inc. extending the Corporation’s services 90 days past the expiration date of November 9, 2003, for construction and rehabilitation of traffic signals. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO INCREASE WORK ORDER TO ARDAMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
RE: CROTON ROAD WIDENING PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize $23,175 increase in Work Order #2000-010-069 to Ardaman & Associates, Inc. to provide needed testing for Croton Road Widening Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO INCREASE LINE OF CREDIT, RE: OPERATING EXPENSES OF
BREVARD METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve increasing the General Fund revolving line of credit for operating expenses of the Brevard MPO from $110,000 to $170,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH 321 MEDIA GROUP, RE: ADVERTISING
SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to exercise the one-year option renewal, and execute Amendment to Agreement with 321 Media Group for
advertising services. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH MILES MEDIA GROUP, INC., RE: INTERNET
DESIGN AND WEBSITE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to exercise the one-year renewal option and execute Amendment to Agreement with Miles Media Group for internet design and website management services. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE ZIMMERMAN AGENCY, RE: PUBLIC
AND MEDIA RELATIONS SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to exercise the one-year renewal option and execute Amendment to Agreement with The Zimmerman Agency to provide public and media relations services at $9,660 a month. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH KEEP BREVARD BEAUTIFUL, INC., RE: FY 2003-05 CATEGORY
B - BEACH CLEAN-UP GRANT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute FY 2003-05 Category B – Beach Clean-up Grant Agreement with Keep Brevard Beautiful, Inc. in the amount of $109,500 for FY 2003-04. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, RE: OPERATION OF
BREVARD COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with Florida Department of Health for operation of Brevard County Health Department for FY 2003-04; and authorize the Chairman to execute any future amendments to the Contract and the budget, contingent upon the approval of the County Attorney and Risk Management. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF TITUSVILLE AND BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE:
BASKETBALL COURTS AT ISAAC CAMPBELL, SR. PARK

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with the City of Titusville for a CDBG grant of $21,559 establishing the project
budget to resurface and expand two existing lighted basketball courts at Isaac Campbell, Sr. Park; and approve a Budget Change Request to establish the budget. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH BREVARD COMMUNITY COLLEGE, RE:
RELOCATION OF HISTORICAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT CHAIN OF LAKES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Joint Participation Agreement with Brevard Community College to relocate a historical residential building at Chain of Lakes to Titusville College Campus. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION AND AGREEMENT WITH FRIENDSHIP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
RE: USE OF COCOA WEST AND WOODY SIMPSON PARK FACILITIES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution authorizing Friendship Community Development, Inc. to use portions of Cocoa West Recreation Complex and Woody Simpson Park; execute Agreement with the organization for use of the facilities from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2006; and authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to execute renewal options. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

TERMINATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SPACE COAST CHAPTER OF THE
NATIONAL TECHNICAL ASSOCIATION, INC., RE: USE OF COCOA WEST
COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to terminate Lease Agreement with Space Coast Chapter of the National Technical Association, Inc. for use of portions of Cocoa West Community Learning Center. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, RE: FY 2003-04
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS AND ASSISTANCE GRANT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with Florida Department of Community Affairs for the FY 2003-04 Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Grant; and authorize the County Manager or his designee to submit and execute any additional changes, documents, or amendments required for the grant Contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SHERIFF AND
TITUSVILLE-COCOA AIRPORT AUTHORITY, RE: AVIATION (STAR) HANGAR

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the proposed lease agreement between the Sheriff and Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority for use of a hangar at Merritt Island Airport. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RELEASES, RE: SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS WITH ANTHONY AND ANITA PALMIERI

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize the Chairperson to execute Releases in Brevard County Circuit Court Case No. 05-2001-Carlson-009154-XXXX, Alvin Sanders v. M. A. Stevens, as Trustee of William Hualpha Stevens Revocable Trust; J. M. Hamm, P. C. Hamm; A. Palmieri, A. Palmieri and Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, settling all claims of Anthony and Anita Palmieri upon legal approval of the County Attorney’s Office. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT, RE: UNCLAIMED FUNDS FROM CLERK’S OFFICE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to acknowledge receipt of unclaimed funds in the amount of $3,664.36 from the Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts, minus the funds claimed and the advertising fee. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to appoint Marty Brown and Ray Mullin to the Dogs on the Beach Study Committee with terms expiring February 26, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the bills as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING JAMES W. EAVES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution commending James W. Eaves, Road Supervisor with North Area Roadways Maintenance, for 39 years of dedicated public service, and wishing him good health and happiness during his retirement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING NATIONAL PHARMACY WEEK

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud a resolution proclaiming October 19 through 25, 2003 as National Pharmacy Week in Brevard County.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming October 19 through 25, 2003 as National Pharmacy Week in Brevard County, and urging all citizens to acknowledge the valuable services of pharmacists to provide safe, affordable, and beneficial pharmaceutical care and products to all citizens. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard presented the Resolution to Teresa Towle, who advised she is a pharmacist in Brevard County, past president of the Brevard County Pharmacy Association, and President of the State Pharmacy Association, so she is representing not only Brevard County pharmacists but also the 21,000 licensed pharmacists in the State. She stated she appreciates the Board presenting the Resolution to them; Commissioner Pritchard mentioned their theme, “Know your medicines and know your pharmacist”; it is a timely opportunity for her to present to the Board, because of the advent of importation of medications from other countries, which is illegal, but they have a storefront operation in Brevard County that is allowing residents to import medications from other countries. She stated it dilutes the message that the pharmacist is the health care professional who has the greatest knowledge of medications; and she hopes she can convey the message to the Board and the population of Brevard County who is watching the meeting that it is very important to have a personal relationship with the pharmacist. She stated the Resolution states taking responsibility for your own medication use; she wants to make sure patients know they need to ask questions; there are many times they receive medical advice and need to confirm that with someone else; and they need to not be afraid to ask questions. She stated many of her patients think that what the doctor tells them is the gospel; they do not confirm it even if they are having a side effect; they may be on another medication the doctor is not aware of; and it is very important to have a relationship with a pharmacist where one can ask questions.

Chairperson Colon advised there is going to be a Seniors Expo in Melbourne soon; she has the information in her office; and she hopes the Pharmacists Association will be part of that Expo because a lot of senior citizens will be there and it would be something they would need to know. She stated if Ms. Towle is talking about educating people that would be the perfect arena for it. Ms. Towle stated she will contact Commissioner Colon’s office for the information; they participate in health fairs around the County; but she does not know if they are in that one.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Ms. Towle said there is an illegal storefront and is it in Brevard County; with Ms. Towle responding yes, there is one in West Melbourne in the Plaza at the corner of Minton and Wickham Roads; the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has come down stating that those operations are illegal; they have closed some down; but she does not know if any have been closed in Florida. She stated there is one in Arkansas closed by FDA called “Rx Desot”; and that is the most famous case so far. She stated the point that many of the citizens do not realize is that it is not legal to import medications for personal use into the United States; the only way it is legal is if it is a medication that they need and it is not available in the United States; and they have been trying to preach that message. She stated the FDA has been out preaching the message and even their Board of Pharmacy in the State is coming out with a public relations campaign next month to educate patients; ande bottom line is there are operations like the storefront, but she does not know the name although it was featured in the Florida TODAY many times. She stated it is basically a walk-in opportunity for patients to place an order to be imported; and the primary location medications are coming from is Canada. She stated she does not want to just pick on Canada because they do come from other places; but it is primarily from Canada and primarily from one province in Canada. Ms. Towle stated there are also internet pharmacies; almost anybody can get on the internet and order medications; and a lot of that is illegal. She stated they are seeing more and more of it and that is why she wanted to be here and give an education about having a relationship with a pharmacist. She stated it is so important to disclose to someone all the medications a person is on.

Commissioner Carlson stated it would be nice if the Brevard Pharmacy Association would be able to put something in writing to the Board stating its concern regarding that particular facility so that if they have folks that come to them and question it, they will have some background. Ms. Towles stated she will do that.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK

Commissioner Scarborough read aloud a resolution proclaiming October 5 through 11, 2003 as Mental Illness Awareness Week in Brevard County.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming October 5 through 11, 2003 as Mental Illness Awareness Week in Brevard County to increase public awareness of severe mental illness and promote greater access to effective treatments for those who suffer from the potentially disabling symptoms of those disorders. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough presented the Resolution to Freda Schildroth, President of Space Coast Affiliate of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI), who thanked the Board for the proclamation and for its and its staff’s support of issues regarding mental health, substance abuse, and homelessness. Ms. Schildroth stated NAMI is a nonprofit grassroots all-volunteer and self-help organization of consumers, families, and friends of people with severe and persistent mental illnesses; and its mission is to improve the quality of life for people with brain disorders by providing support, information, and advocacy. She stated many people do not know what the symptoms of a mental illness are; education is so vital to a healthy society; and that is how NAMI helps. She stated mental illness is a medical problem; just as people have sick knees, sick hearts, or sick lungs, the brain can also become sick; and recognizing the symptoms of a mental illness and getting proper treatment saves lives and dollars, and betters the chances of someone with a mental illness living a full and productive life and being a contributing member of society. Ms. Schildroth stated NAMI affiliates in Brevard County are working hard to educate citizens about mental illnesses; they wish to thank the Library System as well as Patrick Air Force Base Library and Brevard Community College Melbourne Campus Library for allowing them to display information in their libraries; and informational handouts are available for the public in libraries throughout the County. She stated this year’s theme for Mental Illness Awareness Week is “Take Action to Change the Nation”; that is exactly what the Board is helping NAMI do; the Commission on Mental Health and Community Solutions, of which she is a member, has accomplished much in the 21 months it has been commissioned; but they have much more to do. Ms. Schildroth stated in observance of Mental Illness Awareness Week, there will be a candlelight ceremony at 7:00 p.m. on October 5, 2003 at the Assisted Living Facility, Circles of Care, 2000 Commerce Drive, Melbourne, and a lecture from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on October 8, 2003 at Brevard Community College Melbourne Campus, Building 4, Auditorium. She stated Dr. Barry Hensel, Clinical Director, Circles of Care, Inc. will be the moderator for the lecture; guest speakers will be Major John Blackledge and Officer Mark Scammell of Palm Bay Police Department, Honorable Judge Cathleen Clarke, who, in addition to her regular duties, presides over mental health court; and Dr. Mary Beth Kenkel with Florida Institute of Technology. She stated the Brevard Community College Office for Students with Disabilities is co-sponsoring the October 8 lecture; and both events are free and everyone is invited and encouraged to attend. She thanked the Board again for the Resolution.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING BREVARD COUNTY 4-H WEEK

Brevard County 4-H Agent advised the Brevard County 4-H Youth Commission is the youth development organization that has a research base from the University of Florida as one partner and Brevard County Commission as another partner; and it is the only youth development organization sponsored by the County. She introduced Jessica Adams, 4-H County Council president.

Jessica Adams, President of Brevard County 4-H County Council, thanked the Board, on behalf of the Brevard County 4-H, for funding its youth enrichment program; stated they are truly blessed by the Board’s dedication to help make Brevard County’s 4-H Program a success; and through its funding the 4-H’ers of Brevard County have the opportunity to learn leadership skills, time management, self-discipline, creativity, and self-confidence, and will take those skills back to the community to help others. She stated some famous people who were in 4-H include Johnny Carson, Johnny Cash, Dolly Parton, Astronaut Alan Shepard, governors, representatives, senators, the Speaker of the House, 30 major universities’ presidents were chancellors for 4-H’ers in their youth, players in the NBA, NFL, and Olympics, and Orville Reddenbacher, founder of Orville Reddenbacher popcorn; so it is evident that the program benefits youth from all walks of life. Ms. Adams advised 4-H is building the leaders of tomorrow; she learned they all have the potential to make their best better; before she became a 4-H’er, she was shy, insecure, and would never dream of getting up in front of a group or speaking as she is now; but she has learned to be confident, secure, and organized in her thinking and tries her hardest to overcome her fears. She stated two years ago, after she began 4-H, she won first place at the State level demonstrative speech contest. She stated another valuable thing she learned is that they have to follow before they can lead; going into a situation without knowing what to do or what is supposed to happen shows a lack of wisdom, which can only be attained through trial and error; and after years of participating on the lower levels of the Council and learning, she finally decided it was time to run for the president of the 4-H County Council. She stated winning the race has been one of the most rewarding things in her life; the greatest thing she has learned in 4-H is to believe in herself; she learned if she wants to accomplish something and give it all she can, she will succeed; and one of the most important things in life is knowing there is no limit to what one can accomplish with dedication and hard work. Ms. Adams advised one of the ways she pushed her limits and caught a glimpse of her true potential was by running for a State office in 4-H; that is one of the times she learned by her mistakes; but as her mom has told her many times, making mistakes is the best way to learn because you will never do it again. She stated she lost the election but in the process made many friends, learned the true meaning of hard work, and learned that failure is something meant to be taken gracefully. She stated a friend told her the night she lost that one has to experience the valleys to truly appreciate the mountaintops; fortunately she has had more mountaintops than valleys; and because of 4-H she had opportunities to climb those mountains and gain valuable life skills. She thanked the Board again from the Council for its ongoing support of the 4-H Program, and thanked the Board personally for helping to provide her with experiences that have changed the way she sees the world, thinks, and speaks. She stated she will always remember 4-H throughout her adulthood as the mold that made her what she is today.

Chairperson Colon advised for those who want more information about 4-H, they can contact the Brevard Extension Service, which has offices in Titusville, Cocoa, and Palm Bay. She read the Resolution proclaiming October 5 through 11, 2003 as Brevard County 4-H Week.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution proclaiming October 5-11, 2003 as Brevard County 4-H Week. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon presented the Resolution to the 4-H Agent and Ms. Adams presented a cake to the Board.

RENEWAL AGREEMENT WITH SPEARMAN MANAGEMENT, INC., RE: STATE
LOBBYING SERVICES

Carol Hayes of Merritt Island urged the Board not to renew the Spearman Management contract or any contract with lobbyists, and not to use tax revenue to pay lobbyists to do what the State Senators and Representatives are elected to do, and instead to expect more from the State Senators and Representatives, and if they fail to do a good job for the County, to let the public know so they can try to make whatever changes are called for in Tallahassee. She stated checks and balances are supposed to work like that and keep government responsive to the votes; that is something lobbyists do not do well; and actual mutual extortion is held common cause, which describes the relationship between lobbyists and elected officials. She stated that is how it looks often to the average government watcher and taxpayer; there were no letters in support of the contract renewal from any people like that, only from other elected officials; and all of them benefit from a symbiotic relationship rather than mutual extortion or reelection insurance for incumbents. She stated the game played is described as: Commissioners pay a lobbyist to represent them in Tallahassee; the lobbyist contributes to their political campaigns and those of State Legislators; State Representatives extol the power and influence of the lobbyist when they get back from Tallahassee; the Commissioners renew his contract; the State Representatives keep bragging on him; and the lobbyist keeps delivering those campaign contributions, a cycle that clearly needs to be broken. She stated it stiffs the taxpayers; it forces them to contribute indirectly to the campaign funds of Commissioners and Legislators; and she has a real problem with that. Ms. Hayes stated Brevard County survived five years without a lobbyist; Mr. Spearman’s contract was only picked up again at the December 9, 1997 Board meeting by a three-to-two vote, with Commissioner Higgs’ vote breaking the tie; and she has an even bigger problem with that for she would presume that some of the training grants Mr. Spearman obtains from the State flow through the Brevard Workforce Development Board to the Paxen Group, a job retraining business, which is registered with the State and lists Patrick Higgs, Nancy Higgs, and Philip E. Higgs as directors and three principal officers of the company. She stated Commissioner Higgs acknowledged at the Board meeting in December that she and her husband and some others were stockholders in the company, but there was no mention, at least in the minutes of the Board meeting, of the offices they held; and County Attorney Scott Knox opined that her interest in the company did not constitute a conflict of interest because the services Mr. Spearman provides were services the public could also obtain at the same cost, but somehow that decision fails to give her a warm fuzzy feeling. Ms. Hayes stated she would like to know as a matter of public record how many grants the Paxen Group has received since 1997 through the Workforce Development Board, if any, and what the total dollar value is if any; and during what period of time Commissioner Higgs served on the Brevard Workforce Development Board. She stated she in no way means to single out Commissioner Higgs for special scrutiny; she would also like to know if any other Commissioners or employees have employed Mr. Spearman in any capacity or represented him as an attorney or in some other capacity, or have any conflict of interest in that regard. She stated the Board is a paid member of a lobbying group, the Florida League of Counties and Cities; it could also use its lobbying services; but on the other hand, she looks upon that membership fee as another misuse of tax revenue. Ms. Hayes stated the League advertises widely and falsely propagandized against the Save Our Home referendum in 1996; it claimed incorrectly that passage of the referendum would trigger a repeal of the $25,000 homestead exemption; and happily the voters were not snookered and Save Our Homes easily passed. She stated the Board could delete that membership fee along with the Spearman contract from the budget.

Chairperson Colon advised Ms. Hayes here five minutes were up.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to extend the time for Carol Hayes to complete her presentation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Hayes advised the Board would save $56,000 this year and $250,000 over a five-year period; and the Board might even be able to stay under the 3% tax cap. She stated she would like to call to the attention of the Board something it may have overlooked at the last budget meeting; a court decision about the 3% cap constitutionality is really moot; the court might determine the cap cannot be mandatory; but it will never find that the Board lacked discretion to abide by the wishes of the electorate. She stated the majority of the Brevard voters directed the Board, their elected representatives, to govern within the 3% cap.

Lil Banks of Merritt Island advised when the newspaper printed an article in which Guy Spearman made disparaging comments about Representative Bob Allen, she sent each Commissioner a fax asking how they can justify using taxpayers money to pay the salary of a lobbyist who is doing his best to sully the reputation of one of our elected officials. She stated the reason the Board hires a lobbyist is so he can work with the Delegation to accomplish the things the Board wants; Representative Allen is the incoming Chair of the Brevard Delegation; and Mr. Spearman’s apparent dislike of him will make for a very difficult working relationship between the two. She inquired if the Board thinks Brevard County will be served by its lobbyist attacking the incoming chair of the Delegation, and how hiring Mr. Spearman will serve the County. She stated when she posted that question to Representative Allen, he said he will have to work around Mr. Spearman with the Commissioners; and that is a shame. Ms. Banks stated it is quite evident that her fax made a big impression because Mr. Spearman’s contract appeared on the Consent Agenda at the previous Commission meeting after she had written the fax to the Commissioners, with the intention that it would sail through with little notice; and she understands it is on the Consent Agenda again and wonders how that happens because if she remembers what she heard that time was that they were going to investigate what he accomplished and how much it had saved the County and so forth and so on, and see if there was a reason to continue his employment or go out for other employment; and she does not see that happening when it pops right back on the Consent Agenda. She stated Commissioner Pritchard apparently felt it should see the light of day and pulled it the last time; Commissioner Higgs challenged him immediately, which brings up the question of Mr. Spearman being the lobbyist of the Higgs family’s corporation; but she will not go into that because it was discussed already. She stated no matter what Mr. Knox says that it really has no bearing, she feels it has a bearing where she is concerned; and it certainly rings ethical doubts. She stated it does not seem to be right and the whole ball of wax needs to be put on the table and discussed so they can see the full picture. Ms. Banks stated another thing that needs explaining is they hired a delegation coordinator to work for the Commissioners; and inquired if they need to spend that much money because it must be in the neighborhood of $100,000 for both of them. She stated all a Commissioner has to do is pick up the phone and talk to any Legislator at any time about anything; they are their own lobbyists in that respect; and a couple Commissioners go to Tallahassee and lobby in addition to their lobbyist; and inquired how much lobbying do they need. She stated something is amiss and needs to be discussed; it needs to be put on the table; people who pay those salaries need to know why the Board is spending that money; and for three years it has run in the red.

Commissioner Scarborough stated since he is the only attorney on the Board, he assumes it was addressed to him; and he wants to say he never represented Mr. Spearman nor has he employed him in any personal capacity.

Commissioner Higgs stated she wants to answer some of the questions raised; she has been open about her business since she ran for office in 1992; she has always filed full disclosures in regard to her income and gone beyond the minimum required on public disclosures; and it is obvious to people that it is public document. She stated it is obvious from the statements made that they have been reviewed, which is part of the public process; it is her family business; and if there were conflicts created, then the ownership of stock or her relationship to her husband would create that. She stated when the contract came before the Board in regard to Spearman Management the first time, she sought counsel; they did not have a relationship initially; when there was a potential of a conflict with her business stock ownership, which would create a potential conflict, she sought the advice of the County Attorney. She stated she got that advice and was comfortable that he gave her good guidance that she did not have a conflict; then she went a step further to seek advice from the Commission on Ethics before voting. Commissioner Higgs stated the advice from the Commission on Ethics to her indicated she did not have a conflict of interest; further the Commission reviewed fully the relationship between the family business and her voting and made a determination on that as well that she did not have a conflict of interest; and that has been revealed. She stated she has never serve on the Workforce Development Board; she did attend two meetings that were part of the transition when the Job Training Partnership Act was carried over to the Workforce Development Board; and that is part of the public record. She stated any business relationships or contracts are part of the public record with the Workforce Development Board; and the Board of County Commissioners does not determine what those contracts are, so there is not a relationship with this Board. She stated she has revealed that on record; it is part of the public records; she does not believe she violated any ethical requirements of her position; and she made it perfectly clear all along what her business relationships are. She stated they are able to be investigated by anyone, as obviously they have been; she has been on the Board of County Commissioners for 11 years, and if there were violations, they have been looked into in each re-election campaign she has been involved in; and those are before the public as they have been pointed out.

Chairperson Colon advised Mr. Spearman wrote to Mr. Jenkins that he would not be able to attend the meeting, so the item should not be voted on today to give him an opportunity to be here. She stated it would be appropriate to do that; and inquired how does the rest of the Board feel.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Chairperson Colon has a desire to have Mr. Spearman at the meeting to answer her questions and is that the reason. Chairperson Colon stated she was also disappointed to see it on the Consent Agenda because it had been discussed and there were things that were brought up; and it would only be fair to have him present. Commissioner Scarborough stated he may have been in the minority on the three/two vote for a lobbyist because he was against having lobbyists back then; the Board had a federal lobbyist at one time and he actively worked to terminate that relationship although he switched over and supported the new federal lobbyist. He stated everybody has a different perspective; and if Chairperson Colon wants to have Mr. Spearman here, the Board should table it to have that opportunity.

Chairperson Colon stated having this as a regular agenda item would be more appropriate. She stated she has no ties with Mr. Spearman or any lobbyist; she has never accepted any money from any lobbyist; and that is public record information. She stated if any constituent from her District has that concern, it is not the case.

Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem bringing the contract back; there is an attachment that says, “supported the efforts of the Brevard Delegation to” and there is a bulletized list; and recommended Mr. Jenkins bring back dollar wise how much the County saved because of Mr. Spearman’s impact in the legislative area. She stated the Board has a lot of supportive letters in the package, including one from NASA for SERPL, which was a major deal back when they were trying to get dollars for that project at the Space Center. She stated from the short time she has been on the Board, it seems like Mr. Spearman has provided the County with a lot of good lobbying efforts, but as Ms. Banks has said, there are some of the Commissioners who do lobby themselves through the Florida Association of Counties, and it would be great to have more Commissioners up there lobbying. She stated certain counties have all their Commissioners up there lobbying because they cannot afford a lobbyist.

Chairperson Colon stated she has been an elected official for eight years, but in the last three years as a County Commissioner, she has been inviting the Delegation to her office; it has been very successful; she had Representatives Needelman, Allen, and Altman, and Senator Haridopolis; and they have spent an hour and a half to two hours talking about anything from Circles of Care to Child Care Association, etc. She stated Mr. Lusk has been very helpful to her office in making sure all the players are there; it gives an opportunity for that Representative to actually ask questions; she has been to Tallahassee and was not impressed with what she saw; and if anything, that is not the time to lobby anybody because they are all running around like chickens without heads. She stated the best time to actually speak to the Delegation is at home; recently Representative Thad Altman felt it was very helpful to do that; and he had an opportunity to do that. She requested Mr. Lusk provide an example of some of the things they discussed at those meetings; and noted they have definitely been worthwhile for both agencies.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to have Mr. Spearman respond to the questions the Board has asked and the questions he sent to him; while Mr. Jenkins can provide some information, it is incumbent on the person the Board hires and pays over $50,000 a year to, to respond to the questions that were sent to him; and with that in mind, he will move that the contract be postponed to the next meeting and put on the regular agenda, and make sure Mr. Spearman is here so he can answer questions.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table the Renewal Agreement with Spearman Management, Inc. for State lobbying services to October 21, 2003, schedule it as a regular agenda item, and request Mr. Spearman to be present to answer questions. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated at the first scheduling of the Agreement, Mr. Spearman was present and available to answer questions; any citizen or Commissioner can pull items off the Consent Agenda for discussion; and this will be the third time the item will come before the Board. She stated the first time it was on the regular agenda; the second time it was on the Consent; it was pulled and opened for discussion; and the Board needs to be ready to determine what it wants to do and to make a decision. She stated the first year she was on the Board, she did not believe it should have somebody working for the County in Washington or somebody working for the County as a lobbyist in Tallahassee; and what has come about and what is her understanding at this point is the County’s interests are served by having a professional look out after the bills and items that are of concern to Brevard County. She stated the big counties have lobbyists; they are advocating their interests; and it is in the Board’s best interest to insure that it has a capable, qualified person there to advocate for Brevard County. She stated Mr. Spearman is quite capable and has done a good job for the County; and the Board needs to be ready to move forward on this when it comes back.

