The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 16, 2000, at 5:33 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Sue Carlson, and Helen Voltz, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox. Absent was: Commissioner Randy O'Brien who was in Washington, D.C.

The Invocation was given by Pastor Calvin Gittner of the Pineda Presbyterian Church.

Commissioner Nancy Higgs led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT, RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR MAXWELL v. BREVARD COUNTY

County Attorney Scott Knox requested permission to schedule an executive session after the meeting on May 23, 2000 regarding the Maxwell v. Brevard County case.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to schedule an executive session on May 23, 2000, after the regular Board meeting to discuss the Maxwell v. Brevard County case. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: SIGN ORDINANCE WORKSHOP

Commissioner Scarborough advised he met with Bruce Moia and representatives of the Titusville Chamber of Commerce on the Sign Ordinance; and although the Board had a public hearing, and staff has talked to the Chambers about the issues, there will still be areas that are less than clear as to where we should or could go. He suggested a workshop on the Sign Ordinance to get a consensus on the provisions.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to schedule a workshop to discuss the Sign Ordinance.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the workshop will be with the Chambers; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he would like to invite the Chambers to the table, because he heard it has been frustrating for them to address their concerns and the Board go off in a different direction with no chance for the Chambers to really talk about it. He recommended the Board go through the Ordinance item by item so it can get a complete consensus with the four Chambers and the Board before Mr. Moia drafts the amending ordinance. He stated Mr. Moia has done an excellent job; and it is time for the Board to give him some help.

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

Chairman Higgs instructed the County Manager to work out the date of the workshop.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING JEFF SCHIFF

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution honoring Jeff Schiff as a long-term member of the Brevard Workforce Development Board.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution recognizing and commending Jeff Schiff for almost 20 years of dedicated service with the Brevard Workforce Development Board, and for the positive difference he has made in the employment and training services in Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs thanked Mr. Schiff for all he has done over the years, noting people do not realize what he has given to Brevard County.

A representative of the Brevard Workforce Development Board stated the Board appoints their Board of Directors; it is an awesome responsibility to appoint members who are going to take on the serious work that their Board does; they appreciate the Board's leadership in finding great Board members; and they would encourage the Board to appoint a dozen more members like Jeff Schiff.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING CIVILITY MONTH

Chairman Higgs advised the Government Law Division of the Florida Bar Association sent a proclamation regarding civility in public situations and a plaque for the County Manager to post. She read a resolution proclaiming May, 2000 as Civility Month in Brevard County.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming the month of May, 2000 as Civility Month in Brevard County, and calling upon all citizens to exercise civility toward each other. Motion carried and ordered unanimously

RESOLUTIONS, RE: HONORING EAGLE SCOUTS MATTHEW ROOD, JON L. TURNER, AND ROBERT L. TURNER

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolutions honoring Eagle Scouts Matthew Rood, Jon L. Turner, and Robert L. Turner, for their achievements, and offering congratulations and best wishes for successful futures. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT NOMINEES TO GOVERNOR, RE: CHILDREN'S SERVICES COUNCIL

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize submission of Sharon S. Underill, Titus Hall, and Susan Cannon to the Governor as nominees for appointment to the Children's Services Council to fill the vacancy created by the expiration of Irene Burnett's term. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS, RE: BREVARD WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD

Chairman Higgs advised since the company in which she owns stock does business with the Brevard Workforce, she will abstain from voting on the item.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint B. Doug Mead and Al O'Connell, nominated by the Melbourne Chamber, and Winston "Bud" Gardner and Randy Harris, nominated by the EDC, to the Workforce Development Board with terms expiring June 30, 2002. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs abstaining.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT, RE: FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION TAX DISTRICT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge receipt of Florida Inland Navigation Tax District Financial Statements for the period ending September 30, 1999. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint David F. Davis and Carol W. Waters to the Brevard Commission on Aging, with terms expiring December 31, 2000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the bills and budget changes as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION APPROVING MID-YEAR SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR FY 1999-2000

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution approving the Mid-Year Supplemental Budget for FY 1999-2000.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the mid-year supplemental budget is an annual event to recognize new monies received during the year, such as new grants; and it includes a considerable amount of construction projects that get carried forward from one year to the next, and minor adjustments in the budget as well.

Brice Corder, General Master/Hearing Officer, advised hearing officers are sometimes faced with situations that are less than desirable such as matters of custody, child support, etc.; some of the people show up with moral support; and the hearing officers do not have a deputy available to keep the peace. He requested the Board's assistance to provide deputies for hearing officers, not only for him, but in Melbourne as well. He noted if a judge was asked which area of law is explosive, he would respond domestic disputes; and requested the Board give them consideration to have deputies at their hearings. Mr. Jenkins advised the budget includes two bailiffs or deputies. Chairman Higgs stated it is not in the budget adjustment.

Bill Bright, representing Martin Andersen Senior Center, stated the people are compressed into a small area and are unhappy; the attendance has dwindled and they are unable to entertain seniors since they do not have the big building any more because it was condemned; and requested the Board restore the building as soon as possible. Mr. Jenkins advised $375,000 is in the budget and $350,000 is anticipated from the State.

Gene Nesbit commended the staff for doing a great job on the Senior Center; and stated they were disappointed in the State which provided $50,000 of the money they needed even after they sent 700 petitions to the State.

Walter Pine stated the County has been delinquent, in some cases as much as ten years, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act; his goal was to create an organization or group of people within the County that could self-correct the problems; the County has moved very slowly on this; and a single position is insufficient to review the entire County and its policies and procedures in a timely manner. He stated he asked in writing for a compliance organization set up within the various departments in the County, and that authority be given to the County Manager to come into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and take the steps necessary to do so in a timely fashion. He stated it has been in excess of three months and nothing has been done to comply with that law; there has been talk but no action; and requested the Board, under this supplemental budget, issue enough money for the County Manager to appoint, transfer from within, or hire a sufficient number of people to complete a review of the County in a timely manner. Mr. Pine stated that would be 90 days and not a year or six months; and at the end of the 90 days, the Board would know what steps it has to take. He stated he has the option of requesting the Department of Justice to issue an investigation of the County; and had he taken that option when he first approached this issue, it would have been completed in six months, and the decision would be binding. He stated the Board would not have the option of budgeting things, altering things, or setting things up if it received an order from the Department of Justice; but he has come to the Board in a spirit of cooperation and requested real substantive action. He noted if he cannot get it from the County, he will have to go somewhere else to get it.

Chairman Higgs inquired if there is something in the budget addressing that issue; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding he has added a position for an Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator to begin implementing the program; that is the first step; there are a number of things they can do to enhance the current program; and they intend to proceed with that. He stated part of the assessment may be whether or not to hire additional people or use a consultant to come up with a work plan.

Commissioner Voltz inquired what has been done so far to comply with the law; with Mr. Jenkins responding when the A.D.A. was first passed, the County did an inspection of its major facilities; and every new facility that is built must comply with the A.D.A. standards that are in place at the time the facility is constructed. He stated staff also receives confirmation that private development is being done in conformance with the A.D.A.; they have a part time A.D.A. coordinator in the Facilities Management Section; in addition, Parks and Recreation have done other things in terms of making its facilities A.D.A. compliant; and the County has done a number of things over the years. Mr. Jenkins advised what Mr. Pine suggested is that the County take a fresh look at it and expand its efforts in such things as employee training; they agreed to set up an employee steering committee for A.D.A. and create A.D.A. coordinators in each Department to work with the centralized coordinator; and in addition, they are committed to improving and expanding that effort. Commissioner Voltz stated Mr. Pine made a statement that the County has been non-compliant for ten years; and inquired if Mr. Jenkins can address that; with Mr. Jenkins responding every new building that is built has to be A.D.A. compliant; there were a number of buildings that were built prior to the law being passed; they have gone through the County's major facilities and attempted to make those buildings at least A.D.A. accessible with one major restroom and improved entranceways; and they are proposing to update that review. Commissioner Voltz stated they have been to her office and made the front door and bathroom accessible. Mr. Jenkins stated they were also at Melbourne Courthouse, Sarno Complex, and Titusville Courthouse. Commissioner Voltz inquired why is a coordinator needed at this time if staff plans to put a committee together; and would it be better to wait until the committee came up with the needs. Mr. Jenkins stated there are a number of things they can do, to enhance employee awareness for example; it is a training issue and a key component; and it would take someone to do those types of things. He stated it would be prudent to do another survey of the County buildings to see if there are additional improvements that can be made to make any or all the facilities more A.D.A. accessible; the individual who has been doing it is in Facilities Management and has a number of other duties and responsibilities; so by having a central coordinator, not unlike the safety officer, it will give the County someone to coordinate the program countywide and provide direction. He stated it is also a matter of economics; this is an area that is becoming more litigation oriented; and if the County is proactive and aggressive in demonstrating that it is taking the law seriously and wants to be in compliance, that would be a strong defense if and when they have to encounter any litigation. He noted the litigation could be very expensive, so this is preemptive as well as corrective. Commissioner Voltz inquired if there were any complaints; with Mr. Jenkins responding he is not aware of any complaints, but they have a formal grievance process, and no grievances have been received to date. He stated staff makes special accommodations for those who make them aware they have special requirements or needs. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it would be better to have the person who is doing the job part time to be relieved of other duties and do it full time, and others in the Department take over those other duties; with Mr. Jenkins responding the workload will be fairly heavy for some period of time; if that person is removed from Facilities Management, there is no one who can assume the workload left by that person; that is why the person has been doing both duties; and if that person is taken away, it will create a void in service delivery from that Department which is kept pretty busy.

