January 14, 2003

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on January 14, 2003, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Nancy Higgs, and Susan Carlson, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Pastor Wayne Gray of the Abundant Life Fellowship in Titusville, Florida.

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Minutes of November 7, 2002 Zoning Meeting and November 12, 2002 Regular Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING SHARON LUBA

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Sharon Luba has left SCGTV and went to Commissioner Pritchard’s office; and he would like to request the Board recognize her outstanding service.

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution commending Sharon Luba for her outstanding efforts in establishing SCGTV, which resulted in residents being better informed about their local government; and expressing sincere appreciation for her extraordinary dedication and service.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution commending Sharon Luba, founding Manager of Space Coast Government Television (SCGTV), for her many contributions and untiring hours of work. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 03-001.)

Commissioner Pritchard advised it is not Sharon’s forte to be honored, but since she has been with his office, they have made tremendous strides; he appreciates all that she is doing and has done; she has a lengthy career in government, beginning with Administrative Aide to a State Representative, Aide to former Commissioner Roger Dobson, to Manager of Space Coast Government Television; and she knows all the people in the County. He stated everyone who comes into his office knows her; and she is an integral part of the District 2 Commission Office operation. He stated he appreciates that she is there, looks forward to her service on behalf of the people of Brevard County, and thanked her for being who she is.

Sharon Luba thanked the Board for its support; advised in 1995 when Mr. Jenkins approached her about operating the government television, she told him he must be kidding because she could not even operate a VCR; but she learned, has enjoyed it, and thanks Mr. Jenkins and the Board for the support of televised meetings and the impact it has had on the public. She stated it has been outstanding; she knows the Board will support John, Danielle, and the staff of SCGTV; and they have been a blessing to her. She stated she is having a great time with a great Commissioner and staff; and she looks forward to working with the County employees in that capacity.

Commissioner Scarborough stated a great accomplishment for the County has been to become more user friendly; nothing has gone further in that direction than what Sharon has accomplished; and the County made tremendous strides because people watch the meetings. He stated the capacity to move forward in a positive way has risks, but because of the work Sharon has done there have been minimal, if any, problems; and he thanks her for that.

Mr. Jenkins stated when they started SCGTV, the Board debated what would be the programming and looked to him and said if it messes up, it would be his fault, and he in turn looked to Sharon. He stated for the past five years she has kept all of them out of trouble in her programming; and things she has put on the air have been fantastic. He stated most important is that Sharon has literally been at work seven days a week, any time of the day or night, whenever she was needed; and he appreciates that.

Chairperson Colon stated Ms. Luba looks wonderful on television and should be proud that she trained her replacements well. She stated Ms. Luba’s mother is watching her and is proud of the work she has done; she is a very hard worker; and she is happy that Sharon will still be with the County. The Resolution was presented to Ms. Luba.

ANNOUNCEMENT, RE: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONNMENTAL PROTECTION
WORKSHOP

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation and Parks will conduct a public workshop on January 16, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. on the William Beardall Tosahatchee State Reserve to discuss the proposed land management plan for the park; and the Department of Environmental Protection Advisory Group meeting is scheduled for January 17, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. to discuss the plan. He stated those meetings will occur in the Christmas Community Center in Christmas, Florida.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Jenkins is sending anyone to those meetings; with Mr. Jenkins responding he did not plan to, but will be happy to do it. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is a massive parcel of property that sits next to the St. Johns River and can be accessed by people in Brevard County, so it may be interesting to track that project.

Commissioner Higgs advised mitigation for a very large project in Brevard County is to occur at the Tosahatchee Reserve; and staff needs to follow that to ensure the mitigation is done. Commissioner Carlson stated she would appreciate a follow-up report on that.

REPORT, RE: PICTURE TAKEN IN PASCO COUNTY

Commissioner Scarborough distributed a picture taken in Pasco County where they were trying to get an ad on a billboard and chopped down a tree.

REPORT, RE: BENEFITS FOR RESERVISTS CALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY

Commissioner Pritchard advised troop deployment has been in the papers and on the news for several months; and inquired if there are assurances that the current policies will provide salary adjustments, leave, and other health benefits for those employees who will serve in the armed forces or does it need updating.

Human Resources Director Frank Abbate advised the Board passed a policy that provides payroll supplements to employees who are called to active duty to assure they maintain their gross pay up to six months; and they will continue to accrue sick and annual leave benefits and group health insurance for 30 days prior to transition to Champis. He stated the Board has in its policy, continuation for employees and their dependents of County-paid vision and dental benefits, and affords a choice of COBRA coverage, which means their dependents can continue on the County’s plan, and instead of paying the full amount, they would only pay what they currently pay, which is dependent rates. He stated the dependents can also continue with the County’s EAP Program if they choose; and that is the current policy the Board has in place.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there is any reason to make adjustments to accommodate the 2003 era; with Mr. Abbate responding the Board may want to consider, at some point, whether or not it wants to go beyond the six months for those deployed for greater than six months. He stated the County has not faced that since the September 11, 2001 event, but it may be possible by what is occurring now. He advised there are approximately 24 employees who are active in the Reserves; three have been called up and deployed; and two have received notices and are waiting for their assignments. Commissioner Pritchard requested Mr. Abbate keep the Board apprised and when it gets closer to the six-month timeframe, let the Board know if it needs to make adjustments. Mr. Abbate stated he will be happy to do that.

REPORT, RE: BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)

Commissioner Pritchard advised he has another item, but understands it is also something Chairperson Colon is going to talk about, which is base realignment and closure. He stated he gathered some information to provide to the Board; Mr. Kump is here; and he would like to say something after hearing from Mr. Kump if that is okay with the Chairperson. Chairperson Colon advised Commissioner Pritchard to go forward AND HAVE Congressman Weldon’s Aide make a presentation.

J. B. Kump advised for informational purposes, he was asked to advise the Board of an action at the federal level that may potentially affect Brevard County in a sizable way; a new base realignment and closure (BRAC) initiative was initiated by the Secretary of Defense; it was authorized by Congress; and currently each service is under orders to supply information to the Secretary of Defense to be used in the process. He stated this BRAC is likely to be the most serious effort of its kind in recent history; it is expected that as many as 25% of the existing military installations worldwide could be reduced; Florida has 21 military installations; and simple math would project as many as five bases if that speculation plays out. He stated Brevard County has Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB) and Canaveral Air Force Station; while PAFB is not known to be a prime target of this BRAC, that criteria has yet to be released; and the possibility is there that someone else might not agree with the Board and Congressman that PAFB is worth keeping with well over 12,000 military, contractor, and civilian employees. Mr. Kump advised PAFB is an important part of Brevard County’s fabric and a valuable part of our national defense; it should be retained; the economic impact of the Base is over one billion dollars per year; and in conjunction with Kennedy Space Center, PAFB provides this nation with assured access to space. He stated Congressman Weldon has been successful over the years in securing funding for construction projects at PAFB that would help put it in a better position should BRAC target it; and included among those initiatives are over $17 million to construct an air freight and base supply facility. He stated Congressman Weldon has been working with the Space Coast Defense Alliance that has taken on the task of organizing a community-wide effort to Guard PAFB’s future; and it is important to note that a community-wide effort that involves every aspect of the community is probably called for in this circumstance. Mr. Kump advised Congressman Weldon is aware of the possibility that PAFB may be on the BRAC list; and suggested the community gear up for this effort right now; BRAC decision is expected in 2005; but the Secretary of Defense has started gathering information from the services and expects to formulate a list internally as early as 12 to 14 months from now; and to sustain life, PAFB wants to stay off that list. He stated if Patrick is on the list, it would take seven of the nine Commissioners on the BRAC Commission to remove it; and when Congress gets the recommendations from the Secretary, it will only be able to vote up or down as there will be no modifying abilities on behalf of Congress. He stated the community should look at all the options and cooperate with the officials at Patrick Air Force Base; he is pleased to provide this alert to the Board; and he will answer any questions that he can.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired who is taking the initiative that is in the process of being formed; with Mr. Kump responding the Space Coast Defense Alliance has been in existence for about five years; it is designed to insure that the Base and military along the Space Coast are equipped to do the job; sometimes resources outside of the military hierarchy are needed; and often the community needs to step forward and provide that encouragement and support necessary to maintain the military viability. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is his understanding the committee is made up of volunteers; volunteers have other employment; and what is needed is someone employed to represent the committee who can manage the phone calls, correspondence, and fundraisers to achieve the goal to keep Patrick Air Force Base and Canaveral Air Force Station viable. Mr. Kump stated it is a volunteer group with no paid employees. Commissioner Pritchard stated Patrick Air Force Base and Canaveral Air Force Station is a one billion dollar industry; the military payroll alone is $220 million; there is expenditure that goes on in the County of $823 million; so it is a significant impact and something the community needs to get behind and insure that they do not close. He stated 50,000 year-round retires depend on Patrick Air Force Base; they peak to 100,000 during winter months; so it is a viable part of the community and an economic engine. He stated it is something the community needs to get behind to ensure they do not get on the list because getting off the list is close to impossible; and suggested bringing someone on board who can manage the generation of funds and passage of information to keep those installations off the BRAC list. Mr. Kump stated the committee has discussed that necessity.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Defense Alliance put together any recommendations that the Board could potentially execute as far as support for not closing the Base; with Mr. Kump responding the Alliance is in the process of gathering complete information that will help develop a strategy for defense of Patrick Air Force Base to help the community know exactly what direction to go; and some of the things Commissioner Pritchard spoke about will help enact and administer that full report. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is going to be in line with the timeline Mr. Kump gave the Board; with Mr. Kump responding that is from the Alliance.

Commissioner Higgs stated it is an important issue and deserving of a lot of consideration by the Board; she would like to see it as an Agenda item, not a report, so the Board will have time to focus on different alternatives and be given a report from staff to look at options; and that would be more fruitful in discussing how the County can be helpful. She stated if the Defense Alliance and County staff give the Board input without the opportunity to prep for the issue, it is hard to come up with solid recommendations; so she will move to ask the County Manager to put it on the Agenda for January 28, 2003 and perhaps the committees could be present so the Board can look at the options and be helpful in insuring the Base does not close.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct the County Manager to put the BRAC issue on the Agenda for January 28, 2003 for discussion and consideration of donating at least $15,000 as seed money for the cause.

Mr. Kump stated his purpose for being here was informational only. Commissioner Pritchard stated it was his intent to place it on the Agenda for the January 28, 2003 meeting to consider a contribution of seed money to show that the County is not only a partner, but a financial partner in the interest of its citizens. He suggested the Board consider contributing $15,000 in seed money to fund a person to coordinate the activities to see that Patrick Air Force Base and Canaveral Air Station do not get closed after it has additional reports and information.

Chairperson Colon stated the first time she heard about the issue was at the Economic Development Commission meeting; the Economic Development Commission has taken it very seriously; and she was going to put it on the agenda to ask the Board to do the same. She stated the Board is heading in the right direction and taking it seriously; and expressed appreciation to Mr. Kump for the report. Chairperson Colon stated staff needs to contact Lynda Weatherman and do some serious lobbying with this issue.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs requested something in writing from Frank Abbate on what the Board discussed earlier as there may be areas where it should take additional action, and the essence of what Mr. Abbate was saying and what the options might be, as there are a number of points that need a little more thought.

REPORT, RE: ITEM REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA

Commissioner Higgs requested Item III.F.8., Appointments/Reappointments to Citizen Advisory Boards, be removed from the Consent Agenda.

REPORT, RE: MIAMI CORPORATION’S APPLICATION TO PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION TO SUPPLY WATER AND SEWER SERVICE IN NORTH BREVARD

Commissioner Higgs requested the County Manager and County Attorney prepare a report on the application from Miami Corporation to the Public Service Commission to be a deliverer of water and sewer service in North Brevard. She stated the Corporation owns thousands of acres in North Brevard; the Board made a determination not to take further action on a water and sewer district; and the net result of that is private entities moving in to take that position. She stated she would like to know what options the Board may have in looking at that and protecting the current and future residents as well as water resources in North Brevard. She stated she is not sure the Board has a standing, but would like to get a report.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the County Manager and County Attorney to report to the Board on the application of the Miami Corporation to the Public Service Commission to be a provider of water and sewer service in North Brevard.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the City of Titusville is also concerned about it; Miami Corporation is one of the largest land owners in south Volusia County and also has holdings of an extensive area in North Brevard; the City had desires of going up there to obtain water and found out the Miami Corporation wants to be the supplier of water; so the City has been meeting on that. He stated it may be advantageous to coordinate this effort with the City as it will be spending a great deal of time on it. He stated if the Board had proceeded with Commissioner Higgs’ idea, and it had not been opposed so dramatically by some cities, it would have been in a better posture today to have some standing. He stated ironically the cities that previously opposed that action may now be pleading to the Board for assistance in this endeavor. Commissioner Higgs stated it was an effort to protect the resources and citizens, but unfortunately it did not happen and she is not sure where that leaves the Board.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: USE OF SLUDGE ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS

Commissioner Carlson advised she received a letter from the Farm Bureau, which stated Cheryl Dunn from Environmental Health has scheduled a public hearing for February 4, 2003 on the use of sludge on agricultural lands. She stated many people may not understand the importance of agriculture in Brevard County; and she wants to ensure they do not do something unnecessarily adverse to that interest. She suggested Jim Fletcher meet with Ms. Dunn and someone from the Farm Bureau and give the Board a report on the subject, including the agricultural perspective.

REPORT, RE: IMPACT FEES FOR SCHOOLS

Commissioner Carlson advised she received an invitation from Florida Institute of Government at FAU regarding impact fees for schools; and inquired if the County has someone who will attend the meeting on February 7, 2003. She stated it looks like it is going to be interesting; it has some recent impact fee developments included in the program; and inquired if there is anyone planning to go to that; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding he will check on it. Commissioner Carlson requested a report on whatever they bring back.

REPORT, RE: TAKE STOCK IN CHILDREN

Commissioner Carlson advised she is a member of the Leadership Council for Take Stock in Children and recently went to a signing for scholarships for some of the students who qualified for the Take Stock in Children Scholarship Program, which is a 2x2 program and requires the student to keep a certain grade point average and stay free of drugs. She stated the program, which is run by Marilyn Fashano and worked by Sherry Dew at the Brevard Schools Foundation is in need of mentors; and she recently got a new mentee and is looking forward to mentoring a student at Westshore. She stated she would like to put a challenge out to anyone who is interested in mentoring a student; the students are very good and have come a long way; they have to work very hard to get a scholarship; and the mentors’ job is to make sure they keep in line. She stated hopefully there will be a lot of mentors out there; and she would like to put out a challenge to the rest of the Commissioners who do not mentor students to see if they can close the gap on the number of mentors they have in the Program. She stated the person to contact is Sherry Dew at 633-1000, or they can call her office at 633-2044 to get more information.

Chairperson Colon advised her office has been mentoring for about a year and a half; it is a worthwhile and tremendous program; without mentors the children would not be able to get the scholarship; and that is why it is crucial to participate.

REPORT, RE: MELBOURNE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Chairperson Colon advised Jim Johnson from Melbourne International Airport is here to report on the status of the Airport.

Jim Johnson advised normally people find airline activities, taxis, limousines, shuttle, vehicles, car rentals, and so forth at an airport; but in addition to that, the staff at the Airport has worked with Greyhound Corporation to bring the Greyhound business into the facility. He stated Greyhound has 20 operations at the Airport; Space Cost Area Transit has opened its southern hub at the Airport and has about 60 operations during the day; and hopefully this year they will be working with Amtrak Rail Service to build a rail station at the Airport, providing the federal government continues to see it as a viable rail company in the future and continues to support it. He stated they are also working with a private entrepreneur to put a fleet of hovercraft boats in the Indian River; and the boats, which will be environmentally safe, could shuttle passengers between Melbourne Airport and Port Canaveral to Kennedy Space Center, Disney Vero Beach Resorts, and perhaps for sightseeing cruises. Mr. Johnson stated prior to the heinous events that took place on September 11, 2001, the Airport was growing at a good rate; they were projecting to end the year 20% above the previous year, which is extremely good for an airport operation; however, following those events, within the first week, they lost Continental Airlines and Spirit Airlines and 43% of their seats. He stated they are now going into a new year and have new services; they have a new service between Melbourne and Cincinnati, Ohio on Conair, a Delta connection flight; and they are looking forward to that nonstop service. He stated in February there should be announcements for weekend service to Dallas/Fort Worth; that is how they started the CBG service; they hope to go to daily service there as well; and they have daily service to Atlanta. He requested support for the Airport; advised they hired a new public relations manager, Mrs. Eden Cook; and she has made some changes to the published newsletter, and worked with Florida TODAY to have that newsletter distributed by the newspaper to almost 100,000 homes throughout Brevard County market area. He stated she is working with John Hopper of WMEL Radio Station to create a transportation radio show that will be shared with Port Canaveral; it will be a weekly show airing on Saturdays; and the Airport will be on that show every other Saturday. He stated the radio show and newsletter will be titled “The Flight Recorder”; and they want to brand that name together with Melbourne International Airport. He stated the master plan process is continuing forward; it was an 18-month intense process; they have a technical advisory team made up of the Planning Departments throughout the County; Bob Kamm represents Brevard County on that master plan process; and they look forward to great comments from him and a lot of help on the program as well as many other programs at the Airport. He stated they have been working with Commissioner Higgs and Friends of the Library to have an event at the Airport; and if there are any projects anyone would like to have at the Airport, they can work with the Airport staff because it is the community’s airport. He stated he would like to give the Board a status report every three months if possible; Mr. Kump reported on the billion-dollar economic impact of Patrick Air Force Base; and Melbourne Airport puts more than a billion dollars each and every year into the economy.

Commissioner Higgs thanked Mr. Johnson and his staff for their cooperation; stated she could not have asked for a better reception for a community group; and it is an embracing of the Airport in its role in the community.

Chairperson Colon thanked Mr. Johnson for the report and congratulated him on the new services at the Airport.

REPORT, RE: BREVARD JUVENILE DRUG COURT

Randy Moore, Chief Assistant Public Defender for Brevard County and member of the Board of Directors for the Center for Drug Free Living, advised through the Center he has become involved in an effort to establish a juvenile drug court in Brevard County; and his purpose for being here is to make the Board aware of their efforts and ask it to be supportive of them whatever form its support may take. He stated juvenile drug court is a more intensive way of dealing with abuse and use of drugs by juveniles; they have an adult drug court in Brevard County, but has not had a juvenile drug court; there are about 20 in the State; and he talked to the administrators and coordinators of all those courts and they say it works and is effective. He stated Brevard County will have a juvenile drug court pilot program in April 2003; it is more intensive because it involves intensive treatment; it has children in front of a judge several times a week in the beginning; and as they progress and show they are getting free of drugs, then that part is off and it is a system of rewards. He stated there is positive reinforcement by their contact with the judge, but there is negative reinforcement as well. Mr. Moore advised he watched Judge Rodriguez in Orlando’s juvenile drug court and it did not make sense to him until he saw the judge work; he makes the program and is very impressive. He stated they started the program in August 2002; Michelle Bromel, President of the Board of Directors for Brevard County Center for Drug Free Living, asked him if he would get involved in establishing a task force, which he has done; and they are a diverse group of people, all enthusiastic, very committed, talented, and experienced people who share a goal of making the concept become a reality. He stated there are people from the State Attorney’s Office, Public Defender’s Office, Department of Juvenile Justice, Law Enforcement, and Court Administration; Commissioner Colon was present and seems to be the endless reservoir of enthusiasm and somebody who can make things happen; and that is what they need and what they have on the board. He stated they also have a judge; the judge is the hub and the person who makes it happen; it is Judge Meryl Allawas whom he has known for about 20 years when she started with the Public Defender’s Office; and they could not ask for a much greater champion for the rights and well- being of children than her. Mr. Moore stated after talking to scores of people who are involved in similar programs throughout the State and country, all directions point to a training workshop, which is provided by the Department of Justice; it is approximately one year and involves three three-day training workshops; they have a ten-person team ready to go to those workshops; and it is all paid for by the federal government. He stated when they complete the program they will have a blueprint for how to put together, administer, and manage a program that is appropriate for Brevard County; but before they are finished with the training program, they will have their own program up and running. He stated once they complete the program, they will be eligible on a competitive basis for federal funds; there is a $500,000 startup grant, which they will be eligible to compete for along with 30% of the 200 teams that will be attending the workshop; and they feel by having a pilot program running early, they will be a competitive team for that grant money. Mr. Moore stated they also have about $50,000 earmarked by the Center for Drug Free Living for startup expenses; and they are applying through Representative Needelman’s Office for State funds as well. He invited the Commissioners to attend a Task Force meeting on February 4 at the Juvenile Assessment Center.

ANNOUNCEMENT, RE: TIME CERTAINS

Chairperson Colon advised there are three time certains; the first is at 10:00 a.m., Withdrawal of Five Acres from Marina Park; the executive session is at 11:30 a.m.; lunch will be from 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m.; at 1:00 p.m. the second time certain is on the extension of Waste Management Inc.’s Contract for solid waste collection; and at 2:00 p.m. is the public hearing on a proposed ordinance amending the Land Development Regulations governing group homes.

REPORT, RE: CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Chairperson Colon inquired if there were any items on the Consent Agenda to be withdrawn or pulled; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he has a question about Item III.B.12 dealing with Sam’s House Restoration at the Pine Island Conservation Area.

Commissioner Higgs called for a point of order; and stated the item needs to be pulled and discussed under Section VII. Commissioner Pritchard stated the item can be postponed, but he wanted to know if his question can be answered, then go on with the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Higgs objected. Chairperson Colon stated the Board has done it before; and inquired what is Commissioner Pritchard’s question. Commissioner Pritchard stated there is an issue about a staff office; and inquired if that means there will be an employee based at Sam’s House, and if so, is there an additional cost that is not identified in the restoration project. Chairperson Colon stated the Board does not want to get into a major discussion; with Commissioner Higgs responding this is a major discussion. Commissioner Pritchard stated he just wants to know if there is going to be an additional staff person or will it be handled by in-house staff; with EEL’s Coordinator Anne Birch responding it is going to be handled in-house by one of the existing land managers. Commissioner Pritchard thanked Ms. Birch for her response.

FINAL ENGINEERING APPROVAL, RE: VIERA WEST BASIN WB-VII

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant final engineering approval for Viera West Basin WB-VII, subject to minor changes as applicable and developer responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: AUBURN LAKES SUDIVISION, PHASE 3

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant final plat approval for Auburn Lakes Subdivision, Phase 3, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining appropriate jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY FOR
IMPROVEMENTS IN AUBURN LAKES, PHASE 1

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution releasing the Contract with The Viera Company dated October 29, 2002, for improvements in Auburn Lakes, Phase 1, as the developer has completed all infrastructure improvements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 03-002.)

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY FOR
IMPROVEMENTS IN WINGATE ESTATES, PHASE 1

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution releasing the Contract with The Viera Company dated October 15, 2002, for improvements in Wingate Estates, Phase 1, as the developer has completed all infrastructure improvements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 03-003.)

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY FOR
NAPOLO DRIVE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract with The Viera Company dated May 21, 2002, for improvements to Napolo Drive, as the project is bonded with another Contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 03-004.)

CONTRACT WITH PALMS WEST, INC., RE: GUARANTEEING IMPROVEMENTS IN
PALMS WEST SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Contract with Palms West, Inc. guaranteeing infrastructure improvements in Palm West Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Contract.)

EXTENSION OF DUE DATE, RE: REPORT FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION
AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION COMMITTEE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to extend the due date for the report from the Land Development Regulation and Procedures Evaluation Committee until April 30, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE: GUARANTEEING IMPROVEMENTS IN
SONOMA SUBDIVISION, PHASES 1 AND 2

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Contract with The Viera Company guaranteeing infrastructure improvements in Sonoma Subdivision, Phases 1 and 2. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Contract.)

BINDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH PANCHAYAT, LLC, RE: WAELTI FAMILY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND ELOISE WAELTI PROPERTY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Binding Development Plan with Panchayat, LLC for the Waelti Family Limited Partnership and Eloise Waelti property. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Plan.)

APPROVAL OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT, RE: DREDGE MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
AREAS IN GML ZONING CLASSIFICATION

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve legislative intent and grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance establishing dredge material management areas in GML zoning classification. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF MELBOURNE, RE: THE WOODLANDS
AT LAKE WASHINGTON WATERLINE MSBU PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Interlocal Agreement with the City of Melbourne for construction and installation of a potable water system for The Woodlands at Lake Washington Waterline MSBU project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE AVAILABILITY OF FY 2001-02 AND 2002-03 HOME
FUNDS AND FY 2002-03 SHIP FUNDS, AND APPOINT REVIEW COMMITTEE,
RE: AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission to advertise availability of State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program funds and Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds for acquisition and construction or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing programs for extremely-low income persons with special needs to be submitted by not-for-profit and for-profit agencies using the Request for Proposals package developed by the Community Revitalization Program staff and approved by the Affordable Housing Council; approve a two-week response to the RFP; and appoint the Affordable Housing Council to review and rank the submitted projects and make funding recommendations to the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION APPLICATION FORM, RE: STATE
FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the Chairperson to sign the Supporting Organization Application Form to include the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners and the Brevard Commission on Aging on a list of organizations supporting increased State funding for Community Care for the Elderly programs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH CATHOLIC CHARITIES, RE: CHOOSE LIFE LICENSE PLATE
REVENUES FOR COUNSELING AND OTHER SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Agreement with Catholic Charities for up to $23,046 in Choose Life License Plate revenues to provide counseling and meet the physical needs of pregnant women who are committed to placing their children up for adoption; and authorize the County Manager to execute all future contracts under $35,000 contingent upon review and approval by Risk Management and the County Attorney. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT, RE: RECORDS MANAGEMENT CUSTODIAN OF
BREVARD COUNTY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to appoint Catherine J. Schweinsberg, Library Services Director as the Records Management Custodian of Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF BID AND EXECUTION OF CONTRACT, RE: AUDUBON ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL ATHLETIC COMPLEX RESTROOM AND CONCESSION BUILDING

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize award of bid for Audubon Elementary School Athletic Complex Restroom and Concession Building, to the most responsive and qualified bidder; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract for the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Contract.)

AWARD OF BID AND EXECUTION OF CONTRACT, RE: SANDRIFT RECREATION
CENTER RENOVATION

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize award of bid for Sandrift Recreation Center Renovation to the most responsive and qualified bidder; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract for the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Contract.)

AGREEMENT TO RENEW AND AMEND EXISTING CONTRACT WITH TITUSVILLE POLICE
ATHLETIC LEAGUE, INC., RE: OPERATION OF GIBSON GYM

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Agreement to Renew and Amend Existing Contract with the Titusville Police Athletic League, Inc. for operation of Gibson Gym for an additional five years, from February 1, 2003 through February 1, 2008. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

RESOLUTION AND LEASE AGREEMENT WITH BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF
BREVARD, INC., RE: USE OF GIBSON COMMUNITY CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution and execute Lease Agreement with Boys and Girls Club of Brevard, Inc. for use of a portion of Gibson Community Center from February 6, 2003 through February 5, 2004 at $1.00 per year. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Resolution No. 03-005 and Lease Agreement.)

PERMISSION TO PURCHASE MODULAR OFFICE BUILDING, RE: REPLACEMENT OF
NORTH AREA PARKS OPERATIONS OFFICE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the purchase of a modular office building from the Contract with the School District of Osceola County at $56,020 including delivery and installation, and estimated demolition, site prep, and Code compliance costs of $10,588. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: RENAMING DANNY STRICKLAND PARK AS MARGARET AND
DANNY STRICKLAND PARK

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to rename Danny Strickland Park as Margaret and Danny Strickland Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF GRANT APPLICATION AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS, RE:
SAM’S HOUSE RESTORATION AT PINE ISLAND CONSERVATION AREA

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize staff to submit a grant application to the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, for matching funds for the Sam's House Restoration at Pine Island Conservation Area; and authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to execute any necessary grant agreements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR ANNUAL STATE HRS TRUST
GRANT AWARD

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution and execute Grant Application to Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services, for the annual State Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) Trust Grant Award to expand and enhance Countywide Emergency Medical Services. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 03-006.)

PERMISSION TO BID AND AWARD BID, RE: FIRE ENGINE AND TANKER OUTFITTING
EQUIPMENT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission to bid fire engine and tanker outfitting equipment, and award bid to the lowest qualified bidder. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO PURCHASE, RE: STRYKER STRETCHERS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve sole source purchase of 15 new Stryker stretchers. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO PURCHASE, RE: AMBULANCE AND RESCUE TRANSPORTS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the purchase of five replacement ambulances and one additional ambulance from Wheeled Coach, Inc., approved vendor on the FSA-Florida Sheriff’s Association Vehicle State Contract bid, at total cost of $514,455; and authorize transfer of Risk Management Vehicle loss funds to Fire Rescue of $64,000 and an additional $51,000 in available cash forward into Fund 1351. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Budget Change Request.)

PERMISSION TO REPAIR, RE: ENGINE 20 IN SCOTTSMOOR

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize accident damage repairs to fire engine 20 in Scottsmoor by sole source Hall-Mark Fire Apparatus of Florida at $73,855 with Farm Bureau Insurance accepting full liability for the accident. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

TERMINATION OF EASEMENTS WITH CCN INVESTMENTS, INC., RE: SEWER, UTILITY,
AND LIFT STATION INGRESS AND EGRESS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve release of Easements recorded in ORB 3895, Page 2590 and ORB 4011, Page 2788 with CCN Investments, Inc., and execute Termination of Easement Agreement and Sewer, Utility, and Lift Station Ingress and Egress Easement with CCN to clear title problems of the current property owner and the County; and authorize staff to record the documents simultaneously. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Easement and Agreement.)

AWARD OF PROPOSAL #P-3-02-22 AND CONTRACT, RE: COMMUNITY PLANNING
CONSULTANT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to award Proposal #P-3-02-22, Community Planning Consultant Services for an interlocal project with the City of Palm Bay relating to redevelopment of southwest Palm Bay to Brad Smith Associates, Inc.; and authorize the Chairperson to execute a Contract with the firm. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Contract.)

AUTHORIZATION OF ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN EAST COAST ZOOLOGICAL
SOCIETY, INC. AND SUNTRUST BANK, RE: TDC GRANT FOR AFRICAN EXHIBIT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Assignment of Grant proceeds and Security Agreement with East Coast Zoological Society, Inc. and SunTrust Bank to assure proceeds of the TDC grant will be utilized to make loan payments for construction of the African Exhibit at the Brevard Zoo. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

APPROVAL OF REVISED POLICY BCC-54, RE: SOLICITATION, PICKETING, AND
PETITIONING ON COUNTY PROPERTY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve revised Policy BCC-54, Solicitation, Picketing, and Petitioning on County Property, establishing restrictions, standards, procedures, and rules regarding such actions. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Policy BCC-54.)

