The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on December 12, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Board Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Mark Cook, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Nancy Higgs, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox. Absent was: Commissioner Randy O?Brien.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Truman Scarborough, District 1.

Commissioner Scarborough led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Minutes of August 28, 1995 Zoning Meeting and September 12, 1995 Regular Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: U.S. 192

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board has not talked about U.S. 192 in a while; and inquired if anyone contacted the Chairman of Osceola County Commission and visited with Disney officials to see what clout they may have with the Legislature and Congress; with Commissioner Ellis responding not that he is aware of.

Commissioner Higgs advised she had discussions with the Vice President of Disney?s Governmental Relations about them assisting the County, and Chairman Cook may want to follow up on that. She stated if he wants her to call the Vice President, she will be happy to do so, as they are interested in whether the County can get more help. Chairman Cook stated he will be happy to do that.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to authorize the Chairman to talk to the Chairman of Osceola County Commission, and meet with officials of Disney World regarding U.S. 192 improvements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Cook instructed the County Attorney to meet with him on the details of the issue.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Chairman Cook advised Commissioner O?Brien is not here due to illness in his family.

DISCUSSION, RE: ELECTION EQUIPMENT

Commissioner Ellis advised the purpose of the Elections Equipment Committee was not to evaluate the new system versus the old system; and it was to evaluate the two new systems and bring a recommendation to the Board on which of the two new systems it preferred. He stated there are representatives here from the old system, but the election equipment is not on today?s Agenda.

Chairman Cook advised late yesterday they tried to put it on the Agenda, and it was too late to meet the deadline, so it will not be discussed today. He stated Commissioner Ellis is right about the purpose of the committee; and the charge of that Committee was not to evaluate whether the County needed a new system or not, but to evaluate the two, if the Board were to choose a new system, to determine which one would be preferable.

APPOINTMENT, RE: BREVARD MPO CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Chairman Cook advised he was going to replace John Malone with Dale Young on the Brevard MPO Citizens Advisory Committee, but Commissioner Higgs inquired of Sue Hann whether Mr. Young has to reside in District 4. Commissioner Higgs advised the rules of the MPO say, serving on the MPO shall be from the respective County Commission District; she was not aware of that until now, but staff could check on it further; and if Mr. Young could be appointed, the Board could do it later in the meeting. Commissioner Scarborough stated John Malone?s appointment is an issue before the MPO tomorrow; with Chairman Cook responding it should be withdrawn as Mr. Malone has resigned.

Commissioner Higgs asked Ms. Hann if appointees must reside in the respective Commission District; with Growth Management Director Susan Hann responding the rules say that the members must appoint CAC members from their respective Commission Districts; it does not specifically say they must reside; but that is what the rule implies because it goes on to make that same reference for Canaveral Port Authority that they must reside; so that was the intention of the rule. Chairman Cook stated he is a Brevard County Commissioner, so he assumed somebody in the County could serve on the CAC; but if he cannot, he will select someone else. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is an interpretation that say from the District would mean something other than that; with Ms. Hann responding she has not had the issue come up before, but she can check with the MPO attorney and get back to the Board.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES - BREVARD HISTORICAL COMMISSION, RE: COMMENDATION RESOLUTION

Commissioner Ellis read aloud Resolution commending the Brevard County Historical Commission for its successful completion of the Brevard County History Book, Volume I.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution commending the Brevard County Historical Commission for successfully completing the Brevard County History Book, Volume I. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 95-324.)

Todd Peetz introduced Doug Henderson, Chairman of the Historical Commission, Greg Jones, Ada Parrish, Orlando Ramirez, and Vera Zimmerman who was a former member of the Commission and worked extensively on the History Book.

Commissioner Ellis presented the Resolution to Mr. Henderson; and Chairman Cook advised staff will get copies of the Resolution for each member of the Historical Commission.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - VERA ZIMMERMAN, RE: COMMENDATION RESOLUTION

Commissioner Higgs advised Commissioner O?Brien drafted a resolution in special recognition of Vera Zimmerman; and read the Resolution aloud. She presented it to Ms. Zimmerman.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Resolution commending Vera Zimmerman for her outstanding contributions to the Brevard County History Book. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 95-325.)

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - JAMES E. CONNER, PRESIDENT OF SOUTH PATRIC RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, RE: CHECK TO DEVELOP SOUTH BREVARD BEACHES JAYCEES PARK

James Conner, President of South Patrick Residents Association (SPRA), advised the letter he is to deliver on behalf of the SPRA reads as follows: The South Patrick Residents Association is pleased to present the accompanying check in the amount of $8,535.86 to the County to be added to the County?s funds authorized for construction of the park at the former Sea Park Sewer Plant site in South Patrick Shores. The money is comprised of the following donations: (1) SPRA residents, $6,766.86; (2) Satellite Beach Lions Club, $1,669; and (3) Satellite Beach Women?s Club, $100. The Lions Club has designated that its donation be used to purchase seven picnic tables and two gills; and the SPRA and Women?s Club?s donations have no specific use. The Parks and Recreation Department has been asked, at an appropriate time, the donations from the Lions Club and Women?s Club be recognized at the park site by an appropriate means. Respectfully, Jim Conner, President. Mr. Conner stated he did not plan to go beyond that, but he noticed the park is still called South Beaches Jaycees Park; and he has taken steps to get that changed because the Jaycees, even though they originally said they would make a major monetary effort on behalf of the park, have done nothing; so on January 23, 1996, the South Beaches Advisory Board will consider his request. He stated he started working on this project in 1982.

Chairman Cook thanked Mr. Conner, SPRA, the Women?s Club, and the Lion?s Club for their donations; and noted the Board appreciates it.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - TED MOORHEAD, FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, RE: PRESENTATION OF CHECKS

Commissioner Ted Moorhead, representing Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND), advised the District congratulates the Board on a job well done with Spessard Holland Golf Course Shoreline Stabilization, Phases I and II; and he has two checks for $78,449.90 representing FIND?s assistance on that project. He stated the project is designed to prevent erosion of the Indian River Lagoon shoreline along the golf course; it is important because it preserves water quality and prevents pollution by the shoreline washing into the waterway; and it also preserves public property along there because erosion of the land into the water results in diminishing of the land. He stated it prevents shoaling in the District?s navigation channels; so everybody wins in this kind of project, and they are proud of it. He stated they are grateful to the Board for its initiative on the project; they are happy to participate with the Board on it; and they look forward to working with the Board in the future on other FIND projects. He presented the checks to Chairman Cook.

Chairman Cook advised the checks are for $74,449 and $4,000; and the Board appreciates it. Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Moorhead lives in District 3, and they are proud that he is a part of the FIND Board and has taken an initiative to know what the projects are that the County is involved in and represents the County well. Chairman Cook thanked Mr. Moorhead for FIND?s contributions.

RESOLUTION RELEASING CONTRACT WITH SUNSET GROVES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RE: IMPROVEMENTS IN SUNSET GROVES, UNIT 2

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract with William Strand, President of Sunset Groves Development Corporation, for improvements in Sunset Groves, Unit 2. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 95-326.

) RESOLUTION RELEASING CONTRACT WITH CLASSIC FIELDSTONE, LTD., RE: IMPROVEMENTS IN SUNTREE ESTATES SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract with Classic Fieldstone, Ltd. for improvements in Suntree Estates Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 95-327.)

REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF EASEMENT REQUIREMENT, RE: ROGER AND LESLIE WILLIAMS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to waive requirement that the sum of two parcels served by a single easement be a minimum of five acres in size for Roger and Leslie Williams. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

UNPAVED ROAD AGREEMENT WITH KURT AND SUSAN LORENZINI, RE: LAKESIDE LANE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to executed Unpaved Road Agreement with Kurt and Susan Lorenzini for a building permit off an existing County right-of-way known as Lakeside Lane, constructed to the standards of Ordinance No. 93-27. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

CONTRACT WITH PINEDA CROSSING CORPORATION, RE: SIDEWALKS IN PINEDA CROSSING, PHASE I

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Contract with Pineda Crossing Corporation, guaranteeing sidewalk improvements in Pineda Crossing, Phase I. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Contract.)

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: STONEBRIDGE SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant final plat approval for Stonebridge Subdivision, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and Board approval not relieving the developer from obtaining necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: VIERA, TRACT G, PHASE I

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant final plat approval for Viera, Tract G, Phase I, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and Board approval not relieving the developer from obtaining necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH GEOFFREY STRANGE AND JOHN SOILEAU, RE: SPECIAL MASTER SERVICES FOR UNLICENSED CONTRACTORS HEARINGS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Amendments to Agreements with Geoffrey J. Strange and John L. Soileau to provide special master services and conduct hearings for violations of the County?s Unlicensed Contractor Code, Section 22-250, from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Amendments to Agreements.)

APPROVAL OF PILOT PROGRAM, RE: SPECIAL MASTER FOR BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE CASES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve a one-year pilot program to hire a special master to handle Building Code compliance cases; and direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances to provide for a special master, and advertise a public hearing to consider the ordinance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: SUPPORTING BREVARD VISIONING OUR FUTURE PROCESS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution supporting the Brevard Visioning Our Future Process. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 95-328.)

APPROVAL OF GRANT APPLICATION AND TRAVEL, RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAM FOR BREVARD COUNTY HISTORY BOOK PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Grant application to Florida Department of State Historic Preservation for funds to assist in printing the second volume of the Brevard County History Book; and authorize travel to present the grant request. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH BREVARD MPO, RE: STAFF SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Brevard Metropolitan Planning Organization, extending the Agreement through December 31, 1996 for staff services. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Amendment to Agreement.)

RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING, RE: VACATING PUBLIC UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN PINEDA CROSSING, PHASE 1 - ANTHONY ROMANO

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution setting public hearing for January 9, 1996 to consider vacating public utilities and drainage easement in Pineda Crossing, Phase I, as petitioned by Anthony M. Romano. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 95-329.)

RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING, RE: VACATING PUBLIC UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN VIERA, TRACT DD - RANDALL AND LAURETTE BROWN

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution setting public hearing for January 9, 1996, to consider vacating a public utilities and drainage easement in Viera, Tract DD, as petitioned by Randall S. and Laurette L. Brown. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 95-330.)

RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING, RE: VACATING PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT IN PUTNAM PARK SUBDIVISION, UNIT 1 - JACOB BROWN

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution setting public hearing for January 9, 1996, to consider vacating a public utilities easement in Putnam Park Subdivision, Unit 1, as petitioned by Jacob R. Brown. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 95-331.)

PERMISSION TO BID, AWARD BID, AND EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE: WICKHAM ROAD LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to bid maintenance of Wickham Road landscaping areas and irrigation systems; award bid to the lowest responsible bidder, and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Bids, Recommendation and Contract.)

AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH FEC RAILWAY COMPANY, RE: LEASE OF BORROW DITCH AND SPACE FOR ROAD ENCROACHMENT

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Amendments to Agreements with FEC Railway Company for lease of borrow ditch at MP 147 + 1072' in the Wiley area, and space for road encroachment at MP 167 + 2120'? in Sharpes area at $1,400 and $2,400 annually. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Amendments.)

APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY CLOSING, RE: CARVER STREET FOR REHABILITATION OF GRADE CROSSING

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve temporary closing of Carver Street for rehabilitation of grade crossing within 60 days. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM WINDOVER FARMS, INC., RE: RIGHT-OF-WAY IN TRACT A, WINDOVER FARMS, UNIT 6

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to accept Quit Claim Deed from Windover Farms, Inc. for the easterly 276.20 feet of Fox Wood Drive right-of-way in Windover Farms, Tract A, Unit 6. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Deed.)

AGREEMENT WITH STOTTLER STAGG & ASSOCIATES, RE: TASK ORDER FOR HUNTINGTON ROAD

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with Stottler Stagg & Associates for Task Order No. 53709-92-005-10 to provide consulting engineering services for Huntington Road in District 1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT WITH HAMER ENTERPRISES, RE: SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement to Extend Existing Contract with Hamer Enterprises, Inc. for software maintenance and support services at $12,600 from January 7, 1996 through April 6, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, RE: GRANT FOR RENOVATION OF HARRY T. MOORE CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Florida Department of Environmental Protection, extending time for completion of renovations to Harry T. Moore Center until June 30, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Amendment.)

AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY SERVICES COUNCIL OF BREVARD, INC., RE: SCAT SERVICES FOR SENIOR NUTRITIONAL AID PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with Community Services Council of Brevard, Inc. to purchase SCAT services for the Senior Nutritional Aid Program at $86,418 from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH BREVARD COMMUNITY COLLEGE, RE: ADMINISTRATION OF COMMUNITY COMMONS PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Brevard Community College for administration of the Community Commons Program at $15,094. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Amendment.)

AGREEMENT TO EXTEND EXISTING CONTRACT WITH DENNIS J. WICKHAM, M.D., RE: MEDICAL EXAMINER SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement to Extend Existing Contract with Dennis J. Wickham, M.D., to provide Medical Examiner services for nine months at $19,391.73 per month. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

AGREEMENT WITH INDIAN RIVER CITY LITTLE LEAGUE, RE: USE OF W. W. JAMES PARK

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with Indian River City Little League for use of W. W. James Park from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

AGREEMENT WITH TITUSVILLE LITTLE LEAGUE, RE: USE OF SAND POINT PARK

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with Titusville Little League for use of Sand Point Park from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

AGREEMENT WITH MIMS LITTLE LEAGUE, RE: USE OF HOLDER PARK

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with Mims Little League for use of Holder Park from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

AGREEMENT WITH PORT ST. JOHN LITTLE LEAGUE, RE: USE OF FAY BOULEVARD PARK

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with Port St. John Little League for use of Fay Boulevard Park from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

RESOLUTION, BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, AND GRANT AGREEMENT, RE: GRANT FOR KELLY PARK WEST

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution authorizing submittal of application to Florida Department of Environmental Protection for $64,000 grant under the Florida Boating Improvement Program for overflow boat trailer parking at Kelly Park West; approve Budget Change Request establishing a budget for the project; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Grant Agreement. (See pages for Resolution No. 95-332, Budget Change Request, and Grant Agreement.)

CHANGE ORDERS 3, 4 AND 5 WITH RKT CONSTRUCTORS, INC., RE: WOODY SIMPSON PARK RENOVATION AND ADDITION

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Change Orders 3, 4 and 5, to Agreement with RKT Constructors, Inc. for Renovation and Addition to Woody Simpson Park, reducing contract price by $4,229.69 and increasing time by 98 days. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Change Orders 3, 4 and 5.)

APPROVAL, RE: SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF DISPATCH CONSOLES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve sole source purchase of five dispatch consoles at $60,566.25 plus $25,150 for installation of new equipment and removal of existing equipment. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ADDENDUM NO. 8 TO AGREEMENT WITH KEEP BREVARD BEAUTIFUL, RE: EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Addendum No. 8 to Agreement with Keep Brevard Beautiful dated October 24, 1988, to increase efforts in litter prevention and education. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Addendum No. 8.)

RESOLUTION, RE: REQUESTING FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS FOR BEACH MANAGEMENT AND RENOURISHMENT PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution requesting Federal and State authorization for funding assistance for the Beach Management and Renourishment Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 95-333.)

DENY CHANGE ORDER WITH PANHANDLE FENCE COMPANY, RE: FIRE LANE AND PERIMETER FENCE AT MALABAR SCRUB SANCTUARY

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny request of Panhandle Fence Company for a Change Order to increase contract price by $7,000 for installation of fire lane and perimeter fence at Malabar Scrub Sanctuary. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH V.P.S.I., INC., RE: LEASE OF PASSENGER VAN

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Agreement with V.P.S.I., Inc. for lease of a 15-passenger van by Extension Services at $575 per month, including liability insurance, with four one-year renewal options. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

WORKERS? COMPENSATION SETTLEMENT, RE: CATHERN SCHROHT

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize Risk Management, through Gallagher Bassett Services, to accept the negotiated settlement of Workers? Compensation claim of Cathern Schroht. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: EXCELLENCE IN ACTION COUNTY EMPLOYEE REWARD AND RECOGNITION PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve implementation of Excellence in Action, an expanded reward and recognition program for County employees. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF BIDS AND AGREEMENTS, RE: JANITORIAL SERVICES Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to reject low bids of Lewis Cleaning for Bids #B-2-6-12, #B-2-6-13, and #B-2-6-14, Janitorial Services; accept withdrawal of second low bids of Bubbles Cleaning, and A&R Janitorial; award Bids #B-2-6-12 and 13 to McGinley Maintenance, and Bid #B-2-6-14 to ABD Janitorial; and authorize the Chairman to execute Agreements with the successful bidders. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Bids, Recommendation, and Agreements.)

AWARD OF PROPOSAL #P-3-6-01 AND AGREEMENT, RE: PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR SOUTH/CENTRAL AREA

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to award Proposal #P-3-6-01, Physical Examinations for South/Central Brevard to Osler Medical Center at $90,000 to $100,000 annually; and authorize the Chairman to execute an Agreement with Osler for the service. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Proposals, Recommendation and Agreement.)

AWARD OF PROPOSAL #P-3-6-08 AND AGREEMENT, RE: SUBSTANCE ABUSE OUTPATIENT TREATMENT SERVICES FOR COURT ALTERNATIVES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to award Proposal #P-3-6-08, Substance Abuse Outpatient Treatment Services for Court Alternatives, to The Center for Drug-Free Living, Inc. at $127,231; and authorize the Chairman to execute an Agreement with the Center. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Proposals, Recommendation, and Agreement.)

PERMISSION TO ISSUE OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS EXCEEDING $25,000, RE: MATERIALS, SERVICES, REPAIRS AND PARTS TO VENDORS OF RECORD AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENTS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve vendors of record and issuance of open purchase orders exceeding $25,000 to Municipal Equipment for emergency equipment parts for Fleet Management and Public Safety, Heintzelman Truck for parts for Fleet Management and Solid Waste, The Parts House for equipment filters for Solid Waste, and Rent Wear for uniform rentals. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL PAPER FINANCING AND BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE: THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE AND CHILLER REPLACEMENT AT HISTORIC TITUSVILLE COURTHOUSE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve commercial paper financing and Budget Change Request for thermal energy storage and chiller replacement at Historic Titusville Courthouse. (See page for Budget Change Request.)

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 2 WITH STOTTLER STAGG & ASSOCIATES, RE: COCOA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Amendment to Agreement No. 2 with Stottler Stagg & Associates, to provide additional services for Cocoa Beach Public Library at $1,785.00. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Amendment.)

COUNTY DEED AND AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF TITUSVILLE, RE: RECONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK AT NORTH BREVARD PUBLIC LIBRARY

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute County Deed conveying a ten-foot strip of land adjacent to Hopkins Avenue to the City of Titusville; and execute Agreement with the City for reconstruction of sidewalk at North Brevard Public Library. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Deed and Agreement.)

CHANGE ORDER NO. 12 TO AGREEMENT WITH BROWN & ROOT BUILDING COMPANY, AND APPROVE TRANSFER OF FUNDS, RE: HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE V. MOORE JUSTICE CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Change Order No. 12 to Agreement with Brown & Root Building Company to accommodate owner direct purchases for construction of Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Justice Center; and authorize transfer of the funds to the direct purchase account. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Change Order No. 12.)

ARRANGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., E911 NETWORK CLOCK INTERFACE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Arrangement Agreement with BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, for installation of equipment and software, and recurring services for the E911 Network Clock Interface required for timing synchronization of the 11 Public Safety Answering Points. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

POLICY BCC-65, RE: COST OF COPYING DOCUMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Policy BCC-65, Cost of Copying Documents for the Public. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Policy BCC-65.)

ACCEPTANCE, RE: REVENUE MONITORING REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1995

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to accept Revenue Monitoring Report for quarter ending September 30, 1995, as prepared by the Finance Department. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT, RE: FLORIDA CONTRABAND FORFEITURE SEMI- ANNUAL REPORT

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to acknowledge receipt of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Semi-annual Report for April 1, 1995 through September 30, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING SACRIFICE PARK

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution recognizing the significance of Sacrifice Park in Palm Bay in honor of fallen law enforcement officers in Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 95-334.)

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to appoint/reappoint the following:

Zoning Board of Adjustment

Howard Wolf, 301 Hiawatha Way, Melbourne Beach 32951, until December 31, 1996.

Personnel Council

Sharon Spence, 475 Port Malabar Boulevard, Palm Bay 32905, until December 31, 1996.

Valkaria Airport Advisory Board

Stephen Tatoul, 8 Cove Road, Melbourne Beach 32951, until December 31, 1996.

Jim Ray, 4030 Adams Lane, Valkaria 32950, until December 31, 1996.

Del Yontz, 381 Crestview Street, NE, Palm Bay 32907, until December 31, 1996.

Spessard Holland Golf Advisory Committee

Warren Olin, 218 Ash Avenue, Melbourne Beach 32951, until December 31, 1996.

William G. Drescher, 5A Venetian Way, Indian Harbour Beach 32937, replacing Bill Schetrom, until December 31, 1996.

South Mainland Library Advisory Board

Ken Black, 5864 Lindsay Road, Micco 32976, until December 31, 1996.

Cheryl Bruns, 9737 Riverview Drive, Micco 32976, until December 31, 1996.

Savannahs Golf Course Advisory Board

Gil Ryan, 290 Eagle Lane, Merritt Island 32953, replacing Don Williams.

Meadowlane Community Library Board

Richard Hood, 7652 NW Oak Street, West Melbourne 32904, until December 31, 1996.

Contractors Licensing Board

Bud Crisafulli, 5525 N. Courtenay Parkway, Merritt Island 32953, as alternate until December 31, 1996.

Hank Lemerise, 357 Imperial Boulevard #C3, Cape Canaveral 32920, until December 31, 1996.

Daniel Petro, 157 N. Orlando Avenue, Cocoa Beach 32931, until December 31, 1996.

Lena Nordell, 3765 Laurette Road, Merritt Island 32952, as alternate until December 31, 1996.

John Nast, 4050 Hield Road, NW, Palm Bay 32907, until December 31, 1996.

John Radencic, 2575 Gradick Road, Valkaria 32950, until December 31, 1996.

Habitat at Valkaria Golf Course Advisory Board

Robert DeGiovanni, 327 Coral Way West, Indialantic 32903, until December 31, 1996.

Dewey Leidal, 3655 Valkaria Road, Valkaria 32950, until December 31, 1996.

Alzo Payne, 3108 S. Main Street, Melbourne 32901, until December 31, 1996.

Donna Pivowar, 3725 Valkaria Road, Valkaria 32950, until December 31, 1996.

Parks and Recreation Merritt Island/Beaches Sector Advisory Board

Jennifer Storey, 725 S. Atlantic Avenue, Cocoa Beach 32931, replacing Isaac Houston, until December 12, 1996.

Heather O?Dell, 1988 Sykes Creek Drive, Merritt Island 32953, replacing James Strickland, until December 12, 1996.

County Library Board

David White, 123 Copenhaver Avenue N.E., Palm Bay 32907, until December 31, 1996.

Country Acres Advisory Board

Lynn Boshart, 2940 Friday Lane, Cocoa 32926, until December 31, 1996.

Sid LaDow, 773 Atlantis Road, S.E., Palm Bay 32909, until December 31, 1996.

Health Facilities Authority

Ned Kellar, 1770 Cedar Street, Rockledge 32955, until October 15, 1999.

Historical Commission

Gerald Matheson, 2150 Atlantic Street, Melbourne Beach 32951, until December 31, 1996.

Employee Health Insurance Selection Committee

Chuck Maxwell, 140 Minna Lane #113, Merritt Island, Florida 32953

Beverly Cachilli, 1150 Colby, Merritt Island, Florida 32952

Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET TRANSFERS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve bills and budget transfers as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for List of Bills and Budget Transfers.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN SECTIONS 16 AND 21, TOWNSHIP 24S., RANGE 36E. - FIRST NATIONAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider vacating rights-of-way in Sections 16 and 21, Township 24S., Range 36E., as petitioned by First National Real Estate Company. Attorney John Evans advised he is representing the applicant.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Resolution vacating rights-of-way in Sections 16 and 21, Township 24S., Range 36E., as petitioned by First National Real Estate Company. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 95-335.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING DRAINAGE DITCH RIGHT-OF-WAY TO NORTH COURTENAY PARKWAY - ISLAND LAKES OF MERRITT ISLAND, LTD.

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a drainage ditch right-of-way to North Courtenay Parkway as petitioned by Island Lakes of Merritt Island, Ltd.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution vacating drainage ditch right-of-way to North Courtenay Parkway, as petitioned by Island Lakes of Merritt Island, Ltd. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 95-336.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 94-26, DEVELOPMENT WITHIN WEST CANAVERAL GROVES AREA

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 94-26, regulating development in West Canaveral Groves area. Jackquelyn Warzecha, P. O. Box 1253, Sharpes, advised the ordinance is a good ordinance and helps to work with the people in Canaveral Groves; however, she thought there was a time table and rezoned her property. She stated she only had a choice of RRMH-1 which is fine, but her property does not comply with that zoning; and inquired if the ordinance is passed, will she be given a chance to rezone her property under the ordinance without paying another application fee.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be his inclination to allow that because the County told the people to do it and they tried to comply, so he would not want to penalize them for trying to work with the County. He stated it would take a separate action, but since Mrs. Warzecha acted on what the County told her and tried to comply, the County should work with her.