Commissioner Carlson requested Mr. Jenkins bring back information on what the County pays the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) in dues and get some input from them regarding Mr. Spearman. She stated she knows that during the Legislative session it is not always advisable to go to Tallahassee and lobby because there are a lot of headless chickens, but what happens with Florida Association of Counties and what she did last week and will hopefully be doing in November, is putting together policies that will be then used by the Florida Association of Counties lobbying efforts. She stated they exist in Tallahassee to do just that, to lobby for the interests of all counties; and the more Commissioners they have there lobbying for their perspective, the better off they are going to be in the long run; so they do not only have all the Commissioners putting in some input, but also the staff; and there are quite a few staff members of FAC that specifically attack certain issues for counties. She stated when they are delivering that message with multiple counties, it speaks volumes; so it is an important thing to consider the fact that they do put a lot of money into FAC dues and they ought to get something out of it. She stated some input from them regarding the County’s lobbyist would be helpful as well.

Commissioner Scarborough stated some people said to call the members of the Legislative Delegation; he does that all the time and they are great; he was on the phone yesterday with Ralph Poppell about their legislative package and whether the Max Brewer Bridge should be in there; and he said it should be. He stated he does not need to go through Mr. Spearman to do that; but if Mr. Poppell was having trouble with some other group, Mr. Spearman could take the County’s forces and move them forward. He stated Orlando is more aggressive, but even they talk about the South part of the State being more aggressive than they are; and if the County is going to bring its fair share here, it needs to create some type of confederation of six or seven counties in Central Florida and move together with agreed legislative packages. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is meeting with all the members of the Delegation with MyRegion.org with the thought that they will take it upon themselves to become more aggressive; and the problem is not that the Representatives do not represent the County, it is a question of if they can bring the forces to bear that Mr. Spearman is able to aid in. He stated whether that makes it happen or not, it is always possible.

Commissioner Higgs requested the County Manager also bring to the next meeting information for the Board on the lobbyists who are registered for the various cities and other entities in Brevard County. She stated if the Board is going to get into the position that it does not believe it needs expert help in some of those different venues, then it ought to be consistent and bring all that in; it needs to know who may be providing assistance for the Clerk, the Property Appraiser, etc.; so it should all be in one discussion and insure that it is on the table at the next meeting.

Chairperson Colon inquired if it is possible to put in the contract the conflict of interest issue that the lobbyist is not allowed to contribute to anyone’s campaign in Brevard County, whether that is the Legislative Delegation, Commissioners, City Councilpersons, etc. She stated if it can be put in the contract, the Board will not be hearing concerns that were expressed regarding a lobbyist that belongs to Brevard County having a conflict of interest and saying something negative about someone in the Delegation. She stated that is very unprofessional, but those parameters had not been set before, and maybe that is something that the Board can do now to assure it does not have to worry about those kinds of comments coming before the Board in the future. She inquired if there could be some type of wording to see if the Board is comfortable with it at the next meeting.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised he would have to research that issue; there are some cases out there saying that type of restrictions sometimes violates the Constitution; so he has to check to make sure.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the contract already has provisions about conflict; with Mr. Knox responding Chairperson Colon was specifically talking about campaign contributions. Chairperson Colon stated that is correct, so that no one gets accused in the future of that; it is a legitimate concern; that is not just Mr. Spearman, but any lobbyist that the Board might choose to go with; and if that is the case, then the Board needs to make sure it applies to the federal lobbyist also. She stated she would like to get something back in writing on that and see if the Board is comfortable with such wording.

Commissioner Pritchard stated at the August 26, 2003 Board meeting Commissioner Scarborough said, “You have a right to have a report from Mr. Spearman, what he’s done, what he sees happening, a right to ask Mr. Spearman full analysis of what he’s done and where he intends to go; and if you’d like to have it tabled so we can have additional information from Guy Spearman, I think that’s perfectly legitimate. See what each member of the Legislative Delegation says and see what Mr. Spearman says. I also encourage Mr. Spearman to provide us a report of the services he provides because it’s been a number of years. I think to get a report of what he's doing and how he's doing is important to be part of the record." Commissioner Pritchard stated he has not received anything from Mr. Spearman that he requested; he has the one page that was brought out by Commissioner Carlson saying “supported the efforts of the Brevard Delegation”; he supports them also; but his questions were what he does, how he does it and what was the result; and he has heard nothing. He stated he sent the questionnaire to him and got a phone call where he was a little upset that he would even send such a questionnaire, which he based largely on the 1997 RFP that was sent out as well as some other input from others. He stated it had 15 questions on it and he received nothing; he does not think it is incumbent upon Mr. Jenkins to do the work of Mr. Spearman, it is Mr. Spearman’s job; and the Board should hear from him.

Chairperson Colon stated that is why from the beginning she felt the Board should not take any action or discuss it; and a tape to Mr. Spearman of today’s discussion would be in order to be fair to Mr. Spearman. She stated Mr. Spearman sent a letter to inform the Board that he was in charge of hosting a dinner for Representative Allan Bense; it is an event that is very important to the folks in Tallahassee; and he apologized for not being here. She stated it does not mean he did not want to be here, but it was a previous commitment he gave to the folks in Tallahassee; so the Board will hear the item again on October 21, 2003.

APPROVAL, RE: PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE REQUESTS FOR 2004-05

Kenneth Rivard of Merritt Island advised he is a retired airline captain and flew for 31 years in Alaska; he is a flight instructor and aircraft mechanic, and has been in aviation for 48 years; and requested the Board support the legislative package proposed by Commissioner Pritchard, as it is long overdue. He stated Resolution No. 98-148 relates to Valkaria Airport and the appointment process having to do with length of tenants; and replacement appointees seem to work well for Valkaria Airport. He stated some members of the Airport Authority missed 40% of the meetings; two were asked to resign and refused; and the public has been severely restricted by the Authority. He stated they used to have afternoon meetings around 5:00 p.m., and changed them to 1:30 p.m., which is hard for some pilots to attend; he attended about 30 meetings and was at the last meeting where the Airport Authority penalized a tenant for having a car parked on Arthur Dunn Airport over an appropriate period of time; he was upset and there were allegations; and he was fined $500 and suspended for 12 months, etc. He stated those are things pilots do not need to contend with; the Airport Authority does not need to be doing that; and he asked a couple of questions and nobody gave him an answer. Mr. Rivard stated they were told the airports are not for pilots; they were told the Authority is the landlord and they are the renters and if they do not like it to move on; and as far as wasting taxpayers money, one of the big things is the Enchanted Forest issue that has been going on for a couple of years. He stated the regulations allow them to discontinue an approach from the north at night on the non-directional beacon and the problem has gone away; they do not need to cut any trees at all; the radio station beacon that they were talking about was turned off three years ago; and according to the FAA, it was not necessary to turn it off. He noted he believes it was a red herring to chop trees down. He stated the Airport Authority is spending over $3 million for a new corporate terminal at Space Coast Regional Airport; they built one for Eastern Airlines 25 years ago, and Eastern came in for six months and never came back; there was no in-depth analysis on the corporate terminal that received $1.5 million from TOPS and more money from Department of Transportation; and he found nobody makes an analysis of requests to Department of Transportation that the money is for viable uses on airports. He noted there are other examples but he will stop there.

Attorney Tim Pickles, General Counsel for Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority, advised the Airport Authority was not advised this was going to be a Board item until it received a letter dated September 15 from Commissioner Pritchard to several City Council members; in addition, they were just advised yesterday as to the full attempt to change the enabling legislation. He stated when the Board met on Thursday at its budget meeting, it did address Commissioner Pritchard’s letter and should have had a response of the Airport Authority members who were present at the meeting. He stated in general the Airport Authority is not in favor of any changes to the enabling legislation in this term; it welcomes requests to change, but requests they go through a process whereby the Authority is advised of the changes in advance of holding workshops and meets with the prospective change parties to determine the scope and rationale for the changes. Mr. Pickles stated two items caught his attention when he read the proposed changes this morning; one is the requirement that the Airport Authority board members serve at the pleasure of the Board of County Commissioners; this legislation has been in existence for about 40 years; and that has never been the case. He stated maybe there is a rationale for that, but the Authority has not had the opportunity to address that issue and he cannot speak for it; however, he can guess that the board would not want to have appointments subject to the whims of a County Commissioner in the future. He stated the appointment process is very important; and the Board has the discretion at this time, when the appointment process comes up, either through expiration of the term or upon resignation, to appoint whoever they feel is the best fit for the position. He stated another concern he has is the requirement to appoint a pilot and tenant as addressed in Mr. Taft’s correspondence; that can create potential conflicts of interest requiring a tenant to serve on the board when it comes to tenant rent increase or decreases; the tenant can recuse himself from that vote, but the other issue is more a practical than legal question, does the Board want to hamstring itself in the future and require it be a pilot and tenant at an airport if the most qualified candidate is someone else. He stated the Airport Authority Board has taken a position that it does not support that; there are certain municipalities that may have expressed concerns with regard to being removed from the process of having a required appointment from the cities; but they can speak for themselves on that issue. He stated Dave Edwards, Airport Executive Director, is here and may want to speak to specific issues raised by Mr. Rivard or some of the technical questions the Board might have with regard to airport operations. He stated he is here to speak solely on the enabling legislation; and on behalf of the Airport Authority, he requests the Board not make any changes at this legislative term and work with the Airport Authority in the future to present changes and discuss the rationale for them.

Harold Denmon, representing Space Coast Pilots Association, advised they have 100-plus members and everyone is in favor of the changes proposed by Commissioner Pritchard. He stated they have a lot of expertise that is simply being ignored; the Airport Authority has a good bunch of people who try to do the right thing, but sometimes they do not have the expertise when it comes to things like the nondirectional beacon (NDB) and the automated weather service reporting system (AWSRS), which they voted to approve recently. He stated he does not want to go into the technical details of it, but it is apparent in talking with them, being at the meetings, and hearing their discussion, that they do not have a clue what they are talking about. He stated they request that the Board support Commissioner Pritchard’s proposal.

Jay Schenck of Rockledge advised he is a private citizen who was appointed to the Airport Authority years ago and enjoyed serving on the board for about ten years; and he can see it from the board’s side and the pilots’ side as he is also a pilot. He stated he let his medical lapse because of malignant melanoma that he was fighting and is happy to report he is in remission and his medical was passed, his biannual was approved, so he is now waiting for FAA approval for the cancer waiver to be given, and he will be considered a pilot again. He stated it is interesting listening to fellow pilots talk about the NDB and AWSRS; the NDB is the nondirectional signal that the airport tower sends out for an airplane to find an area to come in; and while 30 to 40 years ago they brought in the vortex where they shoot out signals that an airplane would follow to come into an airport, now they use GPS units that will bring an airplane within 15 feet of where it should be; so a lot of the technology is going away and is not necessary. He stated he understands where the pilots are coming from; they can use it for training and all that, but the Airport Authority has wisdom to follow through on that along with the FAA and Department of Transportation. Mr. Schenck stated the AWSRS is a weather reporting system specific to each airfield; at Arthur Dunn they have sky jumpers that jump from airplanes 10,000 feet in the air; and they have the main corridor of Florida airplanes going back and forth. He stated they had the option to purchase a weather system for that airport; and they are only paying 10%, with the State paying the rest of it. He stated at the last meeting, some pilots jumped up and asked why are they buying a weather system; a pilot in inclement weather would want to know what is going on; the weather reports they get from the U.S. government are up to ten hours obsolete; and if people watch the television on weather reporting, they know it is not always what happens. He stated being in an airplane and stuck in bad weather is deadly; being a pilot and on the Airport Authority he questioned their decision; but that is what makes local government beautiful, they can work out the problem and try to resolve it for the benefit of the entire community. Mr. Schenck stated as for the car towing, they had a tenant running an illegal car repair business out of the hangars; he was asked to correct it but did not; the car was moved away and the tenant got very upset about it and struck an Airport Authority employee; and the punishment for that person doing that was a small fine and for him to get psychological training so it would not happen again. He stated that is just the business of running an airport; the new terminal is needed; pilots who have the option to land at private airfields and land at Space Coast Regional may look at it as going back in time to the 1950’s; and it is not their objective to bring it up to the year 2010, but it is needed. He stated the Airport Authority now serves in a trailer; it probably has been there 35 years and the termites own more of it than the Authority does; so there is a lot of benefit. He requested the Board be careful of some of the advice it gets and make sure it gets advice from all parties because he does not believe the Board is getting the whole picture when it hears some of the information. Mr. Schenck stated for Commissioner Pritchard to recommend members go from three to two-year terms could be devastating; County Commissioners appoint who they believe would be for the best interest of the community and the airport; but he can understand why he is saying that if they want to keep their patsy in there who would work for their agenda. He stated Commissioners come and go; pilots come and go; State legislators come and go; the director of the Airport is leaving in two months, so they have to find a new director; and if they are constantly changing the board, they will be in trouble running the airport. He stated there is about $40 million in assets on that field; a lot of it is in place and works; and requested the Board be careful what it changes and why it is changing it.

Ken Griffin of Cocoa Beach advised he supports Commissioner Pritchard’s position on the legislation; they can go through all the things the Board has been hearing, but it is not necessary; and he hopes they can have a good meeting on all of it and work out the problems here. He stated he is a pilot and rented a hangar at Merritt Island for the last 11 years; last year he gave it up, but still goes there and is friendly with all the pilots and flies occasionally; but mainly his request is to include a pilot tenant on the board. He stated it would smooth things out with that board; they would better understand each other; and there would be more harmony all the way around, so he supports Commissioner Pritchard’s position.

Joel Taft, Chairman of the Airport Authority, advised much has been said about the Airport Authority and the legislation; there were a lot of innuendoes expressed and distorted facts; and unfortunately people publish those as facts and they continually have to fight to get the truth out. He stated it was said they want to cut the trees down in the Enchanted Forest; they do not want to cut anything down; but they are under the rules of Florida Department of Transportation and FAA that dictate what must be clear in a certain zone at the end of the runway, so that is not a true statement. He stated planes are coming in at night; the beacon provides a safety factor and information to overflying aircraft; and as for removing members of the Airport Authority, it is his understanding the only person who can do that, once someone is appointed, is the Governor other than the term expiring. Mr. Taft stated comments about the membership of the board were gross misrepresentations; they have two members who have pilot’s licenses; a third member has two degrees from Embry-Riddle in airport management; two members are highly versed in finance and getting grants; and another is deeply experienced in design and operation of airport facilities. He stated he spent over 36 years with Grumman Corporation specializing in ground operations of aircraft and facilities; so to say there is no expertise on the board is totally wrong. He stated because someone has a pilot’s license does not guarantee he has the ability to operate on the Airport Authority; and the key to the Airport Authority is the people must be nonbiased and not aligned so they can make necessary decisions for the best interest of everyone involved. He stated appointing a pilot resident of an airport to the Airport Authority will bottle things up based on what he has seen from the two organizations of pilots that have been put together; there is one member who openly stated the airports as far as he is concerned are there for the pleasure of the private pilots and that there should be no rent increase; and that the Airport Authority should come to the Board for more ad valorem taxes so the Board can subsidize their operations. Mr. Taft stated he is against the road and the commercial terminal because they are not being built for his needs but for future business so the Airport Authority can become self-sufficient. He noted that is the type of misinformation that is going out; it is a constant battle; he prefers things be left alone; and if there are changes requested in the future, they should all sit down and discuss it before it is put on paper.

Dennis Knutson of Indialantic and member of the Space Coast Pilots Association, advised he is in favor of general aviation and in favor of Commissioner Pritchard’s amendments; the T-hangar tenants along with commercial tenants who supply fuel, parts, and maintenance constitute general aviation; and general aviation has been the mainstay of the three airports for many years and will continue to be the mainstay for many years to come. He stated about 40 years ago the interests in the airports had a big shift; a plan was developed to improve Space Coast Regional Airport; for four years the Airport Authority has spent more and more money on the project; but the pilots are not convinced that the plan will ever bear fruit and that the new terminal is necessary. He stated as the Airport Authority spends more and more money, their rents have to be increased; and there are such things as matching funds and other incidental expenses not covered by grants. He stated the pilots are a large group; they think they deserve to have a voice in future developments of the airports; they think they should be heard; and they urge the Board to approve the amendments of Commissioner Pritchard.

Chairperson Colon advised she received an analysis from District 1 Commissioner’s Office of things for the new 2004 package and things from the 2003 package that were not included in the 2004 package; and inquired if Mr. Jenkins knows what items they were; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding no, but Ms. Laymance may know. Commissioner Scarborough stated he asked Rene Davis to go through the packages and do an analysis and thought the other Commissioners would like to use it for their review, but he did not send a copy to Ms. Laymance. He noted it summarizes the inclusions and exclusions.

Commissioner Pritchard advised several times the representatives of TiCo Airport Authority said they had no idea this item was coming up; and he begs to differ with them; he met with Dave Edwards and Frank Kinney on April 23, 2003 and told them it would be coming back up again; and he even mentioned it at the July 8, 2003 meeting that he reported his interest to the Board and the public to readdress the TiCo local bill during the legislative proposal discussion later in the year. He stated it has not changed from what was proposed last year and what the Board took the position on in writing a letter to the Governor asking him not to sign the TiCo legislation that had been proposed until they had more input, more public awareness, and a chance to fully address what the proposals are. He stated in the early 1990’s a Commissioner was infuriated with the operation of the TiCo board and voted to pull their funding, which at that time was considerable, about $700,000; that made a dent in the way they handled things; but this year and last year they are talking about $180,000; and when talking about a multimillion dollar operation, that is not even bus fare. He stated there is no input once they make the appointments; the members are off and running; sometimes the board is a little comical in its operation, as Mr. Taft was bringing his dog to the meetings for quite a while and letting it run around during the meetings; and that is no way to conduct a professional meeting. Commissioner Pritchard stated they reviewed the operation and looked at ways they could make it what they considered to be better and more responsive to the Board; it is a taxing district, albeit a small taxing district; and the people involved, including the Cities of Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach, Cocoa, Rockledge, and Titusville, and the unincorporated area, are all part of the taxing authority and need to have a little more of a voice. He stated the reason to include a pilot tenant on the board is that many pilot tenants have large amounts of airline experience; the Board heard Mr. Rivard who was a captain and flew 737’s and 727’s; there is a lot of difference having that type of knowledge and being a private pilot; and when there is that type of experience, it behooves the Board to address those people and include them, so he suggested including them as members of the Airport Authority so that their views are not only heard but their vote counts. He stated there have been a lot of innuendoes and stories told by both sides; revamping the TiCo legislation is in the best interest of the Airport Authority, the taxpayers, and the people who use the facility; so the Board should go with it.

Commissioner Pritchard stated another issue he would like to include is the fireworks legislation they are still in the process of developing; the TiCo legislation is only one of 16 items proposed as legislative requests for 2004; the next meeting on the fireworks is in October; and by then they should have it pretty much formulated as to what the intent of the legislative language would be. He stated the fireworks legislation should be considered at that time and be included in the legislative package even though they are going to present their requests to the Delegation on October 8, 2003.

Commissioner Scarborough advised historically the Board had the Max Brewer Bridge in the legislative requests; he talked to Bob Kamm and Carol Laymance, and it was dropped because the State is taking it over; but Representative Poppell thought it had not happened yet, and is concerned that the Board has to accept it and the State has to acknowledge it; and once they put it on, it does not mean the County will get the funds. He stated Representative Poppell has an appointment with the Governor this week to make sure the Governor is supporting it; so it is at a critical point; and to drop it would be foolhardy because it may mean the people of Brevard County would have to pick up a $25 million cost; and he does not want to see that.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to include the Max Brewer Bridge project in the legislative package.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if it is to ask the State to take it over or to fund it; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he does not know if it was sent to all the Commissioners, but Mr. Kamm and Ms. Laymance put together a draft; and it does not speak to the $3 million, but to completing the project.

Commissioner Carlson advised she has general statements in regard to legislative requests and talked to Carol Laymance about what she would like to see; and it was great that Commissioner Scarborough had the assessment done because she had questions of what happened to those in the 2003 legislative package in terms of their status. She stated some of those are self-evident and others are not; and she believes the Board asked Carol Laymance for a post legislative document, which she created and sent to the County Manager with copies to Commissioners, she assumes but is not sure. She stated what it does is talk about legislation that was passed in 2003 and then what was not; and it lists 2003 County allocations and the State budget. She stated she would like to have more details of how the post legislative update has been correlated with the legislative requests; and she wants to know what is the status of the requests based on what has passed in the Legislature, more details on how the dollars they got through the State impact those areas of government, and did the County get as much as it asked for or did it not, or did it get additional dollars. She reiterated she would like more details with that. Commissioner Carlson stated that could be put in a memo and sent to the Commissioners in the not too distant future; it would be nice to get a report card because she remembers at past meetings when they had workshops with the Legislators and asked for their support on some of the local issues, the only one she knows who did not support local issues was Representative Haridopolis; but others said they would support various specific legislative requests. She stated she would like to know what legislators she can call to ask how is it going, etc., whether there are bumps in the road, how things are progressing through the session, and when the Commissioners really need to go to Tallahassee to lobby with them; and if not, the Board can send letters, etc. like it has in the past.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Jenkins knows what Commissioner Carlson is requesting; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes. Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Jenkins can give the Board feedback about the things that are not on the list; with Mr. Jenkins responding he can respond in a general way that some of the items were not re-requested, and some were on the wish list for several years and not funded, so they took them off and tried to come up with others. Chairperson Colon inquired if staff can go through each item; with Mr. Jenkins responding he will give the Board a written report because he does not think he is capable of telling the Board the specifics of each item. Chairperson Colon stated that will be fine. Chairperson Colon inquired if Commissioner Pritchard wants to make his changes in the form of a motion to see if there is support from the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to include revisions to TiCo Airport Authority Enabling Legislation as proposed.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he will not support it; when he was on the phone with Representative Poppell, he felt it was coming too fast and not going to the Airport Authority; and he felt they would like to have a consensus from the local community rather than coming to them in a food fight type manner when various boards take different postures at different times. He stated the Airport Authority is fighting the pilots and he said that is not the way the community should come before the Legislative Delegation; and it should take time to regroup and come to a consensus.

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

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would love to achieve consensus if that is the way the Board wants to go; he spoke to Representative Poppell about it; he is aware of where they are and what they are proposing and the reasons why they are proposing it; and perhaps what they need to do is get him involved in the process so he feels more comfortable. He stated there are others in the Delegation who support it, so Representative Poppell is but one voice among five. Commissioner Scarborough stated he called Representative Poppell on the Max Brewer Bridge issue and then they discussed the Tico legislation.

Chairperson Colon stated it might be a good idea to get something in writing from those folks who are in support in the Delegation and, if Commissioner Pritchard wishes, to have a meeting with the folks to see what can be accomplished.

Commissioner Pritchard stated they can do that; he also sent letters to the municipalities and so far only received a response from Rockledge; and the only thing the City objected to was one change for District 4 Commissioner, giving her the option. He stated it was written that they must choose somebody from Cocoa or Rockledge; what he said in his revision is they must choose somebody within the entire Authority district; and Rockledge still wanted to be included even though it is still up to the District 4 Commissioner whether to pick from Cocoa or Rockledge. He stated it was not like it had to come from Rockledge; it was not the same type of change Titusville effected last year where one representative had to live in the City and be appointed by Titusville City Council; and it is something they can work on and hopefully receive more consensus on.

Commissioner Carlson inquired because District 4 used to include the Cocoa area and no longer does through redistricting, does District 4 have the same standing in the enabling legislation as it did; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding he would have to look into it because he is not sure. Commissioner Carlson stated that needs to come back and for Commissioner Pritchard and the Board to work on that issue.

Chairperson Colon inquired when will it all come back to the Board; with Mr. Jenkins responding October 21, 2003; and unless the Board has objections to other items, it can adopt those today and wait for the remaining items or do the whole thing at once.