REJECT BIDS AND PERMISSION TO REBID, RE: SOUTH MAINLAND SERVICE
COMPLEX IN PALM BAY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to reject all bids for Proposal #P-3-02-31, South Mainland Service Complex, and authorize re-solicitation of new bids and/or permission to perform construction in-house utilizing outside subcontractors if bids are over the amount budgeted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF GRANT APPLICATION TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS, RE: UPGRADE OF COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Grant Application to Florida Department of Community Affairs for $16,638.45 to purchase and install new conventional transmitters and support equipment at the Emergency Operations Center; designate the County Manager or his designee as official point of contract for the grant; and authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute any subsequent actions or documentation as may be necessary to complete the grant application and enact expenditures and required reporting if the grant is awarded. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

EXECUTION OF NACO 2002 ACTS OF CARING PROGRAM APPLICATION FORM, RE:
BREVARD COUNTY VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT TEAM

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute National Association of Counties (NACO) 2002 Acts of Caring Program Application Form for the Brevard County Volunteer Management Team to assist volunteer managers in County Government to enhance existing programs and create new programs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTIONS, RE: COMMENDING J. T. SHEALY AND ALBERTA GOODE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution expressing appreciation to J. T. Shealy for his years of dedicated service as a member of the Mims-Scottsmoor Public Library Advisory Board, and Alberta Goode for her years of dedicated service on the Brevard Commission on Aging. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Resolutions Nos. 03-007 and 03-008.)

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING JACKIE MADISON

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution expressing appreciation to Jackie Madison for her years or dedicated service as a member of the Mims-Scottsmoor Public Library Advisory Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 03-009.)

APPROVAL, RE: SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS WITH SCOTT AND DEANNA MILLER

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize settlement of all claims regarding the Case No. 05-2002-Carlson-006969-XXXX-XX with Scott and Deanna Miller at $100,000, including attorneys’ fees and costs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 86-36, VACATION OF ROADS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, OR EASEMENTS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Section 86-36, vacation of roads, rights-of-way, or easements, and repealing sections 246-31, 246-32, and 246-33. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL TO USE CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION SECOND DOLLAR TRAINING
FUNDS, RE: SPECIALIZED TRAINING AMMUNITION COSTS FOR SHERIFF’S OFFICE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the use of up to $30,000 in criminal justice education second dollar training funds for specialized training ammunition costs pursuant to Florida Statutes 938.15 and 943.25. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES GRANT-IN-AID APPLICATION, RE:
HISTORICAL MARKERS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize submittal of the Historical Resources Grant-in-Aid application for historical markers and ratify the signature of the County Manager who signed the application to meet the grant deadline; and authorize the County Manager to execute standard follow-up agreements for the grant contingent upon the review and approval of the County Attorney and Risk Management. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT, RE: MELBOURNE-TILLMAN WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
AUDIT REPORT FOR FY 2001-02

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to acknowledge receipt of the Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District Audit Report for FY 2001-02. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the bills and budget changes as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages
for List of Bills and Budget Change Requests.)

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING LORELLA WHITTEN

Commissioner Scarborough read aloud a resolution commending Lorella Whitten as a faithful appointee to the Mims-Scottsmoor Public Library Advisory Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution commending Lorella Whitten for many years of dedicated service to the citizens of Brevard County as a member of the Mims-Scottsmoor Public Library Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 03-010.)

Commissioner Scarborough presented the Resolution to Ms. Whitten who responded she will always be a strong supporter of the Library System.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING MARY TEES

Commissioner Scarborough advised Mary Tees is moving to another County; the Board would have to look all over for a replacement of Mary; and she has been an inspiration to a lot of people who are not afraid of a challenge.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution commending Mary Tees for her service on the MPO Citizen Advisory Committee, Onsite Sewage Disposal Variance Board, North Brevard Medical Support Board, Contractors Licensing Board, and Citizen Budget Review Committee; and expressing appreciation for her continuous service. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 03-011.)

Commissioner Scarborough presented the Resolution to Ms. Tees. Commissioner Higgs stated Ms. Tees has been an asset for the County. Mary Tees thanked the Board for appointing her to the different boards and thanked County staff who were patient with her. She stated she has worked closely with Maureen Rupe; this is the end of the M&M; she has enjoyed her eleven years in Brevard County; and she will miss a lot of people. Commissioner Carlson inquired where Ms. Tees will be going; with Ms. Tees responding Flagler County, which will never be the same.

RESOLUTIONS, RE: EXCELLENCE IN PUBLIC SERVICE AWARDS

County Manager Tom Jenkins read the Resolution awarding Shelley Hardy, 22-year employee of Space Coast Area Transit, the Excellence in Public Service Award for 2002 in recognition of his dedicated service and commitment to Brevard County and his many contributions to community projects and activities. Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution awarding Shelley Hardy the 2002 Excellence in Public Service Award. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 03-012.)

Mr. Jenkins read the Resolution awarding Ray Gann, a 24-year employee with the Office of Emergency Management, the 2002 Excellence in Public Service Award for his dedicated service and commitment to Brevard County and many contributions to community projects and activities.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution awarding Ray Gann the 2002 Excellence in Public Service Award. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 03-013.)

Mr. Gann stated he is very surprised; Bob Lay had him come to the meeting to assist him with questions on the radiological program; and he is thankful for Mr. Lay putting him in and for the opportunity to serve the citizens of Brevard County; and he will continue to serve for many years to come.

RESOLUTION, RE: EXCELLENCE IN PUBLIC SERVICE MANAGEMENT AWARD

Mr. Jenkins read the resolution awarded Lynda Johnson, Employee Benefits Manager, the Excellence in Public Service Management Award for the year 2002 for her outstanding and dedicated service to the Board and citizens of Brevard County.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution awarding Lynda Johnson the 2002 Excellence in Public Service Management Award. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 03-014.)

Ms. Johnson thanked the Board and stated she is speechless.

REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF FINE AND RELEASE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN,
RE: 3927 W. RIDGEWOOD DRIVE, COCOA

Kimberly Bonder Rezanka, representing TBC Tax III, Inc., advised her client purchase the property at 3927 W. Ridgewood Drive, Cocoa, Florida, on June 28, 2001 by Tax Deed from the County; at that time there was a $4,914.00 lien imposed for failure to maintain the property causing unsafe conditions, additions without a permit, and unsafe electrical wiring; and all those conditions were caused by the prior owners, the Clines, and were first observed on December 12, 1996. She stated her client incurred substantial cost to cure the violations, including re-keying at $66.25, trash removal at $250, demolition of the mobile home at $2,500, and tree removal at $350 for a total of $3,166.25; and she has copies of the invoices to present to the Board. She stated she addressed the special master for a reduction of the $4,914 lien on December 12, 2002; Mr. Soileau recommended reduction to two times the County’s cost; the County’s cost, being proven by affidavit, was $411; so the recommendation of the special master was to reduce it to $822. Ms. Rezanka stated Mr. Soileau’s rationale as stated in his Order said, “beneficial effect of rehabilitation by purchases at Tax Deed sale is the heaviest factor. Imposing the punitive effect of the lien fully on the subsequent purchaser not involved in creation of the problem is not productive or equitable.” She stated an additional consideration for the Board is that the sale of the Tax Deed relieves the County of the property, otherwise it would have become the owner and would incur the cost of curing the violations, which was over $3,000. She stated her client was in no way responsible for the Code violations; a reduction of the lien will encourage future purchasers to buy tax deeds to cure violations and rehabilitate property; and requested the Board reduce the fine from $4,914 to the County’s cost of $411.

Commissioner Higgs stated the reduction to $822 is far beyond what the Board should do; a purchase of a tax deed is speculative; the liens were clear on the record; and it would be in the best interest of the citizens of Brevard County to acquire the property, cure the faults, and sell it. She stated she not only cannot support what is being requested, but thinks it should go back to the special master for reconsideration because the County should not absolve all those fines. She stated she cannot support it and will move to send it back to the special master for further consideration.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to send back the Code Enforcement lien on 3927 W. Ridgewood Drive, Cocoa, Florida, to the special master for further consideration. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the special master has the capacity to hear all the cases and know what is happening with all of them; he has the time to do that; and when the Board has a meeting that lasts until 7:00 p.m. it is extremely difficult for staff to have adequate time to fully discover all the merits for and against it. He stated the prudent think to do, unless there is something really compelling, is to confirm the special master’s finding; and he will move that.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to confirm the special master’s finding to reduce the fine and release the Code Enforcement lien on property located at 3927 W. Ridgewood Drive, Cocoa, Florida, to $822 (Case #96-2642); and authorize staff to execute the release and satisfaction of lien upon receipt of payment. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF FINE AND RELEASE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN,
RE: 3135 DARYL TERRACE, TITUSVILLE

David Pogar advised he purchased the property in May 2002; there were liens on it; he went to Attorney Stadler, and the research of the title showed two liens, one for back taxes of $2,000 which he paid to the County, and he paid the $1,000 lien to Dr. Ben Story. He stated after having the house deeded to him, he received a call from the County saying there were a bunch of fines against the previous owners; he did not know about it when he purchased the house, so he went to the special master to do away with the fines. He stated the house was a total eyesore to the neighborhood; the grass was about two to three feet high; there were abandoned vehicles in the yard; and the windows were broken. He stated the house had caught on fire; the man who lived there with his aunt, set the house on fire, locked it, and left; so the Fire Department had to break out the windows to get in and put the fire out. He stated he spent months cleaning it; he had 20-yard and 30-yard roll-off dumpsters just to clean up the yard; and now he keeps it mowed and the cars are gone. He stated he put plywood on the windows because the County said it was unsafe; and he was in the process of putting in new windows when they said he needed a remodeling permit. Mr. Pogar advised he decided to sell the property, but wanted to take care of all the problems instead of unloading it on someone else; the fines and fees were about $20,000 and the house is not even worth that; and had he known there were all those fines and fees, he would not have bought the property to begin with.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Pogar supports the amount recommended to the Board; with Mr. Pogar responding all the fines and fees were against the previous owner; he did not know they were on the property until after he purchased it; and if he knew about them, he would not have purchased it. He stated the neighbors were glad to see him clean it up because it sat there for over a year.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Pogar went through a closing agency like a title company when he purchased the property; with Mr. Pogar responding no, he did not. Commissioner Scarborough inquired who prepared the closing papers; with Mr. Pogar responding Mr. Stadler. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Stadler had the seller sign an affidavit that he would be responsible for costs like this if subsequently discovered; with Mr. Pogar responding he does not think so. Commissioner Scarborough stated normally there are things that are not known and not apparent in the public record, yet the seller has some responsibility for those particular costs; that is an issue between Mr. Pogar and the seller; and because of the methodology and how the Board deals with the fines and fees, he would be remiss in having a rehearing and overturning Mr. Soileau’s findings; so he will move what Mr. Soileau recommended. He suggested Mr. Pogar talked to Mr. Stadler as to recourse against the seller. Mr. Pogar stated the seller is 89 or 90 years old and in a nursing home.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the special master’s recommendation to reduce the accrued fines on property located at 3135 Daryl Terrace, Titusville Florida (Case #97-0205) from $12,030 to $1,538, and (Case #98-0850) from $850 to $216; and authorize staff to prepare and execute the release and satisfaction of lien upon receipt of payment. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it appears the County is becoming a clearing house for uncollected debts; it should not continue to do that; and it needs to set up a mechanism that would enforce the just and due debt the County accrued and hold the property owner accountable for it, in this case $1,700. He stated if the special master recommended $1,700, he does not have a problem with that; but it is not fair to dump it on the purchaser of the property when it was not disclosed and now it is his problem. He stated the Board needs to set something up that will hold the property owner who accrued the fine accountable before it is transferred to someone else and the property owner is absolved of the debt. He inquired if there is a mechanism the County can set up to insure that the property owner who accrued the debt is held accountable for that debt and is not absolved by selling the property. He stated perhaps Mr. Pogar’s attorney erred, but the Board has allowed a loophole for the property owner to get out from under the debt. He stated he is not trying to force litigation with the new property owner, but thinks the old property owner should be held accountable.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the way it is structured, the fine is assessed and becomes a lien on the property; and the mechanism the County has for collecting is to lien the property because it is anticipated that as part of any closing there is a title search that would reveal the lien and the person buying the property will be aware of it. He stated the person buying the property should have full knowledge there is a lien because it is a recorded document; in some cases, and this may be one of them, the transaction may have occurred by quit-claim deed with no title search, in which case, that person is taking whatever interest the previous property owner had and is subject to the liens that are there. He stated if they do not do a search on the property, they are taking a chance; so he does not know what the County can do to hold the individual accountable because the way it is structured right now is a lien-type process.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there is a mechanism that can be put in place other than what the County already has in effect; with Mr. Knox responding the Board is authorized to lien property; and he would have to research to figure out whether or not it can make it a personal obligation of each individual who owns the property. Mr. Knox stated because of the impact of the property by violation of ordinances, the County liens the property as opposed to individuals.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to come up with a better mechanism for the process; the way to attack the problem is to attack it earlier in the process before it gets to be a $22,000 lien; and suggested finding a process in which Code Enforcement and the County Attorney’s Office can get at those offenses and get them cleaned up through the courts or some other means and handle it earlier so they do not have exorbitant buildups. She requested a different procedure from the County Manager, County Attorney, and Code Enforcement that they can use so they are in a stronger position to attack those issues and not let them run for so long. Commissioner Carlson stated there is an item on the agenda that talks to Code Enforcement authority. Commissioner Higgs stated that may be part of it, but the mechanism to attack the repeated offender through an injunction or some other means is a way to keep from coming up with $22,000 in fines.

Commissioner Pritchard stated that carries it further than what he was addressing, but the item coming up is whether Code Enforcement would be able to issue citations which give them police power; but in this case, there has to be something wrong with the process because the Board continuously gets fines in excess of $10,000, which are then reduced to $1,000 or whatever. He stated there must be something wrong with the fining process to let it go that long and accrue $12,000 before something happens; and he would like to see a realistic fining or enforcement process so they do not accrue those types of fines.

Commissioner Higgs stated the fine is saying they have not cleaned up the nuisance in the neighborhood; so not only does the nuisance persist, but people who live around it have to endure it, which is grossly unfair; and it seems staff could come up with a mechanism and tell the Board what it can to do help solve the problem.

Commissioner Pritchard stated there are 30, 60, and 90-day increments when violations are found and perhaps that is part of the process; if the County does not have sufficient staff to monitor what is or is not going on, after 30 days when they go back and find nothing was done, that is 30 times $100 a day so the fine would be $3,000; and most people are not able to pay that kind of fine without selling their property, which works against the County. He stated he wants to have them held accountable and responsible for their property that is in violation, and enforce the Ordinance.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is nothing further the Board can do to notify the world of liens; and if there is a first mortgage on the property and a person takes a quit-claim deed and does not do a title search, that person would not know there is a first mortgage owed to a bank or mortgage company. He stated the first case was represented by an attorney and they went to the courthouse and picked up a tax deed but did not do a title search; the record is available to anyone who wants to access it; anyone who goes through a normal closing would know about the liens; it is not a failure on the part of the County, but it is a disparity in the size of the lien and how it is being reduced and where the Board has to go with it. He stated it is a detailed issue and not a question of whether the County is giving proper notice because it is; and there is nothing further it can do because the people chose to take a quit-claim deed or tax deed and did not do title searches, so they take a risk.

Mr. Knox stated there are other alternatives available; he has been associated with jurisdictions that go out and clean up the property and assess the actual cost of the cleanup, which probably amounts to less than the fine over a period of time; and there are other alternatives. He stated if the Board desires, they can come back with a report on those kinds of things. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would be interested in a report.

Chairperson Colon advised it is also frustrating for Code Enforcement because that is not what they are trying to accomplish; and they are only trying to get folks to comply.

Code Enforcement Manager Bobby Bowen advised they are exercising the court system today more than they ever have; they are filing numerous injunctions; this property was cleaned up once before by the Brevard County Sheriff’s Department; and it reverted back into the condition they found it; and that is why the fines accumulated.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to return with a report on alternative procedures for enforcement of Code violations to limit the accumulation of fines and fees. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 10:22 a.m., and reconvened at 10:32 a.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: WITHDRAWAL OF FIVE ACRES FROM MARINA PARK

Chairperson Colon advised Ted Beck will be the first speaker. Commissioner Scarborough stated as a point of order, he believes the request was by Titusville City Council, and Councilman Ken Ward is here. He stated the Board would generally give him the privilege of speaking first if he requested it. Chairperson Colon advised Mr. Ward said he has no problem speaking last; she did ask him and he said he does not have a problem.

Commissioner Higgs stated she needs some clarification on exactly what the Board is being requested to do, and no one other than Mr. Ward could define that. Chairperson Colon stated Mr. Horner is also going to speak; the item was requested by two people—Mr. Horner and Mr. Ward; and there are other speakers. Commissioner Scarborough stated he heard when Mr. Ward’s request was to be on the Agenda, the other speakers learned of it because it was announced at a City Council meeting; he does not care what the process is; but if it was not for Mr. Ward’s request to be here, there would not have been other speakers. Chairperson Colon stated it is up to Mr. Ward if he would like to speak first.

Ken Ward stated that is fine, he did not understand the process and was willing to go with whatever the Chair decided; and he will be happy to speak first, but would like to have a chance for rebuttal at the end of the other speakers if possible. He stated he is here as a citizen of Titusville; and he also happens to be a member of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and a City Councilman for the City of Titusville. He stated his reasons for being here are to request the Board to support the CRA’s and the City’s efforts with the State of Florida to seek joint use parking and retention on Marina Park for Vectorworks International to expand its business and accommodate the referendum improvements on that park, and to request the Board direct its Parks and Recreation staff to work with the City staff to seek an amicable resolution. He stated there have been a lot of discussions about what is going to happen and what is not going to happen on Marina Park as far as referendum improvements and Vectorworks expansion; there have been a lot of proposals put forth; but where they are today and what the Council has voted to seek is the State’s opinion whether a joint use facility is something that they can explore there; and he is asking for the Board’s support in that request. Mr. Ward stated there have been a lot of issues brought forth, but where they are today is a joint use facility; if both the improvements of Marina Park and Vectorworks International need parking and retention, he would like to have joint facilities constructed for both parties to share. He stated at no time was the City opposed to any of the improvements going on Marina Park; those improvements were voted on by the voters; that is a moot issue; they should be built; but on the other hand, there are economic development issues within the City that sorely need to be addressed. He stated he reads in the paper every day that people are getting laid off and losing their unemployment benefits; the City happens to have a business that is thriving and needs to expand; the expansion is up to probably 200 parking spaces, which to him equates to 250 employees; and he would not support or propose that any referendum dollars be spent in the construction of those facilities. He stated it is Vectorworks International's responsibility to expand its business and pay 100% of the improvements it needs on Marina Park. Mr. Ward advised Marina Park is owned by the City of Titusville; he does not advocate nor support the sale or lease of the property; the City may lease the parking lot once it is constructed with a joint use agreement so there is some security for Vectorworks that it will not be kicked out once it constructs the parking lot; and that is the gist of what he is seeking today. He stated as a member of Brevard Tomorrow, one of the highlighted tasks is the communication and cooperation between local governments and explaining different positions on that; and this is a win/win situation where everybody can benefit. He stated the end result will be a savings on the referendum monies that would have been used to construct a separate parking lot; if Vectorworks needs 200 spaces and the Park needs 300 spaces, Vectorworks would pay for 200 and the County would pay for 100; so expansion is less expensive than building two separate parking lots and two separate retention areas. Mr. Ward advised almost 85 to 90% of the work at Vectorworks is first shift; and by 3:30 p.m. the parking lot would be essentially empty, leaving plenty of space for other activities at Marina Park for the general public.

Chairperson Colon inquired if the City Council considered taking back its request to the State so it could open more discussions between the County and the City; with Mr. Ward responding yes, the City voted to seek a resolution from the State and has decided to hold off on that until it has a chance to talk about it. Mr. Ward stated there was an issue with the five acres being removed from the Marina Park Interlocal Agreement for operation and maintenance; and that is a moot issue and can be resolved pending a favorable outcome from the Board on seeking approval from the State of a joint use facility. Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Ward is saying it is on hold and no paperwork or anything has gone forward; with Mr. Ward responding yes, nothing has been submitted. Mr. Ward stated the City may have gotten ahead of itself on certain issues, and it is willing to come back to the Board and say it needs to agree and pursue the issue together and resolve it to the benefit of all.

Ted Beck, Chairman of the Advisory Board of District 1 North Brevard Parks and Recreation Commission, advised in 2000 the referendum was approved; prior to approval, the Advisory Board and staff sought and got approval from the CRA and City Council to use Marina Park as a Little League facility for Titusville Little League; and they presented to the City, District 1, and the voters what was proposed for the park. He stated they promised the Little League and the voters they would move the Little League fields to Marina Park; after the vote in 2000, they received a request from Vectorworks to use Marina Park for construction; and since that time, they have received many requests, from all of the park to five acres for a parking lot, but none have been solidified. Mr. Beck advised at no time since the project came up has the Advisory Board authorized spending referendum funds on the project because they cannot use those funds on a project that may not be for the public. He stated from input from staff, they understand Marina Park is owned by the State and leased to the City for recreational purposes; their board cannot authorize anything else but recreational use; and they made promises to the voters and Little League and have tried to do exactly what they promised. He stated since the five acres were taken out of the Interlocal Agreement with the City, the Advisory Board has made no decisions; it has listened to public input, but made no decisions; and at this time they have the Little League on hold and have not spent any funds on Marina Park, which he does not think they are authorized to do until this issue is settled.

Thelma Roper of Titusville advised she has listened to the iterations over Marina Park for close to a year or more; and as Mr. Beck said, they have gone from wanting the whole park down to five acres; and now she understands from Mr. Ward they are going to do a lease use agreement. She inquired if Vectorworks will come back in the future and want something else other than a use agreement, and once the park is improved, is the City going to go back to where it was in the beginning with giving Vectorworks five acres or the whole park. She stated if the use agreement is all there is going to be, that is fine and she would not have a problem with it for the parking lot. Chairperson Colon stated that is why it is good to put things in writing.

Molly Farace of Titusville presented documents to the Board, but not the Clerk; stated approximately six years ago she started to do some research because they wanted to change Veterans’ Memorial Pier’s name; and since the City and County had a lot of fires and a lot of documents were destroyed, she started research with the Veterans organizations. She stated on August 11, 2002, she received 27 boxes of paperwork; and they found out it was an athletic field, and they got submerged land rights through the federal government. She stated there are only two athletic facilities north of the City limits, Draa Field and Marina Park; and her concern is the Vietnam veterans, who are angry, have that information and 27 boxes that she is not sure what is in them. Ms. Farace stated the charter members last will and testament book is very difficult to read; she is concerned that it is going to come back five or ten years from now and bite them; they will stand and say that is their property set aside for recreational use and the County misused it; and it does not have a good track record. She stated it did not take care of the pier and now it is falling apart; and she is concerned there might be probable cause and a problem down the road. She stated the Board needs to be aware there are documents, newspaper articles, and papers being looked over by the Vietnam veterans; and if they find out they are right and that was the land, then the Board is going to have a problem; and that concerns her. Ms. Farace stated she would like to allow Mr. Gray to have his parking lot and share jointly; that would be great; but she does not want to upset the Vietnam veterans. She stated she is tired of Brevard County being constantly in the news for bad things; she wants it to be in the news for good things; as they do wonderful things and it is a good area to live in.

She stated she believes Brevard County is a wonderful county to live in and wants to continue believing that; and she is tired of seeing the bad and wants to see some good.

Walter Pine advised there are a number of issues he wants to bring to the Board’s attention that seem to be unrecognized; first is if this was a request from the City Council to the Board to have it put on the charter, he would like a copy of it; and under the Government Sunshine law, he is entitled to it. He stated if the Board has no request, then he would like its documentation. Chairperson Colon stated the Board has that and it is not a problem. Mr. Pine stated Mr. Ward came up and said he is here as a citizen, but he sounded like he was representing the City of Titusville; he asked to be given time for rebuttal; and if that is the case, he also as a citizen would like to be given time to rebut comments. He stated the issues are very unique; they have a problem; they have a piece of property and now the proposal is to allow Vectorworks to build on that property; what they build will belong to them; so they will have some vested rights in that property, and the Board would just have transferred it to them, which was not said and the Board did not hear that. He stated if he builds a building on somebody’s property by virtue of a lease, he has vested rights in that building; it is his property; and there are some very serious questions that are not being approached and things the Board is not being told. He stated Mr. Beck has been held up for two years; people are waiting for that to be done; it is the Board’s responsibility to ensure the voters’ intent and wishes be followed; it is time to go forward on this and start spending the money; and if the City has done something that blocks the Board on it, then the Board should enforce the will of the voters. He stated the Board is here to enforce whatever it is; if it has to enforce it on a city, it should do so; the vote was clear; there was little doubt people wanted it done; and recommended getting it done; and stated if the City wants to stand in the way, then it is time to do something about it. Mr. Pine stated as for shared use of the property, he has no problem with shared use as long as it does not change the voters’ desires, does not create vested rights in that property, future rights in that property, or any possibility of the future transfer of that property or any rights thereof, and that it remains totally as it is now. He suggested Vectorworks indemnify the County and City from any liabilities; and stated if it wants to use the park, that is fine, but if something happens by virtue of its use, the County and City should not be paying the bill. He stated that is another thing that needs to be considered and has not been talked about yet. Mr. Pine stated he does not oppose the joint use of the facility constructed as the Parks and Recreation Department originally designed it; he does oppose the construction of any facility on the property by Vectorworks and believes the citizens of Titusville oppose that as well because it creates vested rights. He stated six months or six years from now, if they build a building, they may sue the County and end up owning the property; and that is a problem. Mr. Pine stated if the Board is going to support it, it should do it with very strict limitations because there have been so many changes; there are no written proposals and no clear definition of what they are attempting to do; and at this time the Board should turn it down until it receives a clear and explicit request and holds a public hearing on that request. He stated at this point the Board does not have that; it has somebody coming up and saying this is what the request is, but it is very fluid; so the Board should not respond to that and should not even be having this public forum until it knows exactly what is being requested. He stated the Board needs to hold the City to the requirements, make it write it down, and then have a public hearing so they can discuss what they know is being proposed. He stated at this point it is discussing something that is up in the clouds; it may be this, it may be that, and it may be something else; it does not know exactly what it is; and it is difficult for them to make comments on that and even more difficult for the Board to make a decision on it because it has to write the proposal for them and tell them what it will do and what it will not do. He requested the Board get to what it is supposed to be, give the Parks and Recreation Department the authority to do what it needs to do, and get done what the taxpayers want done.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there has been discussion about the title; and it is his understanding the City holds title with a reverter to the State and that it has to use it for park and recreation purposes. Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson stated that is his understanding also, and they have the documentation that supports it. Commissioner Scarborough stated within that context, there was something about the five acres being under the threshold that requires State approval; with Mr. Nelson responding apparently the City research indicated there is a process at the State level that five acres triggers a lesser review than the entire site. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many times did they appear before the North Brevard Parks and Recreation Commission with various proposals; with Mr. Beck responding 15 times. Commissioner Scarborough stated 15 proposals went to the Parks and Recreation Board; they also entailed a State issue of whether or not the State would allow them to acquire title and use it for other than park purposes, so it dropped to the five acres; and the City removed the five acres from the County Agreement, so now it has no title to the property and all it has is an agreement with the City to come in and do things on City property. He stated he had conversations with Mr. Ward about how it has created a separate problem; the utilization of referendum money on this and any planning process becomes problematic; so the Parks and Recreation Board has not had staff support in reviewing the five-acre proposal because the County cannot allocate funds from a referendum to properties that are not under an agreement for the County to maintain. He stated that is a lot of legal stuff, but some of the frustrations have been legal issues; to say there have not been discussions is not true; this has consumed an enormous amount of time of the Parks and Recreation Board and County staff; and he appreciates all their efforts and the efforts of everyone involved. Chairperson Colon stated all the Commissioners are informed about this issue; and just because the discussion is not public, does not mean they did not get briefed by staff.

William Horner of Titusville advised he was born and raised in Florida and knows a little bit about the State and what has happened to it; and he spent almost 40 years in Brevard County and knows what has happened here as well. He stated he submitted a request regarding this proposal and appeared before the Board, Parks and Recreation Commission, City Council and the CRA many times; and he is a member of the Marina Park Referendum Committee, so he has an interest both ways as does Mr. Ward. He stated every time he comes to the Board meetings, he hears something new each time a presentation is made; today he heard something that he had not a hint of, which is that Vectorworks is going to pay 100% for the parking and stormwater; and this is the first he has heard of it although he has been following this issue closely for over two years. He stated if they had something specific, it would help curtail a long drawn-out process; they now have a verbal statement but there is nothing in writing; and there is no agreement or anything that he is aware of. Mr. Horner stated as far as the Vectorworks people are concerned, there seems to be a deep concern on the part of some that the City of Titusville is not doing much for Vectorworks; but for the record he would like to go back a couple of years to 1996. He stated the City stood behind a $3 million tax exempt revenue bond issue for Vectorworks; in October of 1996, the City gave Vectorworks the right to 800 feet of Marina Road, which runs adjacent to the park and adjacent to Vectorworks; they were given thousands of square feet of a public road right-of-way for their exclusive use; so Vectorworks has not been on the short end of things from the City of Titusville. He stated in October, the North Brevard Parks and Recreation Commission voted to oppose the withdrawal of the five acres; it has a history of preserving that park or attempting to preserve it; he has a sketch of what the Parks and Recreation Department envisioned being at Marina Park, which involves the entire 20 acres; and he will leave it with the Board. He stated Vectorworks’ sketch shows the carving out of five acres in the northwest corner; and requested the Board demand it be given some detail in writing of exactly what Vectorworks has in mind because this has gone on too long.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Horner heard anything about an agreement possibly leasing it to Vectorworks; with Mr. Horner responding that is not new; the shared use has been around; and it came up at the Board’s May meeting when a gentleman said they have another plan because they are in a tight spot. He stated it looked like the Board was getting close to saying forget it, so they came up with the shared plan, but they did not give the Board any particulars or facts. Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Horner is for or against leasing it to Vectorworks; with Mr. Horner responding he is basically against it because neither the Board nor the City should entertain giving away public park land. He stated they have spent millions of dollars on beach and riverfront acquisitions and now find themselves in a position of having to consider giving away public park land; and that is contradictory. Chairperson Colon stated there is a difference between giving away and leasing it, so Mr. Horner should stay focused; and she would like to get feedback from the residents who spent a lot of time on this issue. Mr. Horner stated he is basically against it because he is against giving away park land; and if they turn it into a parking lot, it is the same as giving it away. Chairperson Colon stated according to what she has been told, the parking lot has to be built regardless. Mr. Horner stated there needs to be a parking lot; the County’s sketch shows the planning for the parking, but it is at the opposite end of the field on the south end and the request is for the northwest corner. He stated he does not know how many spots are needed for recreation; he counted the ones on the sketch; and the proposed lot is much larger than what the Parks Department is proposing.