Commissioner Scarborough stated sometimes when a survey of a system is needed, they can bring in someone from the outside who knows what to look for and in a short time produce a work plan; and inquired if that is something the Board should consider; with Mr. Jenkins responding it may be something the Board would want to consider at some time, but it needs a basis to do that first; and it depends on how much work and how short a period of time they would have to do the assessment. Mr. Jenkins stated he and staff discussed bringing in an outside consultant at the onset or use staff to do the work; the benefit of using staff is once they receiving the training and have the knowledge, it stays with the County as opposed to leaving with the consultant; however, if they do the assessment and the determination is that the volume of work that needs to be done is too great for the coordinators, then he may come back to the Board and present that possibility.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is a time frame involved with hiring someone; with Mr. Jenkins responding today is the first step in getting authorization to go forward and hire someone; they will look at existing employees first and employees who are disabled; and that could affect how quickly they get someone on board. Mr. Jenkins stated there is a training period required; but they can begin doing various step-by-step processes that need to occur, such as formalizing written procedures, undertaking a survey of County employees, and conducting employee training throughout the County. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is an employee steering committee; with Mr. Jenkins responding he is proposing to set up one, like the Countywide Employee Safety Committee, that would have representatives from all Departments to insure all Departments are actively involved and aware of what is going on. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there will be citizen input; with Mr. Jenkins responding they do not do that right now as it is basically an internal employee committee.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the County has an A.D.A. policy; with Mr. Jenkins responding they operate from the federal documents; but one of the recommendations from Mr. Pine was to take some of the information contained in the various federal publications and put them in a County Policy. He stated that would be prudent, particularly as the program continues and if they encounter any litigation, because if the County has its own policies and procedures, that should strengthen its defense. Commissioner Voltz inquired if Mr. Jenkins is recommending approval; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes.

Chairman Higgs inquired about the $2.9 million allocated in the reserve for the survey; with Mr. Jenkins responding he would recommend, rather than setting up a separate reserve account, that the funds be put in the General Fund Reserve and set aside for that purpose. Commissioner Voltz inquired why; with Mr. Jenkins responding it would be part of the General Fund Reserve and not sit out there by itself. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it would be earmarked; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes.

Commissioner Voltz inquired when will employees see an increase, with Mr. Jenkins responding Mr. Abbate is finalizing the survey results and propose to bring it to the Board in July. He stated it would probably be the first of October; and as it will be a significant financial impact, not just for that year but the following year as well, it would be more financially manageable doing it October 1, 2000.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the A.D.A. coordinator is an HR function; with Mr. Jenkins responding with the Board's concurrence, he will put it under Management Services because it is not just an HR function and broaches a lot of different areas.

Commissioner Voltz advised three deputies are being asked for by the hearing officers, but the Sheriff is asking for six more in his budget which has a $7 million increase; if the Board does something now, it has to continue funding it; and it cannot give the Sheriff $7 million for next year. Mr. Jenkins advised two deputies are for child support enforcement hearings which was brought to his attention earlier this year; there is a legitimate concern because those are volatile situations; and the third deputy is for Family and Juvenile Courts. Management Services Director Stockton Whitten advised the Family and Juvenile Courts increased the number of hearing officers so there is a need to have security.

Commissioner Voltz advised the Medical Examiner works seven days a week, 24 hours a day because he has no assistants; if he takes a day off, he has to get someone from Indian Ricer County to come in as Medical Examiner for Brevard County; so the Board needs to hire someone else. Assistant County Manager Don Lusk advised he has been working with the Medical Examiner and has included that in next year's budget.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution approving a budget supplement and amendment for the Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2000, 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, 2000, and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 62-1255 AND 62-1344 RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL PROFESSIONAL ZONING CLASSIFICATION

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article VI, Sections 62-1255 and 62-1344 relating to residential professional zoning classification. She advised she has no cards from the public on the proposed ordinance.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to forward the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article VI, Section 62-1255 relating to consistency of the Residential Professional Zoning Classification with the Comprehensive Plan, and Section 62-1344, relating to maximum residential density of the residential professional zoning classification, to the final hearing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1999B

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1999B.

Clifford Ray advised he owns property that will be drastically affected by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment if the change occurs; the density would be reduced from 30 units per acre to 15 units per acre; and the Planning and Zoning Board recommended an area be excluded from the Comprehensive Plan Amendment which included his property. He stated he bought the property ten years ago; he owns 2-1/4 acres which represent 90% of his personal assets; they were days away from completing a deal with Trust Republic Lands which would have sold it to the City of Cocoa Beach for a park; and they would get the beginning of their retirement nest egg. He stated there would be no development on the land, and citizens from the City and County could enjoy the park. Mr. Ray stated the Trust would pay the value of the land's highest and best use; if the zoning is cut in half, he would lose half of his value and be back to what he has in the property with zero profit after ten years of making payments and paying taxes, and counting on it for his retirement; and he understands the County can meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan without his property involved. He stated to the south is developed property at 40 units per acre; everything to the north is developed, some to the maximum of 30 units per acre; and it is built out about 98%. He stated he cannot stress enough how much the property means to his family; and anything the Board can do to help him will be appreciated. He noted the zoning has existed for 35 years; and to notify someone facing a drastic change two weeks before the change is considered is not enough time.

Attorney Tim Pickles, representing George McLeod, advised his client owns approximately four acres to the north of Mr. Ray's property and is in a similar situation; his property is zoned RU-2-30 and is one of only 200 acres in the County zoned RU-2-30; and it fits within the urban designation land use. He requested the Board accept the Local Planning Agency's recommendation which would eliminate the urban designation but for those properties that are currently zoned RU-2-30. He stated part of the reduction to RU-2-15 is to reduce the overall density to come into compliance with Department of Community Affairs requirements; in the investigation of the County, they determined that of the 9,300 acres that are currently listed urban designation land use, only 2.2% are zoned RU-2-30; and what that means is that the only people affected by this amendment are those who relied on the RU-2-30. Mr. Pickles stated it will drastically affect the value of his client's property; however, there is a happy medium, and that is what the LPA recommended to the Board which is to reduce or eliminate the urban designation but for properties that are currently zoned as residential.

Maria Ray stated they were close to signing a contract with Trust Republic Lands two days before they received the notice; Cocoa Beach voted unanimously to get the land for a park; she would prefer to see a park and not development; but the Trust would only pay the value for units. She stated if the Board cuts the value in half, they will only be paid half and would force them to sell to a developer; so it is important to keep it at 30 units per acre. She stated it is their retirement funds, and she would appreciate anything the Board can do to help them.

Commissioner Voltz requested clarification of the 200 acres and how the Board can eliminate the undeveloped parcels. Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised the Board can remove from the Amendment package the 200 acres which have R-30 urban residential density classification on the Future Land Use Map and the RU-2-30 zoning classification; that 200 acres was not transmitted to Department of Community Affairs; staff has received from Department of Community Affairs in the ORC report acknowledging a right sizing of the residential density map that would be found in compliance; so that is an option the Board has. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the County met the density requirements without down zoning the 200 acres; with Mr. Scott responding it passed the test of right sizing its residential density map to better coincide with a census projection in the year 2020. Commissioner Voltz stated there was no analysis done on those parcels; with Mr. Scott responding they have not provided an in-depth analysis they would do for other stand alone parcels, such as neighborhood compatibility analysis, hurricane evacuation, road capacity analysis, etc.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article III, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, entitled the 1988 Comprehensive Plan, setting forth Plan Amendment 99-B of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled Contents; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part I, entitled the Conservation Element, to adopt evaluation and appraisal report recommendations; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XI, entitled the Future Land Use Element, to adopt a planned redevelopment district future land use designation and to adopt evaluation and appraisal report recommendations; specifically amending Section 62-501 Part XVI(E), entitled the Future Land Use Map Appendix; providing for internal consistency with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; providing for area encompassed; providing for conflicting provisions; and providing an effective date, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board with a change to 99-B.14.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board heard about a few acres that would be a park, but others are not going to be parks; and inquired if staff is familiar with the other parcels and feel comfortable with the Board's action; with Mr. Scott responding it would place the staff in a better position to come back and identify scenarios that may be in place on the 200 acres; and there may be other properties in that 200 acres being pursued by the Trust. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Public Trust is not his concern; and it is development at a higher unit per acre density which would be totally incompatible because they are not developing at 30 units per acre today, as developers have found that it is not where the market is. Mr. Scott stated the Board would be able to identify the scenario on each of the parcels and be more informed about what it is doing if it removes the R-30 from the Future Land Use Map. Commissioner Voltz stated staff will come back with analysis on each parcel. Commissioner Scarborough stated the incorporated areas have higher densities because they can provide higher levels of service, so the Board has an anomaly it is trying to address.

Chairman Higgs requested clarification that 3.3 of the Conservation Element would include language of the Surface Water Ordinance regarding 30% shoreline protection buffering; with Mr. Scott responding it was an oversight and will be included in the adoption package.

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

Chairman Higgs advised the Board adopted the Ordinance with the recommendation of the LPA and consistent with what Mr. Pickles recommended.

The meeting recessed at 6:27 p.m., and reconvened at 6:38 p.m.

