The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on August 18, 1998, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Helen Voltz, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Mark Cook, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Pastor John A. Mitten of Victory Baptist Church in Cocoa, Florida.

Commissioner Helen Voltz led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT, RE: MIORELLI LITIGATION

County Attorney Scott Knox advised he sent a memo to the Board on the decision the judge made regarding Miorelli Engineering versus Brevard County, which basically allowed Miorelli to file an amended complaint and bring back all the items the Supreme Court had thrown out. He stated it is Mr. Mills' opinion that the judge's order is appealable; and rather than start at square one in the litigation which is now three years running and cost quite a bit of money, he would prefer to appeal it at a cost of $6,000 to $8,000, and is asking for the Board's authority to do that. Mr. Knox recommended the Board appeal the decision.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize Mr. Mills to appeal the judge's order allowing Miorelli Engineering to file an amended complaint and bring back all the items the Supreme Court threw out in the case of Miorelli Engineering v. Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: PORT ST. JOHN LIFT STATION LAWSUIT

County Attorney Scott Knox advised there is a lawsuit pending with Louis Morehead concerning a lift station in Port St. John; the County is named as a defendant along with individuals who are developing property for Eckerd's Corporation; there is an issue as to who owns the lift station that is providing sewer service to Port St. John; and Mr. Morehead is making a claim that he owns it. He stated the County has a legitimate case for making ownership; and recommended the County file a cross claim against Mr. Morehead to pursue the ownership issue. He requested the Board's authority to do that; and if the Board decides to go for it, any further communication with Mr. Morehead should go through him.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Mr. Morehead is suing the County saying he owns the lift station, and is the County going to defend that; with Mr. Knox responding no, the County is being sued by the people representing Eckerd's; Mr. Morehead is a named defendant; it is a title issue right now; and the County does not have a claim with Mr. Morehead involving this suit yet, but it can file in or file a new suit. He suggested the motion be to do whatever is appropriate in terms of filing a new suit or filing a cross claim. Commissioner Cook inquired if the County is in the position of defending in the current suit that the lift station is owned by the County; with Mr. Knox responding no, that is not an issue in this suit, but the County can raise that issue in the suit. Commissioner Cook stated he thought Mr. Morehead raised that issue; with Mr. Knox responding he raised it outside the context of the lawsuit; it is not in the lawsuit yet; and he is asking for permission to bring it into the lawsuit. Commissioner Cook inquired if the County can defend it if Mr. Morehead brings a lawsuit; with Mr. Knox responding the County can do that, but in view of the fact that Mr. Morehead is trying to obtain some money from the County to run the lift station, the County is not certain what he is going to do in terms of locking the County out of the lift station, so it would be better off trying to pursue it. Commissioner Cook stated he has qualms suing citizens even though they have action pending against the County. Mr. Knox advised it is an issue of who has title to the lift station; the Board has to do something to quiet the title; Mr. Morehead is making the claim and the County is making the claim of ownership; and someone needs to make that decision which usually is a judge; so he is asking the Board to allow them to go to the judge and get that decision.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the lawsuit was not filed by Mr. Morehead or the County; and requested Mr. Knox explain what has occurred. Mr. Knox advised the group that is developing property for Eckerd's was approached by Mr. Morehead because he claimed an ownership interest in the lift station property; as part of the development, they wanted to vacate the abutting property to the lift station; and the Board did approve that vacation. He stated under the law, half of the vacated area goes to Mr. Morehead and the other half to the other property owner; the half that went to Mr. Morehead involved seven parking spaces that were supposed to be put in the Eckerd's development plan; so now Mr. Morehead is asking Eckerd's to pay him for the right to have those parking spaces and that is what generated the suit by Eckerd's or the developers for Eckerd's. He stated they wanted to get that cleared up to see if there was some way to avoid having to pay that money; and the County was drawn into it because it has some ownership interest or alleged ownership interest in the lift station.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the title shows that Mr. Morehead owns that property; with Mr. Knox responding yes it does, but the County has been operating the lift station since 1986. Commissioner Cook stated if it is Mr. Morehead's property, the Board should compensate him. Mr. Knox stated that is the issue, whether or not the County should compensate Mr. Morehead; he bought the property knowing the County had a lift station there; what he bought was a median strip basically with a lift station in it anticipating the County would have to pay him for it; and it is his position that the County does not have to pay him for it because it owns it. He stated even if the County does not have title to the lift station, it owns it by virtue of that fact that in 1985, General Development Corporation and General Utilities Corporation agreed to sell it to the County and the County has occupied it since 1986 and has put in $100,000 worth of improvements. Commissioner Cook inquired if there was discussions with Mr. Morehead as a way to avoid litigation; with Mr. Knox responding he tried to talk to Mr. Morehead today.

Chairman Voltz inquired who Mr. Morehead bought the property from; with Mr. Knox responding Mr. Goldman who is his attorney and who bought it from Atlantic Gulf. Commissioner Cook inquired if there is any value, rather than pursuing an action, to see if something can be worked out if the title shows Mr. Morehead owns the property.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is if Mr. Morehead wanted to work something out, that can occur; he received a letter from Mr. Morehead that he sent to Mr. Knox; he asked a number of legal and technical questions that were beyond his capacity to answer; and Mr. Knox said no response to the letter is required or advisable at this time. He stated whether the Board wants to get into litigation or not, there is a serious condition with a County lift station in dispute over the title of the property; it needs to be resolved; if the County waits for Mr. Morehead to resolve it, it may cause the County and citizens inconvenience; and that is why Mr. Knox is recommending a legal issue. He stated the County needs to operate the lift station; it has an obligation to the community and the lagoon; and crazy things could happen if the lift station is not operated properly.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not understand how the title still has his name on it; but if it is his property, it is his; and what he would like to do is make an attempt to settle it before jumping right into litigation. Mr. Knox stated they met with Mr. Morehead today and he wants $250,000 for the median strip. Commissioner Cook inquired if Mr. Knox just wants to clear up the title and let a judge decide; with Mr. Knox responding yes, and if the County owes money, the judge will make it pay.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the County Attorney to proceed as deems prudent to determine ownership of the lift station located on Louis Morehead's property that services Port St. John. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR PINTER LAWSUIT