Commissioner Scarborough stated they go before the Delegation on October 8; and Chairperson Colon will make the presentation of what the Board has at that time. He stated one thing that may be beneficial is the Board has a zoning meeting on Thursday night; and if it can get the report and if a Commissioner wants to, they can bring it up under their report Thursday night just with bullets and a few sentences. He stated if a Commissioner feels he or she can champion that cause, they can get it to Ms. Laymance. He stated there were several items from 2003 that were deleted; and he wanted the Board to champion the cause if there was something there. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Commissioner Scarborough wants to adopt the requests that are here; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes with the opportunity to add any items on Thursday night if there is something else.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Chairperson Colon could allow some time for the Natural Resources staff to present a beach renourishment update during her presentation so they can talk to the Delegates and make sure they understand the position the County is in regarding trying to get dollars for beach renourishment. Chairperson Colon inquired what would Commissioner Carlson want exactly; with Commissioner Carlson responding Chairperson Colon could talk to Virginia Barker or one of the other folks and see what they had in mind. She stated she is not sure how long it would be; she just got it the other day from Guy Spearman; and it said U.S. Senator Bob Graham’s Office has contacted them for federal dollars for beach renourishment, and that they are still supportive of the beach renourishment money. She stated they are still working the legislative issues on the federal side, but it is important the State side is worked as well; so it is a critical issue in District 4 and part of District 5. Chairperson Colon inquired how is that different than anything else on the list; with Commissioner Carlson responding she is not sure, so maybe Mr. Jenkins can address that with Natural Resources and see what they need in terms of time or if it is appropriate for them to be on the agenda on their own or something like that. Chairperson Colon stated what she is saying is that it is already in the package so why would it be excluded; with Commissioner Carlson responding they are interested in utilizing the opportunity because they do not get to talk in front of all those folks at once; and perhaps Mr. Jenkins can work that out. Mr. Jenkins stated it is a very busy agenda, but perhaps they could get five minutes and do a very brief presentation. Commissioner Carlson stated she thinks that is all they are interested in doing. Chairperson Colon suggested it be done right before her presentation as part of her presentation.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the legislative package for 2004 including Max Brewer Bridge. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated Senator Posey posed to her specifically a year or two ago that dollars become available at the State level that he does not always know are going to become available, and he wants to be able to draw them down for the County’s benefit, but does not necessarily know what the County’s priorities are. She inquired if there is any way they can at least prioritize some of the things on the list; stated she does not know how they can do that from the standpoint that they have such a mixed bag of things that they would like to see and a lot of those things happen concurrently through the legislative process; but perhaps they could, with Ms. Laymance’s assistance, get feedback through Senator Posey or any of the legislators when they find out there are dollars available for certain issues that the Board may not have addressed through its legislative requests. She inquired if Ms. Laymance had any opportunity to deal with anything like that; stated it was a couple of years ago that Senator Posey brought that up; and he was the one who pushed to have an individual like Ms. Laymance to help them and be the conduit to the Board. She inquired if those instances occurred since Ms. Laymance has been on Board; with Legislative Coordinator Carol Laymance responding they are pretty fleeting and usually happens when a legislator does have an idea of what to do for the dollars, so it does help. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Legislators provide Ms. Laymance any input in terms of having so much in the legislative request package and is it difficult for them to execute some of the Board’s requests; with Ms. Laymance responding she has not heard anything from them but can ask. Mr. Jenkins stated he has heard that the Board would be better off to come in with as brief a package as it can and emphasize its most important projects as opposed to 30 or 40 items. Commissioner Carlson inquired how does the County address going through that; with Mr. Jenkins responding they attempted to do that by screening what the Board got this year. Commissioner Carlson stated they screened out 11 that were there the last time, but they brought in six new ones, which she does not know in terms of priorities if those have precedence over existing 2003 items that are still in the package or those from previous years. Mr. Jenkins stated the only issue is some of those items have been on there for several years and have not met with any success so after two or three years, one reaches the conclusion perhaps that they are not going to get that and should try something else. Commissioner Carlson stated it would be nice on those that were lifted off to get feedback as to why they would not want to put them back on. Mr. Jenkins stated staff will give that to the Board in the report that was asked for previously.

Chairperson Colon stated she is definitely in support of putting some of the things back that they had before; she also wants direction from the Board regarding Article V; that is a very serious issue that is definitely affecting the State and County budgets; and requested Mr. Jenkins put something together on Article V to make sure things do not fall through the cracks. She stated it will be a perfect opportunity to reiterate the Board’s concerns to the Delegation on October 8. Commissioner Carlson stated there was considerable discussion on Article V at the FAC Policy Meeting and perhaps Mr. Jenkins can gather some of that information provided to them and get it to the Chairperson prior to her presentation. Chairperson Colon stated that would be wonderful because then she would be able to say the same things and it would keep being echoed throughout the State.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to provide information on Article V to the Chairperson for presentation to the Delegation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 11:09 a.m., and reconvened at 11:26 a.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: MELBOURNE-TILLMAN WATER CONTROL DISTRICT,
ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, AND CITY OF
PALM BAY ANNEXATION

Chairperson Colon advised she put this item on the Agenda to give the agencies an opportunity to make presentations to the Board on some of the things that are going on in South Brevard with Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District, St. Johns River Water Management District, and City of Palm Bay.

Al Pannell, Manager of Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District, advised he presumes the Board’s concerns are in regard to the legislative package they had last year; and inquired if that is a fair statement.

Chairperson Colon stated Mr. Pannell brought it to the attention of the Board at a workshop; a lot has happened in terms of annexation and so forth; at that point he did not have the opportunity to go in-depth; and the other agencies were not present.

Mr. Pannell advised the time frame was last July at the Board’s budget workshop; rather than discuss the budget, a number of questions from the Board were directed at their recent legislation; and he will walk the Board through what he can say about it. He stated last year at about this time, they went to the Legislative Delegation to begin the process to amend their authorizing legislation; the amendments they were looking for were to modify the boundary of the District to meet a request by the City of West Melbourne to do so, and to provide authorization that would allow the District to sell, lease, trade, and otherwise dispose of real property that was no longer needed by the District. He stated they had two Attorney General’s Opinion stating that under their current legislation they had no ability to move land out regardless of the purpose; they ran into a couple of instances, specifically with the County and the roadway, where it would have been beneficial to the County to acquire ownership to the land to facilitate the project; and they could not do that; so that was the basis for the legislative amendment. He stated in December 2002, he met with the new Palm Bay City Manager Mr. Feldman to give the City a presentation on what was entailed in the legislation; at that time Mr. Feldman indicated the City was possibly interested in annexation of two land sections that the District owned in the western part of the District; he indicated to Mr. Feldman that he felt it was past the point where they could include that in the legislative package as they had everything in and had made the presentation to the Delegation; and Mr. Feldman indicated the City may want to look at it in Tallahassee, to which he responded that is fine. He stated his only caution was to make sure they did not jeopardize the legislation. Mr. Pannell advised in January, Representative Needelman’s Office, called and asked that the required advertisement for the legislation include a line providing for annexation; Mr. Needelman was the sponsor of the legislation; and he being the sponsor, there was no reason to object, so they put it in and it was so published. He stated the City asked for an opportunity to come before the District Board and discuss annexation, which they did in February; and the City of Palm Bay indicated it had an Agreement with the Cities of West Melbourne and Melbourne and with the County to provide future utility services to the western areas of the District, but they could only do so if those areas were within the City’s boundaries. The City indicated it would be beneficial to everyone if those lands were annexed into the City; told the District board the City was not looking for a vote at this time and was merely sharing information; and they would come back to the district on it. He stated the legislative session ended on the first Friday in May; it is his understanding that it was the night before the House Bill was modified to include annexation of the two western land sections for the City of Palm Bay; the next day the District’s attorney and he received phone calls from the Senate Aide Andrew Grayson wanting to know what was going on with the legislation because the Senate did not seem to know anything about annexation; and they told him they did not either and they would have to talk to the House where the change was made. He stated apparently during the last day there was a conversation between the House and Senate, and the Senate dropped the original Senate version and adopted the House version; and it was passed with annexation in place. Mr. Pannell advised the next step after they go through that process is to go to the Governor; the Governor either signs it or vetoes it; in early June he received a call from Lenny Zeiler from Governor Bush’s office indicating the Governor was going to have a very difficult time signing the bill because they were uncomfortable with the annexation and wanted to know how it came to be; and he told Mr. Zeiler what he just told the Board. He stated the District did not include it in there; he cannot speak firsthand as to how it came to be; and he received a number of phone calls looking for background information on the District and things like that, making it very clear to them that they were not sure it was going to get passed. He stated in the middle of the month he received a phone call from Mr. Slayton with St. Johns River Water Management District indicating the St. Johns River Water Management District also had conversations with the Governor’s office; and if the Melbourne-Tillman District would consider selling the acres in the two land sections to the St. Johns River Water Management District, the Governor’s office may be amenable to signing the bill and not worry about any other issues. Mr. Pannell stated selling the land to the St. Johns River Water Management District was reasonably consistent with the previous ten years with St. Johns River Water Management District on the western diversion other than the District board feeling a little bit of time pressure on it; and they did agree they could go along with that concept pending all the legal obligations that would follow and consider selling the land to the St. Johns River Water Management District. He noted eventually the Governor did sign the bill, so presumably something happened to that effect. He advised he came to the budget workshop on July 17 prepared to discuss the District’s budget modifications; the Board asked a number of questions, primarily relating to the legislation and the history of the annexation; and he does not believe he told the Board anything different than what he has said right now. He stated subsequently there were a number of questions from County staff outside the Board room relating to the two land sections as they related to Palm Bay Parkway; subsequent to those issues, his board made the decision that it would not enter into any sales or disposition of lands that may adversely affect the Parkway until it had further information; so the only activity the board has taken to date is it has committed to donate to St. Johns River Water Management District the wetlands in those two land sections that were always discussed as being part and parcel of the western diversion project. He stated to date that is where they stand; in terms of future activities, right now they are not planning anything until there is more information relating to the roadway; he knows there is ongoing discussion and the District does not wish to get in the middle of it; but it will support whatever action the community as a whole wishes to go with. He stated they have no intention of being a hindrance or block it; and their position is to set the land aside, retain it, and deal with the wetlands, which is consistent with what they discussed with the State in the early 1990’s.

Chairperson Colon stated Mr. Pannell mentioned County staff; and inquired if Mr. Jenkins’ office called him to discuss the parkway with him. She stated he needs to be more specific because he is being too general when he says County staff. Mr. Pannell stated it was Transportation Engineering, Transportation Planning, Planning, and Clerk of Courts who intercepted him in the hallway and wanted to express their concerns over the Palm Bay Parkway and potential impact if the District were to sell the land. Chairperson Colon stated the reason she is asking, to be fair to Melbourne-Tillman, is because she read the Minutes where it was generalized like the Board of County Commissioners or County staff; and that is why she thinks it is important to the Board to know what is going on over there, to know the concerns of Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District over what is happening, and to make sure the Board is comfortable with anything that is going on. Mr. Pannell stated it would not be fair to say the County has given the District a formal statement or request; it was merely conversations by selected senior staff having conversations with him and expressing their concerns about impacts to Palm Bay Parkway should they sell the land or it comes out of their ownership. He stated his recommendation to the board is that those were reasonable concerns; any comments regarding the Board of County Commissioners came out of the workshop; he had telephone conversations with Commissioner Colon’s and Commissioner Higgs’ staffs, who primarily represent the District; and it seemed appropriate that he would get those calls and go from there. Chairperson Colon stated the only phone calls Mr. Pannell received from her office were to try and arrange this meeting; and inquired if there is anything else that she does not recall. She stated her office has not given Mr. Pannell any direction. Mr. Pannell stated no, and he would not say that; but he is telling the Board the questions that came about were from the workshop. Chairperson Colon stated she wants to be clear because when she spoke to Mr. Jenkins and asked if there was something she did not know of any discussion with Melbourne-Tillman to make sure she was aware, that was not the case. Mr. Pannell stated if Mr. Jenkins knows anything, it is because his staff told him because he and Mr. Jenkins had no conversations on the issue and there was never a formal presentation by the County. Chairperson Colon stated after hearing Mr. Pannell speak, she thinks she should have asked Representative Needelman’s Office to be present also to make sure both parties are aware. Mr. Pannell stated if there are questions on the annexations and how that came about, he cannot answer that; he has no firsthand knowledge of that; he can say what conversations he had with Mr. Feldman, David Watkins, and Sue Hann; and David Watkins made the presentation to the District board.

Commissioner Higgs inquired, in looking at the property the District is not giving to St. Johns River Water Management District, would the board entertain a County park in that location, and has that ever come up; with Mr. Pannell responding it has never come up; his board would be open to listen to anyone; it would be fair to say right now it is probably a little gun-shy and until they know where the County wants to go with the roadway, he has a feeling the board would be reluctant to want to go forward with anything. Commissioner Higgs stated she understands the wetlands are going to the St. Johns River Water Management District and they might engage in discussion of the lands for the parkway at a later time; with Mr. Pannell responding he sees no reason why that could not happen.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Commissioner Higgs was talking about extension of the regional park; with Commissioner Higgs responding no, she just asked if they would entertain the County being the receiver of the land, keeping it in public ownership, and it being a park. Chairperson Colon stated she wants to know what difference it would make giving it to the County or the City of Palm Bay, and why would they want to give it to the County; with Mr. Pannell responding those questions need to be directed to the District board. Chairperson Colon stated she knows Mr. Pannell does not have authority to do that. Mr. Pannell stated as far as he is concerned, it makes no matter who it goes to, but one thing he would look at, if he is the responsible steward to the citizens of the District who pay a user fee each year, is that it is beneficial to them. He stated if they sell the land and use the money to continue operation of the District, they would not have to pay for it; and from that aspect, that is a consideration.

Commissioner Higgs stated if a proposal of a City park is floating around, she has not heard it. Chairperson Colon stated she was not speaking of it being a park; she was saying what would the difference be; and Mr. Pannell cannot answer that because he does not have the authority to do that, in regards to what was the difference in giving it to the County or the City.

Commissioner Carlson stated she wants to find out what the comfort level was with the discussion on the legislative issue, where they included annexation, then agreed with the Governor’s office to then deal with the St. Johns River Water Management District; and inquired if Mr. Pannell felt that provide the direction the District wanted; with Mr. Pannell responding they had no agreement or discussion with the Governor’s office; and they called the District looking for background information because his staff was concerned that the Governor could not support the legislation as it stood with the annexation issue. He stated the St. Johns River Water Management District approached the District and said they would talk to the Governor’s office and convince him to sign the bill provided the District can assure the Governor’s office that the Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District is interested in conveying the land to the St. Johns River Water Management District for the purpose of the western diversion and upper basin plan. Commissioner Carlson inquired where does that leave the annexation issue they were concerned about in the beginning; with Mr. Pannell responding he does not know and does not know how to tell the Board that. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the District’s agreement to work with the St. Johns River Water Management District was enough that they did not have a problem; with Mr. Pannell responding apparently not because the Governor signed the bill; and whether that was the reason he signed it or whether he never had an issue with it in the first place, he has no idea. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there was no paperwork that came in to justify the Governor’s discomfort; with Mr. Pannell responding there was no paperwork that passed through their office in any way, shape, or form on any of those issues; and it was all based on conversations and presentations by other parties.

Chairperson Colon inquired when presentations were given to the District Board, did anyone raise concerns or opposition in regards to what was being presented to them at that meeting when the City came forward or to Representative Needelman’s advertisement. Mr. Pannell stated Representative Needelman’s office called him and asked him to change the ad for the legislation so the legislation did not change, and he did that. He stated he did not ask anyone because they had to meet the time requirements and did not have time to do that. Chairperson Colon inquired what kind of presentation did the City of Palm Bay make before the District Board and at that point were any concerns raised; with Mr. Pannell responding the City came and requested an opportunity to talk to the District board at the February meeting; they came and made a presentation; the gist was they were looking at possible voluntary annexation on the part of the District and wanted to present information; and they told the board they were not looking for a vote and were just presenting information and would get back to the board on the item at some later time. He stated there were no negative comments that he can recall from the board; and it did not take a vote because it was not asked to. He stated the general feeling among staff was that it was supportable; and there was no reason why it could not be. Chairperson Colon stated she wants to reiterate what Mr. Pannell said to make sure she understands it correctly; and inquired if he said that with staff he did not have a problem with the presentation at that particular moment; with Mr. Pannell responding yes, if the City was requesting the board to consider voluntary annexation, there was no reason to object to it; it was a matter of going through the process; so staff did not have a position. He stated from their viewpoint, it would not matter a whole lot whether it was within the confines of the City or the County. Chairperson Colon inquired how do they feel now and is there still no comment; with Mr. Pannell responding no comment. Chairperson Colon inquired if it is a non-issue; with Mr. Pannell responding he does not think the board has an issue; it was included in the package through Representative Needelman’s office; if he did it on his own or through his office, he has no way of knowing that; and the Governor signed the bill so they are happy with it. He stated if it is annexed into the City so be it; the bottom line is it has no impact on the District directly; so there is no issue that he is aware of from the board’s perspective.

Mike Slayton with St. Johns River Water Management District, advised the dates, time frames, and players that Mr. Pannell related to tracks those issues exactly; and the status is that their board voted to grant the St. Johns River Water Management District a quitclaim deed for about 460 acres of land that lies below the 18-foot contour. He stated the two sections are stacked one above the other; the 18-foot contour comes at an angle like a big scallop in the middle of those sections; it is mostly in the western half of the two sections; and their staff is having discussions with Mr. Pannell and his staff regarding nominal buffer around the 18-foot contour to facilitate their management of those lands.

Chairperson Colon inquired if there are any other projects in the future that Mr. Slayton would like to share with the Board; with Mr. Slayton responding it is part of the C-1 diversion project, and that is the big one going on out there. Chairperson Colon inquired when will it come into fruition; with Mr. Slayton responding it is an Army Corps of Engineers’ project and the time line is not as solid as one would like it to be, so it is sometime in the future.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the St. Johns River Water Management District is going to acquire any other land other than the buffer. She stated from what Mr. Pannell said, there was the anticipation by the Governor’s office that the St. Johns River Water Management District would receive it all. Mr. Slayton stated when he initially spoke to Mr. Pannell, it was that the District would look at two sections of land; his board would support donation of the land below the 18-foot contour; and they would have the land appraised and offer them what their appraiser told them the land was worth. He stated he does not think Melbourne-Tillman felt comfortable with that value; and at its board meeting, it took the action to give the District the quitclaim deed on the 18-foot contour line. He stated the District wanted to have discussions with Melbourne-Tillman for a management buffer zone around the 18-foot contour line to help them with management, seepage, control, etc.

Commissioner Carlson requested Mr. Slayton expound on the importance of the property for the Lake Hell ‘N Blazes and Sawgrass Lake project. Mr. Slayton advised if the C-1 project moves on a faster track than the Sawgrass Lake and Lake Hell ‘N Blazes project, the spoil site they initially intended to use is immediately to the west of the two sections; so if that moved ahead, they would utilize the land within those two sections as a backup spoil site. He stated since they both are tied to the Corps’ projects, they are probably on the same timeline.

Chairperson Colon stated her first grader was only months old at the time she took him out to the C-1 diversion project area; she was excited about it; and she hopes he is not in high school by the time they complete the project.

Lee Feldman, City Manager of Palm Bay, echoed what Mr. Pannell said; and stated the time frames are fine; but he wants to shed a little more insight on the conversations. He stated Mr. Pannell first came to the City in December to tell them that the Legislative Delegation sent him to the City to gain support for the legislative package; at that time they indicated from a staff level that they would like to see the two-square mile sections annexed into the City because if the intent was for the District to sell the property and ultimately have it developed, it being on their border next to the Regional Park, they felt the land use ought to fall back to local government jurisdiction so they can make sure that whatever happened on the property would not affect the City negatively and would continue to promote sustainable growth for their community. Mr. Feldman advised the City indicated it would like to address the issue as part of the process; the District came before the City Council in January; and at that time the Council echoed the sentiment that annexation would be necessary for the City to support the legislative package moving forward. He stated he does not remember if it was some time before or after the meeting that Mr. Pannell wrote in a letter saying there would be no objection to annexation from a staff’s perspective; and the City wanted to go before the District board before the bill had to be filed, but because of scheduling conflicts, they were pushed to the end of February, which was several weeks after the time the bill had to be filed in Tallahassee. He stated the annexation language would have been included at that time; they indicated that to the Legislative Delegation; the sponsor of the bill chose to effect advertisement to allow for modifications during the process; and that is what happened. He stated as they were going through the legislative process, the City indicated to the Legislative Delegation it would like the property annexed in because the City wanted land use control of the property; however, the City did tell the Delegation under no circumstances would it want to do anything that would jeopardize the bill and felt it was important for the District to accomplish its goals. He stated they were assured through the process that nothing would jeopardize the bill; and ultimately nothing did jeopardize the bill. Mr. Feldman stated the City also received calls like Mr. Slayton and Mr. Pannell received from the Governor’s office about this issue; but in their calls they did not raise the annexation issue, only the conveyance; and the City told the Governor’s Office it had no objections or concerns at that time, and had no objection to taking the land within the corporate limits of the City.

Chairperson Colon stated one of the questions she has is in regards to development and creating more in that area; those are some of the concerns she shared with Mr. Feldman; and requested he elaborate on what it means to zoning and so forth. She stated the County is concerned and wants to make sure it is not creating unnecessary growth and rezoning areas that would create a hardship on the services provided to the community. Mr. Feldman stated that is the City’s concern as well. He stated when the City heard the St. Johns River Water Management District wanted to acquire all the property, the City had no objection to that and thought it would be a good use of the property if they could arrange the financial deal with the District; and the City’s only concern on the future development of the property is to make sure there is enough right-of-way preserved for the parkway system when it goes in, because it would be a shame to have government-controlled land today move to a private developer or another government entity and no longer be available for the parkway. Chairperson Colon inquired if to Mr. Feldman’s knowledge there is no intention of putting any development out there because it is of great concern to her. She stated she was not supportive of it when she was on the City Council; and that is why she shared those concerns with Mr. Feldman, when the questions came up, to make sure the County is protecting its boundaries and not pushing more for growth in that area. She noted those were the same concerns Commissioner Higgs stated in the past.

Commissioner Higgs suggested a directive to the County Manager and staff to work with the City of Palm Bay on an interlocal acquisition and development of open space and a park out there. She stated when she mentioned a park, Chairperson Colon asked her what if the City did that; that is a wonderful idea; and perhaps it could be a joint project they could embark on and

have discussions about. Chairperson Colon stated if that is what they are saying the intent is, then they have something in common; and it is something that would be productive and assure both agencies to accomplish the same thing.

Mr. Feldman stated while the City Council has not taken a position on that, he would be comfortable in telling the Board the City has no plans to acquire that property at a cost to the City. He stated Mr. Pannell indicated it is the District’s intent to sell the property to offset operating and capital costs of the District; and one of the reasons the City supported the legislative package is because it would ultimately like to have costs offset for the residents of Palm Bay, but at the same time wanted to make sure that whatever happens on that property is done in a way that would not impair the City’s abilities to have sustainable growth out there. He stated it does not mean that the City would advocate strictly governmental use; it has to go through the land use development policies, Comprehensive Plan amendment, and ultimately zoning before it makes any final land use determination; however, it is the City’s intent and the reason it was concerned about annexation to make sure that whatever goes there is not going to be an impediment to smart growth in the community. He stated if the County decided to put a solid waste facility or transfer station on that site, the City’s land use controls would help prevent something like that from occurring. Mr. Feldman stated a multifamily development out there that would increase the density of the property beyond what the City can afford in terms of infrastructure would be a detriment to the City and would be something it would not like to see. He stated whether the parkway is out there and uses develop pursuant to that, which could be serviced from side roads or service roads, they are not at that stage yet so he would not want to go on record and commit to the Board that the City would not want to see any development out there; but it wants to see smart sustainable growth.

Chairperson Colon inquired if they could have discussions between the City and Mr. Jenkins to try and come up with something they both could feel comfortable with. She stated Melbourne-Tillman owns the land; it is up to the District if it wants to sell it and she does not blame it; but something that is a win/win situation for all three agencies could be accomplished.