STAFF ANALYSIS, RE: CITY OF PALM BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS

Chairman Higgs advised the Board asked that she attempt to organize the meeting consistent with the way it did the Pineda Extension issue; she talked to representatives of major groups who would be speaking and asked if they would speak for ten minutes; there are five groups--the City of Palm Bay, County staff, the Valkaria homeowners, Palm Bay homeowners, and the Town of Malabar; so her intention is to give each of those representatives ten minutes however they want to use those. She stated the individual cards will be given three minutes; and she will begin with the City of Palm Bay.

Attorney Richard Torpy advised he will speak for five minutes, then Mr. Tsamoutales will speak if that is okay with the Board. Mr. Torpy stated it is highly unusual and unprecedented that the County Commission would challenge the City over a voluntary annexation; and he will present the history of the issue. He advised in July or August, 1999, he was asked by his client to explore with the City of Palm Bay whether it would be interested in a voluntary annexation of property at the corner of Palm Bay Road and Valkaria Road; he spoke with the City staff, and they were interested and thought it would be a good idea, so they filed a formal application and began the process of voluntary annexation into the City. He stated he used the same mailing list the County uses and mailed out a letter notifying surrounding residents within the same area that the City would notify, what they were going to do, because his client's intention was to put in a shopping center in the future, and inviting them to a group discussion on the item. He stated he tried to explain the issues to the residents in hopes of gaining support; obviously with this issue he did not gain support; and many of the Valkaria residents were in opposition and staunchly opposed it before the Palm Bay City Council. Mr. Torpy advised the issue was presented to the City's Planning and Zoning Board and the Council at public hearings; it was ultimately approved by the Council; and during that time, because of all the controversy, his client authorized him to advise the City that he would indemnify the City because there had been statements and comments alluding to the County and several residents challenging the City. He stated a developer agreeing to indemnify a city when asking the city to do something is commonplace; most county and city attorneys would not only want it, but would require it; so for that reason, he is speaking on behalf of the developer and the City of Palm Bay based on that agreement. Mr. Torpy expressed concern that this has become a political issue; and stated in 1999 there were ten voluntary annexations in Melbourne, Titusville, and Rockledge, and none of them resulted in objections by the Board. He stated comments were made that the County was looking to get into joint planning agreements with the cities, which is true; most of 1999 there has been conversations between Palm Bay and the County and cities about joint planning agreements; it is a good idea; but he is not sure why Palm Bay is being singled out to be challenged by the Board on what is a legislative quasi-judicial determination by the City Council. He stated in representing a private land developer, he went to the City because it can provide water, sewer, better police protection and better fire protection; that is why his client wants to be in the City; and the Board should not challenge a city because it disagrees with the City's decision on a local planning issue. He stated the joint planning agreements are going to handle those issues; it takes a while to do those types of things; it was not just brought up in the Fall and the City said no, it is not going to do it; and it has been a very cooperative effort by both City and County staffs. He inquired why should a private developer hold on a project waiting for the County to decide to get into an agreement with the City; and requested the Board not challenge Palm Bay and raise its objections through a letter to Department of Community Affairs. Mr. Torpy stated the Board can let Department of Community Affairs know its concerns and flag it so the Department will look at them; and it would get the same results without suing the City or the City suing the County and using taxpayer dollars, when a private landowner is asking to go into a city, which is his right.

Attorney Nick Tsamoutales advised there has been some concern about Mr. Torpy representing the City; during the course of the hearings on this matter, there was direct or indirect comments relative to threats of lawsuits; at that point the property owner made a commitment to a City staff member who accepted the offer to hold the City harmless and indemnify it in the event of such situation; and Mr. Knox would probably agree it is a common practice and is done all the time. He stated the application for annexation was granted by the City of Palm Bay; the process started by the County is going to be very costly for the taxpayers and require a lot of staff time which could be spent on other issues; and suggested the Board commit its concerns, factual or philosophical, to writing and submit them to Department of Community Affairs to factor into its decision-making process. He stated the Board would get the same consideration from the people who are directly involved in making the decisions at no cost to the citizens and minimal staff time; and that is the most effective, efficient, and cost-effective way to express its views on this item. Mr. Tsamoutales advised the Space Coast League of Cities, in a letter dated May 8, 2000, said, "At a recent meeting of the League, the Board of Directors voted unanimously to support the City of Palm Bay in its annexation efforts and object to anticipated legal action by Brevard County. Respectfully, we believe that it is inappropriate for Brevard County to take action against its own municipalities, especially in light of the fact that in voluntary annexation issues it is clear the choice of the property owner whether the property owner wishes to be served by urban or rural services. We have reviewed the administrative complaint filed with the Department of Community Affairs objecting to the land use assigned by the City of Palm Bay to recently annexed property. One of the key issues raised in that complaint is the fact that Palm Bay commenced Comprehensive Plan amendment proceedings prior to actual annexation of the parcel. With this in mind, while we were very pleased to see the County recede from a lawsuit against Melbourne with regard to annexations, we wish to respectfully indicate our position on this issue by requesting that the County refrain from legal action against the City of Palm Bay with regard to annexation issues. Also, so that these types of problems may be avoided in the future, we would solicit suggestions from Brevard County officials. How can we encourage annexations but work with Brevard County to satisfy any legitimate concern with regard to annexation?" Mr. Tsamoutales stated the letter points out that the objection was not an appropriate objection; and he read those portions of the letter because they speak to an issue that is key and significant to all municipalities. He requested the Board give consideration to submitting its concerns, complaints, and philosophies to Department of Community Affairs through some form of written documentation, and avoid the cost of litigating the matter based upon the complaint that has been filed.

Chairman Higgs asked County staff to explain the two annexations and whether they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the professional analysis staff has done.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised the first annexation is approximately 20 acres on the northeast corner of Valkaria Road and Babcock Street; and it is in the Comprehensive Plan as a residential land use at one unit to the acre with an agricultural residential zoning classification. He stated it is Palm Bay commercial in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Palm Bay community commercial zoning classification; the City Council chose to include it in its next large-scale plan amendment cycle; and it will be sent to Department of Community Affairs around May or June 2000. Mr. Scott advised the proposed annexation is not within the Palm Bay growth management area established in its Comprehensive Plan; its Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1(m) states, "The City's land development regulations shall be amended to direct future growth to the established growth management area"; and this property is not in that area. He stated they would like to get the City's Capital Improvements Program to determine whether or not the proposal is within the City's water and sewer service areas; the City's Future Land Use Element Objective 2.3 requires that residential areas be protected from the encroachment of incompatible uses to promote neighborhood stability and prevent deterioration; and it would be a fair request to have an analysis done on that corridor with regard to the effects a shopping center or another community commercial activity might have on the residential properties both on the east and west sides of that road. Mr. Scott advised with agricultural and low-density residential character on the west side of the road, a commercial shopping center would represent an intrusion into an established residential area; staff would also request that the City analyze its Future Land Use Objective 3.1 which states, "The type, size, and distribution of commercial areas shall be based upon need and availability of supporting infrastructure." He stated staff would like to see an analysis of the opportunities that exist currently within the City to internalize commercial development as opposed to going outside the City boundaries; and an analysis of market demand and need could be something that the City would consider doing. He stated the transportation planning principals can be talked about; the City is a large single-family residential lot plat that contains approximately 74,000 lots; there are a lot of benefits that a large single-family plat can attain if parcels were converted internally to commercial as opposed to on the periphery; and trip distances would be shortened for Palm Bay residents by locating future commercial nodes within the City and not at its periphery. Mr. Scott advised as to the history of the parcel, it has existed for over ten years in the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan; the area did undergo a small area plan process referred to as the Valkaria Small Area Plan; and there was a sizable piece of commercial property removed from the area in an attempt to preserve its rural residential character. He stated the report goes over some infill development goals that the City would endeavor to accomplish, which he alluded to with the infill development; another consideration would be the level of service on Valkaria Road; and the proposal would consume about 25% of the available roadway capacity. He stated the second proposal is a smaller piece of property at the same intersection, specifically at the southeast corner; that property is currently shown as residential in the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan at one unit per acre and zoned AU; and it is proposed by the City as a commercial future land use and neighborhood commercial zoning classification. He stated staff was informed of proposals on that property, which included an R&S Softwater Service business.

Chairman Higgs asked Mr. Scott to outline the capacity of the roadway and the number of trips generated by a commercial enterprise on that 20 acres based on staff's analysis. Mr. Scott advised staff put 19.57 acres into the database and applied a community commercial zoning classification; and the average daily trip generation was calculated at 8,100 trips per day. He stated they evenly distributed those trips along three road segments--(1) from Indian River County to Valkaria along Babcock, (2) from Valkaria to Malabar, and (3) Valkaria Road from Babcock to U.S. 1; the road segment most dramatically impacted is the Indian River County to Valkaria Road which is operating at level of service B and would go to level of service C; however, they are all within acceptable levels of service, but the road capacity for the first segment would go from 25% to 46%. He noted the Valkaria to Malabar Road segment would go from 75% to 91%, and the Valkaria Road from Babcock to U.S. 1 segment would go from 27% to 52%.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the analysis is after the widening or before, as it is currently a two-lane road that is proposed for widening.

Janis Walters, President of the Valkaria Neighborhood Association, advised she is representing the people of Valkaria and Palm Bay opposed to commercial land use on the corner of Babcock and Valkaria Road; and at least 680 people signed petitions or sent letters in opposition. She stated the main reason the applicant petitioned for annexation into Palm Bay is to change the land use from agricultural to commercial; the City and County Comprehensive Plans and the Valkaria Small Area Study do not allow for commercial use at that corner; however, Palm Bay City Council has demonstrated a willingness to abandon the principles and objectives of its own Comprehensive Plan in order to increase the number of acres the City can tax at commercial rates. She explained several overhead projections; stated the City Council may think it is a good means to raise taxes, but it did not perform an economic study to back up the land use change in that location; and noted the City's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Policy 3.1 states, "Conveniently located, readily accessible commercial areas by type, size, and distribution based on area need and the availability of supporting infrastructure." She noted 3.1.a. states, "The acreage of commercial land permitted by the Future Land Use Map shall not exceed projected needs." Ms. Walters stated on the County's side of the road, the Comprehensive Plan and Small Area Study show that the County does not need any more commercial use there right now; and presented and explained a slide of the County's current Grant quad-land use map. She stated there is a mixed use district on Babcock Street in the County south of Grant Road and to the north near the Town of Malabar's limits; during the Small Area Study in 1995, staff determined that there was no need for commercial for at least 25 years; Palm Bay designated land for neighborhood and community commercial development close by; and pointed out commercial clusters at Wyoming and San Fillipo, at San Fillipo and Aldron, and at Grant, Aldron, and Babcock. She stated not shown on the map is the Bayside Lakes community commercial area where a Publix Shopping Plaza is under construction near Aldron. Ms. Walters stated the Kiara & Copperman 1982 Report was used as reference in the County's Comprehensive Plan and Valkaria Small Area Study to decide how much commercial land is needed; the Report suggested a population of 35,000 within a two-mile radius to support a viable commercial cluster; and explain another slide of the commercial areas, noting commercial development and an area of mixed use which the Study indicated was not needed. She stated she looked up the population projections from the County's traffic analysis zones and did the calculations; by 2020 the population inside the red circle is expected to be 21,500, only about 60% of the number needed for a viable commercial cluster; and the local population, even at maximum planned density, can only support so many commercial locations. She showed another slide of a map with existing large commercial clusters and planned and proposed clusters to the south. She stated the areas along U.S. 1 and Port Malabar Boulevard, and at Palm Bay Road and Babcock Street intersection have vacant buildings and are declining as the I-95 interchange and Minton and Malabar Road areas draw the shoppers; and now Palm Bay intends to continue the sprawl even further. She presented and explained a graphic from Mr. Torpy's presentation to the City Council; and stated he said Palm Bay was growing by leaps and bounds and had to have a shopping center at Babcock Street and Valkaria Road; the real growth area in Palm Bay has been at the northwest arc of the hole in the doughnut; Bayside Lakes is ideally situated to serve the entire area; and for far into the future the Grant-Aldron site is set aside to serve the population in the southeast section of the arc whenever it is built out. Ms. Walters stated Valkaria Road is one too many commercial areas; it is not all that accessible; south Palm Bay was laid out in such a way that the roads ultimately direct traffic towards the center not outward to the city limits; and showed a road map used by local realtors. She stated there are only a few through streets from which local residents can branch off onto shorter feeder roads into little neighborhoods; it serves as a strong reminder that shopping trips should be captured internally, not directed outward to the periphery; shopping activity directed onto Babcock Street will overload and impede traffic flow on the only County north/south through road within six miles; and it is hard to get to Babcock Street from most of Palm Bay. She noted only the few little streets abutting Babcock Street have direct egress, and any shopping trip to that location will be an out of the way journey for most people; for the people who live on the little streets directly opposite the subject property, getting onto Babcock Street will mean fighting the shopping traffic or going west and winding around to find a street that exits beyond the congested area; FLUE 2.3 says, "Protect residential areas from encroachment from incompatible land uses to promote neighborhood stability and prevent deterioration"; and inquired what is going to happen to the value of every one of those properties. Ms. Walters advised FLUE 3.2 states, "Orderly well-planned commercial development"; if there was such a thing as a land use encyclopaedia, one could look up this situation under planning, which would say "lack of"; surrounding the community commercial cluster is land set aside for high-density residential use, a land use step down between community commercial and single-family or low-density residential; and FLUE 2.3.f states, "Future commercial uses within residential areas shall be located at designated collector nodes and designed with buffering to protect adjacent uses and shall be located as depicted on the Future Land Use Map." She advised FLUE 2.3.a states, "The land development regulations shall contain provisions to ensure that land uses surrounded by and/or abutting residential areas are not in conflict with the scale, intensity, density, and character of the residential area"; there is no possibility for effective buffering between the incompatible land uses of commercial and the low-intensity and rural residential areas surrounding them; FLUE 3.2.b states, "The land development regulations shall contain provisions for compact commercial development in clusters with coordinated parking and loading facilities and/or frontage road"; and it is an established residential area with no room for a frontage road on the Palm Bay side. She stated the subject land is completely surrounded by homes; each green block is a parcel with a single-family residence in place; and each one of those citizens relied on the City or County Comprehensive Plan when they chose their homes.

Robert Doucette, President of Citizens Allied for Managed Partnership (CAMP), stated he is in opposition to Palm Bay's Comprehensive Plan amendment for 20 plus acres of land on the northeast corner of Valkaria Road and Babcock Street; the procedures used are illegal; the legal representation is very questionable; and Attorney Torpy stated that he represents all parties involved, including the City of Palm Bay, which is not a true statement. He noted the letter dated May 1, 2000 to Curt Lorenc implies that Attorney Torpy did not receive nor was given permission by City Council to represent the City; on May 8, 2000, a request was sent to the Palm Bay City Manager under Florida Statutes 119 demanding copies of contracts for Attorney's Torpy and Tsamoutales; to date, there has been no response from the City Manager's office; and Attorney Torpy works as a City Attorney, as well as a Code Enforcement Board Attorney. Mr. Doucette stated as of May 15, 2000, they were told there were no written contracts available; and inquired if that is correct, how are they being paid and what accountability paperwork is being used to justify their payments. He noted Overhead No. 3 shows the laws that question Mr. Torpy's authority to represent clients before the Board; Florida Bar Opinion 69-21, dated July 23 1969, states, "An attorney employed on a regular basis by a municipality or its official boards or commissions should not represent private clients before the governing board of the city"; Palm Bay City Ordinance 34.066, states, "Representing Private Interest Before City. No elected official or other official or employee whose salary is paid in whole or in part by the City shall appear in behalf of any private interest before any agency of the City. He shall not represent private interest in any action or proceeding against the interest of the City in any litigation to which the City is a party"; and in his opinion, Attorney Torpy is in direct violation of both laws. Mr. Doucette stated the citizens have asked for an in-depth audit of the City; they were told the water mains going to the southern part of the City are too small and need to be replaced with larger mains; if the property is allowed to be developed as commercial, they are looking at an estimated $50 million the City would have to fund by bonds for water and sewer systems; and that is a poor management decision. He advised there are no extra funds to supply the area with water and sewer systems; citizens input to the Council are totally ignored by the Mayor and certain Council members; and one of the overheads he has shown shows how some of the Council members have received their campaign contributions.

Mayor Phillip Crews, Town of Malabar, advised there is a special relationship between the Town and City of Palm Bay and they are rarely on opposite sides of any issue; however, the Town is in opposition to the rezoning and annexation of County lands along the south Babcock corridor. He stated the attempts to rezone those parcels adversely impact the residents of the area and conflict with the County's Comprehensive Plan, common sense, and responsible government, because a sizable portion of the population in the vicinity of the annexation strongly oppose it. Mayor Crews stated Palm Bay is one of the State's largest cities; the fact that its Council finds it necessary to annex outside its boundaries in order to find commercial property is utterly incomprehensible; he believes the motives of the Palm Bay Council are well intentioned, but he is puzzled as to why voices of concerned citizens seem to go unheard. He stated the Vice Mayor of Palm Bay appears to be the Council's lone voice in opposition to this issue; and as legislative governmental bodies, they should all work together, particularly, when there are issues that affect residents across governmental boundaries. Mayor Crews urged the Palm Bay Council and the Board to work together to reach a solution that is equitable to all parties.

Tom Eschenberg of Malabar stated he supports Valkaria in its fight to maintain its lifestyle; the area is rural residential; and people live there because they like it. He stated this will be the first encroachment of commercial into the area; when commercial development takes place, landowners make money and cities collect more taxes; but Brevard County has a Comprehensive Plan, as all the towns and cities do, which was developed to maintain quality of life. He stated there is an end run with the tactic being used to get around the Plan; now is the time to draw a line and put a stop to it; and if the Board does not do what it can to help the citizens in this situation, it might as well toss the Plan in the dumpster.

Peggy Yonts gave a videotape presentation to the Board and audience.

Allyn Newman stated the parties seeking rezoning of the Valkaria acreage at Babcock Street and Valkaria Road are to be commended for their tenacity, but not for their regard for the taxpayers of Palm Bay; and he is a concerned Palm Bay citizen who wishes the sewer system was in his area, and the police and fire coverage could be properly expanded in the City. He noted the City needs land rezoned to beef up its tax base; it does not need more land and extra demands on its services to benefit developers who wish to have the expanded services at his expense; and past councils had foresight and the willingness to listen to constituents as attempts to change Babcock Street were denied because of safety and quality of life issues. He stated he questions the right of Attorney Torpy, and Councilpersons Simon and Voltz to be involved in these proceedings according to the Ordinances; and indicated a need for a proper ethics determination to ease the minds of the voters. Mr. Newman stated Palm Bay's Code states that the appearance of problems should be avoided in all dealings with the public; any less would be cause to suspect corruption; Paravant now enjoys a tax abatement and has all the fire, police, ambulance, sewer, and water services that the rest of Palm Bay has at the expense of taxpayers; and the City must lay new lines and County roadways will have to be altered to accommodate them. He noted Palm Bay does not need this additional strain; he has family members in Palm Bay who do not wish to be the benefactors of these businessmen; he has not been planted as an opponent to this action; and he is an interested citizen of Palm Bay and one of the 100% of the speakers whose message has been ignored at other forums where this item has been discussed. He requested the Board let the area in question remain rural residential.

Mariano Domino stated she owns a house in Palm Bay near the proposed shopping center; at first she thought it would benefit her and would increase the value of her property; but after talking to other seniors and hearing about other expansions in the State, she feels senior citizens should be given a chance to live in tranquility and peace. She stated the State of Florida is said to be the place where senior citizens can find heaven; and she is happy to be in Brevard County, which in her research was the second undeveloped county, but oppose the shopping center.

Pat Randolph advised of her opposition to the proposal; stated her house is the only house on the north end of the 20-acre parcel off of Babcock Street; her children go to local schools; and the local school is laying off teachers next year because there is a drop in enrollment, which means a drop of people in the area. She stated there is also the issue of the environment; the County has chosen to pave the road that comes into her street; she has seen animals displaced because of this; there are only three houses on the road; so she does not know why they had to pave it. She stated she has seen scrub jays in and out of her yard; and inquired what is going to happen with those animals. Ms. Randolph stated the reason the citizens are present is to challenge Palm Bay's lack of response to the negative issues that were raised when it decided to annex; it did not work for progress through partnership with its neighbors and chose to ignore them; she heard the Sheriff ask for more money; and he is going to need even more if Palm Bay goes through with this.

Pat Benington stated a few greedy people want the change in land use so they can get what they want for their property; by having it changed to commercial use, the City of Palm Bay can increase its tax base; but it cannot provide water and sewer for its existing citizens or maintain its existing roads in good repair. She stated land use controls are to maintain an even and equitable use of land so that people can choose to live and raise their families in areas that are going to stay rural, agricultural, or residential for the foreseeable future. She noted as a general rule, people do not choose to live next to shopping centers or commercial property; the citizens of Brevard County who live in the adjacent areas of this proposed annexation do not want to live there either; those citizens have been ignored by the Palm Bay City Council because they did not live in Palm Bay; and the Council also chose to ignore its own citizens' concerns. Ms. Benington stated there are five plus convenience stores within five miles of the annexed area; since this is a rural residential neighborhood, there is not the population growth to support the proposed shopping center that would direct governments to consider changing the land use; and inquired does the County need more vacant shops than those that already exist in Palm Bay, and what does it do for increasing the tax base. She stated controlling urban sprawl is a Statewide goal that needs to be addressed in this situation; people move to this area to get away from traffic congestion, light pollution, noise pollution, and crime; the rural residential agricultural flavor of this area has been peaceful and quiet and a joy to live in; and changing the land use will bring all these negatives into existing yards and homes. She noted it would also adversely impact the areas' property values, diminishing the resale value of homes that people have invested in with a major part of their livelihood; and requested Brevard County not try to become South Florida, stay rural and keep big city stresses at bay, and let people enjoy homes, children, and lives.

Anna Lenoci stated she lived in Palm Bay for 27 years and remembers a lot of changes that have taken place; and many of them have not been for the better. She noted she is not just concerned about Valkaria, and is still concerned about Palm Bay; she works there and has family there; and what is going on right now is annexation without representation. She stated the Board represents the citizens of Brevard County; Palm Bay did not represent its citizens; the County has the power to say no; and the citizens do not want the City to annex the property.

Maureen Rupe stated she is concerned about Valkaria, Port St. John, and Canaveral Groves which have cities creeping slowly towards them every year; and Palm Bay's defense in this annexation is that it is voluntary, and if approached by developers, it cannot say no even if it is against the City's Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use. She stated comprehensive plans are important documents to maintain quality of life and a sustainable future; and developers do not care. She noted she is concerned about how determined the developers were to get around the County's Comprehensive Plan by approaching Palm Bay for annexation; if it succeeds it will give them encouragement for future deals; and they would render the County and City Comprehensive Plans useless. Ms. Rupe stated the residents' quality of life is not being considered by Palm Bay or the developers; the motivation is money; and it is the County's duty to take action.

Nicki Kisner stated she is in agreement with Ms. Rupe.

Donn Miller-Kermani stated her family is against any change of zoning in Valkaria; if Mr. Wilson and the rest of the landowners along Babcock Street wish to join the City of Palm Bay and to use the services that the City is able to offer, the people have no right to object; and under the law, Mr. Wilson is entitled to annex his property to the City of Palm Bay. She stated what has escaped everyone's attention is that Mr. Wilson's ultimate intention is to change the zoning of his lot to commercial; and that is where the citizens' rights as residents of the area will be adversely affected. She stated the intent of the law allowing Mr. Wilson and other landowners to annex is clearly stated in Florida Statutes; and that is to have access to services that the County cannot provide through an adjacent city; and by no means do the Statutes allow rezoning, change of land use, or change of the Comprehensive Plan of the County. She stated Florida Statutes 125.01 states, "The County government provides for the prosecution and defense of legal causes on behalf of the County, and establishes, coordinates and enforces zoning for the protection of the public"; and requested the Board defend the citizens' rights and file with the State's authorities for stipulation placed on such annexation so that the zoning is preserved as when Mr. Wilson or anyone else bought the properties. Ms. Miller-Kermani stated the citizens are here this evening to ask the Board's help to resolve this matter, in the event it decides not to protect them as is its duty, they will be there to see a just resolution of this matter in a court of law; Florida Statutes 163.3161, Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, states, "It is the intent of this Act that adopted comprehensive plans shall have the legal status set out in this Act, and that no public or private development shall be permitted except in conformity with the comprehensive plans or elements or portions thereof prepared and adopted in conformity with this Act. It is the intent of this Act that the activities of units of local government in the preparation and adoption of comprehensive plans or elements or portions thereof shall be conducted in conformity with the provisions of this Act." She urged the Board to look into the Statute as it clearly gives County officials the power to enforce the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the County and the assigned land uses; and requested it proceed with its objection and request a hearing with DCA. Ms. Miller-Kermani stated the residents are asking for equal treatment, sound planning, and consistent enforcement of the zoning laws.

Francis Herr stated the intersection is poorly designed; the Sheriff deputy patrols the area occasionally, but not a lot; she has a problem with how they will get services into the area when there is nothing in the plans right now; municipal services are supposed to be there before annexations occur; and those services are not there and the residents object. She noted there is nothing in the Capital Plan right now to get sewer service down there except a veiled promise that perhaps the developer will help; there is a commercial zone going in without municipal services in an urban area; there is no managed growth; and economic growth was supposed to happen in the Baytree area. She noted annexation is counter to the City Plan and to having defined business areas in major growth areas; it also runs counter to rural residential lifestyle; and the people who own land in Palm Bay that is commercial or industrial are going to lose. Ms. Herr stated the City is ignoring its internal problems and going to the outside for solutions; it is not good planning and contrary to the Florida Land Use, Brevard County and Palm Bay Comprehensive Plans; Palm Bay is trying to get around its problems and bringing them to Brevard County residents; and it is not fair.

Lisa Wilcox requested the Board challenge Palm Bay; and stated her family and friends are against the item.

Christina Laskes presented a petition to the Board with signatures from individuals in opposition to the proposal; and requested the Board's assistance to stop the annexation. She stated she does not want to look at a strip mall or shopping plaza; and requested the Board not allow the commercial development of land that was intended for residential and agricultural uses.

Karen Anderson stated she is a long time resident of Florida; advised of her objection to the proposal; and requested the Board help the residents as they have no one else to turn to.

Gean Mularczyk requested the Board stop the shopping center as there are many shopping centers half empty; and stated she would like to live in peace and quiet.

Aida Mozdzen stated she supports all the residents of Valkaria who oppose the development.

Del Yonts stated the County and cities have Comprehensive Plans approved by the State; they are agreements between the State and the people, not between the County or the City; and if the land is annexed by one entity to another, whether it is from the County to the city or changing lands between cities, the way the Comprehensive Plans designate those lands should remain the same. He noted the State made the agreement with the residents; and inquired if a city can take it and quickly change the land use, what is the value of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated people spend money for their businesses and homes, and made decisions based on what the Comprehensive Plan says; and now somebody can annex land and change it without any due process. He stated the majority of the Palm Bay City Council did not care about what the residents of Palm Bay or Valkaria said; people want the rural residential lifestyle; and Melbourne already has big shopping centers.

Dan Faden stated the Board has heard about the traffic problems, but there are also problems with compatibility; there have been strong emotions that this is not the place for commercialization; and urged the Board to proceed with the petition to Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to deny the change in zoning to commercial. He noted there were many things overlooked and false information has been given; and requested the Board stop this commercialization.

John Azzolina stated he is against the shopping center and the effort to turn the property into commercial; our forefathers made, brought, and sponsored the land plan; it is important to follow it; and if the land plan is to be followed, the shopping center would not be anywhere near him.

Ed Huffer stated Palm Bay is getting greedy because it needs the fees to correct its infrastructure problems; it wants to take the shopping center and use the money it is getting to cure its own troubles; there are existing shopping centers four minutes away; and the residents of Valkaria and the people around the area in Palm Bay do not need the shopping center. He noted the Board is the residents' last resort; most of the annexations have occurred within commercial development areas; and requested the County protect the people.

Palm Bay City Manager Bob Nanni advised a lot of assumptions are being made and emotions are coming out; however, there is a 100-foot right-of-way that has the potential for four-laning that the DCA would look at as a logical commercial area; and the Board is looking at a basic principle that an individual who owns property and wishes to annex, has a choice to annex or not annex. He stated the owner can stay in a rural service area or move into an urban area; and statutorily, he has the right to do that. He stated comprehensive plans are not written in stone and are not static type documents; the process is dynamic, and the reason why two changes per year were built into the process; Palm Bay was dealt a tough hand with the bankruptcy of General Development Corporation (GDC); and it is working its way out of it. Mr. Nanni stated the City does rezonings internally; it is looking at a multiple number of strategies to try to make improvements; and if someone comes to the City with a property that requires little service and that they would pay to get utilities to, it is good business sense for the City to listen. He requested the Board pay attention to the facts.

Charles Nash stated the County and City are supposed to look out for the community and not just be there to help a landowner make a big profit and get tax dollars; that is not the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and the reason there are State laws and county and city ordinances;

and requested the Board show its wisdom and not be afraid to cut new ground. He noted the City did not work with the County on this; it saw it as an opportunity and grabbed it; and requested the Board not be afraid to stand up and protect the residents.

Barbara Bowman requested the Board proceed with the petition to DCA and request a hearing; and stated she is afraid that if this commercial development goes through, there will be no stopping others. She stated she loves the area and Brevard County; and urged the Board to listen to the people.

Gary Nungesser, representing the Committee of 100 and Palm Bay Area Chamber of Commerce, stated the City of Palm Bay did the proper thing; the Chamber has backed the annexation from a business standpoint; and it makes good business sense. He noted the City is trying to pull itself out of the situation it has been put in over the years; this is one of the ways it may help; the business people came to the City, the City did not go to the business people; and the Chamber represents the business people. He stated they have the right to go to the City and ask for the annexation, which was granted. Mr. Nungesser requested the Board do a position letter as opposed to the expense of the legal ramifications; and presented a Resolution to the Board from the Chamber of Commerce.

Michael Bonaiuto advised of events that took place at the City Council meetings; expressed his frustration about what the City of Palm Bay has done; stated the City Council members have no interest in the citizens of Valkaria; and requested the Board go to the next level concerning the annexation.

John Burgoon stated it is the property owner's right to annex into the City, but it is not his right to devalue his property which is located directly behind the subject property. He stated if commercial property is built next to residential property, it will devalue the residential property; and the residents need the Board's help to protect their rights as citizens of Brevard County.

Mike Cunningham stated he represents the southernmost community in Brevard County; the Babcock corridor is in their backyard; there are plans to extend the road all the way to Indian River County line; the annexation is pervasive at the least; and if it is left unchecked, it will become obstructive and obnoxious. He advised of a similar situation in Broward County; and noted it will come back and haunt that community because the people did not pay attention to what they were doing. He gave an analogy about the octopus

Curt Lorenc presented letters to the Board; stated State Senator Patsy Kurth, the Town of Malabar, and Brevard County are against the annexation; and quoted a statement in Ms. Kurth's letter, as follows: "Clearly the only person that would benefit from this land change would be the developer." He stated he attended all the meetings in Palm Bay; the City Council did not listen to its people and did not follow its Comprehensive Plan; and the City has come before the Board this evening and said it is doing it for its own economic internal development. He noted there is no way it is going to benefit the City when looking at the cost of sewer and water, straightening the intersection, and all the things they need to do to make that a viable piece of property; and it is not going to be any sort of economic benefit. He stated there were 38 speakers on the 20-acre parcel, and 100% of them were against the application. Mr. Lorenc presented conflict of interest letters from the Ethics Department, information on campaign contributions, and pictures; and requested the Board vote against the proposal and protect its citizens.

Bill Wilson stated he owns the 1.16-acre parcel, and is not a developer or part of the shopping center; he is a resident of the City of Palm Bay and a property owner in Brevard County; and requested annexation into the City on a voluntary basis. He noted he wants the annexation for a business move as he recently sold his property and was looking for another location; and he did it with the understanding he could possibly have better police, fire, water, and sewage services. He stated he started the request in June, 1999, but controversies, extensions, and delays altered some of his business decisions where he had to build and do other expansions elsewhere. He stated he requested the annexation voluntarily; he did not know about the 20-acre shopping center that was to be coming afterwards; he does not want to bother any of the residents of Valkaria; but he looks forward to the annexation.

Barbara Ray stated over a period of years, the Legislature found there was a need to deal with land speculators and irresponsible developers, and came up with the comprehensive plan process; not enough good planning is a Statewide problem; and Valkaria already has more commercial areas than needed. She expressed concern for the whole Comprehensive Planning process; and stated people have a right to ask for annexation, but do not have a right to ask for the whole State of Florida to turn its comprehensive planning process upside down in order for them to get money. She stated in 1995 the County asked Palm Bay to participate by giving comments and recommendations when the plan was being drawn up; and the County did not receive any response. Ms. Ray stated it is not just Palm Bay that is going to incur the expense; it is going to cost Brevard County money to do road work, intersection work, traffic lights, and add more stress on the Sheriff's Department; the County has a vested interest in this; and all the taxpayers will have to pay for the mistake that Palm Bay wants to make.

Don Bistarkey advised of his opposition to the commercial development of property in Valkaria for the reasons given; and requested the Board's assistance.

Gail D'Amato stated her family moved to Valkaria to be in the country because the land was allocated for residential and agricultural use; now they want to change the zoning from residential to commercial when they annex; and it is not right. She advised of her opposition to the annexation for the 20 acres; and expressed concern that it will have a negative effect on homeowners' property values and cause major traffic problems. She requested the Board object to the annexation and ask for the hearing with DCA.

Johnnie Wimpee stated the first speaker said it would be expensive for the taxpayers of Brevard County to oppose the annexation; and inquired what about the cost to the County to provide additional roads and other infrastructure. He noted just because this is happening in Palm Bay does not mean it is not opening the door for other areas to annex into cities and change their comprehensive plans as well; and it is disappointing to see government officials being led by developers to change zoning ordinances to benefit them and ignore the rest of the people.

Jim Ray requested the Board oppose Palm Bay's annexation attempts; stated the residents do not want to have the Palm Bay sprawl pollution continue west or east and spread throughout the rest of Brevard County; and the citizens of Palm Bay are not being heard by their own elected officials. He noted he opposes the annexation because of the cost of resources, including police and fire protection; and he is sure there will be more costs associated with the annexation. He stated Councilwoman Jackie Colon is the only one on the Council who listened to constituents; the rest appeared not to be interested; and someone noted a scrawled message from the City Council meeting that the rest of Valkaria was next in annexation, then the City will head east to the ocean. He stated Jackie Colon opposed the annexation attempts in West Melbourne; Melbourne opposed Palm Bay's attempt; and maybe the Board can succeed where others failed and prevent Palm Bay from annexing part of their area. He noted they moved to Valkaria to be in a rural area and do not want it to be a metropolis.

City of Palm Bay Councilman Norman Voltz advised the City's Planning Department said rezoning and annexation are totally different matters; when the City annexes property, it may be a shopping center planned there, but that is not the issue; and development comes much later, so the annexation is all that should be talked about. He stated the City did not go out and annex everything in sight; the people came to the City because the County said it would not provide water or sewer service; and this was a voluntary annexation. He noted Palm Bay did approve the annexation; and the individual will pay for the water and sewer services, not the City.

Thomas Miller stated he lives approximately two blocks north of where this development is proposed; the City of Palm Bay will not listen to the people; it is the City's right to annex the property, but it could put restrictions on the developer by not giving him full commercialization of the property and keeping it rural; and requested the Board request a review by DCA.

Cyndi Highmiller stated this is the land of free enterprise, not subsidized enterprise; there are times when it is desirable for a community to sweeten the pot as enticement for a highly-desirable asset to be drawn in; but the idea of a shopping mall in the midst of lovely rural residential properties does not fit this mold. She stated access to the interstate from Valkaria is not feasible as the rest areas preclude that concept; and land at Grant Road is already zoned and a connection to the interstate is in the planning phase as the by-pass comes into reality. She noted a city which cannot support the demands of its citizens due to the low tax base is not being well advised to believe that bigger is better; this bigger means less for the people in order to subsidize the developer; the roadways are not conducive to handling the anticipated traffic; and County subsidies would be needed to correct the dogleg intersection to ensure public safety at the proposed site. She stated State and County lawmakers have seen the necessity to protect certain areas from urban sprawl; and greed, influence, and a tremendous sales job to persons not educated in community planning seem to have swayed well-meaning councilpersons to the developer's viewpoint with total disregard for the concerns of the citizens or the long-term budgetary strain. She stated disregard for the Ordinances and laws seem to be common place where decisions concerning the Valkaria/Babcock rezoning issue are concerned; and questions concerning personal interest over the public good abound and should be addressed before this issue moves anywhere. Ms. Highmiller stated the jumping from County to City was a smart move for the developer, but it is not a prudent move for the public, nor the quality of life for homeowners in the affected area; and requested the Board vote no on the issue. She stated since Mr. Voltz represented the City of Palm Bay as a Councilman, Mrs. Voltz should recluse herself from the voting.

Jackie Colon stated she had every intention of being able to speak before the Board, but was told by three attorneys that because the City is in litigation that she should not speak before the Board; and there will be an opportunity where she will be able to come before the Board and tell it how she feels about the issue.

Robert Leichtenberg stated he is an MAI appraiser; part of the training for MAI's includes studying planning and transportation issues as they affect value; in his opinion, the Comprehensive Plan does not meet the State Comprehensive Plan land use test; it states, "Develop a system of incentives and disincentives with the encouraged separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, fish and wildlife habitat"; and the County is not doing that as it is putting an urban shopping center in a rural area which is an absolute violation. He noted the plan does not meet Palm Bay's Comprehensive Plan, and in fact exacerbates a problem recognized by the City in its 1998 Comprehensive Plan which says, "The factors listed above create unique problems for Palm Bay's infrastructure needs. The transportation system is inadequate to serve the needs at buildout due to the lack of major arterials, particularly in the southern and western sections of the City." Mr. Leichtenberg advised the legacy GDC ultimately left, if Palm Bay has good leadership, is that it is the best planned city in the County and several surrounding counties; all the roads were planned in 1960 by C. C. Crump; the hole in the doughnut is not an accident; it was planned to be the government center and for shopping, schools, etc.; and all the 80 and 100-foot arterial roads go in there as planned. He stated Mr. Crump planned commercial areas and it happened; everything he planned in 1960 has occurred; he knew Babcock Street would be the major arterial that people who live on the west side of Palm Bay and those in Valkaria would need and that is the only way to get to the Interstate. He commented on the City Council selling people down the road; stated the only way that shopping center can compete is on price; and it will drive down the real estate values of commercial property within the City and occupancy rates. He inquired how can the City say it needs access for evacuation and deny safe access for the people of Valkaria and on the east side of the City. Mr. Leichtenberg stated Babcock Street will become like Wickham Road; people will not be able to get out; and advised of the traffic increase on Wickham Road from 1979 at 12,270 to today at 32,000 daily trips. He noted it will violate the health, safety and welfare of the public.

Kathleen Watkinson stated she lives directly north of the property proposed for a shopping center; she has five young children, and is concerned about crime increasing in the area; and inquired if the Sheriff's Department will be there to protect her and her children. She noted she has no problem getting in and out of Babcock Street; she realizes it is going to be four-laned and knew that when she bought the property six years ago; but to have a shopping center where there is no need for it, and the people do not want it, makes absolutely no sense.

Don Darby stated the intersection of Babcock Street, Valkaria Road, and Wyoming Drive is very dangerous; if the County wants to do something useful with the land it could use it to straighten out the intersection instead of making it worse by putting more business there; the intersection will rapidly exceed capacity due to the urban sprawl; and there is no plan in place any time in the near future to provide any infrastructure to the site, including roads, traffic control, sewer, or drainage. He noted Palm Bay will push for development far in advance of the infrastructure; he was at two of the Palm Bay City Council meetings at which approximately 40 Palm Bay and Valkaria residents at each meeting protested the rezoning; the only ones speaking for it were those who stood to gain directly from the rezoning; and Ms. Colon has been the only one on the Council who has listened to the residents and has been against all of the annexation issues to date. Mr. Darby requested the Board not clog the north/south corridor.

Mike Kingery stated the County will have to pay for the various road projects; and requested the County not let the City of Palm Bay take property off Hield Road as it belongs to the County, and defend the residents of Valkaria and Palm Bay.

Marcie Kinney stated the residents of Valkaria applaud County Attorney Scott Knox for filing suit with DCA; it is the County's responsibility to show some leadership in this matter and stand up for the Comprehensive Plan; all of Brevard County needs to stick to the Comprehensive Plan because it will preserve the future; and it does not need urban sprawl. She noted the costs of urban sprawl and land consumption, public infrastructure, road, sewer and water lines, housing, and fiscal impacts are much higher for all residents under uncontrolled growth; typical features of urban sprawl include automobile dependency, uneconomical utility expansion and extension of other public services, scattered rural subdivisions, strip development along county roads, diminished rural character and small town atmosphere, loss of unique character, transformation to any town USA, reduced shopping opportunities downtown, strip commercial development at the edges of town, land consumption, inefficient energy usage, and high ratio of road surface to development served. She commended the Board for its initiative in filing with the DCA.

Commissioner Voltz inquired can the Board prevent Palm Bay from this annexation; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding it is a voluntary annexation, and the City can annex whatever property qualifies under the Statutes without the Board's involvement. Attorney Knox advised the only basis the Board would have for challenging any kind of annexation is if the City did not meet the compactness requirements or contiguity requirements set forth in the Statutes. Commissioner Voltz stated so the Board cannot say no tonight; with Attorney Knox responding that is correct. Commissioner Voltz requested Attorney Knox address the difference between a strong letter of objection as suggested versus 120 hearing. Attorney Knox responded a strong letter of objection gets the County's foot in the door with DCA on a review level; it does not do anything to protect the County's legal position if it chooses to assert one; and the County does have a legal position in an annexation situation if its land use and zoning regulations remain in effect. He stated if the City passes a new Comprehensive Plan amendment to affect that piece of property and does not do that properly, the County's regulations continue to remain in effect; and the County does have a stake to the extent it has the existing zoning and land use.

Commissioner Voltz stated the County does not have any response to some of the fundamental issues that are here and things brought up that the City of Palm Bay should present an analysis on; she does not know who is going to pay for sewer and water; and it would be up to the City. She noted something was mentioned about Paravant; it did not get a tax abatement from the City and is a County tax abatement; and there may be an increase in Sheriff patrol of the County area surrounding the property. She stated there is also an issue that Palm Bay has approximately 80 acres of industrial and commercial property for sale; and she does not know anything about it. She noted someone mentioned there is no market for a shopping center in the area; that is something the Board cannot answer and maybe the City cannot either; this is a property rights issue; all residents have a right to protect their property; and while an individual has a right to annex into the City of Palm Bay, there is also property rights issues with surrounding residents. Commissioner Voltz requested Attorney Knox address the issue of her voting; with Attorney Knox responding Commissioner Voltz is required to vote by State law unless she has a conflict of interest which involves a financial interest; and he does not see that in this case. Commissioner Voltz stated there are so many issues that she does not have answers to; and at this point, the Board cannot make a decision and it probably should go forward to DCA for a 120 hearing.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, to approve proceeding with the 120 administrative hearing process concerning two proposed amendments to the City of Palm Bay's Comprehensive Plan.

Chairman Higgs inquired does staff need any other direction from the Board to fully assert its objection; with Attorney Knox responding does the motion pertain to both parcels; and if so, he would have to coordinate with the Planning staff, make objections at the City Council meeting if there is one coming up; and if not, then they are one step ahead.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised staff did that; the City has not transmitted the amendments; and in conversations with Department of Community Affairs, the County can allow the City to go ahead and transmit its amendments. He stated the County is an affected party, so it will have standing; but it would not insert its objections under the adoption proceeding occurs. Mr. Scott stated it is a two public hearing process for the City; it has to transmit, receive comments from Department of Community Affairs, respond to the comments, and then adopt the amendment. Mr. Knox stated the only other matter is staff may bring back to the Board whether it wants to obtain outside professional help on the planning front.

Commissioner Voltz inquired is there any possibility of working this out during the process; with Attorney Knox responding there is always that chance. Chairman Higgs stated that would be the ideal if it could work things out; the Board indicated the desire to do that; and while it may not fully be able to assert an objection to the annexation, the objection to the Comprehensive Plan changes and zoning are appropriate. She stated the County has not objected to many annexations, but this is different in character from many the County has seen; there are unique things about the value of this annexation for the City; she is concerned about the future of the City; and she supports many things the City can do to enhance its position, but this is contrary to the best interest of the residents and City. She stated she has an obligation to the residents of the unincorporated and incorporated areas; and in terms of the best interest of those residents, the City, and the transportation network, she continues her objection to this process.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he hopes this does not get to be an anti-city/county issue; in his District on two occasions, annexation by the City of Titusville has been encouraged; the Board has not taken a position of County against city, but logical planning that makes sense for everybody; and in this particular case, he sees annexation not being favorable.

Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees with going forward with the 120 hearing; and seconded Commissioner Voltz' motion.

Commissioner Voltz stated she cannot decide what is good for any city as far as annexation is concerned, and whether or not it is good planning or not; but she fully supports any city being able to annex county property into their city.

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

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - CURTIS SANFORD, RE: PERMISSION TO PARK ON GRISSOM PARKWAY TO ACCESS WOODS FOR OFF-ROAD TRAIL RIDING

Curtis Sanford, member of the Florida Trail Riders Association, stated there was a complaint made to the Sheriff's Department and Commissioner Scarborough's office concerning off-road trail riding along Grissom Parkway; signs were posted by the County that say no motorized vehicles are allowed on Grissom Parkway between Kings Highway and Apollo Road; and the complaints were made by the Port St. John Homeowners Association. He noted individuals have been trail riding with their children and having family recreation for approximately 30 years, accessing the woods on the east and west sides of Grissom Parkway; he has been in contact with Commissioner Scarborough in trying to put an end to this problem and having an off-road park designated that is County-owned; he has also been working with Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson concerning an off-road park for Brevard County; and requested the signs be removed until there is a place designated to ride.

Maureen Rupe, past president of Port St. John Homeowners Association, stated the Association is opposed to the signs being taken down; the Association took various complaints to the Sheriff's Office and the County which the Association and any other citizen has a right to do; the Sheriff's Office looked into it, found a problem, and suggested the signs be posted which the County did; and expressed concern with off-road vehicles sparking a brush fire in the woods. She stated the only solution is to have somewhere for the individuals to pursue their chosen recreation; with effort this can be accomplished; and the Association wants to see that done.

Tom McCarthy stated the off-road bikes have spark arresters on them, so they will not start fires; if the owners of the property did not want people on their property, they could put up no trespassing signs, but there are none on the trails; and the area is a great place to ride.

Laura Meier advised of her support for the ATV's north of Port St. John.

Jenni Lamb, Vice President of Florida Trail Riders Association, stated the Association is a Statewide organization promoting off-highway vehicle use; the Association is looking for and needs an area to ride; it would be a shame to cut off access to an area where people are riding now; and there does not seem to be many problems with it. She noted trail riding is a family activity; and requested the Board keep that in mind when looking at this issue.

Lee Daley expressed his support for the Association; stated there are people all over Brevard County who need a place to ride; and requested the Board's consideration.

Tom Housman advised of his support to allow the off-road vehicles, motorcycles and ATV's; stated it is a family sport; he has lived in Brevard County for 37 years and never heard of a problem anywhere else where people are riding motorcycles or off-road vehicles on property; and requested the County's assistance in finding a place to ride.

Travis Housman requested the signs be removed from Grissom Parkway so he can have a place to ride his dirt bike; stated if he gets bad grades, his parents take his bike away; this sport helps keep his grades up; and he can no longer ride in the Enchanted Forest.

Linda Baron stated she is the area director for Indian River and Brevard Counties and represents approximately 500 families; Brevard County could make money if it had a park for the riders; and this sport is worldwide. She noted her Association is willing to help finance and build a park; and requested the County take the signs down until there is a place for the riders.

Dennis Ammons stated Sheriff Williams met with some of the riders and indicated as long as they stayed away from the road he would not have a problem with the riders; the sport is a family activity and a lot of families are being affected by this; the parents are active in the community trying to keep the kids out of trouble; and this is one way to do that. He stated the right-of-way is wide and there is plenty of room to park, be safe and ride; and suggested the signs be removed. He expressed appreciation to Commissioner Scarborough for trying to find a place for the riders.

Richard Mickle, Vice President of Port St. Johns Homeowners Association, stated the Association's Board of Directors has approved unanimously and backs the County in the posting of signs along Grissom Parkway.

Nicki Kisner, President of Canaveral Groves Homeowners Association, stated ATV, dirt bike and heavier vehicle activities in and around Canaveral Groves negatively impact the lives of many residents; there seems to be no relief in sight; the situation can only worsen as these vehicles keep growing in popularity; and the noise never lets up, so the residents have to keep their windows closed in order to sleep. She advised the Sheriff's Office is unable to make any headway in slowing down these activities; individuals who enjoy this sport should have a place to do it without being hassled; but the lack of a safe and proper place to ride is no defense for riding where it is illegal to do so. She stated it is morally wrong to persist in exercising what one perceives as a personal right at the point it begins to infringe on the right of another person to a reasonable degree of peace and quiet.

Tom Mahone stated 50% of the property in Brevard County is in public ownership; most of it was taken away from access by dirt bikes and ATV's over the past several years; it continues to be removed either by development or by public purchase; and the signs were posted with no legal basis. He noted without any legal authority to have the signs there they should be removed until such legal authority exists; the property is not going to be used for 10 to 12 years according to Road and Bridge Department; there are no laws or ordinances that says one cannot ride on a right-of-way unless it is a licensed vehicle; parking for fishing, shuttle launches, etc. is done everyday; and to pick this area which is remote does not make sense. Mr. Mahone stated if the County does not have a legal reason for putting the signs up, they should be removed.

Tim Buffaloe stated this is his third time standing before the Board in five years with the same problem; he is getting tired of it; and the riders have asked for an agreed upon area to ride and be able to park their vehicles without the residents complaining. He stated with the recent creation and writing of House Bills 777 and 1155 and Senate Bills 1036 and 676, it will create an off-highway vehicle recreation program and advisory committee within the Division of Forestry, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; it requires all new and currently-owned off-highway vehicles which are used on public lands to be titled and registered; and the program will be administered by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles which will collect the titling and registration fees. He stated currently the Federal Recreational Trails Program has matching funds available for off-highway vehicle recreation programs in every State; the State of Florida is not able to obtain such funds because it has no off-highway vehicle recreation program nor any funds to use to match the federal funds; and the creation of this new program in Florida will enable Florida to obtain matching funds, approximately $1 million a year. Mr. Buffaloe requested the County support these Bills in 2001 so it can receive the available funding to relieve the County of the burden of finding the money to obtain land for the off-highway enthusiasts.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the legal authority to control the right-of-way and to put signs on the right-of-way.

Traffic Engineering Director Dick Thompson responded the road right-of-way is subject to different regulations than the property the County owns; State Statutes govern how the right-of-way is to be used; due to the motoring public driving on a right-of-way, it is supposed to be maintained in a safe manner and with as little distraction as possible; and the condition of the right-of-way should be maintained in an acceptable manner. He noted the County has to follow the guidelines of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in the maintenance of its roads.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired does the County encounter liability on activities it allows in the right-of-way of roads; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding affirmatively. Commissioner Scarborough inquired does the County have the right to put up signs in the right-of-way advising people of restrictions; with Attorney Knox responding yes. Mr. Mahone questioned the County's authority to post the signs; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the County Attorney will be responding in memorandum form.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the best solution is to find a location; he and Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson wrote a letter to Grand Central Corporation concerning its property; the Corporation would not lease to the County due to liability issues; and purchasing some property is the most prudent. He noted Bill Hutto from TiCo Airport Authority, indicated the Corporation wanted $43,000 per acre; Mr. Sanford and he have looked at maps; hopefully, a location can be found; and if a referendum passes in November, it can close on a piece of property.

Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson stated criteria needs to be met where there is no residents within 1,320 feet of a publicly-operated facility; it starts to narrow down the possibilities; and concerning the site in Cocoa, there are several residences up against that property.

Commissioner Carlson inquired did the County look at any of the State-owned property, such as the property set aside for the sparrow. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County is in a dialogue with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission concerning property behind Fay Lake Park; it has to do massive studies; there are a lot of things coming together in District 1 about doing a referendum for recreation north of Port St. John; and if a piece of property can be located in six weeks, it could be incorporated in the referendum and be a reality.

Chairman Higgs stated the County has the issue concerning the legality of parking coming in the form of a memorandum from the County Attorney; and Commissioners Scarborough and Voltz will continue working with staff to find a suitable site.

CONSIDERATION, RE: CHANGES TO BOARD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Thelma Roper requested the County require permits to be obtained or show they will be issued prior to filing applications for rezonings; stated the property in Titusville she is speaking of has wetlands in the area; a canal was there that would have to be filled in to make the land usable which was not mentioned in the application process; and it would be a lot easier and save time and money for the County.

Chairman Higgs requested County Manager Tom Jenkins respond in a memorandum to the Board to determine if it is something the Board can handle and provide a copy to Ms. Roper; and stated there are a number of permits from various agencies required.

Commissioner Carlson stated she was hoping to reduce the duplication process by issues that are more administrative in nature and do not need to be on the Agenda; and requested input from the Board. She noted if there is something that can reduce the load on the Board that is administrative in nature, it can let the County Manager deal with it; and he can bring it forward if he needs input from the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated concerning permission to advertise a public hearing, he would be careful by getting ahead of the game on that; on percentage range for change orders, there needs to be a dollar amount as well; and on grants, if there has to be a local match, the Board should be involved. Commissioner Carlson stated she is trying to put some accountability on the County Manager; and the Board needs to trust his judgment. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not trust anybody; government is based on the fundamental lack of trust because human beings are fundamentally flawed.

Commissioner Voltz stated Item 6 is the only item she does not have a problem over which is to authorize the County Manager to accept gifts and donations from individuals/organizations to County Government for use in County programs/operations.

Chairman Higgs expressed concern with Item 2 which is part of the final payout request for construction contracts, to allow up to a 5-10% range for change orders; she does now know all the ramifications of Item 4 which includes that all additions to the pay plan, pay scales and job titles are reviewed and approved by the Board and the authority could be delegated to the County Manager, and is uneasy with it; Item 5 that formal receipt of budgets and financial statements of independent and dependent districts and offices could be delegated to the County Manager, would not need to be put on the agenda; and if the County does not have a budgetary responsibility on them, she does not see a reason to put them on.

Commissioner Scarborough requested the County Manager reduce the recommendations and recirculate them for further consideration. Chairman Higgs stated she would like to see the individual contracts on Item 7 concerning CDBG and HOME.

PUBLIC COMMENT - WALTER PINE, RE: AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

Walter Pine stated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a law and has specific requirements; there are a number of violations in the Commission Room; and requested the Board pass some form of a compliance resolution or order that would charge and require the County Manager to take steps to be in compliance with the law in a reasonable time frame. He stated the County is not in compliance by policy; the grievance procedure is not in place appropriately; it was not when he started this process and is not today; proper communications are not available for persons with disability; and proper safeguards are not in place. Mr. Pine stated this issue is not being given the priority it should. Chairman Higgs stated the County is certainly attempting to comply with the law.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct the County Attorney to prepare a resolution stating Brevard County will attempt to come into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), for the May 23, 2000 meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 10:57 p.m.

ATTEST:

NANCY HIGGS, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, -FLORIDA

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(S E A L)