Attorney John Evans, representing Vectorworks, advised this is a very emotional issue with so much misinformation; but the Board needs to understand, and staff can verify, that this discussion is not holding up the ball fields. He stated they cannot move the ball fields to Marina Park until the Chain-O-Lakes Park is finished; and that process is still several months away, so they have time to discuss this issue without holding up the Little League. He stated it is interesting that the Little League is conspicuously absent today; that is because at all times his client understood that the Little League and recreation have to be met in North Brevard; and he has never been against that. Mr. Evans advised they have discussed buying new parks and swapping lands along the river, but at all times it was to accommodate the Little League; and those issues need to be understood. He stated the real issue is that his client bought a boat business and it has gone exceptionally well; the facility was a bunch of dilapidated hangars, but he has done a wonderful job to create a beautiful business that is booming; and he is able to hire more people and provide more work in the Titusville downtown area. He stated the problem is that a railroad track is to the west, the river to the north, the river to the east, and the park to the south; and to expand his business, he has only one way to go, and that is to the south. He stated his client does not have enough land to take on substantial new work and build a new facility, so his goal was to find a way to expand his business, but accommodate recreation. He stated the bottom line is if he cannot expand his business, when the next big contract comes along, he has to move his business and he does not want to do that because he lives in Cocoa, lived in Titusville a long time, and would like to contribute to the economy of the community. He stated if he can leave his boat works downtown, expand his business, and meet the recreational goals, that is his goal. Mr. Evans stated the people are correct that there is no written proposal; that is because it is a moving target; no matter what they propose, it is difficult to discuss it with the County because there are political things and emotions involved; and they are here to just ask that the County staff sit down with Vectorworks and see if there is a possibility of sharing parking and retention so that his client can build a building on his site. He stated his client will have to pay for parking and retention; he would take those dollars that would otherwise be spent on his property and put them in park lands to build the parking and the retention; so they are not asking for a windfall gain or a penny of County funds, but are saying let them spend their dollars and have a joint use of the facilities with the County. He stated he does not understand why it is so controversial; his client would use the parking lot in the morning and afternoon, and the recreation people would use it in the evenings and weekends; and the County would pick up extra dollars that his client would contribute. Mr. Evans stated they will be glad to give the Board a written proposal; they have no problem with an indemnity agreement; they have no problem tying down those things that should be tied down; the Board should not bind to anything until it has a written agreement; but all they are asking for is the opportunity to sit down with County staff who he believes will tell the Board those goals can be accomplished. He stated some parking may have to be moved, but that is a goal that can be met; and they can have the economic development downtown, which the CRA wants, and great recreation that the citizens want. He stated they do not believe they are incompatible; because the City has taken those five acres out of the agreement, they have not been able to discuss the issue with County staff; and that is all they are seeking today, just to be able to discuss it with them.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Ward said earlier that Vectorworks was going to pay the cost for all improvements; and inquired if that is correct; with Mr. Evans responding no, his offer is that he would take the dollars that he would have to spend on his property if he needed to build 200 parking spaces and contribute those to the County property, but he does not know what all the parking or retention are. Commissioner Scarborough stated he thought Mr. Ward said the improvements on the five acres would be at Vectorworks’ expense; with Mr. Evans responding he has not been able to discuss it with staff. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not what staff is going to say because staff will talk about its needs; the five acres is not within the County’s purview; and he has a problem discussing it because the City advised the County not to discuss it. He stated the City Manager wrote to the County Manager saying it is not for the Board to discuss and is not its prerogative; and yet it has a member of City Council coming to the Board today saying how come it is not discussing it. He stated the Board is not discussing it because it was told it is not for its discussion; it does not go where it does not have a right to go; and it is being made to appear to be the bad guy when in fact it was told to leave the party. Commissioner Scarborough advised the City took out the five acres; it has never been the County’s five acres; the County happened to stick its neck out and run a referendum to get money with some things contemplated; the City and the County sometimes do not communicate; but today it was indicated there is a desire to communicate all the Marina Park issues. He inquired if Vectorworks is going to put all the improvements in, why does he not go to see the City Council and give it a check for the parking, and after the parking is in, the City can cut a deal for a joint use, and the County does not have to be a part of it. He stated he has had difficulty through the whole process understanding how the Board continues to get involved in issues that have frustrated the Parks and Recreation Commission and its legal staff. He stated the County Attorney has written the City Attorney several times inquiring if he understands that with the current park proposal the Board is incapable of responding to anything. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County wants to be a good neighbor and wants to talk to the City, but when it is told to leave the party legally, it has to leave the party; and inquired why are Mr. Evans and Mr. Ward here today, and what are they asking the Board to do that they cannot do directly with each other. He stated the City has complete authority to do a use agreement with Vectorworks right now; Vectorworks can expend money on City property and accomplish the project; and they can go to Mr. Nelson and say they have extra parking places they would like to let the citizens use in the evening. Mr. Evans stated they felt it was better to do it with the County, but have been unable to have those discussions. He stated the City Council has to speak for itself; they were boxed in and had to cut the five acres out because they could not go forward with it; and that is the problem they are having a hard time with. Commissioner Scarborough stated that happened some months ago; there have been a number of letters from the County Attorney to the City Attorney indicating the impasse that was thrown at the County; but if the City Council wants to rescind that action to remove the five acres, the County can go back and discuss the whole project. He stated if Vectorworks is providing 100% of the money to do the parking and retention on the park property, it may not necessarily be in the purview of the Parks and Recreation Commission; but if they want to go there, they have a right to go there. Mr. Evans stated at the present time, if the County needs 300 parking spaces for the park and Vectorworks needs 200 spaces that they can joint use, he would pay two-thirds of the cost of the parking; he would pay for what would otherwise be built on his property; and if the County needs more than that, that would be its share, and if it needs less, then it would get 100% of the parking paid for by his client. Commissioner Scarborough stated if they want to proceed, the City Council needs to say it wants to have that five acres as part of the park discussion; that is a major legal impediment to any intelligent discussion; and once that occurs, then County staff can legally expend referendum dollars to present some things to the Parks and Recreation Commission that spent 15 meetings discussing this item and trying to look at ways to make it work. He stated if the Board opens that Pandora’s box, it would have to start looking at every project around the County. Mr. Evans stated he believes the City Council is prepared to put it back in the County’s jurisdiction; it would be fair to say it would like to have those discussions with the County; and that is all they are asking for. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Evans needs to see the City Council; with Mr. Evans responding he will be there tonight.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Ward is here as an individual, or has the City Council given him the authority to speak in regards to this issue; with Mr. Ward responding no, he is here as a taxpaying citizen like the other members here; but it is quite clear that the CRA and the City Council are 100% in support of it and have by vote directed City staff to work with Vectorworks to explore an equitable resolution. He stated that is on the record, and he will be happy to bring any of that information to the Board. He stated they voted unanimously at the last CRA meeting or Council meeting, he does not recall which, because they run back to back, to seek a resolution for a joint use on Marina Park for parking facilities. He stated everybody was in attendance; and it was a 7-0 or 5-0 vote. Mr. Ward stated he did float the idea to represent to the City Council at a special meeting where it was reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, but it was premature and other Councilmen were not ready for that; so he simply updated the Council that he was coming to the Board to seek resolution with the County. He stated he has a Council meeting tonight and has asked the City Manager if it would be appropriate at that time, if he gets a favorable resolution from the Board, to reinstate the five acres; and if the five acres is a stumbling block that they cannot get passed, then he is all for putting it back into the park.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what does Mr. Ward wish the Board to do today that he would consider a favorable resolution; with Mr. Ward responding to support the City Council and CRA’s endeavors with the State to see if they can have joint use facilities acceptable to the State. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Ward has a commitment from him, but he can only speak for himself; the Board is going to do all it can to work with the City; however, it is difficult to say whether or not it will support something with the State before having something in writing that is reviewed by County staff, and in a legitimate sense, reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, which has heard the issue over several months. He stated if Mr. Ward wants a commitment that the County will work with the City, he will make that motion; if he wants the Board to say it will proceed with something it does not know about, he will oppose that; and Mr. Ward would not vote for it either as he is a detail man who makes sure things are in order so he understands the situation. He stated he will do all he can to make the City and County work as one for the benefit of the people. Mr. Ward stated the reason he is here is to seek that support and that the Board does not oppose the City’s endeavors of going through with a joint use. He stated if the five acres are removed and the County has no jurisdiction, then he would request the Board make a motion that it will not oppose the CRA in seeking a resolution with the State. He stated if he gets the Board’s support on seeking that resolution for a joint use, then they are back to the table incorporating the five acres into the park and doing a joint use facility that is a much better plan. Mr. Ward stated Commissioner Scarborough alluded to the fact that the Board cannot discuss this issue because the five acres are out of the agreement, and if it is out, he does not need to be here; so if that is the case, he would ask the Board not to oppose their endeavors. Commissioner Scarborough stated the City can put in the five acres, take it out the next day, and put it back in, and he cannot do anything about it; the City is the property owner, and as the property owner, it has a County willing and able to do joint planning for the park; however, to say that at this moment it is a good idea without getting into the details and having staff review it is an impossibility on the part of the Board. He stated if the City Council puts the five acres back in, and staff reviews it and finds it impractical and that it will not work, the Board can work with the City and the City will have to remove the acreage again. Mr. Ward stated a motion to support the efforts of the CRA and City to have a joint use facility is not agreeing to a particular plan, location, or anything else; and he is just asking for the Board’s support of their efforts. Commissioner Scarborough stated the City needs to indicate it wants to put the five acres up for discussion. Mr. Ward stated he will do it tonight at the Council meeting.

Ray Haskell advised the Little League has been aware of this issue, but they are volunteers and have to spend their time the best they can; the original intent was to get 4.92 acres; so saying it is a minor proposal is not true. He stated they have continued to back paddle from the original intent; and he applauds that and is glad they are willing to do that. He stated he is a member of the Titusville Little League, but he cannot speak for the entire board when it originally heard the issue two years ago; and things have changed radically since the original intent of taking the whole five acres, putting the buildings on it, and putting their water retention area away from what they originally voted on as voters in Titusville. Mr. Haskell stated they do not have a problem sharing parking or water retention as long as it is a fair and equitable use and it does not eliminate the original intent of the design and what the citizens wanted; maybe there is a way to do that; but coming from another angle, he wants to ensure the Board does not give away five acres. He stated he saw the waterways in California, Arizona, and Utah get used up for development; all they are now are concrete monstrosities; every time footage is given away, it never comes back; and he watches the coastline of Brevard County disappear day-by-day, used up by developers who are now moving to the rivers. He stated it has to stop; he wants to help Vectorworks and does not want to see it leave, and he is willing to work with them and the Board; but it cannot give footage to them, lease it to them, or allow it to be governed by them; and it needs to maintain a hold on that property.

Susan Canada of Titusville advised she would like to see it stay a park and do what the referendum intended. She stated at City Council meetings she heard that she could go and inspect Vectorworks, see the parking lot, the building, etc. and that it was going to share part of the riverfront; however, she could not get in to see anything because it was fenced and the gate was locked. She stated when the leasing issue came up, she told City Council the 4 B’s Animal Rescue would be interested in leasing that property; they never heard a word about it; and how much the City would lease it to Vectorworks for has not been available for anyone else who wish to consider leasing it. Ms. Canada stated most lower income families cannot afford to take children to many places for birthday parties; and advised of the experience of having her grandson’s birthday party at the park pavilion. She stated the park needs to stay for those who cannot speak for themselves, the children; that is what it was planned for; and she would not want it leased for anything. She stated it is hard to use a fenced-in parking lot, and parking is needed on weekdays especially in the summer months when many low-income families utilize the park. She stated she also heard about the economics it would bring to Titusville; she does not see anyone rushing to work at Vectorworks; she called a friend to check on wages and opportunities for advancement; and she said the wages and opportunity for advancement were so low that she quit recently and went to work in Orlando. She stated they would like to see it stay as the referendum intended it, for the children and people of Titusville; and if she has to go to every low income area and get signatures, she will do it.

Chairperson Colon advised anyone who spoke cannot put in another card to speak again on the same subject; the Board has a huge Agenda to deal with today; she made that perfectly clear; and she would like for everyone to respect that.

Joan Wheeler of Titusville advised she has been following this proposal since April 10, 2001 when it first became public knowledge; it was the best kept secret in Titusville for almost a year; originally Mr. Gray wanted ten acres; and at the City Council meeting on August 28, 2001, the City Attorney explained the process of getting approval for private use of the park land. She stated he found some conflicting language in Florida Statutes, Chapter 253 that the sale of filled or formerly submerged land that does not exceed five acres is not subject to review by ARC. She stated ARC is the agency that reviews requests for surplusing land; and if they did not exceed five acres, they would not have to go through that review process and could go straight to IITF, the Internal Improvement Trust Fund Board, which is the Governor’s Cabinet. She stated the Governor’s Cabinet is much smaller and it might make it a little easier if they did not have to go through two reviews. Ms. Wheeler stated Hitler said he wanted peace, a piece of Poland, a piece of Bulgaria, a piece of France, and a piece of Finland; right now Mr. Gray wants a piece of the park; and inquired what is to stop this issue from growing beyond the lease if he gets a piece through a lease or sale, and what is to stop other businesses from trying to do the same thing and get another piece a few years later. She inquired what happens if the business folds; stated the City can do anything it wants with the property if it gets it surplused; and that scares her because in 1985 they were about to turn it into condominiums. She stated that is not what she wants for that property; it is for the people who will come in the future; and if people start messing with it, it is not going to have anyone to protect it. She stated Mr. Gray got a tax exempt bond from the City and was going to have 35 jobs to start with, and when it was built, it would go to 100 jobs; and inquired if there is any verification of how many jobs he has. She stated she is getting where she does not believe anybody any more; she hears all this stuff and it does not turn out to be true; and inquired how many people promise to bring jobs in, get a tax exemption, then the Board has to change it and take away the exemption. She stated the park belongs to the people and should stay there; the Board should keep its nose out of the mess and let the City go to Tallahassee and do whatever it wants to; and the City thinks it has to have the Board, and that is why it is here.

Chairperson Colon advised Ms. Wheeler and other citizens of Titusville came before the Board and told it to get involved; and inquired if Ms. Wheeler is now telling the Board not to get involved; with Ms. Wheeler responding it should not get involved with going to Tallahassee, as the property should stay a park forever; and stated the State had Preservation 2000 and then it turned to Florida Forever. Chairperson Colon stated Ms. Wheeler mentioned that the County needed to keep an eye on this issue, oversee it, and could not stay out of it because of the referendum; and inquired if that is correct; with Ms. Wheeler responding that is right, and it should not just turn it over to them. Chairperson Colon stated the Board did not say it was going to do that. Ms. Wheeler stated now they have Florida Forever, and if forever is not forever, what is forever for?

Bea Polk of Titusville stated since she came to Titusville in 1959, they wanted to get rid of the riverfront; she fought to keep the riverfront for the public; and in the 1980’s they finally got a referendum. She stated 83% of the people said they wanted to keep it as a riverfront for the people; this same group is the one they were fighting then; they wanted condos because if they did not have those condos, they were going under; they needed that business; and she hears that so much. She stated she is not against business; she got paperwork from the City where Mr. Gray got $3 million and said he would start out with 35 jobs; and she would like for him to prove that to her today. She stated all they are here for today is to get the Board to agree that they can go to Tallahassee to get the five acres; and inquired since the County has a referendum, why does it not ask for the land to preserve it for recreation, because once Vectorworks gets four plus acres and puts money in it, it will be gone from the referendum and the City. Ms. Polk stated she talked to some of the CRA members; they would not look her in the face and say they would not; they said whatever it takes to keep the business, they will do it; and inquired if one business in Brevard County that important. She stated none of the people in business are that important that the government can give away the last riverfront property in Titusville. She stated the only reason she went out and asked people to vote for the referendum is because she thought the whole riverfront property was included, and if the County put it in the referendum, no one could ever remove that land from the public. She stated it did not pass by much; she asked the older people to go and vote even thought it would not concern them but it would concern their grandchildren, great grandchildren, and great great grandchildren; and that is the reason she voted for it. She requested the Board not give up even a lease. She stated today is the first time she heard that Mr. Gray was going to pay for it; she has been to all the meetings and has been questioned all during the campaign; no one ever said he was going to pay for it; and inquired if he does pay for it, can the City give him that five acres and the County cannot do anything about it.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised he does not know if the City has the right to give property to Vectorworks or not; and he is not sure what the City’s rights are in regard to that. Ms. Polk inquired if the City can go to Tallahassee and get approval; with Mr. Knox responding if they get a release from the State and get the right to dispose of the property for a private purpose under some Statute that he is not aware of, they might have that right. Ms. Polk stated she talked to a couple of people in the Attorney General’s Office and there was a question; and they said once the referendum went through and certain things were built, they can give it to him. She stated another thing is they give it for 99 years; if someone else comes in and he does not stay in business that goes along with it; she asked the City Council; and it said yes, it would; so the people will lose the nearly five acres. She requested the Board study how it can get the property and use it for what the referendum said and leave it for the taxpayers.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the City of Titusville withdrew the five acres; with Commissioner Scarborough responding Titusville has lands that the County operates for parks and recreation; and it is unique in North Brevard because the Parks and Recreation MSTU includes the City of Titusville. He stated when he was on the City Council, the City gave a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year to the County, but found it much more convenient to incorporate it so they would have a seamless parks and recreation operation. He stated if the City decided to take a piece of property and use it for another purpose, it can do that; where the City has a problem with this property is not necessarily with the County because the Parks and Recreation Department has discussed all possible angles over and over again; but the problem is there is a reverter clause in the title that if it is not used for recreational purposes, it reverts to the State. He stated the City can go to the State and the State could say it does not have a problem with it; from the onset of the discussions, there was an underlying question that even if the Board agreed to giving the five, ten, or whatever acres, the State could say no; the City Attorney was having dialogues with people; but there was never a formal request. Commissioner Carlson stated she just had a simple question about whether the City formally withdrew five acres from the property; with Mr. Ward responding in his opinion, yes. Mr. Ward stated there is a deed restriction for that property and submerged lands throughout the State that it is to be used for recreational purposes; and the question the City wants to ask the State is if it can build a parking lot on the property and allow a business to use it. He stated if it violates anything, the City would have to seek other avenues to accommodate Vectorworks; and he thinks the City and CRA are committed to try and work it out so that Vectorworks can expand. Commissioner Carlson inquired why has the City not asked the State yet; with Mr. Ward responding they thought it would be prudent to come to the County and see if they could work together because if the State allows it, it would not make sense to have two separate retention ponds and two separate parking lots on Marina Park; and it is just putting out the olive branch and asking can they work this out together. He stated the City is doing a joint use agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation to expand the retention area at Sand Point Park to accommodate the stormwater runoff from the overpass project, so there is precedence already set for referendum projects and expansion of facilities to accommodate separate entities; and he is not asking for anything different.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the City Council is elected to represent Titusville; all the properties lie within the City; and the County has become involved in this issue because it had a referendum, there is money allocated, therefore, it has a fiduciary responsibility. He stated when the City was removing the whole thing, he was very concerned whether they had to go back to the voters to have them decide if they wanted to fundamentally change the complexion of the referendum because they were talking about moving it to Gibson and a lot of other ideas. He stated a referendum was done for Port St. John to have additional monies; they bought Fay Lake Park; and they went out and had a second referendum to ask the people if they should do this. Commissioner Scarborough stated as they move into a design mode, there will be fewer questions; but the question is can County’s Parks and Recreation Department legitimately spend referendum monies to do a design analysis when the City has taken the property off the table. He stated if Mr. Nelson and Mr. Beck were not accommodating or did not spend time at meetings as needed, he would like to know that because they have spent a tremendous amount of time going through scenario after scenario; so he does not think it is a matter of that. He stated the question is if the City wants to proceed unilaterally or does it want to see if it can be a part of the larger park; Mr. Ward has come here to ask the Board something; and if that is all he wants, he would make a motion at this time if that is okay with the Chairperson. Chairperson Colon stated there is one more speaker. Mr. Ward advised he is seeking the Board’s support; and it can place conditions on it like most motions on rezoning and conditional use applications that if he is unsuccessful in reinstating the five acres, then it goes away and the County is not bound to anything. He stated if the five acres is an issue, he will resolve it at the City Council meeting in about five hours. Chairperson Colon advised Jerome Randa is the last speaker.

Jerome Randa distributed copies of a letter to the Board, but not the Clerk, that he will present to the Titusville City Council; and stated the letter is self descriptive and in protest to the removal of five acres from Marina Park, as it is against the intended use. He stated his reasons are different; if the park is used for parking, they cannot expand the Titusville Marina; and he presented arguments for that in his letter. He stated Vectorworks has not explored all its options for its parking situation; he presented some of those arguments in his letter and can think of others; and he is here to solicit the Board’s support in defeating Vectorworks’ proposals and denying its request to use the property. He stated he attached a rather crude drawing of how he sees the marina expanding, which would use most of Marina Park; and if they use Marina Park for a parking lot, they will never be able to expand the marina. Chairperson Colon inquired if expansion of the marina was part of the referendum; with Mr. Randa responding no, but there are ways and means of bringing it before the people who can make the decisions; so what he is looking for is the Board’s support in denying both proposals by Vectorworks. Chairperson Colon inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is ready to make a motion; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to indicate it is the desire of the Board of County Commissioners to work in all ways possible with elected officials of all cities, including the City of Titusville, particularly as it applies to lands that are titled in the name of the City of Titusville, in the spirit of cooperation; and if the City of Titusville elects to reverse its prior action of removing five acres from consideration for park purposes, the County staff do the reviews it deems necessary and make its presentation to the North Brevard Parks and Recreation Commission, which has been eminently involved in all of the details, for its review and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.

Chairperson Colon requested a second to the motion; and Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 11:49 a.m. for an executive session and lunch, and reconvened at 1:03 p.m.

CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., RE: SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION FRANCHISES

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised in June 2002, the Board authorized staff to negotiate with Waste Management for terms and conditions for renewal of a five-year contract beginning October 1, 2003; staff worked with Waste Management over the Summer and Fall and negotiated what they feel are the most cost competitive terms; and they are at the position now of bringing those back to the Board for consideration and direction.

Chairperson Colon requested speakers to move to the front of the room; and advised the cards are arranged in the order they were submitted.

Andy Plucinski, representing Waste Industries of Raleigh, North Carolina, advised Waste Industries operates in the greater southeast, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana; and as a competitor of Waste Management, they request the County consider an request for proposal (RFP) for Brevard County’s solid waste services. He stated an RFP assures the County full control of the proposal process and allows it to continue to receive the highest service quality at a significant savings to the taxpayers. He stated as an example, Sarasota County is currently reviewing recently submitted proposals for solid waste services; and even the current provider, Waste Management, significantly lowered its pricing from the current contract. He stated Sarasota County has about 110,000 residential household units, and averages over $1 million in savings to the County annually; and Palm Beach County also realized the benefit of requesting proposals every five years. Mr. Plucinski stated the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County is responsible for over 270,000 family units; and Palm Beach County has enjoyed superior service at tremendous savings per year. He stated some folks believe if something is working, do not fix it; but an RFP does not mean something is broken, it means that a good business decision is gratifying.

Bob Hyres with Waste Pro advised he has past history in Brevard County having managed the North Brevard franchise for five years; and he hopes the Board will consider an RFP at this time. He stated Brevard County, like several other counties, had a development of companies buying other companies and merging; at one time there were a number of companies operating in Brevard County; and currently, due to all the mergers, Brevard County has one supplier of solid waste services; and that includes all the cities that do not provide their own service. He stated Brevard County is like an island; it has the Atlantic Ocean on the east, cow pastures on the west, and very little room to the south and north; so it has always been isolated to a certain extent because of its demographics. Mr. Hyres stated last year Orange County took RFP’s for the first time ever; Brevard County has never had an RFP for solid waste services; it was a developed situation over the years; but Orange County realized significant savings. He stated there is always a large group of people here during this renewal process speaking in favor of Waste Management; it is a good company and good corporate citizen; but so are Waste Industries, Waste Pro of Florida, and Republic Services. He stated they all provide a lot of community services and participate in community events in every community they serve; so it is not to say there is anything wrong with what Waste Management does because it does a good job. He stated he did not go through the effort to bring people in for support because he did not want to spend the Board’s time on that; but he hopes the Board will think about what is the best thing to do for the County and the proper thing to do at this time.

James Fowler, representing Republic services, advised the County and community will be better off if the Board were to seek competitive proposals for the type of service being considered. He stated he understands the current vendor has been with Brevard County since 1988 and the proposal is to extend it for another five years with an option for five more years; and that is too long. He stated the Board would be doing itself and its community a disservice if it does not get competitive prices; that is not to suggest County staff is incapable and has not negotiated well; but they lose the baseline against which to negotiate when the time of the contract is so extensive. He presented documents to the Board, but not the Clerk, of a news article that identified what happened recently in Sarasota County. He stated after 20 years, the county found out it could save $2.6 million; and even more informative is that the company that held the franchise for so long underbid its own proposal by $1.7 million. He stated if the Board takes a competitive approach to this service, it will save a lot of money and might find that the current vendor is in fact the successful proposer. He stated there are a number of good vendors out there that would like a chance to participate and seek the County’s business and provide the Board with competitive pricing in doing so.

Tom Crummy, Planning and Development Manager for Waste Management in Central Florida, advised he has 18 years of experience with Waste Management in the solid waste industry and had the privilege of spending the last three years working with its team in Brevard County. He stated the issue before the Board is the renewal of the solid waste franchise agreement; Waste Management has been providing quality service to the residents of Brevard County for the past 30 years; and that experience has allowed Waste Management to grow with the County and provide additional services to meet the residents’ needs. He stated the question is are they looking for price or value; looking at value involves price and quality of service; Waste Management has provided a survey to County staff, who reviewed it, that shows Waste Management’s pricing is comparable to other companies throughout the State, yet the services it provides in Brevard County exceeds most of the services provided in other counties. Mr. Crummy advised their employees with their many years of experience and their company’s commitment to customer satisfaction have resulted in the development of customer initiatives to further enhance and measure the level of customer service they provide the residents of Brevard County. He stated over the last two years, Waste Management has invested nearly $5 million in plant and equipment in the Brevard County area to ensure their employees have the tools they need to do the job right the first time. He stated that commitment of their senior management, employees, and stockholders has allowed them to provide Brevard County residents with high-quality services. Mr. Crummy stated their tracking of residential calls indicates their missed pickup rate is less than one half per each thousand customers they serve each week; that compares favorably with Orange County’s number of .52 per week on average; and pulling out Waste Management’s participation, that number is .70. He stated Waste Management has a 30-year record of providing solid waste collection services of the highest quality to residents and businesses in Brevard County; and their management, employee, and financial commitment to the customer service makes Waste Management the right choice for Brevard County for the next five years. He stated to clarify a statement made that their bid with Sarasota County was reduced from the negotiated price, that is accurate looking at the price for the residential customer; but the total price bid included commercial services; and taking the change in the price for commercial services, their monthly cost was slightly higher than what they negotiated with Sarasota County.

George Geletko, representing Waste Management, Inc. of Florida, stated he has 21 years of waste industry experience and all of it with Waste Management; and thanked the Board and County employees for the honor of serving the Brevard County citizens’ solid waste needs for over 30 years. He stated in August 2002, the Board directed staff to negotiate with Waste Management and also determine if by RFP service could be improved; the burden of proof now lies with them; they surveyed 13 similar counties statewide to get apples to apples comparison; and they also included counties that recently completed the RFP process. He stated staff verified all the statistics; and the survey showed what they already knew, that Brevard County has one of the best collection rate structures and delivery of service quality in the State when compared with other counties served by the competition. Mr. Geletko stated the Board has seen Orange County’s service quality comparison results; after change was initiated by its RFP, the results were 17,000 calls the first month from confused and angry citizens; and 12 and a half months later, Orange County’s service quality is still an issue. He stated the few cents Orange County saved on the front end, it spent on the back end with additional staff to handle the high volume of angry citizen calls and consultant costs to develop and evaluate the RFP process. He stated the Board does not have to go out for an RFP to have bad service; it can inherit poor service as Seminole County’s service history indicates; they had three haulers serving individual service districts; one of the haulers was purchased by another and was sold to an individual; and the number of service complaints skyrocketed after the purchase. He stated the company has been called before the Seminole County Commission due to poor service and their high balance on landfill tipping fees. Mr. Geletko stated the secret to good reliable service quality is good loyal experienced workforce that makes the difference; Willy Davis is a 44-year employee; and inquired how can the Board replace that experience with change. He stated Orange County had that type of experience; it lost it when it believed change was best; the Board has seen the results of that with high levels of dissatisfied citizens; good service is easy to promise but tough to provide as many other counties have learned; and their service is not a promise, it is a corporate culture followed through by top corporate executives by surveys wanting to hear feedback from municipal customers on their service delivery. He stated each month a portion of Waste Management’s commercial customers are surveyed; any customer with an issue is contacted immediately after receiving the survey; and it is followed up to the end result of customer satisfaction. Mr. Geletko stated quality service requires service standards that gain high levels of customer satisfaction; he shared those standards with each Commissioner in November or early December; those standards are not an option, they must be met in each individual district; and each month the results are monitored. He stated the Commissioners and staff members are invited to tour their facilities and review the service standard results; and many of them have done so. He stated it does not take a hurricane to create large piles of green waste; it can also be created by Project Impact, a great education program offered to Brevard County citizens by the Emergency Management Department; and the program prepares Brevard County citizens for natural disasters and hurricanes, including how to prepare trees. He stated they did prepare their trees and they had to hire a subcontractor to assist with the additional volume. He stated according to Mr. Rodriguez, Solid Waste Management Director, the green waste volume was up 20% over last year by mid-summer; their subcontractor picked up an additional 24,000 cubic yards during June, July, and August; and that service is provided to Brevard County citizens at one low rate. He stated in Orange County and most other counties, the additional charge for claw truck service would have cost the citizens $300,000.

Chairperson Colon advised Mr. Geletko his time had expired.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to extend time for Mr. Geletko to complete his presentation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Geletko read a letter written to Linda, their Customer Service Manager, as follows: “Dear Linda. The purpose of this letter is to inform you about one of your employees. We purchased our home in June of this year and have just started to work on the yard. The house was built in 1963 and I believe the shrubbery surrounding the house was the original landscaping. You can only imagine how much it had grown in 40 years. We literally cannot see the house. We started clearing out all the shrubs. You would not believe how much was there. On Saturday, November 16th, we had a pick up for yard waste. It was cold and nasty that morning with a chilling rain. The reason I’m telling you all this is to let you know what a professional and conscientious employee you have. The truck No. was 670341. I did not get his name. The yard waste was piled and piled along the perimeter of the yard, a total of three giant piles. That guy worked so hard and expertly I might add and got almost every bit of what we had out there. He got all he could fit in the truck. Please accept our gratitude and if there is any possible way, please let your employee know what a great job he is doing. We really appreciate it. Sincerely, Ellen Geneva.” He stated that only happens with a long experience of people like Mr. Davis and his associates; and requested the Board vote yes for staff’s requested action.

Chairperson Colon called for Sarah Sekula; with Mr. Geletko responding she deferred her time.

Doug Connor, representing Doug Connor, Inc., advised he works as a subcontractor for Waste Management; he started four years ago, providing some help on hurricane relief when Irene and Fran came through; he used clam trucks and bucket trucks to do the clean up; and he helped them throughout the whole County, from Scottsmoor to Sebastian. He stated this morning he was riding around, had a camera with him, and took some pictures in the Lake Washington area; and shared the pictures with the Board. He stated the pictures are of yard debris just from the weekend; and he wanted to show the Board an example of what is going out on the roads on a weekly basis, and it is not even summer when people cut back or get ready for storms.

