The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on June 6, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Board Room, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, 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.

The Invocation was given by Reverend Richard Pobjecky, St. Gabriel's Episcopal Church, Titusville, Florida.

Commissioner Scarborough led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the Minutes of February 28, 1995 Workshop, March 13, 1995 Special Meeting, March 16 and 21, 1995 Regular Meetings, and April 11, 1995 Special Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: WORKSHOPS AND MEETINGS

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Private Industry Council (PIC) requested an approximately 30-minute meeting with the Board to give it a quick overview of what is happening with the Council; and his staff worked it out with the Commissioners' Offices and scheduled the meeting at 12:30 p.m. on July 13, 1995, as the Board had a workshop scheduled for 1:00 p.m. He advised the Board also wanted to meet with the Public Safety Coordinating Council; and his staff verified with each Commissioners' Office that they would be available July 17, 1995 at 2:00 p.m., so those meetings have been scheduled.

REPORT, RE: COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised he asked the County Attorney to report on the collection of impact fees because it is a legal issue.

ACKNOWLEDGE, RE: RESIGNATION OF DEAN SPRAGUE

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised today will be Mr. Sprague's last day with Brevard County; he wants to thank him for all his services and his contributions to Brevard County over the last several years, and wish him good luck in Maitland.

The Board gave a round of applause to Mr. Sprague.

DISCUSSION, RE: COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Board passed an amendment to the Impact Fee Ordinance which basically eliminated impact fees for industrial/commercial uses, effective September 1, 1995; there is a provision in the Ordinance that says they can apply for an exemption, but it has to be at the time a building permit is pulled; and there are people applying for building permits who are not sure whether they qualify for exemptions or not. He stated since the exemption does not go into effect until September 1, 1995, the position Assistant County Attorney Lisa Troner has taken is they cannot apply for exemptions now; and he agrees with that position. Mr. Knox advised they would not pay the impact fee until they get a certificate of occupancy, which may be after September 1, 1995; so there is some ambiguity which needs to be clarified on whether or not the Board wants to allow people to apply for exemptions now even though it is not effective until September 1, 1995, or wait until after September 1, 1995 to have them apply.

Commissioner Scarborough advised he does not have a problem allowing applications for exemptions now; Al Matroni called him and said he is concerned about losing a commercial project, and indicated what will happen is a moratorium for 90 days until it is effective because everyone will not do anything; and basically it would put people out of work and close down Brevard County for 90 days while they sit back and wait until September 1, 1995. He stated with that in mind, he would like to see it worked out legally in line with accommodating the Cities' ability to opt out. He noted if it was not for the Cities, he would have done it immediately.

Commissioner Cook advised he has no problem if it can be worked out, otherwise people will wait until September 1, 1995; and that was not the point of the Ordinance. He inquired if it would take an amendment to the Ordinance; with Mr. Knox responding he is not sure what the answer to his question is; with Commissioner Cook responding to allow people to apply now, but they will not receive the exemption until they get a certificate of occupancy; and if the certificate of occupancy occurs before September 1, 1995, the exemption would not apply.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to allow people to apply for exemption from impact fees for industrial/commercial developments, but the exemption not take effect until September 1, 1995, and if the certificate of occupancy occurs before September 1, 1995, the exemption would not apply.

Commissioner Ellis advised he sent a letter to Ms. Troner on the subject; and he feels the impact did not actually occur until they opened the building.

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

REPORT, RE: SUN SOUTH HOMES

Commissioner Scarborough advised he has some concerns about Sun South and has a chronology of actions; on May 4, 1995, the Board instructed the County Attorney to take immediate action to bring them into compliance; and as of this time they are not in compliance, and there is some ambiguity of when it can occur. He requested Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson put together a memo and fax it to the Commissioners on what is occurring. Commissioner Scarborough advised it is going forward, but it is disconcerting because there are real concerns about a problem that is taking some time to resolve.

REPORT, RE: MEETING WITH CHIEF JUDGE ON JUDICIAL FEES

Commissioner Cook advised he met with Chief Judge Jere Lober regarding court reporters charges, as requested by the Board; a request for proposal (RFP) has been drafted and includes a price per the County's request; so price will be a consideration pursuant to the new state law that allows it to happen. He stated he asked Judge Lober about the disparity in lawyers' fees and what one charges for a certain case and what another may charge; the Judge said he just signed an Order for Juvenile Court making it a flat rate of $80 for any attorney to handle those types of cases; and he suggested the Board meet with Judge Antoon to see if there are certain categories within his court that could do the same. Commissioner Cook advised Judge Lober did not think it could be done on all cases, but he thought there were certain categories of cases where a flat rate could be established; and those would stop the huge variation in court costs that the Board ultimately has to pay. He stated it was a very good meeting; he was open to suggestions from the Board, and said any time a bill is questioned, they will be happy to investigate it; and he was enthusiastic with the Board bringing forth any questions on court-ordered costs, and pledged that their concern is also to keep costs down.

REPORT, RE: MEETING WITH SHERIFF ON ENFORCEMENT OF NUDITY ORDINANCE

Chairman Higgs advised Sheriff Miller invited her to attend a meeting, which was basically a press conference in her characterization, and not a meeting to discuss various perspectives or what different offices were going to do about enforcement of the public nudity Ordinance; and he made his statement and report, then gave her written information which she faxed to each Commissioner. She stated the newspaper described what the Sheriff will do; he talked about enforcement of full frontal nudity and intends to test it with two cases; his attorney has some concerns; but he is committed to testing two cases to see where the Ordinance stands. She stated the Sheriff also assumed the County would post signs; so if the County intends to do anything in that regard, to her knowledge, no one else is posting signs. Chairman Higgs advised she asked Wendell Simpson about it, and he said at the moment they have no plans to post any signs.

Commissioner Cook advised the Sheriff is committed to enforcing the law; there will be test cases; and the attorneys for the naturists were there and said they will pursue filing suit; so now it is in the enforcement role.

Commissioner Scarborough advised someone was at Playalinda Beach over the weekend and brought a flyer to him which said, "Brevard County Sheriff's Office advises Brevard County Ordinance 95-21, an ordinance prohibiting public nudity in Brevard County, Florida is now in effect. Persons violating this Ordinance are subject to arrest. Done, ordered and adopted, May 18, 1995 by the Board of County Commissioners." He stated he asked who was handing the flyer out, but the person did not know. He inquired if the posting Chairman Higgs referred to is in addition to the flyer; with Chairman Higgs responding she was referring to any signs that may be posted on the beach. She stated there are no signs in the parking lots or any where else; and if there is an intent, the Sheriff assumed the Board would take care of it.

Commissioner Ellis stated he thought the Board agreed at the meeting in Titusville to post signs. Chairman Higgs noted she thought there was discussion about signs. Commissioner Cook stated the Sheriff was talking about signs referring to the Ordinance prohibiting nudity. Commissioner Ellis stated the County needs to put the signs up since that is the Ordinance the Board passed. Chairman Higgs advised Mr. Simpson indicated the County would need permission from the Park Service to put up any signs. Commissioner Ellis stated that is not what he heard them say at the meeting. County Attorney Scott Knox advised according to Mr. Simpson, the County would need permits from NASA and Park Service to put signs up. Commissioner Ellis stated that is not what Mr. Simpson or his superiors said Thursday night in Titusville. He stated the Park Service has pulled the County around on this issue; the County passed the Ordinance; so it should put the signs in the ground and make the Park Service take them out. Commissioner Cook advised Mr. Simpson may have been referring to if the County had to dig anything out, it would require all sorts of clearances; and he is not sure just posting a sign without actually digging would require permits. Chairman Higgs stated he specifically talked about digging, and indicated anything that is put in the ground needs a permit. Commissioner Ellis stated a sign cannot be put in the ground without digging; and the County should put the signs in, because the Park Service needs to take responsibility for its actions and what it says. He stated at the meeting Thursday night in Titusville they said if the ordinance passed, the County could put signs in the ground. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board needs to hold the Park Service representatives' feet to the fire for what they say, because it ends up being the balancing board for everyone in the State, County and National Park Service; and it continually gets pulled back and forth on this issue. He stated the National Park Service said the County could put the signs up; the County needs to put them up; and if the Park Service wants to take them down, they can send their rangers out to do that.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct the County Manager to work with the National Park Service and Sheriff to install signs regarding the Ordinance prohibiting public nudity; and the County Attorney work with the County Manager, Sheriff and Park Service in placing of signs.

Commissioner Cook advised it is fair to notify people who happen to come to Playalinda Beach unaware of the Ordinance.

County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if the signs should go all the way up the beach or at certain points on the beach; with Commissioner Ellis suggesting 13 signs for 13 parking lots. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why not one sign on the way towards the beaches that every car has to pass rather than 13 signs, as there is only one road in and out of the beach.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Board wanted to post signs at the northern end of the beach; with Commissioner O'Brien responding they already know, and if they do not, they have been very ill or away for a long time.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is some reasoning why he wants staff to work with the Sheriff and Park Service; perhaps the Park Service and the Sheriff have thoughts on where and how signs are posted; and if the County just goes out and does it, it may tie their hands.

Commissioner Cook recommended the County Manager coordinate it because Mr. Simpson indicated he did not know where this issue was at this point; so rather than directing where the signs go, the Board should let the County Manager handle it.

Commissioner Ellis stated all the representatives from Washington and Atlanta threw their hands up and told the Board to do whatever it wanted to do; so it needs to go ahead and put the signs in the ground.

Mr. Jenkins advised he contacted Park Service and Florida Department of Transportation about admissions and tolls to see what their reactions would be. Chairman Higgs advised they did not have a chance to discuss any kind of toll situation; the Sheriff gave his press release and that was it; so the Board should not discuss it. Mr. Jenkins stated Ms. Parker reported that to him so he sent letters out.

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

DISCUSSION, RE: ORDINANCE NO. 93-09, REGULATING NOISE

Commissioner Ellis advised the Board talked about the 100-foot setback regarding noise from tropical birds if the agricultural property abutted residential property; it was not meant to have the 100-foot setback for agricultural property against agricultural property; and the provision would make no sense otherwise. He stated it is being enforced as 100-foot setback on agriculturally-zoned property which abuts other agriculturally-zoned property; that means the AU lot must have a minimum of 300 feet in order to be able to put a house in the center and meet the 100-foot setback on both sides; and by enforcing the 100-foot setback for agriculturally-zoned property, it would eliminate most or all of two and a half-acre or less lots.

Chairman Higgs inquired if they must have two and a half acres to be AU; with Commissioner Ellis responding no, there are existing AU properties with less acreage. He stated the intent of the Ordinance was AU property that abuts other kinds of property not more AU property.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised staff would benefit from clarification because there are divergent views as to what it is. He stated they are there to carry out the Board's policy; and if the Board clarifies what its policy is, they will follow it.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Ordinance needs to be amended; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding no, the exemption was for AU provided it is 100 feet from residentially-zoned property; the AU is not a specific piece of property, it is the entire area that is zoned AU; so if a person has AU property next to AU property, that is all part of the same district, and the 100-foot setback does not apply to that other AU property. Commissioner Ellis stated that is now how it is being enforced; with Mr. Jenkins responding they will change it immediately.

Chairman Higgs inquired if that is satisfactory; with Commissioner Scarborough responding not to him because AU is complex and has residential use, and the 100-foot setback is there so that the birds would not be where a residence is under the AU zoning classification. He stated originally the birds were not exempt because they could violate the Noise Ordinance if they met the criteria; but later the Board came back and said they can be farm animals; and the setback was in there to allow the birds if there was the 100-foot setback from adjoining property clearly used just as residential. Mr. Knox advised it reads, "AU with 100-foot setback from residentially-zoned property"; and if what Commissioner Scarborough said is the Board's intent, then the AU needs to be deleted and the Ordinance made clear that it is residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Ells stated the intent was AU that abuts RU-1-9; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he is not sure that was the intent and would like to see a copy of the Ordinance before the Board votes; and suggested the item be postponed until the end of the meeting. Commissioner Ellis stated Mr. Fink is here, and it will be 12 hours before the meeting ends; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board generally does not take public discussion under Reports anyhow. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board generally does not have Code Enforcement on top of somebody after going through an ordinance amendment so they would be left alone. He stated that was the whole point of going through the amendment, and if the intent was just to put a 100-foot setback then it would have just said that.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to postpone discussion on the Noise Ordinance until the end of the meeting. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

Chairman Higgs directed the County Manager to provide copies of the Ordinance to each Commissioner.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - WADE WALKER, RE: COMMENDATION RESOLUTION

Commissioner Cook read aloud a Resolution commending Wade Walker, Medical Examiner Investigator, for 28 years of loyal and dedicated service, and extending best wishes for good health and happiness during his retirement; and presented the Resolution to Mr. Walker.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution commending Wade Walker for 27 years of dedicated public service. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - DELORES McLAUGHLIN, WBSF-TV43, RE; COMMENDATION RESOLUTION Commissioner Ellis read aloud a Resolution commending Delores McLaughlin and WBSF-TV43 for their commitments to furthering residents' knowledge of recycling and solid waste management; and presented the Resolution to Ms. McLaughlin.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt Resolution commending Delores McLaughlin and WBSF-TV43 for their contributions to the recycling and solid waste management programs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. McLaughlin advised she has an excerpt from the campaign; in deciding to choose a campaign, they decided something that would not be controversial but would affect all citizens positively; so that gave them the idea of coming to the County to help with the recycling education program; and presented the tape to the Board for the library.

Assistant County Manager for Environmental Services Stephen Peffer advised they have a recycling display in the lobby, and invited the Commissioners and public to guess the number of cans; and thanked Ms. McLaughlin.

Chairman Higgs advised they will play the tape during the next break so everyone can see it.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - JAMES ADCOCK, RE: COMMENDATION RESOLUTION

Commissioner O'Brien read aloud a Resolution commending Deputy Sheriff James L. Adcock of the Agriculture/Marine Unit for saving the lives of three boys on April 18, 1995; and presented the Resolution to Mr. Adcock.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt Resolution commending Deputy James Adcock for his heroic efforts. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs asked Deputy Adcock to speak on marine safety and what happened to the boys. Deputy Adcock advised Lake Washington is an extremely rough lake; and everyone who is boating should always use safety equipment and life saving devices and watch the weather. He stated Lake Washington is shallow so when the wind picks up, it becomes extremely rough and dangerous.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING BURL AND JANE FERGUSON

The Board adopted Resolution commending Burl and Jane Ferguson, who served on the Land Use Citizens Resource Group and Environmentally Endangered Lands Procedure Committee respectively, in recognition of their 50th Wedding Anniversary on June 24, 1995, to be presented to them by Commissioner Scarborough.

RESOLUTION, RE: NAMING ROSE MARIE PLACE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution naming a 30-foot wide road right-of-way in Section 4x, Township 20 South, Range 34 East, as Rose Marie Place. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: NAMING TURTLE BEACH LANE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution naming a 15-foot wide alley in Section 26, Township 24S., Range 37E. as Turtle Beach Lane. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: NAMING HIDEAWAY LANE AND SMUGGLERS COVE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution naming two 50-foot wide roadways in Section 19, Township 29S., Range 38E. as Hideaway Lane and Smugglers Cove. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUMMERS CREEK, PHASE I

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract with Boca Lago, Inc. for improvements in Summers Creek, Phase I, so that the performance bond for the roads and drainage can be released. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO MICCO WAREHOUSE ROAD

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract with Arthur Priep for improvements to Micco Warehouse Road (Evernia Street). Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN WINDOVER FARMS, PHASE 5, UNIT 3 Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract with EKS Properties, Inc. for improvements in Windover Farms, Phase 5, Unit 3, to facilitate release of the performance bond covering roadway improvements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH GOODSON PAVING, RE: WALL IN CIDCO PARK

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Contract with Goodson Paving guaranteeing a perimeter wall in Cidco Park for a concrete recycling plant and storage yard. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH BOCA LAGO, INC., RE: SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS IN SUMMERS CREEK, PHASE I

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Contract with Boca Lago, Inc. for sidewalk improvements in Summers Creek, Phase I. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH JEAN-YVES CLERC, RE: SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS IN SIX MILE CREEK, PHASE I

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Contract with Jean-Yves Clerc for sidewalk improvements in Six Mile Creek, Phase I. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH JEAN-YVES CLERC, RE: SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS IN SIX MILE CREEK, PHASE III

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Contract with Jean-Yves Clerc for sidewalk improvements in Six Mile Creek, Phase III. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE: IMPROVEMENTS IN VIERA, TRACT K

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Contract with The Viera Company for improvements in Viera, Tract K. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH RJR DEVELOPERS, RE: SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS IN HAMMOCK ESTATES, PHASE II

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Contract with RJR Developers for sidewalks in Hammock Estates, Phase II. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL ENGINEERING APPROVAL, RE: THE WILLOWS, PHASE II

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant final engineering approval for The Willows, Phase II, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and Board approval not relieving the developer from obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION, RE: MUNICIPAL REVIEW OF LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX PERCENTAGE ALLOCATIONS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to authorize the Clerk to the Board to mail a copy of the Local Option Gas Tax percentage allocations to each municipality for review, and schedule final review of the allocations by the Board on July 25, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ESTABLISH BEST EVALUATION PRACTICE, RE: CONCURRENCY ANALYSES PROCEDURES FOR BOUNDARY PROPERTIES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to authorize establishing best evaluation practice for concurrency analyses of boundary properties. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: SMALL SCALE PLAN AMENDMENT 95S.7

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to adopt Small Scale Plan Amendment 95S.7 for property north of Worley Avenue and east and west of South Banana River Drive. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION FOR GIBBS POINT SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to advertise public hearing to consider vested rights determination and amendment to the vested Development Plan for Gibbs Point Subdivision on July 11, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TRANSMITTAL OF 1995B COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider transmittal of the 1995B Comprehensive Plan Amendment at 5:30 p.m. on September 19, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO AMEND IN 1995B COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE, RE: FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND OTHER AMENDMENTS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to amend the Future Land Use Map to depict the planned alignment of the proposed Port St. John/I-95 interchange and access road, and other amendments to maintain internal consistency in the 1995B Amendment Cycle. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO AMEND IN 1995B AMENDMENT CYCLE, RE: TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT FOR U.S. 192 AND SR 520

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to amend the Traffic Circulation Element as part of the 1995B Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle, to emphasize the four-laning of U.S. 192 and SR 520, from Brevard County to the metropolitan Orlando area. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO AMEND IN 1995B AMENDMENT CYCLE, RE: FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR SUNTREE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to amend the Future Land Use Map as part of the 1995B Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle regarding the Suntree Wastewater Treatment Plant site. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE ORDINANCE FROM CITY OF WEST MELBOURNE, RE: VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance No. 94-20 from City of West Melbourne relating to voluntary annexation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT TO EXTEND EXISTING AGREEMENT AND TASK ORDER #1 WITH ADDRESS N' MAIL, RE: COURTESY NOTIFICATION SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Agreement to Extend Existing Agreement and Task Order #1 with Address N' Mail to provide courtesy notification services until June 8, 1996 under the same terms and conditions. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT TO AMEND EXISTING CONTRACT WITH BREVARD MPO, RE: STAFF SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Agreement to Amend Existing Contract with Brevard Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for staff services, to reflect the organizational changes from Brevard County Engineering Department to Brevard County Growth Management Department. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE: BREVARD MPO FUND 0360

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Budget Change Request for Fund 0360, Brevard MPO, to reconcile the budget with actual and anticipated expenditures. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE: IMPACT FEE ALLOCATIONS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Budget Change Request to transfer impact fees for reimbursement of the Local Option and Constitutional Gas Tax funds. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE AND CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING, RE: EXTENSION AND WIDENING OF APOLLO BOULEVARD

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to authorize Public Works Department to advertise and conduct a public hearing to receive input from the public regarding the extension and widening of Apollo Boulevard, from Eau Gallie Boulevard at Commodore Boulevard. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH DYER, RIDDLE, MILLS & PRECOURT, INC., RE: MINTON ROAD WIDENING PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, Inc. for construction management services for Minton Road Widening Project, Phase II, at not to exceed $100,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING, RE: VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 24S., RANGE 36E. - THERESA K. GUEST

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution setting public hearing for July 11, 1995, to consider vacating a right-of-way in Section 7, Township 24S., Range 36E. as petitioned by Theresa K. Guest. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING, RE: VACATING PUBLIC UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB - JOHN AND MARGARET ERVIN

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution setting public hearing for July 11, 1995, to consider vacating public utilities and drainage easement in Indian River Colony Club, as petitioned by John W. and Margaret W. Ervin. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING, RE: VACATING PUBLIC UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN SIX MILE CREEK - MICHAEL AND KYUNG MI GEGGUS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution setting public hearing for July 11, 1995, to consider vacating public utilities and drainage easement in Six Mile Creek Subdivision, as petitioned by Michael E. and Kyung Mi Geggus. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

COUNTY DEED, RE: CONVEYING RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO SUNTREE ESTATES TO CLASSIC HOMES OF BREVARD, INC.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute County Deed conveying right-of-way adjacent to Suntree Estates to Classic Homes of Brevard, Inc. to release the County's interest as a road was not constructed within the three-year time frame. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO PURCHASE, RE: 800 MHZ RADIO EQUIPMENT FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to purchase 800 MHZ radio equipment for Traffic Engineering at a cost not to exceed $25,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

TASK ORDER WITH POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC., RE: ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR REGIONAL STORMWATER TREATMENT POND

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Task Order #53709-92-004-05 with Post, Buckle, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. to provide engineering services for the Regional Stormwater Treatment Pond in Merritt Island. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER TO OPEN PURCHASE ORDER WITH AUCHTER INDUSTRIAL VAC OF FLORIDA, INC., RE: SURFACE WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MAINTENANCE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Change Order to Open Purchase Order #403758 with Auchter Industrial Vac of Florida, Inc. to provide Surface Water Improvement Division project maintenance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID AND AWARD CONTRACT, RE: CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER RETROFIT POND IN FLOUNDER CREEK ROAD WATERSHED

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to bid and award contract to lowest responsible bidder for construction of a stormwater retrofit pond in Flounder Creek Road Watershed at approximately $200,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID, ACCEPT LOW BID, AND AUTHORIZE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE: CONSTRUCTION OF 10-UNIT T-HANGAR AND TAXILANE AT VALKARIA AIRPORT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to bid, accept low bid, and authorize Chairman to execute contract for construction of l0-unit T-hangar and connecting taxilane at Valkaria Airport estimated by the engineers at $229,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION AND SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RE: FUNDING FOR VALKARIA AIRPORT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution and execute Supplemental Joint Participation Agreement No. 5 with Florida Department of Transportation for funding for the taxilane and site work at Valkaria Airport. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF LETTER, RE: DESIGNATING AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR FEDERAL AND STATE HOUSING PROGRAMS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to authorize a letter to Weatherization Assistance Program designating Bernice Jackson, Housing and Human Services Department Director, as the authorized representative of Brevard County to sign, make changes, and execute documents for Weatherization Assistance Program, Weatherization/Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and Low Income Emergency Home Repair Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT SELECTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, AND APPOINT NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE, RE: CONTINUING ENGINEERING SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the Consultant Selection Committee's recommendation; appoint Bernice Jackson, Kim Brautigam or designee, and Denise Carter to the Negotiating Committee; and authorize negotiations with (1) Stottler Stagg & Associates; and if not successful, to negotiate with (2) Cantelou, Herrera, Williams & Powell, Inc.; and if not successful, to negotiate with (3) Outlaw, Rice, Soyka and Sweeney, Inc.; and if not successful, to negotiate with (4) Gee & Jenson for continuing engineering services to develop and oversee projects that will improve the living conditions in five neighborhood strategy areas as well as enhance the environment. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY SERVICES COUNCIL, RE: COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Community Services Council of Brevard County, Inc. to remove the requirement to submit name, address, social security number and dates of service for each client with monthly activity reports and replace with a monthly certification that all clients are Brevard County residents. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTIONS, RE: AUTHORIZING APPLICATIONS FOR LIBRARY SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION ACT FEDERAL FUNDS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolutions authorizing applications for Library Services and Construction Act Federal funds for Cocoa Beach, Eau Gallie, Merritt Island, and West Melbourne Public Libraries. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL TO PURCHASE, RE: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT FOR LIBRARY SYSTEM

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve purchase of computer communications equipment for Library Automation Computer System from Memorex Telex under State Contract No. 250-040-95-1 for total cost of $146,352. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL TO PURCHASE, RE: ON-LINE SERVICE FOR LIBRARY SYSTEM

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to authorize sole source purchase from Information Access Company for on-line service for the Library System for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1994-95 at total cost for six months of $66,375. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE: TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF BUDGET SUPPLEMENT FOR A&A PLAZA RENTAL REVENUES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Budget Change Request, granting tentative approval of Budget Supplement for A&A Plaza rental revenues. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REMOVAL FROM INVENTORY, RE: UNACCOUNTED FOR PROPERTY FROM LIBRARY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve removal from Inventory of unaccounted for Hoover Vacuum Cleaner #J-611-0243 and Sharp VCR, #D-214-0400 from Library Services Department. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: CONTRIBUTIONS TO JUNIOR CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE FOR 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS DISPLAYS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve contributions of $1,000 each for the Fourth of July Fireworks Displays sponsored by the City of Melbourne and City of Palm Bay, and Port St. John and Titusville Junior Chambers of Commerce. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEASE AGREEMENT WITH VAN POOL SERVICES, INC., RE: LEASE OF VANS FOR RECREATION PROGRAMS AND CAMPS IN NORTH AND CENTRAL BREVARD

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Lease Agreement with Van Pool Services, Inc. for lease of three vans for the recreation programs and camps in North and Central Brevard from June 16 to August 15, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH ZAMBELLI INTERNATIONALE FIREWORKS COMPANY, RE: JOINT FIREWORKS DISPLAY WITH CITIES OF COCOA AND ROCKLEDGE AT LEE WENNER PARK

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Agreement with Zambelli Internationale Fireworks Company for joint fireworks display with Cities of Cocoa and Rockledge at Lee Wenner Park on July 4, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO CLOSE LEE WENNER PARK TO PUBLIC ACCESS, RE: 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS DISPLAY Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve closing of Lee Wenner Park to public access on July 4, 1995, from 6:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. for the annual fireworks display. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVER OF MUSIC REGULATIONS AND REDUCTION OF POOL FEES, RE: CITY OF ROCKLEDGE 4TH OF JULY FESTIVITIES AT McLARTY PARK

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to waive provisions of Article IV, Code of Brevard County, to allow musical entertainment at the City of Rockledge's Annual 4th of July festivities at McLarty Park; and reduce swimming pool admission fees to 25 cents for all participants. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVER OF MUSIC AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE REGULATIONS, RE: NFL JAGUAR FOOTBALL TEAM ON THE ROAD RALLY AT WICKHAM PARK

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to waive provisions of Article IV and Article V, Section 18-104(2), Brevard County Code, to allow musical entertainment and sale, possession, and/or donation of alcoholic beverages at the NFL Jaguar Football Team On the Road Rally at Wickham Park on June 15, 1995, subject to all state and local regulatory permits being secured, security, traffic control and clean up provided for the event, and comprehensive general liability insurance with liquor liability coverage obtained by the sponsors. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVER OF MUSIC REGULATIONS, RE: JOHN WILKIE KINDER BENEFIT AT WICKHAM PARK

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to waive provisions of Article IV, Code of Brevard County, to allow musical entertainment at John Wilkie Kinder's Benefit at Wickham Park on July 8, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: REVISING EMS ADVISORY COUNCIL

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution revising the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council to allow a Labor representative and other changes regarding officers and conduct of meetings and actions. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 90-30, RE: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 90-30, Emergency Medical Services, to reflect changes in billing and collections of assessments, committee membership, and other changes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

MODIFICATIONS #1 AND #2 TO AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, RE: EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS AND ASSISTANCE GRANT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Modifications #1 and #2 to Agreement with Florida Department of Community Affairs, for the Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Grant. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO PARTICIPATE, RE: MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY BOOT DRIVE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to authorize Public Safety Department to participate in the Muscular Dystrophy Boot Drive on the weekend of September 1-3, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, GRANT APPLICATION, ASSURANCE FORM, AGREEMENT, AND BUDGET AMENDMENTS, RE: TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PROGRAM FOR FY 95-96

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution; execute Trip and Equipment Grant Application, Standard Assurance Form with Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission for $808,237 for Brevard Transportation Disadvantaged Program; approve budget actions necessary to allocate $125,000 in Local Option Gas Tax Funds and passenger fares estimated at $52,632 for a total FY 1995-95 Transportation Disadvantaged budget of $985,869; and authorize the Chairman to execute follow-up Agreement contingent upon approval by the County Attorney and Risk Management. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RENEWAL AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, RE: SCAT SERVICE TO DEVELOPMENTALLY-DISABLED CITIZENS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Renewal Agreement with Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for $143,910 for SCAT to provide transportation service to developmentally-disabled citizens from July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REVISED POLICY BCC-10, RE: FUNDING FOR SCAT SPECIAL TRIPS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve revised Policy BCC-10 regarding funding for Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) special trips. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF REGISTRATION FEE, RE: FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED CONFERENCE IN ORLANDO

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve conference registration fees of $339 for three members of the Local Coordinating Board for Transportation Disadvantaged Services to attend the Second Annual Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Conference from August 9 through 11, 1995 in Orlando, Florida. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE: BEACH PROFILE STUDIES FOR ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FEASIBILITY STUDY

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Budget Change Request for $7,750 for profile studies for the Army Corps of Engineers Feasibility Study by Natural Resources Management Division. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID AND AWARD TO LOW BIDDER, RE: WASTE TIRE SHREDDING SERVICE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to bid and award to low bidder, waste tire shredding service. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID AND AWARD TO LOW BIDDER, RE: MULCHING SERVICES FOR YARD TRASH AND VEGETATIVE WASTE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to bid and award to low bidder, mulching services for yard trash and vegetative waste. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO PURCHASE, RE: 800 MHZ RADIO EQUIPMENT FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to authorize purchase of 800 MHZ replacement radio equipment for Solid Waste Management Department at estimated cost of $59,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF APPLICATION, RE: FEMA HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve application to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds to assist in providing emergency household hazardous waste collection. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH KEEP BREVARD BEAUTIFUL, INC., RE: RECYCLING PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Agreement with Keep Brevard Beautiful, Inc. to provide the School's Recycling Public Education Program at $29,910 for FY 1995-96. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO REPAIR, APPROVAL OF BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, ISSUANCE OF PURCHASE ORDER TO BIRD CENTRIFUGE, RE: SYKES CREEK REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to authorize rehabilitation of Centrifuge No. 1 at Sykes Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, and approve issuance of sole source purchase order to Bird Centrifuge, the manufacturer of the equipment. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONSENT AGREEMENT WITH RIVERSIDE LOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., RE: DEDICATION OF RIVERSIDE PARK DRIVE TO CITY OF INDIAN HARBOUR BEACH

