October 12, 2004

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on October 12, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chair Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Jackie Colon, District 5.

Commissioner Ron Pritchard led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Minutes of the July 22, 2004 Special Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: MYREGION.ORG

Commissioner Scarborough advised Randy Lyon, Chair of MyRegion.org, has been instrumental in bringing a lot of ideas to the table that are going to change the nature of who and what Brevard County is and how it thinks about itself; and introduced Mr. Lyon to the Board.

Randy Lyon, Chair of MyRegion.org, advised he will share some comments and information then ask his colleagues from Brevard County to join him with their comments. He stated some Commissioners are long time friends and some are new to the project; some have been with MyRegion.org from the beginning, but for those who have less knowledge, he will begin by calling their attention to the new regional agenda or source book. He stated the Commissioners have a new copy to replace the well-used one; it can serve as a new reference; the contents have not changed; it still serves them as a great framework; and it represents a regional agenda developed over a three-year period with over 3,000 citizens and 300 leaders involved from seven counties of Central Florida. He stated the source book includes the following information agreed upon by all of them: “(1) how our world, our State, and our region has evolved; (2) our case for why we must come together as a region to solve regional scale issues; and (3) the region’s recommendations for how, by working together, we can be successful in the 21st Century global economy.” Mr. Lyon stated as a regional community, they are beginning to implement the strategies outlined in the source book; the implementation phase of the project, which will cover the years 2005 to 2007, will address six regional priorities; and those are outlined in the book on pages 9 through 19; and the ten regional resolves are on pages 22 and 23. He stated MyRegion will envision and empower regional initiatives across such sectors as economic leadership, environmental lands, education, land use planning, transportation, and health care; they will educate shareholders through data exchange and community outreach; they will communicate to constituencies in a variety of ways; and they will measure the impact of regional collaboration and cooperation through a set of regional performance indicators. Mr. Lyon stated they are already seeing results of regional efforts across Central Florida; and while there is a long list of accomplishments to date in the packet, he will only summarize a few of the major ones. He stated they created the Central Florida MPO Alliance, which is an alliance of transportation planning organizations such as Metroplan Orlando, Volusia MPO, Brevard MPO, Polk County TPO, and Lake County Board of County Commissioners to better coordinate the transportation needs across Central Florida. He stated they created the Central Florida Smart Growth Alliance, which is a coalition of the MPO Alliance, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Central Florida Regional Planning Council, and MyRegion.org, to develop a regional strategy to insure that growth in one county or municipality does not adversely impact another county or municipality. He stated for leadership they are extremely grateful for Commissioner Carlson’s co-chairmanship of the group, and appreciate her energy and efforts. He stated they created the Naturally Central Florida, a regional initiative led by UCF Center for Metropolitan Studies to establish and protect a functional network of native habitats and green space to enhance and enrich the quality of life for everyone. He stated the establishment of the first ever Central Florida Education Summit was led by both O-Force and MyRegion that will bring together in early 2005 school superintendents, the Central Florida School Board Coalition, and business and community leaders across nine counties to become global leaders in math and science along the Florida high-tech corridor. He stated the development of a seven-county regional database will provide seamless data coverage for Central Florida, focusing on land use and other information essential for sound growth decisions; a broad range of data for the seven-county region will be collected, assembled, processed, and made available for public use over the Internet and be accessible as a series of principal maps and digital files; and the project is being coordinated by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and the Central Florida Regional Planning Council. He stated the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council was also working to secure the designation as an economic development district in order to secure financial support for regional infrastructure over the next ten years; and they are working on the creation of an integrated economic development, tourism, international business development, and workforce development, which are critical to succeed in the global economy. He stated the executives of the region’s EDO’s, TDC’s, and workforce organizations chaired by the Florida High-tech Corridor Council, have begun meeting and planning for integrating initiatives. He stated the Regional Leadership Program was created to develop and grow leaders who are committed to thinking and acting regionally; those are some examples of the work being done across the region; they have six work groups completing their plans; and they will be coming back to the Board early next year with a more complete program of work that they plan on accomplishing over the next three years. He stated they will also come back to the Board with what has been a very interesting and exciting year’s effort to develop benchmarks and indicators, because the best laid plans without a clear road map or report card to be able to give the Board an update on the progress are not particularly valuable. Mr. Lyon stated the County and many individuals have been extremely strong supporters of the regional effort, and they appreciate that; their current effort in planning their actions is being funded by private organizations; and they hope that when they have complete plans in the first quarter of 2005 they will be able to come back to the Board and look to it for support in the 2005-07 period. He stated he is joined this morning by two citizens who have been extremely active with MyRegion and whose participation has been so crucial, Mr. Rick Blueker and Ms. Kristin Bakke; and they would like to say a few words about their work.

Rick Blueker of Melbourne stated it is his privilege to work on the MyRegion initiative for four years along with Commissioner Scarborough and the rest of the group; he also represents the Air Force, which lets him participate because they think it is very important; and what is important to the Air Force is taking good care of the community because the community takes good care of the Base and its mission. He stated the implementation phase is the exciting part and the part where things happen; they could have the best plans in the world, but if they do not do anything with them, it does not get the region anywhere; and now they are getting to the point where they can start implementing some of the recommendations contained in the source book. He stated he is on the Performance Management Committee, which will make sure there is some accountability and measurement for what is actually coming out of MyRegion; and he is excited about that. He stated the Air Force measures everything; so he knows a little about that; and they have an excellent plan of accountability to make sure what they come up with is going to be not only measured well, but easily understood.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Blueker has been there from the beginning and he cannot remember him not making a meeting, so he really does participate, and the Board appreciates it.

Kristin Bakke, President and CEO of Leadership Brevard, stated Leadership Brevard includes Brevard Tomorrow; and she is delighted to be here and be a part of the collaboration between Brevard Tomorrow and MyRegion. She stated from Mr. Lyon’s presentation, the Board can see the opportunities for collaboration and cooperation between the work they are doing and the work they are accomplishing in Brevard County in five issue areas; and she is delighted to see her colleagues here, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Blueker, and Shelly Lauten, Project Director for MyRegion, and know the Board will support them as it does Leadership Brevard.

Mr. Lyon thanked Mr. Bleuker and Ms. Bakke; stated they are well served by a great staff led by Shelly Lauten; and many Commissioners who have contact with her on a frequent basis know it is because of her great efforts and staff that they are so organized and capable of moving forward. He stated Commissioner Scarborough has been stalwart from the beginning in his commitment, enthusiasm, and leadership; and they thank the Board for its support and for what it has done.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Commissioners Ron Pritchard and Jackie Colon serve on the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and are making measures to come in and support the effort again; that is a favorable thing; and some candidates for Titusville City Council showed him questions from a newspaper, which he shared with Ms. Bakke this morning, asking, “are you for your local community, or are you for the region.” He stated the idea is people cannot really understand their local community and work for it unless they understand both the opportunities and the problems as they present themselves on a regional basis; and to work together for a better region makes a better community. He stated that is the attitude the Board shares; and congratulated Mr. Lyon and his group.

Commissioner Carlson stated she would also like to congratulate the group from MyRegion because she knows it has been a long hard road and they have come a great way; what she sees is very positive; but she has a question. She stated Mr. Blueker mentioned a plan for accountability; and inquired if it is a written plan or something that is evolving; with Mr. Lyon responding they worked over the last year with a group led by the Volunteer Committee and Healthy Community Initiative Program, which has been working in Orange County for almost a decade, and developed a series of almost 40 benchmark indicators, specifically organized to functions of the community that benefit and support children; and they took the methodology, research, and the process and asked them to work with several other consultants and come up with a similar set of clear benchmarks that are measurable and apply to the six areas of study. He stated the Region’s board will consider those on Friday and adopt them finally in November; there will be very specific measures they can look at and say, if the rating needed to be 82 and they got to 78, why are they not there, and what do they need to do to get there; and that is very important.

REPORT, RE: SMALL AREA PLAN FOR MIMS/SCOTTSMOOR AREA

Commissioner Scarborough stated he had meetings in the Mims/Scottsmoor area, and there was a memo from staff suggesting a small area plan; it is complex; and in talking to Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, she and her staff would like to bring a memo back to the Board because they have a transition from a very rural area of no development to some quite sizable complex developments. He stated he would like to bring suggestions for discussions back to the Board if that is acceptable.

REPORT, RE: BILLBOARDS

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Orlando Sentinel had an editorial on billboards, and he received some calls; and with the Board’s permission, he would like to prepare a letter for the Chair’s signature and bring it back so they can make suggestions. He stated he will make sure the Commissioners receive it before it is on the agenda; and there were some comments that were questionable as to what is going on.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is a report or a motion; with Commissioner Scarborough responding unless he hears an objection, he does not think he needs to make a motion, but wanted to give the Board a heads up of a couple of things that will be brought back to the Board.

REPORT, RE: ITEM REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA

Commissioner Scarborough pulled Item III.D.2., Agreement with Economic Development Commission of Florida’s Space Coast as the primary marketing, retention, and recruitment agency for FY 2004-05 from the Consent Agenda.

Chair Higgs advised Item III.D.2. will be considered at the end of the Agenda.

REPORT, RE; VETERANS CENTER ON MERRITT ISLAND

Commissioner Pritchard advised the Veterans Center on Merritt Island suffered hurricane damage; and during the excavation of the damage, they found other damage that was apparently in the works for the past couple of years. He stated they had concern that the building might not be available for the election, which is November 2, but as it turns out, they will be able to shore up the damage and have the building accessible. He noted he is sure Mr. Galey will be happy to know the Veterans Center will be available for the Election and for the veterans that occupy the building; so he will make sure they get the information.

REPORT, RE: COCOA VILLAGE PLAYHOUSE

Commissioner Carlson introduced Stacey Hawkins-Smith, Executive Director for Cocoa Village Playhouse; and stated it is part of the sample of the arts Brevard Cultural Alliance Program that the Board offers at its meetings to expose the cultural arts groups; Ms. Hawkins-Smith has come a long way with the hurricane damages the Playhouse suffered recently; and it is great to know they are up and running.

Stacey Hawkins-Smith stated they are up and running; the storms affected them more in programming than it did in actual building damage; they have never in their history of 15 years serving the community ever had to cancel a show; and they canceled three shows, which meant rescheduling 1,500 people into additional shows. She stated they were in the process of doing that when along came the second storm, which she declared was never going to hit them because she has lived here forever and never had a storm come in the same path, but it did. She stated the company of performers were absolutely incredible; and the talent is what she always boasted about, but today she will boast about their incredible commitment to the theater when many of them did not have roofs and power. She stated Saturday night is the closing of Seven Bridges for Seven Brothers, which has gone in a whirlwind; the Playhouse specializes in family programming and education through the performing arts; so they are in the middle of auditioning for their next production, Miracle on 34th Street, which is going to be a great family show. She stated they will be in the lobby until after the break and requested everyone take one of the brochures; and the main thing she wants the Board to know is that the County’s cultural grants have supported them throughout the years, and they would not be where they are today without the Board’s help. She stated she thought until now they were a very secure organization and believes they will be; but there is no doubt of the financial effect in ticket sales that the storm surge will have on their entire community of the arts.

Commissioner Pritchard advised he and his wife attend just about every performance at the Cocoa Village Playhouse; the volunteer talent they have is extraordinary, from costume designs, scenery, performers, lighting, etc.; and everything about the theater is so professional and extraordinary for a local community theater to hit that level of achievement. He stated anyone who has not been to the Cocoa Village Playhouse is missing a treat; and when they go there, they should visit one of the restaurants in Cocoa Village and make it an evening because it is truly an evening to remember.

Ms. Hawkins-Smith thanked Commissioner Pritchard for his comments; stated one of the exciting things about their pool of performers is they range from Palm Bay to Titusville; their costume designer lives in Titusville; and it is exciting to be a little tiny historic facility in the middle of beautiful Cocoa Village and have a pool of people about 300 strong who funnel in and out of the productions. She stated there are so many people who volunteer in so many areas; and the Board has supported the Playhouse from the beginning in 1985 when they spent five years renovating the facility. She noted they were fortunate during the storm; they had a singing/dancing party as they removed six inches of sewer water from their dressing room; and there were a lot of them working together. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is a number people can call for tickets; with Ms. Hawkins-Smith responding 636-5050.

REPORT, RE: FLOODING FROM THE HURRICANES

Commissioner Carlson stated she asked Stormwater Utility Director Ron Jones to give the Board a brief report on flooding for the hurricanes; in her District they had success in a positive way and captured a lot of the flood waters, whereas a couple of years ago they would have had serious problems; so she wants to give her accolades to the Stormwater Utility Department.

Stormwater Utility Director Ron Jones advised overall the drainage improvements that were implemented by the Board performed extremely well; many areas that otherwise would have flooded, historic flooding areas, were actually in fairly good condition; and they were fortunate that they did not get as much rainfall as some other areas to the north, such as Debary, which received 40 plus inches of rainfall over a three-week period on top of an already wet season. He stated the St. Johns River remains staged in the Lake Washington area; it has reached its peak and is now starting to recede; the 25-year flood stage was reached in the St. Johns River; and downstream of Lake Washington, below the weir structure, things have been staged up and are receding much more slowly than staff normally expected, primarily because of the areas to the north and upstream in the middle of the St. Johns River basin, which continues to discharge. Mr. Jones stated they had several roads that remain inundated due to riverine flooding; Hatbill Road in District 1 remains under water; about 1,000 feet of Matthews Drive in Silver Pines off Fiske Boulevard remains under water; and all the areas around West Barton, Heron, and Evinrude near Eau Gallie Road on the west side of I-95 are slowly receding and are expected to be in passable condition by early next week. He stated in terms of the stages in the St. Johns River, the primary reason or biggest issue has been the significant amount of rainfall that has been received over four events, one of which hit Brevard County twice; and staff has been in constant contact with the St. Johns River Water Management District, which is very leery and careful of the conditions in Brevard County in terms of operating their structures. Mr. Jones stated they hope to see some improvements in the near future; there were several other areas that did have some flooding along Fleming Grant in District 3 as well as in the South Beaches wHere a few homes were impacted; and staff has been in contact with different parties and has been evaluating those conditions to see if there is some assistance the County can provide. He stated in the riverine areas, where there is very little they can do to provide assistance, they have been putting out no-wake signs and providing sandbags and those types of things; hopefully over the next week they will see conditions recede; but it is positive that many areas that were historic flood areas and had projects the Board funded remained in good condition.

Commissioner Carlson stated the County builT Wickham ponds at the corner of Wickham Park and it worked fabulously; she lives on Horse Creek and it did very well also; normally it would have flooded; and it did not; so all the engineering they put into that has paid off.

Chair Higgs advised there are mitigation programs under FEMA that perhaps may be the opportunity to help some people who are frequently impacted by floods; and recommended the Board direct staff to look seriously at properties that have been frequently impacted by floods and try to mitigate those through FEMA dollars and do everything possible to perhaps bring some relief to those people who the Board has not otherwise been able to help. She noted this is the opportunity to do it. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Jones has been in touch with FEMA; with Mr. Jones responding they have applied for hazard mitigation grants in the past; AND if a property is a repeat loss property that has been associated with the flood insurance program, there are funds directly from FEMA available for either retrofit or partial payment associated with match funds with the County to actually acquire the properties. He stated there are also some funds from HGMP through Department of Community Affairs, which do have some federal funds available, but they are more structured towards properties which have not had flood insurance historically but have received losses. He stated staff will be happy to provide a report to the Board.

Chair Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Pritchard.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to review properties that have frequently been impacted by flooding for hazard mitigation monies through FEMA.

Vice Chairman Pritchard inquired if the hazard mitigation monies are available not only to repair damage but to prevent future damage through construction of structures or other alternatives; with Mr. Jones responding yes, the hazard mitigation funds are primarily structured towards either abating flooding problems or providing for structural improvements to properties to flood proof them for those events that occur. Mr. Jones stated in addition to that, staff has the ability to apply for grant funds associated with acquiring properties that are repetitive losses; so all those types of funding programs, unlike the ones that an individual would apply for assistance through FEMA, are structured towards mitigating or avoiding flood hazards. Vice Chairman Pritchard stated there was an article in the paper this morning about a sand snake that can be installed on the beach; it was touting the benefits as well as some of the arguments State authorities have opposed to that type of shoreline hardening; but the article said some of the area that has been done has turtle nests on top of the sand snake structures; and inquired if there is anything like that available from FEMA. Mr. Jones stated he is not prepared to answer that, but can do some research on it. Vice Chairman Pritchard stated the community is aware that a lot of the beach suffered drastically, and there is a push to renourish it prior to the sea turtle nesting season; but to keep dumping sand and having it wash away and dumping it back seems counterproductive. He stated if a method like the sand snake is going to stabilize the shoreline and not adversely affect the turtle nesting, it is something the Board should look at.

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

Vice Chairman Pritchard passed the gavel to Chair Higgs.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Jones mentioned that it was a 25-year flood event; with Mr. Jones responding upstream of Lake Washington, due to the control discharges by the St. Johns River Water Management District, they did reach a 25-year flood event. Commissioner Carlson requested Mr. Jones define upstream since the river flows northerly; with Mr. Jones responding to the south of the weir structure, downstream of the weir structure; and to the north of the weir structure they had over a ten-year event, but not quite a 25-year event. Commissioner Carlson stated the datum in the documents from 1929 go through yearly and the numbers she assumes are feet of elevation; and inquired what would a 100-year event look like; with Mr. Jones responding a 100-year event would have an elevation of 20.5 feet upstream of Lake Washington and it would be approximately 18.1 feet downstream of the weir.

REPORT, RE: VIETNAM VETERANS BUILDING

Commissioner Carlson stated she would like to have a report from County Manager Tom Jenkins regarding the Vietnam Veterans building on SR 520 and Varr Street, as they are having roof problems, which they have had for a long time and have been trying to fix it. She stated there was a homeless shelter that was damaged from the hurricane off Fee Avenue; the County is working on that; and she would like to have a report on the status of the Vietnam Veterans building on SR 520 and what, if anything, the County can do to help them. She stated she knows the Board has not agreed to assist them other than to look at the damage and help them through the process; but in terms of funding it has not decided on anything like that; and there are grant dollars that are available for that sort of thing.

REPORT, RE: DEPUTY LUCY ROSS

Commissioner Colon advised funeral services for Deputy Lucy Ross will be held tomorrow at First Baptist Church of Merritt Island from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.; and on behalf of the Board, its prayers go to her family and the Sheriff’s Department. She stated Deputy Ross was one of the top people in the Sheriff’s Department; was famous for solving a lot of problems that other people would not have been able to solve; and she had a unique talent that will truly be missed.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the viewing is from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., and the services will start at 11:00 a.m. with the procession forming at 12:30 p.m. to go to the cemetery in Titusville.

REPORT, RE: CHRISTIAN ANTHONY GUADALUPE

Commissioner Colon stated this month is Hispanic Heritage Month; and the reason she is bringing it up is because yesterday was a very special day in the lives of four families that are extremely close—the Colon family, Redmonds, Medinas, and Guadalupes. She stated this month being Hispanic Heritage Month is not just about Hispanics, but about all immigrants who came to the United States, Polish, Russian, German, Italian, Irish, etc.; and with the beginning of this century the focus will be on Hispanics, but who knows what it will be 20 years from now. She stated the United States was founded on immigrants; anyone who says they are originally from here, unless they are native Americans, are not originally from here; and that is what our wonderful country is based on. She stated yesterday was a special day because it was quite unique; all the families sit around, including the Redmonds, a good Irish family, that has been adopted into the Hispanic community; the Medinas, Colons, Guadalupes, and Redmonds sit around and pray and look around at all their children and say they all better go to college; and those are the plans they have for their children. Commissioner Colon stated they knew of a contest that the teachers of Brevard County and the State of Florida encouraged young people to put an essay together and submit it, and it would be reviewed by the folks in Tallahassee; and she wants to read the essay written by Christian Guadalupe, a ten-year old, who is the brain of the group. She stated they are very proud of him and know that Christian is going to be making all of them proud one day besides today; he is a 5th grader at West Melbourne Elementary School of Science, and had to be accepted to the school; the essay was, ”How has the life of a Florida Hispanic inspired me”; and his thoughts went to his grandfather, who is 83 years of age, and came from Cuba. She stated Christian definitely felt his grandfather was the one he wanted to write about; and he wrote: “My grandpa, Jose Antonio Izquierdo, is a hardworking selfless gentleman who inspires his family. The way he inspires me is that there is a goal in his life that I wish to achieve, is to never, never give up even if sacrifices need to be made because in his life he made big sacrifices just to live in America. When he was a young boy, his dad died suddenly. He had to quit school at fourth grade to work to support his mother and five younger siblings. Although he has never regretted leaving school to help his family, he has always made it a priority for his kids and grandchildren to put education first. Another way he inspires me is to always do everything with excellence. He’s always showed me to be a man of my word and I see how people respect him because he never goes back on his word. 43 years ago my grandpa was part of the Cuban police. When Fidel Castro came into power, Grandpa had to leave Cuba or would lose his life. He made it, with the hope of returning after four days. It’s been over four decades now, and grandpa has still not been able to return. When he came to the United States of America, he took any job that anyone would offer and had several jobs at a time. He promised to bring his family to the U.S. and he didn’t rest until he did. That proved he was a hardworking man. It took him a year to save enough money to bring his wife and daughter to America. He washed dishes until his hands bled. He cleaned buildings and also worked as a head butcher in the markets at Hunts Point in the Bronx. It was a bad area with horrible working conditions. He did everything he had to, to keep food on the table for his family. Years after that he brought his mom, sister, and her family, and his brother and his family. A few years ago he was finally able to have the American dream and built his own home in Palm Bay. Grandpa is considered to be the papi of everyone in the family. Everyone looks up to him. He has never turned his back on anyone in need. He encourages me to be a hardworking man and respectful young man. Every day he expects me to be considerate of others and to treat them as I would want to be treated. He is a great man with a great heart, and I hope to be just like him.” Commissioner Colon stated Christian is exactly like his grandpa. She stated he received a phone call yesterday from Governor Jeb Bush to let him know he won a four-year scholarship to any State university in the State of Florida; and they are so proud of him. She spoke to Papi in Spanish that because of the sacrifices he made 40 years ago his grandson today is going to be able to go to college and achieve that American dream. She stated one thing she is strict about, even if a person is of Hispanic heritage, that person cannot say he or she represents the Hispanic community; the Hispanic community is large, has intelligent individuals, and no one speaks for them, including her even as a leader of Hispanic heritage; but she will say today, on behalf of the Hispanic community, they are extremely proud of this young man, not only because it is something close to their hearts, but someone who shows that every immigrant, not just Hispanics, but every immigrant who came through Ellis Island or Miami, has been able to come to the United States and with hard work achieve the American Dream; so she wants to say God bless him.

Chair Higgs stated she is not an immigrant from Ireland, but her parents immigrated from Kansas; in the late 1940’s many did; and while going through the neighborhood after the storm and looking at things, she thought, “Toto, we are not in Kansas anymore.” She stated we live in a unique and wonderful place in Florida; she can, with 99% assurance, tell everyone that they are not going to have an ice storm or a snowstorm this year in all likelihood; but we do go through things like hurricanes. She stated people have come here from other places; very few are natives; although she was born here, her parents came from Kansas; and there is a whole new vocabulary that is unique to Florida. She noted they love generators, the noise is music to their ears, MRE’s and a few other things they did not appreciate before; but they all appreciate the uniqueness of Florida and all the communities that have all the people who have come to make up the communities. Chair Higgs stated the difficulty is they have not totally learned how to work together, but the process they have all been through in the last couple of years has given them an appreciation for how important community is; and she appreciates that Commissioner Colon brought that understanding out again regarding the different nationalities. She stated Commissioner Scarborough talked about regionalism; sometimes they forget the regionalism that goes south from here and the unique communities in Miami and South Florida that bring to Brevard County an economic base that it may not have had in Central Florida; and she hopes the Board will appreciate that as well.

Commissioner Pritchard stated that was a touching and eloquent essay from a ten-year old; and to win a scholarship is an outstanding achievement. He stated there are many people who affect our lives whether they are teachers, grandparents, neighbors, people who one looks up to and learns from; this is a good example of that; and all the papis and grandchildren out there deserve a round of applause. The Board applauded the grandparents and grandchildren of Brevard County.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING SIDS AWARENESS MONTH

Chair Higgs read aloud a resolution proclaiming October 2004 as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) Awareness Month in Brevard County.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution proclaiming October 2004 as SIDS Awareness Month in Brevard County, and encouraging all citizens to participate in awareness activities planned in their communities. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-249.)

Chair Higgs presented the Resolution to Jennifer Floyd, Executive Director of the Healthy Start Coalition, who advised their mission is to establish a system of care for all pregnant women and ensure they have access to prenatal care and that all children have the ability for normal growth and development. Ms. Floyd stated with SIDS, the Coalition is able to make sure that the education gets out there and as Commissioner Higgs just said there is nothing the Coalition can do except make sure the awareness is there; so what they are doing this month is putting out there in the media the information for parents and families that SIDS is there; they are helping support those families that are affected; they can work with the families and make sure there are safe sleeping arrangements and temperatures are adequate, and that children are put to bed in appropriate environments; and they are working with the media this month to put out the information throughout the rest of the year; they appreciate the Board’s support and the Resolution, and will come to the Board throughout the year with different things in putting the information out, so there is that system of care both prenatal and postnatal.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING UNITED NATIONS DAY

Chair Higgs read aloud the resolution proclaiming October 24, 2004 as United Nations Day.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution proclaiming October 24, 2004 as United Nations Day in recognition of its 59th Anniversary.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he did not support the Resolution last year and will not do it again this year; the United Nations and its quest for peace and the rights of children have had Syria and Libya on its Human Rights Council; and currently on the Committee of the Rights of the Child, it has Algeria. He stated an article by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times said, “Saddam Hussein used the UN Humanitarian Program to pay $1.78 billion to government officials, businessmen, and journalists in a bid to have sanctions removed and U.S. policies opposed. The cash was part of an $11 billion that was secretly skimmed from UN Oil for Food Programs. Iraq covertly purchased missiles and other military goods from a variety of countries. Illegal goods used in making of weapons of mass destruction were sold to Iraq by companies in a variety of nations. Saddam’s regime obtained $1.5 billion from UN Humanitarian Contract kickbacks and $228 million on surcharges on UN approved oil sales. The funding for this organization, which had responsibility for many of the past weapons of mass destruction, went from $7.8 million to $350 million. This was told to the Senate Arms Services Committee, and Mr. Duffler who made this report said that during the period from 1998 to 2001, many military programs were carried out, including many involving the willing export to Iraq of military items prohibited by the Security Council. A sad revelation about the effectiveness of the much touted United Nations.” He stated he cannot support a resolution that supports an organization that is doing things that he thinks are wrong.

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay. (See page for Resolution No. 04-250.)

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING WMEL NEWS/TALK/SPORTS, TALK TO ME STATION

Commissioner Carlson stated several weeks have passed since the hurricanes; the aftermath has not been something they have enjoyed; but they managed to get through it by working together and putting their efforts into areas that maybe they were not good at before, but found friends, sacrificed time, and did things over and above what they would normally do in their every day lives. She noted the community responded hugely to the disaster challenge; it is time to reflect and give thanks to those who went above and beyond the call of duty; and one individual and his cast of characters fit that bill; and he is John Harper, who is here with his staff. She stated Commissioners Pritchard and Colon and she had the honor to be invited to WMEL hosted comedy review show that had Doctor Chuckles Comedy Club; they basically filled the orchestra pit at the King Center; it was to benefit the hurricane disaster relief fund; and it was a big success and quite funny, not to mention the three Commissioners who were sort of the three musketeers. She stated they all had a good time; and she is glad they were there to thank Mr. Harper for having a radio station that was there during the black of night when the hurricanes were rolling through, not losing power, and being the lifeline that people needed. She stated the Board wants to give Mr. Harper a resolution recognizing WMEL 920, the Talk to Me Station, which describes the history of the radio station so people can understand how far WMEL has gone over a long period of time. Commissioner Carlson read aloud the resolution recognizing AM920 WMEL, News/Talk/Sports, The Talk to Me Station, for its outstanding commitment and dedication during Hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Jeanne.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution recognizing AM920 WMEL, News/Talk/Sports, The Talk to Me Station, for its outstanding commitment and dedication during Hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Jeanne. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-251.)

Chair Higgs expressed the Board’s appreciation to Mr. Harper and WMEL Radio for all that they have done to stay on the air and inform people; and stated she enjoyed working with Mike Morello and talking with Mr. Harper.

John Harper introduced Paul Delaney, Vern Harper, and Ed Dean; and thanked Commissioner Carlson, the Board, County Manager, and County Attorney for having them this morning. He stated this year has been another unrivaled community service by the Talk to Me Station AM920 WMEL; and not only did their hurricane coverage during Hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Jeanne prove their support to Brevard County as a true locally-owned and independent radio station, but WMEL Radio gave its support to an array of other causes from improving the health of area residents to preventing drunk driving and protecting children from abuse. He stated WMEL Radio has given its support to the community in good times and bad times during the 12 years that he has owned the station; but time and time again this year WMEL Radio proved adept at delivering life-saving information and relief in times of the hurricane crises. He stated Paul Delaney, Ed Dean, and Michael Morello were the voices in the night during all of the hurricanes; countless listeners have written, emailed, and stopped them on the streets or in restaurants to tell them how much their hurricane hunter coverage on WMEL Radio truly meant to them; and the station was their connection to the outside world letting them know they were not alone and that they were going through it together. Mr. Harper stated from widespread power outages to reports of wind and related aspects of the storms, evacuations to comfort stations, FEMA information, and overall group support in its truest form, WMEL Radio was there when the community needed them the most; and listeners quickly learned that they were not interested in simulcasting Orlando radio or television stations, and in fact was there 24/7 through all the hurricanes, providing local community news and Brevard County information. He stated when ten-year old Tommy from Palm Bay called the radio station because he had only his puppy and his ill mother in their wood-framed house, WMEL Radio talked him through the storm; when a woman called the station from the closet of her home worried that her house would not withstand the wind and rain, WMEL talked her through the storm; and when a Barefoot Bay resident called as her trailer was falling around her, WMEL talked her through the storm. Mr. Harper stated those are just three of the nearly 6,000 calls they aired during Hurricane Jeanne alone; voices of those who counted and relied on their hurricane hunters to get them through the storm; and while awards and praise are very gratifying to all at the radio station, they felt a sense of duty to Brevard County to help all of them get through the storms. He stated on behalf of the best radio broadcasters he has ever been associated with in 32 plus years of being in the business, Paul Delaney, Ed Dean, Michael Morello, who could not be here this morning, and Vern Harper, thank you for providing the honor of what they do best in radio, and that is to serve the community and help them get through the storms.

Commissioner Pritchard requested Mr. Dean tell the audience where the station can be located; with Mr. Dean responding 920 on the AM radio dial. He noted they did not have anything to talk about, but thanks to Commissioner Pritchard and his anti-United Nations Resolution, they have something to talk about this morning. He thanked the Board for the Resolution.

Chair Higgs thanked the WMEL crew for their outstanding efforts.

Commissioner Carlson stated it was interesting that Mr. Harper brought up the fact that it was local coverage because they did not get good coverage on television for people to know and understand what was going on; so the blow-by-blow discussion on the radio was really wonderful. She thanked the crew for their services.

REPORT, RE: ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA

Chair Higgs advised Sgt. Butler pulled Item III.D.6., Authorize Lease Agreement with VeriTracks/General Dynamics, Inc., Re: Implementation of Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program and Juvenile GPS Tracing Project, which will be taken up immediately after the Consent Agenda; and she will vote no on Item III,C.5., Amendment to Agreement with The Buchanan Company, Inc., Re: Sports Promotion and Development.

Commissioner Pritchard pulled Item III.B.8., Approval of Easement to Honest John’s Fish Camp, Inc., Re: Replacement of Outdoor Advertising Sign Near Entrance to South Beach Community Park; and Item III.C.3., Resolution Authorizing Tax Exempt Commercial Paper Loan, Re: FY 2004-05 Capital Improvements Projects.

Commissioner Scarborough advised he pulled Item III.D.2., Agreement with the Economic Development Commission of Florida’s Space Coast, Re: Primary Marketing, Retention, and Recruitment Agency for FY 2004-05.

Chair Higgs reiterated Items pulled from the Consent Agenda are III.B.8., III.C.3, III.D.2. and III.D.6., and Items III.C.4. and III.D.4. were moved to Section VII, Items Removed from Consent Agenda.

RESOLUTIONS AND RENEWAL LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH FEC RAILWAY, RE:
STREET ENCROACHMENT AND BORROW DITCH

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolutions authorizing renewal of Lease Agreements with Florida East Coast Railway Company for street encroachment at MP 167+3444’, East Railroad Avenue, and borrow ditch at MP 147+1072’, Lionel Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages
for Resolutions Nos. 04-252 and 04-253, and Renewal Lease Agreements.)

CONTRACT MODIFICATION AGREEMENT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE:
CAPRON TRACE, PHASE 1

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Contract Modification Agreement with The Viera Company guaranteeing infrastructure improvements in Capron Trace, Phase 1, to reduce the amount of the Contract as a majority of the work has been completed. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Contract Modification Agreement.)

PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, RE: BOARDWALK AT SUNTREE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant preliminary plat approval for Boardwalk at Suntree, subject to compliance with recommendations of review agencies and applicable Policies, Ordinances, laws, and regulations. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: ISLAND POINTE PUD

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final plat approval for Island Pointe PUD, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining applicable jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND EASEMENTS ACCEPTANCE, RE: WALKABOUT
QUANTUM PLACE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final plat approval for Walkabout Quantum Place, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining applicable jurisdictional permits; and accept three Easements from Walkabout Residential Company LLC for construction and maintenance of water, sewer, and raw water reuse utilities. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Easements.)

EXTENSION AGREEMENT WITH INDIAN RIVER NO. 1 DEVELOPERS, LLC, RE:
AQUARINA BOULEVARD AND SPANISH MOSS COURT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Extension Agreement with Indian River No. 1 Developers, LLC, extending completion of improvements for Aquarina Boulevard and Spanish Moss Court until July 15, 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Extension Agreement.)

CONTRACT WITH SIGNATURE QUALITY HOMES, INC., RE: CRANE’S POINT,
PHASE 2, PARCEL 3, AQUARINA PUD

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Contract with Signature Quality Homes, Inc. guaranteeing infrastructure improvements in Crane’s Point, Phase 2, Parcel 3, Aquarina PUD. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Contract.)

RESOLUTION AND DEED, RE: TRANSFERRING MALABAR ROAD STORMWATER
RETENTION PARCELS TO THE CITY OF PALM BAY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution authorizing conveyance of real property by the County, and execute County Deed conveying stormwater retention parcels known as Pond E on Malabar Road to the City of Palm Bay. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Resolution No. 04-254 and Deed.)

RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 01-303, RE: ESTABLISHING FINES AND
FEES FOR LIBRARY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution amending Resolution No. 01-303, revising the fines and fees for Library Services Department. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-255.)

RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 01-370, RE: CIRCULATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR LIBRARY MEDIA AND AV EQUIPMENT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution amending Resolution No. 01-370, to clarify the loan periods of different materials, media and AV equipment. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-256.)

GRANT AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF
LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES, RE: FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Grant Agreement with Florida Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services, for $65,100 to continue the Family Literacy Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

APPLICATION TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LIBRARY
AND INFORMATION SERVICES, RE: STATE AID TO LIBRARIES FOR FY 2004-05

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve application to Florida Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services for a State Aid to Libraries Grant for FY 2004-05, anticipated at $683,684. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL TO NAME OVERPASS, RE: JAY CLARK OVERPASS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve naming the overpass connecting Fairglen Elementary School and Sharpes Community Park as the Jay Clark Overpass. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
RE: CONSTRUCTION AND MONITORING OF THREE WELLS IN F. BURTON
SMITH PARK

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute License Agreement with St. Johns River Water Management District to drill and monitor three wells in F. Burton Smith Park for a period of 20 years. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for License Agreement.)

AGREEMENT WITH RONALD E. COLEMAN, RE: PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS WALKWAY
AND DUNE CROSSOVER IN MELBOURNE BEACH

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Ronald E. Coleman to design, permit, and construct a public beach access walkway and dune crossover in Melbourne Beach on a five-foot wide walkway located on SR A1A. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS, APPOINT COMMITTEES,
AND AWARD CONTRACTS, RE: CONTINUING ROOF CONTRACTING SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise requests for proposals for continuing roof contracting services; appoint Bill Clifton, Frank Orlowski, and Hugh Muller to the Selection and Negotiating Committees; and authorize the Chair to execute the awarded Contracts. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Contracts.)

NATURAL GAS SALES AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY,
AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH NUI CITY GAS COMPANY,
RE: NATURAL GAS COST SAVINGS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Natural Gas Sales Agreement with Florida Power & Light Company and Transportation Service Agreement with NUI City Gas Company resulting in a savings on natural gas purchases. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Agreements.)

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE BUCHANAN COMPANY, INC., RE:
SPORTS PROMOTION AND DEVELOPMENT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment to Agreement with The Buchanan Company, Inc. exercising the two-year option to extend sports promotion and development services through FY 2007-08. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay. (See page for Amendment.)

APPROVAL, RE: TDC FY 2004-05 ADVERTISING MEDIA PLAN AND PURCHASE
ORDERS TO ADVERTISING VENDORS FOR AD PLACEMENTS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Tourist Development Council’s FY 2004-05 Advertising Media Plan; authorize the Tourism Development Executive Director and the County Manager to negotiate advertising rates and execute agreements with selected vendors; and authorize issuance of purchase orders to advertising vendors for ad placement costs over $35,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS, RE: BREVARD WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint William Taylor and Jack Rood to the Brevard Workforce Development Board with terms expiring June 30, 2007. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: OFFER OF OPTION TO PARTICIPATE IN TRICARE SUPPLEMENTAL
HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize offering eligible employees, retirees, and their dependents the option to participate in a TRICARE Supplemental Health Insurance Program offered by Association & Society Insurance Corporation as an alternative to participation in any of the current Group Health Insurance Program Options on a voluntary basis effective January 1, 2005; and authorize payment of coverage for the plan from the Group Health Insurance Fund. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 202-267,
RE: SPACEPORT COMMERCE PARK AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize revising the membership makeup of the Spaceport Commerce Park Authority to include industrial park business tenant(s); direct the County Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending Section 202-267 of the Brevard County Code relating to the membership; and authorize advertising a public hearing to consider the ordinance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE GRANT APPLICATION AND ACCEPTANCE, RE: PURCHASE OF
HOMELAND SECURITY/LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Sheriff’s Office to apply for and accept four pre-approved grant awards from the U.S. Office of Domestic Preparedness to purchase homeland security/law enforcement equipment of a bomb detection robot, safe boat, undercover surveillance vehicle, and a bomb detection dog and patrol car for the Port at a total cost of $434,342. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: REVISED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR PRECINCTS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve revised precinct legal descriptions for existing precincts due to annexations by the Cities of Cocoa, Melbourne, and Titusville; and approve precinct descriptions altered due to the City Council of Cocoa redistricting its single-member districts. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Precinct Boundaries.)

APPROVAL, RE: REQUISITION OF ONE-TWELFTH OF ANNUAL APPROPRIATION
FOR SHERIFF’S OFFICE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve payment of one-twelfth of the annual appropriation for FY 2004-05 requested by the Sheriff’s Office pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 30.50(1). Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

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

AUTHORIZE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH VERITRACKS/GENERAL DYNAMICS, INC.,
RE: IMPLEMENTATION OF SERIOUS HABITUAL OFFENDER COMPREHENSIVE
ACTION PROGRAM AND JUVENILE GPS TRACING PROJECT

Sergeant Wayne Butler requested the item be withdrawn from the Agenda as the Sheriff’s Office prefers to proceed with a request for proposals.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to withdraw the Lease Agreement with VeriTracks/General Dynamics, Inc. for implementation of serous habitual offender comprehensive action program and juvenile GPS tracing project from the Agenda. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENT IN OAKWOOD SUBDIVISION - GRETA M. POOLE

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a public utility and drainage easement in Oakwood Subdivision, as petitioned by Greta M. Poole.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution vacating a public utility and drainage easement in Oakwood Subdivision, as petitioned by Greta M. Poole. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-257.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENTS IN CAMBRIDGE PARK, PHASE 3 - CHARLES N. GAUDETTE

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a public utility and drainage easements in Cambridge Park, Phase 3, as petitioned by Charles N. Gaudette.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility and drainage easements in Cambridge Park, Phase 3, as petitioned by Charles N. Gaudette. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-258.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT IN
PORT ST. JOHN CENTER, AND ACCEPT NEW EASEMENT - CCG HOLDINGS, INC.

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a public utility easement in Port St. John Center, as petitioned by CCG Holdings, Inc., and to accept a new easement.

Cynthia Streeter advised the petitioner provided a revised petition.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution vacating a public utility easement in Port St. John Center, as petitioned by CCG Holdings, Inc., and to accept a new easement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-259.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENT IN THE FAIRWAYS AT THE GREAT OUTDOORS - DIANA EPPERSON

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a public utility and drainage easement in The Fairways at The Great Outdoors, as petitioned by Diana Epperson.

Cynthia Streeter requested the public hearing be continued until November 9, 2004.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a public utility and drainage easement in The Fairways at The Great Outdoors, as petitioned by Diana Epperson until November 9, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT
IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 21S., RANGE 34E. - CREECH ENGINEERS, INC.

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating an ingress and egress easement in Section 1, Township 21S., Range 34E., as petitioned by Creech Engineers, Inc.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution vacating an ingress and egress easement in Section 1, Township 21S., Range 34E., as petitioned by Creech Engineers, Inc. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-260.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS IN
BAREFOOT BAY, UNIT TWO, PART TEN - WAYNE K. CHAPPLE, AND WALLACE
AND DONNA WIGHT

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility easements in Barefoot Bay, Unit Two, Part Ten, as petitioned by Wayne K. Chapple, and Wallace G. and Donna G. Wight.

Cynthia Streeter requested the public hearing be continued until October 26, 2004.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility easements in Barefoot Bay, Unit Two, Part Ten, as petitioned by Wayne K. Chapple, and Wallace G. and Donna G. Wight until October 26, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING UTILITY EASEMENT IN GRANDE BAY
AND ACCEPT REPLACEMENT EASEMENT - ELMER F. SEALING

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a utility easement in Grande Bay, as petitioned by Elmer F. Sealing, and to accept a replacement easement.

Cynthia Streeter recommended the public hearing be continued to October 26, 2004.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a utility easement in Grande Bay, as petitioned by Elmer F. Sealing, and to accept a replacement easement until October 26, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING DRAINAGE DITCH RIGHT-0F-WAY
IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 26S., RANGE 36E., AND ACCEPT EASEMENT -
PINEDA CROSSING CORPORATION

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a drainage ditch right-of-way in Section 25, Township 26S., Range 36E., as petitioned by Pineda Crossing Corporation, and to accept an easement.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised there was a question about title commitment; and that required a revision of the attachments and to the resolution. He stated the County Attorney’s office reviewed and approved the revisions; the Board has not seen it at this time; staff has copies to give to the Board; and the Clerk’s office has received it as well today. He stated the Board can move forward with that stipulation or if it wants to review it further, it can continue the public hearing to October 26, 2004.

Commissioner Carlson inquired which does staff feel more comfortable with; with Mr. Denninghoff responding moving forward, but staff is sensitive to the fact that the Board has not seen the revised resolution. Mr. Denninghoff stated the concept has not changed; it is just a question of the way the parcels were described and the ability to issue an opinion of title; and those have all been resolved to staff’s satisfaction at this time. Commissioner Carlson inquired if staff wants to approve it with certain revisions; with Mr. Denninghoff responding affirmatively.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt a Resolution vacating a drainage ditch right-of-way in Section 25, Township 26S., Range 36E., as petitioned by Pineda Crossing Corporation; and accept an easement from Pineda Crossing Corporation, including the revisions noted by staff. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages
for Resolution No. 04-261 and Easement.)

APPROVAL OF EASEMENT TO HONEST JOHN’S FISH CAMP, INC., RE: REPLACEMENT
OF OUTDOOR SIGN NEAR ENTRANCE TO SOUTH BEACH COMMUNITY PARK

Chair Higgs advised the representatives of Honest John’s Fish Camp are here; and inquired if the Board wants to proceed with that item, and if Commissioner Pritchard would like to explain his issues then she will have the representatives speak. Commissioner Pritchard requested the citizens speak first. Chair Higgs called for Robert Arthur and Jason Arthur.

Jason Arthur, Attorney for Honest John’s Fish Camp, introduced Robert Arthur, president of the Fish Camp; and stated if the Board prefers, they would field questions the Board may have on the item.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he wants a little clarification; from what he understands, the access road off SR A1A is going to become a cul-de-sac for the neighborhood that would be on the south side of what is currently the access road to the Fish Camp where the sign is located; with Jason Arthur responding approximately 400 feet of Mullet Creek Road will be a cul-de-sac going north. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that would prohibit access into the Fish Camp; with Mr. Arthur responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the issue is providing access through what is a significant part of Mullet Creek Road that is actually property owned by the Barbara Arthur Foundation; with Mr. Arthur responding he is not clear on the question. Commissioner Pritchard stated there was an issue with Mr. Coffman and now Mr. Young about access to get to their properties, which was resolved with an alternative route; with Chair Higgs responding it has not been resolved yet. Commissioner Pritchard stated he has an amended order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff for access. Chair Higgs recommended the County Attorney respond to those issues because the County is a part of that litigation. County Attorney Scott Knox stated he is not sure what the status is, but thinks they are close to working it out, and he would have to check on that. Commissioner Pritchard stated if it is not worked out, then the Board is being premature by rerouting an access road if it is not known if the Arthurs, Smiths, Youngs, County, St. Johns River Water Management District, etc., all defendants in this case, are in agreement with the rerouting of the access road. Chair Higgs stated maybe Mr. Nelson can talk to the issue from the County’s perspective and provide clarification on the access issues to the park and the access issues which are in litigation.

Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson advised it is his understanding that because the access continues to the west of the County’s property under either scenario that is not an issue with regard to this item. He stated Mullet Creek Road continues at some point; and with the litigation issue they were involved in, it was determined that the County’s ownership of the property did not impact that; so he does not believe the item has any impact on that one way or another. Commissioner Pritchard inquired why would the County want to construct a new road with two entrances to the park since it already has Mullet Creek Road there; with Mr. Nelson responding staff would like to vacate the portion of Mullet Creek Road that goes through the park property; from a park design perspective, it creates unwanted traffic down a residential street between A1A and the park site; and they did not want to give access into the park from that location. He stated it also gives staff the ability to create a better park design that is not encumbered by the road through the park; and the new entry gives them the ability to buffer the property from the adjacent neighborhood, which is Floridana Beach. He stated it will have a nice wide buffer as the road comes in; so from their perspective, they would like to have a better access into the park that does not impact the residential neighborhood. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the cost of the new access versus just improving Mullet Creek Road; with Mr. Nelson responding they are almost the same length, so improvements on either one are going to cost about the same, but he does not have the actual dollar amount; and they need to be able to get to the very western side of the property. He stated where it ties back into Mullet Creek Road, there are some improvements; so there is a second entrance into the park site for some minor facilities. He stated they would be paving Mullet Creek Road all the way through the park or would be paving the new road, which they prefer to do because it abuts the property and gives them frontage. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mullet Creek Road divides the park property; with Mr. Nelson responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that is the reason staff wants the cul-de-sac; with Mr. Nelson responding that is the primary reason; and it would not be a good park design with children running back and forth between facilities on the south and north sides of the park. Commissioner Pritchard stated the photocopies he has are not the best; and Mr. Nelson apologized for the photocopy quality. Commissioner Pritchard stated they are going to create a new road and cul-de-sac a portion of Mullet Creek Road; that brings the issue back to the sign for Honest John’s Fish Camp, which is a nonconforming sign; but through no effort brought about by the owner, the sign will not lead anywhere; so they want to move it. Mr. Arthur noted they want to move it to the new road. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it will be done at their expense; with Mr. Arthur responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it is a new sign or the same sign; with Mr. Arthur responding it is the same sign. Mr. Nelson stated staff has no issue with the sign.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve an Easement to Honest John’s Fish Camp, Inc. for replacement of an outdoor advertising sign near the entrance road to the South Beach Community Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING ANIMAL-RELATED ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STATE REGULATIONS, ENHANCED
USABILITY, AND CLARITY (FIRST READING)

Chair Higgs called for the first public hearing to consider an ordinance amending animal-related zoning regulations for consistency with State regulations, enhanced usability, and clarity.

Anne Schapson of Cocoa presented documents to the Board but not the Clerk; and stated she came before the Board three months ago about the loud and raucous screeching from the birds next door, and since that time the problem has gotten worse. She stated the neighbor brought in more cages and more birds; and in case everyone has forgotten what she lives with every day, she would like to play a tape recording of the bird noises; and played the recording of screeching from birds owned by her neighbor. She stated attached to the back of the documents are some letters from other neighbors; on page 2 is a picture of the rear of her home and about half of the bird cages next door; the recording she played was made from the bedroom doorway, which is about 90 feet from the cages; and they have since added more cages and put up a privacy fence. She stated on page 3 are some of the rights that her family has lost because of the conditions they are now living under; they have to play the television louder; they have to talk louder; they cannot sit over coffee in the morning and talk the way they used to; if they have guests, they cannot sleep because it goes on 24/7; and they cannot go to bed early and cannot sleep late in the mornings. Ms. Schapson stated on page 4 are some of the Codes about prohibiting loud raucous noise; on page 6, #12 states, “the dropping or throwing of objects to the point where it grates on the nerves of the neighbor is prohibited”; page 8, she thought was the solution as #10 says, “exceptions, with the lawfully running of farm equipment/farm machinery. . .”; but the last two lines say, “however, this exception shall not apply to animal noise.” She stated page 9 in Animal Services (a) states, “no animal shall be permitted or allowed to create a nuisance”; but that is negated by (d) which says, “exotic birds shall not constitute a nuisance within an AU zoning.” She stated the notice she received in the mail the other day says, “no animal, the keeping of which could be obnoxious or disturbing to others in the adjacent area. . .”; she is not sure exactly what that means; and inquired if that means other animals in the area or people. She stated page 11 has a few questions like why does Animal Services override Code Enforcement Ordinances; why is the screeching of the birds exempt from the Noise Ordinance; why is the neighbor not allowed to let her barking dog make her life miserable but is allowed to have her screeching birds make her life miserable; and the most important question of all is, where does she go to get her rights back.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not staff’s problem and it is not the Code’s problem, as it was created by the Board. He stated the Board had extensive discussions on the raising of exotic birds; and inquired how long ago was that discussion; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding she thinks at least five years ago. Commissioner Scarborough stated at that time, the Board had a number of people come forth and persuade it to make an exemption for exotic birds; it knew very well at the time exactly what it was doing; it did not accidentally let it happen; staff is not misinterpreting the Board’s action; and the Board has the latitude at any time to revisit any issues and go back and change them. He stated until the Board takes action, the interpretation of the Code is not going to be a means for recourse.

Chair Higgs suggested the Board change the Code. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that element is included in the ordinance before the Board; with Ms. Busacca responding no. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board had some discussion and asked staff to do a report on bird noises; with Interim Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino responding that is correct; in July the Board requested staff do a report on bird noise; and they are working on that now and plan to have it back to the Board in November. Commissioner Scarborough recommended before it comes back to the Board, Ms. Schapson be given a copy of it. He stated he would be glad to meet with Ms. Schapson; but at this time that element is not in the ordinance before the Board that is recommended for change. Chair Higgs stated it will be a few weeks before that element comes back to the Board for consideration. Ms. Schapson inquired what does that mean; with Chair Higgs responding the loud and raucous bird noise or animal noise in AU is not in the changes before the Board today and do not include a change to the provision that affects Ms. Schapson’s problem, but staff’s report will come back in November for the Board to consider, then it can move forward to make those amendments. Ms. Schapson inquired if she can come back in November; with Chair Higgs responding she can come back every day if she wants to. Ms. Schapson stated she will be back until she has a normal life again. Commissioner Scarborough stated what is coming back in November is a report and not an ordinance, so Ms. Schapson may want to get involved in the report and understand what is coming forward at that time; and Ms. Sobrino will provide Ms. Schapson with a copy of the report. Ms. Schapson inquired if the hearing in November is just a report and does not mean there will be any changes; with Commissioner Scarborough responding there will first be a report then the movement beyond the report to drafting of an ordinance. Ms. Schapson stated she has lived with the nightmare for 18 months and three years with barking dogs before that. Chair Higgs advised it points out some of the problems the Board talked about regarding the character of AU and how that works; and it needs to look at that as well.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Ms. Schapson and the owners of the wild birds live on AU zoned property; with Ms. Schapson responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there are setbacks like 100 feet from the property line that is applicable; with Ms. Sobrino responding there is nothing for the birds. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board needs to discuss that.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Ms. Schapson’s question was why is a barking dog not permitted, but screeching birds are; and inquired if they can have barking dogs in AU; with Ms. Sobrino responding barking dogs are found to be a nuisance under the Code. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that applies to any zoning classification; with Ms. Sobrino responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if barking dogs in AU would be quieted, but screeching birds or other types of animal noises are allowed; with Ms. Sobrino responding it is not addressed in the Code right now. Ms. Schapson stated she does not understand why it is not covered under the Noise Ordinance because she called about the barking dog and got results.

Chair Higgs stated the Board was dealing with people in AU who wanted to raise tropical birds as a business; the Board tried to figure out where it would go; and whether it was the right decision or not, sometimes they learn retroactively that they needed to do something different. She stated the Board was trying to find a way to allow people to raise tropical birds in AU.

Commissioner Pritchard stated an excellent point was made; it is not the raising of the tropical birds that is a problem, it is the noise they make; so if they have AU zoning and an enclosed aviary that is somewhat soundproof or at least reduces the sound, there may be no objections to that. He stated raising birds in an area where the noise does not penetrate to the neighbors is not the issue, it is the noise that the birds are making that is the issue; so with that in mind, why was it not addressed in the Noise Ordinance.

Ms. Sobrino stated currently there are conflicting provisions in various sections of the Code; and the Animal Services Code, Chapter 46, and the performance standards in the Zoning Regulations with regard to noise say something completely different, as they were crafted by other departments. She stated through this process, staff is going to propose to the Board a way to make it consistent throughout all Chapters of the Code.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is not opposed to allowing raising of exotic birds in AU zoning; he is opposed to the noise that they make; and inquired if it is possible to allow various conditions under AU zoning, but require the noise be muffled in some manner so it is not disturbing to the neighbors. Ms. Sobrino noted she thinks that will be one of the options for the Board’s consideration.

Commissioner Colon stated she agrees with Ms. Schapson because that is not acceptable; she does not think any of the Commissioners would want to live the way she is living right now; but the Board has to try and figure out a way legally of what happens when the Board has allowed it, at what point does the Board say what number is allowed, what kind of noise is allowed, and all those things. She stated those folks who are there, even though the Board does not agree with what they are doing, they were allowed to do it by the County; and inquired what will happen and will they get grandfathered in. She stated hopefully they would not be grandfathered in; it is very complex; and perhaps staff could get creative and make sure it is taken care of completely and not just put a Band-Aid on it.

Chair Higgs stated that is an issue for November; the item before the Board has a number of changes to the current Code; and that is what the Board should address at this time.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to forward an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, pertaining to animal-related regulations to the second and final hearing on November 4, 2004.

Commissioner Carlson stated Florida Statutes requires the County to provide some zoning for captive wildlife; and inquired if that is how the Code states it, and is staff interpreting it based on that law; with Ms. Sobrino responding the State requires that Brevard County provide locations in which captive wildlife can be maintained; they have identified the AU, PA, and AGR zoning classifications, which are large lots in rural areas as the most appropriate; and the standards for maintaining the animals with regard to setbacks from property lines, minimum parcel size, and design of enclosures all parallel the requirements of the State. She stated staff feels they are the experts in how to make sure captive wildlife is kept captive; and they simply mirrored the State’s requirements. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the State law talks at all to association, captive wildlife organizations with conservation education programs or anything like that; and is there any tie-in in any way, so they do not have little mini-zoos floating around. Ms. Sobrino stated the ordinance addresses those that are not zoos or rehabilitators, and addresses those people who choose to maintain captive wildlife for their own personal enjoyment. Commissioner Carlson inquired if they talk at all about making the captivity for wildlife big cats or anything like that, that may be hazardous or harmful if they escape associated with their breeding or anything like that with any specific licensing or association with a zoo group etc.; with Ms. Sobrino responding they do not require affiliation with a zoo group; they do require that whoever is keeping captive wildlife have certain minimum credentials; and the State is the one to determine if they are qualified to maintain those dangerous animals. Commissioner Carlson requested a copy of the State requirements.

Commissioner Pritchard stated there has been discussion about a big cat rescue moving onto North Merritt Island; and inquired what effect does the ordinance have on the potential for that happening; with Ms. Sobrino responding the big cat rescue would require a conditional use permit (CUP) to have the animals there if the ordinance is enacted as presented; and they would have to apply for the CUP, meet the standards set forth in the ordinance, and qualify with the State to maintain the animals in that location. Commissioner Pritchard stated Commissioner Colon brought up the issue about people raising exotic birds in AU zoning and whether they would be grandfathered in; when the Board allows someone, through zoning, to do something like that and they build an aviary, he assumes the aviary was built to some sort of construction standards; and if the Board were to modify the construction standards to make it enclosed to prevent noise from escaping to the neighborhood, then the Board has still allowed them to perform the function they have been doing, so the issue of being grandfathered in would not be an issue. He stated the Board would only be changing the type of enclosure to insure that neighbors are not disturbed by the birds. Chair Higgs stated all that will be discussed when the Board gets the report from staff. Commissioner Pritchard stated he knows that, but is setting the grounds for what he is expecting to come back. Chair Higgs stated the grandfathering issue and construction standards need to be addressed.

Commissioner Colon stated she supports the ordinance, but is concerned about how much the Board is protecting the people because it knew of this problem six years ago regarding big cats. She stated they dealt with it in the City of Palm Bay when they had the same individuals having that kind of incident going on an 80x125 lot; and the County did not help the City when it could have teamed up back then. Chair Higgs stated the City never wanted the County to help it. Commissioner Colon stated she did ask for help and the County did not help her. She stated the ordinance is a good start, but she is concerned that the Board does not have something that has a lot of teeth, and has a wimpy ordinance that is not going to do it. Ms. Sobrino stated the current Ordinance does not have specific standards; the courts found it to be unenforceable because it is arbitrary; and staff believes that the standards set forth in the proposed ordinance that establishes lot size, minimum setback requirements, enclosure requirements, and limitations as to where the animals can go, limiting them to large lots in rural areas, will be very beneficial in regulating captive wildlife.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board had a lot of difficulty with this issue; it had appeals; the Board got it; it went as far as it could; and he hopes the ordinance will give it more latitude because there is a high degree of incompatibility that the State sometimes has not supported local government with in its ability to regulate land uses. Chair Higgs stated amending this Code will not help the City of Palm Bay in the future or any other city; and they would have to adopt their own ordinances.

Commissioner Colon stated that was her whole point; the Board is dealing with the State; and that is why she was trying to figure out exactly and kind of follow the lead; the County does something, but it does not help the cities; and that is really the bigger picture she was talking about, a Band-Aid approach. She inquired how far does the Board want to go to the State and say it needs to tighten up; and stated that is what she is talking about and even going one step further to find out what the Board can do to work with the State to help in that regard. She stated it is unfair to the residents and the animals.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if Commissioner Colon wants to propose changes in the legislative package, he would support it. Commissioner Carlson suggested Commissioner Colon bring the Board some words to discuss in that regard.

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

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to request Commissioner Colon bring back suggestions for the legislative package regarding captive wildlife. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TRANSMITTAL OF PLAN AMENDMENT 2004C, FUTURE LAND
USE CHANGE FOR THE GREAT OUTDOORS DRI

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider transmittal of Plan Amendment 2004C regarding future land use change for The Great Outdoors DRI.

Lynn Hansel, Vice President of The Great Outdoors, advised a couple of months ago the Board heard their notice of proposed change to the DRI; at that time it decided the proposed change was not a substantial deviation; at the same time, they agreed to file a Comprehensive Plan amendment in conjunction with staff’s review and recommendation to make the change to the DRI go forward; and they have filed that application for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element. He stated the purpose of this meeting is to decide whether or not to transmit that report from staff to Department of Community Affairs; two letters were sent to the Board since they were last here; one from Mr. Tomsu and one he received last night at the LPA meeting that addressed some concerns with the proposed amendment; and he can go through those individually or for the record can hand out to the Board his response to both letters. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Hansel needs to announce it so it is on record. Mr. Hansel stated the Titusville letter he received last night at the LPA meeting; and apologized for not having a response to the Board earlier. He stated Mr. Tomsu’s concerns are with the potable water provision by the City of Cocoa and the Agreement that was executed in 1988; Mr. Tomsu believes there is not sufficient water in the Agreement; and he believes Mr. Tomsu is not reading the Agreement properly. Mr. Hansel stated the City of Titusville has expressed an interest in providing potable water to the proposed amendment area; so there seems to be no shortage of drinking water available; and it is only a matter of who is going to be providing it. He stated Mr. Tomsu also expressed concern that the wastewater treatment plant at The Great Outdoors is not sufficient in capacity to handle the projected new flows; he alleges there is a 140,000-gallon rating on the plant today; however, the actual capacity is 460,000 gallons a day, well above the projected flow requirements. He stated Mr. Tomsu also indicated in his opinion, they have overbuilt the allowable commercial areas throughout the Park; he thinks they built 55,266 square feet; but they have built only 21,000 square feet, which is under the 25,000 square feet that are presently allowed in the Development Order.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it may be advantageous to have Mr. Tomsu speak and then Mr. Hansel respond because it may make more sense. Mr. Hansel stated he does not mind if the other two speakers wish to speak. Commissioner Scarborough suggested Mr. Hansel reserve his comments for rebuttal; they would have an opportunity to make their cases; and the Board would hear it in a better sequence. Mr. Hansel stated that is fine, and if there are questions he will entertain them. Chair Higgs stated based on the time that elapsed, Mr. Hansel will have ten minutes for rebuttal.

Doug Tomsu advised he is a homeowner and lives at The Great Outdoors Resort; and presented a packet to the Board, but not the Clerk. He stated some of his concerns were misconstrued by Mr. Hansel; he does not have a concern about the volume of water and included water calculations because what goes into the park needs to come out as sanitary waste; and his point was that the water usage has increased dramatically and the sewage has increased. He stated he concedes Mr. Hansel’s point on the wastewater treatment plant being properly sized; the number he referenced was from the turnover Agreement; and they may have very well made improvements to the plant. He stated he would like the Board to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but have some restrictions or a binding order to include several items, which he feels are no or low cost items and are reasonable to protect and preserve their community and things developers should be doing. Mr. Tomsu stated he would like the applicant to turn over to all parties, including homeowners, the engineering analysis that shows not only the water treatment plant can meet the needs, but the sanitary lines can; and it should be based on current usage, including the proposed commercial and support facilities. He stated he would like the applicant to be required to stay within the commercial and support facility limits that were in the DRI, and make that list available for public review; and he would like to have a reasonable limit or allocation on the open land that is used for golf carts, boats, and the RV’s they use for repairs, sales, resales, rentals, and storage. He stated he would like the applicant to identify where and what new commercial facilities are to be developed; LPA was allowed to build its design and construction center in the middle of a residential area; it is not a model home per se, it is used for design staff and for construction meetings; homeowners go there to sign contracts and see what their building is like; but it is much more than a typical model home. He stated he would also like the applicant to preserve the nature trail as a community asset; the developer’s rebuttal to the LPA last night was that he and St. Johns River Water Management District had signed an Agreement years ago; and if he turns it over, it would not be binding with the CSA. Mr. Tomsu stated the nature trail was built and maintained using homeowners funds; the developer installed the signs and he provided the Board with pictures of those; and the developer also included the trail in sales brochures. He stated they bought in the community expecting the nature trail; and CSA should have control whether it is through an easement or some other mechanism. He stated he broke out the commercial and support facilities, what was required by the DRI, what is proposed, and what is existing from the tax records; nobody has challenged his numbers; and if they include the church and nature center, it would exceed the totals and would have 113,000 square feet now. He stated he is asking for 112,000; and if the Board gives him another 45,000, he will have up to 158,000 square feet; whereas the Board has only approved to this point 72,000 square feet. He stated the problem comes because staff and Mr. Hansel have taken items; he has gone through the property records and given the Board all the parcel items; they are moving items from commercial to support; he has no problem with that; but if they do that, then they far exceed the support requirements. Mr. Tomsu stated Mr. Swanke said individual zoning not included within the umbrella of the DRI is a support facility; if they move it over, they will be way over their support facilities; he has no problem if the Board raises the limits; but he wants a firm limit they can look at and everybody can evaluate whether he has gone over or not and not play the shell game. He stated he still has a problem with the sanitary system; his rebuttal letter to the LPA said that one comment by Steve Swanke said that the 1997 review found no infrastructure problems; and on page 5 he copied part of that meeting for the Board. He stated they have water pressure problems, but the Board ignored it and did not take action; and the sanitary line is the exact same thing.

Dwight Severs, Attorney for the City of Titusville, presented documents to the Board but not the Clerk; and stated pursuant to authorization of City Council and the letter the Board already has from the City Manager, which is self-explanatory as far as the City’s concerns are on the issues, he does not plan to go over them unless the Board has particular questions. He stated subsequent to their earlier meeting, Mr. Kirschenbaum contacted his office; they had a preliminary discussion about a variety of issues; the City made certain proposals it felt could resolve some of the issues; and the applicant is doing some engineering, which hopefully will resolve the issues. Mr. Severs stated he realizes it is the transmittal phase, and is mindful of the public hearing process; many residents feel they should address the issues now, but normally the issues are transmitted; and that is all the comments he has on behalf of the City. He congratulated Commissioner Scarborough on his reelection; and stated they look forward to working with the County and resolving any disputes in the future up front before they become issues. He stated he is available any time to answer any questions, and hopefully the City and County will work together as much as possible.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County did not go out to The Great Outdoors and say they had to do this or that; it was because of the concerns regarding the fire suppression system that came from the County’s Fire Department; and the City has its own issues with the developer in different matters. He stated he would like to recognize the various issues and problems, but transmit them with the commitment not to wait until it comes back, but to immediately proceed with dialogue with the developer and other concerned persons to bring all the issues to the table so they can be resolved with mutual agreement at the time it comes back from Department of Community Affairs. He stated with that thought in mind, they do not have a community being held hostage because things could occur and that planning is important; but at this moment, it would be good to move forward in a spirit of cooperation to come back with a completed project if that is acceptable to the City. Mr. Severs stated they have no problem with that; he is aware of the Agreement and the terms of it; they understand why there is a need to enhance the fire suppression system; and he does not want any comments he made today or before to be construed as in opposition to that. Mr. Severs stated the 204 additional resort homes is a separate issue; the City applauds the Board for taking a strong stand to insure the public health and safety as it relates to fire suppression; and it has no problem with that. He stated he called Mr. Kirschenbaum yesterday to find out the status of their earlier meeting; and he said they were still doing engineering; the City proposed some ways of resolving some of its concerns about compatibility and suggested language that would address those issues; and it is willing to sit down and resolve those issues in advance.

Chair Higgs inquired if the Board wants to go back to Mr. Hansel or see if it is willing to submit the amendment and work out the difficulties; with Commissioner Scarborough inquiring if it is acceptable to have a commitment from both sides to not wait until it comes back but to immediately enter into dialogue to go over those issues because they were not going to resolve everything today. He stated he thinks there is a desire to move the matter beyond the point of transmittal; so unless one of them gets up and wants to speak, he will make the motion to transmit with the commitment to immediately enter into dialogue to resolve the issues. Mr. Hansel stated he is more than willing to sit down with Mr. Tomsu and try to resolve his concerns. Mr. Tomsu stated he is not as familiar with the process; and inquired what happens if it is transmitted; with Chair Higgs responding it can be amended. Mr. Tomsu inquired if the Department of Community Affairs also accepts comments; with Chair Higgs responding it will accept public comments, and the Board can amend it when it comes back. Commissioner Scarborough stated rather than waiting for it to come back, the Board recognizes there are some issues it would like addressed; so they can immediately begin to address those issues and come to a consensus so when it does come back, they do not have to have discussion that has already taken place. He stated he will make a commitment to everybody in the room that the Board will champion their issues and make sure they are heard. Mr. Tomsu inquired if they meet next week; with Commissioner Scarborough responding they will get in touch with him when it is convenient.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve transmittal to Department of Community Affairs of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2004C from The Great Outdoors Premier RV/Golf Resort, Inc. for a future land use change to its DRI. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 10:58 a.m., and reconvened at 11:04 a.m.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT, RE: LAND CLEARING, TREE PROTECTION, AND LANDSCAPING
REGULATIONS

Barbara Morehead of Scottsmoor advised she has a packet of paperwork from meetings regarding the legislative intent for land clearing, tree canopy, landscaping, urban heat island, betterment, etc. that the Board is discussing today; she cannot understand why this is coming before the Board today when the County has just been through three hurricanes and people are cleaning up and clearing out; and there are still mounds of debris up and down the County. She stated reasonable people do not think this is the time to be considering the ordinances; somehow the land clearing has definitely become a move to stop growth; and that has been admitted by a staff member in meetings.

Chair Higgs inquired who was the staff member that said that; with Ms. Morehead responding it was said at an agricultural meeting. Chair Higgs inquired who was the staff member who said that; with Ms. Morehead responding Ms. Barker was the lady who was present and made that comment; and she believes Ms. Busacca was there and might recall that. She stated the placing of a moratorium for a change in conversion of new agricultural land from three to five years is distinctly an interference with free market values; and the penalties staff recommends for early conversion of those lands is outrageous. She stated staff’s considerations for exceptions for bankruptcy or death are woefully inadequate and antiquated; and inquired what about economic setbacks, extended illnesses, education of family members, divorce settlements, and old age requirements. She stated in today’s society, those are daily conditions and no taxpayer should have to be forced to come before the Board and beg for an exception. She stated staff is copying Ordinances from other counties and incorporating the most extreme for Brevard County in their effort to stop growth; and they should leave agricultural exception to the Property Appraiser’s office because it has worked well so the Board should leave it alone. Ms. Morehead stated the canopy preservation recommendations were obviously not drafted by anyone who has hands on experience in the tree growing industry; it is not science, it is science fiction; too many trees make for weak unhealthy trees; and as a State licensed grower of native trees for nearly 20 years, it is her opinion, based on real life experiences, that the proposed canopy preservation regulations are unrealistic, unsound, and burdensome for anyone desiring pasture land because it makes good pasture land impossible. She stated the ordinances are filled with mine fields; they are a can of worms; and requested the Board throw them out as they are not needed. She stated there was meeting after meeting; and requested the Board respond to the will of the people who bothered to attend the meetings, table it, postpone it, or scrap it and do the taxpayers a favor.

Franck Kaiser, representing the Home Builders and Contractors Association of Brevard, stated they have concerns with the proposed ordinance changes as well, many of which were just voiced previously, so he will not reiterate those; however, the Board needs to take a better look at them and reconsider some of the proposals that are made in terms of the requested increase in tree canopy, which seems to be unreasonable and burdensome and costly as well. He stated the agricultural conversion increasing from three years to five years is an unreasonable approach; he does not see a need for any of it at this time; he feels the existing Ordinances they have are quite stringent and address everything they should be concerned with; and it does appear to be a no-growth proposal. Mr. Kaiser stated growth is something the Board is going to have to deal with; the Board does not have to make it more difficult; it has to make it more reasonable and balanced; and he does not see anything in the proposed ordinance they are looking at today that will accomplish that. He suggested the Board either scrap the ordinance entirely or postpone it and get a group together to look at it and put some reasonableness in it.

Tiffany Johnson of Titusville stated she did not have an opportunity to really study the ordinance because it is going to be a very demanding ordinance on her and property she owns that is zoned agriculture; and it will limit a lot of the rights that she has. She requested it be postponed so that the people who were not able to get a copy of it has a chance to read it; and stated it is very complicated and extensive, and does need to be studied by individuals like herself. She stated she feels it has taken a lot of property rights away from individuals, even small ones like herself; and if she wanted to make investment in property that she has and maybe develop it, it would take a lot of her property rights away. She stated she has not had a chance to study it; and a lot of people she knows have not been able to study it.

Jack Ippel of Melbourne stated he would like to question the process on the whole thing and the stubbornness on the part of some Commissioners to continually bring back the things that have been done again and again. He stated he went to the first public hearing on this in Palm Bay; there were some environmentalists there; and there was a lot of good professional input. He stated there were a lot of questions brought up; there were a lot of things that were in there that were absolutely unworkable; and the people had no response back from the County as to what things were happening. Mr. Ippel stated he has not seen anything on what the final proposal is; and it is like they were totally ignored. He stated one of the things they brought up; and he followed up on it with several arborists and environmental folks, and asked how in five years are they going to replace the canopy; and they all responded with the same thing, there is only one thing that will do it and that is to plant Brazilian pepper trees. He noted if that is what the Board is after, so be it. He stated the process is screwed up; there are people on the Board who have a vision of doing something and go to staff and tell them what they want done; on this item, it is already being enforced; and it has not even been adopted yet. He stated there has been no communication back; the thing should be tabled; and there should be a committee set up and it should be looked at. Mr. Ippel stated what happens is those things become a focus and nobody looks at what the other things are; they do not look at communicating with people or staff; they do not look at what the outcome can be on that type of thing; and it is just they are going to do it that way, and there is no looking at the consequences or receiving information from the public or staff. He noted it is a sad commentary; he does not know how this thing can be voted on today when nobody has seen it; the people who put input on it have had nothing back; and the public has been totally ignored. He stated it started out as a canopy ordinance that came out of nowhere; now it is part of the betterment plan; and he does not see it on there. He stated it was for the environmentalists trying to take more things away; it is like some of the people on the Board trying to keep it real simple; and they only understand two things, tax and take.

Bobbie Bockman of Melbourne, representing Citizens for Resources Stewardship, stated on March 9, 2004, Mel Scott sent out a letter saying the consolidated environmental ordinance was going to be pulled from the Agenda and that the County Attorney’s office would combine them; her group met with the County Attorney and County Manager and they committed to having the Attorney’s Office go through all the Ordinances and clarify conflicts rather than turning them over to staff; and she does not think they have gotten too far because there were a lot of conflicts and she has not heard any update on that. She stated this appears to be an effort to expand an existing Ordinance that was never clear in the first place; she does not know if that is being done to circumvent Mr. Knox’s efforts; but if this is passed, it will just add to his burden. She requested the Board not add any more environmental ordinances or expand any until Mr. Knox is finished with the job that he committed to do and in that effort he was to come back to the Board on conflicts where the Board’s intent was not clear. Ms. Bockman stated that has not been done yet; they are expanding the Ordinances again; and she would recommend the 25% canopy Ordinance be pulled, reconsidered, and rewritten with public input that would make it work. She stated it is not going to work to stop growth, it is only going to increase the cost of growth; and that will affect affordability in the County. She stated the impact fees have already added a large amount to new development and new homes; this is only going to increase that; it is not going to stop development; and for the agriculture lands ordinance, it is funny that they are asking farmers to take what is equivalent to a marriage vow, till death do us part, or bankruptcy; and that is a little strict and severe, and needs to be reconsidered.

Robert Lee of Indialantic stated he is a civil engineer and as such has worked with the Codes and is very familiar with them; the canopy cover has been particularly burdensome; it was added in the last round of new landscaping ordinances; and nobody really understood what it meant. He stated it sounds like a good idea to preserve 25% of the site in trees and its associated native understory; however, but the problem is if they have a site that only has 10% trees, they cannot save 25% of the site in trees. Mr. Lee stated staff’s interpretation of that is they cannot impact any trees; so if they have a site with 10% trees equally spaced throughout the site, they cannot build on the site because they cannot impact one tree. He stated the betterment plan idea has good intent; however, it is to work around the Code that needs more work to begin with. He stated everybody understands that tree preservation needs to take place; the remainder of the Code provides for mitigation of trees; if they have a large oak they need to cut down to put up a house, there were provisions where they could provide replacement inches of trees; that has worked; so maybe that needs to be supplemented a little. He stated in the canopy, the defined species are not defined; it is currently listed as the highest level of vegetative cover; so if someone has weeds that grow higher than grass, that could theoretically be interpreted as canopy. He stated at a minimum palm trees should not be included in the canopy; the canopy should be defined in terms of trees that have value of which one would want to preserve; and replacement planting should be allowed for any impact to any trees in the canopies. Mr. Lee stated the canopy requirement limits good design; he had a client who wanted to make a downtown streetscape on part of his site like downtown Cocoa Village with a tree-lined roadway and buildings on each side; if they have trees scattered about, they end up having a site that is very curvy and driveways curving back and forth so they cannot create that linear design; so the canopy regulations and tree clearing need to consider good design. He stated the replacement trees currently provided for in the betterment plan utilizes a five-year growth; trees do not grow very much in five years; so a ten-year growth, which is used in the rest of the landscaping Ordinance should be used for the mitigation. He requested improvements be allowed in the understory; stated right now the canopy and associated understory have to be preserved; and there may not be very many desirable species worth preserving underneath the canopy. He noted a person may need to put a sidewalk in to meet handicap regulations; he had that problem before; the intent is good; but one sentence in the tree protection Ordinance needs to be looked at; and that can be resolved easier than a couple of pages of a work-around idea. He requested the Board allow more input on that in the future.

Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Lee is saying he realizes they need to put an ordinance together, that the intent is a good one, but there needs to be more tweaking, and that the Board needs to get more feedback from folks in the community; with Mr. Lee responding yes. Commissioner Colon stated the intent is to make sure Brevard County does not become cement city; but the Board needs some feedback and probably needs to table this item. Mr. Lee stated Winter Park lost most of its trees; trees can be taken down in hurricanes; and that needs to be addressed also.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Lee was part of the latest public meetings staff put together; with Mr. Lee responding he was not at the meetings and was unable to attend because it came up rather quickly, and his work schedule did not allow him to participate. Commissioner Carlson stated some folks think this is an ordinance; the Board is not passing an ordinance; this is the legislative intent, which is to clarify to staff exactly what changes the Board would like to make to an existing Ordinance; and inquired if the intent to bring it back is to go towards the problem areas with the betterment plan, the 25% and all that stuff. She stated what she read in there is a lot of good stuff in terms of improving that; the agricultural exemption stuff has been tried to take input; they have all the input as part of the legislative intent; and if anyone wants to see that, staff can give it to them so they can see the kinds of comments, which were much of what she heard from the last three speakers. She stated they have been getting really good information; and she wanted to make sure people knew it is a legislative intent.

Walter Pine of Titusville stated he is waiting for the time to start. Chair Higgs stated the time has started; with Mr. Pine responding it started before he got up there. He stated he is really disappointed in having to argue the issue once again; it is just another facet of the same thing they have been fighting over for years-- the tree Ordinance and the canopy issue; it seems they forgot some basic issues such as what truth is; and it is a statement of facts and knowledge tempered by experience consistent with reality. He stated they have asked for the facts and knowledge; and inquired where is it, as they still have not gotten it. He stated at the public meetings, which he attended, several times he asked for the facts and the knowledge and he still has not received it so there cannot be truth if there are no facts; there cannot be truth if there is no knowledge; so what is left is lies, and that is it. He stated it is either true or it is a lie; opinions are personal interpretations of facts and knowledge consistent with education, experience, and reality; they have some opinions here as to what needs to be done; but they have no facts that show it needs to be done; and inquired how much canopy is there in Brevard County right now. He inquired if anyone can tell him that and what it would be if Brevard County was a pristine county. He stated it would be unrealistic to impose upon the public the necessity or the law requiring them to go higher than would be here if they were not here; but the County has nothing to tell them what it should be; they use the American Forestry, Inc. to argue the tree cover; that is again they are choosing extremist organizations; he finds no organization that recommends a higher level of canopy; and it is not a mainstream organization nor an average organization. He inquired why are they picking the highest; stated it should at least give a broad spectrum view; in some parts it would require people to replace storm damage; and that is a natural process. He inquired if they are supposedly preserving nature, why are they going behind nature and telling nature they got to put in more trees because the storm tore them down; and stated it does not make sense. He inquired if it is something they are doing for nature or because of a personal agenda; stated he personally thinks it is a personal agenda; there are issues in the public comments that were not discussed or told to everyone; one of the comments was to eliminate the requirement to preserve understory; and Scottsmoor was never told there was a requirement for that. He stated he asked what laws would be impacted and was never told that requirement existed; but comments were taken on it in other meetings; all the comments are given equal rate; that is highly inappropriate; that is a misrepresentation of facts; and one of the comments that was made by unified Scottsmoor is no to the ordinance. He stated staff said they understand that and would put it in there; and inquired where is it. He stated he was told he needed to make comments just in case; in other words to tell staff what he wants because they are going to do it anyway; the Board forgot what popular sovereignty means; the basis of the nation is the right to govern itself; and there is no demonstrable need for the ordinance unless the Board can show him otherwise. Mr. Pine stated he would imagine the Board would find very few people who do not wish to preserve the resources; the difference is some do not want it imposed upon them; he believes the Board should be following the dictates of the majority; and inquired how can it tell by the public comments what are the dictates of the majority, and is that what they are supposed to do as a republic. He stated there are some basic flaws in this; there are no facts to support the need for the canopy; the Board can tell he has not received the facts; and since it is a legal requirement that they give him the public documents and a crime for not giving them to him, he assumes they do not exist. He stated if they do exist, then somebody in staff has committed a crime; and inquired which is it, do they exist and staff committed a crime, or do they not exist and the Board has no justification for the ordinance that would be based on the legislative intent. He requested the Board throw out the legislative intent until it has the facts and knowledge available to the public to justify it.

Thelma Roper of Titusville stated she had almost forgotten about the ordinance to be perfectly honest until she got her advanced agenda last week and saw it was coming up; and when she saw it was on there, she just kind of shook her head because her first initial thought upon seeing it was have they not already gotten their answer. She stated she feels like they have been told somebody’s opinion of the tree ordinance; with three hurricanes coming through and knocking down many trees, the south end of the County was hit much greater than the north end of the County; but the north end of the County is cleaned out. She stated she feels the Board is making requirements to plant trees; she heard people talking about wanting to make ordinances where, because of all the power outages that were caused by trees, they want people to create ordinances requiring that if a tree falls on a power line, the person whose property the tree is on is going to have to reimburse the power company the expenses for all the repairs, the power outages, and stuff. She stated there are people talking who want to do that; it is going to impose on the citizens the requirement that they plant trees so that they can grow up and fall on the power lines and create a financial liability for those people; and the mind boggles at all the implications when one does not look at the whole picture. She stated most people want trees, but not everybody wants seven or eight trees on their property that will fall on their houses; some people are willing to take the risk; but she feels they have been given the answer to the tree ordinance and how many trees have been wiped out and blown down during the three hurricanes; they are going to go back and increase it all again; and she cannot support it at all. She stated she has seen it and knows the Commissioners have seen it; it does not make sense to her; there are things that are good; but the people should have the ability and the right to make that decision for themselves and not have it imposed on them.

Charles Moehle, President of Modern, Inc., resident and taxpayer in Brevard County, stated there were so many good things said that the Board should consider; he agrees with almost every comment that was made by previous speakers; and he congratulates them on trying to bring up new subjects. He stated they have not had the completed analysis from the County Attorney’s Office so they can look at that and see the total scope of what they are trying to do; everybody wants trees; but they want it done in a practical manner with all implications of long-term considered; and an important part of that has not been considered. Mr. Moehle stated there are some good changes, but not enough; there are some bad ones that have not been addressed; and one of the bad ones is the unrealistic requirement that makes people plant fast growing trees and hardwoods, which are always the most brittle of trees and probably the types of trees that cause 90% of the damage of past storms and the loss of electricity. He stated those kinds of trees are not really the natural thing that nature has provided for Florida; there is a different kind of landscape here; there are hardwoods intermingled, but they are promoted by the criteria in the wrong places; and the total scope and long-term ramifications are nonexistent in the ordinances. He stated he attended the workshop on Merritt Island and two agricultural meetings, including the one at 7:30 a.m. in Cocoa, which was well attended by the agricultural community; and they are concerned. He stated they can have a long-term study and relationship to go back three to six months and really work on things; but that needs to be done after the County Attorney does his work. He stated the total concept of how it fits in with all the Ordinances, all the penalties, and all the ramifications that affect the citizens, businesses, and the economy of Brevard County promote the idea of what they are trying to do and that is smart growth; but they are not there yet; it is an important issue that needs to be resolved; and recommended the Board take a lot more effort than has been done so far and a lot more practicality toward the issues.

Don Simms of Melbourne stated he totally concurs with all the previous speakers and will say mega ditto.

Richard Wagner of Melbourne stated he agrees with the need for tree protection and landscaping ordinances, but is not sure what is proposed is what they need; and they need an understanding of how it impacts the community and property values, as well as the cost of doing business.

Carmine Ferraro, representing Carmel Development, stated he has a specific situation he is going through with development of a piece of property; he has a 2.5-acre site that has about 12% canopy coverage, which means he has to keep the entire canopy; and the canopy is pretty much equally spread out across the entire site, so he found himself in a position where he had to go into a betterment plan. He stated he enjoyed working with staff in Natural Resources; they helped him tremendously in trying to develop a betterment plan; but at the end of the day the betterment plan was flawed. He stated he had to plant 30 to 40% of new trees because of penalties, and at the sizes required by the current Ordinance; he had to place those trees in such a small area that they are less likely to thrive because they have to have certain separation between them to produce the kind of canopy required; and they had to push them in order to get the commercial buildings they wanted. He stated they were able to live with a lesser amount of square footage than they had originally intended, but they were ready to live with that and still ended up with a lot of trees pushed into a very small area; and what he wants to talk about is the possibility of still achieving what is a worthy goal of tree preservation, but consider maybe doing it another way such as offsite mitigation. He stated in some public comments offsite mitigation was brought up and he saw in the legislative intent comments that it was going to be considered; and he would like the Board to seriously consider offsite mitigation. Mr. Ferraro stated he believes it is the way to achieve a better goal; it would be larger tracts that already have some connectivity to them where they would be adding to the canopy; and that would be better logistics for management and a higher probability that the canopy is going to continue to thrive. He stated during discussions about the SEAS ordinance, there were a lot of areas in Brevard County that were brought up, which the County identified as crucial habitat; offsite mitigation may be a way that habitats can be purchased and maintained for tree preservation; they are not saying they would not plant anything onsite; the County has a very effective landscape Ordinance; and if they plant the normal amount of landscaping under the current Ordinance and set aside the tree canopy requirement, it will achieve in five to ten years essentially the same type of tree canopy goals that the Board has if it did not add the additional canopy. He stated it would still have areas to deal with the heat island problems and the idea that it is not creating a concrete jungle; and if it has a nice level of landscaping, it would achieve tree preservation through offsite mitigation. He stated the tradeoffs are worthy because right now it is talking about reducing parking in order to achieve the canopy goals; on his 2.5-acre site he is having a difficult time trying to figure out where he is going to put all the extra trees; and he ended up spending roughly an additional $15,000 in plantings because of the penalties, and stuck them along the entire back and sides of the site. He inquired why not take that money and put it towards something that would be valuable like purchasing land for mitigation that could be given to the County so it could achieve those goals. He stated by reducing parking, the Board would have a safety issue; and he does not know of any commercial or residential developer who would want smaller driveways or roads and less parking because of the safety and liability involved. He stated relocating the trees is a good first step; mitigation for tree preservation is a good step; there is a referendum on the ballot in November on the EEL’s program, which he hopes the County will support; he will support it to continue funding to purchase canopy; there are good things the Board is doing; but he would request it take careful steps before jumping into expanding the Ordinance and making it even more restrictive for developers.

Bo Barnavon of Melbourne, Mercedes Homes Vice President of Lands, stated he has been involved in some of the public hearings; the comments Natural Resources addressed were very well received; conceptually the builder community is in favor of betterment plans; and any legislation that provides for more flexibility and clear direction is good legislation; however, to address those issues now is putting the cart before the horse considering the larger issue it is looking at with the consolidated environmental ordinances and all the other environmental issues that have been tabled and are in the works. He stated the intent of the ordinances is good, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done, such as the ability to do offsite mitigation; one comment addressed in staff’s report is that they had indicated that public projects would be treated the same as private entities; and actually when he read the new intent, it specifically said that governmental projects and roadway projects would have the right to do offsite mitigation for their impacts by protecting similar habitats off site. He stated that is not something presently being offered to the private entities and should be considered and offered; and in many ways, preservation of other canopies and other communities can be significantly better environmentally and scientifically for the habitat and ecology than some of the regulations the Board is imposing. Mr. Barnavon stated in theory they support the actions down the road; there still needs to be a lot of work; but they would like to see it tabled until they address the environmental issues and the ones Mr. Knox was going to look at consolidating and take it all up together when they look at it in the future.

Ron Smith of Melbourne stated a lot of what he was going to say has been said; he agrees with almost all those points; and they all agree that it benefits them to have nicely landscaped commercial and residential projects. He stated he does not think anyone is objecting to that; but at a minimum, what the Board heard is the ordinance needs another look and more input. He suggested it be tabled until a better committee of environmentalists, staff, and developers get together and get a more workable legislative intent.

Lillian Banks of Merritt Island stated the regulations on land clearing, tree protection, and landscaping are just one more example of the Board’s attempt to micro-manage the lives and properties of the citizens of this County; and with all the problems created by several hurricanes and frustrations resulting from trying to solve them, the Board wants to add to the chaos by promulgating its regulations that will add to an already daunting situation. She stated they all admit it is nice to have trees around, but consider the damage from falling, uprooted, and otherwise disseminated trees during hurricanes; and inquired if that aspect has been treated in the regulations, and if so, how. She stated she lives in a subdivision that was clear cut; there are 538 homes; and there are trees everywhere. She stated one street is lined with oaks; they have fruit trees everywhere; there are avocado trees and all kinds of bushes; and the people took care of that and did not have to have any Commissioner or County staff tell them what to do. She requested the Board leave them alone; and stated the ordinance does not need tweaking, it needs to be deposited in file 13.

Mike Selig of Cocoa stated he is a commercial realtor and developer of residential lots and commercial buildings; he is a member of the LPA, Planning and Zoning Board, and MIRA; and one thing they have to look at is the cost to construct in Brevard County at least on a commercial nature. He stated when it comes to subdivisions, the cost has gone through the roof; and the only way to survive is to pass those costs on to the end users, the homeowners who buy the houses and those who buy or rent commercial buildings, which increases the cost to do business in Brevard County, not only for developers, but for end users and companies they are trying to attract to Brevard County. He stated the Economic Development Commission has done a wonderful job in trying to promote business in Brevard County; but the County is trying to tie their hands if it takes twice as much land to comply with the regulations; land is not cheap and is disappearing rapidly; and it takes twice as much land to build in Brevard County as it does in other counties, but there are no mitigating circumstances to convince enterprises to come to Brevard County. Mr. Selig stated cities seem to be taking advantage of some of the unreasonable County Ordinances; they are sending out letters trying to get people to annex; and they have been successful in that probably to the fastest rates that have ever been seen in Brevard County. He stated cities are reaping a windfall from some of the Ordinances the County creates; it needs to study the letter a bit more and try to keep Brevard County as the County and its cities as cities and not have a lopsided balance.

Bruce Wechsler of Palm Bay, representing the Libertarian Party, stated most of the points have been brought up regarding the ordinance, but he will speak on it with two hats, one as Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Brevard and secondly as a homeowner in Palm Bay. He stated there is a basic issue called property rights, which is what this country is founded on; if he owns a piece of property, it is his choice as long as he does no harm to his neighbors, to do what he wishes with the property; everybody seems to have forgotten that; but that is a basic tenet of this country. He stated the Board has a realistic situation; Mr. Knox may want to look into this; there are a number of lawsuits pending in Orange, Osceola, and other counties against county governments for their tree Ordinances based on the damage sustained by the hurricanes, where it is clearly evident that the only reason the trees were there was because of the Ordinances and the trees caused tremendous amount of damage. He stated it would be nice to look into those Ordinances and see where the cases are going before any new ordinances are passed here to make sure the Board does not put itself in the same position as those counties are in. Mr. Wechsler stated as a homeowner, he told the City Council of Palm Bay and will tell the Board that he is cutting down every tree on his property that threatens power lines, his fence, or his house; he does not care about any Ordinances; he has a right to preserve his property; and he has a right and obligation to also prevent his property from doing damage to others such as in the case of power lines. He stated since Florida Power & Light Company has not had its feet held to the fire to maintain its lines, he is going to do it himself on his property; and he has a right as a homeowner and property owner in this country and as an American to do what he will with his property as long as he is not infringing on others. He stated the way it works in his neighborhood, they all work together, so if there is a tree on his neighbor’s property that threatens his house and the neighbor’s house; and he would invite any kind of lawsuit from the City of Palm Bay or Brevard County to try and stop him. He requested the Board consider the damages the ordinance can do and get realistic about what they are talking about; Ms. Banks said how they did it in her subdivision; people will do it; the free market will decide what is right; and if people want to plant more trees, they will do it. He stated they have seen it over and over again; and requested the Board leave them alone, let them do what they need to, and respect their rights and everything will be better.

Commissioner Carlson stated she went through the legislative intent; the Board had long discussions regarding canopy; since it has been in place, there have been some issues; and some of the speakers brought up the lack of flexibility in the betterment plans. She stated the betterment plans were an avenue out of some of the canopy percentages and things like that to help them get to where they wanted the Ordinance to be; but it is obvious that there are some issues with it; she is supportive of mitigating offsite in some form or fashion, whether industrial or hardship or whatever; and that needs to be worked out a little more. She stated in the Comprehensive Plan it does have a policy that talks about urban forestry plans; and if they could mitigate whatever circumstances would be appropriate, it could be put into the plan, which would be some sort of urban forestry type plan. Commissioner Carlson stated she is not real clear exactly what that means, but knows the Board in the past has tried to bring more tree canopy to the roadways beautification projects; and there may be a way to create some sort of mitigation. She stated she is not sure mitigation bank is the right terminology, but perhaps provide mitigation credit so that if a developer cannot put a tree on his property, he could put it on the roadside where the County needs it, and that kind of thing. She noted the Board ought to look into that; she does not have a problem with it; it seems like they have shopped this issue to death; and this time they have more and more input. She suggested direction to staff to collect input, not to say how many people voted against this or that or whatever element in the intent they did not like; and also question to Scott Knox on the time line for his review, if he is reviewing all those environmental Ordinances for consistency, definitions, etc., what his time line is on that, and if it is a good idea to be doing this at this time or wait until he finishes his assessment.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised it is going to take a while to do the review; he has been at it diligently; and to give the Board an idea of what he is coming up against, he has 20 pages of landscape definitions, 25% of which have multiple definitions of the same term; and 10% of which have more than two definitions; so if the Board is going to have an integrated environmental ordinance as opposed to consolidated, it is doing itself a disservice. He stated it will work out the conflicts between different provisions, starting with definitions; definitions are so different in some cases, it cannot make heads or tails of what it is talking about; they may be applying one definition in one Ordinance that relates to another Ordinance that they are dealing with that has a different definition; and somehow those problems have to be corrected. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Knox is going outside of that and looking at inconsistencies with other levels of the Code, like Code Enforcement or whatever, that might have an inconsistent definition with the environmental Ordinances. Mr. Knox stated he was going to recommend that the Board at least as far as definitions are concerned, integrate development Ordinances, get the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance definitions straight so that it is using the same definition for all the ordinances even though they are not environmental. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Knox is going to add that on top of his assessment of the Ordinances; with Mr. Knox responding at that part he will, but he is not sure because if he spent the amount of time necessary to go over all the development and environmental Ordinances, it would probably take him two years to do it.

Chair Higgs advised the betterment plan and offsite mitigation seem to have support in the development community as well as the environmental community because they make sense; most of the suggestions that have been brought to the Board give greater flexibility; and if the Board were to move forward to consider those changes, specifically the changes that seem to provide flexibility and enhance opportunities for making amendments to a plan that would make sense. She inquired if that would be inconsistent with what Mr. Knox is doing or could he incorporate the changes into what might come forward; with Mr. Knox responding what he is trying to do is identify inconsistencies right now; one of the inconsistencies is the way the land clearing and three Ordinances work together; if someone wants a betterment plan, it is in one provision of the Code and does not relate to the other provision; and staff tries to use it in the other provision. He stated if the Board wants to integrate the two, it has to work them together; that is what this legislative intent is trying to do; so there are arguments both ways. He stated ultimately he can probably deal with it if the Board wants to go forward with them; and if he finds other inconsistencies, the Board can come back and visit those later. He stated the particular problem the Board is talking about today has been identified as an issue of the past because the two do not seem to relate; and they relate in how they operate together, but they do not relate in terms of what is in the Ordinances. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is specifically with the betterment plans; with Mr. Knox responding yes.

Commissioner Colon stated based on what the Board heard today, it has to be careful about what it is going to put in the ordinance because it is going to make it more difficult for Mr. Knox who is trying to combine them; and the Board has to be careful if it is going forward, because it is going to confuse the community even more since not everyone is clear what is being put together today, including the folks who spoke, County staff, and Commissioners. She noted she is just trying to make sure they do it neatly. She stated as she said before and will say it again, the Board cannot allow this community to be cement city; that is out; there is just no way; and if they are able to sit down and work it out, they will be able to do something that is feasible and fair and will make sure the community is protected. She stated she does not think the Board should take that leap today to go forward because there are still questions that have not been answered; they need more time to tweak the language; she does not think it should be thrown away, but they need to massage it some more; and it is going in the right direction and is a positive action, but the decisions should not be made today.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has said many times that the County has too many rules in too many places and rules that contradict other rules that would be effective except that they have been contradicted. He stated for example, people cannot locate a facility in a certain spot because of a tree canopy, so they have to do something smaller, something innovative, whereas they could in essence move the tree canopy; but the problem of moving the tree canopy is it often ends up under power lines and in places where it should not be, or it is the wrong type of trees; and because of the 150% replacement requirement, they are using species that are not the best for that specific location. He stated he does not know anyone who is opposed to having landscaping and trees, but the issue here is that the rules are prohibiting things from being done instead of encouraging things being done; the plan, even with the additions as written, still have so much flaws to it that it affects a group of people; it was brought up earlier of having a professional environmentalist assist in the preparation of the ordinance; and that may be one of the problems. He stated they are people who are concerned but are not affected in that they are not developing, constructing, or building; they just have the betterment idea in their minds as to what is better; and it is not always better. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Knox is reviewing the Ordinances and compiling an accurate list of the conflicts; the County has a one-stop permit shop that he believes has about 19 to 21 disciplines that are involved; they conflict with what they are looking at; so there is not a one-stop shop that works; and the Board does not have a plan here that works. He stated the best way to do it is to get people to look at what is being proposed in the legislative intent and make recommendations then bring it back; perhaps a committee at some point needs to be formed; but all of this is premature because there is a son of EEL’s referendum coming up on November 2, and it may not pass. Commissioner Pritchard stated if it does not pass, then some of the money that might have been available for something may not be available. He stated the Board needs to get input on the consolidation of Ordinances so people can see where the difficulties lie; he heard that the Natural Resources staff is enforcing rules that apparently have not been approved; they were discussed but not approved; he does not know specifically what rules they are; but a list of those rules could be provided to the Board to find out why something is being enforced yet not approved; and one of the speakers mentioned that earlier. He stated the whole point is, with the best of intentions, the Board created a can of worms; if it is going to do it, it needs to do it right; and the best way to do it right is to not piecemeal something together today, but to start with consolidation that Mr. Knox is going to provide, have individuals look at the legislative intent as written and make recommendations, and bring it back so that the Board has something a little more concrete to work on.

Commissioner Scarborough stated some of his comments were made at the July 27 meeting; he attended the workshop in North Brevard and has been to a discussion at Scottsmoor, but not the actual meeting; and the general frustration he has is that the presentation is basically talking about changes to proposed changes. He stated Mr. Wechsler referenced cutting down trees in Palm Bay but he does not know what Palm Bay’s Ordinances are; he had people come to him who currently have an ability with one acre or less to remove trees without any review; it gives a little more liberalization; but if they have more than one acre, it is a restriction. He stated as he gets into discussions with people, particularly in the rural areas north of Titusville, there are a number of people who live in homes on AU zoned property who are asking why should they have to have more than one acre and the Board is encouraging holding larger parcels of land when they are penalized if they have more than one acre because one acre or less has more latitude in cutting down trees. Commissioner Scarborough stated he talked to staff about that issue; and if the Board gets into it, it is not necessarily a further restriction but further liberalization where a person who has his home on 2.5 or 5 acres who has by the basis of the Tax Collector the homesteaded property so they are not out there speculating, they are out there living on it, what he heard was a response to a response to a response rather than going back to ground zero and talking about what is the real world. He stated it has not occurred just on one side; and the Board is just as much at fault as anybody else because it starts talking about a change on a change and it is not talking about the rules and if the rules are to be enforced if a person has more than a one-acre lot in Brevard County. He asked staff to tell him how many people living on 2.5-acre lots come in and ask for permits; stated they do not come in; they just do not come in; so the truth of the matter is not actually being enforced; it is there; and it is not in a real sense the problem. He stated having said that, it is his thought that if the Board goes back it needs to go back; the two are the betterment plan and flexibility; the betterment plan was intended for more flexibility; and he does not necessarily have any problem with flexibility. He inquired where are they currently and what flexibility do they have; stated Mr. Kaiser spoke against something that would have given his association less flexibility if it is not passed; and he does not think that was intended, but that he wants to look at it further as opposed to proceeding at this juncture. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Kaiser was not opposed to the idea of flexibility for building, but yet a person sitting in TV land would say here is the head of the homebuilders association speaking for less flexibility and for staying the status quo. He stated the agricultural exemption is more restrictive; the Board needs to address that; there is an ability for someone to come in who fully intends to move to development of the property and use the agricultural exemption and say he is going to use it for agriculture, clears out a hammock, and the next day closes with somebody who comes in and does a development; and that is not fair to the honest good people who want to do things right. He inquired if he owned a hammock and somebody else owned a hammock, and he wanted to plant trees and somebody else did not, why should he have a disadvantage and the person who is willing to misuse the agricultural exemption succeed. He stated he does not think anybody said the agricultural exemption should not be considered; what he heard is whether or not the Board is being fair or making it so onerous that they would have to have a disaster in their lives to make it happen; and he does not know if that is the same issue as the others, which are really liberalization and how the Board liberalizes. Commissioner Scarborough stated at this moment he cannot vote on the legislative intent, but this is a subject the Board cannot walk away from. He stated a guy that has AU property with a home cuts down a tree; he is in violation of the Code and does not even know it; when he is told, he thinks the Board put something new in rather than liberalizing it; so he is willing to look over the comments and put in his comments. He stated the Board does not need a committee; and it needs to workshop the issue and let all the people come in with their thoughts. He stated at a meeting it is awful; he knows how bad it is; five minutes before the mike and the red light comes on whether their thoughts and ideas are made; and they do not have a chance to come back up. He stated the ability to be able to have breaks and have a full discussion at workshops is of concern to many portions of the community; to have a quality community the Board has to address those things; and he would like to see it further discussed.

Chair Higgs stated there are 22 specific items; as she reads them, some things are clearly stated such as the removal of a nonnative species by hand or small power tool is an exempt activity; and the Board needs to move that forward. She read part of the changes as follows: “Allow the relocation of cabbage palms on development sites to achieve in-place canopy preservation standards and provide more flexibility in development design. Relocation of cabbage palms would not require development to also meet the betterment criteria listed above. Exempt citrus grove trees from the canopy preservation requirements; however, all other landscaping requirements would be required onsite. Reduce the canopy threshold from 25% to 15% for industrial projects and projects within the established boundaries of the Merritt Island Redevelopment District.” Chair Higgs stated she does not know if people really looked at those; the agricultural exemption is one of them; somebody brought up that it seems ridiculous to allow hardship cases or that it was not fair, but it allows a waiver on those three or five-year exemptions; and it goes on to say, “dead or hazardous trees removed under the Code and healthy trees in excess of the preservation ratios do not require replacement.” She stated what is proposed is reasonable and allows people flexibility; it is not creating any requirements other than the agricultural exemption going from three to five years; but people who honestly are going to clear under the agricultural provisions should have some commitment to actually do agricultural activities; and it allows the ability to clearly regulate that. Chair Higgs stated almost all the changes seem to be clarifications and moving forward to allow flexibility; she is not sure folks have taken the opportunity to read those things; it is simply legislative intent; and they will be allowed to be flushed out in specifics. She stated the Board should pick out those that it can agree with that are betterment activities and move those forward, including offsite mitigation and things that provide flexibility in the betterment plan; and it is doing a disservice to everybody by listening to the potential that all of it is awful. She stated all of it is not awful; and the Board can pick out those that ought to be moved forward and that everybody could agree to.

Commissioner Carlson stated it took a lot of time to sift through all of it in the way it was presented; but she does not have a problem going through some of the more common sense issues and moving them forward. She stated others need to be worked hard; she does not know if the Board can come to an agreement on that; it might take the rest of the day; so she does not have a problem with what Commissioner Scarborough suggested in terms of a workshop. She stated where she has a problem is understanding the inconsistencies that Mr. Knox said he is finding and being able to move before the Board understands those inconsistencies; that does not make a lot of sense even though there are some good things in what the Board has in front of it now; and she is not sure they are ready to pick and choose those things. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem moving forward with mitigation offsite and getting more information on that; but she is not sure how they would move the whole document forward to another hearing because they will have the same commentary and same hashing through all of it. She inquired if Mr. Knox looked at the item in front of the Board and are there things in it that he feels will not cause him double time in his analysis of inconsistencies that the Board could basically get through now; with Mr. Knox responding whatever the Board decides to do is not going to cause that much more time because he has to go back through it anyway. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the time line before the analysis is given to the Board. She stated she does not want to wait two years and would rather have Mr. Knox assign it and get it done because it is critical; and there are some important issues that need to get done now and not wait because even after he finishes his thing, the Board is going to be looking at it again. She stated that could be six months down the road; and meanwhile people like Carmine Ferraro, who has problems with his lot, and other people who she has heard who have problems with the betterment plan, the Board could be funneling those into a mitigation kind of scenario and actually helping the community as a whole so it does not have to cause so many problems in the development community. Mr. Knox stated six months is a good project for him to finish the analysis.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Knox is suggesting a workshop at that point; with Mr. Knox responding he does not know when the Board wants to have its workshop on the item, but as far as what he is working on, the Board probably will need a series of workshops to figure out what it wants to do about some of the conflicts. Commissioner Carlson stated she would expect the first step into the process would be looking at the analysis from the County Attorney and trying to make the decision which way to go or whatever conflict may arise and then doing something about it in a positive sense. She stated she agrees it would be great to do some mitigation offsite; if the Board tables this item for six months, she does not know what the Board wants to do; but at least she would like staff to come back with those opportunities and what they see as developing some sort of program like that.

Chair Higgs stated there are several things in the legislative intent that are clearly betterment ideas even though a number of members of the development community are not willing to recognize those at this point; and inquired if there are three votes to move those forward so they can get those done. She stated she thinks it is a real disservice not to work on the betterment plan and the idea of mitigation offsite; that the Board does not say it is not a violation of the law to use a hand tool to remove exotic species; it is stupid not to do those now; and suggested the Board do what it can and not have a whole list of horrors. She stated every time the Board tries to wrap itself around huge issues, it gets bogged down; it can make better several things in short order; and recommended the Board do those things.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired how did a hand tool ever become a rule; with Chair Higgs responding the Board can fix it now. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is not opposed to fixing it, but he happens to think piecemeal approach is not always the proper way; and he does not have a problem waiting because he has a concern that in its haste to do a little piecemeal approach now something may drop in that is going to create more of a problem later. He stated the only one, with the exception of the hand tool that he has no idea how it got in there, is about having citrus trees, but he does not want to piecemeal the item; and he wants to approach it in a holistic sense and to be able to look at the entirety of having the variety of ordinances. He stated something as foolish as a hand tool prohibition makes no sense to him; and if it is going to take Mr. Knox six months to come back with his compilation of where the rules are and the conflicts they have, he would rather wait and do it right. Chair Higgs stated the Board would be doing it right, but it would not do all the things that everybody is terrified about.

Commissioner Colon stated there is work that needs to be done before the six months; the Board should have a workshop in December or January to be able to get rid of some of the stuff, provide the opportunity to the community to give it feedback, and start cleaning some of the stuff and not wait six months.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize a workshop on amendments to the land clearing, tree preservation, and landscaping Ordinances in January 2005 to get feedback from the community and identify some of the things that are in the legislative intent.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he thinks that is appropriate; it is tragic when trying to have a betterment plan that would aid the building industry and their chief spokesman comes and issues words of caution; the changes do need to be reviewed; there are other things that need to be discussed as well; and he would like to have a workshop.

Commissioner Carlson stated she can vote for the motion, but prefer to get through some of the stuff now; however, she does not have a problem waiting; she inquired if the Board can get feedback from Mr. Knox as far as the inconsistencies to date in January before the workshop so that the public input it will get will be on top of some of those inconsistencies. She stated the Board could move abreast with Mr. Knox and not cause any additional workload for him; and inquired how inconsistent are some of those currently and how will the Board meld those together without causing more problems. Mr. Knox stated that may create more confusion than would solve; and the Board would be better off waiting until the end so it can see the differences between the two Ordinances. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Knox is recommending the Board hold off until he is finished with the analysis; with Mr. Knox responding it can do what it wants; and whatever it does will not affect him. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is not that many months difference. Commissioner Colon inquired if Commissioner Scarborough feels the Board should wait on the analysis; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the attorney recommends it; and inquired if that is what Mr. Knox said. Mr. Knox stated he said it will not make a difference to him; and if the Board wants to go forward with the workshop and the minor issues, it is not going to affect what he is doing in the long run. Commissioner Carlson stated if the workshop is for betterment, mitigation options, and things like that, she can go for that; but she does not want to rehash all the stuff until Mr. Knox gives the Board a consistency rating on what it is and what it looks like, otherwise it is just wasting its time. She stated she agrees with a workshop if the Board can specifically go to the common sense things that it is currently looking at and address those.

Chair Higgs stated the Board is putting off something that obviously will help people and make it easier for development; there are four or five of those changes; each Commissioner has read them and know what they say; and the Board could have moved those forward; so she will vote no on the motion because she thinks some of the changes can clearly be done today to make things better, whether the development community recognizes it or not.

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

Commissioner Pritchard stated because it was mentioned here and mentioned to him, apparently there are some rules that are being enforced by the Natural Resources Office that are not approved rules; and he needs a list of what it is they are talking about so he can find out what is being enforced that is really not a rule. Chair Higgs stated when the Board gets those, it will consider them.

Commissioner Colon stated she sent a letter to Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca from a concerned citizen who lost trees during the hurricanes; their concerns were the Board would be sending someone out there and clearing out all the trees instead of trying to save them; and that is taxpayers money and also the fact that it is a canopy. She stated those are some of the things that because the Board is discussing it, it is dealing with the human side and not looking at the trees; and requested Ms. Busacca give the Board some feedback at the next meeting because she is concerned about how many trees they have lost in the community. Commissioner Colon stated she is talking about government property and wants to make sure that was not the direction that was given; and if it had not been for this citizen stepping in and saying do not destroy the trees, they would not even be having this discussion. She stated because the Board is discussing trees, she thought it was appropriate to get that feedback.

Chair Higgs inquired about the executive session; with Mr. Knox responding one of the cases involves outside counsel who is here.

The meeting recessed at 12:25 p.m., and reconvened at 1:15 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TRANSMITTAL OF 2004B COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS TO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider transmittal of the 2004B Comprehensive Plan amendments to Department of Community Affairs.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the amendments could be taken one at a time; with Chair Higgs responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Corwin explain No. 1.

Plan Amendment 2004B.1, Solid Waste Management Department

Planner III Todd Corwin advised there are three items; the first item is Plan Amendment 04B.1; it is in the central part of the County; the applicant is Brevard County; and the proposal is to change the Future Land Use Map from residential 1 and residential 2 to public facilities on approximately 280 acres located in Sections 16 and 21, Township 24, Range 35, adjacent to the Central Disposal Facility. He stated the amendment is requested by the Brevard County Solid Waste Department to add properties it has purchased to the existing Central Disposal Facility. He stated the memo from Mr. Rodriguez states the Solid Waste Management Department agreed to an 800-foot wide perpetual natural conservation easement on the property parallel and adjacent to Adamson Road; and it was agreed that the 40-acre site on the west side of the landfill would remain as a natural buffer.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the item was continued to this amendment cycle because there were some comments, but he believes the comments were addressed and would move approval of the item.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve transmittal of Plan Amendment 2004B.1 from Brevard County Solid Waste Management Department to Department of Community Affairs.

Jerry Wall of West Canaveral Groves thanked the Board and County staff for the opportunity to speak; congratulated Commissioner Scarborough on his reelection, noting he is sure he will continue to represent the communities of Port St. John, Canaveral Groves, and West Canaveral Groves in the superb way he has in the past; and recognized Chair Higgs for her work at the EOC during the storms on behalf of the citizens. He thanked Commissioner Scarborough for placing an abatement on the amendment until Mr. Rodriguez could meet with the residents on Adamson Road and West Canaveral Groves; stated they had a nice meeting; Mr. Rodriguez was receptive to their comments; and they are pleased with the results.

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

Plan Amendment 2004B.2, South Mainland Long-range Planning Committee

Mr. Corwin advised Amendment 2004B.2 is a request by the South Mainland Long-range Planning Committee; the Planning and Zoning staff is facilitating the movement of the amendment through the process; the current Future Land Use Map designation on the properties, which encompass 5,822 acres, is residential 1; and the proposed Land Use Map designations are GU and AU, which is one dwelling unit per five acres. He stated for the properties zoned AU residential, the proposed designation is residential 1.25, which is one unit per 2.5 acres; and the properties are generally located in the South Mainland on the north and south sides of Micco Road just west of Barefoot Bay to Babcock Street. He stated the LPA reviewed the item last night and recommended denial by a 9 to 2 vote.

Mike Cunningham, representing Micco Homeowners Association and a member of the South Mainland Long-range Planning Committee, stated he is concerned with the portion that is 17.35 acres requested to be rezoned RRU-1 on the south side of Micco Road; the item has been continued at least four times; and in review of staff’s report, they find that everything is in order that would permit the rezoning to RR-1. He stated they feel it would be an advantage to the community; the CRG made a recommendation that it be allowed and the exemption be made; and they find that everything the people have done over the past years have been an asset to the community. He stated they do not feel it will change in any way; he will not go into the ramifications of what was discussed last night on the overall land; but the staff’s report on the Douglas property indicates it would be a viable situation for the community.

Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Cunningham is only speaking to the 17.3 acres that will be coming to the Board at a zoning meeting. Mr. Corwin stated it was tabled due to the storms and will be back before the Board in November. Chair Higgs stated the Comprehensive Plan amendment will not change on the property because this is merely a transmittal of the amendment. Mr. Corwin stated that is correct, and the Plan amendment if adopted by the Board would be effective March or April of 2005.

Wes Wheeler of Winter Haven, representing Wheeler Farms, advised they own a number of parcels in the subject area; they have a reasonable investment expectation with their property; and they are disappointed to see the proposal come before the Board. He stated land values are very important to them in a grove operation; that is how they borrow money; they bought the property as an investment much like each of the Commissioners purchased homes and other investments with the hopes of one day selling them; and he is concerned that perhaps this amendment may not be good planning. He stated the LPA recommended denial for good reasons; in essence it is spot zoning on a large scale; the map shows the gerrymandering across the middle of a large area; and it does not seem to make a lot of sense. He stated the arguments and rational for the Comprehensive Plan amendment is to make it match the zoning; with respect to staff, that is backwards; they bought land in the area, as did many others, in reliance on the long-range Comprehensive Plan designation; the County was smart in putting together a great Comprehensive Plan; and inquired why would it change the Plan to match zoning when it is supposed to make zoning be in compliance with the Plan. Mr. Wheeler stated most of their property snakes around Barefoot Bay and has 6,000 square-foot lots; the one-to-one land use designation that is there now makes a nice buffer; one of the Comprehensive Plan priorities is to have a transition of densities; and inquired if the Commissioners would be interested in buying a five-acre lot next to a 6,000 square-foot mobile home park lot. He stated if they were interested in providing reasonably priced housing, the Board is taking that opportunity away by up zoning to one unit per five acres; the LPA had a lot of discussion last night and made a good recommendation; and requested the Board deny this amendment and not forward it to Department of Community Affairs, or in the alternative have publicly noticed advertised meetings for all the property owners to know about and discuss it in a workshop fashion in the future. He stated they at Wheeler Farms endorse the LPA’s recommendation to deny.

Chair Higgs inquired if staff advertised the meetings and notified the property owners; with Mr. Corwin responding yes they were advertised and staff notified every property owner within the study area.

Rita Dismukes of Fellsmere stated they were notified four weeks ago; with two hurricanes that came through, they had very little time to do anything about it; and as far as the Committee that put it together, she was never notified by any form and never asked to attend any of the meetings although they said it was publicly advertised. She stated they should have notified property owners whose properties were going to be affected; and she concurs with everything Mr. Wheeler said.

Jeanne Osborne, Chairwoman of Barefoot Bay Board of Trustees, stated she does not think they have 6,000 acres, but that is beside the point. She stated she came before the Board with the approval of the Board of Trustees, the governing body of Barefoot Bay, that voted unanimously on Friday at its regularly scheduled meeting to support the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; they met for at least a year; there were many people involved; the meetings were publicly noticed; and minutes were kept, so she sees no reason to feel that it was not publicly notified. She stated the general plan that was developed was done after much consultation with County staff and people in the area; and she hopes the Board will pass it for transmittal.

Commissioner Colon inquired what are the size lots in Barefoot Bay; with Ms. Osborne responding it depends on what section it is in; there is a section where they are approximately 100x80 feet and some are 55x80 feet; they take in a fair amount of area on both sides of Micco Road; and they have been following closely the development on the other side. She stated she came before the Board today not realizing that Mr. Davis, who was set to develop the land, and they were much in favor of his proposal, sold the land to someone else; so she does not know where that stands. Commissioner Colon inquired if it was one unit per acre; with Ms. Osborne responding yes. Commissioner Colon inquired if there was no opposition to that; with Ms. Osborne responding no, they supported it and felt Mr. Davis had done everything he said he was going to do.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Ms. Osborne is a property owner in the affected area; with Ms. Osborne responding you bet. Commissioner Pritchard stated he did not mean Barefoot Bay. Ms. Osborne stated she lives in Barefoot Bay. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if she is a property owner in the area that is covered under the Comprehensive Plan amendment; with Ms. Osborne responding there are no homes there; she does not own any property there to be developed; and she has no interest in it other than good development.

Allen Thom of Micco stated he supports the amendment; it is an opportunity to balance the spiraling growth of other areas of the County; they need an open space for the County; and South Mainland still has it. He stated it is a respite from becoming a borderless community of manmade structures and asphalt surfaces; for the added open space proposal, they would be able to define a park-like experience for residents and tourists alike; and it would be a model for the rest of Central Florida. He stated the amendment, based on the total possible units of 5,822 to 1,786, would create a reduction in the need for public infrastructure funds and allow the Board to redirect capital investment funds to other places in the County. He stated it would require fewer roads, water and sewer lines; reduce police, fire rescue units, and educational delivery costs due to lower population growth; and it is an opportunity to implement smart growth by default. Mr. Thom stated there is no required zoning changes; it is a pivotal proposal for the future of the South Mainland; if the Board passes the amendment, it will be a wonderful legacy for their children and grandchildren; and they would not have to go to the country theme parks in Kissimmee to see the country.

Michelle Woods of Micco stated she moved there four years ago; she is a concerned citizen in favor of the amendment; she came from South Florida; and she has seen incredible growth down there and does not want to see it happen in Brevard County. She stated she has seen problems with the road system; she does not know how they are going to get from one point to another when the only road they have to go north or south is U.S. 1; and inquired if there is more development, how will they be able to handle the road system. She stated if they want to go east or west they have to use Micco Road; it is a two-lane road; the people who live in the area right now are having difficulty traveling on those thoroughfares; the bridge over the Sebastian River to Indian River County was closed for a week; and hopefully it will be refurbished at some point and will be closed again for that. Ms. Woods stated during the hurricanes they were basically trapped; Micco Road was under water, U.S. 1 was washed out in some areas, and power lines were down; thank goodness nobody had any kind of emergency; the grocery stores were closed; they had no where to get gas; and it was a very bad situation. She requested, if growth is to happen in the future, that the Board first address ways for people to be able to travel for their personal needs.

Vicki Benoi of Micco, member of the Long-range Planning Committee, stated for the past two years they have been studying ways to keep South Brevard as rural and as nice as it is despite the hurricanes; they are not telling landowners they cannot develop their land; what they are telling them is that they have to bring it up to Brevard County zoning; and it would reduce density so they do not have an overload of people in the area that cannot be handled from a standpoint of transportation, schools, etc. She stated they do not have schools in the area; the students are bussed at least 20 miles away; they understand progress has to include more homes; but they have a sensitive area as far as wetlands and flooding. She stated people did not think the hurricane was going to hit here; it was not a case that it does not hit here, it was that Brevard County had the good fortune of not having one; and they recently had two in one month. She stated they saw the flooding and devastation that it caused and if there are more people in the area, it is going to make it worse. She stated they would have had more people talking today; but unfortunately the members of the Committee were badly affected by the hurricanes. Ms. Benoi stated the Natural Resources Office has designated the northeast portion of those lands as having a floodplain and also being part of the natural aquifer that replenishes their water supply; and if they keep putting more concrete and blacktop in, they are going to lose half of their water supply. She stated it seems funny now because they have so much water around; but half of that water will not go to where it is supposed to be if there is too much concrete and blacktop. She stated the other problem they have is the hurricane is playing a big role in what they are thinking about now; but they did not have enough shelters for even the people in the area; they took in three of their neighbors because they could not get into a shelter; and they are now homeless. She stated they have to think about building other facilities to handle people if they are going to build in the area; if the density is kept lower, it will be easier and financially better to be able to handle it; and urged the Board to pass the amendment and bring the Future Land Use Map up to the current zoning.

Diane McCauley of Micco and member of the Long-range planning Committee and Little Hollywood Improvement Association, stated the Committee was very active and publicly noticed under the Sunshine law; they met several times; it consisted of representation from Valkaria, Grant, Deer Run, and Micco; and they represented about 10,000 people or more in their area. She stated they voiced their concerns and needs; the Committee received education from the Brevard County staff concerning growth and innovative ideas; and it came to a consensus and made a citizens request to further the goals of the Committee and to amend the Future Land Use Map so that the land use densities reflect the zoning patterns. Ms. McCauley stated now that two hurricanes have devastated their area, it is more important than ever to set in motion the tools needed to make their area safe and secure; the Comprehensive Plan was a good general concept, but it is time to bring it in line with present zoning; there is a lack of convergence in the two; thus the Future Land Use Map should be amended to include the details of the present zoning. She stated the recent financial impact for Brevard County can only emphasize to each Commissioner the need to adjust the Future Land Use Map to adhere to the current zoning for future development; and the amendment will be a good step toward better land use and resources. She stated she wants to take a moment to applaud the Governor, County Commission, Utility folks, debris removal and Waste Management for their efforts, which were so impressive; the wire and tree technicians worked weeks on end and are still working for the citizens of Brevard County; they drove from such distances as Michigan, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and other states; they are the heroes; and she knows it was under the auspices of the Board that they were called in and coordinated and did a fantastic job. She stated it may take another year to clean up the area, but they will be patient; and requested the Board help their area and pass the amendment because it is a good one.

Steve Austin of Melbourne Beach stated he owns property in the area and definitely is against the amendment for several reasons; the current property owners were not notified; he has owned the property for three years and heard about it less than three weeks ago; and it may have publicly been noticed, but he has not spoken to anyone or heard about it over a year and a half ago. He stated when he did find out about it, they went to the County and asked about the project map; they asked about their property; and it was supposed to be zoned AU, but is incorrect on the map. He stated he went to other property owners in the area and asked them about the zoning on their properties; and some of them are also erroneous on the map. He stated at best the issue should be postponed and not try to ram it through; they have been through hurricanes and various other things; and there are a lot of errors in the zoning, the way it is laid out, and even their property was put in there incorrectly. Mr. Austin stated he went to the County and was told there might be a way to update it later; but if it is wrong, it should not be mailed. He stated as for the meetings in Micco, they went there regularly and never once were invited to the meetings and never asked for their opinions about their property; one acre is a large piece of property; many Commissioners have a home on less than an acre; he lives on less than an acre; and to cut it to one unit per five acres is not right. He stated there are a lot of people coming to Florida, which is a great thing; it helps with the problems they talked about; and they do need a Future Land Use Map, but that is a lot of revenue coming into the County and a lot of places to build new schools and money coming in for new roads. He stated he wants to bring new people into Brevard County; it is a beautiful county; and one acre is a very large piece of property. He stated in talking to the LPA last night, it was in agreement, looked at the map, and voted against the amendment; one reason was because it was very difficult to understand the hodgepodge that was put together; it was not very well designed or laid out; and many on the LPA said they could not understand it. He stated if they could not understand it, he would imagine it has to be very difficult for the Board of County Commissioners to understand it; it was a little difficult for him to understand it; and that is why he had to go to the County staff and ask them about it. He stated the property is the retirement for a lot of people and a place for them to live; the Board is basically asking them to cut their profits by one-fifth; and inquired how many Commissioners who own a home and is asked to take their home and divide it by one-fifth and give away four-fifths of it to the County would do it. He stated it is a pretty big thing the Board is asking the property owners out there to do; there are small property owners who do not fall quite in the scope; but there are a few people here who have homes there that are under five acres; and they will have to come back and rearrange everything. He stated they bought the property so they could have a place to live; and his understanding last night is they have no place for some of those people that have under five acres; so they have to come back for rezoning because it is against the Future Land Use Map. He stated behind his property is over 200 acres the County is getting ready to put in a park; the State has 5,000 acres out there and is getting ready to make it a State park; so the whole area is filled with parks. He stated there is plenty of areas for recreation and stuff like that that is available for public use; and requested the Board postpone the amendment or decline it.

William Buchman of Palm Bay stated most of his family worked for a living most of their lives; he got some money he inherited from his father and went out and investigated for three years the lands in the area; and he went into partnership and bought a small piece of land in the area, with hopes of developing it. He stated he has been working on it for six years and owned it for the last three years; he bought it predicated under one home per acre as a development site; he has been trying to work on a small PUD and taking his time to do it properly and with proper timing as the rest of the area comes along for development; and what the amendment is asking him to do is go from one home per acre to one home per five acres. He stated he understands the feelings of the people in the area, especially those who came from South Florida because that is where he originated from; he has been in Brevard County for 15 years; but the amendment will take four-fifths of the value of his retirement and cut it out with a stroke of a pen. Mr. Buchman stated the people who are behind the proposal want less density; and inquired how many of them are willing to give up their retirement or their home and let the County plant trees in their area. He stated the property behind his property is over 7,000 acres that the State has set aside and will eventually be a State park; it borders his 35 acres; they talked to the State about getting a gate into the park; and as they do their PUD, they may put condo horse stalls on the Micco Road area to go with the houses and have horse trails into the 7,000 acres. He stated the property immediately behind his property is owned by the St. Johns River Water Management District; there is approximately 175 acres, which is going to become a water park; the County has two large parcels on Micco Road to the west that has been designated and set aside for park area; and the developable area left is minute compared to the big picture of what is around it. He stated the Comprehensive Plan that was put in place a long time ago was voted on for one unit per acre; that is not heavy density; it is nothing like the north end of the County and the Viera area; there are other problems and issues coming up; and a lot of people are leaving the County and going to cities. Mr. Buchman stated he was never notified of any meetings of the people who are trying to make this happen; he was never asked for his opinion; he did not know of any meetings and had no input into what is going on; but he does not know that they are that far apart. He stated a lot of developers in the area and landowners are looking to develop in the future and not looking for heavy density; and something could be put together, but to come through and take any future plans out and cancel what has already been put there as a guideline and start over is not good for any of them. Mr. Buchman stated last night after listening to the people, the LPA vote was nine to two against the amendment; and he hopes that is the outcome today. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Buchman made a comment about a PUD; and inquired if he has some ideas of what he wants to do with the property he inherited and the horse condos and 7,000 acres for horse trails; with Mr. Buchman responding just south of his property there is State property of over 7,000 acres; the State is supposed to put a park on it; they briefly talked to the State because they have jobs and do not have a lot of time to discuss development of their property, except a few hours a week; and when they talked to the State they asked about getting a gate at their end so they can go from Babcock Street and have an entranceway onto Micco Road, which would also have horse trails. He stated they could have five acres in the front for a horse pasture; he does not know how many horses are allowed per acre; but they could have ten stalls and people would own the homes on the land they are hoping to develop and a condo horse stall on the front, with a lake in the back and horse trails to the St. Johns River Water Management District’s property. He stated when the District gets through cleaning up the Sebastian River, it plans to make the property some kind of water park; it is going to be a 175-acre lake in the back of his property; and people can ride their horses by the lake to get to the 7,000 acres with bike trails and paths. He stated that would be adequate recreation for people.

David Logan of Jupiter, representing Micco Farms, advised his family and he have ownership interest relative to property in the area, specifically they are under contract to purchase 760 acres on the south side of Micco Road between I-95 and U.S. 1; their short-term plans are for agricultural use, which is consistent with their history; and their long-term plans are for a one unit per acre residential neighborhood complimentary to the community. He stated the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map has a huge negative impact on their property and neighbors’ properties; and they are asked to go from one unit per acre to one unit per 2.5 acres and many to one unit per five acres. Mr. Logan stated yesterday they met successfully with the Planning and Zoning Board that voted seven to four to allow one unit per acre for their parcel after hearing the facts specific to their land; and that agrees with the current Future Land Use Plan. He stated the LPA met last night and voted nine to two against the amendment before the Board; and he has a lot of respect for the individuals on the Committee and their intentions, but it has a huge impact on a lot of people. He requested the Board consider the P&Z Board’s position on their property, the LPA’s position on the amendment, and the negative impacts the amendment will have on the affected property owners.

Jim Domineau of West Melbourne advised he is a real estate broker and has been for 30 years; he came from South Florida and was in development and real estate there; and he represents the Douglas family on this item. He stated they started the process in April and have been going through it and trying to get it in front of the Board; they are scheduled to do that on October 19, 2004; his client’s property is less than a mile and a half from U.S. 1; and his request is in line with anyone’s reasonable expectations of what the property should be. He stated the property is on the north bordered by Barefoot Bay on the south; it was mentioned it is not reasonable to look at a five-acre tract within that configuration; people in Broward and Palm Beach Counties would die for RR-1 throughout their counties; and it would have alleviated a lot of problems they are looking at now. He stated the amendment will lead to very expensive lands; and the Board is opening up the possibility of annexation.

Lisette Kolar of Grant stated she was not part of the Long-range Planning Committee but was made aware of it by keeping active in the community, and did hear about it and talked to it about its plans and goals for the area. She stated as she sees it, the Committee wants to preserve the area as rural and preserve the native environment, maintain agricultural activities, conserve open space, and have nature-based recreation and access to the Indian River; it requested staff conduct a study of the area; and as a result, it is recommending the Board amend the Comprehensive Plan to achieve those goals. She stated in the report to the Board, County staff indicated the amendment will support the Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan in terms of compatibility of new development with its surroundings, discouraging urban sprawl, reducing stress on services, and decreasing hurricane evacuation deficiencies. She stated the current zoning of AU and GU more adequately reflects the way the surrounding area has developed; therefore, the County’s vision for the area should also reflect it. Ms. Kolar stated they have an opportunity to be unique; Brevard is a large county and offers a following for families who want to live here; they have riverside homes and condominiums, oceanfront homes and condominiums, many planned communities with small lots, planned neighborhoods with larger lots, affordable housing in most cities, a town center development in Viera, apartments, downtown areas for living, and rural areas; and it can be creative any where except for the river and ocean fronts. She stated once the rural lands are gone or developed to urban densities, there is no more rural areas; Brevard County will lose that character; it is a large and diverse county; and there is no reason why the South Mainland and North areas cannot be set aside for true rural living. She stated her husband is an FSU alumnus so they go to Tallahassee a lot for football games in the Fall; they do not take the Interstate any more because they do not like the white knuckle drive; and they take the back roads and see many different counties, but none are like Brevard County. She stated they see a lot of rural areas, but they are too rural; they are hours away from civilization; so Brevard County is unique in that it can provide the rural living, but have easy access to all kinds of shopping, restaurants, etc. She stated it is truly a unique place to live; by approving the amendment, Brevard County will give new families another choice of lifestyle, a true rural lifestyle; and it will preserve the lifestyle that current residents desire and enjoy. Ms. Kolar stated in speaking with several realtors, she was told the market for 2.5-acre and 5-acre lots is very good; there are many families whose dream is to have open space around them or have horses or a small grove; and suggested encouraging those families to come to Brevard by setting areas like the subject area aside. She stated the areas can be marketed as Brevard’s countryside; there is no reason why developers or landowners cannot make it a positive thing; and besides the obvious impact of decreased density on the environment, water supply, evacuation routes, stormwater runoff, flooding, and schools, maintaining rural areas enhances Brevard’s appeal as a place to live and work. She stated the Comprehensive Plan should reflect Brevard County’s vision for a diverse lifestyle that it can provide; and encouraged the Board to vote to approve the amendment. She stated after hearing some of the landowners, she understands their concerns; but there can be compromise and there is no reason why the Board cannot keep discussing it. Commissioner Colon inquired if Ms. Kolar was at the LPA meeting last night; with Ms. Kolar responding no. Commissioner Colon stated she was going to inquire about why there was a huge vote of 9 to 2 against the amendment.

Laurel Buescher of Melbourne stated she owns 100 acres on the south side of Micco Road with a partner; they went to the meeting last night and were approved for a zoning change from GU, which is one unit per five acres to RR-1, which is one unit per acre; and that is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. She stated they are planning a single-family home development and will most likely use the open space Ordinance, keep the rural setting, and be consistent with the area and the planning that was done yers ago. She stated the LPA voted against the amendment, and she agrees with it; and requested the Board deny the amendment or postpone it until they have time to get counsel because she was not notified of the public hearings or meetings.

Christopher Weatherdon of Micco stated he is a property owner and is in strict opposition to the amendment; and it will be detrimental and cause severe negative impact for the tax base of the unincorporated Brevard County, as well as promote annexation for people who would be unhappy with the amendment. He stated he represents the small property owners who purchased land in the area to realize their dreams; they worked all their lives for it like he has; he owns only 4.6 acres; and they moved to Brevard County to realize the country atmosphere of the area. He stated he respects the land and wants to preserve it; they do not want to jeopardize it in any way; and with that in mind, he would like to read a write-up he made and back it up with information he has from the South Mainland Planning Committee’s recommendations, which he feels is controversial. He read, “The country flavor and open spaces of the South County was part of the reason I was attracted to the area. The current Future Land Use designation of one residence per acre would still maintain the rural ambience along the eastern portion of Micco Road where it should be a transitional area. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment 2004B.2 promotes a farm atmosphere with only one residence per five acres. I do not feel the extremely low density is appropriate for the property fronting along the eastern portion of Micco Road, especially since some of the parcels, such as his and his neighbors whom he represents, are less than five acres. How can rezoning the entire area be considered rightsizing when parcels existing within the target area are less than five acres and the density is being changed to one dwelling unit per five acres essentially rendering some of the property useless without a variance? To me, it is unfair and at most taking away our property rights. The smaller parcels fronting Micco Road do not seem to fit within the intent of this plan and also are directly across from Barefoot Bay, which we feel is a very nice community. That was one of the reasons we bought there. We like the people. We have friends in that community, which has a much higher density of seven dwelling units plus per acre zoned TRC-1. If this amendment passes, one side of Micco Road will have a very low density, one dwelling unit per five acres and in contrast the other side will have a very high density of Barefoot Bay, which is seven dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan amendment as now proposed fosters extreme land use differences across the street from each other with no transitional zoning between, and that is important. The transitional zoning is what we feel should be in between any higher density to lower density. It promotes more rightsizing of the area. The proposed land use change to agriculture one dwelling unit could possibly hinder me in a catastrophe, which we have just seen. It was a close hit for many of us. Many of the neighbors experienced a lot of damage than we have. We consider ourselves lucky, but if a catastrophe should destroy our property, we only have 4.6 acres, what would we be forced to do? We may not be able to rebuild. It would render our property useless. This initiative is not considerate of the smaller property owners and citizens who purchased land intended for one dwelling unit per acre. The property rights of the usage of smaller property owners as well as larger property owners are being jeopardized. I’m here to speak on behalf of some of the smaller property owners along the eastern side of Micco Road although I do share many of the larger property owners' concerns, especially from a property rights perspective. As expressed by County staff when this amendment was originally conceived, it was intended to be set for parcels larger than ten acres. This would have been much more fair to smaller property owners who put their money and dreams of building their homes on one-acre lots for their future and retirement; therefore, negatively affecting taxpayers’ property rights and decreasing their real property value. It simply is not fair. I respectfully request my parcel at a minimum, which is 4.69 acres, along with the smaller parcels affected along eastern Micco Road, which fall within the proposed amendment area, be excluded from the Comprehensive Plan amendment 2004B.2 and remain as intact as now having residential one dwelling unit as a buffer between the low density agricultural areas and existing higher density TRC-1 seven dwelling units per acre, which now exists in Barefoot Bay, which will provide a transitional zoning and density and promote a more applicable rightsizing of the adjoining areas.” He stated he would like to back this up with a draft of the South Mainland Planning Committee’s recommendations dated May 5, 2004, which says, “Dear South Mainland Property Owners.” Chair Higgs advised Mr. Weatherdon his time has expired. Mr. Weatherdon stated basically what the study says is that it was intended for parcels of ten acres or more; and he would appreciate the Board’s consideration.

Chair Higgs requested Mr. Corwin address the ten acres or more issue. A staff member advised the draft that was just referred to by the speaker is a draft that was applied and done in the analysis for the potential overlay district and the application of the open space subdivision Ordinance in the South Mainland area.

Cole Goatley of Palm Bay, representing Bayside Lakes Development Corporation, stated he has grave concerns about the proposed land use change, but his immediate concern is that part of the area described in the proposal is not within the County and is within the City limits of Palm Bay. He stated he has a document supporting that fact. Chair Higgs inquired if that land would be removed from the plan if it is in Palm Bay; with Mr. Corwin responding when a city annexes property, the property remains on the Future Land Use Map of the County until the city amends its comprehensive plan; and once the property is admitted by the city, it is removed from the County’s Comprehensive Plan and therefore removed from the amendment as well. Mr. Goatley stated he knows that is a subject of argument, but he disagrees with Mr. Corwin; it has been annexed; it is in the jurisdiction of the City of Palm Bay and not the County; and Mr. Knox may care to comment on that. He stated they requested the property be removed before the hearings because it was an error in the material presented to the Board; they requested by letter dated September 15 that it be removed; and that letter was perhaps not ignored but the last he saw of it, it was under public comment, which is not an appropriate place for it. He stated setting that aside, there appears to be some fundamental flaws in the process relating to the change in land use; it would seem the land use designation should precede zoning; and this proposal reverses the process. He stated in doing so, it destabilizes the orderly progress of land use planning and development; and one of the things that result from it is the change that will affect the smaller tract owners. Mr. Goatley stated it has a serious financial impact on many people; the matter at hand has not had substantial input from the general public until it came before the LPA; and if the Commissioners attended the LPA meeting last night, he does not think they could in good conscience vote to transmit the amendment to the Department of Community Affairs. He stated the LPA soundly rejected it; and he would recommend the proposal be denied by the Board. He stated he looked into the Long-range Planning Committee and has been aware of the group; he found that a significant number of those people reside in Barefoot Bay; they got the addresses and put them on a map; and there they were. He stated if that is not true, someone can correct him; but he does not believe they were required to observe the Sunshine law nor to provide notice. Chair Higgs advised the group was an ad hoc group; she and Mr. Knox talked about that; and inquired if Mr. Goatley’s comments are correct; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding that is correct.

Maureen Rupe of Port St. John stated she supports the Committee in this request, as the Committee was initiated through the concerns of residents of those communities. She stated the Charter Review Commission had many people from both rural areas of North and South Brevard with the same concerns; she believes the Committee reflects the majority of the communities they live in; and urged the Board to pass the amendment.

Chair Higgs requested Mr. Knox speak to the issue of the parcel that was annexed by the City of Palm Bay. Mr. Knox stated the parcel that was annexed by the City is subject to the County’s zoning regulations until the City does something to change it; but if the issue is whether the Board can change the zoning and land use regulations in the City, he does not think it can. He stated the City has jurisdiction over that to make the change; and what the Board has there remains in effect until the City makes that change.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Knox is saying what the County has stays in effect, and it would be inappropriate to make a change to the property at this moment; with Mr. Knox responding that is the way he would read the Florida Statutes. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board proceeds, it could exclude the property as Mr. Goatley suggested.

Chair Higgs stated the Board has not talked about a number of rightsizing activities in which the Comprehensive Plan was brought in line with the zoning; people from a variety of places brought those issues to the Board; and that is what is before it today. She stated they are going from 5,822 units to 1,786 units; in doing that, it goes from 56,600 trips to 17,000 trips; and everyone can appreciate the impact that is on the need for infrastructure and funding. She stated there is concern that the amendment will take away property rights; no one has a right beyond what the zoning gives to them; the amendment simply brings in line the Comprehensive Plan to what the zoning is; and they can build to the zoning that they have. She stated that is the issue that would govern the use of the land; so the Board is not taking away any rights currently enjoyed by the property owners. Chair Higgs advised in other areas of the County where the Board did some downsizing, rightsizing, and some down zoning or Comprehensive Plan reductions, property values increased; the Board has increasingly seen a desire from people to have a lifestyle, which is large lots and the ability to use it in a more rural sense; so this is a sound balance for the County of different alternatives in lifestyles. She stated it is a good economic decision in terms of the County’s infrastructure; it takes away no one’s rights; it continues the right they have within the zoning they have; and urged the Board to pass it.

Commissioner Colon stated she originally asked how come the denial was nine to two, but it is pretty easy to see now, based on all the testimony the Board has received. She stated about two months ago the Board had someone who encouraged going to five acres because it was something that was attractive; but she is sensitive to making sure there is a transitional zoning, which does not apply with this amendment. She stated she lives on a lot that is 80x125; and inquired who is she to say she wants someone next door that has five acres. She noted it does not go together with something that she would think would be fair. She stated there are so many things to take into account; it is easier when the Board has a developer who wants to rezone an area that was orange groves; but in this case it seems to be more difficult and not quite cut and dry. Commissioner Colon stated bringing some parties together to see if they can come up with some type of compromise is the way to go; and it would be irresponsible to go ahead with one brush and completely do that even though she supports it because she has great concerns in regards to areas like Merritt Island and South Brevard and parts of North Brevard that are growing so rapidly. She stated a lot of the businesses are going under; and inquired what will happen to the County as a community in that case. She stated she would encourage the right type of planning but does not think sending it forward today would be the right thing to do without all of them sitting down as a community to see what kind of community they want to be. She stated some folks said those on the South Mainland Long-range Planning Committee were obviously from Barefoot Bay. Chair Higgs stated that is not true; the group came, went, and changed; and anybody who came may have been listed on a mail out list. Commissioner Colon inquired if Chair Higgs would say 50% is more accurate; with Chair Higgs responding she does not think that is accurate, but would be happy to give Commissioner Colon the list. Commissioner Colon stated a lot of the folks are from the area; some of things that have been said today is that some folks who own land in the area were not part of the conversations; that goes against what the Board has done for the last few years of getting public input; the Board may not be able to figure out all the solutions in one sitting; but it would be irresponsible to approve this today. Commissioner Colon stated she appreciates the fact that the Board wants to protect the area; the Board denied a gentleman who came before it for 2.5 acres because of school capacity; schools were not part of his plan and he just wanted to come in the area and put in his development; she said if he was not willing to sit down with the Board, he was not going to be able to do business; and he decided not to go forward. She stated she definitely wants to see the area stay rural and come up with some compromise; but doing it today is not right; and she can see why it was a nine to two vote by the LPA.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the LPA denied it and had good reasons; he has not heard one person who has spoken in favor of it say they own any of the property; they do not mind managing someone else’s property; but she wonders how they would react to four-fifths of their assets being taken away. He stated he does not think it is the way to do it; the best way to do it is to not pass the amendment forward; when the property goes through the zoning process and someone comes in and says he has 10, 20, or 50 acres, then the Board can address it; and that is what he wants to do. He stated right now the way it is zoned is fine; the potential for one unit per acre is better than Barefoot Bay in terms of congestion with seven units per acre; so he would not support passing it forward.

Commissioner Carlson stated since she has been on the Board, it has done rightsizing; rightsizing takes a long time to do; the reason they do rightsizing is because it gives the opportunity for the community to develop property the way it wants it developed; and that is what the Long-range Planning Committee tried to do in this respect. She stated her biggest concern and the reason why she would vote for something like this is that it would be irresponsible for the Board if it does not have infrastructure out there regarding schools, Micco Road, etc.; the County had $20 million to resurface Micco Road; the road sales tax issue went down last year; the County does not have money for roads in that area; and it does not have money for Palm Bay Parkway either. Commissioner Carlson stated the more the density is increased, the more the County will have to pay for roads, school capacity, etc.; what she sees is a proliferation of septic tanks; there is not going to be water and things like that out there for a long time unless they pay dearly for those services; so development is going to be very expensive out there. She stated the more the Board increases the density, the more it is going to compound the problems; she does not see that as responsible development; but rightsizing seemed to have worked in many areas of the County so the Board should continue to do that because that is the way things are developing. She stated it might seem backwards, but when the Comprehensive Plan was developed it was a broad brush; in the long run, those standards do not work because that is not the way land is being developed; so it is more of a compromise than people think.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is definitely not similar, but the Board discussed the DRI for The Great Outdoors earlier and had a number of people come before it and say they should not adopt it in that format, yet the Board sent it on with the commitment to immediately go back and talk about the issues. He stated he has a problem when the density goes from seven units per acre to one unit per five acres; there needs to be more fine tuning; he appreciates the Committee’s work on it; but he heard the people today and need to understand when it comes back Commissioner Higgs will no longer be on the Board and there may be other dynamics taking place. He stated he does not have a problem proceeding forward with the full understanding that this is a step in that direction; earlier today he asked that the Board move forward with a small area plan for the Mims to Scottsmoor area; and the next request will come from Chris Gardner to move County water up to an approved project, the McIntosh Highlands. He stated it was going to draw its own water; Mr. Martens will be able to tell the Board about the dynamics of the Mims Water System; those are tremendously dynamic issues; and everything cannot develop out at the maximum density in the extreme rural areas without a collapse. Commissioner Scarborough stated since Mr. Martens does not have enough water to develop everything at the higher density, there needs to be different areas developed in different ways; and how it works for different people has to work for the bigger community, the infrastructure, and the landowner in his capacity to develop those different units in different places. He stated he understands the dynamic situation they are walking into; it is not a final decision; and in fact it throws a tremendous burden on the Board and where it goes from here.

Chair Higgs inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is willing to transmit the amendment and work it like The Great Outdoors issue; with Commissioner Scarborough responding understanding where the Board is walking into is an immense dialogue. Chair Higgs stated if that is a motion to transmit, she will second it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve transmittal of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2004B.2 from the South Mainland Long-range Planning Committee to Department of Community Affairs.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board has to realize that this did not come about at the request of the property owners; it came about as a request of people who live in the area but do not own the property; so they are not directly impacted by what it might do to what the potential for the property is. He stated if they were more directly involved, the Board would see a little more concern on their part; so he has a problem with someone coming along who does not mind how something affects another person as long as it does not seem to affect that person. He stated the Board is going about this the wrong way; it is talking about infrastructure that needs to be built, yet there is no plan at this point to build anything; and inquired if there is no plan to build anything, why is the Board trying to reduce the amount of density with the potential of what it would cost if it were developed. He stated he does not see the relationship. Commissioner Carlson stated the relationship is they must have the infrastructure in place to provide for the development otherwise it will cost development quite a bit more than it would if the County had the infrastructure. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board has no idea what the infrastructure needs are. Commissioner Carlson stated yes it does, as every Commissioner was present when the Board went through the road tax issue last year, which was defeated. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is talking about going from one unit per acre to one unit per five acres or two and a half acres; his point is the Board does not know what the plans are; and right now it is all zoned agriculture. Chair Higgs stated it is not all AU, it is AU and GU. Commissioner Pritchard stated but it is not one unit per five acres; so the Board does not know how many units are going to be built in the area; and what it is trying to do is designate, and based on the designation that is somewhat hypothetical, determine what the cost of infrastructure is going to be. Commissioner Carlson stated comprehensive planning is just that; when comprehensive planning evolved and the Future Land Use Map was actually laid out, they did not have their bearings of how things were going to develop; and then it decided, before she got on the Board, that there may need to be rightsizing to make sure the land use met the needs of the people living on the land so they do not have those conflicts. She stated that is what this amendment does, it rightsizes the properties. Commissioner Pritchard stated it does not meet the needs for the people who will potentially be living on the land when the property owners do not know what the living conditions are going to be. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has public policy to guide development and make sure they do not deal more than they can afford to. Commissioner Pritchard stated there is a limit to guiding and a limit to micro-managing. Commissioner Carlson stated zoning and land use are what their jobs are all about. Commissioner Pritchard stated if it was proper, he would not have seven units an acre in Barefoot Bay. Chair Higgs stated she would not either, but she was not there at the time. Chair Higgs stated people who are impacted by the land use changes are the people who live in the area now and have chosen a lifestyle. Commissioner Pritchard stated they live on seven units an acre; with Chair Higgs responding not all the people in the area live in Barefoot Bay. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how can the Board say they are going to be impacted when somebody builds one house on one acre or on two and a half acres, which the property is currently zoned; and how can it say they are going to be impacted when they are living on seven units per acre. Chair Higgs stated one person here is representing Barefoot Bay; and the rest of the people do not live there. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how big is Ms. Rupe’s lot in Port St. John; with Ms. Rupe responding a quarter of an acre. Chair Higgs stated there are people whose quality of life will be impacted; and Commissioner Pritchard saw that the other night from the people in District 2 who were concerned about development. Commissioner Pritchard stated a bunch of people who live on seven units to an acre telling him he cannot have a one-acre lot would impact his life. Chair Higgs stated the people in the area are impacted by development that occurs. Commissioner Pritchard stated development that occurs when they have seven units on an acre is one heck of a development. Chair Higgs stated Commissioner Pritchard is talking about one Subdivision and does not know what the area looks like; and the people who are here are not concerned only with their property but the whole neck of the woods. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what about the people who own the property that is being affected; stated they apparently did not get near the amount of input they would have liked; Chair Higgs already said the South Mainland Committee does not subscribe to the Sunshine law; and those people have said they were not part of the process. He inquired why the Board is not letting them become part of the process and bring the issue back. Chair Higgs stated anybody who wanted to could have been there; with Commissioner Pritchard responding only if they knew about it and a lot of those people work for a living and do not have time to spend their days going to meetings they do not know anything about.

Commissioner Colon stated some of the things that were heard need to be taken into consideration and Commissioner Scarborough being an attorney, if the Board is saying to those who own one acre that it is not acceptable and they have to have five acres in order to build, can the Board do that; with Commissioner Carlson responding that is not what the Board is saying. Commissioner Colon stated what she is saying is the Board needs to get feedback from Mr. Knox; and inquired why is there a rush to try and do it today. She stated the reason she is concerned is the potential of having the Bert Harris Act implications because those folks own the land; and requested the Board allow her to get feedback from Mr. Knox. She stated by transmittal, the Board is already sending a message; and there are two seats on the Board coming up for election. Chair Higgs stated Commissioner Scarborough has been re-elected. Commissioner Colon stated her seat and Commissioner Higgs’ seat are up to the voters and because of that the Board needs to be careful about the actions it takes today and not send a false sense of security that it is written in stone and everything is fine. She stated who knows if she will be sitting on the Board or not; two seats are practically half the Board; and those things need to be taken into consideration and the issue should not take place today.

Chair Higgs asked Commissioner Colon if the Board is not going to make any decisions between now and November; stated the people are still paying her to do work for them until the last day that she leaves office; she is going to do what is right as long as she is on the Board; and hopes Commissioner Colon is going to do the same thing and not just quit. Commissioner Colon stated one of the things is that Chair Higgs’ whole agenda has come forward and she is trying to squeeze everything in within four weeks. Chair Higgs stated that is crazy; and this issue has been here since the Board voted on it in January.

Commissioner Colon requested feedback from Mr. Knox on the Bert Harris Act. Mr. Knox advised he heard two things, the action will not affect the value of the property and from the property owners that it will affect the value of the property; the Board needs to know lingering in the background is the Bert Harris Act, which says if it changes regulations on a piece of property that has the effect of diminishing value in such a way that causes an inordinate burden, then the County could be potentially responsible for paying the difference; but that depends upon whether there is a devaluation or not.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board is doing rightsizing and not taking land value as far as the use of the property currently, is it opening itself up to the Bert Harris Act; with Mr. Knox responding if the Board takes any kind of regulatory action that results in diminishing value in such a way that it causes an inordinate burden on the property owner, it can cause potential liability. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is based on speculation by the landowner there is speculation that they want to do something with their land that they now cannot do because the Comprehensive Plan changed. Mr. Knox advised in Florida, the Comprehensive Plan prevails over zoning, so theoretically they can come in tomorrow and apply for rezoning to one unit per acre and prove their case; and the Board has to come up with a good reason why that should not be granted. Chair Higgs stated it would be the same arguments the Board had regarding the Babcock property Commissioner Colon talked about; staff was directed to bring the land use amendments on January 27; it was brought for consideration of the Board in December, 2003; so it is not like this is a surprise to the Board because it has seen it before and has seen it twice. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board heard input on it more than once.

Commissioner Pritchard stated what is a surprise to the Board, at least to a couple of Commissioners is when the property owners are affected say they were not part of the process; that is a bit of a surprise; if someone buys property under the assumption that the Comprehensive Plan says it will be one unit per acre and they pay x amount for that with the expectation of getting a return of x amount based on one unit per acre, and they do not get that, then maybe the people on the Committee who are pushing it should compensate them for the amount of money they are going to lose; and inquired why should the taxpayers have to bear that burden. Chair Higgs inquired if it is any different when someone comes in and asks for a CUP in the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency area and is denied. She noted they had a reasonable expectation that they could ask for it; but it was denied. Commissioner Pritchard stated they had a reasonable expectation when they bought property based on the current Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Knox stated he hopes the Board is not making zoning decisions independent of the Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Scarborough stated they cannot exceed the density; and the Board is not required to give them the maximum density every time they request it. Mr. Knox stated there is a range of densities within any Comprehensive Plan classification that the Board could grant. Commissioner Scarborough stated just because there is a potential to have additional density under the Comprehensive Plan does not mean they have a right until they go through the process and the Board grants the additional density. Mr. Knox stated if they come before the Board and make a presentation for one unit per acre for zoning, that would be presumptively okay under the Comprehensive Plan; they would have proven their case at that point; and then it would be incumbent upon the Board to come back and say it is going to grant something less than that because of certain reasons. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board could turn down every density request within the area legally without a Bert Harris Act implication because it does not have to give the maximum density under the Comprehensive Plan; with Mr. Knox responding assuming the Board has a good reason to do that.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if lack of infrastructure is a good enough reason; with Mr. Knox responding it could be, but each case would depend upon what comes up in the way of evidence. Chair Higgs stated Mr. Knox defended the Board with Sawgrass; with Mr. Knox responding he is not saying he cannot defend the Board, he is just warning it that it is out there and if the property owners who think their properties have been devalued come in and make a case, there is that potential. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was concerned that there was an absolute right to the highest density under the Comprehensive Plan but that is not what Mr. Knox said. Mr. Knox stated that is not correct.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is not suggesting there is an absolute right; and what he is saying is that it is premature and coming up at the wrong time. He stated if someone who owns 30 acres in the area comes back to the Board in two years and says he would like to build a subdivision there, the infrastructure will be part of what he is going to build; he is going to lay the pipe, etc. and will be hit with impact fees for everything some of the Commissioners could think of; so the infrastructure will become part of what the discussion and zoning request is going to be at that time; so this is premature. He stated the LPA said no, so he will say no.

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

Commissioner Scarborough stated if there is no recognition of the public comments that need to be considered, when it comes back from Department of Community Affairs, the Board is going to have a more complex discussion, so it would be worthwhile for staff to begin an analysis of some of the problems that are coming forward. Commissioner Colon inquired if that is basically a study of the area; with Commissioner Scarborough responding not being from the area and knowing all the dynamics, it was just a concept of a transitional zone between seven units per acre and one unit per five acres; and those type of comments where they are totally locked in an area where there is a great deal of density then drops. He stated normally the Board does not deal with density that way; it looks at something that moves such as where the transportation bottlenecks are going to be; and although it has impact fees, it knows the transportation impact fee is 30.5% of the total impact; so it is not picking up the full amount in impact fees for transportation and have a potential for things that can dynamically destroy an entire area. He stated he would like to proceed because it is the Board’s responsibility to proceed.

Commissioner Colon requested Mr. Corwin explain the process of what happens next as it is not set in stone. Mr. Corwin advised the process from this point forward is that the amendment will be sent to Department of Community Affairs that will review it and send comments back to the County; at that time the amendment will re-enter the public hearing process and go before the LPA one more time and to the Board for an adoption hearing; and at the adoption hearing, that is when the Board will decide whether or not it will adopt an ordinance associated with the amendment and make the Plan amendment law. He stated the effective date will be approximately 45 days after the Board adopts it if it is adopted. Commissioner Colon inquired what is the average time for the process; with Mr. Corwin responding nine to twelve months; and from this point forward the Board will be looking at seven to eight months before the amendment if approved would become law. Commissioner Colon stated the issue will come back again before the Board so it is not written in stone. Chair Higgs stated it is a transmittal and that is all; and the people need to follow the issue.

The meeting recessed at 2:49 p.m., and reconvened at 2:58 p.m.

Amendment 2004B.3, McIntosh Highlands Potable Water

Chair Higgs advised Chris Gardner and John Evans are here to speak on this item. Commissioner Scarborough stated if they wish to speak that is fine, then he will ask Mr. Martens to describe the issues. Mr. Corwin advised the applicant submitted a request to include the west side of the McIntosh Highlands PUD as well within the amendment.

Chair Higgs inquired what does that mean; with Mr. Corwin responding his original request was to include those properties east of I-95; and he amended the request to include properties within the PUD west of I-95. Chair Higgs inquired if it would be lawful to consider that according to the advertisement; with Mr. Corwin responding the ad referenced changing the map and did not go into specifics. Chair Higgs inquired if the applicant changed the description of the property in the Comprehensive Plan amendment, can the Board consider it; with Mr. Corwin responding what was advertised was an amendment to the potable water element map 2 existing in the future service area; and there was no description of what the expansion would be. Mr. Knox inquired if there were no pictures of the area either; with Mr. Corwin responding there were no pictures. Mr. Knox advised the Board should be able to consider it. Chair Higgs inquired if notices were sent to all affected property owners; with Mr. Corwin responding it was a private application for McIntosh Highlands PUD; and it is his understanding Mr. Gardner spoke to the owners on the west side of the PUD as well.

Attorney John Evans, representing the entire McIntosh Highlands project, advised the project was approved in 1996 and straddles I-95; that is why there is an east side and west side; they have been studying the best way to deliver potable water to the site as part of the development of the PUD; and those studies indicate the best way to service the project is to extend the existing County water service at the developer’s expense to the project. He stated there are several factors behind that; staff indicated there is sufficient water in the Mims system to service the property; staff report states, “The Water Resources Department has indicated that this application will not result in degradation of service to the existing customers.”; and his client had an independent study done of the County water system in the area and that study indicated the system is operating at about 30% capacity at this time, and there will be plenty of capacity to serve the McIntosh project. Mr. Evans stated they met with members of the Scottsmoor Homeowners Association to discuss bringing County water to their neighborhood; generally their reception seemed to be positive of the application; and one reason is it will offer fire protection. He stated several years ago they had severe fires in the Scottsmoor area and fire protection was a major issue because there was no city or County water available; and the residents also expressed that there is some comfort that if County water was brought up there and there were problems with wells, on an emergency basis people could hook up to the water and service their properties. He stated they feel it is favorable to the Scottsmoor people; if water is available, there is no requirement that people have to hook up to it; so they are not forcing hundreds of people to hook up to the County water system, and is just making it available to those people. He stated the problem is to even consider extending the water line, they have to amend the existing future service area map; the map shows in gray what legally the County can extend the water lines to; the McIntosh property is about a mile north of the northern edge of the water service area; so in order to enter into discussions with the County, they need to start the process to amend the map so if they can reach an agreement the map can be amended in a timely fashion and the project can proceed forward. He stated they are asking the Board to take the first step in the process and allow them to enter into negotiations with the County; as they get down the road, they may find more favorable things to do this; they may find negative things; but today opens the door for the process and negotiations to begin. He requested the Board favorably forward the amendment to Department of Community Affairs.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the amendment was heard by the LPA last night; with Mr. Corwin responding yes, and the LPA recommended approval. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it was unanimous; with Mr. Corwin responding he believes it was. Mr. Evans stated the Citizens Resource Group also unanimously recommended approval.

Chris Gardner of Winter Park advised Mr. Evans indicated they are part of the group that controls the McIntosh Highlands PUD; they represent the east side; and there is a representative for the west side. He stated while they did meet with the Scottsmoor Community Board, those meetings are ongoing; presently they are at the starting block in utilities; it is one of the focal points; and the other point is, when the PUD was originally approved, the concept was to have private services, a wastewater treatment plant and water plant; but they think extension of the County’s facilities is a good alternative to that concept. He stated there was some concerns from the Scottsmoor community that a plant of that magnitude to service the McIntosh Highlands PUD might have some adverse effects on their well facilities. He noted he concurs with Mr. Evans’ summary and will answer any questions.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is being reflected in the Comprehensive Plan change to the service area if this amendment is adopted; with Water Resources Director Dick Martens responding the future water service area designation is a permissive designation that needs to be in place as part of the Comprehensive Plan in order for the County to extend into new areas. Mr. Martens stated the current map has been in place for some time, probably with the origin of the Comprehensive Plan in 1987; and this is the first request they had for services outside of the Mims area. He stated in order to provide those services, they need to amend the map to include the subject area in their future water service area boundary. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board will get a different map with different lines; with Mr. Martens responding if adopted, the map would be changed to include McIntosh Highlands within the future service area. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it would be just McIntosh Highlands; with Mr. Martens responding he has not seen any specifics, but knows the request right now includes McIntosh Highlands, and the boundaries include the U.S. 1 corridor up to the project. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Evans indicated some folks having deterioration in their well water; there may be a desire to oversize the line and utilize the water; and inquired if that can be taken care of with this action. Mr. Corwin stated the way the map was constructed, the dotted line comes from the existing water service area to a shaded area; the shaded area is the east side of the McIntosh Highlands PUD; and that is the portion originally requested by the applicant for water service. Mr. Corwin stated the west side of that PUD is on the west side of I-95 and would be included as well; and the map shows a connector from the existing water up to the McIntosh Highlands PUD and only includes the PUD within the expansion of the future service area because it is a private application and the applicant only requested inclusion of his property. Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands it is a private application, but profoundly affects what the Board is telling the entire community up there; at this moment he is inclined to want to table it until he has additional information because the community believes it has the capacity to answer individual needs; and he does not know if it is going just to the applicant. He inquired if it is just the green area, would a transmission line in between be prudent; stated he is asking the question because he is not an engineer to say if they oversize the line and somebody in between them wanted to hook into the oversized line they could get into it; and that is the type of thing that makes him feel a small area plan is desperately needed for the area, otherwise they have the developer individually driving issues as opposed to the holistic decision on how all of it comes together. He inquired if it can be tabled or if it is something that needs to be done. Mr. Martens stated the issues relating to how much service can the County provide is based on line sizing; and the larger the line that gets put in the more area they can service. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is fine if it is just line sizing; but he has been given a map that shows a line, which is gray, with a yellow line around it; he has been given something green to the north and told that exclusively is what they are going to be including; and that will not get his vote. He stated it will get a problem started because what the County will do is piecemeal multiple Comprehensive Plan amendments dealing with the service area; and that is not the way to run the County. County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if it would make sense to make the whole area green; with Commissioner Scarborough responding what he would be willing to transmit is everything to the Volusia County line with the thought the County come back and down size; Mr. Martens might say there is no way he can service all that with his current water supply; so it is going forward knowing full well that what the Board is doing is wrong; but it does have the ability to correct its mistake, recognizing it has an ability to tweak it when it comes back. He noted the Board can always go backwards like over-advertising an ordinance, but it cannot under-advertise. Mr. Jenkins inquired if there is a problem making the entire area green; with Mr. Martens responding absolutely not. Mr. Martens stated it is a permissive designation that allows staff, but does not require them to provide the service. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the line is drawn in the wrong place, he will have somebody next week asks him how come he did not include that part of Scottsmoor that has bad wells, Mr. Evans told him that, but he sent it on forward, and does he not listen to people. He stated he will move that the service area go all the way to the Volusia County line with the thought that it is wrong. Mr. Martens inquired if Commissioner Scarborough wants to specify the western boundary; and inquired about other issues Mr. Knox has on the table. Mr. Knox stated those issues are in the record already and there is nothing that can be done about it at this point if Mr. Martens is referring to the PSC case. Mr. Martens stated he would suggest making the boundary all the way from the lagoon to the Farmton property and north to the County line which broad brushes everything and brings it within the planning area so no one is excluded. He stated they can later discuss line sizing and how many customers they can serve based on that. Commissioner Scarborough stated if staff goes to Mr. Gardner and asks him to oversize his line because the County wants to service other people, maybe he has the ability to do that, but it has a fiscal impact on his cash flow even though he could recapture some of the cost; and it is not to his advantage to do that, so he may not be willing to oversize even though the lines are drawn on the map. Mr. Martens stated that is a pertinent issue; and the way they handled those in the past for the wastewater system where they required an oversizing beyond the needs of the developer who was installing the infrastructure, they entered into a reimbursement agreement or the Board would finance the oversizing and would recoup the money through a future capital recovery charge from people who connected and used the system. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is something that has to be worked out with the McIntosh Highlands developer because he is the one who has to put up the money.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve transmittal of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2004B.3 from McIntosh Highlands LLC with expansion of the service area to include property with the west boundary being the lagoon to Farmton property and the north boundary being the Volusia County line. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE GRANTING ELECTRIC FRANCHISE TO FLORIDA
POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance granting Florida Power & Light Company an electric franchise for 30 years.

Thelma Roper of Titusville stated there are a couple of things that concern her in the ordinance after some of the stuff she has seen; and a lot of the power poles she saw in the north end of the County that were broken during the hurricanes were issues of improper maintenance by Florida Power & Light Company. She stated it appears to her that they are going to a policy of breakdown maintenance where the only time they repair anything is when it breaks down; they do not do any preventative maintenance; and when there is a major storm event or something, a lot of power outages occur because the equipment is not up to par. She stated it would be wise if there was a way to require underground lines as opposed to new above lines; so if they come in and replace them, they may not have to redo them. She stated if there is a large area they are going into for regular maintenance at that time it could go to underground lines; it would be beneficial; and Florida Power & Light Company is going to show the Board the cost and say it costs too much to do it, but that is because they are doing breakdown maintenance. She stated if they were doing regular maintenance, the cost would not be greater because the maintenance would be less; but they are not doing proper maintenance; therefore, they have had the problems they had. Ms. Roper stated in the north end of the County, they had power outages with Hurricane Charley for a significant amount of time; with Frances, which was expected, they had power outages for a significant amount of time; but with Jeanne, the power outages were significantly shorter because by then most of the maintenance they had not been doing had been done; and if the Board is giving Florida Power & Light Company an agreement to provide power to its constituents, it needs to make sure the constituents are getting good service and not just adequate service. She stated there is a section about providing power to the County and if it finds a better rate and wants to go to that company, Florida Power & Light Company has a 60-day timeframe to look at it and see if they can meet it or beat the other company’s price; and if they have 60 days and the offer from the other company is 30 days, Florida Power & Light Company could just sit on it and let the offer expire and the County is stuck with the price it already has. Ms. Roper stated she wants to ensure that type of scenario will not happen and that the County is not getting breakdown maintenance.

Walter Pine of Titusville stated he does not usually do it, but wants to give the Board an understanding of his background; for a good portion of his life he was a licensed national institute uniform licensed power engineer; distribution was his forte; and that is what he did for the military for a number of years. He stated what Ms. Roper said about breakdown maintenance is true; it is obvious; poles broke off the ground because they rotted off; poles shattered because they had woodpecker holes in them; transformers blew up because they had water in them; and all kinds of things happened, but that is the nature of the way the electrical industry works. He stated they start out doing a lot of PMCS and realize that costs; so they swing to breakdown maintenance and back and forth; they are clearly in a heavy breakdown area; and the problem with that is it does transfer the impact of maintenance to the constituents if they had not been doing breakdown maintenance. He stated he has to give the people who did the work to bring the power poles back up credit because it was a Herculean effort; power lines and connectors have been up for years; they sit in the rain and corrode and get weak, so they break; and those power transmission lines have a core in them made of steel. He stated when the lines get wet, they rust; when a tree falls on them, they will not hold the same amount of weight and break; so now there is discussion about going back and asking for an increase of fees; and part of the reason is because of the cost of maintenance that had to be done because of the hurricanes. He stated that should have been spread out over the last five to 15 years, but it was not. Mr. Pine stated the Board is renewing the contract prematurely; Section 2 prohibits it from denying the use of an easement unless it interferes with traffic; and inquired what if it goes over a school or any area and creates a particular hazard. He stated the Board needs to have within its discretion the ability to prohibit that use. He stated Section 6.a. limits competition and prevents the Board from establishing County and State utilities; Section 6.b. says it cannot participate in any proceeding or contractual arrangement to require transmission by a third party; there are a lot of startup companies in phone and power businesses; one is CAN that buys power in an area very cheaply and transmits it across everybody else’s lines and sells it cheaply in other areas; and it is not uncommon for that to be a 50% cost savings to the purchaser. He stated by allowing the contract, the Board is preventing that competition; competition is what controls prices in an unregulated market; it is supposed to be an unregulated market; so the anti-competition clauses defeat the purpose of deregulation that creates competition. He stated Section 6.c. says the Board cannot seek to create a situation through the State or federal agencies to require Florida Power & Light Company to transmit power from another party; that prohibits new companies from entering the area and new technologies from expanding; and it prevents the Board from being able to allow that service.

Mr. Pine stated Sections 7 and 8 on denying competitive advantages prohibit the Board from allowing entrepreneurial or new technologies from entering the area; the Board needs to remove the things that stifle competition and allow them to maintain a monopoly price; and it should include a provision that prohibits breakdown maintenance, which is not good for the community. He stated it is a poor industry practice and should be prevented; nothing in the contract establishes the price; and the public has a right to comment on the cost and what they are getting from it before the Board votes to pass or accept it.

Chair Higgs advised Mr. Pine his time expired. Mr. Pine stated he would like to finish one more comment.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to allow additional time for Walter Pine to complete his comments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Pine stated the power companies provide power bills to everybody in the County; and it is an opportunity, in renewing this contract, that in lieu of part of the payment Florida Power & Light Company would perhaps allow the County to put notices in their mailings. He stated the bills go to everyone in the County; it is not a newspaper someone buys or something someone gets sent periodically; so in lieu of some of the payment, the County could add a sheet for a notice in Florida Power & Light Company’s mailings. He stated they should have done notice on this issue in their own billings; it was not in the minutes; so there is a question of notice.

Charles Moehle of Cocoa Beach, President of Modern, Inc., stated there have been outstanding statements made by the previous speakers some of which were part of his presentation so he will not repeat them. He stated it is a long-term commitment to a monopoly; he does not believe the contract was thoroughly examined for the benefit of the citizens of the County; monopolies are fast disappearing; it is the change of times; and the Board should not just renew monopoly-type contracts. He stated it is a long-term contract and should be examined more carefully; he can attest to the fact that Florida Power & Light Company does that kind of maintenance through his knowledge and specific observation for at least the last 10 to 15 years; Modern, Inc. manages approximately 5,000 acres in the County; it has two miles of heavy transmission lines that come down through the State over its properties; and when they come in periodically and examine for rotten poles, they do not change anything, yet those are main transmission lines with mega volts that go to substations. He stated they examine the poles and appenditures to them for rot; if they are close to rotten, they do not change them and wait until they are rotten and about to fall; and that is when they change them, which is not the right way to do maintenance. Mr. Moehle stated he is sure they do the same type of maintenance to service local neighborhoods; in Indian River County, whole neighborhoods had all the lines down and when they looked at the poles, they were all rotten; they also do not do proper maintenance under trees, which helps to cause damage during catastrophic events like hurricanes; and they have all seen examples of that. He stated the type of maintenance they have established is to benefit their stockholders, which he does not have a problem with, but they also have responsibility to the citizens of the County; and the Board has a responsibility to look out for a proper contract. He stated Georgia has a policy for underground utilities no matter what kind of subdivision is served, whether it is affordable housing, multi-million dollar homes, or low-income homes; those are things the Board should consider; and the contract should be examined closer than it has been done.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised it is a nonexclusive agreement to use the County’s easements to provide electrical power to the community; the contract is the same contract that has been in effect for the last 27 years; and some speakers raised issues that perhaps need to be submitted to the Public Service Commission (PSC) because the Board is not empowered to regulate the operations and maintenance nor the rates of Florida Power & Light Company. He stated there was a comment that the County cannot obligate Florida Power & Light Company to transmit somebody else’s power; but that does not stop the County, if it chose to, from buying power from another vendor. He stated the Agenda coversheet contains the percentage; the renewal reduces the franchise fee from 6% to 5.9%; underground power lines is an issue that has cost implications, which would impact rates; and he is not sure if that is under the jurisdiction of the PSC or not, but many of the operational issues are outside the arena of the agreement. He noted the adopted budget is predicated on the agreement being executed.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated if the Board makes Florida Power & Light Company spend money to put in underground utilities, that cost would pass through to the consumer; so it is for the PSC to consider.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Knox looked at comparable Ordinances of other counties; with Mr. Knox responding no. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Knox thinks others have provisions dealing with maintenance; with Mr. Knox responding he has seen other agreements in his career and does not recall seeing maintenance in them. Commissioner Scarborough stated maintenance is an issue that has come up quite profoundly; he knows it is a separate issue from this agreement because it does not get passed along as part of their rate structure to the PSC; and inquired how critical is it to take action this afternoon; with Mr. Jenkins responding it is not critical that the Board act this afternoon, but it is critical that something is done in the not too distant future because the budget is predicated on the money. Commissioner Scarborough stated he recognizes that, but if there is some way to encourage better maintenance, it would mean less power outages for people, and it would be a convenience to the community and something people would like to see the Board enter into. He stated the item is a standard agreement and it is not exclusive, but nevertheless there are concerns. Mr. Jenkins stated perhaps Mr. Knox can research that.

Chair Higgs suggested Mr. Sanderson speak to the issues. Mr. Sanderson stated he will answer specific questions the Board may have.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he went through many neighborhoods where poles were snapped off at ground level and higher; some were jagged; and all of them had rotted cores. He stated some were stretched across lawns and blocking doors; they were like that for quite a while, at least a week that he knows of; so apparently there are a lot of wooden telephone poles that have reached their life expectancy. Commissioner Pritchard stated there are a lot of lines that have trees growing into them; he used to see Asplundh trucks roaming neighborhoods and trimming oak trees to free the lines; but he does not see much of them any more, so a contract that enhances maintenance would be in the best interest of the community.

Sandy Sanderson, representing Florida Power & Light Company, advised on a regular basis they do invest in upgrading their infrastructure; and they have done it in excess of a couple of million dollars a year over and above their normal operating expenses that they invest in Brevard County every year and have for many years to upgrade the entire system. He stated the poles are inspected on a regular basis; there is a useful life of the pole; when they inspect them, they make a determination as to how close they are to the end of that useful life; and when they have winds in excess of 100 miles per hour, that will accelerate the useful life of the pole or termination of that. He stated they do inspect on a regular basis all their equipment and replace or repair as needed. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how often do they inspect the poles; with Mr. Sanderson responding on a regular basis as they are out there; they do not look at each pole at any predetermined period of time; but as they patrol the lines, they constantly inspect their equipment throughout the area. Commissioner Pritchard stated the exterior of the poles, the dozen or so that he looked at, looked pretty good, but the inside was rotted; and one had indications of rot on the exterior also. Mr. Sanderson stated they do inspect all their equipment on a regular basis as they are out patrolling in the normal course of their operation. Mr. Sanderson stated the second point is the tree trimming; Asplundh is a contractor to Florida Power & Light Company; they do trim trees on a regular basis; and Florida Power & Light Company has implemented a new system within the last six months that it thinks is much more effective. He stated instead of going out to areas they think need trimming and doing it on a case-by-case basis, they do two things; they monitor the number of momentaries, which are an indication that a limb is hitting the wires, and identify those as areas of need; they will also start their substations; the way the power gets to the ultimate customer is that it is generated at the plant, goes long distances with their transmission lines, then comes into neighborhoods; and once it is in the neighborhoods, the voltage is stepped down at the substations, then they have feeders that come out to serve individual areas within the neighborhoods. He stated they are now starting to trim on a regular rotation basis from the substations; they trim out the entire feeder including the laterals; they feel it is a much more effective use of the tree trimming man hours; and that is an enhancement to the system. He stated they are still out there trimming trees; they had massive trimming with respect to the storm restoration because of the tree damage; in order to restore power, they had to clear much of the tree debris; and for that they called in crews from all over the United States and two Provinces in Canada.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if other counties within their purview of their franchise agreements have maintenance provisions; with Mr. Sanderson responding no, the franchise before the Board is the standard franchise agreement that they now have with every entity in their service territory with which they have a franchise. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Sanderson would have a problem adding provisions dealing with maintenance; with Mr. Sanderson responding yes he would. Mr. Sanderson stated to address the specifics of the franchise, he has with him one of their senior attorneys Jay Mallineau; and if it is acceptable to the Board, he would ask him to come up and address specific aspects of the franchise. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be beneficial to listen to the attorney for Florida Power & Light Company.

Commissioner Colon stated a lot of new subdivisions in Brevard County have underground utilities; and inquired how is that done and does Florida Power & Light Company pass the fee to the developer and the developer passes it down to the consumer in that subdivision versus the entire community. Mr. Sanderson stated when there is a job that comes before them to engineer, they do the engineering and come up with their standard service from an engineering perspective; because of accessibility and other reasons, they may be overhead or underground; Florida Power & Light Company makes that determination; and they are happy to provide anyone who requests it the nonstandard service, but they have to pay the differential cost. He stated if they determine the overhead service would be the standard service for a new development, then there would be costs associated with above ground poles and wires that are put in; but if the developer wants to go underground for aesthetics or marketability of his project, he would pay Florida Power & Light Company the differential cost between underground and overhead. He stated there will be considerable discussion on a number of different levels about undergrounding in the wake of the hurricanes; there is no question that undergrounding is aesthetically pleasing; if the storm is primarily a high-wind situation, undergrounding is a more desirable alternative; but if a storm has high levels of flooding, then undergrounding is not as desirable as overhead because it is much more difficult and time consuming to get to the problem area and repair it. Mr. Sanderson stated he saw a statistic some time ago of 1.8 times the average restoration time; if it takes an hour to restore power overhead, it would take 1.8 hours for underground restoration; so while it has its advantages, it is not the ultimate answer. He stated he lives in a development that has all underground service, but in the storm before last he was out of service in his home for eight days; the line coming to the point where it goes underground was affected as well as perhaps some of the underground lines; so it is not the ultimate answer, but it is worthy of further discussion. Commissioner Colon inquired if there is a government agency that would say to a developer it would like to see underground power lines; and if that is the case, the Board wants to know because maybe it is something it can do for subdivisions that come before it. Mr. Sanderson stated their senior attorney can address that and any other issues the Board may have regarding the franchise.

Jay Mallineau, senior attorney with Florida Power & Light Company, stated regarding Commissioner Colon’s question, Mr. Knox could tell her there are communities, counties, and cities that have underground Ordinances that require all new construction in many cases, certainly all new residential construction, to place utility lines underground; once they do that, then when a developer comes in that is done, and they would engineer the job as an underground job; and that is just part of the cost of the service. He stated they also have a tariff; they can offer no regulated service without a tariff; they have a tariff that was adopted over the summer, which provides a vehicle whereby political subdivisions could put service underground that is converted overhead service to underground service; and that is the way they offer that service. Mr. Mallineau stated they have not done that before except on a cost basis; it would allow the Board to put it underground and recover the cost like an improvement district; and they would collect that from the customers. Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Mallineau could send the Board information in regards to what other counties and so forth are doing in terms of underground power lines; with Mr. Mallineau responding he can tell the Board what they are doing; they are doing exactly what this Board is doing; they are asking questions; and when they find out the costs, they do not do it. Commissioner Colon stated she would like to see those numbers and find out who would pay for it. Mr. Mallineau stated he cannot tell Commissioner Colon the numbers because each job is different; he can tell her it is a factor of roughly eight; and if it costs $1 million a mile to build an overhead system, it would cost roughly $8 million to build an underground system. He stated the Board can pass an underground ordinance that requires it, then any subdivision and commercial building that comes before the Board after the date of the ordinance would be required to put in underground lines and pay the cost differential from the overhead service to the underground service.

Commissioner Pritchard advised Mr. Mallineau mentioned a tariff; with Mr. Mallineau responding yes, and he can send a copy to Mr. Knox if the Board desires and he can explain it to the Board in more detail, but it is a vehicle whereby a community can convert facilities from overhead to underground. Commissioner Pritchard inquired in existing neighborhoods with above ground service, does Florida Power & Light Company have any idea per block of 100 feet on a pole to pole charge what it might cost to take it off the pole and put it underground; with Mr. Mallineau responding he does not because it depends on the age of the system. He stated today it will be more expensive because their whole system on the East Coast and Southwest Coast is brand new; and they just rebuilt it in the past eight weeks. Mr. Mallineau stated there are some issues that are outside the scope of the PSC; when a person has a wire from the pole to his house, that is his service; when it is underground, it goes from the pole to the underground; and there has to be a vehicle to collect the money to get from the service drop to replace the service drop underground across the yard to the pole, otherwise they do not get an underground system.

Commissioner Scarborough stated his question is twofold; and inquired if other counties have within their franchise agreements maintenance provisions, and could the Board in some manner have additional charges for the purpose of higher levels of maintenance. He stated for instance, replacing wooden poles on intervals, and if there is internal rot, they are put on a replacement basis. He noted Mr. Pine used the term breakdown maintenance; with Mr. Pine stating there are schedules designed for the usable life of the pole with inspections already there; and breakdown maintenance means they do not use those schedules, they just wait until it breaks. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board could, within the contract, provide for a higher level of maintenance with the understanding there is a higher level of charges to the users. He stated he had a lot of people tell him they would not mind collecting the money and asking Florida Power & Light Company to upgrade its service; it is a tremendous amount of inconvenience to the entire State when they do not have a higher level of maintenance; and the people understand there is no give away in the world. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is a methodology that the County can step out and say it is important to it; with Mr. Mallineau responding it is possible, but probably not in the franchise agreement. Mr. Mallineau stated the gentleman did not work for Florida Power & Light Company because they do not do breakdown maintenance; they have scheduled maintenance; and they are in the top 15% in reliability of service of all utility companies in the United States. He stated if they have breakdown maintenance, that is not to fix it until it breaks, they would not be there; and they are also in the bottom core of cost in the United States, so the County gets a good deal from Florida Power & Light Company. He stated if there is an area of the County which has a maintenance problem or that the Board thinks has a maintenance problem, it can let Mr. Sanderson know as they do have momentaries. He stated trees will be less of a problem now because most of them are gone; he likes to have a contract that has one subject; and if the Board is going to do another subject, it should have another contract. He stated he is not the person to talk to about a higher level of maintenance contract; but he can put the Board in touch with people to talk about that; however, he would not agree to doing it in the franchise agreement. He stated the franchise agreement is nonexclusive and sets up the rules and regulations by which Florida Power & Light Company uses the County’s rights-of-way; he would like to keep it to that; and the franchise would garner the County plus or minus $3 million a year more than the last contract; so that is a pretty good investment for the County.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the points the Board is trying to make is that because of the outages people suffered; in some cases the contents of their refrigerators were dumped; they could easily have had a few hundred dollars worth of provisions in their refrigerators; and that is an unwarranted expense to replenish their stock. He stated if possible, he would like to look at the average cost per neighborhood of going underground and proposing to the neighborhood what the cost may be. He stated he is sure there are more poles that are rotted but did not fall; instead of replacing the poles, they could go under ground and do four or five in a row; and since they were going to replace the poles anyway, that would help offset the cost of going underground. He stated aesthetically underground service is much more appealing.

Mr. Mallineau urged the Board to wait until he gets the tariff to Mr. Knox and let him look at it and advise the Board because that is the only way Florida Power & Light Company can provide the service. He noted the PSC has said it is how they will do it; and that is how they must do it. He requested the Board approve the franchise; stated Florida Power & Light Company will talk to the Board about anything it wants to talk about; he does not think there is an instance where Florida Power & Light Company was unwilling to discuss things; and if the Board wants to discuss maintenance, Mr. Sanderson can have someone available for that.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Mallineau said it is a separate issue and does not belong in the franchise contract; with Mr. Mallineau responding he did. Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees it is a separate issue and the Board should not mix the two together; and it should go forward with the franchise agreement. She stated there is nothing that keeps the Board from saying all new subdivisions need to go with underground utilities on the mainland; that may not be appropriate for the island because of potential flooding; and there is also the possibility of looking at legislation that hardens electrical poles and makes them cement rather than wood, which would be better in terms of strength and long term. Chair Higgs stated that is not always the case. Commissioner Carlson stated it may not be, but the Board can discuss all those things including the maintenance issue which is an important issue. She stated Florida Power & Light Company did a great job responding to the storm events; some people were inconvenienced, which was expected; but it was an opportunity to go out there to make some system changes, harden some systems, and do a good job trying to make sure certain events do not occur in the future. She stated as business folks, they are going to do that because it is going to save time and money later; and with that, she will make a motion to pass the item.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt an Ordinance granting to Florida Power & Light Company, its successors, and assigns, an electric franchise; imposing provisions and conditions relating thereto; providing for monthly payments to Brevard County; and providing for an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Ordinance No. 04-42.)

Commissioner Colon expressed appreciation to Mr. Sanderson and the employees of Florida Power & Light Company for how hard they worked and the dozens of out-of-state folks who came to Brevard County to help during the hurricanes. She requested a list of the folks from the other states so Brevard County can send a thank you letter to them. Mr. Sanderson stated he would be happy to provide that; off the top of his head, there were representatives from 37 different states and two Provinces in Canada helping them out; and he would provide that information to the Board. Commissioner Colon stated one that stood out was from Texas that had a big sign saying, “Hold on Florida, Texas is here”; and she wants to say thank you so much on behalf of the citizens.

Commissioner Carlson suggested getting feedback from staff on all the folks who came here, not just those who helped with Florida Power & Light Company issues, but those who picked up debris, etc. She stated she saw many trucks with foreign license plates; it was amazing to see the folks who came to help in relief shelters and things like that; and Brevard County had a lot of help. Chair Higgs stated the Red Cross and Salvation Army were also from everywhere. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board should pass a resolution thanking them.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: AMENDMENTS TO MERIT SYSTEM POLICY II, PAY PLAN

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider amendments to the Merit System Policy II regarding the Pay Plan.

County Manager Tom Jenkins requested the item be continued to have 30 days to circulate it.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to continue the public hearing on amendments to the Merit System Policy II, Pay Plan until November 9, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: FUNDING OPTIONS FOR PINEDA CAUSEWAY EXTENSION AND
INTERCHANGE

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten advised staff talked about including the commercial paper resolution and the possibility of doing the constitutional projects, so the resolution for the commercial paper would read for the Pineda Causeway Extension and Interchange, and/or the Constitutional Gas Tax projects.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the reason for that is it is a cash flow issue; and if they have Constitutional gas tax sitting there and not being used, Mr. Burdett recommended using that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he had conversations with Mr. Whitten, Mr. Denninghoff, and Mr. Burdett and a few minutes ago Mr. Denninghoff said he needed to talk to Mr. Lugar; and inquired if there is a different wrinkle. Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated combining the two is the right way to go with it; and when they have an agreement they will be able to complete a project list and update all of that in a comprehensive way. Commissioner Scarborough stated the language that was suggested, from what he understands, is after the Pineda Causeway project and other projects previously approved by the Board in the Constitutional gas tax resolution; and inquired if that is the rest of the Board’s understanding.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Burdett brought up that there are dollars out there from the Constitutional gas tax; and the Board ought to use those dollars first and come back and do the commercial paper when it comes time to execute some of the road projects, etc. that have not been started yet. She noted hopefully the 1.29% is going to be there for a while, as it seems to be stable. Mr. Jenkins stated they will need some commercial paper for the Pineda even using the Constitutional gas tax as he understands it; and it would be a blend of the two funding sources for the Pineda. Commissioner Carlson stated financially it makes good sense.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is the rebating of positive arbitrage; they cannot borrow money and then invest it and get additional income; so they basically have money frozen there and going with commercial paper they will pay interest when they have money in the bank. Commissioner Carlson stated that money was bonded with the expectation to be used but is sitting there because of delays or whatever; so the Board might as well go ahead and use it. Finance Director Stephen Burdett stated he agrees completely; it is best to use funds the Board currently has; it will allow the Board to continue to accrue the one and a half million dollars a year of local option gas tax; and it will be available for when it needs to use it. He noted it will also play a part when they actually need to issue commercial paper.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize financing of the Pineda Causeway Extension and the County’s share of the Interchange using Local Option Gas Tax revenue, through commercial paper with additional language of “for the Pineda Causeway Extension and Interchange and/or the Constitutional Gas Tax projects” included in the resolution. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF BUDGET CHANGE REQUESTS, GRANT PERMISSION TO NEGOTIATE
WITH POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC., EXECUTE TASK ORDER,
OBTAIN TITLE SEARCHES AND APPRAISALS, BID AND AWARD BID, AND EXECUTE
CONTRACTS, RE: PINEDA EXTENSION PROJECT

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want to slow down the project, but would like the item to come back to the Board; and he does not want to lose FDOT funds, but wants the Board to have another bite of the apple. County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if Commissioner Scarborough wants the contract to come back to the Board; and Chair Higgs inquired if Commissioner Scarborough wants it to come back before the bid or before the contract for the bid. Commissioner Scarborough stated because there are dynamics of acquisition of lands, FDOT funds, and construction designs, he does not want to come back in a minor moment but in a major moment, but not hold the thing up too much. Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised it should be before going to bid, as he would prefer not waiting until after they have the bids. Commissioner Scarborough stated he agrees, as it would provide the opportunity to see if there are other options.

Chair Higgs inquired if staff wants to come back before Item 4 and before title searches and appraisals to see what the design is; with Mr. Denninghoff responding if there is any land acquisition, they do not anticipate any significant amount of that; but if there is an associated mitigation that might be required for permits, etc., staff would have to bring those back to the Board. Mr. Denninghoff stated if there are any JPA’s with FDOT, those would have to come back to the Board; and if they come back to get authorization to go to bid before they enter into contract for construction, the contract would have to come back to the Board as well. Commissioner Carlson stated if the first three items are approved, it would get the ball rolling. Mr. Denninghoff responded that is correct; and in order to proceed forward with all the design and permitting efforts, they need those three items.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve all Budget Change Requests for the Pineda Extension Project; grant permission to negotiate with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. and execute Task Order for construction design drawings; grant permission to obtain title searches and appraisals needed and to negotiate with property owners for rights-of-way; and return to the Board with permission to bid, award bid, and execute the contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BOARD DIRECTION, RE: PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS TO ADDRESS DIMINISHING
WILDLIFE HABITAT

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised this item is a carry over the Board discussed previously and sent it to the LPA for comment; and the question is whether or not there is further action required at this time or if the Board wishes to wait for the outcome of the EEL’s referendum, which may resolve the issue.

Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board can acknowledge the fact that it received the maps, as there was a lot of work that went into them, scientifically-based; she is not sure what the plan would be if the referendum did not pass because the dollars would not be there; but the crucial habitat plan ought to go hand-in-hand with the EEL’s Program because that is what they were tasked to do in 1990.

Chair Higgs inquired if the Board is of the opinion that it should not take action today and wait until after it hears from the voters; with Commissioner Pritchard responding that is what he would suggest. He stated the Board could table the item until after the November election and see whether or not it will have the money to implement the plan. Commissioner Carlson stated at that time the enabling ordinance could be created and fine-tuned and addressed in the Agenda item; but she does not have a problem listening to those who came to speak to it. Commissioner Scarborough stated people are here who want to speak, so the Board should allow them to speak. Chair Higgs stated it seems to be the consensus of the Board that the proper action at this time is to wait a few weeks until after the November Election then chart a course of action.

Maureen Rupe, representing Partnership for Sustainable Future, stated that is the Partnership’s recommendation, to wait until after the election, as the EEL’s referendum will give insight to how the community feels about preserving critical habitat.

Thelma Roper of Titusville stated she is in favor of waiting until after the election; and as to the issues, waiting to make comments will give her more time to look at it and what the Board has in front of it.

Walter Pine of Titusville stated he believes on some things the Board waited too long already; and that is the proper provision of the science, facts, and information to the public; and the Board needs to direct staff at this time to collect the science, put it in one file and make it available to the public. He stated the Board needs to be sure that there is a development of scientific record to show that habitats that are being preserved are necessary because there is an impact on species. He stated Maine had a problem with preserving deer habitats; they then wiped out the habitats; and they have more deer than they ever had. He stated in fact, they have more car accidents with deer than they do with cars; so the Board needs to develop the science so that if the money comes about or whatever, it is making decisions based on knowledge and facts. He stated he keeps asking for it and still has not gotten it; and inquired how many times does he have to ask for it. Mr. Pine stated Commissioner Carlson said science; he would like to see the science she has because he has not seen any science; he has seen a lot of supposition and nothing that meets the standards of reliability and validity to be called science; and asked the Board, though it wishes to withhold its decision about what to do, that it direct staff to develop a record-keeping process, a master file in which they put all their information on which they are basing their recommendations and making their comments so that the public can be fully informed to evaluate those decisions and the Board will have all the information. Mr. Pine stated he does not know how many times he has come in and asked for it and so far has gotten nothing; and inquired where is the science, as he would like to have it. He stated since there is a lapse, it is a perfect time to collect all the science so that it is available when the time comes to use it, as the truth is what is important.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Pine submitted various public records requests; with Mr. Pine responding he just submitted one. Commissioner Carlson stated she knows he has back when it was more controversial than now; and inquired if Mr. Pine did not get any other public records; with Mr. Pine responding he did not get anything that qualifies as science, never got all the records, never got the science that was quoted, and still has not gotten it. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Pine itemized the things he is looking for so staff will know exactly what it is and it is on paper what he wants that he has not received so there is a record of what his request is and if he wants all the documents pertaining to the SEA ordinance as it existed prior to this conversation.

*Chair Higgs’ absence was noted at this time.

Mr. Pine responded when he went into the office and made that request, he did not get all the documents; there were files he was not allowed to see and files he was not given access to; and when he went back and reviewed the same files he had previously reviewed, there were things missing from those files. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Pine could itemize those things and tell the Board exactly what he expected that he did not receive; with Mr. Pine responding Commissioner Carlson is asking him to itemize things he has never seen; and he cannot tell her what is in the files. Commissioner Carlson inquired how does Mr. Pine know things are missing if he does not know what they are; with Mr. Pine responding there is nothing there; and they should not be doing anything. Commissioner Carlson stated it does not make a lot of sense. Mr. Pine inquired where is the science Commissioner Carlson just quoted and said she had massive science; with Commissioner Carlson responding she received it from staff. Mr. Pine requested a copy of that; with Commissioner Carlson responding she would give him copies of what she has in her office, but she does not know if he is going to define that as being science as far as he is concerned. Mr. Pine stated he is not going to define it; and is going to have other people who are scientists define it. Commissioner Carlson noted that is great. Mr. Pine stated so far there has been none. Commissioner Carlson stated there is a scientific selection committee from EEL’s that looks at all the science. Mr. Pine stated no, the Board has a selection committee; it does not make them scientists because they say they are; but he has not had a chance to challenge their credentials. He stated he would like some compilation of what Commissioner Carlson has; and he does not know what is there, but he would like to get it.

Vice Chairman Pritchard advised Mr. Pine to get with Commissioner Carlson who said she has some information.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised Mr. Pine has a selection of materials that staff printed for him in the Natural Resources Management Office that has been waiting for him to pick up for several weeks. She stated he is welcomed to get the materials at any time. Mr. Pine inquired if it is a complete record of all the correspondence, emails, and everything that the County staff has done. Natural Resources Management Interim Director Virginia Barker advised it is everything in response to the first request Mr. Pine made to her when she became the interim director; it has been sitting at the front desk since March; and she has notified him by fax and email that the materials were available and anything else in their office is available for his review at any time. Mr. Pine stated it was incomplete then, but he will be in her office tomorrow and would like to see all the files and records and the science.

Vice Chair Pritchard commented he found it interesting that Mr. Pine mentioned the deer problem, as he read recently that more people die by deer impact than by handguns.

Charles Moehle, President of Modern, Inc., advised it is proper to put it off until the referendum, but he does challenge the science; there were a lot of questions at the LPA meeting left unanswered; Bobbie Bochman asked whether the science was the same as it was for the old SEA ordinance; and there was a wishy-washy answer from Ms. Barker, who did not answer sufficiently for the LPA. He stated if the science is the same as it was for the SEA ordinance, it is not science; and it is a group of people who are scientists sitting around looking at maps and deciding where to draw the lines. He stated Ms. Barker misled the people at the LPA meeting when she said it was ground proofed; he manages a lot of lands, and almost 1,000 acres are mapped; it is fenced with no trespassing signs; and nobody has come on the land to ground proof. He stated if they did, he would like to know who they are because maybe they could be arrested for trespassing; it is not that he would not let them on there, but he would not do it without one of his people with them; so he challenges the ground proofing. Mr. Moehle stated the science needs to be re-evaluated; the people should see the science and know what it is; and it is something to work on without getting into who picked up what and who did not pick up what. He stated he examined the old stuff and it is not science; and it is not complete, it is the beginning of developing a science program, that that is what it is. He stated developing the science program from the maps is not satisfactory.

*Chair Higgs’ presence was noted at this time.

Sharon Presley of Scottsmoor stated waiting until after the election is the prudent course of action; she has nine acres, three horses, and a goat; they are not developers or environmentalists; and requested the Board consider folks like them as it is making its decisions. She inquired if the EEL’s vote goes through, what will that do; and will that mean the SEA ordinance and diminished wildlife thing goes away and the Board will leave them alone.

Commissioner Carlson stated it will give the Board a basis for creating a plan then implementing the plan with dollars; that is all it will do; but they do not have that plan completely understood yet, as Ms. Presley can tell by the commentary.

Commissioner Scarborough stated within the Comprehensive Plan there are certain requirements; property owners are protected under the Bert Harris Act; the Board has attempted to do some things with clustering and that ran into controversy in the Valkaria area; and there was a situation in District 2 where they ran compatibility issues. He stated the thought was to deal with multiple facets, rather than come with regulation; if they came with money they could negotiate for specific areas that are of significance; and then it becomes like a purchase if the County wanted to buy a historical house. He stated the person does not have to sell the County the historical house, but he has all the different rights and responsibilities, such as Comprehensive Plan requirements, Bert Harris Act responsibilities, and incompatibility issues that sometimes arise under the shifting of densities on a parcel; and they are tremendously complex. He stated someone could come to the Board and say he has a piece of property he wants to develop and he understands the Board has a source of money, so he would like to have the Board look at his property and see if it would purchase it for a conservation easement; and noted it is one of the most complex issues he has ever faced.

Jerry Wall of West Canaveral Groves reiterated his accolades and appreciation; stated he is in favor of tabling the item until after the vote in November; but it seems to be a re-visitation of the SEA ordinance. He stated he would like to go back to some facts he sent Commissioners Scarborough and Pritchard with copies to the rest of the Board in January and February; West Canaveral Groves is a rural and rustic area; he has more than five acres and less than ten acres; and a portion is being set aside for wildlife habitat, which is a choice he and his wife made. He stated no government agency has a right to impose an ordinance such as the SEA and dictate such terms; and although they are pro-conservation and environmental protection, SEA is not acceptable. He stated the following is an excerpt; “disregard of a wetland upland community such as in the area of North Clearlake Road in Cocoa through clear-cutting and strip-mining for a commercial building site is an abomination; however, environmental concerns must be balanced with respect for property rights. Environmental concerns and property rights can be mutually addressed without ignoring due process, constitutional rights, and common sense. The potential for SEA to unfairly impact property owners both large and small is too great to ignore.” He stated another excerpt is from the LPA meeting on January 26; “As I listened, I was absolutely appalled at the apparent disregard of American principals, and property and constitutional rights. Many of the stated aims are noble and worthy; however, after careful scrutiny, it appears this ordinance deserves to be squashed like an encephalitis-infected mosquito. What’s really scary is when Florida TODAY Editorial of January 28 states in part, ‘an environmental protection plan must not be threatened by the property rights fears of a minority.’ That’s scary.” Mr. Wall stated Commissioner Pritchard had a guest column in the Florida TODAY on February 10, 2004; and he will read an excerpt of that; “The significant environmental area or SEA is severely flawed, so much so that it has even undergone a name change to make it even more palatable. This land will not be open to public use, it is private property. To allege that property owners will derive a benefit while losing half of their property is disingenuous.” Mr. Wall stated Florida TODAY syndicated columnist Joseph Perkins, on February 17, 2004, said, “After all the Fifth Amendment states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Environmental activists insist that the Fifth’s takings clause applies only to property that has been physically taken from a private property owner; however, in recent decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that the taking clause also applies when government regulation leaves property in private hands while restricting or forbidding the use of the property.” He stated in closing, five years later, the Justices issued a landmark ruling in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council declaring that when the owner of a real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economical beneficial uses in the name of the common good, he or she must be paid for the regulatory taking; so this item needs more discussion and needs to be tabled. He noted SEA under any name is simply not acceptable.

Barbara Morehead of Scottsmoor stated whether it is named SEA, CHOSE, wildlife habitat, or more currently the diminishing wildlife habitat, the game is the same with this ordinance; according to a memo to the LPA in February of this year, Peggy Busacca stated, “The County Commission has given staff direction to develop a solution to the rapidly diminishing scrub habitat”; that sentence tells them the ordinance the Board is addressing today is to accomplish exactly what the EEL’s referendum is to do; and of course, that has become more clear here today, that either the people are going to vote it in or the Board will steal it from the people. She stated that is the bottom line and a win/win for the environmental extremists; the creation of the ordinance by whatever name remains jargonian, far-reaching, and the Trojan horse at the gate; the warm and fuzzy sounding name belies the real intent; the name has changed, but the purpose has not; and the purpose is the use of force by ordinance to deny taxpayers freedom to use all the property for which they pay taxes in order to create corridors for animals and to have more bureaucratic control over private property. She stated the CHOSE or SEAS or whatever was designed to be enlarged upon; if adopted it will be; Donna Darn, Acting Regional Administrator under the Department of Interior stated in 1998, “When we make a critical habitat designation, we just designate everything as critical without an analysis of how much habitat and evolutionary a significant unit needs”; and inquired if that is science. Ms. Morehead stated Jim Beeres, a retired Fish and Wildlife Service biologist for 30 years and well-known speaker and author often relates how they used hype words; and he ought to know since he helped get all the funding to start the ESA. She stated they use such words as “critical, crucial, keystone, and indicator species in order to play on public emotions; the downplay is poor science and logic; and inquired where is the sound science, facts, and logic required under Florida law; where are the economic impact studies that are required by the federal government even to promote these types of situations; and where are the notifications to the people who live out-of-state who are affected by it. She inquired if the County takes a person’s land, who is going to manage the required preserves. She stated she found out an interesting thing on September 15 when she called Tallahassee about the mosquito problem; she spoke with Dr. Coreen Blackmore, who is the State’s vector-born disease director; and she said, “No spraying for mosquitoes, doesn’t matter if there’s a West Nile epidemic, it has to be pandemic. No spraying can be done over any protected land until the Department of Environmental Protection declares it a pandemic situation; and only they can lift the restriction. Scrub jays are being investigated as carriers of West Nile because they are first cousins to the crow, a very strong carrier of West Nile.” Ms. Morehead stated they are not all big money people; they are hard-working people; she has a husband in failing health; they worked hard; they saved their money; they purchased land; they have some cattle; and the Board can pass every ordinance in the book, and they can pass the referendum, but she will go to her grave before she lets the Board steal anything they worked for and will see it in court. She urged the Board to trash the ordinance.

Tiffany Johnson of Titusville stated she came today after a whole year of agonizing over the SEA ordinance, crucial habitat ordinance, and the map; she became aware of it last year by a real estate agent who told her to look into it as it should be a concern to her because of the overlay; so she went to see the overlay, and her property is on it. She stated she has five acres that she has owned for 30 years; they bought it zoned AU and put horses and cows on it; the children grew up and are gone; and through a fatal accident, her husband deceased and she kept the property. She stated her father said invest in property, that is where she will always have results; and that is where she will have an inheritance for her children; she has had it for 30 years; it is being developed now; and it looks like her property may be worth $50,000 an acre, but if the SEA ordinance takes her property and does what it wants to it, it will not be worth $100 an acre. She stated that would come under the Bert Harris Act as devaluation of her property; she described the location of the property in Titusville Fruit and Farm Land, and identified Fox Lake Road; stated there are hundreds of acres out there and they have one speck of five acres; and the pond has been there for 30 years, which is why they bought the property. She explained the lines of the SEA ordinance; stated it is all the front land; if she wanted to put a house on there, she would only be able to put a houseboat because, if she could get to the back part, it would have to be on the pond; and that is the only place she can put a house because she cannot put anything where the SEAS has taken it over. Ms. Johnson stated there is nothing she can do; there is no way of dividing the property; she does not want to divide the property; she wants the five acres; the only reason she is in this is because it is a five and a third- acre parcel; and inquired why is it five acres and not ten acres to protect little people like her. She inquired where is the property rights, and is there anything that protects property rights. She stated she belongs to the Citizens for Resources Stewardship of Brevard; when this issue came up before, the LPA in January, they had an attorney come in and he gave all the laws and things that were wrong with the SEA ordinance, all the overlays, and so forth; and he said they were unconstitutional provisions. She stated she has them listed and will give the Board a copy of them. She stated #5 says, “Once the County designates property as crucial habitat, the landowner cannot administratively challenge the County’s decision. This is problematic as it creates an irrefutable presumption that all critical habitat designations are correct.” Ms. Johnson stated what he was saying is the County puts out a map; there is no provisions for her to go to anybody and say the County took all her upland and all her property and what can she do; and now her property is worth $100 an acre versus where it could have been worth $50,000 an acre. She presented documents to the Board but not the Clerk.

Jack Ippel of Melbourne stated he lives in a Subdivision with underground utilities and when Frances came through, they were without power for 11 days, so it is not a cure all and end all, but it does look nicer without power lines. He stated when he talked about the canopy ordinance and the betterment plan, everything is being changed; there are people sitting here and Commissioners sitting on the Board who have not met; and they have not found a chance to take things from the public, take their rights away, and pass taxes. He stated EEL’s was the responsibility of the Board to manage and see that it was done right; SEAS comes along and they say they have to connect all the lands; and inquired why was it not a priority when the millions of dollars were spent to buy the properties in the first place. He stated there was never any proper science; there was never any proper management; Commissioner Carlson talked about rightsizing; and it is a warm and fuzzy word developed by human resources consultants and people of large corporations to make it look all right to cut staffs and fire people. He stated if six different people were asked what is rightsizing, the Board would get six different answers; he would like to know exactly what rightsizing is; he is in real estate and looked at all kinds of properties in the County; and there are parcels from 16th of an acre up to hundreds of acres. Mr. Ippel stated the Board talks about following the Comprehensive Plan; the Comprehensive Plan is in place for one unit per acre; it is trying to lessen the density and make it one per five acres; and with all the impact fees the Board has coming in, it is turning away revenue. He stated they talked about schools in the area; the Board just put an impact fee for schools on new housing; and now it is saying it does not want those houses in there and does not want that density. He stated he has never seen any place in the world where they have gone from seven units an acre to one unit per five acres; and it is absolutely ridiculous. He stated when the SEA ordinance came out, it was proven to be unconstitutional; there were takings being done and no notification; he heard the same charges made today on the other ordinance pieces; and no one seems to be concerned about the consequences. He stated after the SEA ordinance was basically battered to death, they had a meeting with the County executive and attorney; it was agreed at that meeting that there was bad science and that map was bad; they were pulled off the Natural Resources Management Office website; and the agreement was to come together and do some outreach, which has never been done. He stated they were supposed to set up a group of people from the different interests to come together on an agreement for this issue; and to the best of his knowledge, nothing has been done. He stated he went to the public hearings on the betterment plan; there were several things that came up, improvements, not just shooting it down; offering alternatives is always a good thing; but he never got any notification back. He stated at least when the Charter Commission was going on people got feedback; he talked to an environmental consultant of the County Engineering Department the other day; she said she did not know this item was coming up again today; they go into the website regularly, but did not see any of the stuff there; and inquired what is wrong with notification and what is the Board afraid of. He stated the Board needs to set up the committees, do what was agreed to, come up with some good science, real science, put this thing to bed, and provide some management for the things that are there. He stated the Board is looking for money to buy additional property but it never provided money to manage what is there; and requested the Board establish some priorities and do it right.

Mary Sphar of Merritt Island stated she agrees with waiting until the referendum is voted on, but has a couple of things that she would like to throw out as food for thought; there are a couple of things the Board could do right now that does not relate to the SEA ordinance; and one is to request that staff report on the feasibility of setting up a mechanism for neighborhood preservation districts. She stated preservation districts were a proposed Charter amendment; three Commissioners wanted to put it on the ballot, but it required four votes; but the Board can designate residential communities as preservation districts and require approval of the voters in the districts. She stated it would require approval of the Board before municipal annexation of land within those districts occur; a staff report should discuss whether it can be done without amending the Charter; annexation eats away at habitat in the unincorporated areas little-by-little; and preservation districts can give more control to residents as to the future of their historical communities. She stated the reason for preservation districts is to preserve existing historical cohesive residential communities located within rural unincorporated areas. Ms. Sphar stated the second suggestion has to do with improved coordination among federal, State, and local regulations; and suggested the Board take action to require all necessary State and federal permits and all authorization be obtained prior to approval of any development plan. She stated at the present time, incidental take authorization by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for a development order; and those are her two suggestions.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he will make a motion to postpone the item until late November. Chair Higgs stated a motion is not required, and the Board will just hold off on it until then.

Commissioner Pritchard stated whether there has been science applied to the designation of certain properties has come up frequently; different people have different thoughts; his thought is there was no science applied to it; and it is simply a land grab. He read the following: “Contrary to what environmental lobbyists are espousing, designation of critical habitat is not proven to be an effective means of conservation.” He stated according to Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife, Department of Interior, in his testimony to Congress on April 28, 2004, regarding the critical habitat reform bill, he specifically stated the following: “The Service had found that designation of official critical habitat provided little additional protection to most listed species while consuming significant amounts of scarce conservation resources. The Service has characterized the designation of critical habitat, as required under the Act, as the most costly and least effective class of regulatory actions undertaken by the Service. It is often counterproductive and can result in negative public sentiment to the designation. As the Clinton Administration noted several years ago, and more than 30 years of implementing the Act, the Service has found that designation of official critical habitat provided little additional protection to most listed species. The cycle of litigation appears endless. It’s very expensive and in the final analysis provides relatively little additional protection to listed species. We’re no longer operating under a rational system that allows us to prioritize resources. In short, litigation over critical habitat has hijacked the program. It cannot be overstated that managing the endangered species program through litigation is ineffective in accomplishing the purposes of the Act. In summary, the present system for designating critical habitat is broken; the designation process provides little real conservation benefits, consumes enormous agency resources, and imposes social and economic costs.” Commissioner Pritchard stated it is the Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife Service who said that the current method, which is the method the County is pretty much looking at now, is not working, never has worked, and apparently it is never going to work. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is based on science; with Commissioner Pritchard responding it is based on something. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Pritchard has seen a body of science to support that document; with Commissioner Pritchard responding it was comments from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife Service of the Parks Department of the Department of Interior before the House Resources Committee, so he would say the man’s comments are probably pretty relevant to what has been going on. Commissioner Carlson stated the Assistant Secretary agrees with Commissioner Pritchard’s perception of science, but it goes to the argument of who is interpreting that science. Commissioner Pritchard stated one cannot look at an aerial and say that is a wetland or that is something; and the people who own the property say that is not a wetland, it is a palmetto patch, and there is no water on the property.

Chair Higgs stated the Assistant Secretary was talking about a definition under the Endangered Species Act, a particular provision of that Act, and not the Board's concept of how it might move forward to preserve habitat that it thinks is very important. She stated she will not call it critical because that implies the federal designation under ESA; the Board is not talking about using the federal law; she might agree with him after she looks at how they have used critical habitat and its lack of effectiveness; but he is talking about a federal law and federal definition while the Board is not talking about that. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the federal designation in all the definitions would be inappropriate for the County’s usage; with Chair Higgs responding the Board is not talking about adopting the federal law. Commissioner Pritchard stated many times the Board tends to adopt a law and base it upon what it considers to be federal or State law; it can get into a variety of those issues; but what it is talking about here is diminishing wildlife habitat; and the question becomes who is making that determination, why are they making the determination, and what effect is it having on the people who own the property. He stated he is getting a little tired of having folks who live on seven units per acre directing people who own ten and twenty acres how they should live; and people who live on seven units per acre should go out and buy five acres and let them set aside four and a half of it for critical habitat. He inquired if Mr. Pine had a comment; with Mr. Pine responding he wants to thank Ms. Barker for the public information request that was sitting over there according to Ms. Barker since March; three pages down was the list of the focus groups that were supposed to be involved in the process; his name was on it; he has not received one notice of one meeting; and that goes to show how genuine the process has been. He stated by their own statement it has been there since March, so they have had his name and address and had notice that he wanted to be involved. Chair Higgs stated the focus groups did not meet. Mr. Pine inquired where was the public input in the process.

RESOLUTION AND LETTER, RE: INITIATING CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS
WITH THE CITY OF COCOA

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution initiating conflict resolution proceedings with the City of Cocoa regarding certain annexation; and authorize the Chair to sign a letter to the City indicating the Board’s intention to initiate conflict resolution proceedings. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Resolution No. 04-262.)

BOARD DIRECTION, RE: REBUILDING OR RENOVATION OF NONCONFORMING
OCEANFRONT MAJOR STRUCTURES

Interim Natural Resources Management Director Virginia Barker advised the Board will be pleased to know that of the 13.2 miles of renourished shoreline, there is not one undermined structure with damage caused by the hurricanes; and the areas that were most affected by Hurricanes Floyd and Irene in 1999 were in the Shore Protection Project area and were not damaged or undermined after the storms of 2004. She stated staff anticipates approximately $10 million from Congress; it passed the House day before yesterday and the Senate yesterday; and it is waiting for the President’s signature to renourish the North and South Reaches that are already experiencing natural recovery. She stated the news is good for those shorelines; however, renourishment has not come soon enough for the Mid-reach which includes Satellite Beach and Indian Harbour Beach; they expect a million dollars in the appropriations bill that will hopefully come in January to move forward on the environmental studies and permitting; and in the meantime staff will be working with FEMA on eligibility for FEMA emergency berms. Ms. Barker stated staff is working with Department of Environmental Protection on two different dune restoration and dune protection projects; and Department of Environmental Protection staff is working with the Governor and Senator Pruitt to come up with additional funding that might be useful in the Mid-reach and also in the South Beaches. She stated the majority of damage in Brevard County along the oceanfront is in the South Beaches area; and presented photographs of sampling of structures she witnessed on Monday following the storm to the Board to help it understand the needs. She stated structures where portions are now no longer on top of the dune intact with the house are on the beach; there are additional structures where everything is still holding together but is precariously sitting out over the edge of the dune scarp; and there are other structures that were not undermined by erosion and are still intact over sand dunes but suffered major wind damage such that more than 50% of the value of the structures need to be replaced or rebuilt. She stated staff estimates there are some 170 structures in the South Beaches that have either been undermined or are so close to the eroded scarp that they will be undermined very soon or have been so damaged by wind erosion that the owners will be seeking permits from Brevard County to repair and/or reconstruct; and they are in a nonconforming location with respect to the coastal setback line. Ms. Barker stated staff reviewed the Coastal Setback Code to try and understand how they are supposed to treat each of those structures; unfortunately the Code is not clear; the Coastal Setback Code calls for the structures that were damaged by erosion where they were undermined and repairs are needed, they need to be set back in conformance with the Coastal Setback Line; and for all other structures there is very little guidance. She stated the Comprehensive Plan says they need to look at the Coastal Setback Code in the context of the zoning provisions; and the zoning provisions provide guidance if more than 50% of the value of the structure needs to be restored and the new structure should be rebuilt in a place that is in compliance with all the current zoning and setback provisions unless damage was an act of God. Ms. Barker stated assuming hurricanes are an act of God, then there are separate provisions that apply to residential uses; so staff is looking to the Board for how it wants staff to work in the circle of somewhat conflicting provisions regarding all the structures.

A. G. “Bert” VanStoik of Melbourne Beach presented before and after pictures to the Board but not the Clerk; stated he and his wife bought a home on the Atlantic Ocean in southern Brevard off A1A south of the village of Melbourne Beach; when they bought the home in 1998, they had a lawn and dune between them and the beach; the distance between the house and the beach was approximately 45 feet; and today, after two hurricanes, the distance is nine feet. He stated the cement barrier used to mark the interface between his lawn and the dune; and now the barrier lies on the beach, in the after picture, 25 feet from the present undercut edge of his lawn. Mr. VanStoik stated it seems to him that the application of nonconforming definition and guidelines outlined in Section 62 should be and remain the standard when reviewing applications from homeowners seeking to reconstruct, repair, etc.; however, as a homeowner he realizes that many if not all cases have unique characteristics; in his case, the main structure should not be allowed to be repaired or rebuilt on its present footprint; but he has a two-car concrete block garage with a mother-in-law suite above it, which has received relatively little damage. He stated the structure is about 30 years younger than the original house and is set back some 55 feet from the present beach/lawn interface and could be repaired and retained when seen as a separate entity from the much older house. He suggested the Board allow wide discretion in granting variances in cases like his; perhaps a special board or panel could be created with authority to make prudent and sensible decisions, which might be occasionally at variance with rigid adherence to the Code; and it would result and be a considerable benefit to the homeowners and the County.

Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore advised Ms. Barker did an excellent job explaining the two provisions that are relative to the Coastal Setback; the Zoning Code has general regulations pertaining to nonconforming structures in the Coastal Setback Ordinance; and Section 62-4702 has more specific provisions to the setback where there is a nonconforming structure damage due to erosion. She stated if it is damaged due to erosion, it cannot be rebuilt within the setback; but if it is damaged by other natural factors, such as wind damage, then they look to the zoning provisions, which has some allowance to rebuild the original square footage; and that should be rebuilt in conformance with the setback if the building envelop allows for it. She stated in terms of applying that to the different scenarios, they need to look at the case-by-case situation and at what caused the erosion to determine where things could be rebuilt.

Chair Higgs stated there seems to be some consistency between Natural Resources and the County Attorney on the interpretation of both Codes; and the Board’s interpretation or lack thereof could potentially conflict or it could agree that staff has interpreted the Codes and say to move forward and apply those Codes.

Ms. Lepore stated Ms. Barker has stated there are some deadlines in terms of FEMA that need to be addressed. Chair Higgs inquired how does that play into how the Board addresses its own Codes; with Ms. Barker responding she does not think the FEMA emergency berm applies to this issue; and they were talking about insurance, which is a private issue. Chair Higgs stated so insurance and FEMA are irrelevant in terms of how the Board interprets the Codes; and there seems to be staff consistency.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board needs to take no action; with Ms. Barker responding the confusion would still be in a situation like this where there are multiple structures and how connected they are so if one of them is destroyed then that would need to be built all the way back in a conforming location and would that apply to the rest of the structure, which in Mr. VanStoik’s case he said could be thought of as a separate structure. She stated the last photo is similar to a hotel situation where it is an east/west running hotel with many units; the end units are hanging off onto the beach; so those cannot be rebuilt, but where does staff draw the line on the units that are safe enough to leave versus having them demolished all the way back to the Coastal Setback Line.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the motel in the last photo cannot be built because it is partially hanging over the dune line; and inquired why the dune cannot be renourished and sand tubes installed. He inquired is there a conflict between an act of God and what Ms. Lepore mentioned as erosion that caused the problem; and was not the hurricane that caused the erosion an act of God. Ms. Barker stated there certainly needs to be clarification there; but she will address the question about beach renourishment or the use of geo-tubes. She stated the County Code and Comprehensive Plan that guide the use of such structures on the beach also require that a homeowner maintain three feet of sand above and seaward of any geo-tube structure to maintain turtle nesting and protect adjacent homeowners from any erosion that might occur from a hardened structure on the beach. She stated in situations where structures are so close or already overhanging a dune cliff, any establishment of a geo-tube structure in that situation would create a promontory on the beach; and the ocean is going to continue to erode and batter that promontory so maintenance of sand and sea oats on top of and seaward of the geo-tubes is going to be near to impossible. She noted she does not think that is a situation the Board wants to encourage. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Ms. Barker read the article in Florida TODAY; with Ms. Barker responding she skimmed through the article while doing multiple other things, but it did address a specific geo-tube project constructed in Vero Beach that has successfully protected the upland, but it is now a promontory with adjacent neighbors held significantly back. Commissioner Pritchard stated what he is getting at is that type of tube or sand tube, if they do not do something to protect the shoreline, they are going to be spending millions of dollars every couple of years or so, hurricanes notwithstanding, just getting sand back on the beaches because of the interruption of the north/south flow that they have because of the different ports and maybe other points. He stated it is time they look at something like the tubes that would at least preserve the upland and if they have to renourish, they would renourish less of the beach. He stated the article mentioned there were sea turtle nests on top of that geo-tube; and inquired if it would be a worthy investment on the part of the County and would the federal government interact on it and look at it in long-term as having to spend less perhaps on the biannual beach renourishment project. Ms. Barker stated Commissioner Pritchard hit a sore spot with her in that FEMA regulations have them taking money and paying people once their structures have already fallen in; they can take a fraction of that money and put it into beach renourishment so that the County would have a wide recreational beach that provides sea turtle nesting and other habitat and protect homeowners and whatever other properties are there; but the mechanism is not within FEMA to spend the dollars that way. She stated there are federal pushes for that to change; and she believes maybe with the hurricanes in Florida, that is something the federal government may reconsider, but it is not in the tool box right now. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if FEMA provides beach renourishment money; with Ms. Barker responding no. Commissioner Pritchard inquired why the agency that does provide renourishment money buy into it; with Ms. Barker responding the federal renourishment dollars come through the Army Corps of Engineers and the only way that a beach can become eligible for those funds is to go through a very intensive economic analysis. She stated the South Beaches is quite rural; development is mostly single-family homes; and it is fairly well spaced out and does not meet the economic returns the federal government requires in order to participate in beach renourishment.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board does nothing, then it is basically applying the nonconforming definition and guidelines outlined in the Zoning Code or is it staff’s interpretation what the Board should be doing. Ms. Lepore stated there are two provisions that are applicable; the Zoning Code, which applies to nonconforming structures in general, and the Coastal Setback regulations that also have more stricter standards for structures that are nonconforming with the Coastal Setback Line; and the more stricter standard applies to damage caused by erosion. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Comprehensive Plan trumps the regulations and is one that staff would look to because it has a higher level of authority; with Ms. Lepore responding the Comprehensive Plan sets the zoning standards for nonconforming structures to apply for anything that is nonconforming with the Comprehensive Plan; but the Coastal regulations are stricter than what is in the zoning provisions.

Commissioner Colon stated she wants to know, as a Commissioner, in plain English, if she is going to allow folks like Mr. VanStoik who has just been through something horrible, to be able to rebuild. She stated she knows what the regulations are and how they play hardball, rightfully so, before the hurricanes; but there has been an act of God; and inquired if the Board does nothing, is it allowing staff to have those folks go and put their lives back together again, or is it saying play hardball and they basically did it to themselves.

Chair Higgs stated the person whose house is on the beach would not rebuild at that location; he would be allowed to rebuild at a different location on his property; and they would make every effort, according to the Code, to conform to the existing setback; so they would be able to rebuild, but not on the dune. Ms. Lepore stated they could not rebuild in the setback either.

Commissioner Colon stated if the front of their property faces the beach and if the back of the building is intact, then what happens; how are they supposed to be able to put their house back together somewhere else on their property and does that mean they have to expand their home now and the addition would be towards the road; with Commissioner Carlson responding Ms. Barker asked the Board for clarification on that. Commissioner Colon stated the Board needs to understand there are only two ways of going about this; and inquired if the Board is going to say okay this is beyond their control and do everything possible to make sure that it is trying to put their lives back on track, or is it going to put obstacles in the way. She noted that is what she is talking about as far as plain English. She stated each situation is going to be unique according to how much damage is sustained; and inquired if the Board is saying County staff is the one that decides what exactly it entails to put them back together again. She stated she is trying to see what kind of direction staff wants from the Board; and inquired were they determining it or is the Board supposed to do it case-by-case to see if it is going to allow the folks to rebuild their homes again.

Ms. Barker stated she was looking for general direction so that staff could implement it for everybody that comes forward. Ms. Barker stated she spoke with Department of Environmental Protection yesterday and today trying to understand where the State falls on the issue and for nonconforming structures in this situation; what the State does is look at seasonal mean high water line and project based on historic erosion rates where they think the beach will be in 30 years; and they do not allow repair of structures seaward of that 30-year line. She stated if the Board wants, it could adopt that 30-year line as its cutoff point for where they have portions of a structure that is demolished and definitely in a dangerous location where it would not be wise to rebuild. She stated they have a portion of the structure that is sufficiently upland; and the question is where do they draw the line, where do they say they need to put an end wall there; and can they say the State line if the Board does not want the people to go all the way back to the setback line.

Commissioner Colon stated the problem she is having is that she is trying to figure out whoever makes the decision could have a certain type of mentality that people should not have been there to start with, which is not her answer, or there can be those who are going to say okay, how do they put those folks lives back together again. She stated she knows she is repeating herself but she is trying to figure it out; Brevard County has never been hit by hurricanes in 40 years; there are a lot of folks who have that kind of mentality about who cares they should have not been there; she is trying to figure out what the reason and why she is concerned is while it is still fresh in their minds, there is more compassion; and as time goes by, all of a sudden they are applying some rules. She stated that is human nature, and that scares her because they are human beings whose lives have been turned upside-down.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is getting totally confused with the issues; if he lived in a house that was dangling over the dune and there were at least eight feet that was dangling, he definitely would not want to build there and would want to build safely; and he does not think the Board is trying to cross people in saying it is safe. He stated Mr. VanStoik said he has a separate structure that is intact that was built at a separate time; and inquired to what extent does the Board have latitude to deal with the reconstruction. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has sat on the Board a long time and looked at site plans, but never has he looked at a building plan of an individual unit of how they come in and restructure and if they are going to rebuild or add on; and that is the Building Department’s issue to make sure they have something that is structurally sound. He stated there are the Southern Standard Building Codes; as long as the building codes are being met and a portion of the structure is demolished and another portion is rebuilt, if they have a motel that stretches to the road and back and can come back with a building plan and put an L at the end and come back and set back far enough, it is a safety issue; and he does not know why the Board all of a sudden is redeveloping the Building Code. He stated maybe he misinterpreted the point, but it is simple; they want to be safe; they are not going to build back over the dune; they know the risks; they have lived through the risks; and all they want to do is rebuild. He stated the Board would be looking at the building plans, it is going to try to be creative and work with them, it still has the Southern Standard Building Code; and he goes back to what does the Board have to do here this afternoon besides make it work for everybody.

Chair Higgs stated those residents are her neighbors; many are houses she drives by every day going to and from work; she met Mr. VanStoik yesterday and knows where his house is; and he does not want to build out there, but may want to rebuild the house and try to preserve the separate structure. She stated initially there was some concern about how the Codes worked; the Board is able to allow people to rebuild at a safer place and can use its Codes and the Standard Building Code to do that; her compassion is very real for those people; she knows them; and they are her neighbors.

Commissioner Pritchard stated people have lost a substantial part of the rear of their property and are going to be moving forward of the setback line; and inquired what effect will that have on the front setback or are all the properties sufficiently back from the road that they will not have an effect; with Ms. Busacca responding on the South Beaches there is a special setback from SR A1A, which is quite large, approximately 75 feet or so; there may be instances where the individual may want to come in and ask for a variance from the Board of Adjustment to that special setback; but they are substantial at least on the South Beaches. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Board can include in whatever it does a provision that anyone who comes in with property that was damaged and asks for a variance or anything, that there be no additional fees so at least the Board can accommodate and help them rebuild.

Chair Higgs suggested the Board do better than that; and in this instance where they have people whose homes have been demolished and cannot be rebuilt seaward of the Coastal Construction Line, look at amending the Code regarding the setback from SR A1A so people would not have to come in for a variance. She stated that would move things along and they do not have to go through an application period; and it may be a solution that would be helpful.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired, the way the beachfront has eroded and has established in essence a new dune line, if the beach is renourished, is it going to provide land seaward that is going to stabilize or is the land only going to erode away and the next time they have an event they will be back another five, ten, fifteen feet into what is now stabilized land. Ms. Barker stated the properties in question are not within a renourishment area, so they will be eligible for a FEMA emergency berm, which is a very small Band-Aid offer to a patient who needs to be in the emergency room; and it will not stop the recession of the bluff the first time the wind blows. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there is anything that can be done to enhance the natural renourishment; with Ms. Barker responding the Code does a lot of things in terms of trying to protect the dune, maintaining vegetation on the dune, and not building structures out on the dune that would compromise the integrity of the natural dune; they encourage people who get FEMA sand or want to build their own dune restoration project, to vegetate the top to improve its longevity; so there are things people can do. Commissioner Pritchard stated folks at home probably do not realize the pictures the Board is looking at showing the dune as more of a cliff than a dune; and if some of those buildings have to be built further landward, that is going to create in effect a bluff, not necessarily a dune as people would usually picture a dune. He stated natural renourishment of the beach is going to take place a little at a time; and inquired if it is going to be enough to save what is now currently the bluff. Ms. Barker stated if it is done swiftly and built to a slope that is stable for the wave climate, it will sustain some storm impact, but it will not sustain a major storm.

Chair Higgs advised under previous action of the Board, the people have the ability to put the sand tubes and systems in place with staff’s approval; and the Board gave that direction about two weeks ago so they no longer have to come to the Board.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board needs to insure it renourishes the beaches as quickly as possible because there is a variety of reasons; just because the area falls into a location that is not subject to artificial renourishment does not mean they cannot encourage and provide incentives in some fashion; and the incentive could be the allowance without having to come in for constant approval. He stated he will be reading the article tonight and making some phone calls because it sounds like what they have in Vero Beach is quite the project and apparently it is working quite well; and as he recalls, the cost was less than what he would have expected. He stated since it has encouraged turtle nesting on top of it, it seems that it could be something that would provide a win/win situation for the entire County as well as the federal government by reducing the cost for renourishment over the course of x number of years.

Commissioner Carlson stated based on the Assistant County Attorney’s perspective, the Board can actually do Option 1, which is to apply the nonconforming definition, etc.; Chair Higgs brought up an issue of trying to keep the variance down and somehow give people the ability through an amendment to the current Ordinance; so it can make the envelop a little larger for them; so it might be closer to the road, but the Board could reduce the setback a little bit in the front. Chair Higgs stated staff should bring that back so the Board can consider it; it can do it as an emergency ordinance; but it needs to get the draft and see how that would work.

Commissioner Carlson stated she would support that, and the flexibility in situations like Mr. VanStoik’s where he has different age structures on the property. Commissioner Carlson stated he had one demolished and the other was not; he does not want to rebuild in the same spot; he wants to have the best direction possible to build and be as safe as he can; so she would support anything that would provide some flexibility, if that is on a per item basis, where they have those issues. She stated she does not know how many there are out there where they have multiple structures on the property that are 30 years old mostly destroyed and others that are better intact; so that could be on a per item basis and brought back for discussion if that would be possible. She stated the Board does not need a motion if it is going along with Option 1. Chair Higgs stated the Board needs a motion to direct staff to draft the language on the setback from SR A1A.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to draft language on frontage setback for reconstruction, modification, repair, or expansion of nonconforming damaged or demolished coastal major structures as it relates to the Coastal Setback and Control Lines Code and Zoning Regulations; and return to the Board on October 19, 2004.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not know how fast people want to move on this; he knows the Board gets the legislative intent and comes back and gives permission to advertise; and inquired how much of the dune has been lost and how far would they have to move closer to SR A1A to compensate for their loss. Chair Higgs stated in some places it was ten feet and in others it was closer to 20 feet. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is prepared to advertise the larger amount knowing the Board could back off from the 20 feet rather than coming back with legislative intent. Chair Higgs stated the Board could do an emergency ordinance. Commissioner Scarborough stated he thought it lost the capacity for emergency; with Chair Higgs responding no, it can always do an emergency ordinance. County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Board has broad discretion in determining what an emergency is. Commissioner Scarborough stated there were special provisions when the emergency was declared. Chair Higgs stated the County is still in a state of emergency. Mr. Knox stated the Board is talking about the setback Ordinance and not the hardening. Chair Higgs inquired if the Board can adopt ordinances by emergency; with Mr. Knox responding it can if it determines there is an emergency because people cannot rebuild. Commissioner Scarborough stated it has to be by extraordinary vote. He stated if he was living in the South Beaches he would want to know the Board is moving forward with an emergency ordinance so he could talk to his architect and builder and say he can rebuild; and if it is the Board’s intent to do it, he would like to go ahead and proceed with an emergency ordinance so the people have some degree of comfort to start talking to builders and architects. Chair Higgs stated the Board needs to get it drafted so it is sure that it knows what it is and at the next meeting consider it; and if there are four votes, it can do it. Commissioner Colon stated she would support it. Ms. Busacca inquired if the Board wants to hear it on October 19, which is a zoning meeting that is expected to be quite late. Chair Higgs stated there is agreement to hear it on October 19.

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

Chair Higgs advised the Board will hear the ordinance on October 19, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 62-2257, LIGHTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept the legislative intent and grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Section 62-2257 pertaining to lighting performance standards. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FROM CITY OF INDIAN HARBOUR
BEACH, RE: INSTALLATION OF FORCE MAIN

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to accept the Public Utility Easement from the City of Indian Harbour Beach for installation of a force main, and waive title search and Phase I environmental assessment. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR BANKING SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant permission to advertise request for proposals for banking services.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Finance Director Steve Burdett and Mark Peterson are here; and inquired if they needed to make a comment. Chair Higgs stated they did not ask to comment. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was briefed by Mr. Burdett, and would like one of them to make a brief presentation. Chair Higgs stated in all the years she has sat on the Board, the Board has not gone out for banking services; and it is long past time to do that, and the Board ought to do it.

Mark Peterson advised the item is being brought before the Board because it was part of the internal audit on cash management; it is still an outstanding issue; and the recommendation was to go out with request for proposals for banking services every five to eight years. He stated one of the things the Finance Department has done over the years is to get an idea from other banks like Bank of America, Wachovia, SunTrust, etc. and from other counties and municipalities of what banking fees are and compared them against what the Board is paying in fees. Mr. Peterson stated in doing that comparison, which they do every couple of years, they just did one September 2003 and prior to that in 2001, they realized the fees are comparable. He stated there may be one bank that charges more in one area, and another one in another area; and the cost that the County could save would be a couple hundred dollars a month; but the cost of doing the RFP and changing banking totally is going to impact Payroll, Accounts Payable, the bank reconciliation process, deposits, etc.; and that impact is going to take several months to resolve. He stated at one point they estimated, in order to do a conversion, it would probably cost about $30,000; the time would probably take six months to go through the whole process to ensure they do it right; they are not against doing an RFP; but they would save money, staff time, and resources staying with SunTrust. He stated it is a major bank; it provides the County the required services and stays up with technology; and staff does compare it with other banks to make sure it is basically on the cutting edge of all banking services. He stated the relationship they have with SunTrust is also very valuable; so their recommendation is to continue to maintain the relationship with SunTrust and continue to monitor the pricing to ensure the Board is getting the most favorable pricing.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Finance Department of the Clerk’s Office conducted an analysis of fees and services and feels it is cost effective and it is time to remain with the current financial institution, SunTrust; it is recommended in the cash management internal audit that they should issue an RFP every five to eight years; and inquired what is the difference in staying with SunTrust or doing an RFP every five to eight years and what part of it does he not understand. Mr. Peterson suggested bringing in a firm like PFM, which is the County’s financial advisor and investment advisor, and have it help staff go through the RFP process so they do not go with any bank and find out later they made a major mistake and have to live with it for a couple of years. Commissioner Pritchard stated what he is confused about is Finance is saying stay with SunTrust and the internal auditors recommended an RFP every five to eight years for banking and safeguarding services. Mr. Peterson stated the reason the internal auditors brought the point up was that the Board’s policy is anything over $35,000 has to go out for an RFP; since they had not done that, it became an issue of violating the Board’s policy; and the reason they are bringing it to the Board is for the Board to say whether it wants to go out for an RFP or maintain the relationship with SunTrust.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is Mr. Whitten’s recommendation; with Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responding other than clearing the audit finding, he does not have a recommendation; they are the experts in what they do; and his intent was to clear it as an audit finding because it is still an outstanding audit issue. Commissioner Pritchard inquired who are the internal auditors; with Mr. Whitten responding Brey, Beck & Carter, and Hoyman Dobson. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like folks to realize it is a request for proposals for banking services recommended in the cash management internal audit from the internal auditors, some of whom are here today; and the next step is to have a representative from the internal auditors come up and address it because he is getting a mixed signal. He stated he is getting that the internal auditors are saying they should have an RFP every five to eight years but they do not say anything about $35,000 and whether they achieved that level or not or whether that is even one of the factors that is involved with this issue; and the Clerk’s Office is saying they do not need to because they monitor it frequently enough to know that the current vendor SunTrust is competitive. He stated he wants to know why the internal auditors made that recommendation.

Ed Beck with Brey, Beck & Carter, advised the firm is part of the internal audit group for the County; he does not have the recommendation that the other firm made as part of the cash management audit; however, it is his understanding that it is Board policy to go out for RFP’s every five to eight years on contracts such as the contract for banking services. He stated it also could have been made in light of internal controls and those types of provisions where they are creating efficiencies, economies, and making sure the County is getting the best price available in the marketplace and to take a prudent businessman’s approach to those types of situations and go out for RFP’s to make sure it is getting the best pricing; so there are a number of reasons that the Board may want to do that. Mr. Beck stated the Clerk’s staff commented that the County has a good relationship with SunTrust and that is good to see; but there are reasons for an RFP and the Board accomplishes that from time-to-time to make sure it is getting the best price and services.

Commissioner Pritchard stated if the Clerk’s Office says they monitor costs and are happy with the vendor and believe the vendor is good and it would cost in excess of $35,000 to do an RFP and x number of months to do it as well as other costs associated with changing vendors, then it seems to him the recommendation from the Clerk’s Office would be valid and they would stay with SunTrust and not conduct an RFP. He inquired making that assumption, the part about every five to eight years, is that something that should stay as a policy; with Mr. Beck responding it is a valid policy to do that with contracts; he cannot assume the Clerk’s comments are valid; he has not looked at them so cannot respond to what they communicated to the Board today; and it is their communication to the Board, so he has no basis on which to comment on that communication.

Commissioner Colon stated she could go either way, leave it alone or go for an RFP; the internal auditors were just doing their job; it is a policy and they brought it to the Board’s attention; and now it is up to the Board to go forward. She inquired if it is the policy of other counties regarding banking services to go out for bid every five to eight years; with Mr. Beck responding it is not unusual for any service contract to go through the RFP process periodically.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Brey, Beck & Carter is an accounting firm; if the Board were to go from that firm to another firm, they would be a new client and there is a degree of getting to know them, and getting adjusted; so he understands what Mr. Peterson is saying about having everything working and do not see any great savings, but there is a potential. He stated they would have to run parallel systems; and that is where the former Clerk got in trouble when he bought a new computer system and did not know for sure everything was running in order. He stated they have to run parallel systems, deal with the transition, and reestablish relationships; and inquired what is the value of going out and doing an RFP. He inquired what is the value of doing an RFP if the service level is quality, there are no complaints, and the rates are competitive. Mr. Beck stated there are valuable benefits to establishing and continuing long-term relationships with professional service providers so there is a value there; and the Board has to rely on its staff to let it know what they believe the value is and if the relationship is working and provides the County with valuable service. Mr. Beck stated they have long-term relationships with their clients, but from time-to-time they go through the RFP process also.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Beck is weighing two different factors because there is a disruption; when the Board went through the discussion whether to keep Waste Management or go out for RFP, part of it was the disruption of bringing someone else in; and every county that moves to another company has certain problems. He noted there are people questioning the wisdom of that now, so it is not a cut and dry issue, but a change of professional services every five years. Mr. Beck stated the internal auditors did not recommend a change; and there was no recommendation or comment regarding the current service provider. Commissioner Scarborough stated so to go out for the RFP does not mean they have to change provider; but even though there could be monetary savings, the disruption of the process could be of such a nature that it is not worth pursuing. Mr. Beck stated it is sound business practice to do it periodically; it does not mean the County is going to change vendors; but it does provide the Board with an independent basis for making its decision as to the banking service.

Chair Higgs inquired how much money goes through the bank each year; with Mr. Peterson responding approximately $300 to $400 million. Chair Higgs stated the County has not had it out to bid for years and years; that is not good business practice; SunTrust might be the best the County could get; but Arthur Anderson was good for Enron also; so if they do not have competitive processes and do not look at everybody every time, they are going to get burned.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is a check and balance effort; it does not mean SunTrust is not going to come back and beat all the other bids; but it is a check and balance situation and would be prudent at this time. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is ready to take it out for an RFP and the Board can walk away from it if it does not appear to be better.

Chair Higgs inquired if there is a motion; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he made a motion a while back but never got a second. Chair Higgs inquired what was the motion; with Commissioner Pritchard responding to go for RFP for banking services.

Chair Higgs seconded the motion, and called for a vote on the motion.

County Manager Tom Jenkins recommended an agreement with PFM to assist the County with the RFP be included in the motion.

Chair Higgs inquired if it was part of the motion; with Commissioner Pritchard responding that is fine. Chair Higgs stated it is also included in the second; and called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

APPROVAL, RE: UTILIZATION OF INTERNAL AUDITORS FOR FEMA REIMBURSEMENT
ASSISTANCE

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize the use of the internal auditors to assist staff with submittal of public assistance grants awarded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under disaster declarations issued for Hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Jeanne. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT, RE: HARRIS v. BREVARD COUNTY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize settlement of all claims regarding the lawsuit of Harris v. Brevard County, including attorney’s fees and costs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: EXTENDING NON-EXCLUSIVE CATV FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
WITH ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

Commissioner Scarborough stated Adelphia Communications services the north end of the County; he had a number of complaints, problems, and comments; Mr. Lugar suggested extending the contract for 14 months for the purpose of doing surveys to find the problems; and if they can respond to those needs, then the Board could do further consideration.

Jim Campbell from Denver, Colorado, representing Adelphia Communications Corporation, advised they had some specific issues and spoke yesterday on the quality of signals on the Government Channel; there has been some ingress lines going through the channel; and that may have resulted from storm damage and is currently being fixed. He stated if there are specific problems, they will be happy to address those.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he received a number of calls in his office; and rather than taking up everybody’s time at this hour, the Board could proceed and give it time to see where it would want to go. He stated there is not a complete degree of satisfaction with the service currently. Mr. Campbell stated they will work with staff to make sure that happens.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution extending the Brevard County Non-exclusive CATV Franchise Agreement with Adelphia Communications Corporation until December 31, 2005, and to conduct surveys to determine the problems for the Corporation to respond to. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-263.)

RESOLUTION, RE: AUTHORIZING TAX EXEMPT COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN FOR
FY 2004-05 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS

Commissioner Pritchard stated he pulled the item from Consent because it deals with significant amounts of money, for example, Public Safety construction of Scottsmoor fire station at $930,000 and Valkaria fire station at $1.2 million; debt payments will be from Fire Rescue MSTU financed over five years; and requested staff provide more information so the public is aware of what the Board is doing. Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar advised it is his understanding that the items, through the budget process, were approved by the Board; they are reflected in the Agenda Report; and he could go down each item if the Board wishes. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is what he wants to do; it was discussed in the budget process and is part of the budget, but when talking about significant amounts of money, he does not like to see it on the Consent Agenda.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated that is fine; the reason it was on the Consent Agenda was because it had been previously discussed and approved by the Board; but in the future, they will put those items under New Business. He stated since Mr. Lugar did not participate in the budget process, he will review the items for the Board. He stated the Board suggested using commercial paper for the two fire stations to go forward immediately as opposed to phasing them over a period of years; the Parks and Recreation projects are part of the referendum; the Mosquito Control items were included in the CIP and the Capital Equipment List was in the budget; and the attachment has details of all the items they are requiring. He stated the Board discussed it during the budget presentation and concluded that commercial paper would be a good way for them to obtain the equipment now and pay for it over four years in order to defer expenses as opposed to a one-year impact. Mr. Jenkins advised the Supervisor of Elections has acquisition of touch screen voting systems at $876,000; the County will get some funds from the federal or State government to assist in that purchase; and as part of the budget deliberations, the Board included those over a period of three years. He stated the equipment is required for people with disabilities so they can vote; there has to be at least one system at each precinct; it is a new requirement coming up next year; and it allows the Supervisor of Elections to be in compliance with State requirements. He stated the Facilities Department staff identified several needs; one is $1 million for building renovations and operational modifications at the existing jail; that building is approximately 18 years old and significant replacements need to occur; they also identified a number of County facilities that need roof repairs; and those were included on a list for roof replacement or repair as well as air conditioning replacement at the Medical Examiner’s office. Commissioner Pritchard inquired about hurricane damage; with Mr. Jenkins responding some items that were on the lists were actually severely damaged during the hurricanes; Sarno Road Service Complex was severely damaged; fortunately it was on the list so they are able to go forward immediately with the replacement; and they will seek some reimbursement on those items, but at this time they do not know to what extent. Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the Veterans Center on Merritt Island; with Mr. Whitten responding he does not think the Veterans Center was included on the list. Mr. Jenkins noted it may be one they would be able to add if they get some reimbursement on the Sarno Complex. Mr. Jenkins stated Roadways and Landscaping has dirt road paving MSBU projects that are moving to commercial paper; the residents of the areas actually pay those costs over a period of time; it is a culmination of projects that were in the CIP and in the budget; and they are stretching the payments out over several years to make them more affordable.

Commissioner Pritchard stated under cost benefit analysis, the current interest rate for commercial paper is 1.79%; the County currently has $11.6 million in outstanding commercial paper loans; and inquired if they could be renegotiated at a lower interest rate; with Mr. Lugar responding it is a variable rate so the outstanding balance would be paid at the lower rate. Commissioner Pritchard stated the report says based on the latest analysis the County’s commercial paper borrowing capacity is blank; and he does not have anything on that. Mr. Lugar stated it should have been $24.5 million.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the outstanding commercial paper debt is revisited in case the variable rate goes up so far that the Board would want to roll it over into a bond; with Mr. Jenkins responding the financial advisors look at that on a regular basis; it is currently considered to be more cost effective to use commercial paper than considering a fixed bond issue at this time; and if it does become cost effective to go the other way, they will bring a recommendation to the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, authorizing the borrowing of not to exceed $6,016,000 from the pooled Commercial Paper Loan Program of the Florida Local Government Finance Commission pursuant to the terms of the Loan Agreement in order to finance a portion of costs and expenses related to the acquisition, construction, and equipping of various general government projects, including the reimbursement of certain costs incurred by the County in connection therewith, if any; authorizing the execution of a Loan Note or Loan Notes to evidence such borrowing and agreeing to secure such borrowing with a covenant to budget and appropriate legally available non-ad valorem revenues as provided in the Loan Agreement; authorizing the execution and delivery of such other documents as may be necessary to effect such borrowing; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-264.)

AGREEMENT WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF FLORIDA’S SPACE
COAST, RE: MARKETING RETENTION, AND RECRUITMENT AGENCY FOR FY 04-05

Commissioner Scarborough stated he pulled the item from the Consent Agenda; there are representatives from the Economic Development Commission in the back of the room; the memo from staff indicates they have an additional $145,000 allocated in the budget to support the Space industries as a provision in the contract; and the Board should suggest to the EDC its consideration to promote the roll of Kennedy Space Center and the Canaveral Air Force Station within the nation’s space program. He stated it is generic, but Ms. Weatherman has put so much together that it is almost overwhelming to go through all the concepts.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Economic Development Commission of Florida’s Space Coast as the primary marketing, retention, and recruitment agency for FY 2004-05 at $940,000, amended to include, “promote the role of the Kennedy Space Center and Canaveral Air Force Station within the Nation’s Space Program.” Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Agreement.)

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH CARTER GOBLE ASSOCIATES, INC., RE:
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM REVIEW

Chair Higgs advised she pulled the item from the Consent Agenda; she was an advocate of Carter Goble activity and agreement with it to move forward; that was done on May 18, 2004; it allowed the Board to deal with the issues of the jail; and she felt the Board had worked on various components of the issue for a long time. She stated six months seems to be adequate time to get a study completed; and this is a request for a 90-day extension plus the 120 days already approved means the Board will get to act on it when she is no longer a Commissioner. She stated she does not know how things will work out; but she felt, when the Board made the decision, it would have six months in which to do it; and she is very disappointed in Carter Goble and whoever was supposed to provide the information and did not get that data. She stated the decision would not be made in a timely manner; so she will vote no on the amendment.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it is not Carter Goble; the Public Safety Coordinating Council gave it additional work and asked it to do additional analysis; for about four weeks, Mr. Carter was not going to be available; and that was the reason for extending it for 90 days, otherwise the Board could have gotten by with 60 days. He stated the Council is working very hard to ensure the County gets the best possible results from Carter Goble. Chair Higgs stated she wanted the Board to finish the issue and is disappointed that she does not have the opportunity to deal with that information. Commissioner Pritchard stated what Commissioner Higgs will find is that the information that comes back is going to be everything she had hoped it would be in terms of what she would like to see done with the jail; and they are talking about a campus, medical facilities on campus for psychiatric as well as drug and alcohol abuse treatment, extension of the maximum security facility as well as dormitory style beds and additional staff. He stated Commissioner Higgs will find it quite comprehensive and will like it.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Carter Goble Associates, Inc. to conduct a Criminal Justice System Review as it relates to the jail population, extending the Agreement for 90 days to December 18, 2004. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay. (See page
for Amendment.)

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

ATTEST: __________________________________
NANCY HIGGS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)