Wanda Pershing, 6804 Outback Road, Cocoa, advised she is a newcomer to Canaveral Groves; she is disabled and lives on social security; and inquired if there could be waivers or a method for them to make payments as they go into permitting and filing things. She stated she wants to do everything by the book, but she does not have the funds available and can only do it by a payment plan; and there are many of them like her out there. She stated she received the results of the survey; a lot of people were encouraged by it; and inquired if she can get more of the surveys filled out.

Assistant Growth Management Director Peggy Busacca advised she will be happy to give Ms. Pershing as many surveys as she would like. Ms. Pershing stated when they saw the results, they were very enthused, and it was great because it used their own words. Ms. Busacca advised it may be possible for the ordinance to be utilized to set up some kind of payment plan because Ordinance No. 94-26 established a two-year payment plan for impact fees; and the way this ordinance is written, it could include language which would allow either discretion on staff?s part when it comes to people with financial hardships or a payment plan which can be included in the ordinance.

Thomas Perkinson, 6613 Dean Avenue, Cocoa, advised he reviewed other things about the ordinance and is glad it is coming; it looks like it is going to work out for the good; and he is happy with what the Board did for the people in Canaveral Groves.

Chairman Cook inquired if the County Attorney concurs with Ms. Busacca about putting something in the ordinance to address a payment plan; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding yes.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board tried to bring everyone consistent with the area in West Canaveral Groves; there are severe economic problems that drove people out there; and everyone may not be able to meet the deadlines and time constraints in the Ordinance. He stated Ms. Busacca indicated if there are extenuating economic circumstances or hardships that are shown to staff, they could extend it for another six months; and he would like to incorporate something in paragraph (b) to provide for that. He stated he would like to amend paragraph (b) to allow staff, if there are economic hardships shown, to grant an additional year, otherwise the Board will be seeing them come back because people moved out there due to hardships. Commissioner Scarborough stated paragraph (c) is a grand fathering provision; there is nothing wrong because basically they are trying to bring those people into conformity and make it work for them; power has been provided out there now; and they will have people who are a real part of the community. He stated they are talking about going out and inspecting for health concerns, but his concern is the people who went out there and moved in without trying to comply with the rules having one set of regulations, and those who come in subsequently having a different set of rules to live by. He stated it bothers him because everybody out there should have the same community; and requested Ms. Busacca address that.

Ms. Busacca advised there is the possibility that people will have a substantially lower standard by that paragraph than what is required by the existing Zoning Codes or new Zoning Codes, regarding setbacks, size of structures, etc.; they have a survey that asks the question how do people feel about that; and there were some people who felt that whatever was there should be acceptable until the person could afford to do better; but it was not unanimous that everybody should be at the standard at which they are right now. She stated there are some concerns that some of the homes are not structurally sound; and those issues concern some of the neighbors.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants to have structurally sound homes out there; and he wants the homes to meet health requirements because health and safety issues were the thrust of the changes. He stated the problem is if someone moves on the property, does nothing, and is grandfathered in, another person who comes in subsequently could raise the question is it fundamentally fair that someone who operated before there was a rule gets rules built to his specifications, and people who come in later have a different set of rules.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if that is any different than any other grand fathering; with Commissioner Scarborough responding they did not obtain building permits; the grand fathering will occur just by the fact that they were there; so they become legal by the Board?s action today, but were not legal when they originally built. Commissioner Ellis inquired if everybody out there had some degree of violation, some would be grandfathered more than others. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board is comfortable with it, it is a solution, but it leaves an inequity. Commissioner Ellis stated over time it will be corrected.

Commissioner Higgs stated she agrees the Board is setting up an inequity, and it has been her concern from the start when the Board accepted roads and everything it has done in West Canaveral Groves. She stated the purpose was to do what is in paragraph (c) right now, that existing structures would be brought up to some level of safety and then they would be allowed to get power; but it is fundamentally unfair, and she did not support it to start with. She stated Commissioner Scarborough is on track with his statement about the lack of consistency or fairness; the Board is basically at the point where it is almost required to accept this kind of a clause because that is where the whole process has been going for over a year; so unless it goes back on everything everybody has done for the past year, it almost has to accept that paragraph.

Chairman Cook advised he remembers this going on in the 1980's; it is a unique situation; he cannot think of any other place in the County where those circumstances exist to that degree; and he does not disagree that it is an unusual step to take to try and bring people into compliance, but it is acceptable circumstances.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not have a problem bringing the people into compliance because everybody in the community will benefit; the other option was to tell them they were in noncompliance and have the deputy sheriffs run them off and displace them; then the County would have a tremendous amount of social problems caused by the displacement. He stated the Board is responsible for its actions; this is much more responsible because it brings them into compliance; they will have power and health and safety inspections; and it will be a better community. He inquired if a person comes in later will that person be able to work under a similar situation or have more stringent regulations that he will be the next one before the Board who will say it is unfair; and stated perhaps it can be addressed elsewhere in another time and manner as that question begins to occur. Commissioner Scarborough stated he will move adoption of the ordinance with the amendment to paragraph (b) to allow staff some flexibility to deal with hardships and grant one-year extensions. Ms. Busacca advised she has language for that from the County Attorney which says,If extenuating economic hardship is demonstrated to staff, the time for compliance may be extended for an additional one year.

Commissioner Higgs advised she understands the problems in West Canaveral Groves, but it is setting a precedent that it will be unable to apply any place else in the County; and she understands the uniqueness of the area, but there is no where else the Board could say to people they do not have to comply with the rules and if they demonstrate to staff they have economic hardships, they do not have to pay. She stated there are a lot of extreme economic hardships in a lot of places; and she is concerned that the language and clause cannot apply in other circumstances, so she is not going to support it.

There being no further comments or objection heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt an ordinance amending Section 62-510, Article III, Code of Brevard County, Florida, pertaining to regulation governing the development of West Canaveral Groves; amending the criteria for existing permanent structures; amending the date by which application to bring existing permanent structures into full compliance must be made; declaring all existing permanent structures to be consistent with provisions of certain land development codes; amending conditions for authorization and acceptance of existing permanent structures; amending the definition of existing temporary structures; providing for a disclaimer as to provision of utilities not provided for by Brevard County; providing for severability; and providing an effective date, amended to include in paragraph (b), if extenuating economic hardship is demonstrated to staff, the time for compliance may be extended for an additional one year. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay. (See page for Ordinance No. 95-55.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING NONCONFORMING AGRICULTURAL USES

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance establishing nonconforming agricultural uses to change from one type of agricultural use to another.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the proposed ordinance is to accommodate Bud Crisafulli; and inquired if the Board is going to come back with another ordinance on this issue.

Commissioner Higgs stated it is the Board?s intention, the next time it does land development regulations, to include additional language and concerns expressed at the last meeting. Commissioner Scarborough stated he will vote for this but is cognizant of the Local Planning Agency?s statement that an ordinance needs to be re-written where the changing of a nonconforming agricultural use would require a CUP so that surrounding neighbors will be notified of any change, which was the intent of the Board. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board?s intention was to bring that forward at the next LDR hearings.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article VI, Code of Brevard County, Florida, pertaining to nonconforming uses; specifically amending Section 62-1182, to create provisions for nonconforming agricultural uses; specifically amending Section 62-1183 relating to abandonment of nonconforming agricultural uses; specifically amending Section 62-1185 relating to discontinuation of land uses not having principal structures; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Ordinance No. 95-56.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE REVISING ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE NO. 94-24, DECLARING DOG AS HAZARDOUS OR DANGEROUS, AMENDING ANIMAL CONTROL HEARING COUNCIL, AND CREATING NUISANCE PROVISIONS

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance revising Animal Control Ordinance No. 94-24, declaring dog as hazardous or dangerous, amending the Animal Control Hearing Council, and creating nuisance provisions.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Section 2(b) addresses noise of tropical birds, and moving it from Code Enforcement to Animal Control; the Board is failing to touch on the essence of the noise problem from animals; his neighbor has birds that he hears in the morning, but thought they were birds in the woods; and inquired how many birds can one have in a home as pets. He stated there are no limits on birds, but there are limits on dogs; different birds have different noise levels; and unlike a dog, a bird will make noise every morning; so he is concerned about the person in a residential neighborhood having as many birds as he wants to. Commissioner Scarborough stated the way to get rid of the problem is to go to a decibel level, one for agricultural and a different level for residential; and that will get the Board out of determining the number or type of birds, etc. He stated he does not have a problem voting for the ordinance because it is a step, but the Board made a mistake when it did not go to decibels when it discussed it originally. He stated decibels will allow staff to go to the complainant?s home, set up the meter, and determine if the noise is sustained for a certain amount of time; and if it is not, they can leave.

Commissioner Higgs advised she does not mind directing staff to investigate decibels and come back on how it can be implemented, the problem with decibels, and all the aspects; there are problems involved in the use of that technology also; and the Board should not desert the current Ordinances until it has something in place.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Ralph Brescia advised he did some construction work where decibels were involved and they had to put up baffling; so persons with birds could relocate cages or put up barriers to solve the noise problems. He stated it is difficult to deal with unless they go right to the noise level.

Chairman Cook stated he concurs and wants staff to look at that. He stated animals in residential areas can ruin the quality of life; birds are one of the highest levels; he had a neighbor who had a bird and he tolerated it, but he could not go on his porch sometimes because it was not relaxing. He stated he would like to look at decibel levels and certain zoning classifications having different levels of noise.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 14, Animal Control, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Section 14-49, Classification of dogs as hazardous or dangerous; to change the composition of the Animal Control Hearing Council from administrative staff to non-county employees; and amending Section 14-57, Creation of Nuisance, to except tropical bird noises in AU zoned property, with certain setback requirements; provide for severability; and provide for an effective date of the ordinance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Ordinance No. 95-57.)

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff return to the Board with a report on implementation of decibels to determine noise nuisance, how it can be implemented, and the problems and all aspects of using decibel levels. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE REVISING NOISE ORDINANCE TO DELETE NOISE FROM ANIMALS AND BIRDS, AND ADD LOUD AND RAUCOUS NOISE CREATED BY WATERCRAFT

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance revising the Noise Ordinance to delete noise from animals and birds, and add loud and raucous noise created by watercraft.

Ruben Narmore, 680 Nevada, Melbourne, advised he disagrees with Commissioner Scarborough on the noise level, because if a neighbor is making a noise that a person has to listen to every day, it does not matter what the noise is. He stated he had a problem with birds; and thanked the Board for taking care of it. He inquired how many times can this issue be brought up; and stated this is the third time he has come to the Board on this issue; and people do not have a right to annoy their neighbors with loud animals, machines, motorcycles, trucks, etc. He stated he is surrounded by seven dogs; every time he walks in his yard he hears one of the dogs barking; and it is more the constant noise than the noise level. Mr. Narmore stated he read the newspaper or he would not have known the Board was going to meet on this item; and he would like to see more notice given so the Board can have more input from the public.

Attorney Dwight Severs, 509 Palm Avenue, Titusville, representing Pet Resort, advised it is located at 5080 Industry Drive off Wickham Road; and presented a number of folders of information and documentation to be part of the record. He stated in each fold is an area locational map involving the location of the Pet Resort and a map showing the zoning located nearby; the Pet Resort is located in an industrial zoning district and is approximately a 25-acre business; and they support an ordinance that will clarify Section 47-127(11). He stated currently there is an exemption in the Code for industrial equipment and machinery in industrial areas; and they support the suggested language of the County Attorney which states, Noise created in the ordinary course of existing lawfully permitted business in the industrial zoning category. Mr. Severs advised the Wenzels were issued a citation by Brevard County Sheriff?s Department for a violation of a 1993 Noise Ordinance which is a second degree misdemeanor; one of the maps is a 1993 map which shows the property zoned IU and industrial operations around it; and they believe the Ordinance was not being properly applied and should be clarified. He stated the Board did not intend that an individual who operates a business in accordance with all the rules and regulations and has proper zoning would subsequently have an unlawful business; and that has been suggested about his clients? business. He stated if the 1993 Ordinance is applied, then all kennels operating in Brevard County will have to go out of business because there is a certain amount of noise in conjunction with the operation. He stated they presented testimonials from approximately 30 individuals who support the business and location of the business; and they are signed by various professional people and citizens throughout South Brevard. Mr. Severs advised his clients have about 2,000 customers; some of the people in the nearby subdivision who are complaining use the business for their animals when they go away; his clients have operated the business for more than eight years; and they researched the market, checked out the zoning and land uses, located in an industrial park on 25 acres, designed the facility in accordance with all rules and regulations, and considered input from veterinarians in the design of the facility. He stated they checked out the zoning on surrounding properties; he is not sure when it happened, but the land to the south, which is approximately 300 feet away, was not in the City of Melbourne; and when his clients built the facility, it was zoned commercial and subsequently changed to residential by the City which is the source of the problem. He presented and explained an aerial from his REDI maps that showed the location of his clients? property, Melbourne City limits, the subdivision to the south which was not platted in 1993, a large retention area, vegetated buffer, and no houses. He stated all the development and proper screening should have occurred by the developer; and the City should have required it. Mr. Severs advised his clients operate a business that 14 veterinarians recommend; they house and take care of Melbourne?s K-nine unit and Brevard County?s K-nine unit when it had one; NASA has used the facility; and there are letters from people in Satellite Beach, Melbourne, and Suntree who use the facility. He stated his clients deliberately found the facility in a remote area on 25 acres of industrial property; the Ordinance being applied seek to shut them down; and that is not fair or appropriate. Mr. Severs advised most of the people who are moving into Live Oaks Subdivision now sign a disclosure and are aware of the railroad tracks immediately behind the subdivision, the industrial development, and the Pet Resort; but despite that, they seek to close his clients? business; and that was not the intention of the Board to close an existing lawful business that has operated as most any other business. He presented photographs of the property and two nearby kennels; and stated a letter from Ken Wall who is a certified public accountant in Satellite Beach and consulted with his clients to help them set up the kennel operation, said, They designed and located the facility and chose a remote location out of the way to avoid any problems. It is not fair to consider closing this facility when there is a complaint filed by someone who later made a choice to build a home near him. He stated Dr. Scott Gregory who lives in Live Oaks adjacent to his clients? property wrote, I live in Live Oak Subdivision. I moved there in November, 1994. When I first decided to build a house there, like all prudent home buyers, I drove around the community, checked out local schools, explored the surrounding neighborhoods, and checked out the zoning status of adjoining properties. Within half an hour, I determined the railroad track was there and the kennel in the industrial park was there. Mr. Severs advised the Pet Resort has been in existence for ten years; during that time, his clients have paid their taxes and complied with all the rules and regulations; and if the County has a rule like this, it sends a chilling message to all businesses contemplating locating in Brevard County that if they locate a business here and follow the rules they could have the same problem; and that is why it is appropriate to pass an exemption as they requested. He stated Dr. Gregory concludes his letter by saying, In conclusion, there are many annoyances in our modern world, jets overhead, trains, barking dogs, door-to-door petitioners, the puddle left when people wash their cars, the color of people?s blinds, people who have time to work in their yards all day and expect others to do the same; but in striving to eliminate all that annoys us, we will ruin homes, livelihoods, and our sense of community. Mr. Severs advised his clients have operated a good business; the Board can check with Animal Control and the Health Department on it; if they wanted an example of a facility that is properly operated and clean, they would refer people to this facility; and urged the Board to grant the exemption. He stated there was discussion about transferring noise to Animal Control; when Animal Control came out in the past, because of a noise complaint, they were told it is a kennel and is exempt; so the officers recognized that; and other kennel operators had Animal Control officers that recognized they were exempt. He urged the Board to change the regulations or clarify it so it does not put a business like the Pet Resort, which has complied with the laws, out of business.

Commissioner Higgs asked Mr. Severs to identify the property on the drawing. Mr. Severs identified the property, new subdivision, retention pond, and City limits of Melbourne. He stated when his clients bought the property it was IU and continues to be IU; and the land annexed by the City was designated commercial before it was rezoned to residential.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has changed the animal noises to Animal Control by its prior action; the exemption on page 4, Section D.9.(11)) was read into the ordinance previously approved; so if they have industrial zoning, they have a right to produce noise from that operation. He inquired if it would include animal noises if they have a kennel in IU zoning; and if so, would it be exempt; with Assistant County Attorney Kathryn Harasz responding if the Board wants to incorporate that into the nuisance provisions of the Animal Control Chapter, it would make it clearer. Commissioner Scarborough stated that may be a good idea because someone may have the same problem in the future.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if pet kennels are CUP?s or just conditional use in IU zones and totally legal; with Chairman Cook responding they are permitted uses. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Zoning Director some years ago, prior to Mr. Enos, wrote an opinion that made it acceptable. Mr. Enos advised they are permitted uses in commercial and industrial zones. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it says pet kennels; with Mr. Enos responding no, but there are similar uses, and by interpretation the use has been included. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Zoning Official?s interpretation is law; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding yes, until it is appealed and overturned by the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it would have been appealed at the time it was allowed and not eight years later; with Mr. Knox responding yes, although technically someone can ask for that same interpretation today and could appeal it. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it would go back retroactively to the establishment of a pet kennel; with Mr. Knox responding no. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the pet kennel was lawfully established in the IU zone; with Mr. Knox responding yes.

Charlene Terry, 6665 U.S. 1, Grant, advised the homeowners in Grant have met on many occasions to discuss the noise problem; it is an unbearable situation; everyone is concerned; and they have standing room only at their meetings every time the issue comes up. She stated a tape was played for the P&Z Board of the noise they encounter on a daily basis; it is not amplified and the noise is unbearable; and it begins at 8:00 a.m. and continues until dark, seven days a week on most occasions. She stated they have watercraft testing in the Indian River Lagoon that began with two small jet skis; now there are as many as 30 at a time being tested; they have jet boats, jet skis, and continuous noise; and sometimes it is so bad they have to leave their homes because the noise makes them nervous after a while. Ms. Terry advised in the summer time they cannot open their windows and doors to get the breeze from the River because they cannot stand the noise; they have needed some type of ordinance for a long time; and as more and more people live in rural areas, the Board will need to look at this issue. She stated they will need it even more in the future; mufflers are an alternative for testing; and they could use mufflers which they do not appear to be doing at the present time.

Donna Wenzel, 270 River Road Circle, Rockledge, advised she and her husband Nick Wenzel own the Pet Resort kennel located in the Wickham Business Center which is an industrial park; they are a boarding and grooming business for dogs and cats; and they are here to see if the Board will adopt the noise ordinance. She stated the current Ordinance places them in violation, which is a criminal offense that can be punished by imprisonment and fines; currently charges have been placed against them; and a case is pending based on her husband receiving a citation. She stated due to the nature of their business, there is a certain amount of noise at certain times; the noise places them and all businesses like theirs in violation of the Ordinance due to the language change; and every kennel or animal shelter has noise at certain times such as during feeding, when strangers enter the kennel area, or a violator enters the kennel yard. Ms. Wenzel advised noise is inherent to their type of business; they cannot stop it from occurring; they have been in business since 1987; and it took many months of looking and researching to select their location. She stated there were many details to consider; the primary reason they chose their location was that it was not only zoned for their type of business, but the surrounding area was zoned to be conducive; the location is zoned light industrial and located in an industrial park; and the surrounding area was zoned commercial at the time their facility was built to Code. She stated the building is specialized and built as a single-purpose building for a kennel; it cannot be used for other purposes; and if their business fails, they will fail. She stated the first five years was a struggle; the kennel was not self-supporting like many small businesses starting out; she and her husband worked full time jobs and worked the kennel to support themselves and keep it going; and their life savings have been placed into the business. She stated they take great pride in their business and have a fine staff of two employees and two part-time employees; they have great love and compassion for animals; and their customers know of their devotion. Ms. Wenzel advised the commercial land south of their property and adjacent to the industrial park was not selling; the land sat vacant for years; approximately three years ago a developer managed to get the commercial property adjacent to the park rezoned to residential; and the area is now being developed and is located across the lake and a County easement. She stated it is several hundred yards from their business; the development is Live Oak; access to it is from Wickham Road only; the developer knew the industrial park backed up to the development, but he cleared all the land to the lake and industrial park; and the first home owners who bought homes in there were not told by the developer about the industrial park or railroad tracks, and they failed to investigate the surrounding area. She stated they were told the development began to receive complaints from residents about the railroad tracks and industrial park; due to those complaints, the developer has now placed a statement in his purchase agreement which says, The person who intends to buy a home is aware of the railroad and the businesses; and to her knowledge there has been no revision to any Ordinances during that time. Ms. Wenzel advised approximately six months ago they received a citation and were informed the County Ordinance was changed and due to the change they were in violation; on August 22, 1995, their attorney Ken Friedland and they appeared before the Board; it was their understanding at that time that a draft was to be expected with language change; and they are here today in hopes the change will occur. She stated when they opened their business, their intent was to provide the community with a valuable and necessary business; businesses such as theirs provide shelter and care for thousands of animals throughout the year while the owners are away or unable to provide care; they have taken extreme pride in their business and are recommended by many local veterinarians due to their cleanliness and care; and their employees are devoted to caring for animals and considered some of the best in the area. She stated last year they were inspected by Consumer Health and were told by the inspector their business should be used as an example; they are here to ask the Board?s assistance because the Ordinance change is unfair; they are victims and could lose their business; someone is pointing the finger at them; but it applies to all kennels and animal shelters in Brevard County.

Chairman Cook advised the ordinance the Board is considering changes in favor of the Wenzels, so he does not know what is unfair. He stated the ordinance, if passed, will exempt pet kennels.

Nick Wenzel advised the ordinance his wife referenced was re-written in 1993; with Chairman Cook responding that is not what the Board is considering today; it is considering a proposed ordinance that will exempt the kennel business.

Commissioner Ellis stated it was not written in 1993; it was passed then, and that is what caused the problem. Chairman Cook inquired if Mr. Wenzel supports the ordinance; and asked Assistant County Attorney Kyle King to read that section about lawfully permitted businesses. Mr. King advised as amended, the ordinance would read, Noise created in the ordinary course of existing lawfully permitted businesses in industrial zone classifications. . .

Chairman Cook advised the Board has been informed that Pet Resort is lawfully permitted; and inquired if Ms. Garrish was aware of today?s meeting. He noted she was present but did not want to speak. He stated two things created the problem; one was the City of Melbourne which annexed the property and changed it to residential while it still abutted a County industrial area; and the second is the buffering in the development did not seem to be adequate for the type of condition. He stated the Board needs to address the whole issue of compatible uses and buffering; it had another instance of residential and commercial that was not adequate; in this case the County has little authority to do anything because the residential area is in the City of Melbourne; but the City rezoned it to residential which is not compatible backing up to an industrial area, and created the problem. He inquired if Mr. Jenkins had conversations about working something out with the Wenzels to create a buffer or help with the noise problem; with Mr. Jenkins responding Ron Burch of Code Compliance met with Pet Resort, and at their most recent meeting yesterday, Pet Resort advised Mr. Burch if the ordinance is amended which would allow them to continue to operate without being concerned in the future about noise violations, they would be willing to construct a wall as a buffer and landscape the buffer wall to cut down some of the noise. He stated they also talked to Lennar Homes which is developing the residential area about participating in some fashion to facilitate a solution to the noise problem; there is some distance between the properties; however, it is water and water amplifies noise; so they were investigating whether or not they could put in an earthen berm somewhere between the properties to cut down the noise. Mr. Jenkins advised the City of Melbourne to some extent is responsible for some of the conflicts; so it should have a role in assisting the County in trying to solve the noise problem.

Commissioner Scarborough advised one of the problems was the Bombardiere issue with watercraft; paragraph (c) may result in a complete exemption of exotic birds in AU zoning if all noise in AU is permitted and breeding of exotic birds and tropical birds is a permitted use; and that would be in direct conflict to what the Board previously passed. He stated the ordinance passed talked about 100-foot buffer; and suggested the items be discussed separately so they do not get confused. He stated Bombardiere?s issue is in District 3; however, the Board has no control over intracoastal waterways; and it is only as the noise is received on the land that it has an ability to regulate that noise. He indicated the language may need to be revised.

Mr. King advised Florida Statutes, Section 327.60, basically preempts local law with respect to operation of equipment on intracoastal waterways. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. King is saying the County has no ability to regulate the noise coming from intracoastal waterways that impacts upon the shore; with Mr. King responding the Board could regulate the air where the noise impacts the land; however, the individual cited would have a defense, if it actually went to court, that the County is not really regulating air, it is regulating the operation of equipment or watercraft. He stated the statute poses a problem of possible preemption of any regulation of intracoastal waterways because it is a State water. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is a gray area; with Mr. Knox responding the current amendment as it is written would regulate the noise from personal watercraft; and the argument that would be made on the other side, if that was ever brought up in the form of a citation or court case, would be that the County does not have the authority to regulate anything in the intracoastal waterway. He stated the position he would take is that the Board has the authority to regulate what impacts the land; the noise does not travel on the water, it travels through the air; so that is something different than the water; and in both cases, it is a gray area, but they could probably prevail on that issue.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there are other counties in the State that have ordinances like that; with Mr. Knox responding there are, but he has not seen one that has been challenged through the appellate courts and thrown out. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff is prepared to give the Board language today or is it something they need a few more weeks on; with Mr. Knox responding he has language to propose, but it may require readjusting as to where it will go in the ordinance. He stated there is an exemption for the operation of a personal watercraft on page 4, subparagraph (9), which says, Such exemptions shall modify noise or sound generated by watercraft upon land; and he would like to propose changing on land to impacting abutting land.

Commissioner Higgs asked Mr. Knox to read subparagraph (9). Mr. Knox advised there is an exemption for the operation of watercraft, other than personal watercraft, upon any water course, lake, river, or swamp in the unincorporated County; and he would add, such exemption shall not apply to noise or sound generated by watercraft impacting abutting land unless located at or on a properly zoned marina, watercraft, repair shop, or manufacturing facility. Commissioner Higgs stated there is another reference on page 8. Mr. Knox advised they want to modify page 8 to make sure they are not prohibiting watercraft that would leave port, go out and come back; and recommended adding to paragraph 14, this section shall also prohibit the intentional and repeated creation of loud and raucous noise by. . .

Commissioner Ellis stated the repetitive issue comes in which is what the Board wants. Commissioner Higgs advised her intention of bringing watercraft up was not a particular situation, but up and down the waterways there are instances of watercraft being loud intentionally and consistently; that is the issue; she is not interested in anything other than the intentional creation of noise repeatedly in an area and not an airboat or personal watercraft going up and down the waterway. She stated it is the intentional and repeated noise in a concentrated area that needs to be prohibited. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if consistent and intentional are in the County Attorney?s definition; with Mr. Knox responding he has intentional and repeated. Commissioner Ellis stated it would not stop someone from putting his craft in the water and taking off, but he cannot sit there and do donuts or whatever.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to amend the proposed ordinance to include, This section shall also prohibit the intentional and repeated creation of loud and raucous noise by watercraft in subparagraph (14) on page 5. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

County Attorney Knox inquired if it is only personal watercraft or all watercraft; with Commissioner Higgs responding vehicles on water.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to change the phrase to watercraft instead of personal watercraft. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the County Attorney to redraft the ordinance to be consistent with the intent of the prior motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis stated Section 9 does not have the repetitive issue in it; it allows a person to put a boat in the water and take off; that was the whole point of that Section; and the Board does not need to change it. Mr. Knox stated he would like to add one clause referencing the other section that the Board amended so it is clear it does not exempt that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in the Ordinance the Board just passed, page 3, Section 2, references tropical birds, setbacks, etc.; paragraph 10 under (C) of this ordinance talks about farm machinery and other noises consistent with lawful permitted uses in an AU zoning classification; and inquired if the raising of tropical birds is a permitted use in AU; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated essentially that is a complete exemption to noise; and if the Board adopts this ordinance, it would create an inconsistency between the two ordinances. Commissioner Ellis inquired why was it moved to the other ordinance; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it was a procedural matter of having Animal Control handle noise from animals as opposed to Code Enforcement because they have been fairly successful. He stated the question is with the tropical birds. Mr. King advised the problem can be cured by adding language that says, the exemption or exception shall not apply to animal noises and all animal noises would be regulated by the Animal Control Ordinance.

Commissioner Higgs advised prior to the Noise Ordinance, there was a weakness in being able to enforce regulations dealing with barking dogs; and the loud and raucous and specification on page 6 of this ordinance that says, the keeping of any animal or bird which habitually causes loud and raucous noise. . . is needed in order to enforce anything regarding barking dogs. Mr. King stated they would be regulated under the nuisance standards of the Animal Control Ordinance. Commissioner Higgs stated the nuisance standards were harder to enforce than loud and raucous; with Mr. King responding he does not know if that is true; however, the standards say, disturbing the peace and quiet of any person by habitually or continually barking, howling, crying, screaming, or making other bothersome noises; and that is interpreted to include barking of dogs.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board is moving away from a standard that is enforceable; with Assistant County Manager Joan Madden responding no, staff was comfortable lifting the language from Code Enforcement and enforcing what is in the Animal Control Ordinance; they attempted to move all the enforcement of animal created noises, including tropical birds, into one ordinance because people had to deal with two arms of Government, with Code Enforcement and Animal Control responding; and that created situations where nobody knew who was doing what. She stated they felt it was important that all the animal related noise issues be handled through the Animal Control Ordinance; and that was the sole purpose of lifting the language out and putting it in there to coalesce who was responding to the calls.

Commissioner Higgs stated she wants to be sure staff is comfortable with the language in the Animal Control Ordinance and the County Attorney feels that staff has the tool it needs to enforce it. Ms. Madden stated the definition Mr. King read which is in the Animal Control Ordinance is sufficient. Mr. Knox stated he agrees with that.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to add disturbing the peace and quiet of any person by habitually or continually barking, howling, crying, screaming, or making other bothersome noises into the ordinance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to add or to noise or sound prohibited under Section 46-131(14) to page 4, subparagraph (9). Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt the ordinance amending Article IV, Chapter 46 of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Section 46-127, paragraph (10), to delete portions specifically pertaining to animals and birds; amending Section 46-127, paragraph (11) to exempt noise created in the ordinary course of existing lawfully permitted businesses in industrial zoning classifications; amending Section 46-130, to delete reference to Section 46-126 as the section enumerating public nuisances, and, instead, correctly referencing Section 46-131; amending Section 46-131, paragraph 15, motor vehicles, to specifically include intentional and repeated loud and raucous noise created by the operation of watercraft; amending Section 46-127, paragraph (9) to delete the exception for noise created by the operation of watercraft which impacts abutting land areas; amending Section 46-131 to delete paragraph 8 pertaining to animal and bird noise and renumbering paragraphs 9 through 16 accordingly; providing for severability; and providing an effective date, as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Ordinance No. 95-58.)

Chairman Cook inquired if Mr. Wenzel agrees to a wall and landscaping; and stated Mr. Wenzel indicated yes. Chairman Cook advised that will go a long way to helping with the situation.

The meeting recessed at 10:39 a.m. and reconvened at 10:54 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING, RE: AUTHORIZATION TO SETTLE CRISTINA AND FRANCIS SHEAR v. BREVARD COUNTY LITIGATION

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider settlement of Cristina and Francis Shear v. Brevard County litigation.

There being no comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize settlement of Cristina and Francis Shear v. Brevard County litigation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: AUTHORIZATION TO SETTLE BARBARA BRADLEY-BENN v. BREVARD COUNTY LITIGATION

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider settlement of Barbara Bradley-Benn v. Brevard County litigation.

Chairman Cook inquired if it includes the gag order; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding yes. Chairman Cook stated he will vote against it because of the gag rule.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when a person is in business and has a settlement of a lawsuit, that person can agree not to disclose things; but it is fundamentally opposed to this form of Government not to have complete disclosure of everything and have part of the settlement that the parties cannot discuss is counter to what the Board believes in. He stated he cannot vote for the settlement although he supports the dollar amount.

Commissioner Ellis stated the dollar amount will be public record; and this is to avoid a finger-pointing situation on whose fault it was and who is to blame after the settlement.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to authorize settlement of Barbara Bradley-Benn v. Brevard County litigation. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Higgs and Ellis voted aye, and Commissioners Scarborough and Cook voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve settlement of Barbara Bradley-Benn v. Brevard County without a gag order.

Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson inquired if that would include refinement of the settlement agreement and Chairman to execute it and the Release; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that is part of the motion. Mr. Knox stated he assumes approval of the settlement included the authority to sign releases.

Chairman Cook inquired if the settlement with the elimination of the gag order will allow anybody to discuss the contents; with Mr. Knox responding yes, the gag order was part of the proposed settlement that the Board talked about, so it is not a problem if the Board wants to talk about it. Chairman Cook inquired what was the problem moving the person back to her previous job; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding they had a position available, but the individual did not want to go back and came to the Board with a proposal not to go back; and the Board discussed it and concluded it was in everyone?s best interest to conclude the relationship. Chairman Cook inquired if the County Attorney is recommending the settlement; with Mr. Knox responding yes. Chairman Cook inquired if she was offered her job back; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes, the position was made available, offered, and she opted to propose her separation from the County as an alternative. Chairman Cook inquired if the settlement is in return for separating from the County; with Mr. Jenkins responding it is for damages, legal fees, and severance. Chairman Cook advised he is not comfortable with this issue and will vote no if that is acceptable. He stated he understands the reason for settling, but he is not comfortable with it.

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

CLARIFICATION OF BOARD ACTION, RE: CUP FOR AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS

Stephen Douglas, 3236 Bayfield Street, Cocoa, advised he has neighbors to the east who decided to put in a bird farm, and he objects because of the loud constant noise the birds generate. He stated they do not meet the physical requirements as far as acreage; they abut GU property and should have 100-foot setback which they do not have; and they do not have proper structures. He stated it is a residential area; they do not need a bird farm because it is not the place for it; ever since he came there, it has slowly escalated; they have pigs, chickens, as well as exotic birds; and inquired where do they draw the line. He stated (2) it is an area where they would like to have peace and tranquility, and there is no peace or tranquility around the birds; it goes on day and night and never ceases; if someone has a party, he can rely on the fact that the party will end; if they are working on a car, they will quit working; but the birds never stop. He requested the Board enforce the Codes, eliminate the problem, and get the commercial entity out of the residential neighborhood.

Commissioner Scarborough advised on September 27, 11995, a question came before the Board whether it should issue a conditional use permit (CUP); and it was granted for birds to be there; however, there were some issues regarding the birds, etc.; but one condition staff had difficulty with was no birds to the west side and birds moved to the east beside the shop. He stated there were questions that arose, so today the Board is dealing with a CUP and not how that CUP was issued; and it is unfortunate that staff did not have the opportunity to brief Mr. Douglas on the exact language, because today the Board is considering clarification and not reconsidering the CUP.

Zoning Official Rick Enos advised the CUP has been issued; staff is asking for clarification on the conditions that were placed on the CUP; there were four areas described that may have been included in the intent on limiting the area; but there is some confusion that it may not have included all four areas. He requested clarification of which of the four areas were intended to be included within the area that the CUP was approved for.

Mr. Douglas stated zoning has to be applied equally to all residents; to give a variation from the Codes at any time is to invite chaos and end up with people who are disgruntled and unhappy; and he understands there were conditions placed on the granting of the zoning which they have not met, and the birds are still where they were when the CUP was granted.

Commissioner Ellis stated this is not a variation from the Code because in GU, agricultural use is a conditional use. Mr. Douglas stated he is not familiar with the language, but his point is the property is AU and abuts GU which brings in a different ball game. Commissioner Ellis stated agricultural use is permitted in GU if they apply for a CUP. Mr. Douglas inquired if the regulations require 100-foot setback if they abut property that is not AU; with Mr. Enos responding the noise regulation that deals with birds states that if they are more than 100 feet they are exempt from the noise regulation; however, that does not mean they cannot have birds within 100 feet of the property line. He stated it does not prohibit the use of the property for birds, but they would not be exempt from the noise regulations; and the real issue today is was the intent to limit the birds on the east side, and what was the intent of those conditions.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are CUP?s to the east and west on the Zoning Map; and inquired what is the nature of those CUP?s; with Mr. Enos responding he does not know.

Mr. Douglas advised it is not just a matter of raising birds; they operate a business out of Frontenac and it is the breeding ground for that business which is commercial and takes it beyond the CUP. He stated if the Board makes allowances for that business or something else, it will run into problems, because it is a commercial entity that operates in a residential neighborhood.

David Waters, 3218 Bayfield Street, Cocoa, advised at the last meeting things were said that did not paint the right picture; they said he knew it was an illegal activity when he moved in there; but he did not know that; and there were no cockatoos or macaws when he moved in there. He stated the birds they had on September 27 were there when he moved in; he has pictures taken in October, 1992 and yesterday to show the difference from when he moved in to the present; and they said the only change was 100 chickens that would be gone after October 1, 1995 when the ad came out in the international papers, but the chickens are still there making noise. Mr. Waters stated he did not complain for two years after he moved in because the large birds were not there; and when they brought in the large birds, he did not want to cause any waves and wanted to be a good neighbor and put up with them. He stated they said the closest neighbor is a quarter of a mile away; however, a lady lives behind them about 100 feet from the birds; and when they started to put the birds in, they asked her if they bothered her; she said no, and that she enjoyed the chirping; but now she feels she was slapped in the face because they moved the large birds in right behind her house. He stated she is an artist and works at home; there are open beam ceilings in her house; the noise is unreal; and she was glad he was fighting it. Mr. Waters advised the character of the neighborhood is not conducive to a bird farm; it is residential; a pair of macaws that was supposed to be moved inside should have taken no time at all; instead, it took 54 days to decide to move them and three minutes to actually move them. He stated it has been 76 days since the last meeting and nothing has been done; for 76 days he has put up with the noise; he called Code Enforcement and nothing has been done; and they have not been cited. He stated there were two or three dates set for the birds to be moved; another one is coming due next week; and none of the other birds have been moved yet. He stated he went to his neighbors with a petition stating, Us homeowners in Canaveral Groves find the loud and raucous noise made by the birds being raised for commercial purposes at 3200 Bayfield Street annoying and a nuisance to our neighborhood; and he obtained 16 signatures of complainants who are tired of listening to the birds. Mr. Waters explained a map showing the homes of people who signed the petition, vacant lots, and his neighbor?s home. He stated on September 11, three weeks before the last meeting, one neighbor was not able to make the meeting and wrote a letter which was not addressed; the letter reads, Dear Planning and Zoning Board, Thank you for the courtesy notice advising me that the property owners located on the northwest corner of Bayfield Street and Cherokee Avenue in Canaveral Groves Subdivision located in Cocoa are requesting CUP allowing them to raise birds on their property. Please be aware as tax paying citizens, the property owner close to the property, I am very much opposed to Brevard County Board of County Commissioners allowing such an action to take place. Raising a quantity of birds in a residential section can and will cause problems to those in close proximity. Birds and their droppings will cause flies and insects to collect in that area. Rodents are also attracted to seed and bird feed. Noise from the quantity of birds can also be very annoying. This is not consistent with the quiet family type neighborhood. Raising a quantity of birds should take place in a non-residential setting. For these reasons, I ask the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners deny this request. Thank you, Glen and Linda Edwards. Mr. Waters stated the letter was never brought up so he wanted to bring those points up; he realizes today is to set where the birds should be; and according to the map, he wanted Area C only. He stated if they go to Areas A, B or D, the only ones that will help would be he and Mr. Douglas; and it will hinder the people more and will not help the lady whose house is blocking it somewhat. He stated there is no good place for the birds; they are loud and raucous; he can hear them in his house and has a tape of them; and played the tape for the Board which he recorded from his back porch. He noted they were louder in the morning and woke him up; and it goes on until dark, and sometimes in the middle of the night.

Chairman Cook advised the item is to clarify previous Board action.

Commissioner Scarborough stated a CUP has been issued; a lot of people are asking the Board to reconsider the CUP; and inquired if there is a mechanism for a person to petition the Board to have a CUP reconsidered. Mr. Enos advised since the CUP has been issued, the only way it could be reconsidered is if the Board directed staff to advertise it to be considered administratively. Chairman Cook inquired when is the CUP up for renewal; with Mr. Enos responding it is a permanent CUP and is not to be renewed. Commissioner Ellis stated it does not make sense, and he thought every business had to come back every year. Commissioner Scarborough advised Mr. Waters spoke of having the birds located only in Area C of the diagram; and inquired if that is a problem; with Mr. Duncan responding yes.

Mr. Duncan advised Code Enforcement has been out to his property and was shown the problem; the drawing shows the lot as being square, but it is not; and showed the Board the survey depicting his lot as angled off. He stated Area D would be in the right-of-way of Cherokee Avenue; he has pictures of the birds existing behind the shop in Area A and Area C; the birds that are still in the backyard are 140 feet from the west boundary; and he had intended to move the birds to Area D.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the first part of the motion said no birds on the west side; then it said birds moved to the east side; that would appear to be Area C; and it says behind the shop; and if the house fronts on Bayfield Street, then it would be Area A. He inquired if it was the intent of the Board to say to the east or behind the shop. He stated he thought there was a clear understanding at the meeting and did not pursue it further; it did not come to his mind at the time; so he has no recollection of having any legislative intent at the time.

Chairman Cook advised Area C was the area the Board was considering because Cherokee Avenue would be a buffer of sorts; it was behind the shop; and whether Area A can meet the same criteria, his recollection is fuzzy on the whole thing, but he recalls putting it on that side with Cherokee as a buffer to put the birds in a least offensive area.

Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board lacks clarity of memory on this issue, it should re-advertise and hear the case again to clarify the legislative intent; with Mr. Enos responding he has no objection to the Board asking staff to re-advertise it if that is legally correct.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Board would have a problem because the Ordinance does not provide for revocation of conditional use permits; the courts generally construe conditional uses to be once the criteria is met and the permit granted, it is granted; so under the Ordinance, the Board can cite them for violations of not complying with the conditions, but there is nothing in the Ordinance that says it can go back and revoke the CUP if they do not comply with the conditions. Commissioner Higgs stated the conditions are unclear; with Mr. Knox responding it just takes a vote of the Board to clarify the conditions.

Chairman Cook inquired if the County Attorney is saying it is lawfully existing in that zoning per County Code; with Mr. Knox responding as far as he is concerned it is. Chairman Cook stated there is no way to revoke the CUP because it has already been issued; but the Board can clarify what the intent was with regard to the CUP. He stated his intent was to put the birds in the least offensive place on the property to shield them from the neighbors being affected. Commissioner Scarborough stated he will say no birds to the west side, birds are to be put on the east side, and reference the shop. He stated behind the shop would restrict them strictly to Area C.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to interpret previous Board action on location of the birds to only Area C.

Commissioner Ellis inquired why not Areas C and D; with Commissioner Scarborough responding because D does not have the reference of being behind the shop; it is to the east and does not meet the second criteria of being behind the shop; and only Area C meets both criteria. Commissioner Ellis stated Area D would give a better buffer. Chairman Cook stated there are two buffers on Area C and noise does not travel in a straight line. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is not here to reconsider the CUP, but to clarify its action so staff can move forward; and C is the only area that is consistent with behind the shop and to the east. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board does not have the ability to reconsider the CUP at this time; the only ability it has is to clarify its intent; and the position of Area C is the only thing that is consistent to what it did. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not see why Area D is not consistent; with Commissioner Higgs responding because it is not behind the shop. Commissioner Ellis stated it is behind the shop if they look from the west side to the east; the major complaint was from those people on the west side; and that is why the Board said no birds on the west side. He stated the house would give a better buffer than anything else. Mr. Duncan advised he understood the birds in question were the macaws that had to be moved in doors; they were sitting in the middle of the yard directly behind the house; the macaws have been moved inside; there are a few cockatoos that were not complained about at the time; and the only place he has physically left for them would be Area D. He stated when Code Enforcement came out, he showed them where they would have to be; they said anything to the east of the shop; and they drew the line on their map.

Chairman Cook inquired if there is sufficient land in Area C; with Mr. Duncan responding no, and explained the survey depicting the house, aviaries, and what exists on Area C, and the south end of the shop. He noted it extends eight feet out and does the same thing on the west side of the shop. Chairman Cook inquired if Mr. Duncan has eight feet on the side of Area C; with Mr. Duncan responding it looks larger, but it is not; and there is a 30-foot right-of-way. Chairman Cook inquired if there is 30 to 40 feet on the corner of the shop. He stated the intent was to take the entire length of the shop and the area adjacent to it on Bayfield to put the birds on; and it may be eight feet, but back of it looks like 30 feet. Mr. Duncan stated the drawing is of the pens as existing; there are large berms with 50-foot pine trees right up against it; and the County resurveyed and it shows he has less property than he thought and assumed was his property. Chairman Cook advised the Board is here to clarify the intent; and his intent was Area C with Cherokee Avenue creating an additional buffer and the shop would be an insulator. Mr. Duncan stated they are willing to put up a stockade fence and have checked on prices to put it across the backyard from the house to the back property line as a buffer; and he has pictures of the aviaries that are buffered to the south.

Commissioner Ellis stated his intent was Areas C and D because the person with the greatest problem lived next door; and if the birds went to Area D, they would be up against the house and would be the best buffer and better than the shop. Mr. Duncan advised he is not asking to move the noisy birds in Areas A or B; those are occupied with less offensive birds now; the pictures can show the Board there is no room for expansion; and Code Enforcement can verify that. He stated Code Enforcement has seen what he is up against as far as moving the other birds; but he is willing to move the birds that are in the back and are noisy to Area D.

Chairman Cook stated the Board talked about all the birds, the macaws inside and the rest moved to the other side of the property; and that meant all the birds, not just the noisy ones. Mr. Duncan stated he is confused because he thought behind the shop was Area A since that is the back side of the shop. He stated the driveway goes in the front of the shop, so that would be behind the shop. Chairman Cook stated the Board will clarify what it meant.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Board only heard from one resident at that time; what it is hearing now is the noise created by the birds are causing problems for a number of residents; and it also heard the CUP is not up for reconsideration. She stated it would be helpful to the neighbors and the Board if Mr. Duncan can do something to relieve the problem that the neighbors are experiencing; and it would be in everyone?s interest if he can do that. Mr. Duncan advised their intent is to work with the neighbors and move the noisy birds even if it is off the property completely; they are going to put a fence on the property line, but they had to deed twenty feet for a drainage easement; so that eliminated putting a fence up right away; and the birds in Areas A and B are quiet birds. He stated they sold over 100 chickens that were noisy; and the 60 other birds have left the premises since this issue came up originally.

Commissioner Scarborough stated his dilemma is that he has other facts coming in from other neighbors; the previous action did not reference the house, but referenced the shop; it used the words to the east of and behind; and the only thing that can possibly meet all three criteria is Area C. He stated there may be other means to look at berms, buffers, etc.; but the Board does not have that option unless the CUP owner wants to come back and renegotiate the CUP; and at that time they could meet with the neighbors and have some new conditions. He stated that is beyond the scope of what he can make a motion on today.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to define previous action of the Board to mean exclusively Area C.

Commissioner Ellis stated Area C makes no sense because there is no square footage there. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board is going to reconsider the conditions as a total, it needs to let other people come up and talk about berms, sound buffers, and other issues; and it is not legally possible to expand the scope of the original motion and talk about other conditions at the same time. Commissioner Ellis stated he cannot believe the original motion was just for Area C because that would have made no sense since there is no square footage there to put anything. Commissioner Scarborough stated Chairman Cook pointed out there is about 25 feet at one end and maybe 45 feet at the other end; so there is something there. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not think that is the amount of area at all. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not see how Area D is consistent with the language of the original motion and falls within the criteria of behind the shed and to the east. Commissioner Ellis stated Area D meets every bit of the criteria that Area C does; the idea was to move the birds to the far east side and buffer them; looking at the shop from the west side, behind the shop would be Areas B, C and D; and there was no complaint from the property owner directly across Cherokee Avenue, so the people affected were all to the west. He repeated previous comments about the shop, size of Area C, and putting the birds on the east side of the home to be as far away from the neighbors as possible, and the home being a buffer.

Mr. Waters stated that would be fine if they would do that; they said they had a few cockatoos but there are 14; they just went through a mating season and got extremely loud; and 14 is more than a few to him and his neighbors. He stated everybody is hearing the cockatoos and African Grays; any kind of parrot makes a loud shrieking noise in the mornings and evenings; and if they would remove those birds from the property, he would consider Area D behind their house.

Chairman Cook advised they have not committed to removing the birds; and Mr. Waters? original thought was similar to his that it was Area C. Commissioner Ellis repeated Area D is a better buffer than Area C. Mr. Waters stated it is not further away from his house and Area C is further away and behind something.

Discussion ensued at length on the pros and cons of Areas C and D, buffers, the shop, and interpretation of the language in the original motion.

Chairman Cook inquired if the motion means to move all the birds to Area C and put the macaws inside; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that is already part of the original motion, and only the area is being clarified.

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

Commissioner Higgs advised if the Board wants to encourage the owner to reconsider the CUP, if Area D is better, it could waive the application fee.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to waive application fee for the applicant to apply for reconsideration of the conditional use permits to have birds on the property. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: DRAINAGE AND OTHER DISPUTES BETWEEN SMITH AND POLK

Louis Smith, 100 River Park Boulevard, Titusville, advised the Polks reported him for having no permits; he had permits for the fence and dock, but did not have permits for a Florida room or utility room because he did not add those rooms to his house; and he had a permit for the roof at the time they built the house, unless they are referring to when he repaired the leaks. He stated he dug a retention pond, but had to pump fill into it because the Mosquito Control Department said there were mosquitos and snakes and he had to fill it; and he filled it when he had the money to do it because it cost $3,000. He stated he has no knowledge of the complaint about his house being too close to the house on the north, but 40 years ago they were put there. Mr. Smith stated if someone charges somebody for something, they should do further investigation; his permits should be in the archives of the County; he has copies of his permits, but they are packed away somewhere; and he does not know where they are because it has been too many years. He stated the Polks should clean up their own backyard before they jump on someone else.

Helen Smith, 100 River Park Boulevard, Titusville, advised each Commissioner has a copy of the first permit that was issued to Bea Polk in September, 1985; the property in the area has never been zoned anything except RU-1-11; they moved in the area in 1970, and the Polks moved in 1975; and the only change has been their mailing address. She stated Ms. Polk obtained a permit to manufacture metal products which cost $18.00 until this year because she was also faced with a $15.00 hazardous waste charge; and she has renewed the permit each year to manufacture D&B Scoops. Ms. Smith stated it was reported to Florida Power & Light Company when Dale Polk was manufacturing the scoops from sheets of metal and metal rods; the commercial machinery he does the work on caused snow and lines across their television to the point where they could not watch it; and that was before they got cable television. She stated it was reported to Commissioner Scarborough in 1990, and nothing was ever done to stop it; she has photos taken August 4, 1995 of Mr. Polk and a driver of the production supply company of Longwood, Florida, unloading raw materials, which are sheets of metal and metal rods, in front of the Polks? home; and County Manager Tom Jenkins knows it because he came out there to talk to Ms. Polk about her flooding which she claims was caused by the County filling the ditch in front of her house. Ms. Smith advised she and her husband have been too ill and in and out of the hospital so much that the only strength they have had for several years was to recover from their illnesses and surgeries; they were better last year and had to listen to the noise of Dale Polk cutting sheets of metal and pipe, soldering them together, and riveting them; and she does not know how the County Manager or anyone else can call it assembly. She stated it is the noisiest assembly they have heard; and she has witnesses who heard the noise. Ms. Smith played a tape of the noise taken from her house across the street 100 feet away; and stated day after day they hear sawing noises, cutting of rods, rods falling on the floor, and sharp grinding sounds from their patio; and it is manufacturing and not assembly. She stated she has assembled and never made noises like that. Chairman Cook advised Ms. Smith?s time has expired unless the Board wants to let her finish. The Commissioners did not indicate objection to Ms. Smith finishing her presentation. Ms. Smith stated they want the Polks to get permits as they have; they have permits for everything and have been inspected and signed off by Bill Workman of Code Enforcement, except for their carport which was inspected and signed off by Ken Morgan; and Bill Workman, who is a personal friend of theirs, had them tear down the cover that he husband put over the walkway because it was too close to the property line. She stated Dale Polk came to their house and asked why they were tearing it down, and told her husband he should talk to Bea Polk because she is a personal friend of County Manager Tom Jenkins and she could have stopped it; and her husband said he was not going to be obligated to anyone and would do what should be done; and that is exactly what he did. She stated this is not a neighborhood dispute, it is what is right and wrong; it does not sound like disputing neighbors when Mr. Polk came to their house and offered Ms. Polk?s help; and they are requesting that the Board ensure that Bea Polk buys permits and does the work according to the Code of Brevard County or be fined as other citizens would be. She stated violations have nothing to do with friendship or disputes; and County Manager Tom Jenkins wants to protect Bea Polk. Ms. Smith stated she has something to say about the flooding; and inquired if the Board wants her to do it now or later. Chairman Cook stated this is the only item on the Agenda, and advised Ms. Smith to do it quickly. Ms. Smith stated on November 16, 1995, her doctor had to increase her medication for her heart problem because of all the stress caused by some of the County people who do not want to do the right thing and want to defend Ms. Polk regardless of what she does. She quoted Commissioner Scarborough, on September 11, 1995, after he looked at pictures of the flooding at the end of River Park Boulevard, as saying, I can see where the County has made a costly mistake by filling the County ditch in front of Polks and closing off the two spillways. The most economical solution I can see is to dig the ditch out again and clear the two spillways and let the water flow. She stated all the Commissioners know what happened at the Commission meeting of September 12, 1995; and they know how she likes to tape and photograph things. Ms. Smith advised the letter from Ronald Jones dated November 28, 1995, and the diagram he drew are unbelievable coming from an engineer; he wanted to move the ditch and culvert and put a dirt berm behind it when they have had no flooding from the street except in their yard to the east of the curbed off spillways and the point at the end of the street; and Road and Bridge has not cleaned out the discharge pipe or the rock from drainage as the Commissioners ordered done on September 12, 1995. She stated she and her husband feel Ron Jones did not write the letter on his own, but was instructed by the County Manager Tom Jenkins to write it; Mr. Jones now calls the strip of asphalt across the street a hump; when he was in the area, he said it looked like a diverter of water and not a speed bump or hump; and she has a witness to his statement, and likes to tape. She stated the County piped and filled the County ditch in front of Bea Polk?s home twice, and curbed off two spillways that caused many costly problems; Ms. Polk was given her Constitutional rights twice, and now she and her husband want the County to give them their Constitutional rights once. She stated they would appreciate it if the Board would have the County dig out the ditch, clear the two spillways, and let the water flow to the river as it has ever since there has been a road from U.S. 1 to the Indian River. She presented photographs to the Board of the raw material Mr. Polk uses to do the D&B Scoops; and stated it should be very familiar to Mr. Jenkins; those were taken on August 4, 1995, the day after the hurricane; and the County Manager came to Ms. Polk?s house in a white brand new car with no tag or emblem, to talk to her about her flooding problem when Mr. Polk and the driver of the truck was unloading the material and putting it on Mr. Polk?s pickup truck which he took into his yard and put in his house. She stated the noise the Board heard on the tape is the cutting and making of scoops from that raw material.

Bea Polk, 101 River Park Boulevard, Titusville, stated they have gone through all of this before; the only thing she agrees with is that Ms. Smith really does tape; and the tape Ms. Smith made was from the other side of her fence right next to her garage where she has found Ms. Smith many times. She stated she is glad to know that Ms. Smith has time to tape her every time she moves; it seems like every time she has company it goes on; but it is not the Board?s problem, it is a neighborhood problem. She stated she did not get the letter from Commissioner Scarborough where he said the ditch should be dug out; and she would like to have a copy of that. Commissioner Scarborough responded it was not a letter; he does not recall those things; but he was out there with Ms. Smith and went over and spoke to Ms. Polk as well, then came back and spoke with Ms. Smith. Ms. Polk stated she thought Ms. Smith said it was a letter. She stated when they moved out there, there were spillways on both sides; the ditch carried all the water from the south side; they have not had any problems since they put it in; and the only problem they had and the reason she fussed about it was when they built up the hump the day of the hurricane and directed all the water off the road, none of which went down to the very end where the park is. She stated when they built the park, they made it lower in places so the water could run down there and drain in it; once they built it up the day of the hurricane, it washed the water down her driveway; she has not had any more problems since the hurricane; and she has not seen any water standing in the park since that time. She stated she has listened to Ms. Smith and cannot understand how water can run down to the end of the river then back up into her yard. She stated the hump is not necessary; she does not know if it was to divert water or for traffic; but there is no traffic except to her house. She stated since it was built, it diverts water to her side of the street; and requested the hump be removed. Ms. Polk stated they do not want anything else done to the south side; she does not care what the County does to help Ms. Smith, but she cannot understand how the water runs because the road is made so the water runs her way; it is high on the north and low on the south, so they get most of it; but she would like to have the hump moved to let the water run down to the park and into the river. She stated she has not seen any place where it has washed out; there may have been some rocks that fell off; but when they were stacked up there they did not fall for years; and it did not happen during the hurricane. She stated it is a neighborhood feud; she is sorry, but that is what it is; and as for her husband talking to Mr. Smith, they have not had that much communication.

Ida Blickley, 4475 Swift Avenue, Titusville, stated if it is not a hump in that road, she wants someone to tell her car that, because she goes down that road four or five times a week to pick up Ms. Polk, and the Board knows what it is doing to the tires on her automobile. She stated the lowest part of the hump is on the left side which is Ms. Smith?s side of the road; it was not put in straight; and she is concerned about her automobile. She stated it is the second time the taxpayers have paid for the hump; if it comes out this time, it better not go in again; and that is a warning.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Jenkins sent the Commissioners a lot of things; there were a couple of motions made at the meeting; one of them was that staff break the rocks up from the pipe at the drainage on the north side; and the other was to raise the left side of the road in front of the Polk?s house and report back to the Board.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised staff was planning to do both of those, but put those on hold so they could make one visit to the site and do all the work at one time. He stated the Board asked staff to try and find a solution for the other issues; and it will be done if and when they bring the matter to resolution.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the next motion was for Public Works to try and find solutions and see if it is acceptable to the Smiths and Polks, and to come back to the Board if it did not. Mr. Jenkins advised Public Works did look at the issue and came up with a proposal; they presented the proposal to both parties; the initial proposal was not acceptable; and Mr. Jones came back with an alternative which staff provided to the Board. He stated it is basically to do very little other than to remove the road hump; and that is where it is right now. Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Jenkins describe the options; with Mr. Jenkins responding one option is to proceed with Mr. Jones? last proposal which the Public Works staff found to be acceptable from an engineering and cost consideration standpoint; the second option is to refer the matter to alternative dispute resolution where a mediator or non-binding arbitrator would meet with both parties and try to come up with a mutually acceptable solution; it is not uncommon for there to be differences of opinion in neighborhood matters; and the concept has been used in other places and has worked. He stated there is no guarantee that it will work, but it has worked in other situations; and the third option is for the Board to identify another solution. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if any Commissioner has further thoughts on this issue.

Commissioner Ellis inquired about the issue of permits; and if there is a way to research that without a tremendous amount of staff time; with Mr. Jenkins responding the difficulty in researching the permits is that most of it involves old records; the only issue that is readily available to deal with is the manufacturing issue; and that is an item on the Agenda. Commissioner Ellis stated if staff could check and if they did not get a permit, have them get one and not have any fines or battles over that; but if they put something up without a permit, have them pay for the cost of the permit. He inquired if it would show up on the Property Appraiser?s records; with Mr. Jenkins responding the improvements could potentially show up, but the problem is getting to building permits that are more than four years old. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not want to get into anything punitive, but wants to resolve the permit matter. Mr. Jenkins stated he is not convinced they can readily find building permits on some of the older items.

Chairman Cook inquired if there is a possibility of success if it is sent to mediation; with Mr. Jenkins responding there is no such thing as 100%, but they have been successful with other situations.

Code Compliance Director John Sternagel advised over the last four or five years, since things have become automated, they have very good records as far as permitting goes; prior to that, permits were kept on index cards filed alphabetically; and it would be difficult to go back and do research. He stated in some instances index cards have been missed or mis-filed; and staff could do that, but it would be difficult to insure all records are in place and available.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the information on building permits go to the Property Appraiser?s Office; with Mr. Sternagel responding the Property Appraiser picks up the information that helps with assessments. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Property Appraiser?s Office would show a connection between permits and what is actually built; with Mr. Sternagel responding depending on the type of permit issued, the Property Appraiser would record that; if someone built without a permit, the Property Appraiser may pick it up a year or two later with a field inspection; and at that time it would show up on the Property Appraiser?s records. Mr. Jenkins inquired if there is notation in the Property Appraiser?s records that a permit was pulled; with Mr. Sternagel responding not that he is aware of. Commissioner Ellis stated it would not, but if the Property Appraiser went out and looked at the property, his records will show what should be there; and if there is something there that is not on the Property Appraiser?s records, it is a sign that it may not have had a permit. He stated he wants to bring some of the issues to an end.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct Code Enforcement to work with the Property Appraiser?s Office to go back five years to search for improvements without permits; and if there are improvements found without required permits, the owner be asked to purchase the permits with no punitive fines or fees, other than the cost of the permit.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what would be the standard procedure in the case of an addition that was not permitted; with Mr. Sternagel responding typically they would have to come in and apply for a permit, and the fine is twice that of the normal permit fee.

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

Commissioner Ellis stated that should get pass the permit issue and resolve it one way or another; but the other issue is the drainage. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has a recommendation from Mr. Jones that is acceptable from an engineering and cost standpoint.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to approve removal of the asphalt hump in the middle of the road.

Commissioner Ellis stated the way the spillways are set up, it may not work; they have metal grates over the top; and everything brushes over the spillways, so nothing will get into the pipes.

Chairman Cook called for a second to the motion, and hearing none, stated the motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not disputing Mr. Jones? recommendation and does not have the technical expertise to do it, but it is not a clear consensus; and the Board may want to consider arbitration. He stated there are certain decisions that are of an engineering nature, such as drainage, and there are certain decisions that are of a code enforcement nature that would not return to the Board. He stated Mr. Jenkins talked about non-binding arbitration; the County has to be a party to that; one side or the other is accusing the County of acting improperly and not considering all the factors; so there should be a third party who is not involved. He inquired if Mr. Jenkins has several names of mediators; with Mr. Jenkins responding the Alternative Dispute Resolution Program gave him several names of mediators and arbitrators.

Chairman Cook inquired if there is no support for Mr. Jones? proposal at this time, and if the Board wants to go with the Dispute Resolution Program. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Code Enforcement investigated the complaint about the manufacturing issue; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes, they acquired their information and there is presently a violation of the Ordinance as it relates to home occupations, as they are not allowed to sell any products they assemble or produce at home. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is going to the Code Board; with Mr. Jenkins responding no, the Board?s practice in the past is to put things on hold if there is a proposed policy or ordinance change; and that is on the Agenda today.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if they cannot retail out of a home; with Mr. Jenkins responding they cannot manufacture something or assemble it in a home and ultimately sell it; for example, a person who may cut lumber in his garage and decorate it cannot sell it at craft shows. Commissioner Ellis stated that does not make sense.

Commissioner Higgs inquired when does making something at a home become a home business or commercial operation; with Mr. Jenkins responding the measuring stick is the type of equipment and materials used to produce the commodity; and if they have in their garage a drill, saw, lathe, or something they would regularly have, it may not be a commercial enterprise. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they sell it in the same place they are making it, would that be the defining factor; with Chairman Cook responding the Ordinance says if they ultimately sell it anywhere it is considered commercial, but the Board is going to address that today.

Commissioner Scarborough stated that issue and this issue are intertwined, and recommended moving Item VI.A.4. forward because his thoughts on this issue is a part of the suggested ordinance change, and without discussing it, the issue with the Smiths and Polks become difficult to discuss. Chairman Cook moved Item VI.A.4. forward.

PERMISSION TO AMEND ZONING CODE, RE: HOME OCCUPATIONS

Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Jenkins explain the Agenda item.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised it has come to staff?s attention that certain types of hobbies and other home occupations may include activities which are not permitted by current Zoning Codes because the activities may be considered manufacturing; if they are doing crafts in their garages and later selling them, it is considered manufacturing under the current language of the Code; and what Mr. Polk is currently doing is an example of that. He stated staff is asking for direction from the Board whether or not it wants language developed which would permit hobby manufacturing and small production assembly work as home occupations if the activity does not require machinery or equipment that could otherwise be kept in a residential garage and does not result in public health problems, noise nuisances, or excessive traffic as determined by the Zoning Official.

Chairman Cook advised if the Board wants to permit hobbies, it would have to direct staff to prepare an ordinance.

Helen Smith stated Ms. Polk?s permit or whatever the County gave her in 1985 is self explanatory; she has renewed it every year and even for next year; it says she is using metal products and manufacturing it. She stated Ms. Polk also paid for hazardous waste; and she would like to know what hazardous waste Ms. Polk is using because she has to use something since Mr. Polk is cutting and soldering, and they have to clean the metal before the solder will stick. Ms. Smith stated her husband has fiberglass in his lungs and his airways are burned from chemicals; they do not like chemicals, and the Polks? house is across the street from their house; and the wind blowing from the south comes to their house. She inquired what are they doing with the waste they are using to clean the metal. She stated she and her husband have nothing against the Polks; they have gone over to their house and watched their house and fed their dogs when they were on vacation; the dogs are behind where Mr. Polk manufactures the scoops; so they walked right through the area. She stated the carport was not closed in until last year; they made a large work area for Mr. Polk to manufacture in; she has seen the commercial equipment; and it is not Sears and Roebuck saws or drills. She stated it is a very dangerous and serious situation; it is also very irritating to the people; she had her fifth spinal surgery as of 1994; and she was in the hospital for 63 days with staff infection. Ms. Smith advised she saw Commissioner Scarborough, Mr. Jenkins, Rene Davis, Norm Cadell, and other County employees gathered before the ditch in front of Ms. Polk?s house when it started being filled and piped which has cost the County taxpayers over $26,000 in less than five years; that is ridiculous; she and her husband do not have that kind of money; and even if they were millionaires, she would still resent the County allowing Mr. and Mrs. Polk to carry on that kind of business. She stated they sell out of their home; there was a man who came to her house with their business card, B&D Scoops; he had a New York license plate on his car; he went into their residence; they have a big RV parked so it blocks off the view as to what they carry out of that house; but she is sure the man carried them out. She stated Melvin Magnetic Signs in Frontenac came out there; Mr. Polk brought two scoops to his van and put them in the back; so they cannot tell her they are not selling out of the house. She stated she does not care what Ms. Polk says; some people have trouble always telling the truth; and she would appreciate anything the Board can do for them so her husband and she can recover from their illnesses and get on with their lives. She stated they are in a residential area and it is the most beautiful place in the world, not just Brevard County; she and her husband bought there to enjoy the latter parts of their lives; and they intend to do that. She stated they do not sue; if she had to sue she would have when she had staff infection in the Hospital; they are going to stand up for their Constitutional rights; and they are going to be treated as citizens and their rights are going to be honored. She stated she is sorry for getting upset and has to stop because she has a heart condition.

Ms. Polk stated the Smiths have never been to her house to do anything for her; if they had been, thank goodness she did not know it; and as for hazardous materials, she washes a few parts in her dishwasher with Cascade to take off the oil which is all they have to do. She stated the two scoops Ms. Smith saw carried out of her house were Christmas gifts to be taken up North; and they were not sold; they do not sell from their house because that is not what her house is for; most of it is not made at their house; they have a place on SR 46; and most of the scoops are made there. She stated since this started, there was nothing made at her home. She stated the complaint she had was doors they were making because she had 40 people come to her house last Friday from all over the United States for a seafood dinner; they were remodeling and were accused of doing it then; and one woman who came down had car trouble, so her husband fixed her brakes so she would not be killed on the way back to Lakeland. Ms. Polk stated they do not sell from their home and do not want to because it would make a business out of her home; and they are little scoops used to dig on the beach. She stated the $15.00 for hazardous waste was added to all businesses that use metal; they have to pay it every year whether they have hazardous waste or not; and that is why it is on the permit. She stated she uses Cascade for her dishes, so it must be okay to use on the parts.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Ms. Polk has a business license at that address; with Ms. Polk responding they got it ten years ago, but the neighbors did not know they were making anything; she went to the neighbors and heard no complaints from anyone; the noise that was so loud was taped from against her fence close to her garage; and they do not work all night because they are too old. She stated they always try to keep the noise down; she asked people who fish at the park if they knew she had a business and they did not; they try to be good neighbors and quiet; and this is the first complaint they have gotten in eight years. She stated if it is not called a neighborhood feud, she does not know what it would be called.

Lou Smith stated they did feed the Polks? dogs when they were on vacation; the noise was recorded in his yard; and they have witnesses to it being recorded 100 feet away. He stated the Polks do sell from their property; and he has witnesses to that also. He stated this nonsense has to stop; they run a business there; Code Enforcement should do its job and get it over with because they are all tired of it; and they tried to stop it years ago, back in the 1980's because they could not watch TV and did not have cable at that time. He stated when Mr. Polk used the electric arc welder it would knock their TV out; they asked him not to use it; and they called FPL that said they could not do anything about it. He stated he was in and out of the hospital most of the 1980's; in 1990 they called Commissioner Scarborough and nothing was done; they have been trying to fight it ever since; he has been more in than out of the hospital that is why it is 1995 and they are still fighting it; and they are going to keep fighting it until it is settled. He stated Mr. Polk came to him and said he must get back to his work because he had a $25,000 order; and that is a big order for a small business.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the proposal is not to adopt the ordinance, but ask staff to look at it and put Code Enforcement on hold for the activities at the Polks? house; it is unfortunate the two issues are tied together because the Board has talked about more and more people who do work in their homes; and a lot of it is very quiet like working on computers and producing work products in that way. He stated he wants to address this as an issue outside of the Polks; Mr. Jenkins has limited it to machinery or equipment that could otherwise be kept in a residential garage and does not result in any public health and noise nuisance as determined by the Code Official; and one of the problems he has with that proposal is if a person is manufacturing, the frequency and consistency of the noise is going to be higher than if it is just a casual occupation. He stated he does not have a problem with some of it, but when it gets to manufacturing and machinery operations, he has concerns about the consistency of noise.

Chairman Cook advised he shares those concerns, because someone with a regular hand saw in his garage three or four hours creates a noise nuisance. Commissioner Scarborough stated someone who tie dyes shirts does not make noise, but it is theoretically manufacturing. Chairman Cook stated he has no problem going forward, but even a hand saw that runs for several hours in someone?s garage can create a noise nuisance for the neighbors; and he would hate to open it up so people can do that while manufacturing stuff in their homes and selling them somewhere else. He stated someone could saw all day in his garage with the door open and cause a great nuisance; and inquired if there is any other language or if the Board wants to defer this, because he is not happy with advertising it as stated right now.

Commissioner Ellis stated the way the ordinance is written now is not functional; and the fact that someone can assemble something in his home and sell it at another place puts him in violation is crazy. Chairman Cook stated he does not disagree with that; they need to address the Ordinance if people with hobbies and crafts and things like that are technically in violation of the Ordinance; but his concern is the equipment that could be used which could create a problem. Commissioner Ellis inquired if that would fall under the Noise Ordinance. Mr. Jenkins advised the Board could not allow any noise. Chairman Cook stated it is the consistent noise over a certain period of time that creates a problem in a residential neighborhood, even low level noises like a drone. Commissioner Scarborough stated machinery noise bothers him; even if it is defined, it will be subjective as determined by the Code official; and the only way to get around that is to go back to decibels and times of consistency to determine how loud it is and how long it is. He stated if the Board wants to proceed, he could proceed now excluding machinery noise being exempt. Commissioner Ellis inquired what would not be exempt; with Commissioner Scarborough stating they could manufacture anything at their homes as long as they do not create a machinery noise, such as tie dye shirts, make dolls, use computers, etc.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending the Zoning Code for home occupations, providing for hobby manufacturing and small production assembly work as home occupations if the activities do not require any machinery or equipment that could otherwise be kept in a residential garage and does not result in any public health problems, noise nuisance, or excessive traffic, as determined by the Zoning Official, and no on-site sales.

Chairman Cook reiterated his concern of equipment creating problems in residential neighborhoods; and stated he concurs with no sales from the sites. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is considered machinery or equipment; with Commissioner Scarborough responding equipment noise is the concern. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they can use machinery and equipment as long as it does not produce noise; with Chairman Cook responding yes, the noise is what the Board is trying to prohibit, because the neighbors would not complain if the noise does not bother them.

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

Chairman Cook inquired what is the pleasure of the Board regarding drainage and other disputes. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the manufacturing at the Polks? house; with Mr. Jenkins responding the intent is there will be no noise; so if there is noise, staff would enforce it, and it is the Board?s intent that there be no home sales, so if there is any, they would enforce that also, otherwise it would be put on hold. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about another item defining neighborhood disputes and not taking action on that as well; with Chairman Cook responding that is another item. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is integrated in this discussion.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Board has a time certain at 1:00 p.m. with a court reporter, so it needs to complete this item.

Chairman Cook inquired if the Board wants to refer the disputes between Smiths and Polks to the Dispute Resolution Program or accept Mr. Jones? proposal and move forward with that.

Commissioner Ellis advised the County cannot take out the water diverter with the flat spillways because the water will flow down the road pass the spillways, and it will not work. He stated if the County cannot get it resolved, it could dig the pipe out and put the ditch back the way it was.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to have a non-binding arbitrator, with the County participating, in an effort to resolve the drainage dispute. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 12:39 p.m. and reconvened at 2:10 p.m. after executive session.

PERMISSION TO BID, RE: TEMPORARY HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION CENTER AT MELBOURNE TRANSFER STATION OFF SARNO ROAD

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to grant permission to bid temporary household hazardous waste collection center at Melbourne Transfer Station off Sarno Road; authorize award of responsible low bid for self-contained chemical storage building; approve purchase of capital equipment to set up the center; and approve Budget Change Request to transfer funds from contingency to pay for construction of the facility. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Bids, Recommendation, and Budget Change Request.)

APPROVAL TO INCLUDE IN 1996A AMENDMENT CYCLE, RE: EXISTING LAND USES

Dale Hathaway, 2200 Hamlet Drive, Melbourne, urged the Board to consider leaving the zoning which is in the South Beaches for the properties that are developed. He stated his property is Beach Townhomes; it is developed with townhomes; and he would like to keep his present zoning. Chairman Cook inquired if Mr. Hathaway supports the proposed language; with Mr. Hathaway responding he believes he does and wants to keep his existing zoning.

Chairman Cook read comments from Ray Reid, 321 Spring Street, Cocoa, as follows: This issue is very important to us as the landowners. This has been going on for over five years. Please do not postpone it any longer. Thank you, Ray and Linnea Reid.

Commissioner Higgs advised she has concerns if the Board is amending the Future Land Use Plan and Policy so that nothing is non-conforming or pre-existing or falls into any other category; she is sympathetic with the property owners who want to maintain their zoning and future uses; but changing the policy will put the Board in the position where nothing will ever be dissolved or changed. She stated it is a Countywide policy that affects every area in the County; and the Board needs to be careful in making a decision that relates to certain properties and affects all properties.

Chairman Cook advised the economic impact recognizes that the existing land uses is anticipated to result in a positive economic impact on existing land uses which are inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map as those uses will have greater flexibility in expanding and changing to other areas. He stated he understands Commissioner Higgs? concerns; however, he sees the value in this proposed amendment.

Commissioner Ellis stated he supports the amendment; it does not deal with properties that were not legal when they were built; and something was changed after the fact to make them non-conforming. He stated when looking at planning and future land use, it is appropriate to look at properties that are not developed and not undo everything that is already there.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not a matter of undoing but a matter of expanding; this is undefined; and Commissioner O?Brien expressed concerns about adult entertainment in his District. He stated he is not prepared to vote on this as presently set forth until it is better defined.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table inclusion of language recognizing existing land uses within Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle 1996A until January 9, 1996 Board meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ANNOUNCEMENT, RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION

Chairman Cook announced the executive session has been continued until after the regular agenda is completed.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - MAUREEN RUPE, RE: DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS

Maureen Rupe, 7185 Bright Avenue, Port St. John, advised she was the representative for District 1 on the Discharge of Firearms Task Force; and she submitted her minority report because she was disappointed with the outcome of the Task Force, and very frustrated because they have had the problem for over ten years that she has lived in Port St. John. She stated there were certain things that she wanted to accomplish that she was blocked in doing by some members of the Task Force; she wanted the troubles identified and visited, to meet with the Gun Clubs on the possibility of them being more accessible to the public, and to meet with Atlantic Gulf, the property owner of the site in Port St. John. Ms. Rupe stated she had a letter from a Melbourne resident, an engineer, that advised a safe target range and muffler could be built at very little cost that the County could look into; she indicated there were special interests and conflicts on the Task Force; but even if there were, she wanted to bring something positive to the Board to commit future task forces to a problem solving process. She stated the County provides a facilitator in the form of County staff or attorney, but no guidelines for the task force to go by; and if the people are not familiar with committees, it can end up being very unproductive. She stated she asked her husband who is a quality advisor to draw up a procedure; she would like the Board and staff to consider something like it for future task forces; and presented the proposed procedure to the Board. Ms. Rupe stated as to the problem of unlawful discharge of firearms, its solution lies with the authorities, especially law enforcement; if a child was shot in Port St. John today, she believes every power the Board has would be thrown into getting it stopped; and they want it stopped before there is justification for action. She stated it seems barbaric that it would be tolerated for so long; firearms abuse is increasing every day with tragic consequences; they should not tolerate it in Brevard County until everything that can be done has been done; and she would still like to have the issue pursued in some way.

Commissioner Ellis advised the Board has gone over this before with some troublesome areas in North Merritt Island and Port St. John west of I-95; a lot of people hunt in Cape Kennedy Estates; and the problem will increase as homes get built in the interior. He stated the Board never had concrete suggestions on what it could do; and the easiest solution would be to find the property owners and have them post their properties, because many people who are shooting are not doing it on their own properties.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Ms. Rupe?s problem is that there were several issues on the table and the group was basically people who had firearms and were worried about creating firing ranges and things like that; Ms. Rupe?s concern was safety of the homeowners; that issue has been around a lot longer and still needs to be addressed; and he will be happy to receive staff?s report and for staff to forward a copy to Ms. Rupe and other members of the Task Force. He stated the frustration in talking to Ms. Rupe was her problems were not addressed; but just because there is a firing range somewhere, does not mean the County will be able to stop individuals who do not want to go to firing ranges and do not care if they shoot around people?s homes.

Chairman Cook advised the Task Force members were all homeowners to his knowledge; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it was not that they did not own a home, but their focus was probably the responsible gun owner wanting to create a community where they could have a firing range as opposed to the less organized gun owner who is the one presenting most of the problems.

Commissioner Ellis advised if an area is identified as a problem area, and the people who are doing the shooting are not the owners, the County could take some steps to notify the owners of the activities that are going on in Port St. John, Canaveral Groves, and Cape Kennedy Estates and request information back if it is being permitted by the owners or without their permission. He stated it would get some type of law enforcement leverage to go out there, because sometimes if they stop someone from shooting on property, they say the owner said they could be there.

Yvette Parker, Assistant to the County Manager, advised staff made a site visit to Port St. John; Public Works is in the process of providing the Board options for that, such as barricades and postings; and that will be coming to the Board in the near future.

Chairman Cook advised when he lived in Mims, his property backed up to an orange grove; there were people out there discharging firearms; and the Sheriff deputy came and made them leave the property; so there are some legal mechanisms about firing firearms within a certain distance of homes. He stated there are some prohibitions that can be enforced; but at this point, the Board will see what comes back from staff and make sure Ms. Rupe gets a copy of the report. He stated that would be a problem even if a firing range exists, so the other options of posting and barricades could be significant.

DISCUSSION, RE: JESS PARRISH MEDICAL CENTER

Attorney Harry Jones, representing Parrish Medical Center, advised he provided each Commissioner with a memorandum a few days ago and hopes they had an opportunity to review it, but if not, he can repeat any parts of it. He stated there are a few people who want the Board and the only public Hospital in Brevard County to be adversaries; but it is time to work together as allies because there are too many people in North Brevard who need that from them. He stated the County Attorney issued two opinions; and while his legal interpretation of the law is correct, he has not applied them to the correct facts; the facts are the total compensation of the Chief Executive Officer and everybody else who works at Parrish Medical Center is public, always has been and always will be; and there has been no attempt to cover that up. He stated the other fact is where he and Mr. Knox have a difference of opinion; the North Brevard County Hospital District, on many occasions, has been interpreted as a subdivision of the State; and many of the same laws that affect the Board affects the Hospital Board, including laws regarding employee benefit plans, deferred compensation, and confidentiality of certain records. He stated another item that was the subject of an opinion from Mr. Knox involves the Hospital Board?s support of litigation; the Hospital Board in May unanimously agreed to support a pre-suit investigation on his advice; there is no litigation filed; there may be and may not be, depending on what witnesses have to say if they are ever deposed; and the Hospital Board has supported that effort. He noted he does not see a whole lot of difference between that and the Board?s earlier support of mediation on a neighborhood dispute today. Mr. Jones stated any action that Mr. Knox has counted on, legal or not, is not really his opinion, this Board?s opinion, or Mr. Knox?s opinion; it is the opinion of a court if it gets there; and that is why it is important for this Board and the Hospital Board to work together and not have to rely on lawyers to exchange opinions. He stated as they have done with Titusville City Council, the Hospital Board will be glad to schedule a joint meeting with the Board of County Commissioners so they can talk about any of their concerns face to face; that is one of the items Senator Bronson asked the Board for input; and the other is the legislation that was passed last year. Mr. Jones stated he will be glad to answer any questions the Board may have about that and tell it the status of things at the moment, or anything else. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the compensation is public record, why is there potential litigation on it; with Mr. Jones responding the law provides that deferred compensation elections which a public employee chooses to make is confidential, but the total compensation is not. He stated that is the only issue the Hospital Board is concerned about, whether it is the administrator or a nurse; it is a personal private decision that is protected by law; and that is the only issue that is being litigated. Commissioner Ellis stated he agrees that how a person chooses to take his or her compensation should be up to that person; however, if he has deferred compensation, that would be included in his annual compensation for the year plus a present value for the deferred compensation; with Mr. Jones responding it includes every element defined under State law, every element of compensation he is allowed to received.

Chairman Cook inquired if Mr. Jones is saying his total compensation is public record; with Mr. Jones responding yes it is. Commissioner Ellis inquired if his salary is $100,000 and he has an agreement to stay five years and get a lump sum at the end of five years, would each year include part of the lump sum in the compensation package in present value form; with Mr. Jones responding it is not that complicated; if he is paid $150,000 and tells the payroll clerk to pay him $100,000 and put $50,000 aside for five years, his total compensation is still $150,000; but the public is not entitled to know how much of the $150,000 he chose to defer. Chairman Cook inquired what is Mr. Baker?s total compensation; with Mr. Jones responding it is in the memo he issued and is somewhere around $187,000; and it includes his salary and the elements of his contract. He noted he has opted to defer, subject to his completing his work and retiring. Chairman Cook stated he does not think there is any disagreement with Mr. Knox?s memo on that; he said the total amount of compensation is public record; how a portion is deferred and what bank account it goes to is a decision that the person can make; but the public does have a right to know the total compensation. Chairman Cook again inquired if Mr. Baker?s annual salary is $187,000; with Mr. Jones responding correct; that is not at risk; and all he has to do is finish his job. He stated the Hospital Board two years ago also offered him, if he completed service through age 55 an additional bonus; but if he leaves a day early, he does not get any of it.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if that amount would be amortized backwards in a present value formula; with Mr. Jones responding it is not defined as compensation because he has not earned it yet; he is not entitled to it; and he cannot tell the Hospital Board to pay it to him now instead of later. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board contributes to Florida Retirement Fund for Mr. Jenkins, and if he does not get vested, he would get zero back; and if Mr. Baker gets something at age 55, and age 55 is his vesting point, would the Hospital be setting aside a portion of the money each year; with Mr. Jones responding everything the Hospital is required to set aside each year is being disclosed; and that is the definition of total compensation that he is disclosing. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Hospital will have a fund that has the portion of money set aside each year, or will it be a one-time hit on the capital account to pay for it; with Mr. Jones responding the Chief Financial Officer intends to fund it when it becomes an obligation, and if it becomes an obligation. Chairman Cook inquired if it will be funded out of that year?s budget when Mr. Baker reaches 55 and there is no set aside each year; with Mr. Jones responding that is right. Commissioner Ellis stated it seems like they would do a set aside per year. Mr. Jones stated it is like Mr. Jenkins saying he knows that if he is here next year he will be paid salary; and next year if he is there and gets a salary, that is total compensation. Commissioner Ellis stated it is more of a vesting issue; if he reaches 55 he gets a bonus; and what the Hospital has done, instead of a vesting issue being a number of years of service, the vesting issue is a certain age. Mr. Jones stated it is service and converts to an age. Commissioner Ellis stated for County employees if they have nine years and 364 days and do not work again in the Government, they would not get anything back from Florida Retirement System because they have not reached the vesting point; but the County does not pay a massive lump sum in ten years to Florida Retirement System, and pays every pay day into that system. He inquired if that is where the debate is, between current compensation and total compensation over the age 55 bonus; with Mr. Jones responding he does not know; there has not been an attempt to conceal at any point the total compensation; and the fight is about the deferred elements that are confidential. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the age 55 bonus is public information; with Mr. Jones responding it has been public information for six or seven months. Commissioner Ellis stated the letter from Mr. Knox says, The Hospital District Board has apparently agreed to reimburse the Hospital Administrator for legal expenses incurred in pursuing an apparent claim for invasion of privacy. He inquired if the Hospital Board will pay for Mr. Baker?s attorney, or would he would pay for his own attorney and Mr. Jones would sit in on the proceedings to find out if the Hospital is involved; with Mr. Jones responding the Hospital Board unanimously last May approved paying those fees because it involves the disclosure of confidential Hospital documents; and it has a vital interest in that. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the litigation would be between the Hospital and whoever disclosed rather than Mr. Baker and whoever disclosed; with Mr. Jones responding it may be if it gets pass the pre-suit investigation. He stated there is a rule under the Rules of Civil Procedure that says, in anticipation of filing a lawsuit and to make sure that it is a prudent lawsuit, the court can order the deposition of material witnesses. He stated they are not parties to the lawsuit necessarily; and that is what they are doing; and based on the outcome of that, the Hospital Board will have a separate decision to make if it wants to be a party to the lawsuit or not. Commissioner Ellis stated if the goal of litigation is to seek damages, then he could understand why the Hospital may seek to pursue some kind of litigation because damages would flow back to the Hospital; but if Mr. Baker pursues litigation, damages would revert to him as a private citizen; and he does not understand how the Hospital could pay for his attorney for that situation. Mr. Jones stated he does not think the test is who would end up resulting in damages, whether it is the Hospital, County, or another governmental unit that would have an interest as a party to a lawsuit; they will get to that point if they get to finish the pre-suit investigation; and if the Hospital does not have a vital interest, as Mr. Knox correctly noted, it will not support the effort any further. Commissioner Ellis stated when he voted to have Mr. Knox sit in on the proceedings, it was not that he would take an active role; he would be there as an observer; and that is what he assumes would be the Hospital?s role to send someone in as an observer; however, Mr. Baker would pay for his own attorney because it is private litigation. He stated if it was public litigation by the Hospital, he could understand the attorney being paid for by the Hospital; but if he was in litigation with a private individual, he would not expect the County Attorney to represent him. Mr. Jones stated that is a matter of pleading in the pre-suit motion; and they could have easily named the Hospital as a direct and interested party since it involved their documents. Commissioner Ellis stated then it would have made more sense for the Hospital to pay for the attorney because were there litigation and it was found in the Hospital?s favor, the Hospital would receive damages. Mr. Jones stated by hindsight that was probably a better way to plead the motion; as it is it has moved forward in front of Judge Jackson on behalf of Rod Baker only; but the intent is the same; that if the District, based on the pre-suit investigation, has reason to have an interest in the suit, it will take part; and if they do not, that will be the end of the District?s support.

Chairman Cook inquired if disclosing Mr. Baker?s total compensation at $187,000 meets the parameters on that issue; with Mr. Knox responding he and Mr. Jones have a little disagreement over it; in his view, the statutory exemption only applies to plans that are approved under that statute; and the general law is if they do not have a statutory exemption set out some place in a statute, they do not have any exemption whatsoever from the public records law. Mr. Knox advised public hospital records are public records by law; and unless there is an exemption somewhere that exempts those public records or a portion of them, they have no exemption. He stated the exemption the Board is discussing applies to deferred compensation plans that are approved under the section that authorizes deferred compensation plans; in his view, that section only applies to counties, municipalities, and political subdivisions that can pass ordinances; a special district cannot pass ordinances; and that is where the problem is. He stated it may well be intended that those kinds of situations are covered by the statute, but they are not covered, in his opinion. Mr. Knox advised if Mr. Jones wants to ensure Mr. Baker is protected, the Hospital Board needs an amendment to the statute which incorporates special districts and adds the words or resolutions in addition to ordinances because a special district does not have the authority to pass ordinances. Mr. Jones stated Mr. Knox is right that they do not agree.

Ida Blickley, 4475 Swift Avenue, Titusville, advised she is confused because when she requested in writing Mr. Baker?s contract from the Hospital, it showed his salary as $89,000 a year; after she received that, she put in writing a request for the administration?s salary, the people who work with him in the office; and it showed a gentleman by the name of Bruce Walters, who she considers the CEO?s deputy because his is the next highest salary, as making $96,000; and that is what started the whole mess. She stated as far as the Hospital being a public hospital, since it is owned by the taxpayers who paid for it for 38 years, if they decide to take any money out of the District, it should be put to a referendum.

Bea Polk, 101 River Park Boulevard, Titusville, advised one question she wants the Hospital Attorney to address is, did the paper come from the Hospital that they are suing her about. She stated she got it in the mailbox; and inquired if it came from the Hospital which they are accusing people at the Hospital of, and since it is a public hospital, is it a public document. She stated it is his complete salary; but she was told he was making $90,000 when she asked the first time. Ms. Polk stated this morning they were back in court again; two citizens who had papers that were delivered to their mailbox were back in court trying to get their depositions not taken; it is harassment; they think this will shut the taxpayers up; but where she came from as an Indian, they might serve time but they do not shut up. She stated the Hospital Board has paid Mr. Jones quite a few dollars to investigate this; and they were not notified of the motion to dismiss this morning or they could have gone to the first hearing and maybe settled it and not cost the Hospital thousands of dollars. She stated she told the courts and County Commissioners and everyone else they cannot get anything else out of her; she does not know where the paper came from; and if they are fussing about the people at the Hospital giving it to her, then it must be public record. Ms. Polk advised they were never notified, yet Mr. Jones and Ted Ruda were notified to take their depositions; so they are part of this thing; yet they pay a private attorney with taxpayers money to get money if he can get it out of them; and it does not go back to the Hospital, it goes back to Mr. Baker. She inquired if that paper work came out of the Hospital or did someone else write it up. She stated going back to taking our money out of the District; how would the Board like for Indian River County to come in and say they want part of Brevard County?s tax money; there is no difference; she has nothing against Port St. John having a medical facility; but the other night they were talking about Orange County. She inquired where are they going with the taxpayers money and whose money is it. Ms. Polk advised they said there are only three people against it; and if it goes to a vote, would there be only three people who vote to keep it in the District; and requested the Board ask Senator Bronson if the Legislature cannot stop the law, can the citizens of North Brevard have a vote whether they want their money moved to another district, county, or state. She stated the Board represents the taxpayers who have a right to vote; it cannot do anything and has no authority; the City of Titusville has no authority; and inquired where would the taxpayers get authority. She stated they only vote for two people in the Legislature and there are five delegates; so they do not vote for three people who voted for the legislation. She inquired if the Board thinks the taxpayers are entitled to a vote. Ms. Polk stated they may have their depositions taken, but she cannot give any other answer than what she told everyone who asked her; and inquired if the Hospital is wasting $17,000 to find out where she got the information when she told them she does not know. Ms. Polk stated they heard about the depositions before it came out; they asked and no one told them anything; and inquired if the Board thinks it is right to take taxpayers money to take them to court to get their depositions for a private man. She inquired if money is sent to persons being deposed for travel, etc.; and stated they have not received anything except a notice to report.

Commissioner Ellis advised the sheet of paper says the total annual compensation to Parrish Medical Center CEO Mr. Baker is $256,000; and it is pretty well itemized. He inquired if Mr. Jones wants to explain it; with Mr. Jones responding the document did not come from the Hospital; and if it had, they would not have been going through all this trouble to find out where it came from. Commissioner Ellis inquired if Mr. Jones is saying it was retyped somewhere; with Mr. Jones responding absolutely, and it has been examined by a document examiner. He stated they have a pretty good idea so far, but it was not produced at the Hospital and they do not think it was produced by anyone who had authority to release it. He stated the numbers are not right; Mr. Knox can review the contract and give the Board his interpretation of what compensation means; but the numbers are not right and it is not a Hospital source document. Mr. Jones stated the folks here are not parties to a lawsuit; and they are witnesses just like any other persons who have an obligation to serve as witnesses when they are asked to. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the numbers are not right and it is not a Hospital document, how can there be any disclosure of a Hospital document. Mr. Jones stated the information, although inaccurately applied, came from the confidential contract Mr. Baker has; anybody who asked for his contract would not see the deferred compensation details; they are entitled to see the total compensation, but they are not entitled to see how he chooses to defer certain portions of that; and that part of his contract is red active.

Chairman Cook inquired if Mr. Jones is saying the numbers are correct, but they are not an official document; with Mr. Jones responding a person with access to the contract contributed to that memo, unfortunately the person did not interpret the contract right.

Commissioner Ellis stated Mr. Jones said it was not a Hospital document, so how can there be a release of confidential information if that is not a Hospital document and it is not accurate. Mr. Jones stated they relied on a Hospital document to prepare it; it is no different than if he prepared a memo saying what happened to a patient, what was wrong, and how the patient is being treated, without copying the patient record. He stated it is still an improper disclosure of confidential records; and just because that person transcribed it on another piece of paper does not excuse him or her from that. He stated who is excused is the person who receives confidential information such as Daniel Ellsberg did with the Pentagon papers; that person is not the guilty party; he received it and did not produce it; and he is not the one with access and violated his confidentiality obligation.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this is a little bit baffling; Mr. Jones said the compensation is about $187,000 and the paper shows $256,000, yet the document accurately describes the compensation with a $60,000 or so discrepancy. He stated Commissioner Ellis said if the document is fabricated and put out, it is not a relevant document; and inquired if Mr. Jones could go down the document and tell the Board what is accurate and what is not. Mr. Jones stated he is not trying to avoid doing that, but he is not prepared to and would have to have the Chief Financial Officer here to do it. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Jones has led the Board to a point of confusion; he does not know what has been said; and he is confused.

Chairman Cook advised the document theoretically points to sections of the contract. Mr. Jones stated someone had to read the contract to offer the cross references; and he does not know if it matters what they decide to do with it today as what Judge Jackson decides to do with it later, or what the Hospital Board decides to do after Judge Jackson finally rules on the pre-suit motions.

Commissioner Higgs advised the item before the Board is to respond to Senator Bronson?s request for input; and inquired if the Board wants to comment on the clarification of deferred compensation with respect to the public records law. She stated the statute should be clear for everyone to understand; and everyone agrees the statute should be clear so they all can understand who it applies to. Commissioner Scarborough stated everybody agrees that total compensation should be disclosed; that is what the current law provides for; and that is what they are happy with. He noted the Board could just say that the current law is sufficient to require complete disclosure of compensation and no further action by the Legislature is required.

Chairman Cook inquired if it is a matter of interpretation or is the law currently adequate to require disclosure. He stated the County Attorney said the law is adequate as he interprets it to require complete and full disclosure. Commissioner Higgs stated what the County Attorney said is that the law dealt with only those people who can pass ordinances. Mr. Knox stated Mr. Jones and he agree that disclosure of the compensation package in its totality is covered by the law; they have to make it available to the public; and the components, in terms of deferred compensation, is where they differ. He stated Mr. Jones says Mr. Baker?s contract would be covered by the law; and he says it is not covered by the statute; but they both agree the total compensation package is covered.

Commissioner Higgs suggested asking the Chairman to send a letter to Senator Bronson advising there seems to be some conflicting interpretations and it would be useful for the Legislature to clear it up. Commissioner Scarborough stated no, he does not think it is the total compensation that Senator Bronson is asking about; there is conflict, but Mr. Jones believes total compensation should be disclosed; with Mr. Jones responding absolutely. Commissioner Higgs stated Senator Bronson is asking for clarification of deferred compensation with respect to the public records law. Commissioner Scarborough stated the public records law currently requires total compensation disclosure which both attorneys agree on; what Mr. Knox is saying they are not able to keep confidential the deferred compensation because they are not in the capacity to create ordinances; and if they want to keep Rod Baker?s deferred compensation confidential, they should go to the Legislature, but that is beyond the scope of Senator Bronson?s question which is should total compensation be disclosed. He stated the answer is yes and both attorneys agree, but the law already provides for that.

Chairman Cook advised the Board could send Senator Bronson a copy of Mr. Knox?s opinion; and this could be resolved by an Attorney General?s Opinion (AGO). He stated if the Board wants to request an AGO, that is another avenue that could be looked at, and the Attorney General could give an opinion on who is correct and who is not. Mr. Jones stated he is already a step ahead of the Board on that one.

Commissioner Higgs suggested responding to Senator Bronson that public employees? total compensation should be a matter of public record. She stated during the legislative session where they approved the bill, after passage some debate surfaced as to whether or not the legislation was warranted; his letter says, ?I would appreciate your input as to whether or not you support the legislation or should the Delegation consider repealing it; and that is the second issue the Board is being asked to respond to.

Chairman Cook advised the Board sent a previous letter on that issue; he does not know how many times it needs to revisit it; the Board has made its point on that and the Legislature has decided to take the action it took; and the Board was very clear not only to the Delegation, but also to the Governor who solicited input on that. He stated that issue has already been decided; if the motion is to send a letter to Senator Bronson under the Chairman?s signature saying the Board supports full disclosure; he will be happy to do that; but he is not sure it would take any additional legislation on the part of the Delegation although it is appropriate to say the Board supports that.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the Chairman to work with the County Attorney to prepare a letter for his signature to Senator Bronson.

Commissioner Ellis stated the letter the Board sent was its opposition to Hospital funds being used to build facilities outside of the District. He stated they talked about joint lab facilities with Wuesthoff which he does not have a problem with; but if they choose to put facilities outside the District, it would be appropriate to move the boundary of the District.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the May 4 letter to Representative Howard Futch from Scott Knox basically states the Board?s prior position; and it could be attached to the letter from the Chairman with a statement that it is the Board?s continued policy in response to the second question asked. Chairman Cook stated that would be fine; and inquired if it is a motion. Commissioner Scarborough responded it is part of the motion, and Commissioner Higgs accepted the amendment to the motion.

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

REPORT, RE: APPOINTMENTS TO NORTH BREVARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT BOARD

Commissioner Scarborough stated a few meetings ago a question came up about appointments to North Brevard Hospital District Board and whether they were Board appointments or District 1 appointments; the County Attorney was asked about that; and a motion was made to have it advertised and people who want to serve send resumes to the County Manager. He stated he understands it will be in the papers tomorrow, in the News Observer and Star Advocate.

APPROVAL OF SELECTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS, RE: REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR DISPOSAL SERVICES IN SOUTH SERVICE AREA

Mark Roth, 2777 Allen Parkway, Suite 700, Houston, Texas, representing Sanifill, Inc., advised he appreciates the opportunity to present their qualifications before the Board in relation to solid waste services for the southern portion of the County. He stated they are very disappointed in the Selection Committee?s recommendation to not select their company for future solicitations; they were advised by Lisa Barr that in the Selection Committee?s opinion, Sanifill lacked permitting and facility construction experience; so they ask the Board to please note the following facts regarding their qualifications and render a positive vote that will enable Sanifill and its joint-venture partner, Waste Services of America, to participate in future bid responses. He stated their involvement in the upcoming request for proposals relating to solid waste management in the southern portion of Brevard County would be in the best interest of the citizens. Mr. Roth advised Sanifill, Inc. is a highly respected developer and operator of non-hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities; they currently have operations in 21 states, Puerto Rico, and the Republic of Mexico; today Sanifill owns and/or operates 47 facilities throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and Mexico; and it includes 28 municipal solid waste facilities, 22 construction and demolition debris facilities, three special waste facilities, and four facilities that handle non-hazardous oil filled waste. He stated they have an estimated air space of one billion plus cubic yards, making them the third largest owners and operators of landfills in the United States. Mr. Roth advised this year alone, Sanifill, through its engineering and acquisition efforts, increased its available municipal solid waste air space by 466 million cubic yards; 245 million cubic yards were by acquisitions of new permits and operating facilities; and 220 million cubic yards were through internal development activities of the company by new permitting and permitting expanses. He stated in respect to permitting experience, although it is evident that Sanifill was built on acquisitions, since day one it has carefully looked at numerous greenfield development projects; in addition, the company has continually expanded present projects; and in short, Sanifill has the same level of experience as do their larger billion dollar counterparts. He stated because of the way it was formed and developed Sanifill had the advantage of picking and choosing qualified well-seasoned solid waste professionals from the larger companies while assembling its team; all project personnel proposed for the Brevard County project are thoroughly experienced in the siting and permitting of both non-hazardous and hazardous treatment and disposal facilities; the combined years of experience of the project team is greater than 40 years; and project personnel have also been involved in permitting ventures in almost every state, including the State of Florida. He stated while it is true that since its formation Sanifill has not been known as a greenfield development company, it has been successful in all of its development projects; several facilities to note are their South Texas Disposal Facility in Zapata County, Texas; it was the first of its kind for a treatment and disposal facility for non-hazardous waste permitted under the Railroad Commission in South Texas; the facility was permitted internally with very little use of outside consultants; it was constructed internally; and the facility has been one of their most successful development projects. Mr. Roth stated in the area of municipal solid waste management, they successfully sited and permitted their Pine Bluff Solid Waste Management facility which is a 750-acre subtitle D MSW site serving the greater Atlanta area; outside consultants were used for third-party representation; Sanifill contracted with a credible construction outfit to do the actual dirt moving and liner construction, but managed all phases of project activity; the third is their Lacasine Norm Facility; and it is the first of its kind in this Country to handle oil filled waste that is also naturally occurring radioactive material. He stated Sanifill is currently in the process of developing or actively permitting seven new greenfield projects, included in the seven are three MSW projects, three C&D projects, and one special waste facility; Sanifill?s engineering and project development personnel modify and expand permits on a constant basis; and Sanifill maintains its own central engineering and design unit with full engineering and CAD capabilities. He stated some examples of recent internal expansions of expansion permitting projects are the Crowell Landfill located in Texas where they uncontestedly expanded the permit to get eight million cubic gate yards. He stated their Baytown landfill also located in Texas uncontested 18 million gate yards; and their Bethel landfill in Hampton, Virginia, contested, but they picked up 75 million cubic gate yards. He stated while it is true that Sanifill was built by acquiring operating facilities, the company has an immense capital construction program to expand present facilities as well as construct new ones; in many cases Sanifill has acquired permitted property and constructed the facilities; examples include Cedar Waste Landfill an MSW site in Tennessee; a recent acquisition in Denver, Colorado where they are building a transfer station and regional landfill; and their Grand Roads facility in Spokane, Washington which is a C&D site. He stated in all cases Sanifill constructed or managed the construction of all its new development projects; an example of new projects is Lacasine which was constructed totally internally; and their capital construction program to expand existing facilities have reached between 29 and 35 million dollars per year, creating 60 to 80 acres of new disposal cells and related infrastructure. He stated he hopes the Board sees Sanifill?s expertise in landfill development and operation, as well as its financial strength and stability.

Commissioner Ellis stated his concern with Sanifill were that he did not see a lot of experience starting a facility from scratch, from start to finish, permitting, construction, to where it can be turnkey operation; it has taken over a lot of landfills and expanded them; that gave them something to work with when they went to permitting because they had an existing site; and his concern with their credentials was the ability to do it from scratch because that is where the County is.

Mr. Roth stated the Pine Bluff facility in Atlanta was done from scratch; it is a 750-acre facility; they are currently expanding now; and Sanifill had full control of the siting, development, and construction of the facility. He stated the South Texas Disposal Facility was a company he started and sold to Sanifill; it was done from scratch; 20 sites were evaluated and one was chosen; and it went through the full permitting process. He stated his sole position within Sanifill, and he has been with the company for over five years, has been greenfield development; he has 17 projects under his belt that he brings to the project team; so while it is true when looking at Wall Street that they were built on acquisitions, they are a developing company, and they have the personnel and qualifications to develop from scratch.

Commissioner Ellis stated on this project the County is looking at substantial opposition in the permitting; with Mr. Roth responding he is thoroughly familiar with the issues.

Andy Nickodem, 1815 S. Wolf Road, Hillside, Illinois, representing John Sexton Contractors, advised the company appreciates the opportunity to be considered on this request for proposals for Brevard County?s landfill in South County; during the Selection Committee?s decision making there were concerns regarding his company in terms of their net income capability; and he would like to speak on that. He stated over the past two years, they have substantially improved their net income, and believe this year they will continue the improving trend. He stated the company is a family-owned company; they have been in the solid waste business for over 60 years; three years ago the family who is involved in the management decided they needed outside management help and hired a new president; and over the past three years he has brought on new staff from other companies within the solid waste industry. He advised in the past three years they have added hauling contracts and other new operations in Illinois, California, and Mississippi, including a greenfield landfill in Mississippi; because of those new and continuing operations they fully believe and expect that their net income will continue to grow; the company will continue to grow; and they will appreciate being approved by Brevard County to move on in this RFP process.

Bill Redman, 7017 S. Atlantic Avenue, New Smyrna Beach, Florida, representing Browning Ferris Industries of Houston, Texas, advised he appreciates the opportunity to be able to be qualified to deal with the issues on the RFQ to build and design a landfill for Brevard County. He stated presently BFI is about the second largest waste handler in the world; they own and operate approximately 150 landfills; he does not know how many they have developed, but it is more than one and is in the range of about 80; and the concerns they have today is that the proposers who participated in the RFQ process followed the procedure totally and qualified in all aspects. He stated the RFQ was submitted and reviewed by the Committee designated by the Board which included a financial analyst, the County?s engineering consultants, the Assistant County Attorney, Commissioner Ellis, members of the Solid Waste Department; and the interested proposers were sure they had representatives at the Selection Committee?s meeting to answer any and all questions. Mr. Redman advised the RFQ?s delivered at that time and reviewed by the Committee had information that was available to them; but if there was nobody there to respond to the concerns, it went fully unaware; and because of that, and the concerns of the County on the lack of experience for design and construction from ground zero that is in the best interest of the County, the Committee voted five/zero to not allow the qualification.

Chairman Cook advised Ms. Barr?s memo says, The following is the summary of the findings of the advisors to the Selection Committee, with respect to Sanifill; Post, Buckley indicated Sanifill met all the submittal requirements set forth in the RFQ including demonstration of the minimum experience criteria; PFM?s analysis showed that Sanifill met all the financial criteria established in the RFQ; and Sanifill received 30 out of 30 possible points in client reference checks. He stated that being the case, he does not see a problem allowing them to participate.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board is not going out for bids, it is going out to get proposals; maybe Commissioner Ellis has some things the Board needs to consider if it is going to have a problem project that is going to be difficult to work through; but that may be the second phase of the issue. He stated he has gone through putting things in that people do not want; but at this point, it is not the critical issue; and if he generates numbers and ideas from responses, it can only help him as a Commissioner.

Chairman Cook advised his statement was to allow them to participate in the project and not advocate the company; and the points Commissioner Ellis made are very valid, but that is to be considered in the next phase.

Commissioner Ellis stated it is important that all the companies who passed the RFQ and moved into the RFP be aware of the Board?s concerns on permitting; he is more concerned with permitting than construction; and he can find numerous firms that know how to properly build a landfill, but he probably cannot find that many firms with the ability to get through the State of Florida?s permitting process. He stated it is an adversarial process; that is his big concern; and when it comes back with the RFP?s, each firm should respond on how they are going to get through the permitting process.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the list of qualified vendors for disposal services in South County Service Area, as recommended by the Selection Committee, and to include Sanifill of Georgia, Inc. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RESTATING RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF UTILITY REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1995

Financial Advisor Tom Holley advised in August, 1995, he brought before the Board the $25,000,000 Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1995; the Board authorized them to go forward; he brought it back two weeks ago; and the Board authorized them to go to a sale. He stated they went to a competitive sale; it was a public bid advertised in the newspaper; everybody delivered bids on a certain day; and that day was today. He stated it is a first in Florida; it was a paperless bid; he had two bidders submit through electronic bidding; they received nine bids total which is the highest number of bids they have ever received in Brevard County for a sale; and the winning bid was submitted by William R. Hough and Company at a true interest cost of 4.63% or all cost of 4.78%. He stated the bid above it was 4.69% submitted by Lehman Brothers; so they recommend award of the sale of $25,000,000 of the bonds to William R. Hough & Company. Mr. Holley advised the gross savings from the Utility issue, how many dollars they save by doing the refunding, is $2,550,000; the present value of that is about 2.2 million dollars; and the annual savings is about $285,000 for little over 9% savings on this issue. He stated it meets all the criteria of the County; it was a competitive sale; and they received a lot of bids. Mr. Holley advised they changed the rating service from S&P to Fitch Investors and saved $11,000; it was an insured transaction with AAA rating; it was a very good sale; and he recommends the award.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Ellis had any comments since he is on the Finance Committee; with Commissioner Ellis responding he has no comments, but is not sure how the electronic bid system would work in the future; and at one point the Finance Committee will need to discuss the confidentiality issues by using that system. Mr. Holley stated he will be happy to explain that now or in the future; it is a confidential system; it has been used for 700 issues nationwide; but it is the first time it has been used in Florida. He stated they as issuer can view a screen at a time certain, which was 11:00 a.m.; all the information flashes on the screen; but until that time it is all locked out. He stated each underwriter has his own screen at his desk in New York or wherever; all the bids go into one central place; and at a time certain, they drop to his screen.

Chairman Cook inquired if they see all the proposals at the same time Mr. Holley sees them; with Mr. Holley responding each bidder sees only his proposal; his firm sees all the proposals at one time on the bid date; in between it is in a computer bank in Bellevue, Washington; and that is how it works. He stated the lawyers spent a lot of time looking at those types of issues; there are several issues; the winning bid was actually submitted electronically; it was the first time in Florida which is very exciting; and they had two of the nine bids submitted electronically.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if it was a better interest rate than anticipated; with Mr. Holley responding the County saved another $400,000 over the numbers previously brought to the Board; and they have been fortunate in having the market move their way. He stated they bid out the escrows; they had to purchase roughly $25,000,000 of securities to put into the refunding escrow; they took competitive bids on those as well which were received today; and Morgan Stanley was the winning bid, with Lehman Brothers on top of that. He stated out of $25,000,000, the winning bid was $1,000 less cost to the County than the cover bid; so very tight bids were received there as well. They were faxed bids and quick turn around bids and they have to move quickly on those.

Chairman Cook requested Commissioner Ellis come back and give the Board a report on that after the Finance Committee discusses it, because he would like to know about the security.

Mr. Holley stated the Board has to adopt a restated amended bond resolution with one change on a technical matter from one of the insurance companies on two words; Mr. Burdett has the restated resolution; and one change came from the lawyers. He recommended the Board adopt the resolution and award the bond to William R. Hough and Company pursuant to the competitive bid they submitted today.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution superseding and restating in its entirety Resolution No. 95-320 adopted on November 28, 1995 and supplementing and amending a Resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida on June 5, 1984, as supplemented, amended and restated; providing for and authorizing the issuance of its Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1995 in the aggregate present value principal amount of not to exceed $25,000,000 to refund the County?s Outstanding Utilities Revenue Bonds, Series 1986 maturing after March 1, 1997; authorizing the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk or Deputy Clerk of the County to award the sale of such bonds based on bids submitted at public sale and approving the conditions and criteria of such sale; specifying the date, interest rates, interest payment dates, provisions for redemption, series designation and maturity schedule of such bonds, and establishing a reserve requirement therefor; approving the Preliminary Official Statement and ratifying the circulation of the Preliminary Official Statement; authorizing the execution and delivery of an Official Statement with respect to the bonds; approving the form of and authorizing the modification and execution of an Escrow Deposit Agreement and designating an Escrow Agent thereunder; designating the bond Registrar, Paying Agent, and Authenticating Agent for said bonds; approving the form and authorizing the execution and delivery of a Letter of Representations with the Depository Trust Company; providing for the transfer of certain moneys held in funds and accounts for the refunded bonds; providing covenants to comply with applicable tax and arbitrage rebate requirements; providing certain covenants for the benefit of the bond insurer as an inducement for it to issue its municipal bond insurance policy with respect to the bonds; providing an effective date for this resolution; and providing certain other details with respect thereto. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 95-337.)

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to award the competitive sale of the Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1995, to William R. Hough and Company at 4.63% true interest or 4.78% all costs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REQUEST FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY, RE: MICCO CENTER

Pete Player, 3685 Main Street, Micco, advised the Board has a difficult and painful decision to make today; one most people would not want to make; but he is confident the decision will be based on facts, honor, principals, and integrity, as well as common sense. He stated the central site will cost $217,580 to purchase land, leaving approximately $24,000 to complete the community center; even with $90,000 from the General Fund, the vision falls short of its target; and to purchase part of the land at the central site and maybe other parcels in future phases is not a future or vision, only half of a vision and half of a future and blind ambitions. He stated the scaled-down version at the central site on 10.31 acres offers little more than the 9.8-acre site existing in Micco Park; the land at Micco Park will not add monetary burden on the $242,000 CDBG funds; to purchase the central site with General Fund money without public input or voter referendum is not the future he would like Brevard County to pursue; and it will leave a taste on the pallets of voters and taxpayers worst than a raw liver milk shake. Mr. Player advised in the 1950's Ford Motor Company built an automobile of the future; that automobile was named the Edsel; and requested the Board not make the community center the Edsel of Brevard County. He stated the Micco Park site has adequate land and funds to construct the community center; there are surrounding parcels for future expansion if needed; it has substance; it should honor the CDBG and build the community center in Micco Park because it was the intent for the use of the CDBG money. He stated the central site is pie in the sky, no definites, just ifs, ands, or buts, like the Edsel; its future is uncertain; and it is not vision, it is phantasmagoria. Mr. Player stated there are many truths about the central site, but he did not have time to list them all; there is a tremendous lack of funding, only 3.8 acres of acquired land which the County owns, no guarantees for the purchase of remaining parcels, no funds for construction, pie in the sky, and no substance; and those are truths. He stated the Micco site has secure land for construction right now; 6.1 acres of land is available for expansion if needed; the surrounding land offers no future increase tax revenues the way it is set up; and the Micco Park site has a monetary commitment for construction from CDBG funds. He stated the great writer Gerchy admonished, The brilliant passes like the dew at dawn, the truth endures for ages yet unborn.

George Koraly, 9868 Riverview Drive, Micco, representing Micco Homeowners Association, advised they are trapped by adult community centers to the north, the CARL land purchase to the west, the Sebastian River to the south, and the Indian River to the east; there will never be a school in the target area; and there is no question they need and deserve a community center at the site. He stated Commissioner Higgs? statement at the December 4th hearing that the 12-acre Cuyler Park contained a gymnasium and all the other facilities confirms the fact that Micco Park plus two acres of available land adjoining the Park would be more than adequate to serve the community for the foreseeable future. He stated the appraisal he presented indicates purchasing two acres adjacent to Micco Park would cost much less than the land at the central site and considerably less to prepare two acres; the appraised figure is $28,000 for the 1.05 acres subject to being able to build on; and on the second page the Board will find the reason for that is that access is questionable, but they would be able to access the property through Micco Park. Mr. Koraly stated the 3.32 acres that the County owns at the central site is currently used as a marl pit and holding area; and inquired if the Board would have to buy other land for that service to replace that, and if so it may not be free. Commissioner Ellis stated right now it is being used to take sand out. Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson advised Road and Bridge stores materials there and has taken some sand from the site; and whether or not that can be replaced has not been researched to his knowledge. Mr. Koraly stated purchasing land and developing another small park and doubling the maintenance cost for the taxpayers is poor planning; the big question is the traffic problem; Mr. Kramer?s graphic display of the 2,000 plus dots agrees with the statement he made voicing their concerns about exposing the children to the traffic while traveling back and forth between the two sites one half mile apart on streets with no sidewalks; and he wants to read an excerpt from a memo he received from Parks and Recreation dated December 8th. Micco Park is approximately 3,000 feet away and it would be feasible to walk the children. Safety precautions would dictate procedures for this activity to use the existing facility at Micco Park and baseball field and swimming lake pavilions and playground equipment. He stated it would be much safer and would not be necessary if the center is built in Micco Park. Mr. Koraly stated he does not know how to do it and he does not want to be confrontational and hopes the Board will not take offense, but the record should reflect why each Commissioner individually feels that Micco Park would not be a more practical, logical, and economical site for the community center than the central site.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would prefer to start with Commissioner Higgs? reasoning since it is in her District. Commissioner Higgs stated as the Board goes through discussion of the issues, each Commissioner will clarify his or her position, and Mr. Koraly should use his time as he wants to use it.

Bill McCready, 9373 Victoria Drive, Micco, advised he has lived there for more than 34 years; he is Chairman of Micco Park Committee made up of residents from Little Hollywood and other areas of Micco; and each evening he locks the Park gate, so he observes a lot of the activity there and feels as others do that more land is needed for growth in another area. He stated the traffic pass the Park entrance is increasing more due to building in Sebastian Heights area and Fleming Grant Road; many evenings he has waited for five or six vehicles to pass the entrance before he could exit; the traffic will increase in the future; and placing the community center there will create a greater safety hazard. Mr. McCready stated the only thoroughfare is Riverview Drive; and urged the Board to consider the Allen Central site which has a number of streets to the area from Route 1 without using congested Riverview Drive.

Wally Kramer, 9606 Mockingbird Lane, Micco, advised traffic involves lives and safety; during the PUD debates there was much objection by the Micco homeowners to building that project because of the traffic it would dump on Fleming Grant Road and Riverview Drive passing the Park; and nothing has changed there. He stated Commissioner Scarborough visited Micco and agreed the road situation is terrible; and there does not seem to be any solution for that situation. He stated they are still debating traffic on Riverview Drive and how it will affect Micco Park; about 2,000 cars a day pass Micco Park as opposed to 600 that pass the central site; and nothing is going to change that except to increase the traffic. He stated since Commissioner Scarborough?s visit, there are probably 20 new homes west of the Park; if they put the Center in Micco Park to attract children and senior citizens, most of the scheduling will be on a tight time table; they will come at 11:45 a.m. for the SNAP Program and leave at 1:00 p.m.; all the cars would leave at once; and the same thing will happen with the children?s programs. Mr. Kramer noted senior drivers are not as spry as they once were and do not drive as well as they once did; mixing that with civic meetings, SNAP, and children coming to the Park with only one exit, the flurries of traffic cannot be avoided; and all the people driving from the north end of the target area will come down Micco Road and U.S. 1. He stated the discussion may be whether the County is going to appropriate $90,000 to buy land on which to build the community center; since the old firehouse was sold for $140,000 plus or minus, the Micco homeowners have been screaming that the County stole their money and they never got it back; and that is not exactly true because about $60,000 of that money was used to buy two lots at the entrance to the Park leaving about $80,000; and the people of Micco should now get that money back from the General Fund.

Charles Burke, 9605 Mockingbird Lane, Micco, advised he is President of the organization Mr. Kramer mentioned and has been at the forefront of this issue since the inception of the community center fiasco; he is confused about what goes on with the Board, how it votes, and how it arrives at decisions, because he thought at the last meeting it was not going to vote on the 16 acres and Micco Park site. He stated the Micco Homeowners Association and people of south Micco are being denied justice; they were placed in the position as a citizen group to obtain a building for a community center to replace the one they had that the County sold; they had another citizen group appointed over them who took it completely out of the original intent; no one was aware of it being done; and inquired why would they apply for a grant then turn it over to someone else. Mr. Burke advised each Commissioner received a package with enough evidence regarding this issue to give them a clear view; through District 3, they applied for a federal grant from the CDBG Agency; and they were awarded the grant for the community center which was approved by the Board to be placed in Micco Park. He stated it is no longer a question of who did what or the location of the site; and now is the time for each Commissioner to cast aside personalities and politics, examine their honesty and integrity, and weigh the facts that were placed before them, then vote their consciences. He stated it is his hope that they will restore his faith in his County Government.

Jeanne Osborne, 100 Cherokee Court, Barefoot Bay, advised she wants to refute a few things that were said; Micco Park is a lovely recreational park with facilities that currently are maxed out; there is no room to put anything else regardless of how they try; and when they were discussing the central site, she did not know where the large amount of money came from. She stated the maximum that it would cost, if they went with the original central site that was outlined on a map presented to the Board, is approximately $143,000; there are two newly paved access roads to the central site; the group that has been called so many things is the citizens advisory committee that was appointed by Commissioner Higgs and included all the people in Micco; and it was not selected to exclude anyone. She requested the Board moved forward with the community center project; they have met all the requirements that were requested; their proposal follows the Comprehensive Plan for HUD funding; and it had letters of support from the Micco Fire Department, the SNAP Program, Barefoot Bay Homeowners Association, service clubs, including the Lions and Kiwanis Clubs; and the South Brevard Parks and Recreation Advisory Board which the last proposal submitted by the Micco homeowners did not include. Ms. Osborne advised the committee made every effort to be fair, to listen to all citizens? input, to compromise with a small dissident group, but find them unwilling to move an inch; and Micco has waited a long time for resolution of this issue. She stated the target area is not just Micco Park; the central site is ideally situated to serve all those within the target area; the Micco Homeowners Association represents a small group of very vocal proponents; but the majority of the Micco homeowners support the central site. She requested the Board move on the project before HUD funding no longer is available, and thanked it for any support it may give to secure funds needed for the project.

Cheryl Bruns, 9737 Riverview Drive, Micco, advised she lives next to the Park; this is the third time she has been here about this and is not proud; the first time she expressed concern for her torn community and the lies and bad feelings and threats that they were going to lose the community center; the second time she made known her strong concerns about the children?s safety and money involved; and today she brings a great deal of animosity and is not proud. She stated some of the reasons they were given as to why Micco Park is not available for a community center is because it is too small, it will change the character of the neighborhood, the bucolic nature of the area, it does not work in Micco Park, and the neighbors do not want it. Ms. Bruns stated it is every bit as large, minus a couple tenths of an acre, as the proposed purchase; changing the character of the area, she takes as a personal insult; and inquired what kind of character does it take to send children through traffic to play by the railroad tracks. She stated traffic does exist and is going to exist no matter what or where; traffic is not an issue because traffic is, period; it does not work in Micco Park, but the CDBG thought it was a fine location for the center; and the bucolic nature of the area is not a reason to disqualify a person from having a community center. She stated as for the neighbors not wanting it, since when is a County park the exclusive playground of those who live next to it; she lives next to the Park and wants it there; and she has neighbors who do also, many of them, more than the committee wants to realize. Ms. Bruns stated SNAP uses the Baptist Church and there are never more than 25 cars at the Church at lunch time; it is a fine big building that they are using; and Micco Park has been there longer than almost all the homes around it. She stated the issue is not about 23.3 people who attend homeowners meetings, lunatics with polka dots, rich old widows who lack character, semi-retired real estate brokers, neighbors of the Park who do not want it used, politics or a private homeowners club as some has suggested, this is about children; children who we are afraid to let out of sight because of the horrendous crimes being committed against them in these modern times; and children are the reason the grant was awarded. She stated children are the most precious commodity; children are the future; children deserve a community center in their neighborhood park; and she is tired of children being neglected and treated like second class citizens. Ms. Bruns stated the advisory committee seemed to be comprised of people who had no other thing on their minds than to find some place other than Micco Park; it was stated repeatedly; and besides lame excuses and rhetoric, she wants to know the justifiable reason, for the record, why Micco Park is unsuitable for a community center. She stated she hates doing it because she likes Commissioner Higgs, but she wants to know for the record what is the justifiable and real reason. Chairman Cook inquired if Commissioner Higgs wants to respond; with Commissioner Higgs responding she would prefer to hear public comment then clarify her position. Chairman Cook advised Ms. Bruns the Board will clarify its position after public discussion so everyone will know exactly where everybody stands.

Frankie Schott, 3545 Heather Lane, Micco, expressed sympathy to Commissioner O?Brien whose mother passed away, and thanked Commissioner Scarborough for the suggestion of placing the issue on the ballot to decide the location of the community center. She stated the memo from the County Attorney says the Supervisor of Elections advised it is possible to break down population for the purpose of holding a referendum, but the existing software and voting equipment would make the effort very difficult; and she wants to say no thank you to Mr. Galey because she does not want tax dollars spent to have the count four hours earlier. She stated they have already taken a vote and it did not cost the County one cent; when the issue first came up she went to the Homeowners Association and said they have always strived to do what the majority of the people who live in Micco want; and in a month?s time, they collected 445 signed petitions saying yes to Micco Park. She stated if their opposition can come up with more signatures they would concede to them; for months they have been canvassing Micco and last week handed in to the Clerk a petition with 261 names; so the vote has been taken and the majority of the people want Micco Park. Ms. Schott advised the Commissioners were elected because the majority of the voters in their Districts wanted them; if someone came along and said he wanted someone else and they could not serve their Districts, they would not like it; and the people do not like it either. She stated they did the best they could to see that the needs of the community are being met; there are two major reasons she heard for not going to Micco Park, but the Board is voting to buy land for $745,000 an acre. She stated the lots around the cul de sac are $18,500 each; they are quarter-acre lots; and there is no land around Micco Park that is that valuable. She noted they paid for an appraiser from Hansen?s Appraisal; and it is less than $30,000 an acre with contingency. She stated they could not get a straight answer from the County whether they could actually build back there or not. Ms. Schott advised Parks and Recreation said it would be all right to walk the children because they cannot get bikepaths; the roads are too narrow and there are no easements for sidewalks or bikepaths; and she has a memo from Parks and Recreation stating it is going to be okay to walk the children through those dots the Board saw last week. She stated the reason the item is on the agenda is to purchase land; as Commissioner Higgs stated Cuyler Park has 12 acres; Micco Park has 9.8 acres; and if the County wants to buy something today, it could give them two acres at Micco Park so they can have what Cuyler Park has. Commissioner Higgs advised when the Micco homeowners first talked to her in 1992 and 1993 about a park and community center and what happened to theirs, they began to look for ways to achieve a community center; they are in a community development block grant area and were encouraged to submit a proposal with the help of her Office and County staff; and when that was funded and it looked like there was more than enough for a very small building, they talked about a vision. She stated it was her vision, and sometimes visions do get people in trouble; her vision was to co-locate facilities since the County was in the process of talking about library expansion, knew it would need a fire rescue facility, and had money coming from CDBG for a community center; so her vision was that they should secure enough land to co-locate all three facilities, and the people involved in the use of those facilities and in the target area should be involved in the discussions, so they had a meeting. She stated the four homeowners associations were appointed or designated and appointed representatives; she selected at-large people and they began to talk about the community center; very quickly in the process the vision was lost and the idea of co-locating facilities; and a regional park idea was focused upon, but the co-location of all facilities was lost. She stated the committee proceeded to talk, identified a number of parcels, and brought the Board a proposal; and she will support its proposal and believes the community deserves the facilities both at Micco Park and what can be provided at the community center. Commissioner Higgs stated Micco Park is a functional park; it is well used and supported by the community; traffic is an issue; and there is better access off Central Avenue. She stated there is more traffic on Riverview; locating in Micco Park will require the access off Riverview will compound the problem; and there is opposition no matter which way it goes. She stated it has not been a happy situation; the people of Micco have been divided in their support of either site; and there will continue to be dissension regardless of where it goes. She stated she believes they can secure bikepaths that would connect the park and make it safe for the children; the facility would serve the people; so the Board should move forward and purchase the $90,000 worth of property around Allen and proceed using the County?s three acres. Commissioner Higgs advised one of the issues that was brought up is there are no answers to everything; she will not promise things she knows she cannot deliver; there is available $242,000 in CDBG funds; she cannot guarantee more than that; and she will not promise something to anyone that she knows she cannot deliver. She stated once the Board has determined a site, it needs to go to the CDBG Board and see if it could commit additional dollars so they do not proceed to plan a center that is not going to be adequately funded; and she would support moving forward on the $90,000 and directing staff to determine if the properties can be acquired.

Chairman Cook advised it is a very complicated issue; there was comment from Reverend Buckner at the last meeting on the issue of CDBG funds; the original intent was for Micco Park; and his gut feeling is that if that was the original intent, maybe that is where it should go. He stated that was part of CDBG?s intent; that is what they looked at and considered; and that is his feeling from all the testimony he has heard.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the CDBG went in one direction and felt like it lost control; CDBG funds have never been used to purchase property; the other centers were put on existing County property; and perhaps purchasing the land with $90,000 from the General Fund makes sense. He stated it is a marginal CDBG target area and will not remain a target area for long; they will not be able to look to CDBG forever to make things work; it can change; and once it changes there will be other problems of how to make it work. He stated the people of Port St. John went to the polls and voted themselves a special tax to do some improvements; they took the benefit of the County having an off-road vehicle park there with some capital improvements, so he has no problem with the $90,000. He stated he cannot say over a long period of time there will be an identifiable source of funding; and he has a problem doing that. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would scare him to purchase land and not see anything happen except to take it off the tax rolls; as to one place or the other, should it go to referendum or not; personally he likes turning things over to the people when there is a split community; but he is not the Commissioner of the District and is not going to push that on Commissioner Higgs. He stated there is an overage of a million dollars or so in Port St. John; some people who want a referendum and some do not; and that is dividing the community. He stated if Commissioner Higgs wants to move forward with the acquisition, she should assure the Board there is enough left over to do something and not just use all the money for acquisition.

Commissioner Higgs advised there are $242,000 available in CDBG set aside for Micco community center now; perhaps Ms. Madden or Ms. Carter can tell the Board what other monies may be available in CDBG that has not been expended; and if the CDBG Board wishes to allocate it to Micco community center, it can do so at this time. She stated there were dollars that were potentially available, but not being in control of those dollars, she is not in a position to tell the Board how much there may be or whether or not they will be allocated.

Denise Carter advised at this time all the CDBG funds for next year have been allocated to projects; however, they will be going through a request for proposals process in either January or February, and those funds will be designated for expenditures for next fiscal year beginning October 1, 1996. Chairman Cook inquired if staff knows what they will be committed to; with Ms. Carter responding they do not know, and have not received any indication from HUD as to what the County has an opportunity to apply for in total grant amount. Chairman Cook inquired if they can apply with no guarantee of what may come down; with Ms. Carter responding at this point they have received information in writing that CDBG funds are frozen as far as allocations nationwide at the same level they were allocated to last fiscal year; so the County should receive about 1.9 million dollars. Chairman Cook inquired if a portion of that will be dedicated to the Micco Community Center project; with Ms. Carter responding she cannot commit those funds; however, there will be a proposal process. Chairman Cook inquired if the project will still be in a target area when the funds are available; with Ms. Carter responding yes, the 1990 census data should not change that.

Commissioner Ellis advised this is one of the most divisive issues the Board has had since he has been on it; he sent the letter to the County Attorney about the referendum because it is two split precincts in the target area; both sides claim the majority of the people want it in the Park or out of the Park; and maybe a referendum is the way to get it resolved. He stated at least it is final and at the end some people who said they had the majority are going to be wrong. He stated if the Board proceeds with one site or the other, it will be a continuing fight; the disagreement over the Government Center went on for years; and when it went to referendum, a lot of people were unhappy with the results, but it was a dead issue after that. Commissioner Ellis stated whether it goes to referendum or not and whether it goes to Micco Park or the Central Avenue site, they still need to buy land. Commissioner Scarborough recommended approving the $90,000 to spend no matter which way they go; and Chairman Cook stated he will support that. Chairman Cook stated he will rely on the judgment of the Commissioner of the District because she understands and deals with the people every day; but his feeling is that generally going with a referendum cannot be wrong; and both sides will feel a sense of fairness when it happens, and that they had their opportunity.

Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board chooses to go to referendum, it needs to determine several things; staff needs to nail down land availability and costs so citizens know what the costs are at both sites, and have contingency contracts to proceed forward. She stated the Board needs to signify its willingness to commit the $90,000 for either site; it needs to be sure Mr. Galey can handle the two precincts and split of the target area; and they need some ability to tell the people they would be able to build x building and the funds are there to do it. She stated if they only have the Board?s $90,000 to buy additional land and $242,000 CDBG funds to build the center, they need a sense of commitment from this Board or the CDBG Board to know that funds are available and be able to tell the people of Micco with some assurance what the particulars are. Commissioner Higgs stated she has no problem letting the citizens determine it; it has never been her desire to pick the site; so if the referendum will resolve it for the people, and if they can have a commitment that will get through a referendum without excessive problems, then she has no problem, but it should be with everyone using information, discussing it, moving forward, and being as undivisive as possible.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can move the $90,000 from Contingency today; and inquired if CDBG funds can be moved into the same account; with Commissioner Higgs responding the CDBG funds are already there, but the $242,000 will not build the entire center. Ms. Madden stated it will complete a phase of the project. Commissioner Higgs stated looking at $80 to $90 a square foot, it would not build a 5,000 square-foot building. Commissioner Scarborough stated the most the Board can vote on today is $90,000 and $242,000; with Commissioner Higgs responding the $242,000 does not need a vote because it has already been done. Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands additional funds would have to come from CDBG above the $90,000 and $242,000; and inquired if Commissioner Higgs is asking the Board to defer this issue until that funding has been determined; with Commissioner Higgs responding no, but the Board needs some signal from CDBG or determine what is being built because when she was in Micco Friday night, the question was asked what is going to be built, how much can be built, and how much money is there; and she could not answer that. She stated if the Board goes to the citizens with a referendum, they are going to ask the same questions. Chairman Cook advised the only thing the Board can commit to is the $90,000, $242,000, and the place; and in the future, perhaps another funding mechanism can be identified.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Cuyler did not happen all at once; all those places happened over a number of years of funding; so the Board cannot tell the people in all honesty that is where it is going to be. He stated the Board can wait until the next cycle and see if there are additional monies, but the bottom line is it is going to have one site or the other. He stated they know they have $332,000 for purchase of land and a building; for a period it will remain a target area where CDBG funds can be made available for improvements; and the County should acquire the land then move forward with plans on the center but not lock in a future Commission to CDBG funds that may come in later. He stated he does not know how far Commissioner Higgs wants to go with this. Commissioner Higgs stated what she has seen of community centers in various locations minus the gyms, are about 4,500 square feet; and in order to build a 4,500 square foot community center in Micco, it would cost about $90 a square foot.

Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson advised they have been working on the Cuyler center which is a free-standing building and it is going to run about $450,000 with A&E; however it already has some parking associated with it; so if the Board is going to budget for the Micco Center at a similar size, it should look at about $500,000.

Commissioner Ellis stated Rodes Park has a large Butler building with kitchen facilities and dirt parking lot. Mr. Nelson stated they are not letting them get away with dirt parking lots anymore, and he would not recommend it. Commissioner Ellis inquired who is not letting him do it; with Mr. Nelson responding typically they have to pave the parking areas and do all the drainage.

Chairman Cook inquired if the County is making him do that; with Mr. Nelson responding yes. Chairman Cook stated the Board can resolve that. Mr. Nelson stated from a maintenance standpoint, they are headaches, but that is the current cost estimate for the building. Chairman Cook advised he understands there is a potential for CDBG funding, but it should go to referendum and see where the people want to go if funds come available.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to commit $90,000 from General Fund Contingency for the acquisition of land at Micco Park or Central Allen Avenue site. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the County Attorney to develop language for a referendum on the Micco Community Center site, and bring it to the Board in January for the March Primary Election. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated since the Board does not have the language now, it needs to vote on that at the January meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the County Manager to talk to the Land Acquisition staff and nail down the land availability and cost at both sites, including contingency contracts to be approved by the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated having the parcels under contract to close if the referendum passes will let people know the land is available, and the sellers cannot double the price. Chairman Cook stated the contracts have to come to the Board for approval. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board will be fully knowledgeable before it does anything on the referendum issue at the January meeting, and will know where it is going and the final decision on how it is going to go about it.

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

Commissioner Ellis stated the Supervisor of Elections needs to be notified to split the precincts; some of the people are in Precinct 18 and some in Precinct 106; and they will also be voting in the Presidential Primary. Chairman Cook instructed the County Manager to notify the Supervisor of Elections.

Chairman Cook advised they will be going to referendum and the language will come back to the Board. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board will make a final decision in January; with Chairman Cook responding this is the final decision to go to referendum, and he does not want to go through the process again in January. Commissioner Scarborough stated the decision is to go to referendum, but the Board has to vote on the language. Chairman Cook stated that is the only issue besides the contracts; and the decision has been made to go to referendum because the people need to know that today. Commissioner Higgs stated there is some concern with the land being available; and the Board needs to know that before it makes a final vote. Commissioner Ellis stated if in January the Central site owners do not want to sell or want $150,000, that could eliminate that option or the Board would have to increase the money for the land.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - WARREN McFADDEN, RE: REGULATION OF LIVE-ABOARD VESSELS

Warren McFadden advised boats are docking any place they wish along the dozens of miles in Brevard County waters; he lives at Dragon Point on South Merritt Island opposite Eau Gallie Causeway, and has traffic coming from the east and going north or south, going north, coming north to south and south to north, and boats parked in the middle; and it is not only dangerous but it is quite a problem. He stated people north of him have people who stay there for the whole winter; boats have stayed as long as two or three months; in the December 11, 1995 issue of TODAY Newspaper, there was an article about the County having to raise $88,000,000 for pollution; a lot of the pollution are caused by boats that are not properly equipped with holding tanks that are required by law; but there is no way to police them because they are spread out. He stated there are many overhead bridges at Melbourne Causeway, Eau Gallie Causeway, Pineda Causeway, and so forth; and at the bridges, such as they do in Fort Lauderdale, there could be legal areas for boats to dock and they could be policed and checked, and it would give them a way to get to the stores and do various things they need to do. He stated besides getting assistance in pollution, they have yet to see what problems may come about in future crimes; he talked to people in different homeowners associations about problems they have had; and they want the Board to consider policing boats in the same manner as RV?s, trailers, and trucks. He stated a boat over 100 feet long from France was full of junk that took up residence for three days, and he did not have a choice of what he had to look at for the weekend. He requested the Board consider providing areas for boaters to dock and make it illegal to dock any place they want to around people?s residences or along the County waterway.

Chairman Cook advised the Board needs to look into this; he has been at people?s homes on the water; and it is people within a few feet of the shoreline that create significant problems. He stated some communities have looked at designating areas around bridges as places they can moor boats overnight; and that is a lot more appropriate than behind someone?s house. Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance providing designated areas where live-aboard vessels can moor and how they discharge septage.

Commissioner Ellis advised he spoke with someone yesterday who told him Indian Harbour Beach had an ordinance on this; it seems there should be something reasonable the Board can do and not something totally unreasonable such as send out the boat police every evening to see who is there; it needs to look at vessels parked for weeks at a time and do not move because their waste is not being dumped at a marina.

Chairman Cook advised the Board has to be reasonable, but even days at a time can be a problem; and he would like to look at designating areas where it can happen because it can be a nuisance and ruin the enjoyment of property. Commissioner Ellis stated they are State waters, so they need to look at the legal issue. Chairman Cook stated some communities have been able to designate areas legally where boats can moor so they are not being deprived. County Attorney Scott Knox advised there is a State law that authorizes counties to regulate those areas.

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

The meeting recessed at 4:33 p.m. and reconvened at 4:46 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICIES

Edward Dean, 3405 Wilderness Lane, Melbourne, advised he sits on the Code Enforcement Board as a representative of District 4; and the Code Enforcement Board, according to its purpose and intent, is to establish, regulate, determine the height, size, location, relocation, erection, etc. and repair, alteration and use of buildings and other structures; to establish and control the use of land; to establish and control the density of its population; and to control the size of yards, courts, open spaces, etc. He stated 80 to 100 cases each month come before the Code Enforcement Board; and there should be a change to avoid revenge by neighbors, because there is excessive use of regulations when neighbors or whoever are angry with one another. He stated the Code Enforcement Board increases business by enforcing lot mowing, tree removal, shed location, building permits, overhangs on docks, etc.; and it seems that anyone can be cited for any reason and be made actual lawbreakers for the most ridiculous things. He stated three County lawyers, several Code Enforcement Officers, motor vehicles and hundreds of miles of paid travel and phone time are costs to the taxpayers for some of the most ridiculous laws on the books today; with the savings on code enforcement the County could probably build the jail without any new taxes; and urged the Board to establish a committee to investigate, review and recommend changes on code enforcement regulations. Mr. Dean stated some citizens are not informed of their rights; they are threatened and sometimes left misinformed and cannot face their accusers; and it seems that homeowners have to get a building permit before they build a 4x4x12 foot shed which is ridiculous. He stated in Canaveral Groves which is considered AU, in order to own a horse in the middle of nowhere, a lady had to get a permit which cost a couple of hundred dollars; and inquired why do homeowners need a permit to build a small dock off their property. He stated if the home is run down in violation of a Code Ordinance, the County can seize the property and fix it at taxpayers expense to be within Code; and inquired, if Fortune 500 companies can downsize and still do well, and give a bang for a buck to a person that is buying more efficiently, why can?t Brevard County Code Enforcement do the same thing. Mr. Dean stated the Board talked about Ordinances that need to be modified; they understand health and safety, and danger of people?s lives and children; but the Board can take a step further and get rid of the regulations that are not needed. He proposed establishing an advisory committee to look at some of the laws and get those off the property owner who end up having to pay the brunt of the burden for no apparent reason because a neighbor is upset. He noted it seems that they call Washington the insight of beltway mentality; here Brevard County has insight of the Viera mentality that Government knows best; and people pay for some of the most ridiculous Ordinances and for Code Enforcement officers to come out and enforce them and cite people. He stated last month they had 80 cases and sat until 1:00 a.m. for some of the most ridiculous laws; if it is health and safety by all means it must be heard; but if it comes to building sheds, docks, or even fouls or animals in certain areas in the middle of nowhere, it is ridiculous to put it on the taxpayers and property owners; and urged the Board to get an advisory board to look at modifying the laws, cut the fat, cut the regulations, and save money for the County.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Code Board hears actual factual situations and judges the law or Code; in doing so, maybe it should render an opinion on both; and if it sees a number of violations where it is not a problem, it may want to report a Code change to this Board or bring in a list to talk about then send it to this Board. He stated the Code Board could set aside a meeting and each member bring in a list to talk about, because if the Board creates a new committee, the members would not have the expertise of the Code Board members and would not know the Code problems. He stated within the current mechanism, the Board could activate the Code Board to judge the Code as well as the complaints.

Mr. Dean stated when they have a case come before them and most of the people are found within the Code and not in violation, that may be a few days after the violation, and they can be fined up to $250 a day. He stated they do not dispute the law, but they try to give people a break as this Board would do if it found people within the Code.

Chairman Cook suggested the Code Board come to this Board and give it recommendations on Codes that are not good. He stated he had no idea a person who buys a tin shed has to get a permit; and that is absolutely nuts. Commissioner Ellis inquired about a survey to go with it; with Chairman Cook responding those are the kinds of things the Board needs to get rid of.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Code Board sees where the problems exist and the Code Officers, but the Board has not asked them to bring it in; and as part of the decision making process, after the Code Board takes action, if it thinks the Code is wrong, it can be brought to this Board to be abolished or restructured.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Code Board needs to present a list of changes; and inquired if it could meet, not as a quasi-judicial body, but meet on the Codes, and present a list of changes to this Board. He stated the Code Board is like a jury because there are prosecuting attorneys, County Attorneys, and attorneys with citizens who can afford them; if a person cannot afford an attorney, he is outnumbered; and it would be good to have a list of the changes it desires, because there is a problem with the Codes when that Board meets from 2:00 or 3:00 p.m. until midnight.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to request the Code Enforcement Board come back to the Board of County Commissioners with a report by March 15, 1996, on Codes that it would like the Board to act on; review suggestions by Code Compliance Department regarding complaints resulting from neighborhood disputes and retaliation; and give the Board a recommendation on that. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated another problem is one person is cited with a violation and drives around looking for other violations, and brings in 100 complaints; that leads to proliferation of complaints; there is something wrong with that; so the Code Board should report on that also. He stated it is retaliation against the system rather than the neighbor because if he cannot find something against the neighbor, he finds the world in noncompliance.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Code Board should also consider the violations that Code Enforcement investigates and resolves because it does not get those; and if they want to look at the Codes, they need to look at both of those activities. Commissioner Ellis stated Code Enforcement can present some ideas.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to direct the Code Enforcement Section to come back to the Board with a list of suggestions of Codes that can be deleted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REQUEST FROM SUNTREE ROTARY COMMITTEE, RE: FUNDS FOR PIER AT ROTARY PARK SUNTREE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve request from Suntree Rotary Committee for $15,000 matching funds for a pier at Rotary Park Suntree, from Beach and Riverfront District IV Fund 3920, Account 5701-2; and authorize staff to set up an appropriate fund and account for construction. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION TO BORROW, RE: UP TO 3.2 MILLION DOLLARS FOR PORT ST. JOHN MSTU

Maureen Rupe, President of Port St. John Homeowners Association, advised the Association and Port St. John seniors requested a referendum in March over the contention in Port St. John on the overage; the Board approved it with the wording coming back; the committee refused to word the referendum and is opposed to a referendum at this time; but the Port St. John Homeowners Association is willing to do the wording if it is acceptable. She stated the seven people on the committee are denying a whole community a vote.

Commissioner Scarborough stated anyone can bring anything forward; if the language is brought forward, he will let everyone know; the committee is a subcommittee of District 1 Parks and Recreation and it is not that they have not been involved; and if language is brought forward, there will be seven people upset. He stated he will advise them that it is Ms. Rupe?s intention to bring language forward.

Commissioner Ellis stated he thought the Board decided to go with a referendum; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes, but it asked them to bring language back and assumed the subcommittee was going to do that; but apparently they like the idea of making the decisions rather than bringing language back.

Commissioner Higgs recommended the County Attorney discuss the language with Ms. Rupe and the Homeowners Association so if the Board decides in January to go with the referendum, it will be able to have language that would be acceptable.

Commissioner Ellis stated he understood it would be a two-part referendum, the first part to spend or not spend, and if the vote is yes, there would be a menu selection of what to spend it on. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is what was contemplated, and Mr. Nelson may be able to explain what happened.

Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson advised there was concern about sufficient money to build the elements and putting an item on the ballot when the money may not be there. He stated staff tried to indicate they were comfortable with their cost estimates, and they needed to deal with it; but the committee voted not to deal with that issue at this time.

Chairman Cook stated the Board voted to go to referendum to decide whether the money stays or goes, or is used for something else; with Ms. Rupe responding the overage has been put out to the media and to all of Port St. John and Canaveral Groves; they had two public hearings for public input on what to do with the overage; they have a feeling they are going to be hoodwinked; and they want the money and want to say what to do with it.

Commissioner Higgs recommended the County Attorney work with Ms. Rupe and Port St. John homeowners to develop language for January 9, 1996, so the Board can make a decision. Commissioner Ellis stated he thought the Board already decided; Chairman Cook stated his decision has already been made; and Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not have a problem with it; and while the Board authorized proceeding, it was to have language from the committee, but the committee did not want to put language together.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to instruct the County Attorney to work with the Port St. John Homeowners Association and Maureen Rupe to prepare language for a March referendum and have it available for consideration by the Board on January 9, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board is going to consider the Agenda Item at this time; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it is using short-term commercial paper which is very favorable to proceed with the authorized portion.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded for discussion by Commissioner Ellis, to authorize staff to proceed with borrowing up to $3.2 million from the tax-exempt commercial paper program to fund construction of recreational facilities, including a community center and athletic fields within the Port St. John MSTU approved by prior referendum, including architectural and engineering costs.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the $3.2 million is the full amount; with Mr. Nelson responding no, it has been calculated that the number will be 4.2 or 4.4 million dollars; and that was the overage being discussed. Chairman Cook inquired if the overage is the difference between 4.4 and 3.2 million dollars; with Mr. Nelson responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated commercial paper was described to him as a line of credit drawn upon up to the need; and it will come back to the Board with the actual amount of draw and to approve the A&E plans and let the contract. Commissioner Ellis stated when they are done, they take the commercial paper and make a bond; with Commissioner Scarborough responding at that time they would determine whether they go to Phase II or not have an additional millage and do one bond issue.

Chairman Cook called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. CONSENT AGREEMENT WITH SERAFEM, INC., RE: WETLAND VIOLATION

Commissioner Ellis advised changes need to be made in the Comprehensive Plan because it is a site with a small wetland; it has already been zoned; and everything on it is commercial.

Chairman Cook advised they were given a permit by the St. Johns River Water Management District that said everything was fine; the County asked the District to look at it again according to Mr. Kern; and the District said he should mitigate. He stated this is the silliness the County is getting into with these things. Commissioner Ellis stated not every isolated wetland is a St. Johns River marsh; there are small isolated wetlands that sit in the middle of larger upland parcels; but it is not portrayed that way by the media.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Agreement with Serafem, Inc. to mitigate wetland violation on the northeast corner of Suntree Boulevard and Wickham Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - DAVID AZAR, RE: DEPUTIZING VOLUNTEERS TO ENFORCE BEACH ORDINANCES

Commissioner Higgs advised Mr. Azar asked to delay this item.

Chairman Cook instructed the County Manager to reschedule the item for a later meeting. PERSONAL APPEARANCE - MICHAEL S. FITZGERALD, RE: RENAMING ST. JOHNS STREET AS JUDGE JAMIESON?S WAY

Michael Fitzgerald presented maps to the Board, and advised his request is to change the name of St. Johns Street to Judge Jamieson Way in honor of the late Judge Fran Jamieson. He stated she was a Brevard County resident who, despite having the deck stacked against her, went on to become the first female elected circuit court judge in the history of the State of Florida. He stated the fact that Judge Jamieson was a single parent who decided to go to law school, become a prominent attorney, then have the audacity to take on an all-male institution of the judiciary and become a judge, constitutes a measure of historical significance which should not be overlooked in Brevard County. He stated naming the street that will run in front of the new Justice Center in honor of Judge Jamieson will insure that all correspondence with the Justice Center will be graced with Judge Jamieson?s name, thereby guaranteeing that her memory will live on in Brevard County and the legal community for many years to come. Mr. Fitzgerald advised there were road blocks erected to stop the naming of this street in honor of one of Brevard County?s most outstanding citizens; on December 4, 1995, the Board received a letter from Mr. R. Mason Blake, Corporate Counsel for The Viera Company, which listed several concerns about renaming the street; basically there were three major concerns; the first concern dealt with the School Board and Brevard County Government Center having to deal with their letterheads and business cards; he contacted the Postmaster at Suntree Post Office and was told they will honor either address for more than a year; and in this way the letterhead does not have to be changed and no money would be lost. He stated the Post Office said they are used to dealing with changes of address, and it was not new to them. Mr. Fitzgerald advised a second concern of The Viera Company is that St. Johns Street is a major roadway, and changing the name would cause much confusion; the last time he was on St. Johns Street, it was a quarter of a mile road; he does not think a quarter of a mile road constitutes a major roadway, even in a small town; and Brevard County is not a small town and is a County of 500,000 people. He stated the third concern brought forth by The Viera Company is a legitimate concern; the Company contends because St. Johns Street is shown and named on numerous plans and recorded DRI development order, to change the plans would be an inconvenience and cause some confusion; that is true; but the renaming of a street is a common occurrence and happens throughout the country many times; and an accomplished company like The Viera Company can handle it with very little difficulty. He stated the fact that the Justice Center is being built in Viera is a major financial and public relations benefit for The Viera Company, not to mention other Government entities placed out here like the School Board, Government Center and Marlin?s Stadium. He stated The Viera Company is a multi-million dollar corporation which is going to make a hefty profit off the Viera Project; this is America and they are welcomed to it; they are not being asked to build one inch of road; and all they are asking is that they change a street name. Mr. Fitzgerald advised in Brevard County there are seven streets, three churches, and one river named St. Johns; and if the street name is changed, St. Johns will still be well represented in the County. He stated there was much talk about naming courtrooms in the new Justice Center in honor of distinguished members of the legal community such as judges, attorneys, bailiffs, and police officers; it is a wonderful idea and is being looked at by the Brevard County Bar Association; but as far as Judge Jamieson is concerned, her accomplishments deserve more than a plaque in a courtroom. He stated Judge Jamieson?s courage, fortitude, and perseverance place her in a realm which is worthy of much higher praise; and having Judge Jamieson?s name tied in with the new Justice Center allows everyone to pay proper homage to an outstanding Brevard County citizen. Mr. Fitzgerald advised in the interest of compromise, he contacted Mr. Blake of The Viera Company and proposed that they keep St. Johns Street as is but that the road which leads west where St. Johns intersects with Stadium Parkway be named Judge Jamieson?s Way; and Mr. Blake said it would be better, but it would still cause some confusion. He requested the Board look at the shaded area on the map to see where St. Johns Street?s proposed extension lies; and stated right now it will be one block, and proposed that block be named after Judge Jamieson. He stated in the next five years they will extend that block for another three miles; and it would not be that difficult to name that part of the street after Judge Jamieson and kept everything else the same. He noted for 30 years he lived on the island of Manhattan, and every 100 feet the street names changed and people did not get that confused; they got to where they had to go; and with the right signs, people will not get lost by changing one street name. He inquired if there is anyone in the audience from The Viera Company to talk about the proposal; and stated if they thought this was going to be a burden, they would have had someone here today to speak against it; and it was in the paper today so they knew about it. Mr. Fitzgerald stated when he talked to Mr. Blake, he was a perfect gentleman and treated him well and said it could possibly be done and they could handle it; and requested the Board seriously consider it and look at the compromise he proposed and in the season of giving, give Brevard County a gift by honoring one of its own.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the main goal is to have the mailing address Judge Jamieson Way; with Mr. Fitzgerald responding yes; and if it is changed to the compromised street, because it will be the first facility on the lefthand side of the road, it could be called 1 Jamieson Way which is important because of all the things she accomplished as being first, such as the first female President of Brevard County Bar Association, the first female circuit court judge in the state, and first practicing female attorney in Brevard County; so the number 1 is appropriate. Commissioner Ellis stated to enter the Justice Center, people turn in and go down to a cul de sac which turns in front of the Justice Center; and if they labeled the cul de sac Judge Jamieson Court, then the street address for the Justice Center would be 1 Judge Jamieson Court without changing the street name. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that would be a great proposal and as long as the address has Judge Jamieson?s name on it, that is the objective of the whole thing.

Chairman Cook stated his concern is not to create confusion; he supports naming the whole street after Judge Jamieson; they change street names all the time; the Post Office indicates it could easily deliver to two addresses for more than a year; Judge Jamieson was a historic figure; and it would be extremely appropriate to name the entire St. Johns Street as Judge Jamieson Way. He stated it is something that is manageable and justified because it deals with a person who is truly a historic figure; and if it causes a little inconvenience, it is still well worth it to honor Judge Jamieson.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has historically been told it is not good to name a street one thing and switch over because of the emergency medical people; there is not a whole lot of people in Viera now; and inquired if there is anyone on staff who wants to address the advisability of breaking a street into various names. He stated it may occur in New York more frequently, but he has been told staff tries to keep street names consistent. Chairman Cook stated his concern is breaking it up and creating more of a problem. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is a bad idea, but he is not going to be the one to speak to that. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated it is not preferred, but it does exist. He inquired what is the preference, to have the number 1 with it or the name; with Mr. Fitzgerald responding the name is the preference and the number 1 was just an idea he threw out. Commissioner Ellis stated they could have it if the entrance to the Justice Center is dedicated as a public right-of-way and named Judge Jamieson Court; and it would give a street address for the Justice Center and not mess up the street names. Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants to hear from somebody on staff who deals with that issue. Chairman Cook inquired what is the big deal renaming a street after someone who deserves it; with Commissioner Scarborough responding his concern is St. Johns may have some great historical significance that would be taken away; however, there is nothing in the letter from Mr. Blake that indicates any significance. He stated it is at the point where it can easily depart without doing violence to anything but a few maps. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board does not have to rename the street.

Traffic Engineering Director Bill Osborne advised in his experience dealing with naming and renaming streets, it would be advisable from his standpoint and E911 standpoint to have the entire street renamed; and it would not be advisable to break it up. He advised of a street on Merritt Island that was broken up into two separate names and he had to put up signs with street numbers in one direction and street numbers in another direction. Mr. Osborne recommended renaming the entire St. Johns Street or if the entranceway to the Justice Center is named for Judge Jamieson, that would also be acceptable.

Chairman Cook stated it is the perfect time to do it; development has not started out there except for Government buildings; it is a perfect tribute to someone who deserves it; the name has no significance as far as commemorating anybody else; and this is the time to rename the street before development gets out there. He stated it is not that difficult to do; and nobody questions the fact that it is somebody who is deserving of the honor.

Commissioner Scarborough stated while it has been said that naming a court may not create a problem, he wants to know if it is a court or an entranceway to the building; and if the Board starts naming entranceways, would it name the loop around the Government Center as a court. Commissioner Ellis stated no, but potentially the street that turns into the main entrance of Building C could be labeled a street if it is desired. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is not a street; it is where people are loaded and unloaded and find parking; and whether it is a court or not he does not know because it is new to him. Commissioner Ellis stated it would be more simple to name it Judge Jamieson Way; and it would give the mailing address as Judge Jamieson Way for the Justice Center without interfering with the other addresses.

Chairman Cook stated there is nothing being interfered with; it is something that can be handled; he does not understand why there is an effort to bend over backwards for something that should have no significance; and inquired what is the problem with renaming the street since there is no development out there except government-driven development. He stated he does not want a court or parking lot named after Judge Jamieson; she deserves a main roadway because of her historical significance to the community; someone who has accomplished numerous firsts should have the entire roadway named after her; and this is the time. He stated the postal people did not indicate it as a problem and gave more than a year for the transition to the other address; so it does not make sense. He passed the gavel to District 1 Commissioner Scarborough.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, to rename St. Johns Street in Viera as Judge Jamieson Way. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Higgs stated there was a statement in the letter from The Viera Company that said there will be another main street from the town center to the Justice Center; and inquired if Mr. Fitzgerald talked to them about that; with Mr. Fitzgerald responding yes, but it will not be built for five years, and it will intersect to have the Justice Center address on it.

Chairman Cook advised this is not The Viera Company?s decision; the Board of County Commissioners makes that decision; and that should be made clear. He stated at some point the Board needs to take responsibility for the buildings out there, and if the Board sees fit to name it Judge Jamieson Way, then it should do that.

Commissioner Scarborough recommended the item be tabled because he does not know at this time if naming a court is a good procedural matter to undertake; he does not have any problem naming something after Judge Jamieson; but if they can make everybody happy and name a court, he will do that. He stated there are a lot of places with large buildings and entranceways on private property; and he does not know at this juncture if they will be creating new street addresses there and where the Board goes from there if it does it here.

Commissioner Higgs inquired about the roadway from the intersection of Stadium Parkway going west; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he has a problem with that because of Mr. Osborne?s advice. Chairman Cook stated he has concerns with chopping roadways and it is easier to name the whole roadway. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to work with the people, so he will move to table until he gets further advice or ramifications on naming Judge Jamieson Court.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to table request to name St. Johns Street as Judge Jamieson Way until January 9, 1996 for further information. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - KARL K. THOMPSON, RE: PAY BACK OF OVERTIME OVERPAID TO FIRE RESCUE PERSONNEL

Karl Thompson, representing Brevard County Professional Fire Fighters, advised a mistake happened over the last six months; six months ago he negotiated a contract with the Board that had numerous language changes; one of the concerns was the absence of or lack of annual leave use for career fire fighters; and they modified the language so they would be encouraged to utilize their annual leave. He stated the contract was implemented, and a series of mistakes have perpetuated for the last six months; in October they noticed that people were taking annual leave during the same period they had worked additional hours of over time and was being paid at a higher rate than they should have been; and that amounts to 1,800 hours total, affecting approximately 136 employees. Mr. Thompson advised the mistake has been fixed; the problem is now resolved; the County came to the fire fighters and indicated it wants to recoup the money that has been lost; and that places some employees in financial hardship. He stated they looked at other alternatives, including taking of their annual leave; they are not objecting; but his goal is to request the Board forgive the debt since it has been fixed and will not create additional problems. He stated that is what he is seeking to accomplish today.

Chairman Cook recommended allowing employees to give back part of their annual leave over a period of time to pay it back. He stated he would not expect them to give back all their annual leave at once, but over a period of time. Commissioner Ellis stated their annual leave could stop accruing until they are even. Chairman Cook stated it should be paid back because it was a mistake; and when his employer overpaid him, he took it back. Mr. Thompson stated he understands that, but considering the number of people and all the parameters, and that they would not have taken annual leave had they known this was going to happen, it would be cheaper in the long run to forgive the debt. Chairman Cook stated he does not blame Mr. Thompson for asking, but it could be worked out some way.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct that no annual leave be accrued for Fire Rescue personnel who are required to pay back overtime that was overpaid until all the overtime has been paid back. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENTS - BEA POLK, RE: NORTH BREVARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT BOARD

Bea Polk, 101 River Park Boulevard, Titusville, advised appointing members to the Hospital Board is a lot different than appointing members to boards that do not oversee millions of dollars; there is no way to know what those people believe until they get on there; there is a board member who did not know that once the money is given to the Hospital it does not belong to the taxpayers; and inquired if there is a way to have a questionnaire so the people who put their applications in to be appointed to the Hospital Board answer questions so the public will know a little of how they stand. She stated when people run for office she goes to meetings and asks what they stand for; she has no idea what these people stand for or whether they live here, pay taxes, or anything; and regardless of who it is, she wants to know some of the things they stand for, and if they believe in having full power and no input from the public which is what they say now. She stated the Board approves the budget for the Airport Authority, but it has nothing to do with the Hospital budget; they are appointed and the Board cannot get rid of them; so the public should know something about the new board members being appointed. Ms. Polk advised she wants to have them elected so the public would know about them; and maybe that cannot be done, but if there is a way, the public should know something about them, so they would know whether they want to object or not.

Commissioner Scarborough advised he and Ms. Polk talked about asking questions of how they feel about public disclosure, providing information and issues that have come forward; someone can have an excellent application but does not adhere to the idea the public needs to be involved in the decision-making process; and Ms. Polk told him the Hospital Board had a vote whether the public could comment and some members voted against letting people comment. Ms. Polk advised the Chairman and another Board member definitely said they do not want any public input; and if they wanted to provide input, they could go to the committee meetings. She stated they did vote to allow one minute, but the Chairman would decide whether they could speak; and if it is something they do not want the public to speak about, and if it is different from what they want to do, they do not have input even with the City forcing them to put public appearances on.

Chairman Cook inquired if they have to have financial disclosure; with Ms. Polk responding the Hospital bills never become public; and there has to be a change somewhere for the public because the Hospital probably has more money than the County.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when the Board gets applications in, it may or may not know the persons; some people may have good applications, but how they feel about letting the public talk at meetings, their philosophy on providing information to the public in a free manner, etc. is not known. He stated he does not have a problem phrasing questions, but applications will be coming in before the next Board meeting; so he does not know how they could do it unless the County Attorney and County Manager put together questions and mail them to the applicants that respond. Commissioner Higgs suggested three questions be sent to those who send in applications and the responses be brought to the Board with the applications.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the County Manager and County Attorney to prepare questions and send them to applicants for appointment to the North Brevard Hospital District Board; and to bring the responses back to the Board with the applications. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: EMPLOYEE HOLIDAY, DECEMBER 26, 1995

Commissioner Scarborough advised some people say there is conflict with other holidays in the area; they have had holidays on one day and the Schools and other Governments on another day; and the Board needs to decide whether its employees have to come back to work immediately after Christmas. He stated he wants to give them the day off if possible.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to declare December 26, 1995 a County holiday. Chairman Cook advised he will oppose the motion; he asked the Finance Director Stephen Burdett to estimate how much it would cost for an additional day off in the County; and excluding Constitutional Officers, it will cost $252,000; however, it will have a domino effect, and if the Board closes County facilities, the courts will close and the State Attorney will close, etc. Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands the courts are going to be closed that day. Chairman Cook stated he did not hear that from Mr. VanBever, but employees get ten paid holidays; Indian River, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole Counties give ten paid holidays and no additional days; so the Counties that surround Brevard operate with the same number of holidays. He stated it is a nice thing to do, but the Board is sending the bill to the taxpayers; and he cannot support that. He stated ten paid holidays is reasonable and in line with neighboring counties; and to cost the taxpayers an additional $252,000, not counting what the Constitutional Officers will do if the County closes, is a significant amount of money.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board will pay employees whether they are here or not, so there is no additional expenditure; the County just will not get a day?s labor from some employees; so it is not going to adversely affect the budget. He stated the question is how it affects employees and what they will get from employees; it is not just number of hours, but a spirit of being part of a team that is Brevard County; and part of the Christmas spirit is to allow them to be home with their families for an additional day.

Chairman Cook reiterated he talked to Indian River, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole Counties and they seem pretty happy and have the Christmas spirit even though they are only getting ten paid holidays; the taxpayers have a right to expect service; and $252,000, not counting overtime and Constitutional Officers is a significant amount of money that will be paid out without the public gaining any service in return. Commissioner Scarborough stated service is intangible; he could have an employee who sits all day and does absolutely nothing, but he gets paid; and he could have an employee who wakes up at 3:00 a.m. and thinks about solving problems. He stated his employees put in more time than the clock. Chairman Cook stated he understands that, but the County Manager needs to make sure they are doing their jobs even on December 26; the taxpayers expect that; and they have good benefits and the same amount of holidays as other counties so why should the Board be Santa Claus and make the taxpayers pay the bill.

Commissioner Ellis advised there are some people who will still have to work that day, so there will be overtime costs; there are people who do business with the County; and if they come in the day after Christmas for a building permit or license tag, all the offices will be closed; and he is concerned that the courts will be closed if someone has some business with the Clerk?s Office. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is the judges rather than the Clerk that will be closed because the Clerk would do whatever the Board does. Commissioner Ellis stated it is the day after Christmas now, he has been on the Board that gave the day before Christmas; and eventually Christmas will fall on a Tuesday or Wednesday and the Board would be setting up a three-day holiday for Christmas.

Commissioner Higgs stated she will support it; one compromise would be to give December 26 or January 2 as a holiday in order to keep County offices open; and supervisors would be responsible to ensure the offices are adequately staffed for each day. She stated school will be closed January 2; for many families it will be difficult; she also received estimates of costs regarding overtime on those two days; and the estimate is in the $50,000 range as opposed to $252,000. Chairman Cook stated that is not the same, as Mr. Burdett gave him the total daily wages of $252,000.

Commissioner Scarborough withdrew the motion; and Commissioner Higgs withdrew the second.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to declare December 26, 1995 or January 2, 1996, as employee holidays, and charge supervisors with the responsibility of ensuring adequate staffing on both days to keep the offices open.

Chairman Cook advised he has the same problem because it is not justifiable. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board gave Christmas Eve, but the day after Christmas or any holiday is not the same; and if it is critical for families with children, the employees can take annual leave that day.

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

ENDORSE COMMENTS AND AUTHORIZE TRANSMITTAL LETTER, RE: FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROPOSALS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to endorse staff comments, and authorize the Chairman to execute transmittal letter to Florida Department of Transportation regarding the Florida High Speed Rail Proposals. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

STAFF REPORT, RE: SPEED HUMP INSTALLATION POLICY

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table staff report on speed hump installation policy until January 23, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE ORDINANCE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table permission to advertise public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Occupational License Ordinance for professional individuals who are not employees of a company, firm or other business association until January 23, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF NOMINEES, RE: CHILDREN?S SERVICES COUNCIL

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve submitting the names of Ernestine Cormany, Susie Morris, James Luce, and Jean Sharpe as nominees to the Governor for consideration of appointment to the Children?s Services Council. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: REVISED POLICY BCC-24, PROCUREMENT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table revised Policy BCC-24, Procurement, until January 23, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

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

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table discussion and direction on cost-cutting ideas and suggestions from County Departments until January 23, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: REVISED 1996 BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve revision to the 1996 Board Meeting Schedule to reschedule the joint meeting with the City of Cocoa to January 11, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID, AWARD BID, AND CONTRACT, RE: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING FOR FUTURE STONE COMMUNITY LIBRARY

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to bid, award to low responsible bidder, and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract with the successful bidder for demolition of existing buildings at A&A Plaza, future site of Stone Community Library. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Bids, Recommendation, and Contract.)

Chairman Cook inquired if this is part of the FEMA reimbursement; with Assistant County Manager Joan Madden responding yes, and application has been made for that.

APPROVAL OF BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE: COUNTYWIDE 800 MHz RADIO SYSTEM

Commissioner Higgs advised she has no problem approving the budget situation; what she has concern about is that when the Board acted on this July 11, 1995, the motion that was made reflects an understanding that the work that is being funded would take care of some problems in the south part of the County regarding coverage; but the allocation of money and procedure and process they are going through do not insure all those things will be solved. She stated she wants to be sure the Board understands it may solve some of the problems, but it is not guaranteed.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Budget Change Request, granting tentative budget supplement for completion of the Countywide 800 MHz Radio System.

Chairman Cook advised there was an explanation that there will be certain gaps which will be worked on; Melbourne went its own way with its radio system which did not work with the Sheriff?s System; and at the time there was discussion to try and integrate the system with the Sheriff?s Department, but the City chose not to do that.

Commissioner Ellis stated south coverage area and other problems were supposed to be paid for by extending the surcharge; and he did not vote for the extension, but it was supposed to generate money to fix the problems.

Communications/Network Director Joe Lamers advised what Commissioner Ellis said is correct; the continued revenue they obtain from the surcharge will eventually handle all the known problems they have in coverage; the issue that was passed by the Board in July, the money was specifically identified and prioritized to capture the 16 additional channels for expansion and provide an alternate path to Palm Bay to eliminate a single path item they have; and they were taking action in that order. He stated once those are covered, they will address the coverage problems; and some of that will be resolved when the first and second items are done; but as Chairman Cook pointed out, the issues with the Melbourne System which were a result of procurement on its own of its system, are not easily resolved; and they do not have a good cost estimate right now of what it will take. He stated if they have to put a 300-foot antenna up in order to saturate that area to get the coverage up, it will cost additional funds of as much as $300,000 to do that.

Commissioner Ellis inquired why would the County bear that cost and not the City of Melbourne; with Mr. Lamers responding he cannot answer that question; they are going to look at the issue; they may be able to resolve some of it; or they may have to go back to Melbourne and ask for cost sharing of the item. He stated that decision has not been made. Commissioner Scarborough stated staff needs to report back to the Board on that issue. Commissioner Ellis stated before the Board tries to spend a lot of money to address a decision Melbourne made, it should spend the money to correct problems in the County system. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated that decision would come back to the Board.

Commissioner Higgs advised that may be what the Board wants to do, but when she read the motion, it said, Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to authorize staff to move forward on capturing the additional RF frequencies, complete the backup link, and remedy the coverage problems. She stated the Board will not be able to remedy the coverage problems with what it is doing; and she wanted to be sure the Board understood what was being done and how the money was being expended. Commissioner Scarborough stated it does not reference the Melbourne issue; and inquired if the motion should include a reference to Melbourne; with Commissioner Ellis responding he understands what the Board is doing with the Agenda item, but when the future surcharge monies come in, how they are going to be spent is going to be an issue. He stated the County should get its own system fully operational and upgraded before talking about the problem with Melbourne. Commissioner Ellis stated it is difficult to believe that when this whole thing first started there was not a joint meeting between the police chiefs and sheriff; the Police Chiefs Association takes a vote between GE and Motorola and they all decide to go that way; it seems to be the logical way to do it; and it may have been an 8 to 5 vote for GE over Motorola, but everyone would agree after the vote was taken to buy the same radio system. Chairman Cook advised the intent is for staff to come back with cost sharing information before the Board addresses that problem. Mr. Lamers stated they will do a cost benefit analysis to show the Board how much it would cost to get the desired coverage, and it may be something it wishes to turn down at that time. Chairman Cook instructed staff to contact Melbourne to participate. Commissioner Ellis stated that issue does not pertain to what the Board is doing now. Commissioner Higgs stated the issue today is a budget issue; but she wanted to bring the issues to the Board?s attention when she realized they may have a different understanding.

Chairman Cook called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Budget Change Request.)

APPROVAL OF CLARIFICATION, RE: LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE

Commissioner Scarborough advised landscaping is becoming a focal point for public discussion and he wanted to share that with the Board. He stated when he first voted on having it addressed, he never realized what a lightning rod for public comment it was going to become.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Ms. Busacca was sent as facilitator to the last meeting, and it went fairly well from the reports he received.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to clarify wording of the Landscaping Ordinance, Section 62-4335(1)(a), to require an opaque buffer to separate intensive commercial uses from residential instead of less intensive commercial. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WARRANT LISTS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to return to Executive Session on the Miorelli Litigation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 6:03 p.m. for the executive session.

ATTEST:

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK

(S E A L)

MARK COOK, CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA