MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

November 17, 2009

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on November 17, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairman Chuck Nelson, Commissioners Robin Fisher, Trudie Infantini, Mary Bolin, and Andy Anderson, County Manager Howard Tipton, and County Attorney Scott Knox.  

 

 

The Invocation was given by Reverend Deborah L. Vann, Hope Episcopal Church, Melbourne.

 

Commissioner Mary Bolin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to approve the October 6, 2009 and October 20, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated it has been an honor to be the Board Chairman for the past year; it has been challenging and difficult at times, but the Board has gotten through it and has done a very good job; and there are always going to be differences of opinions. 

 

Chairman Nelson passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Bolin.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to select Commissioner Mary Bolin as the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners for Year 2009-2010, as required by the Brevard County Charter.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, to select Commissioner Trudie Infantini as the Vice Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners for Year 2009-2010, as required by the Brevard County Charter.  Motion failed for lack of second.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to select Commissioner Robin Fisher as the Vice Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners for Year 2009-2010, as required by the Brevard County Charter.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson advised it is his understanding that Mark Middlebrook is coming from Jacksonville and has been delayed; and the Board can hear the presentation later in the meeting.

 

 

Commissioner Nelson read aloud a resolution proclaiming the week of November 20 – 26, 2009 as National Farm-City Week in Brevard County.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming the week of November 20 – 26, 2009 as National Farm-City Week; and calls upon citizens in rural and urban areas to acknowledge and celebrate the achievements of the vital Farm-City partnerships that have done so much to improve the quality of life by supporting the community and nation with an abundance of agricultural products.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Tom Schuller expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution; stated everyone is aware of the tough economic times; agriculture still remains the No. 2 industry in the State; and noted in Brevard County, agriculture is roughly a $150 million industry.  He thanked the Board for its support; and stated what little investment the Board makes in Extension pays off in big returns through the wealth of knowledge the Extension gets through the Land Grant University System, which is not just available to the agricultural community, but to different sectors of the County.  

 

 

 

Chairman Bolin advised The Gryphon Group cannot attend today’s meeting to receive their resolution; and she would like to postpone the resolution until December 1, 2009.

 

 

Chairman Bolin advised the resolution recognizing the Military Officers Association of America will be postponed until the December 1, 2009. 

 

 

 

Howard Tipton, County Manager, stated at 11:00 a.m. the Board will hear Item VI.C., Contract with Ronald A. Book, P.A. and The Banyan Network, Re:  State Legislative Lobbyists; and he would like the Board to hear Item VII.D.1., Approval, Re:  Brevard County 2010 Legislative Program, at the same time. 

 

 

 

Mr. Tipton noted on Friday, several County employees, along with members of the community had a chance to take an agricultural tour of the south County; it was his first time in the farmland of south Brevard County; and the Agricultural Extension Office did a great job in sharing information and making him aware of the benefits and needs of the farming community.

 

 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he was also on the agricultural tour of the south County; they are hard working people and they take their business very seriously; stated he realized Brevard County supplies Frito Lay with the potatoes for potato chips; and it was a great tour.

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated yesterday he attended a meeting at United Space Alliance, which was for the purposes of looking at the NASA Shuttle Logistics Depot and expanding the utilization of that site as the Shuttle Program comes to a close; and USA is looking at back-filling some of the lost jobs with other opportunities.  He stated armed forces have been overseas now for several years, and as they bring back equipment, much of it gets refurbished; one thing being looked at in Cape Canaveral is using the same equipment that has provided parts for years for the Shuttle to begin to do the refurbishment; the value of work coming back to the United States is in the $1 billion range.  He stated the meeting was well attended with Congressman Kosmas and Congressman Posey, along with Frank DiBello from Space Florida and State Representative Steve Crisafulli; it is not a done deal because NASA is reluctant to utilize its facilities for anything other than its own purposes; but when they do not have a full-time purpose any longer, it may be time for them to make that transition; and that was the message from yesterday’s meeting.

 

 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated for discussion purposes she would like to consolidate Items VI.D., Permission to Purchase Hardware and Software, Re:  PBX Upgrades Using State Contract Number 730-000-09-1, Item VI.E., Approval, Re:  Modification and Extension of AT&T Contracts and Pricing Schedules for Circuits and PBX’s, Item VII.E.5., Citizen Request, Re:  Brian Paternostro – Alternative to Extending AT&T Telecom Contracts, and Item VII.E.6., Citizen Request, Re: Matt Nye – Nortel Maintenance vs. Shoretel New Purchase. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she would like to pull for discussion Item III.B.1., Award of Proposal P-2-10-05, Permission for Chairman to Execute Contract, and County Manager or Designee to Execute Extensions and Amendments, Re:  Concession Services at The Habitat Golf Course; Chairman Bolin advised she would like to pull for discussion Item III.B.4., Amending Rules and  Fee Schedule for  The Savannahs Golf Course,  The Habitat Golf Course,

and Spessard Holland Golf Course; Commissioner Infantini stated she would like to pull for discussion Item III.C.1., Authorize Chair to Execute Conflict Waiver for Holland & Knight, Re:  Brevard County, Florida, Bank of America and Sun Trust Bank.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to execute Interlocal Agreement with the Town of Grant-Valkaria for administering and managing the Town’s Stormwater Program, consistent with the policies, procedures, and practices of Brevard County’s Stormwater Program, for a period of three years.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve Sunset Review of Policy BCC-72, Placement of Bus Shelters and Benches in the right-of-way.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to accept the sidewalk easement from Riverside Commons, LLC, located in Section 35, Township 25 South, Range 36 East.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to authorize advertisement for a Request for Bids, utilizing the procedures found Florida Statute 125.35, for lease of County property located at 219 Indian River Drive, Cocoa.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to appoint Tom Becker to serve on the Public Golf Advisory Board, with term expiring November 17, 2011.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to adopt Resolution authorizing the renewal of Commercial Paper Loan Program Draw A-41-2; authorize the Chairman and County Attorney to sign the necessary loan documents; and authorize staff to make necessary budget changes.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to execute Orlando Urban Area Security Initiative Memorandum of Agreement with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office; approve County Manager or his designee to execute Agreement in accordance with provisions of Agreement; approve County Manager or his designee to sign any subsequent documents associated with the Agreement; and authorize the Emergency Management Director to act on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners for issues concerning the grant with the Orlando Urban Area Security Initiatives.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to grant permission to continue to use the current Chairman’s signature plates for signing the Payroll and Accounts Payable checks until new signature plates can be obtained with the new Chairman’s signature.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to acknowledge the Housing Authority of Brevard County, Basic Financial Statements – Year End Audit, year ended March 31, 2008.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve the Bills and Budget Changes as submitted.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Tony Strazzo, Vice President, Spessard Holland Men’s Golf Association, stated he is speaking on behalf of the approximately 140 members of the Association, which was formally accepted by the County Commissioners in 1992; the Commission accepted the Association’s bylaws; and the Spessard Holland’s Men’s Golf Association is committed to play on Thursday mornings with no restrictions to walkers or riders.  He stated the Men’s Golf Association has been one of the core groups at Spessard Holland since its inception; the Association plays every Thursday beginning at 7:00 a.m., 52 weeks per year; there are between 50 and 90 players each week; any decisions that have a negative impact on the league will be reflected in reduced revenues; and noted the average age of the players is well over 70 years.  He noted there are a lot of walkers who walk for health reasons and financial reasons; a weekday ride-only rule between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. will have a negative effect on the Association; and the members of the Association account for a large portion of the golf course’s revenue.  He stated Spessard Holland is the only golf course that was listed on the County’s website as a walking course; stated The Habitat Golf Course and The Savannahs are full-length championship courses where carts are necessary; it is unfair to Spessard Holland to make players abide by rules for the other courses when they are not comparable; Spessard Holland is unique in that it provides all players the opportunity to walk, and should not be penalized for it; and the Men’s Association is requesting to be exempt from the proposal that there be carts only from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. from December 1, 2009 through April 16, 2010.  He noted there are 137 days of new regulations; however, there are only 20 Thursdays during that time period; stated he is asking the Board to allow the Men’s Association to keep the same tee times schedules for walkers and riders that it has always had; and as an alternative, the Association requested on Thursdays that the tee times for players be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., which would permit the league to accommodate 72 players, both walkers and riders, and the league would only schedule riders after 9:00 a.m.  He stated Spessard Holland Golf Course has always been financially successful and revenues from the men’s league have always been a positive contribution to its financial success; and he sincerely hopes the Board accommodates the request.

 

Don Lusk, Parks and Recreation Director, stated changing golf fees or anything else pertaining to golf is always challenging; it is a good group of customers; and the price that they play at is very important to them.  He noted staff has been to the advisory board three different times on the fee resolution that is front of the Board today; staff has made changes requested by the advisory board; the issue with Spessard Holland and its history being the great golf course that it is, staff has deferred to it every year; but now some changes are being made at Spessard Holland that have already been made at other courses as it relates to Spessard, while it has been considered a walking course speed of play, which is very important to maximizing the course is something staff has had to look at; and that is the reason for some of the changes to the carts and things of that nature.

 

Jeff Whitehead, Golf Operations Manager, advised staff is going to be working with the men’s and women’s golf associations; staff is looking at working with the associations to have tee times all the way up until after 8:00 a.m. to walk; and staff will work with them in any way to make  it work  for them.   He stated  during the winter there  are a lot  of players;  last  year there were over 300 players on any given day; and staff needs to work with everyone to get them in and out as quickly as possible.

 

Mr. Strazzo stated what Mr. Whitehead said is true, but what is included in the after 10:00 a.m. rule are people from the men’s league; those are not new people coming in; and he finds it hard to believe that the people who come during the winter are not very anxious to get out in the early morning, as they want to go out at 10:00 a.m. or 11:00 a.m. when the temperature rises; and so he does not think that would be a tremendous impact on the income or the number of players at Spessard Holland. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired what day of the week the women’s league plays; and stated she feels if an exception is made for the men’s league, then an exception should be made for the women’s group.  Mr. Whitehead replied he is not sure what day of the week the women’s league plays; stated all three courses play at different times; there are three associations at Spessard Holland, and staff tries to accommodate all of them; and Commissioner Infantini is correct that there would have to be adjustments for the other two associations.  Commissioner Infantini inquired if the Board could just extend the walking on Thursday, but also on the day that the other two leagues play, from 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 a.m.  Mr. Whitehead stated staff can work with the associations to make that happen. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated the Board had talked about the advanced greens fees and changing the rates; it was her understanding in the past that the Board allowed one person to purchase a family membership, but then that family membership would be extended to other individuals; and because she saw it being extended to non-family members, she was in favor of raising the rate.  She noted she is in favor of keeping a lower rate for family members, or at least one family member, so that if there is a husband and wife, or a wife and a child, it would be a good idea to at least extend a family rate to one other members of the family; but it would have to be an actual bonafide family member.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated his only concern is fairness among the different leagues; and if the Board does something, it needs to be done across-the-board for everyone or not done at all.  He stated according to the Agenda Report, by adopting the resolution, the Board will get an additional $196,000 in revenue, which equates to less subsidy from the General Fund operating course, which has always been his main concern; and he is in favor of anything that can be done so that non-golfers do not have to subsidize golf courses.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he would like to see what the fiscal impact is to any change; stated he understands it is a speed of play issue in the winter; that is when the money is made; and staff is trying to get as many players as possible through the course as quickly as possible, and walking tends to slow that down.  He inquired if the Board could defer the item to another meeting and ask staff to come back with more of a breakdown on the fiscal impact; and inquired when the rates need to go into effect.  Mr. Whitehead responded December 1, 2009. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if there is a committee that determined the fee schedule.  Mr. Lusk advised changes are  being made  to Spessard to bring it into alignment with the other two courses; staff tries to make the fee schedules exactly alike and no combinations for the leagues in the very beginning as it relates to playing before 8:00 a.m. and work backwards from there.  Mr. Whitehead stated the Golf Advisory Board did not want staff to touch the AGF card rate, which is $643.75; when staff decided to make the card one price all the way across the board, the advisory board thought that was inconsistent and it was fair in regards to not increasing the rates for the majority of the AGF card holders; the advisory board supported the fee schedule 7:1 in regards to making the rate changes; rate changes have not been made in the last three to four years; and the advisory board thought staff was being fair and consistent in the changes.  He stated staff got good feedback from the Golf Advisory Board in regards to the fees and the approach staff took because the only fees that were looked at were the non-resident fees.  Mr. Lusk noted staff also looked at the market in determining the fee schedule.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the Board has a Workshop on Thursday, which will give staff time to go back and give the Board the breakdown of the fee schedule; and the Board does not necessarily have to make a decision today. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to table the resolution amending Rules and Fee Schedule for The Savannahs Golf Course, The Habitat Golf Course, and Spessard Holland Golf Course, to the November 19, 2009 Board meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated page six of the contract states the concessionaire shall accept personal checks; stated sometimes personal checks are not the best way to collect revenue; she would hate the concessionaire to be saddled with a burden such as this; and she would like that paragraph deleted from the proposed contract.  She stated she is also concerned about paragraph VIII.(E)., which says a payment will be negotiated up to $10 per golfer if the outside group wants to have an outside vendor; and she would like to get that down to $5 per golfer.  She noted since the concessionaire is going to be paying the Board a flat rate instead of a percentage of revenue, the Board does not need to have a record of their cash receipts; and so she does not think there is a need for Exhibit A in the contract.