Mr. Pannell stated having had the advantage or disadvantage of speaking first, basically everything he heard today, unless the Board feels otherwise, indicates the three agencies are generally on the same page but approaching it from different angles. He stated if he could allay the concerns of Chairperson Colon, and if there are issues out there that he does not see, they can collectively work towards solutions. He noted they are all on the same page in terms of the direction they want to go. Chairperson Colon stated what the Board is saying is that it wants to be part of the process.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Chairperson would be willing to support County staff talking to Melbourne-Tillman about the possibility of a joint-use park. Chairperson Colon stated if the discussion can be with all the folks who are here, it would be productive to start from the very beginning with everyone knowing everything; and recommended Melbourne-Tillman, Palm Bay, and St. Johns River Water Management District be part of that discussion.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to work with Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District, St. Johns River Water Management District, and City of Palm Bay on the possibility of a joint-use park in the proposed annexation area. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC DRIVEWAY IN MOORE
PARK SUBDIVISION - RICHARD H. AND PHYLLIS CASSIDY

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a public driveway in Moore Park Subdivision, as petitioned by Richard H. and Phyllis Cassidy.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised the speakers are in favor of the vacating; and the Board needs to accept an Easement in order to preserve the force main in the area.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution vacating a public driveway in Moore Park Subdivision as petitioned by Richard H. and Phyllis Cassidy, subject to an Easement for a roadway, utility, force main, and pipeline. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS IN
BAREFOOT BAY, UNIT 2, PART 12 - ABBOTT MANUFACTURED HOUSING, INC.

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility easements in Barefoot Bay, Unit 2, Part 12, as petitioned by Abbott Manufactured Housing, Inc.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easements in Barefoot Bay, Unit 2, Part 12, as petitioned by Abbott Manufactured Housing, Inc. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE GRANTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AD VALOREM EXEMPTION TO CARTRIDGE SOURCE OF AMERICA, INC.

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance granting economic development ad valorem exemption to Cartridge Source of America, Inc.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the average wage will be $26,000; and requested a report from the Economic and Financial Programs Director of where the average wage for Brevard County is at currently.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt an Ordinance granting an economic development ad valorem exemption to Cartridge Source of America, Inc., Armstrong Drive, Titusville, Florida; specifying the items exempted; providing the expiration date of the exemption; finding that the business meets the requirements of Chapter 196.012, Florida Statutes; providing for proof of eligibility for exemption; providing for an annual report by Cartridge Source of America, Inc.; providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION ADOPTING FOURTH QUARTER
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR FY 2002-03

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution adopting the fourth quarter supplemental budget for FY 2002-03.

Commissioner Pritchard advised the fourth quarter supplement increases the County’s budget by $22,643,473; it has been brought out that the Board is in a deficit spending mode; and it is spending more than it is bringing in. He stated he realizes this is part of the current year’s budget and not next year’s budget, and the Board has little recourse other than to accept it and move on; but it would behoove the Board to have fiscal responsibility and address those issues as they come up in the next budget year and make sure it is not in a position where it is in deficit spending again.

Budget Director Dennis Roger advised he needs to read corrections into the record; the first item is the Sheriff’s budget; there is $26,359 that was an amendment the Board approved earlier this month for a federal grant; there is no General Fund match, but it is not included in the information given to the Board; and that will increase the Sheriff’s budget to $69,463,285. He stated the Sheriff is also reallocating $110,000 from his Court Services Program to his Detention Center Program; that is also not reflected in the information; however it is a net change of zero.

Commissioner Higgs stated the actual figure indicates the budget will increase by $22,000,000; the statement was made that the Board is deficit spending; and inquired if the Board is spending more money than it has; with Mr. Rogero responding not in the context of the fourth quarter supplement. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board is spending more money each year than is coming in from ad valorem taxes and balances the budget with other revenue, including those that are brought forward and not spent in the current fiscal year; with Mr. Rogero responding that is correct. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board spends those revenues but includes in its revenues any savings from the current year; with Mr. Rogero responding yes, by law every dollar spent has to be matched by a dollar of revenue.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it was brought to the Board’s attention by the Finance Director that it has to borrow money from itself in order to balance the cash flow problem; with Mr. Rogero responding yes, the Finance Department has stated that. Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not recall the exact words of Mr. Burdett, but it was his understanding that his comment was that the Board is spending in excess of what it is bringing in; and it is going into a downward spiral and will continue to have to borrow money from its enterprise funds in order to make itself solvent unless it stops the excess spending. Mr. Rogero stated his understanding of that partially agrees with Commissioner Pritchard’s understanding; and the Board would have to entertain a loan from an enterprise agency for the first month or so for cash flow reasons while it awaits the tax revenue and other revenues to come in, which may be mid-November or late December. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is why the Board needs to be more aware of spending policies so that it does not find itself with surprises during the course of the year.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt a Resolution approving a budget supplement and amendment for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003 pursuant to Chapter 129, Florida Statutes, authorizing the Board of County Commissioners to approve a budget supplement and amendment for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE AND SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE SESSION, RE:
BREVARD COUNTY v. PINTER

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize advertising and scheduling an executive session on October 7, 2003, at 11:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible to discuss strategy relating to litigation of Brevard County v. Pinter. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE FEDERAL LOBBYIST TO WORK WITH EEL PROGRAM STAFF AND
U.S. CONGRESS, RE: FEDERAL FUNDS FOR EEL PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the County’s federal lobbyist to work with EEL Program staff and the U.S. Congress on the issue of obtaining appropriations for the County as reimbursement of its purchase of property in the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: SUPPORTING STATE COST-SHARE FUNDING FOR SHORE
PROTECTION PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution supporting continued dedicated State funding for beach management, amounting to $30 million annually; and authorize the Natural Resources Management Director to send copies of the
Resolution to the Governor and Appropriations Committee members of the Florida Legislature before January committee meetings, and formally agenda and present the Resolution during the local Delegation meeting in the Fall. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 12:13 p.m., and reconvened at 1:05 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF VESTED RIGHTS
BY HENRY AND JOAN SAUNDERS

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a request from Henry and Joan Saunders for determination of vested rights.

Henry Saunders advised this is his sixth time before the Board; and presented a handout to the Board, but not the Clerk. He stated in 1973, Mr. and Mrs. Andrews bought Lots 9 and 10; Lot 9 is 58 feet and Lot 10 is 10 feet; in 1975, the Andrews built on the north part of Lot 9 with the understanding that some day they would subdivide the property and have two 75-foot lots; and that is indicated on the letter from Eleanor Dillon who sold them the property. He stated in 1991, the Andrews listed their home and portion of Lot 10 to make it 75 feet; in 1992, they had a contract on the property; and after negotiating for a while, they had a survey done. He stated the buyers were arguing about the size of the property the Andrews were going to keep; they thought they were keeping a larger piece than what they were selling with the house; so a deed was drawn up and they had Lot 9 and the north 15 feet of Lot 10. He stated after a while, they tried to negotiate the sale and the transaction fell through; and there was a valid contract, but unfortunately it fell through because of the reaction of the buyers and the hassle they got into on the size of the property. Mr. Saunders stated Mr. Andrews decided to subdivide the properties equally and make them both 75-foot lots, and then separate the house from the lot so the next time someone came in to negotiate, they would see what they were getting; and he also built a fence around the 75 feet so there would never be a question when someone came in to buy the house that they would not think they would be getting the entire lot. He stated they used the survey; and there is also an affidavit saying that and colored pictures that show the property with the fence around it. He stated he was considering putting a concrete wall up there; and if he did, it would have been very good demonstration that he was separating those two properties. He stated they stayed like that for many years until in 1993 the Comprehensive Plan came into effect; on February 16, 1993, the lot was a 75-foot lot, met all the zoning requirements, and was buildable; and on the 17th of February, it was no longer buildable according to some people’s idea of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated it is strange that the people who owned the lot for 30 years, because they did not deed it to themselves, lost the buildability of the lot, which he thinks is not what the future land use plan intended. He stated he understands the future land use plan was to guide future zoning for properties that were not platted and were not developed; the property has existed for probably 45 years; it is in a plat book and page; so the County is telling the Andrews that because they did not deed their own lot to themselves on that day, they lose all rights to build on it. He explained a picture demonstrating how properties currently exist along the beach; stated in Aquarina there are 20 lots and 17 houses under construction or completed on 60 to 64-foot lots; it is just south of his lot, which is 75 feet; and in South Shores, they just built four houses on 50-foot lots. He stated in Sea Dunes there are eight lots that are 55 feet wide; so he guesses because they are large landowners they can build on small lots, but he being a life-long resident cannot build on his lot. Mr. Saunders stated the Andrews came to him and asked if he wanted to buy the property; he said he would if he found it was buildable; and the first telephone calls he had said if the lots were not in the form of a deed prior to February 17, 1993, he was going to have a problem with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he knew that upfront and everybody knew that; so he went to the County and was told to buy the 15 feet from the neighbor to the north or sue the County. He stated he did not want to do that so he looked for other ways to get a building permit on the lot; he went to George Ritchie and told him he would like to build on the lot and would like a letter saying he can build on it; they discussed the problem; and Mr. Ritchie said he did not understand that and wanted to clarify it. Mr. Saunders stated on June 25, Mr. Ritchie stated if the subdividing of the lot was divided as such, or the lot was separated after February 1993, the lot would now have to be an acre; there are very few acre lots platted in the South Beaches; he had the property listed at one time and dug out all the information and wanted to know how he could document that the lot was separated before and if there is any other way besides a deed; and he thought the letter could prove that. He stated the phone conversation he had with Mr. Ritchie on page 133 says he talked to him by phone the first time; he said there has got to be a way to do it; and he says he can get an affidavit from the seller saying he subdivided the property prior. He stated he immediately found Mr. Andrews and he said he legally divided the property by survey and put a fence around it to physically separate the properties; he thought that was good so he called Mr. Ritchie, sent him a fax, and said he was pretty sure he found the answer in the documents and requested Mr. Ritchie send him something that would show what he was supposed to do. He stated Mr. Ritchie told him if he had an affidavit and photos and brought all those documents in maybe staff could verify it was subdivided; and at that time he said it would be wonderful. He stated he met Mr. Ritchie on July 17, 2001, took all the documents that the Board has seen, including a contract that was a legal contract but did not go through and contained the legal description that showed the intent of the owners to separate those properties. He stated he showed them pictures of the fence that was erected; after that meeting, he sent the fax and asked if Mr. Ritchie would give him a letter saying it is buildable; and Mr. Ritchie did. He stated he does not know exactly what he meant by the letter, but he sent it. He stated he has the letter and relied on it; he changed his financial position based on the letter and closed on the lot; and after he spent all the money on engineers and architects and all his permits, he was told he needed to get a letter from the County again that goes to the State to get building permits. He stated he was also told by Mr. Ritchie he had to meet with Mr. Scott, so he met with Mr. Scott and took all the paperwork to show him again; and the fruit of that meeting was he received a second letter. He stated he then changed his financial position again and went in for all the construction loans and permits from the County, State, and everyone he needed permits from; and he has those permits. He stated he relied on County staff to do their job; he did everything they asked him to do; he has his permits; and he feels like he proved that he should be allowed to finish his house.

Claudine Sloms of Melbourne Beach stated she has known Mr. Saunders for 11 years and watched the hearings; as a taxpayer, she feels he has put up a good fight; it has been very frustrating for him and his family to have to experience this six times; and she supports his efforts and hopes the Board will give him permission to continue with his project.

Joanne Saunders of Melbourne Beach advised it has been extremely stressful and hard on their family; they have done everything they were asked to do; they have not done anything wrong even though they were previously accused of doing fraudulent things; and she does not understand why. She stated they have been married for 30 years, raised their family here, have lived in the same home for 25 years; and all they want to do is build one home on one piece of property that is 75 feet wide, which is the same size as all the other properties in the Subdivision. Ms. Saunders stated they have homes going up on 50 and 60-foot lots; that is not what they want to do; they want one rather modest home compared to some others; and she does not understand why the Board is putting them through this. She stated the Board is supposed to represent them and help them, but she does not feel that is being done today.

Kristen Saunders of Indian Harbour Beach, presented a stack of letters they received from people who live in the area who are taxpayers, all supporting their family; stated there are over 100 and maybe 200 letters; and that is their community supporting her parents’ home. She stated Department of Environmental Protection wrote a letter saying there was not going to be any adverse effects to the environment from the house being built; the lot is 75 feet wide just like any other lot in that Subdivision; because they owned the property for 30 plus years and did not deed it to themselves, their property became useless; and inquired who would have thought about doing that. She stated they did not realize they had to deed the property to themselves after owning it for 30 years; there are homes going up by big developers on 50-foot lots; the Board has seen the pictures of those; and her parents want to build a modest home on a 75-foot lot, and have fought so hard for it for two years. She inquired why did someone not stop her father before this during those two years, and why now decide to pull it out from under him because somebody did not deed the property to themselves back many years ago. She requested the Board to please support her family.

Brian Saunders of Melbourne Beach advised he lives in Melbourne Shores up the street from where his parents are building their house; his father taught him many things; and one was that a person can do anything he or she puts his or her mind to; and he is sure his father will complete the house and what happens today will not be the end verdict. He stated he wants the Board to know his father is not going to give up; and for somebody on the South beaches to tell another person he cannot live there when that person lives there is hypocritical because they all have the same rights.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Saunders wants to comment further; with Mr. Hank Saunders stating he changed his financial position, listened to County staff, did what they asked him to do, gave them the paperwork when they asked him; and he has the permits, including a State permit which takes a lot of time and money to get. Mr. Saunders stated he has a County permit and a construction loan; he and his wife were talking about what type of furniture they were going to put in their new house; they never had a new house for 25 years; he is not a rich man and worked very hard for this; and he relied on County staff. He stated the property has an address; it has been taxed as a building lot since 1995; when he makes checks out for fees, they are accepted by the Board; and after all this time no one said to stop, but everybody got behind the project. He stated he did not have any problem whatsoever until he broke ground and then all of a sudden the County is stopping everything; he thinks he has vested rights; the community supports him; they know he is a little guy like themselves; and they know he invested a lot of time and money into the property. He stated he deserves to finish his house and cannot see what local government has to gain by stopping it. He stated everybody will lose; his proposed tax bill for the land is $6,000; and the Board is saying all those thousands of dollars that are going to be spent and have been spent so far are not needed by the taxpayers. He stated the people have spoken and said to let him build the house; he cannot see what the big problem is against it; and he would like to complete it.

Chairperson Colon stated from the beginning she has supported Mr. Saunders and has not changed her position, but she does not know how the rest of the Board feels. She stated she knows Mr. Saunders has been back and forth to many meetings, but at the last meeting he wanted to make sure Commissioner Scarborough was present, and that is why it has come up for the sixth time.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he and Mr. Saunders spoke on the phone; at that time he said he was not given the opportunity to have Mr. Ritchie at the hearing to address his statements which he felt were critical; and one of the things that he has is the affidavit from Mr. Ritchie. He inquired if Mr. Saunders has a copy of it; with Mr. Saunders responding he has the document but not the exhibits so he does not know what it is talking about; and the affidavit he saw does not reflect the letters he has. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Saunders told him it was critical that he hears whatever Mr. Ritchie would say here, and he would have an opportunity to inquire of Mr. Ritchie as to his statements. He stated the issue is in paragraph 5(c) where it talks about reliance; and requested Mr. Ritchie read it and Mr. Saunders be invited to comment.

George Ritchie read Section 5(c), which stated: “I subsequently received a facsimile copy of a letter dated July 2, 2001 from Mr. Saunders stating he had proof of the existence of a lot prior to 1993. See Exhibit C.” He stated Exhibit C is the fax that says, “Dear Mr. Ritchie. Thank you for responding to my letter regarding the above-referenced property. I found through my research that the property in question had been subdivided prior to February 17, 1993. My question is how do I document the date of the subdividing of the properties?”

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Saunders insisted that one of the problems with the hearings so far was that Mr. Ritchie was not there, and that if he was there a lot of things would be clarified. He stated he is trying to explore that because Mr. Saunders felt that was critical to his case.

Mr. Saunders stated on the bottom of the July 2 letter, Mr. Ritchie wrote a notation that he answered the letter by telephone call, which he did; Mr. Ritchie told him to get an affidavit and other documents that could prove it; and then he received the letter after the telephone call where he said he went into the office and pulled out the box from 1991 that had all the information. He stated on July 17 he met with Mr. Ritchie in his office with those documents; after the meeting of July 17 he received a letter saying the lot was buildable; so for Mr. Ritchie to say it had to do with the first or second letters he faxed to him is not true. He inquired why would he go in and meet with Mr. Ritchie on July 17 and take all that documentation if it was true. Mr. Saunders stated another big point is everybody keeps stumbling over the word “subdivide”; in Mr. Ritchie’s letter to him it does not say anything about proof; it says if the subdividing of the lot from adjoining Lot 9 occurred prior to February 17, the minimum standard of the lot is .25 acre; and it does not say anything about proof. He stated it also says, “divided as such, this lot would be able to receive zoning approval of a residential building consistent with the zoning”; so there are subdivided and now divided. He stated it also says if the lot was separated, so there is the third word, but he still does not see the word “proof” in the letter; but regardless of that, Mr. Ritchie knew from the beginning that he did not have a deed to the property and that is why he met with him on the 17th. He stated the letter says, “thank you for telling me about the affidavits and about 11 89”; he has another way of proving the separation or subdividing of the property; and that is by bringing in all those documents. He reiterated that he asked Mr. Ritchie how he can do it and Mr. Ritchie told him, so he met with him on the 17th, brought all the information, laid it out, Mr. Ritchie looked at it, he faxed him a letter and asked him to give him a letter, he did, he relied on that letter, changed his financial position, and closed on the property. He stated he does not know how they can say everything is related to one word and one letter after two years of this process.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised there were a number of meetings that took place between staff and Mr. Saunders before he purchased the property; the letter Mr. Ritchie wrote on August 6, said he met with staff in late July. Mr. Saunders stated it was July 17. Mr. Scott stated on July 31 Mr. Saunders phoned Ryan Rusnak; and on page 8, Mr. Saunders has a copy of that as well. He stated there were several conversations taking place with Mr. Saunders and staff; Mr. Rusnak’s letter of July 31, was prior to Mr. Saunders purchasing the property; and if there is confusion about subdivide or divide, this should clear it up. He read: “Mr. Saunders. This letter responds to your written inquiry regarding property legally described as. . .”; and goes on to describe the property. He continued, “Since this description deviates from the original plat, additional information is required in order to determine nonconforming status. There are many times in telephone conversations when we think that a lot instead of being nonconforming is going to be illegal, that we in written correspondence leave the door open to the possibility that documentation can be provided to us, which would secure that property’s nonconforming status.” Mr. Scott stated even though Mr. Rusnak is able to, with the information he has, determine that it is illegal because of its subdivision in 1994, he leaves the door open for additional information to be provided. He stated the last sentence says, “This office requires documentation that this lot in its current configuration existed in the form of a recorded deed, a fully-executed but unrecorded deed, or a valid contract for deed or contract for purchase. It is those three documents that are contained in Section 62-1188 of the Zoning Code, which establishes a lot’s nonconforming status.” He stated if there was any question to the meaning of those three phrases, for someone who has been licensed for 29 years, he would have expected to find some documentation or correspondence clarifying those three terms; but he does believe that before the purchase of the property, staff relayed the information that Mr. Saunders needed.

Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Ritchie wrote a letter that seems to be the foundation of the issuance of the permit; and requested he describe the date of the letter, what his information was at the time, what his intention was, and what he said. Mr. Ritchie stated the letter of August 6 was specific for the fax he received from Mr. Saunders on July 2 and his letter of June 25; and he did not rely on other information. Commissioner Higgs inquired what was the fax of July 2; with Mr. Ritchie responding it is on page 30 of the report, which is the one he read to the Board. Commissioner Higgs inquired how does staff define a lot; with Mr. Ritchie responding it is platted in a subdivision or has a metes and bounds description that is recorded and shows the configuration of the lot. Commissioner Higgs inquired if staff relies on it being recorded or in a plat; with Mr. Ritchie responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the lot in question was not recorded by February 17, 1993; with Mr. Ritchie responding Lot 10 was recorded in the subdivision plat prior to that date; however the lot was split up since that time. Commissioner Higgs inquired if to the best of staff’s knowledge the lot in question was not recorded; with Mr. Ritchie responding it would have needed to be recorded after the subdivision plat established Lot 10; the redefining of the property boundaries through deed or contract for sale is what would reconfigure the property; and they would need that verification dated before February 17, 1993. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is what Mr. Ritchie thought Mr. Saunders had when he wrote the letter; with Mr. Ritchie responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if subsequent to that Mr. Ritchie discovered that Mr. Saunders did or did not have that letter that said it was subdivided prior to the Comprehensive Plan date and recorded; with Mr. Ritchie responding after that letter they found out apparently that he did not have confirmation so they had additional meetings to try and find other ways to ascertain if the lot was a legal lot or not. Commissioner Higgs inquired, to the best of his knowledge, does Mr. Ritchie knows if the Board relied on the definition of a legal lot being recorded in previous decisions and discussions about lots; with Mr. Scott responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board relied on the definition of what a lot is today in its decision, would that be consistent with what it has done in the past; with Mr. Scott responding the only twist to that, in the spirit of giving a complete answer, is that this is a vested rights case, so technically responding to the question as phrased, there is only one way to rely upon whether or not a lot has been created. He stated this is a vested rights determination case, which enables other factors to also be incorporated. Commissioner Higgs stated she met with the late Mr. Andrews and his son, an attorney, in regard to the lot some time ago; in that discussion, they discussed legal lots and also had conversations with staff; her conclusion to Mr. Andrews at that time was that it is not a legal lot; and he then went forward to get some expert land lawyer to look at it. She stated she relied on the definition of legal lot in her dealings in the County; she thinks the Board has relied on that; and her advice to Mr. Andrews was to get expert advice because the configuration he demonstrated to her at the time was not a legal lot. She stated she relies in her work with people on that definition; and being consistent with that is why she has difficulty understanding how this lot could become a vested property.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if staff would say this is an unusual circumstance; with Mr. Scott responding he would. Commissioner Pritchard stated something like this happens occasionally, infrequently, or maybe this is the first time staff has seen anything like it go on as long as it has considering the affidavit they have from Mr. Andrews who says they legally divided the property by survey not realizing that a warranty deed or platted lot would make it a legal property. Mr. Scott stated the vested rights case has been very unusual and very strenuous, but the Board would be surprised with the frequency in which staff actually comes across lots that had been created illegally because of miscommunication of what actually creates a lot; so they have to steer people in the right direction quite frequently before they purchase property that is not buildable. Commissioner Pritchard inquired was a building permit issued for the property; with Mr. Scott responding absolutely. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Aquarina development, that he has pictures of, are constructed adjacent to the Saunders’ property; with Mr. Scott responding it is south of the property. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if they are built on 55 and 65-foot lots; with Mr. Scott responding that very well might be. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how can those be allowed to be built; with Mr. Scott responding they were created as part of the PUD, which set forth the parameters with which they can create lots, so they are legal lots of record at that width. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the advantage to the County to say no and what does it gain. He stated the property is adjacent to developed areas; and maybe only the person who owns the adjacent lot and lives in Miami might have an interest in seeing this does not happen. Mr. Scott stated that is the question the Board has grappled with for the last six hearings. Commissioner Pritchard stated the property represents $6,000 in taxes; it is sitting there with a fence on a vacant piece of property; it is in an area that has properties that are developed; and he cannot see why the Board thinks that giving the Saunders the treatment that they have received from the Board has any benefit whatsoever. He stated he does not see where the County has anything to gain; he sees where it has a lot to lose; and it is obvious to him that the intent of the Andrews, by looking at the affidavit and other documentation as well as the fence through the middle of the property, was to create two lots. He stated just because they did not deed the lot to themselves, which is something they probably never thought about, and thought if they surveyed it, and did this and that, they had created two separate pieces of property. He stated the idea of whether the lot is legal or illegal in a situation such as this is almost a moot point because the property is there and has been for some time; and for the Board not to allow the Saunders to build on the property makes absolutely no sense to him. He stated they apparently relied on County staff on numerous occasions; they relied on staff to provide them directions; and they followed those directions to the point where they were issued a building permit, which as Commissioner Scarborough said is a significant achievement. Commissioner Pritchard stated in addition to that, the Saunders have a Department of Environmental Protection permit; they have beyond a vested interest in this property; and he supports Chairperson Colon’s position and has always supported it. He stated it does no good to deny the ability to build their home; it makes no sense to him to take $6,000 off the tax roll; and it is time the Board got away from this issue, re-institute the permit for the Saunders; and let them get on with their lives.