Rocky Randels, City of Cape Canaveral Mayor, stated his purpose for being here is to give the Board the view of 9,000 residents on the performance of Waste Management in the many years they have had its service. He stated the residents are very satisfied; and they are happy with the service they receive and with the rates they pay for that service. He stated on Mondays the residents receive three separate collections, garbage trash collection, green waste, and recycling, with unlimited volume on all of them; and on Thursdays the same week, the residents receive three additional collections, garbage and trash, clam truck to pick up white goods, and green waste that were too large for the Monday collection. He stated in a City like Cape Canaveral, the white goods pickup is important because it is a transient area where people throw out their furniture and appliances and buy new wares when they relocate. He stated also important to them is the clam truck that picks up unlimited amounts of green waste; and that could be attributed to the Waste Management Operations officer meeting weekly with the City Manager on items he receives from residents, or once a month meeting with the City Council and asking for its views of what it hears from residents. He stated the clam truck service is a great benefit; the green waste produced in any city due to hurricanes or Project Impact is enormous; he had the privilege of riding with the contractor to show him the locations of where to go and pick up cluttering boxes; and the amazing work they can do with the clam truck left very little for him to gather. He encouraged the Board to consider the favorable results the City of Cape Canaveral has had with Waste Management in its considerations.

Larry Weber, Executive Director of Keep Brevard Beautiful, advised Keep Brevard Beautiful has been in existence for 21 years, and the majority of that time they have been partners with Waste Management. He stated he serves on the Board of Directors of Keep America Beautiful; on that board is the Chairman of the Board of Waste Management, Mr. Maury Myers; and after meeting him several times, he can see that they have such a corporate commitment because of him. He stated last year Keep Brevard Beautiful had 621 clean ups that removed 350,000 pounds of debris from Brevard County; thanks to Waste Management, it did not cost the County or Keep Brevard Beautiful anything; this coming weekend they have their 5th Annual Cape Canaveral Citywide Clean Up; and last year they had two trucks, a clam truck, and about ten employees helping the 40 volunteers who removed 14 tons of debris just from the little City of Cape Canaveral. He encouraged the Board to consider renewing the Contract with Waste Management.

Bob Bolin of Satellite Beach stated last year when he was here talking about Waste Management, he mentioned three axioms—(1) if it is not broken, don’t fix it; (2) penny wise pound foolish; and (3) the grass is always greener on the other side of the street; and that is what the Board is talking about today. He stated it can put those three principles together in choosing Waste Management; Satellite Beach is famous for the services it provides to its residents; they expect the best and that is what the City gives them; and that is why they have Waste Management taking care of their trash. He stated they do an outstanding job; last year in 365 days, they had not had a complaint against any trash pickup; however, they had several compliments about Waste Management. He stated when they receive compliments instead of complaints, that is a real plus; Waste Management is the best; it always participates in not only municipal events, but County events as well; and they are always eager to help, advise, and give their full attention. He encouraged the Board to not waste a good service that it is provided and to continue the Contract with Waste Management.

Mel Broom stated the last time he spoke to the Board it was as former Mayor of Palm Bay and the experience they had with Harris; he has family living in different parts of Florida; they have the same problems the County does; but Waste Management has established an excellent reputation and has been an outstanding community service company. He stated he does not know of any event, if they are asked for help, that they would not give it; they turn out for everything; and he had in the past the misfortune of changing contractors because they did business with Waste Management for a long time and competitors came in with elaborate plans of how they could do better service for less money; and their mistake was not comparing apples with apples, thereby entering into a contract that caused a great deal of problems and citizen dissatisfaction. He requested the Board give careful consideration to its decision and not change for change’s sake.

Laurilee Thompson of Mims stated she has the privilege of having her garbage picked up by Waste Management; she finds they are very dependable; their workers are very courteous; and one night when she was going home from work at midnight, she saw the Waste Management truck in her neighborhood picking up garbage. She stated apparently they had trouble with the truck during the day and still managed to get the garbage picked up even though their crews were out after midnight. She stated she was very impressed with that. She stated they have never missed picking up her garbage at her house; she owns two businesses in Titusville and wishes Waste Management picked up the garbage in the City because they seem to get neglected on a regular basis; and missing a dumpster at a restaurant is bad because it has an odor associated with it if it is not picked up on a daily basis. She stated when they miss the dumpster at the shrimp plant, she cannot describe what the whole neighborhood smells like after two days of a dumpster full of shrimp heads sitting in the hot Florida sun; so she wishes they had the same opportunities that Cape Canaveral has. Ms. Thompson stated Waste Management is a very good community supporter; their members sit on various boards of many service organizations around the County; they participate and are active in those organizations; and they are very faithful in supporting all kinds of events. She encouraged the Board to consider keeping Waste Management.

Commissioner Pritchard advised he has had Waste Management service since he has been in Brevard County; one of the things he found is changing horses in midstream, penny wise pound foolish, and all those things sometimes hold true and sometimes they do not; but in this case they do. He stated Waste Management not only has dependable service, but unrestricted yard waste that they will pick up; and if people have too much waste for the weekly truck, they will send a notice to the office that they will send out a clam truck within the week and pick up the amount of yard waste produced. He stated coming from an area where they did not do that and where one had to bundle the trash into four-foot lengths and less than 40 pounds, he can attest that a restricted yard waste program is annoying. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is a matter of customer satisfaction and level of service that is acceptable; garbage twice a week, yard trash once a week, recycling once a week, and clam truck for white goods are quite acceptable; and anything put out to the street is taken.

Commissioner Scarborough stated service contracts are very difficult; when he started on the Board there were two contractors in Brevard County; Western Waste was in North Brevard; they liked to come and visit with him, but when they called, it was the driver of the truck had a problem, and he began to realize the County had no control over the service; so they started referring calls to Colorado and not the local office, but that did not work, so they called Los Angeles to reach the president of the company. He stated trash was not being picked up on Carpenter Road; and he was not going to put up with the trash and the way the citizens were being treated; the contract came up for renewal; and he told the president that one Commissioner was going to do everything he could to get the company out of Brevard County. He stated they came and wanted to take him to dinner and all of that; he said he could not digest dinner when he was being harassed by people who were not getting their garbage picked up; and they sent Mr. Hyres in who did a wonderful job. He stated if he called Mr. Hyres on Friday evening, he would say it is being taken care of and he would call back as soon as it was done. He stated he does not care about how trash is stacked because that is stupid; he is not saying the County could not be happy with some other company; but he is of the opinion that there could be a horrible mess and thousands of calls and nobody will care about saving a few dollars a year, they will know it is not working. He stated service contracts are difficult for government entities; a corporate entity can decide who it would take bids from and can go after the best; the RFP process is open and the Board could get in a posture of saving a few dollars for the taxpayer, but having deterioration of service. He stated he is not saying it would, but it could; and it has in other counties; so if Commissioner Pritchard wants to make a motion, he would be pleased to second it. Chairperson Colon stated she agrees with Commissioner Scarborough.

Commissioner Higgs advised she agrees the County has great service from Waste Management; they do a wonderful job; their employees follow up and when the County gets complaints, it sees action immediately. She stated this contract is an extension of the existing Contract, and asks for an increase in rates, annual CPI, as well as a five-year option; and it is her belief it is time to look at a contract change potential. She stated she is not unhappy with the service Waste Management provides; and she would hate to go out to bid with concerns of what it would get; but if the RFP is crafted to allow the County to set its standards where it is today in terms of service, number of pickups, unlimited yard waste, call out, it could potentially control the proposals. She stated when changing contracts, the risk is there; she is not unhappy with the service the County has in any way; Waste Management is also a fine corporate citizen; but after as many years as Waste Management has been the contractor in Brevard County, it is time to open up to the marketplace and see what is out there. She stated she is not interested in bidding strictly on price; she is interest in quality of service and standards the County currently has; so she would not support a motion to extend the contract, but would support a motion to go out to bid to open up the marketplace. Chairperson Colon called for a second to the motion to go out to bid; and heard no second to the motion.

Commissioner Carlson stated she would like to go forward with Waste Management’s extension based on proven quality; it is performance and outcome driven and that is what she looks for; it has all been driven towards quality of service; and she has not received but a handful of complaints, and one was hers. She stated it was misplaced and she apologized, but she got a garbage can out of it; she did meet with George Geletko and he did share with her the residential cost comparisons of the 13 counties; and looking at what the County is getting and the increase of about 4.3% and the CPI to continue the level of service is quite reasonable and a good business decision in the long run. She stated if it is put out to bid, she is sure the Board would get comparables; but the only problem with that, even though Sarasota County was brought up, the Board would not hear or see what happens after the award, and that is her concern; so with that she would move to put forward staff’s recommendation.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve staff’s recommendation to approve Waste Management’s proposal providing for a 4.3% collection increase and additional $2.40 per year fee for waste tires and appliances; authorize Solid Waste Management to finalize the contract and return it to the Board in final form with said contract raising the compensation paid to Waste Management from $94.44 a year to $100.92 per year for a total percentage increase of 6.86%, including an increase of 5% from rates approved in 1991 for commercial pick up, rental fees, and pull charges, and grant Waste Management, Inc. a CPI adjustment effective October 1, 2004 capped at 3% in any year and 8.25% for the term of the contract. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

The meeting recessed at 1:48 p.m., and reconvened at 1:59 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS GOVERNING GROUP HOMES

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, governing group homes.

Lila Klausman, representing Parents Planning Programs for Developmentally Disabled, Inc. and Family Care Council, District 7, advised at her request an appointment was scheduled with Assistant County Attorney Christine Lapore to hear their views on language that might be included in the ordinance to enhance the reasonable accommodation provision. She stated they face very stringent requirements of Florida Statutes, Chapter 419, which says one group home must be located 1,000 feet from the second group home; that has also been incorporated in the ordinance; the 1,000 feet virtually rules out a location of a group home next to another one in any community, location into a subdivision, and against the establishment of a residential planned community; so the language that has been incorporated into the ordinance allows for more leniency and is in line and consistent with the Fair Housing Act. She stated the Fair Housing Act’s basic intent is to provide no discrimination on the basis of race, handicap, religion, family origin, etc.; it is also entirely consistent with the recent trend to have people with developmental disabilities included in the community; and that is what she applauds. She stated the trend is a target for many groups that are screaming not in my backyard; and they applaud the efforts of the Board to make those terms a lot more liberal. Ms. Klausman stated they particularly applaud the effort to include their language, which they proposed to Christine Lapore, citing the benefits of reasonable accommodation; and those benefits that can be accomplished by the requested modification may include opportunity to enjoy support, security, location, services, proximity to work or friends, provide a group home in a community of choice, and the opportunity to plan a residential community with special amenities. She stated they also included in the revision the words “choice of alternative accommodations,” which may provide an equivalent level of benefit; and they took out the word “appeal request for reasonable accommodation shall follow the appeal procedure,” which they felt was demeaning. She stated they put in the application and public hearing procedures set forth in Article II, Division 6 of the Chapter; and noted the reasonable accommodation is entirely consistent with the efforts of many people to establish fair housing and in particular one person who is very influential in the community and has a retarded son. She stated that person told them she tried to explain to her son why he could not live any place he wanted to just like other people; she told him he has Down Syndrome, which he knows, and that the disability makes some things more difficult for him to do; and she told him because of his disability, some people are trying to tell him that he cannot live where he wants to live when he is grown up; and he said, “no fair.” Ms. Klausman stated affirmative action has been in the news lately for individuals who have been discriminated against for many years; and the government’s position was not to narrow the options for them, but to make possible what was not possible previously by opening up options and opportunities for those individuals and allowing them to make choices. She stated there is one more ruling that was made recently, which she would like to explain. Chairperson Colon advised Ms. Klausman will need additional time.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to extend the time for Ms. Klausman to complete her presentation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Klausman advised the recent decision by the District Court of Appeals of Florida, 2nd District Case No. 2D01-4527, ruled that the enforcement of restrictive covenants against group homes is discriminatory and contrary to State and federal law; and it says, “In applying the terms of the FHAA, the federal courts have determined that one may be guilty of discrimination in any one of three ways: (1) the act prohibits intentional discriminatory conduct towards a handicapped person; (2) the act prohibits incidental discrimination that is an act that results in any property unavailable to a handicapped person; and (3) the act prohibits an act that fails to make a reasonable accommodation that would allow a handicapped person the enjoyment of a chosen residence.” She thanked the Board for what it has done in its efforts to supply reasonable accommodations.

Eugenie Amalfitano advised when her brother was about nine months old and she was eight, she asked her mother whether there was something wrong with him; he seemed perfectly fine, but her mother seemed very upset; and she was coming to terms with the fact that her brother had Down Syndrome. She stated at the time she could not understand why that was such terrible news; from the moment he was born until this day, she accepted her brother as he is; however, her mother was thinking ahead to the future when he would be an adult and society in general might not be quite as accepting, and they might not be around to take care of him. Ms. Amalfitano stated there are limited options for residential placement of developmentally-disabled adults like her brother; not all have concerned families to advocate for them when they are not able to speak for themselves; and that is why she wants to thank the Board on behalf of all the citizens in her brother’s position. She stated the amendments proposed will have the effect of increasing availability of residential placement and choice, and give people like her brother a much better chance of living in a community where the goals of the Fair Housing Act are realities and not just a fine ideal. She urged the Board to support the amendment; and thanked it and County Staff, particularly Christine Lapore and Robin Sobrino, for their thoughtful review and hard work.

Eugene Klausman of Melbourne Beach thanked the Commissioners, particularly Commissioner Scarborough who tabled the item to give them the opportunity to meet with Ms. Lapore and Ms. Sobrino to discuss their thoughts on the pending legislation. He stated he has never appeared before a governing body and finds it particularly gratifying that the voice of a citizen was listened to and changes they suggested were incorporated. He stated the legislation deals with group homes for people with developmental disabilities; unfortunately, it seems no one wants a group home next door to them, on the same street, or in the same town, a classic not in my backyard syndrome. He stated in passing the proposed amendments, the Board will be providing a place to live for the developmentally-disabled a bit easier; and they strongly support it. Mr. Klausman stated in a perfect world this legislation would not be necessary; unfortunately it is not a perfect world; and on behalf of his son Mark, he thanks the Board for its considerate treatment. He noted Mark patiently sat with them late into the night at the last meeting and hopefully may benefit from the Board’s efforts. Chairperson Colon thanked Mr. and Mrs. Klausman for their hard work on this issue.

Barbara Haynes of Melbourne stated she applauds the Board for helping them and Mr. and Mrs. Klausman in getting this change done. She stated she recently placed her son in a group home, something she never thought would happen; but she realized even with her help and patience, and that of her husband, it was necessary. She stated not in my backyard harkens back to the 1950’s when certain people were not allowed to move into certain neighborhoods; that is a step backwards; there are a lot of good children and families that need help; the children need help when the parents are no longer here; she hopes this ordinance will resolve issues and go forth; and thanked the Board for listening to her.

Commissioner Pritchard stated society has mainstreamed developmentally-disabled children and adults in the school system for years; it is mainstreaming the same in the communities; it has been slow in coming, but is a necessary step that should have happened years ago; and requested the Board make it happen today.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Article VI, Division 1, Division 4, Subdivisions II, III, IV, V, VI, and IX, Division 5, Subdivisions II and III, and Division 6, Subdivision I, and Article VIII; specifically amending Sections 62-1102 to modify the definition of adult congregate living facility and group home as they relate to occupancy levels; 62-1331(1)(a) and (3), 62-1332(1)(a), 62-1333(1)(a) and (3), 62-1334(1)(a) and (3), 62-1334.5(1)(a) and (3), 62-1335(1)(a) and 3, 62-1336(1)(a) and (3), 62-1337(1)(a) and (3), 62-1338(1)(a) and (3), 62-1339(1)(a) and (3), 62-1340(1)(a) and (3), 62-1341(1)(a) and (3), 62-1342(1)(a) and (3), 62-1343(1)(a) and (3), 62-1344(1)(a) and (3), 62-1371(1)(a) and (3), 62-1372(1)(a) and (3), 62-1373(1)(a), 62-1401(1)(a) and (3), 62-1402(1)(a) and (3), 62-1403(1)(a) and (3), 62-1481(1)(a), 62-1482(1)(b), 62-1483(1)(b), 62-1571(1)(a), and 62-1572(1)(a) and adding Sections 62-1443(a)(4) and 62-1463(f) to insert group homes as a permitted use within affected zoning classifications and to remove group homes as a conditional use within affected zoning classifications; adding Section 62-305 setting forth reasonable accommodation standards and procedures for fair access to housing for protected persons; adding Section 62-1835.9 to establish provisions for group home dispersal, notification to the County provision for reasonable accommodation and compliance with State regulations; modifying Section 62-1903(b) to delete conditional use permit requirements for group homes; deleting Section 62-2112 requiring group home administrative permits; amending Chapter 62, Article VIII, specifically amending Section 62-3203(2) to require site plan submittal for Level II group homes; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Ordinance No. 03-03.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING STORM SEWER EASEMENTS IN
SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 25S., RANGE 37E. - FLEIS & BENNETT ENGINEERING

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating storm sewer easements as petitioned by Fleis & Bennett Engineering.

Roadways and Landscaping Director Billy Osborne advised the applicant has requested the public hearing be continued until January 28, 2003 as there are issues they need to resolve.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to continue the public hearing on a resolution vacating storm sewer easements in Section 7, Township 25S., Range 37E. as petitioned by Fleis & Bennett Engineering, until January 28, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN
THE VILLAS AT INDIAN RIVER - JODY DAWN SHIELDS

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a public drainage easement in The Villas at Indian River as petitioned by Jody Dawn Shields.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution vacating a public drainage easement in The Villas at Indian River as petitioned by Jody Dawn Shields. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 03-015.)

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

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

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easements (S. Marlin Circle) in Barefoot Bay, Unit One, as petitioned by Abbott Manufactured Housing, Inc. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 03-016.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE GRANTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AD
VALOREM EXEMPTION TO AMERICAN MEDICAL PROCESSORS, INC.

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance granting economic development ad valorem exemption to American Medical Processors, Inc.

Commissioner Scarborough requested the applicant share with the community what is being proposed.

Tim Thomas of American Medical Processors, advised he is a resident of North Merritt Island; and the proposal is to have their company locate in North Brevard County. He stated the company would be in the FDA regulated medical device business, which is a fairly technical business; and according to the surveys they did, they would be providing above average wages and excellent benefits. He stated they started out looking in Volusia County and thought they found a better site in Titusville; the reason is because the Space Coast has a technical workforce; and they are looking forward to making their choice and locating in the area. He stated the Company’s business plan provides 100 jobs over a five-year period; and they are looking forward to being able to grow and prosper in the area and getting started early this year.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the average wage is anticipated at over $43,000; with Mr. Thomas responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance granting an economic development ad valorem exemption to American Medical Processors, Inc., 1400 White Drive, Titusville, Florida; specifying the items exempted; providing the expiration date of the exemption; finding that the business meets the requirements of Florida Statutes 196.012; providing for proof of eligibility for exemption; providing for an annual report by American Medical Processors, Inc.; providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay. (See page for Ordinance 03-01.)

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Tax Abatement Ordinance is a contractual arrangement between two parties, with one party being the public; he wants to be assured that the part of the agreement that requires 34 employees increasing to 101 in five years with average salaries of $43,500 and annual payroll of $4.1 million are attainable goals; and that a review process is built into the tax abatement agreement that it will be reviewed to assure the company meets those goals. He stated it is a ten-year offset; he does not mind saving money and investing in the County’s future by investing in the company’s future; that is one of the rolls government should assume; but he wants to make sure it is getting it money’s worth, the company is going to live up to the obligations of the agreement, and that there is a review process to monitor that progress. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised that the Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar reviews those companies on an annual basis; and if at any time they are not in compliance, he brings those to the Board and the Board reconsiders its actions. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board would expect to be fully accountable for what it signs up for. Commissioner Scarborough welcomed the company to Brevard County.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-73, COUNTY’S
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Section 2-73, County’s Organizational Structure.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the ordinance proposes to realign the Public Works Department into a Roadways and Landscaping Department and a Transportation Engineering Department; it coincides with the retirement of the Public Works Director; and the restructuring will provide some operational benefits.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt an Ordinance amending Article II, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, amending Section 2-73, providing for the departmental structure of County Government; providing for conflicting provisions, severability, and an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Ordinance No.03-02.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REQUEST FOR VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION BY
JOHN AND ROBIN KARLOVITCH

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a request by Robin Karlovitch for a vested rights determination.

Robin Karlovitch of Melbourne Beach advised her husband could not be here today, but she has a letter from him and would like to read it. She read as follows: “Distinguished Members of the Board. I apologize for not being here in person. I am a reservist with the United States Navy and have been called to duty for the month of January. Unfortunately, I have to impose on my wife to handle this on our behalf. The facts in this case are as follows: When we first decided to get a pool, I contacted the County Zoning Office and Department of Natural Resources to inquire about the setback requirements. I was told the setback for the pool from the canal was ten feet by each of the respective parties. I felt no reason to question this due to the fact that a large majority of the pools in the neighborhood are on a ten-foot setback. I met with Premiere Pools and gave them a $2,000 deposit. Premiere instructed me that they did several pools in the neighborhood and the setback was in fact ten feet. I paid to have a large tree removed, dug up the yard, and cut sprinkler lines in anticipation of the pool. I then contacted Premiere for a timetable. It was then that I was informed of the problem. I was told that the ten-foot setback was fine with Zoning; however, the Department of Natural Resources was enforcing the 15-foot setback. Premiere told me it must be a mistake and they would clear it up. It was no mistake. The pool is already small and wouldn’t be worth putting in if it was moved to a 15-foot setback. I wouldn’t have even considered putting a pool in if I was instructed of the 15-foot setback. I then set up an appointment with Commissioner Higgs at her office. Present at the meeting was Commissioner Higgs and Sherry Williams, Supervisor of the Department of Natural Resources. At this meeting, Commissioner Higgs asked Ms. Williams what the environmental impact would be if the ten-foot setback was granted. Ms. Williams stated that it imposed no environmental problem. We were then instructed to make a vested rights appeal to the County Commission. In addition, the $2,000 deposit to Premiere Pool is non-refundable. Deposit covers sales commission, permitting, and architectural plans. Zoning informed me that a letter dated November 13, 2002 was distributed outlining the setback. I started this process long before November 13, 2002. I felt that I acted in good faith based on information told to me by appropriate County offices. I incurred a great deal of expense and our back yard is a mess. I am not doing this for myself. It is for my children. I have been blessed with four precious little girls. I would never have agreed to the pool and got them excited about it if I was told from the beginning about the 15-foot setback. I don’t know what more I could have done. I am employed as a United States Marshal. My whole life is about being fair. This is just wrong. Please grant us our appeal and allow us to proceed with the ten-foot setback. I am not asking for anything that wasn’t approved in the past. Thank you in advance for all your time and consideration in this matter. John Karlovitch.” Ms. Karlovitch advised the tree removal was $400; they took out a home equity loan; the application fee was $150; and they did contact Zoning and Natural Resources in April 2002. She stated her husband spoke to Nick and was told it was ten feet; and inquired if the Board could ask Natural Resources if it was telling people ten feet instead of 15 feet at that time. She stated she would never have bought the house if she knew she could not put a pool in.

Commissioner Higgs advised she met with Mr. Karlovitch and with the applicants in the next item; and they did make an interpretation at certain points that ten feet in this situation would be okay; and inquired if that is correct; with Conrad White, Natural Resources Management Director, responding that is correct. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the correct distance is 15 feet; with Mr. White responding the Ordinance reads it should be 15 feet on a public bulkheaded canal. Commissioner Higgs stated there is a public bulkheaded canal; there seem to be instances where people have acted in reliance on the County, going forward, spending money, planning a house, etc. based on the ten-foot setback when it should be 15 feet; and in giving a vested rights, the Board has to determine if it would adversely harm other people or the environment. She stated in talking with Mr. Karlovitch and the Ledwards, they seem to be more than willing to work with the County staff to insure that a stormwater system would be constructed in the rear and in the front of their property, which would actually be an upgrade of what the County does, so that water from the street and from their property could be treated in the right-of-way and on their property so there would not be damage to the environment. She stated the County does not have specific criteria, but if they meet the criteria set out for private canals and the situation described under 8.C.1, which talk about retaining water and treating water, and they agree to cooperate with the Stormwater and Surface Water Department, the Board could consider it. She stated the Ledwards’ home is still under construction and the Karlovitchs are making changes; she would be willing to approve both items for vested rights with the understanding they would cooperate with County staff in treating the necessary amount of stormwater in the back and front yards and meet with staff to come up with the specifics.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve vested rights determination for John and Robin Karlovitch concerning encroachment of an accessory structure (pool) into the shoreline protection buffer from Class III waters, with the understanding the applicants will cooperate with staff in treating necessary amount of stormwater in the back and front yards. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard recommended the Board consider reimbursement to the Karlovitchs of the $433 fee they paid to come to today’s hearing. Commissioner Higgs stated both parties would have paid that fee. Commissioner Pritchard stated since both relied on what they were told by staff, which was not correct, they should be entitled to reimbursements. He stated they have already taken time out of their day and probably had a lot of other anxious moments; and the $433 would add insult to injury.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to reimburse John and Robin Karlovitch the $433 vested rights application fee.

Commissioner Higgs stated she wants to discuss the reimbursement; and inquired if the Board is going to take that as its policy in all cases where vested rights come before the Board and are approved. Commissioner Scarborough stated in many vested rights determinations, he never knew how he was going to vote until almost the end of the hearings; in this case, staff had no option but to say vested rights, knowing they were going to come in here and say they need to give those people vested rights; so there is a difference in cases. He stated he does not want to create a policy, but when staff tells him it is vested rights and this was the only recourse under the procedures to allow the applicant to have what he is entitled to, he is happy with the motion.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs advised the applicant to talk to Conrad White and staff to work out the provisions on the surface water protection issue.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: VESTED RIGHT DETERMINATION FOR BILL AND JACKIE
LEDWARD

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a request from Bill and Jackie Ledward for a vested right determination.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve vested right determination concerning an encroachment of an accessory structure (pool) into the shoreline protection buffer from Class III waters as requested by Bill and Jackie Ledward, with the understanding they will cooperate with staff in treating stormwater in the back and front yards; and to approve reimbursement of the $433 vested right application fee. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVER OF PERIMETER BUFFER, RE: STAGHORN SUBDIVISION

John T. Miller of Merritt Island, representing Mr. Warren Summerall who lives in South Merritt Estates, advised Mr. Summerall’s property abuts the northeast portion of the proposed Staghorn Subdivision; and he could not make it to the meeting because his wife and mother are infirm. He stated there is a single exit channel or easement ditch paralleling Coconut Lane to Elliott Drive that has been covered and routed into a 22-inch drainage pipe; the channel drains approximately 70 acres; and when the ground becomes saturated, the retention pond south of Heron Drive has four inches of overflow drainage into the exit channel. He stated when that occurs, flooding is serious on Heron Drive with water levels only inches away from entering many homes. He stated the 22-inch drain is approximately four tenths of a mile long with trash and silt flowing into it; some homes on Heron Drive are one and a half feet below homes on Coconut Lane; and when Coconut Lane’s drain is blocked, water gets up to six inches deep and threatens some of the homes. Mr. Miller stated new construction at the west end of Carambola Drive will remove approximately four acres of water-absorbing lowland and add four acres of watershed to the already inadequate system; with extreme rains, runoff overflow from the system into the retention pond south of Heron Drive is likely; and water intrusion into the homes is inevitable. He stated before addressing any additional construction or drainage design plans, the 22-inch pipe needs to be removed and the drainage ditch paralleling Coconut Lane enlarged. He explained a map of Hidden Hollow retention pond, and existing lowlands south of Hidden Hollow, which is the proposed Staghorn Subdivision; and stated if the developer is allowed to develop Staghorn, it will flood Carambola Drive and Coconut Lane plus a lot of other properties in the area. He stated where Staghorn Subdivision is intended is a relief valve to receive water when the ground is saturated and when there is heavy runoff; it is below the road level; consequently, it is going to have to be filled; and inquired where is all the water going if that happens. He stated somebody bought a pig in a poke and is trying to put houses on it; it should not be allowed; and the fire chief who lives down the road said the road should be open so he can get fire engines in there in case there are fires from houses further inward.

Dick Thompson of Merritt Island advised he has been before the Board about three times and hopefully this will be the last time; and he appreciates the Board’s indulgence and patience, and will not repeat what has been presented before, but will summarize a few points. He stated the Ordinance requires a 15-foot buffer left in a natural state; that has caused big problems; the Ordinance also refers to improving the quality of life as one of its objectives; but he does not see that it is improving the quality of life for a small subdivision such as his because of the impact it has on the lot size and therefore the value. He stated it is a small subdivision, but all subdivisions are going to be severely affected by the Ordinance; it requires 15 feet be dedicated to the County for its use and control; it is illegal according to the Constitution; and a paper was handed out to the Board this morning referring to that. He stated he does not know the legalities of whether that particular constitutional provision was challenged successfully or not, but he wanted to bring it to the Board’s attention. Mr. Thompson advised he offered to collect and direct the illegal runoff from Hidden Hollow Subdivision to the north of his project so it can be directed to their retention system; and he will provide a paved road with a cul de sac at the end so that emergency vehicles and garbage collection trucks can service the existing four houses that are on the south side of his project that are currently served by a dirt road without a cul de sac or any way to turn around. He stated it is an infill project with lots as big or bigger than the adjacent Subdivisions; the zoning is the same as the surrounding properties; the proposed homes that are going on the site will be as expensive if not more expensive than those that exist around it; so he is not doing anything to damage the community. Mr. Thompson stated the elevation of the ground is the same as that of adjacent property to the right before they developed their sites; he has a site that can be developed at the proper elevations already approved by the St. Johns River Water Management District for the drainage concept, which goes south not north as previously described by the speaker; and he does not have a lot of people here to represent his action, but he is the only property owner.

Ralph Maccarone of Merritt Island, advised he has been a resident for over 18 years and has lived in Hidden Hollow for the last four years; and requested the Board deny Mr. Thompson’s request for waiver of the 15-foot perimeter buffer. He stated this is the fourth time he has been here to discuss this item; there are residents on Hidden Hollow Drive, Carambola Drive, and Coconut Lane who cannot be here for every meeting on this issue and asked him to speak for them; and their position is there is nothing compelling, exceptional, unique, or even significant about this development plan to justify any waiver of the buffer at this time. He stated the buffer was passed for the very reasons the Board should not waive it here; Mr. Thompson is trying to put an access road right along people’s properties and against their driveways; he seeks to knock down huge oak trees and the light on the other side of the tract; and his request for a waiver is totally premature at this point. Mr. Maccarone stated the current access to the property is 25 feet; according to staff in the Land Development Department and discussions that took place here at the December 17, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting, the 25-foot access allows Mr. Thompson the possibility of building two houses on the parcel; if the parcel is divided into two lots, each lot would be approximately two acres in size; and that would make the lots compatible with surrounding lots of South Merritt Estates Subdivision. He stated access to the parcel is gained only through Carambola Drive in South Merritt Estates; and with the lots being roughly two acres in size, there would be no hardship on Mr. Thompson to comply with the buffer Ordinance that was put into effect on December 4, 2001. He stated Mr. Thompson has stated in three previous meetings that the money he invested in the land purchase constituted his retirement savings; most, if not all, people have made poor financial decisions in their lifetimes; and unfortunately, Mr. Thompson made one when he purchased the property without gaining the necessary access for developing the property as he envisions. He stated the important point is that the Board is not custodian for either his or Mr. Thompson’s retirement plan. Mr. Maccarone advised according to County records, Mr. Thompson purchased the parcel in 1989 for $111,200; he then had the opportunity in 1998 and 1999 to purchase an additional parcel that would have given him the access he would have needed to develop the property to his currently maxed out plan; that parcel sold for $59,000; and simply put, he made another poor decision by not purchasing that parcel and now is trying to have Brevard County bail him out by asking for this waiver so he can develop his tract with the maximum of eight lots. He stated it is not the Board’s job to ensure that their financial gains are maximized in regard to their investments; Mr. Thompson stated at previous meetings that he needs to have eight lots out of the parcel for it to be economically feasible; Mr. Thompson can put two lots on the parcel and get his money back without any problems; but unfortunately he is trying to hit a grand slam home run with this investment instead of a double that the current County law will allow. He stated any waiver approved for the tract would seem to be a mistake at this time; the drainage problem is already there; Mr. Thompson stated time and again that Hidden Hollow Subdivision is dumping a lot of water onto his property; and at the October 17 meeting, he presented a letter dated September 26, 1996 from St. Johns River Water Management District to Mr. Thompson stating that Hidden Hollow runoff was not the problem. He stated at the December 17 meeting he showed photographs of standing water on the property; there is no reason to address the buffer waiver separately from all the other key issues regarding the tract, including access, flooding, density and others; and suggested the Board see if the land can be used for two lots. He stated if that is the final conclusion, there probably are several cost effective ways for Mr. Thompson to put the buffer in place. Mr. Maccarone stated Commissioner Pritchard said he is opposed to the buffer Ordinance in general and in principle without any specific regard to their case; if he or any other Commissioner wishes to revisit the Ordinance that it passed 13 months ago, he or she should do so without regard to this case; and it should not make this little tract the stalking horse for a larger issue that the Board may want to pursue in the future. He stated they do not want this ill-conceived project to be used as a political football in reviewing the Ordinance; and the Board should let the Ordinance stand in this case and elsewhere until it decides to change it. He stated there is no justification to ignore the Ordinance for one special interest person or group; if Commissioner Pritchard is true to his stated position on buffers, he will pursue that route and ask for Countywide opinion on it; and they request the Board deny the request of Mr. Thompson for the waiver of the 15-foot perimeter buffer. Chairperson Colon stated Commissioner Pritchard was not on the Board at that time; with Mr. Maccarone responding that is right, it was Commissioner O'Brien, but he has talked to Commissioner Pritchard.

Gene Canada of Merritt Island stated his lot abuts the proposed subdivision; a major step for responsible growth was taken with the enactment of the 15-foot buffer requirement; and it provides a desirable natural boundary between neighborhoods. He stated there is a proposed drainage easement between all lots on Hidden Hollow Drive with the exception of his lot; there is no drainage easement behind his lot to buffer the proposed Staghorn Subdivision except the proposed 15-foot buffer; and he is concerned about the drainage issue because with no buffer or drainage easement behind his property, there would be nothing there. He stated waiving the buffer would be detrimental to the value of property and quality of life of all surrounding property owners, especially his; and requested the Board continue to support responsible growth and not waive the buffer in this case.

Roger Vizioli of Merritt Island stated he has been at his current address in South Merritt Estates for over 17 years; and he is here once again to request the Board deny the request for waiver of the perimeter buffer as it pertains to the proposed Staghorn Subdivision. He stated the proposed development, which currently depicts eight home sites and access road and retention pond on four acres is not in keeping with the surrounding home sites; and the adjoining properties on the south side are all larger than one acre, which raises the question of compatibility. He advised Commissioner Scarborough stated at the last meeting that the issue of drainage and flooding in the area must be evaluated in conjunction with any action relative to the requested waiver; and he would like to add that an acceptable solution to the existing drainage and flooding problems must be developed and implemented prior to taking any action relative to the requested waiver. Mr. Vizioli thanked the Board for its continued attention to this critical item and its potential negative impact on their highly-desirable standard of living in Brevard County. He stated he does not want to come to the Board in a year or two showing the flood damage and water damage caused to his property and his neighbors’ properties because of the lack of attention to the flooding and drainage problems.

Robert Sisko of Merritt Island stated he is opposed to the waiver of the perimeter buffer for the proposed Staghorn Subdivision for the following reasons: (1) compatibility with surrounding properties, access through South Merritt Estates, properties averaging over one acre, proposed lots smaller than lots in Hidden Hollow, and the map showing the lots squeezed pretty tight; (2) the current zoning on the last remaining tract of land is two homes because it has a 25-foot access road to the property, and he had ample opportunity to buy adjacent lot. He stated Mr. Thompson mentioned that Dr. Bongers would not sell the lot to him, but that is not true; he wanted the extra feet for free and wanted Dr. Bongers to give it to him; Dr. Bongers asked him for an offer, and never got one from Mr. Thompson; so to say the property was never offered to Mr. Thompson is not true. He stated the property was on the market for eight months on the multiple listing service with a sign on it; it was sold to Dr. Bongers by Ms. Sisko, his wife; so he knows how long it was on the market which gave Mr. Thompson ample opportunity to buy it. Mr. Sisko stated Mr. Thompson wants eight lots on the property and said it would not be economically feasible unless he can put eight houses on it; when he bought that lot it was zoned for two houses before the buffer Ordinance was put in place; so it is not the buffer Ordinance that is stopping him from putting in eight houses; it was zoned for two houses then and is zoned for two houses now; and with or without the buffer, it is going to stay zoned for two houses unless the Board allows him to double it to four, which he would ask the Board not to do. He stated he objects to dual usage of the perimeter buffer; that would make the situation worse with complete clear cutting of the back of that area where he has the best trees, including 100-year old oak trees and big, beautiful bean trees. He stated if the drainage canal is put directly behind the property, they will lose all the best trees on his lot. He noted Mr. Thompson is probably going to tear everything down as it is; and requested the Board not consider grandfathering the property because the requirement for the proper permitting was not done in time. He stated Mr. Thompson should not get a waiver nor be grandfathered in; requested the Board keep the law intact; advised he doubts Mr. Thompson is going to put up a quality subdivision as he is trying to get past every opportunity to spend one penny to do it right; and he imagines when he gets the opportunity to do anything in there, he would not do it well. He noted just looking at his sign, he did not bring a quality project product in here to show the Board; so he is sure he has no experience putting up a quality product in his backyard.

Chairperson Colon advised there was a card from Dolores Kane who could not be here and wanted to make sure Mr. Knox got a copy of it regarding Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2 of the U.s. Constitution and giving examples of expo-facto and malfeasance.

Mr. Thompson explained the drawing showing the existing dirt road that he owns to access the four lots, the drainage system, wet retention and dry retention areas, and the area needed to channel runoff from Hidden Hollow to their retention system. He stated it would get their water into their retention system consisting of a wet and dry retention all the way along the back of the lots; and he will provide seven feet of easement within the 30-foot drainage easement he has planned to collect their water and get it to their retention system. He stated the plan was carefully reviewed by the St. Johns River Water Management District as far as drainage goes; it has been approved; he has a current active permit; the retention system discharges at the corner; and the water goes south, not north. He stated it will not affect the lots on Coconut Lane and will go out through the existing drainage to the south.

Chairperson Colon advised before the Board is a request for waiver of the perimeter buffer; and inquired what would the Board want to do. She requested staff give the Board feedback on where the issue is at this time.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the summary explanation says the Board directed staff to prepare a report on the residential buffer Ordinance; he does not have that report; and in speaking with Mr. Washburn on alternatives for Staghorn, one alternative Mr. Thompson was amenable to is a seven and a half foot buffer. He stated there is an issue about access and the amount of houses that could be put there; and if he does not make it a subdivision he would not fall into all the other categories, and the economy of scale of what kind of profit he could make by not putting x amount more into something hoping to recover x amount more from that something. He requested staff address those concerns also in the report on the residential buffer Ordinance.

Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Washburn advised the Board asked staff to do two separate reports on the residential buffer Ordinance; at the last meeting the Board directed staff to take the Ordinance back to the CRG’s, BCAC, and LPA to get their input on the Ordinance before bringing it back to the Board; and that has not been done as yet. He stated he asked Mr. Thompson to look at what his financial breaking point would be on development of the property; he does not know the results; the reports are attached to the Agenda item; and the report on the last memo from the Clerk’s office dealt with what is to go on in the future with respect to the buffer Ordinance in general. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that has been done; with Mr. Washburn responding no, they have to schedule it before those boards and discuss it with each of them. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the status of the preparation of a report on the residential buffer Ordinance and has any scheduling be done; with Mr. Washburn responding no. Commissioner Pritchard inquired when can the Board anticipate getting the report; with Mr. Washburn responding between March and the first part of April. Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the alternative of not making it a subdivision and the economy of scale associated with that; with Mr. Washburn responding there is a 25-foot access to the property, which is wide enough to permit two lots based on the easement Ordinance. Mr. Washburn advised the Board has, in other cases, granted additional lots over an easement; and normally it only grants one or two additional lots, which would give a total of three or four lots on that property. He stated whether Mr. Thompson has looked at that, he does not now; that would require him to come to the Board for a waiver to the buffer Ordinance; it would not require him to do a subdivision; and the 25-foot width at the access point would be sufficient for development of those lots. Commissioner Pritchard stated he met with some residents of Hidden Hollow and could not help but appreciate their cheering section when they were making comments; he is trying to work the issues out so it is in the best interest of all parties; and he is opposed to the 15-foot buffer as a general rule, as he told the residents. He stated it is an ill-conceived item that with the best of intentions is going to cause nothing but problems; if it were not a personal thing with the residents in that area, they might feel differently; and if they had to put a 15-foot buffer in their backyards, the opportunity to build might not have existed for them because of the location of their road. He stated his opposition to the buffer still stands; he will like nothing better than to see it go away; but the issue today is dealing with Mr. Thompson’s concern, and he needs more comments from the Board.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if development of the property in any manner is hinged upon the access; with Mr. Washburn responding the applicant is asking for waiver of the 15-foot buffer in order for his engineer to proceed with design; at that point, when he finishes his preliminary engineering and preliminary plat, he would come to the Land Development Section to submit those for review; at that time, he would have to address the 25-foot access point, which would either require a waiver from the Board to go from 50 feet to 25 feet, or he would have to purchase more property.

Commissioner Higgs inquired why is the Board discussing the perimeter buffer when he does not have the access handled; and if he cannot get to the subdivision, he cannot build it. Mr. Washburn stated he is entitled to ask for the waiver; most engineers are going to ask upfront for the waiver of the perimeter buffer because they have to figure it into the design of the property; and if they design it counting on getting the waiver, they have to throw those plans out and come back again if it is denied. Commissioner Higgs stated he has to have the access also. Mr. Washburn stated he understands that, but he chose to ask for the 15-foot buffer first, which he is entitled to do.

Commissioner Carlson stated everything he is entitled to he has chosen to do; those are the steps he would like to do versus actually knowing he has a piece of property that he can purchase to widen his access; and inquired if that is a proper assumption, that he is going to take the system all the way to the end and hope for approval; with Mr. Thompson responding before he purchased the property, he carefully came to the County and quizzed them on the particular access and whether 25 feet would be adequate for a two-lane road in there; and the answer was yes. He stated he asked if he would have any problems getting permission to do that knowing that the normal is 50 feet and he needed to pinch down to 25 feet in order to meet the criteria; and he was told he would have no problems and staff can grant that. He stated he was told that by the County’s chief engineer. Commissioner Higgs inquired how long ago was that; with Mr. Thompson responding in 1989. Commissioner Higgs stated the rules may have changed and the engineer certainly has changed. Mr. Thompson stated the engineer has changed; but he had confidence the rules would not change once he started the process, which he did back then. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Thompson is going to come back to the Board on a vested rights claim for the access; with Mr. Thompson responding yes, if that is necessary, he will be back to ask for a waiver of the criteria he was told he could get; and he expects to be able to get it because to him it makes logical sense. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Thompson was told he could get a waiver; with Mr. Thompson responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired who can give waivers; with Mr. Washburn responding the Subdivision Regulations state that the Land Development Engineer may grant certain waivers based on certain criteria; the Land Development Engineer in the past may have granted waivers, and Mr. Thompson may very well have been told that; he asked Mr. Thompson if he had anything in writing from the County that said that was going to be the case; and he could not produce anything in writing from the County. He stated it is normal practice, at least for him, to bring all waivers to Subdivision Regulations or anything of that nature to the Board. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board is going to see the waiver request on the access, all the discussions about buffers may be inappropriate if it is not willing to grant the waiver on the access. She stated it would be more appropriate to go back to square one and determine if the Board is going to grant a waiver to get to the property.

Commissioner Carlson stated what is before the Board is the waiver of the 15-foot buffer to assist the applicant with design of the property and the process that continues until he gets to the point where he needs the access, then the access waiver will come to the Board. She stated it sounds like the cart before the horse; perhaps the Board needs to deny the waiver and wait for some other form of the issue; she does not know what to do at this point; and inquired if there is a legal way to improve upon the process. County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Board has a waiver request in front of it; it needs to say yes or no; and Mr. Thompson can come back.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not want to see Mr. Thompson spend an exorbitant amount of money on redesigning a subdivision should the Board grant the waiver based on the assumption he may get another waiver for a 25-foot access for the number of lots he wants to put on the property. He stated if the Board grants the 15-foot buffer waiver today and Mr. Thompson spends all the money on engineering and architectural design and comes back and the Board does not give him the access he wants for the number of lots he wants, then he has wasted a lot of money. He stated he does not see where it would be to his benefit to take it through that route; and it would seem he would come back with a request for the access and from that point move forward. He stated his point is Mr. Thompson should come back Commissioner Pritchard stated it appears the 15-foot buffer is not working; if it is not working, the Board will forever be getting requests for waivers; so maybe the buffer needs to go away. He stated if Mr. Thompson comes back for the road access and gets the access he wants, then he will know how to design his subdivision; and inquired why would he lay out a subdivision with all the amenities for eight lots if he is not going to get the access; with Mr. Thompson responding his design is complete and has been completed for four months. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it is complete with eight lots and a 25-foot access; with Mr. Thompson responding that is correct. Commissioner Pritchard stated with a 25-foot access, Mr. Thompson cannot put eight lots on the property; with Mr. Thompson responding that is not what he was told by staff and he counted on what he was told.

Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Thompson said he was told he could apply for a waiver; and that is exactly what staff said. Mr. Thompson stated he was informed that staff would grant the waiver fully, firmly, and without question. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board needs the paperwork to follow up with that so it has some form for vesting Mr. Thompson’s property, otherwise it does not have anything to prove it. She stated she does not know if staff has that paperwork in writing, but she doubts it.

Mr. Thompson stated the reason the County engineer said there was no problem in granting the waiver was that it is literally one infinitesimal point where it is 25 feet; it is 50 feet in front and behind that point; and that is plenty wide to put a 22-foot curb and gutter roadway through there.

Commissioner Pritchard suggested Mr. Thompson return with a drawing showing the access road as he proposes and let the Board address that; otherwise he is going to spend a lot of money and may not get what he would like. Mr. Thompson stated his drawing is complete. Commissioner Pritchard requested a drawing of the access road showing the curb and gutter, road bed, and 50 feet on either side. He stated unless Mr. Thompson can sway the Board to give him what he wants, he will be spinning his wheels and spending his money, which he does not want to see done. Mr. Thompson stated he does not want that either; however, he wants to get his waiver of the buffer Ordinance, and needs a yes or no. Commissioner Pritchard stated his position on the buffer Ordinance is that it should go; he would say that to anyone in the County because that is how he feels; apparently it is not working, otherwise the Board would not get requests for waivers; and that is his opinion.

Commissioner Carlson stated they were asked to go to the various groups; and it would be nice to know what the community thinks before the Board applies its decision. Commissioner Higgs stated for other waivers the Board allowed of the 15 feet, there were other methods by which a buffer was provided, i.e. a wetland, golf course, 30-foot canal, drainage system, etc.; but on the side of Carambola Drive there is only five feet; and a road abutting people’s homes five feet from the property line is the reason the Board has the 15-foot buffer. She stated allowing other mechanisms and joint use of the buffer for drainage makes sense to her; so she can look at part of the waiver being requested and be flexible about that, but not on other parts.

Chairperson Colon stated the issue has been before the Board several times; she can understand the comments regarding access; that was one thing she mentioned from the beginning, that this is not the only issue, as there are many; but the Board should at least see how it wants to go with what is in front of it.

Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem putting out a motion to deny the waiver of the 15-foot buffer only because once the Board gets the additional items from Mr. Thompson in terms of waiver for the access, it may clarify a lot of things; but at this point, she does not see compelling evidence to lead the Board down the path of waiving the 15-foot perimeter buffer. She stated Mr. Maccarone stated the Board is not here to maximize Mr. Thompson’s investment; Mr. Thompson does not have documentation to guarantee the 1989 discussion he had with the County engineer; so the Board does not have anything to base vested rights on. She stated a lot of things may occur that may end up wasting his time and money; she would not want him to do that; so she will move to deny the request for waiver.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny the request of Dick Thompson for a waiver of the perimeter buffer for Staghorn Subdivision. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Scarborough and Carlson voted aye; and Commissioners Pritchard, Higgs, and Colon voted nay.

Commissioner Higgs stated she voted no on the motion because she would like to talk about a waiver she would agree with on one side of the property. She stated where there is a 30-foot stormwater detention, there could be a joint buffer and stormwater on that side of those lots; and that waiver would make sense to her. She stated it was done where there was a 100-foot Florida Power & Light Company easement on the back side of lots in District 1; and if there is a 30-foot stormwater area on the back of several of the lots, then there could be joint use of the 15 feet as meeting the requirement on one side of Lots 2 through 8. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem with that, but did not know the Board could give partial waivers. Commissioner Higgs stated the buffer is required on all sides; where the stormwater detention is, that can also include native vegetation as a buffer; and she can go along with the waiver on those lots only.

Commissioner Pritchard stated if the Board is going to grant a waiver of the 15-foot buffer that borders Hidden Hollow and in favor of the stormwater retention area, the stormwater retention is clear cut so it will not do what Hidden Hollow residents want; the Board is trying to work out a win/win situation, but it is taking out the one thing Hidden Hollow wants with the best of intentions for Mr. Thompson; and that is his dilemma and why he said the buffer does not work. He stated magnificent oak trees are his passion; he does not want to see them fall; he wants to work with Mr. Thompson so he can build something that is going to leave as many of the trees as possible; and the 30-foot wide retention is definitely a hindrance. He stated there may be other things they can do to keep the trees and x number of lots to do something with the entranceway; there are many things to consider; and trying to get everybody happy on this is going to be most difficult. He stated wrestling with the 15-foot buffer at this point is not going to do a thing unless it is eliminated Countywide; and there is also the issue of the 25-foot access.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Pritchard has hit on some key points, but it would have been good if he had sat through the discussion about a development in District 4 that had incompatible properties sitting next to each other and heard what led the Board to the 15-foot buffer. He stated the Board has granted a number of waivers for different reasons; but one thing he is beginning to recognize is waivers have generally occurred where there has been a consensus and no objections; but what he heard today is a new element, the removal of the trees. He stated it has to be a case-by-case basis; when this number of people come out again and again, there is factual basis that there is some reason for the 15-foot buffer; and it can vary from place to place, but in this case, they have some trees; and inquired if the Board allows that to have some standing. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has the right to waive the buffer, but the person asking for the waiver has a burden to show that there will be no negative impact; the negative impact could be anything the other side could bring forward; and the Board has head numerous comments by numerous people about negative impacts with this waiver. He stated at this juncture he does not think the Board will get over the hurdle; it has been extremely patient and diligent in its inquiry into why it should waive the buffer; he does not think it will make any progress; the ultimate vote is going to be to deny the waiver; or the Board can table it again, but some day it is going to deny this waiver.

Commissioner Higgs stated there is a way if one would think creatively on the stormwater issue to have a buffer that is acceptable to the people in Hidden Hollow and maybe some joint use of the buffer and stormwater retention area. She stated the Board may need to go back to the motion and deny it so it will inspire some creative reworking on the stormwater; and there has to be a way with a 30-foot drainage easement to make an effort in being creative. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is where he was the last time, then the Board heard today that it could jeopardize some trees; one of the things with the buffer is to maintain the native vegetation inherent in that buffer; and it should not do away with that element, which was the key element of why the Board passed the Ordinance originally. Commissioner Higgs stated there are drainage systems throughout the County that have maintained the native vegetation but worked around it with their stormwater systems. Commissioner Scarborough stated if Mr. Thompson wants to go out and have a tree survey done where the trees are identified, the caliber of the trees identified, and all those things, which is very expensive, and submit that to the Board, that is something for consideration; then the Board can make some progress; but short of that, he is going to vote for denial of the waiver. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the motion was to deny; with Chairperson Colon responding yes, and it failed. Commissioner Higgs advised Commissioner Carlson if she would make the same motion, she will vote for it because there is a way to find joint use of the 30 feet required for drainage and there is a way to work it out without waivers all around the property.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to deny the request for waiver of the 15-foot perimeter buffer for Staghorn Subdivision, as requested by Dick Thompson.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Commissioner Carlson would consider amending the motion to deny it on three sides and on the side with the 30 fee for drainage the Board would be willing to work with the applicant for joint use of that drainage area. Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board does not have a tree survey, it does not know what it is up against. Commissioner Higgs advised she will vote with the motion.

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

Commissioner Pritchard recommended Mr. Thompson come back with a drawing of the 25-foot access so the Board can see what it can do for Hidden Hollow and Staghorn and save the trees. He stated it might not be a subdivision, it might be four houses, but he would like to see what the Board can do to maximize Mr. Thompson’s opportunity to put something on that land.

REPORT, RE: SPEED HUMP COST SHARING

James Goodson of Rockledge advised he was told the speed humps on Rockledge Drive would be heard today, but found out that is not the item; however, he would like to speak to the cost sharing issue.

Commissioner Carlson stated this is actually a report for speed hump cost sharing in terms of the cost to the County; with Mr. Goodson responding he understands that; Public Works called him in December and told him the speed humps on Rockledge Drive would be heard on this date; he spent the day here waiting to have the Board understand the need for those speed humps and the trouble they went through doing the petitions and all that; and the County lost their petition. He stated those things should have been installed months ago; so he would like to speak to the issue because it affects the cost. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Goodson makes it sound like the Board has already seen the speed hump request; with Mr. Goodson responding he does not know if it has or has not.

Chairperson Colon stated they submitted the petition to County staff; the issue before the Board is not those speed humps; and the Board would have to consider grandfathering in those in the system if it decides to approve cost sharing. She inquired about the petition that was submitted; with Mr. Goodson responding he submitted the petition in April 2002; it was lost until they continued to call and staff finally found it hidden at the back of a desk and pulled it out. Chairperson Colon inquired if the County has it; with Mr. Goodson responding yes. Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Goodson had an opportunity to see what is before the Board; with Mr. Goodson responding no. Chairperson Colon suggested the Board have its discussion and let someone give Mr. Goodson feedback because it would probably affect him.

Mr. Goodson stated he read some of the options; speed humps are not something that is desirable for a lot of people; it is not desirable for him; he would prefer not to have them; however, they have a speed limit of 20 mph on Rockledge Drive and cannot get the Sheriff’s Department to enforce that speed limit. He stated they are cooperative when they call and say they will send someone out and monitor, but it never happens; motorcycles are going up and down the roads with illegal mufflers and noise and exceeding the speed limit by more than 10 mph; therefore, the speed humps have become a necessity from a safety standpoint. He stated Rockledge Drive is a narrow two-lane road where properties go up to the road; and in order to slow down the traffic, they need speed humps; and inquired if the Board should charge the property owners the cost of the speed humps when it is a safety issue that should be addressed by the County. He stated maybe that is right, but the neighbors on Rockledge Drive who signed the petition would not want to pay additional costs to install the speed humps. He stated he does not know a person on Rockledge Drive whose taxes are less than $4,800; and to add a tax on top of that for the speed humps is not right. Mr. Goodson stated they went through the process in 2001; in April he got all the signatures turned in, but it never got processed; and if it had been processed, they would not be here talking about should they pay or not pay for the speed humps. He stated they work because the County installed some speed humps down the road and they do a good job slowing down the traffic; but charging the homeowners who live in that area is not correct.

Chairperson Colon advised if the Board chooses to go with the charges, it would have to discuss the need to grandfather in those that are already in the system. Mr. Goodson stated it is a safety issue; people cross the road to get to the river, and it is dangerous; one person was killed and there have been several accidents; and the survey showed that everybody was speeding on Rockledge Drive.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the survey was done and if the petition went through the five steps to determine if speed bumps are appropriate; with Traffic Engineering Director Dick Thompson responding staff finished the entire study, had it prepared to bring to the Board, then the issue came up about evaluating the pros and cons of charging applicants for speed humps, so staff put it on hold until a decision was made. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it qualified under the standards; with Mr. Thompson responding he thinks it did.

Chairperson Colon inquired if it is the only one in the system at this time; with Mr. Thompson responding he does not think so. Mr. Goodson stated they followed the process, and had it been forwarded on, it would have been in by now; and they feel like they are being held hostage to pay the cost. Chairperson Colon stated the Board has not voted the cost sharing in yet.

Commissioner Pritchard stated there are five criteria; the sixth is emergency vehicle response and the affect it may have on the chassis of emergency vehicles. He stated impacting a speed hump is far worst than impacting a speed bump. Mr. Thompson stated that was dealt with several years ago before he came to the County; emergency personnel do not like speed humps but understand the need for them; and they would rather slow down a bit than to have a crash that causes them to make another run. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the infrequency of the emergency response is overshadowed by the daily vehicle traffic on the roadway; with Mr. Thompson responding to some degree, as in a sense it is a trade off. Mr. Thompson stated there is a problem with speeding; it is difficult for the Sheriff’s Department to cover all the areas in the County effectively because it requires continuous presence day in and day out; and speed humps have a tendency to slow traffic down, which they hope will prevent crashes. Commissioner Pritchard suggested a line item on the petition to make the neighborhood aware that installation of speed humps can reduce the response time of an emergency vehicle, particularly a large fire engine. He stated time is of the essence in the emergency response business and could be the difference between life and death in some situations; so it is a consideration the neighborhood should be aware of. Mr. Thompson stated that is in the report that goes out with the petition so they are aware, when they sign the petition, if they get speed humps there could be some delay.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board is going to discuss the merits of doing the charges. He stated he voted to get the report, but what concerns him is if money is an issue when dealing with safety. He stated there are pros and cons and different opinions on how much is subjective and how much is objective; and throwing a monetary element into it may have the propensity to have speed humps in more affluent areas and not the areas that have a greater safety demand that are less affluent. He stated it would be best not to add the contribution; the number that was presented is a quarter million dollars; divided by 12 is $20,000 a month; and compared to the total transportation budget, that amount is not much. He stated the costs for doing liens and advertisements, and staff time of moving into more complex financial issues may be more expensive and would move staff out of dealing with problems and into a financing methodology. Commissioner Scarborough stated there will always be people who will say they do not want to pay, should not pay, were not notified, and were not part of the petition; it can be extremely time consuming even if the amount per household is $21; and it could cost a half day of valuable staff time in discussions, so he will move to deny it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to deny the cost-sharing program for installation of speed humps.

Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees with Commissioner Scarborough, but inquired if they do not meet the criteria and still want the speed humps, will the County still be obliged to pay for them; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board needs to be in control of safety independent of finances, and $1,600 should not get in the way of a safety decision.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING COASTAL SETBACK AND
CONTROL LINES

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the County Attorney reviewed the legislative intent; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding yes. Commissioner Carlson stated she thought there was going to be a report back to the Board and she does not see one; with Mr. Knox responding he did not do a report. Commissioner Carlson inquired if he wants to give the Board a report now; with Mr. Knox responding it looks fine.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the December 3, 2002 proposal talks about net natural accretion; that means the beach is widening naturally; the Board is cognizant of the fact that one storm event can wipe it out ; but it is opening Pandora’s box with the January 14, 2003 proposal. He stated the Board is in litigation because it has to acquire the right to put sand on people’s properties so they can have the ability to come in and petition to build closer to the water; that is madness; so he will not support the January 14 proposal, but will support the December 3, 2002 proposal.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the legislative intent to revise Chapter 62, Article XII, Coastal Setback and Control Lines, as presented in the December 3, 2002 proposal; and grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Brevard County Code. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: CONTRACTOR LICENSING FOR PLASTIC BOAT DOCKS

Commissioner Pritchard advised Rose Lyons, his Chief Administrative Aide, and he took a field trip to West Mims; they went through the factory and looked at the product and were quite impressed with it; and Mr. Polk has developed a new technology for installation of docks, piers, etc. He stated generally when building a dock, they sink the pilings, attach stringers, nail deck boards, and essentially fabricate it on site piece-by-piece; and with this method, the majority of it is built in the factory and carried out on frames which can be made in any size and color. He stated the technology is innovative; and it becomes an assembling system that differs from typical marine construction. He stated they were impressed not only by the system, but the workings of the operation and the caliber of the employees. He stated Picture 1 shows the deck platform lying on the frame; Picture 2 shows the light weight of the frame with just one deck board; Picture 3 shows the frame and a girder type beam used as the pile in the construction; and Picture 4 is the finished product which has been covered with indoor/outdoor carpeting. He stated the construction was done in the Indian River at Port St. John; it was done very well; in speaking with the applicant, he was impressed with his knowledge and credentials and the methodology he developed; and he asked him to come to the meeting today to speak on his behalf and answer any questions staff or the Board may have.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Commissioner Pritchard would say it is a specialized process that would need a specialized license; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he wants the Board to hear what Mr. Polk has to say first then to what Onnie Massey and Cliff Repperger would suggest.

Patrick Keefe, representing the Florida Marine Contractors Association and owner of Dream Docks, Inc., advised he was the first fully licensed marine contractor in Brevard County and the only Brevard County member who is also a member of the Citizens for Florida Waterways and Florida Marine Contractors Association, which has over 150 members. He stated he has been building docks and seawalls in Brevard County since 1976; many people have come and gone in this industry; it is a very intense industry and involves more than being able to put a piling in the ground; and it involves many permits from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Environmental Protection, Army Corps of Engineers, and compliance with local Ordinances. He stated last month there was a public hearing on boat docks held at the Radisson on SR A1A in Indialantic; it was held without one member of the Board or County staff present; and it concerned whether or not docks were going to be allowed in Florida any longer. He stated there is a moratorium on building docks in southwest Florida; Brevard County is currently being targeted by the Save The Manatee Club, to be referred to as “the Club” from hereon; the Club has filed and come to an agreement on a lawsuit with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and so far that agreement has been kept a secret. Mr. Keefe stated why anyone would want to get into this industry is beyond him; the marine industry is in danger; his advice to anyone wishing to get into the industry would be to be careful what they wish for because their wish may come true. He stated four years is not a long time to learn this intense industry; there is a lot more to it than how far to put a piling in the ground; the dock and seawall Ordinances in Brevard County are vague at best; and Contractor Licensing runs around the County citing people for unwritten ordinances all the time. He stated they think just because a person has a contractors license he has to agree to join the military and to let them blackmail him and get a piece of the pie by fining people for conducting a service or repair or installing a personal watercraft lift and many other aspects of the industry, which are not covered under any ordinances. Mr. Keefe stated if they do not pay the fine, they get on a blackmail list; if they disagree with them or refuse to pay the fine, they use the list as leverage and threaten the contractor with loss of his or her license or appearing in front of a special master; and they always say they are in violation of a written ordinance but cannot produce the ordinance. He stated he applied for a permit to build a dock in a private lake only to be told that a permit is not required for a dock in a private lake; a few months later another contractor contacted him and told him the contractor licensing fined him for building a dock in a private lake without a permit; and he believes the contractor licensing is fining and blackmailing fully licensed, insured, taxpaying, permit paying, and law abiding citizens because of the vague dock Ordinance. He stated the Ordinance was written in 1989 to control dock sizes; Contractor Licensing is using the vagueness of the Ordinance to generate revenues to justify their jobs with the County; the Ordinance mainly discusses size and height and nothing about engineering, materials, culvert pipes, mangroves, etc. and other problems that could arise during a dock project; and it is a one dock fits all and nothing about pilings, boatlifts, davits, materials, or whether it works or not. He stated he wrote letters to the Commissioners and staff letting them know the Ordinance is vague and has a lot of holes in it; and they are trying to hold their finger in a dam that could explode any minute. He stated a person wants to build docks with plastic instead of wood; and inquired if he should be classed as a marine contractor or not. He stated if the County had a clear and understandable ordinance, it could probably come up with the answer by reading the ordinance; and Contractor Licensing would not be able to fine and blackmail law-abiding taxpaying citizens. He stated plastic decking is not new; it has been around for 15 years; and he has a sample of it if anybody would like to see it.

Commissioner Carlson inquired where is the dock in picture #4.

Nick Witek, Chairman of the Brevard County Contractor Licensing Board, advised the board has jurisdiction over the examination, qualification, and licensing of various trades in the County; some time ago the County decided to license marine contractors; the heart of the trades that they license has to do with structural integrity; they look out for the public interest; and they license marine contractors because of the nature of the trade and if a dock or seawall were to fail, the public could be injured. He stated they license masonry contractors, framers, etc.; and their concern is the safety of the public. He stated the Board adopted an Ordinance that in order to take the exam for a marine contractor license, four years of experience is required in the related trade; when Mr. Polk appeared before the board, he could not show four years of experience; the Ordinance also takes into account up to two years for formal education related to that field; and the board did credit Mr. Polk for two years due to his education. He stated Mr. Polk’s education had nothing to do with dock building or marine contracting, but rather with structural and chemical engineering along the lines of what would be needed to design or invent some product. Mr. Witek advised they are not sure the dock in picture #4 has a permit or whether there were engineering drawings submitted through the appropriate department; nevertheless, Mr. Polk could not come up with the two years of actual experience for the board to allow him to take the marine contractors exam, so the board denied his request. He stated Mr. Polk would have to take the exam and receive a score of 75. He advised the matter was appealed to the Board of County Commissioners and was returned to their board for reconsideration; the board had no new information to indicate the experience level of Mr. Polk; his product is a great product; but their concern is, whether he used wood pilings, concrete pilings, plastic, or anything else, the basic fundamentals of dock building could not be shown by him. Mr. Witek stated they have to inject piles into the river’s bottom or drive them in; they have to connect all the pieces structurally; he could not show any experience in any of those fields; so as a result, the board upheld its previous decision to deny the request to take an exam. He stated Mr. Polk’s product is terrific; but the board did not care what the product was, it was concerned that he had the experience to put in a quality dock for someone who paid him to do that, and that the product would show good workmanship and not fail.

Commissioner Carlson advised her office was told by Onnie Massey that the appropriate place to appeal an issue of the Contractor Licensing Board is in court and not in front of this Board; and inquired if that is true; with Mr. Witek responding that is his understanding of the Ordinance. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Witek thought it was strange that it was brought back to the Contractor Licensing Board to reassess; with Mr. Witek responding yes he did, but they dealt with what was brought back to them. Chairperson Colon advised the Board did not know that they had to go to court at that time.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Witek sees any reason why the Board of County Commissioners should ask the Contractor Licensing Board to review the Ordinance for changes because there were comments today that went beyond the product to the Ordinance; and inquired if there is a desire on the part of the board to review the Ordinance; with Mr. Witek responding no, that has not been brought to the board; and it is not something the board would deal with as it relates to engineering and requirements for permitting. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board did an Ordinance review, it would probably refer it to the Contractor Licensing Board; and inquired if staff heard other comments regarding the Ordinance in general; with Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Washburn responding no, but what Mr. Keefe was talking about would be under the Building Department and Zoning regulations. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff heard complaints from the public regarding the Ordinance; with Mr. Washburn responding any time someone does not get a permit and feel like they should, staff hears complaints; but staff has not reviewed the Ordinance. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was trying to see to what extent there was a more general concern.

Commissioner Carlson inquired could the Ordinance be reviewed by the Marine Advisory Board; with Mr. Washburn responding he is sure it could.

Commissioner Higgs stated Ordinance regarding the Contractor Licensing Board was developed by the Board of County Commissioners; and that Ordinance requires any appeal go to court as opposed to the Board. County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Ordinance provides for appeal to the circuit court, but the Board can change that if it wants to. Commissioner Higgs inquired if an appeal of denial of a license would go to court; with Mr. Knox responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board were to create a specialized license for the particular skill, would that be within the purview of the Board; with Mr. Knox responding that is correct.

Commissioner Pritchard advised the Ordinance needs to be reviewed, but the Marine Advisory Council is not the agency to do that; and the Building and Construction Advisory Committee should review it. He stated his first introduction to Brevard County government was as a participant in the committee to develop the seawall ordinance in 1995; and suggested the Ordinance be given to the Building and Construction Advisory Committee with one or two participants from the Marine Advisory Council to sit in and go through it. He suggested Mr. Keefe be a participant since he has problems with it and firsthand knowledge, and the Committee come up with something that is going to solve the concerns he has and make it right.

Chairperson Colon stated she would like to get some feedback from the chairman of that board if the Board decides to go in that direction.

Commissioner Carlson inquired where is the dock in picture #4 and is it permitted.

Dale Polk of Mims stated it is not his dock; it was installed at his parents’ home in Bellwood; and it is legal. He stated he and his father started the business in Mims about seven years ago; they developed a technology not to build docks but to build large structural parts, which they consider to be four feet by four feet; and they did it in plastic. He stated the reason they did it in plastic is because of the advantages; it is cheap and durable; the technology they invented is to make plastics with strength; and they have been successful in doing so. He stated they have licensed technology to companies such as Masonite; and plastic doors in the future will be their plastic doors. He stated his parents live on the Indian River and got tired of rebuilding their wooden dock; they asked what can they do; there are very few people he is actually scared of in his life, and one of them is his mother; and Chairperson Colon responded so are we. Mr. Polk stated he would never build his mother a piece of junk; so they took pieces they were working on made for a plastic truss; and that is what they used for the original pilings. He stated they called Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and said they wanted to do the dock and give them a presentation; he went to Orlando and made a presentation to DEP; they asked if he had a grandfather right on the house, and he said they did; so they said he could do it and did not object to the materials to build the dock. He stated they did that using pieces they already had; they make a number of products; another product is a deck, but it is actually replacement for marine plywood. He stated the Commissioners are all welcome to come out and see the dock; they may have overstepped their boundaries because it is 1,100 square feet instead of 1,000 square feet; they spoke to Environmental Protection Agency two weeks ago and are going to ask for restatement of the permit; it is not illegal; and he was a little frustrated that it was such a concern of the Board. He stated a gentleman came out to the dock on a wiring issue; it is solar electricity; and sometimes the attributes are beyond bizarre. Mr. Polk stated they did not start the company to build plastic docks; it is an offshoot of the technology; they looked at it and thought it was a good product to build with; and the reason it is a good product is it is structurally sound, will maintain itself for a long time; and it was the perfect place to put structural plastics. He stated it does not emit or leach anything into the environment; that is why Department of Environmental Protection said it was a great idea so they did it; and from that experience, they thought it was a good business and went back to look at the marketplace. He stated the marketplace turned out to be very diverse; the worst way to build a dock is to use wood and nail them together because in places above Ohio and further north in all those lakes, which they consider a market, they would have to be able to remove the docks every year because of freezes. Mr. Polk stated the Chinese have a fantastic steel; they felt the best way to do it was to build a steel frame and put plastic panels on top of it; and during hurricanes and other storms, they could take the top off, which is a great marketing tool elsewhere in the United States and the world. He stated they went back and decided structurally what would be the best way to build a steel dock in terms of light weight and frames; and that is what the Board saw in the picture. He stated if the Board wants to see a finite elementary analysis, all that means is it wants to see a mathematical description of the stresses of the dock they built. He stated everyone said it takes more brains to stick a piling in the water; actually, they agree it takes more brains to do that; so they designed a piling for that; and it is the next generation piling. He stated they went to the Licensing Board and said they would like to begin installing those docks; they said he could not do it because he did not have the experience; he inquired how does one get experience in the market; and they said he needed a joint venture with someone or work for someone for four years. He stated he argued enough and got it down to two years; and he inquired of the Licensing Board where is the person who will teach them how to build plastic docks in Brevard County. He stated there are none, which left him an interesting dilemma; either they go to court, which no one wants to do, or come to the Board and say they have a new technology to build large structural parts; and they are going to be plastic docks. He stated there are going to be plastic docks; the reason for that is the economic value for doing so; they are asking to be allowed to build plastic docks, which they have gone through the trouble of doing the engineering; and inquired how many wooden docks have engineering reports on them. He stated the County does not ask for that; but from them, the County asks for a great deal more.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Polk is willing to take the marine contractor examination; with Mr. Polk responding of course; he is not asking to bypass anything; and inquired what person is he supposed to work with for two years putting in plastic docks because he does not want to be putting in wooden docks. He stated they have built an economically viable plastic dock with plastic pilings and the Environmental Protection Agency may some day say that is what it is going to do; and they want to be part of that. Commissioner Pritchard stated he had a meeting with Onnie Massey and Cliff Repperger to try and come up with a solution that would resolve this issue as they did not know who could grade Mr. Polk on installing that type of dock; and Mr. Polk is not interested in doing any other type of construction. He inquired how could they do that without devaluing the marine contractor licensing yet provide him the opportunity to ply his trade since there is no one to grade him on applying that trade that he invented. He inquired if staff could discuss that.

Commissioner Carlson stated she asked Mr. Knox what the Board could do; and a specialty license is what sounds like it could actually define what might fit the category. Mr. Knox stated he doubts this will be the last time the Board will hear about innovative technology that is not covered by the licensing Ordinance, so it may behoove the Board to put in some kind of specialty provision that is designed to provide licensing for innovative technologies. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it should be sent back to the Contractor Licensing Board to work on a specialized license. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it should go to the Building and Construction Advisory Board. Commissioner Higgs stated it is a specialized contractor license for a new technology. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Witek said it would not be the board to approach for defining that specialty. Commissioner Pritchard recommended expanding the Marine II category to include plastic docks and have Mr. Polk test for the marine license.

Commissioner Higgs stated he would not have the years of experience. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board could waive the experience. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Polk has the technology that is different; he can take the test, which he has agreed to do; if he passes the test, then he is capable allegedly because it is the experience that would give him the knowledge to pass the test; and plastic docks could be an allowable structure within the Marine II category. Commissioner Higgs stated the Licensing Board waived two years of experience; and if the Board waives the other years, it would have to do it for everybody. Commissioner Carlson stated she disagrees that one has experience if they pass the test; they have to have both; taking a test could mean reading a book; but that does not mean they can actually install the structure. Commissioner Higgs suggested the specialized technology license for a specialized product and send it to the Contractor Licensing Board to work on it and bring back recommendations.

Mr. Polk requested the Board allow him to build and install a certain number of docks under the supervision of the County Licensing Board and see if they are happy; and if they are not happy, then they have wasted their time. Commissioner Carlson stated her concern is liability; and inquired would the Board need to redefine it as a specialty license or can it go based on what Mr. Polk is suggesting. Mr. Knox stated if Mr. Polk’s suggestion were to go forward, the Board would probably need a marine contractor to be involved with it, which he is objecting to. Mr. Polk stated he does not have an objection to a marine contractor being involved; he objects to the Catch 22 situation the Board has put him in; even in that compromise, he will be teaching the same people who will grade him how to build plastic docks; and it is a difficult situation for him. Commissioner Carlson inquired, in a competitive market, if Mr. Polk has a marine contractor working with him, is his concern that he would be basically selling the methodology to another marine contractor; with Mr. Polk responding there are two caveat problems with that; first is there is only so much money to go around; there is no place for two contractors; and secondly, it is not fair to TCD which put its money and risk into developing the product, unless the marine contractor wants to give him half of the money TCD put in up front, then it may be fair. He stated a Commissioner said it would be unfair for him to skip two years of experience, but actually he would be giving the experience; and inquired if the Board is now saying it will put in a license for two or four years experience to anyone opening a plastics business; with Commissioner Higgs responding no, it is a specialized technology, which means a specialized license, and her recommendation was to develop the criteria for that license. Mr. Polk stated he will listen to any possibility that is better than what they have now.

Chairperson Colon stated the Board has to be careful how it moves because in trying to protect Mr. Polk and his invention, it also has to ensure it is protecting whoever he is going to sell his product to; and she is uncomfortable with that portion of how to protect the public. She stated she also does not think it is fair for Mr. Polk to train somebody who will go out and make money from something he invented; competition is good and healthy, and it brings good prices to citizens; but the Board should consider a specialized license. Commissioner Pritchard suggested Messrs. Massey and Repperger be brought into the discussion about specialized license or expanding Marine II and provide input.

Assistant County Attorney Cliff Repperger advised the problem with specialized license is that there is no current test for building plastic docks, so how can they test for something that does not exist even if the Board creates the category, unless it waives the testing requirements associated with that category. He stated originally when Mr. Polk came before the Contractor Licensing Board, he came requesting a marine II license, feeling that what he was doing was included in the Marine II definition; and it was not decided that the plastic dock was included in marine II, but if it is not, the board could expand the category to include plastic dock building. He stated when the Board amended categories or created categories in the past there has traditionally been a grandfathering period for people holding occupational licenses; so that might be something the Board might want to do if it did expand the marine II license to include plastic dock building and grandfathered Mr. Polk in at that point.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Board could require an individual such as Mr. Polk to pass the test; however, it could insert in its Ordinance provision that when there is a totally new technology being utilized, it gives the grounds to waive the experience requirement because if it is a new technology, there is no experience with it. He stated the Board should insert a clause in the ordinance to allow a waiver for any new technology; and something be put in the ordinance giving authority to waive the experience requirement. He stated if there is a concern about liability, it could be made probationary for a period of time; and that is an option the Board could consider.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to refer the issue of licensing for installing plastic boat docks to the Contractor Licensing Board to develop a specialized license that may include all kinds of criteria and passing the marine test.

Chairperson Colon advised the issue was sent back to the Contractor Licensing Board, which came back and said nothing has changed its mind; she wants to make sure that board understands where the Board is coming from; and the Board wants to help anybody who comes in with a new technology, not just Mr. Polk. Mr. Witek advised the board did not disapprove Mr. Polk’s technology, application, quality of workmanship, or whether he can or cannot build a plastic dock; it just enforced the Ordinance, which says four years experience, and two years can be waived for education. Mr. Witek stated Mr. Polk could not prove he had two years experience in marine contracting, so the board rejected his application. He stated the caveat is the new technology where there is no precedence for installing plastic docks; however, there may be elsewhere, as there are plastic seawalls. He stated they license framing contractors; they traditionally use wood; now they are using metal studs, which got to be a new technology; and inquired if the Board would waive experience for framers because they are using metal studs instead of wood. He stated whatever the Board does cannot be all encompassing; and there may be instances the Board may have to deal with on a case-by-case basis.

Commissioner Carlson inquired how does the board deal with the different technology with the framers; with Mr. Witek responding they have to be experienced framers regardless of the material they use; the board was unanimous on the fact that it did not care what the material of the dock was; and its concerns were the quality and structural integrity of the installation, and his experience in doing it. He stated the board is willing to work in conjunction with the Building Department to give people like Mr. Polk an opportunity; it does not want to keep him out of the business; but its hands are tied, and it does not have the authority to admit him for the exam. Commissioner Higgs inquired if she can demonstrate that she can build plastic devices, why would she have to show, other than that she understands the Codes, that she can build with different materials; with Mr. Witek responding it is not the material, but the installation. Commissioner Higgs stated if she can show she can build skyscrapers with plastic, why would she have to show she can build a dock with plastic; with Mr. Witek responding that is a good question, but the board did not consider his experience in building door frames, doors, or panels as acceptable experience because it should be in the trade as far as the board was concerned. Commissioner Higgs stated maybe they need to think along different lines. Mr. Witek stated for a new technology that may be the answer, but not as a marine contractor; the marine contractor is a category that they license; and they were looking for the experience in the marine contracting trade, whether it be plastic, wood, or concrete. He stated they want to ensure they know how to work in the water, that the dock had structural integrity, that the homeowner who paid for it would not have to track down the contractor who did not honor his or her obligations; so there is an element of protecting the public in what the board does.

Commissioner Scarborough stated that is good and wise to go there, but there is also use of a new product with different risks; Mr. Polk knows the product better than anyone else; they talk about stress capacity to move in different ways, when it gives, when it does not give, how it is connected, and the ability of the connectivity to hold; the dynamics of wood or concrete are totally different than plastic; and going there will also encounter additional risks because it will take stresses in different ways. He stated the connectivity needs to be different; he is pleased to know there are a lot of plastic materials that have been around for 15 years or so; and as the board gets into the ordinance, he hopes it will invite people from the trade who have been in plastics and know the issues to provide input. Commissioner Scarborough stated as Mayor of Titusville he had an experience with a unique product, floating docks; and the City got into extensive discussions with the people at the marina because they were concerned about the dynamics of those things coming apart during storms and wrecking their boats. He stated the Board needs to extract as much information from as many people as possible because there may be some dynamics that are completely different; and that is important because even if they know everything about concrete and wood docks, they could still fail with this product. He stated he could bring in someone with 50 years experience installing docks and that person could fail, yet someone with minimal experience could succeed because that person understood the dynamics of the product. He stated the Board is heading in the right direction; and he hopes the Contractor Licensing Board will take a lot of time and make sure they call all the good people in the community to provide input.

Mr. Witek stated Commissioner Scarborough made a good point about not knowing how the plastic dock will react; and in looking at the picture, it appears to have barnacles growing on the plastic, which is surprising. Commissioner Pritchard stated there is quite a bit of barnacles growing on it; and they also grow on PVC pipe that people put out to mark their channels. He inquired if there is a motion.

Commissioner Higgs responded she made a motion to refer it back to the Contractor Licensing Board to develop a specialty license that would allow for a unique technology. Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what type of examination would be required; with Commissioner Higgs responding she does not know, but the board will set that criteria. She noted they may want the person to take a plastics exam, construction exam, marine contractor exam, all three or none; they may not want an exam; they may want demonstrated experience in using the technology; and she does not know, but is willing to let that board do it. Commissioner Pritchard inquired who on the Contractor Licensing Board might be qualified to develop an examination and is there a canned exam that might be applicable; with Mr. Witek responding there are canned examinations in various categories; people qualified to research that would be the Licensing Board staff; they are the ones who bring it to the board for votes on licensing; and he is quite sure there is not a plastic dock marine contracting test, but there may be some combination that could work. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Polk knows a lot about it and having him in the conversation would be a good idea. Mr. Pritchard stated the concern of the Board is allowing Mr. Polk to test for the marine II contractor license without four years of experience being inappropriate and perhaps a disservice to other marine contractors who have gone that route; but by developing a specialty license for plastic dock installation, which is a misnomer because it is reinforced with galvanized steel, would be more appropriate; and that would require development of a new category as well as a test. Commissioner Scarborough stated when he asks people to report back to him, he does not want to tell them what they are going to report back with; what the Board is asking the Contractor Licensing Board to do is come up with a specialty license; it could report back that it is impossible, or that there are advantages and disadvantages; so the Board should just ask it to see what it can come back with. Commissioner Carlson suggested giving a time limit. Commissioner Pritchard inquired when will the board meet next; with Mr. Witek responding tomorrow night. Mr. Repperger advised it should be put on the agenda for the next Contractor Licensing Board meeting and advertised properly; and that would be in February, so it would come back to the Board of County Commissioners in March. Mr. Jenkins stated they can do research in the interim. Commissioner Carlson inquired if they would report back in 60 days; with Mr. Repperger responding yes.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 4:36 p.m., and reconvened at 4:46 p.m.

REQUEST FROM MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GROUP, RE: WAIVER OF PERIMETER
BUFFER FOR WALKABOUT PUD

Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Washburn advised this is what the Board has normally done for planned unit developments (PUD’s); they will have the proper buffer on the perimeter where it abuts single-family residential areas; and they are asking for waiver of the perimeter buffer for the interior subdivisions.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant a waiver to Section 62-2883 of the Brevard County Code, eliminating the 15-foot perimeter buffer requirements surrounding proposed residential developments within the Walkabout PUD. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REQUEST FROM THAD TERRY, RE: WAIVER OF PERIMETER BUFFER FOR HAMMOCKS
SUBDIVISION

Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Washburn advised the applicant is able to provide the 15-foot buffer on all sides except on the east side; there is an existing 30-foot drainage ditch; and they would like not to provide the buffer at that location. He stated the Board has done it in similar instances.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant a waiver to Section 62-2883 of the Brevard County Code, eliminating the 15-foot perimeter buffer requirement along the east side of the proposed Hammocks Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE:
ORDINANCE REVISING CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE IX, PROVIDING CITATION
AUTHORITY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SPECIFIED SIGN VIOLATIONS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the legislative intent and grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance revising Chapter 62, Article IX, to provide citation authority for enforcement of specified sign violations. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

Commissioner Pritchard advised there are businesses that earn a living by developing banners; and he would like to discuss the Ordinance as it pertains to banners and temporary signs, that are prohibited for the most part, sometime in the near future.

APPEAL REQUEST BY NOBLE PROPERTIES II, LTD., AND TROY STEPHAN, ESQUIRE,
RE: SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR H&M SHOPPING CENTER

Chairperson Colon advised there are a number of speakers on this item; and requested they come to the front of the audience.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised since this is an appeal, the Board may want to hear the appellants first and let them set their case out so everyone else can respond to it.

Attorney Bruce Barkett advised there are two separate appeals; he represents Noble Properties II, Ltd., which filed one appeal and a separate appeal was filed by Troy Stephan on behalf of property owners and homeowners on surrounding properties.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there are two separate appeals, does each appellant get the same treatment; with Mr. Knox responding yes, they each get 15 minutes, which they can use any way they want to. Mr. Knox recommended the Board take the appeals consecutively so that everyone can address whatever issues are brought out. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Stephan represents the other appeal; with Mr. Barkett responding yes, but they have coordinated their presentations so that they do not double up on discussion of the same issues, so it may not take 15 minutes each.

Attorney Barkett, representing Noble Properties II, Ltd., advised they have appealed the site plan for H&M Shopping Center, located at the corner of Florida Avenue and Courtenay Parkway; there are churches on the north and south property boundaries; and there are residential subdivisions to the east and west. He stated the legal standards governing site plan review are very straightforward; this is a quasi-judicial proceeding; and in a quasi-judicial proceeding, the Board does not make law, it simply applies the rules. He stated if a site plan satisfies the Ordinance requirements, the Board is authorized to grant it; if it does not, it is not authorized to grant it; this site plan does not satisfy the law, which are the County Ordinances; and there are many loose ends for it to deal with for approval at this time. Mr. Barkett stated the application was incomplete; the site plan is internally inconsistent; and the site plan demonstrates on its face violation of certain Ordinances. He stated the green tab in the handout is a copy of Ordinance 62-602(c)(6); that Ordinance applies when application for evaluation of concurrency is prior to site plan application; and when they submit a site plan application, they submit an application for a concurrency evaluation. He stated Subsection (c)(6), says, “If access to the project is from a State highway, an approval from the State Department of Transportation that access will be approved upon submittal of appropriate engineering and design exhibits for a driveway permit.” He stated that permission from the State Department of Transportation did not accompany the application for site plan approval or the concurrency evaluation application; and the County still does not have that approval from Department of Transportation, yet the site plan was granted. He stated County staff’s response to that comment was they have a letter from Department of Transportation that upon appropriate submittals, they will consider approval of a light at that intersection, which is Meadow Lane and Florida Avenue; but that is not the access to Courtenay Parkway; the access to Courtenay Parkway is above that; and the County does not have anything from the Department of Transportation indicating it will approve that access. Mr. Barkett advised that provision in the Code is not discretionary and is required; it is part of the concurrency management system; and there are other issues related to that access. He stated the site plan is internally inconsistent and in violation of the County Code; the 15-foot wide landscape buffer runs from the western property boundary east for 15 feet; and that is a required buffer under the Code. He stated there is also a 16-foot wide drainage easement beginning at the western property boundary and running 15 feet; they are showing a landscape buffer within a drainage easement; that is an internal inconsistency; and it also says the drainage easement is to be granted to Brevard County. Mr. Barkett advised in the packet he gave the Board is a letter from Department of Transportation requesting revision of the note to say that on the cross section it shoud read that the easement will be granted to Department of Transportation not to Brevard County; so Department of Transportation is telling the applicant and Brevard County that the easement for drainage is to drain Courtenay Parkway and is to go to Department of Transportation; and they cannot put landscaping in it. He stated the site plan does not work; that is more than incidental because when they try to rearrange a site plan, it is a required landscape buffer; and it has to be moved because Department of Transportation wants the easement for its drainage. He stated if they move the landscaping to the east, everything else shifts; the parking may not be accommodated; if it is required parking, there may not be enough spaces for the retail space they put on the site; and if they do not have enough parking, they have to change the retail space. He stated that is why there is the requirement in the Ordinance that those approvals be submitted as part of the site plan application; and that is why it is premature to approve the site plan at this time because right now it does not work and no one knows if it will work. Mr. Barkett advised Mr. Stephan is going to describe the wetlands in more detail; there are improvements shown in the wetlands; the Ordinance prohibits improvements in wetlands except when certain conditions are met; and those conditions are not met in the application. He stated originally the site plan depicted greater than two-tenths of a foot candle intensity for the light along the northern buffer; Bruce Moia was hired by his client to review the site plan; he reviewed it and said it shows half a foot candle intensity, which is greater than two tenths; and that is a violation of the Ordinance. He stated staff told them it has been corrected, but they have not seen it; and since the Ordinance limits the intensity to two foot candles, that has to be reviewed. He stated it may have been corrected, he does not know; but if it has, he has not seen it and it was not on the approved site plan that they reviewed. Mr. Barkett advised the red tab is a copy of Section 62-3205 of an Ordinance, relating to time limitations and expiration for review and approval of site development plans; it says specifically that an applicant shall have only six months from the time of formal submittal to make all the necessary revisions and get his application approved; and failure to meet that condition is spelled out in the Ordinance. He stated it says failure to meet this condition will cause the site plan automatically to become null and void and the fees shall not be refunded; it is not terminal; the applicant can go through a process to reactivate the site plan; but that has not been done. He stated the application was submitted and the Board took formal action to recognize it prior to June 1, 2001; it had to do with the implementation of the Impact Fee Ordinance for commercial sites; and there was an appeal to the Board, which was granted saying it recognized the formal application prior to June 1, 2001. He stated the application for site plan review was not completed within six months nor was it terminated pursuant to the specific terms of the Ordinance; and that is another example of how the application has not satisfied the County Ordinance. He reiterated the Board’s job is to apply the rules that are written in its book for site plan review; and it is not to make new rules or create waivers because that is not a legislative function. He stated there are too many loose ends for approval; they do not know if the site plan will work; as submitted, it does not comply with the Ordinance and is incomplete; so on behalf of Noble Properties, they request the Board to grant the appeal and deny the site plan.

Attorney Troy Stephan, representing more than 50 homeowners of Meadows, Carlton Groves, and Waterway Manor of the 200-plus homeowners who signed the petition submitted to the Board at a prior meeting, advised he will address a few issues; one is the six-month requirement; they are sitting outside the scope; therefore their application is null and void according to the Code. He stated the second issue is the impacts to the wetlands; the third is the requirement for a six-foot wall between residential and commercial developments; and fourth is an out-parcel allocated for the sale of alcohol at a gas station between two school districts and church districts. He stated the approval took place in October 2002; the Board heard testimony that the actual application was July or such of 2001; the Code specifies that an application must be completed and all necessary revisions need to be required by Land Development for it to be approved. He stated failure to abide by that Code makes the application null and voice; and that is their position today. Mr. Stephan advised more importantly is the issue of wetlands; on March 5, 2002, H&M said if there are any requirements for wetlands, they will comply; they will take care of the wetlands, and they will be preserved; and he submitted a transcript of that hearing. He stated shortly after that meeting, H&M went to St. Johns River Water Management District and filed application to totally annihilate the wetlands; and after going to the State and trying to litigate against destruction of the wetlands, they tried to file a mitigation provision. He stated the County already addressed that issue and said they are not to touch the wetlands; and he presented a picture of the site depicting encroachment of the wall they are to build according to Code, cutting right through the wetlands. He stated staff’s comments cite Section 62-3694 that states all commercial and industrial land development activities shall be prohibited in wetlands contained in properties designated for future land use as commercial or industrial after February 1996; and the Code further reads, only if all the criteria is met—(1) the property is substantially surrounded by lands developed as commercial or industrial as of 1996; and (2) the proposed land development activity will not result in increased flooding problems on adjacent properties. He stated they are dealing with a church on one side with a school, Divine Mercy Church, and a church on the subsequent side; substantially surrounded is allocated in the definition section of Section 62-3692, which states, substantially surrounded means when a parcel of land is bordered on two sides of land developed as commercial or industrial and such commercial/industrial shall abut the subject property and be on the same side as the road; and the last time they argued, they said Target is 100 yards north on the opposite side of the road. He stated they do not have anything that meets the substantially surrounded criteria; and that was allocated to H&M on April 5, by staff in a letter. Mr. Stephan stated staff said they do not meet the substantially surrounded criteria; and resolution to the issue seems to be limited to either revising the plans to eliminate encroachment and/or destruction of the wetlands, or appealing the staff determination. He stated the plans as they stand show one encroachment to the wetlands; the second criteria is that the proposed land development will not result in increased flooding problems on adjacent properties; they plan to install a six-foot high concrete waterproofed wall and footer to separate their property from the church property; and that wall will go right through the wetlands. Mr. Stephan explained a drawing with the highlighted areas that show 5.2, 4.8, 4.2, the gradual slope of the ground, how the wetlands feed and filter water that becomes drinking water, the adjacent property, and the gradual tapering down of H&M property that feeds the wetland. He stated their plan has a wall that is waterproofed; and that means the water will not be able to go into the wetland area and is going to cause flooding on adjacent property. He stated not only do they not meet the first requirement, they do not meet the second requirement; they have already been on notice that they cannot have any fluctuation with the wetland issue; and their site plan is deficient on that issue. Mr. Stephan advised the Code requires a six-foot wall in height; they found the six-foot wall on the south and on the north, but the east side, which is adjacent to Waterway Manor, only indicates a five-foot wall; and that is in violation of the Code. He stated there is another issue about who owns the wall; staff’s comments say six-foot walls; he has the latest draft of the site plan and it still shows a five-foot wall; and he agrees with Mr. Barkett that the application should not be approved and has too many holes and violations of the County’s Ordinances. He stated when they were doing the litigation, they interviewed all the homeowners and only found a few people who were in favor of the project; more homeowners were against the project for several reasons; and one of the main concerns was the out-parcel that is allocated to be a gas station with a walk-up ability to buy alcohol. He stated a lot of the residents have children who have to go to schools on both sides of the road; and that is something the Board should take into consideration, and in so doing, not approve the application. He stated they are way beyond the six-month requirement pursuant to Code; they still show detrimental factors to the wetlands, and do not meet either test; and they do not meet the six-foot high wall requirement; therefore their application should not be granted.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the out-parcel is a gas station/convenience store; with Mr. Stephan responding from the notes they have, it is a Texaco/Shell type vending gas station; and it is going to produce the ability for people to drive in, get gas, etc. He stated it is right on the corner, which overlooks the church playground; on the other side is the other church with a school; the children bike and walk to school; and they will have to walk in front of there to not get into the traffic. He stated it is a health, safety, and welfare issue that the Board should take into consideration. Commissioner Pritchard stated those same children could be running errands and going to the store to pick up milk, ice cream, etc.; with Mr. Stephan responding he is sure they could. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Stephan said he talked to all the homeowners and represents 300 of them; with Mr. Stephan responding he did not talk to them personally; the actual litigant is a property owner in the Meadows; and he and his wife and a group of neighbors went door-to-door and received signatures that the Board has in its packet of not only the petition, but also the litigant list. Commissioner Pritchard stated the litigant number 70 is Robert Kamm, and he claims he was not aware of this; with Mr. Stephan responding his wife signed the petition. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Kamm was quite surprised to find his name on the list. Mr. Stephan stated he believes they received correspondence, and sent staff clarification of that; his wife actually signed the petition; he called back and they removed him from the list; and they have copied them with that because he expressed concern about a conflict of interest. He stated Mr. Kamm wrote a letter saying his wife mistakenly signed the petition in opposition and it would create a conflict of interest. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is still on the list that he has; with Mr. Stephan responding there is an amended list and he can provided that to Commissioner Pritchard.