County Attorney Scott Knox advised about a year ago there was a trial involving Mr. Pinter and property in District 1; in that case the jury awarded a $650,000 verdict; it was appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeals; and the Fifth District Court has reversed the jury verdict and sent it back for a new trial on the damages. He requested an executive session to discuss strategy on that case.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to authorize the County Attorney to schedule an executive session to discuss strategy on the Pinter case. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: WATER QUALITY STUDY FOR MIMS DRINKING WATER

Commissioner Scarborough advised after the fires, people requested examination of their drinking water; they have shallow wells in the Scottsmoor area; and the toxicology profile indicated a substance in the water. He stated it was found only in one well, but the issue is where did it come from, and is it in other wells; and staff has been working with Florida Department of Environmental Protection, but they think it would be prudent if the Chairman wrote to the Secretary and requested they do a full study of the water.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct staff to brief the Chairman on the examination of drinking water in Mims, and prepare a letter for her signature to the Secretary of Department of Environmental Protection requesting it to conduct a complete study of the water quality.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if someone said why they think there is something in the water; with Commissioner Scarborough responding there are chemical companies nearby that could have caused the pollution; there is only one well with the problem, but there are questions on how it moves, how soluble it is, restraining layers, etc.; and that is what Department of Environmental Protection could find out for the County.

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

REPORT, RE: MRS. AMERICA

Commissioner O'Brien advised Mrs. America is a Merritt Island resident and coach at Merritt Island High School for the girls dance team; and he is proud of the community and people who live here.

EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION

Chairman Voltz expressed appreciation to John Toey for the great article in the Florida TODAY newspaper; and noted he did a wonderful job.

RESOLUTION, RE: SUPPORTING BY THE SEA, A COMMUNITY WITHIN A COMMUNITY

Chairman Voltz read aloud a Resolution supporting By The SEA, a community within a community for developmentally-disabled or mentally retarded older people whose parents who have been taking care of them die off. She stated they are working to get land and other things, and are looking for support so they can get funding from the Department of Children and Family Services.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution supporting the efforts of By The SEA to provide services and facilities for developmentally-disabled and mentally-retarded persons. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Voltz presented the Resolution to Marlene, her husband, and her son. Marlene thanked the Board for its support; advised they have been working very hard for the past six years and have a lot of Brevard County leaders, including Chairman Voltz who have been working with them. She stated there are parents in their 80's with children still at home; they need a choice to live in a community just as others do, where they can have friends down the street and walk out the door and see their friends and not be the only ones who are ignored and have a short bus that stops at their door. She stated they are very loving and can contribute to a community; and thanked the Board for giving them a chance to prove it.

Chairman Voltz stated it is a wonderful project, and when it takes off, the community will be very pleased.

REPORT, RE: DISTRICT 7 SUBDISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR

Chairman Voltz advised Don Lusk sent a letter to Mr. McAllister a while ago regarding a subdistrict administrator for District 7; and she received a request from the Children Services Council to send a letter to Mr. McAllister asking they fill the position. She stated it has been over six months when they promised to do it; they have not done it, so Brevard County is getting short changed on funds because of it; and requested the Board authorize a letter be sent to Mr. McAllister.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to prepare a letter for the Chairman's signature requesting Mr. McAllister fill the position of subdistrict director or administrator for District 7. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTIONS AND AWARDS - DAN PETRILLO, MARKETING CLAIMS MANAGER FOR ALLSTATE INSURANCE, RE: DONATION TO BREVARD COUNTY FIRE RESCUE

Dan Petrillo, representing Allstate Insurance Company, thanked the Brevard County fire fighters for their commitment and sacrifice for the people of Brevard County. He stated Allstate has a long heritage of caring and commitment to Florida's communities; through the combined efforts of the heroes, we recognize Brevard County and the Allstate Foundation to continue to build stronger and safer communities; Allstate Floridian is pleased to present a check for $1,000 to Brevard County Fire Rescue as their token of appreciation for their diligence and effort in saving lives, property, and businesses during the recent fires. He presented the check to Tim Mills.

Tim Mills stated on behalf of Brevard County Fire Rescue they thank Allstate for their generous donation to the Department; they will use the money for the citizens of the community.

RESOLUTION, RE: WELCOMING DISNEY CRUISE LINES TO BREVARD COUNTY

Chairman Voltz read aloud a Resolution welcoming Disney Cruise Lines to Brevard County and expressing appreciation for making Port Canaveral its home.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution welcoming Disney Cruise Lines to Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH COASTAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, RE: NON-EMERGENCY MEDICAID TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to execute Amendment No. 4 to SCAT's Purchase of Service Agreement with Coastal Health Systems of Brevard, Inc. to provide non-emergency Medicaid transportation services through September 30, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF PROPOSAL #P-1-8-20 AND CONTRACT, RE: CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR HAZARDOUS MITIGATION

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to award Proposal #P-1-8-20, Consultant Services for development of a Countywide Emergency Management Plan for Hazardous Mitigation, to Emergency Response Planning & Management, Inc.; and authorize the Chairman to execute an Agreement with the proposer. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVER OF BUILDING PERMIT FEE, RE: CONCESSION BUILDING FOR CENTRAL BREVARD SOCCER, INC.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to waive building permit fee for Central Brevard Soccer, Inc. to construct a concession building at Rotary Park on Merritt Island. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to appoint and/or reappoint Gerianne Riley to replace Emil Svatik on the Planning and Zoning Board, and Ginny Mack to replace Ron Chmielewski on the Public Golf Advisory Board, with terms expiring December 31, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve bills and budget changes as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE REQUIRING CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR SEAWALLS ON MAN-MADE BODIES OF WATER

Chairman Voltz called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 22, adding Article VII, Seawall Construction, to establish a requirement of a construction permit for seawalls on man-made bodies of water.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if man-made bodies of water include canals and lakes; with John Smith responding anything but natural bodies of water, as the State issues permits for natural bodies of water such as the Indian River and Banana River, so the County has no jurisdiction. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the committee reviewed it and asked for changes; with Mr. Smith responding minor repairs that do not affect the structural integrity of the seawall does not require a permit, and no structure shall be constructed within ten feet "landward" of the seawall.

Commissioner Cook inquired if there is a threshold on the size of the body of water; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding any place there is a seawall. Commissioner Cook inquired about retention areas; with Mr. Smith responding if they build a seawall they need a permit, but riprap is not a seawall.

There being no further comments heard, motion was made by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt ordinance amending Chapter 22, adding Article VII, Seawall Construction, Code of Brevard County, Florida; establishing the requirement of a construction permit for seawalls on man-made bodies of water within the unincorporated areas of Brevard County; the requirement to submit drawings as per construction standards for seawalls not exceeding five feet in height; the requirement that seawalls over five feet in height shall require sealed engineered plans to be submitted for a building permit; providing severability; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 30, CABLE COMMUNICATIONS

Chairman Voltz called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 30 relating to Brevard County Cable Communications, to incorporate federal law.

Commissioner Cook stated he has a problem charging franchise fees upon franchise fees; the court case that was referenced makes it optional; many surrounding counties are not including it in their ordinances; it is an additional fee that will pass through to consumers; and he does not support it.

Commissioner Scarborough commented on channels set aside for education and government use, the arrangement the City of Titusville has with TWC, and integrating information from other city council meetings into the overall system.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt ordinance amending Chapter 30, Cable Communications," of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; providing for an amended purpose, title, definitions, grant of franchise and regulatory provisions regarding use of rights-of-way, establishment of franchise fees and other provisions; amending franchising procedures, performance evaluations, requirements for bonds, insurance and indemnification, minimum design and construction standards, service provisions including minimum requirements for installation, service calls, complaint procedures, protection of subscribers' privacy, requirements for maintenance of certain books, records and reports; creating notice, grandfather rights, and format provisions; and providing for severability and an effective date.

Chairman Voltz requested an explanation of Commissioner Cook's comment on fees; with Assistant County Attorney Kyle King responding the case Commissioner Cook referenced is called Dallas v. FCC; it is a U.S. Court of Appeals decision that defines gross revenue; currently cities and counties can collect 5% of gross revenue; and depending on how gross revenue is defined determines the amount of the 5%. He stated the court held that the monies collected by the cable operator for payment of franchise fees is included in gross revenues; it is a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision which is not Brevard County's circuit so it is not technically binding on the County; but it is the only case on the subject that guides the County to the definition of gross revenue.

Commissioner Cook stated the problem is adding the franchise fee and gross revenue is charging twice; it is not something the County is required to do; that additional fee is a direct pass through to consumers; and he objects to that. Chairman Voltz advised Time Warner recently gave the County $25,000 worth of equipment to pull in the government channel because Ms. Luba received letters from the cities asking to participate. Commissioner Cook stated Time Warner is not in favor of this fee; it is not required; and he supports the rest of the ordinance but not that fee. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the fiscal impact; with Commissioner Cook responding about $50,000.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, to amend the motion to delete franchise fees from the definition of gross revenue and from Exhibit "B". Commissioner Scarborough accepted the amendment. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion as amended. Chairman Voltz called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF PROPOSAL #P-1-8-10 AND CONTRACT, RE: INTEGRATED FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised staff received three proposals and needs additional time to look at the offers and let the others submit best offers.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table award of Proposal #P-1-8-10 and Contract for Integrated Financial Management System until December 15, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LETTER TO F.I.N.D., RE: REQUESTING CHANNEL MARKERS

Commissioner O'Brien advised the channel from Merritt Island Airport to the Banana River is not marked and is dangerous to boaters because it is not visible; and request the Chairman send a letter to F.I.N.D. requesting channel markers in the channel from the Airport to the Banana River. He stated in the Banana River from 520 south of Patrick Air Force Base there are markers but they cannot find the channel; and the Board will need to ask F.I.N.D. to maintenance dredge that channel.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to authorize the Chairman to send a letter to Florida Inland Navigation District (F.I.N.D.) requesting channel markers in the channel from Merritt Island Airport to George Island, then east into the Banana River. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL, RE: BREVARD COUNTY v. A. DUDA & SONS, INC.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the settlement proposal with A. Duda & Sons, Inc. is moot because of the executive session.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to reject the settlement proposal regarding Brevard County v. Duda & Sons, Inc., and authorize the County Attorney to proceed with condemnation for taking of 240 acres and associated easements for expansion of the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment facility. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - SCOTT ELLIS, RE: ELIMINATION OF SIGNATURE BONDS

Scott Ellis advised signature bonds were wrong two years ago and they are still wrong today; and explained his personal experience when his house was robbed by a person who also robbed the County, and people in Titusville, and was let out of jail on a signature bond as part of a plea arrangement with the State Attorney, Public Defender, and Judge. He advised the person committed various felonies and misdemeanors; had several violations of probations and failures to appear; and not only did the person get a signature bond, but he, as a victim, was not notified that the person was let out of jail, and they did not ask that person where his property was so that some effort could be made to recover the property. He stated if someone gets a free pass out of jail with no bond, they should ask that person for some type of restitution for the victims or at least tell them where the property is located. He noted the person is scheduled to appear on October 22, 1998, but if he does not show, they will not go after him if he is in another state; there is no check on signature bonds like probation; so no one knows where he is or if he will or will not appear on October 22, 1998. Mr. Ellis advised if the person had to post a cash bond or real bond and skipped out, the bondsman would go after him and bring him back at no cost to the County; with a signature bond, the Sheriff's Department would have to make that expenditure if they go after him, instead of the defendant; and that is not right. He stated two years ago there was a procedure to screen people before allowing signature bonds and only certain people were eligible; but here is a person who committed crimes while on probation, has more charges pending, has a history of failure to appear and violation of probation, and he walks out with a signature bond. He stated they need to do away with signature bonds; and requested the County Attorney research if signature bonds are constitutional under the State Constitution. Mr. Ellis stated he knows there is a mechanism called Release on Recognizance (ROR), but at least the judge knows what he is doing and it is not called a bond; two years ago the County never collected a nickel on forfeited signature bonds; so it is not a bond, it is just ROR. He stated if it is a legal bond, he would like to request the County Attorney research what it would take to have that bond abolished, or the Board request those bonds not be used because it is not fair to victims and taxpayers who have to foot the bill to bring those persons back. He noted two years ago there were 70 people in the month of February who skipped out and of those, 37% were on signature bonds; there is no money to go after them; so he would request, if the Board decides to direct the County Attorney to do a report, that it be rescheduled on the agenda for another night meeting.