Chairperson Colon stated it has been difficult for staff, but it has also been difficult for the Saunders; the August 6, 2001 letter from Mr. Ritchie basically says, “Dear Mr. Saunders. Based upon my original letter dated June 25, 2001, and your reply faxed July 2, 2001, your current zoning RU-2-4 should allow the construction of one single-family residence based upon the current lot configuration.” She stated a year later another letter from Mr. Ritchie talks about the three-story single-family residence for the Saunders, and says, “This letter is in reference to the above-described subject. The property is currently zoned RU-2-4. The Future Land Use Map establishes the property as Residential 1. The proposed single-family residence appears to meet Brevard County Zoning setback and is exempt from County breezeway requirements. The residential use is consistent with the Future Land Use Map series contained in Chapter 11, Future Land Use Element of Brevard County Comprehensive Plan. If you should have any questions. . .” Chairperson Colon stated the matter is quite complex, but it is based on what the Board has been discussing in regards to vested rights; and that is what makes it complicated. She stated staff did the best they could with the information they had and it is up to the Board whether it wants to go forward or not; and she believes it should.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired was the letter of August 6 based upon anything else that Mr. Ritchie received besides what he has revealed; with Mr. Ritchie responding there was other information in the file, but nothing that could be relied upon; and there was a survey mentioned. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Ritchie said he did not rely on the survey; with Mr. Ritchie responding that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is Mr. Ritchie makes a statement and Mr. Saunders comes back with another statement or question on how he can document the date of the subdividing of the lot, and that he is prepared to meet with Mr. Ritchie to discuss his allegations. Mr. Ritchie stated they had a lot of telephone communication and there was a lot of written correspondence to back up telephone communication; so Mr. Saunders sent the fax as a collaboration of what they talked about on the phone. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is conclusion and facts that the conclusion was based on; but rather than coming to a conclusion, Mr. Saunders also asked what Mr. Ritchie needs to see to come to that conclusion; and inquired if Mr. Ritchie inquired about the additional information Mr. Saunders was going to present or not; with Mr. Ritchie responding that documentation will have to be included with the permit application. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Ritchie inquired further; with Mr. Ritchie responding he was told he did not need to have the information at this time so he did not. Commissioner Scarborough stated he will side with Mr. Saunders; he did not propose it in a definitive manner, but as a proposition, which he was willing to support with additional documentation that if County staff would have taken the opportunity to meet with him could have been cleared up at that time; therefore, by issuing the permit, he had something he could legitimately act upon creating vested rights.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant vested rights to Henry and Joanne Saunders to allow construction of a single-family house on a lot that is deemed substandard to the minimum lot size requirement of the Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Higgs stated one could conclude there was information passed on and Mr. Ritchie relied on that and went forward and perhaps should not have gone forward, but on June 19 Mr. Saunders wrote a letter to Mr. Gonzales, the owner of Lot 9, and in that letter he made the statement, “because the property was subdivided after March 1993. . .”; so he admitted that he knew it was not subdivided in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated the County’s position is the lot has changed from the original plat, therefore the remaining lot is unbuildable; so the written documentation that knowledges the County’s position was in place.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough, Pritchard, and Colon voted aye; and Commissioners Higgs and Carlson voted nay.

The meeting recessed at 1:49 p.m. and reconvened at 1:56 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: ANNEXATION OF CITY OF MELBOURNE’S LAKE WASHINGTON
ROAD WATER PRODUCTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES

Norm Crank of Lake Washington Property Owners Association, advised the organization includes property west of I-95, north of Sarno Road, and south of Post Road; most of them moved to the County so they could enjoy the County’s zoning and benefits; and if they wanted agriculture, pig farms, or residential areas, they were all included in the County’s zoning. He stated they are not included in the City’s planning and zoning requirements; they feel the annexation has to be compatible with County zoning; and the City in some manner has to adapt to them or conform to the zoning when they set up an enclave within the County. He stated the reason given for the setting up of the annexation of the water treatment plant on Lake Washington Road was security; the security reasons being they want their own police response; and when the County fire department is less than a mile away and the Sheriff’s substation is three miles closer to the property than the City Police Department, it raises concerns with the citizens about security of their properties and lives if the City cannot rely on the Sheriff and County Fire Department. Mr. Crank stated in football it is called encroachment and there are penalties associated with it; so the City has to bear with them providing some of those penalties. He stated it violates the City’s Comprehensive Plan of annexation west of I-95; there has been some annexation in the past, which has caused great controversy by not having compatible zoning with the County; it set up a lawsuit for one of the developers, which they lost; and what this annexation does is set up a boundary for contiguity for further development. He stated for any developer who wants to come in with large tracts of land in the area that adjoins this property, the City has an ordinance requiring a request for annexation prior to receiving water on the property; so they do not have a choice in the matter if they wish to get water for any development. He stated they must ask for annexation; and if they are contiguous to any enclave in the County the requirement is going to bear fruit. He stated in three meetings they had with the City, there was a certain historical mistrust that has built up; they had the same promises out of Sam Halter, Henry Hill, and now Jack Schluckebier, City Managers; and they feel without the City Council putting some blessing on some documentation that can be adhered to, the letters from staff would not hold up unless they go to court. He stated in the three meetings with the City over the property, the first one stated they wanted to annex just the City-owned property the plant sat on; the second meeting included the County park at the end of Lake Washington Road; and the third meeting was to get contiguous with City property, which included about a half a mile of annexation of the Gleason property on the south side of their property join the Woodson property, which was recently annexed so they could be contiguous. He stated with three plans, they do not know where they stand; and what they would like to do is hold the boundary down so there is not a lot of contiguous property that could be annexed and take up the County’s residential property in the area. Mr. Crank stated when there are changes in zoning, there are courtesy notices that go out to homeowners; the property has not been properly posted or posted at all that he is aware of; and the City says it has not been and no surrounding homeowners have been aware of what is going on; so a courtesy letter to the homeowners would be nice.

Maxine Lauer, President of Lake Washington Property Owners Association, advised they held a community meeting to which they invited Commissioner Colon and Jack Schluckebier; they were present to express what was going on; they heard rumors that the City wanted to annex the water treatment plant; and the property owners were concerned about what would happen with the canal that runs across the property to Lake Washington. She stated at the meeting there were a lot of fears relieved with great support from Commissioner Colon and Mr. Schluckebier; they summarized their concerns and what they wanted as property owners; and one of those is prior agreements concerning the canals in Lakewood Manor, which would remain in effect and be adhered to. Ms. Lauer stated they had several different things that have taken place, which refer back to the history Mr. Crank referred to; and all they want is that their canal stay intact and remain navigable so they do not lower their property values. She stated they would also like, if possible, when annexing the treatment plant, the minimum amount of County property be annexed with it. She stated they were told some times they can request that property be noncontiguous and can be annexed in that manner; so the City should take as little property as possible in addition to the water treatment plant in making it contiguous if necessary. She stated they would like to have all the County zoning remain in effect according to the County’s Comprehensive Plan for any annexation that may take place west of I-95 since the area is rural at this time. She stated the three issues at the bottom of the letter she sent are what the homeowners decided were of utmost importance to them in annexing the water treatment plant.

Commissioner Carlson stated she wants to know if the group came together on the canal issue and did that include anything in District 4; with Ms. Lauer responding it was the homeowners in District 5. Commissioner Carlson inquired if everybody in the area was in District 5 and is there anyone here staff-wise who can tell her the impact of the canals in question in terms of District 4. Chairperson Colon stated before doing that, the City Manager is here; he was part of the meeting; and the community wants to hear from him. She noted Mr. Jones can answer that question later.

Melbourne City Manager Jack Schluckebier stated he was asked to appear to answer any questions about the City’s plans and intentions; he does not agree with everything Mr. Crank said, but he agrees with most of it; however, there are certain pieces in the chronology of that history he would not put in the same way. He stated what happened 20 or 30 years ago, he does not know, but on this issue, with respect to the City’s intentions to bring its water plant into the City limits, they have tried to be as straightforward as words on paper and ideas will allow. He stated their idea is simple; they operate a significant utility plant about a quarter of a mile to the west of the City’s jurisdictional limits; and they believe the most appropriate long-term issues are security and jurisdiction of the plant. He stated they therefore set out on a plan to do it; and there are only a few ways to do that under State law. He stated Florida Statutes, Chapter 171, defines some of those ways; an alternative is to ask the Legislature to do a special act to incorporate the plant into the City limits; and the City has such a request pending in front of the Legislative Delegation and will be speaking to them about that. Mr. Schluckebier stated the method they have chosen is first to meet with Commissioner Colon; they met with residents more than once; and they tried to answer every question possible. He stated at the request of Commissioner Colon, they did respond with their proposal as best they could explain it because at this moment he cannot say precisely which way the City would go to get contiguous to the water plant that does not touch the City limits. He stated the Woodson property is about 1,000 feet to the north and 2,000 feet to the east of the water plant; so they need to devise a method to get that contiguous if they were to use Chapter 171’s method of annexation. He stated they have no objections to the concerns of the residents and would be happy to agree to their concerns as expressed to the Board by Ms. Lauer in her letter and today; their plan is to use as little as possible of the residential real estate to disrupt the neighborhood as little as possible; and they are 100% in agreement with that. He stated from his letter to Commissioner Colon dated August 29, the Board can see that the City embraces all those ideas and is not trying to disrupt the neighborhood in any way. He stated they would like to use the least amount of land to be contiguous as possible; they are not out to annex Lake Manor or Lake Washington neighborhoods; that is not their mission; and some day, when they express their desires to be part of the City, the City would be happy to have that conversation then. He stated this is not that conversation; and this conversation is to tell the Board what the City’s intentions are and what they are not.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Crank mentioned the issues of safety and security; and inquired what is the City’s position on using that for annexation; with Mr. Schluckebier responding that would be their underlying reason at this moment. He stated the City’s facility is $75 to $80 million; the water facilities serve about 150,000 people; and while they have nothing but good things to say about the Sheriff, that does not mean the level of service that is provided and can be provided by the Sheriff’s Department or private security would come to the same level. He stated the City is already in the security business with its Police Department; the overall security could be improved by its own forces and jurisdiction; and he cannot get a lot more specific than that. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the City has a plan to enhance security at the water plant; with Mr. Schluckebier responding that would be accurate. Commissioner Carlson stated that is a great point of defense in terms of trying to annex if the City is going to increase the security level because it is a public water source and there is a lot more public that lives out there. She stated she is concerned because she was not part of the process in terms of discussion other than the issue of bringing water to other neighborhoods in her District that they are unable to now because of the annexation issues.

Chairperson Colon inquired which District is Commissioner Carlson talking about; with Commissioner Carlson responding District 4. Chairperson Colon stated after redistricting, it is now in District 5. Commissioner Carlson stated that is why she asked the question, but Mr. Jones has not answered a question yet in regards to the canal issue. Commissioner Carlson stated the area was in her District previous to redistricting that occurred last year; she knows some of the issues in regards to some of the residents out there; but her only concerns are the contiguous issue, creation of an enclave, and posting of the property so all residents have equal access to ask questions and comment. She stated Mr. Crank is just one person who has dealt with the City from a long-term process; there is a reason why people do not want to annex into the City, but they would like to have access to water and that sort of thing; and hopefully that will get ironed out. She stated going back to the security issue, it would be helpful, if she has residents coming into her District, to be able to explain to them that it is a security issue and the City is expecting to enhance the security level there, is interested in having the plant in its jurisdiction instead of in the County, and feels that it is a better way for the City to address it. She stated she does not have any problem with that, but at least it gives her something to give them when they ask why are they doing this now and why did they not do it ten years ago. She stated there is some substantiation of detail that she needs; and requested Mr. Jones answer the question she asked in regard to the canal.

Regional Stormwater Utility Director Ron Jones advised the County enjoys a drainage easement out to Lake Washington; that drainage easement goes across the water treatment plant site; the issue the residents have been concerned about is being able to continue bringing their boats back and forth to Lake Washington; and the City has made the commitment it is not proposing any alteration to that traffic pattern of boats. Mr. Schluckebier stated that is correct; and he tried to make that commitment as clear as he could in writing in the August 29th communication. He stated in fact the underlying good deal of the land, if not all of it, from that original canal he is told came from the City and has co-existed; and he understands there were fights about that ten or fifteen years ago; but there are no current fights about that now and the City is not intending to create any.

Chairperson Colon stated at the Homeowners Association’s meeting there were 20 to 25 people and not just the board members; the community was notified of the discussion and the meeting was well attended at the church on Aurora Road; so the discussion did happen with the citizens of the area and not just their board. She stated they have every right to be concerned; and that was stated at the meeting. Mr. Schluckebier stated there is concern of the possibility of creating an enclave, which is why in the August 29th letter that question was raised as to whether the County desired to include the park in the annexation. He stated it is entirely the County’s choice; the City would accept it either way; they talked to the park person and he seems to think generally speaking that whenever possible they would like to have parks in City limits because it is additional police protection at no charge to the County, but said he did not speak for the Board. He stated if the County does not desire to include the park, he wishes it would waive any objection that the resulting configuration could be construed to look like creation of an enclave because that is not their intention. He stated they would like to do something in as straightforward a manner as they possibly can in accordance with Florida Statutes, Chapter 171; and if they cannot do something in accordance with Chapter 171, they would ask the Legislature to waive the contiguity. Chairperson Colon stated she wants to put on record that because there is so much history, and they were not prepared to discuss that today, that in the near future they will have Mr. Crank and some folks be able to help the Board and go ahead and do that kind of presentation.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it has been proposed making Lake Washington Park a City/County park; and inquired if the Board has any position on doing things that way and making joint entity parks. County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if the proposal was to make it a City park or just put it in the corporate limits of the City; with Mr. Schluckebier responding the City has made no such proposal, but if there is a proposal, it would be happy to review it. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is not what he is saying; for example, the County has a park in Titusville; with Mr. Schluckebier responding the County negotiated an interlocal arrangement with the City of Titusville. Commissioner Pritchard stated what intrigued him was the thought of added police protection; Melbourne Police Department could roam through the park; the Sheriff’s Office could be roving through there; and having more police presence could be a deterrent to problems, should there be any. He stated that is why he asked if the Board had any interest in seeing that type of partnership develop.

Chairperson Colon stated with this situation, the residents do not want to mix too much into the equation; they want to keep it separate; so the annexation will be separate from any future discussion on the park. She stated she wants to go back and meet with the residents and see what their wishes are and not do the park issue right now, but discussions will happen in the future if that is what the citizens want. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Chairperson Colon could ask the neighborhood if they have any feelings on way or another about Lake Washington Park being in the municipal boundaries of Melbourne; with Chairperson Colon responding yes.

DISCUSSION, RE: FUNDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT MSTU BY TOWNS OF
PALM SHORES AND MALABAR

Town of Palm Shores Mayor Carol McCormack advised she met with Deborah Barker of the Sheriff’s Department and Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten in the early part of this year; he brought to her attention that the Town was not paying its fair share for law enforcement; she was amazed at that; and the Town is extremely supportive of the Sheriff’s Office and think it does a wonderful job. She stated they immediately started drafting legislation to enter into an MSTU with the County; the City Council passed Ordinance No. 2003-5, which was final on September 9, 2003; and unfortunately, it appears that legislation was not passed in time to go on the tax rolls for next year. She stated the Town is very small with 836 residents and 50 businesses; they cannot establish their own law enforcement service; the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office wrote over 300 tickets in the last couple of months in the Town; and all that revenue goes to the County, so she is asking the Board if there is any way that it can give the Town a pass because it cannot, through no fault of its own, afford to pay for the service without the MSTU.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Town budgeted an amount equal to the MSTU to pay the Sheriff in this fiscal year; with Mayor McCormack responding no, they did not nor can they afford to. Mayor McCormack advised they have no ad valorem taxes in the Town; if the County chose to bill each individual, she would have to take that back to the Council at the Council meeting tonight, and would take the Board’s decision to the citizens because they cannot be without law enforcement services. Mayor McCormack advised the Town has been in existence since 1954; she does not know how it managed not to pay for law enforcement all those years, but when it was brought to her attention, she said whatever they need to do, they will do it; and an Ordinance was passed as soon as possible. She stated they were given three options; and they are at the mercy of the Board because they do not have the money to pay the Sheriff’s Department this year. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the no ad valorem tax is by Charter; with Mayor McCormack responding yes.

Commissioner Pritchard advised the Town is building a new park. Mayor McCormack stated it is small, but it is going to be nice; Commissioner Carlson came to the groundbreaking; they are undergoing a major road widening project as well; and they have their own share of problems. She stated they are trying to grow and progress and think they are going in the right direction; they have been cooperative with the County in every way; and she is sure County staff will report that. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much will be charged for law enforcement; with Mayor McCormack responding it will be based on the millage, which is less than 2%; and if a house is assessed at $85,000 with a $25,000 homestead exemption, it would cost the owner about $6.00 a month. Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten advised the revenue to law enforcement from Palm Shores would be about $41,000 annually. Commissioner Higgs inquired how much will come from the Town of Malabar; with Mr. Whitten responding $178,000 annually. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if this has been going on since 1954; with Mayor McCormack responding the Town was incorporated back then; she has only been Mayor since December 2002; and when it was brought to her attention, she took action. She stated they have a wonderful relationship with the Sheriff’s Office, and they want them to be paid.

Ed Booth, representing the Town of Malabar, advised the Mayor could not be here because of heart problems, so he is here in his place. He stated the Mayor was notified by the County Manager that they were not paying the MSTU; he did some research that took a couple of months, and found they were indeed not paying the assessment; and there was a thought that they were paying some, but during the research they discovered they were not. He stated there was an informal agreement made about ten years ago; and because it was informal, there is no knowledge of it. He stated he has been with the Town for about eight months and it has been interesting; the Council directed him to take a survey; the Town has 2,800 residents and is starting to grow; the cutoff is 4,000 residents to put in a police department because of the cost, which would be over a quarter of a million dollars; and the survey indicated 50/50. Mr. Booth advised the Council determined they are about three to four years away from establishing their own police department; therefore, they are in the process of starting the legal proceedings to adopt an ordinance. He stated right now their taxes are 1.7 mills for the MSTU that will bring in about $170,000; even if they increased their taxes by the legal 10%, it would still only bring in $17,000; so they are in a conundrum because of the laws restricting the Town in raising taxes by more than 10%. He stated the conundrum is giving the County money this year; there is one other side line, and that is Malabar is owned by the County of about 25%; and requested some offset there. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that is the EEL’s program; with Mr. Booth responding affirmatively.

Chairperson Colon stated one of the things that was brought up by the former Mayor was that once it was brought to her attention, the Town wanted to pay its fair share; and inquired if that is the same thing with the Town of Malabar and if the folks also want an MSTU to pay their fair share but are now in the same dilemma in regards to timing. Mr. Booth responded yes without a doubt.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the mechanism in the Charter for the Board to establish an MSTU or expand it to include the municipalities; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding the mechanism is set up by Florida Statutes and not the Charter; it is a section that allows the Board to establish or expand an MSTU. Commissioner Higgs stated there is language in the Charter; with Mr. Knox responding Commissioner Higgs is talking about the referendum provision; with Commissioner Higgs responding yes, for MSTU’s. Mr. Knox stated there are two provisions; the State law allows the city to participate in an MSTU if it gives consent by ordinance; and the cities are doing that at this time. Commissioner Higgs stated Palm Shores has adopted its Ordinance, but Malabar has not; with Mr. Booth responding they are in the process of doing so. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it has been advertised yet; with Mr. Booth responding no, they are getting the language, and it is at the attorney’s office. Mr. Knox advised he would have to go back and see how the Charter provision applies to this situation, but it is one that requires what amounts to a straw ballot on whether or not the boundaries of the MSTU would be created or may be expanded.

Chairperson Colon stated it would not be fair to the municipalities in regards to this year.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the law enforcement service started when the communities were very small and did not have a lot of people; staff is constantly researching things and discovered the municipalities had not been paying; and they have become bigger and impact services more, so staff saw this as an opportunity to generate additional revenue that should have been generated. He stated in the case of this year, the Board could sign agreements with the Towns that the County would retain the traffic ticket revenues that occur in those municipalities for the next year and that would perhaps be a means of contributing to the MSTU. He stated Palm Shore has given the Board the assurance to enter the MSTU; the Board needs the same assurance from Malabar that it is going to go forward and join the MSTU; and if the County continues to receive the ticket revenues, that would be a way of funding it and that money could go to the MSTU.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the County Attorney found anything; with Mr. Knox responding the answer is that the Board may call for a non-binding straw ballot within the area proposed for enlargement of the MSTU, which would be Malabar and Palm Shores; and it is discretionary, so the Board does not have to do it if it does not want to.

Chairperson Colon stated she is trying to understand it; for this year, based on the deadline, it seems there is nothing the Board can do; and it should basically be business as usual as far as law enforcement being able to do that for this year. She stated she does not want to complicate things with a straw ballot and all that; she would rather do it by the books; she is disappointed it did not happen before the Board adopted its budget; and she wants to know exactly how much would be generated from the traffic tickets for each Town. Mr. Jenkins stated he was just looking for a legal solution for next year. Chairperson Colon stated she does not think the Board should do anything to those folks this year and continue the service, but then make sure it gets those resolutions on time. She stated that is her personal opinion; and she is disappointed it did not happen earlier.

Mayor McCormack advised the Town of Palm Shores Ordinance was passed and enacted in September, so it did not delay it by any means. She stated as soon as it was brought to her attention, it was drafted; she had two meetings with Mr. Whitten and two with Ms. Barker from the Sheriff’s Department; and they kept faxing the language back and forth. She stated as soon as the Town got the language the County wanted, it was advertised, put on the Council’s agenda for the first reading, and passed; so they do not feel the Town delayed it in any manner.

Chairperson Colon stated Mayor McCormack made that perfectly clear; what she is saying is she is disappointed over the fact that the County is not getting it, not because it was the Town’s fault or County staff’s fault; but she is still disappointed that they were not able to take advantage of it because she does not want to do anything to the Town because it already passed its budget. She stated she does not want to do anything that is going to harm anyone; and it may not sound like a lot of money to some folks, but $41,000 is a lot to a community the size of Palm Shores. Mr. Jenkins stated he does not think the Town is getting the traffic ticket revenues now, the Sheriff is, so it should not cost the Town anything. Chairperson Colon stated Mayor McCormack made that perfectly clear that it goes back to the County. Mr. Jenkins stated it is a legal solution for receiving that payment, even though the Board has been receiving it; so it will legalize it for one year until such time as the MSTU can take effect. Chairperson Colon inquired how does that work with the Sheriff’s Department if they were already counting on the MSTU funds; with Sheriff’s Finance Director Deborah Barker responding it has no effect on the Sheriff’s Office; it provides law enforcement services and the payment mechanism would come through the MSTU; the Sheriff does not get money from traffic tickets; so the funding part has nothing to do with his office one way or another. She stated it is just a service that they provide. Chairperson Colon inquired who would be affected by doing this; with Mr. Whitten responding the revenues go into the Board’s fine and forfeiture fund so it is coming to the County. Ms. Barker stated it does not involve her at all; in the future years, after the year of the ticket money, then it will go into the Law Enforcement MSTU, and at that point the money will be reflected in the Law Enforcement MSTU budget.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board should get an interlocal agreement with the cities with regard to that revenue staying in the Sheriff’s fine and forfeiture fund to offset some of the costs. She stated hearing the language of the Charter, and knowing there is a March Presidential Preference Primary where the polls will be open to everyone, she would like for the Towns to consider and the Board to later consider a referendum on the MSTU so that the citizens will have an opportunity to vote on it. She stated while it may be in the power of the Board to impose that much millage, she would like to offer the Towns that opportunity to let their citizens made the decision; and with the polls already open, it would be of limited cost to anyone. She stated as they move into the process, they can ask the Town Manager and Mayor to come back and let the Board know if the Towns are willing to go along with that, as that would be fair to the voters.

Chairperson Colon stated if the voters say no, will the Board continue to pay for the service; with Commissioner Higgs responding if the voters say no, they do not want to go into the MSTU, then they are telling their Town they want some other arrangement. Chairperson Colon inquired what are they telling them; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Board has to impose the MSTU tax; she would like to have the concurrence of those people who are going to pay it if at all possible; and if the voters say no, then the Towns will need to get some direction from their constituents as to what they want to do.

Mayor McCormack stated she can appreciate what Commissioner Higgs is saying, but they have advertised it for public hearings; it has been on the Town Council’s agendas; it has been discussed with their constituents; and obviously no one wants to vote for a tax, so they would vote no. She inquired what would the Town do, and will it not have law enforcement. Commissioner Higgs stated that is a real dilemma because the Town is asking her to vote to impose a tax on its citizens that they do not want; and she would like to do it with some concurrence from the people who are going to be paying it. She stated the citizens from Palm Shores and Malabar can look at the options, decide, and give the Board some guidance. Mayor McCormack stated she can appreciate what Commissioner Higgs is saying; they are paying for fire service; it shows up on their property tax bills; and when they discussed law enforcement at the County public hearings, everyone was supportive of it because they looked at the alternative. She stated it is a small community; they do not have the capability of hiring their own law enforcement agency; they cannot afford that; and she feels they have gone to the community and the Council voted to support the MSTU. She stated if the Board feels it should go on a referendum, she would take it to the Council meeting tonight. Chairperson Colon stated those are the wishes of Commissioner Higgs and not her wishes; and she has question for Ms. Barker. She inquired what happens if it does not go through, does that mean the Sheriff will not protect the Towns of Palm Shores and Malabar; with Ms. Barker responding the funding issue is an issue of the Board; and the Sheriff’s Office has no intention of not supplying law enforcement services to Malabar or Palm Shores. She stated the Sheriff’s Department has provided law enforcement services to the Towns since they were incorporated about 50 years or so ago; so it is not the intent of the Sheriff to discontinue that; but the funding issue is between the Board and the Towns unless one of the options is to enter into a contractual agreement with the Sheriff’s Office. She stated she does not believe, based on the size of Palm Shores, it would be economical to contract with the Sheriff or to do their own police force; and it would be more economical to enter into the MSTU, but those are her amateur opinions.

Chairperson Colon stated she wants to be perfectly clear what will happen after March; and inquired will they be back to square one, and what does that accomplish versus allowing the folks to be put in the MSTU and getting $178,000 versus nothing.

Commissioner Carlson stated although she appreciates Commissioner Higgs’ philosophy about the MSTU, at least the Town of Palm Shores has worked the issue up one side and down the other and it was the Mayor who brought it to the Board’s attention. She stated Mr. Jenkins has a viable solution, and the Board needs to start assessing the MSTU dollars and getting those things in order. She stated she would prefer to do it that way to make sure there is no misunderstanding or gaps in service or anything like that for those who live in Palm Shores; so if the Board would consider that, she would make it a motion.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve initiating agreements with the Towns of Palm Shores and Malabar to allow use of traffic ticket revenues that occur within the Towns to fund the Law Enforcement MSTU this year. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to request the Towns of Malabar and Palm Shores indicate to the Board if they want their citizens to participate in a referendum on the Law Enforcement MSTU.

Commissioner Pritchard stated frankly he does not see the need; it says that Palm Shores passed an Ordinance to participate in the MSTU; Malabar has not yet decided but is surveying its citizens; and inquired why would the Board feel there is a need to conduct another election. He stated that is something that should be decided by the Town Councils of the two municipalities that are the representatives of their citizens; and if the Councils say yes, the Board should abide by what the Councils tell it. He stated what the Board would be doing is muddying the waters with a referendum.

Chairperson Colon called for a second to the motion. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there are any other areas that fall into the category where the County is providing services and not being reimbursed, whether it is law enforcement or any other type of service; and is staff reviewing County operations to see if there are any loopholes. Mr. Jenkins stated he is not aware of any; they looked at fire, EMS, and law enforcement; those would be the only three; and Parks and Recreation is an interesting hodge-podge of how the County provides that service. He stated there are County parks in municipalities; some municipalities pay the County; Titusville is in the Parks and Recreation MSTU; but other than Parks and Recreation, he does not know of any other services. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if staff will be addressing the Parks and Recreation aspect and see whether there are areas that perhaps need adjustment; with Mr. Jenkins responding it is a complicated issue, but staff will do a report for the Board so it can get a sense of what is out there.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Commissioners are confusing her; she thought they let citizens vote on MSTU’s; and inquired what is the language in the Charter. Chairperson Colon stated she heard the County Attorney say it is up to the Board whether it wants to do it or not. Mr. Knox stated it says prior to establishing a new MSTU or enlarging the boundaries of an existing MSTU, the County Commission may hold a non-binding referendum within the area where the MSTU is to be established. Commissioner Higgs stated it is the Board’s option; and she again would hope that the Town of Malabar would consider allowing its citizens to vote at the March Presidential Preference Primary. She stated the Town has several options because of its location; it could even subcontract or establish a contract with the Town of Palm Bay because it is contiguous with Palm Bay on one side; so before she votes to impose a tax, she would like to see an indication from the citizens. Chairperson Colon stated the Board already voted and it is not asking them to pass a straw ballot. Commissioner Higgs stated she knows the Board is not, but the constituents she has in Malabar would appreciate the chance to vote on it.

DISCUSSION, RE: FY 2003-04 CULTURAL EVENTS MATCHING GRANTS

Tourism Development Director Rob Varley advised the Board asked him to take the Cultural Events Matching Grants Handbook back to the Tourist Development Council (TDC) for its recommendations; and one of the issues of discussion was about any conflict of interest with some of the members of the Grants Panel being members of some of the organizations that were receiving grants from the TDC. He stated the other issue was requiring a corporation to be headquartered in Brevard County. Mr. Varley advised Mr. Lopez addressed the Board about his organization, the United Third Bridge which is headquartered in New York and thus disqualified from receiving cultural events grants; and the Board gave it back to the TDC for its recommendations. He stated the TDC voted to send it back to the Cultural Events Committee for discussion and recommendations.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired when will the recommendation come back from the Cultural Committee; with Kay Burk responding the TDC staff was contacting members of the Cultural Events Grants Panel yesterday, notifying them of a meeting on October 28 at 9:00 a.m.; however, the location has not yet been determined. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if after that meeting it will go back to the TDC and then come to the Board of County Commissioners; with Ms. Burk responding that would be the schedule. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it will not come to the Board until the end of November; with Ms. Burk responding it would be a complication for two or three of the grant applicants because their programs for which they applied take place in November; they do not get funded for those except by reimbursement; but they will be seeking reimbursement for the projects well after their programs take place. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if those groups would be affected by the outcome of the Council; with Ms. Burk responding if their projects are turned over and the panel findings are turned over, that would negate the grants they were awarded and it would certainly create a major problem for them because they are going forward with their projects. Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not think that was the intent; with Ms. Burk responding she would agree. Commissioner Pritchard stated from what he recalls, it was to see if they could make revisions to the Handbook to make other applicants eligible so it would not affect the current applicants at all; they are in and are entitled to the money that was awarded; but what he was looking for was a little leniency. Ms. Burk stated it was her understanding that no one has challenged the panel’s findings as far as money is concerned; and it would just delay the process. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what process would be delayed; with Ms. Burk responding the process of reimbursements. Commissioner Carlson stated they would get the dollars later. Ms. Burk stated it would just delay their applying for reimbursement by a couple of months, so those that have projects that take place in November will be a couple of months later applying for reimbursement; and they will have to wait longer to access their funds after their projects have taken place.

Commissioner Carlson stated the bottom line is it is not the fault of the applicants; the Board feels there may be some flaws in the rules; and so it makes sense, since they have gone through the procedure as written, that the Board relinquish the funds for those groups so they can go out and do what they need to do with those dollars and get that process started, but then it can make sure that the issues it has on the agenda item, which are conflict of interest, eligibility, and limitation on number of years are addressed. She stated she believes those are going to be at least talked about at the October 28 meeting; and she has some comments. She stated those are just her points as far as those that have already gone through the application process; there had not been any questions until Mr. Lopez brought them up the last time in terms of the eligibility issue; and then other things came up. She stated the Board ought to relinquish at least those that have gone through the process and deal with the questions of the rules by themselves.

Commissioner Pritchard stated that was his understanding of what the Board was doing and what it asked the TDC to do and they also wanted to throw in the three-year sunset clause, using this grant as seed money and not so it becomes a line item year-after-year. He stated a lot of the programs are excellent, but again, there could be others; who knows what is out there that could use some seed money to get their events going also; and it was his understanding that what the Board was doing was setting up a procedure for next year. He stated this year’s money has already been dedicated and what they would be doing at this point is coming back with recommendations on how to change the grant guidelines in the handbook. He stated he does not see where it would have an effect on the organizations that were awarded the grant funding and they should be entitled to their reimbursement timely.

Commissioner Higgs stated she has a form for disclosure of business transaction, relationship, or interest; and inquired what would the Board do with the people who are on the Grants Panel and who have memberships in some of the groups that were funded.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised it is his recollection that the waiver of conflict provision form allows the Board of County Commissioners to waive that provision; in fact the Board, by including those, apparently as a requirement for being on the panel, probably has waived it, but he thinks it takes a formal waiver. He stated the Board can waive the conflict if there is one.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what do the members have to do and what does the Board have to do. Mr. Jenkins inquired if a conflict is if they get some personal gain; with Mr. Knox responding not necessarily in this particular case.

Chairperson Colon inquired if the vote was unanimous on the ratings that were made; with Ms. Burk responding the panel was unanimous in its decision about the funding. Chairperson Colon inquired how many are on the board; with Ms. Burk responding there are seven panelists. Chairperson Colon inquired how many votes are needed to actually pass the recommendations; with Ms. Burk responding the majority would be five. Chairperson Colon stated if two panelists were taken out, which she believes there were two that were discussed, that would still leave five, which means it would still have passed.

Commissioner Higgs requested clarification of the rating scale. Mr. Varley advised they are graded on several different issues, such as background, history of the organization, presentation, how much it will benefit tourism, etc.; and four grades are given and then totaled together. Ms. Burk stated each panelist scores each applicant; the scores are averaged and each score each panelist scores is averaged, then the scores are computed and an average score is rated and that is how they achieve their score.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the vote of the panel is basically at the end to accept all those that came through the process; with Ms. Burk responding yes. Commissioner Carlson stated that is where the issue of possible conflict may come up, at the end; and once the rules are looked at, in terms of anybody sitting on a board where they provided a grant, that is what she thought Mr. Knox was looking at. Commissioner Higgs stated she does not think so. Commissioner Carlson stated she thought that was part of the discussion that she brought up based on issues. Commissioner Carlson stated her husband Courtney has sat on panels at the State level; they do it a little bit differently than the County does it, but they actually vote; if they have to vote and they have something that was submitted by an organization that they are on the board, they have to actually take themselves out of the room and are not allowed to vote; so it would be nice to have what the State does. Ms. Burk stated that too has been challenged because that flies in the face of Florida Public Open Meetings Act; and that has been challenged at the State level. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board will get the legal aspect on it and find out if it is really worthy of any discussion.

Commissioner Higgs stated her question was in regard to the people on the grants panel, and do they have a problem with who voted on a proposal when they were on a board of a group, does that cause a conflict, and how is that handled.

Assistant County Attorney Barbara Amman stated it is a conflict if they are directors, which they happened to be in this case, at least from the facts she has; they have a conflict because they are imputed, if they are directors, with doing business for or on behalf of their agency with their public entity; and that is a prohibited conflict. She stated the Legislature provided immediate relief for that if they disclose the conflict; and they can fill out the form Mr. Varley provided to the Board. She stated if the Board chooses to waive the conflict, it is okay; that is the cure; and then they are permitted to vote.

Chairperson Colon inquired how long have they been doing this; with Ms. Amman responding she does not know the answer to that; for the particular grants cycle, there are three persons who are directors of two different organizations that applied for funds; and their conflict could be waived after disclosure on the form that Mr. Varley provided.

Commissioner Higgs stated they have already voted; and inquired how does the Board handle it now; with Ms. Amman responding they have voted and one member abstained; but they are permitted to vote. Ms. Amman stated the awards have not been made; nobody has gotten any money; and presumably if they were to do the process over again, they would vote the same way. She stated she supposes the Board could do it over if it chose to, but she believes the cure is that they can disclose to the Board that their conflict exists and if the Board chooses to waive the conflicts, they were entitled to vote and their votes could then stand prior to awarding any money. She stated she briefly discussed that with the Ethics Commission and it thinks that is a curative also, as long as no money has been awarded. Commissioner Higgs stated it would be wise for the Board not to take any action and give it a chance to cure this problem and get the information that gets it in the right sequence. Ms. Amman stated if Commissioner Higgs is saying it would be wise to see the forms filled out and completed before making any awards, it would not only be wise, it would be appropriate.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what difference would it make for them to fill out a form absolving themselves of making a vote if they are members of a voting body and have a vested interest in what they are voting for; and how can they absolve themselves of that. He stated it is like a person claiming he is innocent of a crime he committed. Ms. Amman stated they are not absolving themselves of interest, and in fact are nonprofit organizations unpaid directors who receive no remuneration. She stated they have no vested interest personally; and the Legislature has seen fit to let those folks serve on those kinds of boards where their organizations, which are nonprofits, receive some sort of grant from another public entity. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what if they were paid directors; with Ms. Amman responding if they were paid directors, then they would possibly have a voting conflict; but since they are unpaid, they do not have a voting conflict, so they are permitted to vote.

Chairperson Colon suggested following Commissioner Higgs’ recommendation; and stated she is uncomfortable about the process and feels that someone who is going to be voting on a grant should not be affiliated with the organization before the panel.

Ms. Burk stated each one of those panelists fully declared those conflicts before the panel meeting started; and in the public meeting of the panel, each one stated those affiliations. Ms. Burk stated as Commissioner Carlson mentioned, State and national panel meetings in arts and cultural groups actually go out seeking members of boards; she even has the latest one from the Florida Department of State asking for panelists to serve on boards because they are considered people who are familiar with what goes on in those various organizations; so the fact that they were asked to serve by the TDC is how they came to be on the panel. She stated it has happened on and off over the years; this year there happened to be some; some years there have been panelists who did not serve on any cultural group; but this year there happened to be some.

Chairperson Colon stated she wants to make sure it does not happen again. Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not think anyone who is on a voting board should have a vested interest in what they are voting for; if there is a three-year sunset, many groups listed that may have had the money would not have it longer than three years. Ms. Burk stated all the groups that applied have applied many times in the past, not just once. Commissioner Pritchard stated if there is a three-year sunset, his assumption is that the members of the panel who are members of those groups would be absolved of any conflict next year because those groups would not be back; so that may be a way of washing itself clean by having a three-year sunset clause. Chairperson Colon stated it does not solve the problem before the Board and it needs to handle the one before it now.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board ought to do what the attorney said if those conflicts were revealed; and insure they have done what is right and take care of that. She stated the other part of what needs to be done is the group is a group of volunteers; they are involved; some are directors; she is not sure that is wise that they have directors on the panel; and perhaps the Board should recognize the people who are involved in cultural activities would be good members of the panel, but maybe not directors. She stated that is something the people should talk about; that is what the TDC said; let those people look at it; and she does not want to move forward today and potentially put those folks who are doing a job for the community that they volunteer to do in jeopardy of any kind. She suggested following the recommendation from the attorney and let them take care of it; the Board would get the recommendation from the cultural panel; she does not think anyone would be hurt; they can proceed with their activities; and the groups are reimbursed for activities anyway. She stated the Board can get these issues straight and be sure that in the future it is in line; and it would be making an error if it proceeded today without getting in line with what the attorney said the Board ought to do.

Chairperson Colon inquired what is it that the attorney is telling the Board to do; she was under the impression that the directors have already done everything they were supposed to do; with Commissioner Carlson responding no they have not. Chairperson Colon inquired if they filled out the form; with Ms. Burk responding the form was not available at the time of the panel meeting. Chairperson Colon stated even if they follow that process, she is voting against it because they should not be part of the process; that is her personal opinion; and requested someone make a motion to see if there is support. Commissioner Higgs stated if Chairperson Colon has a better idea, she should tell the Board what she thinks it should do; with Chairperson Colon responding they need to be removed and need to make sure that any organization that is part of the grants process is not on the panel; and that would make it something they would not have to discuss again.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is not the fault of the folks; if they submitted that they had a conflict, there needed to be the paperwork there for them to sign off so they could waive the issue as the attorney has said; so that was the flaw in the system that the Board needs to correct. She stated the Board can have them sign off, go ahead and pass the grants, and then make sure that does not happen again. She stated the law already says they can waive the conflict, so provided they can do that, there is not a lot the Board can do.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Chairperson Colon feels the Board should send it back and redo it from the very beginning; with Chairperson Colon responding absolutely. Chairperson Colon stated if they call an emergency meeting and take care of that right away, they probably have to pick up two or three new panelists; but they should not be part of the eight organizations, whether directors, assistant directors, or employees. Ms. Amman stated the step that has been left out is that it is still left up to the Board of County Commissioners not the TDC; they will come back to the Board of County Commissioners with the forms filled out and their recommendations; and then the Board has to vote by two-thirds to approve the grants after the conflicts have been revealed. Chairperson Colon stated right now that does not help the Board; that is why it has those good folks to take time and rate them and so forth; they are rating all kinds of projects throughout the procedure; so if the folks want to give them the opportunity to fill out the proper paperwork, someone should make a motion and follow it through; but she will not be supporting it.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to allow the TDC’s action to move forward on the FY 2003-04 Cultural Events Matching Grants; and direct the Grants Panel to review the issue of conflict of interest, including the Board’s discussion and the County Attorney’s recommendation concerning waivers for those with conflicts, and return with a recommendation to the Board.

Chairperson Colon called for a second to the motion. Commissioner Carlson stated she needs clarification; and inquired if the Board is sending the existing list of eight to the panel, which meets on October 28 to see if it wants to get the waivers signed by those who said they had a conflict. Commissioner Higgs stated Commissioner Carlson said at the last meeting there seem to be three problems; her recommendation at the TDC was to let the Grants Panel look at those objections, make a recommendation, and come forward; and that is still her recommendation. Commissioner Carlson stated the only reason it came back is because the Board tabled it and it had not had time to look at that; so she will support the motion. Commissioner Higgs stated Chairperson Colon has some good points; and it would be wise for the panel to look at that and come back and let the Board look at it.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired how often does the Grants Panel meet; with Ms. Burk responding annually, once when the TDC gives them the budget, and two times after that. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the meeting in October is a schedule meeting; with Ms. Burk responding no, it is an emergency meeting triggered by the Board of County Commissioners’ action. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the members of the panel are staff directors; with Ms. Burk responding no, they are volunteer board members. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if they are volunteer directors of the organizations they are members of; with Ms. Burk responding none are paid staff members; and they are volunteers from the community recruited by nonprofit organizations to serve as members of their board of directors or board of trustees. She stated they go out in the community and do their best to help those organizations survive and give them guidance as to how to run their affairs as nonprofits; in addition, they have been recruited by the TDC to serve as panel members; and they choose different people every year to serve on the Grants Panel. Ms. Burk stated when they found out they were to be panelists, they got the budget, handbooks, and materials; and they volunteered approximately 40 to 60 hours to study the 17 grant applications; they spent their time studying those, scoring those, and making their decisions; they do not take it lightly; it takes a great deal of time and energy to do that; and they come to the panel meeting, which also takes a day of their time; and the first thing they did was declare their affiliations, then went forward through a planned program wherein they scored the applications. She stated it is done in a very serious manner.

Chairperson Colon stated the Board truly appreciates them and does not want to send the wrong message; and she wants to make sure they know that; however, she wants to be perfectly clear that if they serve in any capacity as a director or however they are affiliated with the nonprofit organization, she personally feels they should have absolutely nothing to do with the grants process. She stated the Board has said it would like for the process to continue, but the proper procedure has to be followed; and it does not mean that it guarantees them anything.

Commissioner Higgs stated they should go back to the Grants Panel to look at all the issues and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on proceeding in the process; it may be they decide to revote with those people who have directorships choosing not to vote; they may do a variety of things; but this will give them the opportunity. She stated as Ms. Burk pointed out, they have given a lot of time and effort to the process; and the Board should give the citizens who do that for the community a chance to make a recommendation. Chairperson Colon stated they are truly appreciated.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are two things they are talking about; one is that the person who is part of the panel also has the capacity to speak more with greater clout; and inquired in discussions, is there a capacity for someone to be on the panel for a particular group that they actually begin to advocate that group for funding; with Ms. Burk responding it does not take place in the context of the panel process. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they are not persuading other members in the same light; with Ms. Burk responding it does not take place in the process because of the way it moves and the way the scores are done; most scoring is done by the panelists as they go through their applications; and they do their scoring primarily on their own. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they do not have discussions; with Ms. Burk responding the applicants come and make oral presentations and the panelists are allowed to ask questions if they have questions about the applications. Commissioner Scarborough stated as a member of the Board of County Commissioners he could decline to vote, but he could also have a greater opportunity to persuade other Commissioners if he wanted to; so there is a dual force there. He stated Ms. Burk is saying the second force does not come into play; and if it did, he would tend to go with Chairperson Colon’s position and want to have a new panel to look at it. Ms. Burk stated it is a public meeting. Commissioner Scarborough stated this is also a public meeting; the role can be to abstain and not vote, but participate in discussions, which could persuade others to go in a certain direction; and he would side with Chairperson Colon had there been a persuasive point of view on the panel, but he will support Commissioner Higgs’ position.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Colon voted nay.

OPEN PURCHASE ORDER WITH BREVARD CULTURAL ALLIANCE, RE:
EXPENDITURES IN TDC CULTURAL EVENTS FUNDS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve an open Purchase Order with Brevard Cultural Alliance, Inc. in the amount of $170,660 for expenditure of TDC cultural events funds. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION AND NEW POSITION, RE: ESTABLISHING REVISED FEE STRUCTURE
FOR NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

Commissioner Pritchard advised the Agenda Report talks about one-stop permitting process and adding a position to be fully-funded by the proposed one-stop permit fees; it is a move to become self-sufficient; and it is also saying in accordance with Board direction to become fully-funded by user fees. He stated he thinks the Board is aware of his position about fully-funding by user fees and that it is double taxation; and he disagrees with that position and thinks it is something the Board needs to address during the upcoming budget year. He stated what it is doing is taxing people twice; they pay ad valorem taxes, which pay for people to be there; then it is charging those who come in and use the people who are there. He stated it is like renting a tennis court for $500 an hour because it would cover the life expectancy and amortized cost, etc.; so he disagrees with the user fee concept that apparently the Board voted upon a couple of years ago. He inquired how many people are in Natural Resources Management Office; with Natural Resources Management Director Conrad White responding 24 positions. Commissioner Pritchard stated it would seem to him they would be able to assign someone out of the 24 or 23 people since they already have one in the one-stop permitting process. Mr. White stated they have one position in the one-stop process; there are seven positions that cover the environmental permit review section, and the other individuals are fully employed reviewing other permit applications as they come into the office and doing enforcement work as well. Commissioner Pritchard stated it seems that Mr. White would be able to locate someone within his staff that could be positioned in the one-stop shop to help with the problem, and the Board could look for ways to reduce the fees that people are having to pay. He stated the County permit fees are going up in leaps and bounds because they are creating another revenue stream and calling it self-sufficiency. Mr. White stated the issue before the Board increases some fees, decreases others, and combines fees; staff took a good look at the fee structure and how they process permits and did a time-motion study; and that report was given to the BCAC and it unanimously approved the increase as well as the new position. Commissioner Pritchard stated it has been his finding that the fees that decrease go down a few dollars, but the fees that increase go up two and three times the current amount; he is looking at $46 going to $185, $46 to $92, and $46 to $212; and he is opposed to fully-funded user fees because it is a way to gouge people. He stated out of 24 employees, someone can be found to fill the position so the Board does not need to increase the size of the Office; and it needs to look at reducing the amount of fees and look at the programs it is providing and question why it is even in some of the businesses it is in.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised at the time they started the one-stop permitting, they went from 900 to 1,000 permits per year to 1,100 new residential and 136 new commercial permits per month; and that is a tremendous increase in the amount of work for the Section to do. He stated the report they provided is a very detailed look at the amount of effort it takes; they did it in a way to try and be fair and to take the Board’s guidance to make it a user-based system where the users pay the charges and recognize the fact that there has been a tremendous workload increase by virtue of the fact the County is growing quickly and some of the unincorporated areas are growing the fastest. Mr. Peffer stated that puts the permit load on such folks as those working in Development Review; it is not creeping growth of staff; and they are struggling to keep up with the workload that has been brought upon them.

Commissioner Pritchard stated what he has seen is that if they follow the philosophy on permitting on construction, then they should follow it for beach usage, park usage, and every other usage; and if people want to go to the beach or the park, they should be charged $100 an hour based on the full self-sustaining cost of that person and the park and beach and everything else. He stated staff is focusing on a fraction of the community; because it is not the majority of the people and only a small fraction, the public does not complain because it has not affected them; but as soon as the County taps out the construction segment of the community, it will go after the others. He stated as he heard someone from the Palm Bay-Melbourne Chamber of Commerce say, Brevard County is a cheap date and it does not cost anything to go to the beach; but it is going to start costing $25 or $100 or whatever if the County keeps looking for revenue streams. He stated the Board needs to look at why it is even in the programs; perhaps it needs to redress a lot of what it is doing instead of looking for ways to increase budgets in certain areas by affecting smaller communities, in other words, the people who are using that part of County government; and maybe it needs to start looking at why it is even involved in what it is doing.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt a Resolution establishing a revised fee structure for the Natural Resources Management Office; and approve a permit review technician position for the One-stop permitting process. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Pritchard and Colon voted nay.

DISCUSSION, RE: IMPACT FEE CHANGE OF USE PROVISION

Clair Gambao-Zuhlke of Cocoa advised she approves of the proposed change to the Impact Fee Ordinance providing for change of use and is glad the Board is going to change it so they do not have to come back and argue before the Board when they have new tenants. She stated staff’s report says if the existing buildings are not filled, it will have a blighting effect on the neighborhood and cause an increase demand for capacity at the Detention Center; she never thought about that; but she did think if they did not have the buildings occupied, there would be less of a tax base and less places for the Board to get funding. She stated at the July 8 meeting she failed to request the Board consider refunding the money to those people who already paid; one of those people was Mr. Taylor who has gone out of business and got back a portion of his impact fee; and he could not get an occupational license no matter how hard he tried. She stated there were four or five other people who paid the impact fees, Dr. Nateos, Kim Dana, and others; and requested the Board refund those fees.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize staff to proceed with amendments to the Impact Fee Ordinances, exempting change of use in existing non-residential buildings from additional fire/rescue, correctional facilities, transportation, and emergency medical services impact fees, provided there is no expansion in the existing building or structure, and include language that clarifies the conversion of residential building to non-residential use would only be charged additional impact fees if a site plan or minor site plan is required to expand the building footprint or construct exterior improvements to accommodate the more intensive use; and to authorize refund of impact fees to those who were charged said fee for change of use since June 2, 2001. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Board is not adopting the ordinance today. Commissioner Scarborough stated the motion was to approve staff’s report. Chairperson Colon inquired when will the ordinance come back to the Board; with Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott responding it should go to the LPA in October and to the Board of County Commissioners in November or December. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board can legally refund the impact fees now; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated it has taken a lot of staff time to investigate these situations and it caused a lot of heartache in the community, which was not the Board’s intention.

DISCUSSION, RE: RESIDENTIAL BUFFER ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Ralph Maccarone of Merritt Island advised he has been a resident for over 19 years and has seen the County grow immensely; as a property owner he is concerned with the rapid development of vacant land within the County; and inquired if all property has to be developed. He stated in December 2001, the Board took a giant step forward by amending Chapter 62, Article VII, Section 62-2883 entitled General Design Requirements and Standards, requiring perimeter buffers for residential subdivisions. He stated in May 2001, the Building and Construction Advisory Committee and the LPA reviewed the proposed ordinance and made recommendations; and on December 4, 2001, the Ordinance was discussed and passed unanimously by the Board. He stated the Ordinance was enacted to visually and aesthetically enhance an area as well as decrease noise and provide an amount of privacy between subdivisions; during the meeting Commissioner Scarborough stated he could see the 15-foot perimeter buffer developing with greater distances as the incompatibility of property increases; and other counties throughout Florida have similar Ordinances in place with even greater distances. He stated 15 feet is not much to ask for; and he would like to see the distance increased in the future. Mr. Maccarone stated at the October 15, 2002 Board meeting, Commissioner Higgs stated the buffer does more than deal with compatibility, it helps the value of the subdivision by enhancing the overall aesthetics; and she noted that aesthetics clearly add value to what is being built rather than having acres and acres of homes on top of homes on cookie-cutter lots. He noted that is not what the board wants to see in development of Brevard County. He stated following the meeting in October 2002, Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Washburn prepared a report that was discussed at the December 17, 2002 meeting; at that time the recommendation was made to the Board to consider leaving the present Ordinance unchanged and handle waivers on a case-by-case basis; and he is here in support of the Ordinance with the hope that it continues to be enforced. He stated the Board made the right decision by enacting the Ordinance; and his hope is that it will remain concerned and committed to responsible development in Brevard County.

Roger Vizioli of Merritt Island stated he too supports the Ordinance as do the homeowners of South Merritt Estates, and he appreciates the consideration the Board and County staff have focused on this item. He stated their objections were expressed in previous meetings on amending the Ordinance; however, regarding the case-by-case waivers as they pertain to the Ordinance, their concern is the current inadequate drainage in the southwest corner of South Merritt Estates. He requested appropriate County personnel with St. Johns River Water Management District thoroughly re-evaluate and understand the drainage problems in their area before the Board considers any waivers. He stated there are no swales or culverts; they are undersized pipes that were buried years ago; when they have minimal or average rainfall, it drains very slowly; and before any development is done in the area, they need to look at that drainage system before approving any waivers. He thanked the Board for its attention and Mr. Washburn for what he has done.

Commissioner Pritchard advised Mr. Vizioli to call his office and give them more specifics on the drainage problems so they than make sure it is looked at. He stated one of the concerns he has about the residential buffer Ordinance is if it is not reviewed as a case-by-case, it becomes a surrogate used to prevent things from happening; and that is the wrong application. He stated if people want woods around their properties, it is something they want that would enhance their property; but if they have property that has been cleared to the property line and expect the neighbor behind to install a 15-foot buffer on his property, that would restrict the person from being able to put in x number of houses; and that is a wrong application and why it should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. He stated the recommendations he sees say keep it as case-by-case review, take it off the books because it is too difficult to apply from the BCAC, and two others say case-by-case; and literally the Board is at the point where it can either take it off the books or continue to do it as it has been doing it, which is on a case-by-case basis.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to acknowledge recommendations of the Building and Construction Advisory Committee (BCAC), Local Planing Agency, Environmental Citizens Resource Group, and Land Use Citizens Resource Group regarding the residential buffer Ordinance; and direct staff to continue with the current practice and deal with waivers on a case-by-case basis. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT, RE: INSTITUTIONAL ZONING CLASSIFICATION

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the legislative intent for proposed amendments to create an institutional zoning classification to permit the location of a number of private, nonprofit, and religious uses as either permitted uses or permitted uses with conditions. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT, RE: DRI ZONING SUBCLASSIFICATION

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the legislative intent for proposed amendments to the Zoning Code, and direct staff to prepare and advertise an ordinance amending the PUD zoning classification to establish a DRI sub-classification. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT, RE: OUTDOOR MUSIC ACCESSORY TO OUTDOOR
RESTAURANT SEATING

Janet Reedy of Cocoa requested the Board vote yes in favor of outdoor music. She stated she read the proposal and it is great; it is going in the right direction; and she hopes the Board realizes the impact it will have on tourism and the venues, the restaurants. She stated it could affect income for everyone affected if they cannot have outdoor music; with the smoking ban, a lot of venues obtained permits and built outdoor structures, including stages to permit outdoor music and entertainment; and the Board will hear from them if they do not get to use those.

Chairperson Colon stated this is not a new ordinance; it is something the Board may put in for the first time if it passes; so it is not taking anything away from anybody.

Ms. Reedy stated a lot of it was pretty vague at the first meeting; they talked about permits; she does not see any more about permits; so she assumes they do not need permits for restaurants and only for special events such as fairs, etc. She stated they are wondering about the time; 10:00 p.m. to completely stop seems harsh; and they hope the Board would consider special rules for venues that do not abut residential areas and allow them to go a little further for people like her who are family-oriented and who like to go out to restaurants and hear music rather than go to dance clubs, which is a little harsh for families and older tourists. She requested the Board consider the art form that music is; Brevard County has come a long way with culture and places like Cocoa Village where they make the artists feel at home and invite musicians and the entertainment community into their community; and they want to see that continue.

Charles Watzke of Cocoa stated he has been a resident since 1985 and is proud to live here; he does not think the Board should regulate outdoor music per se, such as pre-recorded music, television, stereo, radio, jukebox, karaoke, or other systems, but it should regulate the noise by the Noise Ordinance. He stated 65 decibels until 10:00 p.m. and 55 decibels after 10:00 p.m. is reasonable. He stated a neighbor complained about his business but sold her property for a bed and breakfast to a couple from England and they love his facility; the only reason they bought the place was because his business was next door and their clients would enjoy coming over to eat dinner and listen to live music; and the lady that complained actually promoted selling her business by his operation. He stated he has a letter that was emailed to him by the man who purchased the business; he was very distressed and unhappy that Midge utilized his facility to promote the buying of her facility; and the man was here nine days and spent nine nights at his facility enjoying it. He stated he was in the entertainment industry and worked setting up sound equipment for concerts; he can put pre-recorded music in and amplify it that would blow out windows; so the Board should govern the level and sound of the music. Mr. Watzke stated there are other people who enjoy music and who play music; it is for enjoyment; they do monitor the decibel level and have never reach 65 decibels; and Brevard County came out and tried to take a reading and it was inconclusive because the traffic noise was louder than his music. He stated they try to comply and provide a nice environment for the tourists; Florida is a sunshine state with tiki bars, Key West style bars, and the outdoor atmosphere; they are now forced outdoors with the smoking laws; he is a nonsmoker, but feels the State should revise the laws and provide 100% nonsmoking and 100% smoking with separate ventilation systems. He stated if the State had regulated it better, the hotels, restaurants, and bars would have been able to make facilities work better for nonsmokers; but now they are faced with being forced outdoors. He stated he would appreciate the Board considering how to regulate outdoor music.

Debbie Boyer of Rockledge advised she has two jobs; one is as a musician who has been playing in the County for about 20 years at indoor and outdoor venues for outdoor weddings, private parties at homes, patios of country clubs, community events and riverboats on the Indian River; and her other job is with the employment industry. She stated she is a State employee and it is her job to help people get jobs, especially those with disadvantaged conditions; she has seen the County go through major unemployment and more recently since 9/11 has seen restriction on the flow of tourists coming here; and people are not leaving their State as much so they are trying to keep what they have here going and understand the need to maintain a proper noise level. She stated personally she does not like loud music; if they can have measurable ways of having music and stick to those levels, things would work out very well; and it would be a boost to the local economy not to shut down entertainment that restaurants and outdoor bars have. Ms. Boyer stated the unincorporated areas are more likely to be away from residential areas; so that needs to be looked at. She stated shutting down at 10:00 p.m. is not realistic because a lot of people are not in the mood to get out until 8 or 9 p.m.; and if they work within the 65 and 55-decibel ranges and work hard to be cooperative, it can work.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not know if abutting residentially-zoned property is as relevant as residentially occupied; he likes the idea of the decibels as well; there are several different parameters that come into play; and to use multiples is probably the best way to go. He stated it is probably best to start with something that handles it in a multifaceted way and as time goes on, they can tweak it; overall, the right kind of music and setting does add to the ambience of the evenings; and it could add to the quality of dining outdoors, but the Board needs to be very careful otherwise it will have Mr. Washburn running to every restaurant on Saturday nights.

Commissioner Higgs stated residentially-zoned is important to keep because people might own vacant property next to restaurants, so the zone is important to exclude from outdoor music. She stated she heard from a number of people who live close to places that have outdoor music; and they are very concerned about any change to the laws that would allow outdoor music close to residential areas. She stated people have told her the noise was very disturbing to neighborhoods that were close by; and while they do not disagree there may be situations where it is okay to have music outside, if it is zoned residential and occupied residential, they were concerned about an ordinance that would permit it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it should be better defined such as abutting within so many feet or something; he would prefer occupied residential property within so many feet of where the music is being generated because there could be a small commercial tract abutting the venue; and therefore it would not be abutting residential, but would almost be next door.

Commissioner Higgs stated over the years the Board had several places that it experienced this problem; just the abutting property will not get it in terms of its effect on neighborhoods; so she wants to be careful. She stated the Board had people affected half a mile or a mile away who could hearing the outdoor music; while she appreciates what the Board is talking about and recognizes there are some places where it could occur, the Board has to look at it in a very limited sense because of what has happened to neighborhoods that abut some of the commercial establishments. Commissioner Scarborough stated it needs to go beyond abutting to encompass properties further than just the abutting properties. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the discussion is about other than special permits; with Commissioner Higgs responding she is looking at what is proposed in terms of what would be permitted and is not opposed to looking at special permits. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board is going to allow something, she wants it to be carefully constructed so that it does not impact the neighbors who are abutting or close to the establishment. Commissioner Scarborough reiterated it needs to go beyond abutting. Commissioner Carlson stated staff is supposed to bring back the special permit issue and the ordinance that deals with that, as she had issues in District 4. Commissioner Higgs stated she would not mind seeing specific language and looking at that again before they advertise the public hearing to see that it is so narrow that it allows some things but is not going to impact neighborhoods. Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised it has not been advertised, but the board is looking at what is about to hit the streets. Commissioner Higgs stated she would rather see it again.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to have the changes in ordinance form but not advertised; and the Board could tweak it with more particulars because there are a lot of ramifications. He stated he would have trouble with it being inappropriately applied.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it was his understanding, when the Board addressed this issue, it was to provide ambience music for people sitting and waiting to go into a restaurant or choosing to dine outside; it was not to construct a stage and have that type of performance; and it was more along the lines of listening to someone strum a guitar or his favorite banjo and kazoo. He stated it was to provide background ambience and not entertainment so people dining outdoors do not have to yell at each other to hear their conversations. He inquired if that is the direction Commissioner Scarborough wishes to go; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes, and he likes the words “background music”, which indicates the difference between that and having a performance. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is his understanding of where the process began; it was not about a band with drums and all the other accompaniments; it is for ambience while dining, whether recorded or live; and nobody wants to drive down the road listening to loud music from a restaurant; therefore, the idea about decibels was not a consideration. He stated the events that would be staged would be special events and would be the same as they have always been; his concern is that music travels; even in a neighborhood if someone is playing a boom box, it can be heard five blocks away; and the later the night, the louder the music becomes even though it may have been set at a volume of ten all day. He stated his concern is how far would the outside music travel and what effect it would have on people who are living in the area; there are clubs that provide loud music if that is what people want; and he would consider background music rather than a stage production.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to bring back to the Board language in ordinance form, not advertised, to allow background music but not performances at restaurants in conjunction with outdoor seating so that it will not impact neighborhoods. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Colon voted nay.

Chairperson Colon stated the Board is asking for trouble, but it is more than welcome to look at this issue.

STAFF DIRECTION, RE: METHOD OF ASSESSMENT FOR HABITAT ROAD
CONSTRUCTION MSBU

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize publicly-owned properties be excluded from the assessment for Habitat Road Construction Municipal Service Benefit Unit.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired why do public lands not benefit from the road; with Commissioner Higgs responding they will not access it. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if other properties do not access the road; with Roadways and Landscaping Finance Director Greg Pelham responding the only properties staff included in the benefit area are those that would be accessing the road. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the County property does not have access by the road, why is it an option; with Mr. Pelham responding it could access the road if it was ever developed. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board is taking itself out of the loop; it not only has taken the property off the tax rolls, now it is taking itself out of the loop and charging people in the neighborhood more so it does not have to pay anything; and it seems like double-standard to him. Commissioner Higgs stated it is not double-standard; people pay who benefit; the public will not be accessing the property; those are conservation lands and the public will not be driving in and out of the lands; so there is no reason for the County to pay for construction of the road. Commissioner Pritchard inquired why are they not going to drive in and out of the property and how are they going to get there; with Mr. Pelham responding it is his understanding those lands were acquired by the EEL's program for conservation and there will be no development on them. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if anyone is going to go to them; with Mr. Pelham responding he cannot answer that and would have to get with the EEL’s program and check. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the County buys property nobody goes to; with Commissioner Higgs responding they can provide conservation habitat without being property that people would drive to. Commissioner Carlson stated they could walk to it; so there is potential for access. Commissioner Pritchard stated he thinks the public is accessing the road but the Board is taking itself out of the loop and slapping the public once again; so he disagrees with the motion.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

Chairperson Colon stated the project cost increased $10,000 more than before; and inquired if staff is going to do another survey; with Mr. Pelham responding yes.

ACCEPT REPORT, GRANT PERMISSION TO PREPARE ORDINANCE AND ADVERTISE
PUBLIC HEARING, RE: AMENDMENTS TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to accept the report from the Land Development Regulations and Procedures Evaluation Committee; and authorize staff to prepare an ordinance amending the Land Development Regulations and advertise it for a public hearing, including obtaining recommendations from the Building Construction Advisory Committee and the Local Planning Agency. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

STAFF PRESENTATION, RE: UPDATE OF SHORE PROTECTION EFFORTS FOR
MID-REACH SEGMENT

Chairperson Colon advised it will be a short presentation; and all she wanted was to make sure the Board was updated on the efforts of the Mid-reach Shore Protection Project.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the issue is what staff wanted time for at the Legislative Delegation Meeting; with Michael McGary responding no, the Delegation meeting is primarily to support the overall State funding for a dedicated revenue source for beach preservation. Mr. McGary stated the money is to run through the Department of Environmental Protection and provide a dedicated funding source for maintenance of beaches in the State; and that is the important thing at the Delegation meeting. He stated this is an update on activities they are doing in the mid-reach of Brevard County to develop a future shore protection project for the heavily eroded stretch of beach.

Chairperson Colon inquired how long is the presentation; with Mr. McGary responding about ten minutes because five minutes was not doable in order to have a thorough presentation that could provide the Board with the level of understanding needed. Commissioner Carlson stated it is important for the community to understand where the County is in the mid-reach project because there have been a lot of questions asked in Districts 4 and 5 since it stretches along those lines. Chairperson Colon stated she mentioned to Conrad White that the presentation would be very brief; and instructed Mr. McGary to get to the meat of the issue.

Michael McGary advised the mid-reach of Brevard County is a section in the center of the County; and the North reach, which extends from Port Canaveral south, and the South reach, which is a section in the area of Melbourne Beach and Indialantic are two areas they have had successful shore protection projects. He stated they have the mid-reach in the middle, which was removed from previous shore protection projects because of the rock habitat in the surf zone; and explained pictures of the rocks. He stated there are rocks one time a year and pure sand at other times; it does not eliminate the rocks from protection by permitting agencies however; and explained pictures of the worm outcrops. Mr. McGary stated it is often heard that the worms are interfering with protection of the beaches; the truth is the rocks are protected with or without the worms; a lot of people call it worm rock, but only 5% are inhabited by worms; and explained an aerial view illustrating the north end of the mid-reach. He stated from Satellite Beach and north to Patrick Air Force Base, the rock density is very high; at the south end, Indian Harbour Beach and south, the rocks are scattered; so that led staff in the direct development of a shore protection project for that area because of the lower density of rocks to the south, which has a total acreage of about 61 acres. He stated the 36% decrease from April to June 2001 indicated the seasonal variation in the rocks, but the permitting agencies say even if the rocks are buried half of the time by nature it does not allow the County to bury them with a project without mitigating for the impact. He stated there is heavy beach erosion in that stretch; the average erosion of the dune bluff is about half a foot or six-tenths of a foot a year for the last 30 years; and it is expected to increase due to sea level rise over the next 50 years to perhaps a foot of erosion per year of the dune bluff; and that is what concerns staff. He stated there are a lot of things the County values to protect in that stretch; some things it wants to protect with the shore protection project are property values; there is over $310 of assessed value along that stretch; and that number is a couple of years old now and development continues, so the values have gone up. He stated in addition to that, there are about 280 to 380 nests per kilometer per year of endangered and threatened sea turtle habitat; that is a monthly nesting number per kilometer per year; public beaches and parks are also threatened; and there is over a mile of park and public land. Mr. McGary stated 14% of the shorefront is public access; and they need to protect the parks for public enjoyment as well as for use by tourists. He advised some of the permitting agencies they have to deal with in moving the shore protection project forward have somewhat differing areas of focus; the Florida Department of Environmental Protection wants to preserve the beach and dunes; so staff works with it to develop the shore protection project. He stated the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission wants to protect endangered species; those include species that nest on the beach and other species that utilize the rock habitat; so they have to balance protection of the beach with protection of the rock habitat. He stated the Army Corps of Engineers is a federal agency; it wants storm protection; and that is beach renourishment or shore protection projects. He stated Environmental Protection Agency looks after water quality; that is generally not much of a concern for the shore protection projects; Fish and Wildlife Service wants to protect endangered species on the upland; and to them that is nesting turtles on the beach, so they are in favor of beach habitat. He stated NOA looks after the essential fish habitat, which is the rock habitat in the water; so they are trying to balance the needs of all those agencies and their priorities; and it is a bit of a challenge. Mr. McGary stated if they did nothing in that stretch of beach, it is projected in the next 50 years they will lose 62% of the current building values; in addition, they will lose turtle nests; so no action is not a feasible alternative because the County is not going to accept losing 62% of its current building values. He stated another option is armoring; currently 9% of the stretch is armored; if the County does nothing, in addition to armoring after 50 years, up to 47% of the coastline will be armored; and that does protect the buildings, but it does not make a pleasant beach for residents to enjoy. He stated generally the beach at high tide will be gone; it is not an attractive beach to tourists, which is so important to the economy; so armoring as a sole solution is not preferable. He stated the County could buy the threatened properties that are going to fall into the water; that is $10 to $12 million a year investment; but after 25 years, the number of threatened properties will skyrocket; and it will become cost prohibitive; so beach and dune nourishment is the option their office favors and is working on. Mr. McGary stated if they bury the rocks with beach and dune nourishment, they will need to mitigate and mitigation is expensive; they have to put rocks in the water to substitute for the habitat they cover; it would cost on the order of $500,000 per acre; so it is critical to minimize the need for mitigation and avoid the rocks they have. He explained a graph of the beach from the north to the south end of the project; stated the benefit-to-cost ratio is very high at the south end of the project; the rock impact is very high at the north end of the project; and to have a federally-funded project, they have to have a positive benefit-to-cost ratio. He stated when the Corps of Engineers moves forward to make a decision, it is going to favor a shore protection project on the south end where the benefits outweigh the cost; and the cost skyrockets at the north end due to mitigation costs. He stated there are a couple of different proposed projects; one is to do the southern 1.7 miles; they can protect 20% of the property values along the mid-reach and impact less than 2% of the rock resource; so that is very feasible, but it is a small stretch of beach. He stated if they go with the larger proposal to the permitting agencies, which is the southern 3.5 miles, it will protect 46% of the mid-reach beach area, 50% of property values, and impact about 10% of the rock resource in the entire mid-reach; so that seems reasonable to staff to go to the permitting agencies and say they can protect half the beach, half the properties, and impact about 10% of the rock resource. Mr. McGary stated they proposed those two projects to the permitting agencies informally and to the Army Corps of Engineers; it is up to the Corps to move forward with those recommendations staff made with the help of the shore protection engineer; and those two projects range in cost between $11.8 million for 1.7 miles and about $24.5 million for 3.5 miles. He stated those are large numbers, but considering what the County is protecting and the fact that the County’s funds will come from dedicated TDC beach improvement funds, and it will get cost sharing from the federal government, the price is reasonable from the amount of benefit the economy will gain from healthy beaches and healthy tourism. Mr. McGary stated in addition to the shore protection projects, they extend north using truck haul, which minimizes impacts to the environment; Satellite Beach has proposed up to a 2.4-mile truck haul extension; it is up to the Corps to determine if that is economically feasible; and the number of trucks needed to extend that far is huge. He stated if that part of the project suggested by Satellite Beach goes forward, it will be a lot of trucks rumbling up and down the beach during the nourishment project; but on behalf of Satellite Beach, they are doing all they can do to assist the City in getting some means of shore protection to its shoreline, and it is up to the Corps to determine if the cost is feasible and the project permittable. He stated the current schedule is the Corps doing a general re-evaluation report now, which should be done by the end of next year; they hope to get authorization in the water resource development act of 2006; and they hope to potentially start construction and protection of the beach in 2008. He stated it is a long project, but it is part of the Corps’ process; nothing moves fast, particularly with the permitting needs; and he will answer any questions the Board may have.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it was very informative; Mr. McGary mentioned the rocks, and even if they are buried half the time by nature, it does not allow the County to bury them without mitigation. Mr. McGary stated if the County does bury the rocks with a conventional scale beach nourishment, they will not be re-exposed seasonally; so the people who look at fish habitat say the rocks are buried half the time, but if the County buries them, they will be buried for years on end. He stated the local people would say they were buried like that for years in the past; but in the eyes of the permitting agencies, they are currently exposed a significant part of the year, and animals utilize them as habitat; and they have to look after that habitat. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the rocks were buried up until a couple of years ago when a storm came through and uncovered them; with Mr. McGary responding some of them were, but there have been historical reports from way back in the newspapers that there has always been some level of rocks exposed in that area. Mr. McGary stated there may be more acreage now that the beach has eroded for a number of years; but in the eyes of the permitting agencies, that does not help the County and it needs to deal with what is exposed now. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much will the mitigation cost; with Mr. McGary responding the largest project requires seven acres of mitigation at about a million dollars to get set up and half a million an acre; so that is about $4.5 million for mitigation. He stated roughly a quarter of that would be County funds from the TDC, and the rest would be federal and State funds. Virginia Barker advised that is assuming a one-to-one ratio for mitigation; and in fact they would probably be looking more at a one-and-a-half ratio for rock mitigation, so the Board needs to add 50% to that. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it would be about $12 million; with Mr. McGary responding between $6 and $12 million, but the permitting agencies do not have a hard number on it at this time. Commissioner Pritchard inquired when the County mitigates something like this, is it a question of just turning the money over to the permitting agencies or actually locating property and doing something on that property; with Mr. McGary responding it would be locating an area of sea that is as close to the area of construction as possible and putting rock substrate on the bottom of the ocean floor so that animals that were feeding and hiding in the rocks would have a rock habitat to utilize during their developmental years. He stated they would have to perform mitigation by rocks, find a suitable area permittable on the ocean floor, bury them as close to the beach as possible, and put limestone rock on the shore to substitute for what they are covering. Commissioner Pritchard stated what is confusing to him is there are rocks that are buried half the time; they are fully covered by sand or close to being covered; so there may be an estuary pool that something could habitat in. Mr. McGary stated there are different conditions; parts of the year there are large expanses of rock covered by sand; but there are portions of rock exposed for animals to use as habitat. He stated it is much like if a portion of a forest burns, it will be gone for a while, but there is some forest next door and the animals will move and use the habitat that is available. He stated if they do a shore protection project to make it economically feasible and put enough sand on the beach to be worthwhile, they will cover all the rocks and they will not be seen again for at least a few years; and that is why they need to mitigate for the loss of the rock. Commissioner Pritchard stated the reason he is questioning this is because he has seen a ton of sand dumped on the beaches; the first time a storm comes, it carves a huge amount of sand away; and they are back to square one. He stated the County has to do something to preserve the beaches, but it is a question of whether continuously dumping sand is the best option. He stated he has seen where different fences that are used to help create dunes have been effective in the Cape Canaveral area. Mr. McGary stated there are other alternatives that would be good in combination; most of the dunes that were built south of the inlet would not have been successful; a dune cannot be successful unless it has enough beach in front of it to protect it while it is developing; and in fact at the north reach project, after two years, most of the sand is still there. He stated there will be sand missing after a storm, but much of it remains in a sand bar and comes back during calm weather; so it is not the end all answer in development of dune project, but it is also a good project to go along with shore protection. He stated a properly designed shore protection project with sand will last a number of years as the north reach project is demonstrating currently. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. McGary said it takes a combination of factors to make it an effective project; with Mr. McGary responding yes, that is when they are most effective; and that is why their office has gotten an outside grant to plant sea oats within the areas of the shore protection projects. He stated the Corps would not back planting vegetation in the dunes, but they went outside and got other grant support to plant sea oats at public parks and street ends throughout the north and south reach nourishment projects to give them the best chance of lasting in the long term. Commissioner Pritchard inquired about affecting 62% of current building values; with Mr. McGary responding the computer model indicates at the current rate of erosion, if nothing is done, no sand and no armoring 62% of the current property values will be seriously impacted; and that means they will be threatened to drop into the ocean. He stated that is not likely to happen because in the end the County would have to use seawalls or armoring if it cannot get sand on the beach, which is the best solution for long-term impacts. He stated people will take other approaches; it is unlikely the County would let 62% of its property values drop into the ocean in the mid-reach; but that is a projection of what would happen if the County does nothing. He stated staff favors taking action with a federal shore protection project to put sand on the beach in combination with other activities. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the value Mr. McGary talked about was destruction of property, not absence of beach that would cause a deterioration of property values; with Mr. McGary responding that is correct.

Chairperson Colon requested Mr. McGary contact each Commissioner and see if they are interested in meeting with him to get more information.

Commissioner Carlson inquired, when looking at mitigation cost and formula, does that include the sea turtle impact of using outcroppings for food; with Mr. McGary responding yes, sea turtles use the outcrops as food, particularly the green sea turtles; so that would be a factor that leads staff to need mitigation although even if there were no turtles, they would still need mitigation. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the turtles would increase the cost of mitigation; with Mr. McGary responding they could, but that has not been determined yet; and the preservation of nesting habitat may balance that.

Chairperson Colon thanked Mr. McGary, and advised him to have his office get in touch with her whenever they want to speak before the Legislative Delegation.

CITIZEN REQUEST - CHARLES RUPP, RE: NEW SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION FOR
PROPERTIES WITH SHORELINE EROSION AND/OR STRUCTURAL DAMAGE

Charles Rupp advised he requested time to change the Surface Water Protection Ordinance; since that time, things have changed; so he will give the Board the background, talk about where he is today, make a request, and have discussions if needed. He stated his house is on a canal in Indian River Isles North Subdivision; it is on a manmade canal with very little boat traffic; and his pool and house are located on top of a terrace built behind a retaining wall that is 13 feet from the existing shoreline and 7 to 8 feet above the normal water level. He stated earlier this year he noticed that the area under his boat lift was filling in from the shore; he also noticed cracks in the pool deck; so he pulled a plot of the property from 1986 and on that plot it showed the house was located 40 feet from the shoreline, but today it measures 34 feet, which means he has lost six feet of property over the last 15 to 17 years. He stated in order to stop it, he contracted with Johnson Marine Amphibious Contractors to install a vertical seawall that uses a vinyl backing instead of wooden planks and tried to get a permit for the seawall. He stated they were told they meet all the requirements except the one that requires 75% of all the properties on the canal having existing seawalls; so his intention was to come to the Board and ask it to change the 75% to 65% because currently they have 68% of the property owners with seawalls in the canal. Mr. Rupp advised as written, the Ordinance has no solution for anyone who meets all the requirements except one; there is nothing they can do even if their property is eroding; since scheduling this appearance, he talked to Commissioners and County staff, and it was suggested he hire an engineer to analyze the problem, and he is planning to do that; however, if the engineer’s best solution is a vertical seawall, the current Ordinance still needs to be changed from 75% for him to do anything about it. He requested details of what the County considers to be harmful impacts of vertical seawalls in manmade canals with low traffic, as he has not been able to find specifics on it; and it would be helpful to him to understand why he is doing what he is going to be doing. He reiterated that the Surface Water Protection Ordinance needs to be modified regardless of how he comes out, and he would like to have more information on what the County thinks is harmful.

Commissioner Carlson advised she met with Mr. Rupp and discussed the Ordinance with him; it says they have to meet all conditions; if he attempted to put riprap on his property or another type of structure besides the seawall and it cannot stop the erosion, he has to meet the 75%; and he cannot meet it so there is no outlet for him to preserve his property. She stated that is something the Board needs to address. She stated in terms of harmful effects, staff could put together a report on those things and get it to Mr. Rupp; she was the Commissioner who suggested he get a marine engineer to look at it and advise if he has enough property to do something besides putting in a seawall; and if for some reason the engineer says there is no way to do it other than the seawall to stop the erosion and keep the structural damage under control, then he can bring it back to the Board and the Board can reevaluate it.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the action is for staff to prepare a summary of the negative aspects of vertical seawalls and after Mr. Rupp gets the engineering report, he can come back to Commissioner Carlson’s office. Commissioner Carlson stated it depends on what the report says; if it says he has enough property to put in another remedy, he can go ahead and execute the project; and that is how the Ordinance is laid out. She stated he may be able to handle it personally and deal with it based on the current Ordinance; but in general terms the Board may need to address the all-or-nothing perspective of the Ordinance. She noted if Mr. Rupp has a problem, he can come to her office to re-address it and bring it before the Board again.

Mr. Rupp stated when he gets the engineer’s report as to what is viable and what his property needs, if the engineer says he could put in riprap, that would be acceptable and he would not have a problem with the Ordinance; but if he says he needs a vertical seawall, then there is no way he can implement it without a change to the Ordinance. He recommended the Ordinance be amended regardless of what happens in his situation.

Commissioner Carlson stated there is no direction in the Ordinance that suggests anyone should go out and get a clear engineering perspective on this issue so they would have substantive evidence that says they cannot do anything but install a seawall.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one problem the engineer may address is what the slope of the wall has to be in order to attain permanent ability so it is not going to fall over or slide in the water. He stated he met with Mr. Rupp and from the drawings he was shown he is slowly running out of land on which to put a wall; so it looks as if something has to happen; and if they go that route, he has to backfill the wall. He stated what usually holds sand in cases like this is a filter cloth; inherently they leak so with the best intentions, he is still going to have some type of seepage that is going to occur; but the most visibly enhanced type of wall he can have is where he has low-ground vegetation, a finger pier, and a dock. He stated he has the mangroves so he has plenty of habitat; but in cases like this, he has a feeling the engineering will come back and say the vertical wall properly imbedded in the berm is going to be the best solution. Mr. Rupp stated that is what he hears also, but needs an engineer to tell him that.

Commissioner Higgs stated staff will get the information to Mr. Rupp regarding negative impacts of seawalls; and recommended staff provide the Board a brief memo on the holes in the Ordinance and how the Board might address that.

CITIZEN REQUEST - WAE NELSON, RE: BREVARD BOTANICAL GARDEN

Wae Nelson, Chairman of the Brevard Botanical Gardens Steering Committee, advised they appreciate the botanical gardens being on the list of items that would be supported by the increase in the sales tax; and presented a handout to the Board, but not the Clerk. He stated the handout gives a rough feeling of where the property is located and what it looks like; and the aerial photo also shows the property. He stated the location is in South Merritt Island about four miles north of the Pineda Causeway; it is immediately adjacent to Hacienda Del Sol and is part of the Hacienda Del Sol property that was not sold; and it runs from river to river. He stated it is owned by a family who lives on the property on the Indian River side and would maintain a small portion of the property for their family compound. Mr. Nelson stated it is a very special piece of property; it is the last large parcel in South Merritt Island; it has been in the family for several generations and is deeply woven into the history of South Brevard; and at the turn of the last century, it was a hunt club, but there were no roads in those days and they had to go there by boat. He stated they all know what is happening on Merritt Island as far as development; so the family is under extreme pressure to sell the property. He stated he spoke to the matriarch of the family; and she is under a great deal of pressure to sell the property; it is a once in a lifetime opportunity for the County; it can use the property to really enhance its public lands; and if the property ends up being another subdivision, it will be a severe loss to the County. He requested the Board authorize an appraisal of the property and enter into negotiations on a contract for sale contingent upon the sales tax passing; and since it is on the list, the Board can lock the property in and not let it get away.

Commissioner Scarborough stated St. Petersburg has the penny sales tax; Lee County is doing it; the County can have youth sports and all kinds of activities; but one of the things that is very unique is to have the capacity for those interested in gardening to have a world-class botanical garden. He stated the site has a microclimate that is unique for anything this far north in the State; and recommended proceeding with the appraisal. He noted it was done with the Pritchard House in Titusville; and this would be a similar action.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to proceed with an appraisal of the property on Merritt Island for the botanical gardens.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much would an appraisal cost; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding approximately $5,000. Commissioner Pritchard inquired why would the County want to get an appraisal on property that is based on the approval of the voters when it dose not know if the voters are going to approve the sales tax. Commissioner Scarborough stated with the Parks and Recreation Referendum in North Brevard, there were certain parcels they wanted to acquire; one of them was Mr. Holloway’s property north of Brevard Community College; they entered into a contract contingent upon the referendum passing; therefore, when it passed, they were able to acquire the property. He stated there was another parcel near Pinewood Elementary School that was owned by a doctor; the referendum passed and the doctor decided it was his opportunity to retire; there is some opportunity to be able to find which ones are and which ones are not reasonable; and if they are not able to reasonably come to an understanding that the property can be acquired, then there is no false pretense to the voters that it would occur. He stated secondly, the Board would not be putting itself in the precarious position of having to pay prices that may be exorbitant. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is on the list at $6 or $9 million; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that was not all purchase and included development of the gardens. Commissioner Pritchard stated a dollar value was placed on the property, which he assumes included the purchase price; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the County cannot condemn the property and has to purchase it; if the seller wants more, the Board would have told the people that is where the gardens are going to go, but it is not going there, which is proceeding with the sales tax under false pretense. He stated he had that occur with one parcel; they were not able to acquire it because the price requested by the owner was exorbitant; so they had to go back and reassess; and that is why it is worth paying $5,000 to be sure the County is not going to end up being socked for millions of dollars. Commissioner Pritchard stated if there is certain amount of money set aside for the botanical garden, then the assumption everyone is going to have is that there has already been a value placed on the property; with Commissioner Scarborough responding not at all, and in fact it is to the contrary. Commissioner Scarborough stated the property could be sold and it would not be the property that is acquired; and it could get to the point where the people end up with a totally different animal of what they thought they were buying when they voted. Commissioner Pritchard inquired then how can it be a legitimate project; with Commissioner Scarborough responding by going to the voters and saying the County has an appraised value and entered into a contract contingent upon the passage of the sales tax; and the County does not have to put a dime on it, but if the voters approve the tax, they know the parcel will be purchased at a particular price. He stated he went through both scenarios in North Brevard; on one parcel they obtained an appraisal and a contingency contract; when the referendum passed, they were able to immediately close on the property; and the people got exactly what they expected. He stated however, the people who wanted a center next to Pinewood Elementary School are being thwarted in their desires because the County cannot deliver what it told them it was going to deliver; so that is the advantage in proceeding. He stated the cost of $5,000 in comparison to the risk of credibility and potential of having to pay more after the fact is justified. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Geightons were approached about the value of their property and the County listing it as a sales tax project; with Commissioner Scarborough responding they also have consented to having it appraised, but that does not bind them to do anything with the County.

Mr. Nelson stated the primary concern at this time is Ms. Geighton is under significant pressure to sell the land; part of the problem is the tax bills have just come out; it is a large piece of land with significant value and has no revenue return to the family, yet they are paying a large amount of taxes on it; whether or not that is the reason there is pressure, he does not know; but at the same time all around their land there is major development going on, which can result in a tremendous amount of pressure. He stated the time frame they are working in is very limited; the window is there this moment, but it is closing rapidly; and if the County loses the property, it could still proceed and build a garden, but it could not build a garden of the scope it could on the property or build one any cheaper than it can build there. He noted what they would end up doing is building a garden that is good, but it would lose the opportunity that would make it spectacular.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the pressures are so great that a month is going to make a difference; with Mr. Nelson responding yes, from his conversation with Ms. Geighton, that is the feeling he has; and he is not here to pressure the Board, but is just telling it how he feels. Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the problems he has with the entire sales tax projects list is the estimated dollars are inaccurate; they do not include annual operation and maintenance costs; and should the voters go for the sales tax project list, they do not know what it is they are going to be paying for. He stated he thought the $6 to $9 million estimated cost was pretty good, but it did not include operation and maintenance; and now he is told they do not know what the property is worth. Mr. Nelson stated they have an idea what the property is worth by looking at the tax rolls, which give the market values. Commissioner Pritchard stated the County has never paid for anything at market value; in fact nobody pays for anything at market value; and if he thought he could buy the property for market value, he would buy it today, but he would bet they would not sell it for that. Mr. Nelson stated that could very well be, but that is the whole purpose of the appraisal; and the County will not buy it for over the appraised value because it cannot; with Commissioner Pritchard responding it can and has done it before. Mr. Nelson stated that is the Board’s major guideline. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is not opposed to having the issue on the ballot, but wants it to be reflected accurately; and he is being asked a month and four days before the election to spend $5,000 because the tax bills have come out. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not think that is a correct reflection. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Nelson said there were pressures; with Mr. Nelson responding he said the primary pressure was development in the area. Commissioner Pritchard stated the vote is a month and four days away; and it is an unnecessary expense of $5,000 because the property will still be there a month and four days from now. Commissioner Scarborough stated he lost a piece of property because they did not do the work; and it is not honest to say the property is available at a certain price then have the owners come back with a higher figure if it is not negotiated now. He stated he put a motion on the floor, and requested a second.

Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion to proceed with the appraisal of property for the botanical gardens. Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Scarborough and Carlson voted aye; and Commissioners Pritchard, Higgs, and Colon voted nay.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the whole thing is going down the tubes as far as he is concerned; and the County is going down the tubes with it.

*Commissioner Scarborough’s absence was noted for the remainder of the meeting.

DISCUSSION, RE: BOARD CALENDAR FOR BUDGET PROCESS

Commissioner Pritchard advised he assumes the item is based on his comments to the County Manager of surveying other counties and see how they do things; for the most part how things are being done in Brevard County seems to fall in line with what other counties are doing; but that was not his purpose behind bringing this up. He stated his purpose was for the Board to have more input, at least during the coming year, so it can get a much better handle on how the County is operating. He stated as was mentioned with Natural Resources that has 24 people and does not have anyone available to perform in the one-stop permitting shop and wants to add someone, his comment is maybe the County is involved in things it should not be in, which is why he felt at least for next year that the Board, Citizens Budget Review Committee (CBRC), and County Finance Director, should conduct frequent public meetings to become informed of the operations of the County and development of the budget, so the Commissioners can achieve a better comfort level with what is going on and how well they are representing the people who elected them to office.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has gone through strategic planning and departmental strategies; she is not sure if Commissioner Pritchard was briefed on the strategic plan the County currently has; she agrees they need to scoot the process forward earlier so they can make sure the decisions made are those they all agree upon when it comes to budget time; but she is interested in looking at the strategic plan and seeing how the things they have done in the previous year have fit in with the plan. She stated November is a fine time to start as far as getting folks involved although she is not really sure exactly what Commissioner Pritchard’s interest is in terms of the second Board meeting; and she is not sure if he wants the Board, Finance Director, and CBRC present so the Board can talk about the previous budget cycle because it was not clear how it would be laid out.

Chairperson Colon inquired if it would be a workshop; with Commissioner Pritchard responding that is what he would prefer. Commissioner Pritchard stated what the Board has is a draft; it would be better held in the Florida Room and everyone sit at the same table and critique the budget process they have gone through for 2003-04; and in December, they could set the calendar for the coming year beginning January 2004. He stated all things are subject to change; the Board may decide in February or March that it does not need to do anything in April because it has got it all done; and he wants to project something that would get the Board a little more directly involved so they could achieve a higher comfort level.

Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem with that; in fact, she would like to see the Board, while everything is fresh in their minds with the current budget and some of the issues that folks brought up, and the issues of reserves and things like that, also look at the strategic plan, tweak it in whatever way it needs to, but look at the whole picture before it starts doing anything else. She stated the Board should be looking at the process critically and saying is this process working and is it achieving the goals that are in the plan, and update it if necessary.

Chairperson Colon advised Commissioner Carlson has requested that before; she hopes the Board accomplishes that at the meeting and is able to have that discussion because she did not see it before; and she hopes this time it is part of the discussion so the Board can determine whether it is on track in regards to the strategic plan, if it falls in place in regards to each department, and is it on line or behind schedule.

Commissioner Carlson stated the reason the Board got started on that was through the Sterling Award process, which is one step, and getting departments to have ownership in regards to what they feel is important to serve the people in the most effective and economical way that they possibly can. She stated they brought those strategies to the Board in a painstaking way and the Board reviewed them and reviewed their own strategies, which were all incorporated at that time; and she would hate to see that just fall by the wayside. She stated she does not know if the rest of the Board has any interest in it, but on the Citizens Budget Review Committee, it seems to her that the Board needs to get professional folks who have backgrounds in budgeting so that it does not take up so much of staff’s time. She stated if the Board chooses to keep the CBRC, it needs to find folks who are interested in budgeting and have the time to absorb all the details that are required because it will require them to come to the same meetings that the Commissioners have to deal with unless it is expecting staff to put in a tremendous amount of additional time to brief the CBRC on an ongoing basis. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board needs to give serious thought to the qualifications of that group; she does not have a problem with the committee as long as the Board utilizes it effectively; and in light of recent developments with the committee gathering potentially outside the sunshine, she thinks the Board needs to assess the issue of having that committee.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the minutes that were produced from that meeting, made the comment that they intend to hunker down and become a part of the process; and if they do not have the time to devote, or the expertise to devote to it, perhaps someone should take their place; so even the committee feels the way Commissioner Carlson feels. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has had the committee for quite some time with very little input, and that is partly because of the process; it has been difficult for staff trying to develop the budget and at the same time trying to keep them abreast of everything; so it goes back to the process.

Commissioner Higgs stated she does not remember a recommendation from the CBRC for several years, so it would be nice to get those; but in looking at this, she thinks November would be the time to look at the strategic plan and goals. She stated it would be very meaningful to look at where the Board is and what it ought to be doing toward the end of the year and set its goals for the upcoming year; and rather than do that in January, she would prefer to do it in November. She stated the Board needs to discuss what it is going to do about the budget in that process in its own critique; she is sure plenty of people will tell them how horribly they did, but what they miss so often is the conversation with Commissioners about what they really want to do. She stated they spend hours and hours in meetings, most of it listening to people make comments and not talking with each other; they cannot talk to each other outside of a public meeting; so she would appreciate the opportunity in November to discuss where they are with the strategic plan and goals and their personal feelings about how they want the budget process to improve as opposed to have everybody critique the Board. She stated she wants to hear from the other Commissioners on what they want to do; others can give the Board input and provide insights; and then the Board can move forward with its decisions. She stated the first think they need to do is talk with each other about where they are with the plans and set those in November.

Commissioner Carlson stated when the Board went through the strategic effort, it looked at service provisions, how to improve services, economize, and try not to be duplicative in certain areas; she thinks it has achieved some of that; but it also needs to deal with policies as far as making sure it has enough reserve dollars so it does not come to any negative position as discussed in this prior year. She stated policy decisions are on the books but she is not sure the Board gets notice of things occurring; it is difficult until they see the trends to realize the position they are in; and she brought that up when the Finance Director came forward and presented the Board with those nice graphs. She stated sometimes the Board does not realize the position it is in until it sees a trend and sees that it is happening, but it is too late to do anything about it; so they need to re-look at some of the positions the Board is in and bring back some of the policies that it has in regard to reserves and that sort of thing, which would be helpful for future budgeting purposes.

Commissioner Higgs stated if each Commissioner came to the meeting with their priorities for the coming year and what they want to accomplish, whether it is fiscal or whatever, and look at the strategic plans and ordinances the Board asked staff to develop and look at what it wants to prioritize, then it can determine what it wants to do and move forward. She stated that is the conversation the five Commissioners need to have. Commissioner Carlson stated that was done in the strategic planning process when the Board looked at all the priorities; with Commissioner Higgs responding it needs to go back, look at it again, and be sure it is on board and moving forward.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize the County Manager to set a workshop in November 2003 in the Florida Room to discuss the upcoming budget process, critique the prior budget process, and discuss the strategic plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon advised she requested it last year and was not successful, but she thinks the Board is now on board and does not want to wait to the last minute; so she is happy to see that.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE AND SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE SESSION, RE:
RAYMOND AMY – SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT SOUTH

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize the County Attorney to advertise and schedule an executive session on October 7, 2003 at 11:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, to discuss proposed settlements and litigation strategies relating to Brevard County v. Raymond Amy – Shore Protection Project South. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE AND SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE SESSION, RE:
INFINITY OUTDOOR OF FLORIDA

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the County Attorney to advertise and schedule an executive session on October 7, 2003, at 11:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, to discuss strategies relating to the appeal of Infinity Outdoor of Florida. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH CIRCLES OF CARE, INC., RE: CONTINUATION OF EXPANDED
FORENSIC SERVICES AT BREVARD COUNTY DETENTION CENTER

Commissioner Pritchard advised this is a request to authorize funding for the expansion of forensic services at the jail; he spoke to Assistant County Manager Don Lusk about it; Mike Fitzgerald, at the last meeting, talked about the cost of incarceration for people who have mental illness; and he asked Mr. Fitzgerald about the cost of incarceration for people who have mental illness because he advocated taking them out of jail and putting them into another facility. Commissioner Pritchard stated he wanted to tie the cost in with how much it would cost to provide the service at the jail versus a minimum security facility; and inquired if Mr. Fitzgerald came up with the numbers; with Assistant County Manager Don Lusk responding no data has been provided, but they will work on it and get it back to the Board. Commissioner Pritchard stated if the Board is going to consider expanding services, he wants to know what is the alternative and what will it cost to provide the services to those who perhaps should not be at the jail and should be in some sort of halfway house.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised this is a service that was expanded last year and is not a new expansion; it is funding to continue that expansion; and although it does not answer Commissioner Pritchard’s questions on cost, he just wanted to make it clear that they were not expanding the current services.

Commissioner Pritchard stated that was the only reason he held it; he wanted to get more information regarding the costs and had hoped Mr. Fitzgerald would have had it; perhaps he will by the next meeting, or he can send it to each Commissioner and they can make it part of the budget process to review other considerations rather than incarceration.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Agreement with Circles of Care, Inc. to continue expanded forensic services at the Brevard County Detention Center. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 5:03 p.m.

ATTEST: _________________________________
JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
_________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)