The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on March 18, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. in the Brevard Community College Gymnatorium, 1311 North U.S. 1, Titusville, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Mark Cook, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

Chairman Higgs led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE REGULATING PUBLIC NUDITY

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance regulating public nudity. She outlined the procedure for addressing the Board. She introduced Chris Andress, Bob Deskins and Wendell Simpson of the National Park Service.

Wendell Simpson, Superintendent of the Canaveral National Seashore, read aloud from a news release as follows:

It is the mission of the National Park Service to protect and preserve the natural and cultural resources of the units in the National Park Service and to provide for the safety of visitors to those units, and to promulgate regulations in furtherance of that mission. We view the current situation of Playalinda Beach, part of the Canaveral National Seashore as a conflict between user groups that needs to be resolved. Therefore, the National Park Service does not object to Brevard County's proposed ordinance. As part of this community, the National Park Service understands the local law enforcement responsibility and authority, and if the County determines that this ordinance is the appropriate step to take, the National Park Service will accept that local decision and cooperate. No matter what action the Commission takes, the National Park Service will continue to study this issue, and together with Brevard County, monitor the situation. Any further National Park Service actions will be determined by the results. Such actions could include promulgating a special regulation. Furthermore, Park Rangers will continue to vigorously enforce federal and state laws relating to nude lewd and lascivious behavior, resource protection, and sanitation. They cannot enforce the local ordinance but will otherwise cooperate with the Brevard County Sheriff and his deputies.

Commissioner O'Brien noted the last statement indicates the National Park Service cannot enforce the local ordinance, but will cooperate with the Sheriff and deputies; and inquired if it is saying the rangers will not accept being deputized. Mr. Simpson responded at this time, it is the intent of the National Park Service to not be deputized. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what Mr. Simpson means by cooperate; with Mr. Simpson responding rangers will assist with arrests.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in the meeting in Washington, D.C., it became clear that because of the Park Service's policy, Playalinda Beach is a nudist beach, with no enforcement of activities regarding nudity on the beach. He inquired if the Park Service is going to in any way prohibit nudity on any portion of the beach or will the entire beach continue as a nudist beach. Chief of Ranger Activities Chris Andress responded right now, under federal law, there is no prohibition against simple nudity; but rangers can and do enforce laws relating to lewd and lascivious behavior. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Park Service is saying it will not object to the Sheriff enforcing the County Ordinance at the beach, but is continuing to take the position that Playalinda Beach is a nude beach. Mr. Andress clarified the Park Service is taking the position it has no authority to enforce because there are no simple nudity regulations from the federal government; the Park Service can assimilate state law; but the Solicitors advise the Park Service cannot assimilate a County Ordinance.

Chairman Higgs stated at the meeting on May 15, 1995, the Park Service indicated it would take five or six actions including hiring additional rangers, moving the clothing optional participants to the north, providing education, initiating additional rule making, and providing additional amenities north of Park Lot 13; and inquired if that is the intent of the Park Service. Mr. Andress responded Mr. Deskins and Superintendent Simpson can address the issue of bringing in additional rangers; but since the Park Service does not designate areas, it cannot move any one group to a certain area, although it can provide additional facilities north of Lot 13. Chairman Higgs noted she understands that rationale; however in listening to the tape of the meeting, she thought that was the essence of what was being said. Mr. Andress stated that could be something that could be worked out between the County and the Superintendent. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Park Service does not intend to move people to the northern areas who choose to do clothing optional; with Mr. Andress responding there are possibilities to provide facilities at the northern area such as port-o-johns and boardwalk access. Chairman Higgs stated the Park Service does not believe there is any federal law which says that clothing optional is either prohibited or limited, and will not take action to move people north; but in looking at statements of the National Park Service representative John Reynolds, that is what is being talked about. Mr. Andress advised from the time of the meeting until he left Washington, D.C. at 6:00 p.m. yesterday, that was still being discussed; but the bottom line is if the National Park Service cannot enforce simple nudity, how can it move people beyond a geographical point or ban them from an area, although it can look at providing amenities in those areas. He noted the Park Service will not put up a sign. Chairman Higgs advised it is difficult to make an informed, intelligent decision when she is reading one thing in the transcript and hearing something different tonight. Mr. Andress advised the tape represents a two-hour discussion; Commissioner Scarborough will attest that some of the feelings have changed; and this is a living thing. He advised anything that can be negotiated is the real answer.

Commissioner Cook inquired if what was read earlier is the National Park Service's policy at this time regardless of what was in the transcript; with Mr. Andress responding it is where the meeting has evolved at this time.

Commissioner O'Brien noted Part 3 of the policy provides that park rangers will continue to enforce federal and state laws, but cannot enforce the local ordinance, although they will cooperate; in the meeting in Washington, D.C., in response to a question from County Attorney Knox, the Park Service said it could enforce the law if it applied to the situation; and inquired if the Park Service is now saying it will not enforce the law. Mr. Andress stated at this time, it is not felt a county ordinance could be assimilated under the Assimilated Crimes Act. He noted the Park Service can assimilate a state law, and did so in 1992 or 1993. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Park Service can enforce the ordinance if it is adopted today; with Mr. Andress responding no. Mr. Andress clarified the Park Service will cooperate with the County and the Sheriff in enforcement actions, short of park rangers making arrests or detentions for simple nudity.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised, in spite of the Park Service's protestations to the contrary, it has the authority to enforce the ordinance if it chooses to do so; and that was made clear in the meeting in Washington, D.C. He stated it was made clear that the Park Service has the authority to select between the various criminal acts or laws that apply to the State of Florida as far as enforcement, depending on whether they fit the Park Service's view of its role under the National Park Services Act. He advised it is his belief the Park Service has the authority to enforce the ordinance, but has chosen not to do it. Mr. Andress stated the statement read earlier says "the Park Rangers cannot enforce"; and as late as this afternoon, he and Mr. Tiernan agreed "cannot" was appropriate. Mr. Knox reiterated the Park Service has the ability to enforce the ordinance; and explained why.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the problem with enforcing nude sunbathing under Chapter 877, Florida Statutes. He stated the Florida Attorney General advises, "the court has held that mere nudity in a public place such as topless sunbathing on a public beach may be prosecuted under Florida's disorderly statute"; and there is case law to support that. He stated there is no nude sunbathing problem on any other beach within the County; and inquired what is the problem with enforcing Chapter 877 on the southern portion of Playalinda Beach which does not have historical use by nudists.

Bill Dehart, Chief Ranger at Canaveral National Seashore, stated Chapter 877 as State law, is equal to prior existing federal law; and when there is an existing law, a state law cannot be assimilated. He advised Chapter 877 is deemed a misdemeanor; and it has to be witnessed by a ranger or there has to be a complainant willing to go before the court system. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not see the difficulty in having a ranger witnessing nude sunbathing in an area with no historic use. Ranger Dehart advised Chapter 877 is disorderly conduct, not simple nudity; and nudity is not against the law. Commissioner Ellis stated that is not the opinion of the Attorney General; if the State law does not work, he does not understand why there are no nude sunbathers on all the beaches in the County; and inquired why the problem is confined to Playalinda Beach, and is there a problem with the State law. Ranger Dehart advised he cannot answer that question; he can only address questions regarding Chapter 877; and that cannot be assimilated because there is a prior existing federal law covering the same crime. Commissioner Ellis stated on the prior existing law, you do not have to have a complainant; with Ranger Dehart advising it has been held in the federal court system that rangers cannot be the complainant, but have to maintain a neutral atmosphere. Commissioner Ellis inquired if that is on Chapter 877; with Ranger Dehart advising that is on basic disorderly conduct, and they do not enforce Chapter 877. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Attorney General Opinion would only apply if the Sheriff's Department arrested under Chapter 877 and it went to state court. Ranger Dehart inquired if that is the State Attorney General or federal Attorney General; with Commissioner Ellis responding State Attorney General. Ranger Dehart advised that would not apply to the federal court system at all. Commissioner Ellis inquired if everyone arrested at Playalinda Beach has to go to the federal court system, or just those arrested by a ranger; with Ranger Dehart responding everyone cited or arrested by a National Park Ranger goes before the federal court system. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Sheriff's Department arrested on the south end of Playalinda Beach under Chapter 877, would those people appear in County or Circuit Court locally; with Ranger Dehart responding yes. Commissioner Ellis stated there is an Attorney General Opinion advising nudity in public places such as topless sunbathing may be prosecuted; and there must be a shade of difference between the federal and the state, given that opinion and what has happened in the federal courts. He stated there is conflicting information. Ranger Dehart stated the State of Florida has recognized that nudity outside of historic use areas is disorderly conduct; but the federal government has not viewed it that way.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Congress adopted the Florida Statutes. Commissioner Ellis stated what Ranger Dehart is saying is that federal judges have a different interpretation than do the judges in Florida; and explained the difference.

Mr. Knox advised federal judges are bound by the same laws as everyone else; a federal judge has to follow Florida law if the crime being prosecuted in Playalinda Beach is like anyone else; and that is what was done in the case of lewd and lascivious which was thrown out. He noted the Supreme Court of Florida has said under the disorderly conduct statute, that appearing nude in public is a violation of the statute; and the federal judge would have to follow the Florida Supreme Court interpretation of the statute. He advised if the Park Service does not wish to bring action to challenge the right to walk around naked on the beach where there has been no previous history, that is its prerogative.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Attorney General has given a case law citation where there has been prosecution for nude sunbathing under Chapter 877; Mr. Knox is saying the federal judge is supposed to follow the state laws; and inquired if the federal judge has chosen to ignore the state law. Mr. Knox advised the federal judge has never seen a case brought under the disorderly conduct statute. Commissioner Ellis stated that is not what he just heard. Mr. Knox advised the only case that has been brought is under the lewd and lascivious statute; and the judge said he could not convict under that statute. Commissioner Ellis inquired if people have been charged under disorderly conduct and gone to court; with Ranger Dehart responding under the federal definition of disorderly conduct, but not state law. Commissioner Ellis inquired if Mr. Knox is saying they would need to charge disorderly conduct under state law and go to federal court with it. Mr. Knox inquired if there is a federal disorderly conduct rule; with Ranger Dehart responding yes. Mr. Knox stated they are talking about a rule of the National Park Service that pertains to disorderly conduct; the federal judge does not think people can be prosecuted under that rule for walking around naked on a beach; and that does not necessarily coincide with the state law on the same subject. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it would make sense to go to areas that do not have historic use and charge people under Chapter 877; with Mr. Knox responding the rebuttal is since the federal government has enacted a rule applying to that type of conduct, the Assimilated Crimes Act does not apply. Mr. Knox advised National Park Service rules do not constitute criminal law; and the National Park Service would be able to enforce state law; but it has chosen not to. Commissioner Ellis stated he understands the rangers' job is to enforce, not interpret the law; and inquired why disorderly conduct is not being pursued on the southern portions of the beach. Bob Deskins, representing the National Park Service Regional Office, stated the U.S. Attorney's Office advises it would not hear those cases; and so it would not be worth the time and effort to pursue that avenue. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the will has been there to enforce, but the U.S. Attorney has advised he would not push the cases through; with Mr. Deskins responding it has always been the desire of the National Park Service to accommodate all the visitors who come to the Park Service. Mr. Deskins advised there is a conflict in use; when the problem got out of hand and the public complained, the Park Service was forced to take other actions; and at that time, people were cited for nudity under the Florida law and it went to court. He noted their attorneys advised against going to court as they did not think the particular law could be enforced. Commissioner Ellis inquired why would the Park Service not prosecute under the disorderly conduct statute in an area where there is no historic use by nude sunbathers. Mr. Deskins responded he cannot answer that question; but the U.S. Attorneys advise they do not want to hear those cases. Ranger Dehart noted Chapter 800 is simple nudity, not lewd and lascivious. Commissioner Ellis stated Chapter 800 talks about vulgar and indecent manner; however Chapter 877 is what the Attorney General advises is the statute to use to prosecute for simple nudity in an area with no historic use for nudity; and so, there are state laws now that could be used to resolve the conflict, if they were used properly. Mr. Deskins noted he is not disagreeing; but they went to court and were unsuccessful. Commissioner Ellis stated the Superintendent recognizes a problem at Playalinda Beach, but needs legal guidance; park rangers do not handle the cases in court; it would be the attorneys' responsibility to use the proper statute and proper location; and it is not the fault of the rangers if the case falls through. Superintendent Simpson advised the Solicitor's Office in Atlanta advised Chapter 800.03 would not be the proper law to use; the U.S. Attorney's Office, which is the office which represented them in court, said Chapter 800.03 was the only law to use; and after some discussion, it was decided Chapter 800.03 was the law to use. Commissioner Ellis stated the rangers would depend on the advise of their attorneys as to which law to use; and that is why his question is to the National Park Service, not the rangers. He inquired why Chapter 877 is not used to halt the conflicts. Superintendent Simpson stated the U.S. Attorney's Office advised it would not entertain issues under Chapter 877; Chapter 877 is a disorderly conduct statute; and as there is already a disorderly conduct law, the state law cannot be assimilated under the Assimilated Crimes Act. Commissioner Ellis stated the County Attorney advises the federal and state laws are different, and that Chapter 877 could be used. County Attorney Knox advised a departmental rule is not a law; it is something the Department of Interior announces as part of its authority to enact rules and regulations under its jurisdiction; but it is not a law of Congress; and there is a big difference between the two.

Commissioner Cook stated the bottom line is the National Park Service has no objection to the County's Ordinance and will assist local law enforcement in its implementation; with Superintendent Simpson agreeing. Superintendent Simpson noted the County Attorney advises departmental policy is not law, and he is probably right; but he is not an attorney, and cannot address that.

Mr. Andress advised he is not an attorney; however under the U.S. Code, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and empowered to make laws to govern the conduct in national parks; the Code used at Canaveral Seashore is found in Part Six of the Code of Federal Regulations; and the rules have the force of law as people can be jailed or fined for them, and they are consistent with the laws passed by Congress for the running of national parks. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there are other parks in the country that have the same kind of problem; with Mr. Andress responding at this time, things are pretty quiet. Commissioner Ellis stated it is odd that at every other park, the Park Service has the authority to do whatever it takes to not have a problem, but not at Canaveral National Seashore. He noted his assumption is it is not a problem anywhere else because either allowances or restrictions have been made to prevent such problems. Mr. Andress stated allowances have been made, but not restrictions, except in the case of Cape Cod National Seashore, which has a special regulation intended to protect the resources, which includes a provision relating to nudity. He noted that is not to say there is no nudity at Cape Cod, because there is.

Mr. Knox stated whether rules have the effect of law or not does not make any difference; and what the Park Service is saying is that it does not have a rule which governs or prevents walking around naked on the beach. Mr. Andress admitted that is true. Mr. Knox stated to the extent that Congress adopted the State of Florida's criminal laws, and to the extent that Florida has a criminal law which prevents nudity on a beach, the Park Service has the authority to enforce that law. Mr. Andress inquired if when Mr. Knox talks about Congress adopting Florida's law, is he talking in general terms about the Assimilated Crimes Act; with Mr. Knox responding that is correct. He stated the Assimilated Crimes Act allows the federal government to adopt state law in all states when the federal government does not have a similar law; but where the federal government has a pre-existing law, the state law would not be assimilated.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired how Mr. Andress would interpret the discussion tonight. Mr. Andress responded there is a disorderly law under the Code of Federal Regulations which does not address simple nudity; but the State of Florida has a disorderly conduct law which apparently does address simple nudity. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if he is correct that the state law overrides the federal law; with Mr. Andress responding no. Commissioner O'Brien stated the state law works independently because there is no federal rule. Mr. Andress agreed there is no rule; but disorderly conduct is considered in law a very broad stroke; and it probably gets turned as much as anything when protested because it is vague. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Mr. Andress is saying the state law is vague; with Mr. Andress responding the Park Service feels the laws are similar enough with the exception of the simple nudity provision that it is comfortable enforcing the Federal Code of Regulations on disorderly conduct, and not assimilating.

Commissioner Ellis inquired why the Park Service does not assimilate now since there have been problems on the southern end of Playalinda Beach; and reiterated this is the only beach in the nation with problems. He noted there is not a problem on any of the County beaches; and inquired why Chapter 877 cannot be used as it is clear from the Attorney General that it would be appropriate to use that statute on all the lots south of Lot 13. He inquired why is that not used in an attempt to open up the south end of the beach for the families, leaving the north end for the nudists. Mr. Andress stated it is because both have disorderly conduct statutes; one deals specifically with nudity, and the other does not; and the Park Service will not use the Florida law, because it has its own. He noted the U.S. Attorneys and Federal Magistrate advise they do not want to hear cases under that law. Commissioner Ellis stated the potential would exist for the Sheriff's Department to issue citations under Chapter 877, which would then go to a state or county court. Mr. Andress stated at Canaveral National Seashore, there is concurrent jurisdictions with the State of Florida; and state officers can enforce state laws on federal property and take them before state courts for prosecution.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in the meeting in Washington, Ms. Stewart of Congressman McCollom's Office advised Assateague is posted for no nudity; and the Park Service seems to be unaware of it. Mr. Andress stated he called the Chief Ranger at Assateague that afternoon; and there is a sign; but the State of Maryland and the rangers do not vigorously enforce the state law. Commissioner Scarborough noted the Park Service will not sign Canaveral National Seashore. Mr. Andress stated with the current law structure, the sign would be a bluff. Commissioner Scarborough stated his problem is the Park Service is not willing to go out and say those people who wish to bathe in the nude are encouraged to go north of Lot 13; with Mr. Andress advising it could not. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Park Service can do it at Assateague, but not for Brevard County. Mr. Andress stated the Park Service would entertain negotiations between conflicting parties for an arrangement which might do what Commissioner Scarborough is talking about. Commissioner Cook inquired if that is what Commissioner Scarborough is suggesting; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no. Commissioner Scarborough stated commissions around the country are not worrying about park problems; problems are handled elsewhere; but in Brevard County, there has to be a nude beach unless the Board wants to spend the taxpayers' money to have the Sheriff make arrests. He stated he does not feel the Park Service has given Brevard County what it has given other communities in the country as far as definitive answers. Commissioner Cook inquired if the sign at Assateague says no nudity allowed. Commissioner Ellis responded that is right; but the County cannot even get those signs on Lot 1; and inquired why signs cannot be posted for no nude sunbathing on the southern lots. Mr. Andress stated if they were County signs, pertaining to County Ordinances, they could. He stated the Superintendent does not have the tool to put simple nudity in one area, and enforce geographic constraints. Commissioner Cook inquired if the County's Ordinance would give him the tool; with Mr. Andress responding no, it would not give the rangers the tools, but the Sheriff's deputies could do it. Chairman Higgs stated the Park Service has indicated it will not enforce the County's Ordinance, although it will cooperate. Mr. Andress advised the Solicitor's Office has said the County Ordinance cannot be assimilated; and the Park Service will have to go with that opinion until there is a higher opinion advising it can.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if signs could be placed on Lots 1 through 12 for no nude sunbathing under Chapter 877, Florida Statutes. Mr. Andress stated that would not be a good idea; but the Park Service shares the County's anguish on this issue. He stated the Park Service has spent a lot of time working on this; there is a conflict of users at Canaveral National Seashore; and in other areas in the Park Service, groups have locally and informally worked through their situations, partially because of historic uses in those areas.

Chairman Higgs stated she is perplexed that the Park Service recognizes the difficulty, but can give no definitive answer; and in order to make a decision about the ordinance, the Board needs answers not anguish. Mr. Andress noted if the Park Service decided today to write a regulation on simple nudity at Canaveral National Seashore, it would take six months to a year for it to get through the process in Washington. Chairman Higgs stated the initial vote to proceed with this ordinance was a number of months ago, close to the six-month limit.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired who is the author of the news release and who authorized its release; with Mr. Andress responding it was authorized by the Deputy Director of the National Park Service, and had several contributors. Commissioner O'Brien noted it is unsigned, indicating it could have been done locally; and inquired if it is Washington speaking. Mr. Andress advised it is Superintendent Simpson with the full backing of the Washington Office. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if that makes it the word of the Director; with Mr. Andress responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Cook inquired if in the interim, if the Ordinance passes, will the Park Service be working on a rule; with Mr. Andress responding the Park Service will continue to study and monitor; and a rule could be the result of that. Commissioner Cook inquired if in the interim, the County would have the ability to work with the Park Service on finding a cooperation with regard to enforcement; with Mr. Andress responding yes, Ranger Dehart and Superintendent Simpson will be happy to talk to the Sheriff or his deputies or Attorney Knox on ways to cooperate. Commissioner Cook stated at this time the Park Service is saying it does not object to the ordinance, and will cooperate with local law enforcement; and inquired if the Park Service will not object to working with the County as far as bringing the Park Service into the ability to help enforce an ordinance, if adopted tonight. Mr. Andress stated the Park Service would support the deputies' ability to enforce the ordinance; the rangers will not write tickets or citations for simple nudity; but if a deputy should need assistance, the rangers would be there to give it to him; and the Park Service will continue to vigorously enforce laws on lewd and lascivious behavior. Commissioner Cook inquired if the Park Service could come up with a rule that would incorporate the ordinance; with Mr. Andress responding that is conceivable.

Commissioner O'Brien noted the problem at Playalinda Beach has been going on for a long time; and inquired what is the resolution. Mr. Andress advised the Park Service is taking a look at its national policy which says it will not designate; and the same policy has always instructed local park managers to meet with the conflicting groups to come up with a solution. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why no resolution has been found; with Mr. Andress responding he cannot answer that. Mr. Andress noted he has been with the Park Service for some years; nudity, in one form or another, has been on the docket for twenty-six years; and the Park Service has never dealt with it definitively. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Park Service is saying that although the problem has existed for a long time, it has taken no action and has no intention of resolving it; with Mr. Andress responding that is not what it says. Mr. Andress stated it needs to be resolved; the Park Service wants to look at it with the County, considering servicewide implications; and based on those studies, a regulation could be possible. Commissioner O'Brien advised of other problems the County has with the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is another federal agency. Mr. Andress inquired if that problem deals with nudity; with Commissioner O'Brien noting he was comparing federal agencies. Commissioner O'Brien stated people are beginning to speak up and say there are serious problems in the country; with Mr. Andress responding the Park Service is aware of that.

Mr. Knox stated the Park Service is making a mountain out of a molehill; if the Board adopts the ordinance, there is nothing to stop the Park Service from putting in a sign tomorrow at the point where the traditional naturists have gone advising from that point north is clothing optional; if that was done, things would be back to the way they were four to six years ago; and there probably would not be all these conflicts and needs for rule making and policy decisions. He stated if the Board does not adopt the ordinance, he does not know what will happen.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Sheriff can enforce the disorderly conduct and prosecute people under the state laws on the non-traditional nudist areas of the beach. Mr. Knox responded the Park Service advises the state and federal government have concurrent jurisdiction over the Canaveral National Seashore; and the Park Service is of the opinion the Sheriff can do that. Chairman Higgs inquired if disorderly conduct would hold on those areas where naturists have not traditionally been; with Mr. Knox responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Ellis stated it has never been tried. Mr. Knox agreed it has not been tried; and stated the only problem might be that the activity has spread south and now it may not be disorderly to be nude south of the traditional area. Commissioner Ellis stated there is no historic use south of Lot 13; with Mr. Knox responding there is no historic use, but history is being made as they talk. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board does not know the state law will not work until it is tried; and no one has ever tried Chapter 877 to see if it would work. Mr. Knox stated everyone thinks they are helpless to do anything. Commissioner Ellis inquired if this problem existed on Paradise Beach or Spessard Holland Beach, would the Sheriff not enforce under Chapter 877; with Mr. Knox responding he can try. Commissioner Ellis state the state law must work if the problem does not exist anywhere else; with Mr. Knox agreeing.

Chairman Higgs advised there are a number of cards; and explained the three-minute rule. She requested those supporting the ordinance stand; and then requested those not in support of the ordinance to stand.

The meeting recessed at 6:33 p.m. and reconvened at 6:45 p.m.

Commissioner Scarborough stated while the Park Service has indicated it will cooperate with the enforcement of the ordinance, on Monday the indication was the Park Service would not cooperate or allow enforcement in the historical nude areas of the beach. Mr. Andress advised that is not what was said. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the National Park Service would have no objection to the County enforcing the ordinance throughout the beach. Mr. Andress advised if the Board adopts the ordinance, it will be up to the County where it enforces it. Commissioner Scarborough stated that was not what the Park Service communicated at the meeting on Monday. Mr. Andress stated what was intended to be communicated was that all law enforcement is selective enforcement because you select where the problems are; and if the Board chooses to exempt certain areas of the beach from patrol by the Sheriff's deputies, then the ordinance would not be enforced in those areas. Commissioner Scarborough reiterated that is not what he was told on Monday; and advised each Commissioner has copies of the tapes from the meeting. Mr. Andress inquired what was Commissioner Scarborough's understanding on Monday; with Commissioner Scarborough responding during the discussion of the two-prong question, there was a portion that said the County's ordinance would not be allowed to be enforced in the historic nude areas of the beach. Mr. Andress advised he does not recall that; and reiterated it would be a County ordinance, and it would be the Board's prerogative where it wanted it done.

Chairman Higgs reiterated the procedure for addressing the Board; advised there are over one hundred cards; and requested speakers not be redundant.

Herbert Ragan, 170 Broadmoor Avenue, Lake Mary, stated he opposes the ordinance; he works in an Orlando hotel which is frequented by many Europeans; many of the women would like to go topless on the beach, and are surprised they cannot do so; and when he advises of Playalinda Beach, they always ask for directions on how to get there. He advised tourism is down; it would be irresponsible to ban nudity on the beach; and Playalinda Beach should be promoted for tourism.

An unidentified speaker demanded each speaker stated where he or she lives. Chairman Higgs advised the speaker is out of order.

Christopher Phelps, 104 Pine Tree Drive, Ormond Beach, stated one of the fundamentals of American society is embodied in the expression, "live and let live." He stated everyone is allowed the maximum degree of personal freedom consistent with not diminishing freedoms of others; there are miles of beach at Playalinda Beach; and there should be enough room for everyone. He stated no one's freedom would be diminished if the Canaveral National Seashore management would designate an area for clothing optional use and post signs. He noted the naturists have not requested an exclusive set aside area; and the proposed ordinance flies in the face of personal freedom and seeks to dictate to all a narrow sense of propriety of a vocal minority. He advised some who wish to outlaw public nudity have never been to the northern end of Playalinda Beach, but have the arrogance to prescribe a dress code there; and some who wish to outlaw nudity choose to confuse the issue by raising the specter of sexual assaults, lewd acts, and other secondary effects they perceive as tied to mere nudity. He stated there are already laws to address the unacceptable activities and behaviors; and naturists as well as everyone else would welcome enforcement of these laws. He requested the Board do the right thing by taking a position of tolerance and support of personal freedom, rejecting the ordinance, and requesting the National Park Service establish a reasonable clothing optional zone with appropriate signage.

Chairman Higgs requested the audience refrain from applause. She stated she will not request speakers give their address, unless the Board directs otherwise; she has not requested that previously because a person felt it was an invasion of privacy; and the cards are available to the public.

Doris Ripley, 85 Chapel Lane, Titusville, stated 99% of the letters she has seen in the Florida TODAY newspaper are from people who do not live in Titusville; and advised of her background. She stated she has reached the age where she wants to walk on the beach; and people who want to enjoy certain aspects of the beach should be restricted to one area, for the sake of her great granddaughters.

Pete Diamonds, 1155 Redwood Road, Merritt Island, requested the Board not let religious fundamentalists push it into passing laws depriving the rest of the people of their rights; and stated the founding fathers were wise to separate church from state. He noted there are miles of Canaveral National Seashore with room for people of different ideas and thoughts; and American democracy was founded by people seeking freedom from political and religious oppression. He stated it does not require great statesmanship or tax funds to end this conflict; it only requires the elected officials to uphold the Constitution; and suggested posting the north end of Playalinda Beach as suggested by the National Park Service. He recommended Superintendent Wendell Simpson be recalled for creating this problem and going against the suggestions of his superiors with the National Park Service. He stated religious fundamentalists can practice their religion in their homes.

Deborah Andrew, 1760 Nassau Street, Titusville, stated she has lived in Titusville since 1982; and she has three children. She noted she does not approve of public nudity; but she respects the rights of others with different morals and values; and suggested reserving a small remote section of Playalinda Beach to accommodate those who wish to partake of nude activities. She recommended nudity be banned on the remainder of the beach and that the ban be strictly enforced. She stated the largest percentage of the car tags at the north end of the beach are from out of state or out of County; since the residents of the County are paying for the majority of the problems caused by non-residents, they have every right to demand compliance with regulations on the nude sunbathers; and the residents are justified in expecting swift and forceful enforcement of the law. She expressed support for a clear ordinance, conspicuous marking on the beach and an empowered enforcement agency.

Robert Rinker, 5330 Sandra Drive, Titusville, stated he has been a Titusville resident for 23 years; he had often heard there were naked people on the north end of the beach, but never saw them; but now his grandchildren cannot use the beach because this activity has spread like a cancer. He advised of issues discussed at the previous public hearing. He noted some people have advised if they cannot come to run naked at the beach, they will not spend their money in Brevard; and that is too bad. He stated he is a business owner in the County; he spends thousands of dollars a week on materials mostly through local vendors; and he will put his contribution up against that of others. He stated the Board has an obligation to support the majority of the taxpayers of the County and vote against public nakedness.

Michelle Wilkes, 4513 W. Main Street, Mims, stated she understands the necessity of some governmental interference in personal choice, especially if that choice will affect persons economically or cause harm; but the proposed ordinance is not designed to do that. She advised the ordinance would cause harm to the County economically and would tread upon the rights of individuals. She stated the Board is overstepping its bounds when it dictates something so trivial as clothing choices; and inquired what choices will the Board take next. She stated Americans were granted certain freedoms; and requested the Board not take away the rights granted to the people through the U.S. Constitution.

Bill Horner, 4413 Ellis Court, Titusville, advised of his credentials; and displayed his Annual Passport to the Canaveral National Seashore which is #0007 and was issued in 1987. He stated the Board is not here to discuss a beach, federal legislation, or state statute; it is here to discuss a County ordinance; and recommended this matter be left in the hands of the citizens and taxpayers of Brevard County. Mr. Horner held up a cigarette; and stated there is a total ban on cigarettes, and if he uses it, he will be barred from public government buildings as well as other buildings. He noted he has a choice; he can follow the rules; or he can go do his thing in private. He stated he is not banned from driving on the public highways, but cannot do it with an open can of beer; he is not banned from taking his one-year old grandson for a ride, but cannot do it without an approved baby restraint seat; and he is not banned from public pools, but cannot use them without wearing a bathing suit. Mr. Horner advised of the City of Gainesville's proposed ordinance. He disputed the time limitation.

Daniel Reid, 513 Abbey Lane, Cocoa, stated the supporters of the ordinance would have you believe that being publicly nude equals an absence of morals and ethics, no family values, and hatred for, and being hated by God; but that is not so. He stated the issue is not whether people agree or disagree about public nudity; the issue is whether the Board have the right to legislate that which some of its constituents do not like; and the Constitution protects everyone from the whims of the intolerant and the ignorant. He stated the problem is that some people have been seen nude south of Lot 13; the errant behavior of some is ruining it for everyone; to solve the problem the National Park Service must post signs on the beach; and advised of the precedent set at Sandy Hook Beach in New York. He stated the National Park Service must also find a ranger who will do as he is told. He stated failure to throw out the ordinance will cost the taxpayers a great deal of money when many of those made criminals by the ordinance demand a jury trial; and it will cost tourist dollars. He inquired if the residents want the Board to spend money in courts or on paving streets, providing police protection, and maintaining the financial viability of the County. He requested the Board vote against the ordinance.

Guinevere Cruse, 1540 Riverside Drive, Titusville, stated she is for the ordinance against public nudity; and requested the Board vote in favor of the ordinance.

Floyd Hutzley, 520 Concord Avenue, Titusville, stated he has been a resident of Titusville since 1972, is not a nudist, and rarely goes to the beach. He stated he has raised his children in a loving and decent manner; he taught them respect for people and their rights even though they are not the same as theirs; and "Christians" do not have a monopoly on morals or have the right to dictate morals for others. He stated he has been following this issue for some time, and is against the ordinance. He stated nudity in itself is not wrong or immoral; being nude is not a lewd or lascivious act in itself; the ordinance would be almost impossible to enforce; and Brevard County and the City of Titusville have more problems to tackle than whether some people are at the beach with their clothes off. He advised of serious drug problems a few blocks from the Sheriff's Office which are not being taken care of and problems in the County with unemployment and people who are homeless and hungry; and suggested neighbors show real Christian ideals by helping them. He advised the ordinance not only applies to nudity but to what beach attire would be acceptable and the physiological state of the male; it also applies to clothing that rides too low on the rear; he is curious how these issues will be covered; and volunteered to be on the swimsuit observation and measurement team. He advised all stores selling swimwear will have to pull all thongs and t-backs from inventory or display a sign advising they cannot be worn in Brevard County. He inquired if postcards showing people in thong swimsuits will have to be kept behind the counter. He noted a compromise is possible; and signage would help.

Marvin Frandsen, 4467 Country Road, Melbourne, stated as a naturist, he shares the Board's anger at the National Park Service for its inability to shoulder its responsibilities to implement a fair and obvious solution. He stated the National Park Service has said it does not object if the County manages their beach; and suggested the management plan which was submitted to the National Park Service, but was ignored, be submitted to the Board. He suggested amending the ordinance to allow for designation of Lots 9 through 13 to the barge as clothing optional and south of Lot 9 as clothing required; and stated since the Sheriff has to enforce it anyway, he can use Chapter 877.03, Florida Statutes to enforce nude sunbathing in that area. He explained the advantages of the compromise; stated it allows 60% of the current beachgoers who are naturists on less than half the land; and most of the accessible beach area will be available for non-naturists. He stated this is a fair solution that would be acceptable; it would allow tourist income to remain in Titusville; the County would not have to fight the naturists on the beach or enact an ordinance of dubious legality; and it would not have to affect the rest of the County. He stated the Board can solve the problem by designating; and requested the Board solve the problem which the National Park Service will not. He advised the barge is approximately a mile north of Parking Lot 13; and the plan allows for people, such as campers, Boy Scouts, etc. to use the pristine area without naturists. He stated naturists are not animals or second class citizens; and giving the parking lots to the naturists gives them bathrooms and other resources, as well as keeping them off the pristine area. He stated if 60% of the beachgoers are put north of Lot 13, it would be difficult for the ecology; and it is trap because if 1,000 to 2,000 people are put in the pristine area, it can be shut down for environmental reasons. He requested the Board consider the management plan, which will solve the problem without costing the County.

Jan Frandsen, 4467 Country Road, Melbourne, stated she is against the ordinance; and advised at last count petitions have been turned in with 3,645 signatures. She stated she is a person; she has a family; and noted the rudeness of those supporting the ordinance. She explained people like to go nude because it feels good, it is healthy, it is convenient, it is practical, you do not get sand in your suit, and it makes you accept others and be accepted by them for what you really are and not what you appear to be. She stated going nude allows you to get a good suntan, feel closer to nature, behave better, and removes prurient curiosity. She noted the nation is not obsessed with sex, but with sex scandal; people like to be outraged over the imagined indecencies of others because it makes them feel self righteous and less guilty about their own imaginary sins; and they distort the facts to suit themselves. She stated children raised in an environment where nudity is casually accepted are forever immunized against many of the social problems that plague society today; and no person raised from childhood in a stable nudist family has ever been convicted of any kind of sexual assault; but the same cannot be said for any other method of child raising. She quoted a Lutheran minister, who had been imprisoned by the Nazis, "In Germany, they came first for the Communist, and I did not speak up because I was not a Communist; then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up because I was not a Jew; then they came for the trade unionist, and I did not speak up because I was not a trade unionist; then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak up because I was Protestant; then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak." She inquired who will they come for next in Brevard County.

Nelly Strickland, 536 Mendel Lane, Titusville, stated she welcomes visitors to Playalinda Beach, Florida's pornographic showcase; and advised of activities outlined in official violations written up by park rangers. She noted there are signs left on the beach advertising escort services; and nude kids are being employed for the making of porno films. She stated not all nudists are perverts; but almost all the sex-related incidents have been committed by nudists; and it is estimated only are being caught. Ms. Strickland noted she does not go to the beach anymore. She advised Superintendent Simpson catches all the flack from both sides; he has worked hard to work out something which is agreeable to all; he has done a good job under miserable circumstances; and recommended he get a raise. She noted many violators live within driving distance; they bring their own food and drink; the four motels operating at the corner of I-95 and S.R. 50 are operating at a loss; so, the nudists have not added to the economy. She stated out of state visitors who do stay in motels and eat their meals out are scared off the beach by the nudists. She stated nudism is not a constitutional right; and urged the Board to go forward with the ordinance.

Bryan Morris, P. O. Box 948053, Maitland, predicted no matter what facts are presented to the Board tonight, it will adopt the ordinance because with the possible exception of one Commissioner, the Board is controlled by a few powerful churches. He predicted the County Attorney will be paid a lot of overtime and expense money by the Brevard County taxpayers; and noted at the last meeting the anti-nudity people advised they do not care how much it costs. He predicted there will soon be an opportunity to test the ordinance, and he will have an opportunity to test the U.S. Constitution. He stated he expects this will be a long battle in the courts; the County will lose this battle; and the taxpayers will lose financially, which will not make some of the Commissioners look good. He stated one of the speakers at the last public hearing complained that he should have the right to look in both directions on that beach and not see anything that offends him; the Bible tells him what he should do in Mark 9:47 and Matthew 9:29, "if thy right eye offends thee, pluck it out." He stated more plucking and less lawmaking is needed to resolve this issue.

Burl Ferguson, 17 Fairglen Drive, Titusville, stated he has already stated his opinion on May 4, 1995 as well as in letters to the editor and letters to the Commissioners. He outlined ten reasons to ban nudity in Brevard County, (1) nudity belongs in the privacy of our own homes, or at designated private clubs on private property, not on public property, (2) the intent is not to ban nudists from Playalinda Beach but nudity from Playalinda Beach, (3) the entire beach area must be kept for everyone to enjoy, (4) it makes no sense to designate an area for the use of any group to establish their own rules of conduct, (5) the County is family-oriented and should stay that way, (6) the County does not need the reputation of having the best little nude beach in Florida, (7) appearing nude in public is offensive to most people with the possible exception of nudists, (8) appearing nude in public has always been considered improper, (9) the nudist say that banning nudity is an intrusion of government into their individual rights, but a ban on nudity protects all our rights, and (10) to designate an area of Playalinda Beach north of Parking Lot 13 as clothing optional closes the entire beach north of Parking Lot 13 to anyone except nudists. He encouraged the Board to support the ordinance. He noted his son Joe Ferguson requested he say this is not just a decision based on what is legal or illegal, but rather what is right and wrong; it is right to oppose public nudity, and wrong to allow it; and the beaches should be kept public because it is wrong to use public property in a restrictive private manner. He stated children are taught there are private areas of their bodies; to allow public nudity would only help in breaking down children's inhibitions; and children need a clear message that public nudity is wrong.

Roslyn Scheer, 1703 North Main Street, Kissimmee, Executive Director of the American Association of Nude Recreation, stated the Association was founded in 1931 and is the oldest and largest nudist organization in North America; there are 46,000 members with 13,000 in Florida; and Playalinda Beach has been a favorite of clothing optional users for decades. Ms. Scheer stated its popularity has grown to 2,000 clothing optional visitors a day; and clothing optional sunbathers are excellent stewards of seashore resources, sponsoring beach clean-up activities and promoting environmentally responsible use of the seashore. She stated Mr. Andress advises nudity is not a problem at other parks; and she has information relating to that which she will submit. She stated she traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with the National Park Service last Friday; Mr. Andress was at that meeting; and at that time, National Park Service assured it would take responsibility for the beach; but it has not done that. She stated now is the time for the National Park Service to accept its responsibility; the Canaveral National Seashore is a federal land, and National Park Service has the authority, responsibility and staff to manage it. She stated clothing optional users do not want to offend anyone; they just want a portion of the beach appropriate for clothing optional use; this works well at other parks; the Seashore is 24 miles long with plenty of room for a variety of users; and the plan requested of the National Park Service will work. She stated the Sheriff's limited resources are needed to fight serious crime rather than arrest peaceful, law abiding citizens who sunbathe without clothes; and today is the time for the National Park Service to accept its responsibility. She stated the AANR requests the Board vote no on the ordinance, and not make the person who skinny dips at a traditional nude beach a criminal. Ms. Scheer submitted written materials.

Bob Vogel, 2310 Cady Way, Winter Park, stated the Board is meeting in a building called a gymnatorium; and advised the derivation of the word is from the Greek word meaning naked. He advised the history of nude recreation dates back 3,000 years; he is bemused that supposedly mature adults would struggle to discuss with their children the parts of their body usually covered by a swimsuit; and advised children need simple, honest, direct answers that do not emotionalize or demonize the human body. He stated the human body is good and wholesome; and he believes that because he reads in the Bible in Genesis that we are made in the image and likeness of God. He stated this is not an issue of morality; it is an issue of politics; and the Board is charged to uphold the legacy of freedom that Americans have come to enjoy. He stated that legacy has brought out such statements as, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"; and inquired if the Board is going to say it disagrees with what the people say, so that will be sixty days and $500. He stated the issue is freedom; it is time political courage; and he hopes there are three Commissioners with the guts to just say no, or at least find the wisdom to make the Canaveral National Seashore the exception that it is and ought to be, in terms of this legislation.

Dallas Wright, 770 Poinsettia, Titusville, stated he has been a resident of Titusville for 30 years; and is thankful he lives in a free country, and for the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the men and women who died so that he could have this freedom. He stated along with freedom comes responsibility; his liberty must be balanced with common sense, moral restraint and respect for every individual's rights; and when public conduct has a negative effect on people and children, that conduct needs to be restrained. He stated public nudity is an offensive behavior that degrades the public atmosphere; nudity should be a private matter; and he takes exception when he takes his seven grandchildren to a public beach and nude individuals appear. He stated he is in favor of the ordinance, as are the majority of the citizens of the County.

Ronald Millette, 810 Sycamore Street, Titusville, stated he is a user of Canaveral National Seashore, and is opposed to public nudity anywhere. He stated it is inappropriate behavior; it does not promote healthiness, as some have indicated; and it promotes adverse ideas and effects on people who are not strong enough to withdraw from it. He stated as far as plucking his eyes out, the previous speaker needs to read further and see what plucking your eyes out means. He thanked the Board for voting against public nudity.

Tom Millsaps, 1245 Sharon Drive, Titusville, stated he has lived in the County for 31 years; and urged the Board to adopt the ordinance to restrict the nudity at Playalinda Beach. He advised there are lots of lakes in Orlando; and suggested the people nuditize the lakes and stay home.

Douglas Hasencamp, 27 Pineda Drive, Titusville, expressed support for the ordinance. He stated the government sometimes has difficulty in insisting on legislating this; and recommended the Board go ahead and do it. He stated the majority of the people present are for the ordinance.

Phil Canada, 207 West Bonnie Circle, Melbourne, stated he is opposed to the ordinance and the impact it will have on every person in the County. He stated several things happened during the process which he does not like; the ordinance is being ramrodded down the throats of the people by Randy Ball and his snow white fictitious beach users; and everyone has been misled about the need or lack thereof for this ordinance, while keeping the powers who are ramrodding it out of the limelight. He stated the Board can adopt the ordinance, but he was born free as an American, and he will stay free. He stated the taxpayers' time and money has been wasted just as it was by Viera and some golf courses. He stated the good old boys have just about ruined the County for human habitation; he has written to each Commissioner expressing his views, and requesting a written response; and the Commissioners have ignored it. He stated according to the tapes made in the Washington meeting with the National Park Service, Randy Ball said he is going to pass this ordinance.

Chairman Higgs admonished the audience to be quiet; and requested Mr. Canada start over.

Mr. Canada inquired when was Randy Ball elected County Commissioner; and stated Mr. Ball is not God and jury over what happens in this meeting. He stated the only people who have had a say in this are Randy Ball and his followers; the Board will do as it pleases without concern for the rest of the people; and recommended the Board go for it, noting he will see them in court.

Joan Wheeler, 3511 Constitution Drive, Titusville, stated she is a native Floridian, and has lived in Titusville for a long time. She stated she heard the State has no nudity laws, but it does; and the National Park Service is going to take care of everybody but us. She stated if the ordinance is flawed, the Board should make it unflawed; nudists at Playalinda Beach have attracted an unhealthy ilk; they want no legislation prohibiting nudity anywhere; and at this point, it will be legal for them to walk down the street naked. She stated Playalinda Beach now is unsafe; she heard numerous comments about complaints filed for unacceptable behavior; and if the national parks are unsafe, they should be closed. She read aloud the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution; the National Park Service is going to make the laws at Playalinda Beach now, but that used to belong to the people; and if thong bathing suits are acceptable and not considered nude, then it should be taken out of the ordinance. She requested the Board get an ordinance the people can live with before the nudists take over all the beaches in Florida.

Jim Doyle, 443 Dempsey Drive, Cocoa Beach, stated he has been a resident of the County since 1958; the Board has discussed the issue of controlled nudity in the County over the past couple of years; one or two elections have gone by since the discussion began; and now it is time for the Board to make a decision. He recommended the Board vote on the side of modesty and basic family values rather than taking the path to nude display and libertarianism. He stated this is not just an issue of Playalinda Beach nudity, but enforcement of public standards. He stated this issue can be addressed by Congress, at the next Presidential election, and at the State level; and the issue will not go away. He urged the Board to vote tonight and not put it off any further; and advised he cannot support any public official who favors public nudity.

Bob Holloway, 526 Cocoa Isles Boulevard, Cocoa Beach, stated he wishes to talk about individual freedoms and laws; and outlined his service in the Armed Forces fighting for democracy and individual freedoms. He stated although there are no immediate threats from outside the country, there seems to be a continuous battle to maintain freedom; and the opponents of freedom come from within the country. He noted he is neither for nor against nudists as long as they do not break criminal codes or force their activities on others; nudists try to find a secluded spot in which to sunbathe; before tonight, he never heard about lewd and lascivious behavior from this group of people; and he is sure if things were really happening, certain political and religious figures and the news media would let the people know. He stated he talked to one of the Commissioner's assistants about an incident where a nude person walked by a family; if this happened in an area where nudists are not supposed to go, he is against such activities; however if the family went to the park, knowing this was going on, then the nudists possibly thought they were also nudists. He requested the Commissioners look into their hearts and display common sense before passing laws against individual rights, especially for activities where there are no victims.

Bill Kilborn, 109 E. New Haven, Melbourne, stated he has been a resident of the County for 26 years, and a business owner for 24 years; and while the issue seems to be nudity, at the very bottom, it is not. He stated the issue is freedom and the imposition of so-called values of a small radical group on the rest of the people, which is happening at all levels of the government. He stated there was a man who was a fundamentalist who was against adultery and pornography; his people loved him; and he was elected to the highest office in his land. He stated the man raised a campaign against people whom he called heretics and Communists; he wanted to do away with his version of immorality; and anyone who opposed the man was said to be in league with Satan. He advised the man said, "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world's enemies. The work that Christ started but could not finish, I will conclude." He stated the man finally found a group to lay the blame on, just as those present tonight have laid all the blame for the ills of Titusville on the nudists; and the man's name was Adolph Hitler.

Johnnie Jones, 1069 Roberts Lane, New Smyrna Beach, stated the ordinance before the Board is not about nudity on the beach; it is about a rich, powerful, political, religious organization which is trying out its political clout on the government of Brevard County; the organization wants to force its doctrine upon every citizen of the United States; and it is also asking that bingo be closed in Brevard County as it does not conform to its doctrine.

James Estes, 2625 St. Anthony's Street, Titusville, stated he is concerned with how his tax dollars are spent since he lives on a fixed income; he has been a conservative Republican all his life; and outlined his voting record. He stated he and his wife are active in the Christian Church; and helped to start a church as charter members. He advised of a minister who preached if they did not vote for a certain candidate, they were not good Christians; and noted the people told the minister what they thought of his political proselytizing in church. He stated that is when he realized the joining of church and state could be a dangerous thing; the so-called Christian Right is neither very Christian nor very right; Jesus said, "I give to you a new commandment, and that is to love one another as you love me"; and Jesus fought against the holier than thou all through his ministry. He stated what he hears from the people who are calling themselves Christians is not love, but intolerance and hate; and hate is not a family value. He stated he has heard from experts on the nudism issue who do not understand what nudism is all about; but in Europe, nude beaches are accepted and commonplace, and they do not have anywhere near the sex crimes that America has where nudity seems to be equated with sex by the uninformed. He requested the Board not act like his former boss who said, "Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind's made up." He requested the Board consider the economic and legal implications of what will be done tonight; and stated censorship, book burning, and state religion will come next. He stated an American philosopher said, "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

George Haff, 109 North Vanguard Circle, Cocoa, stated Commissioner Scarborough has called him a nut; and expressed concern that a Commissioner would slander a group of people because he does not believe the way they do. He stated if naturists are nuts according to their Commissioner, they should be covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act which states the Board will have to go out of its way to make sure they are not having any problems. He stated he has heard a lot of religious people talking about how great their religion is; but every other week you hear about some church leader who has been accused of molesting children. He stated under the ordinance, pedophiles will be welcome in the County because the ordinance states that children under the age of ten are not people; and inquired how anyone can be prosecuted for doing anything to a non-person.

Brenda Dornbusch, 522 Eloise Avenue, Titusville, advised she has lived in the County since 1959, and has been going to Playalinda Beach for many years; and expressed concern that the children are being forgotten. She stated she tries to teach her children morals; the nudists talk about their rights; and inquired what about her right as a parent to raise her child as she sees fit. She stated the nudists talk about compromise; they have been there for years; but they are not staying in their designated area. She recounted an incident which occurred last summer at Parking Lot 8 in which her family encountered nudists; and stated her freedom as a parent was infringed upon because she had to take her children home. She stated she enjoyed going to Playalinda Beach when she grew up, and hoped her children would be able to do the same. She stated if this was any place else besides a public beach, nudism would be against the law; you have to be 21 years old to go into a nude bar; and she has no problem for those who choose to go to nude bars, although she does not choose to go there; but the beach is a public area where children are allowed. She expressed concern that the voice of the minority has been louder than the majority; the majority of people in Brevard County do not want this here; and she gets tired of going out of town and hearing Titusville is the "place where the nude beach is." She requested the Board consider not just the Christian issue, not just the nudist issue, but the children's issue.

Kevin Kemppanion, 1650 Riviera Drive, Merritt Island, stated he was surprised when Commissioner O'Brien told him within ninety days there would be a nudity ordinance, it would be enforced for two years, and after that things would go back to the way they were. He noted Commissioner O'Brien stated he had no problem with nudity, but things were getting out of hand, and the perverts were going all over the place; and after meeting with Commissioner O'Brien, he thought his mind was made up, and no matter how many people called, wrote or visited, he was going to go through with the ordinance. He stated after reviewing the complaints, he recognized that most of them were from another county, and most were complaints about just nude people made during 1993 when the park rangers were giving out tickets for being nude on the beach before the charges were dismissed by a federal judge. He stated after reviewing agendas of the County Commission meetings, he found that people who had been put on the agenda to speak against the ordinance were withdrawn from the agenda and not allowed to speak after people who were for the ordinance were allowed to speak. He stated the Titusville City Council voted to be neutral on the nudity issue; Superintendent Simpson was instructed by his supervisors in February, 1995 to work with the nudists; and Representative Randy Ball wrote to Superintendent Simpson's supervisors to say the County Commissioners were going forward with an ordinance, and the National Park Service should wait until its adoption to do anything. He stated he returned to Commissioner O'Brien's office to express his concerns at the information he received; and Commissioner O'Brien advised since Titusville was neutral on the issue and no one seemed to be in support of the ordinance, he would not vote for it, unless he was flooded with calls before the meeting. He noted Commissioner O'Brien further stated the only ones who wanted the ordinance were a small group of Christian coalitions in Titusville, and his position was not to vote on the ordinance. He advised Commissioner O'Brien's position was also reported in a news article in Florida TODAY; so, he was surprised and concerned when Commissioner O'Brien voted for the ordinance on May 4, 1995. He noted this has the same format as Viera written all over it; and no matter what the cost is to the people of the County, the Board will go ahead and do what it wants. He stated it makes no difference if the Board can enforce the ordinance on federal land, because the Board will do what it wants. He advised of deceptions involved in Commissioner Scarborough and County Attorney Scott Knox's trip to Washington; and stated citizens were denied the opportunity to sit in on the meeting with the National Park Service because the Board feels the people would interfere. He stated there is the appearance that dealings have been going on behind closed doors to benefit a certain group of people. He stated this is not about nudity; it is about the Religious Right trying to show its political might; and the same people who feel it is okay to kill a doctor who performs abortions have set out to control the Board to force their moral issues on the County, no matter what the cost to the taxpayers. He advised of an inter-office memo from Randy Ball stating even if he wanted to back away, he could not do it because of the church's influence. He stated the people do not like back door deals and wasting dollars.

The meeting recessed at 8:04 p.m. and reconvened at 8:17 p.m.

Barbara Fine, 527 Indian River Avenue, Titusville, stated what is going on at the beach is not working or everyone would not be here; her children were raised in Titusville; and her son spends a lot of time at the beach surfing. She stated Hot Springs, Arkansas, which was her home town, has a national park; and nudity is not allowed there. She stated the fiber of the country is being attacked little by little; and she hopes the Board will take the stand for what the people feel is right because the majority of the taxpayers would like to have the ordinance adopted.

T. F. Brown, 670 Caribbean Drive, Satellite Beach, stated he has been a resident of Satellite Beach for 20 years, a resident of Florida for over 30 years, and a practicing nudist for 30 years. He stated listening to the discussion this evening, he wonders what has happened to compromise and tolerance. He stated the nudists and naturists want free beaches; they have used the north end of Playalinda Beach for 30 years; and he understands few incidents were reported there until the surge of enforcement activity three years ago. He stated he sympathizes with Superintendent Simpson, having been a former federal officer trying to exercise concurrent jurisdiction. He noted the state law was overturned by a federal magistrate; and the National Park Service had to make no decision on the enforcement because it is bound to honor the U.S. Constitution not the Florida Constitution. He stated the Sheriff is willing to enforce the ordinance but it will cost in loss of patrols in other areas of the County. He stated both sides have logical complaints; and the matter can be simply resolved by dividing the beach into three segments, one portion for clothing optional use, a buffer zone, and an area for the people who desire to be clothed. He stated by taking that action, the matter would be closed, and it would be unnecessary to pass another law or spend tax money.

Ed Miller, 450 Carissa Drive, Satellite Beach, stated he has been a County resident for 18 years; and he worked for one of the Commissioners when he was seeking election. He stated at that time he asked how the candidate stood on the issue of clothing optional at Playalinda Beach, with the response being the County Commissioners could not enforce a ban on federal land; but something has changed. He inquired why does the Board want to enforce a nudity ordinance on a few miles of Brevard County beach; and stated the National Park Service advises the County will have to pay for it. He stated signs can be put up; and inquired why the County cannot let the nudists have the portion of the beach that is necessary. He stated everyone is speaking about Playalinda Beach because that is an important issue; but there are other things in the ordinance which are profound. He stated nudity means "to openly display or expose any portion of the anal cleft or cleavage of the male or female buttocks"; and advised he could have had two roofers arrested a month ago. He stated the ordinance says that nudity is "human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered"; and advised half the high school boys could be arrested. He stated people can take their children under ten years of age to Playalinda Beach naked, and the law does not cover it. He stated it is a dumb law which will cost everyone a lot of money before it is done.

Edie Stiner, 3974 Ridgewood Drive, Titusville, stated she has been a resident for six and one-half years. She stated this is America, land of the free; and the freedom is for everyone; however, for this to be a reality the principle that one person's freedom only goes as far as the next person's nose must prevail. She stated a small special interest group is saying "keep out" to the world; but the problem is it is a public beach and a national park, so unique that the government set it aside for generations to come. She stated there is an injustice; the nudists not only want to eliminate everyone else from "their" beach; but by their presence north of Lot 13, they prevent Canaveral National Seashore from being used as a national park. She stated Brevard County is one of the few counties that has a national park within its boundaries; but as a Girl Scout leader, she could not take her girls to the park without going through three miles of nude men. She stated the County should worry about this because the citizens have been betrayed by the National Park Service which has ignored the problem, by the Titusville City Council which has put its head in the sand, and by the judicial system which has interpreted the Florida law that states, thou shall not go naked in public places to only include those cases of lewd and lascivious behavior. She stated the same system says that lewd behavior does not include the man on the beach who purposely disrobed in front of her daughters because he did not fondle his genitals; and this is an injustice. She stated she has the same right to enjoy the national park as the nudist does; if you put a bathing suit on him, you in no way endanger or eliminate his right to enjoy the national park; but if he is allowed to stay at the national park nude, that eliminates her right. She stated the people have a right to be heard; and requested the Board vote for the ban.

Sheryl Carlile, 2105 Trieste Drive, Mims, stated she has lived in Brevard County for 37 years; she has three children who like to go to the beach; and she has witnessed lewd and lascivious acts of two men. She stated she has lost her right to go to the beach; she does not want to see nude people or have her children see nude people; and she has not raised her children around that. She stated she is not a right-wing activist; and she was not told to come to talk on behalf of any church. She advised she witnessed a man in the parking lot totally nude in March, 1995; and was forced to go home. She noted she did not report this at the time because she did not know where to report it; but later did report it. She advised the Carliles were the first settlers in Titusville; her children are fifth-generation Carliles; the Carliles have always enjoyed the beach; but they cannot do so any more. She requested the Board vote for the ban so she can have the beach back. She commended the men on the Board for having the backbone to vote for the ordinance, because a lot of men these days do not.

Randy Pejakovich, 1105 West Hillcrest Drive, Cocoa, stated he has lived in Florida all his life, and is against the ban on nudity. He advised he took his nieces, who are not naturists, to the beach; and his fifteen-year old niece was approached by a gentleman who invited her to his motel room. He described being approached in a public bathroom on the beach; and stated these things have never happened to him at Playalinda Beach or any other clothing optional beach in his 30 years of going to clothing optional beaches. He noted he also paid $2 to park at the beach, but his family does not have to pay to go to Playalinda Beach, although he would do so if he was told he had to. He stated the naturists do not cause problems at Playalinda Beach; and they have been going there for over 50 years. He advised he went to Playalinda Beach two weeks ago; he parked in Lot 13; he got there at 7:15 a.m., and got the last parking spot; and by 11:00 a.m. people were parking at Lot 6 and walking to Lot 13 to lay out in the nude. He inquired who would want to walk two miles to sunbathe in the nude when according to the National Park Service you can stay where you parked. He stated before they started selective enforcement of the laws, and telling people they can be nude at Lots 5 and south, the nudists stayed north of Lot 13; he used to ride a bicycle from Palm Bay to Playalinda Beach to be able to lay nude at a beach; and he stayed north of Parking Lot 13. He recommended signs be placed on the beach designating nude and non-nudists.

John Winarski, 229 Cleveland Avenue, Cocoa Beach, stated the proposed ordinance seems to be a reaction to the Religious Right trying to dictate its moral on the rest of society; not everyone is a Christian; he happens to have a different religious belief; and nudity is part of it because he is a sun worshiper. He stated the problem on the beach has been created by those who do not want the nudity there; and no one has shown that nudity adversely affects the health, safety and welfare of any of the citizens in the County.

Nick Welch, 480 Oakwood Court, Merritt Island, stated he is a resident of the County; he is a husband, father of six, and soon to be a grandfather; and he is a pastor of a church in Brevard County. He stated there are already laws that deal with this; it has been stated that those opposed to nudity have not visited the beaches; but it is not that they do not like to visit, but that they cannot visit the beaches. He stated an issue that is being propagated is that the nudists are taxpayers who have a right to do what they want to do; but paying taxes does not exclude people from adherence to the law. He stated if one shows himself naked in any mall in the County, it would be cause for arrest; if one showed up nude at any of the schools, there would be cause for an arrest; and this is not an issue where the Religious Right is trying to dictate to the populous what direction it should adhere; but instead there is a small segment of people that want their liberty to become license which would mandate an infraction and infringement upon the greater population of the County. He requested the Board adopt the ordinance, and not allow a continued erosion of family lifestyle. He stated as a pastor he is not intimidated by issues and statements made by others; everyone has a right to share them as a citizen of the County; and license does not mean liberty. He noted just because he votes does not mean he can go faster than 55 and 65 miles per hour.

Randy Ball, 2325 Black Willow Drive, Mims, recounted an incident which occurred during his campaign in which his family encountered a naked woman at Lot 7 at Playalinda Beach; and stated that is what drove the issue home to him. He explained why Chapter 877.03, Florida Statutes can be enforced at the mall, but not at the beach. He stated the Sheriff's deputies, even though they may see naked people at the beach, cannot use the Statute unless there is a complainant; the victims can come forward and fill out a police report; however the victims are gathering up their children and fleeing; and that is the problem. He stated the Statute could be used in the mall where there is a quick response time by police and where the victims would linger; but it cannot be used at Playalinda Beach. He stated everyone has been called a beach user tonight; but if sand castle sculptors, surf fisherman, surfers, and swimmers are beach users, the nudists are not; and they are a different category because in spite of their best intentions, they exclude the majority of people by their actions. He stated if the ordinance is not adopted tonight, the majority of the people who use the beach will continue to be driven away; and if the ordinance is adopted, no one will be driven away, but a small percentage will have to wear bathing suits. He stated the federal government has not come out with a definitive action to solve the problem; at the State level, he got the Florida Nudity Bill farther than it has ever gotten before; and he had the votes to get it further, but the Speaker of the House intervened. He stated the City Council of Titusville has taken the safe position of neutrality; and the only government body that had the guts to take this issue up is the Board.

Laurel Price, Titusville, stated tourism dollars are not being generated here; the first speaker indicated his hotel is in Orlando; and it has been indicated that the County's hotels are operating at a loss. She stated society has changed; there are all kinds of problems; and there can be no compromise with enforcing the nudity ordinance. She stated from the many cases and personal experiences of those who have been confronted by nudists on the beach, the nudists go beyond being simply nude; it is offensive and generates other problems that break down the moral fabric of society; the nudists are a special interest group intent on doing their own thing; and many are more interested in protecting that freedom rather than doing the right thing. She requested the Board do the right thing by adopting and enforcing the ordinance.

Art Klouda, 1070A Tree Lane, Titusville, stated he is not for or against nudity, but is against the total waste of money that the ordinance will cost. He stated it is the responsibility of the Board to tell the people in Titusville how much this is costing and if there is a possibility of winning. He advised he went to Daytona Beach last week with his bathing suit on, and had a great time; he went to Playalinda Beach the week before, one day with his bathing suit on and one day without, and had a great time; and he goes where he wants with no problem. He stated one fisherman had four poles in the water, ten yards apart; he was taking forty yards of the beach; and he does not have the right. He stated Mr. Simpson and Mr. Dehart have a hard job; Governor Chiles signed a law against nudity three years ago; but a ramp was put on a State beach in Miami so disabled people could get onto the nude section of beach. He inquired how many Commissioners know about this; and inquired what they did about it. He requested Representative Ball address that. He stated most of the people who were naturists before the problems started still walk all the way up to the north end of the beach; and it is the nuts who go down to the southern sections and do wrong things. He stated 99% of the nudists stay in the north area of the beach; and it would be wrong to take away their rights. He stated the Board should find out why the State has allowed a ramp, with Representative Ball as a signee, for handicapped people to get on the nude beach.

Bob Cowgill, 3965 Oakland Street, Cocoa, stated he has been a Brevard County resident since 1979; he is 47 years old, and is not the oldest person present; and inquired why people of his generation and older need to come before the Board to determine whether it is okay to go out in public without your clothes on. He stated some people feel it is their right to behave this way; it is easy to be critical of a certain behavior because you do not want to do it; and maybe an ordinance is not needed to restrict a nudist's rights and freedom of expression. He stated he is not inclined to nudism; however, he does enjoy expressing himself by riding a motorcycle, with a helmet, at 90 or 100 miles per hour; and suggested the Board set aside the ordinance and also eliminate all speed limits on Brevard County roads to allow him to express himself in the manner he chooses. He stated if people say his form of expression might harm their children, he would have to respond, "rubbish" because his in-house research organization informs him that children are much more resilient than you might imagine. He stated if someone examines his impeccable credentials, they will realize that he is far better qualified to determine what constitutes harm to a child than parents are. He inquired if this argument sounds ridiculous; admitted it is; and stated it is none the less so when it is used to attempt to justify public nudity. He stated everyone can see the problem which arises when absolute standards of acceptable behavior have been abandoned; in an ideal society, man's urges to express his base desires are held in check by his conscience and the press of public opinion; but ours is not an idea society, so the ordinance is required. He stated all that must happen for things to get really fouled up is for a person to know the difference between right and wrong, and say and do nothing.

Dian Hardison, 7005 Bismarck Road, Port St. John, thanked Commissioner Higgs for being the voice of reason and sanity; and stated she is surprised she has not invoked her power to remove those who exhibit disruptive behavior. She stated if the other Commissioners are to serve those who elected them, they must learn to separate facts from rhetoric; and a lot of rhetoric has been heard tonight. She stated there has been a claim that nude beach users attract crime; but this is not true; and there is clear evidence that nude beaches have less crime than regular people anywhere where they might be without supervision; and in Europe and in Miami, the free beaches are the safest place to be because nudists patrol themselves. She stated it has been said nudism is not family oriented; but this is not true. She stated she wishes the Board could see how healthy and happy the nudists' children are as opposed to their repressed, and often ill-behaved counterparts; she would like the Board to see the grandparents, and how strong and healthy they are; and she wishes the Board could see how polite nudists' teenagers are, noting she has never had to ask a nudist teenager to turn down his boom box. She stated speakers have referred to the nudists as a well organized machined; but they did not even know each other until they were forced to ban together to protect their rights; and they are not the machine which hired professional speakers, distributed form letters, and bussed people in. She stated they are beach goers and voters who have not been taken in by the textile industry. She stated it is claimed that nudism will spread out of control; but it has not; and in half a century there have not been problems at Playalinda Beach with nudists. She stated those in favor of the ordinance say that a small group should not be allowed to take the rights away from everyone else; and this is true. She stated a small group of people should not be allowed to deny the rest of the people the right to be at the beach that tax dollars have paid for, and impose their dress code; and at Playalinda Beach the nudists are the majority users. She stated people have said God condemns nudity; but her grandmother warned of people who think they are good enough to speak for God; and God created all creatures naked. She stated the clothesmongers claim the sight of a human body offends them; and that must make it very difficult to get clean. She stated the solution is signage, dividing the beach so that everyone can use it. She stated if the ordinance is adopted, the nudists will fight it and win; and the majority of people do not want their tax dollars spent in this way.

Stephen Schay, 4526 Memory Lane, Titusville, stated he has lived in the County for 30 years; and he supports the ban on nudity. He stated a lot of what has been said tonight is obvious; and he is not going to change anyone's mind. He stated he is as interested in the legal side of this question as he is in the moral issue; and norms of public behavior are a legitimate concern of representative government, within certain guidelines. He advised the Constitution has not one thing to say about a person's right to go nude; but it does say it is the duty of government to promote the common good and the general welfare. He stated the naturists argue that public nudity is not a threat to the common welfare; but that is up to the people of the County to decide, not some unelected federal judge. He stated it boils down to who has the most clout to see their view prevail; the Constitution does not pertain to this issue; and it is a public policy decision about the overriding will of the people of this County. He reiterated no minds will be changed in this meeting about the advisability of public nudity; and it is a matter of giving the Board some idea of the consensus of the County's population stand on this issue, and having them vote accordingly. He stated if the local newspapers report on the votes of the Commissioners, the people will have some point of reference to decide who to vote for in the next election. He stated the overriding majority of the people in this County are against public nudity; elected government has the right, except in extreme cases, to set public policy; and freedom does not mean that everyone gets what they want.

Chairman Higgs announced William Carr and Mrs. W. G. Carr, 3992 Ridgewood Drive, Titusville, do not wish to speak, but expressed support for the ordinance.

Barbara Perez, 4430 Buttonbush Drive, Titusville, stated she is a resident of the County and a registered voter. She stated her comfort zone is not to be confronted by nudity; she lived in Dade County where nudity became an issue on Miami Beach; when it was put to a vote, she and the majority voted against it; and there was no nudity on Miami Beach. She stated she has been watching this issue in Brevard County with great interest; it should not be an issue of money or finances; it is an issue of democracy; and she has been happy to see democracy at work tonight. She stated the Commission has been seeking what is the will and the desire of the majority; and she is confident the Board will vote with the majority. She stated in every state she has lived in nudity has been illegal; and there is a question if there is not a law against it. She urged the Board to adopt a law against nudity. She stated she believes in the old adage, "no nudes is good nudes."

Chairman Higgs stated Kathy Carr, 1185 War Eagle Boulevard, does not wish to speak, but advises she is anti-nudity.

Gene Gonyaw, 2258 Macedo Road, Palm Bay, stated he is not a naturist, but would like to register opposition to the proposed ordinance; the restrictions on simple nudity are one concern; but the restrictions on swimwear throughout the County are outrageous. He stated the proponents of the ordinance are religious fundamentalists who believe everyone must live by their rules, and they alone are the caretakers of correct and acceptable standards and values, which is arrogant. He advised those who dream of living in a society based on fundamental religious rules of conduct, where people dress and behave so as not to offend anyone, should go to Iran or Iraq; but this is the United States of America which makes it ironic that the County is entertaining an ordinance regulating swimwear because someone may be offended or embarrassed. He stated this is an intolerable attitude in a country founded on the principles of individual freedom and personal liberty.

Vikki Franks, 958 Logenberry Trail, Winter Springs, read aloud an excerpt from a book by Alan Sherman entitled Nudity No No, as follows:

Why was there no one around to say shame on you to Adam and Eve, and why did they cover their loins? Why not their noses or elbows or big toes, and what does God wear, a Pierre Cardin suit? And why fig leaves? Fig leaves were intended to cover figs. On the contrary, He must think it's pretty peculiar when he sees us killing other animals and wearing their skins. After the turn of the century, American women were arrested for wearing two piece bathing suits, and men were arrested for going topless on a beach . . . . As recently as 1962 the American nudity hang-up flared up and almost became a national scandal. In the spring of that year the host of the NBC Today show, Dave Garroway, introduced his morning guest, a small, thin, prim looking soul named G. Clifford Proud. The bespectacled Mr. Proud had an air of anxious sincerity as he spoke of American moral decay, and pleaded with the listeners to join his cause. Mr. Proud was president of a new organization, already 55,000 strong, S.I.N.A., the Society of the Indecency of Naked Animals. No one paid much attention to the illogical title. Garroway took Proud quite seriously, or at least pretended to. Proud introduced his aide Bruce Spencer and together they brought forth to the American public incontrovertible proof, maps, charts and scientific specifics to the effect that 28% of all the collisions on the Pennsylvania Turnpike occurred because drivers lost control when they saw exposed private parts on the cows, goats, and sheep on roadside farms. 19.3% of unmarried pregnancies were directly attributed to observing dogs copulating after high school football games.

She inquired if this does not make adopting the ordinance ridiculous.

Lori Bettes, 1100 John Rodes Boulevard, Melbourne, stated the nudists keep mentioning that nudity dates back to Adam and Eve; and inquired if the nudists have ever figured out why God put clothes on them. She stated she also heard that Christians hate nudists; she does not hate nudists; but she does hate public nudity. She stated she called around to several counties including St. Johns, Hillsborough, Collier, Polk and Pinellas Counties, and spoke with County Attorneys who already have ordinances in effect; and unanimously the County Attorneys advised her their ordinances have upheld very well. She stated they told her very few arrests have been made, and a lot of the ordinances were enacted because they had a lot of hot dog vendors wearing thong bikinis, which is considered nudity. She emphasized the need to define nudity. She stated women who were on the side of the road in their thong bikinis and nudists on the beach were not arrested but were cited to inform them of the law; very few arrests had to be made; and the people just stopped going to the beach nude or going to the roadside nude. She stated not one of the County Attorneys advised he had to take a measuring tape to measure an anal cleft or a bathing suit to enforce the law. She stated just because the National Park Service does not want to help to enforce the ordinance, the ordinance does not have to be thrown out the window; if the ordinance is adopted tonight, there will be an opportunity to try to enforce the ordinance within the County; and if the Sheriff cannot handle it, and needs the National Park Service to help enforce the law, that can be addressed at that time. She stated without the ordinance every beach in Brevard County will be unprotected against nudity. She submitted a petition with 3,000 signatures supporting the ordinance in its entirety; and stated those people will back the Board in helping to enforce the ordinance. She inquired if a beach is designated, where will the line be drawn on designation, and what will be done when other groups want to designate a beach or the nudists run out of room on their beach. She stated in any given situation, there will be controversy; someone will agree, and someone will disagree; and therefore, in the United States, the voting right has always been instituted the voting right of democratic society. She stated in a vote the majority has always won; the majority stands for this ordinance; and requested a vote for the majority.

Clayton Clendinen, 3084 Sunset Court, Cocoa, stated he has been a resident of Cocoa for 32 years. He stated everyone agrees the beach of Florida are public; they are available to everyone; and there is no law that anyone can make that would stop anyone from going to the beaches. He stated everyone agrees that the constitutional form of government allows the making of laws; those laws deal with behavior that the people think is unacceptable; and if that was not the case, there would be no Constitution, laws or lawmakers. He stated where the rhetoric comes is when groups are called Nazis or whatever because they disagree with another group; and that is destructive to society. He stated this is not an issue of personal freedom; it is an issue of behavior; and there is disagreement about a specific behavior, nudity. He stated no one wants to stop the nudists from coming; he is happy for the nudists to come; but he wants them to wear clothes. He stated he is sure nudists are intelligent people who are capable of enjoying the beach clothed; and that is the issue. He stated he opposes nudity, and supports the ordinance as the majority of the people do. He urged the Board to support the ordinance and not be intimidated by the rhetoric. He stated the people have the right to believe what they believe in this country, regardless of the basis of that right; and that does not exclude somebody in their beliefs.

Luke Glenn, 157 River Park Boulevard, Titusville, stated the ordinance is bad; private lands that he grew up going to are now housing developments; there is nowhere to go; and he cannot afford to drive out of town to go to the beach. He stated there is nothing wrong with compromise; the County is having growing pains; and it is time to realize that all groups need a place to go. He stated a fair compromise would be better than a definite no or yes; it would make more sense to segregate the beach; there are too many people who use the nude beach to say they cannot come any more; and in the past when they enforced at the beach, there was hardly anyone at the beach. He noted the majority of people do not want to go to Playalinda Beach because there are no lifeguards.

Norman Beigner, P. O. Box 338, Florahome, stated he and his wife are nudists; there is a management problem; and he can see value in both sides. He stated the nudists want their area; the people who are clothed want their area; and Playalinda Beach did fine until two years ago. He stated there were some arrests approximately a year and a half ago; and since then some signs have been put up by the National Park Service that lend confusion. He stated the signs say you can be nude anywhere you want on the seashore; and that is wrong. He requested the Board not adopt the ordinance, but adopt a resolution requesting the National Park Service to put up signage. He stated the area which has historically been used at Parking Lot 13 should not be a nude use area; Sections 9 through 12 should be designated clothing optional; and then the Boy Scouts or any other group who want to go to the wilderness area of the Seashore can have access without being offended. He stated there is merit on both sides; the beach should be designated; and the National Park Service has done irreparable harm by causing division, and not taking any action. He stated the Board could adopt an ordinance and put up signs; and if the National Park Service wants to take them down, the County can designate its own beach if it wants.

Rick Remington, 410 Cypress Street, Indialantic, stated a professor of religion at Miami University in Oxford, has written a study advising early Christians might not have objected to public nudity the way people object today; mixed bathing was customary with Christian men and women until the end of the fourth century; and Christian morality did not originally preclude nudity. He stated there is a tendency to assume that early Christians thought the same way mainstream Christians do today; but in the first centuries of Christianity, public baths, sometimes several acres in size, became a gathering spot throughout the Roman empire. He stated there were more than 850 public baths in Rome by the end of the fourth century; and Christian women frequented baths with men, even though some writers opposed the practice. He noted in the third century Christian baptism was done in the nude; and described the process. He stated the article relating to Dr. Ward's study was printed in the Dayton Daily News on February 13, 1993.

Lloyd Clough, 3784 E. R. Smyth Drive, Mims, stated he has been a resident of Brevard County for 26 years, and is a Florida native. He stated there are sixteen people in his family, including his children and grandchildren, who would love to use, and have used Playalinda Beach; and he is in total agreement with the ordinance. He requested the Board adopt the ordinance in the name of decency, and in the name of the majority of the citizens of Brevard County. He stated he does not see any difficulty in doing this; the news release from the National Park Service clearly states the National Park Service does not object to the County's proposed ordinance, and understands the local law enforcement responsibility and authority, and if the County determines this ordinance is the appropriate step to take the National Park Service will accept the local decision and cooperate. He stated the Board has a responsibility to act for the majority of the citizens of the County and has a higher authority to answer to as well.

David Wasserman, 228 Park Avenue, Winter Park, stated he represents the naturists; he is not present to threaten litigation; but he has read Commissioner Scarborough's comments about his clients in the newspaper, and thinks it is despicable for a public official to call people names. He stated the conversation earlier is what he thinks is nuts, talking about how to go about manipulating the law to arrest American citizens for exercising freedoms that this group does not approve of. He stated if the Board was confident that it was a majority of citizens, it would put this to a referendum to know the truth. He stated Representative Ball said he tried in the Legislature, and no other government body would pass his legislation; so, now it has come to the Board. He stated last time people were arrested on the beach, the nudists did not sue for civil rights violations; but he does not doubt it will happen this time. He suggested the Board consider a test case, if it intends to adopt the ordinance and enforce it in a federal park; it should not arrest several hundred people as Mr. Ball suggested; it is still a free country; and he intends to help keep it that way.

Patricia Charpentier, 4450 Swift Avenue, Titusville, stated she had a speech, but the Board has heard it before; she wants the ordinance; she worked hard for it; she wants her rights back; and she supports the Board.

Ray Olinger, 2954 Chipper Drive, Palm Bay, stated the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the communities are to set the standards of conduct which citizens are expected to adhere to; and Congress and the National Park Service cannot set these standards. He inquired if those planning to vote against the ordinance would bring their daughters, granddaughters or nieces to a public beach in Brevard County, and subject them to the kind of filth they read about in the complaints and have heard about tonight. He inquired if the Commissioners would not subject their little girls to the kind of aberrant behavior, then why would they vote to subject other children to it. He stated there is an argument that it is not proper for government to legislate in this area, and that it is just more government interference in the people's lives; but inquired if there could be anything more proper than for the people's representatives to legislate a code of conduct for the people to abide by. He stated elected representatives have been doing that since the founding of this country; and moral conduct has been properly legislated since humanity began. He noted one Commissioner stated there is no nudity problem in any other beach in the County except Playalinda Beach; but the ordinance states that a nude person is one who wears g-strings, t-backs and thong bikinis; and that apparel is in use throughout the County, so there is a nudity problem throughout the County. He urged the Board not to be sidetracked by the National Park Service's wishy-washy statements tonight. He stated since the Supreme Court ruled that the communities have a right to set standards, the Supreme Court will support its own decision in any future cases, by requiring the Park Service to enforce the community standards. He stated the speaker who spoke about the Society of Naked Animals missed the joke; it was a group of six actors who traveled nationwide under assumed names and in costume; and they pulled the wool over the eyes of people like Dave Garroway and other interviewers throughout the country. He stated if nakedness is a good thing on a public beach, it is a good thing anywhere; and invited any of the proponents of nakedness to expose themselves here and now.

Lee Craig, 2876 Stearns Avenue, Palm Beach, advised of statistics relating to molestation of minors. She stated when anyone takes their child out and exposes his or her body, they are saying their child is available to pedophiles and molesters; the Bible says to dress in modest apparel; and children should be taught their body is precious, and should be covered and private. She stated the cancer situation in Florida is extreme; when the whole body is exposed, delicate tissues are being exposed to possible cancer; and anyone who exposes their children to the sun and molesters should be arrested for child abuse. She expressed support for the ordinance.

Chairman Higgs advised Lynn Waddell submitted a card indicating she did not wish to speak; however she did not indicate her stand on the ordinance.

Richard Mason, 1316 N.E. 105 Street, Miami Shores, representing South Florida Free Beaches, advised a previous speaker said there were no nude beaches in Miami; however, South Florida Free Beaches, working with the City of Miami Beach, established Miami Beach as a top-free and thong swimwear permissible beach over ten years ago. He stated if there had been any secondary effect over the past ten years, it would have been shut down; but four years ago, a clothing optional beach was established on a County beach, Haulover Beach. He noted the parking lot serving that beach is now earning the county over $700,000 in additional revenue; and that money is used for inner city park and recreation projects and for the elderly. He stated since the beach has become clothing optional, crime has gone from over forty felony calls per month to zero. He stated north of Haulover Beach, Sunny Isles allowed two miles of beach to be top-free and thong swimwear permissible; and there are fourteen or fifteen miles of beach which are either top-free, thong swimwear permissible or clothing optional. He advised there are only three states that have anti-nudity laws; one of them is New York; and recently the Supreme Court of New York ruled that women can be top-free anywhere that men can be top-free. He stated he met Representative Randy Ball in Tallahassee while lobbying against the anti-nudity bill; here in Brevard County, Mr. Ball opposes nudity at Canaveral National Seashore; but on two occasions in Tallahassee, Mr. Ball offered to amend the anti-nudity bill to exclude Canaveral National Seashore, if he would withdraw his opposition to the bill; and he does not know where Mr. Ball stands on the issue. He requested the Board either table or vote the ordinance down.

John R. Franks, 958 Logenberry Trail, Winter Springs, stated nudity has been around a long time; two years ago the State law outlawing nudity was used by the National Park Service to try and stop nudity at Playalinda Beach; and the courts said it was not against the law to be nude at Playalinda Beach. He stated the Legislature in 1994 and 1995 had opportunities to change the law to outlaw nudity, but chose not to do so. He noted Dade County has extensive nude beaches. He inquired if the Board is trying to create a bigger problem than what there is now; and stated if the ordinance is adopted, it will create a bigger problem. Mr. Franks stated Commissioner Ellis stated the nudity problem is confined to Playalinda Beach; but if the Board adopts the ordinance with the definitions of nudity including t-backs and g-strings, it will spread the problem to the entire beach. He stated many of the suits in the swimwear shops would be illegal under this ordinance. He stated he was at Playalinda Beach a week ago Friday and drove past the first nine parking lots, which were nearly empty; but at the end of the beach, the parking lot was completely full; and there were between 1,000 and 1,500 naturists there. He stated that is the community standard; nudity is accepted in this community; and if the Board outlaws nudity, it will cause further aggravation. He stated the National Park Service has advised it will do what it wants and will not cooperate or enforce the ordinance; the National Park Service will allow the County to come onto the beach; but the National Park Service will do nothing. He stated that will continue the situation the way it is now; and everyone is going to be unhappy. He stated the National Park Service suggested the County could put signs up; and it is suggesting the County solve the problem. He stated if an area was designated for nudity and another designated where no nudity is permitted, there would be cooperation from almost everyone, and it would solve the problem. He stated if the Board adopts the ordinance, it will guarantee years of litigation and problems. He requested the Board consider the community, and try to reach a compromise, rather than creating a war over the issue.

John Blasik, 4615 Tree Ridge Lane, Palm Bay, stated if the meeting was held at the Government Center, there might be more South Brevard people present. He stated one finding is that some tourists have expressed intent not to frequent the beaches; but another finding could be inserted that some people have testified they will not frequent Brevard County beaches if the ordinance is adopted. He inquired why, under definition D which addresses setting areas aside, cannot the County or the municipalities do this. He requested the language be left in which would outlaw thong bikinis if this is what the people want; and suggested including language so that municipalities can designate. He stated a lot of people want to send a statement that this is what we stand for; and if this is what the majority of the people stand for, the ordinance should make that statement. He noted some people have been claiming majority; but he has been keeping track of speakers, and it is even. He inquired who is the majority and who is the minority.

Commissioner Scarborough advised under Charter government, municipalities can exempt out from all County Ordinances; and inquired if that would be true of this one as well. Mr. Knox advised if a municipality wanted to adopt an ordinance saying public nudity was okay, it could.

Robert Johnson, 3800 Corey Road, Malabar, stated Representative Ball is scary because he reminds him of the McCarthyism of the 1950's. He stated everyone claims to be the majority; and he does not know what the County has used to come to these conclusions in the ordinance. He stated he has not seen any statistics on how the County took the poll or what the percentages of accuracy are; and he does not know how the County can state these things in the ordinance. He stated it is obvious this will go to litigation; and suggested designating a separate area of the beach and spending a few hundred dollars on signs would be the simplest and most cost effective way to resolve the problem. He urged the Board to take this into consideration, and put the ordinance on hold to do more research before voting.

The meeting recessed at 9:37 p.m. and reconvened at 9:55 p.m.

Chairman Higgs announced the Orlando Magic is winning, but she does not know the score.

Dean Pettit, 1666 Privateer Drive, Titusville, stated according to the Book of Genesis, God in six days created the world and everything associated with it including plants and animals; in this world, he created the Garden of Eden; and in it he placed his finest plants and animals as well as Adam and Eve. He stated the Garden of Eden was God's vision of perfection on earth; and He gave Adam and Eve the freedom to go anywhere naked, with the only rule not to eat the fruit of the tree of light. He stated God did not require Adam and Eve to clothe themselves; they were not ashamed or embarrassed, nor was God offended by their nudity; even after they had eaten the forbidden fruit, they covered themselves only out of their own embarrassment; and nowhere is it written that God ordered them to clothe themselves. He stated while some acts associated with nudity may be sinful, and there are laws which address these, nudity in its own right is not a sin of God; but what is a sin is the way that certain individuals or groups use the Bible to enforce their views upon others. He stated what he sees is one group of people who are willing to compromise in order to provide beach access for all; and they are up against another group who wish to use the federal, state and local governments to enforce their own intolerance and prejudice against aspects of society which they personally do not agree with. He stated this is the very reason the founding fathers insisted on the separation of church and state; in centuries past, the governments of many European countries were controlled by the church, and those who disagreed with that church were often persecuted to their death; but we live in a more civilized era. He stated he would hate to see a Titusville where his daughter could not attend a high school dance because dancing was made illegal; he would have to see a Titusville where PG-13 and R-rated movies were illegal to be shown; and he would hate to see a Titusville where the works of great authors like Mark Twain were not available in the library because people objected to them. He stated he does not want to go to Sand Point Park to find that the fireworks display has been replaced with a book burning. He challenged anyone to show him in the Bible where God personally authorizes them to His word to enforce their opinions on the population as a whole. He challenged the Board to stand up for the individual rights of the people of the County, and vote on what is correct. He noted he did not use the word "right" because in this room, the right is wrong.

Jim Delleur, 421B Slumber Lane, Casselberry, stated he is a Central Florida Naturists. He stated Commissioner Ellis and County Attorney Scott Knox are correct in their interpretation of the State disorderly conduct provisions; you can arrest someone for disorderly conduct who is nude in an area where that is not the norm; and Chapter 877.03, Florida Statutes can be enforced in the south and central areas of Playalinda Beach. He stated he was in Commissioner Scarborough's office for most of the day; and Commissioner Scarborough had a letter from Friends of Lighthouse Beach which is in Fire Island National Seashore as well as documentation provided by the National Park Service showing the areas which are clothing optional and clothing required, with measurements for fixed geographic points showing where the areas begin and end. He stated the National Park Service does designate beaches; and it has been done at two national seashores so far. He stated from the National Park Service records which he viewed and the court records, it would appear there have been no prosecutions at Canaveral National Seashore for lewd and lascivious conduct since November, 1993; and that statute could be used, but it is not. He stated the National Park Service position is it will stand by on the sidelines while the County and the naturists battle it out in court, and then the National Park Service will make a policy when it sees the outcome. Mr. Delleur stated Walton County had an ordinance against public nudity; it went to referendum; and it was voted down. He challenged the Board to have a similar referendum.

Frank Cervasio, 8732 Tall Pine Lane, Orlando, stated if this is frustrating for the Board, it is equally frustrating for him. He stated in the correspondence which he reviewed, he saw the ordinance has been coming since 1994; and it is documented in correspondence with the National Park Service, County and city officials, and State representatives. He stated all of these people were talking about a fictitious problem that was going to come down, and then all of a sudden that problem came down; so, this is something that has been brewing for a long time. He stated the question to be decided is whether to implement all this planning just to change a situation that has been going on for the last four hundred years, heavily in the last sixty years. He stated this is being implemented because of fictitious happenings on the beach, people being scared away, and the threat that nudity will run rampant throughout the streets, none of which has happened yet. He guaranteed if the ordinance is implemented, there will be nudity in other places besides isolated areas on the beach and there will be public unrest. He stated the people are tired of dealing with this issue; and the majority of the people in the County still do not want to hear about it. He stated if you take the population of the County, the Board has always been dealing with the minority. He stated the two things that can save the issue now are to put it to a referendum and to vote no for the ordinance.

J.B. Kump, 2635 Miriam Drive, Titusville, stated he represents himself, his wife, his daughter, his son-in-law, and his unborn granddaughter. He commended the Board for facing issues which have been ignored by the custodians of the National Seashore; and stated the situation today is the result of no one acting. He stated he is not present because he hates anyone or expects everyone to adopt his views and morals. He stated he is speaking for the removal of a clear threat to the community and his family presented by behaviors of illegal and dangerous natures at Playalinda Beach. He stated he hopes the Board is aware of the lewd and lascivious conducts that is taking place at the beach every day; under the Freedom of Information Act over a year and a half ago, he obtained copies of citations at Playalinda Beach; and if the Commissioners have not read those, they need to. He stated they are threatening to the safety and good order of the community; the lewd and lascivious activities would not be happening if it was not for the open and public nudity at Playalinda Beach; and they never happened before that time. He inquired if there must be a rape or molestation of a child before some action is taken to stop this behavior that threatens the community. He stated the Canaveral National Seashore is a national resource; the national airwaves is a national resource; and inquired if the Commissioners would be willing to designate a two-hour spot on one of the networks for nude broadcasting. He stated there is no constitutionally protected right that denies others their rights and invites and encourages lawlessness; there are two national parks which prohibit nudity; none of the parks endorse it; and requested a priority not be set here in Brevard County. He requested the Board act to protect Brevard County residents and pass the ordinance.

Commissioner Ellis stated lewd and lascivious acts can be prosecuted under State law; the Sheriff's Department has worked in Canova Beach and Hoo Hoo Park to enforce in those areas; and the question is why enforcement is possible in County beaches and parks, but cannot be enforced at Playalinda Beach. He stated if the problem is there are not enough rangers, the Sheriff's Department can be requested to come out to enforce the lewd and lascivious provisions. Commissioner Ellis stated it has been shown that it can be enforced in other places in the County. He stated all of the Commissioners have read the complaints; and the question is why are incidents like that able to be enforced in other parts of the County, but not at the Canaveral National Seashore.

Larry Linkous, 1403 Indian River Avenue, Titusville, stated he is glad the vote did not take place at the meeting in Washington, D.C. because most likely there would have been an area designated at the Canaveral National Seashore. He stated what they did was to put this back into the County's responsibility, and advise that the National Park Service does not object to the proposed ordinance. He stated the National Park Service says it understands the local law enforcement responsibility and authority; and if the County determines that this ordinance is the appropriate step to take, the National Park Service will accept the local decision and cooperate. He stated he does not see that as negative; the Park Service will continue to study the issue; and the National Park Service will help the Sheriff's deputies with enforcement. He stated the County has to make that decision; and he hopes the Board will make the decision to ban nudity at Playalinda Beach. He stated if it is necessary to put a Sheriff's deputy or two out there to enforce that, he would be willing to bear the part of the burden that would come to him and his family. He stated if the Board does not do this, nothing will be done while the National Park Service studies the issue; and he would appreciate the Board adopting the ordinance to ban nudity at Playalinda Beach.

Danny Treder, 1540 Riverside Drive, Titusville, stated he speaks only for himself and his wife, has been a resident for over thirty-four years, and has been out to the beach for over thirty years. He stated he has heard stories of people encountering situations; but when he was in high school, he went to the beach to harass the naturists, but never found one nudist out there. He stated they went to the quarry area at the Space Center; there were naturists there; and he does not know if historical use means one week or one year, one person or ten people. He stated the Sheriff's deputies have always had the authority to go in there; and they have always tried to stop illegal activities. He stated he does not understand the historical use issue. He thanked the National Park Service, Superintendent Simpson and Ranger Dehart for their integrity and honesty. He stated the naturists are good, honest people; but nudity creates a gray area; he has seen cases in court where a woman was raped in a bar because she was wearing tight clothing, and juries have said she deserved it; and he does not believe a naturists deserves to be raped or molested because of the gray area of the law. He stated churches do not run the County; and urged the Commissioners to vote for the ordinance.

Alan Boatman, 840 Williamsburg Drive, Titusville, stated he has lived in Titusville for 26 years; and he is glad to see so many from both sides present because it means both sides care about the issue. He stated legislation is not an imposition but a maintenance of what our forefathers had in mind, including the family unit and public decency. He stated what he believes is what he speaks, and it is not on behalf of any organization, religious or secular; and he is here not just as a Christian, but as a resident and taxpayer. He stated he was raised in the right manner, without nudity, and he is not worse for it; there is no compromise; and urged the Board to adopt the ordinance.

Alma King, 3330 Virginia Drive, Titusville, stated she has been a resident of Titusville for 36 years, and raised her children there. She stated they wanted to bring their children up in a community that cares about its citizens; they taught their children about their bodies, and that they had private parts; and now there is a debate about whether it is all right to parade around nude; but it is not all right. Ms. King stated she works with children and teenagers; she is happy to be called a radical Christian; until recently Christians did nothing on the political scene except to go to the polls; and they made their statement last November. She stated she is proud the Christians took a stand; and requested the elected officials adopt the ordinance banning nudity on Playalinda Beach.

Kim Lucks, 3116 Sir Hamilton, Titusville, inquired when the Board will have a meeting in South Brevard. He stated in the history of the world, there has been more human suffering in the name of religion than any other cause; four hundred years ago immigrants came to this country to escape excessive government control of their lives; they were seeking religious freedom; and how soon we forget where we came from. He stated the last election, the citizens spoke loud and clear about too much government regulation. He stated for centuries wise men have said if you want to know what will happen tomorrow, study what happened yesterday; and this ordinance is another attack on individual freedoms and individual rights. He inquired when was the last time an individual right was given back to the citizens. He stated he is against the ordinance.

Billie Reynolds, 1660 Nassau, Titusville, stated she has heard both sides talk about God; and she is not speaking for God, but for herself and her family. She stated as a resident of Titusville for over 30 years, she spent over half that time at Playalinda Beach with her children and other members of her family; she does not understand why anyone would want to expose their genitals to someone who did not want to see them; and she finds that unacceptable. She noted she is not saying that nudists are immoral; but she does not want to be exposed to them; and she should have rights too. She stated nudity should be kept private; and requested the Board adopt the ordinance against public nudity at Playalinda Beach.

Kathryn Harbaugh, 3150 North Harbor City, Melbourne, stated in listening to the speakers tonight, one of the things that has distressed her the most is the seeming equation between being clothed and being moral, or being unclothed and being immoral. She stated several people have made the statement that the nudists are doing terrible things at Playalinda Beach or other places; but it has been her experience that she feels more safe with a group of nudists than with a group of clothed people. She noted she has been in both situations, and never has she been treated with anything but respect when she was with a group of nudists. She stated if the Board is going to enact the ordinance because it believes it will have immoral problems with nudists, it is deluding itself because it is not the nudists who are going to cause these problems. She stated if you look at who is causing problems, it has nothing to do with being clothed or unclothed. She stated people who are offended by nudism do not have to look at it; Playalinda Beach is not the only beach in the area; there are many things she does not like seeing; and she stays away from those things. She stated to say everyone has to think the way you do, and there should be no one nude because you do not believe in being nude is wrong. She stated to equate nudity with immorality is not true.

Chairman Higgs stated Tiffany Johnson, 457 Fern Avenue, Titusville, and Ruth O'Neal, 2539 Country Club Drive, Titusville, do not wish to speak, but support the ordinance.

Bill Hall, 2445 Bar C Road, Mims, stated everyone knows you do not go into a crowded theater and scream "fire", and you do not go down the road without expecting to get a ticket for exceeding the speed limit. He stated we are a nation of people living together under the laws of the land, which were put there for a purpose; and nobody likes laws, but they have to be there. He stated if the Board was to allow part of the beach for nudists as it was previously, there would be trouble because they will start expanding again. He stated the ordinance is needed; it has nothing to do with religion or anything else; and it is like fire in the theater in that it is just the law. He requested the Board support the ordinance.

Angela Younger, 2910 Beale Street, Titusville, stated she is the mother of two small children; she does not like being considered righteous because she opposes public nudity; and she does not like being considered an extremist because she wants to protect her children from being exposed to nudity. She stated it is extreme to want to be naked in a public place; and Playalinda Beach is a public place, not private property. She stated she is opposed to public nudity, but does not hate the people who have come to support it; as a Christian she is to love her neighbor as herself; and she does love everyone present, and would love to introduce them to Jesus. She stated this is not an issue of who hates who, but an issue of decency versus immorality.

Chairman Higgs stated she distributed two sets of petitions to the Commissioners, one from Jan Frandsen with 3,645 signatures supporting clothing optional areas, and another with 8 to 10 signatures supporting the ordinance.

Commissioner Ellis stated there have been problems at other parks over the past five or six years; it has been necessary to send the Sheriff's Department many times; and they have attempted to deal with the problem. He noted people have been arrested and prosecuted; and if there is a manpower problem at Canaveral National Seashore, the County could provide assistance as it does at other parks. He stated all the complaints he reviewed could be prosecuted under the State law under the lewd and lascivious statutes; and inquired what else is needed. Superintendent Simpson advised the National Park Service could always use additional manpower; but it has always been able to enforce lewd and lascivious. He stated there have been occasions when the County was called out to assist. Commissioner Ellis inquired has that been prosecuted through the federal courts; with Superintendent Simpson responding that particular case was not, and the charges were dropped. Commissioner Ellis stated the lewd and lascivious activities at other parks did not involve nudity; you can have lewd and lascivious behavior with your clothes on; and the Canova Beach problem is being generated by the nearby hotels. He inquired if help is needed to enforce; and stated what was brought to the Board is against State law. Superintendent Simpson reiterated the National Park Service has always been able to enforce lewd and lascivious laws. Commissioner Ellis inquired is the problem that there is not the manpower to catch violators. Superintendent Simpson stated in many instances there are acts which the National Park Service does not catch. Commissioner Ellis stated he read the letter from Ms. Roberts which went to the National Park Service and came back to the Board; she witnessed many lewd and obscene acts in isolated areas of the beach; and it would seem if there were more people out there, that situation could be corrected. He inquired if it was part of the National Park Service's solution to send more rangers to the Canaveral National Seashore. Mr. Andress responded the intent is to put more resources at the Canaveral National Seashore.

Commissioner Cook stated he supports the ordinance; there is no constitutional right to nudity; this is a public beach; and society has the right to have certain minimum standards with regard to conduct on public property. He stated the beach is public property; the ordinance attempts to regulate conduct; it does not regulate speech; there have been numerous complaints from citizens which brought the issue to the forefront; and if the area north of Lot 13 to the County line was designated, it would be six miles of beach, and from Lot 9 north would be nine miles. He noted that is a significant portion of the beach to be dedicated to one activity; and if those areas were dedicated, it would exclude everyone else from that area; so, it is not unreasonable to say there are certain minimum standards of conduct and dress in public. He stated it is required at all other public places; and he does not see where the beach should be any different. He stated he would be uncomfortable designating an area of the beach to one activity, especially six to nine miles; the ordinance is not unreasonable; it does not exclude anyone from the beach; but it requires you wear some kind of swimwear. He advised in the case of South Florida Free Beaches versus the City of Miami, South Florida Free Beaches lost the court case; there is no right to be nude in public; and the ordinance regulates conduct, not speech.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt ordinance prohibiting public nudity in Brevard County.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County has no desire to start regulating federal lands; and he is at a loss to understand why the federal government has not done more. He stated the National Park Service has taken a position that is has no policy on nudity, and expanded it to a pro-nudity policy which, whether the naturists want it or not, ends up with having the entire beach an area where you can encounter nude people. He stated if you go to the beach nude, that may not be offensive to you; however, there are a number of people who have said that has precluded their use of the beach. He stated he may go to the beach and see someone surfing or fishing; but he can still enjoy the beach. He noted this activity is upsetting to a number of people; they are of all religious and political philosophies, and they do not want to run into this type of activity. He stated he does not relish the thought of the Sheriff taking care of the problem which he believes to be the National Park Service's problem; they have attempted to get the National Park Service to come to an understanding; and in the meeting on Monday, there was a different understanding about the National Park Service's role in addressing the problems than what has been heard tonight. He stated tonight the National Park Service is saying the County can enact an ordinance; but on Monday the last thing the County was told to do was to pass an ordinance. He noted later in the meeting, it was said an ordinance might be helpful; and he is at a loss regarding the County's posture with the National Park Service. He stated he would hope the National Park Service would take some action to clarify and work with everyone involved; the ordinance allows municipalities to exempt out; and it allows federal and state governments to designate areas. He stated if the National Park Service wished to do so it could address the issue for the naturists; but without the ordinance, there would be a situation where it would go in a circle, with letter writing campaigns to people who have big trash cans. He stated he is upset with the manner in which the National Park Service considers conflict management; and this is conflict creation.

Commissioner O'Brien agreed with Commissioner Scarborough and Commissioner Cook. He stated this is not a religious issue; it is not a tourist issue; it is not a civil rights issue; and it is not a money issue. He advised nothing in the U.S. Constitution says a person has the right to show his or her genitals in public; and his position is this is a community standards issue. He stated in pornography cases, a jury can legitimately incorporate community standards into its decision; and it is important to define the community standards for the County. He stated he voted for this the first time around because he was depending on the National Park Service to work in conjunction with the County to help solve the problem and also help enforce the law. He stated his constituents advised they do not want to waste taxpayers' dollars on this; the majority of taxpayers in the County do not want to pick up this cost; and the ordinance must contain a user payment to enforce it so it will not be a burden to the taxpayers. He stated some kind of user fees should be established to pay for additional deputies or lawsuits which may occur; and suggested existing access roads to the beach which are under the control of the County may be turned into toll roads, with the proceeds earmarked for enforcement. He stated the Board can discuss this if the ordinance passes.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what road can a toll be put on; with Commissioner O'Brien responding all roads that lead to the beach. Commissioner Ellis stated there is only one road to Playalinda Beach. Commissioner O'Brien recommended putting a toll on that road to pay for enforcement. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand how the County can put a toll on a state road. He stated there are at least five other parks where the National Park Service has put signage up; and he does not see why the National Park Service is not able to put up signage at Playalinda Beach. He inquired how some parks can have prohibitive signage, but the Canaveral National Seashore cannot. Mr. Andress responded some of the parks which Commissioner Ellis is talking about are Sandy Hook in New Jersey, Fire Island National Seashore in New York, and Gunnison Beach at Gateway National Recreation Area; the State of New York has a law banning public nudity; Fire Island National Seashore is bordered on all sides by public beaches; and on the public beaches, one of which is run by the state and the others by municipalities, the anti-nudity laws are not enforced. He noted this has been negotiated over the years between the residents and the state, local and federal officials; there is no conflict; and it is a live and let live situation. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the signage does not help to prevent the conflict; with Mr. Andress advising the signage says "Attention, beyond this point you may encounter nude sunbathers"; and it is informational signage. Mr. Andress stated the National Park Service could assimilate the state law and enforce it; but it chooses an avenue of selective enforcement, and does not. He noted on the New Jersey side at Gunnison Beach and Sandy Hook, there is no state law; the park has signs warning people they are entering a clothed area or that beyond this point you may encounter nude sunbathers; but these are unenforceable if people choose to go one way or the other beyond the limits. He stated at Padre Island National Seashore, there is a great expanse of beach, and the chance encounter of nude sunbathers and clothed beachgoers is remote. Commissioner Ellis stated for as long as the conflict has existed at Playalinda Beach, it has never been possible to get signage; and he sent letters directly to Atlanta. Mr. Andress stated if Commissioner Ellis wants enforceable signage, it cannot be done because there is no law here to do it. Commissioner Ellis stated he could not even get unenforceable signage. Mr. Andress advised he cannot speak to that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there will be enforceable signage after the County enacts this ordinance; and if the National Park Service wants to designate, it can do so and have enforceable signage. Commissioner Ellis stated under existing state law, the National Park Service has the authority also. Commissioner Scarborough stated there would not be authority to put signage and segregate the beach; Commissioner Ellis is talking about enforcing a mechanism on which the National Park Service disagrees; but with the ordinance, the National Park Service will have the ability to designate an area for the naturists; and the County will have to honor that designation. He stated at that time, there will be two different rules; and it will be enforceable by the Sheriff under the ordinance only in the areas the National Park Service has not designated clothing optional. Commissioner Ellis stated the National Park Service could designate without the ordinance also. Commissioner Scarborough stated it appears the National Park Service has done it elsewhere; but it is refusing to do anything. He stated right now the County has a nude beach because the National Park Service policy says it does not want to speak on the subject. Commissioner Ellis stated even if the entire beach is nude, there is still a ruling from the Supreme Court of the State of Florida which says it can be enforced. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is an ordinance which says the County wants to enforce; and the County cannot enforce the ordinance at Lots 2 and 3 and choose not to enforce at Lot 13 because that would not work and would be selective enforcement. He stated the National Park Service could have done it; and it has the ability more clearly after the passage of this ordinance. Commissioner Ellis stated when you go back to the Supreme Court decision in Moffett v. State, Chapter 877, Florida Statutes, was prosecuted against a nude sunbather; the case was appealed to the State Supreme Court; and the court found in favor of the convicted. He stated case law is there; and the thing that bothers him is everyone acts like there is no law against public nudity, but there is a law against public nudity. He stated if someone came to another beach in Brevard County nude, they could be arrested and prosecuted under Chapter 877; but at Playalinda Beach, that is not possible. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Sheriff can arrest under Chapter 877, Florida Statutes as well. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the direction the Board would want to take would be to have the Sheriff enforce under Chapter 877. Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board does not have jurisdiction over the Sheriff. Commissioner Ellis stated tonight is the first time the Board has heard from people higher up in the Park Service that they would not be hostile to the Sheriff coming out to enforce the state law. Commissioner Scarborough stated the National Park Service has never said state law could not be enforced. Commissioner Ellis stated the National Park Service never requested the Sheriff assist in enforcing state law. Commissioner Scarborough stated this is going in circles. Commissioner Ellis stated there has never been any request to the Board for help with enforcement of state law at Playalinda Beach. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is some difficulty under the state law, as written; and it appears not to be the most practical means to proceed at this time. He stated it is necessary to say the act of mere nudity is a violation to clarify the issue on the beach; and everything else clouds the issue and makes it more difficult to prosecute. Commissioner Ellis stated there is also case law that it is a violation under Chapter 877; there is state law that has never even been tested there; and arrests have never been made under 877 and pursued in state courts where case law is clearly on the County's side. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Sheriff, if he prefers, can arrest under Chapter 877, Florida Statutes. Commissioner Ellis stated he would prefer it be under Chapter 877 because that is already state law; and the County would not have to worry about the law being challenged as a part of the arrest. He stated whatever is done tonight, the signage needs to be put up; and the National Park Service is saying it will allow the County to put signage up.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board is here tonight because of a problem that has been documented not only by the people here to speak but by the reports from the Sheriff and others; and it is a real problem that needs to be addressed. She stated there is an opportunity tonight to help solve the problem; but she does not think the ordinance will do anything more than create more problems for the County which may not be solved for years to come because of the County's involvement in litigation over the ordinance. She stated the ordinance, if drafted to exclude one of the definitions of nudity and amend one of the sections to allow a clothing optional section at Playalinda Beach, could bring about an immediate resolution to the major problems at Playalinda Beach, and would be enforceable Countywide. She stated with the two provisions in the ordinance, the County will spend a great deal of time and resources in litigation without having solved the problem at all or addressed the legitimate concerns of families. She stated something should be done to make that beach one that families want to use; but the ordinance as currently drafted does nothing to solve the problem, and will keep the County in litigation. She stated she cannot support the ordinance; and she is in the same position she was at the first public hearing.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what amendments is Chairman Higgs recommending. Chairman Higgs suggested striking section 4.b.2 and adding an exemption around Lot 12 at Playalinda Beach. She stated she is concerned with Commissioner Cook's definition of mileage; she has seen other descriptions of the mileage; and she does not think it is six to nine miles. Mr. Knox stated it is approximately three miles from Lot 12 to the County line. Chairman Higgs inquired if it was not to go to the County line, but the area north of Lots 11 and 12 were excluded, what would be the definition. Mr. Knox stated a definition could be created.

Commissioner Cook stated he was informed by the Canaveral National Seashore that it was six miles from Lot 13 north; and inquired if it is three miles from Lots 9 to 13. Commissioner Ellis disagreed. Commissioner Cook stated what Chairman Higgs is suggesting is approximately eight to nine miles. Chairman Higgs stated that is not appropriate; but if the mission of the Board is really to solve the problem, it can be done tonight, with the current ordinance, with the exclusion of some parts and the exclusion of one phrase in Section 4.b.2.

Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Ellis.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to amend the motion to delete Section 4.b.2 from the proposed ordinance.

Vice Chairman Ellis inquired if the motion deletes Sections 4.b.2 and 4.b.3; with Commissioner Higgs responding the motion only included 4.b.2.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the concept of dental floss is from another county ordinance where someone flaunted the law by wrapping a piece of dental floss around their waste. Mr. Knox stated that constituted covering according to a judge; and that is why it is included.

Vice Chairman Ellis stated he supports the amendment; he does not want to get into the bikini ordinance issue; and if there is to be a nudity ordinance, it needs to be confined to nudity. He stated the state law is adequate; but it has not been attempted. He reiterated there is not a problem at any other County beaches.

Commissioner Higgs stated there are at least three votes to pass the ordinance; and if it is going to do anything, this provision needs to be excluded.

Vice Chairman Ellis stated the goal is to move nudists off Playalinda Beach, at least for the first 12 lots if not for the whole thing; and that is how it has been presented, not an issue on bikinis.

Commissioner Cook stated this does not outlaw bikinis; but without some sort of definition, it is a useless ordinance because many of these things are de facto nudity; and it is necessary to have something to work from.

Commissioner Higgs stated there are four other provisions that define nudity in that section; and this is just excluding one which would mean that g-strings, t-backs and thong bikinis would not be a part of the ordinance. She stated the County will not be able to enforce that provision; and it would be irresponsible to create an ordinance which could not be enforced.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it can be enforced. He stated there are thong bikini-clad hot dog sellers on the highways; if he is watching television, he can change the channel; but he does not want to see this on the public highways. He stated the problem is enforcement; and explained the parallel to smoking prohibitions. He stated the common public will comply to the law; and they live in Brevard County because they want the standards that are here.

Commissioner Cook emphasized the ordinance does not prohibit bikinis; and it addresses certain types of apparel that are inappropriate.

Vice Chairman Ellis stated this would apply everywhere in the County; it is not just the hot dog vendors; and it will apply to the beaches also.

Commissioner O'Brien stated unless the patrolman wants to go out to the beach to start arresting people for wearing thong bathing suits, he is doing selective enforcement; but if a lady walked one block into town wearing a thong bikini, she would be definitely arrested. He stated compliance would be automatic with law abiding citizens.

Vice Chairman Ellis stated it is the law; and law enforcement would have to respond to a complaint. Commissioner Higgs stated she has seen the attire of people on Cocoa Beach and Indialantic Beach; there are lots of people who will be violating the law; and the ordinance will not solve the problem the Board started out to address.

Commissioner O'Brien stated citizens from Cape Canaveral have already said they like the ordinance; and other municipalities can opt out if they do not want this.

Commissioner Scarborough noted he is not a frequenter of the beach; and inquired if the Commissioners have seen anyone in dental floss yet; with Commissioner Higgs responding she has not. Commissioner Scarborough stated it can get to a point where there are people who play with the ordinance; and that is one of the things the Board is concerned with. Vice Chairman Ellis stated if that were the case, there would be people on the County beaches right now in dental floss. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County Attorney got copies of other ordinances and talked with other county attorneys; they found as the ordinances were adopted, people did certain things to play with them; it is okay if the Board wants to say certain attire is fine; but it does not want to create an ordinance that becomes a joke. Vice Chairman Ellis stated Chapter 877 has worked everywhere else; it is the same as with the bingo ordinance; no one enforces the state law on bingo; but people want a County ordinance.

Commissioner Higgs called the question. Vice Chairman Ellis called for a vote on the motion to amend the ordinance. Motion failed to carry. Commissioners Higgs and Ellis voted aye; Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, and Cook voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to amend Section 9 to exempt at least two parking lot areas of Playalinda Beach, defined as Lots 11 and 12. Motion died for lack of a second.

Vice Chairman Ellis stated he would be interested in changing the Section, but it should go back to the historic area, which is Lot 13 north. Commissioner Higgs stated she would support Lot 13 north. Vice Chairman Ellis inquired if the wording would be "The Ordinance shall be effective in all municipalities and unincorporated area of Brevard County south of Playalinda Beach Parking Lot 13." Commissioner Higgs stated it would be "except the area north of Playalinda." Vice Chairman Ellis stated essentially the ordinance is effective everywhere south of Playalinda Beach Parking Lot 13, and the area from 13 north is excluded. Commissioner Higgs recommended excepting the area north of Playalinda Beach to the County line; and inquired if that would be correct. Mr. Knox stated if the Board chooses to do that, it should except from a point north of Parking Lot 13, if that is the point the Board chooses, north to the County line and east of the dune line.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to amend Section 9 to exempt an area from a point north of Parking Lot 13, north to the County line, and east of the dune line.

Commissioner Cook stated he cannot support the amendment; the Board should not be designating an area; the National Park Service has the prerogative to do that; and this would designate six miles of a public beach for one activity. He stated setting aside the area for one activity is excluding everyone else from having the opportunity to go to that end of the beach; and he cannot support it.

Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board chose to, it could go from one mile north of the line of Parking Lot 13. Vice Chairman Ellis inquired if that makes a difference. Commissioner Higgs indicated she would be willing to change the motion to one mile. Vice Chairman Ellis stated if there is an area set aside, the enforcement must be that much stronger on the south end of Playalinda Beach where the problem is; the National Park Service has said the County can properly sign the beach; and once the beach is signed, regardless of what the County ordinance is, it will be possible to work under Florida Statutes in the area from Lot 1 to Lot 13 because there is clearly no reason for being nude in that area. He noted this is the problem the Board is trying to address, and has been trying to address for two years. Commissioner Higgs stated Commissioner Cook's point is well taken; and the original amendment would be enhanced by defining the area as a line at Parking Lot 13 one mile north and east of the dune line.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to amend Section 9 to exempt an area from the north end of Parking Lot 13, north one mile, and east of the dune line.

Vice Chairman Ellis stated it is more important to have an ordinance that works than have one that makes a point, and then does not work. He stated the Board is here to accomplish something at Playalinda Beach, not make a point; if there is a designated area and proper signage, there is no excuse before a judge to be on the wrong part of Playalinda Beach; and this will give stronger enforcement power.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when the County originally made inquiries, the National Park Service advised it did not want the County to designate portions of the beach; and on Monday, he was told that perhaps that was no longer a problem. Mr. Andress stated if the Board wants to make a designation unilaterally, and the ordinance recognizes that other designations may be made subsequently that may supersede that designation, then the National Park Service could agree. Mr. Deskins stated he has no problem with the proposal; regardless of whether the amendment is passed or not, there is still the option for some form of designation. Vice Chairman Ellis stated if the Board chooses to designate a one-mile stretch north of Parking Lot 13, it will be able to put up the proper signage; with Mr. Deskins advising the National Park Service will honor whatever the Board adopts. Vice Chairman Ellis reiterated if there is a designated area with proper signage, then it will be a strong case in court. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the National Park Service went to the designation process, would it be done at the staff level within a week, or would it be over a period of time with public hearings. Mr. Deskins stated the problem will not be going away; and the National Park Service will have to figure out a way to deal with this. He stated the National Park Service will immediately respond; and his opinion is the National Park Service will be forced to designate. Commissioner Cook stated it is not the County's responsibility to do that; and if the Board picks an arbitrary number, it is not going through the process of addressing anything. Commissioner Scarborough noted the public hearing has not been on this issue; with Commissioner Cook agreeing it would be inappropriate to designate an area in the ordinance. Vice Chairman Ellis stated that is no different than the fact that the National Park Service has passed everything to the County Commission on what it wants done at Playalinda Beach. Commissioner Scarborough indicated he has been totally confused by the whole thing; the ordinance was drafted thinking the National Park Service wanted to designate an area; then the National Park Service said it is okay to designate; and this is reaching beyond the scope of what the Board is wanting to do tonight. He stated the National Park Service recognizes it will have to decide to designate; at this point it is best to let the National Park Service manage the park; and he prefers to let that occur. Commissioner Higgs stated if this goes beyond the scope of what the Board started doing, the provision to ban every g-string and thong in the County goes beyond the scope as well. Commissioner Scarborough stated it goes beyond the scope of the advertised ordinance. Commissioner Higgs stated by definition of the area embraced by the ordinance, the Board has the right to exempt any areas the Board chooses. Commissioner Scarborough stated there are many groups which use that area; this is a subject the Board has not taken public comment on; it would not be wise to do something right now; the National Park Service has said it will address the issue; and that should occur with a dialogue. He inquired if the National Park Service will have a public meeting in Brevard County to take input on designation of an area; with Mr. Deskins stated the National Park Service had not planned on a public meeting; the intent, whether the ordinance passed or not, was to come to some kind of negotiated agreement with all parties involved to try to resolve the problem; but with the ordinance, the nudists will be in violation on any part of the beach unless the National Park Service signs it beyond Parking Lot 13. Mr. Deskins stated he does not know that there will be any benefit to have public hearings on this; but they will try to get input on what to designate. He noted there is a lot of concern about this meeting.

Vice Chairman Ellis stated he does not think the ordinance will go anywhere without the amendment; and the goal was to provide a solution to the problems at Playalinda Beach.

Commissioner Cook called the question. Vice Chairman Ellis called for a vote on the motion on the amendment. Motion failed to carry. Commissioners Higgs and Ellis voted aye; Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien and Cook voted nay.

Commissioner Higgs stated when the Board began looking at the ordinance, it was specifically to talk about the problems at Playalinda Beach; she is willing to look at that and the best way to do it; but the ordinance as now drafted has far reaching County effects. She stated the Board came to this location because the ordinance was supposed to address primarily a Playalinda Beach issue; the people in South Brevard have voice their opinions tonight that they have not had a fair opportunity to give input on this issue; and it is only fair that other parts of the County be allowed to provide input.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to continue the public hearing on the ordinance prohibiting public nudity in Brevard County to allow for public hearings in Central and South Brevard.

Vice Chairman Ellis stated he sees no sense in continuing the public hearing because the vote will be the same. Commissioner Higgs stated people have the right to input on the ordinance; it was conceived to deal with the specific issue in Playalinda Beach; and now it has a restriction on what people can wear throughout the County. Motion died without a second.

Vice Chairman Ellis passed the gavel to Chairman Higgs.

Commissioner Ellis stated the ordinance is redundant; there are opinions from the Attorney General of the State of Florida and the Supreme Court decision that says Chapter 877, Florida Statutes is adequate; it specifically addresses disorderly conduct of going topless on a public beach; no one has ever tried to enforce the state law at Playalinda Beach; and another law is being added which may or may not survive a court test.

Chairman Higgs stated the sad thing is this will not solve the problem; there will be years of litigation; and the problem will still exist. She stated this was an opportunity for the Board to do something to help. Commissioner Ellis reiterated the state law would solve the problem. Commissioner Cook stated he does not concur. Chairman Higgs stated the Board has listened to five hours of public comment; the Board has a responsibility to talk about an ordinance, not just listen; and the Board is trying to exercise that responsibility to come up with what it thinks is best.

Commissioner Cook stated he supports the ordinance because it goes a long way to help alleviate a serious problem. Commissioner Ellis reiterated it is redundant.

Chairman Higgs called for a motion on the original motion to adopt the ordinance prohibiting public nudity. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, and Cook voted aye; Commissioners Higgs and Ellis voted nay.

Commissioner O'Brien requested the Board discuss funding. Chairman Higgs stated that is not on the agenda; it has not been advertised; and requested it be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

NANCY N. HIGGS, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

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