Commissioner Cook suggested the County Attorney look into it, get some answers, and give the Board some information on that, and schedule it for discussion at an evening meeting. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Ellis made some good points; if he was robbed and found out the person who robbed him was arrested for violation of probation eight or nine times and had committed a series of robberies, he would be extremely upset; and the judge not asking that person where the stuff is located is a presumption of innocence. Mr. Ellis stated he already plead guilty. He stated if there is an antithesis, he would like to hear what that is, so there is more of a balanced look; and he would like to find out what the Board is empowered to do about it.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to instruct the County Attorney to look into the matter of eliminating the use of signature bonds, and return with a report at the evening meeting of October 20, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - MS. FANNYE FAYE JOHNSON, RE: USE OF SPACE AT GIBSON COMMUNITY CENTER LIBRARY

Fannye Faye Johnson expressed concern about the possibility of displacing tenants who use Gibson Community Center; and stated they have used it for years; and noted it would not be a problem changing to the City of Titusville if it was equal for all tenants, but it is not. She stated the rents would jeopardize their abilities to use the facility; and inquired why they were not notified of the proposed change so they could have input on the rent and tenants. She stated there are people making decisions on the use of the Center who do not live in the community; they have no interest in the community; and they want to keep the facilities available for us while they are strategizing on the needs of the community. She requested the Board's intention, and that it not dump the Center on the School Board or City without talking to them so they can come up with solutions. She stated they have groups providing education, senior activities, child care, etc. at the Center; and they find displeasure that one group pays $1.00 a year while others pay more. She requested they all be given an equal opportunity.

Wesley Barton, representing Mims Men's Association and the Progressive Society, advised Ms. Johnson covered everything he wanted to say; they are concerned about the children who have activities at the center; and he hopes the Board will consider what Ms. Johnson said.

Lavonia Losada advised she is a teacher, lives in Rockledge, and works for Child Care Association, so she spends a lot of time in Titusville and sees the sense of pride in that community through the use of Gibson Center. She stated it is a wonderful place; there are education opportunities, social needs are met, and something is happening all the time at the Center, including outdoor football and little league activities that involve children and keep them off the streets. She stated it is a big need; it is not a business but the heart of the community; and it should be maintained.

Eric Green, President of National Technical Association, Project STAR, advised the Board is concerned about the fiscal responsibility for Gibson Community Center, and they are concerned about losing it; and there are ways to reduce the cost and maintain the programs that are beneficial to the community. He stated 27 organizations use that facility; they cannot afford space somewhere else; the building is significant to provide services to the community; and they do not want to be locked out. He requested the Board work on an approach with the community to come up with ways to keep the Center.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would not have known about this if Mrs. Johnson did not come to him; the City was proceeding to take it over and wanted negotiated leases; the facility provides for community good; and it is not the Board's intention to drive the people out. He stated Mr. Jenkins said it can easily be handled; it should be done with a great deal of community discussion; to move forward with a transfer to the City would be premature; and the Board should operate it for the coming year.

Commissioner Higgs advised Mr. Green stated there is an ability to bring the cost down; and she wants to consider that option, but not close the building; and inquired if the Board could get a report on cost saving.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to terminate discussion with City of Titusville; direct that the users of Gibson Community Center remain status quo and work for greater use, cost savings, and interests; and bring a report back to the Board in three to six months on the ability to reduce costs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. The meeting recessed at 6:33 p.m., and reconvened at 6:50 p.m.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES - MARY TEES AND MAUREEN RUPE, RE: USE OF TRAILER DONATED TO CPU IN PORT ST. JOHN

Mary Tees, President of Port St. John Homeowners Association, advised a 56-foot trailer has been donated for use by the Community Policing Unit (CPU) in Port St. John; the present trailer has no sanitary facilities; the new trailer has two bathrooms and more space; and they will save money.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is a problem proceeding to put the trailer on County property; with Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson responding no.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to accept donation of the 56-foot trailer to the Community Policing Unit in Port St. John; and authorize location of the trailer on County property, subject to meeting all County requirements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTIONS SETTING FORTH BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR CHARTER REVISIONS, AND ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MINORITY SUB- COMMITTEE REPORT

Chairman Voltz advised it is requested that the Board adopt the Charter Review Commission's resolutions establishing ballot language to revise the County Charter, and approve transmittal of the resolutions to the Supervisor of Elections for placement on the November 3rd ballot; and recommended John Anderson, Chairman of the Charter Review Commission, speak first.

John Anderson, Chairman of the Charter Review Commission (CRC), advised the CRC did the work they were asked to do, had 18 public meetings and three public hearings, and the recommendations were winnowed from 42 to 4. He stated their final meeting was on July 24, 1998; it lasted about ten hours; they came to closure; and counsel suggested the letter of transmittal be sent to the five Commissioners, which was done and recorded by the Clerk. He stated prior to adjourning, one of the Commissioners talked about a minority report; those persons who wanted to file a minority report were asked to stay after the July 24, 1998 meeting; they discussed how that was to be done; and then the CRC concluded its business. He thanked the Board and Commissioner O'Brien for the privilege of serving the people of Brevard County.

Commissioner O'Brien thanked Mr. Anderson for the time spent on the CRC; and stated it is all volunteer work; he was not paid to do what he has done; and he has given the community a large part of himself.

Tibby Parker advised she was appointed to the CRC at the tail end of the process; as a result she spent a lot of time trying to understand the Charter as it relates to the budget process; she was asked a lot of questions, and she asked a lot of questions; and thanked staff for their support. She stated she listened carefully to what Brevardians had to say; and shared some of the laments she heard, basically that government is too big, has too much power, and is not trusted. She stated some of the 11 items they looked at were illegal and inconsistent with federal or State law; she asked herself several questions about the fiscal impact of each item, legality of incorporating them into the Charter, how to measure potential economic impact, and what is the goal of the CRC. Ms. Parker stated she felt the goal of the CRC was to improve communications between residents and government or improve services to property owners; and there are numerous solutions to achieving those goals other than some of the things they thought about in considering the Charter changes. She stated the process was peppered by inconsistencies and some mistakes; on July 24 the issue of the voting requirement was clarified, the mistake was confessed, and the entire CRC voted for the four items that are before the Board; and given that, she would ask the Board to support the corrected process and the recommendations from the CRC.

John Hooley advised the most important item is that all bond issues should be approved by the voters. He stated the Board should get rid of COP's and ban them from use by the Board through a Charter revision; and it should pay people for taking their property rights away. He stated when property is taken off the tax rolls, citizens will have to pay more not only for maintenance of the substrate roads, sewers, etc., but for maintenance of the properties that are taken. He stated there is so much property under federal and State jurisdiction that taxpayers are paying an inordinate amount of money to take care of people; and taxation without representation is tyranny which started the Revolution.

Janis Walters stated she does not understand the level of whining that has taken place since the CRC completed its business and forwarded four amendments to the Board; the Property Appraiser said he did not get his way and wants the Board to change what the CRC took a year to figure out; and there is a minority report asking that additional amendments be added because they did not get their way. She stated the CRC set up its by-laws, followed them, and took nearly a year of careful consideration of 48 issues that were brought before them to winnow them down to four that they think will help the County; and if the Board is going to accede to the wishes of the whiners and dissenters, why did it bother with the CRC. Ms. Walters stated a lot of the items asked to be added are unconstitutional; and indicated if those are added, why not add all 48 proposals. She stated four items were forwarded through proper procedures; and those four should be forwarded to the ballot.

Micah Savell advised he was at the meeting of the CRC when they changed from a super majority to a simple majority vote, and at a number of other meetings after the change was implemented; it was asked repeatedly whether it took a simple majority to put it on the ballot; and that was confirmed on a number of instances. He stated towards the end there seemed to be a change in direction because of the way the amendments were going; and he finds it interesting that there is so much pressure not to let the people vote. Mr. Savell described the final meeting and subcommittee meeting where they adopted six of the seven remaining amendments; and indicated interference by the bureaucracy or Commissioners. He stated some sensitive areas will come out if all the items are not moved onto the ballot; through depositions the truth will surface; and urged the Board to consider moving all six of the items onto the ballot and letting the people vote on them.

Victor Rudnizki advised the people are only asking for a right to vote on the issues such as how much land should be taken away from the government, how many terms, etc.; 60 or 70 speakers were asked by Mr. Lamb if they wanted to vote, and everybody said yes; and now he is hearing they will be turned down again. He mentioned the regulations in Germany where he came from; and expressed concern about America being the land of the free and not being able to do what he wants to do on his property, and government taking property from people for scrub jays, etc. He commented about wetlands being preserved for water quality purposes, mountain water being better, and increased regulations may force him to move to Australia to find peace and freedom.

Scott Ellis advised no one seemed to have a clear view of what it took to go to the ballot; at the meeting in Palm Bay he asked what specifically will it take to get an item to the ballot; and after 20 minutes of discussions with Mr. Galbraith, Mr. Anderson, 13 of 15 members of the Charter Review Commission, he was told majority vote would send the issue to the ballot. He stated not one person said it would take a two-thirds vote; he thought most of the items were going to the ballot; but at the final meeting on July 24, 1998, the Chairman stated they would have a two-thirds vote to go on the ballot; and that is not right. He stated there is an amendment limiting MSBU's but not MSTU's; MSBU's already have protection, and MSTU's do not; and the MSTU process was done by referendum for Port St. John Recreation District, so the Board knows it works. Mr. Ellis advised the term limit works for the State, so it is lawful; the debt limitation would also work; and the sad thing about the two-thirds vote is they did not get into debate on the latter amendments. He stated the role of the Charter Review Commission was to determine if the amendment is clear, legal, and valid and not if they liked it or did not like it; some of that came out on the partisan/non-partisan issue; and requested that three proposals--MSTU's, term limits, and debt limits, be put on the ballot by super majority of the Board. He reiterated his frustration about the two-thirds vote required at the final meeting which was not imposed by vote but by the Chairman of the CRC; and stated there was an 8/7 vote to undo the two-thirds vote; however, it was determined it would take a two-thirds vote to undo it. He stated it was unfair, based on what was said in Palm Bay with the full CRC present and attorneys and County representatives, as the question was precise of how to get to the ballot. He stated the CRC went by majority vote; if two-thirds is following the by-laws, then the CRC did not follow its by-laws; if they said two-thirds from the beginning, that would have been clear; but the rule changed, and everyone worked within that rule change until the final meeting.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Mr. Ellis is requesting a four vote from the Board; with Mr. Ellis responding yes. Mr. Ellis stated they were not items that had a lot of discussion and were not defeated by a 15/0 vote of the CRC. Commissioner Higgs stated she understood there was an assumption of the ten vote and adoption of the ten vote early on that continued to be the adopted procedure until there was a change in May or June to a majority vote. Mr. Ellis stated initially they argued that it would require ten votes to get to public hearing. He stated all the rules should have been settled by the time they got to the public hearings; and repeated his experience when asked what it would take to get an issue to ballot.

Dale Young advised no where in the Florida Statutes does it say the Board or Commissioners have any say on the passage of the proposals and whether they will go to the ballot; and it may be permissible to have a four to one vote to add something to the ballot, but it does not have the power to remove any of the proposals. He stated the meeting on Friday was a legally called meeting and had a majority and a quorum, so there was no reason why they could not conduct the business of the committee; and what, under no circumstances could be legal, is for the Chairman to change the majority vote of the CRC. Mr. Young advised Florida Statutes Chapter 125 says the Commission can make its own rules to conduct itself; the County, Board, or Commissioners have no right to opinions or any right to coerce members of the Charter Review Commission; and that has been done in the last week. He inquired why the Board cannot allow the public to decide the ten proposals.

B. B. Nelson advised when they were handed the original Charter a few years ago, they were asked to vote it up or down, get it passed, then they would talk about changes; many of the same people who served on the original Commission served on the Charter Review Commission; so the people were not given an opportunity to make changes even though they were promised a change to vote on some issues within the Charter. He stated the CRC voted in a majority to place ten items on the ballot and let the public decide up or down; the big debate was about the rules; and requested the Board put ten items on the ballot and let the people decide which revisions they want.

Mary Tees commented about being American, changing the rules, and the property rights segment; and stated the CRC worked long and hard to arrive at the four proposals. She stated the property rights people walked out; Mr. Ellis met with them in the hallway; and they decided to come back, which violates the Sunshine law. She suggested a town meeting once a year; mentioned the recent fires and who would pay for the services rendered; advised of the need for government; and recommended the Board perform its task, and pass on to the ballot what was submitted to it by the Charter Review Commission.

Commissioner O'Brien explained to Ms. Tees the provisions of the Sunshine law that allows two Commissioners to talk about anything except what is on the agenda and has not been acted on by the Board.

Joanne Corby advised she was appointed to the Charter Commission in April and did not have a clue what was going on; there were mistakes made, admitted to, and apologies given at the July 24, 1998 meeting; it changed everything she thought they were there for; and there was never any actual dissolving of the Commission, so she operated under the assumption that the Commission still existed. She stated according to the by-laws, eight members can call a special meeting; that happened on July 24; and explained the procedure that was followed to hold that meeting. She stated on July 24, 1998, there were 11 items that were presented to the public; and after that only four ended up being presented to the Board. She stated 7 items remained, and out of that 6 were voted on by the group of 8 and presented to the Board to add to the original four. Ms. Corby advised of a letter from Mr. Galbraith to Mr. Anderson saying his duties were over; and inquired why they were not notified, and why it took two weeks to have the Commission dissolved. She stated she felt the people have a right to vote on those issues; the Commission was to serve the people; and that is what she did.

Chairman Voltz advised after she made her three appointments to the Charter Review Commission she never called them; it was not her responsibility to get involved in what the Commission was doing; she appeared before the CRC one time regarding the partisan election issue; but she has heard a lot of things and wants Mr. Anderson to answer why at the last meeting things were changed and how that all came about.

Mr. Anderson stated Ms. Corby left the meeting early so she was not there when they adjourned and said the business was concluded; and Mr. Lamb said he would head the minority group who wanted to file a report. He stated the issue about the voting went back and forth and there was confusion until the first public hearing; and there were people who thought they did not have to have a public hearing because they had the 11 proposals to go to the ballot. He stated when they started out it was discouraging in terms of getting a full compliment; it was difficult to get all 15 members to come to the meetings; some did not show up, some came late, and a few resigned and had to be replaced; and they had 42 proposals to move forward. Chairman Voltz stated she wants to know why the vote was changed from majority to super majority; with Mr. Anderson responding it was not changed, it was ascertained; it was not pulled out of the sky; and the concern he had was that the process not be trivialized by a majority vote. He stated the majority vote was used during the process for the one year they were meeting to move proposals forward, from 42 to 11 and finally to 4; and when it came to the final meeting to bring the proposals to the Board of County Commissioners then to the ballot, it was always meant to be ten votes or two-thirds. Chairman Voltz inquired about the response to Mr. Ellis' question on what would it take to put it on the ballot being a majority vote; with Mr. Anderson responding Hal Galbraith, the attorney hired by the Commission said he was not sure; and he is not sure Mr. Ellis got a clear answer because the issue went around and around. Mr. Anderson advised he was on the previous Charter Commission and knew that two-thirds or ten members should vote to move proposals to the ballot; and that was the only fair thing to do. Chairman Voltz inquired if that is the way it is in the by-laws; with Mr. Anderson responding yes. Mr. Anderson advised Mr. Gougelman suggested a simple majority vote to move the 42 proposals because sometimes there were only ten people in attendance; by the time they came to the final vote, there were people still confused; so he felt it was incumbent upon him to say they were not going to move forward unless they had ten members sitting and present voting for the amendments. Chairman Voltz stated that was probably the problem all along; people were led to believe it was a simple majority vote and then it changed, or appeared as though that was the way it would be put on the ballot. She inquired if at the beginning they all decided that to put something on the ballot it was going to take ten votes; with Mr. Anderson responding yes.

Commissioner Scarborough requested the Chairman read the four items that were sent forward from the CRC into the record, and the County Attorney advise the Board about the parameters and what it can and cannot do. Chairman Voltz asked the County Attorney to advise the Board where it should go and what it should stay away from.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Board received two sets of proposals--one consisting of four amendments and the other consisting of six additional amendments; and the first choice is to send the first four amendments forward by authorizing staff to prepare a resolution calling for the election and setting forth the ballot issues. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board has a right to change the proposals; with Mr. Knox responding no, the Board has no right to change the four proposals. He stated there is some debate whether the additional six proposals were properly sent forward, so the Board has two choices on that; it can send those forward with a four/one vote, or it can say it will not send them forward; and the third alternative, since there is some doubt about the second set of amendments, is to seek judicial determination as to what it should do.

Commissioner Cook stated he wants a response from the Attorney as to what the Board can and cannot do; with Mr. Knox responding if the Board wants his opinion as to what it can do, he would recommend sending the first four items forward, as they were properly adopted.

Chairman Voltz expressed concerns about the process, indicating the members of the CRC made the decisions and not the people as to what would go forth; and stated her opinion that public hearings should be held first to listen to what people have to say and what items they want to bring forth. She mentioned infighting, and the process as set out in the Charter being backwards and needing change. She stated she does not support most of the additional six items; sounds like there was some confusion as to what went on; she does not know if the Board can do anything about that; but personally she feels they all should go forward to the voters so they can decide and not the Board or the Charter Review Commission. Chairman Voltz stated what needs to be changed is the way the CRC does its business; it should hold public hearings first, see what people want, then decide what will go forth instead of being backwards and telling people what they want.

Micah Savell stated #4 was a citizen initiative; a gentleman brought forth the ombudsman issue; and there were others that came forward from the people, so the issues did not come just from the CRC. Commissioner Higgs stated she agrees with Mr. Savell on that issue; the CRC had a number of meetings that were open to comments from the public; they did bring forward a number of things from those comments; so it was not backwards. Chairman Voltz stated she did not say they were all initiations of the CRC. Commissioner Higgs stated it needs to be clarified that the CRC held a number of meetings before developing any of the proposals. Chairman Voltz stated a public hearing is to hear the public on what they want before presenting proposals.

Mr. Anderson stated at every meeting they had there was a period for public debate; they held meetings in both ends of the County, at night and in the afternoon; and sometimes only two people would show up. He stated they never had a meeting, even the final meeting, where they did not have an opportunity for the public to speak.

Martin Lamb advised he was going to make a minority report which turned out to be a majority; related an incident that took place at an elementary school, indicating people should stand up for what is right; and asked the Board to do that today. He noted Mr. Knox's opinion is biased by three votes on the Board that could fire him; and inquired if he is incorrect, would the Board fire him because he is absolutely incorrect. He stated there were eight people who were allowed to call that meeting; it was a legal meeting; Mr. Knox communicated with Mr. Lusk that it was a legal meeting; and there was nothing illegal that they were doing. He stated the meeting consisted of a quorum; they took a vote, made decisions, passed things on to the Board, and were not legislating law; but what they were doing is giving the people an opportunity to vote on some issues that were important to them. He advised about asking 40 people if they were against putting any of the items on the ballot so people can vote and make just decisions, and only one said no; and requested the Board give the people an opportunity to vote on the additional six items, as what they did was perfectly legal. He indicated there may have been interference with the members of the Board; and if that is true and they move forward, it is going to be a problem. He requested the Board do the right thing.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not have a problem putting anything on the ballot if the Board can legally do it, but Mr. Galbraith, the attorney hired by the CRC said no; and inquired if he was wrong; with Mr. Lamb responding he did not say no, he said it would be untimely; and he did not say it was illegal, but said it was inappropriate. Mr. Lamb stated he requested Mr. Galbraith re-phrase the letter using words that would lead him to believe they should not do it, but he merely mentioned it as being untimely which is not illegal. Commissioner Cook advised it says, "However, if members now wish to call a special meeting, the purpose would necessarily be limited to discussing education and information programs regarding the proposed amendments transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners"; if Mr. Lamb is wrong, then fine, but he does not know that; and inquired if Mr. Knox has an opinion. Mr. Knox advised in response to Mr. Lamb's comment, he never makes decisions based upon the number of votes he counts because that would get him fired faster than anything he can think of, so he calls it like he sees it. He stated Mr. Lamb is wrong; Mr. Galbraith is correct in saying they could not meet for any other purpose other than have informational meetings on what the amendments are that were sent to the Board and the business, as far as amendments were concerned, was over; and he agrees with Mr. Galbraith.

Chairman Voltz read the four amendments as follows: (1) Shall the Brevard County Charter be amended to limit annual increases in revenue for each County non-ad valorem special assessment program to a 3% or the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index from the previous year, whichever is less, without approval of the voters residing within the district, or other area of the County where such special assessments are levied? (2) Shall the Brevard County Charter be amended to require that no new non-ad valorem special assessments can be levied without approval of the voters residing within the District or other area of the County where the special assessments are proposed to be levied? (3) Shall the Brevard County Charter be amended to provide that county commissioners and the sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections, and clerk of the circuit court shall qualify and be elected on a partisan basis as in non-charter counties, and remove the provision that such officers qualify and be elected on a nonpartisan basis? (4) Shall the Brevard County Charter be amended to provide that the school board members of Brevard County shall be elected to office from single-member residence areas by electors residing in each of those areas only?"

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Charter applied to County Commissioners and constitutional officers, and did not deal with the School Board; and inquired if it is within the purview of the Charter. Mr. Knox stated the Charter as it exists does not deal with the School Board, and there is some debate on that, but the answer seems to be yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated if that amendment passes, he hopes it will be resolved in the courts prior to the next School Board election because there is doubt whether it is a legal action, and it could disrupt government. Mr. Knox stated Mr. Bistline indicated the School Board may do something about it. Chairman Voltz stated a constituent called her about that amendment, and was advised the Board cannot change any amendment submitted by the Charter Review Commission; and that person called the Attorney General and others throughout the State and they all said it is legal for the Board to do that.

Commissioner Higgs advised there are three ways to amend the Charter, (1) through the regular programmed amendment suggested by the Charter Commission that go to the ballot, (2) petitions initiated by citizens, and (3) the four to one vote of the Board. She stated the Charter Review Commission forwarded four amendments to the Board; and she will move that the Board send those forward to the Supervisor of Elections for placement on the November 3, 1998 ballot.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to forward the four amendments submitted by the Charter Review Commission to the Supervisor of Elections for placement on the November 3, 1998 Election ballot.

Commissioner Cook inquired if a motion is necessary, since the Board does not have a role in expressing a preference on those amendments or taking a position on them; with Mr. Knox responding the motion should be to prepare a resolution to send those to the ballot.

Chairman Voltz advised something needs to be clarified on the number of votes that were needed to send amendments to the ballot. She stated she does not support all the six additional amendments, but people should have a right to vote; and she is uncertain how those can be brought forward unless the Board does it by the four to one vote. Commissioner Cook stated the Charter allows the Board to do it by a four to one vote, but Mr. Galbraith needs to specify what he meant; and he would like to get a follow-up from Mr. Galbraith what his stand is regarding the additional amendments and whether the extra meeting was legal or not.

Gene Sterling, Vice Chairman of the Charter Review Committee, advised on June 19, 1998, a motion was made to modify Rule 9 to say simple majority is required to get something on the ballot; Mr. Galbraith suggested the majority of the members present and voting instead of ten votes; and that motion passed by a seven to four vote, with Mr. Anderson voting for it. He stated there was confusion about what they would do at the last hearing; a motion was made by Mr. Lamb to try and clarify what they were going to do; the motion was to accept the existing proposals and approve those going to the ballot; and if compelled by the public, they would adjust or change them. He stated that motion passed seven to six. He stated those are two basic facts that are in the record; and that is why they held the second meeting and why that meeting was legal in their estimation. Commissioner Higgs stated there are three or four members of the CRC present who may want to dispute that recollection, but the Board needs to move on.

Chairman Voltz called for a vote on the motion to move forward with the four amendments submitted by the CRC. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Cook requested the County Attorney respond to Mr. Sterling who brought up two points; with Mr. Knox responding the vote to change the by-laws required two-thirds vote; and seven to four is not two-thirds. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it would be prudent to seek a judicial determination; with Mr. Knox responding if the Board has any doubts, that is an option. Commissioner Cook stated he would not object to that, and Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like to have a judicial determination on whether the meeting was a legal meeting.

Discussion ensued at length on requirements for amending the by-laws, if the meeting was legal or not, votes required to send amendments to the Board for the ballot, the six additional amendments, votes of the subcommittee, the minority report, petitions to bring amendments forward, the four to one vote of the Board, and a ruling from the judicial body.

Mr. Knox advised a judge would probably make that decision; declaratory judgements are supposed to be expedited on the calendars of judges, so it is likely that would happen, particularly with the election coming up; however, the dilemma is the Board would be seeking the declaratory relief; and he assumes the Charter Review Commission would be the other party. He stated there has to be a party on the other side of the issue; the Board may have to pay for the lawyer if it is the Charter Review Commission; Mr. Galbraith may be a witness and would not be able to represent the Commission; so it probably will require another lawyer.

Discussion continued on seeking a declaratory judgment on whether the six additional amendments are legal, the Board being a pass-through for recommendations of the CRC, the rule of ten votes, the Board reviewing the facts and making a determination whether or not the rules were applied fairly which would not change the proposals, the Board not get involved in making those types of decisions, and some of the additional proposals not getting a majority vote.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to go forward and get a declaratory judgment whether the Board should pass the six additional amendments to the ballot or not.

Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board is going back to what gets a five/three vote, it would have several other proposals that had five/three votes. Commissioner Cook stated only one question needs to be answered, and that is if the ruling that the two-thirds vote was required is right or wrong; if it is right, the four would go forward; and if it is wrong, then the other six can be considered. He stated either the ruling at the last meeting was right or it was not right; and that is all that needs to be decided by somebody other than this Board. Commissioner Higgs disagreed, and stated it is the Board's job to determine it. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there were other majority votes on other items that occurred prior to the last ones that would have gone forward; with Mr. Knox responding he thinks there were. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a broad sense issue that may be reaching back into the whole proceedings; and inquired if the motion is to ask the court to determine that the Board should not put the additional six amendments on the ballot. Commissioner Cook stated the question is whether the ten-vote requirement by the chair at the last Charter Commission meeting to move the items forward was legal.

Discussion ensued on the issues the court should hear, who will argue the opposite position of the Board, multiple views to be presented to the court, what happened at the last meeting, and how to present it to the court.

Mr. Knox advised in order to proceed with a declaratory judgment, it will have to be an adversarial proceeding; and that means the County has to be on one side or the other. He stated it cannot ask for advisory opinions because the courts do not give advisory opinions; and the best position for the Board is to say it will send the four amendments forward and will not send the other six amendments forward. He noted it can go to court to see if they were properly adopted, taking the position they were not, just so it has a position; and the defense will have to come from the other side.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board is taking the position and advocating before the court that they were not properly adopted, and the court should render an opinion that it should not do anything with the six amendments; with Mr. Knox responding that is correct; and the other side will argue against it, and he assumes the Board would pay the bill. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board should act in accordance with that decision; send the four forward and if some people do not like that decision, they can take legal action and the Board will support its position while they support theirs, so the Board would only have to pay for one side. Commissioner Cook stated the majority of the CRC came up with the six amendments; the burden should not be on them to hire an attorney; the Board will take the position as advised by the County Attorney; and the court can decide whether it is right or wrong. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board is going to pay for both attorneys; with Commissioner Cook responding it has to. Commissioner Higgs inquired who will select the attorney. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the County Attorney and the CRC attorney agree that the action could not have taken place at the subsequent meeting, does the Board allow the CRC to hire another attorney; with Mr. Knox responding the CRC would have to meet again and pick somebody to represent them.

The meeting recessed at 8:41 p.m., and reconvened at 8:54 p.m.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the best approach for the Board is to send the four amendments that were approved at the last meeting on July 24, 1998, and let someone take the Board to court for not sending the other six amendments forward. He noted there may be a volunteer in the audience to do that. Chairman Voltz indicated Micah Savell is going ahead with that.

Micah Savell advised there are people who are willing to assist in this effort so the County does not have to take a position to push it down or end up in the double fee arena, but he would like to request a unanimous decision that the Board or its employees not stonewall it and make every effort to move it forward expeditiously, and assist in getting it before a judge to get a declaratory judgment. He stated there are a number of them who would be willing to move it forward. Chairman Voltz stated it is not the intention of the Board to stall it. Commissioner Scarborough indicated the County Attorney is suggesting the people file the initial action; with Mr. Savell responding he will be glad to do that but want the approval of the Board to assist in moving it expeditiously. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how fast this action could proceed; with Mr. Knox responding one of the benefits of sending four forward and having someone sue to try and get the other six moved forward is that it would come up in a mandamus action which is probably the fastest route to get to a judge.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct the County Attorney to move expeditiously with this matter to bring it to rapid conclusion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Cook advised another issue is the minority report; the Property Appraiser asked the Board to consider a four to one vote on one item requiring all MSTU's be first approved by the voters. Chairman Voltz inquired how is it done now; with Commissioner Cook responding technically the Board can do it by ordinance. Commissioner Higgs suggested standing with the four amendments that were certified by the Charter Review Commission, move those forward, and consider others at a later date.

Chairman Voltz stated some items that were brought up, such as the citizens bill of rights and others were because people are serious about wanting to limit government, so they may be issues the Board needs to address, maybe not in the Charter, but in some other way.

Commissioner Cook suggested putting the MSTU item on the ballot by a four to one vote. Commissioner O'Brien cautioned against setting a precedent for others to come to the Board requesting amendments. Commissioner Scarborough stated his concern is the Board becoming the Charter Review Board and people short circuiting the Charter Commission and bringing their issues to the Board. Commissioner Cook disagreed, and noted since Mr. Ford is an elected official of the County, it was important to at least bring it up.

PUBLIC COMMENT - MARTIN LAMB, RE: CHARTER AMENDMENTS

Martin Lamb advised Mr. Galbraith, in his recommendation, said to change the by-laws would not require anything more than a simple majority because there was no requirement to have anything other than a simple majority to adopt the by-laws; he never reversed that decision; and there were other things that created problems, one most important was the last meeting on July 24, 1998, when Mr. Anderson started the meeting by making a ruling from the chair that they will have a ten vote. He stated he appealed that decision; got a second; and Mr. Anderson refused to allow them to vote on it; and at that point they were out of order. He stated the chair cannot refuse a vote on an appeal of his decision; and he knows that personally because he has been there. He inquired if the Board will be responsible for paying the attorney for the persons placing the suit if they are successful or not; with Mr. Knox responding generally speaking no, but it could if it wanted to. Mr. Lamb inquired if they would have to seek another decision from the judge to award payment to the attorney by the County; with Mr. Knox responding in is opinion, the judge would probably not give attorneys' fees; and if the Board wanted to pay for it, they could voluntarily do that.

Commissioner Cook stated they can come back and request the Board pay the legal fees if they prevail; it is not necessarily an adversarial suit; the Board is trying to find out what is proper and what is not; and it is the only way to get an independent body to look at it.

Chairman Voltz entered into the record papers that were given to her supporting putting all the items on the ballot, and she will turn that in along with other paper work.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m.

ATTEST:

_______________________________
HELEN VOLTZ, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_________________________
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK