MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

May 5, 2009

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 5, 2009 at 9:03 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, Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten, and County Attorney Scott Knox.  

 

 

The Invocation was given by Reverend Ron Meyr, Faith Viera Lutheran Church

 

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

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve the minutes of the November 5, 2008 Special Meeting, February 26, 2009 Workshop Meeting, and March 5, 2009 Zoning Meeting.

 

 

 

Frank Abbaleo of Human Resources stated he is asking the Board to recognize a group of citizens who have taken their time to attend and complete Brevard County Citizens Academy.  He stated the Citizens Academy is an eight-week interactive learning experience; it meets once a week for three and one-half hours; and there are three Saturday field trips.  He stated there is a morning session and an evening session; and the purpose is to offer all Brevard County residents the unique opportunity to learn how the many departments that fall under the County Manager’s Office operate, and to provide insight into how they function.  He advised the Citizens Academy also acts as a conduit to promote open lines of communication between County staff and the citizens they serve; and it provides information on the many services that the County offers its citizens.  He explained how representatives of departments provide overviews of the departments’ operations and responsibilities followed by a question and answer period; and advised in this session participants heard from 21 of the County departments.  He stated along with the three Saturday field trips, the structure offers over 75 hours of education on operation and function of County government; the first field trip was to the South Water Treatment Plant, the wetlands, and the landfill in Cocoa; the second trip was to Country Acres Children’s Home; and the third trip was to the County Jail, including the new Mental Health Facility.  He expressed appreciation to Carrie Cotter of the County Manager’s Office who keeps the program on track.  He advised six participants could not be present, Ty Gagnon, Judith Goldstein, Jane Heaps, Lori Helton, and Rob Sepesy.  He presented certificates to graduates Mary Bartorillo, Sylvia Bowman, William Bowman, Clem Bluckley, Sara Ann Conkling, Norma Cootes, Sal Farino,  Mary Glaze, Oliver Glaze, Richard Glynn, Dawn Johnson,

Kimberly Koplar, Keith Lamb, Brian Laughlin, Allie Macom, Carol McDonald, Jack Miller, Pamela Paquette, Zacharias Petrou, Ann Piepenbrink, David Pryor, Charles Puckett, Linda Shultz, Pamela Sotelo, Harry Stapor, Claudia Turner, and Jerry Sicinski.

 

Mr. Abbaleo advised anyone interested in attending the Citizens Academy can contact the County Manager’s Office.  Ms. Cotter advised the telephone number is 633-2001, or they can fill out the application online on the County’s website.  She noted the Fall session begins September 9, 2009. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt Resolution recognizing the 12^th Annual Caribbean Jamboree on May 23 and 24, 2009 at Palm Bay Regional Park.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Anderson read aloud a resolution recognizing Motorcycle Awareness Month.

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to adopt Resolution recognizing May 2009 as Motorcycle Awareness Month and American Bikers Aiming Toward Education, Inc.   (ABATE of Florida, Inc.)   Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Dave Carroll, President of the Independence Chapter of ABATE, stated his organization has a total membership in the State of Florida of 7,000 members, which is approximately 15 percent of the entire State population in motorcyclists.  He noted the Independence Chapter is the largest in the State with slightly over 900 members; and the Chapter constantly strives to educate the public and fellow motorcyclists about motorcycle safety and awareness.  He expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution on behalf of all the motorcyclists in the County.

 

 

Commissioner Anderson read aloud a resolution proclaiming May 17 through 23, 2009 as Emergency Medical Services Week. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to adopt Resolution proclaiming May 17 through 23, 2009 as Emergency Medical Services Week, with this year’s theme, “EMS: A Proud Partner in Your Community”, and encouraged the people of Brevard County to observe the week with appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

Chairman Nelson read aloud a resolution proclaiming May 2009 as Hurricane Awareness Preparation Month. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to adopt Resolution proclaiming May 2009 as Hurricane Awareness Preparation Month, and May 24 through 30, 2009 as Hurricane Awareness Week in Brevard County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Bob Lay, Emergency Management Director, stated with him today is Dave Sharpe from the National Weather Service; the County’s relationship with the National Weather Service is extremely important; and the County is fortunate to have the National Weather Services as part of its team.  He stated there are several things Emergency Management is trying to do in order to get information out; a link has been added to the Emergency Management website, which is a Twitter link; and that serves as a way to get information to the citizens.  He noted there will be a hurricane exercise on June 2, 2009 for the Board at the Emergency Operations Center; and he would also like to encourage all the municipalities to participate as well.

 

Dave Sharpe stated the folks at the National Weather Service feel very proud and privileged to have such a strong working relationship with the Brevard County Emergency Management Office.  He stated everyone remembers the lessons that were learned during the 2004 hurricane season; some people are still feeling the effects from that season; but even last year taught that even the weakest tropical storms can have devastating effects with flooding; and the National Weather Service’s messages is a message of service and preparedness. 

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson read aloud a resolution proclaiming National Safe Boating Week.

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to adopt Resolution proclaiming May 16 through 22, 2009 as National Safe Boating Week and urged all those who “Wear it!” Wear life jackets, learn more about safe boating practices, and always act responsibly while on the water.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Ernie Brown, Natural Resources Management Director, introduced members of the U.S. Coast Guard Station Port Canaveral, U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary Division IV, U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary Flotilla 46, Cocoa Beach Sail and Power Squadron, U.S. Navy Sea Cadets, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, and the Agriculture and Marine Unit of the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office.  He stated the organizations represent hundreds of volunteers and paid law enforcement officer to get out during the week to cover the waterways in Brevard County to ensure there is a strong presence for promoting National Safe Boating Week.   

 

Lucy Hixenbaugh advised there will be a Junior Safe Boating Course offered June 1 through 3, 2009; on May 20, 2009 there will be a “Preparing your Boat for Hurricanes” seminar at Kaiser University in Melbourne at 7:00 p.m.; and she would like to encourage everyone in the community to participate in the seminar. 

Dr. Olga Emgusholv advised the swine flue is being called H1N1 influenza; there are approximately 700 suspected cases of the flu in the United States currently; approximately 700 schools in the country are closed in 33 states as of today; Florida has five confirmed cases of the flu; and Florida is now considered an affected state.  She stated so far there have been no probable or suspected cases in Brevard County; however, the Health Department is no longer looking for every single case; if someone comes in and has influenza-like symptoms, physicians are being told to treat those people as if they have the flu; the Health Department is trying to quickly prevent outbreaks; and the Health Department will be testing places such as schools and prisons.  She stated since the H1N1 virus has been declared a public health emergency, it helps free-up certain things to move the stock-pile of medicine around if needed; currently, area pharmacies are doing very well with supplies; and so that is not a problem.  She stated the best report on swine flu is from the MMDR, which is the Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report from the Centers for Disease Control; the outbreak was analyzed at a school in New York; and it looks like swine flu might not be any more virulent, deadly, or dangerous than seasonal influenza.  She stated she has met with the School Board and discussed whether schools would have to be closed if a student has swine flu; and the Health Department is waiting on more guidance from the State and the CDC; but since there are no probables in Brevard County, she does not foresee that happening in the next couple of days.  She stated if the swine flu continues to not have any probables in Brevard County, and if it continues to not be more dangerous than seasonal flu, schools may not need to be closed; and she is cautiously optimistic that that will happen in Brevard County.  She noted that although there has been one death from swine flu in the United States, last year there were 8 pediatric deaths from seasonal influenza; and there is still seasonal influenza circulating.  She stated of the 28 tests sent to the State for testing from Brevard County, only one was positive for seasonal influenza; the rest were negative for any flu virus; and that is good news.  She reminded everyone that influenza spreads through droplets; if someone is sick, they need to stay home; people need to wash their hands frequently; and because the virus lives on surfaces, people do not want to touch their nose, mouth, or eyes. 

 

Bob Lay, Emergency Management Director, stated advised SCGTV Director Kimberly Prosser works on the communications side with the Health Department; and the different agencies have been working well together talking several times a day. 

 

 

Commissioner Fisher introduced Matt Susin who is a teacher at Space Coast High School and sponsors  a  club  that  does  community  problem  solving;  as  one  of  their last projects for the school year, the students will address the Board; and the club has been solving problems all year.  He advised one student, Ricky Loose, was instrumental in his campaign when he was running for Commissioner; and he helped by waving signs on the streets. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated Mr. Susin and his class were also instrumental in assisting with the FPL Plant issue in Port St. John; the students did a lot of background work and a lot of presentations; the awareness of that expedited the right solution, which is to replace the plant; and it shows what can happen when folks get involved.

Matt Susin expressed appreciation to the Board for the opportunity to speak today.  He advised the way the club started was that Chairman Scarborough came to his classroom and spoke; the class asked Chairman Scarborough about the drainage in Port St. John; this was four years ago; and the class said it would like to do something about it.  He stated the class then started the community problem solving, which is a district initiative in which kids can get involved from the high school in district issues as far as helping the community; the club started with 32 kids the first year; and now the club has over 100 kids participating with 13 different projects.  He stated the group of kids is amazing; this year, the club had the largest mock election ever in Brevard County; there were 1,300 students that used the voter registration drive; they registered the largest amount of students ever in Brevard County at a high school registration drive; and they also wrote the most letters by any high school to the legislators over the education issue.  He noted there is also a Red Hands Project in which the kids went out and got enough red hands for awareness; the kids said they wanted to spread the entire Washington Memorial pool with hands; it was a world wide event; and the kids got enough hands to spread the entire Washington Memorial pool, which is over 2,000 feet long. 

 

Jenna Rodke, President of the Community Problem Solving Club, stated this year the Club has 127 registered members with a total of 13 projects that most of the members are in charge of; three of the projects have been completed this year; and those projects are Save Our Schools, Project Vote, and the Red Hands Project.  She stated next year the Club plans on completing the other ten projects; and the members will explain each of the projects to the Board and what it takes for the Club to organize and complete them.  She stated her job is to organize the projects and make sure everything goes smoothly.

 

Grey Dodge stated one project this year was Save Our Schools; it was a campaign to educate the students and community about the education budget this year; and a website was started called www.saveyourschools.net, which has explanations on how to write an email or letter to the legislature, along with facts on how the budget will affect them.  He stated the Club created a mail merge system whereby one person could write one letter, and then merge it into 160 letters and mail them to every legislator in the capitol building; and the web link was sent to every student government member in the entire State.  He advised the Club held two major letter writing nights at the Port St. John library and the Space Coast High School library, in which over 200 people wrote letters which turned into over 20,000 letters and were delivered to the capitol; the students received numerous letters back from the legislators in response; and it was the largest letter writing campaign by a school in Florida history. 

 

Ricky Loose stated the Club members from the Model Student Senate, with the help of Brevard County Supervisor of Elections, registered 167 students for the 2008 General Election; stated 229 students were pre-registered for the 2010 Election; and the Club held a school-wide mock election with actual voting booths where 1,300 students from Grades Nine through 12 voted on candidates.  He advised it was the largest mock election in Brevard County history, and the largest voter registration drive at a school in Brevard County history. 

 

Jesse Hannon stated students decided to join the worldwide effort by joining Red Hands Day Project out of Geneva, Switzerland, in protesting children soldiers in Africa.  She stated the hands were sent to the United Nations building on February 12, 2009 and put on display; the date marked the anniversary of legislation the United Nations passed making children soldiers illegal; and that is a law that was never enforced.  She advised the students went into the community, schools, and community groups where citizens put their hands in Red Paint and placed them on paper; the hands were put on a 3,000-foot roll of paper that was donated by the Florida TODAY; it was torn apart and bonded together with laminate; and the students had more hands than any other group in the world and enough to stretch the Washington Monument pool.

 

Robert Legge stated he worked on the Power Plant Project; last year the students did some research on power plants and discovered a link between power plants and diseases in the schools; and in its second year the students plan to look into the health effects of the four power plants that surround Space Coast High School.  He stated through the studies that were released last year, along with the internal information Space Coast High School has received, the students have established a link to the slow learning disabilities, upper respiratory disease, absences, and rare forms of cancer; and this year, the students plan on putting plexi-glass out in key areas to collect daily data on the pollution, along with Asthma diaries from students to correlate consistency with power plant outputs.

 

Mr. Susin advised the Orlando Utilities Commission has a coal fired power plant off of S.R. 528, which burned 278 tons of mercury into the air last year; Port St. John is within that zone; and that is what the kids were focusing on.

 

Sierra Dupke stated she and Grey Dodge are in charge of the Hurricane Awareness Project; the Club members have established zones within Port St. John which will be used to facilitate information to citizens in those zones and EMS organizations after a storm.  She advised through the use of a website and cell phones, parent zone-leaders who have waited out the storm, or returned early, will check on pre-registered elderly and take pictures of peoples’ houses who will not be able to return as early but who are concerned about their homes; and the leaders will also contact specific relief organizations if certain roads are closed, power lines down, or people needing medical attention.  Grey Dodge stated it is a trial program for Port St. John to see how effective it can become; hopefully, if it is successful, it will be implemented in other counties and cities across the State.

 

Stephanie Long stated her project is the Clifton Schoolhouse; students are assisting Brevard Heritage in repairing and restoring the Clifton Schoolhouse that was found on Merritt Island and dates back to the 1800’s; and the students want to help rebuild it and be the first students to be taught in it since it closed in the early 1900’s. 

 

Taylor Lucier stated her project is the Sister School Project.  She advised the United Nations has formed a group to build schoolhouses for Darfur Refugee camps, known as Sister Schools Project; stated five schools in the United States will be linked up with five refugee camps in Darfur which are being sponsored by five NBA stars; and the U.S. schools will talk to the camps via Internet and establish friendships with the refugee students.  She stated Space Coast High School students are sending art supplies to Africa where the refugees will draw pictures and tell their stories; the pictures and stories will then be shipped back to the U.S. and will be framed and displayed in governmental buildings throughout the State; after they have been viewed, they will be auctioned off; and the money raised will go to help the refugees build their schools.

 

Jamie Partin stated her project is the Recycle Project.  She noted the students, with help from their parents, will go door to door in the community and ask who wants a recycle bin; Waste Management has agreed to take the list of new applicants and deliver the bins to them; then last year’s total recycling will be compared to numbers after the deliveries are made to show the increase in recycling in Port St. John.

 

Nathan Bostel stated his project is the Sewage Project.  He advised there are reports that the sewage treatment facility in Port St. John is out of date and may be causing a health concern; students will request a tour, and then perform water quality tests in the surrounding canals; and if a problem is found, they will present them to Water Management and make recommendations to fix the problem.

 

Brenda Hillebrandt stated her project is the Outdoor Classroom.  She stated the students decided an outdoor classroom would benefit the high school and the elementary school located adjacent to it; stated students split logs donated by Waste Management and turned them into seats which sit on concrete posts donated from Cemex Cement Company; and they were placed in an amphitheatre-style stadium which holds over 50 students.  She stated Home Depot has agreed to donate supplies for bird houses, bat houses, reptile habitats, and other outdoor science activities; the Biology Honors and AP students will use the facility on the weekends to bring over elementary school students who will learn about birds and take a bird feeder home; and the outdoor classroom is one of the greatest achievements of the Community Problem Solving Club.

 

Matt Susin expressed appreciation to the Board for taking the time to listen to the students explain the different projects.

 

 

 

Commissioner Anderson expressed appreciation to everyone who supported his community picnic, especially the Parks and Recreation staff members Diego Salazar and Jimmy Rodella.  He advised that today is the anniversary of Alan Shepard going into space.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he would like to pull Item III.A.10., Authorization, Re:  Municipal Review of Local Option Gas Tax Percentage Allocations, from the Consent Agenda.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to adopt Resolution releasing the Contract dated October 14, 2008 with The Viera Company for Wyndham Drive Extension.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to waive the requirement of Code Section 62-2956(c) for paved access constructed to County standards, and the requirement of Section 62-102(b)(2) that a parcel must abut a public right-of-way to be issued a building permit.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to execute Binding Development Plan Agreement with Sawgrass Land Development Company for property located on the north side of Pineda Causeway, approximately 1.10 miles west of Wickham Road.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to execute Binding Development Plan Agreement with Jacob Aaron Corporation, BDM Financial Corporation, and Melzer, Et Al for property located on both sides of Port St. John Parkway, between I-95 and Grissom Parkway.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to execute Binding Development Plan Agreement with Harley I. Gutin for property located on the east side of U.S.1, approximately 0.31 mile south of Broadway Boulevard.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to waive the Phase I Environmental Assessments and executed Contract for Sale and Purchase with Wojac, Inc. for the Barnes Boulevard Widening Project.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.    

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to approve Agreements with the City of West Melbourne and the City of Cocoa Beach for maintenance and repair of their existing and future traffic signals.    Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to approve Locally Funded Agreement (LFA), the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), and Resolution with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for construction of the Realignment of Nasa Boulevard/Ellis Road/Wickham Road.     Motion carried and ordered unanimously.    

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to adopt Authorizing Resolution, and approve Application and Standard Assurances for submittal to the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) for $1,033,162 in CTD Funds; and authorize the Chairman to sign the Grant Agreement and any other Amendments or Addendums, contingent upon approval by the County Attorney and Risk Management.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to approve Tourism Capital  Facilities  matching  grant  in  the amount  of  $200,000 to  the Valiant Air Command for construction of a new hangar to house World War I, II, and Korean War airplanes; approve required budget amendments; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to approve the Special Magistrate’s recommendation to reduce the accrued fine for Case No. 04-2236 from $2,850 to the reduced sum of $1,000 for 3665 W. New Haven Avenue, Melbourne; and direct staff to prepare and execute release and satisfaction of lien upon receipt of payment.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to approve the cost of advertising for, and the scheduling of, an attorney-client private session on May 14, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the Board concludes its workshop, pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Florida Statute, in the case of Brevard County v. RKT Constructors, Inc., et al, Case No. 05-2007-CA-012251-XXXX-XX, for the purpose of discussing settlement negotiations or strategy related to litigation.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to appoint Marlene Adams, Robert Ludwiczak, Matthew Nye, Tommy Redmond, James Rosasco, and Sue Schmitt, to the Charter Review Commission; Katherine Niebuhr to the Community Action Board with term expiring December 31, 2009; Marian Dionne, and Hal Rose to the West Melbourne Public Library Board with terms expiring December 31, 2009; and reappointed Ann Downing to the Historical Commission with term expiring December 31, 2009.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to authorize the use of $30,000 of State Forfeiture Funds for the donations in accordance with Florida Statute 932.7055(5)(c)3; and authorize any necessary budget amendments.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he is not concerned about the item in its concept; but one thing he is concerned about is the formula that is used is a bit unfair to the unincorporated area; and the reason is because all the cities are subtracted out and divided up, so it is treated as anything that is not in a city is counted together, which adds up to approximately 210,000.  He stated the problem is that the dollars are used inside cities; the County uses its money inside cities; it becomes inherently unfair to the unincorporated area because cities do not typically contribute outside the city limits; and he cannot think of any circumstances where that has happened, nor would he expect it to.  He stated when the County throws money into good projects such as Palm Bay Road using these dollars, it means the unincorporated area is benefitting because it only gets that amount of money based on the population of the unincorporated area; and theoretically, it should only be used in the unincorporated area, but it is not, as it is used inside the cities.  He stated what the Board should do is re-look at the formula itself and come up with a way that is a little more equitable to what is almost the whole County’s population to figure out a better and fairer formula; stated he does not know what the timing is; he knows the Board does the allocation each year; and the question is when is the Board able to actually look at the formula itself. 

 

John Denninghoff, Public Works Director, stated the existing Interlocal Agreement that is in place for the Local Option Gas Tax, which is a total of six cents on the gallon, is in place until 2036, which is when the Bonds that have currently been issued, will be completed as far as the debt service.  Chairman Nelson stated that is on the debt service side; and it does not necessarily impact city portions.  Mr. Denninghoff stated that is correct, but what staff had to do was get the Interlocal Agreement in place for the bond duration; and staff took the steps that were necessary to do that with the Cities of Palm Bay, Melbourne, and Titusville.  Chairman Nelson stated he knows the County added Grant-Valkaria because it was not a city, then it became a city; and therefore, the Interlocal Agreement had to be changed.  He inquired if there is an opportunity to look at the Interlocal Agreement in that regard in terms of changing it.  Mr. Denninghoff replied he does not think the Board has an opportunity to do that; but that would be a legal question for County Attorney Scott Knox.  Chairman Nelson inquired if the Board could get a report back on when the next opportunity would be to revise or re-look at the formula.  Attorney Knox advised he will check that for the Chairman, but he thinks it may be statutory.  Chairman Nelson stated he would like to get a report because he would hate to think that the Board has done that to the unincorporated area for the next 20 years.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the bond is approved based on the Interlocal Agreement in place.  Mr. Denninghoff replied in effect, that is what occurred; there is a formula for distributing the Local Option Gas Tax that exists in the Statute; also within the Statute is the option to alter that formula based on an Interlocal Agreement,  which can be reached between the County and a sufficient number of cities to represent at least 50 percent of the incorporated residents within the County; and so not all the cities have to sign to be onboard.  He advised when staff was issuing the Bonds in 2007 the question arose of if there had to be an Interlocal Agreement in place for the entire duration of the Bond repayment period; and the bonding process indicated it wanted the County to have that.  He stated ironically, the Statutory formula would have resulted in the County having more funds than the Interlocal Agreement would have; the County actually had increased stability to pay the Bond Debt Service if there was no Interlocal Agreement; and it was a strange deal, but they wanted to make sure there was not going to be any other Interlocal Agreement that would potentially reduce further the County’s ability to be able to pay the debt service; and so the Interlocal Agreement had to be in place.

 

Chairman Nelson stated he would like the County Attorney’s Office and Public Works to look at when and how the Board can rectify the Interlocal Agreement because he does not think it is fair; he does not think that was the intent; but he does not think anyone considered the fact that the Board does County roads in cities. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, in accordance with the Interlocal Agreement, reviewed the Local Option Gas Tax percentage allocations, and directed the Clerk to the Board Office to send copies to each municipality for review; and direct the County Attorney to prepare a report on when is the next opportunity for the Board to rectify the Interlocal Agreement regarding the Local Option Gas Tax Percentage Allocations.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

The Board recessed at 10:26 a.m. and reconvened at 10:47 a.m.

 

 

Chairman Nelson called for the public hearing to consider a resolution adopting the Second Quarter Supplemental Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-2009.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated previously for 2008-2009, the approved budget was $1.117 million; now the budget is $1.175 million; and inquired how the prior budget was cut if all the Board is doing now is adding back to it another $44 million.  She stated the Board has been talking about budget cuts for next year with the numbers being approximately $40 million; and here is $40 million alone, so if she does not spend it this year, can she have it for next year.

 

Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten stated the majority of the dollars are associated with projects that were in progress last year and did not get finished; if the Board looks at Facilities, most of those dollars are associated with those projects that were being completed and did not get completed last year; the cuts were real last year and will be real this year; and as the Board knows, staff begins developing the Budget and present a proposal for the Board in July with the fiscal year-end in September.  He stated there are a lot of projections associated with presenting the  Board that budget  in July; as the  books  get closed for  the previous fiscal year, the budget has to be amended to reflect the final disposition of the previous year’s budget; and generally, most of the items are either project specific or grant funding that has recently been received.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated when looking at the Facilities budget for instance, there is a portion there for Brevard County Government Center North painting and weatherproofing at $92,000; and inquired how much it was going to cost originally.  She stated she is not comfortable moving forward because she tried to track down some of the costs and she could not guarantee that she would have any level of assurance that the Board was staying in budget with those specific projects; one project was for $1.3 million total; and it cannot be allocated between how much was already spent from one project to another project to know the Board is staying within budget from the original amount set out.

 

Mr. Whitten stated the County budget runs on a fiscal year; for example, for the weather stripping for the Titusville Courthouse, the project amount has not changed; the fiscal year ended, and so those books had to be closed; the project amount is the same; and the $200,000 that was associated with that project did not get spent, and the remainder of that to finish the project is being rolled over into the next fiscal year, which is consistent.  He stated he can give the Board a copy of the Alachua County mid-year budget supplemental, and it is exactly the same process the Board looks at; if the Board looks at the process all local governments undertake to amend their budget, it is the same; these are not new dollars; they are the same dollars that were allocated last fiscal year that went unspent, but the project was also not completed; and to properly account for those dollars and to finish up the projects, staff is simply reallocating those dollars in the current fiscal year. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she cannot approve a lot of the items; she tried to find out some information on some of the items; but some of it looks like the Board is just spending more money than it budgeted.  She stated the Board cannot keep looking forward as if it is going earn $3 million when it turns out to be only $2.7 million; and rather than coming to the Board after staff has already overspent, someone needs to start doing cuts just like the County is doing and the Clerk of Courts Office.  She stated Housing and Human Services is asking for another $2.6 million when the Board has not even held the Housing Budget Workshop; and she does not know that the money is being spent properly as it is to be setting aside and forwarding another $2.6 million.

 

Mr. Whitten stated it is not an expenditure of additional funds or an overspending of the current year budget, it is an amendment of the budget; the Housing funds are recognition of the grant receipts; the Board is just ratifying a previous action of the Board; the only way to recognize and receive those grant funds that come into the budget during the current fiscal year is through this amendment process; and the $2.6 million for housing is just a receipt of those grant funds.  He stated the Board is not overspending; and the current fiscal year is actually reconciled at the end of the fiscal year.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he has gone through a lot of the items and he remembers six years ago on the Palm Bay City Council he had a hard time researching what was budgeted and what  was being  carried forward.   He  stated over time,  a public  official will get a grasp on those issues and realize this process is State mandated.  He inquired if any of the projects that were previously budgeted are over budget.  Mr. Whitten responded he does not believe any of the projects are over budget; if a project is over budget it is a change order request that comes to the Board; he also does not believe that any of the projects are new projects; and staff has not added on to this fiscal year budget for new projects or new initiatives.  He stated staff is simply saying there were dollars leftover from last fiscal year that were associated with those projects, and the Board has to recognize those dollars on the books to complete those projects; if the Board does not want to recognize those dollars then it cannot do those projects. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he thinks the confusion is that in July the Board starts putting together the budget for October 1^st; it is projected that certain projects will be finished; and then not all of those projects get finished, then those dollars were not spent; and when the dollars were not spent, it has to be carried over and they have to be accounted for.  He inquired if that is what the Board is doing; with Mr. Whitten responding affirmatively.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated with Housing and Human Services, the total actual budget was $22,675,000; the 2009 adopted budget is $27,765,000; and now it is being increased even more.  She stated she does not know how that number increased by $5 million, but now the Board is increasing it more.  Mr. Whitten stated the Housing and Human Services Budget on page 19 of the Board’s package, is currently $29,866,439 million; there is $2.7 million in amendments; a supplement was passed in December for Drug Court, which was $234,000; the biggest supplement was to recognize the balance forward for the SHIP Program and to allocate for the First-Time Homebuyers Program; and so those dollars were in last year’s budget but were anticipated to be spent.  He stated those dollars were not spent, and so staff is amending this fiscal year budget; and technically it could be considered an increase in the budget, but they are recycled dollars for existing programs.  Commissioner Infantini stated if the dollars were not spent in 2008, the actual numbers that she has that were spent is $22,675,000; and now the budget is up to $32,554,000.  She stated the Board needs to live within the budget and if Housing and Human services did not spend some of the money last year, it probably will not be all spent this year.  She stated the Board is raising its budget by $44 million, yet she is being asked to cut $45 million off of next year’s budget.

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if Commissioner Infantini does not want the Board to take the $10 million from the State for the Pineda Causeway.  He noted $10 million of the budget is a grant for the Pineda Causeway that is being transferred into the account so that is a grant account and is new money that is associated with the grant and is not overspending.  Commissioner Infantini stated she does want to do that; but she does not want to spend an additional $44 million.  Chairman Nelson stated the $10 million is part of the $44 million.  Commissioner Infantini stated she understands that; stated she did not say to get rid of the entire thing, she said there are parts of it that do not belong; and she is saying a lot of it does not need to be transferred at this time.  Commissioner Fisher stated with Housing and Human Services there is $2.7 million that was not spent; even if it were to be spent today, the Board still has to account for it in some type of amendment because it was not spent in that calendar year.  Mr. Whitten stated Commissioner Fisher just did a good job in explaining it; it is dollars  that  were anticipated to be spent last  year that did not get spent; and so they are simply being carried forward in anticipation of being spent this year.  He stated in lieu of carrying forward those dollars the Board could not recognize those dollars and send them back.  He noted the Board has three to five years to spend the SHIP dollars, so there is an anticipation that when the Board gets those dollars in, the projects may take multiple fiscal years.  Commissioner Infantini stated when the Board gets ready to spend it, then it will transfer, but right now the Board keeps transferring money over.  Commissioner Anderson noted the Board is under Legislative obligation to recognize those funds; and it cannot not recognize them. 

 

Mr. Whitten provided the Board with a copy of Chapter 129.  He stated Chapter 129 talks about the County’s annual budget; page six talks about the amendment process and the amendment cycle; staff is following the statutory language; and he is assuming the Board will see some language that says “may” and not “should”; but he does not think it is a good idea to go an entire fiscal year without amending and properly accounting for a billion dollar budget.  He stated staff chooses to bring budget supplementals to the Board three times per year so there is proper accounting of the dollars.  He advised Volusia County does its amendments two times per year, and it is changing that to four times per year; Seminole County does a mid-year and end of year amendment; Broward County does amendments three times per year; and Lake County does amendments two times per year.  He noted it is normal for Counties to periodically amend their budgets to reflect current expectations and current plans for disposition of expenditures. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the FY 2008-2009 Second Quarter Supplemental Budget; adopt Resolution No. 09-096; and approve budget changes and actions as necessary to implement the adopted changes.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay. 

 

 

Scott Ellis, Clerk of Courts, stated his office has prepared a financial report highlighting to the Board how much money is currently being spent from the County’s General Fund to the Community Redevelopment Areas (CRAs); his office also has a number of issues with the City of Cocoa as far as how closely interwoven they are between the CRA and the City; and the Board will find in the report that he is concerned when the City and CRA began buying things from each other.  He stated he feels the appraisal process was not quite proper and beyond that, they are supposed to be two separate entities and they should not be purchasing property from each other.  He stated he has attached legal opinions from County Attorney Scott Knox on what the Boards options may be with the CRAs; but primarily what he has submitted to the Board is a financial report more than anything else. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he knows some of the cities have allocated the projected funds towards projects such as improvements that have been done or towards improvements that may be done in the future; and inquired if Mr. Ellis were to go along with his recommendation, how would he fairly do that to those cities that may have made the commitment.  Mr. Ellis stated

he is not sure about the recommendation; the issue is that if the cities have gone into long-term debt, they are going to have to pay off that debt.  He stated one problem is that this issue went before the Florida Supreme Court last year; initially, the Florida Supreme Court was going to stop redevelopment agencies from issuing bonded debt because they are primarily pledging property taxes without referendum; however, there are number of them that issued debt; and this issue was dealt with 15 years ago with Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency (MIRA), which was bonding money; and in that case, it can only be reduced as low as the debt service.  He stated for example, if he is a CRA bringing in $300,000 per year and has $200,000 per year in debt service, debt service cannot be reduced with an action of the Board; however, if the economy lowers the value of that tax incremental district down to a point that the increment does not cover the debt that they borrowed, they are going to have to use their city general fund to make that payment; that is the danger of issuing bonds against an incremental taxing district; and if the value falls, the revenue falls.  He advised there has been dramatic drops on prices of properties; there is no telling what the tax incremental will be when the Property Appraiser finally finishes the tax rolls over the next couple of years on the properties within the districts; that mainly applies to newer districts; and obviously if it is the City of Cocoa or Melbourne that is 20 years old, there is an increment for good.  He stated he is very concerned over the newer districts formed, especially during the housing bubble, as they were borrowing money that may not be there in two to three years. 

 

Marcus Herman, representing the Merritt Island Redevelopment District (MIRA), stated he is a life-long resident of Merritt Island and owns two businesses in Merritt Island called Triangle Auto; he is also a MIRA Board member and Chairman of the MIRA Beautification Committee; and he has been a part of MIRA for the better part of 10 years.  He stated although there are many things he could talk about with the advantages of having MIRA, he would like to specifically talk about some fiscal value; one project that MIRA started was called the Commercial Improvement Façade Program; it is a program where independent businessmen come before the Board to ask for grant money at a matching rate of 50/50; and they are reinvesting in their business.  He stated in the last year and a half, MIRA has given out approximately $250,000, which is a lot of money, but the return on the investment has been close to $3 million; and that is the amount of money the business owners have spent in their businesses in the community.  He advised on top of that, the vast majority of people have used contractors in the area; in essence, MIRA is its own stimulus package; it is a win/win situation; and in business, he recognizes that when times get tough cuts have to be made; but what should not be cut are the projects, employees, or equipment, that does the most good for what there is.  He stated another aspect is currently MIRA has a landscape plan for S.R. 3; MIRA has finally been able to get the project going; the MIRA Board instructed staff to see if there was any funding outside MIRA that it could get; it is a half-million dollar project; and MIRA was able to receive a $300,000 grant from the State of Florida, which creates great value in what MIRA is doing.  He noted the MIRA Board is made up of people from the Merritt Island area and that know the community; all MIRA Board members have been business and homeowners who know what can help the area.  He stated he hopes the Board of County Commissioners think about the value of the CRAs, specifically MIRA, when considering any form of cut; and it would not be beneficial to anyone to eliminate the program all together.

 

Betty Moore stated she represents the Eau Gallie CRA, which is new; and consequently, it is important for the CRA to keep its funding.  She stated the things the Eau Gallie CRA has accomplished have benefitted all the citizens of Melbourne and the beachside; there is the pier, the new Eau Gallie Square; and the Square is drawing in many people to help the businesses.  She asked the Board to think long and hard before it cuts the funding for the Eau Gallie CRA, as it really needs the Board’s support.

 

Sue Nisbet stated the area that MIRA encompasses was the downtown of Merritt Island; it was the first subdivision on Merritt Island; it is an area that has needed attention for years; and the fact that the County Commission created MIRA almost 30 years ago has had a major affect on the community.  She stated she owns Nisbet Realty on Merritt Island and has been in the real estate business for 32 years, so she also has an idea of what the values are and what Mr. Ellis is talking about.  She stated she would like to quote a letter sent to MIRA with the Board’s Agenda and the conclusions of paragraph one from Mr. Ellis’s letter, and it is exactly why she thinks the Board should consider allowing MIRA to continue.  She read, “Traditionally, during the first five to 10 year’s of a CRA’s 30-year lifespan, funding for improvement projects is limited but increases as the positive affects of redevelopment are realized”.  She advised that is exactly what is being done right now in MIRA; MIRA has some properties it is trying to acquire, and it will ask the Executive Director if MIRA has the money; and MIRA has been acquiring money, but it has some wonderful projects.  She stated most of that money is committed; the two new acquiring projects MIRA would like to take over are Blue Cove, which is the entry way onto Merritt Island that has been commercial fishing; and now it will be a welcoming business and not the high-rise condos that are directly behind it.  She noted MIRA is also looking at a piece of property that was environmentally endangered that could turn into a project MIRA could use, which would be a watershed for a lot of the property along the S.R. 520 corridor, which would bring in new businesses that would help keep MIRA alive, and it would be parks and recreation; and so there is a lot of interweaving among the county agencies to help to do things; but MIRA will be the spearhead with the Board’s help.  She stated if the Board chooses to take over MIRA, it may find that it already has a lot on its plate; but the volunteers are working to make a difference on Merritt Island, and they would like to continue to do that.

 

David Cardwell stated he represents several cities in Brevard County including Titusville, Cocoa, Rockledge, Melbourne, Palm Shores and Satellite Beach; he also serves as the general counsel to the Florida Redevelopment Association; and he would like to give the Board some statewide perspective.  He advised there are more than 150 CRAs in the State of Florida; the Community Redevelopment Agencies has been one of the most successful programs the State has had in the area, directing resources, and redeveloping the cities.  He stated the Florida League of Cities and the Florida Association of Counties had several years of working through the Redevelopment Act and making some changes to it to try to accommodate the desires of the cities as well as the concerns of the counties; and this year there were no CRA bills in the Legislature.  He stated another thing the FRA has commissioned is a study to be done by FIU of a cross-section of CRA’s throughout the State to analyze their activities and the use of their tax increment funds and the return, or leverage, they have with that money; that study should be available in a preliminary form by the annual conference in October; and the study is expected to be final by the end of the year.  He stated there have been several audits done by the Auditor General of CRA’s throughout the State at the request of members of the Legislature; and those reports have been extremely helpful not only to the CRA’s that have received them, but also to the cities and the counties to look at practices that were either working or not working.  He stated there has been a great deal going on statewide; what the FRA tries to do at the State level is take a long-range perspective and look at if the programs work and recognizing that redevelopment does not occur overnight; while it has an economic development component, economic development may be finding a site, building a factor, and moving on; but redevelopment is more of establishing a platform.  He stated if the Board has some concerns about its CRA’s he would urge it to establish a dialogue with the different CRA’s in the County; CRA’s work when there is a consensus in the community to do something and when all the various affected local governments work together and talk to one another; and he would encourage to Board continue with the CRA’s on a longer term basis.  He stated when redevelopment is successful everyone benefits, not only a city or residents, but also the County; and that has been recognized by the Legislature and the Courts.

 

Chairman Nelson stated one of Mr. Ellis’ issues that he raised is the wisdom of a decision that was made by one of the CRA’s to buy land from itself; it may be legal; but the question rises as to the wisdom of that; and inquired how the County Commission should deal with those kinds of issues.  Mr. Cardwell replied he is not familiar with all the details of that particular incident; but on a general basis there are numerous conveyances from cities or counties to their CRAs throughout the State; and they are done for a variety of different reasons; and one reason is so the the CRA has more control over the property.  He stated one of the historical functions of CRAs was to assemble property; if there is public property that is not needed for the city or the county, but can be part of an assembled site, very often that is conveyed over.

 

Jack Schluckebier, City Manager, City of Melbourne, stated he would like to thank the County for its continued support for the City’s three CRA’s as well as the concept of CRAs all across the County; and he thinks they are an important public investment vehicle where there can be partnerships between governments as well as benefitting private business.  He noted currently Melbourne has three CRA’s; and they are all considered to be very successful partnerships with Brevard County and the business community.  He stated less than two years ago Melbourne had an internal audit of one of its CRA’s; it was so successful there was not a need for an exit conference; and Melbourne considers itself good stewards of the County’s money, as all public money, recognizes tax money.  He stated the City of Melbourne recognizes that occasionally there are situations that are called a fiscal exigency; the City of Melbourne is the only city that reduced the 95 percent TIF capture rate last year; it was reduced to 85 percent; but on the other hand the City is in unusual times; and it is hard to explain to the public how the growth areas continue to get more money at a time that is unusual.  He stated while he is not in support of the Agenda Item recommendations or conclusions, or in any way supporting the cut of CRA’s, the City of Melbourne would be willing to join a dialogue with the County to recognize the County’s needs. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated Mr. Ellis raised some points that need to be looked at; all CRA’s need to look at what their revenue stream is projected because the property values are going backwards; and clearly, that needs to be considered.  He stated the issue that is tougher to deal with is what he would call the legality of a decision versus the wisdom of the decision; and that is   something   that   he   knows   when   he   heard  about  what  the City of Cocoa had done in purchasing land from itself, it did not feel right.  He stated there may be reasons he is not aware of; but it was a concern for him.  He noted on the positive side, he knows where MIRA is going is positive, but it was not always that way; and he thinks all the CRA’s do a good job.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he received some calls from residents who thought the Board was proponents of dissolving CRAs; he does not think the Board has that intention, nor can it legally ever do that; the mandate is for the Board to support CRAs in accordance with the dates that were specified.  He stated the concern is that as everyone knows, these are tight economic times and every agency and organization is taking a hit; and he is curious as to how the leap occurred from 2002 to 2008.  He inquired what is the Board’s authority to reduce 10 percent to 20 percent like it is asking every agency and department to do in the County, to ask the CRAs to do the same. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the second question is what is the benefit of doing that.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if the TIF is General Fund subsidized.  Mr. Ellis advised that is just the amount of money that the Board provides; if values fall, the Board is not on the hook for any more money unless it has issued enough debt at MIRA that it would have to cover debt service and then if the TIF went below the debt service.  Commissioner Anderson stated then the Board would have to subsidize with other sources of revenue if it wanted to keep it at that level.  Mr. Ellis stated the Board would have to subsidize if it was on the hook for debt; the tax incremental funding is strictly whatever the increment is, it is the debt service that can get the CRAs into trouble if the increment falls below what the debt service is; and the reason for the dramatic rise was because of dramatic rise in property values, which tripled in five years.  He stated the numbers have not been given by the Property Appraiser; but his concern is that over the next two years, those numbers are likely to be a dramatic drop in taxable value of 30 to 35 percent in aggregate tax roll; and the Board is going to have a lot of hard decisions to make. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated the CRAs are a grassroots stimulus package; the cities need to have that help; and they are being used wisely.  She stated she thinks it is important to keep the CRAs as strong as possible; and there are going to be ebbs and tides in the amount; but if the Board does not have to do the debt funding, then it will be fine.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she is not sure legally how much the Board is allowed to reduce the funding by, but there is a large segment of the population that she represents that are not represented in the CRAs; and so they are funding the redevelopment in areas other than that of which they live.  She stated communities such as Melbourne Beach, Barefoot Bay and Grant-Valkaria, are not directly being represented in the CRAs; MIRA has done a terrific job in that area; but at the same time the Board has budget numbers and is not going to be able to meet its own demands, much less the demands of each municipality wanting to increase their funding.  She stated she does not know how the CRAs can stay at the $5.7 million amount when there are such huge budget cuts. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated if there are some CRAs that are not complying with what legally they should do, the Board should at least be holding CRAs to whatever rules and regulations require them to operate.  He stated the CRA in Titusville has done a great job of revitalizing the area; and he would hate to see the funding cut.

 

Chairman Nelson stated Grant-Valkaria is not paying into the CRAs; if the funding is reduced for all CRAs, it is his understanding it becomes revenue neutral; and the aggregate would be adjusted so that the Board is over the same barrel it is currently over, but has not benefit for it.

 

Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten stated if the property values decrease as a natural reduction in the revenues they receive, that is part of the issue Mr. Ellis is highlighting; in the CRA district areas there is a baseline year where the valuations are frozen and any valuation above that baseline year, they get the increment funding on that; and there is a natural reduction that will occur as the property values are decreased.  He stated staff struggles with the best way to explain the issue; the County gets a credit for both the valuation and the payments that are made to CRAs; and if those are stripped out, and the Budget Office has determined there’s no effect next year, but in a subsequent fiscal year, the rollback rate is actually higher; and the Board could potentially tax people more to get the same amount of revenue that it had in the prior fiscal year, because the rate goes up because the CRAs are stripped out. 

 

County Attorney Scott Knox stated one option is an Interlocal Agreement; there has been indication from some of the speakers that the County and the Cities may want to discuss how they can help each other; and if that is something the Board wants to do, it is available. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated it is his understanding there was a base rate set; and if it rolled up, the CRAs got the benefit of that; but if it rolls back, the County’s base rate is still the same. Mr. Whitten stated the bases is the taxable value increase; the multiplier is the general county-wide millage rate; and so the CRAs are receiving that increment, whatever the multiplier is for this fiscal year, the general county-wide was 3.644; and if that stays the same and the CRAs base goes down, obviously they get less money from that.

 

Chairman Nelson stated for clarification for the public, the Board knows that this money is from that base rate and up; it is not an additional; people sometimes think the Board is charging additional to be in a CRA; and that is not the case as these are taxes that would have ordinarily been paid but would have come to the General Fund.  He stated how the County dealt with that is always subject to discussion, but it is not over and above or additional dollars.  He stated he thinks the CRAs have done a good job; there is a value to the CRAs; at this time, as Commissioner Bolin said, it is a program that is putting people to work; and the Board is able to get better value for the dollar right now because the economy is so bad.  He stated he appreciates what Mr. Ellis has done in terms of pointing out what the issues are; there is a need to continue to get together with the cities and have those discussions because they are all accountable to the citizens related to those decisions that are made. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired what is the County’s obligation to those CRAs that cannot meet their debt obligation.  Mr. Whitten stated he does not think the County has any obligation to meet the CRAs debt requirement.  Chairman Nelson stated if MIRA had debt, the County would have that responsibility. 

 

Mr. Cardwell stated the Redevelopment Act says that the only revenue that the bond holder can get to is the money that is in  the  redevelopment  trust fund, which is the increment; they cannot compel a city or county to levy any other tax to pay for them; and it is one of the reasons why, when CRAs issue redevelopment loans secured by tax increment, they have to have a much higher debt service coverage than normally would be with a utility.  He stated in the past year there has been on CRA financing in the State because no one is buying them with the uncertainty with the property values and what the Legislature is doing; if debt is outstanding and only pledged increment, and the increment is not sufficient, the load holder is out of luck; and it may go into default, but they cannot compel anything. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Board does not need to take action on the item.

 

 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated if the Board chooses Option 1 it is authorizing competitive bidding for the sewer rehabilitation amendment to the CIP to include utility services in particular; and so the monies the Board has been able to have at this current time would be put towards that project.

 

Dick Martens, Utility Services Director, stated it would be one project, 13 that staff thinks are priority projects that it would proposed to fund over the next five years with the existing funding as it is right now.  He stated the key point in Option 1 is that it is a reduction of the list of projects that staff proposed last year. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if Option 2 is what Mr. Martens would like the Board to approve.  Mr. Martens stated last year staff proposed a multi-year funding program to do a list of projects; two things have happened since then; the economy has continued to go down; and Tropical Storm Fay resulted in a lot of problems in certain areas.  He advised if the Board would wish to fully fund the projects it talked about last year, staff would need additional funding; without the additional funding staff would be limited to the projects proposed in Option 1; and the remaining projects will be part of the 2010 Utilities CIP.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher to approve Option 2 to authorize competitive bidding for Project I/I8, amend the FY 2009 CIP, and authorize advertising for a public hearing on July 21, 2009 to consider 2^nd year funding of CIP by raising water/sewer rates three percent providing funding for four additional 2.4 mile rehabilitation projects over four years.

 

 

He stated after the City of Titusville was fined for some sewer violations, it got really ugly; and he is not saying this would be at that level; but having leakage problems creates issues down the road and the Board should have the dollars to fix it because it could get a lot more expensive.

 

Motion failed for lack of a second.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve Option 1, to authorize competitive bidding for sewer rehabilitation and amend the FY 2009 CIP to include Utility Serviced Project I/I8. 

 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if Option 1 does not have an increase; with Chairman Nelson responding no, it does not.  Commissioner Bolin stated it is kind of a pay-as-you-go type of atmosphere with Option 1; and the Board would have enough money to do two projects instead of all 13.  Mr. Martens stated the Board would still get the funding that is available in the reserves right now, which is assuming no additional funding over the next five years until the bonds are retired; the leaky sewer project would be funded and replacement of half dozen lift stations, and some potentially failing force mains; and the rationale for his prioritization of the projects is that those pump stations and force mains could fail at any time, and it is a constant risk.  He stated the ramifications of the leaky sewer pipes only manifests themselves when there is a 25-year rainfall event; that is where the trouble happens; and the history is that those events do not happen every year.  He stated a year ago he said the same thing to the Board and five weeks later Tropical Storm Fay happened; and that is the risk with delaying the problem.  He stated it is not a single project fix; it is a long-term commitment that needs to be made; and right now the County does not have the funding to do it.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated if the problems are not fixed now, what kind of obligation does Mr. Martens see the Board running into, cost wise.  Mr. Martens advised it costs more every day to pump water; when that water leaks into the sewer lines it carries sand with it; that wears out the pumps and motors; and it also wears out the pipes from the inside; and there have been some pump station failures due to that.  He noted some of the pump station renovation projects that remain on the list, such as the pump station at the Satellite Beach Library, are showing signs of the equipment wearing out from the inside out, being abraded by sand.  He stated the Federal Government, through the State, has a program of finding utilities for excessive sewer overflows; those will never be prevented entirely, but when they consider the utility is being negligent or derelict in its duties to prevent overflows, there is an enforcement program.  Commissioner Fisher stated the fines are expensive.

 

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

 

 

Ed Fleis passed out maps to the Board and to the Clerk and stated he is before the Board today requesting a change in the County’s Policy on the interpretation of sidewalks on platted lots being a subdivision improvement rather than a lot improvement.  He stated subdivision improvements include the grading work, the water lines, sewer lines, storm drainage, curb and gutter, the streets, and in some cases of a main street, the sidewalks; on the Board’s map, the extent of sidewalks and pedways that were constructed by the developer; it included the sidewalks along Viera Boulevard, the main entrance road where there are no lots backing up  to it and in between subdivisions where pedways were constructed; and it is represented to the buyer that those are the improvements that will be available for their enjoyment and quality of life in the subdivision.  He stated the second map shows the sidewalks that are to be constructed along platted lots; currently, the policy is that the developer, if he does not have all the subdivision improvements completed at the time he wants to record the final plat, the developer has to bond either with an assurety bond with a letter of credit, or a tri-party agreement for those subdivision improvements that are not completed at the time he wants to record the final plat; but a lot cannot be sold until the final plat is recorded.  He stated the way Section 62-2806(2) was written relative to sidewalks, says, “Pedestrian ways, sidewalks, or bikeways, designed and constructed according to standards and requirements of applicable ordinances articles and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, including offsite facilities, may be required.”  He stated in Performance Security, the Section reads, “An applicant shall be required to secure its performance security of the construction required under this article by assurety bond letter of credit. Such security shall not be required if a certificate of completion has been issued for all the subdivision improvements prior to the final plat recordation.”  He stated what the Section says is an applicant does not need to file an assurety if in fact all the sidewalks are completed.  He stated there is often a time interval, where a developer does not want to construct all the sidewalks up front; it may be that certain utilities are not in place yet, it may be gas lines or something else that would damage the sidewalks if they were constructed ahead of the sidewalks being constructed; and all the improvements he is showing the Board are completed on that subdivision, even though the development itself is only half completed.  He stated when it comes to the sidewalks on the platted lots, it can be interpreted that it is a responsibility of the owner of the lot or a responsibility of the builder; and when a developer submits for a building permit they are showing an addition to the grading plan, the footprints, improvements, and also the sidewalk; but it then becomes the responsibility of that builder or developer.  He stated if the developer were to install all the sidewalks up front, the additional cost involved would be to re-grade and make sure all the utilities are installed, which they do not want to do until there are customers that are going to tie into the utilities.  He stated when someone is buying a lot in a development they are looking at the subdivision improvements that are obligated by the developer to construct; everyone understands they have to construct their own sidewalk; where the developer has to bond for a sidewalk that is being built by a third party; and today, with the increased timing for build-outs it means that it could take several years before those lots are built out.  He stated it is an ongoing expense to the developer; if a developer is posting a letter of credit, it means that basically, the bank is holding that money in escrow, and it cannot be used for any other purpose; and to try to get a bond today is extremely expensive because of defaults by many developers that are basically walking away from projects.  He stated he thinks the interpretation was more encompassing than the intent of the ordinance; and it is the subdivision improvements that a buyer is expected to have in order to have enjoy the feature of that particular subdivision.

 

Rodney Honeycutt stated he has a client that is in a situation right now where the approval of this item would be very helpful; and so he is in favor of the staff report recommendation.  He stated his client has a subdivision completed; the developer has gone to three bonding companies for sidewalk bonds and they cannot get a bond; if the developer wants to put up cash, they have to put up 125 percent of the sidewalk cost; and it would be cheaper for them to build the sidewalks.   He stated if  his  client  builds the sidewalks they will most likely have to be torn out or re-done; the homeowners always end up building the sidewalks when the house is built anyway; and he thinks there is good reason at this point in time to follow the staff report.  He stated the Board still has a safety factor in that there will not be a CO for the house issued until the sidewalk is in; and that does not mean sidewalks will be built in the common areas.   

 

Commissioner Infantini stated her concern is that a lot of developers cannot get bonds because they are going out of business; a homeowner will build a house and the sidewalk in front of it, but the developer may not end up selling the rest of the lots; and there may never be a completed sidewalk in a subdivision.  She stated when people buy in subdivisions they have the expectation of the completed amenities; and when the developer cannot finish selling all those lots, a lot of those places are going to end up not having a sidewalk constructed. 

 

Mr. Fleis stated it is seldom that there is a development where it is built in a relatively short period of time; many developments take a number of years to develop; and in the present economy, it may take longer than that.  He stated there may be a situation where there are three houses built in a 150-lot subdivision and it will sit there for five years.  He stated to him, it has not really created a problem; all of the people buying lots understood that it was their responsibility to put the sidewalks in and not the developer.  Commissioner Infantini inquired if there could be some kind of disclosure such as a buyer beware and they should not anticipate sidewalks in the near future.  Mr. Fleis stated going into a subdivision, people are aware they are responsible for building sidewalks on their lots; and each lot owner is responsible for the continuation of that sidewalk.  He stated there can be more language in the buyer beware to make sure the buyers are fully aware there may be gaps in the sidewalk for a period of time.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated the real estate agent or the seller of the lot has a legal obligation to disclose those types of things; but under the staff report, the Building Construction and Advisory Committee made a recommendation that basically allows staff to administratively waive the sidewalk bond requirements; and he is sure staff would have the discretion if something was not consistent to not waive that requirement. 

 

Assistant County Manager Mel Scott advised if the Board were to select Option 1, it would be to give staff the ability to have the sidewalk bond waived; currently, there are two assurances in place that a sidewalk is ultimately built; Option 1, per the BCAC, asks the Board to waive or eliminate one of the two of assurances that sidewalks are ultimately built so the same outcome is ultimately achieved; right now there is a CO assurance that when a home is built, the sidewalk must be constructed before the CO is issued; and in addition to that, staff is requiring that developers carry the bond cost.  He stated in good times, with faster absorption rates, this was not an issue; but now the development community is asking why they should carry the cost of the bond when it is a duplicative assurance that ultimately delivers the sidewalk at the very same time anyway; there are some sidewalk bonds that have been in place for years awaiting the trigger that this Agenda Item is asking the Board to retain, which is to wait for the CO to be issued.  He stated the Agenda Item is just asking the Board to eliminate one of two assurances which ultimately have the effect of delivering the same outcome, which is a sidewalk constructed in front of a house before the CO is issued; there are currently subdivisions that have disjointed sidewalks; and the Agenda Item is not asking to affect that dynamic, as that would be another Agenda Item, per Board direction.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated going forward, people that bought into communities where there is already a bond in place to assure that a sidewalk will go in, those would stay in existence, and Option 1 would be for any new developments.  Mr. Scott stated actually, the assurances that exist now for subdivisions where there is a bond in place is duplicative of the other assurance that a sidewalk will be put in place in front of lots that are next door to them when the CO is issued; the Agenda Item does not seek to address the phenomena that there is in many subdivisions in which they are 90 percent built out and there is a break in the sidewalk network; and the request is to just eliminate the bond requirement because it does not actually serve to deliver the sidewalk any faster.  He stated the development community stepped up and is looking at every dollar they are spending. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated there are subdivisions that will never be sold out because in some cases they are platted unbuildable lots; he understands what Mr. Fleis is saying, which is that the developers are carrying bonds forever because of that; but there has to be a middle ground somewhere because the regulations are that there should be sidewalks, at some point, completed within the subdivision, but if there is an unbuildable lot, that will never happen; and he thinks the Board’s promise to the community was that there will be sidewalks at some point in time.  He stated he would be more receptive to something that is an in-between; at some point in time a sidewalk has to go in, knowing it may get broken up during construction, or it may never get built; but the point is that the community will enjoy a full sidewalk, which is what the original requirement was; and he would be willing to consider an in between, but not just say the sidewalks will be built with a CO when there may never be a CO issued.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated one way to get around that is that the unbuildable lot would have to be treated like a common area; and that way, the developer would have to go ahead and put in the sidewalk and at least bond that portion.  Commissioner Bolin stated she does not understand how there can be an unbuildable lot.  Chairman Nelson stated there are right-of-ways in which that can happen.  Commissioner Fisher stated if there is a common area that a home cannot be built on, then somehow that portion can continue to be bonded or it can be at least acknowledged that the HOA is going to be responsible for putting in the sidewalk at the appropriate time.  He stated the reality of it is that no one puts in a sidewalk before a home is built on a lot. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he has a concern that there are bonds going back to the 1990’s; stated there has to be a problem if the Board is continuing bonds; somehow the Board needs to identify why those things are still hanging out there if the County is hanging onto bonds that are that old; and that means all those other homeowners have not had a completed sidewalk system since the 1990’s. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve Option 1, accepting the BCAC recommendation, allow staff to initiate legislative process to amend Chapter 62, Article VII Section 62-2844(a), and allow staff administratively to waive the sidewalk bond requirement, pursuant to Section 62-2849 Waivers and Appeals until the Board approves the Code changes.

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he will not support the motion because he does not think that giving up entirely is a solution; and that is what Option 1 does.  He stated his preference would be to send it back to the BCAC and tell them the Board’s concerns and ask what the BCAC would recommend to fix the issue. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board can direct staff, as a policy, that if it is an unbuildable lot, or if there is going to be a break in the sidewalk and no one is going to accept responsibility for it, it would have to be agreed upon that the HOA will finish the sidewalk or the portion would be bonded.  He stated perhaps the Board could move the motion and put it back on staff to monitor that areas that are unbuildable.  Chairman Nelson stated he thinks that will required a Code modification.

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if Planning and Development Director Robin Sobrino could give an interpretation of staffs ability to waiver and what the stipulations might be.  Ms. Sobrino advised that when one sees a subdivision platted, it does not jump out that it is an unbuildable lot; it is something that one will notice over a period of time that for some reason a lot is not being purchased and developed; and the term ‘unbuildable lot’ is not something that is easily recognizable until there is a period of time that has passed.  She noted perhaps the best way to narrow it down would be to look at unbuildable lots after a certain period of time, and have the Code define it; and also, Option 1 considers a Code change anyway to allow for the waiver process. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Code change would have to come back to the Board; with Ms. Sobrino responding yes.  Chairman Nelson inquired if the Code change would have to back to the BCAC; with Ms. Sobrino responding yes, it would.

 

Chairman Nelson stated given the consideration that it will go back to the BCAC with those concerns, he would approve sending it back; but at this point in time he does not like the concept of doing away with it.  Ms. Sobrino stated she is not sure what the motion would be because right now there is a motion for Option 1, which would eliminate the requirement for the performance bond on individual lots.  Chairman Nelson stated that is not where he wants to be.  Ms. Sobrino stated if the Board wants to send it back to the BCAC for additional discussion to try to look at something on more of a middle ground, it would be another exercise staff can do with the BCAC.  Chairman Nelson stated it would be his preference to send it back to the BCAC for additional consideration; and it would be his preference to have the BCAC look at a timeline that would be supportive of finishing the system.  He noted what the Board is doing now is giving the ability for it to never be finished; and that is not where he would like to be.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated with the bonds outstanding since the 1990’s, at some point should the Board not incorporate a time certain in which the bond would be exercised; the bond has not teeth because going forward with inflation, 125 percent of a $100 sidewalk does not buy anything when now the sidewalk costs $500; and she would like to close up the gaps so the money is not sitting out there for an infinite period of time.  She stated she would like to see the item go back to the BCAC because people will be buying into the communities and it would be too easy for developers to walk away.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated with the current scenario the developer can go out of business and the sidewalk does not happen.  Chairman Nelson stated the problem is not with developers going out of business.  Commissioner Infantini stated she is suggesting closing the loopholes after five years; and the time value of money makes that money worthless after a certain period of time.  Commissioner Fisher stated possibly in lieu of the bond, the Board can get the HOA to put in the sidewalks.  Chairman Nelson noted not all subdivisions have homeowners associations.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he does not think the Board needs to continue to hold onto the bonds; and the other issue with making them go into effect at a date and time is that, unfortunately, some developers would have gotten caught up in the housing bubble and he does not think that is fair.  Chairman Nelson stated he does not think the Board is trying to hurt the developers; but by the same token, if sidewalks are required there has to be the ability to see them happen; and it is easier to deal with the exception of the downturn that has been seen. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated if the motion is amended to say all new developments going forward, then she would support it; stated if the people moving into the developments had read and understood all the rules they would know there was a bond in place and they would have a certain expectation that a sidewalk would be completed; and she is fine with buyer-beware going forward; but buyer beware going backwards does not seem fair. 

 

Mr. Fleis stated he is confused about the Board’s concern over unbuildable lots; inquired if there are bonds in place where there are developments where there are unbuildable lots.  Chairman Nelson advised there are bonds that go back to the 1990’s; and inquired if Mr. Fleis can explain why the Board would still be holding bonds for a subdivision from the 1990’s.  Mr. Fleis stated Chairman Nelson brought up the point about unbuildable lots.  Chairman Nelson stated there are some lots in the Savannah’s that are unbuildable; and they are drainage-ways where the water naturally flows and will probably never be permitted.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated the Savannah’s is just an example, but the Board is also talking about what has not been sold yet.  Mr. Fleis stated what concerns him is the nature of the concern; the owner of a lot is responsible to build the sidewalk; it is done through the building permit process and through the CO process; the requirement for the developer to bond is really to bond someone else’s work; and the handout he gave the Board shows that except for the frontage on platted lots, all the sidewalks and pathways have gone in at the developer’s costs.  Chairman Nelson stated comparing Viera to a lot of the County’s other subdivisions because it is a DRI and has an extensive pedestrian system is not a fair comparison; and the Board is talking about smaller subdivisions that are not anywhere near a DRI.  Mr. Fleis stated the subdivision on the handout is outside the DRI; and anyone buying in the subdivision knows they have to put the sidewalk in front of their lot.  Chairman Nelson inquired what happens if those people do not put in the sidewalk.  Mr. Fleis stated if someone wants to build, then they have to put a sidewalk in front of the house.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the County’s subdivision regulations require a sidewalk; that is why the developer has  always been  responsible for  seeing  that and having the bond;  stated  what Mr.

Fleis is doing is asking the Board to take away the only mechanism to make sure it happens; and there could be streets without sidewalks for 30 years.  He stated if anyone looks at a subdivision plan it will show sidewalks; and now the developers are saying the sidewalks are not going to happen.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired how a sidewalk is going to be built if a person has not built on a lot.  Chairman Nelson stated there should be some reasonable time limit that at the time the developer is finishing the sidewalk has to be there, or the homeowner has already put it in; but it needs to be there. He stated if the sidewalk has to be broken up and then repaired by the homeowner, then so be it; but he does not think waiting for years for a sidewalk to be finished is appropriate.  Commissioner Fisher stated if he is a homeowner that is not ready to built right away, will he be made to put in a sidewalk in front of a vacant lot.  Chairman Nelson stated there are a lot of subdivisions that do not have sidewalks that predated this issue; and he gets a lot of calls from people wondering why they do not have sidewalks. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated maybe the Board should send the item back to the BCAC with recommendations.  Chairman Nelson stated he would be comfortable sending it back to the BCAC. 

 

Rodney Honeycutt stated he agrees with Option 1; from there, the issue is that it does not change anything from the way it works now except there is not two assurances and there is just one; and as far as sidewalks needing to be completed in a subdivision, going back 20 years, something should be done; but it is not an easy issue.  He stated on all subdivisions today every lot should be buildable; and he would ask that the Board not hold up the item today because times are difficult today as everyone knows.  He stated both issues are important but they need to be separated.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the question is if Option 1 gives the option of addressing the time limit; and he does not see that in Option 1. 

 

Mr. Scott stated the goal was for staff to facilitate the BCAC’s discussion; it is not really a staff generated issue; the purpose for the BCAC is for those discussions that occurred to bubble up naturally and for staff to provide insight to the Board for consideration.  He stated if the Board wanted a sidewalk constructed it would be moving away from the thought of getting away from the bond; the bond would be established; and the developer would be given two or three years; and at the end of that bond the Board would have to entertain whether or not to extend that bond; and if the Board says no, then they would have to install the sidewalk.  He stated that would mean that during construction many sidewalks would be cracked or destroyed and they would have to be replaced during construction, but the upside to that would be sidewalk mobility or pedestrian mobility; and it is certainly not an easy issue. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated going forward for new projects, but for the builders currently in place that have years-old bonds, they are going to stop expending any time and energy to sell the lots because those dollars are being held up; and the builders will move on to a new subdivision that will be more lucrative.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated Option 1 allows staff to administratively waive the sidewalk bond requirement; and inquired if that does not mean anything from today forward.  Mr. Scott stated there needs to be further clarification on that. He stated 1995 is the oldest bond.  Ms. Sobrino stated it is in the Board’s discretion to decide it wants something stipulated as part of Option 1. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated in light of the in-depth discussion, she would like to withdraw her earlier motion.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve sending the Building and Construction Advisory Committee’s (BCAC) recommendations back to the BCAC for additional discussion and recommendation regarding the interpretation of Section 62-2844(a) Performance Security as it relates to sidewalk bonds and responsibility for the construction of sidewalks within subdivisions.

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated Commissioner Bolin’s motion would also allow the beginning of the process of Legislative Intent which will expedite the process.  Mr. Scott advised it would be most helpful for staff if the item just went back to the BCAC for more solutions as it relates to the many challenges.  Commissioner Bolin inquired what time element Mr. Scott believes it would be taking if the item goes back to the BCAC.  Ms. Sobrino stated July would be an appropriate timeline.

 

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

 

 

Kristen Dorsey, Assistant County Attorney, advised the case was originally brought to Code Enforcement in March 2006 under the previous owner who failed to have an occupational license on the property and to get a site plan.  She stated the owner never corrected the violation and the property was bought by Mr. Wilder in October 2008, who corrected the violation; stated Mr. Wilder appeared before the Special Magistrate in February 2008 to ask for a reduction; and the Magistrate recommended a reduction from $62,000 to $40,000.  She stated there were various things the Special Magistrate took into consideration in determining that amount; one thing was the fact that Mr. Wilder knew about the violation and the fine before buying the property; Mr. Wilder contacted Code Enforcement prior to buying the property; and there is record that the title company called prior to Mr. Wilder purchasing the property asking what the amount of the lien was on the property.  She stated the Magistrate asked Mr. Wilder if he entered into any escrow agreement to cover the fact that there was a lien on the property; there was no escrow agreement; and the fact was looked at that a mortgage was assigned to Mr. Wilder; and if Mr. Wilder had to get a new mortgage on the property he would not have been able to because of the lien not being cleared by Mr. Wilder prior to purchasing the property, but instead assumed the mortgage from the previous owner meaning that the County’s lien remains subordinate to that mortgage.  She stated Mr. Wilder purchased the property for $510,000, whereas  the  Property Appraiser as of  2009 had  the  property  listed for $553,000;  and that is how the amount of $40,000 was arrived at.  She stated perhaps the previous owner was trying to get out from under the Code Enforcement lien without resolving the issue with the County; and the new owner seemed to be aware of that.

 

Daniel Wilder stated everything Ms. Dorsey said is true except for meeting with the previous owner to get out from under the lien.  He stated the lien stays with the property so he has been dealing with the owner who is carrying the note as far as getting it reduced; stated he appreciates the amount it has been reduced; but he thought it would be a lower percentage of the total.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she is not in favor of reducing the fine because the mortgage holder is the seller.  Mr. Wilder stated that is not correct.  Commissioner Infantini inquired who is holding the mortgage.  Ms. Dorsey replied the prior owner took out a mortgage when he bought the property in 2005.  Mr. Wilder stated it is owner financed.  Commissioner Infantini stated with a seller-financed mortgage there is a conflict of interest; and she would not be in favor of reducing the fine because the mortgage holder is the seller.  Mr. Wilder noted that is the person who accrued the fines.  Ms. Dorsey stated when she looked at the mortgage assignment neither the current owner or prior owner were the mortgagee; but when the mortgage was originally entered into, it was prior to the County’s lien being purchased on the property; the new owner assumed that mortgage meaning the County’s lien could never take priority; and she does not know if there was a reason it was assumed instead of Mr. Wilder taking out a new mortgage on the property.  She stated if Mr. Wilder had taken out a new mortgage, the mortgage company would have likely said the lien had to be taken care of before he was given the mortgage. 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired who actually took care of the Code Enforcement issues.  Mr. Wilder responded he cleared up the Code issues within three days of closing on the property.

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if the property is in complete compliance right now; with Ms. Dorsey responding affirmatively. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson to approve the Special Magistrate’s recommendation to reduce the accrued fine for Case #06-0015 from $62,409 to the reduced sum of $40,000.  Motion failed for lack of a second.

 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated it was his understanding that there was a $62,000 fine; someone went in front of the Special Magistrate and agreed on a $40,000 fine; and inquired if that fine has been paid.  Mr. Wilder stated not it has not been paid.  Commissioner Fisher stated he was told it was paid already.  Chairman Nelson stated it was the previous owner who was not the person who created the Code issue.  Ms. Dorsey reiterated the previous owner is the person who created the Code issue.  Commissioner Fisher stated Mr. Wilder brought the property knowing the lien was on it.  Mr. Wilder stated yes, he knew there was a $62,000 lien on the property, but he was under the assumption it would be reduced.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated it is the Board’s goal is to have properties brought into compliance.  Chairman Nelson stated he agrees with Commissioner Anderson.

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Chairman Nelson, to approve the Special Magistrate’s recommendation to reduce the accrued fine for Case #06-0015 from $62,409 to the reduced sum of $40,000; and direct staff to prepare and execute release and satisfaction of lien upon receipt of payment.  Commissioner Anderson further requested staff to provide him with a weekly update of each Code Enforcement incident in District 5.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Bolin and Infantini voted nay.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson advised Ms. Korwan is not present, so no action will be taken on the item.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he has been getting a lot of calls in reference to people not being able to put yard waste in plastic bags; that is what Ms. Korwan wanted to address today; and he does not know what the answer is, but the Board will have to address it in the future. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she has also had calls.  Commissioner Anderson stated there are the same issues in Palm Bay.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board can get a report from staff. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Board can direct Solid Waste Management Director Euri Rodriguez to prepare a report on the issue of Waste Management and not picking up yard waste that is placed in plastic bags. 

 

                            

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 12:50 p.m.

 

 

 

ATTEST:                                                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    CHUCK NELSON, CHAIRMAN

                                                                                    BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                                    BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

      

          (S E A L)