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Consent Agreement with John Genoni, Trustee and President of the Riverside Lot Owners Association, Inc., authorizing him to seek the dedication of Riverside Park Drive to the City of Indian Harbour Beach. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH MANDARIN LAKES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., RE: ENCROACHMENT OF WALL ON UTILITY EASEMENT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Agreement with Mandarin Lakes Homeowners Association, Inc. for encroachment of a wall on the utility easement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: REVISED 1995 BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve revised 1995 Board Meeting Schedule to include Public Safety Workshop on July 13, 1995 at 1:30 p.m. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO. 95-07, TAX ABATEMENT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Ordinance 95-07, Tax Abatement for certain new and expanding business properties on July 11, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF BID #B-2-5-65 AND CONTRACT, RE: NORTH TITUSVILLE GARDENS RENTAL REHABILITATION PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to award Bid #B-2-5-65, North Titusville Gardens Rental Rehabilitation Project, to low bidder Saturn Builders of Brevard, Inc. at $484,700; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract with Saturn Builders. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF QUOTE #Q-2-5-75 AND CONTRACT, RE: RENOVATIONS TO H. S. WILLIAMS HOUSE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to award Quote #Q-2-5-75, Renovations to H. S. Williams House, to low quoter Frank A. Kennedy, Inc. at $32,745; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract with the contractor. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID, RE: HARDWARE AND TOOLS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to bid hardware items, garden tools, hand tools, and power tools, and authorize issuance of open purchase orders to primary and secondary sources in various geographical locations. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID, RE: COLLECTION OF BAD DEBT AND DELINQUENT FINES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to advertise request for proposals for collection of bad debt and delinquent fines. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ACCEPT HIGH BID FROM ALBERTA HECKENDORF, RE: COUNTY SALE #95-157, SURPLUS ANIMAL CONTROL BUILDING

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to accept the high bid of $58,500 from Alberta Heckendorf for the surplus Animal Control Building at 2861 Electronics Boulevard, Melbourne; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Deed after the proceeds are collected. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ADDENDUM WITH MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION, RE: CODE SUPPLEMENTS Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Addendum to Contract with Municipal Code Corporation allowing the County to view, print and distribute Municipal County Code Supplements off the local area network. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH RHETA C. CAMPBELL AND J. MAURICE CAMPBELL, RE: OFFICE SPACE FOR CLERK IN SEARSTOWN, ROCKLEDGE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Amendment to Lease Agreement with Rheta and J. Maurice Campbell for office space for the Clerk of the Courts in Searstown, Rockledge, extending the term for 12 months, and on a month-to-month basis thereafter. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID, RE: ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS TO CAPE CANAVERAL PUBLIC LIBRARY

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to bid construction of additions and renovations to Cape Canaveral Public Library. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 WITH PAVCO CONSTRUCTION, INC., RE: NORTH BREVARD PUBLIC LIBRARY

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Change Order No. 2 to Agreement with PAVCO Construction, Inc. for North Brevard Public Library, increasing contract price by $5,772.26 to modify piping at roof drain leaders, modify existing concrete tie beam, revise piping at water tap connections for fire and domestic water service, remove 8 existing pine trees, and extend contract time by 18 days. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 94-416, RE: RULES FOR CALLING SPECIAL MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONFORM TO CHARTER

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution amending Resolution No. 94-416, which adopted Robert's Rules of Order and Rules of Procedure for calling special meetings and public hearings to conform with the Brevard County Charter, and ex parte communications. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT, RE: INTERNAL AUDIT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT/ COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to acknowledge receipt of the Internal Audit conducted of the Emergency Management/Communications Division dated March 28, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to appoint and/or reappoint the following:

District 2 Canal Dredging Committee

Rusty Harris, 185 Marlin Drive, Merritt Island 32952

MPO Citizens Advisory Committee

Arthur W. Berger, 627 Adams Avenue, Cape Canaveral 32920

Brevard County Commission on the Status of Women

Cindy Earp, 1203 Pawnee Terrace, Indian Harbour Beach 32937

Ella M. Edwards, 580 Arcadia Avenue N.E., Palm Bay 32907

Housing Finance Authority

Sally Hutchison, 6170 Whispering Lane, Titusville 32780

Onsite Sewage Disposal Variance Board

Mary Tees, 5115 Fay Boulevard, Cocoa 32927

Community Based Organization Funding Advisory Board

Michele Roddenberry, 1901 Cedar Lane, Melbourne Beach 32951

Elizabeth O. Bradley, 3872 Sterling Street, Mims 32754

Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN VIERA NORTH PUD, TRACT D3 - GERALD AND GERALDINE VAUGHN

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a public utilities and drainage easement in Viera North PUD, Tract D3, as petitioned by Gerald and Geraldine Vaughn.

Gerald Vaughn advised the home he is building is at 2221 Keeper Isle Court, Viera, and he is present to answer any questions the Board may have regarding the vacating of the property.

Commissioner Scarborough advised his problem is sometimes after the buildings are completed, the Board is asked to do vacations; and if it starts doing that as a part of a private construction process, it will create a terrible precedent. He stated the Board is basically looking the other way with some requirements because there are surveyors and contractors who are supposed to live within the rules; and if they have a problem, it should be handled in advance of pulling building permits. He stated he is disturbed by the sequence of events.

Mr. Vaughn advised he lives in Detroit, Michigan, and made a special trip here because he wants to be a part of this community; he tried to build a nice home on the golf course with a pool, and was under the impression he would have a walk around the pool; the tank for the pool was put in prior to construction of the home; and after that, the construction started on the home. He stated two months ago he found out he did not have a walk around the pool; therefore, it was a big hardship; the contractor made a mistake; and his feet should not be held to the fire because of someone else's mistake. He stated he has a lot of money invested in the house; he was under the impression it would not be a major problem taking two and a half feet of a 7.5-foot setback; and it puts a bad taste in his mouth.

Commissioner Cook advised it was not Mr. Vaughn's fault; it was the contractor's fault; it will still leave five feet of additional setback; staff does not have a problem with it; and he agrees with Commissioner Scarborough that it should not happen often, but it is not the homeowner's fault and more a mistake in construction.

Mr. Vaughn stated he does not want to create a hardship for the contractor Andy Barber of Barber Development who is a nice guy and is building nice homes in Viera.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the home backs up to the golf course; with Mr. Vaughn responding yes, and there is nothing but a wide open field. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand why the County cannot handle these things administratively; the house backs up against a golf course, and there is no injury to another property owner; and it is foolish to have him waste time and money to come here.

Mr. Vaughn stated he is not creating a problem; he received approval from all the different utilities and County staff; he cannot use the pool at the back without the additional feet; and he does not understand why it is a problem when there is nothing there.

Commissioner Cook advised in this instance, the County can become a slave to procedures; it backs up to a golf course and cannot impact anyone; so he will move approval of the item.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Resolution vacating a public utilities and drainage easement in Viera North PUD, Tract D3, as petitioned by Gerald and Geraldine Vaughn.

Commissioner Scarborough advised on June 2, 1994, the Commissioners received a memo from Building Director Paul Smith which stated in part, "Please find attached survey form for new construction and swimming pools. This form will be used in conjunction with most recent surveys of the property in order to determine the easement locations and setback requirements. As noted on the bottom of the form, plans submitted for swimming pool permit that reflect the pool deck to be six inches or less from the easement, a required setback must be provided from board surveys of the deck prior to scheduling the required deck inspection." He stated he does not know who dropped the ball on this issue, and maybe it is not important in this case, but if the County has certain people who are not complying with the rules, that bothers him. He stated if the County does not have good rules, then the Board should abolish them; and if it has no meaning next to a golf course, then it should abolish those rules; but he has a problem with people not doing their job right. Commissioner Cook stated he does not disagree, but in this case it is the not the homeowner's fault. Commissioner Scarborough stated the builder or surveyor should have been here rather than Mr. Vaughn; they should not have made him fly down here; they should be here to explain to the Board why they did not do it; but they dumped on Mr. Vaughn and caused him the problem, not the Board. He stated if they had complied with the law, he would not have to fly down here, and the Board did not make him fly down. Commissioner Cook stated it is correct that it was not the Board's doing.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the pool is already in; with Mr. Vaughn responding yes. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what size are the lots supposed to be, as they are not all 1/4-acre lots. He stated according to the drawing, the pool could have been moved to the north about 2.5 feet; the walkway along the porch is not required because supports are at the corners and at the 8-foot mark; there would be two supports to get around to the pool; and it abuts the porch, so the porch becomes part of the deck.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the property was properly inspected when the pool and deck forms were set; with Assistant Public Works Director Ron Jones responding yes, the pool is not encroaching on the easement; the deck is the actual issue; and there is not enough room for the deck on the back side of the pool without encroaching on the easement. Chairman Higgs inquired if the setbacks were met but the encroachment in the easement is the problem; with Mr. Jones responding yes, from a zoning perspective the setbacks have been met. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board did not vacate that portion of the easement, could it give the owners a permissive use agreement so it will come back to the Board if it is needed; with Mr. Jones responding he would defer to the County Attorney.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised, in response to Commissioner Ellis' question of why it cannot be done administratively, the reason is under Florida law only the Board can vacate property; and if it is done administratively, it would have to do something like a permissive use agreement which would allow the use of the easement provided it did not conflict with other uses, and the County could get it back if there is a reason it is needed in the future.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board could give him a permissive use today and not vacate the easement; with Mr. Knox responding it could, but it would be better to set up a policy with criteria and standards when it is going to grant or not grant those. Chairman Higgs advised her and Commissioner Scarborough's concern is if there are people who are not complying with the laws in the building industry, the Board will set a precedent that it will vacate readily; she would be more interested in a permissive use agreement that would allow Mr. Vaughn to use the land until the County has reason to need it; and vacating it in this case may not be the wise thing to do.

Commissioner Cook stated he understands staff has not seen a projected need for the easement; and inquired if there are any needs for it in the future; with Mr. Jones responding staff has not identified a need for the particular easement at this time. Commissioner Cook suggested sanctions against contractors who violate this type of rule rather than punish the homeowner, or give them incentives not to let it happen again. He stated he sympathizes with Mr. Vaughn who hired a contractor to build a house; the contractor makes a mistake, and he is stuck with the consequence; and permissive use agreements could cloud the title or cause other ramifications should Mr. Vaughn decide to sell his house. He stated the Board needs to establish a policy and look at that in the future, but in this case, it should allow the home to be finished.

Chairman Higgs inquired if it would cause other complications; with Mr. Knox responding it could if it is recorded. Chairman Higgs inquired if it would have to be recorded; with Mr. Knox responding to put everyone on notice that it exists, it would have to be recorded.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he agrees that for Mr. Vaughn's sake, the simplest thing to do is move forward with the vacating; there is no harm done; but he would like staff to report back and recommend some means where it would occur less frequently and there would be less abuse.

Mr. Jones advised staff is compiling a report similar to that and will bring that to the Board.

Commissioner Ellis stated another issue that needs to be looked at is why does the County have need for easements in the first place, and little common sense in dealing with the problem. Chairman Higgs stated easements are required as part of the Subdivision and Site Plan Ordinance. Mr. Jones advised side and rear lot easements are required as part of the Subdivision Ordinance; Mr. Sternagel is looking at that issue with the rewrite of the Ordinance; and the issue may be resolved as a result of that. Commissioner Ellis stated his question is not what the law reads, but why there is a law that requires all those setbacks and easements whether they are needed or not. Chairman Higgs stated staff is rewriting the Ordinance.

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

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to direct staff to report back to the Board on means to address questions raised today, why easements are in different places, and the County Attorney to respond to the issue of why vacations have to come to the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN RIVER OAK WEST - DR. SAMUEL AND MRS. DIANE McCLURE

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a public drainage easement in River Oak West, as petitioned by Dr. Samuel and Mrs. Diane McClure.

There being no comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt Resolution vacating a public drainage easement in River Oak West as petitioned by Dr. Samuel and Mrs. Diane McClure. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PROPOSED RATE AND EQUIPMENT COST CHANGES, RE: TCI CABLEVISION, INC., TIME WARNER CABLE, AND FALCON CABLE TV

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider proposed rate and equipment cost changes for TCI Cablevision Inc., Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership TWE-A/N d/b/a Time Warner Cable (TWC), and Falcon Cable TV franchises.

Commissioner O'Brien advised he has a problem with the increase in rates because Barefoot Bay and Snug Harbor were damaged by tornados recently and their standard rate is in excess of $10.00 a month for 16 channels, yet other franchises are $8.95; so they are charging almost 20% more for people in areas that can barely afford it. He stated he does not understand how the rate can be over $10 a month for basic 16 channels; it has gotten out of hand; they were passed one at a time; and inquired how many tiers do they have. Commissioner O'Brien advised Time Warner is $8.95, Falcon Cable is $21.73 for 32 channels; and he is concerned that people in the south part of the County are taking a hit from cable television.

Patsy Watson with TCI Cablevision, Inc. advised they meet the FCC requirements for rate increases; and they have not had a rate increase except four cents in the last two years on basic service.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he is not concerned about what they did four years ago, he is concerned about what they are doing now; a fifty-one cent increase from $10.02 will be $10.53 for 16 basic channels; and any place else in the County has rates of $8.50 and $8.02 and want to go to $8.95. Ms. Watson stated they meet the FCC criteria for those rates. Commissioner O'Brien stated they do but there is something wrong. Ms. Watson stated the FCC rules are there, and they are following those rules. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why is TCI 20% higher than anyone else in the County; with Ms. Watson responding for the rates and channels they carry, they went by the FCC criteria of benchmark rate and that is the benchmark rate. Commissioner O'Brien indicated it sounds like Cocoa Water Utilities that is adamant about its rate no matter what happens, although he is not saying TCI is that way. He stated some people who have franchises and utility companies become extremely arrogant because they have that they cannot be touched attitude; and he cannot understand why TCI wants $10.53 for 16 channels when Time Warner and Falcon want $8.95. Ms. Watson advised the rates are not set only on how many channels they have; and there are a lot of different things in the criteria. Commissioner O'Brien stated there are, but he can get a profit and loss statement of any company and show where they can make money or lose money by shifting numbers. He stated it is easy to do; any businessman can do it; he is not accusing TCI of that; but something is drastically wrong when its rates are 20% higher than any other rates in the County. Ms. Watson advised they have backup material that discusses the rates; with Commissioner O'Brien responding he is sure they do.

Commissioner Cook advised there are certain guidelines they have to follow, but those guidelines provide some flexibility; and inquired what does installation charges will decrease mean; with Ms. Watson responding in 1993 it was $32.09 for hourly service charge; in March, 1994, it was $23.09; and they are reducing it to $17.04 for service charge, installation, etc.

Commissioner O'Brien stated what he sees is a numbers game; the hourly service charge went from $32.00 to $23.00 to $17.00; unwired home installation went from $48.00 to $34.00 to $25.00 to make it cheaper for people to have cable; the reconnect charge went from $24.00 to $17.00 to $12.00; and the things that get people into the system have been reduced, but once they are in, the rates keep rising. He stated they should raise the connection initial trip, increase rates for delinquent payments and insufficient funds, charge more for unreturned converters, and drop the monthly rate to $8.95.

Commissioner Ellis advised he voted against getting into cable regulation and is convinced he was right in voting against it; because a convenience store charges more than a Winn-Dixie does not mean the County is going to regulate convenience store prices; there are alternative cable services now; and they have wireless cable in Brevard County. He stated there are market factors when cable companies charge too much; he does not understand what the Board is arguing about; Option 2 states if the County chooses not to approve the rates, it must provide reasons in writing indicating the rates are not consistent with FCC guidelines; and if the Board does not have reasons, he does not know what it is arguing about.

Commissioner Cook inquired if there is documentation that the cable companies supply information and the County just accepts it; with Sharon Luba responding there are FCC forms they must fill out; and those forms are audited to make sure their costs allowed to be deducted meet the FCC criteria. Commissioner Cook inquired if their costs are what they say they are; with Ms. Watson responding it is audited by the FCC, and they are required to provide a quarterly report. Commissioner Cook stated he is not sure why or how the County got into this situation, but since it did, it is the Board's responsibility to ensure rate increases are reasonable. He stated the FCC has changed its rules again; and cable companies can come back for rate increases every three months.

Commissioner Scarborough advised cable television today is almost becoming as fundamental as telephones and electricity; where there are competitive markets, the rates are substantially less; so to say the free market system is working here is not true. He stated the truth is it is still viewed as a luxury entertainment as opposed to basic necessity for the quality of life; and once it is, there will be more scrutiny of the rates than are occurring today at one level or another. He stated there is not enough scrutiny and Commissioner O'Brien is right because taking 40 cents from a lot of people amounts to massive dollars.

Commissioner O'Brien stated wireless cable comes in a small antenna that does not bring local channels at all because they are not allowed; so people have to get a secondary system for that. He stated if they buy the system it costs $700 and installation is $500 plus they pay $52 a month for Show Time, HBO, Max and Cinemax; and they are getting cable television but not Channels 2, 6 and 9 unless they put up another antenna. Commissioner Ellis stated wireless cable is all over Eau Gallie because people are getting tired of TCI Cablevision. Commissioner O'Brien stated they do not get local news unless they get a different television or separate antenna. Commissioner Ellis stated the wireless cable picks up all the same channels; with Commissioner O'Brien responding they do not in his neighborhood. Commissioner Ellis stated Coastal Wireless is going in all over Melbourne because people are tired of TCI Cablevision.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board at this point can choose not to regulate the basic tier, what would it have to do; with Ms. Luba responding it would apply to FCC to decertify and give reasons; there is a decertification procedure the Board would have to follow; and it would have to give FCC reasons why it wants to be decertified. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board denied the rate increases, would it have to give reasons; with Ms. Luba responding the cable operator would apply to FCC in an appeal status for the rate, then the County would be asked by FCC to put reasons approved by the Board in writing why they did not meet the criteria. Chairman Higgs inquired if the specific criteria is set out by FCC and says if they meet those criteria, then the County has to approve the rate increase; with Ms. Luba responding yes. Chairman Higgs advised when the Board was offered the option, it seemed it was something it should do because it was a service people would be getting and the Board had an impact on the service; however, looking at the rules, it has limited ability to change the rates; so the Board can opt out of doing this if it does not want to do it.

Commissioner O'Brien stated then it would be irresponsible to the public because it is a public contract between cable companies and residents; there are only three companies--Falcon, TCI and TWC, aside from wireless; and it is an opportunity for the Board to see where rates are going and how they are constructed. He stated he is willing to make a motion to deny the increase and direct staff to find out what reasons the Board can use to deny it and what reasons the cable companies used for the increase.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny the rate increases for TCI Cablevision, Inc., Time Warner Cable, and Falcon Cable TV; and direct staff to determine what reasons the cable companies used for their rate increases and what reasons the Board can use to deny it.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is any logic behind the motion; with Commissioner O'Brien responding yes, and Mr. Knox can look at the reasons and put it in writing. Commissioner Ellis inquired if auditors would be assigned to this issue. Commissioner Cook asked Ms. Luba if the companies were to appeal to the FCC and the Board states its reasons why it cannot deal with the rate increases, would it be up to the FCC if it did not like the County's reasoning, to overrule its decision; with Ms. Luba responding yes. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Board does not try, it will not know. Commissioner Ellis stated there should be reasons in the Agenda package before the Board votes; and there is nothing in the package that gives it any reasons to deny the increase. Commissioner Cook stated sometimes the Board has to rely on more than what it gets.

Mr. Knox suggested the Board not deny the increase today, but have staff evaluate the criteria to make sure they have all been complied with; and if there are reasons why they have not complied, come back to the Board with that evaluation so it has some basis for making a decision.

Commissioner Scarborough withdrew the second to the motion; and Commissioner O'Brien withdrew the motion.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to continue the public hearing on proposed rates and equipment cost changes for TCI Cablevision, Inc., Time Warner Cable, and Falcon Cable TV until July 11, 1995, and direct staff to review the item with scrutiny to find out what reasons the companies used to increase their rates and what may be wrong with that type of reasoning.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board cannot discuss it because it has been tabled.

Commissioner Scarborough withdrew the second to the motion; and Commissioner O'Brien withdrew the motion.

Commissioner Scarborough advised while he may not have reasons to deny, neither does he have reason to approve; he cannot say approve it because he does not have all the technical knowledge to deny; and that is an awful burden to put on the Board.

Commissioner Cook stated if he is not comfortable voting for approval, that means he does not have enough information to be able to vote in good conscience for the rate increase; and that is his reason for supporting the motion. Mr. Knox advised the FCC criteria and guidelines set forth what the Board has to find in order to deny the request. Commissioner Cook stated they can appeal to the FCC and if FCC does not agree with the County, it will overrule the Board's decision.

Ms. Watson stated she appreciates what the Board is going through, but they have provided the information the FCC requires; they have gone by the rules, prepared for them to go through; and they filed Reports 1210, and 393 which give all the information needed to back up what they have done. She stated that is in the report given to the County every three months and in the report given to the Board at the beginning of the regulation period; so she does not know what more information they can give the County that is not already there.

Chairman Higgs stated she reviewed the backup documentation, and from looking at what has been provided and what FCC requires, they meet those requirements; she would like to deny the increase and does not want to increase the rates for Barefoot Bay and Snug Harbor; but they have met the criteria set out in the law.

Commissioner Ellis stated they do not have a monopoly; if people are sick of Cablevision, they can call Coastal Wireless ; and if the Board is going to argue about cable television, it may as well argue about Texaco versus Shell versus Chevron, Standard Oil and every other limited monopoly. He stated the Board has spent a lot of time on this issue; it has been told that FCC is going to do what it wants to do anyway; and the Board is going to take a beating from the residents for passing or denying it. He stated FCC is going to make its decision regardless of what Brevard County does; and that is why he did not want to get into this in the first place.

Chairman Higgs stated she will rethink her decision in regard to getting into it in light of the criteria and the regulations the Board did not have at the time; seeing what the Board is capable of doing and what constraints are on it, she would not make that same decision; so rather than tabling this, she would like to move to decertify and send it back to FCC to do because it has put the Board in a position where it does not have a decision to make.

Commissioner Cook recommended staff come back with additional information on all three companies and with additional information on decertification, and that be made part of the vote on this issue. He stated since the regulations have changed and it is going to be a quarterly thing instead of yearly, the Board has to seriously look at whether it wants to be in this or if it is proper to be involved.

Chairman Higgs advised a month ago the Board tabled this issue for the same purpose, to look at it again; her examination of the criteria and the Board's options determined they have met the criteria that the FCC set out; so when it comes back again, it will be in the same position of saying they have met the FCC criteria. She stated the Board's only choice is to approve or deny it today and say it wants to decertify.

Commissioner Cook advised the County Attorney suggested the Board ask for more information on it and not outright deny; and he has no problem with that. Commissioner O'Brien stated he has no problem with that either. Commissioner Cook stated the staff should also provide information on decertifying so the Board can address the issue of being involved or not.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to continue the public hearing on the proposed rates, equipment, and installation cost changes for TCI Cablevision, Inc., Time Warner Cable, and Falcon Cable TV franchises until July 11, 1995, and direct staff to investigate and return with information on reasons used to justify the rate increases and on decertification procedures.

Chairman Higgs advised she has cards from speakers and does not want to deny the peoples' rights to address the Board, so she will give them an opportunity to speak.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he is not against letting people speak in public on this, but the Board will be sitting here with a black hole of no knowledge of what the other side of the coin is; and the Board will be wasting its time until it can intelligently address the conversation which is a two-way conversation rather than one way lecture.

George Rosenfield, 1289 Bonaventure Drive, Melbourne, commended the Board for many comments made in reference to this subject; and stated it should take back Brevard County from the federal government and handle it itself. He stated he addressed the Board on May 9, 1995 and wants to reiterate some items he raised at that time; last year he made a comparison of the rates between Brevard and Pinellas Counties; some rate differences were for a hand held remote which he did not have because he did not want to pay $4.00 and tax; and Pinellas County charges six cents for the same instrument. Mr. Rosenfield stated the basic service in Brevard County was $20 for 38 channels; in Pinellas County it was $17 for 45 channels; and inquired why is Brevard County paying so much more for less service than Pinellas County is paying for more service. He stated he took that to Time Warner's office last May and talked to the Office Manager; he was told he could not compare the two items in the two Counties and that he did not have all the information nor the right to come in and complain about the cost; however, he has the right to complain about costs no matter where they are raised. He stated it will take an accounting audit to review the rates and a good auditor can find out whether they are reasonable or not.

Commissioner Cook inquired who in addition to Ms. Luba reviews the franchises; with Ms. Luba responding the internal auditors on a yearly basis, but she has been auditing it herself. Commissioner Cook stated that is a lot to ask of one person, and maybe the budget office needs to be involved. County Manager Tom Jenkins recommended the auditors.

Dianne Brundage, 2251 Lucian Way, Maitland, representing Time Warner Cable, advised Mr. Rosenfield's comments are understandable in that he is frustrated; however, FCC sets guidelines of how they can establish rates within given communities. She stated those guidelines are based on many factors, among them are programming costs which vary from location to location, density within the area, how many homes per mile, population, median income, operating costs, number of channels, and other factors which go into the equation; so it is not just an arbitrary decision that one county or city varies from another. She stated it is based on the FCC guidelines. Ms. Brundage stated perhaps the way decertifying should be looked at is that the Board is acknowledging they are within the FCC guidelines but it is not approving or disapproving the rate increases.

Ken Vickers, 1672 Stonecrop Street, Sebastian, Regional Manager for Falcon Cable TV, advised each Commissioner was elected by constituents based on wisdom and ability to use assets and education of others; initially when they sent their notice of intent to change their rates, County staff provided information to the Commissioners; and now on two separate occasions, they requested staff do the same thing again. He stated County staff reviewed FCC Form 1210 and it is in order; they also submitted a statement from their controller stating the information provided is true and correct; and copies of their annual audit or confirmation that the audit is true and correct was sent to the County. He advised when the Board certified in October, 1993, there was a form sent in, Form 328, with six different items; item 3 asked a question, "Will your franchising authority adopt within 120 days of certification, and administer regulations with respect to basic cable service that are consistent with the regulations adopted by the FCC pursuant to 47 USC, Section 543(b);" and the County's answer was yes. Mr. Vickers advised on May 9, 1995, Mr. Jenkins read a note that was included in the Agenda package, and again it reiterated the same information and also stated finally that any company being the cable company filing the Form 1210 clearly complies with this provision; the Board decided to certify and by doing that felt it was protecting its constituents; a constituent can file a complaint just like the County can with just as much power as the Board; so the responsibility is not necessarily in agreement with the methodology because they do not always agree with what the federal government says or does; however, the action of the Board today needs to comply with that methodology because that is what its certification statement said. Mr. Vickers stated they provided the backup material; staff provided backup information; it all has been reviewed and accepted as being true and correct; and the Board's responsibility at this point is to approve the rate increases.

Mr. Jenkins advised he wants to clarify something Mr. Vickers said which he does not agree with; he read the FCC rules from the Agenda package; and what he said was if the County were to decide not to approve the rates or modify those presented by the companies, it must provide reasons indicating that the rates are not consistent with the FCC guidelines, and must indicate in writing the reason for disapproving rate increases as noted in section such and such.

Commissioner Cook advised the Board is asking for additional information; he would like to see an auditor look at it; it is a lot of responsibility for Ms. Luba to review all the different complex parameters; and it would not hurt to get someone else involved.

Commissioner O'Brien advised it is mentioned that anyone can send letters to FCC and make complaints; the Board has that charge in front of it; the public has charged the Board with accepting responsibility; and if it does not, it is saying it is not its responsibility and constituents have to write their own letters. He stated the County should be writing the letters; and that is what they were elected to do, represent people and help them out. He stated he hopes the audit Commissioner Cook is requesting will look at what kind of numbers games they have been playing with their rates for equipment rentals, installation charges, etc., which is what he resents the most. He stated he hates to see this happen, especially for people on fixed incomes; and it is time to look at those kinds of things.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to get rates from St. Petersburg and see what they are, independent from someone from the cable companies. Ms. Luba advised the report included rates from several counties and some cities, but she will get the rates from St. Petersburg.

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

The meeting recessed at 10:34 a.m. and reconvened at 10:53 a.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 61-1908 PERTAINING TO PREPAYMENT OF 125% OF TAXES FOR PROPOSED SUBDIVISIONS

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance repealing Chapter 61-1908, Section 9, Laws of Florida, pertaining to prepayment of 125% of taxes for proposed subdivisions.

Hugh Evans, Jr., 3175 Knight Oak Court, Melbourne, advised there is a question whether or not there is a need for collection of 125% of the taxes at the point of recording a plat; the concern of the Tax Collector is his inability to collect the taxes if he does not collect them at the time of recording; however, no one he knows in Brevard County has walked away from paying tax bills, so he believes the process is in place to collect taxes without the collection at the time the plat is recorded. He stated the collection of 125% of the taxes is in excess of what the Tax Collector's estimate is; it is another fee at the point of development that does not need to be paid; there is a system in place to pay taxes as they are due rather than in advance; and he is not sure what the arguments are with the Tax Collector's office. Mr. Evans advised it is not done consistently throughout the State; some counties are collecting the 125%, but most are not; and requested the Board support the repeal and non-collection of taxes at the time of recording of plats and let them be collected as other taxes are collected through the process.

Chairman Higgs advised the Tax Collector's concern was at closing when people are pro-rating a portion of the taxes for the year and if during that year the developer goes bankrupt, then the homeowner, in order to get clear title, would have to pay the entire sum. She inquired how that would be handled; with Mr. Evans responding it would be handled as any other foreclosure and the back taxes would have to be paid. He stated nobody who opens a business in Brevard County pays the real estate taxes in advance; and inquired why should the development community pay its taxes in advance. Chairman Higgs inquired if it would be fair to him, that she as a home buyer, if he was unable to pay his portion of the taxes, would then pay her portion and his portion at a pro-rata closing; with Mr. Evans stating he does not know that it would be any different than if she bought any foreclosed property. He stated if she is buying foreclosed property, she is purchasing it at a discount of what the market would normally sell it for; so he would assume she is purchasing a bargain; and it would not be different than any other foreclosure situation. Mr. Evans stated he is not aware of any subdivisions that have gone into foreclosure; and he would be interested in that statistic. Chairman Higgs stated it seems to be, in Mr. Northcutt's mind, an instance that happens with enough regularity that he was familiar with the way it happens. Mr. Evans stated he would be interested in having Mr. Northcutt identify when and where it has happened; nobody else pays the taxes in advance; so it seems to work in all other cases except for single-family lots.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Mr. Evans has seen Mr. Ford's letter; with Mr. Evans responding not in its entirety. Commissioner O'Brien advised the letter says Rod Northcutt asserts that 125% of the prior year taxes prior to the recording of the plats be kept in place because the policy was established as protection of a new lot purchaser in case the developer goes bankrupt; and Mr. Ford stated if no escrow is required, his review would no longer be needed and errors on the plat may go unnoticed until after the plat is recorded; therefore, if the escrow process is eliminated, his office will no longer review the plats prior to their being recorded, and the County staff would need to make certain that the legal descriptions are correct before allowing the plats to be recorded. He stated Mr. Ford goes on to say if the certainty of the County staff is incorrect, then it could openly cause the plat to be removed from the Public Records; and that could be a concern, since often lots are sold as soon as the plat is recorded. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board and the Land Development staff need to give this matter careful and thorough study; and Mr. Ford is not coming out against developers, but is looking at the need to protect the public from a mistake occurring which could cost them the platting of their land. Mr. Evans stated they are all concerned about protection of the public and can continue to add endless legislation to protect the public if there is really a concern; and his point is very good regarding review of the plats, but his office does not need to be eliminated from reviewing plats before they are recorded. He stated Mr. Ford's Office would still be on the list and would be sent a copy of the plat before the recording as would seven or eight other people within the County who review the plats, as well as the licensed surveyor who prepared the legal description and whose license is on the line at the point that the plat is recorded. He stated that element is important, and Mr. Ford should still be in the review process, but it does not mean he has to collect the taxes in advance. Commissioner Cook advised Mr. Ford indicated he would not review the plats unless it is in regard to his duties as escrow agent. Mr. Evans stated then he made the determination that he does not want to do it; but his review may not be necessary because he is not the only person in town who can read legal descriptions and make sure they are correct.

Commissioner Ellis stated comments from the Tax Collector and Property Appraiser do not make a whole lot of sense if dissected; and the Tax Collector's policy to establish protection for new lot purchasers if the developer goes bankrupt takes it back to what Mr. Evans said about having a closing after a bankruptcy and expecting to pay back taxes.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised he can see a situation where the plat would be recorded; there would be taxes due and owing on the property for the current year; lot sales would begin and people would buy property and pro-rate taxes based on the prior year's taxes per lot; at the end of the year the developer goes bankrupt and does not have the money to pay all the taxes for all the property; and the persons who bought the lots are going to stand as security for payment of all the taxes on the undeveloped property before the plat was record. Mr. Evans stated that is not correct. Commissioner Ellis inquired if Mr. Knox is saying if he bought a platted lot and closed on it, he could be responsible for taxes on other lots; with Mr. Knox responding he has not thought it out or researched it, so that is the only scenario he could think of. Commissioner Ellis stated when he closes on his lot the issue is resolved; with Mr. Knox responding when he closes on the lot he pays a pro-rata portion of the taxes on that lot, but that does not get the lot off the hook. Mr. Evans stated once the lot is recorded, it is an independent piece of property that is taxed on its own and will no longer be part of the collection of lots in the subdivision. Mr. Knox stated he is not sure that is true. Mr. Evans stated that is why they issue title policies on lots. Mr. Knox stated they issue title policies on lots subject to the taxes for that year; and if they do not pay the taxes off for that year, the person would not get the title. Mr. Evans stated the taxes are paid at closing; if a person bought a lot in a subdivision and the developer owned 20 lots and did not pay taxes on the other 19, the lot owner would not be responsible for the taxes on lots 2 through 20; with Mr. Knox responding he would have to think it through. Mr. Evans stated once the property is subdivided, the taxes are due on a lot-by-lot basis and not on the property in its entirety.

Commissioner Ellis advised the reason for recording plats is to split the tax burden out. He stated Mr. Ford said his review would no longer need to take place and County staff will need to make certain the legal descriptions are correct before allowing plats to be recorded; the County should be doing that anyway; Mr. Ford is doing the same job staff is doing; and he catches an error now and then, but the County should do the job right the first time. He stated one of the biggest problems with government today is that is the way they have done it for 30 years and fail to see the reason to eliminate it; and County staff needs to make sure on the first review they catch the errors before it goes to Mr. Ford for the second review.

Commissioner Scarborough advised when a closing takes place, the taxes are pro-rated and the buyer gets a credit; and at the end of the year, the buyer pays the taxes for the entire year because the buyer received the credit. He stated he has seen where the escrow agent steps back and the closing agent is out of it, and if the taxes are more than what was pro-rated, it is up to the buyer to pay for it because the seller is not going to pay it since the buyer received credit at closing. Commissioner Scarborough stated from the time of closing there is an insolvency on the developer; the buyer has a substantial amount in the property and goes back and pro-rates again with the developer, but he says he is not in business any more; but that could occur in any closing, and if that is the total reason, he does not think it substantiates the reason to protect the collection of 125% of the taxes, but he may be missing something. Chairman Higgs stated there are other assessments annually on the tax bill, so pro-rating the other assessments as well as the taxes may be a problem. Mr. Evans advised the title agent calls to get an estimate from the Property Appraiser; sometimes the estimate is not exactly 100%; but that scenario can happen in year 2 as well as year 1; so it could happen any time whether the 125% is collected or not; and that is true with any property, not just subdivision lots.

Commissioner Cook inquired how often is a mistake caught by the Property Appraiser; with Planner I Gwen Heller responding the Property Appraiser's Office has a very thorough mapping section and is very good in reviews; it has caught discrepancies more times than not unfortunately; and they have asked the Property Appraiser to stay on board and continue as one of the final plat reviewers, but he is reluctant to do that. She stated the County Surveyor is one of the reviewing agencies for the final plat, and many of the discrepancies can be caught in that area. Commissioner Cook inquired if that is the current procedure; with Ms. Heller responding yes. Commissioner Cook stated he heard a number of discrepancies are being caught by the Property Appraiser, and wonders why. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Property Appraiser could do the first review; with Commissioner Cook responding he does not have a problem with that, but Mr. Ford may not consent to it.

Roy Pence, 4153 Canard Road, Melbourne, encouraged the Board to support the issue, as there is no other business or property owner in Brevard County who has to pay property taxes in advance. He stated Brevard County has a unique requirement that they have to pay property taxes in advance plus an additional 25% over what they would pay at the end of the year; and it is not because there is no mechanism to collect the property taxes as there is a well-oiled mechanism if the taxes are not paid at the end of the year. He stated he does not understand why a person is penalized in this manner for wanting to use his property; 30 years ago there may have been a good reason, but today there is no good reason; and staff can do a thorough review of the plats and catch any mistakes that may be there. Mr. Pence stated he has confidence in the County's staff; it has an excellent development plans review staff with the ability to do that; and staff can follow through with anything Mr. Ford's Office was able to do. He stated very few counties in the State are doing this; it is not fair to someone who wants to use his property to make him pay the property taxes in advance at 125% of what it would normally be; and he would appreciate the Board's support of this issue.

Attorney Leonard Spielvogel, representing Cape Kennedy Board of Realtors, stated he was not sure if Chairman Higgs' question about what happens to an innocent buyer at closing was answered; at a closing the buyer is given a credit for the portion of taxes for that year on the lot being purchased; the tax bills are received in November, and the buyer pays the taxes and does not have to go back to the seller unless there is a problem with the increase of assessments which can happen at any time. He stated the seller does not have to be a developer, in many cases they are individuals who sell their homes or businesses and relocate; and even though there is an agreement that the parties agree to pro-rate the taxes again when the tax bills are received, they have to find the seller which is not an easy task; so the mechanism is built in to solve the problem. He noted it has been done for 30 years, but he is not sure why or whether the County needs to do it any longer.

Kay Blauhauvietz, 1460 Bayshore Drive, Cocoa Beach, advised most of the items picked up by Mr. Ford's Office in his experience over the last 20 years of doing plats, have been generally because the maps have not been completely up to date. He stated if a deed is recorded within three to five months, they may say there is a piece of land that is not owned by his company because it does not show on the maps; and he had to give them the book and page numbers for them to look it up. He noted that has recently happened to him several times; and that is the only time he has found the Property Appraiser's Office picked up errors on the plats. He noted generally the County surveyor working with the platting surveyor find errors in the deed; the opinion of title from an attorney certifies whether the property is owned by the developer or not which should clear that up; so he would like to request the Board's support in repealing the prepayment of 125% of the taxes.

Micah Savell, 1370 Sarno Road, Melbourne, encouraged the Board to adopt the ordinance to make the change. He stated most errors made are the result of surveying and engineering; some times there are typographical errors on their part; and sometimes there are errors that flow from the County, no matter how good the steps are that are taken. He stated they should not have to police every issue, nor should the County; the Board should not have to continue to be a referee between private industry and the public; and the only issue at closing is the taxes for the current year because if there are past taxes most people will not take title to the property. He noted if they do take title, it is usually addressed and becomes the responsibility of the buyer. He stated the County's position is not diminished by cutting out this layer of additional supervision; and encouraged the Board to adopt the ordinance.

Mr. Knox advised his concern is if there is vacant property on January 1st and $100,000 in taxes due on that property, and it was subdivided in June of that year, and lots sold and the developer goes bankrupt in September, what happens to the taxes due, and would the lot get out of paying the tax or having a lien placed on the lot; he talked to Mr. Spielvogel about the issue; and Mr. Spielvogel indicated at closing the Property Appraiser gives the assessed valuation of the lot and taxes are paid on the basis of that valuation; that sounds like it is probably true; but he is not sure if it is or is not; however, Mr. Spielvogel has more experience than he has with that. Chairman Higgs inquired if at closing someone has to pay the taxes; with Mr. Knox responding no, the buyer would only pay the taxes on the lot's valuation. Chairman Higgs inquired if the 125% being held would pay that; with Mr. Knox responding if there were two lots sold and 18 remaining, the 125% would be used to pay the taxes on the 18 lots.

Commissioner Ellis stated it would not affect the people who bought lots; with Mr. Knox responding it would not according to Mr. Spielvogel. Commissioner Ellis stated a developer can go bankrupt in any year of a development.

Commissioner O'Brien stated since this is an important issue, he would like to invite Mr. Spielvogel back to the podium.

Chairman Higgs advised the question the Board is trying to clarify is what would happen if a person who has bought a lot and placed a home there, and the developer goes bankrupt and the 125% is not in place. Mr. Spielvogel advised if someone develops a subdivision which is platted subsequent to January 1st, and sometime during the year a lot is sold out of that subdivision, it is called a BFP or bona fide purchase of a value; an innocent buyer purchases the lot and puts a home on it; at the time of closing any buyer's counsel or title company would not know what the assessment is on that lot and would contact the Property Appraiser and get a letter from him saying the assessment on that lot or the assessed value on that lot is "x" number of dollars; they would calculate what the millage was the prior year or that year, calculate the taxes on that lot, and pro-rate it; and the buyer would get credit for the portion of the year from January 1st to the date of closing based on those numbers. He stated in November, when the tax bill comes in to the buyer, the buyer would pay the taxes for that lot. Mr. Spielvogel advised if the developer has gone away and the taxes on the balance of the lots were not paid, that would be treated like any other situation where taxes are not paid; a tax certificate would be sold; if it is not paid for three years or redeemed, then the property will be sold to the holder of the tax certificate; and when it goes to sale, the purchase of the tax certificate will pay the taxes. He stated that is the way it works; and that is how it works across the board in any kind of scenario where taxes are not paid. Chairman Higgs inquired if to have clear title to her lot she has to pay the tax bill; with Mr. Spielvogel responding yes, she bought a lot and would have to pay the taxes on the lot, but has no obligation for any other lot in that subdivision. Chairman Higgs inquired if she has to pay the pro-rata portion of the taxes on her lot that the developer did not pay; with Mr. Spielvogel responding she would have received credit at closing for the taxes and would ow it for the entire year. Chairman Higgs stated someone is going to buy the tax certificate; with Mr. Spielvogel responding not on her lot because the deed was recorded.

Commissioner Ellis stated whether the developer goes bankrupt or not, the buyer still owes the full year taxes on the lot. Mr. Spielvogel responded that is correct, but there was a concern expressed whether or not the lot purchaser would have an obligation for the balance of the subdivision, and the answer is no. Chairman Higgs inquired if she has to pay the pro-rata portion of the taxes on her lot that the developer did not pay; with Mr. Spielvogel responding no, she would pay the taxes for the entire year because she received a credit at closing for that portion of the year from January 1st through the date of closing. He stated that money was credited to her as the buyer and she paid that much less to the developer; so she is obligated to add the amount credited to the date of closing through the end of the year when she receives her tax bill. Chairman Higgs inquired what happens to the County for the portion the developer did not pay; with Mr. Spielvogel responding the County will get its taxes.

Commissioner Ellis stated it is no different than buying a home in the middle of the year; if he bought a home in June, he would get credit at closing for taxes owed; but when November comes, he will get a tax bill for the entire year.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what would happen if a developer had ten lots, sold one, had nine left, goes away, and they are sold off for taxes, but the infrastructure was never finished; with Mr. Spielvogel responding that is a different problem and has nothing to do with ad valorem taxes. He stated a developer has the choice of either putting in all the infrastructure then platting, or platting and putting up a performance bond to cover the cost of the infrastructure, or he cannot sell anything.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 61-1908, Laws of Florida, pertaining to plats and platting of lands outside municipalities of Brevard County; specifically amending Section 9 to remove the requirement that the deposit of 125% of the current year taxes be deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION AND AMENDMENT OF VESTED DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR SOUTH SHORES RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION, SOUTH SHORES HOTEL SITE, AND SOUTH SHORES OCEANSIDE

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a vested rights determination and amendment to the vested development plans for South Shores Riverside Subdivision, South Shores Hotel site, and South Shores Oceanside.

Attorney James Peeples, 505 North Orlando Avenue, Cocoa Beach, introduced Ed Fleis, and Brian Sculthorp who is a principal and one of the officers of the developer corporation Floridron South Shores Limited, Inc.; and advised Floridron has a contract with FDIC to buy the remainder of the South Shores project provided the amendments they are seeking to certain site plans that have been in effect for quite some time are approved today. He stated they will close at the end of this month; Mr. Sculthorp's father built another project called St. Andrews south of Aquarina; the South Shores project has been under contract for 8 to 9 months; during that time there has been extensive planning, due diligence, and meetings with County staff and existing Homeowners Associations in the South Shores Project, and also with BIPPA; and although there are three site plans, for expediency, they will make the presentation of all three at once. Mr. Peeples advised what is existing is the oceanfront site for a 24-unit highrise condominium, a 167-unit hotel with 267 parking spaces, and 131 townhouse lots already platted, with 14 units built and 117 remaining lots; and he wants to make it clear that his client has no interest in building the 24-unit highrise on the ocean nor the hotel, but is reducing the number of units by approximately 55% with no multifamily and no commercial. He stated this is the first consideration under the new Ordinance No. 95-02 which passed a few months ago; and it was designed to cover situations like they have here. He stated the project started in 1982 by Gar-Con which did not succeed; First American Bank & Trust went out of business; and the project was taken over by FDIC and has been dormant for seven or eight years. He noted it is an eyesore with pilings and slabs and masses of concrete all over the place; and his client has agreed to remove all the concrete from the site and start fresh. He stated Mr. Fleis will get into more detail of what they are requesting while he passes out the pictures of the current sites.

Edward Fleis, 1090 A1A, Satellite Beach, advised Ordinance No. 95-02 provides the criteria for the Board to approve amendments to prior approved site plans and vested site plans and subdivisions; prior to enactment of the Ordinance, an owner/developer, to protect his investment, had to build what had been approved whether or not there was a market; and this application has been filed to amend prior approved site plans and subdivisions in an area where significant construction has taken place. He explained the photographs presented by Mr. Peeples of the water treatment plant, sewage treatment plant, concrete structures, columns for the hotel and parking garage, tennis courts, roads and that infrastructure that is in place. Mr. Fleis advised the application includes extensive documentation on the active status of the site plan and vesting of the existing development, description of the proposed development, and comparison of impacts; there is reasonable evidence provided to conclude that there is vesting that has taken place on the property so they did not add any documentation on vesting at this time; and their objective is to amend the site plans and subdivision which will result in reducing density and impacts to public services as well as the environment. He stated it is more compatible with adjacent uses and provides flexibility to deal with the market; they are requesting the 117 unbuilt townhomes on the riverside be replaced with 84 residential units; on the hotel site, instead of the 167-room hotel, they propose to build a maximum of 50 townhomes; and on the oceanfront site, instead of a 24-unit condominium, they propose to build up to five single-family homes. He advised the project goes from high intensity commercial destination resort with residential to low density residential; the reduction is from 308 units to 139 maximum units or 54.9%; and it reduces traffic generation by 54.9%, impacts on public services by 50%, and solid waste and water and sewer by close to 50%, even though the water and sewer services are private. Mr. Fleis stated comparing the intensity of use of a destination resort, the project will make quite a difference on the impacts on the natural dune system, river system, and environment; the proposed development of one and two-story buildings is compatible with adjacent land uses; to the south is Lighthouse Cove which is RU-2-10 townhouses; to the north is a subdivision under review for three units per acre zoned RU-2-4; and other uses are basically single-family or townhomes in the area. He noted the amendment will provide a reduction from 9.6 units per acre to 4.9 units per acre maximum, and brings it much closer into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan of one unit per acre; the proposed amendments will be done consistent with all applicable land development regulations and in accordance with certain zoning classifications. Mr. Fleis advised on the riverside subdivision, even though it is zoned RA-2-10, it would be developed under RA-2-6 and RU-1-7; the hotel site which is zoned BU-1 with a cap of 20 units per acre will be developed under RA-2-8 and RU-1-7; and the oceanfront site will be developed under the RU-1-7 zoning classification. He noted they met with several people in the area, County staff and BIPPA to review the proposed project and hear their concerns; BIPPA's concern was another major commercial development in the South Beaches as the hotel would have been; and they advised the group they are not pursuing vesting of the hotel, but are pursuing a residential development. He stated BIPPA was also concerned about the landscaping on A1A and asked for more extensive plants and earth berms; and they were advised by General Hollis that they are not opposing the proposed amendments to the plans. He stated the directors of the Condominium Association agreed to a severance of the site to allow single-family homes to the north, and endorsed the project; and of the 14 existing townhome owners, 100% signed consent enjoinders agreeing to the proposed project. Mr. Fleis advised their request is to grant approval to amend the South Shores Riverside Subdivision to develop maximum of 84 additional residential units within RA-2-6 and RU-1-7 zoning classifications, approval to amend the hotel site to develop a maximum of 50 residential units within RA-2-8 and RU-1-7 zoning classifications, and approval to amend the oceanside site to develop a maximum of five additional residential units within RU-1-7 zoning classification, which will actually be four residential units. He stated with those approvals, his client will pursue permits to remove the concrete eyesores immediately after closing on the property, which is scheduled in June.

Jacie Stivers, 1804 Riverview Drive, Melbourne, advised she is in support of this project; it is a perfect example of developers trying to work towards downzoning in the South Beaches; and they are eliminating an eyesore and bringing a quality project into the South Beaches area that will have a lower impact on the infrastructure. She stated there were concerns, and watch groups looked at the project; and their support is indicative that it is a good project which should be supported.

Chairman Higgs advised she reviewed the plan submitted by Floridron and consulted with staff and read staff's report; and due to reduction of impacts as outlined in staff's report of May 18, 1995 and as presented by the developer, she can support the project.

Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Ellis.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant vested rights and approve amendment of the vested Development Plan for South Shores Riverside Subdivision as requested by Floridron, Inc. to permit 98 residential units consistent with RA-2-6 and RU-1-7 zoning classifications, South Shores Hotel site for a maximum of 50 residential units consistent with RA-2-8 and RU-1-7 zoning classifications, and South Shores Oceanside for a maximum of five residential units consistent with RU-1-7 zoning classification, based on significant reductions in density and impacts on concurrency services.

Vice Chairman Ellis stated his only comment is just a few months ago the Board denied a four-unit addition to a small motel because of traffic impact, and it was a pre-existing use; there was a room full of people here; and he finds it unusual to turn down a four-unit addition with 100 people supporting it and nobody here to support a 140-unit development which will have far more traffic impact than the motel addition. He stated the motel was treated unfairly; and Commissioners should keep that in mind if they approve this project today for 140 additional units when it argued for the last few months over four units.

Commissioner Higgs advised there will be significant reductions in impacts as outlined by the applicant and staff; and that is the basis for her support.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ADOPTING FOURTH SMALL SCALE PLAN AMENDMENT OF 1995 (95S.4) FOR AREA ALONG U.S. 1 IN GRANT

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting the Fourth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 1995 (95S.4), amending the Future Land Use Map Series for the Grant area long U.S. 1 changing .9 acre from residential to Mixed Use District to allow the property owner to develop BU-2 uses on vacant BU-2 parcels which obtained zoning in 1958.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Ordinance adopting the Fourth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 1995 (95S.4). Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ADOPTING FIFTH SMALL SCALE PLAN AMENDMENT OF 1995 (95S.5) FOR AREA ALONG U.S. 1 IN GRANT

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting the Fifth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 1995 (95S.5), amending the Future Land Use Map Series to change .65 acre from residential to Mixed Use District for two existing businesses and allow the vacant parcel to utilize BU-2 zoning placed on it in 1958.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Ordinance adopting the Fifth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 1995 (95S.5). Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE SIXTH SMALL SCALE PLAN AMENDMENT OF 1995 (95S.6) FOR CAMP HOLLY FISH CAMP

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting the Sixth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 1995 (95S.6) for Camp Holly fish camp west of and adjacent to the St. Johns River on the south side of U.S. 192, as it has been a fish camp for approximately 50 years.

Commissioner O'Brien advised this is an existing use for over 50 years; because of that the mixed use would be appropriate; it gives public access and is a unique recreational opportunity; and the Board is doing this because it has been in existence for many years.

Chairman Higgs advised this may be a location that would cause concern because of its proximity to the St. Johns River, but because of the uniqueness of this development in that location and the long-term use, she will support the amendment.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it is just for this fish camp because of its age, otherwise the Board could be inundated with requests from other people who want to do things out there that should not be done.

There being no further comments or objection heard, motion was made by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt Ordinance adopting the Sixth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 1995 (95S.6). Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION AND AMENDED DEVELOPMENT ORDER AGREEMENT FOR ABBY MARINA DRI

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution approving the substantial deviation and amended Development Order Agreement for Abby Marina Development of Regional Impact (DRI).

Attorney Leonard Spielvogel, representing Abby Marina, advised they are requesting approval of an amendment to the approved Development of Regional Impact (DRI); the material is before the Board; and additional material has been distributed as a result of discussions with Commissioner O'Brien. He stated he will respond to any questions the Board may have.

Commissioner O'Brien advised Abby Marina wants to expand by 200 slips; because of ongoing problems at the Marina of raw sewage being dumped out by live-aboards, the Company has agreed that a pump out facility with connection to a sewer pipe would benefit the community and the Marina; and due to their impact on the waterways by increasing the number of boats that may be put into the Barge Canal, which would affect Sykes Creek and the Banana River, they have agreed to put in channel markers in Sykes Creek and the Barge Canal and to educate the public.

Chairman Higgs inquired if under the current status of the DRI they are not able to build until the Manatee Protection Plan is in place; with Mr. Spielvogel responding they cannot build certain aspects; and they cannot build the dry storage until the Manatee study is concluded and the Plan is in place. He stated they obtained DRI approval in November, 1991; in order to get financing they need the ability to service and create revenue that will pay off the financing; in 1989 the construction costs to do what they had obligated to do under the DRI was approximately $7,600,000; the marina was built in 1984 and acquired by his client in 1986-87; but it does not comply with many environmental requirements because it has no sewer, water or onsite retention. He stated they have wanted to do that since they got the Development Order; however, the manatee study has prevented his client from going forth; so they finally arrived at, with Department of Environmental Protection, a dispensation to allow them to do some of it now so they can go forward with their project. Mr. Spielvogel advised Commissioner O'Brien was concerned that it might exacerbate the situation environmentally; but that is not a problem because they agreed to put in sewer and pump out facilities and bring in water. He stated what is envisioned is a very attractive addition to the existing marina; they want the opportunity to do that; this approval will enable them to go forward; and hopefully the Manatee Plan will reach its final consideration and they will be able to do what needs to be done, slow speed zones, signage, whatever. He stated in the meantime they have been stopped in their ability to go forward. Mr. Spielvogel advised he was the one who got the DRI years ago and thought he was doing a nice thing for the Barge Canal and the environment, then was frustrated and stifled through no fault of the County, because the County has been helpful and supportive in working with Mr. Rose in Department of Environmental Protection; but the years have gone by and they have not been able to do their 5% construction with the five years; so they are also asking for additional time.

Chairman Higgs inquired why would this not be a substantial deviation as defined in 380 since the original Development Order was contingent on the Manatee Plan being in place; with Mr. Spielvogel responding because Department of Environmental Protection finally said it will exercise its authority and do what it feel needs to be done at least on an interim basis; that will allow his client to go forward in part and do what is requested under the DRI; and it is his position that it is not a substantial deviation since it was all contemplated and they are not asking for anything new. He stated they are asking to be allowed to do part of what they were authorized to do in 1991--the sewer, water, retention, etc. and committed to do as part of the DRI, but were not allowed to do. Mr. Spielvogel advised they are trying to make the project more environmentally compatible; it is still functioning, but it is functioning under standards that were in existence years ago; and the State said it will allow his client to do part of what is required and what it did not allow in 1991. He noted at that time the Manatee Plan was being pursued by the County, but then the scrub jays came along and employees were taken off the manatees and put on the scrub jays or left the County, and that stalled the Manatee Plan. He stated since they are not asking for anything new, they are only asking to allow to do in part what the Board approved in 1991, he will submit it is not a substantial deviation. Chairman Higgs inquired, based on the letter from Department of Environmental Protection that it is going to exercise its prerogative, would that comply with what the original DO required, so this would not be a substantial deviation; with Mr. Knox responding the Board is the final arbiter whether this is a substantial deviation or not; the real issue is whether or not going from a set of conditions which allowed no development of the dry storage to a condition which allows 200 to be developed is a substantial deviation, given the fact Department of Environmental Protection said it is going to do something positive. He noted the original condition was that the Manatee Plan had to be done before that could be accomplished. Chairman Higgs inquired if Department of Environmental Protection is saying instead of the plan it is going to do something that would be in essence a manatee plan until the plan is in place; with Mr. Knox responding the real issue is whether that change from the developer doing the plan to Department of Environmental Protection saying it is going to take care of it constitutes sufficient grounds to allow them to go forward. Chairman Higgs inquired if all the Board is allowing them to do is the 200 dry slips and infrastructure; with Mr. Spielvogel responding it is allowing his client the 200 dry slips and extension of three years within which to comply with the 5% requirement.

Commissioner O'Brien advised the applicant has been supportive of the DRI process; when they discussed boating safety, he was impressed with their wanting to put the signs up and mark the channels; there are problems especially on the east side of the Barge Canal where the sand bar has shifted into the channel; and boats are getting in trouble because there are no markers. He stated getting the channel markers is important, and working with the Merritt Island Dredging Committee to make sure the signs are put in correctly so people will stop being injured; and it will make it safer for boating.

Chairman Higgs inquired what does the language "After the appropriate speed zones in the Barge Canal have been adopted and posted" means; with Mr. Spielvogel responding that contemplates that Department of Environmental Protection will come in and establish appropriate speed zones in the Barge Canal; and it was taken verbatim from Mr. Rose's letter. Chairman Higgs stated they have not done that yet; with Mr. Spielvogel responding not to his knowledge, but the letter contemplated coming before the Board for this approval, and then he hopes Department of Environmental Protection will do its thing.

Commissioner Cook advised the Board had a workshop on recreation; all too often it loses sight of the fact that boating is extremely popular and an important recreation in the County; so when private individuals can supply a means by which people can enjoy a quality of life by enjoying boating in Brevard County, that is a positive thing. He stated this issue has been looked at and the applicant is doing everything he can to comply with regulatory hoops he has to jump through; so he will support it.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the people in the area have been waiting a long time for the marina to be finished; it is sitting there and is not a pretty sight; and if they can get the sewer and pump station in, start marking the channels, and get the dry storage up, they will have a much better area.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the 182 slips in the DO restricted to sailboats only is until the Manatee Plan is adopted; with Mr. Spielvogel responding that is correct.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt the Resolution approving amendment to the DRI as presented, and execute an amended Development Order Agreement for Abby Marina DRI. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 12:00 noon and reconvened at 1:07 p.m.

*Commissioner Cook's and County Attorney Knox's absences were noted at this time.

APPROVAL OF POLICY, RE: WAIVER OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Policy relating to administrative waiver of application fees for the Board of Adjustment in instances where the need for the variance requested was created by an action of Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: SPEED HUMP REQUEST FOR WEST DRIVE

Commissioner O'Brien advised there is drag racing going on; and if are there other solutions, he does not know of any. He noted perhaps businesses could erect gates at the end of the road and at 5:00 p.m. close the gate.

*Commissioner Cook's presence was noted at this time.

Commissioner Ellis stated Melbourne Village tried that but they cannot because it is a public road. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it is a dead end road; with Commissioner Ellis responding no, it goes to Sarno through the industrial park; but there are long strips that are used for drag racing; and inquired if it is possible for them to pay to put in their own speed humps; with Traffic Engineering Director Billy Osborne responding he is sure they could. Commissioner Ellis stated the request is for four speed humps and the funding of the speed humps; and if there is not support for the funding, he would like to allow staff to be able to collect funds and put them in.

*Mr. Knox's presence was noted at this time.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve installation of the speed humps. Commissioner Cook stated he is inclined to go along with this one, but it bothers him when the engineering study indicates the criteria for speed hump installation has not been met; the Board disregards that constantly; and he is not sure that is not a mistake. He stated he is inclined to go with this one because it is an industrial park; and if it was a thoroughfare, he would be lot less inclined; but he understands this park has a unique problem with drag racing, and being an industrial park the emergency vehicles are not as much a concern with their availability to get somewhere quickly; so he will support this.

Commissioner O'Brien stated on Merritt Island the speed humps were all supported by 75 to 80% of the people, and here it is less than 75%; and the vacant property owners were not surveyed. Mr. Osborne responded the vacant properties were surveyed.

Chairman Higgs stated of the 15 owners, 7 or 47% indicated approval, one disapproved, and 7 made no response; so 86% of those who responded wants the speed hump.

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

STAFF REPORT, RE: SCAT MARKETING AND CONSUMER INFORMATION GRANT

Transit Services Director Don Lusk advised at the last meeting the Board directed staff to look at options that would meet some criteria for the marketing and consumer information grant; and the criteria staff looked at included no new County staff to do the coordination, use of the private sector marketing firms that exist, and use of existing budget expenditures as match as opposed to new tax dollars to do it. He stated staff provided a report which details several options that would meet the criteria they established; and the grant allows staff to leverage additional funds by using dollars currently in the budget or using some other creative mechanisms such as trade outs for advertising. He stated services mentioned in the staff report include establishing a calendar of events for marketing activities, implementing a Countywide bus shelter and signage program, and improving design and distribution of public service announcements. Mr. Lusk stated there are several options to implement the grant and access the funding; all the options involve using an outside marketing agency; the one recommended is the one that does the bus advertising for SCAT because they do not have to go through the procurement process again; and recommended the Board allow the current SCAT marketing firm, Space Coast Advertising Consortium, to assist in the implementation as provided for in the current Agreement, approve the option including the Chairman's execution of the documents, authorize budget amendments and task order by SCAT, and authorize SCAT to begin to assemble the calendar of activities.

Chairman Higgs stated this program will not require any new dollars; with Mr. Lusk responding that is correct. Commissioner Cook inquired if it will require additional personnel; with Mr. Lusk responding absolutely not.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Resolution authorizing a grant application to Florida Department of Transportation for SCAT Marketing and Consumer Information Program; allow Space Coast Advertising Consortium to assist in the implementation of the program as provided in the current Agreement; approve budget amendments and task order by SCAT; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement with FDOT and any grant documents.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the option includes hiring Kelly girls; with Mr. Lusk responding it does not.

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

ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT WITH LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., RE: SECONDARY EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES FOR HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Addendum No. 1 to Agreement with Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. for secondary emergency response services for the Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Program.

Commissioner O'Brien advised he met with staff on this project; the Public Safety Department should have been included in this; Solid Waste Management is seeking its own local contractor for emergency response; but Laidlaw's Office is in North Florida and response time to a simple truck accident or fire would be three to seven hours which is too long. He stated this is for household hazardous waste management and another tornado situation where they can come in the next morning to remove the waste and handle it properly; the Board would probably be looking at another request with a contractor who is suited for real emergency response who can be there within an hour or less with a full compliment of people and equipment to assess the situation and move in; but after full review and comparison against the U.S. Coast Guard contracts, he will approve the contract this time.

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

STAFF REPORT, RE: ALTERNATIVES FOR MANAGEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to acknowledge receipt of staff's report on alternatives for management of construction and demolition debris.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands the Board will workshop this item. Solid Waste Management Director Richard Rabon advised they are asking the Board to set a workshop for the Waste Energy Alternatives; and if the Board wishes, they could consider this item at the same time. Commissioner Scarborough stated that would be appropriate because he has a lot of thoughts on this and things he wants to share with the Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated page 3, paragraph 2, starts, "Historically Brevard County Ordinances. . .facilities exist in all three service areas for the management of residential and commercial waste, but C&D debris management facilities are currently only sited in the South and Central Service areas;" however, the Board just approved an area in North Brevard; with Mr. Rabon responding yes, the Board approved a mulching facility which could handle a good bit of the vegetative material that normally can go into C&D facilities; at one time the County had proposed to put a C&D facility in the North Brevard area; the yard trash and all C&D material would have gone to that facility; being unable to do that, staff decided the mulching facility which would handle the yard trash and lessen the demand on a C&D facility. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if this is going to a workshop.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is complex in the North; there is a C&D site that is operating; the County started legal action to try to get control of the stream; and under current law the County cannot close it down. He stated John Hogan has a C&D site that is operating in North Brevard that was permitted by the State; so there are a lot of nuances there in trying to find a C&D site; and he would like to discuss it with the Board in detail because there may be a way to go.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board needs to discuss the Deseret property and whether it is going to keep it or sell it back. Commissioner Cook echoed that thought; and stated he has been doing a lot of research on that and would like to discuss the Deseret property again.

Chairman Higgs inquired if that would be as a part of the workshop; with Commissioner O'Brien responding yes, to make a final and absolute decision on what the Board is going to do. He inquired what the County paid for the land; with Mr. Rabon responding eight and a quarter plus attorney's fees or 9.1 total. Commissioner Cook stated one appraisal was $46,000 from bills he received. The Commissioners discussed costs of the Deseret property.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to accept the report and discuss it in a workshop. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES

Harry Fuller, 424 Dorset Drive, Cocoa Beach, representing Space Coast Builders Association, advised any time there is an impact on their industry he will ask the Board to help them out if it can; and here is a place it can help if it does an analysis and finds that it can reduce the hookup fees. He stated it is primarily in the wastewater because use of County water is not that much in volume; when the Board can reduce the cost of housing, it can get more people into housing and do more business; and right now business is about half of what it used to be even in the last year. He encouraged the Board to reduce the impact fees to stimulate business and keep people employed, and give them the opportunity to get more people into homes. Mr. Fuller stated he read what staff prepared and it can get complex; from statements made to him over a period of years, he knows there is a lot of reserve; and people cannot understand why their usage fee is not being reduced because of the extensive reserve. He stated he knows that reserve exists and the Board has the option to either lower the fee or give them a break on hookups; and requested the Board reduce the cost of hookups to try and keep their business up.

Commissioner Ellis advised he sent everyone a memo and has his staff report with the various charts; the impact fee was set basically on the amount of debt that was issued; and it was a $95,000,000 debt. He stated staff bought down $25,000,000 of the debt which is well over 25%; and since that is the basis for the impact fee, the impact fee should be decreased. He stated it is no different than borrowing $10,000 from a bank and setting up a payment schedule; and paying down $5,000 of the debt would not keep the person on the original payment schedule. He stated the matter has gotten confusing because the memo of May 19, 1995 brought up some other issues, some of which are in the figures; and when he first read the figures, essentially the County saved over two million dollars a year in debt service.

Water Resources Director Richard Martens advised the $2,000,000 was the gross savings, but when they did the financing, the net savings was 1.4 million dollars because of the lost interest earnings on the reserve funds. He stated the total debt service reduction was two million dollars before the loss of the interest income; but the next savings is 1.4 million dollars.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how did staff allocate just $600,000 of that to growth and the rest to nongrowth; with Mr. Martens responding the way the allocation was determined after the financing was, they added up the amount of total capacity that they will have available or that is available when the last of the construction from the 58 projects is completed, and divided that into the amount of capacity that was used by the customers they had on line at the time; so the allocation was strictly of how much unused capacity they had at the time of the refinancing. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand what Mr. Martens means by that because the impact fee did not budge. Mr. Martens stated no, but the philosophy is based on the Dunedin decision; they are allowed to use impact fees to fund debt service up to that amount as proportional to the amount of the capacity they have available for future growth; when they refinanced the bond issue, there was a calculation required as part of those documents that said that is how much of the current debt service is allocated for new growth; and that simply was calculated by the unused capacity of the total system. Commissioner Ellis stated the old formula has 50% of the old debt for growth; with Mr. Martens responding 50% of the old senior debt was for growth, but they had about two million dollars in junior debt at the time; 50% of the senior debt equalled 4.2 million dollars that he referenced; coincidentally, that was also about 40% of the total debt; so under the original bond issues, that calculation for debt allocation was calculated the same way, but was only based on senior debt and not total debt. Commissioner Ellis stated the old bond issue had 50% of the debt growth related; and the new bond issue has 40% of the debt as growth related; with Mr. Martens responding the 50% of the senior debt on the original bond issue and 40% or 39.5% on the current bond issue was growth related. Commissioner Ellis inquired what percentage of the debt is growth related; with Mr. Martens responding on the current bond issue that allocation is 39.5%. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the debt is a smaller portion now; with Water Resources Finance Manager Jim Helmer responding 40% of the total debt previous to the refinancing was based on growth; 50% of the senior debt was growth related, but 40% of the entire debt, including the junior debt, was growth related; so they stayed close to the 40% even after the refinancing. He indicated about 40% of the total debt was growth related before and after the refinancing. Commissioner Ellis stated that was not in the memo; with Mr. Helmer responding it was not clear in the memo because they were talking about 50% for the senior debt instead of 40% of the total debt. Commissioner Ellis stated when he read the memo, he looked at the growth as a portion of the debt that declined; and inquired if that is correct; with Mr. Helmer responding the percentage proportion stayed about the same. Commissioner Ellis stated the debt has lessened by 2.1 million dollars a year; with Mr. Martens responding the gross debt service has been reduced by 2.1 or 2.2 million dollars a year. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the debt service has been reduced by that amount, why is there not a corresponding decrease in the impact fee; with Chairman Higgs responding the net figure the County is not actually paying in debt service is 1.4 million dollars. Mr. Martens stated that is correct; the gross debt service reduction was 2.2 million dollars, but they lost a considerable amount of interest income, so the net reduction was 1.4 million dollars. Commissioner Ellis inquired what was the interest income being used for; with Mr. Martens responding service fee rates. He stated when they refinanced the bonds, the combination of factors in the refinancing actually required a service fee rate increase as a result of the refinancing and loss of interest income; and they were required to make that up.

Commissioner Ellis stated a lot of money was borrowed for capital costs and put in the bank; instead of the interest going back to capital costs, it went for operations and maintenance; and finally when they try and correct it six years later, nothing happens with the capital. He stated the impact fee was based on a percent of debt attributed to growth; and if that were the case, then the interest that was being earned on that debt should have gone back into the capital fund and not go into the operations fund. Mr. Martens stated under the laws and rules governing the use of those funds, it is legally allowable to be used to go into the service fee fund to subsidize and support the rate structure. Commissioner Ellis stated he is not saying it is not legal, because the School Board takes capital money and puts it into maintenance also. Mr. Martens advised one of the bond tests requires that service fee revenue equal 100% of operation and maintenance and debt service; they had to collect an amount equal to the O&M and debt service regardless of what the capital contribution is; so there was a flow of money both into capital and into O&M funds as a result of this. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it was into growth capital or maintenance capital; with Mr. Martens responding the interest on capital stayed in the capital accounts, but it could be used for non-capital items; and they had a considerable amount of service fee money because of bond test #1 which requires the service fees equal O&M costs plus debt service, and that stayed in the service fee account. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand why staff would have a problem on the bond tests because it has a level debt service on the bond issue; with Mr. Martens responding that is correct. Commissioner Ellis stated one of the figures used on the bond test is the service revenues which should be constantly increasing even thought the rates are held level because more people come onto the system; so he does not know why staff would ever have a problem meeting any of the bond tests. He stated with one straight line graph that is constantly increasing, the margin gets larger every year. Mr. Martens advised the growth in system revenues associated with new connections has generally equalled the growth in system expenses associated with providing the new services plus inflation; so the growth in revenue and expenses has been generally even. He stated in bond test #2 however, they do not have the one for one coverage; they have the 125% coverage; and when service fee income only equals 100% coverage, they are dependent upon the impact fee to make up the 25% additional requirement for bond test #2. Commissioner Ellis stated Mr. Martens told him the revenues are only equal to operation and maintenance; with Mr. Martens responding plus debt service. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it is plus non-growth debt service; with Mr. Martens responding total debt service. Commissioner Ellis stated the debt service stays constant, but Mr. Martens said as new homes are added, it is only equal to operation and maintenance expense; so when someone comes on line he is barely paying what it costs to increase the plant or put on an operator or add chemicals; with Mr. Martens responding in general, the incremental increase in service fee revenue associated with the increase in customer base has compensated for the increase in expenses for providing that service plus the inflation factor on the whole operation and maintenance system. Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the incremental cost of a unit; with Mr. Martens responding about $1,760 or 55% of the fees collected from an individual unit. He stated O&M expenses are about 55% of the total system expenses when they include debt service; so the other 45% of the service fee goes to meet the balance of the bond test #1 for 100% coverage of O&M plus debt service. Commissioner Ellis inquired if $270 covers O&M for a year, are the capital costs that great to justify a $2,300 connection fee; with Mr. Martens responding that is a different question as to what they want capital costs to cover; and inquired do they want capital costs to cover the remaining debt service of the facilities they have already built, or the cost of building an incremental expansion, or some other cost. He stated as long as the connection fees are not set above the reasonable cost to construct the facilities, they can be whatever the Board chooses them to be; there is no limit to the lower end of what the connection charge can be; however, there is a limit to the upper end. Commissioner Ellis stated the connection fee is supposed to be the cost it takes to connect one home to the system; normally they would not look at a capital cost incremental impact of one unit, but in terms of 100 or 1,000, or 10,000 units, the capital cost would be divided to get the incremental capital cost of each additional unit. Mr. Martens stated that was done in the mid-1980's when the original bonds were sold. Commissioner Ellis stated when he asked for that, the way he had the incremental capital cost was based on the amount of money that was borrowed; and if it is based on the amount of money borrowed, and 30% of the debt was bought down with cash, then that rate should fall.

Assistant County Manager for Environmental Services Stephen Peffer advised this is a complicated issue; Figure 1 in the staff report tries to show under the current situation, the impact fees do not fully pay for the portion of debt which has been allocated to provide for new growth; the new growth capacity has already been purchased and exists in the plants today; but the impact fees are not now paying all of that debt portion that could normally be charged to impact fees; so when they reduced the debt, all they did was brought that closer to the actual equity of having those impact fees pay a larger portion of the debt they could legitimately pay for. He stated it is not quid pro quo; it is not to say if the total debt is reduced by a certain amount, it should reduce impact fees by that certain amount; that would only be true if the impact fees from the very beginning paid the full share, but they are not paying their full share; so all staff is doing is allowing for the impact fees to pay more of its share. Commissioner Ellis inquired what was their share of the $95,000,000; with Chairman Higgs responding the actual figure was not $95,000,000, and is more like $110,000,000. Commissioner Ellis commented he is looking at the memo he received a year and a half ago.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the amount of money borrowed for the debt service was based on what they projected it was going to cost to expand the plants at that time; so when they say it is based on debt service and the cost of expansion, that is true; but what has changed is the cost that would have applied for expansion back then that may or may not be the cost for expansion today. He inquired if that clarifies the issue; with Commissioner Ellis responding no, because essentially the impact fee is based on the ability to repay the original debt; the $95,000,000 was to rehabilitate and improve or expand; and a certain portion was for growth and a certain portion for non-growth. Mr. Jenkins indicated it was based on debt service borrowed for that purpose.

Chairman Higgs inquired how much was the refinancing of the $95,000,000; with Mr. Martens responding the $95,000,000 was the amount of money used to improve the system during the 1980's and was not the total debt; there was an additional $20,000,000 in pre-existing debt that was part of the refinancing; so the total refinanced number was $115,000,000; and at the end of the refinancing, the total outstanding debt was $102,000,000.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Option #1 that impact fees will fund 94% of the debt service cost of providing the capacity for new growth because service fee rates are not likely to be impacted in minimum construction rate years, and funding of the five-year Capital Improvement Program will remain unchanged.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the County only paid down $13,000,000 in debt; with Mr. Martens responding the cash payment did several things; part of it was buying down the debt, diffusing the debt, and buying a significantly lower interest rate; and if the Board is interested in specific details and mechanics of the transaction, he would have to defer to Mr. Holley. He stated it was a complicated transaction and he could not begin to do it justice, but to answer the question, the original debt before the refinancing was $115,000,000 and the ending debt was $102,000,000, and they had a net savings of 1.4 million dollars a year, or $28,000,000 over the life of the bond. Commissioner Ellis stated that is not what the Board went through the last time this issue came up; the last time they were told they paid down $15,000,000 on the note; and the other memo he has is the connection fee is based on $95,000,000 worth of projects; and now he is getting different information. Mr. Martens stated the impact fees were based on the $95,000,000 worth of projects; 50% of that $95,000,000 was associated with new growth; and there were a number of connection fee numbers established originally based on the cost of providing that capacity and the additional debt entered into to provide that capacity. Commissioner Ellis inquired where did the $115,000,000 come from; with Mr. Martens responding that was the sum of all the bond issues and there were four or six; several issues that were outstanding at the time of refinancing were rolled into one package; some were senior debt associated with the $95,000,000 and some were junior debt that was not associated with that. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the junior debt was not growth related; with Mr. Martens responding he understands it was not, but he was not in on the discussions in the early 1980's when it was calculated; however, it is his understanding the junior debt was not included in the calculation of the impact fee that was developed as part of that program.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired why the impact fees do not cover 100% of the debt service; with Mr. Martens responding the Dunedin decision limits using impact fees to pay debt service only to the extent that they have unused future capacity that was paid for by the bond issue. Mr. Jenkins stated some of the debt service paid for rehabilitation of the existing system. Commissioner O'Brien stated he will support the motion because he does not want to see an increase in rates when the public is screaming about the rates they have to pay now. He stated deep well in two areas of the County is very expensive; if they use more than 12,000 gallons of water, the County cuts off the sewage charge, but the City of Cocoa Beach does not; and if the resident of Merritt Island had to pay his sewer bill to the City of Cocoa Beach, he would have to pay five times what it is; so he supports the motion.

Chairman Higgs inquired if that is a second to the motion; with Commissioner O'Brien responding yes.

Commissioner Ellis advised the third leg is the operation and maintenance cost, so there is much more to it than just capital; and inquired if it is proper to borrow $50,000,000 in capital expenditures and take the interest from that and not put it back into capital and to put it into operating because essentially that is what he was told has been done from 1988 to whenever, and is probably still being done. Mr. Helmer advised all the interest that was earned on any of the funds at any time has stayed in those funds; so if it was in the capital fund, that interest accumulated and can be used for further capital projects; the interest in the rate test could be used in most cases to satisfy the two bond rate covenant tests; so it was used on paper to satisfy the bond tests, but the interest always stayed in those funds and was used for other capital and is still used for capital. Commissioner Ellis inquired if that is the case, why would they worry about what the net debt service is since only gross would apply; if money came back from the interest earnings and went back into the fund anyway, then why would it matter whether it is gross or net; and if he had 2.1 million dollars in savings in gross and everything he earned in interest went back into the capital fund anyway, why was the capital fund showing $600,000 credit from the 2.1 million dollars in Figure 1. Mr. Martens advised after the refinancing, to say they took and distributed $600,000 one way and 1.6 million dollars another ways is not an accurate statement of what happened; they recalculated the allocation based on the unused capacity; and the interest is used in both calculations and in the calculation of test #1 to meet the 100% requirement. He stated service fees plus interest equals O&M expenses plus debt service, so they have 100% now; and test #2 requires when they add new connection charges to the equation the coverage has to go from 100% to 125%; so if they are already very close to the 100% coverage, they need that 25% extra coverage in new impact fees to meet test #2. Commissioner Ellis stated Figure 1 of the memo had the original debt at about 10.4 million dollars, and then it drops to 8.2 or 8.3 million dollars; that is 2 million dollars in savings; however, of the 2 million dollars dropped from debt service, only $600,000 is allocated to the growth side and 1.5 million dollars to the non-growth side; with Mr. Martens responding they also allocated about $800,000 to the non-growth side in expenses on the other side; that is where the difference between the 2.2 and 1.4 million dollars comes in; and that is the interest revenue they lost which went into the calculation for what the service fee rates had to be. Commissioner Ellis stated Mr. Helmer said the interest fee went back into the capital growth fund; with Mr. Martens responding on paper it is used in calculations; the bond covenant says they must collect that much money; it does stay in the capital fund; they collect more money than they need; but the bond covenant requires service fees to collect enough money to pay all of the bills regardless of growth. Commissioner Ellis stated if the interest accumulated on capital dollars goes back into the capital fund, then that in itself should be working down the connection fees based on the debt; and the Figure 1 charts do not reflect that; they reflect an uneven balance on how the debt buy-down was allocated; and if growth was 50% of the debt, then it should have been 50% after the buy-down. Mr. Martens advised part of what is not shown on those charts is the service fee revenue side and the interest that goes into the service fee requirement to fund O&M and debt service; so there is $800,000 that is not shown. He stated if the $800,000 is reduced from the 1.6 million dollars, then they are down to $900,000 on one side and $600,000 on the other which is not exactly 60/40 split, but much more equitable than the appearance of 1.6 million dollars to $600,000. Commissioner Ellis advised Mr. Martens said the interest of the capital funds goes back to the capital fund and not to O&M; with Mr. Martens responding that is where it stays and it collects interest through the years. Commissioner Ellis inquired then how can it be allocated to O&M. He stated he is not talking about the bond tests or covenant or anything else, but the connection fee is supposed to represent a share of the debt to expand the plant regardless of the bond tests. Mr. Martens stated that is correct. Commissioner Ellis stated if the money is coming into the capital fund, it should stay in the capital fund and the interest should go back to that capital fund; with Mr. Martens responding it is staying there and accumulating there. Commissioner Ellis stated it is not reflected on the charts; and that is why the Board got the comment that it is not covering the debt service by the impact fees, when in fact if staff puts that $800,000 where it belongs, on the capital side, it is more than covering the capital debt service. Mr. Martens stated the chart reflects the annual expenses, payments and income; the ultimate use or expenditure of capital funds through time is not reflected on that; the chart shows how the money is and can be allocated in association with the annual budget which is driven specifically by the bond covenants; the bond covenants say they must collect so much money and may do such and such with the money up to certain extent; and the allocation they have in there for growth for the current annual debt service payment is based on that legal limitation of how much of the maximum amount of the impact fees can be used for debt service payment. Commissioner Ellis commented statistics can be used anyway they want to use them.

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

REQUEST FOR WAIVER, RE: REZONING APPLICATION FEE FOR TODD BELL

Commissioner O'Brien recommended VI.A.1, Todd Bell, 2, Clarification of Board Policy on existing permanent structures in West Canaveral Groves, and 3, Ms. Van Valkenburg's requests for waivers, be taken together because they all impact each other and should have come as one item.

REQUEST FOR WAIVER, RE: REZONING APPLICATION FEE FOR TODD BELL, CLARIFICATION OF BOARD POLICY ON EXISTING PERMANENT STRUCTURES IN WEST CANAVERAL GROVES, AND REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEES FOONSITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT, BUILDING PERMIT AND IMPACT FEES FOR FREDA VAN VALKENBURG

Chairman Higgs advised, if the Board is going to rezone Canaveral Groves properties to bring them into compliance, that would be an administrative rezoning the Board can initiate and not have to waive fees for anyone; and that would take care of Todd Bell's request for a fee waiver which she has difficulty with.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he has difficulty with waiving fees also, but if the Board does administrative rezoning for this, a thousand people will line up for it and it will go Countywide. He inquired how can it be limited to one area. Chairman Higgs stated administrative rezoning is consistent with the way the Board has done other large areas; and inquired if that is correct; with Planning and Zoning Director Peggy Busacca responding yes, and there is no precedent to that. Chairman Higgs advised RRMH-1 is rural residential mobile home zoning classification, but that does not deal with the enormous costs the Board will encounter as it looks to solve the Canaveral Groves problems. Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not want to establish a precedent; with Chairman Higgs responding it does not establish a precedent, it follows a precedent.

Commissioner Scarborough advised people moved out there not because they had money, but because they did not have money; they did things that did not comply with the Code; some mobile homes do not meet the minimum square footage requirement; and he talked to Ms. Busacca about creating a new zoning classification and criteria instead of stretching the existing rules. He noted the new criteria would cover some types of hardships and pre-existing conditions; they could not take a current zoning classification and make exceptions without finding people in other areas of the County with the same conditions; and Ms. Busacca may have some thoughts on that.

Ms. Busacca advised the problem is they have an area that is predominantly mobile homes and many of the mobile homes do not meet the minimum standard of 650 square feet; in addition, they are on one-acre lots most of which are zoned GU which usually has a minimum size of five acres; and changing that to RRMH-1 addresses the issue of allowing the site built home or mobile home, but does not address the issue of smaller size units and animals, and a lot of the people want farm animals out there. She noted there are other unique issues that have come up that may also be able to be addressed with a new zoning category.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised if the Board goes back to the original underlying premise, the intent was not to displace the people who are there, but not to allow the situation to expand beyond what it is. He stated any future occupants will have to be in compliance with every Code, but there are about 100 families or individuals living there now that the County is trying to find a solution for, so they would not be displaced; and it should limit it just to those people.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Item VI.A.1 is whether to waive the application fee for rezoning; with Mr. Jenkins responding or go with administrative rezoning. Chairman Higgs stated if the Board goes with administrative rezoning consistent with what has been done with other large areas, then it would not be charging individuals. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board will do itself a favor with administrative rezoning of all those properties, otherwise it will be done piecemeal and will consume a lot of time to work them through the system. He noted if it is done administratively, staff will do it all at once and notify all the owners to see if they have any objections, but all will be heard at once and be over. He stated the time the Board and staff will save will benefit the County economically even though it would not get the $156 application fee.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if it would be done with one advertising; with Ms. Busacca responding yes, they would have to be notified individually with a certified letter; there are about 2,000 lots out there; and at a cost of $3.00 per letter, it will be about $6,000 which is roughly the same as notifying the surrounding homeowners. Commissioner Ellis stated that would be cheaper than advertising each lot as it came up; with Ms. Busacca responding it probably would be.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if staff has to notify the 2,000 owners or only the 100 existing residents; with Chairman Higgs responding they need to do a physical area. Commissioner Ellis stated they cannot put anything on a GU one-acre lot; with Ms. Busacca responding the lots were grandfathered in under the Zoning Code, but that would be a policy decision by the Board whether to do the entire area or the 100 individuals as they come in for rezoning. Mr. Jenkins inquired if they could do administrative rezoning of the 100 existing dwellings; with Ms. Busacca responding they could do 100, the entire area, or anything in between.

Commissioner Scarborough stated staff should look at it and come back if it gets tentative approval of whether they like having a new zoning classification; and prior to doing administrative rezoning, staff has to create the new classification and criteria, and the Board has to discuss it and get more input from staff whether to do 100 or more. He stated there are arguments on both sides; is it fair to a person who comes in not to have the same thing, but by the same token, the Board would not want to expand it helter skelter.

Mr. Jenkins advised the Board may also want to consider, particularly for non-permanent structures that are not in compliance, if they were to change or replace those structures, would it want to allow the noncompliance to continue in the future or if it changes owners, would they have to come into compliance.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to direct staff to prepare a new zoning classification with specific criteria that would apply to hardship and pre-existing uses in West Canaveral Groves, advise the Board on the cost of doing administrative rezoning and whether it should do administrative rezoning of existing units or do the entire area, and report back to the Board on July 11, 1995.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the minimum size of a trailer is 650 square feet; with Ms. Busacca responding yes, it is the smallest mobile home permitted in a zoning classification, and below that are recreational vehicles.

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

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board has taken care of the problems with waiver of rezoning application fee for Todd Bell, clarification of Board policy on existing permanent structures in West Canaveral Groves, and request for waiver of fees for onsite sewage disposal permit, building permit, and impact fees for Freda Van Valkenburg; with Ms. Busacca responding the only time frames they have to meet are those the Board established in the Ordinance relating to West Canaveral Groves; and if the Board is going to consider administrative rezoning, then Mr. Bell's issue will be addressed. She stated in the case of existing permanent structures, the issue is what size mobile homes the Board would allow; and the new zoning category may address that issue. She stated if this item stretches out for several more months, the Board will have to come to grips with the time frames established for enforcement in the Ordinance; but they can bring that issue to the Board when they bring all of the others and let the Board know if that is going to be an area staff will need Board input on.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to extend the time period for enforcement of the Ordinance regarding West Canaveral Groves.

Chairman Higgs inquired if that can be done; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding it will take an ordinance to change the date.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the fact that the Board is working with staff to bring them into compliance is action to some extent equated to their action to come into compliance. Mr. Knox stated whatever they have to come into compliance with is what the Board determines the rule is going to be; and if it decides to change the rules by changing the zoning category, then their compliance would be based on that. Commissioner Scarborough stated because the Board is moving forward to bring them into compliance, they are moving in that direction too; with Mr. Knox responding as far as the extension goes, if they do not have the new set of regulations in place by the time the extension date comes, the compliance will be based on the old rules.

Chairman Higgs read statement from Selma McCue as follows: "I'm in favor in grandfathering all existing structures in the West Canaveral Groves area including 10'x50' mobile homes." She also read statement from Jacquelyn Warzecha as follows: "I am in favor of grandfathering the existing structures, including 10'x50' mobile homes, as long as they come up to Code, as far as will take electric or alternate power source/septic until such atime hopefully as they are unlivable, then comply to current standards. We have done a lot of work on our home and do not need more than what we have. Please consider working on this. We cannot afford to totally rebuild, but we can afford to comply." Chairman Higgs stated the action the Board is after is coming to a way of allowing those to be grandfathered.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the Board is moving toward grandfathering in 10'x50' mobile homes; with Ms. Busacca responding it seems to be the Board's intent to at least bring that option back. Chairman Higgs indicated staff will come back with a zoning category they can exist in.

Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand why there is a 650-foot minimum living area requirement; with Ms. Busacca responding that is a policy decision and intended to maintain a certain character; it is a big issue here; and inquired if the Board still wants to maintain the minimum house sizes. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand what the point of 650 square feet is; many zoning categories define minimum square footage for a home; and inquired if a manufacturer is putting out 10'x50' homes, what are people supposed to do, add a porch or something. He stated it does not make sense to have a minimum 650 square-foot requirement. Ms. Busacca stated she does not know enough about 10'x50' units to know if they are mobile homes, park models or RV's; with Commissioner Cook responding they are trailers.

Chairman Higgs indicated the Board is trying to get to a category that will allow size not to be a criteria; with Commissioner Ellis responding it should get rid of this rule entirely. Mr. Jenkins indicated the category will be limited to this unique situation, but Commissioner Ellis is suggesting doing away with it entirely; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that can be discussed. Commissioner Cook stated he wants to look at that also. Ms. Busacca stated they can bring back to the Board minimum square footage across-the-board and the Board can give staff policy direction on that. Commissioner O'Brien requested the original transcripts or something on the reasoning for the minimum size; with Ms. Busacca responding that would take a little longer. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board wants to see what the reasoning was; with Ms. Busacca responding they will do the best they can.

Chairman Higgs advised she has a card from Freda Van Valkenburg who is requesting waivers of the onsite sewage disposal permit, building permit, and impact fees.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he will make a motion to do away with the fees because it is financially impossible for Ms. Van Valkenburg to pay them.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to waive onsite sewage disposal permit fee, building permit fee and impact fees for Freda Van Valkenburg that the Board can legally waive.

Ms. Busacca advised she understands there is a surcharge of $5.00 per permit which the County must pay to the State.

Chairman Higgs advised she asked about the ability, through the housing programs or CDBG, to use CDBG or housing related funds to take care of these instances since this is the first of a number of applications that the Board will have for waivers.

Mr. Jenkins advised Ms. Busacca checked into the CDBG Program and discovered it has to be designated a target area; and she is proceeding with doing that for West Canaveral Groves. He noted he did not inquire about other housing programs.

Ms. Busacca advised CDBG funds, HOME funds and SHIP funds are all available for various improvements, from putting in infrastructure to actual repair or replacement of a home; it depends on eligibility of individuals, on it being a target area, and lot of other specifics; and she cannot give the Board a good definition but will come back with more information.

Commissioner Cook stated he wants more information on the block grants and how they determine target areas, because it seems there are very few areas that are targeted; and maybe the Board can look at expanding those areas and helping more people.

Chairman Higgs advised this is the first of many requests the Board will have from that area; and unless it has a comprehensive plan on how it is going to move forward with it, it will set itself in a position that is going to be real difficult to continue through for all the people in that area or other areas who are unable to meet the requirements of the fees. She stated she cannot support it right now for Ms. Van Valkenburg until she knows if the Board has exhausted all other possibilities.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board does not approve this today and tabled it, would there be any problem created; with Ms. Busacca responding no. Mr. Jenkins stated he will get someone from the Housing Section to meet with Ms. Van Valkenburg today. Commissioner Scarborough suggested tabling the item until the first meeting in July so Chairman Higgs can have her questions answered; and advised Ms. Van Valkenburg that she did not have to return to the meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table the request for waiver of onsite sewage disposal permit fee, building permit fee and impact fees for Freda Van Valkenburg until July 11, 1995, for staff to review possible solutions to handle the request and report back to the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: SPACE ALLOCATION

Larry Malta, 4340 Stillwaters Drive, Merritt Island, representing the Melbourne-Palm Bay Area Chamber of Commerce as its President, advised the Chamber has supported the idea of consolidated government facilities; in the early 1980's, when Hansen Lynn Meyer's study was forthcoming and the efficiencies and economics were extolled on consolidated government facilities, they did a thorough analysis; and it was apparent a great deal of savings could inure to the taxpayers by consolidation. He stated over the next decade, they went through a lot of machinations, from debates on the issue and how to implement, to a full referendum on the Government Center and continuing in the facility; and he thought they had come to a conclusion finally, after the referendum, that they were for consolidated government services, would capitalize on the efficiencies previously mentioned, and dispose of surplus properties that were used as satellite offices. Mr. Malta advised it comes as a surprise and with a great deal of dismay to a number of the members in the business community that the County is considering a plan that will put 1.5 million dollars into satellite facilities to renovate and rehabilitate them; it flies in the face of the premise and theory behind the consolidation of government of having facilities together so they could communicate under a much more effective basis and not have to travel; so the bottom line is it is not money well spent to renovate. He stated there was some effort to sell properties, but commercial real estate was in a slump in the late 1980's and early 1990's; there needs to be another attempt to dispose of those surplus properties, preferably to get them back on the tax rolls and have private enterprise inhabit them and provide jobs and taxes the County could use for further expansion at the Government Center and new courthouse; so on behalf of the 2,000 members of Melbourne/Palm Bay Area Chamber of Commerce, and the businesses they represent, they request the Board to reconsider any facility plan, and stay with the original concept of consolidation and disposal of surplus properties.

Commissioner Ellis advised it is not 1.5 million dollars because a large part of the money is being used to take care of two buildings at the Government Center for the Public Defender and State Attorney; the alternative is to build another building at Viera; and if Mr. Malta had the full picture, he would see the cost avoidance of not building the Public Defender's building at Viera; so it is not 1.5 million dollars for renovations. Mr. Malta advised his reference to the 1.765 million dollars was the total plan; the most important things are renovation of Rockledge Courthouse at $400,000, reoccupation of Merritt Island Service Center at $200,000, and renovation of South Brevard Facility and Melbourne Courthouse at $250,000; and that is under a million dollars, but the bottom line is consolidation. Commissioner Ellis stated the courthouse is not designed to bring all the County court functions to Viera; it is not big enough for that; the idea behind a centralized courthouse was to centralize the circuit court functions; and that is how the whole thing started. Commissioner Cook stated the intent was to put all the judiciary in the same place; there is room in the courthouse to bring the two judges for Sarno Complex to the new courthouse; it may not have been the intent, but he does not see the justification of having two judges in Sarno with all the support they will need from the Public Defender, State Attorney, Clerk, jury rooms, etc., and building a huge expensive judicial center at Viera. Commissioner Ellis stated they were trying to put the circuit court judges together because County court is the high traffic court and that would be left in the community. Commissioner Cook inquired how much money would be spent to justify that; with Commissioner Ellis responding they will not spend anything if they use the Melbourne Courthouse.

Commissioner Scarborough advised when the original statement of consolidating the judiciary was made, there was a distinction between County court and circuit court; 70% of the activities are County court functions; and the intent was to keep those in the more urban areas, including keeping Rockledge Courthouse open for County court. He stated County court has a lot of activity and people have difficulty getting transportation; and to say the original report was to consolidate everything was not anticipated to be that way. Commissioner Cook stated the reply the Board made to the Judge's Order originally had some mention of what Commissioner Scarborough is talking about. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is referring to the original study which was the basis for what the Board is discussing now.

Commissioner Cook stated it is a huge expense and hard to justify; the County is building a courthouse at 18 million dollars, and to say in addition to that it is going to have two judges in Sarno means it has to have the State Attorney, Public Defender, jury pool, bailiffs, clerks, etc; and it gets to the point if it is going to consolidate, it should. He stated maybe someone will have to drive an extra ten minutes, but that is better than spending an enormous amount of money. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand how extra money is spent, because he would have to pay for the Public Defender and State Attorney, whether they sit at Sarno, Melbourne, or Viera. Commissioner Cook stated if they are not moved in, the facility could be sold. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board wants to sell Melbourne Courthouse; with Commissioner Cook responding Melbourne, Sarno or both.

Commissioner O'Brien advised the new courthouse is 18 million dollars; yesterday the County received another cost of $727,000 for computers; plus they want a million-dollar expansion; and before the project is completed it will cost 25 to 35 million dollars. Commissioner Ellis stated the Clerk is supposed to bring his computers to the new courthouse and the County is not supposed to spend money for that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can talk about internal cost and closing all libraries and building one big library and it will be cheaper to operate; but the problem is travel time; attorneys charge by the hour and travel time becomes a part of the cost; they have to assemble witnesses farther from the community; and there is a question whether they can get witnesses there. He stated municipalities have police officers who have to go to court; there are intangible costs that nobody can add up; and there is a cost when high volume court facilities are moved away from the community. He stated the people in Melbourne will be better served by having the County court close to them.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he understands about police having to travel and witnesses, but many times a client involved in a crime in Titusville gets an attorney from Melbourne; and the kids who did the drive by shooting on Merritt Island came from Melbourne and got a Public Defender from Titusville. He inquired if there could be a mobile travel court for traffic.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board talked about night court at one time; a law library has to be where the judges are; but spending 18 million dollars on a facility and having to do extra to save someone a 15-minute drive does not make sense. He stated the County is spending 18 million dollars and does not have enough room to house two judges; with Commissioner Ellis responding there will be room for the two judges, but the next judge that is approved will have to go somewhere. Commissioner Cook stated he cannot believe the Board did not make room for additional judges; with Chairman Higgs responding the plan at the time the decision was made was that it would be primarily a circuit court facility; and it was the desire of the Board at the time that the high traffic judges would be in the communities. She stated that was a strong feeling of a number of Commissioners at the time the decision was made. Commissioner Ellis stated a centralized circuit court facility was worked on with Judge Antoon who was chief judge at the time, and to coordinate family court matters in one courthouse.

Commissioner Cook inquired what percentage of the population uses the courts; with Chairman Higgs responding the circuit court has a very small percentage, so there was comfort for bringing it to Viera; and they agreed the circuit court could be removed from the community because only those people with felony charges needed the circuit court. She stated she did not vote for the courthouse to be in Viera. Commissioner Cook stated the cost keeps escalating; it gets higher and higher; and the County is spending a huge amount of public money here. He stated the Board needs to look at ways to cut back; and there are other ideas they can look at with an open mind.

Commissioner O'Brien advised 6.5 million dollars were collected in fines last year; and inquired if the fines could be used to pay for computers or add the one-million dollar extension; with Mr. Jenkins responding the money is already committed and budgeted; and he responded to the Clerk about the computers because no one indicated the County would buy computers for the new courthouse facility. He stated they are putting the wiring in the building, but that is it.

Judge Jere Lober advised he is 25 days from concluding his term as Chief Judge; and over the last few years, although they had discussion before, he appreciated the support from the Board and the efforts put forth; they had tremendous cooperation and assistance from County staff, particularly Facilities Management in band-aiding and bailing wire to keep them going over the last few years; and he did not come to discuss the topic under discussion, but there are a few comments he wants to make. He stated Commissioner O'Brien talked about floating judges; the Board approved the Traffic Court Hearing Officer Program which is going to provide for civil traffic infraction hearing officers in various parts of the County, specifically so they can free up courtroom space and so people do not have to come out to Viera to have their traffic infractions heard. He stated they are in the process of soliciting applicants for hearing officers, so that program is in full swing and the Board will find it a tremendous benefit. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it will resurrect closed courthouses or could the hearings be held at schools or in trailers, etc.; with Judge Lober responding some of the old municipal courtrooms are in existence and could be used; it is not contemplated that hearings will have facilities expenses at all; and it will be a tremendous benefit and closer to the people. He stated the $732,000 figure is the Clerk's figure; the judges did not ask for $732,000 in additional computers; and that is between the Board and the Clerk. Judge Lober stated he would like to have the Board make a decision on which south court facility is going to be used; he is concerned about the time line in the space allocation study when seeing the dirt being moved at Viera and the courthouse underway, and if they will get into a situation where a decision has not been made whether to utilize the Melbourne Courthouse, Sarno Complex, or whatever, and end up not having places for people when it is time to move. He stated it is important that the decision about what facility be made and the time line established for whatever renovations the County has to do. Judge Lober stated Commissioner Cook's comment about not having a facility of sufficient size to handle all the judges is true; they cannot move the two County court judges presently planned for South Brevard into the new justice center, not because they do not have enough judicial space but because they do not have the courtrooms; it is a 12-courtroom facility; and if they move two County court judges into the facility, they will have 11 courtrooms dedicated to use full time for 11 judges and 5 other judges left to use one courtroom which will never work. Commissioner Cook stated such little flexibility in an 18-million dollar project is amazing. Judge Lober stated it was a conscious decision, and everybody who voted on it was aware of that. Commissioner Cook stated it was supposed to last 30 years; and when they need more judges, it will be another expense they will have to pay. Judge Lober stated the Board contemplated that and doubled the service capacity going into the facility that is at Viera; everyone knows that Brevard County is going to continue to grow and to have needs; and to the extent possible, the Board has provided for that. Commissioner Cook stated it is cheaper to provide it at today's dollars than ten years from now, but he did think there was room to move in two judges.

Facilities Management Director Hugh Muller advised they are building a 16-judicial suite/12 courtroom facility; they currently have 19 judges on board and have space for 4 or 5 judges in Titusville; they are planning to have space for 2 judges in South Brevard; and that will end up having space available for 22 judges and 19 courtrooms for future growth. He stated if they do not build the south court, they will have 19 judges and 17 courtrooms, five of which are in Titusville; and if two county judges are moved to the new courthouse, it is the judges' perception 11 courtrooms will be heavily used. Mr. Muller stated of the 16 judges, 11 will be using courtrooms almost full time, leaving one courtroom to be shared by 6 judges which will hamper the ability to accommodate growth and visiting judges.

Commissioner Cook stated they are talking about 2 additional judges for 19 courtrooms; with Mr. Muller responding there will be 12 courtrooms in the justice center, and 5 courtrooms in Titusville, plus 2 in the south court facility. He stated under the plan they were going to have three judges in Titusville and visiting judges could use the extra space. Commissioner Cook inquired if the 12 courtrooms will be used continuously; with Judge Lober responding no, at the present time they will have 9 courtrooms used continuously; what will be in the new courthouse are three felony division judges from the circuit court with 100% courtroom time; two dedicated juvenile courtrooms with 100% courtroom time; and 4 County court judges; so there will be 9 judges using courtrooms at all times. He stated there will also be two civil division judges, the remainder of family division judges, and the judge in charge of probate and guardianship division; but that judge has very little need for a courtroom. He stated there will be judicial office space, but there will not be courtrooms available to put in another judge who is going to need a courtroom 100% of the time; but if they do not need a courtroom, the Board would not have a problem.

Commissioner Ellis inquired where would the visiting judges be put and if there is a need for another circuit judge in five years or another County judge, where will they be put; with Commissioner Cook responding they will not have room. Commissioner Ellis stated they would have room if they keep the courthouse facility in Melbourne which has six courtrooms. Commissioner Cook stated that was not part of the consideration, but even at that, it will be a huge renovation cost to keep it; with Commissioner Ellis responding no, it would not. Commissioner Cook stated he is concerned because he was not here and did not vote on it that the Board is going to be in a squeeze no matter what happens.

Judge Lober stated he would like a decision made on where they are going with the space and a time line set for doing it. Commissioner Ellis stated regardless what decision is made, the Melbourne Courthouse does not fall down tomorrow; so whether they are in Melbourne or Sarno or Viera, they still have space available; and he does not understand what the concern is over the transition. Judge Lober stated the concern is the overall plan that has been prepared contemplates over a period of the next year to 15 months an awful lot of things will be going on in an awful lot of directions; and where part of it is going to end up needs to be decided upon. He stated if the Board is going to decide on Sarno, there are renovations that need to be made; and if it decides on Melbourne Courthouse, there are renovations that have to be done there also. Commissioner Ellis stated regardless of what decision the Board makes, they will still have the existing Melbourne Courthouse, if Sarno is to be renovated, until the renovations are done. Judge Lober stated he would not want to come up on the time to move and not have the place ready; and it is time to make the decision and live with it.

Gayle Cannon, 529 Southern Hills Court, Local Chair of the League of Women Voters, advised in 1993 the voters chose to remain in the Government Center at Viera and consolidate many of the offices there; the current design for reallocation of space to accommodate the State Attorney and Public Defender gives the League cause for concern; those offices are part of the judicial system and continue to grow concurrently with the growth of crime and litigation; and they did not vote to have those offices encroach upon and cause movement of County offices out of the Government Center. She stated they question if the move will be cost effective in the three to five year time frame; and inquired how soon will they be back moving other County offices to make more room for the State Attorney and Public Defender. Ms. Cannon advised they are in favor of an efficient and cost effective government easily accessible to the people; and inquired if the County is returning to different departments in different parts of the County as it was before .

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there are portables at Sarno Complex; with Mr. Muller responding no. Mr. Jenkins advised it is an old A&P Store and a two-story building the County built 10 to 12 years ago. Commissioner Ellis stated he was in Melbourne Courthouse for two years and was kicked out to Sarno Complex; there are two modular courtrooms outside of Melbourne Courthouse that are used by County court judges right now; and there is an office modular space. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why modulars could not be put at Sharpes to reduce transportation. He stated they go to Melbourne, Titusville and Viera, but not where the prisoners are in Sharpes. Commissioner Ellis stated that can be done if the support is moved up there, but the courthouse is being built at Viera now, so it is too late for that decision. Commissioner O'Brien inquired about having two judges in Sharpes for misdemeanor type cases; with Commissioner Ellis responding most misdemeanor type offenders are not in prison and generally just the felony offenders are there. Discussion continued on facilities for County court judges, crimes, traffic tickets, percentage of population using the judicial system, and keeping high volume cases out of the new courthouse.

Judge Lober stated the County court is the people's court; it is absolutely the highest volume court for the public for summary claims, evictions, misdemeanors, traffic infractions, landlord/tenant cases etc.; and the greatest number of people go through that court. He stated the second is juvenile and the third is circuit court.

Chairman Higgs inquired if staff would go through the requested Board actions on page 11.

Mr. Muller advised the first item is the Government Center with three sections: (1) to proceed with renovations to Building A to fill out the expansion space; (2) renovate Building B for the State Attorney; and (3) renovate Building E for the Public Defender. He stated staff is requesting permission to advertise request for proposals for architectural and engineering services for renovations, and authorization to negotiate a contract with the successful proposers.

Commissioner Ellis stated 1, 2 and 3 are a package deal, and it would not make sense to vote on them individually.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to (1) authorize renovations to Building A to fill out the expansion space; (2) authorize renovations to Building B for the State Attorney ; (3) authorize renovations to Building E for the Public Defender; grant permission to advertise request for proposals for architectural and engineering services for the renovations; and authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the successful proposers. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Muller advised Item 4 is to authorize (a) sale of Sarno B, County court remain in Melbourne Courthouse, and Public Health Unit remain in rental space; (b) sale of Melbourne Courthouse, utilize Sarno B for County court, and Public Health Unit remain in rental space; and (c) utilize Sarno B for county court, renovate Melbourne Courthouse for Public Health Unit.

Commissioner Cook stated it is hard for him to justify the expense even though it is a high usage court; for people to drive an extra ten to fifteen minutes is not an undue hardship; he is concerned with escalating costs; and if it is going to consolidate, then it should consolidate. He stated it may be shorter for people to go to Sarno, but when looking at the overall taxpayer who is going to pay for this, there is relatively small number of people who will use the courts except once in a blue moon. Commissioner Ellis stated that is not really correct; there is a lot of traffic that goes through that courthouse right now; and the cost to use Melbourne Courthouse was $250,000 to keep it in operation. He stated if the County judges are moved into the new courthouse, after a year they will be moved back into Melbourne because of the amount of traffic that will come through the new courthouse; and if the Clerk's office is closed, everyone will pay their traffic tickets through the new courthouse. He stated the new courthouse was designed to put all the circuit court facilities together. Commissioner Cook stated County court is there also and it is not like there is a clear distinction; with Commissioner Ellis responding the distinction is the County court is the higher volume court; if the County closes Melbourne Courthouse, and brings all that volume to the new courthouse, a lot of misdemeanor offenders do not have transportation; with Commissioner Cook responding the County has a bus system; and inquired what burden is the Board putting on the entire public to accommodate a certain amount of people who will use the judges and facilities. He stated that is not something that is used by the majority of the people.

Commissioner Ellis stated it will cost $200,000 to fix the air conditioner; and inquired if it will be less than $200,000 to move them to Viera and add space for the State Attorney, Public Defender, and everyone else who has to be there. Commissioner Cook stated there are other options to look at; he concurs that people thought the County was consolidating at the Government Center; that never happened; and it is still at Merritt Island and other areas. He stated out of the 16 County facilities when the Government Center was first entertained, 14 are still in place. Commissioner Ellis stated but that is not the point; and the point is does the Board keep Melbourne Courthouse or bring those functions to the new courthouse. Chairman Higgs stated the existing plan does not provide for that. Commissioner Cook stated it is amazing that the County is spending 18 million dollars on a new courthouse that is already at capacity; and inquired what kind of planning is that. Commissioner Ellis stated the County could have spent 30 million dollars and had a lot of empty courtrooms; but the point was there were 7 courtrooms in Melbourne Courthouse.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the School Board asked for Melbourne Courthouse; and it could give the County a closed junior high school for a senior center or something like that as swap.

Commissioner Cook stated there are other options if the Board does not move that way.

Chairman Higgs inquired about the status of any grants to renovate Melbourne Courthouse for the Health Department; with Mr. Jenkins responding it would be an appropriation from the Legislature, but staff backed off until the Board decides what it is going to do. Commissioner Ellis stated it would be hard to turn the Courthouse into a health clinic.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he will vote to keep court facilities in Melbourne; the last time it was split between Sarno Complex and Melbourne Courthouse; half of the population is south of Pineda; and it would be wrong to think Viera is part of Melbourne when it is not. He requested Commissioner Ellis tell him the merits of keeping Melbourne Courthouse, and Chairman Higgs about keeping Sarno Complex.

Commissioner Ellis stated the air conditioning has to be repaired in the Melbourne Courthouse; there are a lot of courtrooms and space; it will also provide space for visiting judges; and it has a law library, holding cells, and Clerk's Office. He stated Sarno Complex can only accommodate two courtrooms; it does not have a law library; and it is a better commercial value to sell.

Chairman Higgs advised Sarno Complex is a nicer building and more marketable; and if the Board is going to sell something, Sarno would be it, so she concurs with Commissioner Ellis that Melbourne Courthouse would be the best chance to consolidate property and sell off unused property.

Commissioner O'Brien stated to decrease cost they would have to redo Melbourne Courthouse; the School Board is asking to take it over and add it to the junior high school and make classrooms; and that would save a few dollars. He inquired if there is a funding mechanism, such as a surcharge on fines to pay for the justice center; with Mr. Jenkins responding that was done several years ago, where a surcharge was added to pay the debt service on the project. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it is sufficient; with Mr. Jenkins responding it is a matter of how much can the traffic bear in the sense that if a person gets a traffic ticket today, it costs about $110; the Board's concern was it had stretched it as far as it could; but it is picking up about $400,000 a year in surcharges that it did not get previously, and has been collecting it for the past year or so. He stated the expression of interest from the school Board was preliminary in nature and is not firm. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board gets $400,000 in surcharge on fines, but someone gets six million dollars or better; and inquired where is the fine going; with Commissioner Ellis responding the Clerk is a fee and budget officer, so those have to be separate. Mr. Jenkins advised the Fines and Forfeiture is used to operate a number of Criminal Justice Article V costs to the County, including the Sheriff; it is used for the State Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, and Courts; and it is programmed in the budget and expended annually.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not doubt that Sarno Complex is more marketable; Judge Lober was nice enough to give him a tour of the Melbourne facility, and there was paint peeling off the walls because of moisture; it is a facility that looks like it would take a lot of maintenance and expense if it were to be kept; and the hearing officers will give some relief to the County courts in the traffic area. He stated the School Board has expressed an interest even though it is preliminary; and if the judges were consolidated in the new courthouse, the Board could sell Sarno and Melbourne Courthouse, or work out something with the School Board on Melbourne Courthouse and sell Sarno, or look at night court and other ways to more efficiently use the court space, or ask the courts to do that, because either way the space is going to be tight in the near future.

Chairman Higgs stated she has heard "dramatically increasing cost of the justice center"; and requested someone clarify the costs and the actual cost estimated to build the center; and stated once the plans were obtained, the costs have not dramatically escalated. Mr. Jenkins advised the cost of the justice center has gone up from three years ago, but in terms of the last plan approved by the Board, it has stayed within the budget; and the way they were able to do that was to eliminate the Public Defender's building. He stated construction costs are going through a tremendous inflation; Mr. Vislay is working with Brown and Root to find ways to stay within the budget; so they are within the budget minus the Public Defender's building.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve 4.a., selling Sarno Complex B, County court remain at Melbourne Courthouse, and Public Health Unit remain in rental. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners O'Brien and Cook voted nay.

Mr. Jenkins advised staff will return with the sale of the Road and Bridge property on Wickham Road as a separate item.

The meeting recessed at 3:05 p.m. and reconvened at 3:25 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: ORDINANCE NO. 95-13, REGULATING POWER LINES

Bart Lapofsky, 1831 S. Laurel Oak Drive, Rockledge, advised Rockledge needs the power line Ordinance passed by the Board because as the County becomes more populated, the routing of power lines will become a more sensitive and critical issue. He stated putting transmission lines through existing residential neighborhoods is different than putting them through pasture land because of aesthetics, public fear of EMF's, and decreased property values. He stated when Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) first approached him for purchase of an easement across his property, he made several suggestions to them which would insure him against financial loss, but his ideas were not given a thorough hearing; FPL turned a deaf ear; and that multimillion dollar company is in the habit of doing everything just exactly the way it wants to do it. Mr. Lapofsky stated the people need government to represent their interests of where power lines go; for all power lines except 230,000 volt lines, there is no government agency that takes an interest in the routing of power lines; FPL does business exactly the way it wants to according to its own rules; and the people are asking to balance that situation and have government representation of citizens' interest. He stated they need the Ordinance to cause FPL to sit down with the County and allow open public discussion on the placement of power lines.

Nicholas Rahal, 1830 Laurel Oak Drive, Rockledge, advised before the Board adopted the Ordinance there was a lot of dialogue and exchange of information; and the Board saw fit to pass the Ordinance; FPL has the privilege of bringing it back up; and the city of Rockledge is willing to sell the easement, but from the beginning it has supported the Ordinance. He stated Councilman Lee Wenner and City Manager Jim McKnight came to the Board to present their position on the Ordinance; and the only person who did not support it was Mayor Oakes who has been pushing for the City to make a deal with FPL. He stated the City went to court but was not successful; they were shocked over the letter from the City to Mr. Dickinson of FPL to make a deal; and if it was not for Commissioners Ellis and Cook sending the letter to him, he would not have known they were making a deal. Mr. Rahal stated he hopes the Board feels a duty to look at the citizens of Brevard County; this will be one of the fastest growing areas and there will be a lot of electricity being used; so the Board needs to make sure no one is in danger. He stated the federal government rule is concerned with insuring homes near high-powered lines; and he has faith in the Board that it will have hearings when it affects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens.

Steve Dickinson, 240 Capiz Court, Merritt Island, Area Manager for FPL, advised on March 14, 1995, the Board approved the Electrical Transmission Line Ordinance No. 95-13; and requested the Board repeal it. He stated in his discussions with Mr. McKnight, the City does not support the Ordinance and has taken no position either way; electricity is essential to the health, safety, and welfare of citizens; and the Ordinance jeopardizes the reliability and timely availability of this essential product. He stated in July, 1993, FPL began meetings in Rockledge concerning the construction of a power line needed to provide reliable power to Central and South Brevard; over the past two years, the following events occurred; (1) multiple private and public meetings and forums were held soliciting input from the City and the public; (2) the best route was chosen and that route utilized existing public properties where possible to minimize requirements for acquiring additional rights-of-way; (3) the fewest people possible will be affected by the route; (4) County staff agreed the technical requirements for construction of the line in the route could be met; (5) Florida Public Service Commission made two visits to Rockledge, studied the project, and determined FPL was acting appropriately; and (6) in the initial eminent domain hearing, the courts ruled in favor of FPL. Mr. Dickinson advised in spite of those events, a few people complained to the Board; in his many years of constructing power lines it is unusual to find a location where all citizens are happy; and FPL is very sensitive to the issue of unhappy customers. He noted although attempts are made to minimize unhappy customers and their concerns, there are almost always some people who will express some degree of displeasure; however, it does not remove their statutory responsibility to provide reliable electric service for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Brevard County and beyond. He stated any other route would have generated many more complaints. He stated the Board passed Ordinance No. 95-13 in a specific attempt to stop construction of this line, as referenced in a memo from Scott Knox and the transcripts of previous Board meetings; this action was taken abruptly in an attempt to meet the deadline which he believes was the FPL/Rockledge court hearing date of March 21, 1995; and it was done without due regard of its impact on the reliability of the electric grid, cost, and subsequent impact to Brevard County citizens. He stated the line is needed to supply reliable power to Central and South Brevard County; it has not been upgraded since the 1960's; and it is time to repeal Ordinance No. 95-13 and funnel the limited resources of the County to other priorities. Mr. Dickinson advised continuing with the Ordinance will jeopardize the reliability of the power grid in Brevard County; those who remember the Christmas freeze of 1989, especially Emergency Management personnel, can remember the concerns expressed by the citizens regarding a power system that could not meet their needs; and in fact, FPL was directed by the County to provide a report on how it would attempt to assure it would not happen in the future. He stated continuing with the Ordinance will plunge FPL and the County into a potentially long and expensive process of resolution; FPL, the County, and the citizens and businesses that they jointly serve will not benefit from that process; however, they will benefit from a reliable and available source of reasonably priced electric energy, the provision of which is already heavily regulated by state agencies including all facets of rates, service, and EMF, and by the courts that determine necessity, route selection, and compensation related to transmission lines. He requested the Board repeal Ordinance No. 95-13 in the interest of all citizens and businesses of Brevard County that depend on electricity for their livelihood.

Commissioner Cook advised the only message he received from Mr. McKnight is that he supports the Ordinance, and he has not called to say anything different; and he has the message in his office if anyone wants to see it. He stated the Board exercised due regard, looked at options, and acted in the capacity of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the citizens, as well as property values which is a very important consideration. He advised FPL has not been disapproved for any lines, so he is not sure what the impact has been to FPL to date; the Ordinance allows the process to be open and gives the homeowners some opportunity to express themselves at a public meeting; and the legal questions could be looked at by the County Attorney.

Chairman Higgs stated when she received the letter from FPL, she put it on the Agenda because it may result in a long and expensive litigation; she supported the Ordinance and the citizens' opportunity to be involved in the process; she does not know if there is another way to insure the County will be involved in the siting process or guarantee the government and citizens have an opportunity to have open public discussion; but she is willing to consider asking the County Attorney to explore other ways with FPL that may keep the parties out of litigation and still meet the desire of the Board of having government and people involved in the dialogue regarding power lines. She stated before going into litigation, she wanted to bring it to the Board to determine if there was interest to allow the County Attorney and representatives from FPL to find some other way to meet the needs of the citizens and further the cause of both groups without litigation.

Commissioner Cook advised the Board is threatened with litigation with almost everything it does; Mr. Dickinson made a point that they cannot make everyone happy; and when the Board passes ordinances and takes positions, there will always be people who do not like or agree with it. He stated it would be unusual to go back and reconsider an Ordinance after it has been passed; it has not even been tested; no one has gone through the process; so no one can say whether the Ordinance works or does not work because there has been no public hearing and no usage of the Ordinance so there cannot be any damage. He stated the Ordinance formalizes the right of the public to be involved in the process; and any other solution may be less formal and less of a guarantee that the public would have its input with regard to power lines.

Chairman Higgs advised she is not interested in not having open public discussion; and her interest is in seeing if there is any support to try and find a public input method that would represent all interests and be acceptable.

Commissioner Ellis advised since Rockledge is selling the easement for $70,000, the County Manager could be directed to send a letter to the City and ask it to contribute that money to the legal fees for the Ordinance since the City supports the Ordinance and pushed the County into doing it. He stated if they are going to make money selling the easement to FPL, that money should be used to defend the Ordinance they support; and that would be more than lip service and help to pay to defend the Ordinance.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct the County Manager to write a letter to the City of Rockledge for a donation of $70,000 to defend Ordinance No. 95-13 regulating electrical transmission lines. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised he reviewed the letter from FPL concerning the legal issues raised on the Ordinance; he anticipated every argument it raised with the possible exception of the taking issue; and the County has counter positions for each one of the issues. He stated it was a police power enactment the Board adopted for the purpose of protecting property values and aesthetics in residential neighborhoods; and he is mystified by the logic of FPL to the extent it claims there is an increased cost that it, as a billion-dollar company, has to bear when in fact if everything is stripped away and looked at, it puts the burden of bearing the cost on the abutting property owners who are affected by the power lines' depreciation of property values. He noted there are issues that can be litigated.

DISCUSSION, RE: FENCE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN AU ZONING CATEGORY

Micah Savell, 1370 Sarno Road, Melbourne, requested the Ordinance allow eight-foot fences especially on agricultural lands. He stated he lives on property that has AU zoning; he wanted an eight-foot fence and spent a lot of time going through the process to get the fence; at that time there were objections to his use by adjoining property owners; and it has been six years now, and they have not built on either side. He stated the public should have the right to take the fence up to eight feet for security reasons.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to table discussion on fence height restrictions and setback requirements in AU zoning category until July 11, 1995.

Commissioner Ellis advised there is something about obstruction of view; and inquired if a chain link fence is considered obstructing view or not; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding a chain link fence would not obstruct view; but the problem is that the Code does not differentiate between the types of fences; it just prohibits any fence in the front setback over four feet in height. Commissioner Ellis stated it is something the Board can look at; with Mr. Enos responding yes.

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

DISCUSSION, RE: NORTH BREVARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT LEGISLATION

County Attorney Scott Knox advised staff received a message from the Governor's Office during the meeting that the Board take a position on the North Brevard Hospital District legislation which he is in the position to sign or not sign or do something with; and he wants to know if the Board is in favor or against it today.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board has any problem taking a position since it was not advertised for discussion; with Mr. Knox responding since it is something the Governor needs action on today and he did not bring it to the attention of the Board before today, the Board does not have much of a choice. Commissioner Cook stated it would be the sense of the Board and not a formal action because he basically wants an opinion.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to advise Governor Chiles that the Board of County Commissioners does not think approval of HB 1607 regarding North Brevard Hospital District is in the best interest of the community of North Brevard, and request he veto the bill.

Commissioner Scarborough recommended the County Attorney include language in the letter expressing the basis for the Board's concern similar to the letter written to the Legislative Delegation. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Governor wants to know if the Board approves or disapproves, and the motion is to disapprove the bill and recommend his veto. Commissioner Scarborough stated giving factual basis for an opinion would be better than just saying veto it. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board had hearings and the information brought out indicated it is not good. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Legislature talked about weaknesses in the bill; and if the Governor was given factual information that the County Attorney has already put together for the Legislative Delegation, it would give a basis for saying it is not a reasonable approach. He stated the Committee that reviewed the bill recommended it not be adopted in the current form.

Commissioner O'Brien amended the motion to include additional language stating reasons for opposing HB 1607; and Commissioner Scarborough accepted the amendment.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Knox advised he will prepare a short letter stating the reasons, and attach a copy of the letter to Representative Futch.

REQUEST FROM MR. AND MRS. DELMAR REAM, RE: ASSESSMENT REDUCTION IN PORT ST. JOHN EAST WATER MSBU

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Port St. John East Water MSBU has a massive deficit; the people who acquired the property in prior years paid the assessment; however, the Board had a practice of forgiving the amounts; and it would be inappropriate to reverse that practice, so he will support Option #2.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve the remaining balance of the principal and interest in the amount of $449.30 be waived for Mr. and Mrs. Delmar Ream, directly increasing the project deficit within the Port St. John East Water MSBU project, with no reimbursement of previous payments to prior owner.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board has done that in the past; with Special Projects Coordinator Lori Broome responding the Board has forgiven assessments in the past for homes on two lots, which this case is; Mr. and Mrs. Delmar Ream bought the property in March, 1995; however, the prior owner paid the assessment for six years and did not contest it on the second lot. She stated the Board has forgiven the assessment in the past; there is criteria it depended on; one was the home had to be built prior to the water lines going in; and this house meets that criteria.

Commissioner Cook stated the Reams bought the house in 1995; the previous owner did not contest and made payments for six years on the assessment; the project is in a deficit situation; and inquired if at closing the Reams would know the assessment was placed on the property; with Ms. Broome responding the Deed attached to the Agenda item reflects they took the property subject to taxes and assessments, and they were aware of the assessment.

Chairman Higgs inquired if there are similar circumstances where the property changed hands, people become aware, payments were not made, and the Board forgave them; with Ms. Broome responding there is not a case exactly like this one; but the Board has forgiven the assessments on homes built prior to the water lines going in that did not contest the assessment on double lots. She stated this home was built in 1981, so the previous property owner was afforded the opportunity to go through the public hearing and contest the assessment, but chose not to do that.

Commissioner Cook inquired why this item came to the Board by Public Works and not by a citizen; with Ms. Broome responding it is a citizen request made to staff asking the Board to address it. Commissioner Cook stated they bought the property knowiong there was an assessment on it; there is a deficit in the MSBU; and the previous owner paid for six years, so he cannot see the justification.

Commissioner O'Brien advised the house is built across two lots with one water connection; and just because the first owner did not contest it, does not make the second owner wrong. Commissioner Cook stated if they were the original owners and came to the Board, then they should be forgiven the assessment on the second lot, but they bought the property knowing there was an assessment and that payments were made for six years, so he is not comfortable wiping the slate clean for the rest of the assessment. Commissioner O'Brien stated this is a case of the second owner finding out the first owner was wrong and trying to correct it because only one lot will get water.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if Lot 12 can be subdivided into a buildable lot; with Ms. Broome responding no, the Zoning Office said only structures relating to the home could be built on the lot. Commissioner Ellis stated if it cannot be subdivided, then it should not have a water assessment. Commissioner Cook inquired about a guest cottage; with Commissioner Ellis responding it would still be the same water connection.

Chairman Higgs stated she will not support the motion; the individual who initially owned the home had the opportunity as did all other citizens to request the exemption; it was paid for a number of years; the property changed hands; and since the prior owner felt it was legitimate, the new owner should pay that assessment. Commissioner Cook inquired why the original owner did not object; with Ms. Broome responding she asked Mr. Ream who indicated that he did not think about it.

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

ACKNOWLEDGE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND SCHEDULE WORKSHOP, RE: REGIONALIZATION AND WASTE TO ENERGY OPTIONS FOR JOINT OSCEOLA-BREVARD COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY

Priscilla Griffith, Natural Resources Chair with the League of Women Voters of the Space Coast, advised the League recognizes the disposal of solid waste is a pressing and expensive problem here and elsewhere; and dealing with it requires long-range planning, fiscal responsibility, and a concern for health, safety and the environment. She stated the Board will be considering several options, among which are various sizes of waste-to-energy facilities; as the Board considers all the options, the League hopes it will keep in mind the following: (1) burning of most products in waste energy facilities produces less energy than is saved by recycling the materials; (2) incineration produces toxic air emissions such as dioxin and mercury which contaminate fish and other wildlife, ultimately reaching humans, and also produces a concentrated toxic ash which must be landfilled; (3) building a facility large enough to include significant further capacity could force the burning of material from Brevard's waste stream that would otherwise be recycled, or importing materials from other areas to burn; (4) incinerators are capital intensive facilities, expensive to run, require well-trained employees and a high level of maintenance, and have a limited life span as do landfills; and (5) choice of a landfill option, perhaps the one with Seminole County, would grant valuable time in which laws could change so that they more vigorously promote the market for recycling and also emphasize reduction and reuse, such as a bottle bill. Ms. Griffith advised a landfill choice would also allow for improvement in incinerator technology to occur so that toxic emissions could be eliminated and toxic ash ameliorated or used. She stated substitutes for incineration are currently being developed; the Board should give time for that technology to mature; the League is not saying never use waste-to-energy, but the most responsible course at present is to emphasize reduction, reuse, and recycling because they conserve energy, money, and resources and produce jobs. She stated until technology changes, land filling is the preferred choice over waste-to-energy; the League's priorities are reduction, reuse, and recycling; and they hope those are the Board's priorities also.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to acknowledge receipt of the Supplemental Report on Regionalization and Waste-to-Energy Options for a joint Osceola-Brevard County Solid Waste Disposal Facility; and authorize the County Manager to schedule a workshop on a date convenient to all Commissioners. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs inquired if staff needed any kind of direction regarding discussions with Seminole County; with Solid Waste Management Director Richard Rabon responding staff has been talking to Seminole County's staff and will continue working on that. Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Rabon will bring all that information to the workshop; with Mr. Rabon responding yes.

AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, RE: COOPERATIVE AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Amendment to Contract with Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the Cooperative Aquatic Plant Control Program grant of $18,868. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: DRUG FREE WORK PLACE POLICY FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

Harry Fuller, 424 Dorset Drive, Cocoa Beach, representing Space Coast Builders Association, advised they support the concept of a drug free work place; construction areas are no places to have drug consumption; and there are a number of workers compensation programs that require drug free testing as a function of the insurance program. He stated testing is required at the time of employment to prove there are no drugs in existence at that time; and if an accident occurs, they are required to do a drug test at that time to prove the accident was not because of drug consumption. He stated it makes sense from the standpoint of safety and general welfare of the people involved in the work place, for the Board to protect all employees by requiring some form of drug testing; so they support this and understand it only relates to County contracts.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve a drug free work place policy for County construction contracts.

Commissioner O'Brien advised he agrees the Board should send a message that those who do drugs will not be employed, but the program also reduces accidents; and when that happens, it reduces the cost of workers compensation insurance. He stated he is not sure whether extremely small companies with less than ten employees can afford the program; it says 5% for large companies that can institute it and have more cash flow to do that with; but for a "mom and pop" operation to institute a drug free program could be cost prohibitive, and they have to do random drug tests which could negate the savings because of the dramatic cost. He suggested setting a limit on the size of the company that has to do it rather than make it every company because it may not be feasible for some small companies that are well run and clean.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if Commissioner O'Brien is recommending the program be based on the size of the contract; with Commissioner O'Brien responding dollar value could not do it because supplies could be extremely expensive and labor could be very low.

Commissioner Cook advised he did not think about that but it is a good point; and he would like to come back and address that issue. He stated the Board is trying to encourage more minority people and small businesses getting contracts, and he would not want to do anything to hamper that by the cost of instituting a particular program. He stated it may be cost prohibitive for certain small firms to institute a drug free program. Chairman Higgs advised from her own experience of having a drug free work place, it is not cost prohibitive at all; the 5% workers compensation insurance savings and other reduced costs exceed the cost of instituting the program; and the Board should support the policy as it is.

Commissioner Cook stated Chairman Higgs may be right, but because Commissioner O'Brien brought up something he had not thought about, he would like to table the item to the next meeting and talk to small business people to find out if it is going to create a hardship.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to table discussion on a drug free work place policy for construction contracts until July 11, 1995. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

DISCUSSION, RE: ANNUAL COLA AND MERIT INCREASE FOR COUNTY MANAGER

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised he received Commissioner Ellis' evaluation after the Agenda was sent out, and he has copies of it for the Board. He stated he had an oral interview with Commissioner Cook.

Commissioner Cook advised one of his constituents, Dr. Demming, was a consultant to the City of Naples; he found that merit increases were becoming almost automatic and every employee in every department was getting merit increases and COLA's; so the City went to giving a COLA and making a merit increase a bonus. He stated he is not against giving bonuses or rewards for above normal service; that is something the Board may want to look at for the high end of the pay scale because percentages at that end turn into large sums of money; it may not be applicable with Mr. Jenkins' contract, and the same may be true with the County Attorney, but he would like to have the Board look at that. Commissioner Cook stated Mr. Jenkins is due a raise; there is no question about that; but he wanted to bring that up as something the Board may want to look at.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the COLA and merit increase for the County Manager were deferred because of the two new Commissioners; and it is appropriate to take some action today. Commissioner Cook stated he concurs the Board should take action today and appreciates the fact that it was deferred so he could make a judgment; and today it has to settle on the amount, but in the future it may want to deal with the top end of the pay scale by looking at dollar amounts rather than percentages, because in that range percentages are substantial increases and salaries get out of whack that way.

Commissioner Ellis advised he does not know anyone else's evaluation; he received Commissioner O'Brien's and Commissioner Higgs'; Commissioner Higgs' came out to 108 and Commissioner O'Brien's about the same; but his evaluation came out at 89 which works out to a 3% COLA. He stated with their evaluations, that would fall into the 3% COLA plus 2% merit increase area.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it does fall in the 3 and 2% category, and he is willing to make the motion to do that. He stated the Board should not treat Mr. Jenkins any different than the County Attorney or any other executive in the County; if it has a system in place, it should be applied evenly to all; Mr. Jenkins is an employee like everyone else; and if his evaluations came to 3% COLA and 2% merit, then he deserves it.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve 3% COLA and 2% merit increase for County Manager Tom Jenkins.

Commissioner Cook repeated his previous statements on other ways to reward performance of executive type personnel such as a bonus system rather than merit increase. Commissioner Ellis stated he is not going to support the increase because he did his evaluation and it fell within the 3% but not up to the 2% merit increase.

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

ACCESS TO TRU-MENSION MANUFACTURING, INC., RE: SPACEPORT COMMERCIAL PARK

Commissioner Scarborough declared a conflict of interest as in the past he represented Tru-Mension even though it was not on this matter.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the property lies between the right-of-way and Tru-Mension's property, and it is just a matter of giving them access.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Spaceport Authority recommended it; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to execute an Easement granting access to Tru-Mension Manufacturing, Inc. for development of its parcel in Spaceport Commerce Park.

Commissioner O'Brien stated when the Board is to consider giving away rights-of-way and easements, he would like to have maps to see what and where the properties are; in this case he has no idea where it is and does not understand the statement that the County will retain title to the 80-foot strip of land lying between Shepherd Drive and Tru-Mension's parcel; and he would like to know what the Board is talking about before giving it away.

Economic Development and Legislative Affairs Director Greg Lugar advised about seven or eight years ago, a 25-acre parcel was donated to a not-for-profit organization; subsequent to that, Spaceport Florida Authority received title to it in terms of providing not-for-profit activities; however, a three-acre parcel was cut out of the 25 acres in trade; and in essence to the south of that parcel, an 80-foot strip of property on the north end of Armstrong was reserved for future four-laning; but the four-laning project has not occurred to date. He stated that is the reason it is not a right-of-way at this time; it is County property in the industrial park; and Tru-Mension wishes to go through that 80-foot strip to Armstrong Avenue.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the easement will terminate in the event the County uses the 80 feet for right-of-way; with Mr. Lugar responding yes. Mr. Jenkins advised the issue came up at the last Commerce Park Advisory Board meeting and the owner has been holding up on construction in order to get approval.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Scarborough abstained.

APPOINTMENTS, RE: UPPER ST. JOHNS RECREATION ADVISORY COUNCIL

Commissioner Cook advised former District 4 Commissioner and her Special Assistant served as appointee and alternate on the Upper St. Johns Recreation Advisory Council; and he would be happy to serve if the Board wants him to. Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to appoint Commissioner Mark Cook to represent the Board on the Upper St. Johns Recreation Advisory Council, and allow him to designate an alternate. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Cook will come back to the Board with an alternate; with Commissioner Cook responding he could do that. Chairman Higgs advised there are many willing citizens who may want to serve such as Leroy Wright or David Sheriff.

DISCUSSION, RE: IMPACT OF FIFTH CRIMINAL CIRCUIT JUDGE ON JAIL POPULATION

Commissioner O'Brien advised he feels like he has been fed piecemeal information by the Sheriff's Department and various attorneys' offices about the jail; and rather than go through this at this time, he will move that the Board direct staff to put together a round-table discussion with the Public Defender, State Attorney, Sheriff, Juvenile Justice, Board and Judges to have a real conversation with all the people involved so it can comprehend the system and find ways to fix it and reduce the population in the jail, and tell the State it needs another judge.

Chairman Higgs advised staff is doing that. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised that is one of the items he brought up this morning. Chairman Higgs stated a motion would not be necessary, and it would include everyone on the Public Safety Coordinating Council.

Commissioner Ellis advised he received a letter from Mr. Tamman, but is not in a position to evaluate his numbers; and suggested a request be sent to the judges, State Attorney, and Public Defender, because they are the three agencies affected, and ask them what their feelings are about adding a fifth circuit judge and would it dramatically increase the through put or not.

Chairman Higgs inquired if staff knows how Brevard's cases per judge equate to other circuits; with Commissioner Ellis responding he does not have that information and thought this would be a way to get that information.

Commissioner Cook advised the Board is having a workshop with the Council, and he thinks there is a formula the State uses to designate judgeships based on population and case load.

Commissioner Ellis stated the request should be sent out prior to the workshop so they can come with the information instead of having a second workshop. He stated if the analysis is correct, the Board may find it cheaper to fund another circuit judge than to expand the jail; it would assume Article V costs, but it still may be cheaper than adding to the jail and taking care of the inmates. He noted the Board needs to find out from the State Attorney, Public Defender, and the Judicial System what the effect would be on people awaiting trial and sentencing if there was another circuit judge. Commissioner Cook indicated there is not enough space for another judge; with Commissioner Ellis responding he could be located in the Melbourne Courthouse.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct the County Manager to send a letter to the Public Safety Coordinating Committee asking it what its feelings are about adding a fifth circuit judge and if it would dramatically increase through put or not; and to include Mr. Tamman's analysis. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: REDUCTION OF PARKING FEES AT BREVARD PARKS

Commissioner Ellis advised last summer he received calls from people upset about the parking fee because they felt they already paid for the park with their beach and riverfront taxes and now they are getting hit again on parking fees; so he wants to look into the possibility of reducing the parking pass from $20 to $10. He stated it ends up being a fairly minimal revenue; and he understands their point of fairness.

Chairman Higgs inquired what does it cost to collect the parking fees; with Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson responding the collection cost on the passes is negligible because they are collected in the offices as opposed to in the field; the cost of collection from the parking meters are higher because they are emptying machines on a daily basis; but it is negligable in terms of staff because they are doing other responsibilities as well.

Commissioner Cook stated he assumes the passes are easy to handle. Mr. Nelson advised they start the passes in April for each season and they have sold 80% of those they typically sell; they would be affecting 20% of the remainder or refund to those who have acquired them because they have only had them for 60 days. Commissioner Cook stated it could take effect next season. Mr. Nelson stated that would help staff anticipate the loss in revenue for budget purposes. Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem with it; it is a nominal amount of money; and he understands the fairness issue.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it is a user fee, and to cut the rate in half would not be compensated by 50% increase in the second cars' stickers, so it would reduce income by about $350 . He stated 65 annual passes at $10 each is $650 and 50% of 30 additional annual passes at $10 makes $950. Chairman Higgs stated that is only the Central area, and three times as many passes are sold in the South area. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Board keeps cutting a little here and there it is forcing itself to increase property taxes eventually; with Commissioner Ellis responding or cut costs. Commissioner O'Brien stated parks are already overburdened with costs; and if the Board keeps cutting away at small revenue sources, it will be forced to increase property taxes which is something it does not want to do. Commissioner Cook stated this is so nominal it will not drive it. He stated this has always been something people mentioned to him from time to time and it is true they pay for the parks; he understands it is a user fee, but they are being charged something; and the nice thing is the passes go to the residents who use the beach a lot.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to cut the parking pass for the first vehicle to $10.00 effective April 1, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: ECONOMIC HARDSHIP IN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASES

Commissioner Ellis advised many times there are reasonable things in the Board of Adjustment minutes and they get denied because the Board of Adjustment uses its strict description that it cannot consider economic hardship in terms of granting an adjustment. He stated Mr. Johnson who lives at the Great Outdoors and has a deck in his backyard which is on the fairway and wanted to put a cover over his deck was denied to encroach in the setback to cover his deck, yet his lot abuts the golf course; and it does not make sense. He stated the Board was sympathetic, but its position was since there was no real hardship other than economic, he was denied. He stated the Board of Adjustment should have more flexibility so if someone comes in with a request that makes sense, the Board can grant it.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to amend the Ordinance to include economic hardship as a consideration by the Board of Adjustment for granting of variances.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the memorandum says the landowner must show a legally cognizable hardship and not merely an economic disadvantage to be eligible for granting of a variance. Commissioner Ellis inquired why they cannot show an economic disadvantage to obtain a variance; with Commissioner O'Brien responding the courts are uniform on the proposition that the Board of Adjustment need to consider economic circumstances only in stances where a landowner cannot yield a reasonable return under the existing permitted uses. Commissioner Ellis stated something is not working; when property abuts the fairway and the owner cannot get a variance to put a roof over the patio because golf balls land on it, there is a problem somewhere in the system.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised he needs to clarify Ms. Troner's memo because what he reads Mr. Knox saying is that the Board may remove the statement that economic reasons shall not be considered as grounds for establishing undue hardship. He stated the Board can take that statement out; however, there are constraints as to how it can be applied. Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson stated the assumption by Mr. Jenkins on Ms. Troner's memo is correct. Mr. Jenkins stated that statement can be removed, but because of past court decisions there will be some constraints as to how it can be applied.

Micah Savell, 1370 Sarno Road, Melbourne, advised he has been before the Board of Adjustment a few times and understands the provision of economic hardship is something that is disallowed, but a lot of people are suffering loss as a result of zoning changes and other things that they had no control over because of timing, whether it is the economy or other things, and sometimes this economic avenue is depriving them of their retirement investments; there are a number of things that do apply moving beyond just a specific item whether it is the height of a fence or ability to put a roof over a patio. He stated he would like for the Board to find a vehicle that can adequately address some of those issues; economics sometimes are more of a hardship than anything else.

Chairman Higgs advised staff will draft the ordinance and bring it back to the Board for permission to advertise so the Board can review it. She called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

APPROVAL OF NOMINEES, RE: APPOINTMENT TO CHILDREN'S SERVICES COUNCIL

Chairman Higgs advised the Children's Services Council needs for the Governor to appoint members to the vacancies on the Council; the process is that three nominees are sent to the Governor for consideration; and he appoints members from among those nominees. She stated Irene Burnett and Sue Shaw have both served on the Council; and requested their names be submitted. She advised Mario Ramirez submitted a resume and requested to serve on the Council.

Commissioner Cook inquired how are the nominees solicited and what process do they go through; is it open to the public and anyone can submit an application; with Chairman Higgs responding anyone can; but she is bringing Ms. Burnett and Ms. Shaw to the Board because they are currently serving; and she is not sure how Mr. Ramirez name came into the process. Assistant County Manager for Community Services Joan Madden advised Mr. Ramirez' resume came to her office unsolicited; it is open to anyone in the community; it is supposed to represent the diversity of the community; and the Governor makes the final determination. Commissioner Cook inquired how long have Ms. Burnett and Ms. Shaw been on the Council; with Ms. Madden responding Ms. Burnett was one of the first appointments which was about four years ago; and she is not acquainted with Ms. Shaw. She stated the County does not staff the Council; it is an independent taxing district; and she cannot speak to that with any degree of certainty. Chairman Higgs advised Sue Shaw was nominated a few years ago. Commissioner Cook inquired if the Governor will select three people; with Ms. Madden responding the Governor will select two for the two appointments that are vacant; and the County can submit up to three names for each vacancy if the Board wants to add names to the list. Commissioner Cook suggested adding three names per vacancy to give the Governor a full list.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table approval of nominees for appointment to the Children's Services Council until July 11, 1995 for additional nominees.

Commissioner O'Brien advised it says the Children's Services is an independent special district and has the power to collect ad valorem taxes; and inquired if it does that; with Ms. Madden responding only on a referendum, but that was not approved. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it was known as a Juvenile Welfare Board; with Ms. Madden responding it was the old terminology that came out of the original Special Act since the mid-1940's. Commissioner O'Brien stated he could not find out what was the purpose of the Council; with Chairman Higgs responding the Council was formed under the Florida Statutes to advise on issues that affect children and to make recommendations to governmental bodies, and includes the Judge, School Superintendent, School Board member, and member from the County Commission and five HRS persons and five gubernatorial members. Ms. Madden advised there is a local Ordinance that defines the duties of the Council. Commissioner Cook requested a copy of the Ordinance. Chairman Higgs advised the Board has one appointee who is a Commissioner, and she is serving in that capacity at this time. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they have accomplished anything; with Chairman Higgs responding the Council has been trying to define what the unmet needs are of children and develop a strategy for addressing those and is conducting methodology of surveying other methods to determine what the unmet needs of children are and to come up with recommendations.

Commissioner Cook asked for a copy of the Ordinance and inquired if the referendum failed; with Chairman Higgs responding the referendum was for a tax and that failed, but the Children's Services Council exists.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the County Attorney has to attend the meetings and what kind of costs are involved; with Chairman Higgs responding none. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what has the Council accomplished; with Chairman Higgs responding they are trying to assess in a rational way what the unmet needs of children are and how to serve those; and in June it will have a workshop to develop a strategy to meet the needs of children.

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

DISCUSSION, RE: DESIGNATION OF LOCAL ORGANIZATION TO WORK WITH STATE FISHING COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION TEAM

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to designate Space Coast Private Industry Council as the local organization to assist the State's Fishing Community Revitalization Team in identifying activities and resources to help individuals and communities deal with the Constitutional Amendment which banned commercial net fishing in Florida waters.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what kind of trade schools are available; and stated with commercial fishermen that the most likely success in retraining would be some type of industrial trade; they are people who have worked outside all their lives; and they are not going to adapt well to a desk job.

Beverly Sanders, representing the Space Coast Private Industry Council advised from their estimates and what the state has told them, this will affect less than 100 fishermen in Brevard County alone; they have been doing research in training; and Mr. Robinson will explain the options.

Joe Robinson advised what they have available is aquaculture; a lot of net fishermen are going into it; they are trying to get some training on that; there has been success on the West Coast with the process; and all the meetings he attended so far, most of them want to stay at sea and are going farther out to sea and trying to get resources to get them farther out. He stated those who had families entwined in their corporation are going to different fields of endeavor; there are a lot of things going on; and most of them want to stay around the water; and there are educational barriers as a lot of them are not well educated; so there is a lot of fear that lies in that thing that we are going to have to overcome as we progress in this process. Commissioner Ellis inquired if vocational programs will be available; with Ms. Sanders responding yes, their normal 50 in demand occupations, and they will entertain any occupation where the customer can prove they have a job waiting for them once the training is completed.

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

The meeting recessed at 4:50 p.m. and reconvened at 5:06 p.m.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - JOHN PATTERSON, RE: REQUEST TO DELAY CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION DUE TO POTENTIAL CHANGE IN ZONING CODE ON SCREENED ROOMS

John Patterson, 353 Cypress Point Drive, Melbourne, presented plat maps to the Commissioners, and advised he is representing six homeowners in a stretch of seven houses in Lake Point Section of Suntree on the east side of Cypress Point Drive. He stated the County Code Enforcement Division notified three of the six homeowners that they were in violation for having screened rooms without a permit; the owners at 345 Cypress, the first structure to go up, purchased their house new with the screened room on it; he at 353 and his neighbor at 357 had screened rooms erected by the same contractor, and there was no permit pulled; the owners at 347 erected a screened enclosure that is not in violation because it has a screen roof; and they are unhappy because they want a screened room. He stated the two others that live in between the three that are in violation have strong desires to put up screened rooms; they are not interested in putting up screen for a roof; so they got together and decided to ask what is the logic that would allow two identical structures, but one has a screen roof and one has an aluminum roof. Mr. Patterson advised in pursuit of that they had a meeting with the Zoning officials on May 25, 1995 to find out what was behind the Ordinance; County staff said screened rooms were in the same classification as house additions, both were banned in setbacks, and they did not enjoy the same privileges as screened enclosures because of the roof. He stated the screened room and enclosure have the exact same vertical structure, and asked why the roof made it illegal and questioned staff about the logic that made the roof bad; and the reply was there is a fear if a roof exists on a screened structure, the owner could feel compelled to convert it to a house addition by removing the screen and installing siding and windows. He stated after hearing the reasoning and deep distrust of roof parts of screened rooms, they inquired when that part of the Ordinance would be reviewed because the County Manager put out a memo regarding unnecessary, obsolete, meaningless County Ordinances, rules and requirements; they were told that area of the Code had been reviewed and they did not plan to make any changes in that area; and that is when he sought to get on the Agenda for the meeting today. Mr. Patterson advised if the reasoning that prevails on screened rooms is applied to all ordinances, rules and requirements, and laws were enacted on the basis of banning people from owning things because such things could have a corruptive influence and lead to law breaking, some very interesting things could happen; the potential size of a list of banned articles is beyond comprehension; if the Board enacted laws banning anything that mere ownership of a suspect item could cause the owner to commit crime, the statute books would be bursting at the seams and their quality of life would go down much in the same manner as the six property owners are experiencing from the negative effect of the anti-screened room Ordinance; and if existing Codes do not clearly describe the structures as they exist in this day consideration should be given to rewrite them so they have clarity. He inquired if any laws should be on the books today banning items that are not offensive per se, but just because someone may make illegal modifications to them, he thinks not.

Micah Savell advised this issue brings to mind a request he made about hardship and variance; sometimes Ordinances work hardships on people; Mr. Patterson's case is another situation where staff should have had the authority and ability to examine the problem and waive or make an exception in this case; and the property owners should not have to go through this. He stated their properties back up to an intense road; there are a lot of considerations they should be given; and requested the Board give them some relief. He stated staff is reworking Ordinances and should provide common sense approaches to a lot of things that can be addressed.

Commissioner Cook advised the properties back up to an open space at Melbourne Sand; this is one of the areas Mr. Jenkins' memo may be alluding to; staff is currently looking at modifications to the PUD regulations; and what Mr. Patterson and homeowners involved are asking is to abate any Code enforcement action until the Board sees what comes back with the modifications to Ordinances because it could take care of the situation.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct staff to proceed with developing an amendment relating to setbacks for screened rooms, and to abate any Code Enforcement action on several properties on Cypress Point Drive in Melbourne, including property owned by John Patterson, until the Local Planning Agency and Board consider amendments to the Ordinance.

Commissioner O'Brien stated part of the problem may be high winds can tear off the roof, although they can be constructed in such a manner and tied into the frame of the house very well; the screen enclosures he has seen cover pools five feet from a seawall on a canal; and these enclosures are 3, 4 and 5 feet wide. He inquired what is the intent of the Ordinance; and suggested staff research and find out why it was done in the first place.

Chairman Higgs inquired if it is an extension of the house and a poured slab; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding yes, the screened porch is part of a house and must meet the setback for the house which in this case is 15 feet; a screened enclosure meets the same setback as a pool because it has to enclose the pool, and that is 5 feet; they have discussed this issue with staff and the PUD review team which is a group of people consisting of staff, local engineers and developers; and the group feels some relief is appropriate and will be making a proposal to the Local Planning Agency probably in August. He stated they expect to bring it to the Board in the October series of the land development regulations.

Commissioner Ellis stated if they went to the Board of Adjustment they would be told to take the roof off and put a screen on it; and the Board needs to look at why it has some of the rules it has and why it has a setback requirement when property abuts common areas like that.

Commissioner Cook advised those are some of the things that need to be addressed and staff is in the process of doing that; but the residents want to make sure there is no action taken against them while the County is correcting the problem; and that is the intent of the motion.

Chairman Higgs inquired if it is a proper motion; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding yes. She called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs advised the ordinance will be going forward in the summer, and requested staff inform Mr. Patterson.

DISCUSSION, RE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY

Commissioner O'Brien advised there is an opportunity this month to send a person to Iowa with the thought that perhaps there is a good lead on inviting a company to come to Brevard County and bring jobs; his Office has no concept if it is a viable client or not; and it has been a policy of the County not to send Mr. Lugar into the field to bring in new business to Brevard County. He stated EDC said they have not come in to qualify and were not sure whether they wanted to do it or not; the only way to make a deal come alive is to have face-to-face discussions; phone calls and brochures are not effective; the County is getting into a situation where if it does not do something better than it is doing it now, it could be in dire straits in the future because the entire Nation is competing for the same jobs; and inquired if the taxpayers want the Board to make an investment in economic development to bring more jobs in; and if it does, what are the good policies to accomplish that. He stated it may not be appropriate not to take certain actions, as it may take 50 flights to bring in a company like Bendix.

Economic Development and Legislative Affairs Director Greg Lugar advised the summary is indicative of practices of the Board; it has a contract with EDC and appropriates $175,000 a year for marketing, expansion, etc. of Brevard County and its employment base; his position is the economic development person for the Board; and although it is his primary duty, it is not the only job he has. He stated from discussions with the County Manager of some of the tasks of economic development, they concluded it includes about everything except the primary contact with businesses.

Commissioner Cook advised comments on working harder to bring companies in are well taken; his concern with Mr. Lugar is will it interfere with his other duties if he takes on the added responsibility, and should the Board look at other options. Commissioner O'Brien stated he wrote the letter to open up discussion and to see if there are other options open to the Board, what actions the Board should be taking, and what actions the EDC may be taking. He stated the EDC has its own leadership, but the Board has to show some type of leadership; and perhaps it should be Mr. Lugar's responsibility to locate, track down and go get them. He stated the outside agencies the Board funds are not accomplishing the tasks that must be accomplished quickly; they are spinning wheels and not getting there and losing jobs; they are bogged down in red tape and dialogue; so the Board needs to become pro-active. Commissioner Cook stated the County has made great strides in that direction and perhaps it could do more. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Mr. Lugar could do that part- time but certainly not full-time.

Chairman Higgs stated if the Board is looking for the face-to-face marketing arm, and it wants to fund that kind of activity, it should develop a position and advertise it; direct marketing of Brevard County takes unique presentation and skill; and if it is not happy with its contract with EDC, it should advertise a position. She stated she is not sure someone with Mr. Lugar's skills should be put out in direct marketing and expect to provide the kind of results the Board wants; so if it wants to be the Brevard County marketing arm, then that is a program that it should set up and fund it; but to slide in part time is not going to work.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it is a shotgun approach right now; the return on advertising in magazines is not that good; and nothing is better than face-to-face meetings; with Chairman Higgs responding but he cannot fly all over the country; and the leads must be qualified before they go out.

Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand why a County employee would be doing this; he thought Mr. Lugar was more of a liaison; EDC gets $175,000 a year just from the County; it also draws money from businesses; and it is supposed to be generating more business for the County. He stated Mr. Lugar is a liaison to help EDC, if it has a lead, to work through the impact fees, ad valorem abatement, site plans, etc.; and it is not government's role to send representatives throughout the country to try and bring businesses here.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not have a problem sending Mr. Lugar or having Lynda Weatherman go out; the community is asking vigorously to do more; but he is concerned about the coordination of what Mr. Lugar does, what Ms. Weatherman does, and what the Chambers do. He stated it needs to make sure someone is really interested when determining how to spend its travel dollars; and rather than acting on this at this time, perhaps the Board needs additional input from staff and EDC. He stated he agrees the County needs to do more, but he would like to have more comment from the community.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Palm Beach County has an in-house EDC that works under the Transportation Department; it is funded by $750,000 and has a $7,000,000 bank to spend as well; they were successful in bringing in Bendix with 1,500 jobs; and that is one of their many accomplishments. He stated that is within the government and not outside the government like EDC. Commissioner Ellis inquired how many residents have paid for that and got nothing in return; and stated it gets into the role of government and business again.

Commissioner Cook stated he is not against getting additional information; someone was going on vacation and stopped by his office and said he would stop by some businesses up north and leave off information on Brevard County; so his office gave him the information; and he found a few people that were interested and gave them EDC's number, but he does not know if anything came of it. He stated it was a private citizen, not in business in this County who dropped off information while he was on vacation; maybe the Board is not looking at volunteers and what Commissioner O'Brien is suggesting; and he agrees the Board needs to do everything it can. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is getting desperate; EDC at this point is not really aggressive or successful; he is concerned about it; 3,000 are being laid off at KSC, 600 at Harris, and 1,200 at McDonnell Douglas that have no place to go; and the Board has a responsibility. He stated EDC is not a business; it is to bring business in for people to work at; and it may be a responsibility of the Board as the government, to interact with business to get them here. He stated that is an important factor to the entire public because without jobs it could be 1960's all over again.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to gather information on what other Counties do and find where an EDC has been successful, and return to the Board with a report. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE: FINAL PAYMENT TO FRONTIER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Commissioner O'Brien advised MIRA contracted with a company for the SR 520 tree planting project; the company went belly up half way through the project; the bond was garnered, and they went to Frontier for the money, and went with another contractor; and now it is time to pay them.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by commissioner Scarborough, to approve Budget Change Request for a line item transfer, and approve final payment to Frontier Life Insurance Company of New York for completion of the SR 520 tree planting project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF EASEMENT, RE: KENNEDY SPACE CENTER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

Cecilia Paizs, 1825 S. Riverview Drive, Melbourne, with the law firm Reinman, Harrell, Mitchell, Wattwood, representing Kennedy Space Center Federal Credit Union, advised it is in the process of purchasing a building owned by NationsBank; part of the construction of Wickham Road took some frontage, and a contract was written with NationsBank to purchase part of its frontage, temporary construction easements, and drainage easement; as part of that negotiation, it was agreed that permanent access would be provided; the road to the south of the property involved in the sale is the access to the property; and that property is owned by the County. She stated the only thing on that property is the road, but it is not a dedicated road; and in order to get title insurance that road has to be dedicated or an easement granted; and the contract agreed to provide permanent access to the NationsBank property; so they are asking that the easement be granted.

Commissioner Cook stated this will allow the closing to go forth; and it was time sensitive so he had to add it to the Agenda pass the cutoff date. He stated staff reviewed it and determined it is consistent with the contract, and it will allow them to obtain title insurance.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Easement to Kennedy Space Center Federal Credit Union on property purchased from NationsBank for additional right-of-way for Wickham Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE PUBLIC WORKS TO REPAIR, APPROVE BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, AND WAIVE BID REQUIREMENTS, RE: WICKHAM ROAD M-1 CRANE CREEK CANAL

Commissioner O'Brien advised staff wants to waive bid requirements to purchase materials; only one company makes the pipe that goes under the roadway; the bridge has serious problems at this time; but it was worded in such a way that only if Option 2 was chosen would the Board waive bid requirements; and inquired if staff has an update.

Assistant Public Works Director Ron Jones advised the pipe was only available through one manufacturer; and that is also with the same contract Road and Bridge currently uses.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if staff obtained prices from other suppliers; with Public Works Director Henry Minneboo responding they received four different quotes from Hydro Conduit, Florida Concrete, Joelson, and Ewell that are the major pipe manufacturers; but there are not many that provide a 96-inch concrete pipe.

Commissioner Cook inquired if it was the low bid; with Mr. Minneboo responding no, Hydro Conduit can provide it for $175 a foot and four weeks delivery time; Florida Concrete can provide it for $170 and six weeks delivery time; and the other two do not provide it. He stated because they are trying to get the project done in a short period of time, they selected Hydro Conduit.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what other supplies and materials will be needed; with Mr. Minneboo responding they want to waive the bidding process because they will be in a hole with about a 20-foot cut and want to make sure they do not have to come back to the Board after they close Wickham Road, so they need some flexibility to acquire whatever is needed at the time. He stated there are many utilities under Wickham Road, and all the utility companies will be supporting them; unfortunately, they only work eight hours a day. He stated the Road and Bridge crew is willing to work 30 consecutive days at 14 hours a day; he is extremely concerned about their safety; and he would rather give up some convenience for a lot of safety. He noted if they run into some problems, they do not want to come back to the Board at night and ask for permission to bid.

Chairman Higgs inquired where and for how long will Wickham Road be closed and if all the lanes would be closed; with Mr. Minneboo responding one proposal deals with the full closure of Wickham Road for a period of 30 days which staff highly recommends; they will try and do everything possible with the maintenance traffic plan and notify everybody who will be involved, including the media; and they may be ready in about five or six weeks to undertake the task. He stated safety is a major factor; the men do not complain much, but they clearly indicated to him it is going to be a tough job and they do not want the continuous problem of dodging traffic; and there are a lot of problems when they go down 20 feet. He advised the pipe project is very important; the tonnage limit today is three tons; and if the Board elects to go a different way, they will enforce that location because the pipes are collapsing now. Mr. Minneboo stated they will provide the media with an adequate routing plan and will try to notify everyone involved in the system; and Option 2 will probably be $150,000 more and 8 to 12 weeks. Chairman Higgs advised under Option 1 it will be four weeks of closure of Wickham Road; and inquired where will the cut be and where will the traffic be routed; with Mr. Minneboo responding the M-1 canal is about 3/4 of a mile north of U.S. 192; they will do routing on the south end of the project which will affect Melbourne Village and West Melbourne; and coming from the north and going south, they can use Sheridan to Rodes Boulevard. He noted going north they will probably utilize Wickham for local traffic only; they will address that and put signs up north of Wickhaven Shopping Center to minimize that Center's concerns as well as the other side; so they are trying to take everything into account to minimize the inconvenience. Chairman Higgs stated if she is coming north on Wickham Road, how will she get around; with Mr. Minneboo responding Wickham Road will only be allowed for local traffic, so at the point of U.S. 192, they will have a detour route established. He stated Traffic Engineering has not looked at all the options at this time, but they probably will route to John Rodes Boulevard, encourage the use of Evans Road and Nasa Boulevard, and there are parallel facilities to Wickham Road that in this kind of construction effort can be utilized. He noted they will encourage timing changes of the traffic signals to accommodate all the extra side street loads. Mr. Minneboo advised it is a big job; they have planned it for three months; it is not something he enjoys doing; but it is something that has to be done.

Commissioner O'Brien advised his concern was waiving bid requirements for all materials and supplies; with Mr. Minneboo responding he hopes the Board has enough faith in staff to realize it is not going to circumvent any rules or regulations.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board can get a full report on any procurement made when the bid is not secured; with Mr. Minneboo responding yes, he has no problem providing that information to the Board. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised staff can obtain quotes for many things, but the bidding process requires advertising in the newspaper and waiting for at least 30 days which would delay the project. Chairman Higgs requested the history of the quotes anytime they make purchases without a bid. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Board wants a list of everything they buy by quote; with Commissioner Cook responding over a certain amount. Mr. Minneboo inquired if he could provide things that they do not have on the list or contractors or vendors available; with Chairman Higgs responding if staff has a bid or a contract that is not what they are asking for, but they are asking, when the bid requirements are not met, they want retrospectively know what was done. Commissioner Cook agreed the Board needs to be informed any time it waives a bid, but he understands why it is necessary in this instance.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the project will be paid for from the balance remaining of Minton Road, Phase 1; with Mr. Minneboo responding yes, and it will use gas tax funds. Chairman Higgs stated that is what is left over from the first phase and does not affect the second phase of Minton Road that is now under construction; with Mr. Minneboo commenting that is a correct statement.

Chairman Higgs inquired when will the detour route for the northbound traffic be finalized; with Mr. Minneboo responding assuming the Board approves Option 1 today, they will go to work immediately on a route and hopefully will have something in place in a few weeks concerning the maintenance of traffic plan. He stated they will share that with the Board and tell it what it will do; staff will order the pipe as soon as possible; and since it sold most of its equipment, there is one piece of equipment they have to rent; so they have a lot of work ahead of them. Chairman Higgs inquired if the traffic maintenance plan will be circulated to the Board prior to the next meeting in July; with Mr. Minneboo responding yes, and to the media. He noted they have a standard procedure for that and will use that procedure.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to authorize Public Works Department to replace the existing double arch plat pipes with double RCP for Wickham Road; close Wickham Road to traffic, subject to providing a traffic management plan to the Board prior to the road closing, approve Budget Change Request designating funding source as Minton Road Widening Project Phase 1 Contingency balance; and waive bid requirements for materials and supplies as needed to accomplish the work, subject to providing the Board information on everything that is purchased without bids. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF APPLICATION TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, RE: DRUG CONTROL AND SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANT

Police Chief Keith Chandler, Melbourne Police Department, representing the Brevard Police Chiefs Association, stated rather than give a presentation, he will answer any questions the Board may have; Pat Bean is here to answer any questions as to what has gone on in the past with the grant; and Bill Anliker is here from the State Attorney's Office to answer their part of the grant.

Commissioner O'Brien advised the expenditure is over $400,000, with $105,000 from the County and $316,000 from the grant; and inquired what were the results of the trial year, how many people went through the program, how many went back to jail with the same offense, and is there a success rate on the program. He stated he is not against drug rehabilitation, but he is against throwing good money after bad.

Chief Chandler advised Ms. Bean made a presentation to the Chiefs and Sheriff; and as far as he and the rest of the Chiefs and Sheriff are concerned, the program has worked. He stated they passed the money to the County because they felt it would be more appropriately placed with some type of drug referral program for first time offenders; and Ms. Bean took the program, and working with Ms. Madden, developed a dynamite program that has proven to be a success. He stated empirically he cannot give dates, but he can say the first time offenders who were ordered into the program and completed the program have an extremely low recidivism rate; and those people ordered into the program who did not succeed are probably back in jail where they belong. He stated when the presentation was made to them, they were satisfied and committed to continuing their assistance to the County by supporting the drug rehabilitation program.

Court Alternatives Director Patricia Bean advised Chief Chandler was talking about the DAP Program which finished last fiscal year; since January 3, 1995, they started a new program which is the Drug Court Program; and whatever statistics they have at this time are very preliminary. She stated of the more than 90 people referred to the Drug Court Program, only three were re-arrested on misdemeanor charges; the program is very successful; and the greatest achievement of the program is that the people who have been referred to the Drug Court Program have remained in treatment for about six months; and they attend and participate in all aspects of the program. Ms. Bean advised they learned a great deal from the previous program which had a five-year duration; they were very successful then; and the people who finished the program after a year had a recidivism rate of 10% which is very good in her opinion and the opinion of many other people.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there were 150 people in the program; with Ms. Bean responding it was designed to assist 150 clients for the current fiscal year and the same for next fiscal year. Commissioner O'Brien stated that comes to $2,500 per client, and the salaries of the drug court supervisor, drug court officer, and assistant I is $88,000. Ms. Bean advised the intensive drug treatment is very expensive; however, for those people who do not have access to a very good health insurance, drug treatment would not be possible if not for this type of program.

Assistant County Manager for Community Services Joan Madden advised of the $105,617 matching funds, $64,500 comes from Board dollars budgeted for Court Alternatives; $28,000 comes from the State Attorney's budget; and $12,500 comes from the County Drug Task Force to support the application of the Police Chiefs. She stated while it is all local dollars, they come from three different sources for the 25% match. Ms. Bean advised the bulk of the matching dollars come from fees generated by the Court Alternatives Department.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired who funds Court Alternatives; with Ms. Bean responding the Board, Coastal Supervision, and client fees. Ms. Madden advised the funds for the program is from the Byrne Federal Grant.

Commissioner Cook inquired what is the additional personnel for; with Ms. Bean responding last year they were not able to fund the supervisory position and needed the money for therapy and a drug court officer; but this year there are additional funds so they can purchase the supervisory position.

Chairman Higgs inquired what are the Police Chiefs asking to be funded and what will it do; with Chief Chandler responding they are in support of what Ms. Madden and Ms. Bean has presented; it has worked; it is expensive on a per client basis, but they are not there by choice; and when considering that one person on drugs probably will commit a couple hundred crimes a year, by recidivating about a 10% level, 90% of the people who enter the program are not going to be out there committing crimes; so if those figures are extrapolated it should be significant. He stated several of them got together several months ago and brain-stormed an idea of using the County's Mutual Aid Ordinance to target street level drug problems and youth gang concerns by task forcing and using the overtime pool that will come from the Byrne Grant funds; they took the $316,000 and found $37,500 to apply to the task force of police officers from agencies in the County that have the type of programs the program would address; and there were five agencies--the Sheriff, Titusville, Cocoa, Palm Bay and Melbourne Police Departments. Chief Chandler advised they decided to bring a model that has proven to be successful in South Florida to Brevard County where they train a cadre of police officers and supervisors to work together to target specific problems in the five communities, and any other communities that identify a problem they can address; they go into the streets and specifically deal with those problems; and they use the $37,500 plus their matching funds to reimburse the officers for the overtime. He stated they are not hiring additional officers; in effect, every community participating will have the potential for gaining ten additional police officers every two weeks under this program to come into their respective communities and address street crimes; and it is going to be very successful. He thanked Ms. Madden and Ms. Bean for the work they have put into the program and thanked Chairman Higgs for the work she did initiating it.

Commissioner O'Brien advised Application III will be implemented and supervised by Melbourne Police Department which allocation of $37,500 requires a local match of $12,500; and inquired if this is to pay overtime for officers; with Chief Chandler responding the way it is designed to work will be the Court Alternatives Supervisor will be the overseer of it for grant audit purposes; the reason Melbourne Police Department is listed in there is because it germinated from him since he had a grant writer who wrote the grant; but in theory each agency that uses the program will be responsible for developing all the audit data and doing their own overtime; they will submit that information to the agency that operates the program; and that agency will put it together and get it to Ms. Bean for audit purposes to submit to the Department of Community Affairs.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Application II is for a Juvenile Crime Data System for the State Attorney at $114,133; and inquired if the County never had a data system for juvenile crime before and does it have one now; with Bill Anliker, Executive Director for the State Attorney responding, they did not previously have a data base for juvenile crimes in Brevard County; most of the statistics were kept in-house and by hand; and recently it was developed when the grant was received last year. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is the biggest thing they expect to get out of the system; with Mr. Anliker responding the grant provides salaries only for their office; there are two paralegals and two IPO officers; there has been a 23% increase in the number of cases received in juvenile crime which went from 3,666 to 4,502; and they are on line for another 20% increase this year. He stated the paralegals review all the case files rather than hiring additional attorneys; they make recommendations to the intake division whether to send those individuals to court or to an alternative program; the IPO officers do the data input so they can keep statistical data on the juveniles; and they keep in constant contact with the Schools because a new state requirement last year requires them to notify the School Board of participants in certain crimes. Commissioner O'Brien stated he tried to find the cost of the software program and how the money is divided up on the application software product; with Mr. Anliker responding there are no dollars in this grant except for salaries; and the software modular was purchased last year through the same grant. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the grant will pay salaries and expenses to operate the system and make it work better; with Mr. Anliker responding that is correct. Commissioner O'Brien stated the questions are important when spending tax dollars whether they are local tax dollars or federal tax dollars; he hopes the outcome of the program is better than expected; and he would hate to spend half a million dollars and see 150 people go through the system and be back in three months.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Application to Florida Department of Community Affairs for Drug Control and System (Edward Byrne) Grant funds of $316,852 requiring local match of $105,617 for total project amount of $422,469. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF APPLICATION TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AMENDMENTS, RE: LICENSE FOR COUNTRY ACRES PARENTAL HOME

Commissioner O'Brien advised over a period of time he has heard people snicker at Country Acres; it is supposed to be a parental home, and there is an outreach program for juveniles; and he did not have sufficient information to understand how the County got involved in it.

Housing and Human Services Director Bernice Jackson advised Country Acres was established by Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners in 1970; since then it has grown to be a family structure of caring for children adjudicated dependent by the Juvenile Court due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment; and staff feels it is a moral obligation to provide services to the children of Brevard County for a healthy community.

Chairman Higgs inquired if after being licensed the State provides reimbursements to the County for Country Acres; with Ms. Jackson responding yes, the license is done on an annual basis; they receive money from the State for foster and shelter care, of approximately $418,000; they receive another allotment from Department of Education of $12,000; and there are other dollars through the Auxiliary that works diligently for those items the children need in the way of activities. She stated they do fund raising projects that bring additional revenue to give the children things the County cannot provide such as movies, roller skating, and taking them to attractions around the County that charge a fee.

Commissioner Cook inquired if all the children are from Brevard County; with Ms. Jackson responding the majority of the children are from Brevard County; and Mr. Bennett provided her with the percentage which is 57%. Commissioner Cook inquired if it is a high number from outside of the County; with Ms. Jackson responding over the last two years they had 33 children from Orange County, 7 from Seminole County, and 3 from Osceola County. Ms. Madden advised the funding that comes from HRS District 7 encompasses the four counties; and in some cases it is critically important that children be placed away from the parental home because of abuse and other incidents; so some of Brevard County children are also placed in Seminole and Orange Counties.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the primary function of Country Acres is to take care of children and single parents or both parents; with Ms. Madden responding no parents; there are 23 children currently in residence at Country Acres; they can take up to 25 children; they are adjudicated by the court as dependent children and are removed from any parent; so the role of staff is to provide the parenting role and as close to a home environment as they can possibly make it. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it is a step between foster care and the system; with Ms. Madden responding it is a group foster care as opposed to individual foster homes; they have several beds set aside for shelter care for children removed at night from the home and need to be placed immediately; they fund six shelter beds; and the rest are for foster children who are there for a relatively long-term placement, some over two years, but on the average it is one year. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the parents are in jail; with Ms. Jackson responding not in all cases. Chairman Higgs advised all the children have been removed from their homes by the courts.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how is it handled in other counties and do they run their own facility; with Ms. Madden responding Osceola has a group home, Orange does, and Seminole does also.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if all the money comes from HRS; with Ms. Jackson responding no. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how much does the County pay; with Ms. Jackson responding $440,000. Commissioner O'Brien stated the balance as of March 30, 1995 is $733,000; with Ms. Jackson responding that is the total for Fund 0220 and Country Acres is part of that fund. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County is paying $440,000 to take care of 23 children per day; and inquired what is the cost per child; with Ms. Jackson responding the County is paid $45.78 per child per day. Ms. Madden advised that is the reimbursement rate from the contract with HRS and the balance is paid for at the local level of approximately 50% of the total budget. Commissioner O'Brien stated that is a lot of money. Commissioner Ellis inquired if Commissioner O'Brien wants to have staff come back with options; with Commissioner O'Brien responding he would like to see some options and whether it can be contracted out; the County has a responsibility to children and he is not trying to evade that; but a price tag of $600,000 a year for 25 children may be steep.

Chairman Higgs inquired if staff could provide the Board with comparative data on other parental and foster care facilities; with Ms. Madden responding yes. Chairman Higgs advised if the Board did nothing else in the County than take care of the children, it should do it; those are children from abusive situations; Country Acres does a fine job taking care of them; and the Board should proceed with the application for a license. She stated she has no problem getting the data to do comparative analysis, but it should proceed with the application. She passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Ellis.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve application to Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for a license to operate Country Acres Parental Home; and authorize the Chairman to execute any necessary amendments; and direct staff to provide data on other homes to look at other options. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CHANGE ORDER TO PURCHASE ORDER 403091 WITH GROLIER CORPORATION, RE: BOOKS FOR LIBRARIES

Commissioner O'Brien stated the change is to purchase library books and media from Grolier, and the form shows unit prices of $24,000 and $33,000. He inquired what is being purchased for $33,000; with Library Services Director Kathryn Stewart responding media includes books and reference materials; this change is for all 14 libraries; and it is to increase the Purchase Order from $24,000 to $33,000 to purchase specific reference books for North Brevard and Cape Canaveral Libraries. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it is a mixture of other things or just books; with Ms. Stewart responding it could be CD Roms as encyclopedias come on CD's.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Change Order to Purchase Order 403091 with Grolier Corporation for purchase of books, increasing the total from $24,000 to $33,000 to purchase specific reference books for North Brevard and Cape Canaveral Libraries. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCES 88-10 AND 94-5, CABLE TELEVISION

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table request for permission to advertise a public hearing to consider amendments to Ordinances 88-10 and 94-5 regarding Cable Television, until the rates issue is heard. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID, RE: CONSTRUCTION OF RENOVATIONS TO CENTRAL REFERENCE LIBRARY

Commissioner O'Brien advised the Board reviewed the libraries as to which ones would be repaired, etc. and this is one he does not remember being on the list.

Library Services Director Kathryn Stewart advised when the Board approved the recommendation of the County Library Board, the recommendation was anything under $150,000 be taken care of out of the regular budget; this is under $150,000 so they are doing it; it has been included in the CIP; and they did not include it for next year because they anticipated that it would be completed this year.

Assistant County Manager for Community Services Joan Madden advised it was budgeted in this current year's operational budget and was not included in the other discussion because that generally had to do with expansion and bonded dollars and these are operational dollars to complete the second floor to serve as a depository for federal documents.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the federal depository is currently located at Florida Tech; with Ms. Stewart responding that is correct. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it will move from Florida Tech to the second floor when the renovation is completed; with Ms. Stewart responding no, it will stay at Florida Tech and support its curriculum; and this will be a separate collection and will support the public needs. Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not know if he likes that; the County has its own libraries and now it is supporting Florida Tech's library as well; with Ms. Madden responding Florida Tech will remain as is; this will be an ancillary one that will be available to the public seven days a week which is not always available at FIT. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it is a duplication of what is at Florida Tech; with Ms. Stewart responding both of them will be selected collections and will not duplicate. Ms. Madden stated one is located in South County and this one will be in the Central area. Commissioner O'Brien stated one library will have half the information and the other will have the other half and they would have to go to two libraries; with Ms. Stewart responding that may be true but not necessarily; the government documents is a large collection of materials; and they would have a selected collection such as laws and pattens and various things they have been asked for that they do not have. She noted it would support the collection at F.I.T.

Commissioner Cook advised the library at F.I.T. is open to the public, but not all the time; with Ms. Stewart responding they must pay $50.00 for a library card. Commissioner Cook stated he used it without paying anything; with Ms. Stewart responding if they want to check out something they must buy a library card. Commissioner Cook stated anyone can go there to do research or copy things; and inquired what is the demand for a second federal depository; with Ms. Stewart responding in 1988 only 38% of the collection was available and used by the public because it was so technical and served the curriculum of the School; this depository will have items the general public would want to know about such as census information, careers, income tax, NASA reports, foreign trade, business reports, Congressional activities, copy rights, aviation, crime, patent, and trade marks. Commissioner Cook inquired if it is the best use for the space; with Ms. Stewart responding yes, they have a depository of local and state documents, and this will fill out the rest of the need of the public.

Chairman Higgs inquired if that is the only thing that will be there; with Ms. Stewart responding it will be all the documents of local, state, and federal governments. Commissioner Cook inquired if it will include meeting rooms; with Ms. Stewart responding no, it is only 5,000 square feet, most will be shelving, all the documents are provided to the library at no cost; so it is only the equipment the County would have to put in there.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to grant permission to bid construction of renovations to Central Reference Library for a federal depository. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT WITH BROWN AND ROOT BUILDING COMPANY, RE: OWNER DIRECT PURCHASES FOR THE JUSTICE CENTER

Commissioner O'Brien advised Brown and Root were on the Agenda the last time looking at the possibility of purchasing materials through the County with tax exempt status; and he wants to make sure there are no problems like those with the Stadium.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Change Order No. 3 to Agreement with Brown and Root Building Company, providing for owner direct purchases, reducing the Construction Management Agreement by $408,359.70 for Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Justice Center. Commissioner Cook inquired if there are additional safeguards to track the materials; with Facilities Construction Director Joseph Vislay responding yes, staff established a procedure in conjunction with the County Attorney's Office, and Brown & Root will report to staff on a monthly basis. He stated the Board will probably see the purchases every six months as they go through the direct purchases. Commissioner Cook stated so there will not be dispute over what was paid for and who bought it; with Mr. Vislay responding that is correct, and they will track it in-house. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what happened the last time; with Ms. Vislay responding the contractor's interpretation of the amendment, but the County was clear on the purchasing procedures.

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

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET TRANSFERS

Commissioner Ellis advised the Code Enforcement Board is spending hours and the County is paying for people to sit through the meetings; the Board needs to find some other way to resolve some of the things the Code Enforcement Board does; and one meeting had to be continued to the next day and another attorney had to fill in. Commissioner Cook inquired what is Commissioner Ellis suggesting; with Commissioner Ellis responding less code. He noted he knows what it is like to sit here all day; and the Code Board meetings go on for five or six hours. He stated when the Board adopts an ordinance there are a lot of costs, and this is an accumulation of those costs. He inquired about something coming back to the Board on Code Enforcement to make fines more uniform.

Assistant County Manager for Environmental Services Stephen Peffer advised there is an effort to have a more streamline approach, but most cases that go to the Code Enforcement Board do not have fines because the Code Board is the one that imposes the fines. He stated one of the reasons the Board meetings may be longer is because many members are new and learning their way through the process.

Commissioner Ellis advised the other issue is the interest payment on a cash performance bond; and inquired where would the responsibility lie on an issue like this. He stated if a person puts up a bond, after a certain period, when the job is accomplished, that person gets the money back; and inquired what is the role to see that the bond money goes back to the person when the job is completed. He stated he would like to think the applicant would notify the County, but he does not know if that happens; the County would then verify the job is done and is satisfactory, and notify the Clerk to rebate the bond; and inquired if that is the way it works.

Public Works Director Henry Minneboo advised yes, basically that is the way it works; however, there are some bonds that have laid around for a long time; and they are trying to clean them up now and develop a monitoring system whereby the Clerk will provide his staff with bond information on a quarterly basis.

Commissioner Cook advised that is the key for Finance to provide a report; he was glad to see the memo from Mr. Burdett that it will happen; and it is amazing that there are over 80 bonds outstanding. He stated some of the people may be deceased, and staff needs to make sure the money goes back to their families.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the trigger mechanism; with Commissioner Cook responding there is no trigger, and Finance issuing a report on the bonds in connection with Public Works projects will help. Mr. Minneboo advised they are trying to track each person who put up a bond and will provide a report on them and what has happened if need be; but some have deceased and in three cases the Internal Revenue Service has them tied up.

Commissioner Cook advised in this case, the individual donated to his campaign; and inquired if he has a conflict voting on it; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding not now, because if he did, everybody would not be voting on a lot of different matters. Commissioner Cook inquired if he has to vote; with Mr. Knox responding yes.

Chairman Higgs advised the interest rate suggested is 9%; the County received 6% on Mr. Nelson's $21,000 bond; that would seem, in light of the circumstances involved, to be a fair interest rate to return to Mr. Nelson; and inquired how staff came up with 9%. Mr. Minneboo advised the County Attorney pointed out the capability exists for 12%; and staff thought the division between 6% and 12% came to 9%. Chairman Higgs inquired why should Mr. Nelson get 12%; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding 12% is a pre-judgment interest rate that someone would be entitled to get on any amount they can legitimately get from the County; in this case Mr. Nelson said he should have been paid $21,000 seven years ago; and it has been incurring interest since then; and if he sued the County to get his interest, he could get 12% on the $21,000. He stated there are legal issues on both sides; one is there is a statute of limitations problem since it has been seven years; but by the same token, once the County paid the $21,000, Mr. Nelson's position and cause of action for the interest did not arise until the County paid him back without interest; so maybe he would prevail on the statute of limitations argument. Mr. Knox advised basically there is a legal issue on both sides; if Mr. Nelson prevails in the lawsuit, he gets 12% interest; and if the County prevails he would not get anything. He noted the County accrued 6% interest, and staff worked out a compromise. Chairman Higgs inquired if there is any information that the County withheld the money after being requested; with Mr. Knox responding the money was not requested and was basically overlooked. Chairman Higgs stated so there was no conspiracy on the part of the County to withhold the money; with Mr. Knox responding that is one of the facts that will be taken into account if the Board litigates the issue, whether or not it was requested and whether or not it constituted a waiver of any action; and that would be in the County's favor. Chairman Higgs stated it is fair to return the $21,000 and compensate him 6% which is what the County gained on the money; and looking at the other bonds and potential interest payments on those, the Board should be careful about setting a precedent. She stated she wants to be fair, but she also wants to be fair to the taxpayers and not compensate what is not a fair return on the money.

Commissioner Cook stated the County is offering 9%, and he could be entitled to 12%; with Chairman Higgs responding he could be entitled to 12% or nothing. Mr. Minneboo stated he felt 9% was suitable. Chairman Higgs stated according to the County Attorney, there could be legal arguments on either side of this issue, so 12% is a potential, but so is zero, so 6% may be the median which was actually the return the County got.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the mechanism for someone to notify the Clerk to return the money; with Mr. Minneboo responding a performance bond is requested when someone does a project; it can be a surety or cash bond; at that time they deliver the money to the Clerk's Office; within the two-year period, generally some mechanism triggers the return of the money and a check is issued if it is a cash bond; however, in this case, there were mitigating circumstances because it went beyond the two-year period since the project was not completed. He stated the County was constructing Grissom Road at the same time, so it may have drawn it to the three to three and a half year time frame; but generally during the two-year period they notify the Clerk and often notify the applicant. He stated what the Finance Department has been doing with the outstanding bonds is if they cannot find the individual they are sending the information to Public Works; but he is not sure what will occur if they cannot find the individuals. Commissioner Ellis inquired if staff knows what happened on this project, when the project was completed and the bond date finished in 1989, did staff just forget to notify the Clerk; with Mr. Minneboo responding it was different from the two-year sequence and threw it out of sync; and the fact that it did not stay within the two-year time frame could have caused it to slip through the cracks.

B. B. Nelson, 3535 North U.S. 1, Cocoa, advised they made a compromise to avoid litigation; there is a lengthy circumstance surrounding this project; Greensboro Road went through about a quarter of an acre of his property leading to several other people's properties before the County conceived Grissom Road; it was bonded in 1986 at $73,460 purchased by him from Barnett Bank; a year and a half later when the County designed Grissom Road and started putting it in there almost parallel to Greensboro Road, it wanted to vacate half of what he had done on Greensboro; so the agreement made in January, 1988 with County Engineer Richard Driskell and Public Works Director J. H. "Billy" Taylor at that time was to do away with the $73,000 bond and put up $21,000 until he finished the cul de sac which he had to put in because the County vacated half of his road. He stated the County not only vacated the road, but also tore it up; it put in Grissom Road and flooded his land; and now the St. Johns District will not give him a permit. He stated to build a mini-warehouse on ten acres they would have to give the St. Johns District ten acres which it claims is wet; the pipes had been put in for Cidco Park; the pipes from Grissom Road flooded it; and St. Johns District and the County have admitted that and are going to correct it. Mr. Nelson advised on the interest rate, the County had his $21,000 for seven and a half years; all he is asking for is an easy out, get it off the books, get it done, and give him 9% interest which is half way between 6% and 12%, for six years; and that is $14,000 plus. He stated hopefully they will not go to court on it; he does not want to or need to; the County taxes him for mosquito control and does not guarantee it will kill all the mosquitos; but if he builds a road through his own land, he has to give the County a bond even though it did not pay for the right-of-way or road materials. He stated there is a contract with each bond that says specifically what is to occur; that is the trigger; when the project is finished the County gives the money back; and it has been very poor management in the past from the County's Administration and in some cases the Clerk's part. He inquired how can $21,000 sit in an account for seven and a half years and not be reported with all the expensive auditors and creditors and cross checks the County has. He stated the whole bonding procedure is a problem; and he hopes this case will trigger better investigation over bonding for the County and the Clerk. He stated 9% for six years is a reasonable settlement; and he hopes they can get on with it and get it resolved.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Nelson every wondered where the $21,000 was; with Mr. Nelson responding yes, at that time he had a bunch of things going on and his books were not kept too good either; but he did not have all the auditors and people working for him that the County has.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Mr. Nelson purchased a surety bond what would the rate have been; with Mr. Nelson responding he did that in 1986 for $73,460, but does not recall the rate. Commissioner O'Brien stated a cash bond is given to the County which holds it until the project is finished, and it should go back to the person within 24 months; with Mr. Nelson responding the County drew interest on his bond for seven and a half years; it was reported at $10,000 for six and a half years; so the Clerk's office did not report the full amount it received from interest. Commissioner O'Brien stated if Mr. Nelson purchased a bond, he would be paying a lower rate than cash out of pocket, and if the project failed, the County could collect on it because it is not tied up anywhere; but the bonding company will make the money instead. Mr. Nelson stated that is done if he does not have cash that day; it is cheaper then but costs more in the end; Greensboro Road is still partly there; and the County can take it away, vacate it, close it up, or tear it up, but the value changed considerably when the County flooded it.

Commissioner Cook advised the County Attorney's memo basically says since there are viable legal arguments on both sides of the issue, it may be prudent to resolve the matter on some sort of compromise basis between 6% actually earned and the 12% which can be conceivably claimed if a suit is successful; so it sounds to him that 9% is a compromise.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about unreasonably delayed and what that means; with Mr. Knox responding it is whatever the court says it means; he did not see the cases as to what years were used; but six years after a person has been entitled to receive it probably constitutes unreasonable delay. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it requires a person to come back and ask for the money and is the person estopped if he does not; with Mr. Knox responding those are all issues that would be raised in litigation. He stated if Mr. Nelson sues the County, he would raise that issue that he did not ask for the bond; there is an estoppel and waiver; and all that would be raised. Commissioner Scarborough advised a lot of court actions require the demand for action, such as eviction, demand on foreclosure of mortgage, etc.; and inquired if a demand is required in this case; with Mr. Knox responding the only case he came across that was similar to this case was a note payment and there was no demand made for the note and they were not entitled to the interest because of it.

Commissioner Ellis stated it is hard for him to pay more than what the County received; and suggested 6% or 6.5% all the way back to the date the County received the bond, which the Clerk has estimated at $10,700; and with the previous year's interest, it would be about $11,400. Chairman Higgs stated if the interest starts from when the money was first deposited, it would set a precedent that in every case when the money is deposited it should begin to accrue interest for everyone; with Commissioner Ellis responding from an ethical point of view, if the County takes a bond for two years it should give the interest earned on that money back to the person along with the bond; and that is how the law has changed on deposits with utility companies. Mr. Knox stated the argument is if the money is being held in trust for a person who is performing his obligation, then he should be entitled to get the interest on it. Commissioner Ellis stated it is not ethical for the County to get the interest because it gives government an incentive to ask for bonds that are not necessary or higher bonds because it is skimming the interest off the bonds; so the interest should be paid to the person who puts up the bond from the date the money is deposited in a bank, and only what is earned and nothing more.

Chairman Higgs inquired what would that mean for the others the County has held bonds on for many years; with Mr. Knox responding it would not mean much of anything except for those who have not been paid back. Commissioner Cook stated he assumes it would only apply to those whose money has been held for seven years. Chairman Higgs stated it should apply to everyone. Commissioner Ellis stated it would not apply retroactively to people who got their bond money back. Chairman Higgs inquired why would it not apply to everyone who deposited a bond with the County; with Commissioner Cook responding the Board can start a policy for paying interest for bonds posted with the County, but it has a starting point. Mr. Knox advised there is only a certain period of time within which to make a claim; and if they do not make a claim, they lose it. Chairman Higgs stated the County could have people lined up on bonds they have held over the years; with Mr. Knox responding maybe the last two years, and Commissioner Ellis stating the Board does not have to make it retroactive. Chairman Higgs stated if it establishes a policy no, but if it did in this case and went back to the original date of the deposit, then it establishes a dangerous precedent. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board would be creating a bank account and would pay interest every time it gets a cash bond. Commissioner Ellis stated the County is drawing interest on it; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he is not saying that is not true, but once it does that, it is saying deposit the bond and the County will return the interest when the bond is returned. Commissioner Ellis stated that is reasonable unless it is a true escrow account. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would go beyond what the law requires, and that is the words "unreasonably delayed;" it would occur only when the person satisfies the terms of the bond and the construction bonded is completed; and if it goes back to the original deposit date, it is going back into the earliest point. Chairman Higgs stated if it goes back to the original deposit, then the Board is putting itself in a position with every other bond that it has held of paying the interest on those; and it may not be able to pay that interest. Commissioner Ellis stated it would be to what it will hold and not to what it has held because very seldom does the Board do anything retroactively. Chairman Higgs stated it would only be proper to pay the interest from the time it should have been returned which was the time of completion of the project. Commissioner Ellis stated the interest was collected; and Chairman Higgs stated it was on every other bond taken at that time. Commissioner Ellis stated this bond was not redeemed; with Chairman Higgs responding if she had a bond between 1988 and 1995, she would wonder whether she should ask for interest on her bond if this instance is provided that kind of interest.

Commissioner Cook stated the unreasonable delay is what kicks in on that part; he is referring to people whose bonds were held for a substantial amount of time which created an unreasonable delay; and, as the County Attorney said, it would seem they would be owed some interest. Chairman Higgs stated it should be from the point of which the delay began which is the point that the project was completed and they were eligible for return of their bond.

Mr. Knox advised what the Board is doing here is not setting a precedent in a sense that it is a settlement of a perspective lawsuit, so whatever it does here is a deal it worked out with the plaintiff and it is not a policy that it is going to pay interest on any bonds for any period of time. He stated the Board is saying in order to avoid the cost of litigation, it wants to get the issue resolved.

Commissioner Cook stated some of the individuals would probably be thrilled just to get the bond back and will not request interest payments; this issue is a settlement to avoid a costly lawsuit; and it is not setting policy to return interest payments. Mr. Minneboo stated most of the bonds are surety bonds and not cash bonds.

Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Ellis.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize payment of 6% interest beginning on the date when the bond posted by B. B. Nelson was eligible to be refunded. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs voted aye, and Commissioners O'Brien, Cook and Ellis voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, to refund the interest at 6% to the date the bond was accepted by the County for a total of $11,320. Motion died for lack of a second.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded for discussion by Commissioner Cook, to authorize 9% interest payment to B. B. Nelson from the date the bond was eligible for refunding and the project was completed. Motion did not carry; Commissioners O'Brien and Cook voted aye; and Commissioners Scarborough, Ellis and Higgs voted nay.

Commissioner Ellis stated he would like to find a way to repay all the money that was earned on the bond because it is not fair for the County to turn a profit off a bond. Chairman Higgs stated she does not want to make money off it, but she does not want to put the County in a dangerous position; she would like to make a decision that she can make for anyone else who has a similar problem and refund their money and interest; and it is not unfair to pay the interest in the future on bonds, so the Board should contemplate that policy.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize payment of 6% interest to B. B. Nelson beginning at the completion of the project.

Mr. Nelson advised the design and construction of Greensboro Road was interrupted by Grissom Road, so he is not sure the County has a completion date; before the date it is talking about, part of the road was applied for vacating because the County wanted to vacate it so it would not interfere with the intersection around Rinker; so it was a hand-in-glove deal to work the process out. He stated he agreed to vacate part of the road because the County was going to put Grissom Road in and change the whole route; they worked together to get it; the County bought the right-of-way for Grissom and paid for Grissom; and he paid for Greensboro; and all he is asking for is something reasonable and to settle this issue. Mr. Nelson stated there are 87 outstanding bonds that have been mishandled; some go back to 1984; and that is terrible management; and they are trying to settle this thing based on the fact they are going to do better from here on. He stated Public Works staff tried to work it out and did not want to fan this to the world that the County made a gross error; now it is holding security bonds in the amount of $13,759,000 and it is gouging people on bonds; all he was asking for was a reasonable settlement; the County made interest on the money and he questions the 6% interest because he can remember getting 21% not too long ago. He stated there was a lot more interest made on the bond if it goes back the full length of time the County held his $21,000 that was put up as a settlement with Mr. Taylor and Mr. Driskell to get the cul de sac finished. Mr. Nelson stated the County would not be able to show the exact date when it was completed because it was changed a lot, not for his interest, but for the County's interest; so he is due at least $14,000 that he asked for and would settle for that and go away.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired when does Mr. Nelson think it was completed; with Mr. Nelson responding he could not give an exact date because he vacated the road and the County tore it up and then he put the cul de sac in; and it does not say what part of Greensboro Road, but that is all he lacked. Commissioner Scarborough inquired when did that occur; with Mr. Nelson responding the cash bond was posted in January, 1988, so it may have been three to six months, but he does not know. Mr. Minneboo stated it was May, 1989 when the intersection at Grissom was completed; that was the date staff did all the calculations on as well; and to the best of his recollection it was May, 1989 that the project ended.

Commissioner Cook stated instead of guessing what the date was, the Board knows exactly when he posted the bond; and indicated it should work from that date and give 6% from the date the bond was posted. Mr. Nelson stated the County made more than that and it held his money and it was not his mistake. He stated it was a gross error on the part of County management. Commissioner Cook stated he knows, but the Board has to get a consensus to do something. Chairman Higgs stated that was the motion Commissioner Ellis made from the date of posting and that did not pass. Commissioner Cook stated he does not know how else to do it, otherwise it is guessing when the project was completed; at least it knows a firm date when the bond was posted; and this is to settle something so the Board does not have to go through legal expenses.

Chairman Higgs advised there is a motion on the floor for 6% to the date of completion. Commissioner Cook stated the Board does not have a firm date of completion. Commissioner Ellis stated the check he looked at said January, 1988. Mr. Minneboo stated 1986; and Mr. Jenkins stated the original bond was posted in 1986 and the second bond in 1988. Commissioner Cook withdrew the motion.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Comissioner Cook, to approve payment of 7-1/4% interest to B. B. Nelson from the completion date of May 29, 1989.

Chairman Higgs stated the check was dated January 7, 1988. Commissioner Ellis stated it probably is the same as 6% from January, 1988; and suggested 6% from January, 1988 because that is what was earned on the bond and when the bond was posted.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, and Cook voted aye; and Commissioners Ellis and Higgs voted nay.

Commissioner O'Brien advised CH2M Hill was authorized by the Board to come to the meeting and give it their ideas of indoor air quality; they charged the County $1,422 to show up and sit around; and because it was not being done as an assessment on conceptual design changes, they charged the County. He inquired if staff knows more about it; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding they indicated two people came here and they were both professionals; and they prepared prior to coming to the meeting at the Board's request.

Commissioner O'Brien advised medical record service bills are pouring in; each one is progressively different; and the numbers range between $150 to $1,278. He recommended the Judges be told it is becoming more apparent there is no control over what they are paying out. He stated the Board is also directed to pay the expenses of an interpreter conversing in Spanish at the rate of $15.00 an hour; a Kelly girl costs $7.00 or $8.00 an hour; and if a judge sets the rate at $15.00, they will find someone at that price.

Commissioner Cook advised that is part of the discussions he had with Judge Lober; the County needs to pursue that; there are a number of areas where the Chief Judge can set the rates; and that needs to be pursued.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct the County Manager to meet with the new Chief Judge or Judge Antoon to determine what fees legally can be set at a flat rate by the Chief Judge similar to what has been done in Juvenile Court. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the bills and budget transfers. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board reviews County expenses and chops away at it, but he finds an entire section of government that apparently has an arbitrary number of $40.00 an hour without thinking of what they are doing. He stated the Board wants to see justice served, but not at any cost or just for the sake of throwing money away. He stated they could find a private investigator to do the job at $25.00 an hour, but they are not doing that.

AGREEMENT TO EXTEND EXISTING CONTRACT WITH FISHKIND & ASSOCIATES, INC., RE: SCRUB CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Chairman Higgs read a note from Deanna Reiter, as follows: "I am a concerned citizen and live in Martesia Subdivision. As a taxpayer I am very concerned with further scrub jay habitat expenditures. Our November election has finally given us, the taxpayers of the country, a Congress who is discontinuing the liberal tax and spend policies of the previous forty years. Congress has passed no unfunded mandates; and if Fish and Wildlife want Brevard County to provide over $300,000 per pair of scrub jays, simply let Fish and Wildlife pay for it out of their budget. Thank you for your time in allowing me to express my opinion on this terrible waste of taxpayer money."

Ed McMahon, 1455 Patriot Drive, Melbourne, advised he just moved to Brevard County and has been interested in County government, so he came to the meeting to see how the Board operated; he could not help but stay this long because he saw something happen that he has seen many times before; and the Board may want to look at changing its procedures. He stated this item was on the Agenda as a consent item; normally it would pass with no discussion; but under the procedures, if someone comes and asks it be taken off for discussion, people on the other side do not have the opportunity to voice their ideas. He stated he has not been involved with the scrub conservation issue, but the Board should concern itself with it and continue its funding to see it through to fulfillment even if it has to allocate tax dollars. Mr. McMahon advised people talk about it as a scrub jay habitat for a few birds; it is more than that; it sets aside protective land for all environmental species that are there; and if the Board does not start doing something like that, developers naturally will maximize the land use because that is their job. He stated the Board has an obligation not only to the developers but also to the citizens, to set aside some land to protect the environment; from the little he has read about the plan, it is a process where the developer or the land owner gets a fair return on his money, does not have to sell it, and it reduces the developer's cost because he can develop the land after the County makes the judgment without having to go through the long process. He stated it sounds like a very good thing for the Board to work on; and urged the Board to keep funding the conservation plan.

Assistant County Administrator for Environmental Services Stephen Peffer advised this is to extend the length of the Contract term; there are no additional dollars involved; all the tasks originally contemplated will remain in the contract; and this will allow greater length of time to complete those tasks as the Habitat Conservation Plan evolves and they get additional economic data.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the Plan will be coming to the Board in the near future; with Mr. Peffer responding yes. Commissioner Cook inquired if the extension will be funded from the original $35,000; with Mr. Peffer responding yes. Commissioner Cook inquired what Mr. Fishkind gets per hour; with Mr. Peffer responding it is a fixed sum contract for $35,000 to complete the three tasks. Commissioner Cook inquired what is Mr. Fishkind paid in total; with Mr. Peffer responding to date he has ben paid $17,500 for completion of Tasks 1 and 2; and the County will retain 10% pursuant to the provisions of the contract. Commissioner Cook inquired if the task has been changed since the contract was approved; with Mr. Peffer responding the tasks are the same, but a minor change in the type of survey is being contemplated, but the results of the survey will lead to the same kind of analysis that was contemplated in the original task.

Chairman Higgs advised at the last Committee meeting, they talked about survey information; at that time she wanted to look at the contract before agreeing with the Committee whether or not it would., fit in the contract; Ms. Townsend can explain it better; but the Committee has done nothing in that regard, and she made it very clear she wanted to make sure they were not exceeding what was in the contract.

Tammy Townsend advised an intrinsic value survey is part of Task 3; that would do an indirect cost benefit analysis of the cost of saving the bird, the scrub, etc.; and the Committee talked about trying to do a market analysis of the funding plan or maybe focus groups of the development community, the people who would be using the funding plan to see if it was a palatable plan.

Commissioner Cook inquired who would be putting on the focus groups; with Ms. Townsend responding Fishkind & Associates. Commissioner Cook inquired if the County will be paying him to do focus groups on the scrub jay; with Ms. Townsend responding under Task 3, Fishkind & Associates are going to do an intrinsic survey to do an indirect cost benefit analysis; the Committee talked about doing focus groups instead; they could do a statistical survey of the funding plan to go out to the development community to see if the funding approach is going to be palatable to the developers of scrub and the scrub land owners.

Chairman Higgs advised the Committee has not done that, but it talked about different ways. Commissioner Cook stated so the task on this particular order has not changed; with Chairman Higgs responding that is correct. She stated the Committee talked about a poll by calling people, how will it know if the plan will work, and a survey of scrub owners; and its basic conclusion was how would they possibly understand the plan without extensive information about it. She stated the Committee then concluded that perhaps the focus group approach would get the information to scrub owners and they would have the opportunity to give their input on whether it would be a palatable plan for scrub owners. Chairman Higgs advised the Committee talked about doing that in place of Task 3; and she said she could not agree to that until she reviewed the contract to see if it is a change to the task. Ms. Townsend advised Task 3 has not been issued to date, and the focus group approach would be a portion of Task 3. Commissioner Cook inquired if focus groups and all that is beyond the scope of presenting the plan; the Board has not seen the plan; he is concerned about scrub owners and the general public and their perception of what it entails; and what it might or might no accomplish; and inquired if this authorizes doing that; with Ms. Townsend responding no.

Commissioner Cook stated so the task has not changed from the original contract that the Board approved, and this item just extends the contract; with Chairman Higgs responding that is correct.

Chairman Higgs advised if the Board wants her to bring the issue up at the July meeting, she would be happy to do that; she intends to look at the contract and determine if the scope of the task allows a focus group to get information; and she will bring it back to the Board and talk about it if it looks like they may proceed.

Commissioner Cook advised the whole issue of the habitat plan may be controversial, and he does not want to get to the point where the plan is being promoted before it gets to the Board. Chairman Higgs stated it gets attacked before it gets completed; and reiterated her statement about not agreeing to change the plan the Board approved nor the economic task.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to execute Agreement to Extend Existing Contract with Fishkind & Associates, Inc. for the Scrub Conservation and Development Plan Economic Analysis until June 7, 1996. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis advised the issue is the way the 100-foot setback on agricultural property is being interpreted; the way it was meant to be was 100-foot setback on agricultural property abutting residential property; the intent was something other than AU; however, it is being applied as AU abutting AU which in many cases eliminates the whole parcel from use. He stated if they had 100-foot setbacks from all four boundaries, they could not use the property.

Commissioner O'Brien advised it says there is a minimum setback of 100 feet from an abutting residentially-zoned property; and that is very clear to him. Commissioner Ellis stated it did not mean AU residential property. Commissioner O'Brien stated the ordinance says, "farm equipment, noise from farm animals, including tropical birds, within an AU zoning classification, provided tropical birds shall be exempt only in AU districts where there is a minimum setback of 100 feet from an abutting residentially-zoned property;" so he does not understand what the complaint is about. Commissioner Ellis stated the abutting residentially-zoned property was meant to be other than AU, such as RU-1-9. Commissioner O'Brien stated the birds are supposed to be on AU property to start out with; with Commissioner Ellis responding, but the setback was only supposed to apply if the AU property does not abut other AU property; and it is being enforced as AU against AU. Commissioner O'Brien recommended the County Manager tell his staff if it is AU against AU they should not go after those people. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated that is acceptable to him, but Commissioner Scarborough took a different position.

Robert Fink, 3665 Burkholm Road, Mims, stated he agrees with what has been said about enforcement of the Ordinance, but he has been cited again, and all the property adjoining his property is AU. He stated he received two notices to quiet his dog and he does not own a dog; this is a clear case of harassment by somebody; and appealed to the Board to try and end it. He stated he put his house up for sale in January because he wants to get out of there; they are tired of being harassed; and they do not know what else to do other than move, but they cannot move until they sell their home. He stated according to the Zoning Department, they are legal; according to his attorney they are legal; according to the Board they are legal; and inquired if someone can stop Code Enforcement.

Kim Landry, 3650 Orlando Avenue, Mims, advised Mr. Fink has been cited and appealed three times; three times judges ruled against him; he went before a circuit court with three judges; and the three judges told him to get rid of the noise. He stated the properties are small; even though they are zoned AU, they are residential; there is land across the street from the Finks; and if that is subdivided, they will be in a subdivision; and they are already in a neighborhood named Indian River Park. He stated it is not harassment, and boils down to consideration; and as long as they have inconsiderate people as neighbors, they must have rules and regulations. He advised the only way Mr. Fink is classified AU is due to a grandfather clause, and some properties are not even an acre; and the Board needs to come up with a specific size property to accommodate those noisy birds. Mr. Landry played a tape recording of the noise the birds made, and stated it is not a half hour at sunrise and half hour at sunset, it is continuous all day long. He stated they are not true farm animals; there is no court in the country that would classify them as farm animals; but Brevard County seems to think they are. He noted he tried to resolve the problem with Mr. Fink in 1993; he decided he did not want to be neighborly and was convinced he had no other alternative but to take it through the system which he has been fighting with for two years; and the Board's rule on March 21, 1995 was not made known to people other than bird owners. He stated he does not have a problem with people having pets, but the birds are uncontrollable; Mr. Fink said they are not as loud as roosters, goats, or cows, but he thinks not; and requested the Board consider a new ordinance providing for a specific amount of property suitable for accommodating the noise from those birds. He stated it is a horrendous noise; he cannot have people to his house for a barbecue and cannot go outside on cool days and mornings; they have to shut all their windows; and that is dictating his life which he does not have much left because he is waiting on a liver transplant; and he does not want to live with the noise for the rest of his life. Mr. Landry advised he has been in Brevard County for 30 years; the Board should consider the pitch of those birds' noise and how far it travels; and the reason Mr. Fink cannot hear them is because he has five of them in his house. He stated Mr. Fink's neighbor went to eat dinner with him and told him if he did not shut the birds up he was going to leave; that man testified for him in the beginning; and the same man refused to sell five acres across from his house when he found out the buyer was going to use it to raise ostriches because of the noise. He requested the Board give more thought into how much property is needed for the birds; and repeated the only reason Mr. Fink's property is AU is because of a grandfather clause.

Linda Johnston, 4605 Seville Avenue, Cocoa, owner of True Companion Aviary, stated she does not want to get involved with Mr. Fink's case, but there are exotic bird breeding businesses that operate in the County; they have come to the Board at the March 21, 1995 meeting and the Board granted an amendment to the Noise Ordinance; Commissioner O'Brien specifically mentioned the 100-foot setback; and they appreciate the fact that considerations do have to be made for people who live in residentially-zoned areas. She stated Commissioner O'Brien summed it up extremely well a few minutes ago, and other than that she does not have anything to say.

Commissioner Scarborough advised perhaps it was the intent of the Board to say if they are surrounded by AU property the 100 feet does not apply; AU can be used for residential development; and he disagrees with Commissioner Ellis because he was told by staff a man could not have an eight-foot fence on his AU property because he was using it for a home. He stated the Board wants to be consistent, and clear; it is changing an ordinance because it has a problem; and the next time it will have a different problem; and he has philosophical differences and there is some real strong inconsistencies in what is residential in AU zoning classification, He stated if the Board wants to do that it should clarify it by an ordinance change; it can take action to abate any enforcement in the interim; and that is the honest way to do it, otherwise code enforcement should be told not to enforce the eight--foot fence restriction.

Commissioner Ellis repeated that the intent was when AU property abuts property that is not AU; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that may have been but he does not remember it; his problem is being told AU is residential and they have to live by residential standards for fences; and now this does not use residential standards. He stated as long as the Board is consistent, he can live with it; but right now he has a problem with it.

Commissioner Cook stated if there is a residence on AU property, it is residential property as opposed to a farm or some other agricultural use; and if someone is living there as a resident, then it is residential. Commissioner Ellis inquired what if the home is on 80 acres; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the setback will take care of that. Commissioner Ellis inquired how many acres will they be required to have; and stated if it does not work on 2.5 acres, it may not work on 5 acres, depending on where the house sits. Commissioner Cook stated it is not unreasonable to have a 100-foot buffer between a residence and that type of activity. Commissioner Ellis stated if the lot is only 200 feet wide, it is totally ineligible even though it may have four or five acres. Commissioner Cook indicated there is always a circumstance that will not fit the ordinance. Commissioner Ellis stated Mr. Fink is well over 100 feet from Mr. Landry's property; even if Mr. Fink met the 100-foot setback, it still would not solve their problem; and he is about 500 feet away. Commissioner Cook stated the Board is addressing whether to apply the 100-foot setback to AU property that happens to be residential.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the definition of AU is residential or not; and if it is, it should be the same throughout the Code so that every time he sees it in the Code he should not have an inconsistent application; and that is where he is right now. Commissioner Ellis inquired what is agricultural that is not residential; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the fence height was tabled; the man lives in an agricultural area and thought he did not have residential; but the Code is saying he is in residential because agricultural is residential, so they will make him tear down his eight-foot fence. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not have a problem with an eight-foot fence; and inquired if all agricultural property in the County is zoned AU; with Code Compliance Director John Sternagel responding that is correct. Chairman Higgs inquired if there are divisions of zoning within that; with Mr. Sternagel responding there are permitted land uses within the AU zoning classification, from agricultural use to almost commercial use which would be productive agricultural use where people sell trees, etc.

Commissioner Ellis stated when the 100-foot setback from residential was done, it meant from residential property and not from agricultural property. Chairman Higgs requested a motion be put on the floor.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, that the rule be interpreted that the 100-foot setback from residential property referred to is something that is not agriclutural, otherwise the whole clause has no meaning.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Commissioner Ellis means not AU zoned property because it is being used as residential. Commissioner Ellis stated there is a big difference in what can be used on agricultural and non-agricultural property.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the motion is that Code Enforcement be directed to interpret the Ordinance as agriculture 100-foot setback means agricultural property abutting agricultural property; with Commissioner Ellis responding no, if the agriculturally zoned property abuts another residentially zoned property which is not agricultural the setback would apply. He stated that was the intent, otherwise the clause makes no sense; and if the Board is saying all AU is residential, it would make no sense to insert that clause.

Chairman Higgs called for a second to the motion. Motion died for lack of a second.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough to direct staff to come back and identify all areas in the Code where agriculture is referred to as residential and report to the Board and suggest ways where it can be consistent; and it come back at the same time the issue with the fence height comes back.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Commissioner Scarborough wants to include abatement of the action by Code Enforcement since there is no real clarification; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he would prefer to take one issue at a time.

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

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to abate any additional Code enforcement on this particular action until the Board clarifies the position. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Ellis, to eliminate the Noise Ordinance. Motion died for lack of a second.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m.

ATTEST:

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK

(S E A L)

NANCY N. HIGGS, CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA