The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 14, 1996, at 6:21 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Mark Cook, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O?Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Reverend Buckner.

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

REPORT, RE: LAW LIBRARY BOOKS

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Law Library is moving forward with a sale of law books, and he requested they stop the sale as it was the Board?s intent to have the law library collection at North Brevard and Melbourne Libraries to allow the public and legal community access to the law books. He stated the Rockledge volumes will go to the new Justice Center with the staffing; and it will cost additional money for the County to purchase law books if they proceed with the sale instead of turning them over to the Library System.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Law Librarian told the Board 50% of the usage in Titusville was by the public; and Attorney Hank Evans advised him the law library is in a public library in Orlando and works successfully, so he hopes it can be worked out. Chairman Cook advised the intent of the Board was that those books would be recycled in the public libraries to make them more available to the public and attorneys.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the County Manager to send a letter to the Law Library Board of Trustees advising that it is the Board?s belief that the surplus law books would go to the public libraries. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: LEGISLATION ON PURCHASING OFF STATEWIDE CONTRACTS

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised of a fax from Florida Association of Counties about a bill passed by the Legislature that is on the Governor?s desk putting a surcharge on commodities purchased by local governments off statewide contracts of half to one per cent of the value of the product; and requested a letter be sent to the Governor to veto that bill because it will be an additional cost burden to local governments.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to authorize the County Attorney to prepare a letter for the Chairman?s signature to Governor Chiles requesting he veto the bill that puts a surcharge on commodities purchased off State contracts. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: EXPERT FOR DECIBEL METER READINGS

Commissioner Scarborough advised noise and decibel meter readings have come before the Board several times; he talked to different people who are knowledgeable about decibels and the noise element; and there are a number of things he does not know or understand about noise. He stated it is not just the loudness of the noise, but also the different types of noises that create different effects; some noises may not be loud, but are obnoxious; and suggested authorizing staff to hire experts in the field if the Board is considering decibels for a noise ordinance.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize staff to hire an expert on decibels in the local region.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how much would it cost; with Commissioner Scarborough responding they considered someone from M.I.T., but he recommended University of Florida. Commissioner Ellis stated based on what he heard on decibel meters, it will not work; so he prefers not to spend any money on it. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board is happy with that decision, it is okay, but he thought the Board was going to discuss it further. Commissioner Higgs stated according to Florida Statutes, the ability to regulate watercraft noises from the water requires that kind of instrumentation, so she would like to proceed with it. Commissioner O?Brien stated he cannot support it because the County staff would have to be experts; and most of the time the County will end up in court. He stated people who make complaints about specific noises should hire their experts and prove what the decibels are, otherwise the County will have to hire an expert at $85,000 a year; and he does not want to bury the County over a single problem.

Chairman Cook inquired how much would it cost to hire an expert; with Steve Lawson responding about $1,000 a day plus expenses for a recognized expert. Mr. Lawson stated he has not talked to anyone in Florida, but got a response from M.I.T.; and he has done very little preliminary work on the actual fees, so he cannot give any definites at this time. Chairman Cook stated initially he thought the decibel meter was a good idea and very objective, but now there are questions about calibration, background noises, different sounds, and identifying different locations sound is coming from; there are major drawbacks; so he would be reluctant to spend $1,000 a day to hire an expert.

Commissioner Ellis suggested Mr. Lawson return with the cost of physics professors from University of Florida and University of Central Florida. Mr. Lawson advised he has friends at NASA who could probably give him answers, and he will return with his findings.

Commissioner Scarborough withdrew the motion.

REPORT, RE: AWARD FROM NATURE CONSERVANCY FOR EELS PROGRAM

Chairman Cook advised he attended the Nature Conservancy?s Awards Ceremony in Tampa; it presented the Board and EELS Program with its Chairman?s Award, which is its highest award for conservation and protection of sensitive lands; and Mr. Peffer and Dr. DeFreese were also there, along with Margaret Hames and other members of the Committee. Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised Ross Hinkel, the EELS Committee Chairman was there on behalf of the Committee, and past Chairman Hillary Swain was there also.

Chairman Cook advised it was a nice ceremony that bodes well for the EELS Program and the entire program that the award was received for; and they received a nice picture of the Enchanted Forest. He recommended the County Manager decide where it will be appropriate to hang the picture so that most of the people will see it.

REPORT, RE: DELEGATION VOTE ON HOUSE BILL 965

Chairman Cook advised the Board asked the Governor to veto House Bill 965; and not all the local Legislative Delegation voted for it. He stated Representatives Ball, Posey and Goode voted against the bill.

NOMINATIONS, RE: APPOINTMENT TO JEB BOARD

Chairman Cook advised the Job and Education Partnership Board is looking for additional names to be nominated; and hopefully it will reach 60% participation by the private sector. He stated it is currently at 52%, but if anyone has nominations in the general public or the Board, they need to get those in.

APPOINTMENT, RE: BREVARD WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD

Chairman Cook recommended appointment of Ron Anderson with Flite Technology, Inc.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to appoint Ron Anderson, Flite Technology, Inc., 411 Shearer Boulevard, Cocoa 32922, to the Brevard Workforce Development Board to replace Moses Harvin who had to decline his position.

Commissioner Higgs advised she will not vote because of a potential conflict of interest.

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

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET TRANSFERS

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve bills and budget transfers as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - JOYCE GRANT, ACES, RE: COURT PERFORMANCE FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Joyce Grant, representing Brevard County Association for Children for Enforcement of Support (ACES), advised on March 26, 1996, she addressed the Board, and the Board by Resolution endorsed what they are doing; and they want to give the Board a follow-up report of their activities. She stated members of the Association will make presentations.

Carolyn Turpin, ACES Media Public Relations Coordinator, advised they are unhappy with court monitoring and Department of Revenue; and a quote from an April 15, 1996 Florida TODAY article stated there are 290,000 cases of child support in the State of Florida, 24,000 in Brevard County, and $53 million a month goes uncollected for child support in the State. She stated the process they have to go through is frustrating, time consuming, and annoying; judges and hearing officers appear to be ineffective; and she has filed her sixth contempt charge in two and a half years, and does not understand why it keeps happening. She stated they go to court and nothing is done; they keep going back through the system and getting nowhere; and requested the Board?s help to find a solution to the problem. Ms. Turpin advised liens can be placed on property for arrearage, but is not being done; and she cannot get a response from Department of Revenue why it is not being done. She stated if someone is in arrears, that person can make a purge payment; she witnessed a hearing officer ask a person how much that person can pay that day; they need to be harsher on those people and get the money owed instead of asking; and it is like asking a criminal what kind of punishment he would like to have. Commissioner Scarborough advised purge means to wipe clean; and inquired if they make a payment will the remainder be eliminated; with Ms. Turpin responding it is a partial payment and the remainder will still be due. She stated arrearage owed to her is close to $5,000; the day she had her hearing, she was told he would pay 20% which is a percentage used often; her monthly support payment is $800 a month and 20% is $160; but she has not seen a dime of that money and nothing is being done to enforce it. She stated full payment of arrearage is not being asked for; in Bay County, if there was an amount due, they were ask for that amount or go to jail; and the only way to stop the problem is to not accept excuses, start enforcing the laws, and ask for full payments.

Margie Wyles, member of ACES, resident of Melbourne, and mother of four children, advised of her frustrations dealing with two states, two fathers who do not pay child support, and two court orders of no enforcement. She stated she has been in the system for ten years trying to get child support for her children; the arrearage has exceeded $20,000; and her cases have numerous contempt orders and downward motions. She advised in 1987 her child support was $760 a month for two children; in 1993 it declined to $25.00 a month; and regardless of the amount ordered, there are no payments made. She advised of the foreclosure of her home, transfer of her case in 1992 to Florida Health and Rehabilitative Services, numerous case workers, and how being a member of ACES has helped her. She gave a report on her current child support payments, her case in Connecticut being continued, lost records in New Hampshire, lack of enforcement by Florida agencies, assistance and encouragement from ACES, and hard work of Department of Revenue attorneys trying to collect child support with little or no enforcement from the judges and hearing officers who seem to sympathize with deadbeat parents? personal problems and hardships, forgetting that the responsible parents and children are relying on the enforcement of child support. Ms. Wyles stated every time a parent has to go back to court it is an emotional roller coaster of disappointment in the judicial system and enforcement of the laws, and feelings that he won again and the children lost; and if jail time was imposed on offenders as in criminal cases, it would only take one time for the repeat offenders to start paying support that is owed to their children. She stated if the irresponsible parents had privileges taken away and personal belongings confiscated, it may help; but if they can get away with something, they will; and that is what is happening. Ms. Wyles advised she has been monitoring the courts in Brevard County even though her case is not handled here; and what she has observed is the same thing that is happening in other states; so it is not just a Florida problem, it is a national problem.

Debbie McBurney, Merritt Island, stated trying to collect child support has been exhausting for her family and her; and advised of her status prior to her divorce, what transpired after her divorce leaving her without money, utilities, phone, and vehicle. She stated she had to get an attorney through pro bono; her attorney Victor Watson got her an appointment before Judge Lober; and after telling the judge her dilemma, he issued an order for $30 a week. She stated the second time she saw Judge Edward Jackson and received $79 a week and $15 on top of that to take care of the arrearage that accrued to $1,900; and she found out two years later that the minimal child support payment orders were issued because her ex-husband gave a certificate of insolvency to the courts three times. She stated she has her dockets from the Clerk?s Office of what has happened over the past six years; and it is appalling to see what the judges and hearing officer in Brevard County have allowed. She stated her ex-husband has been brought before six different judges 11 different times, has been held and released four times with a purge payment averaging $700, and was jailed one time with a purge amount of $1,000. She advised if those parents are jailed, it will work; her ex-husband was jailed last July; and for the past six months she has received child support, although he is still in arrearage of over $8,500 which will take 13 years to pay off. Ms. McBurney advised she does not understand how he can say he does not have the money to pay child support, yet has a purge payment averaging $700 each time he is threatened with jail time; she believes he can pay his child support but chooses not to do so; and it will continue until someone helps them break the cycle. She stated the laws and statutes are there to protect them; the State of Florida has $1.8 billion that is owed every year in back child support; and the reason is the judge lets them off. She stated six times her ex-husband went before a judge and walked away without paying anything but a promise that he would make another payment; that is a message to absent parents if they do not want to pay for their children, they can get away with it in Brevard County; and if the hearing officer and court do not impose stiff penalties to absent parents, the cycle will continue. Ms. McBurney advised the average child support payment is $250 a month; the complacency of the hearing officer Brice Corder and the judges is embarrassing to the County; and advised of the success of judges in Jacksonville and Boca Raton in getting support payments for children by stiff penalties and incarceration. She stated if the hearing officer and judges in Brevard County would use the laws and rules as they promised before they were elected, the responsible parents would not have this dilemma, and the poverty level in Brevard County would be reduced by 42%. Ms. McBurney advised the taxpayers are paying for irresponsible behavior of absent parents, judges and hearing officers; federal laws allow judges and hearing officers to attach bonuses, commissions, vacation pay, retirement benefits, income taxes, and put liens on properties; and Brevard County has yet to see that happen. She stated State laws allow attachments on bank accounts, workers? compensation, social security, and putting names of parents in the credit bureau file if they are $1,000 in arrearage; however, that is not happening in Brevard County, which is a shame because the victims are the children. She suggested a program where the government guarantees the children their support, and if the absent parent does not pay, the government goes after them the same way they do for federal income taxes. She stated the absent parents have prosperous businesses and do not like their assets messed with; right now there is no threat to those people; Congress has held a hearing on the child assurance issues and there are two bills in the U.S. Senate; but they need a change and their children need hope. She stated the children are entitled to child support and have a right to expect effective and efficient law enforcement; nonpayment of child support is a federal crime; and it is a crime worse than stealing a car or robbing a store because it is stealing children?s childhood.

Joyce Grant advised Mr. Jefferson Sconyers could not be here tonight, and asked her to read his statement into the record. She read it as follows: ?Honorable Commissioners. The crime of non-payment of child support monies is a crime specifically against innocent children and a general crime against society. In the short time I have monitored that part of the Family Court presided over by the hearing officer, I have come to the conclusion that the Department of Revenue personnel are just as much a hostage to the non-payment of child support situation as are these suffering children and custodial parents. I have concluded the problem is alas with the court. The non-custodial deadbeat parent, like his or her criminal felon counterpart, has made a revolving door of the court system with multiple contempt of court hearings year in and year out. Seldom is the power to incarcerate used. The non-paying non-custodial parent receives merely a slap on the hand; that is, they may be held in contempt of court which is just a phrase to them; they may be fined a $117.03 court cost to be paid interest free over a six-month period; given a 30-day jail sentence which is suspended; sometimes given a lecture; well, you get the picture. These are repeat offenders we are talking about. If other States can confiscate automobiles at hearings or jewelry worn into court or suspend licenses of all types in order to collect child support monies, then why does not the State of Florida or Brevard County? The one deadbeat parent I witnessed sentenced to immediate incarceration quickly found the $400 bail. If bail money can be found quickly then so can ongoing child support monies. The only requirement is that a court be firm and be committed to resolving this rampant and flagrant disregard for the law by these people. The Brevard County Court appears to be reluctant in both firmness and resolution to use incarceration as a punishment tool not to mention a collection tool. From what I have witnessed, Brevard?s Family Court ill serves the innocent and suffering children. Very few deadbeat parents leave the court with a renewed respect for the majesty of the law; and that is the fault of the judges. The argument can be made that if one is incarcerated, then one cannot pay child support. To be sure that is a good point, but that argument is moot when a deadbeat parent has not been making full and regular support payments while free. I am a founding member of the ACES organization in Brevard County. I am a 61-year old man who is somewhat unique among the membership in that I have never had an ongoing child support problem. I give my time to ACES simply because I believe strongly in the rightness of its cause and because I did not receive support payments when I was a child in the panhandle of my native Florida. I made a vow as a 12-year old boy that if ever I had the opportunity to work to help innocent and suffering children to receive their rightful support monies, I would do it. That was back in the late 1940's. While both state and federal laws have been enacted since then to protect children, very little has actually changed; and that was 50 years ago. I will not recount the physical, mental, and emotional struggles that a victim of the crime of non-support suffers through. I will not waste your time or mine to tell you what effects that usually have on a child that goes into adulthood. Your knowledge and imagination are sufficient. While I succeeded and even rose to a position in federal government that carried the dubious honorific, the honorable, most victims of the crime of non-support do not fair as well. The shame is on the deadbeat parent and the shame is on the reluctant and lax judges that do not utilize the law at their disposal. Madam and sirs, the question is simple. Will you actively support the needlessly suffering children? Just as simple as the question should be your answer. Thank you for allowing my statement to be delivered by proxy.

Ms. Grant advised the problems families encounter collecting child support are more than trying to get the delinquent parent to pay; families must mount a campaign to get the job done; and that is what they have done with the ACES organization. She stated it is a serious problem in Brevard County; the Chapter was founded on January 30, 1996; their primary objective was to assist parents who need help and give them hope; that is what the group has done; and it has provided a lot of hope to people who felt there was nothing left to hope for. She stated the other objective was to be fair, precise and objective and prioritize problems surrounding child support enforcement; and they see three areas of concern. She stated one concern is the legislative body; and at the last meeting she provided the Commissioners with a copy of the booklet which has adequate federal and state laws. She stated the second problem is the Department of Revenue; most of their members were outspoken about the DOR initially; and since that time, anybody who actively participated with ACES is learning how to work within that system. Ms. Grant stated it is not a perfect system, and they are overloaded with over 13,000 cases in Brevard County and 17 case workers; that is over 600 people per case worker; two attorneys were assigned for Brevard County; and in most cases, they are trying to work with ACES, but they still run into obstacles. She stated the other party involved is the court; they have a court monitoring program; and collectively their membership has monitored hundreds of cases in Brevard County. She stated hearing officer Brice Corder hears six dockets a week on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays; a docket consists of four hours of time; and collectively the Family Law Judges hear four dockets a month; so the hearing officer is hearing a large percentage of the Department of Revenue cases. Ms. Grant stated it is the opinion of ACES they are not getting enforcement on the issue of child support; hearing outcomes generally provide little or no relief; and inquired how many times do they have to go before a judge and file contempt of court to get the money that is due their children. She noted very seldom does someone come out enriched; constant contempt hearings result in continued litigation; and although this is a children?s issue, there is an enormous expense that is the burden of taxpayers. She stated federal and state laws are not being utilized; there are few lump sum awards; she has seen none; there are unreasonably low re-payment schedules for arrearage; and advised of a case where the defendant owed $20,000, was approximately 50 years old, and at $50 a month it would take 51.9 years to pay that bill which is unreasonable because he will be dead before it is paid off. Ms. Grant advised no consideration is given for the future value of money; banks, mortgage companies and credit card companies all charge interest; but not one penny of interest on money owed to children is charged; and not only does it take years to repay it, it is not given the value of what it is worth. She stated there is little to no imputing of income or work orders; and if she can take care of all her responsibilities with work, school, and child care, plus chair ACES, those parents can work 40 hours a week to pay for their children. She stated the judges have the power to impute minimum wage at the very least; the case law is there to support that; there is gender bias and discrimination; being represented by the Department of Revenue is a disadvantage because they do not have a full-time lawyer who has association and a rapport with the courts; and they are treated differently because they are not represented with financial backing. Ms. Grant indicated their grading of the courts? performance is not very good; half of the dockets are being used; there is an average of 15 cases on a docket which takes about two hours to hear; and inquired what is done with the remaining time. She noted that is something taxpayers need to look at seriously. She stated unsolved cases and non-enforcement of child support cost the taxpayers money; offenders are assessed $117.03 in court fees and allowed six months to pay for it; and inquired why is the system lending people money to break the law, how much of it is being collected, and how much is being spent. Ms. Grant stated the judicial system is not working in Brevard County; and requested the Board help them, as some people employed by the Board work in the court system and may be able to assist them. She stated they have done everything they can to get their support; it is a revolving door which they keep going in and out of; and they want it to stop. She requested the Board assist them in this issue. She stated they are available to meet with anyone and have documentation to support their allegations.

Commissioner O?Brien advised he put the item on the Agenda because it affects the County; it is a cost to the taxpayers to operate the courtrooms and for social programs and other programs, whether funded by federal, state or local tax dollars; and there are too many deadbeat parents, with 13,000 cases in Brevard County alone. He stated ACES has reached out to the Board because it approves the budgets for the courts and the social programs which are affected by the men and women who have children and are not receiving child support; and recommended the Chairman send a letter to Judge Moxley on the issue.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to authorize the Chairman to write a letter to Chief Judge Dean Moxley, advising of the concerns of parents not receiving child support and the concerns of the Board of the increasing burden placed upon Brevard County taxpayers; request a meeting of Family Court judges with ACES to listen to their concerns and create positive actions within the courts to alleviate the situation; and contact Department of Revenue to determine what legal problems they encounter in efforts to collect child support, what suggestions they may have for solutions that may require legislative changes, and what existing policies stand in the way of solving the problems. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Grant advised since they initiated the ACES program, Judge Moxley?s Office has tried to make contact with her; she is not imputing any dislike for anyone, simply stating the facts as they see them; and Judge Moxley said he would welcome any opportunity to improve conditions in Brevard County. She stated they want to make Brevard County a shining example in this issue, so any opportunity they get to push a door open and help it along, they will make good on it, and everybody will benefit from it.

The meeting recessed at 7:01 p.m., and reconvened at 7:19 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING PERSONNEL RULES, AND MERIT SYSTEM POLICIES

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Personnel Rules, and approval of the Merit System Policies.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt Ordinance amending Personnel Rules and approve the Merit System Policies.

Commissioner O?Brien questioned page 8, paragraph 3, Pay Plan, how sick leave can be approved two weeks in advance; with Human Resources Director Frank Abbate responding that applies to employees who have dental, doctor, or vision appointments, because supervisors would have the ability to schedule around those appointments. Commissioner O?Brien inquired what happens if the person is in an accident or needs bypass surgery; with Mr. Abbate responding this section speaks to the ability to use time for counting towards overtime; under the current policy, annual and sick leave are not counted for overtime purposes; and it is an expansion of that benefit only where it is pre-approved two weeks in advance. Commissioner O?Brien stated page 10 of the Pay Plan, paragraph P, longevity pay says, ?Employees at the maximum of their pay range shall receive payment for the longevity in lieu of the merit increase added to their annualized rate of pay in the form of a one-time lump sum award.? He stated it does not define longevity; and inquired what is meant by it; with Mr. Abbate responding it is when an employee has reached the maximum salary of his or her pay range. He stated it is consistent with the Board?s policy rather than adding more to the salary base; and it is only for cases where the employee has reached the maximum of the pay range. Commissioner O?Brien inquired what if an employee is hired this year at the maximum pay and has no longevity; with Mr. Abbate responding the policies dealing with hiring have a 55% pay range cap; it provides for an opportunity to hire someone up to 10% above the pay range by the appointing authority, then they could go up to 30% with the County Manager?s approval; so it is extremely unlikely it would go beyond that, and there will always be at least 25% cushion. He stated if they came in at that very high end which very few people do, it would take several years to reach the maximum of the pay range. Commissioner O?Brien noted he thought the Board tried to get away from lump sum payments; with Mr. Abbate responding this lump sum was a provision that previously existed and therefore it was not in the recommendation to be changed. He stated they expanded the pay range so people who were previously in longevity no longer would be, and lumped together pay classifications into one pay grade and made it easier for people to do more work in one pay grade. Commissioner O?Brien recommended staff pick a better word than longevity if that is the intent because longevity speaks to a different issue such as length of service not pay grade. Mr. Abbate stated they can make that adjustment. Commissioner O?Brien stated page 14, paragraph 2.a.1, Policy 4, original appointment, reads, ?such employees being required to serve a minimum of one year probationary period,? and policy 5, page 18 says, ?nine months.? Mr. Abbate advised it is an error on his part; they modified the one year period after a variety of employee meetings; and it should be nine months. He noted he will make that change. Commissioner O?Brien stated page 23, general terms, conditions of employment policy, second paragraph, states ?an employee who by public announcement or filing becomes a candidate for the office of county commissioner or any other elected office subject to any provisions of the merit system shall resign from County paid position.? He stated he is not sure that is a fair policy; and recommended allowing them to work and take leave of absence without pay before election day if needed. Mr. Jenkins advised the policy is in effect; and if the Board wishes to change it, it is the Board?s call as staff has not changed what is currently in effect. Commissioner O?Brien stated an employee of the County may want to run for an elected office, but he would have to quit his job in order to run; that is not fair; and if that person worked for Lockheed or Harris, he would be allowed time off. He stated Mitch Needleman is running for Clerk and took six months unpaid leave of absence from Florida Marine Patrol; and if he wins, he will quit his job; but this policy punishes someone for wanting to do something for whatever philosophy that person may have. He inquired if the rest of the Board wants to allow people to run for office and be more flexible.

Commissioner Ellis recommended scrapping it and have a brief sentence that says if a person wins, he or she must resign the County position. Mr. Jenkins advised the concern was that a person could be working and be accused of campaigning while on the job. Commissioner Ellis stated that would apply to all five Commissioners also so it is not a valid argument; however, if the person wins the election, he or she could not be an employee and commissioner at the same time. Commissioner O?Brien stated they could run for mayor or city council. Mr. Abbate advised the policy does not apply to municipalities, School Board, etc., only the Board and Constitutional Officers that fall under the Merit System. Commissioner Ellis stated the third bullet covers what the rules are. He stated when he worked for Grumman and needed to do something during the day, he took a few hours annual leave when he ran for office.

Commissioner Higgs advised the change has not been advertised; and inquired if it requires advertising; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding the advertisement should cover the change the Board is talking about.

Chairman Cook stated employees should not be prohibited from running; Commissioner Scarborough stated as long as it does not adversely affect their work performance, the County Manager can insure internally that it does not create an impropriety. Chairman Cook inquired if Mr. Jenkins foresees a problem with it; with Mr. Jenkins responding no, it was originated by the Board.

Commissioner Higgs advised when the changes were initiated, there were a number of meetings with employees; people were concerned; and inquired if staff went over all the changes with employees; with Mr. Abbate responding yes, all the changes were provided in a variety of communication efforts, hard copies, E-mail, and many employee meetings, and revisions were made based on input from employees. Commissioner Higgs stated she would prefer adopting advertised changes to the policies and those that went through the process of employee meetings because they are fully aware of those, and advertise a second set of changes the Board wants to put forward that would go through the same process with the employees, because there was a lot of concern. Commissioner O?Brien stated changes from the employees were made; now it comes to the Board which has the responsibility of the policies; it does not rubber stamp what employees want; and this change does not adversely affect them, but helps them. Commissioner Ellis stated it does not add a restriction, but deletes one. Commissioner Higgs stated she understands the amendment, but staff made considerable effort to inform all employees about the changes; they felt strongly about being able to comment on them; and in fairness to the employees, the changes should go through the same process and be brought back to the Board for consideration. Commissioner O?Brien recommended the Board identify changes it wants and defer the hearing for 30 days to allow staff to inform employees. Commissioner Higgs recommended adopting the ones that are before the Board and advertising a second amendment. Commissioner Ellis recommended deleting the paragraph. He noted because it may have been irrelevant to most employees, they did not comment on it. Discussion continued on whether to amend the policies or allow staff to take the amendments back to the employees.

Commissioner O?Brien advised page 29, paragraph e, says, ?Employee may elect to take birthday holiday on another day other than the specific date of birth; however, it shall be no more than two calendar weeks prior to the actual birthday of the employee or within six months following the actual birthday.? He inquired why an employee would wait six months to celebrate a birthday; with Mr. Abbate responding it is a modification; it was a 60-day period; and the expansion provides more flexibility for the County and the employee. Commissioner Ellis inquired if they are paid time and a half if they work on their birthdays; with Mr. Abbate responding no. Commissioner O?Brien advised he did not see a maximum on annual leave; his concern is employees will not take vacation if they are paid for the annual leave; they will not return refreshed and will be burned out; and it is not good for the employee or the County. Mr. Jenkins advised there is a cap of 240 hours; only on rare occasions has he authorized payment for annual leave out of 2,000 employees; and they have discouraged employees not taking vacations. He stated all such payments are subject to his approval; and he can assure the Board that is not abused. Commissioner O?Brien advised page 12, paragraph 2 of the Personnel Rules reads, ?Any candidate for appointment in County service who is denied appointment, or an employee in County service who is suspended, demoted, or dismissed, or denied promotion because of political opinion or affiliation, etc., requires a comma after ?ancestry? and after ?marital status.? Mr. Abbate advised he will make that correction.

Mr. Abbate recommended deleting ?public? from Exhibit B, page 5, Section 82-5 which says, ?The County Manager shall appoint a director of human resources who shall have training and experience in the field of public personnel administration,? in light of the Board?s recent discussion on advertising County positions without requiring government experience. Chairman Cook advised it would be in line with the Board?s discussion.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to continue the public hearing on an ordinance amending the Personnel Rules, and Merit System Policies until May 28, 1996, and instruct staff to process proposed amendment regarding employees running for political offices by the employees for comment, change one year to nine months, insert commas after ?ancestry? and ?marital status,? and delete ?public? from Section 82-5. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - MARIE WALLACE, BREVARD FERRET LOVERS RESCUE, RE: STATE BILL ON INOCULATION OF FERRETS

Marie Wallace, Director of Community Awareness for Brevard Ferret Lovers Rescue, expressed appreciation to Commissioners Scarborough, O?Brien, and Ellis for their assistance with the efforts of the Ferret Lovers Rescue; and requested the Board support a bill next year. She read the following issue paper: ?The following issues need to be addressed through the introduction of a bill at the State level and we have been advised by Commissioner Scott Ellis to put our needs in writing. Issue One: a. Immediately mandate, at the County level, the annual inoculation of all domestic ferrets. This requirement should be extended to the State level on this bill. b. Grant ferrets a quarantine period of thirty days. Studies have shown that the disease duration in the ferret is from a minimum of two days to a maximum of seven days. Currently dogs and cats receive as ten-day quarantine and we feel that we are being conservative with this thirty-day request. Issue Two: Reclassify the ferret from an exotic to a domestic animal. Currently all ferret bites are addressed with the same methodology, euthanasia. Any ferret, regardless if it is house bound, vaccinated, and/or if the bite was provoked, will be put down, beheaded and the head sent to Tallahassee for testing of the brain. Primarily rabies is contracted through a direct bit where the virus within the saliva of the infected animal is injected under the skin. For the rabies cycle to continue, the virus requires three conditions: (1) The virus must be able to reproduce. A ferret specific vaccine is available which teaches the ferret?s immune system, through the introduction of a nonactive (killed) form of the virus, to attack the rabies virus. Upon introduction of live rabies, the body will create antibodies and kill it before it can reproduce. This vaccine, IMRAB 3, was developed by Rhone Merieux and was approved by the USDA for use in ferrets in 1990. It has an effective rate of 94.4% which is greater than the effectiveness required for the dog vaccine which is 86.7%. According to Dr. Chuck Rupprecht of the CDC in Atlanta, both of the currently licensed biologicals by the USDA have been proven to be efficacious in rabies prevention for ferrets. To date, according to CDC records, there have been no documented cases of rabies in properly vaccinated animals. (2) Once the virus reaches the brain, it must create a reaction in the animal that causes it to attack and bite other animals. This is referred to as ?furious? rabies. Of the three studies, Blancou, Forster, and Kansas State/CDC, there were no reports of aggressive behavior among test ferrets. On the contrary, the only signs noted were fever, paralysis, ataxia (loss of coordination), hyperactivity, weight loss, confusion, spasms, grinding of the teeth, excessive salivation, labored breathing, and paresthesia (numbness, itching). (3) The virus must migrate to the salivary glands before the animal dies so that it can be passed to another victim. The Blancou study recorded no incidents of the virus in the saliva. The Forster study made reference to one ferret that had a slight amount of the virus in the saliva (this ferret had been symptomatic for five days and was ?at the outset of death? when it was killed and tested). The Kansas State/CDC study made note that the virus was not isolated from oral swabs, but was recovered from one salivary gland collected at necropsy (autopsy). Other results noted through these studies were: Ferrets have a strong natural immunity to the virus (50,000 times less susceptible than the fox; 300 times less susceptible than the hare). Once the symptoms of rabies are noted, death occurs within an average of 3.4 days (Forster), 2 to 7 days (Blancou, and 4 days (Kansas State/CDC). Between the period of 1958 to 1992, 16 ferrets, 2,537 cats, and 1,996 dogs have been found rabid (CDC data). There has never been a documented case of ferret rabies in the State of Florida. There has never been a case of a transmission of the rabies virus from a ferret to a human. There is still a common misconception that the ferret is a wild or exotic pet. We would like to request that within this rabies bill, the ferret be referred to as a domestic animal and that a specific statement regarding the domesticity of the ferret be included to clarify any future misconceptions or misunderstandings. We have in our possession a variety of letters and documents to corroborate the term ?domestic? when it refers to the ferret. At your request, copies of the letters specifically stating that the US Government identifies the ferret as a domestic animal will be supplied.? Ms. Wallace advised CDC and Kansas State University Dr. Deborah Briggs are conducting the second part of the three-part study; they are using a raccoon strain which is predominantly what affects Florida; and by the time a bill is introduced to the Legislature, they will have the results of the test. She requested the Board help them by backing a bill.

Commissioner Scarborough recommended the Chairman send a cover letter with a copy of the comments from Ms. Wallace to the Legislative Delegation requesting they consider enactment of a bill in the next legislative session; and in the interim explore the matter further with the Ferret Society.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to authorize the Chairman to send a copy of the comments from Marie Wallace, representing the Brevard Ferret Lovers Rescue, with a cover letter to the Legislative Delegation advising that the Board received the comments at a public meeting and requesting the enactment of a bill regarding ferrets by the Legislature.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board wants to put something in the legislative package after receiving comments from the Delegation; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board will not have a legislative package for a period of time; and he would like to get the comments out to the Delegation and tell them of the Board?s interest now. He stated by the time the Board gets its legislative package, it should know more, but it should get the process started now. He noted the Legislative Delegates may take it upon themselves to propose a bill and the Board could then endorse it. Commissioner Ellis stated he wants to make sure it does not slip through the cracks. Chairman Cook stated the Board may have a better idea later of what to specifically put in the package. Commissioner Ellis noted Dr. Garcia knows what he needs to see in the bill to change his mind. Commissioner Scarborough recommended a copy of the letter be sent to Dr. Garcia. Ms. Wallace stated they took a book to Tallahassee Law Library and are working with Representative Sindler who is a veterinarian and Representative Randy Ball; and it would help if they had the County?s backing of a bill. Commissioner Ellis stated if the Board does not hear from the Delegation, it will look at putting a bill in its legislative package.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE REGULATING PARK USE

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance repealing Article III, Chapter 78, Park Use, and supplementing it with Chapter 78, and creating an Article entitled ?Use of Parks.? Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson advised the ordinance is an improvement over the existing Ordinance relating to the permitting process as a result of the lawsuit associated with permits.

Commissioner O?Brien advised the ordinance has reasons why a permit can be approved, but it does not contain reasons why a permit can be denied; it also says the Board can set the fee; and inquired if the Board sets the fee for each separate request, or is there a fee schedule. Mr. Nelson advised staff has a fee Resolution for various facilities; and it can be expanded to include actual cost considerations. He stated the ordinance also requires different levels of insurance; and the County Attorney would have to respond to the reasons for denial.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the ordinance is tailored deliberately because the case law looked at during the course of the Hemp Festival case made it clear when it comes to issuing permits for use of parks, particularly as it relates to the First Amendment issues, the Board and staff cannot have discretion whatsoever. He stated it has to set out criteria for getting a permit; if those criteria are met, the person gets a permit; and it has to be content neutral criteria which is what they tried to put in the ordinance. He stated once the criteria are met, they would get a permit, otherwise the County would run into the same problem with civil rights violations.

Chairman Cook inquired if passage of the ordinance would impair the court case; with Mr. Knox responding no; the problem was two Ordinances applied to the case, the Festival Ordinance and the Park Use Ordinance; the Park Use Ordinance gave broad discretion, whereas the Festival Ordinance narrowed the scope of when the County can issue a permit, and tying it to security regulations and insurance; and this ordinance tries to track some of the provisions in the Festival Ordinance so the two become more closely aligned and be more specific about the kinds of activities that would generate the need for more scrutiny such as commercial activities. Chairman Cook stated the ordinance does not go far enough to define the types of commercial activities in the parks; he does not want to turn County parks into commercial facilities for people to collect money selling T-shirts and other things and making a huge profit; and inquired if it should have something regarding non-profit or 501(c) organizations. He stated it should be charitable organizations with reporting requirements so the Board knows what the money is being used for.

Commissioner O?Brien stated all applicants should be 501(c) organizations; and he would not want to see car dealers holding car sales at Wickham Park on weekends. He stated he does not have a problem with public issue speech purposes not paying security expenses, but they could sell T-shirts, chairs, cars, boats, airboats, airplanes, etc. under that pretense. He stated provided there is no commercial activity, they could be relieved of security expenses.

Chairman Cook inquired who determines what is a public issue; with Mr. Nelson responding whether they charge admission or sell a product triggers commercial activity and security requirements; the mechanism controlling commercial activities is in the Resolution adopting the fee structure requiring a percentage; if the Board permits a boat show at Wickham Park, the County would receive 10% of the gross sales; and most of the businesses do not want to do that, so they do not have a lot of those activities in the parks. Chairman Cook stated he is not sure that is control and would want more criteria put in the ordinance that organizations which charge admission, sell items, and make a profit off sales, must be bona fide 501(c) non-profit organizations.

Commissioner O?Brien advised it says, ?The Department shall notify the applicant within five days, excluding weekends and holidays, to communicate whether or not the permit is granted or denied?; and inquired why is it five days and not ten days which would give more time to review potential problems that could be encountered. Mr. Knox advised the courts determined five days do not constitute an unreasonable prior restraint on the speech issue, whereas ten days do.

Chairman Cook stated another problem is if the applicant is refused a permit and the Board cannot meet within ten days to hear an appeal, the permit would be issued automatically even though the group does not meet the criteria to use the public facility; and that is not acceptable. Commissioner O?Brien stated it may have been denied by staff because the facility is already booked; and inquired if the Board would have to issue permits to two groups for the same field. Mr. Nelson stated under that scenario the field would have to be available because they cannot double book. He noted the County Attorney put in the ordinance provisions based on the case law. Chairman Cook stated he has to see the specific case law to support it because it does not make sense; an organization could have not met any of the criteria to use the public facility and because the Board does not meet within ten days, it automatically gets a permit and a sanction from the County to use the facility; and that is having no standards. Mr. Knox stated he can go back and look at it, but the Board will find that it is very narrow and restrictive in that area. Chairman Cook stated he wants to see the specific case law. Discussion ensued on the provision of automatic issuance of a permit if the appeal is not heard in ten days, the Board not meeting for more than 15 days in some months, and restricting use to non-profit organizations.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is a reason to cut off the number of security personnel at one guard for every 500 people attending an event. Chairman Cook stated it is one per 250 initially then one per 500. She stated it says that the applicant shall provide a plan for security if the event is expected to draw more than 500 people; 250 people is a lot of people and would probably warrant a security plan; and inquired how they came to the 500 number. Commissioner Higgs stated Section 15 talks about fewer than 25 individuals may not require a permit; and inquired if a scout outing or family outing with 26 people would require a permit; with Mr. Knox responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired how did they arrive at the 25; with Mr. Nelson responding it is a number staff felt would be reasonable to trigger the need for control by issuing a permit; it is higher than the current requirement; but there is no basis for the higher or lower number. He stated the key word is ?public?; it means a public meting, assembly, entertainment, tournament, etc.; so if they invite the public and there will be more than 25, they need to have a permit because it is hard to control the numbers when it is open to the public, and all sorts of things could happen. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is a private group with its own group members, the number does not kick in; with Mr. Nelson responding a scout troop having a picnic with 50 members would not require a permit as long as it is not open to the general public. Commissioner Higgs requested further discussion on that issue and more information because someone could assemble 200 people and if it is not open to the public, they would not be required to get a permit. Mr. Nelson stated today they can have 500 people at the amphitheater without a permit because it is a public park; and that is the dilemma with operating a public facility. Mr. Jenkins advised there is no guarantee that the facility will be reserved without a permit; however, private parties can show up at public parks at any time. Commissioner Higgs stated she has concerns about those two clauses.

Commissioner Scarborough recommended all Park Advisory Board members throughout the County provide thoughts and comments on the proposed ordinance because it is a complex issue. He stated if the Board went with only 501(c) organizations, there may be a group of people who decide to have a fund raiser for a family whose house burned, or for other serious health or financial problems, but they are not 501(c)(3) organizations because it takes time to go through the IRS, and it would preclude that community gesture.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to continue the public hearing on an ordinance regulating park use until July 2, 1996.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the permit is in addition to renting a pavilion at Wickham Park; with Mr. Nelson responding no, the permits are for public activities or special events; a demonstration parachute jump requires a permit, but if they are just renting a facility, a permit is not required; so the fees are only for over and above public activities where it is reasonable to expect there would be a tremendous impact on the park. Commissioner Ellis stated he wants to be sure if he rents pavilions at Wickham Park for a Class Reunion and pays for the pavilions, he does not have to hire policemen or get a permit, etc.

Chairman Cook inquired what is meant by ?incidental activity to a public meeting? in Sections 18 and 30; with Mr. Nelson responding regarding camping, it says in designated areas, and it may not be appropriate to have designated areas, so the provision would preclude that. Chairman Cook stated it says designated areas unless such activity is conducted as an incidental activity; with Mr. Nelson responding within the permit, they could only conduct activities within designated areas; so it ties back to that. Chairman Cook recommended it be clarified.

Commissioner O?Brien inquired if provisions should be put in the ordinance so if one section is found not to be good, it would not throw out the rest of the ordinance; with Mr. Knox responding paragraph 36 does that.

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

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - HEIDI CRITCHFIELD, RE: FIRING OF GUNS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS

Heidi Critchfield, 3535 Montgomery Road, Mims, advised they own five acres zoned AU, and use 2.5 acres of the property as yard space, their house, and what is directly behind them; the yard includes tree forts, play equipment, a small garden, chicken pen, and dog kennel; and the area is adjacent to an acre and a half of property that her neighbor rezoned to RR-1. She stated he told the police who came out to speak to him on the shooting issue that the reason he bought the property was so he would be able to go out in his yard and shoot his gun. She advised of the interruption of an Easter outdoor get together with her family and friends in her backyard when six shots were fired by her neighbor target practicing just feet away from where the children were playing, and the fear and panic that resulted in her family and friends leaving her home. Ms. Critchfield stated since 1988 they allowed boy scouts to camp in their yard; it was an ideal and safe environment for beginning scouts; but that no longer exists because her neighbor has set a target up in his yard and allows family and friends, including teenage boys, to use his yard as a gun range. She stated the target is set up adjacent to their common property line; it is seven feet from the corner marker and goes over her property; and it is not a safe place to walk on her property because it would be behind the targets, and bullets that miss the target come over the corner section of her property. She stated her children, their friends, and the scouts are not safe in her yard; her neighbor controls the use of at least half of her property; and it is legal for them to shoot day and night any hour they choose because the Board has refused to place tighter restrictions on the discharge of firearms. Ms. Critchfield stated one of the functions of government is to ensure domestic tranquility; if her neighbor was making noise with a loud party at night, the police could stop the activity; and it is insane that guns can be discharged freely, but a party may be stopped by complaining residents. She stated it is ironic that annoyances can be controlled, but dangers are ignored; it is bizarre to find out a person can walk out of his house and fire a gun within feet of other people and cannot be stopped; and they have been terrorized by the fear that someone may exhibit poor judgment or have an accident which would cost an innocent person a life or limb. Ms. Critchfield stated she was advised she would be liable if someone was shot on her property by her neighbor because she did not warn them the potential danger exists; and inquired if civil law recognizes the potential problem, why does the Board not recognize it. She stated Chairman Cook advised when he lived in Mims there were shooters in an orange grove behind his house that were stopped probably because they were on private property; and inquired how would he have felt if he called the police and was told what she was told, that when she wants to let her children in the backyard to call her neighbor and advise him, then if someone is shot, it will be negligence. She stated now she must have her neighbor?s permission to use her own property. She stated she will post signs that guns are discharged over her property to protect herself from liability, but it will not protect anyone from bodily harm. Ms. Critchfield advised the County should issue buyer beware warnings to people who are looking at property in Brevard County because the restriction is so loose that anyone who does not live near a paved road can have this happen to them; there are many unpaved roads in Mims, Merritt Island, and all over the County; so a person can shoot close to people. She stated if her neighbor sat in his truck and shot his gun, it would be illegal, but he stands on his property and does it. She advised St. Lucie County Commissioners recognized the danger to life and property and passed an ordinance to curb unsafe discharge of guns; this issue has gotten worse over the years in Brevard County; and it will not go away until the Board acts in defense of life. Ms. Critchfield stated a task force loaded with gun shop owners, gun range advocates, and gun club members looked partisan to even the most politically ignorant. She stated if the Board would restrict the discharge of firearms to within 1,000 feet of a right-of-way, public or private, or within 1,000 feet of any structure occupied or not, then neighboring property owners could erect a structure on their property lines and stop the dangerous activity. She suggested including homes as a restriction, as her neighbor is only a few feet from his home. She stated at the very least, discharge of firearms on any property zoned residential should be illegal; she does not wish to restrict people from enjoying life and their own pursuits; however, public safety must be a prime concern.

Chairman Cook inquired if Ms. Critchfield?s property is zoned residential and has an occupied dwelling; with Ms. Critchfield responding her property is zoned AU, and because of the shape of the lot and where her house sits, her neighbor is far enough away to legally stand in his yard and shoot, according to the Sheriff?s Department. Chairman Cook recommended the County Attorney address that because the Sheriff?s Department did stop the activity in the orange groves behind his house which may have been private property; but it is hard for him to believe someone can fire a weapon near an occupied dwelling.

Commissioner Scarborough advised a lot of time has been spent on this issue; he does not know what the Board can or cannot do; and recommended asking the County Attorney what other counties are doing, and what the Board can do under State laws, and report back to the Board. He stated there are a lot of State restrictions on what can and cannot be done; and before the Board wastes more time talking about theories, it needs to know the parameters in which it can operate. He stated he recognizes a person?s right to bear arms, but when it threatens or harms another person, the restrictions under the law should be recognized. He inquired if the Sheriff has the ability to go out there and do what he has to or what common sense says should be done. Chairman Cook indicated there could be a problem with interpretation of the laws. Ms. Critchfield stated the old Ordinance stated if the area was a recreational area, and her backyard used to be, it would keep them from being able to shoot; but the State law is interpreted as being able to keep the County from passing any kind of ordinance that would change the right to buy, sell and bear arms. She stated this issue is not a matter of buying, selling, or bearing arms; she does not care if he has an arsenal in his house; but what she cares about is when she is on her property and he comes out and shoots and has teenage boys out there shooting also. She noted she is concerned about the drinking also, but she would have to prove they are drunk or an officer has to determine they were drinking and possibly intoxicated and treat it the same way they would drunken driving.

Commissioner Ellis recommended considering restrictions within a certain number of feet from an occupied dwelling, or it may need to be a parcel with an occupied dwelling because the problem is the shape of the lot that allows him to meet the distance requirements from the house. He stated he is concerned about getting into the right-of-way issue because there are a lot of unused rights-of-way throughout the County that have not been vacated. Ms. Critchfield stated a certain distance from a parcel would solve most of the problems because historically most problems are from vacant land; and she is the only person with a neighbor causing a problem.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there may be additional things that can be done to insure safety out there, so he would like to have more dialogue than what is occurring here which would require Mr. Knox doing some research.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct the County Attorney to find out what other counties are doing to regulate firing of guns in residential areas, and contact the Sheriff who may be able to offer suggestions on how it is done elsewhere.

Commissioner Higgs requested clarification on the State law; with Mr. Knox responding the only prohibitions on discharging firearms in public, other than under the influence of alcohol, are discharge in any public place or on the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street, and from a vehicle within 1,000 feet of any person. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is a rule about a certain number of feet from an occupied dwelling; with Mr. Knox responding the last time he looked at the law there was a provision about occupied dwellings, but it does not appear to be there now; however, he will look at it again.

Commissioner O?Brien stated if Mr. Knox meets with the Sheriff?s Office, they could probably offer some good suggestions on how it is controlled elsewhere. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there was research when the Task Force was recreated that would indicate what the Board can do; with Assistant to the County Manager Yvette Parker responding the direction to the Task Force was how existing laws can be enforced to protect human safety and property and not new ordinances; so they looked at the public relations issues, informing homeowners associations, and media blitzes to notify people where gun ranges are and what to do to keep gun safety.

Commissioner Ellis stated they also looked at posting property for people who were shooting on property that was not theirs; with Ms. Parker responding that is correct, and they posted a gate at the end of Fay Boulevard and asked people to post signs on their properties that were being used for shooting. Commissioner Ellis recommended Mr. Knox determine if there are loopholes that allow people to shoot near an occupied yard rather than structure.

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

RESOLUTION, RE: EASEMENT FROM STATE OF FLORIDA AT DETENTION CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Resolution requesting the State of Florida to execute an easement in favor of the Board for lands adjacent to the Brevard County Detention Center to accommodate access to additional laundry and storage facilities. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: PURCHASE OF ROAD AND BRIDGE EQUIPMENT

Commissioner Ellis advised the Board has a list of over a million dollars worth of equipment; it came up during the mid-year supplemental budget because of the necessity to get the equipment and put it to work in the summer before the rains began rather than budget for the equipment in October and get it in November when the County is two or three months into the rainy season. He stated if the Board makes the decision now and moves to purchase, it will have the equipment by June and can start using it prior to the start of the rainy season.

Chairman Cook inquired what is the funding source; with Commissioner Ellis responding a combination of General Fund and MSTU funds. He stated he cannot speak for other Districts, but District 5 has a large drainage system, Crane Creek Drainage System, which is in the incorporated area; so they have dual responsibility to the incorporated and unincorporated areas.

Commissioner Higgs advised the request for next year is $800,000 for capital; and inquired how much did they have this year; with Public Works Finance Director Jim Helmer responding $106,000 not counting the $500,000 that was appropriated by the Board. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they are asking for $800,000 plus $1.2 million for the drainage issues; with Mr. Helmer responding that is correct. Commissioner Higgs inquired if staff has an estimate of what the capital cost will be in subsequent years; with Mr. Helmer responding they do not have estimates now, but he would expect it to be close to the level of this year?s budget. He stated some equipment will need to be replaced each fiscal year, but the budget should go down considerably. Commissioner Higgs inquired if $600,000 is what they would need in subsequent years; with Mr. Helmer responding closer to $200,000. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Public Works budget would take a hit for 2 million dollars divided by three years and not anticipate more than $100,000 over the next three years; with Mr. Helmer responding that would be close. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the impact to the budget; with Budget Director Kathy Wall responding if the commercial paper mechanism is approved, it will be $750,000 each year to fund the entire request for the next three years. She stated they did not anticipate the $750,000 when they did their projections for next year, but knew about the $500,000 in operating that they needed; so that amount would have to be found. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised that is slightly in excess of 1% increase in the General Fund ad valorem tax rate.

Chairman Cook stated the Board is working towards a reduction in the overall budget for next year; and inquired what impact this will have on the attempts to reduce the budget; with Commissioner Ellis responding it is a matter of setting priorities; the $800,000 is a separate issue because $450,000 of that money will go to the construction crew; and the 1.2 million dollars, which is drainage-related capital outlay, if split between the General Fund and MSTU?s, would be approximately $45,000 per MSTU for a three-year period. Discussion ensued between Commissioners Ellis and Higgs regarding capital versus operational costs.

Commissioner Ellis advised Fund 1420, Account 41021 is for the construction crew; the crew does billable projects and is more like an enterprise fund; they do stormwater, shoulder, and minor construction projects in the County, such as turn lanes, pipe work, etc.; and it bills agencies for the work. Mr. Jenkins advised the construction crew generates extra revenue which is currently programmed to go into the Road and Bridge budget to fund the maintenance portion of the budget.

Commissioner O?Brien advised he inquired of the Public Works Director about the MSTU?s share of the cost for pumps; Districts 1 and 2 paid $56,000 each and Districts 3, 4 and 5 paid $28,000 each; and the answer was because they had larger Districts and more money so they had to pay a higher share. Commissioner Ellis stated that was stormwater dollars; with Public Works Director Henry Minneboo responding in that case it was stormwater funds. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was told it was on usage as opposed to source of revenues. Mr. Helmer advised they try to split the cost between the Districts where the equipment will be utilized. Chairman Cook inquired if that means the pumps will be primarily used in Districts 1 and 2. Commissioner Scarborough stated if it is taken out of the MSTU District funds it is in violation of the law. Mr. Jenkins stated it was not taken from the MSTU funds; it was surface water assessment funds; and the premise was the largest unincorporated areas, and not because the money was available. Commissioner Ellis stated when there is a flooding problem, the equipment moves to the flooded area if it is in Scottsmoor or Melbourne. Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands sharing equipment, but Commissioner O?Brien indicated the funds to purchase the pumps were taken because there were more funds available in Districts 1 and 2. Commissioner O?Brien commented either way, Districts 1 and 2 paid more. Mr. Jenkins advised Districts 1 and 2 have larger unincorporated areas; and much of District 5 is within the cities and does not collect assessments for surface water in the cities. Commissioner Scarborough stated in each case there has to be a legal justification for a larger apportionment of the cost under the law, and it cannot be done any other way; and requested a memo on that purchase; with Mr. Jenkins responding staff will provide it. Chairman Cook stated District 5, which has a larger incorporated area, would not use County equipment as much as Districts 1, 2 and 4.

Commissioner Ellis stated the $800,000 is in the regular budget request, but the Board needs to address the 1.2 million dollars for drainage projects which the Board asked staff to look at. He stated if they buy computers in November or June, it makes no difference; and the reason the Board wanted staff to look at drainage equipment was to make the commitment and get a lot of the drainage problems straightened out during the dry season. Chairman Cook stated the Board made a significant commitment to the drainage problems with the $500,000 appropriation; with Commissioner Ellis responding $200,000 of that $500,000 was for equipment the County was already going to buy.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the $800,000 is for capital to be used by the construction crew and does not include operational costs for the crew; with Mr. Helmer responding that is correct. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the crew operated in a deficit this year; with Mr. Helmer responding the construction crew does not operate at a deficit, and actually brings in more than it costs and subsidizes the General Fund. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they were behind this year because they were used for the drainage work; with Mr. Jenkins responding the crew may not make as much as it was programmed to make, but it makes far in excess of what it costs to operate. Commissioner Higgs stated the crew was anticipated to bring in so much and did not which resulted in budget shortfalls; with Mr. Helmer responding it was budgeted to bring in 1.9 million dollars for the current year, and through the end of April, 1996, it has brought in $900,000. Mr. Jenkins stated they are projected to bring in 1.4 as opposed to 1.9 million dollars. Commissioner Higgs stated if the crew continues to operate in the same manner, how will it use the $800,000 worth of potential capital equipment being projected. Mr. Helmer advised $450,000, the portion of the budget that relates to the construction crew, Account 41021, is for replacement of equipment that is in poor condition and has high mileage; and it will continue to use replacement equipment in the same manner as it has in the past. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board approves the purchase of all the equipment, will it be looking at a 1% increase to the General Fund needs. She stated the Board is trying to balance the four million dollars now; and inquired if the $800,000 is included in the four million dollars; with Ms. Wall responding no. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board funds the capital request but not the special ditch equipment, it would be looking at 4.8 million dollars; and as much as she would like to purchase the drainage equipment, the Board has to consider the impact on the budget this year and the next three years. She stated she does not see the information on the impact in subsequent years or this budget year, so she cannot support it tonight. Commissioner Ellis stated the four million dollars is a soft number. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is trying to balance the difference between what it thinks the revenues are and what the expenses are, and that gap today is four million dollars. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board has a four million dollar operating deficit; with Mr. Jenkins responding no, but if expenditures stay the same as they currently are and inflation and built-in increases that automatically occur are factored in, matched with the projected revenue, there is a four million dollar difference; however, as a result of the budget review process, they look for ways to make up that difference. He stated they have encountered that situation previously, but it becomes more and more difficult every year because the budget gets leaner and leaner, so it is a greater challenge from last year to the next to try and bridge that gap. He noted not everything goes forward the way it is currently. Chairman Cook stated it is something the Board has to consider and it can be made up.

Commissioner O?Brien stated he cannot support the 2.2 million dollar decision tonight; and he has not discussed it with anyone and cannot take a decision like this and make it just because the Board discussed it.

Commissioner Ellis stated he wants to make it clear that the 1.2 million dollars for equipment is for the drainage issue and the $800,000 for equipment has nothing to do with it and is not urgent; and he does not know how the two issues got crossed up because none of the $800,000 worth of equipment has to be done before the rainy season starts.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Commissioner Ellis brought to the workshop that if the Board is going to handle this year?s water problems, it should purchase the equipment now; there are funds that were not appropriated from this budget and will be carried forward; Commissioner Ellis suggested using those funds to acquire the equipment; and the idea came up that rather than using those funds, to look at spreading the cost out because it is a multi-year usage, and ask staff to come back with that information. He stated staff made the assumption the Board made a determination to buy the equipment to improve the drainage system; the Board has not yet determined the equipment is going to do specific jobs to benefit the drainage system sufficiently to commit in any form to the 1.2 million dollars; so Mr. Minneboo needs to advise the Board what projects can be handled in each District. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board is going to do what Commissioner Ellis suggested, it needs to bring it back in a timely manner because there is a period of time to acquire the equipment and start making improvements so there is benefit to the taxpayers this year. He stated that may not be the Board?s objective because there are questions whether the fiscal impact is not as bad as it appears and is the problem significant enough to justify a three-year commitment of that magnitude. He stated he is not prepared to say the Board is ready to do it, but it should not abandon the item, because it has had wet periods and staff could do more with more equipment.

Chairman Cook advised it is a large commitment; the Board wants to address the drainage issues which have been significant in all Districts; but staff should meet with each Commissioner and go through what levels they want to increase funding or capacity.

Commissioner O?Brien advised last year there were hurricanes and storms; next year it could be different; meanwhile, the Board will be locked into funding $750,000 and cannot get out of that position. He stated he wants to discuss it with Finance and Mr. Minneboo to determine if there are other plans that would keep the safety net because that cost is cutting it tight.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what time is needed to acquire the equipment, hire and train the crew, and is there any benefit in this wet season; with Mr. Minneboo responding yes; on April 22, 1996, staff submitted the paperwork and checked on the availability of every piece of equipment, specifically the Gradall and Menzi Muck; they had 15 and 30-day availability for all the equipment; and that is why it brought that information to the Board. He stated they tried to bring it to some conclusion to get the equipment shipped as quickly as possible; but beyond tonight, it could be as long as 120 days because the vendors cannot hold it and other counties are waiting on the equipment . Commissioner Higgs inquired how long it takes to hire and train a crew; with Mr. Minneboo responding 30 days. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the $113,000 anticipated to pay for that is in the budget; with Mr. Minneboo responding yes. Commissioner Ellis stated it was for four positions. Commissioner Higgs inquired if within the current budget they can pay for those people, and in subsequent budget years will they add four people and the cost associated with them; with Mr. Minneboo responding yes.

Commissioner Ellis stated that point was obvious at the workshop; and if there is a problem with drainage and people needed to work the equipment, there should be four vacant positions out of 2,000 positions in the County which can be eliminated and four positions given to Public Works to handle the drainage problems. He stated the Menzi Mucks are down almost all the time right now; and the Board has to make judgments where it is going to put its priorities, and if it is going to maintain drainage and get infrastructure in place or other programs. He stated they do not have the equipment to get the ditches cleaned; the large canals and ditches in all Districts need to have equipment; and a ditch cleaning crew would work Countywide only on drainage ditches, and would not be pulled off for other projects.

Chairman Cook stated the drainage problem is an absolute priority, but the Board needs to look at what other projects it needs to cut or what it needs to do to maintain the budget. Commissioner O?Brien stated another problem is EMS needs replacement vehicles and parts. Commissioner Ellis stated EMS cannot get money from anything but the MSTU. Chairman Cook stated Mr. Minneboo and his crew did an outstanding job with the drainage situation and made significant improvements in every District; but he does not see a consensus tonight on purchasing the equipment. Commissioner Ellis stated it will be too late once the rains come. Commissioner Higgs stated she wants to address the drainage issues also, but it is a long-term half a million dollars plus commitment for the equipment on the first page. Commissioner Ellis stated it is $440,000 per year for three years.

Discussion ensued on the cost of the crew, vacant positions being transferred to Public Works, and the long-term consequence to the budget.

Chairman Cook stated he does not want anyone having the impression the Board did nothing with the drainage problems because hundreds of thousands of dollars went to improve some situations which were long overdue; but although the Board needs to make a capital expenditure, it needs to also look at what else it is willing to do if it decides to go that route.

Commissioner O?Brien stated he increased the MSTU in District 2 last year to take care of drainage problems because of flooding on North Merritt Island, Cocoa, and elsewhere; they were also able to trim off other areas; and he wants to discuss it thoroughly with staff and others before making a decision.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table discussion on the purchase of Road and Bridge equipment until May 28, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

MARK COOK, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

ATTEST:
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(S E A L)