Attorney John Evans, representing H&M Shopping Center, advised staff has held his client’s feet to the fire in complying with all the Ordinances; and staff’s report is sufficient to deny the appeal. He presented an affidavit from his client’s engineer who swore under oath that he is in compliance with all County Code requirements. He stated two packages were presented to the Board; and inquired whether those were sworn to or not. He stated he believes the Board needs sworn evidence, which it has not received from the applicant; so his testimony should be discounted when it deals with evidence. He stated in reference to Mr. Stephan’s statement about the gas station, there is no notation whatsoever on the site plan and no signed lease for a gas station; and that is just something the attorney said and has no relevance. He stated the Board had a site plan appeal with Oleander; and he would like to read what the County Attorney said during that site plan appeal; it is basically that an appeal is not a mechanism for the appellant to channel whether or not the Oleander plant should be allowed to develop at all; and he agrees with that statement. He stated this is an issue of did they meet the Codes; it is not whether they like a shopping center; and that is not a relevant issue. He stated the first issue they raised was the access; and he will call Joe Mayer to address the access issue. He advised Mr. Mayer that his testimony is under oath and inquired if everything he swears to is the truth; with Mr. Mayer responding yes.

Mr. Mayer advised regarding the access, it is true that they do not as of this time have a Department of Transportation permit; the process to get a Department of Transportation permit is long and involved; early on they went to Department of Transportation and got the letter that the Board has in its packet indicating that the signal is approvable; that signal is a key element of the application; and without the signal and realignment of Florida Avenue, the rest of the project could fall apart. He stated the access into the shopping center is a part of the Department of Transportation permit application; Department of Transportation staff has seen it; they are very close to getting the permit; and the access, signal, and realignment are all part of one permit process. He stated in his mind it has essentially been conceptually approved; and they are going through the technical aspects and fine-tuning the alignment and engineering issues at this point.

Mr. Evans inquired if the process Mr. Mayer is going through with the Department of Transportation permit is different than any other developer or project that he had in Brevard County; with Mr. Mayer responding no. Mr. Evans inquired if the application is presently in compliance with the Codes; with Mr. Mayer responding yes, he believes it is. Mr. Evans advised a landscaping easement and 16-foot easement were mentioned; it is not in any of the appeals; the first time he heard of that issue is today; and inquired if Mr. Mayer can address that issue. Mr. Mayer stated since it is a Department of Transportation maintained roadway, Department of Transportation requested the easements be granted to it and it will maintain the drainage; the drainage is going to consist of a very shallow swale; and there is no Ordinance he is aware of that would prohibit them from meeting both the landscape requirements and the drainage requirements. He stated every part of the site has to be drained in some fashion; and what they are talking about is a very shallow swale with trees and grass and things of that nature that can be planted in an appropriate manner so that both things can be accomplished. Mr. Evans inquired if the plan is inconsistent with the County Codes; with Mr. Mayer responding not in his opinion. Mr. Evans advised the next issue that was brought up is the wetlands; there is about a 60-foot area of wall in the very north end; they contend it does not violate the County wetland Ordinance; and County staff said it does not. He presented a picture to the Board, but not the Clerk, of the area they are talking about; and explained the picture. He presented a letter from Lynn Olsen, Ecologist, into evidence, stating the north 100 feet of the wetland is non-functional and consists of tires, blocks, cement, and Brazilian peppers; and stated they believe the wetlands are non-functional. Mr. Evans stated he also has a letter from the County, which is the St. Johns River Water Management District’s staff report saying the wetlands considered as low quality are dominated by nuisance and exotic plants and are further degraded by dumping of trash, debris, and yard waste on the south and east sides. He stated the St. Johns River Water Management District report goes on to say that establishment of the wall will enhance the wetlands, not deter or destroy the wetlands; and offered the report into evidence. Mr. Evans requested Mr. Mayer provide an explanation. Mr. Mayer stated the picture shows between a 60 and 200-square foot area; it is a small area of Brazilian pepper trees that is just the tip of the wetland; and he disagrees with the previous testimony. Mr. Mayer stated the church site drains to the rear of its property; and there is a swale that is connected to the wetland and drains along the rear of the church property then dumps directly into a canal and into the lagoon. He stated the area in question is the northeast corner of the site; there is a little tip of the wetlands that extends off the property; and yesterday he was there to re-verify it. He stated the swale is actually degrading the wetlands; it is draining the wetlands; the hydrology cannot stay there because the swale is draining it; and all of the church property drains to that swale then to the north and into the canal, not into the wetland. He stated no part of the church property drains into the wetland; by putting the wall across, there was a conflict; and the wall is required by Code, yet wetlands impact is not allowed by Code. Mr. Mayer stated the wall was required by the binding site plan that was approved by the Board some years ago; the St. Johns River Water Management District staff’s report they submitted verifies that; and it is not only his opinion, but the opinion of St. Johns River Water Management District’s staff that by building the wall across there and blocking the swale, they are going to enhance the wetland. He stated it is not an impact, it is an enhancement of the wetland; and they are going to preserve it and put the hydrology in there to enhance its ability to function as a proper wetland. He stated right now it is a Brazilian pepper mess; when they are done with the project, the potential for the exotic species to lessen will be there because the hydrology will be altered; the swale will not be allowed to drain the wetlands; therefore, the wetlands have a better chance of long-term survival. Mr. Evans advised the St. Johns River Water Management District has issued a permit for the wall; they are in agreement that it is an enhancement not a negative impact upon the wetlands; and the County’s Department of Natural Resources Management has reviewed the request and approved it. He stated the Department of Natural Resources also agrees that it is an enhancement of the wetlands not a degradation of it; and requested Mr. Mayer address the six-foot wall on the back of the property. Mr. Mayer advised they have adhered to the binding site plan that was approved by the Board; they show a six-foot wall along the north property line as required; and the binding site plan that was approved some years ago shows a berm and the wall was there then and is there now. He stated he believes that when it was built it was a six-foot wall and vegetation and debris over time have built up; the five feet is simply a measurement at one location by his survey crew; and he suspects if they went to other places, it would be five and a half feet, four and a half feet, and even six feet due to debris and change in soil, etc. over the course of time. He stated they left the wall there; it is the same wall that has been there; and he believes it was a six-foot wall when it was built, but he has no evidence to offer to that effect. Mr. Evans inquired if the binding site plan shows an existing six-foot wall back in 1989; with Mr. Mayer responding yes it does. Mr. Evans inquired if it is the same wall; they are not going to build a new one; and they are going to use the same one that has been there for a couple of years; with Mr. Mayer responding that is correct. Mr. Evans requested Mr. Mayer address the six months review. He stated in staff’s report, there is a series of six or seven letters that say, once they submit their site plan, they get a response back from the County that says in capital letters, “If revisions have not been received in Land Development within six months of this letter, your site plan will become null and void”; and it is on four or five different applications. He presented a copy of a letter from the County regarding the six months issue; and requested Mr. Mayer address what the County’s policy has been to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Mayer stated in the 15 years that he has been doing projects the policy has always been that each time comments were received, they had six months to respond and address those comments; and if they go beyond that time, then they will consider the site plan application null and void. He stated he understands there is a new interpretation now; but that is how it has been administered for at least the 15 years that he has been involved in this process. Mr. Evans advised he would submit to the Board that the competent substantial evidence before the Board, which is its staff report, Mr. Mayer’s sworn testimony, and the sworn affidavit shows that the site plan is in compliance with the County Codes. He stated if the Board finds something that is not right, for example where the site plan shows five feet on the easterly wall and there is a conflict whether it might be five or six feet, then they request the Board address that particular issue, but not deny or send the site plan back. He stated they have been through a long process; the Board has seen them many times on this issue; they are ready to start construction; and if there are minor errors in the site plan, they request the Board direct it be corrected and allow them to proceed forward with the project. He noted they would appreciate it very much.

Chairperson Colon advised she has been reading the paperwork from the St. Johns River Water Management District and did not find where it says the wall will help the wetlands; with Mr. Mayer responding it is in the technical staff report and not in the permit.

Commissioner Higgs stated she does not have a copy of the letter from staff relating to the six months; and inquired if she could see Mr. Mayer’s copy; with Mr. Evans responding it was in the County staff’s report; and he believes there were four or five letters with the exact same language on it, so they just complied with what the staff told them to do.

Henry Evans, Jr. of Melbourne stated he is new to the County and has been here about a year and a half; he is a parishioner and lay minister with Divine Mercy Church on Courtenay Parkway on the north side of the project; and his concern is the safety of children. He stated he cannot address the Assembly of God Church nor the Merritt Christian Church, only Divine Mercy; they have a school from kindergarten through eighth grade; and there are 237 children registered as of today. He stated approximately 20 children ride bikes or walk from their homes to the school and back; and if the Board allows the project to go forward, it would be a potential safety hazard. He stated where the area starts there is a light where the children cross from one side to the other to continue up to Divine Mercy school; there are adequate shopping centers in the area along Courtenay Parkway with four major centers, two on each side; and there are Home Depot, Publix, and several others not to count the strip malls. Mr. Evans stated there are more than adequate gas stations; there is a Texaco on the side that they are talking about within 20 yards of the shopping area; there is an Amoco directly across the street bordering on the Target shopping center; and this project if allowed to proceed, would be a safety problem for children.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Evans knows the speed limit in the school zone in front of Divine Mercy; with Mr. Evans responding he believes once they cross the light, it goes to 25 mph. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is 35 mph; with Mr. Evans responding he stands corrected. Commissioner Pritchard stated he always questioned that speed limit; 35 mph is a little fast for a school zone regardless if it is a four-laned road; and it is one of the points he has brought up many times in workshops as to what high speed that is.

Marsha Becker of Merritt Island stated she has lived in Waterway Manor for three years and finds it very interesting that Mr. Evans talks about safety. She stated Mr. Stephan said he represented Waterway Manor, but he does not; their homeowners organization has met two or three times; and the majority of residents want the development for safety reasons. She stated she wrote to the Board and faxed copies to the Commissioners; and presented documents to the Board, but not the Clerk. She stated they talked to the Department of Transportation representative at their meeting and requested they approve the stoplight and the change to Florida Boulevard; and he said it was approved by the preliminary boards. She stated Waterway Manor is next to the Meadows on the other side; when making a left turn in there, it is against another car making a left turn going the other way; there have been numerous accidents there; and no one being killed there is a miracle. She stated Department of Transportation told them not only that they were going to have a light there, but they were going to require that all the lights along Courtenay Parkway be synchronized; and that will be the best thing for North Courtenay Parkway. Ms. Becker stated she owns a house in The Meadows and in the other development; they would all like that lot to stay like it is or be a park and not be developed; but they do not know how lucky they are to get a Publix that wants to go in there. She stated she lives behind Publix in Cocoa Beach on Banana River Boulevard; Publix is a good neighbor; they give money to United Way and grants to anything their board agrees to; and they keep their property very clean. She stated the property values increased around Publix; Banana River Boulevard is equivalent to Florida Boulevard because it is one outlet for all the housing behind there; but it will be better and safer then where it comes out on Crocket where Publix is today. She stated Publix said the area is too small and has already given notice that they are going to vacate the building; they signed a lease with H&M for the next 20 years; so they will have a nice development there and not an eight-story building or 130 apartments or whatever else is legal in that area. Ms. Becker stated her friends at MRC volunteered to come out and pepper bust the trees, but she told them not to do it because it would come to the Board of County Commissioners and she did not want anyone saying they tore down the pepper trees. She stated she wishes they could not have anything on the property also, but of all the things they could have, it is nice to have Publix; and there is nothing guaranteed in a shopping center except Publix. She stated they can go down the street to Walgreen’s and buy all the liquor they want today; and this project will be the best thing for Merritt Island.

Linda Olson, Vice President with Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI), advised she has over 16 years of experience doing ecological work in the environmental field; and ESI is a full service environmental consulting firm that specializes in environmental planning and permitting, including wetlands, endangered and threatened species, archeology, and hazardous materials. She stated in addition, they provide expert witness testimony; their clients are varied and consist of individual homeowners, large tract developers, Government agencies, and private interest groups; consequently, they have represented parties on all sides of these types of issues. She stated she is here on behalf of the homeowners of Waterway Manor, The Meadows, and Carlton Groves; it is her understanding that a wall is being proposed through the wetland on the northern portion of the property; she conducted a site review in July 2002 and also more recently, for the purpose of evaluating the quality of the wetland and to determine the ability of the wetland to provide valuable wetland functions; and upon conclusion of her assessment, it was her determination that although the wetland is of low quality due to the extensive growth of nuisance and exotic plant species, it does provide valuable wetland functions to the neighborhood. Ms. Olson advised wetlands function in a variety of ways, including providing vegetative cover for wildlife species, stormwater attenuation, and stormwater treatment; the wetland on the proposed development site currently provides all those wetland functions to varying degrees; and if a wall is built though a portion of the wetland, it could divert runoff from its natural path, causing additional water to flood the wetland, which would falsely increase the hydro period. She stated in contrast, the wall could also force water away from the wetland, resulting in the drainage of the wetland. She stated changing the hydrology of the wetland could ultimately change the character of the wetland into a different type of wetland or by draining it so that at some future time it would actually no longer be a jurisdictional and functional wetland. She stated it is her understanding that the wall design incorporates a waterproof barrier; that design would contribute to the potential of the wall negatively affecting the wetlands hydrology; and in addition to the wall having an effect on the hydrology, it would also cause a fragmentation of the wetland from adjacent land and potentially limit the movement of wetland dependent wildlife species that might use that existing wetland as a corridor to traverse between the adjacent plan and areas beyond. Ms. Olson stated pursuant to the Brevard County Code, which does not allow any impact to wetlands by commercial and industrial development, she does not believe the wall should be allowed to be put through that wetland, and there should not be any encroachment into the wetland; and there is also the possibility that the wall could cause flooding on adjacent properties.

Michael Gaich, representing H&M Real Estate, Inc., stated they take great pride in the statements they make to the Board; Attorney Stephan said he represents Waterway Manor; and the environmental consultant said she represents Waterway Manor, so they must mean the Homeowners Association. He stated on January 17, 2001, he began meetings with the officers and directors of Waterway Manor Association; on February 21, 2002, he met with the Associations to discuss the site plan and the realignment of the road; on March 4, 2002, he met with the Association at a major meeting to go over all the information; and as late as January 6, 2003, he was at the annual Association’s meeting when a representative of Department of Transportation was there, and he did not see Attorney Stephan there, nor Lynn Olson. He stated the Association president or officers never told him that Mr. Stephan or Ms. Olson represented them.

Bruce Moia, representing Noble Properties, advised, for the benefit of Attorney Evans, he swears that everything he says will be true; and he is giddy with the prospect that wetlands that have peppers and debris in them may allow commercial development to encroach into those wetlands. He stated he does not believe that is what the Code says; but the item he wants to address first is concurrency. He stated The Code says that if the project is on a State highway, they have to get approval from the Department of Transportation in order to have a complete concurrency application; he had a site plan he tried to get through as a pre-ap and was told one of the things he would need was State approval because it was on a State highway; he talked to Jack West and asked what that meant and what he needed from the State in order to get an approval letter so he could apply for concurrency; and the answer he got was the only way they could do that is if they issue a notice of intent to the Board. He stated he does not believe the applicant provided a notice of intent to the County for a full submittal of the concurrency application. Mr. Moia stated the other issue is lighting; when the site plan was approved, he went to the Land Development Office and reviewed the approved plans; there was no lighting plan attached to the approved plans; so he went to the Zoning Office that does review lighting plans to make sure they were in compliance with the Ordinance. He stated the approved plan was laid out; they looked at it; it did not meet the Ordinance; staff agreed that it did not meet the Ordinance; but now he understands it has been submitted and accepted. He inquired if it happened after approval of the site plan, would it have to go through an amendment process and inquired if that amendment process was followed.

Chairperson Colon advised there were questions about representing homeowners associations; and requested clarification. Mr. Stephan stated he did not represent that he represented the homeowners associations; but he represented that he represents homeowners in the neighborhoods of Waterway Manor, The Meadows, and Carlton Groves. He stated the Board has the signatures of 200-plus residents in opposition to the project; he does not represent the homeowners associations, but he would like to comment on Mr. Gaich’s statement that he was not at any of the meetings. Mr. Stephan stated they called the meetings for the St. Johns River Water Management District to come down from Tallahassee to do an independent walk through of the wetlands; and out of all the neighbors in the surrounding Waterway Manor that came only one was in opposition; and that was the lady who spoke today. He stated they have been down there; they have conducted meetings; they have walked house to house to ask the homeowners what they do not like about the project and if they want the project; and those homeowners who objected were the majority, and only a handful wanted the project. Chairperson Colon inquired who hired Mr. Stephan; with Mr. Stephan responding Fred Stephan is his father and lives in The Meadows; Linda Fagan lives next door; and his brother occupies the other house next door to that. Chairperson Colon stated she is surprised that there are no residents here because usually with a controversial item, someone is bound to come and not just their attorney. Mr. Stephan stated there were four residents here; however, it was a problem because he told them to be here at 9:00 a.m.; a lot of them have jobs and some are elderly and could not come to Viera; and he did not have enough time to coordinate a vehicle to drive everyone here.

Commissioner Carlson inquired how is the six months time frame interpreted; did the County met any amendment process that Mr. Moia brought up in terms of the notice of intent; and did the County receive all the appropriate documentation within the time frame.

Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Washburn advised the six months provision on the site plan, as Mr. Mayer pointed out, has been handled that way for at least the last ten years and maybe longer; he attached to the Agenda item each notification that went out after each reiteration of the site giving the applicant six additional months; and that was the way the process was handled when Mr. Moia was the Land Development Engineer. He stated since Mr. Jenkins put him in charge of that division, he has been going over a lot of the regulations and formulating different procedures; and beginning November 1, 2002, when someone submits a site plan, they are notified they have only six months from the formal submittal, as stated in the Ordinance. He stated they have 13 review agencies; and each time they have a site plan come back, it could be said it is a new site plan; that is the way it was handled; he spoke to the County Attorney about it who said that is the way it was handled; they notified the applicant they had six months; and they met that provision. He stated the lighting plan was submitted, reviewed, and approved; it was not attached at the final site plan approval; that was an omission by the applicant; but it was reviewed by Zoning and met the two-tenths candle or whatever the standard is on the north property line; and that is what they have in their files now. Commissioner Carlson inquired about the notice of intent on the Department of Transportation issue; with Mr. Washburn responding that is almost an impossibility; Department of Transportation will not issue a driveway permit until they have an approved site plan; so there is no way they could get that. He stated they asked the applicant to meet with Department of Transportation to see if what they are proposing on the State roadway is permissible; they did that; and Department of Transportation will not issue a curb cut or driveway permit until there is a final site plan issued by the local governing body. Commissioner Carlson inquired if at that point they need a notice of intent; with Mr. Washburn responding yes, at that point they get the actual driveway permit. He stated if the applicant goes through the process and does not get approval from Department of Transportation, they have to go back through the site plan process all over again; and it is impossible for the applicant to get the driveway permit from Department of Transportation without the site plan approval occurring first.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how does staff respond to the expert testimony that wetlands were negatively impacted; with Sherry Williams of Natural Resources Management Office responding during the site plan review, staff went out to the site with Mr. Mayer and Environmental Consultant Lynn Olson, not Linda Olson; they did a professional assessment of the wetland; and it is dominated by melaleuca, Brazilian peppers, and Australian pine trees. She stated the vegetation is not there, nor is the hydrology of the wetland there; and based on a sketch and letter dated September 20 to the County summarizing their assessment, the northern 100 feet of that wetland are not functional. She stated they also coordinated with the District staff to make sure that they were looking at it the same way and they were; and they also considered the northern 100 feet to be not functional and not meeting the requirements of a wetland. She stated the remainder of the wetland is functional, and there are no impacts to that portion of the remaining area. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Code refers to functional wetlands because she does not remember it saying that; with Ms. Williams responding the Code refers to the actual language of not impacting a wetland, but the definition of a wetland talks about the necessary vegetation and hydrology to be there to classify as a wetland. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it talks about functionality; with Ms. Williams responding the functionality is the result of vegetation and hydrology there to provide the functions; and if it is not there, then the functionality is not there. Commissioner Higgs stated the Code seems to be fairly clear regarding the six-month period of time; and inquired although staff has repeatedly issued the letters and the applicant was advised he had six months from the day of submittal, would there need to be some action by the Board in terms of a vesting of that. She stated she can see a vested rights determination based on that; and inquired if there is a step the Board should take because the Code does say six months. Mr. Knox stated he will read it and respond as soon as possible.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the concerns of the people on Merritt Island is the proposed Department of Transportation expenditure to six-lane Courtenay Parkway and subdivisions that have an intersection that is not signalized will not be allowed to make a left turn should that happen. He stated if they are talking about safety, what is better than to have a light at an intersection and align two streets so they do not have opposing traffic coming at each other diagonally; so creating something there is very important. He stated another issue that was not brought up is that the property has been zoned commercial for the past ten years; it appeared as if the issue was moving Publix instead of developing the property; and while he can appreciate the creativity of defenses for not doing something, if the issue is more along the line of not moving the Publix from a tenant, then he does not want to hear that further argument that is just creative. He stated if the Board would not consider putting in a convenience store because of safety or alcohol, it would not put anything in because children are everywhere; children are going to go everywhere; there are schools that have 35 mph speed limits in front of them, which is a little unsafe; so other issues do not really apply. He stated the issue today is whether or not the Board should consider the appeal of the site; and he does not think it should.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to deny the appeal of Noble Properties II, Ltd. and Troy Stephan of the site plan approval for H & M Shopping Center.

Chairperson Colon called for a second to the motion; with Commissioner Higgs responding she would like to get the answer to her question. Mr. Knox advised he read the Code and thinks the problem is that it talks about submitting revisions; and the way the Code was interpreted prior to Mr. Washburn taking over the Division was that if a person submitted a revised site plan, it triggered another six months. He stated the site plan has to be reviewed; if a developer needed further revisions, he could submit a new site plan and have an additional six months; and the letters in the file indicate that is what was going on at that time. He stated he does not think the Code is explicit about whether that was a bad interpretation or a good interpretation; it is just ambiguous on that point; so it could have been interpreted that way, although it is not interpreted that way now.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that is adequate to proceed or does the Board have to do something else. He stated he agrees with Commissioner Higgs; if the County sent a letter out and said they have six months from this letter, that is the clearest indication of vested rights; and inquired if the Board needs to take a vesting; with Mr. Knox responding no. Commissioner Higgs inquired why not; with Mr. Knox responding because there is conflicting evidence of what the Code says; the Board had an old interpretation; now it has a new interpretation; those folks went under the old interpretation; and given the fact that it was interpreted thatt way, he does not think it is necessary to go back. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not a matter that it can be; that is the way the County was telling them to interpret it; it was not ambiguous, it was quite clear that staff was saying they had six months; and that is where Commissioner Higgs’ point is. Commissioner Higgs stated it is very clear that staff was telling the applicant, “an applicant shall have six months from the day of formal site plan submittal to make all necessary revisions as required"; and that is hard to misinterpret in her reading of the Code. Mr. Knox stated it is not hard to misinterpret if they submit a revised site plan that it is another formal submittal that starts a new six months; and that is the way it was being interpreted.

Chairperson Colon inquired if there is a motion; with Commissioner Scarborough responding Commissioner Pritchard made a motion. Commissioner Scarborough stated there was a new element today that was the use of the drainage that is going to Department of Transportation for the landscaping; and that was indicated as a totally new component; and inquired if that raises any concerns as to the proper approval; with Mr. Washburn responding no. Commissioner Scarborough stated from what he was told, the site plan is in order; and inquired if it is Mr. Washburn’s recommendation that the appeal be denied; with Mr. Washburn responding yes.

Commissioner Scarborough seconded the motion.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has been given a lot of information; as one of the attorneys pointed out, this is a quasi-judicial review; the Board has been given evidence it does not have time to review; and it should not feel compelled today to go ahead because no judge feels compelled to rule the moment of the hearing when piles of evidence have been presented. She stated maybe today it is okay to go ahead because they did have some of the information in advance; but she is not sure what she had in advance and what they gave to the Board anew. She stated she is concerned that she has been given stuff and appreciates them putting it in the record; but the Board should not feel compelled to approve things at the time that it is given them. She stated it is hard sometimes to review the evidence; sometimes at zoning hearings the Board says it has to look at the evidence submitted; and they say it is something, but it may not be. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board also asked the County Attorney to come back with a finding; and inquired if Commissioner Higgs wants to do that. Commissioner Higgs stated she would like a finding of fact and would feel more comfortable doing that. Chairperson Colon stated at that point there would be no public comments.

Commissioner Pritchard stated most of the information that was passed to him was located in the Agenda package, so it is new information; and perhaps Commissioner Higgs did not have time to read the agenda package, but the information he was given was simply passed through because they already had it. Commissioner Higgs stated she is willing to concede that most of the information is there, but there were a few pages going by. Commissioner Scarborough stated to protect the Board, if it was challenged in the courts, it is always good to have findings of fact prepared; and the Board will have an opportunity, if there are things that it thinks need to be in there that staff did not pick up from reviewing the documents and what was said to better perfect it. He stated it will help the Board if there is an appeal; so if Commissioner Pritchard is willing to amend his motion to that effect, that would probably be wise. Commissioner Pritchard inquired when would the findings of fact be distributed to the Board; with Mr. Knox responding it usually is done by the next meeting. Chairperson Colon stated January 28 is the next meeting. Mr. Knox stated he should be able to do it by then.

Commissioner Pritchard amended the motion to include a finding of fact to be submitted to the Board prior to the January 28, 2003 meeting. Commissioner Scarborough stated that was the intention of his second.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING
CODE TO ALLOW CARGO TRAILER SALES AS PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS IN
BU-1 ZONING CLASSIFICATION

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Zoning Code to allow cargo trailer sales as permitted with conditions in BU-1 zoning classification. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND STAFF DIRECTION, RE: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO
ZONING CODE TO PERMIT CATTLE GRAZING ON GML PROPERTIES

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve legislative intent for proposed revisions to Sections 62-1572 and 62-1831 of the Zoning Code to permit cattle grazing on GML properties. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND STAFF DIRECTION, RE: GENERATE U.S. 1 INDUSTRIAL
CORRIDOR STUDY PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONING CODE CHANGES

Jane Peltz of Melbourne advised she has lived in the Springs of Suntree for 12 years and was secretary of the board of directors last year; she has back problems, has sat here a long time, and it would be easier for her to read her report about the planned industrial park being proposed along U.S. 1 and the area behind Bronco Drive; and read as follows: “We the homeowners of the Springs of Suntree feel we have done our time trying to promote the preservation of the Flagler property, which is the property we are talking about and referred to in the Recommendation No. 1 of the proposal we received from Todd Corwin and pictured on the map on page 12 of that proposal. My husband and I started this effort back in March 2001 when we canvassed the whole area of the Springs of Suntree to get a petition signed. The majority of homeowners preferred to see residential zoning in lieu of industrial for this area, but all concurred that preservation would by far be preferable. Many of the homeowners on Bronco Drive, which is the street directly involved, were told by the developer’s sales people that this area was a nature preserve. After two years of attending homeowners meetings and Commission meetings regarding the Comprehensive Plan and EEL’s, and Marine Resources Council meetings as well, we have been defeated in our original goal of preservation. The sad part is the EEL’s Committee had the money to preserve this land, but Flagler’s asking price far exceeded the government appraisal. We are still hopeful that the EEL’s Committee may be able to intercede with the new owners, Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc. (VBJV) to at least save some of the ecologically-sensitive areas of the property. This proposal states, the one we received from Todd, ‘these environmentally-sensitive properties, referring to the Flagler property, represent the last remaining scrub habitat in the central part of the County.’ This planned industrial proposal, if done with deep regard for the natural beauty of the parcel and with respect to the wildlife and neighbors who live there, could be a good alternative. This would have to include a preserved natural corridor and a much larger natural buffer than proposed. The prospect of a six-foot concrete wall facing my backyard cannot replace the scene we now view. We have seen an industrial park in Melbourne with the natural vegetation creating the buffer. The beauty of the new Health First facility on Route 1 comes to mind as well. Hopefully this proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan will pass and the developing engineers for VBJV will use it to produce an area of beauty of which the businesses and their employees could be proud. I would like to refer all concern to the Green Trust Company that recently gave a presentation at one of your Commission meetings. Their experience is that the green development is not only aesthetically pleasing, but also more profitable. My final plea is please do not let them rip out all the trees. We have already seen too many manmade deserts in this County. Let’s try to make this area a showcase for planned industrial parks in Brevard County.”

Chairperson Colon advised Mr. Prada put in a card to speak on Item VI.A.5., and the Board needs to acknowledge him. She stated the Board has given permission to advertise a public hearing on the ordinance to allow cargo trailer sales in BU-1.

Lee Prada advised he leased a parcel of property to a cargo sales utility trailer sales company at 2310 S. Fiske Boulevard; it was an abandoned Chevron Station that he purchased in 1994; and he did a building face-lift and leased it in 1995 to Tropical Lawn, which later purchased its own property and left. He stated he leased it to Wayne Sternam Trailer; but because of the small size of the building, it has a limited amount of use. He stated he is for the ordinance, but his property meets only six conditions and it would be hard to meet conditions 7, 8, and 10, especially that all the trailers shall be behind the first line of the structure. Mr. Prada stated Home Depot on Merritt Island has trailers for sale in its parking lot which is BU-1 zoning in the County; Lowe’s in Rockledge on Barnes Boulevard sells the same trailers; and they would not be able to use his lot if he took everything to the rear. He stated No. 8 would require him to redo the front doors on the building, which would not be feasible; and it would be better to knock down the building. He stated No. 9 relates to repairs; the only thing that is done on the parcel is installation of hitches and lighting systems on automobiles when they buy trailers; and No. 10 is Type C landscaping. He explained a map of the area, depicting an old Philip 66 gas station, his property, and property on the corner of Virginia and Fiske; and stated the trailers suit the aesthetics of the property more than what could be there, which is auto repair. He stated there is no repair done on the property, and it is merely selling of small trailers.

Chairperson Colon inquired if the Board tweaked the ordinance and made some changes, would that compromise the ordinance and throw away what the Board is trying to accomplish; with Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott responding he believes so.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Prada had suggestions to try and deal with the ordinance in such a way to allow him to be there because there was a violation of the existing Ordinance; and inquired if that is correct; with Mr. Prada responding yes. She stated staff is trying to accommodate as much as possible, but she is not sure it is going to happen in this case. She stated it will come back at the public hearing and there may be more lengthy discussions, but perhaps between then and now, they can talk to staff and see if there are any other things they can do. Mr. Prada stated the main point is they have to make it so he can utilize the existing property; the building was abandoned; there is only so much one can do with a building that size; and the business being run out of there is environmentally-friendly. He stated it is clean; and there is no grease or auto repairs like what is across the street, which is much more of a problem with a lift in front of the building where they pick up cars and work on them. Commissioner Carlson advised she asked staff to talk to the City of Rockledge because a lot of the properties surrounding Mr. Prada’s property are in an enclave; a lot of them are in the City limits; and she asked staff to give a report to her on how Rockledge feels about it, given there may be a time in the future when the property is annexed into the city and would have to conform to city codes. She stated she would like to get more information back before the public hearing and have more detailed information on what the City of Rockledge thinks, the status of some of those properties, and why they are like that.

Chairperson Colon inquired if it would come back on January 28, 2003; with Mr. Scott responding if the Board granted permission to advertise today, staff would have to take it to the LPA then back to the Board, so it would be early March if they get on the February LPA meeting agenda. Chairperson Colon stated that would give the Commissioners more time to get information. Commissioner Carlson suggested Mr. Prada call her office for more information about surrounding properties and the city codes.

Bob Peltz advised as most Americans, they lament and abhor the burn and slash developments found in third world countries, but condone and encourage the same things in Brevard County in terms of the woods and foliage, etc. He stated about a week ago he send each Commissioner a letter explaining their position at the Springs at Suntree regarding the Flagler development or what was known as the Bonaventure Industrial Park; they had hoped that it could become a nature preserve; obviously that was shot down, so they now heartily endorse the efforts and recommendations of Todd Corwin, Mel Scott, and so forth. He stated in 1982, when the property was rezoned and replatted as shown on the small scale map he gave each Commissioner, that is essentially the way the area looks now from an aerial photograph taken about four or five years ago; and that is the way it is currently zoned and platted at this time, which was the so-called Bonaventure Industrial Park. He stated they are sure this will not materialize, but it is still something that is on the books; so they strongly urge the Board to have the wisdom, foresight, and courage to try and get as much of it preserved as a wildlife corridor as possible because it probably is the only wooded area still left in that entire area.

Ed Slaney advised Beth McMillen had to leave and asked him to read a short statement for her; and read as follows: “I am an environmental resource manager speaking on behalf of the Marine Resources Council. MRC is a neighboring property owner. To cite that our reference in Recommendations Nos. 1 and 2 of the proposed future land use map amendments listed in the U.S. 1 industrial corridor small area study, we believe the recommendations made in the study are reasonable and will provide a future land use more compatible with existing land uses. The recommendations will help resolve future conflicts between existing residential land use and directly adjacent undeveloped land currently zoned heavy/light industrial. Thank you.

Brian Fletcher of Melbourne stated he wishes the Board would review the piece of land relative to wildlife, eagles’ nests, the scrub jays that come to hand to feed, the tortoises, and everything else; but it looks like it will be a heavy/light industrial area that could be planned so that the wetlands, eagle nests, and other areas could be left as is. He suggested it be made a nice industrial park that people will be pleased to go into as well as an education system put in the area where children and adults could go in and see the eagles nest, scrub jays, and other animals. He stated there is information that the property has a cougar and panther on it; he has seen the panther and has videos of a bobcat, but did not get his camera quick enough to have pictures of the panther; however, there is someone who has a photo that they are pursuing now. He stated the area is environmentally suitable for animals; and if the County spots industrial areas in there and leaves a lot of the trees, it will make an ideal area that everybody would be pleased with.

Steve Vickery of Melbourne advised his property is adjacent to the subject property; he highly supports Recommendation No. 1, but requests the applicable requirements of the significant environmental areas ordinance that is being prepared by Natural Resources Management Office be closely adhere to and grandfathered into the development of the property. He stated several of the residents have seen the cougar; the property can be designated a natural resource area by the State; they have been led to believe that is so, and have manned cameras at their windows; and they are not allowed to go on the property without trespassing to find the cougar, but they are on the lookout for him. He noted a neighbor saw the cougar looking at his cat a few months ago, so they hope the cougar shows up and they can give the Board proof that he is there and maybe they can get a conservatory in there.

Michael Skapura of Melbourne advised he lives near the area being discussed and is in favor of keeping it as natural as possible. He stated the latest information he has is the industrial park may be what they are looking for; but it would behoove them to keep it as natural as it is now.

Lynda White of Maitland, representing Audubon of Florida as the Eagle Watch Coordinator, advised the property in question has been home since 2001 to a pair of bald eagles recorded by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as BE56. She stated there have been only 58 active nest territories recorded in Brevard County since they started recording nests in 1974; that is not many eagles for a county this size; and contrary to some thinking, there is no such thing as expendable eagles. She stated Florida currently has the largest population of bald eagles in the United States with the exception of Alaska; however, in no other state is the eagle more threatened by continued loss of suitable habitat. She noted she spends a good deal of her time attending county commission meetings statewide; she goes to those meetings speaking on behalf of Florida’s eagles; and she has a success story and a challenge for the Board. Ms. White advised St. Johns County, after numerous instances of development versus eagles, has adopted its own bald eagle management plan; it supplements the State and federal regulations, but is a county commission plan; and St. Johns government and its proactive efforts to protect eagle habitat while allowing for responsible growth should serve as a model for Brevard County and all local governments in Florida. She suggested the Board talk to St. Johns County as they have done all the work; and she will not have to come back to Brevard County because she trusts it will do the right thing. She stated as the eagle population hopefully continues to grow in Florida and in Brevard County, the situation is going to come up again and again; so they have to be proactive and take care of those birds; and Brevard County citizens, including the eagles, deserve no less.

Edward Slaney of Melbourne advised he is an eagle watch volunteer and monitor a couple of nests in Brevard County; and he would like to see the County get active and take some role in protecting those magnificent animals. He stated too many times the State and federal agencies fall flat; any construction of buildings near eagles’ nests is encroaching in their territory somehow and shortens the territories needed for the eagles. He stated they need space; and the County should encourage the State and federal agencies to take an active role. He noted he would love to see that happen.

Mary Sphar of Cocoa complimented Planning and Zoning Staff on the small area study; and stated staff is offering some very sensible recommendations. She stated she has a question on the item on page 4 of the Study which states, “The subject area contains numerous wetland, aquifer recharge, and scrub areas”; and inquired what percentage of the land is in aquifer recharge areas defined by the Comprehensive Plan. She stated she hopes the Board has the answers before it consider the recommendations in the future. Ms. Sphar stated the same paragraph states, “A portion of the study area has been identified for potential acquisition by the Florida Communities Trust Program. These environmentally-sensitive properties represent the last remaining scrub habitat in the central part of the County”; and inquired how much of the land is included in the FCT grant, and how much of the small area study is identified in the scrub overlay data prepared for the significant environmental areas protection effort. She stated she heard the County is not encountering willing sellers for some environmentally-sensitive areas of the U.S. 1 industrial corridor study as well as other nearby lands; she heard that one reason is that the appraisal process is extreme by State rules, saying that only appraised value may be paid for the properties; it can be debated whether some appraisals are not realistic considering the current real estate market; and she would like to know what the County can do to get better results in acquiring the most sensitive properties. Ms. Sphar stated unless the County starts getting better success in acquisition, the scrub jay may not survive long-term in Central Brevard and the County will have lost other valuable habitat and aquifer recharge areas as well. She stated she favors Option 1 for the study, preparing Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zoning Code changes; however, the Zoning Code changes should include not just zoning requirements for open space, but also specify that uplands be an appropriate percentage of that open space. She noted the Open Space Subdivision Ordinance has such a requirement. She stated there should also be a requirement that native vegetation be preserved and planted in the upland open space; and while the Zoning Code changes will be generic to the zoning category, a special protection for environmentally-sensitive areas should be included in the Zoning Code. She requested that staff supply more information on the areas of U.S. 1 industrial corridor that are defined as aquifer recharge areas included in the FCT grant or included in the significant environmental areas overlay. She requested the Board also look into any possible strategies for improving Brevard County’s chances for acquiring the most sensitive properties that are part of the FCT grant and in the meantime the County prepare recommended Comprehensive Plan amendments along with Zoning Code changes requiring open space, including uplands containing native vegetation.

Commissioner Carlson stated she supports Option 1; it is a good use of the property based on some of the things that everyone has talked about; acquisition of that property would have been nice; but if all the residents are vigilant and get their cameras to spot the big cat or get a paw print, that is what they need to verify the fact that the cougar is there and it might elevate it to a different category. She stated Anne Birch is the expert on that and can be referred to in terms of the specifics; she has spoken to the people who own the property; and when they purchased it, they understood it was industrial. She inquired if that is correct; with Planner Todd Corwin responding he contacted the owner who is selling the property, the Flagler Corporation, and passed the information along to Greg Olson. Commissioner Carlson stated the agents for the property were the Stivers; she contacted them and they did not know anything about it; and it did not seem like they had an issue with it because they are planning a planned industrial park and want to put together something very nice. She stated she will sponsor a meeting between the new owners and the community in her office to talk further about the concerns they have and get an update from Ms. Birch on where they sit on the State level in terms of funding. She stated staff has gotten some updates along those lines, so if they contact her office, they can get the meeting together.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Option 1, to direct staff to prepare and advertise Comprehensive Plan amendments and/or Zoning Code changes for the U.S. 1 industrial corridor.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is the Board’s pleasure to include what Ms. Sphar was talking about in terms of open space, uplands, and native vegetation. She stated the significant areas ordinance is supposed to include all those things together; there are multiple ordinances they are looking at to bring together for the SEA; the last time they said it was 13 ordinances; and inquired if that is correct.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised that is the long-term goal and will not be achievable in the short term, but what they want to do is structure the environmental protection ordinance so they are all similar in structure but focus on specific areas that are being protected with specific performance standards and conditions. He stated the first ordinance they will bring to the Board deals with scrub habitat; and the rest should fall into place after that model. Commissioner Carlson inquired how far away is the Board from seeing that; with Mr. Peffer responding it should be by the end of February. Commissioner Carlson inquired when will the Board address the issues Ms. Sphar brought up, if at all; with Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott responding an appropriate timing of the sequence of events would be to bring those back the same time as the adoption package comes back for Board consideration because with the future land use map changes and dovetailing that into the Zoning code changes, that would be the best time. Commissioner Carlson reiterated her motion to approve Option 1.

Commissioner Scarborough seconded the motion to approve Option 1.

Chairperson Colon stated she does not have a problem with identifying areas that need to be protected, but she has a problem when something comes to the Board and is denied, then the County wants to buy it through the EEL’s program. She stated it makes her feel uncomfortable even though it is a good thing to protect the environment. Commissioner Carlson stated the denial occurred the last time based on the issue of school overcrowding. Chairperson Colon stated she recalls that; it was Attorney Leonard Spielvogel who represented the property owner; but she remembers the same situation with The Viera Company that the Board denied, and after that, discussed the purchase of it. She stated she wants to set the record straight that it is very uncomfortable for her to do it that way; she wishes there were some areas that would be identified by staff on its own; and Anne Birch is working very hard on that, so the Board does not encounter those kinds of issues and would not be uncomfortable.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Option 1 has eight recommendations; and inquired if staff is advertising the opportunity to select recommendations; with Mr. Corwin responding that is correct; the recommendations would be to prepare the appropriate Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zoning Code changes. Commissioner Carlson stated all the recommendations from 1 through 4 and 6, 7, and 8 are good; the Board is left with Options 1, 2, or 3 on Recommendation No. 5; and Option 2 is one it would probably prefer from staff’s perspective; with Mr. Corwin responding Option 2 creates a transition zone; and alternative option could be that staff could discuss it with the community and develop options based on their input.

Commissioner Carlson stated she would like to do that since it is in her District; so with Option 1, which is the option on the front of the Agenda that directs staff to prepare and advertise Comprehensive Plan amendments and/or zoning Code changes, she will include 1 through 4, 6, 7, and 8.

Chairperson Colon inquired if it is included in the second; with Commissioner Scarborough responding affirmatively. Chairman Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Recommendation No. 5 will be discussed with the community; with Commissioner Carlson responding yes, and it will be brought back. Commissioner Carlson requested Ed Slaney and Lynda White contact her office with a copy of the management plan from St. Johns County so they can go over it and see what St. Johns County did about that because Brevard County has so many eagles’ nests, and it would be nice to have something that would augment the State and federal regulations because sometimes they do fall flat.

ACCEPTANCE OF DEED AND EASEMENT FROM ERIC AND ERIN MILES, RE: ROAD
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON CLYDESDALE BOULEVARD

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize acceptance of a Deed for road right-of-way and an Easement for drainage from Eric and Erin Miles in exchange for piping of an existing ditch on their property located in Section 10, Township 27S., Range 36E, located at the northwest corner of Lake Washington Road and Clydesdale Boulevard. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. See pages
for Deed and Easement.)

AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH ACQUISITION, RE: PROPERTY ADJACENT
TO FOX LAKE PARK

Charles Moehle, President of Modern, Inc., advised Fox Lake Park was given to the County by the Partnership; and when they built it, they were not paying much attention. He stated by agreement over the years, it has been fine and a working relationship; but as of several years ago, it became a conflict with their people coming and going through the Park; so he brought it up to the County that the situation needed to be corrected. He stated it is now being corrected; they will work with the County; but they need the Park reconfigured to the way that it was supposed to be.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize staff to proceed with acquisition of property adjacent to Fox Lake Park owned by Modern, Inc. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

TASK ORDER 97-25 WITH HDR ENGINEERING, INC., RE: CONSTRUCTION AND
QUALITY ASSURANCE SERVICES FOR NORTH SLOPE CLOSURE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Task Order No. 97-25 with HDR Engineering, Inc. for construction and quality assurance engineering services for the North Slope Closure at the Central Disposal Facility. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Task Order No. 97-25.)

RETURN OF APPEAL FEE, RE: BARRY WALLINGFORD

Barry Wallingford, representing Atlantic Business Systems, advised his property is triangular in shape, vacant, with the railroad on one side on Industry Drive in Wickham Business Park; it has a small highly disturbed wetland on it that he had hoped to mitigate; and he was advised in August by staff to come before the Board for an interpretation of Section 62-3694(c)(3) having to do with the issue of being substantially surrounded by commercial or industrial use prior to February 1996. He stated because the wetland was of poor quality and because the railroad was on one side, he felt he had an opportunity to be granted a mitigation on that; he paid a civil engineer and an environmental engineer to prepare plans and present them to the Board on August 27, 2002; and while he was disappointed on that date that he did not use the right format, he was encouraged by the discussion that took place, as it indicated the Board felt he had a good chance of success to mitigate the wetland but needed to file an appeal. Mr. Wallingford stated he was surprised to find out the appeal fee was $1,000; but based on the conversation of August 27, 2002, he decided to go ahead and try to move forward with that; and at additional cost to him, he had the civil engineer reformat the same data and present it to the Board on September 17, 2002, at which time he was told that a variance could not be granted because it would require the Board to set a precedent classifying the railroad as an industrial property, which most would agree it is. He stated he was charged $1,000 by the County for that appeal and it was overturned; he moved ahead with the project, leaving the wetland there; and requested the return of his $1,000 as he feels the process was doomed to failure from the start.

Commissioner Carlson advised she requested staff to give the Board a rundown of what it costs to go through the appeal process; it should be attached to the Agenda report; and it describes the cost to the County as $139 for advertising and $708 for staff time and resources to prepare and process the appeal. She stated the Board tries to assess, whenever staff’s time is utilized, the fair cost of that paid by fees; so with that, she does not support returning $1,000. She stated it was not the Board’s intention to indicate approval; it was looking at the issue with an open mind; there was no set-up or a done deal; the process is the process and it costs money to go through it; and Mr. Wallingford chose to do that.

Mr. Wallingford advised he is not accusing the Board of a set-up in any way; but the comments that were made on August 27, 2002 led him to believe a common sense and logical solution could be found; and he would have preferred to mitigate. He stated it is an industrial park; there is a small wetland, like the one discussed earlier, surrounded by pepper trees; and it is not a pleasant area.

Commissioner Carlson stated this is the first time the Board has tried to interpret anything dealing with the railroad, which has put a wrench in this situation; and with that said, she does not see herself supporting return of the fees. Mr. Wallingford stated there was discussion about staff reviewing how many parcels in the County were affected similarly; and inquired if that has taken place; with Sherry Williams of Natural Resources Management Office responding on September 30, 2002, staff prepared a memo to the Board which addressed several questions the Board had at the time regarding the number of parcels along that railroad corridor; and along the 70 miles of railroad through Brevard County, nine parcels would possibly meet the substantially surrounded criteria if the railroad corridor was considered as industrial or commercial use.

Chairperson Colon stated she thinks the Board should reimburse Mr. Wallingford the fee.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he was not on the Board in August and does not know what went on during that meeting; but he does not feel comfortable giving Mr. Wallingford back the difference between $847 and $1,000; and he has a feeling Mr. Wallingford was led into believing that he had an opportunity to prevail with an appeal and following the correct process. Mr. Wallingford stated he came back the second time. Commissioner Pritchard stated the first time did not cost him $1,000, but it cost him $1,000 to come back the second time; with Mr. Wallingford responding the $1,000 was the fee to the County, but it cost him substantially more than that for engineering. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Wallingford filed what he thought was the correct methodology to attain his goal; when he was told it was the wrong paperwork, he spent $1,000 to re-file; and it was during the first meeting that he felt as if that would get him what he wanted to do, so he was somewhat encouraged. Mr. Wallingford stated that is correct, and it was less about the quality of the wetland than about the classification of the railroad, which the Code says private and industrial and in his mind the railroad is both. He stated that is what he pinned his hopes on even though the wetland was not of good quality because the classification of the railroad was the key. He stated the lot is triangular in shape so it only has two sides with the railroad being one of the three sides; property on one side was developed prior to February 1996, but the other side with commercial/light industrial development was not done prior to February 1996; so his property was in a gray area in the Code, which he felt did not intend to prevent him from developing it to its fullest potential. Commissioner Pritchard stated his point is because Mr. Wallingford filed the wrong piece of paper, it cost him $1,000 to file the right piece of paper.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are bits and pieces of things; the Board was dealing with a totally new issue; and for the Board to take an interpretation in favor of the applicant and convey that would be incorrect. He stated the Board was in the process of discussing new ground; Commissioner Pritchard made a motion to return something earlier and Commissioner Higgs asked if the Board was going to do that in all cases; in that case it was clear and not ambiguous; but in this case it is not clear. He stated there are risks on all parts; to an extent that the Board had not been there before, it may have been unsure what it would be conveying; and just as a compromise, it may be okay to rebate half of it or $500. He stated the Board in no way had the capacity at that meeting to speak with any assurance because none of them had been there or thought it through to that level where it could have assured Mr. Wallingford he had vested rights and to file for it. He stated in this case there was a degree of doubt on the part of the Board; and if the doubt had not been there and the Board had been there before, it may not have had that confusion. Chairperson Colon stated she is willing to go with $500.

Commissioner Higgs stated a personal appearance was the venue Mr. Wallingford chose to come before the Board on the first occasion; the Board heard him and recognized it as an appeal of staff’s interpretation of the Code; and the proper form by which that should occur would require notice to the citizens. She stated the Board made the determination at the first meeting that it was the wrong venue and that citizens had to be notified; it did not try to mislead anyone; it is the way it is set up so citizens will know what goes on; and that is why the Board chose that venue and why it said that is what happens and there is a charge because there is a process that protects everyone who lives under the Codes. She stated there was language at the first meeting that said the Board does not guarantee anything; nothing is final until the Board hears it; she does not think anyone was misled; the citizens are guaranteed the right, under the Code, to hear what goes on; that has to be advertised so people will know what goes on; so she cannot support a motion that refunds the fee.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Commissioner Pritchard is willing to refund at least half of the fee; with Commissioner Pritchard responding at least that, but as a point of discussion, he still has a feeling that Mr. Wallingford made the wrong appearance based on whatever reason; it was determined by the Board it should have been advertised and a public hearing held; and because of that determination, it required Mr. Wallingford to file an appeal, which cost him $1,000; and that is the part he disagrees with.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board goes there, it is going to let all the people file any appeal without any cost and that will open the door to appeals on everything. He stated there are some cases where the only recourse for a person is to come before the Board; a good case is the vested rights that came earlier; staff told them they had a right to vested rights; but this is another case because it is something the Board never considered before, the person comes under a personal appearance at no cost, and there was no notice, which is required in an appeal process. He stated if Commissioner Pritchard is going to where there is no cost or filing fees at all, he is not going there because it would encourage a lot of frivolous appeals. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is not going there. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is where it will lead if Mr. Wallingford is reimbursed the $1,000. Commissioner Scarborough stated there was a great deal of discussion about the new element the Board had not previously explored; there was no way the Board told him it was a slam dunk and was going to happen; the Board told him if he wanted it discussed, he had to follow the proper procedure because he came in under the wrong procedure; and he is ready to say not even half the reimbursement.

Chairperson Colon stated she thinks it would be fair to return half the fee; and inquired if Commissioner Scarborough has a motion on the floor; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he does not and is not going to support it now. Commissioner Pritchard stated Commissioner Scarborough should not take that action because of his comments; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he is afraid because it may be giving too much back and the cost will be born by the people. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is not his point; his point is Mr. Wallingford came here under the wrong appearance because he did not know better, then it cost him $1,000 for an appeal; and inquired if there is some way that he could have part of his fee reimbursed. Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Wallingford came to the Board under a personal appearance; he showed up and said he wanted to talk about the issue; the only way he could have his concerns dealt with was to appeal staff’s decision; and that was the only venue which required notice and a fee. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what would have happened if he came to the Board in the second phase; with Commissioner Higgs responding he would have been required to pay the fee. Commissioner Scarborough stated if Mr. Wallingford wanted to be heard, he had to pay the $1,000; the Board could not take action on it the first time; nobody told him to come to the Board incorrectly; he was told about the process he needed to take; and the Board did have extensive discussions on a totally new area. He inquired if the Board is going to hear all those things without notice or fees under personal appearances; with Commissioner Pritchard responding that is not his point. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is what it leads to. Commissioner Pritchard stated what he is trying to find out is what the process is that he should have come under; with Commissioner Scarborough responding pay the $1,000 fee the first time. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it would have cost him $1,000 to come in and make that application; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes, if he had come in correctly; but he happened to come in free the first time without having a notice required.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he will second the motion to reimburse the $500. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not going to go for it because it is dangerous.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to reimburse Barry Wallingford $500 of the $1,000 fee paid for his appeal application.

Mr. Wallingford stated he lost the third vote; and he would not dream of suggesting it was a set up, wherever that came from. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Wallingford should not take this personally; the question is whether it should be noticed, and if it does, should the taxpayers pay the cost and allow an enormous increase in frivolous appeals; and that is the risk in reimbursing the fee. Mr. Wallingford stated he does not feel it is frivolous; and if he could get $500, he would be happy. Chairperson Colon stated every case is different; she was on the Board and so was Commissioner Scarborough when the discussion took place; and she feels comfortable returning $500 to be fair and because it is not the full amount. Commissioner Pritchard stated he agrees with that; and he does not want the Board to take out its anger at him for trying to find out what the process is. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not anger at all; Commissioner Pritchard helped him think things through of where this will lead and how he is going to hate his vote in future meetings if he voted to approve the reimbursement. He stated it would be disgust with himself and not with any other Commissioner. Chairperson Colon stated she would second the motion, but she does not believe it is going anywhere.

The motion to approve $500 reimbursement to Mr. Wallingford died for lack of a second.

LETTER OF INVITATION, RE: PARTICIPANTS OF BREVARD COUNTY EXTENSION
SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize the Chairperson to execute Letter of Invitation for Brevard County Extension Service Listening Session to be held February 20, 2003 to solicit input and advice from the public. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: QUALIFYING LIBERTY AEROSPACE, INC. AS AN ELIGIBLE
BUSINESS UNDER THE COUNTY’S TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution qualifying Liberty Aerospace, Inc. as an eligible business under the County’s Tax Abatement Program, and authorize a public hearing to consider an exemption ordinance. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay. (See page for Resolution No. 03-017.)

Commissioner Scarborough requested the applicants introduce themselves to the community and tell the Board and audience what they will be doing.

Scott Meder, CFO at Liberty Aerospace, advised they are in the process of certifying a two-seater aircraft they think has a very good position in the marketplace; and they are in the flight testing phase right now and anticipate the sales of the aircraft sometime in July or August, and maybe even June, depending on how flight testing and other FAA procedures go. He stated they are looking for a new home; and the President of the company and he are here taking advantage of the weather and doing flight testing. He stated they would appreciate the Board’s consideration; they are from Colorado; and they are here doing due diligence.

RESOLUTION, RE: QUALIFYING PROFESSIONAL AIRCRAFT ACCESSORIES, INC. AS
AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS UNDER THE COUNTY’S TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution qualifying Professional Aircraft Accessories, Inc. as an eligible business under the County’s Tax Abatement Program, and authorize a public hearing to consider adoption of an exemption ordinance. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay. (See page for Resolution No. 03-018.)

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

ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS, RE: BREVARD COUNTY ONSITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL
VARIANCE REVIEW BOARD

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca requested Commissioners from Districts 2, 3, and 4 pick a category out of the hat and advise staff accordingly. She noted staff would like to have the appointments back as soon as possible.

Commissioner Higgs advised she has the septic industry or professional engineer representative. Commissioner Pritchard stated he has the homeowner representative; and County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Commissioner Carlson has the building and construction industry representative.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Commissioner Higgs advised she pulled III.F.8., which is a series of appointments to various boards, as she did not get a large number of them until late Friday afternoon; she has never questioned any of the Commissioners’ appointments before, but was concerned when she saw Randy O'Brien to be appointed to the TDC because it should be an appointment of a person who is involved in the tourist industry. She stated she was not aware that Mr. O'Brien was involved in the tourism industry; but Commissioner Pritchard is passing out a letter that she was given earlier today, dated November 4th to Ron Pritchard, County Commissioner, saying Randy O'Brien accepted a position with a restaurant.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what does he do at the restaurant; with Commissioner Pritchard responding it is the Dockside Restaurant; Mr. O'Brien has a financial interest in it; and he also helps to bring in entertainment.

Commissioner Higgs stated based on that letter and the fact that the Code says the person is involved in the tourism industry, she has no objection to the appointment.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to appoint and/or reappoint Kelli Jo Strabley to the Animal Enforcement Dangerous Dog Hearing Council with term expiring December 31, 2003; Mary Wilson, Susan Martin, and Yvette Boodhoo to the Art in Public Places Advisory Board with terms expiring December 31, 2003; Francis Reilly, Joanne Farley, and Bob Fritz to the Brevard Commission on Aging, with terms expiring December 31, 2003; Cindy Flachmeier to the Brevard County Commission on the Status of Women with term expiring December 31, 2003; Harold J. Fuller to the Building and Construction Advisory Committee with term expiring December 31, 2003; Glenice Fablinger and Loretta Wilson to the Central Brevard Library and Reference Center Advisory Board with terms expiring December 31, 2003; Jack Callinan to the Citizen Budget Review Committee with term expiring December 31, 2003; John Anderson to the Community Action Agency Advisory Committee with term expiring December 31, 2003; Timothy Walker to the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Board with term expiring December 31, 2003; Bud Crisafulli, Lena Nordell, and Roger Drabyk to the Contractors Licensing Board, with terms expiring December 31, 2003; George Reynolds, Tim Myers, Tom Mott, Richard Corsillo, Doug Jaren, Roy Gunsler, and Joe Demes to the District 2 Canal Dredging Committee, with terms expiring December 31, 2003; Jack Callinan to the Economic Development Commission of the Space Coast with term expiring December 31, 2003; Sharon Luba to the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee with term expiring December 31, 2003; Courtney Roberts and Rocky Randels to the Environmentally Endangered Lands Procedure Committee with terms expiring December 31, 2003; Bud Crisafulli to the Extension Advisory Council with term expiring December 31, 2003; Brooks Humphrys, Douglas Hendriksen, and David Andersen to the Historical Commission with terms expiring December 31, 2003; Michael Moehle to the Land Development Regulations and Procedures Evaluation Committee with term expiring December 31, 2003; Carol Hurst to the Library Board with term expiring December 31, 2003; Doug Jaren and George Reynolds to the Marine Advisory Council with terms expiring December 31, 2003; Greg Cronk to the Medical Services Review Committee with term expiring December 31, 2003; John Anderson, Bob Estes, Howard Wolf, and Ken Ross to the Metropolitan Planning Organization Citizens Advisory Committee with terms expiring December 31, 2003; William Jewell and Robert Smith to the Mims-Scottsmoor Public Library Advisory Board with terms expiring December 31, 2003; Charlene Neuterman to the North Brevard Commission on Parks and Recreation with term expiring December 31, 2003; Tod McNeal, Dorothy Hill, Ray Hoffman, Kathy Jarrell, Albert Thomas, William Parlon, John Campbell, Hank Salvin, and Vicky Fischer to the Parks and Recreation Merritt Island/Beaches Service Sector Advisory Board with terms expiring December 31, 2004; Joe Sekera, Dorothy Ricker, and Johnny A. Diggs to the Personnel Council with terms expiring December 31, 2003; Aneta Ott, Michael Selig, John Daignault, and Ron McLellan to the Planning and Zoning Board with terms expiring December 31, 2003; Alice Crowell-Lance to the Port St. John Public Library Advisory Board with term expiring December 31, 2003; Lou Howard to the Public Golf Advisory Board with term expiring December 31, 2003; Mark Leslie, Jerry Jagrowski, Neil Jackson, John Lewis, Mike Malone, Charles Manning, Audrey Nassen, Warren Price, Mary Ann Beasley, Herb Richter, and E. Harrison Rhame to the Suntree-Viera Parks Committee with terms expiring December 31, 2003; Philip Thompson to the Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority with term expiring July 11, 2005; Randy O'Brien to the Tourist Development Council with term expiring December 31, 2006; Bill Baer and Ken Rivard to the Valkaria Airport Advisory Board with terms expiring December 31, 2003; Melvin Mueller to the Veterans Memorial Park Advisory Board with term expiring December 31, 2003; John Carelli, Eleanor Munton, Ollie Olsen, and Richard Butler to the Wickham Park Advisory Committee with terms expiring December 31, 2003; Courtney Roberts and Clyde Thodey to the Zoning Board of Adjustment with terms expiring December 31, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m.

ATTEST: __________________________________
JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)