 

Jeff Whitehead, Golf Operations Manager, stated when staff reduced the amount from $10 to $5 it will be hurting the concessionaire because it will promote golf tournaments bringing in their own vendors to cook food; and that is why staff went to $10.  He stated the amount started at $3; it was brought to staff’s attention in negotiations that $3 would promote outside vendors coming in; once the amount went to $10 the concessionaire will now make a substantial amount of money that day; the golfer can bring in another concessionaire from the outside, but they will have to pay $10 per golfer; and so the concessionaire will benefit from the fee.  Commissioner Infantini inquired what happens if the concessionaire is not offering what the golfers want; and stated  she  wanted  to  make  sure  other   people   had   an   opportunity  to  have   an  outside concessionaire come in and offer their food, as there may be a specialty food that the concessionaire cannot make.  Mr. Lusk stated the issue was discussed at length with the negotiating committee and the County Attorney; the vendor is a different vendor than the golf course has had in the past and they have a great record at the other golf course it serves and they are very interested in bringing back some of the business that the previous vendor let go to outside food vendors; and the language in the contract makes people want to talk to that vendor for food service.  He advised he would be reticent to make a change without going back to talk to the vendor as it relates to how it impacts his bottom line. 

 

County Manager Howard Tipton advised the contract is a negotiated agreement; if any of the terms are changed, staff needs to go back and renegotiate; the food service at the location stands to be enhanced through the agreement; throughout the process there was only one respondent; and he would suggest bringing back the item on November 19^th with the other golf item in order to give staff time to talk to the vendor and explore that possibility.  He noted on the issue of personal checks, it is up to the vendor, as it is their business; and he does not know if the Board wants to get involved with how they run their business. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he does not know how the vendor is going to be successful if other vendors are allowed to bring in food.  He noted the flat rate is a change from what has been done previously; and the Board still needs to track the vendor’s success or failure by knowing how much money is being collected through the cash register because in the past it was a percentage of the proceeds, which meant it went up or down based on how well or how badly the vendor did; and in the future, the Board may want to go back to that kind of scenario because one of the biggest criticisms to the Board is that it gave away revenue. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated with the issue of the personal checks, she would just like to change the wording to “may” accept personal checks as opposed to “shall” accept personal checks; and she did not want to demand that they accept personal checks.  She stated she agrees with the rest of the changes.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve Award of Proposal P-2-10-05 to George and Terri Bury d/b/a Chippers; authorize the Chairman to execute Contract; and authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute contract extensions and amendments.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated it appears there is a conflict of interest when the law firm that is helping the Board organize its bonds is then also representing the bond issue because they stand to profit from helping the Board create the bonds and then distribute the bonds; and advised she is not in favor as she sees it as a conflict of interest.

 

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the County has a Contract with Holland & Knight that basically says the County will consent to representation in situations where there is a possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest as long has there is no adverse interest to the County; it is a bond issue in which everyone is moving in the same direction to get the refinancing of a sales tax revenue bond that the Board had previously issued; and Holland & Knight meets the terms of the Contract and they are seeking the Board’s consent under that provision. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to execute a Conflict Waiver for Brevard County’s Bond Counsel, Holland & Knight, LLP, in connection with the issuance of the County’s Subordinated Sales Tax Revenue Bond, Series 2009A, and Subordinated Sales Tax Refunded Revenue Bond, Series 2009B, to be sold to Bank of America and Sun Trust Bank.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay. 

 

  

Chairman Bolin called for a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Brevard County Ordinance 09-09E, Transportation Impact Fees.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated it was his recollection of what the Board directed was not changing the square footage, but to create a waiver process; his concern is that it is not that there are not going to be projects that deserve and should have that waiver; but the question is that the Board may be chasing the square footage; and if it is reduced to 20,000 square feet this time, the next one may be 19,000 square feet.  He stated the Board is making the decision based on the merit of the project, so why not leave it at 25 with the ability of the Board to weigh in on that merit as opposed to continually chasing a square footage number that may or may not be relevant based on the difficulty of the building.  He stated the issue was generated by a medical facility, which has a longer construction time; and he would prefer a waiver process.

 

Steve Swanke, Planning and Development, advised the way the Clerks memo was written, it directed staff to prepare an ordinance and advertise it to reduce the rate of the threshold to 20,000 square feet. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he recalls that the issue was that those projects were going to take longer, so the Board wanted to give the builders a little more time; and stated he believes trip generation was also discussed.  Mr. Swanke advised his recollection is that the Board wanted a lower threshold and some type of information about why certain buildings may take longer to construct than others related to the complexity of the construction; stated buildings that have more interior finishing such as medical offices where there are small examination rooms with sinks in each room, and also buildings that have extensive site work on the exterior take longer to construct. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the goal was to generate activity and get people back to work and get people to start construction who otherwise would not, but the fact that the Board was waiving impact fees would help; but there was still a timeline; and inquired if the timeline was three years for a certain amount of square footage.   Mr. Swanke stated builders still have to apply for their building permit before March 1, 2010; currently, if a project is over 25,000 square feet they can request a one-year extension of the completion date, but not the date by which they apply for the building permit.  Commissioner Fisher stated even if the square footage is changed, the Board is doing what it tried to do which is getting builders to begin construction before March 10, 2010.

 

Chairman Bolin stated as she recalls, the 25,000 square feet the Board established was an arbitrary figure at that point in time because there needed to be some basis to start on; and she has no qualms about lowering it to 20,000 square feet, as there would still be a time element on it and other factors. 

 

Mel Scott, Assistant County Manager, noted within the Ordinance it states that the County Manager or his designee is given the ability to extend for one year; and the only thing the Ordinance gives the County Manager’s Office is that the complexity can be looked at. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated no matter what the Ordinance states, the square footage is still locked down; and stated he is okay with the Ordinance, but he does want to begin seeing projects that are 19,000 square feet.

 

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 09-08E Imposing a Two-Year Moratorium on the Collection of Transportation Impact Fees from Residential or Commercial Projects; providing for an administrative extension for commercial development projects of 20,000 square feet or more; providing for severability; providing for an area embraced; providing for an effective date; providing for inclusion in the Code.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Marty Smith, Attorney representing the Platt Family, advised he has been involved in the drafting of the Contract before the Board today, together with County Attorney Scott Knox and Deputy County Attorney Eden Bentley; and stated his specialty is in agricultural law with emphasis on condemnation and imminent domain.  He stated the Platt Family has been involved in agriculture in Brevard County over 100 years; they continue to be involved in agriculture; and agriculture has always been their intention.  He stated dating back for a number of years, the Platts have been faced with the possibility, and now the probability, of the St. Johns Heritage Parkway (Parkway) coming through the middle of their property; and it has been under discussion for many years, but it has been on the drawing board for local government for at least the last 12 years.  He noted initially, the Platts opposed the whole concept of the Parkway; after understanding that the County had the power of imminent domain, they agreed to allow the Parkway on one part of their property, but not through the middle of it; the MPO and Brevard County hired consultants and engineers to work on the design of the Parkway, and they all said it would have to go through the heart of the Platt Ranch; that is now the route that has been finalized; and that is what led the Platts to their decision to retain their own experts from Glatting Jackson to look at their alternatives, because the Parkway is going to disrupt their cattle business.  He stated after looking at all of their options, the Platts determined their best option was to preserve part of their property for agriculture and recognized there is potential for utilization of some development potential; it is not a desire of the Platts to go into the development business, as that is the last thing they want to do; but facing the inevitability of the Parkway, it seemed to be the best option available to them; and what has been worked on for the last couple of years is an attempt to work it out so that it benefits the County and the Platt Family.  He stated everyone is aware of the alternative is condemnation, and everyone is trying to avoid that; the proposed contract gives the County an opportunity to save substantial money; and at the same time, it gives the Platts substantial opportunity for their long-term future.  He stated since the October meeting with the Board, there have been substantial changes in the contract as far as the fill dirt price being reduced, the Platts are willing to accept a fair market value at the time the property is extracted by the County, the provisions of the transfer of densities have been clarified, and the Cost to Cure has been reviewed, which Doug Platt found an error in the County’s favor of approximately $100,000. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if Mr. Smith can clarify the escrow language and the update that was sent to the Board yesterday.  Mr. Smith replied Commissioner Anderson is referring to the Cost to Cure, which is something that has to be worked out; stated he provided an alternative to that late Friday, and he did not word it very carefully, because it is set up for the money to be paid at the time of closing, and the contract provides that it will take place at a certain time; and what it should say is that the Platts are willing to accept half of that money at the time of closing, and the other half deferred until 180 days prior to commencement of construction.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated it is no secret that he has had some concerns about the contract and its negotiation; he has tried to have some conversations with the Platt Family’s consultants, but those conversations have not worked out; stated he thinks there is the possibility of working out some things; and he would like permission from the Board for him to meet with the Platt Family to try to work out a solution that is favorable to all of the taxpayers.  He stated he does not see much of a change in the contract, and the Board needs to send a clear message that it is interested in working something out, but it has to be something that makes sense to all the players; when he looks at other people with land that has been donated to the County, such as The Viera Company, Farmton, and others, the Platt Family deal is not in line with those things; and he welcomes the challenge to try to work out something with the Platt Family.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he appreciates Commissioner Fisher’s negotiating skills, but he is more comfortable if Chairman Bolin or Commissioner Infantini met with the Platt Family to negotiate the contract, as currently, the Parkway is a direct impact to Districts 3, 4, and 5.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she would like to offer to carry on the negotiations with the Platt Family; she thinks the contract has  come a long way,  but there could be some more work done on it; and she would be happy to work directly with the Platt Family to see if there is an alternative that would be acceptable to the entire Board, or at least most of it. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired what is the basis of the structure of the agreement; and inquired if the Corridor Ordinance that was created is being used.  County Attorney Scott Knox replied the Ordinance allows it to happen, but that Ordinance is not being used; and staff can look to the Ordinance as guidance, but it is not something that has been elected to do by the Platt Family. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated his biggest concern has been the density transfer; and inquired what is the threshold for DRI’s in Brevard County.  Mel Scott, Assistant County Manager, replied it is 4,000 dwelling units.  Commissioner Nelson stated in 2008 it was 3,000; and inquired when it jumped to 4,000; and stated he believes it is 3,000.  He stated if the threshold is 4,000 dwelling units, and 3,000 are being transferred, and with the 1,600 the Platt Family already has, the Board is, in effect, handing over a DRI; stated he did not vote for the Ordinance for that very reason; but if the Ordinance is not being used, what is the mechanism being used to transfer the density.  Attorney Knox advised the Planners feel they can transfer density as part of the Land Use Amendment process.  Commissioner Nelson stated the Board is agreeing in advance to a transfer of density without public hearings.  Mr. Scott noted the contract states that the County would agree to enter into the process, so the entire public hearing process as set forth in Chapter 163 would be followed; there would be community notification; there would be a transmittal hearing in March; and there would be an adoption in approximately September.  Commissioner Nelson stated from a practical perspective, if three Commissioners vote to move forward with that, he knows what will be the outcome.  He advised the Ordinance calls for an analysis to be done; even though he did not support the analysis, at least there is a process; and that process says there has to be a value determination that cannot exceed 200 percent of the value of the right-of-way, plus damages; none of the analysis has been done to determine what the value of the right-of-way is, or what the value is of the properties; and that is what he is struggling with, because in the end, he and Commissioner Fisher do not necessarily believe it is the fairest deal for the County; but it is a great deal for the Platts, and he does not blame them.  He stated it is the public perception of what the Board has done and is it going to do the same thing in other parts of the County; he has a huge issue with transferring density; and he told a Platt Family representative that absent the transfer of density, he can live with most of what is in the agreement, even though he is not crazy about the three on-grade intersections; but the density was the deal breaker for him.  He stated through the process the Board will have created a much larger value for the property, which is great, but he does not think it can be done in a way that is excessive in terms of what can be done elsewhere; stated he is uncomfortable doing it outside the Ordinance because it says that at any moment the Board can transfer density anywhere; and there is no program for that. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if the applicant can address the density transfer issue.  Chairman Bolin inquired of all the issues, is the Board just discussing density.  Commissioner Anderson replied to get the majority of the votes, density is the biggest issue. 

 

Carey Hayo, Glatting Jackson Planning Firm, stated the Platt Family has worked hard to propose a contract and transaction that is the best that they can do as a win/win situation; there is a deadline to meet; and the bottom line is that the Platts have asked from the beginning that in order to have this transaction, they would like to have some ability to have some land use on their property; but it is up to the Platts to file their own individual application, and it will rise or fall on the merits of the application, of State and regional review, and there is nothing in the contract that guarantees in any way, that the land use request would be approved by the Board, as the Platts will not even be at Step No. 1 if there is not enough density on the land to try to create a community in this part of Brevard County in the future.  She stated Glatting Jackson has said from the beginning that it must have some kind of land use basis to begin to work with; Glatting Jackson will handle the processing and the Platt Family would pay for it; and today is the day that Glatting Jackson and the Platt Family would like to have a decision on the matter because if Glatting Jackson is to have any opportunity to amend the land use on the property, there is a deadline of next November when, more than likely, Amendment IV will be voted in by the voters of the State, and there will be no more land use amendments in the State for a long time.  She stated the deadline has passed to be able to file an adequate application with sufficient data and analysis that is coordinated with what the County is doing now on its EAR (Evaluation Appraisal Report); and the Platt Family is hoping for a decision today so that everyone can move on.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he would like to offer his services once again; his concern is with the negotiation; there is a huge benefit to the Platts for beating Amendment IV; there is a huge benefit for the Platts in having three intersections on the Parkway; there is a huge benefit to the Platts for having 4,600 units; and when all of those factors are taken into consideration, it is worth millions of dollars.  He stated he hopes the Platts make a lot of money, but at the same time he does not want the citizens to have to pay more than they have to; stated he respects the farming the Platt Family does, but it sends a mixed message to say they want a farm, but they also want three intersections and 4,600 units; and stated he would like to be allowed to meet with the Platt Family to try to work something out.  He stated he appreciates the Platt’s deadline, but he has tried to meet with them three times, and the message has not been clear enough; and if the Board sent the message that it wants to work with the Platts for the right deal, it would go a long way in getting his support.

 

Ms. Hayo stated Glatting Jackson has changed its proposal to try to satisfy the Board; she knows almost every Commissioner has an issue with the proposal; and she would like the Board to share with her what points it thinks need to be worked on so the Platts can understand.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the contract says it is contingent upon the change of the land use; in other words, the County does not get its right-of-way unless the Platts get their land use; and inquired how that is not some form of contract zoning.  Attorney Knox stated the Board has the option of saying no; if the room were filled with people who were opposed to the land use change, then the Board could say no; the contract does not take effect unless the Board says yes; but there is nothing that says the Board has to say yes; and there is language in the contract that explains that in great length.  Commissioner Nelson stated it is a very fine line to have the Board that needs the right-of-way vote to approve the agreement, and then allow the Platts to enter into the process, and then review their application for the land use; and he is uncomfortable with that.

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired in the proposal, is the right-of-way that is being given, and the conditions of the right-of-way, does it meet the PD&E study, or has it been modified; and stated he was confused on if what was called for was actually in the contract.  John Denninghoff, Public Works Director, stated the contract that was prepared by DRMP is what is currently being incorporated into the PD&E document for the portion of the Parkway corridor that is in the Platt Ranch; however, the way it has been described in the body of the contracts cause him some confusion; but with some minor wordsmithing, it can be corrected.  He stated the PD&E document would set the stage for what staff will use in the design process after the PD&E is approved.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he would support Commissioner Fisher being involved in the negotiation discussions.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated there are a lot of safeguards in the contract; if the Board wants to throw it out the window, it has that ability if it is not happy with what is being proposed; in addition, with the current housing inventory in south Brevard, it will be 25 to 30 years from now when there is actually a driveway poured; and stated he does not think the density issue is an immediate issue, but it is something the Platts need because Hometown Democracy is pushing them just like it is pushing Farmton and The Viera Company right now.  He stated himself, Commissioner Infantini and Chairman Bolin, face residents in Melbourne, West Melbourne, Melbourne Village and Palm Bay who have to drive on Wickham Road everyday; and he would feel more comfortable if the Commissioners who have to deal with those issues, and that are directly impacted by the Parkway and all the things that it will cure in Brevard, he would like Commissioner Infantini to volunteer; but he thinks the Board should try to work it out today if Commissioner Infantini thinks she can work with the Platt Family and its representatives in a public forum; and if not, he would like Commissioner Infantini to continue on with discussions if it is okay with Chairman Bolin. 

 

Milo Zonka stated the City of Palm Bay passed a Resolution encouraging the County Commission to secure the right-of-way with any and all means and proceed with the Parkway project.  He stated there have been a lot of remarks about the benefits that Platt Family will receive; some of it is just a function of the fact that the Platts own 4,000 acres, which very few people do in this day and age; and the Platts are commended to be able to function with those 4,000 acres for as long as they have.  He stated when General Development Corporation was mapping out its future in Palm Bay and showing 60,000 to 70,000 quarter-acre lots, the Platts were in disbelief, but the lots began to fill; and now, northwest Palm Bay is 93 percent built out.  He stated the Platts then saw that, according to census statistics, seven out of eight  of Palm Bay’s workforce do not work in Palm Bay, so they have to get in a car and go to work; then the Platts saw traffic congestion on Babcock Road, Minton Road, and Dairy Road; and the Platts knew what was to come, which is the Parkway.  He stated there are traffic issues in south Brevard County; they are issues that are not going to be dealt with by widening the roads; there needs to be new access; and it needs to be good access.  He stated the Parkway will be a limited access highway that will give people the ability to get from Point A to Point B; the Board is going to have to deal with the elements of the deal with the Platts; the important part is that somehow everyone come  to terms;  to walk away  from it is not an option; and he would like the Board to ponder a negotiation to do whatever it takes to come to reasonable terms that respects the taxpayers of Brevard County as well as the pressing traffic issue in south Brevard County. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated from an infrastructure and public safety standpoint, The Viera Company has funded over $68 million in new roads and road improvements on and off site, with an additional $9 million committed to Wickham Road; in 1999, The Viera Company constructed Fire Station 47 and Fire Station 48; 121 acres of land has been conveyed to the County to build schools; The Viera Company has made major community contributions; The Viera Company donated land for the Brevard County Educational Services Facility; 125 acres of land was donated for the Regional Park; the Government Center is on 53 acres of land donated by The Viera Company; and Brevard Zoo is on 56 acres of donated land.  He advised Farmton, in north Brevard County, is donating all of the right-of-way and the development and putting in utilities and making improvements to 5A; stated Farmton understands the value that when creating roads and intersections, it creates value on property; and that is why land is being donated.  He stated he is fine with the Parkway being in Palm Bay under certain conditions; but he thinks the fact that he sold commercial real estate for six years, and the fact that he is an active real estate investor, makes him better suited to sit down and try to make clear to the Platts and their consultants what he thinks is in the best interest of Brevard County; and he understands the timeline, but that is the Platt Family’s problem because they have not come up with something that makes sense.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated the Platt Family property is substantially different from The Viera Company because no one is building an enormous government complex just west of their property which will draw people to it; and by donating the land, infrastructure was built around it.  She stated she thinks she is the best suited person to work something out with the Platts today because she has the same negotiation skills as Commissioner Fisher.  Commissioner Fisher stated he referenced The Viera Company because he was trying to explain to Chairman Bolin that there are other people doing things for the County on a consistent basis who are watching what the Board does with the Platt Family.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated Farmton and The Viera Company did donate a lot of land, but they got millions of dollars in impact fee credits and other incentives.  Commissioner Fisher noted Farmton did not get any, nor has it asked for any, impact fee credits and other incentives.  Commissioner Anderson stated Farmton is different, but the Platts are just ranchers who are not looking to be multi-millionaires.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if the concerns of the Board are something that can be discussed right now.  Commissioner Infantini inquired if the Platts do not get the density they are requesting, then is the County not getting the road.  Mr. Smith replied that is correct.

 

Helen Voltz stated The Viera Company are developers looking for a buck, and the only way they can do it is by donating, according to State law, all of the schools and fire stations, but the Platts are not developers; the Parkway is desperately needed; and if Commissioner Fisher negotiates with the Platts it will have a negative outcome because he already does not support the project in any way, and she does not think it is fair to the Platts for Commissioner Fisher to go in and deal with them.  She stated the Board should make a decision today; the Parkway is extremely important to Districts 3, 4, and 5,  and also the residents; the $21 million was bonded specifically for the Parkway; and if it is not spent on the Parkway, then bonds are gong to have to be redone.

 

Mr. Denninghoff advised what will occur, if the Board decides not to spend the money on that project, is that it would have to amend the Bond Resolution and spend it on some other project; and it would have to be a transportation capital project.  Ms. Voltz inquired if the County’s bond rating would look any different because the Board decided to change its mind on a $21 million bond; with Mr. Denninghoff responding he does not believe so. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he is fine with the Parkway under certain terms and conditions; he thinks the Platts will benefit greatly; the Platts are not developers, but at the same time, the deal is tied to 4,700 units and 12 corners; and that is development.  He stated the Platts deserve it as they have owned the property for years, and he is okay with that, but that does not mean that as a County, it has to be enhanced by paying the Platts for dirt and giving them intersections; and he does not support the Parkway the way it is drawn up now.

 

Ms. Voltz stated the transfer of development rights is the fact that those units are not going to be someplace else; it is better to put all the development in one area so that a lot of green area is left in other places; and that is what the County should be doing.  She stated if development is spread out, then there is urban sprawl, which has been a problem in Brevard County for a long time; and she does not want to see urban sprawl in Brevard County.

 

Tom Schuller stated he is a private property rights proponent; comparing the Platts to The Viera Company is like comparing apples to oranges, as they are entirely different situations; The Viera Company was an agribusiness company that the Board of Directors made a decision to become land developers; and The Viera Company had to come to the County and tell it they wanted to develop its property and venture out of the agricultural business and into the development realm.  He noted it is a different story with the Platt Family, who want to remain in agriculture and remain in the cattle business; and the County is going to them and telling them it wants to disrupt their business to put the Parkway through the middle of their property.  He stated land the Platts own is their investment, their retirement, and their 401(K), and they should not be expected to get diminished returns on their investment; and if the County is disrupting their investment, it should negotiate in good faith and let the deal go through.

 

Tre? Holton stated something that is being missed today is who truly benefits by the Parkway; he has heard a lot of discussion about how the Platts benefit; but the real stories are being missed; and he commented on people that he knows of in south Brevard who are depending on the Parkway being built.  He stated the Parkway will provide huge amounts of ecotourism in the future; the sense of urgency is not Hometown Democracy, it is all of the people who are depending on the Parkway being built; and it is time to build the Parkway.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he also constituents in his District that are going through the same things that would also benefit from the dollars that were bonded for the beltway; stated he voted for, and supported, the $21 million for the Parkway; the question is not whether he supports it, but it is if he supports it at any cost; and he does not think any road, or project, the Board does is at any cost.  He  stated  there  has to  be a fair deal  for all  of the  citizens in  Brevard County; stated he agrees with Ms. Voltz that density transfers should equate to more open space, but it does not in this case; units are being taken in already developed areas and counting them somewhere else; that is not creating green space, it is transferring density to a new location that is actually going to take away green space; and it is not the same thing.  He stated there have been five Small Area Studies in Brevard County since he has been on the Board; each of those studies have created downsizing properties; those densities are not being transferred anywhere; and if that was the purpose of which it was being done, then he would not have supported the studies.  He stated the Board is stuck between a condemnation process and a fair deal to the Platts; he wishes there was a way to allow the Platts to farm for the next 150 years, because he values that more; the County did not create this transportation issue, the Cities of Palm Bay and West Melbourne did; and now the County is trying to run traffic out around the problems that evolved in those areas.  He stated the County is being asked to solve a problem that it did not create; the County is willing to step up and do that, but it cannot be at any cost; he believes there is a fair deal somewhere, although he has not heard it yet; and he is comfortable that Commissioner Fisher can be fair in that regard.  He stated one way to tell if it is a fair deal is if both parties sign the agreement; and stated he wants to see the Parkway built, and he is still committed to supporting the project, but there was to be a better agreement.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he thinks an agreement can be met today; and if Commissioner Infantini can get some of her concerns answered by the applicant there can be three votes that will be enough to move on.  He stated there is a perception in the community that the $21 million set aside for the Parkway would be up for grabs if the Board kills the deal, and other Districts could get that money; and that is unfair to the people who have to spend an hour traveling seven miles out of Palm Bay.  He stated the Platts are not developers; the Board can approve the request today, and in the future it does not have to approve the density issue; and if there are issues Commissioner Infantini wants to discuss with the applicant, he would appreciate that.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he is also a property rights proponent; he hopes a deal can be made with the Platts and the Parkway can be built; but when it comes to giving dirt to the Platts, giving them 4,700 units, helping them beat Hometown Democracy, helping with the Comp Plan amendment, the County has dedicated $21 million toward building the Parkway at the same time there are other road projects; and based on the current revenue going into 2010, the County will not have enough funds to pave 11 miles of road, when it should be paving approximately 50 to 60 miles of road per year.  He stated it does not make sense to him that there are issues with the agreement, and at the same time, the County is going to give the other benefits that the contract calls for.  He stated in his District he does not have enough revenue to pave one mile of road; in Commissioner Nelson’s District, there is enough revenue to pave 3.5 miles of road; in Commissioner Infantini’s District, there is enough revenue to pave 1.2 mile of road; Chairman Bolin has enough revenue to pave six miles of road; stated he agrees with Commissioner Nelson that all of that can be put aside and address all of the resurfacing down the road; but today, it is not a deal that has to be done at any cost.

 

Mr. Smith stated the Board had asked specifically about the densities and whether it had to be part of the deal; it is a real consideration and the real reason the Platts are here; there is a limited amount of money that is being transferred; what he is hearing from Commissioner Fisher that he does not like the money and he does not like the density; it ends up that the Platts are asked to give over their land so the County can build the Parkway, but they are not getting anything in return; and that is what is really driving the deal.  He stated the Platts have been forced into the Parkway deal for the past 12 years; the Platts have already expended substantial money in terms of what it has meant to them; there is a deadline; and the timelines are not going to fit and the deal is not going to be there.  He stated he also keeps hearing the statement about the benefit to the Platts, but that is not a consideration in imminent domain; if that is the direction the Board chooses to go in, then it can certainly do that; but that is going to be extremely costly both for the County and everybody else.  He stated the densities are the core of the deal; that is what was worked out; the proposed contract is a result of two years of hard negotiations with the County and municipalities; the Platts have been continually asked to bid against themselves; there is no offer on the table from the County; and what he is hearing is if everything is taken out of the contract and left it where it is giving the land, then he is sure it would get approved; but that does not give the Platts anything to offset all of this; and the Platts are just trying to deal with a situation that has been thrust upon them, and they also are not the one’s who created the traffic problem.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if the DRI does not get approved, is the Board back to square one with purchasing the right-of-way for the Parkway.  Mr. Smith replied yes, if something cannot be worked out; typically, with the DRI process, there may be other opportunities for everyone at that point; there is no agreement to approve everything in the end; but in order to get the contract started and go in the right direction, this is where the Platts have to go, otherwise, they will not be able to do anything.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated there are elements of the agreement that are acceptable to him, such as the three on-grade intersections, the overpass, and the damages for loss of agriculture; but he is getting hung up on the issue of the density; and to say the Board does not like the deal in its entirety is a mis-statement.  He stated he is okay with going through the process; he knows there will be a greater density, but he does not know what it is; but he wants to do it through a process that has sound planning and discussion associated with it, as opposed to in a real estate contract; and he is not opposed to additional density, but he is opposed to not doing it in a process that has been created for that purpose.  Mr. Smith stated he understands Commissioner Nelson’s position, but he also has to listen to what Commissioner Fisher is saying, which is that he does not like money aspect of it; that is what is the heart of the deal; and the proposed contract is the result of two years of very intense work on both sides of the equation to come to this today.  He stated there is no offer on the table and the Platt Family is continually being asked to bid against themselves; there are a lot of legal issues as to why the density transfer is necessary; the Platts already have 1,600 units, and they could probably get more; and they can do that without the Parkway.  He stated without the interchanges, over 1,000 acres would be isolated as an island; and that is where the bulk of the densities are.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated there is also an overpass for agricultural purposes, which later can be converted to either access and/or a pathway through the Parkway.  Mr. Smith advised the difficulty when building a six-lane road and elevating it, equipment and cattle cannot be moved; it was the result of long discussions and a lot of different possibilities being looked at by both sides; and that is what everyone in the process thought would be the best solution.

 

Brent Lacey, Glatting Jackson, stated with regard to the suggestion that there will not be due process carried out, that is not the case; Glatting Jackson is not proposing to not go through the appropriate process for transfer of density through the hearing process that he has discussed with staff; staff supported that idea for the second part of the process, which is a standard Comprehensive Plan amendment that would be processed by the Platt Family with their consultants; and that would have to be approved by the Board before any changes were made, and it will also have to go through the same scrutiny in Tallahassee by DCA before any land use is actually assigned to the project.  He stated in terms of the land use itself, the Platts have approximately 1,700 units, so they are not asking for a transfer of 4,500, they are asking for a transfer of 3,000 within the context and design form; as part of the agreement, his firm is showing a T&D type of neighborhood that is self-sustaining, walkable, and livable; a full 40 percent of the 4,000 acres will be set aside for agriculture use, and open space and green space; and so the process does provide for the opportunity for greater green space in the future, and guarantees it as part of the process.  He noted approval of land use is no where near approval of a DRI; the DRI process is completely separate; the land use has to be obtained before the DRI can be approved; if the Platts were developers and chose to move forward with the DRI, yes, the land use would require that process to be followed; but there is still zoning to go through and an extensive public hearing process and scrutiny by many agencies before a DRI can be approved; and so to suggest the Board is handing over a DRI is inaccurate. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated mistakes were made in the past; she is not happy with some of the development that has taken place in Palm Bay, and she is not happy with some of the planning that has taken place; but the Commissioners are elected to represent everyone in Brevard County, provide for infrastructure, and public safety; and the Board needs to move forward.  Attorney Knox stated if the item is passed, there are some details in the Contract that need to be worked out; and he would like permission from the Board to do that.

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the Contract for Sale and Purchase with the Platt Family as presented, with the provision that the Cost to Cure money stay in escrow until the time of closing; directed the County Attorney to finalize details in the Contract for Sale and Purchase; and directed staff to move forward the provisions of the Contract, which include the density transfers.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Nelson and Fisher voted nay.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the negotiated Contract with Ronald A. Book, P.A. and The Banyan Network; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 APPROVAL, RE:  BREVARD COUNTY 2010 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

 

Frank Tsamoutales stated the Brevard County Legislative Program is quite extensive, ambitious, and very well put together; but he would like to work with County Manager Howard Tipton to prioritize some of the items in the Program.  He stated after speaking to the Commissioners, it is clear that jobs and economic development is first and foremost in terms of priorities; stated the sequence of events should be a little bit different than they have been in the past, which is before something like the Legislative Program is put together, the Board’s lobbying team should be involved in developing such a document; and he would appreciate direction from the Board.

 

Paul Pritchard, City of Cape Canaveral Business Development Board, stated as most of the Board knows, he has been very involved with the Space Advocacy issues; and he is a member of the Aerospace Aeronautical Career Development Council (ACDC) of the Brevard Workforce.  He stated the 2010 Legislative Program was emailed to him two days ago at the ACDC meeting; and he left that meeting because he was told the Legislative Program was going to be approved today.  He stated he would really like to have a definition and quantification of what the term “support” means in the document so that the effectiveness can be analyzed of the document; the lobbyists are being sought out to go after $20 million; there is no definition as for support policies, investments, and advocacy that clearly identifies support the retention and development of Florida Space Industry, support the workforce transition training, support launch infrastructure, support business development initiatives; there is no indication of what that support is; and he would like that definition.

 

County Manager Howard Tipton stated the Legislative process is a moving target; staff is trying to take the direction from the Board to prioritize the items in the document; the bills that are filed are the ones that will be tracked; there will be reports coming back to the Board in terms of staffs activities; but he cannot say for certain exactly what the Board will be able to get; and staff is going after support in those key areas.  He stated in terms of the way the Legislative process moves, from the originally filed bill to committee substitutes and beyond, staff is going to go wherever it can and wherever it can track that.  Mr. Pritchard stated the document states, “Support policies, investments, and advocacies that clearly identify Florida as the best location for the next generation.”  He stated it does not only talk about Space Advocacy in Tallahassee, it does not only talk about Legislative process, but it states the County will support Statewide expansion and resources necessary to sustain the aerospace workforce; and there are things in the document that are not necessarily legislative items, but which the Board is saying it will give its support to; and stated he is asking how that support is done and how it is quantified.  Mr. Tipton stated it is support for legislative direction for the County’s legislative lobbyists; and there are things that come up around the State, the document gives the policy direction with which to move forward.  He stated it is a living document; it is a very dynamic environment, and things constantly change; and as staff comes back to the Board for additional direction or opportunities, those things will be noted and tracked. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve the Brevard County 2010 Legislative Program; approve the legislative priorities, which include Space and Technology, Baker Act Beds, and Medicaid Nursing Home Services; and approve the priorities from the Agriculture and Extension, Emergency Management, Housing and Human Services, Natural Resources, Planning and Development, and Transportation Planning Departments.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Sheriff Jack Parker stated DNA testing is critical to law enforcement today; it was expanded in the last Legislative session by Senator Alrich; it was passed by the House and the Senate; and the Governor signed it into law.  He noted prior to that, when there was a conviction of a felony offense and certain misdemeanors that were considered serious, the Sheriff’s Office would do DNA testing upon conviction; sometimes those convictions on felony cases would take three to five years; in many cases, people were released on bond and committing other crimes; but the testing could not be done until they were convicted; and Senator Alrich’s bill basically said to test certain felonies upon arrest, and it was passed and signed into law by the Governor.  He stated it is transitional going over 10 years, going all the way to 2019, where the most heinous felonies will be done first, working down to the non-violent felonies in 2019; and so it would be plausible to do from a financial standpoint.  He stated the only problem was that the Legislature did not fund the activity with FDLE; FDLE has taken the position that it is an unfunded mandate; FDLE wants to do it and thinks it is incredibly important for the citizens of the County, but they do not have the money to do it; and Sheriffs throughout the State are appealing to their County Commissions to try to get the Legislature to make it an important responsibility because it is believed that it will solve an incredible amount of crimes.  He noted there are cold case homicides in Brevard County that could be solved; and he would like to request the Board do anything it can to make it a priority in the Legislative package to try to get it funded with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if Sheriff Parker would prefer a resolution to the Legislative Delegation, or incorporate it into the package.  Sheriff Parker stated he would defer to the Board’s wisdom as far as what is most effective.  Commissioner Nelson stated he would like to suggest the Board send a resolution to each of its Legislators so that Leigh Holt, Government Relations Manager, and the Board’s Lobbyists can work with the individual Legislators as opposed to it getting lost within the package.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board can do a resolution as well as put it in the package. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to support State funding to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to implement the Legislatively approved State automated personal identification system capable of classifying, matching, and storing analysis of DNA samples and other data; and direct staff to prepare a resolution to be sent to each of the Brevard County Legislators, and include DNA testing, and funding for DNA testing, in the Board’s Legislative Package.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Sheriff Jack Parker stated there are beginning to be Legislative initiatives that are going to do everything possible to release people from prison early in hopes to save money for the State; those in law enforcement are concerned because the same economic problems that were experienced in the 1970’s and 1980’s; one of the things the Legislature did to address those problems was to create early release gain time from prison because they did not want to fund the prison and they felt it was a good way to save money; but it turned out to be a terrible way to save money; and crime rates were soaring because people were being released early from prison.  He noted the homicide rate in Brevard County in 1986 as a result of early release was three times greater than what it is today; and the exact same thing is happening now in terms of the terminology being used, such as the prisons need to do a better job and prisons cannot continue to be funded. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt Resolution opposing any Legislation that reduces funding to Florida’s prisons, that releases dangerous felons early, or places any further constraints on sentencing of convicted felons to prison by Judges; and approve inclusion of the issues in the Legislative Package.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Sheriff Parker noted interested citizens can go to the Sheriff’s Department website, www.brevardsheriff.com, to contact their local Legislators and voice their concerns; and there is also a link to some of the bills causing concern.

 

The Board recessed at 11:32 a.m. and reconvened at 11:47 a.m.

 

 

Stockton Whitten, Assistant County Manager, stated staff will give the Board a presentation on Item VI.D.; after that, the Board will hear from the personal appearance for that item, take speaker cards, and then proceed on with the next item.

 

Jon Sellers, Information Technology Director, stated he would like to explain to the Board, through his presentation, how the upgrades being recommended to the Board will allow the County to ensure reliability and avoid failure of mission critical functions, and also how the County can take advantage of immediate savings.  He stated PBX is the internal phone system for most of the County’s major facilities where most of the phone calls are between employees; stated one comment made last week was that the County has 1.7 phone lines per employee, but that calculation was based upon incomplete information; that number is actually 53.9 lines per employee; there was a comment made that the industry standard is 40 lines, which means the County is higher than that; there are a lot of small locations within the County; and in each small location is a greater than one number, and when added together it equals higher than average.  He stated during the housing boom the County hired a lot of employees, which required a lot of circuits; now staff is in the process of tearing out those circuits as staffing is being reduced; and the 53.9 lines that exist today will continue to decline.  He noted the PBX is used by all County agencies except the Clerk of Courts; and the County agencies using PBX include the Sheriff’s Office, Fire Rescue, and Emergency Management.  He stated the County’s major issue is that the cards in the PBX’s are no longer manufactured, making it difficult to get replacement parts for them; as the years go on, it will get increasingly more difficult to find replacement cards; every time a card fails, 60 to 100 phone lines will be lost; it has already happened twice in the last year; there is the potential to lose connectivity to entire buildings for up to one week; and it is a mission critical function to the County’s public safety responsibilities.  He stated staff is requesting to replace the cards every two years; the new cards will be guaranteed available for five years; a new software upgrade will allow for lower labor costs for management  as well  as  “SIP”, which is a  protocol  that multiple  vendors have to support; and because multiple vendors are supporting the same protocol, the County will not get locked in to proprietary telephones; Voice Over IP (VOIP) is very expensive because there is vendor lock-in with the products; and telephones are now computers, so they are much more expensive than a regular telephone set.  He stated going with a set protocol means that down-the-road, the Board can buy a $20 phone from K-Mart instead of having to go out and purchase a $250 phone from a proprietary vendor; he thinks that is important; and this change will get the County there at its major facilities.  He stated what staff is asking for this year is $234,000, which has been planned for a number of years; the upgrade being requested this year will cover the Government Center, the North Brevard Government Center, the Harry T. and Harriett V. Moore Justice Center, the Emergency Operations Center, and the Melbourne Courthouse; next year, only $91,000 is needed to upgrade the other five systems next year; the upgrades will cover approximately 3,200 employees for the next five years and provides VOIP capability; and the total cost is approximately $325,000.  He stated last week the Board was told that the $325,000 would replace 600 phones; but actually, as a whole, it would be approximately 3,800 phones; and he is asking for $325,000 over five years, not $1.5 million to $1.8 million over six years.  He noted $1.5 to $1.8 million is an excellent price for a VOIP system; and stated the $325,000 right now is a better deal for the taxpayer in terms of the financial situation the County is facing over the next few years.  He stated another issue with VOIP that the Board has to take into consideration is that VOIP requires very specific network requirements, facility requirements, and power requirements; when going to VOIP, the County will need to make sure it has built up significant power backup systems; there needs to be the right networking equipment in place and that it is set up to handle quality of service; and it is not only a matter of buying the servers and telephones, it is also a matter of reviewing the network capacity, and the power systems.  He stated he is requesting to use State Contract for the bid; he is doing that because State Contract is a competitive process; and pricing is based on the 100,000 employees for the State of Florida, as opposed to the 3,000 employees in the County; and he thinks it is a good price, although he cannot tell the Board it is the best it can get, and the Board may be able to put it out to RFP also.  He stated the determining question for the Board is, is the difference in price that it may or may not get worth the risk of the card failure; and in his opinion it is not, but the Board is responsible for the money.  He stated in conclusion, the upgrades will allow the County to ensure the reliability for public safety purposes; upgrading the system is far less expensive than going to a VOIP system; it has been competed through the marketplace; and when finished, the County will be set up with the most cost efficient Voice Over IP that is out there down the road. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if the needed back up for the Voice Over IP is battery backups that have to be installed, or is Mr. Sellers talking about actual generators.  Mr. Sellers replied the Board will find that most people use battery backup; they are fairly expensive backup systems because there is a lot of power draw by the telephone system; at mission critical facilities, he would suggest a generator; there are already generators at those facilities; but it will need to be determined if those generators are adequate to handle a Category V hurricane that takes down the phones for five days.

 

 

 

Matt Nye, Verteks Consulting, stated he would like to talk about why he does not think it is appropriate for the County to move forward with the proposed Nortel System upgrade; and he will talk about why he thinks it would behoove the County in a migratory fashion to the Shoretel System.  He stated Nortel declared bankruptcy in January 2009; prior to the bankruptcy, Nortel was ranked dead last in terms of value, technology, and system management among all the major Voice Over IP phone vendors; there is currently an acquisition in progress; and a company called Avaya has inked a deal to purchase the enterprise business unit of Nortel, which is what the County’s products falls under.  He noted that deal is not expected to close until the end of next month; once it closes, the future of the actual Nortel products that the County is upgrading is in question; there is no guarantee that Avaya will choose to move forward with those product lines; and it is kind of like the County is buying parts for an obsolete product.  He stated the County is not going to have anything tangible to show for the money it is spending; the money is going to go into processor upgrades and software that County employees are not going to be able to see, feel, or touch; and as Mr. Sellers referred to, it is more of a peace of mind in terms of knowing the County has the backup.  He stated the Board can contrast that with the Shoretel hardware, where the employees will actually have new handsets that will increase productivity and efficiency, and it will also make the lives of the I.T. staff easier because it reduces their management time.  He stated independent data from a third-party research company shows that the cost of maintaining a Shoretel handset is $11 per year; based on his calculations, the County actually maintains 3,800 physical lines for each of the 3,800 handsets; the cost to the County per line is $290 per line; stated if the County is only maintaining 3,200 physical lines, or one for each employee, that means the County’s cost per line is now $345; so the fewer number of lines that the County is maintaining, the greater the case for the Shoretel efficiency; the County is maintaining approximately 1,600 phone lines; and the case for Shoretel at $11 per handset is even greater as that dollar amount goes up.  He stated a forklift upgrade is not required; the County can implement the Shoretel in a piecemeal fashion; the County can replace a part of the Nortel System and it will talk to the existing Nortel System; and so the County does not have to do a forklift upgrade. 

 

 

Mike Colachico, Paetec Communications, stated he would like to let the Board know there are options available; the challenge the Board has is evaluating the direction that it needs to go in, such as if it should make the upgrades that are required, or does it stay with one particular vendor on the local side; and those are questions that can be answered quickly a company like Paetec.  He stated Paetec just wanted the opportunity to voice its concerns related to a renewal option with AT&T; and Paetec would like the ability to bid for those services.  He advised Paetec is a very profitable organization with a national presence and over 2,000 customers in the government market today in several states; Paetec is a $1.6 billion organization and has been cash flow positive for 27 consecutive quarters; and the partnership Paetec brings to the table is a lot of expertise and understanding of how to not only run a business, but how to partner with businesses and institutions as well.  He stated Paetec’s approach to government is similar to some of its competitors; Paetec believes in a local account teams and dedicated resources and helping  to do  some of the  analytics required  to make some of the decisions that are in front of the Board; and Paetec has teams in Florida to support the Board’s decisions.  He stated the County is seeing the need for cost reductions and migrations from vendor provided frame relay to leased or owned broadband networks; and disaster recovery and business continuity is a must.  He stated one of Paetecs more notable recent clients is Hillsborough County School System, which was 283 locations that Paetec took from RFP to completion in a six-month period; and he has references to backup his discussion with the Board today.  He stated Paetec was recently awarded the backbone infrastructure for the CIO’s office of OFT of New York; it is a 6 million minute per month infrastructure; and OFT saw a $370 million per year in savings.  He stated if the County introduced Paetec into the mix, it would also have the opportunity to be in a better position to renegotiate the contract that is up next November; and noted Brevard’s neighboring counties have chosen to do business in great fashion with Paetec, saving a substantial amount of money.

 

 

Scotti Strickland stated she represents Nortel Networks, which is the manufacturer of the equipment that has been reliably serving Brevard County for the past 10 years, and for which the upgrades are now being proposed.  She stated she would like to give the Board some accurate information; stated Nortel Networks has been an innovator for approximately 113 years; Nortel currently holds over 5,300 patents, with 3,650 of them in the United States; the Stock Exchanges in New York, Australia, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Bombay and Seoul, all use Nortel Solutions, along with more than 500 State or agencies, 5,000 local city and county agencies, and numerous federal and international government agencies throughout the world rely on Nortel Solutions, including the U.S. Department of Defense in all 50 states and in over two dozen countries around the world; and nine out of 10 of the largest public school systems, serving more than three and one half million students use Nortel Solutions.  She noted more than 93 percent of the top 100 manufacturing companies use Nortel Solutions, including aerospace, pharmaceutical, automotive, and I.T. companies; Nortel’s products are at the heart of every one of the top 25 service providers globally; and Nortel supports 19 of the top 20 airlines in the country.  She noted Nortel is the official converge network equipment supplier for the 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver; the U.S. Social Security Administration just awarded Nortel a 10-year contract for its telephone systems replacement project, which is a $3 million contract award; and the contract allows Nortel to replace every single one of the existing telephone systems with Voice Over IP, and that includes all 1,600 field offices.  She stated locally, Nortel provides reliable telecommunications to all the major hospital systems, including Wuesthoff, Halifax, Orlando Health, and Florida Hospitals; and Nortel also serves the Cities of Orlando, West Melbourne, Palm Bay, Valencia Community College, Orlando International Airport, and all of the theme parks.  She stated it is true that Nortel’s enterprise business unit, which has been operating under creditor protection since January, was acquired by Avaya, which is another global leader in the enterprise communication space; the merger of these two telecommunications giants restores the financial health to Nortel and increases the leadership and effectiveness in the business communications, making the combined organization No. 1 both globally and in the United States; and Nortel shares a commitment to open-systems architecture, which  means  it provides  Brevard County  the maximum flexibility for leverage the current infrastructure into new technologies.  She stated with regard to the merger, the two most respected independent agencies in the technology sector are the Gartner Group and Forrester Research; the Gartner Group has said if the County made a substantial investment in Nortel Solutions, or if it is migrating from the old TDM Project, please continue to assess Nortel products and expect Avaya to offer the evolutionary path required to take those products into the future; and Forrester Research has said a combined Nortel-Avaya company has the scope and scale that is recommended, and the real time communications credentials are impeccable and have forward momentum.  She stated with specific reference to Brevard County government, she would like to emphasize that the telecommunication system the County has is neither obsolete nor antiquated; the County’s I.T. staff has done a commendable job of maintaining the technological relevance of the installed system; it is IT’s intention to deploy Voice Over IP over two years ago, and it was only budget constraints that prevented them from doing so; and the antiquated cards Mr. Sellers spoke of are only antiquated because it was recommended to replace those cards years ago.  She stated the County’s system is already equipped for Voice Over IP; the recommended upgrades the Board is being asked to consider are nothing more than a refresh of the software; the processor is in the brains of the system, very similar to the patches and upgrades that are done to the Windows operating system on laptops; and she would suggest the patches and upgrades are done more often on operating systems much more frequently than the three to five years for upgrades on the phone system.  She stated the upgrades will also allow the County to move into such technologies as delivering communications to any device at any time, including video devices and smart phones; stated Nortel has retained the loyalty of its customers with an evergreen philosophy; and Nortel has invested huge amounts of money in reverse engineering all the new technology so that customers such as the County would not have to forklift change and replace all of the infrastructure, but can take advantage of all of the new technologies by just adding upgrades to the existing infrastructure.  She stated she would submit to the Board that it can continue to have confidence in AT&T, it can continue to have confidence in the telecommunication system it already has installed, and she would recommend the Board approve the upgrades as recommended.

 

Tom Gill, AT&T Account Manager, stated he would like to establish the concept that AT&T is not here to degrade any other competitors, or the idea of going to Voice Over IP, as AT&T believes Voice Over IP is great technology, and it is actually being deployed in the County at the present time; and it makes sense to take advantage of Voice Over IP, but the Board should not deploy technology just for the sake of deploying technology.  He stated all of the vendors are in favor of cost savings to the County, and what AT&T represents today is what he feels is the best solution for Brevard County financially, short-term and long-term; and stated Nortel is a very viable solution that continues to be a viable solution, and it is merging with Avaya to create an even more successful partnership between companies.  He advised AT&T is a partner with Shoretel, so AT&T can provide the County a Shoretel system along with Nortel, Cisco, Siemens, and others as well; he is not saying that any other vendor or manufacturer is not a good solution, but he is just saying that the best solution today is what he is proposing, which is the Nortel upgrade.  He stated as far as an RFP process, AT&T always welcomes competitive situations; Nortel, Cisco, Siemens, and Avaya are currently on State of Florida Contract; and if the Board chooses to select a Shoretel system, it would be doing it outside State of Florida Contract.  He  stated  there was a  comment made  about the transition  of  adding  in a Shoretel system in front of the current Nortel system; the County can do that; it adds complexity to the network, and it adds additional maintenance, another system to upgrade and train on, and it adds another single point of failure; and it violates a lot of principles of designing of a world class communication system.  He stated the Nortel system will support and is providing Voice Over IP, so there is no benefit to adding another solution into the system.  He stated he believes the RFP process should be respected; and he looks for the Board’s support, as he feels it is the best solution for the County. 

 

Eric Lindborg stated last week he explained to the Board that he is with AT&T Government and Education, and is responsible for a large portion of the State of Florida; and he would like to share that context because AT&T sees every local government it serves going through the same challenges that Brevard County is going through; and that is doing more with less because the levels of service cannot degrade.  He stated AT&T’s job is to come to the Board proactively and be good stewards with those limited resources; and that is exactly what the AT&T team has done.  He stated he feels the introduction of new technology at this point would introduce more complexity; when looking at the cost of network infrastructure, Mr. Sellers runs an enterprise of everything from data circuits to inter-tower connectivity, to IP communication, and all that goes into the mix; and AT&T’s job is to make sure it is being efficient with those limited resources.  He stated AT&T does not just look at the cost of the handset, it looks at the total cost of ownership of the system, from the wire in the ground to the phone on the desk; that is what his team has done; and he stands by his proposal, as he believes it is the best value at this time.  He stated AT&T is here to invest in Brevard County and to compete and win on the merits of its solution.

 

Mr. Sellers stated there is a question of no benefit, but he believes that having the infrastructure in place is a benefit; but he agrees it is primarily a risk mitigation issue; and the County has a significant risk in front of it.  He stated there was a question of a $290 charge per line, but he has no idea where that number came from, as he does not have a number in his book that is $290 per line; and he understands that putting in a system by piecemeal will work, but there would still be a risk mitigation problem.

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired for what purposes does the County have additional lines, other than to just individual handsets.  Mr. Sellers replied the County has PRI systems; it is a big bundler of 24 or 48 lines that all come into the building; conceptually, because most of the calls are going to be between employees and not going outside the facility, the County does not need as many lines coming in as there are employees; and that is what Mr. Nye is referring to.  He stated the County’s major locations are going to have PRI lines coming to them; when outside of those locations, such as at a fire station or a park, those lines are syntrex lines, which are similar to what are found in homes; one office may have many different lines, such as to someone’s desk, a conference room, a fax machine, or a kitchen area; and at the smaller locations there could be a 400 percent location, which can also be found in the private sector because there are those same kind of considerations.  He stated the County government is spread all over the different cities and has slightly different requirements than the average private business; and he would be interested to see how Brevard compares to other county governments in the area.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she sees a cost in the AT&T Contract that the County had spent $3.7 million last year.  Mr. Sellers advised that is with AT&T as a whole as an organization, not just from I.T.  Commissioner Infantini inquired if Mr. Sellers said the County has approximately 3,200 lines.  Mr. Sellers stated that includes telephone lines, network circuits, maintenance on the PBX’s, maintenance on phone systems, and there is hardware maintenance, software maintenance, data lines, telephone lines; and the E911 System is a major number that this does not affect at all, and it is approximately $1.2 million for running the E911 network.  He stated if the Board is looking at lines, he does not have that total number in front of him.  Commissioner Infantini stated even if she takes out the $1.2 million from the $3.7 million, that gives her $2.5 million, which works out to a cost of approximately $900 per line if there were 3,200 lines; inquired if the Board waits until the last minute to decide there needs to be upgrades, as far as public safety; and she would like to think the Board is not waiting until the last minute before something is done.  She stated Paetec informed the Board when it went out to bid it was approximately a six-month turnaround from the RFP to implementation; if that is correct and accurate, then the 27 month timeframe seems to be excessive for the Board to be able to turn around some kind of RFP; and she would still like to go out for an RFP on the issue because there is at least nine months remaining on the existing Contract.  She stated she saw some cost savings that the Clerk of Courts sent through, even using Cisco which is a more expensive system than the Shoretel System, and his cost savings was 50 percent at a minimum; and she cannot see going forward with upgrades unless the Board has waited until the very last minute.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated previous Commissioners have said no to capital outlay because of the budget crisis; stated Mr. Sellers has said that a couple of years ago his staff wanted to do the upgrades, but he did not allow them to do it because of the budget.  He stated he has five individual people in his office, and everyone has a phone, but there is also a phone in the copy room, conference room, kitchen, data computer phone coming into the office, an individual laptop computer line, and a fax line coming in; and all of a sudden he has 11 lines for five people, but he does not know of any of those lines that he can take out of his office for it to run efficiently.  He stated he believes that at some point in time when the Board goes out to RFP, it will get a competitive price; the system is complicated and the upgrades cannot be done overnight; and he is relying on the expertise of staff to help get the Board through the issue.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired as far as Commissioner Fisher’s office having seven lines, how many times has his fax lines, data lines, and phone lines been used at once.  She stated she only needs two or three lines in her office at any given time; and if someone gets a busy signal they can call back; but to have access to every single person at every single moment is not realistic.  Commissioner Fisher stated he does not want his constituents to get a busy signal when they call his office.  Commissioner Infantini stated she is in favor of going out to bid, as she does not think the 27-month timeframe is realistic; and she thinks companies will offer to come forward and not have the typical RFP process, but come in and do an analysis of everything needed so that the Board can compare.  She stated she is also questioning the timing of the new contract because it was not until after the Public Records Request went out on a Thursday that she received the Agenda Report on Tuesday saying AT&T was going to save the County $400,000 per year; and she thought that was very coincidental.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if Paetec bid on the Brevard County School Board contract.  Mr. Colachico replied stated he does not have that information.  Mr. Gill advised in November 2008 the School Board put out an RFP for all of their wide-area network, including PRI’s; AT&T and other vendors competed on that RFP; and AT&T won that bid that included PRI’s and was a three-year contract.  He stated AT&T brought those savings proactively to the County showing the new rates and asking it to take advantage of those, which is the result of what is in front of the Board today.  Commissioner Fisher inquired who were the competitors that bid against AT&T.  Mr. Gill replied it was Time Warner, Bright House, and a company called ENA.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated not matter what system the Board gets into there is going to be a difference in variations, but the Board’s job is to find the best deal; and the only way to do that is to go out for an RFP. 

 

Howard Tipton, County Manager, stated he would like to clarify that there are two different subjects being discussed, one is a PBX Exchange, which was the initial presentation by Mr. Sellers; but staff has not yet made the presentation on the Circuit discussion; they are two very different discussions and two very separate items; and he wanted to make sure everyone is clear on the discussion.  He noted the PBX Exchange is the telephone system; the County is at risk; the proposal is to upgrade four exchanges this year and five next year; and that is the first item the Board is discussing.  He noted the second item is the circuit discussion, which is the larger dollar issue; and he just wanted to make sure the Board is clear that they should be separate discussions.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated one of his concerns is that the Board has heard conflicting information, and it speaks to the complexity of what it is dealing with; stated the Board needs to have a consulting group to go through it and look at the big picture because otherwise the Board is guessing; and the Board needs to have a technical person on its side that can work with staff to create that so that it takes some of the burden off of Mr. Sellers.  He stated there is a technical need to have people who are independent of the Board who can evaluate the information and sort out the apples and oranges so that it makes sense for everyone involved.  He stated 9-1-1 is one place that no one wants to call and get a busy signal; the existing system needs to be firmed up and sufficient time needs to be provided to do the assessments necessary to make a good decision for the future; and that is the direction he would like to see the Board go. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he understands the County has a system that can fail, and that concerns him; and inquired what is the minimum the Board can do right now; and he stated he would hate to do upgrades and then find out that the Board wasted money on the upgrades and is going to switch out everything. 

 

Stockton Whitten, Assistant County Manager, advised the upgrades are preventative maintenance because at some point in time it is known that the system is going to fail; this is that upgrade that allows the County to move to a newer version of the system that is guaranteed to be in place; they are new or replacement parts; and it is maintained for the next five years.  He stated he would tell Commissioner Anderson that what is being proposed to the Board today is the minimum than can be done right now; the issue with the PBX is does the Board upgrade to avoid the failures that it knows will occur; and when a 911 call comes in, it can be assured that the system is up and running. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if the Board can take from a non-critical area and put the upgrades in a critical area; and stated he is just trying to find the most cost effective solution to maintain the County’s critical infrastructure in the interim period.  Mr. Sellers stated at all of the smaller locations, key systems are run that do not require PBX’s; most of those are manufacturer discontinued also, but they are non-mission critical locations; he does not pay for support of those anymore, but staff keeps a few on the shelf, and if one goes out, they are replaced.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if the Board has to go forward with a band-aid approach, what can it do proactively going forward; stated she does not like to approve contracts that are expiring soon; and she has been pushing for that to change for 12 months.  Commissioner Nelson stated if his system goes down in his office, so does the Sheriff’s Office because the East Precinct is in the same building as his office; and the County is so intertwined that it is almost impossible to separate out the elements.  He stated the most valid issue that has been raised is that the Board needs to do an analysis of its needs; the Board needs to find out if it does have too many lines; and that analysis would have to be done before the RFP goes out because the vendors who are going to be bidding on it need to know what they are bidding on. 

 

Mr. Sellers stated Paetec’s is essentially a wholesaler of lines and sells them at cheaper prices; if he were to put out an RFP that says the winner of the bid has to do exactly what the County does today; and Paetec could probably move in quickly with other prices; however, by doing that he is cutting out a lot of other competition.  He stated he agrees that if the Board wants to move into the direction of Voice Over IP, that means staff will have to look at the network and what kind of upgrades are needed; it would be important to have a consultant come in and take a look at not just what the network looks like, but how the County might re-architect it to make an RFP process include as many vendors as possible, and also how it could be re-architected for a Voice Over IP also.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if there is a way to shorten the contract timeline with the PBX to allow the Board to get consultants on board to look at the system.  Mr. Gill replied PBX has two parts, which are the components and the pieces being upgraded, and it also has software upgrades and patches; the software upgrades and patches are offered under a one-year, or three-year, proposal; and if the Board chooses to do a one-year option, it is available.  Commissioner Fisher inquired how much more expensive is it; with Mr. Gill responding it is approximately a 20 percent to 25 percent on the software portion because of the pricing model, but it is definitely an option.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if Mr. Sellers can get an RFP together within one year; with Mr. Sellers responding affirmatively.  Mr. Whitten inquired if the Board upgrades the current system, why is there a need to go anywhere else; the Board only has the dollars within the current budget; and the preventative maintenance is the permanent solution at least for the short-term.  He stated if the Board upgrades, it is a system that the  County  will have in place and can work with for five or more years, or until the next version is no longer maintained or supported, or there are no longer parts in the marketplace; and to him, this seems to be the solution in terms of getting the Board to where it needs to be because no one is asking Voice Over IP, although this provides the Board to go there.  Mr. Sellers stated if the Board is going to look at an RFP on the telephone system, it will want to decide if the existing system is in that mix also. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated it seems like Mr. Whitten is predisposed to staying with AT&T rather than going out to bid because the Board can keep on with the same system for five years; and she does not want to keep fixing something.  She stated staff can design an RFP; recently, the County designed an RFP so that only one person in the State of Florida qualified to bid because the specifications were so specific that there was only one person in the State that had the authorization to design that roof; and instead of going out and doing the consulting, if the Board puts the task upon vendors to come back to the Board with what it needs, they can think outside the box.  She stated what is being budgeted right now is for the Board to spend $3.2 million per year for the next three years; and rather than going forward, she thinks the Board should ask the vendors to offer solutions, because if it is in an RFP she is afraid it is going to be too specific.  Chairman Bolin advised the $3.2 million is for both the PBX and the circuits.

 

Howard Tipton, County Manager, stated the Board needs to discuss PBX first; he is hearing that there is a desire to go out to bid on the circuit issue; but on the PBX issue, it is staffs recommendation, recognizing the Motorola processers currently in place are no longer supported, recognizing there is a risk of losing phone service, understanding that the recommended solution does provide some Voice Over IP capability, which is the backbone infrastructure going forward.  He stated the County has budgeted $250,000 in the capital budget; and staff is requesting slightly less than that amount to upgrade four essential mission critical PBX exchanges for this year.  He stated with the Circuits, he is hearing that the Board wants the RFP, but in terms of recommending operational efficiency for the County, staff is asking for guidance and support on the PBX decision.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to execute Agreements with AT&T, and authorize the Information Technology Director to provide initials for the individual pages to upgrade four of the County’s nine (9) PBX’s to the latest release of the software upon completion of review by the County Attorney’s Office.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Anderson and Infantini voted nay. 

 

 

Judy Spencer, AT&T Central Florida, stated she thinks of the relationship between AT&T and Brevard County as more of a partnership; stated AT&T is a forward thinking company and a company that gives back; by forward thinking, she is talking about AT&T’s growth and broadband and wireless networks; and that is important to the community, as it is one of the first things a prospective company looks at when they want to relocate.  She stated AT&T recently gave a grant to the robotics program at Palm Bay High School, which has been very well received; and another thing AT&T is proud of in Brevard County is that it has over 400 employees. 

Mike Colachico, Paetec Communications, stated there are many options in front of the Board; and stated Paetec also provides Nortel, Cisco and many others.  He stated in turn for services with the County in this case, Paetec would finance the option the Board just voted on without having to go into a capital budget; and that is something Paetec does for higher education, government, and a lot of commercial accounts, and has funded over $60 million of gear over the last few years.  He stated the Board mentioned hiring a consultant, but he would question what type of benefit the Board would actually get, and what type of costs would be incurred; stated Paetec is more than willing to help the Board in collaboration with AT&T; and Paetec would like to come together with AT&T and act in the best interest of the Board.

 

Jim Robles, Paetec Regional Vice President, stated the item that is up for bid, which is the modification, and extension of the AT&T contract; it is roughly a $113,000 savings on $2.9 million spent on telecommunication services; and that basically equates to approximately 13.9 percent.  He stated he created a sample analysis of one of the County’s locations with the phone number of 633-2000, which are voice-type circuits; there were two of them at that location; and he did a side- by-side comparison of what the Board is currently spending at that location for those two PRI’s versus what Paetec can propose based on the pricing it gave to Hillsborough County; and that proposed savings came out to $72 percent. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the School Board went out for a lengthy RFP and its savings supposedly matches the County’s now; and inquired if Paetec had any connection with that at all; and stated he is trying to figure out why the School Board does not have the huge 70 percent savings.  Mr. Robles stated he does not think Paetec actually bid on the Brevard County School Board one year ago; Paetec’s government team is working today to try to make sure when the School Board is up for bid in the future, that it will be there to bid on it.   Commissioner Fisher inquired how Paetec can produce an RFP in 60 days, versus County staff that is indicating it would be difficult to do.  Mr. Colachico advised there are tools that are available, but there is some work that is required on County staff’s end to pull information together but he would think County staff can pull that information together quickly; the difficult part is doing something with that information; and he would say that within a two-week period, Paetec can get an idea of what the current infrastructure looks like by location and then come forward with recommendations based upon what he sees across the country and what similar entities are doing.  Mr. Robles stated Paetec does those types of networks assessments all of the time.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the request is just a phone line issue.  Mr. Robles replied it is about core network infrastructure, such as the voice circuits and data circuits.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if that is what the proposed contract is in reference to.  Mr. Sellers advised the current items being discussed is about the core circuit, including both telephone and data circuits, as well as some other options.  He noted he can provide the information quickly to Paetec; stated Paetec understands if the County is moving to Voice Over IP in the future, there are some potential architecture that have to be put together to be put out to bid; and he does not want to cut out some potential vendors because of the way the County designs the network.  He stated staff needs to be careful that it puts  out something with a set of architectures  that allows all of the vendors to compete effectively.  Mr. Whitten stated Mr. Sellers needs to clarify the 24 month timeframe, as it includes the RFP, the selection process, and having the vendor come in and do the switchover; it is not to put an RFP on the street and then 27 months later, the Board is receiving and reviewing the results.  Mr. Sellers stated he is looking at nine months to put an RFP on the street; but then there is the process of selecting it, negotiating contracts, and vendors can come in and run wires out to facilities, et cetera; but at the end of 27 months, a new system would be in place.

 

Todd Sutherland, Bright House Networks, stated the process the Board is discussing is interesting; and it is very complex to try to break it down in two hours.  He stated there is a PBX issue that overlaps with the network issue; they have to be separated because they are two separate issues; but they rely on each other tremendously.  He stated he is in front of the Board today because of the RFP and exploring what options are available; there are multiple networks available; there are networks that are incumbent, such as AT&T; and what there really needs to be is a study because he does not think there is one solution, but there are multiple solutions.  He stated the Board has a monumental task in front of it, and he appreciates the opportunity to be included in the RFP’s; and Bright House will respond to it.  He stated he thinks there should be an RFI (Request for Information) because there is more than one solution; there are switches that are capable now for VOIP; and he would suggest pulling those right now.  He noted one vendor for one solution may not be the best methodology.

 

Matt Nye stated the first question he has is in terms of the three-year commitment with AT&T, even given the RFP timeline that was mentioned earlier of 24 to 27 months, he is unclear why the County would commit for three years to AT&T if as part of the RFP comes back that a lot of those services are not needed; stated $3 million per year is a substantial amount of money; and he is perplexed as to why the Board would vote to extend the AT&T Contract for three years.   He stated the Board should identify, as part of an analysis, if it is paying for unnecessary or unneeded services before it signs off on a three-year contract extension; and that seems like common sense to him.  He stated if the network can be re-engineered for a more competitive environment, should the Board do that before it signs a 3-year, $9 million contract; that seems like common sense to him also; and he understands implementing some of the findings could take a long time, but certainly the Board can identify fairly quickly if it is paying for lines or data circuits that are not currently in use.  He stated one of the points he was trying to make with the Shoretel equipment is that the total cost of ownership on some of these new systems is so much lower that the Board gets its money back within a year or two years on the new equipment; and yes, the Board would have to lay out $1 million in capital, but if it saves the Board $ 1 million on the administrative and phone bills in one year, that is common sense.  He stated moving forward, he would definitely encourage the Board to promote outside the box thinking; the Board should put out an RFI explaining what it currently has and what its needs are; and he knows for a fact that Shoretel is the best solution available.  He stated the Board would want to leave it broad enough that it will be able to take advantage of the new technologies and innovations.  He stated he questions why the Board would approve a contract with such a lengthy term with the number of questions that have been raised by himself and other vendors.

 

Tom Gill, AT&T, stated he can assure the Board there are no $1,700 PRI’s being sold to the County; stated there is contract in place that offers the County PRI service at $557; and he can assure the Board that Cost Control Associates is actively reviewing the telecom bills.  He stated if the Board does not do an RFP and there are five vendors providing a solution, the Board is going to get five totally different solutions; he would recommend the Board put down some guidelines through an RFP, put together by a consultant, that outlines what it is looking for and the direction the County needs; and noted the proposal AT&T is offering on the network side allows the Board the cost savings up front to have a consultant on staff that can put together an RFP that will demonstrate a good direction for the County.

 

Mr. Sellers stated one of Ms. Voltz’s last acts as Commissioner was to direct staff to find a consultant to review the telecom bills, which is Cost Control Associates, and they have been reviewing the County’s telephone bills and networks for the last year to see if the County is being overcharged; and over that period of time, the consultant found approximately $27,000 in cost savings for the County. 

 

Eric Lindborg, AT&T, stated AT&T’s offer is unprecedented in the State of Florida with local government; it is being done early because Mr. Sellers came to him with a budget problem because he did not have funding to sustain the services that were there; and so AT&T worked with Mr. Sellers by doing things such as making dis-connects without contract penalty, and reducing rates.  He stated the package AT&T put together is not something that was developed locally, as it required senior officer level approval at AT&T; and he likes to consider it partnering because that is exactly what AT&T and the County is doing. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated one danger of hearing this kind of discussion is that the Board has heard a lot of numbers, but has no backup for any of it; and it would be helpful if the Board had backup material available that supported the numbers.  He stated there are a lot of different options, and he does not know if asking individual vendors to come in and look at the system and try to tell the Board what it needs is the way he would be comfortable going; and he still questions whether the Board has money up front, although he heard some potential financial options.  He stated he supports going out for an RFP, but the Board needs to guide the process as opposed to letting the business community guide it for it.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated the Board has some numbers in front of it, in the AT&T Contract; and one of the numbers recently quoted was the PRI Access Line, which are $875 each, not $557.  Mr. Gill advised the $875 for each line are one-time install charges that have been waived, per the Contract; and so the $875 per PRI Access Line would be waived under the Contract.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she would rather have the vendors present proposals and then hire a consultant to compare them; stated Bright House has a completely different option to offer the Board; and she would like the vendors to come back and think outside the box. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if it is possible to do three, one-year Contracts with AT&T, or five, one-year Contracts; that would give the Board over a $400,000 savings this year; and that savings can be  used to  hire a  consultant to help  the Board  figure out what it needs to do.  He stated three or five, one-year Contracts would allow the Board to take the savings today and begin looking for a consultant to go through the RFP process that can get the County a long-term savings, if it is available.  Chairman Bolin stated she would also prefer to hire a consultant to work on getting a proposal prepared; and stated the Board has to decide if it is going to go out for an RFP, and if not, it needs to look at the AT&T Contract.

 

Eric Lindborg advised there is an existing Contract that will continue to be in effect through August 2010; and should the Board choose to hold off on an RFP, the Contract would support that, and so would AT&T.  He stated in regard to AT&T offering the current rate structure with three, one-year options, AT&T could not do that; the offer by AT&T is unprecedented; AT&T has looked at the volume and term of agreement and the resources it takes AT&T to sustain the network; and AT&T brought the proposal to the Board because it was charged by County staff to lower the rates and get within budget, which is why AT&T is here today. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if Mr. Lingborg could tell him what is in the Contract.  Mr. Lindborg advised there is a volume and term agreement, which sets up the overall revenue threshold for the County that allows the County to add and disconnect and make changes based upon change of business; but that sets up the business relationship.  He stated secondary to that is a Contract Service Arrangement which offers the full menu of services; and the reason that particular Contract vehicle is that it allows AT&T to generate much deeper savings for the County than it would on the stand alone Volume and Term Contract.  He stated AT&T uses the combination of the Agreement and Arrangement; and together they offer the flexibility and that maximum discounts for the County to run its business and tolerate changes.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if County Manager Howard Tipton had had any experience with phone systems in Orange County.  Mr. Tipton replied he does not recall a specific experience with this particular technology; but his experience has been that these types of issues take longer than one would think; staff agrees the Board should go out for RFP, and a well written document by a consultant is the way to go; but staff understands that will take some time.  He stated with AT&T’s proposal, the Board is looking at saving approximately $1.1 million over three years; the process could take 24 months of that three years; and therefore, the Board would have some savings at hand, at a time when the budget is in a crunch; and it allows the opportunity to pay for that consultant, and it allows time for a very detailed process.  Commissioner Fisher inquired why the process takes so long; and stated he is uncomfortable that it takes three years to figure out if the County is getting competitive rates or not.  Mr. Tipton stated it is not that it takes three years to figure out whether the Board is getting a competitive proposal; that can be done in the nine to 12-month timeframe, recognizing that the proposal has to be created to begin with; after that are the negotiations and protests; and the last part is implementation, which is where things can drag out. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired how much a consultant would cost.  Mr. Sellers advised staff recently changed consultants for the E911 System, which cost the County approximately $100,000; and the consultants were on site for approximately one year.  He stated the price varies depending on what the consultant is being asked to do; the more analysis done up front, the quicker it can be done on the back half; and it just depends on what the Board wants them to do and  how  long  they  want  them  here.  Mr. Tipton  stated in his experience, the better the effort on the front end, the greater the success on the back end; and the Board needs to know what it wants in order to build the system that is going to serve it.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated one year may not be appropriate, but two years is the time it is going to take to do the RFP to do the implementation; and inquired if AT&T would be willing to provide those savings in a two-year contract with three, one-year options as opposed to a three-year contract with two, one-year options.  Mr. Lindborg replied he cannot address that as a matter of fact; it is an officer level decision; and he would say he is not confident about AT&T’s ability to maintain the proposed rate structure on a two-year deal.  He stated with a network of this scale and scope and complexity, it is at a minimum an 18-month conversion process; after the RFP cycle, there is 18 months to deploy; and it is very deep infrastructure that AT&T has spent decades developing.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated the Board entered into a three-year agreement that the taxpayers of Brevard County are locked into; it is $1.3 million in savings; but there may be an opportunity to save $4 million; and he does not have the answers that tell him that that is not possible. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she would like to keep the Contract and allow it to expire in August 2010.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the School Board just went through this same process and got a competitive rate after going through an RFP and bidding process; and it is his understanding that AT&T is matching that rate exactly for the County.  Mr. Lindborg stated that is correct.  Commissioner Fisher stated if the Board stays with the same Contract for the next nine months at $35,000 more per month than it has to pay, it is approximately a $275,000 additional cost between now and August, plus there is $150,000 consultant fee; and so that is over a $400,000 expense. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to execute updated Volume and Term Agreement with AT&T, as well as the updated PBX Maintenance Agreement and Pricing Schedules, for regulated services, upon approval by the County Attorney’s Office, with the understanding that the Board will support going out for Request for Proposals (RFP), and to use the savings to hire a consultant to give the County a long-term solution to its telephone needs.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Anderson and Infantini voted nay. 

 

 

The Board recessed at 2:05 p.m. and reconvened at 2:20 p.m.

 

 

 

Henry Campbell stated he moved to Melbourne Beach in 1969; one reason he chose to live in the South Beaches is because there was a proposed causeway from Malabar Road to Coconut Point; and he figured if there was a  hurricane, he  could evacuate easily; but many people have discovered the South Beaches since 1969.  He noted the hurricane seasons are not as bad as they once were because there is better warning now; but there is another danger that many people are not familiar with; and a causeway is needed in that area of the County.  He stated the biggest danger for the South Beaches is the Azores Volcanoes; if there is a major slide of one of the volcanoes, there will be only a five-hour warning; and if there is a major slide, it does not matter because everyone will be wiped out; but if it is a minor slide with a 20-foot tsunami, some people may be able to get out; but no one will be able to get out of Melbourne Beach.  He stated the Board is responsible for everything that has happened in the past with prior Commissions; it is the current Board’s decision to make up for short comings; and stated not having a causeway for the South Beaches is a short coming. 

 

Mr. Campbell stated people in crosswalks have the right-of-way; he runs everyday and crosses A1A twice per day at Ponce Park; there is a striped area across the road, but if he tries to cross, he is taking his life in his hands; and even though there is a big sign that indicates it is a crosswalk, people either do not know or do not care, as they do not stop for citizens.  He stated he would like more crosswalk signage in Melbourne Beach.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she has spoken to FDOT regarding crosswalks and explained it is hard for a car to stop at a crosswalk when going 45 mph; and stated FDOT put in place advanced crosswalk warning signs within a 50-foot range of a crosswalk to give drivers ample notice.  She noted the signs were installed closer to Beachwoods.  Mr. Campbell stated the problem is that people do not know that they are supposed to stop at a crosswalk. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve continuation and modifications to Board Policy BCC-91, Speed Hump Installation and Removal.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt Resolution and execute LAP Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the design of the South Brevard “Al Tuttle” Trail in Malabar; and authorize the Chairman to execute all Budget Change Requests associated with the Agreement.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 RESOLUTION AND AGREEMENT WITH BIT AND  SPUR CLUB  OF CENTRAL  BREVARD,

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to adopt Resolution and execute Agreement with Bit and Spur Club of Central Brevard, Inc. in Cocoa, a non-profit organization, for the use of County owned property for equestrian activities.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to adopt Resolution supporting full funding of affordable housing programs by the Florida Legislature.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to appoint Deborah Sands, E911 PSAP Manager, Office of Emergency Management, as the E911 Coordinator for Brevard County, with an effective date of October 3, 2009.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Bob Lay, Office of Emergency Management Director, introduced Deborah Sands to the Board.  Ms. Sands noted she has been with Brevard County for 19 years; she worked for the Sheriff’s Department in the 911 Center for 16 years; and stated she has worked for 911 Administration for the past three years. 

 

 

Alicyn Taft stated the item is in regards to a project that has needed to be taken care of for many years; it was a home that was destroyed in a hurricane; and she has been instrumental in trying to sell it and halt all Code fines.  She advised the Dillons recently purchased the home; she is trying to help the Dillons move forward with the project; the Dillons have a plan that has been approved by engineers; and the only thing holding the Dillons back from moving forward is the fines that exist on the property.  She noted the fines were not accrued by the Dillons, but by the previous owner; and the Dillons just want to move forward in cleaning up the property.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if Ms. Taft is the realtor for the Dillons; with Ms. Taft responding affirmatively.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the price of the property reflect the fines.  Ms. Taft replied no; and stated the  price came  down a  little,  but it did not have anything to do with the fines.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Dillons have closed on the property; with Ms. Taft responding yes, they have closed on the property.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Dillons closed on the property with the understanding that there were $32,000 in liens on the property; with Ms. Taft responding there was an understanding that there was a lien, but there was some confusion on the amount of the liens; it was a quick closing; and stated she has proof that the Dillons thought the fines were accruing at a smaller amount than the records reflect.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the County recorded the lien.  Ms. Taft advised there was a recorded lien for $12,000, and then it accrued on a daily basis from the time the lien was set, which was last August.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Dillons received an adjusted price because of that recorded lien; with Ms. Taft responding yes, that is her understanding.  Commissioner Fisher stated on a lot of real estate deals there are adjustments made to the purchase price of the contract; this is not a case where the Dillons entered into a contract on the property and said they would buy the property subject to the Board releasing the liens; and the Dillons actually closed on the property at a reduced price with the understanding there was $12,000 in fees that they had to pay.  He inquired if the County did not collect the lien at the time of closing.  Ms. Taft advised it was a quick closing; she did not have it taken care of at the time of the closing because it was a 10 day closing cash deal; and the Dillons are out of state purchasers who were not able to do the appropriate research quickly.  Chairman Bolin inquired if the Dillons did not do a title search; with Ms. Taft responding the Dillons pulled a title search and she informed them there was lien on the property of $12,000; but they were also informed along the way that there would not be an issue of actually getting the fines reduced.  Commissioner Fisher inquired who told Ms. Taft that.  Ms. Taft replied she was just told along the way that there would not be an issue with getting the fines reduced.

 

Attorney Knox advised the lien should have been recorded; and it should have been paid off, or at least taken care of as part of the closing, but apparently it was not.  Commissioner Fisher stated that is unusual.

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if the Dillons have done any work on the house yet.  Ms. Taft replied they have been very aggressive in trying to move forward; and they have been standing by to find out the ruling on the fines so they can move forward with their plans.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if the issues that created the lien been resolved; with Ms. Taft responding the majority of those issues have been done; they have already started the internal demolition; and it is her understanding that last item pending is determining if they can build a third floor.  Commissioner Anderson stated he has always preached to the Board that its No. 1 goal is to bring properties into compliance; once they are in compliance, people come before the Board to ask for an abatement; but it does not sound like the property is in compliance yet.  Ms. Taft stated she does not know what would constitute complete compliance.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if the Dillons have been working with Code Enforcement.  Ms. Taft advised the Dillons have been working with Code Enforcement; but the reason why the issue is before the Board is because if the fines are not abated, then the Dillons will not be able to go forward with what their main plan.  Commissioner Anderson stated he understands that, but to allow the abatement of fines for the Dillons would be outside of what he has asked the Board to work on in the past.

 

Assistant County Manager Mel Scott advised Ms. Taft is saying the Dillons have moved forward with coming into compliance, but the last part of the repair they need to do deals with the roof; the Dillons can either repair the roof on the second floor, or they can actually do what they had fully intended to do all along with this beachfront property, which is to add the third story; and the Dillons want to take the savings from the lien and move it into what make their plan work financially.  Commissioner Anderson inquired what guarantee does the Board have if it moves forward with the abatement, that the third floor would be completed.  Mr. Scott advised the Board could give the Dillons a reasonable amount of time; the minute the Dillons pull the permit for the roof replacement, the Code Enforcement goes away because it is an active construction permit; and that can be done in a week or two if the engineering plans are completed. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated part of the problem is that he does not know how the Board got to the process where it does not collect, or at least address at closing, the $12,000 lien if that was all that was recorded; and it is hard for him to believe that a title policy was issued on the property with an outstanding lien.  Commissioner Infantini stated it was a cash deal, so she does not think there needs to be a title search.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Dillons did a title search. Ms. Taft replied she does not know the answer to that; but it was a cash deal; and the Dillons did not have to go through the process of getting a mortgage.  Commissioner Fisher stated he can understand that, but it is hard to believe that on a piece of real estate, or cash deal, that the buyers would not get a title policy to verify there are no other liens on the property; and it is hard to believe that as a realtor, Ms. Taft would not suggest that.  Ms. Taft stated the Dillons were aware of the lien, so they would have had to have gone through that process.  Commissioner Fisher stated the Dillons were aware of the lien and realized they owed the County $12,000, but did not realize it was $32,000; and inquired when the Dillons realized it was $32,000.  Ms. Taft advised it was when the Dillons came to the County to do their due diligence; and that altered things for them substantially. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired on the issuance of the permit, if the Dillons do not finish the project, is there the potential that the permit can expire and they are back to having Code Enforcement issues again.  Mr. Scott replied yes, there is that potential.  Commissioner Nelson stated if the Board is going to consider waiving the fine, could the Board make it conditional upon the Certificate of Occupancy itself.  Mr. Scott replied yes, he believes the Board can do that.  Commissioner Nelson stated it is a little troubling that the Dillons did not do the search to identify and address the lien first because in this case, he is okay, but there may be others where peoples lives were put in danger or where the community has suffered for an extensive period of time; that is why there is Code Enforcement; and stated he would not want anyone to believe the Board always does this. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated that is his point; stated he thinks there was a price reduction on the property for doing that; and stated he thinks the title policy might owe the lien, and not the client, if they actually issued a title policy without satisfying the lien.  Ms. Taft noted the reduction in property price had nothing to do with the lien; but it was because it was a cash deal.  Commissioner Fisher stated the lien on the property became a conversation when it was time to buy the property; there must have been some kind of reduction on the price; the Dillons received a savings because  of the lien;  and he is trying to  figure out why the County should be giving away the money if there was actually a savings granted to the property owner, and the price was reduced in order for them to get that savings.  Ms. Taft advised the price was not granted to the person who was purchasing the property.  Commissioner Fisher inquired who it was granted to; with Ms. Taft responding the Dillons had an understanding that through the process, the fines would hopefully be reduced. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated when the County has a lien, does it state it is only a set sum; stated at some point it has to be recorded; if it is accruing daily, then that number is going to change; and inquired if the lien says $12,000 as of today, to be accruing at $700 per day until satisfied, or does is it just a lien for $12,000.  Attorney Knox advised he will have to check into the lien and see what it says.  Mr. Scott stated liens accrue, as that is the nature of a lien; and he would have to look at the paperwork to see what the daily amount is of the accrual.  He stated he has seen the Board in the past when a property is about to come into compliance as a function of the reduction of the lien, or a reduction in the lien, that the Board has in the past just recouped costs, which in this case are approximately $700 that have been incurred over the four to five years of dealing with the Code Enforcement case.  He stated he has also seen cases in which there is a health and safety issue that have endangered others; traditionally, with Code Enforcement instances, where it is a change of hands, and the new owner has cleaned up the property, it has been a practice of the Board to just recoup costs in those instances.  He stated he is just informing the Board that when it has had pending compliance, the recurred costs have been recouped.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired of the $700 that have been incurred on the property.  Mr. Scott advised there is a lot of costs that are incurred when Code Enforcement Officers go out to inspect a piece of property.  Commissioner Fisher stated he is curious to know if there was a title policy on the property and if the lien was collected.  Ms. Taft inquired if Commissioner Fisher is asking if money was received for the lien by the title company; with Commissioner Fisher responding affirmatively, at closing.  Ms. Taft stated the answer is no. 

 

Attorney Knox advised in answer to Commissioner Infantini’s question, it appears the standard lien form does have a provision for a payment of a certain amount per day; and in this case it is $100 per day, which accrues.  Ms. Taft stated it is at $12,000 and is accruing at $50 per day, but actually, it was reduced to $25 per day in February; stated that is where there was a conflict in the amount; and $32,550 is what the fines would be to date if it accrued at $50 per day. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she agrees with Commissioner Fisher in that she feels when paying with cash to buy a house on the ocean, if the Dillons did not spend money on title insurance, then they are taking the associated risks with it.  Ms. Taft noted the Dillons paid for title insurance.  Commissioner Infantini stated the title insurance company probably has an expensive title insurance policy it has given; and at this point, she is not inclined to waive the $32,000. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he is assuming the neighbors want the house fixed; and suggested the Board waive the lien on the condition that the Dillons finish the construction, contingent upon the Certificate of  Occupancy,  and  get the house out of the eyesore and safety hazard.  He inquired if Ms. Taft said the Dillons will stop all work on the house unless the lien is waived.  Ms. Taft replied if the lien is not waived, then the Dillons will go back to the drawing board to change all the plans they had to move forward, which will delay the project and change everything; and the Dillons would like to move forward as quickly as possible.  Commissioner Anderson stated he will defer to Commissioner Infantini, as the property is in her District.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he agrees with Commissioner Anderson; stated had the Dillons come to the Board in advance of the closing and had this discussion, he is sure the Board would have said it wanted to see the property cleaned up; and he is sure the Dillons were told that in the past the Board has, when the property was being brought into compliance, waived fees; but that decision cannot be taken out of the Board’s hands because there may be extenuating circumstances that causes the Board to look in a different way.  He stated he is still willing to waive the lien, but the message has to get out that people cannot count on that; and the bottom line is to get the house fixed and get it back on the market; but it needs to be known that it cannot be counted on all the time because not all the circumstances are the same.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated at a minimum the price is $12,000 less than it would have otherwise been, assuming no escalation clause; and if it is the house she is thinking of, it is not an eyesore. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated if there is a cash buyer, a title company does not really need the Board to keep moving forward; and the Board should not be making them stop.  He stated he would like to see the title company and the closing statement to see what obligation the title company has because he believes there is some exposure in the title company if they allowed the property to close and did not address the lien with the County. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to table the Citizen Request by Alicyn Taft for Ann and Denis Dillon – Abatement of Existing Lien and Accrued Fines to Date on Property located at 9265 Highway A1A, Melbourne Beach, Florida, to the November 19, 2009 Board meeting; and direct the applicant to bring the Board the closing statement and the title policy.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

William Riley stated he has a picture of his home leaving Bourbeau Park in west Cocoa; the Parks and Recreation Department hired a contractor to move his home; the contractor left the road with his home four or five times on Micco Road, which is only a 16-foot wide road; his home is only 14 feet wide; and when passing oncoming traffic, the contractor went off the road at 45 mph.  He stated as a result of the contractor going off the road while towing his home, the frame is bent, the trusses are broken, all the siding is torn on one side, and the dry wall is damaged on the inside; initially, staff denied they had contracted the contractor; under the Sunshine Law he obtained the receipts where staff paid the contractor; stated his problem is that staff did not get the contractor’s insurance information; and when he tried to do an accident report, the contractor refused to release his insurance information.  He noted staff has not once tried to help him obtain any information on the contractor; and he would like the Board to direct staff to work with him to file a claim against the contractor or through the County’s Risk Management.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated there have been some issues in moving Mr. Riley out of the Park in a timely manner; and the reason he was being asked to vacate the Park is because of renovations.  He stated in there was an offer in good faith to help pay $750 to move him off the property; and so the County paid for the move, but now Mr. Riley is asking the Board to be responsible for it.  He stated he does not agree with Mr. Riley’s request; stated he does not believe the Board has any obligation; and he would like staff to give Mr. Riley the contractor’s insurance information so he can file a claim; but he would not be inclined to have Risk Management or the Board get involved. 

 

Mr. Riley stated he does not know how a contractor can be hired under a purchase order and not get all of the relevant information such as driver’s license and insurance information.

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if Mr. Riley has contacted the mover; with Mr. Riley responding affirmatively.  Mr. Riley advised the contractor told him he would not divulge his insurance information. 

 

Don Lusk, Parks and Recreation Director, stated the contractor told him that he elected not to give insurance information to Mr. Riley; it is his understanding is that if Mr. Riley would give the claim information to the contractor, then he will submit his claim to his insurance company.  Commissioner Anderson stated the contractor is required to do that under the rules and regulations of the State of Florida.

 

Mr. Riley stated his second issue regards access to his property in Grant; stated over the years, the EEL Program has done nothing but try to block his access to his property; and he displayed pictures to the Board of the EEL Manager vandalizing his gate.  He stated EEL has sent the Sheriff’s Department to his property to have him arrested for trying to go onto his property; stated he has surveys that were done on the property that clearly state the road was used by the owner of the lot that his friend owns; it was well known that there was an access issue; and people have been accessing his property since 1977 through the road.  He stated he is proposing that there needs to be a designated parking area for the patrons who visit the park; right now, visitors are blocking the cul de sac, which is blocking his access into the property; there is an existing drainage easement for ingress and egress that has been there since the ditch was there; it was deeded to the Town of Grant Valkaria when they incorporated; but it is also landlocked from the cul de sac.  He stated what needs to happen is an easement from the cul de sac to connect to the easement that will allow the Town to access the ditch and properly maintain it; and it will also him to access his property.  He stated the biggest concern from EEL is that people will be crossing the sanctuary; but if people drove down the side of the ditch it would not disturb the sanctuary property; and he thinks that is the best solution.  He stated EEL wants him to sign a license agreement with stipulations such as he cannot invite his father to visit his property if he signs it.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she was under the impression the Board had an Agreement nine months ago with Mr. Riley allowing him to have access.  Scott Knox, County Attorney, noted that Agreement was prepared a long time ago; and staff offered to sit down with Mr. Riley and discuss whatever problems he might have had with it, but so far he has not responded to that request.  He stated staff has sent the agreement through the Department of Environmental Protection, which actually manages the property on behalf of the State of Florida; and stated DEP has approved the license agreement, which does give Mr. Riley access.  Mr. Riley stated the agreement is very restrictive; he cannot do anything on his own property; the agreement says he cannot invite his family and friends to his property unless they are in his vehicle with him; and he cannot conduct the agricultural business he has started on the property. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated inquired if Attorney Knox would be willing to meet with Mr. Riley to see what can be done with the agreement; with Attorney Knox responding affirmatively.  Mr. Riley stated he has been invited to meet with staff in the past, but he was not willing to sign the agreement at that time.  Commissioner Anderson stated everyone is trying to work with Mr. Riley to allow him access to his property.

 

Motion Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to direct the County Attorney to meet with Mr. Riley to draw up an agreement that is acceptable to all parties involved, allowing Mr. Riley access to his property.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to authorize the County Attorney’s Office to draft language amending Section 106-73(b)(6), of the Brevard County Code of Ordinances to allow the operation of golf carts on a section of Ron Beatty Boulevard within the Barefoot Bay Subdivision; and authorize advertisement of a public hearing to adopt such amendment.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:                                                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    MARY BOLIN, CHAIRMAN

                                                                                    BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                                    BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

      

          (S E A L)