May 15, 2001

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on May 15, 2001, at 9:04 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Sue Carlson, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

APPROVAL, RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR EXEC, INC. V. BREVARD COUNTY

County Attorney Scott Knox requested permission to hold an executive session for Exec, Inc. v. Brevard County on May 22, 2001 at 11:30 a.m.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve holding an executive session on May 22, 2001 at 11:30 a.m. to discuss Exec, Inc. v. Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING RUTH LEWIS

Commissioner Scarborough stated when the Board recognized retiring teachers, one name was inadvertently omitted; and he would like to recognize Ruth Lewis.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution congratulating Ruth Lewis, Media Specialist, for her years of commitment to the students of Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION STRATEGY

Commissioner Higgs stated she received a letter from Ronald Brown, Program Director for Florida Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, commending the County for its efforts over the last 18 months to develop a comprehensive strategy for the prevention of juvenile crime, and advising of possible allocation of funds to support the comprehensive strategy. She stated Mr. Brown hopes $100,000 to $150,000 will be allocated; and this is an indication the County is beginning to get some returns for its planning efforts.

REPORT, RE: AGENDA ORDER

Chairman Carlson stated the discussion today is going to be about the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and transportation issues; there are people present who have concerns over the transportation projects; so the Board will consider the transportation issues first and then come back to discuss the CIP.

APPOINTMENT, RE: REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE

Commissioner O'Brien stated Mark Hobbs is unable to spend the amount of time required for the Redistricting Committee, so he will appoint Mark Cook to replace him.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to appoint Mark Cook, replacing Mark Hobbs, to the Redistricting Committee with term of appointment to expire December 31, 2001.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Cook is Commissioner O'Brien's out of district appointee; with Commissioner O'Brien responding yes.

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

REPORT, RE: SCHOOL BOARD

Commissioner Colon stated the Value Adjustment Board meeting was held right after the School Board voted to support the Board with the Sheriff's request for school resource officers; and the two School Board members who attended the VAB meeting wanted to express appreciation to the Board for its support.

Chairman Carlson stated she is glad the School Board is interested in working in partnership with the Board, as it is a win/win situation.

PRESENTATION, RE: TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the Board expressed desire to discuss funding and financing before having the project presentation.

Public Works Finance Manager Greg Pelham stated he is referencing Mr. Jenkins' memo that the Board received on Friday; the Board needs to identify funding for the transportation program and Road and Bridge; and currently Road and Bridge is subsidized by Local Option Gas Tax (LOGT), with next year's projected subsidy to be $5.5 million. He stated staff has identified some areas that could be reduced to help hold the line on expenditures and free up LOGT funds that could be used to bond to fund the transportation program. He stated one suggestion is to continue the excess billable revenue that Road and Bridge accumulates at the $500,000 level; staff had proposed to bring it down to $250,000 for the next fiscal year; but they are comfortable that they can make the total $500,000 for next year.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if that means Road and Bridge will make it this year; with Mr. Pelham responding it looks like they will make it.

Mr. Pelham stated staff is looking at reducing the maintenance overtime hours to emergency call-out hours only; that would reduce the projected overtime cost for next year by $129,000; the next one would be to continue to operate at the same level of funding as in the current year; and that would be a $212,000 decrease in next year's proposed budget. He stated the lastsuggestion is to reduce the planned equipment replacement purchases down to the current year's level, which is another $76,000 savings; and the total potential savings would be$667,000 of LOGT funds. He stated it would bring the actual LOGT subsidy down to $4.3 million, which would put Road and Bridge budget for next year at zero increase, except for salary increases. He noted it would be necessary to identify the salary increases. He stated by taking those steps, it would free enough LOGT funds to be able to get approximately $2 million in bond proceeds to put toward the transportation program.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is $2 million; with Mr. Pelham responding yes. Commissioner Higgs stated she does not think that is what Mr. Pelham means to say. Mr. Pelham clarified it will free approximately $250,000 annually that can be used to bond and get approximately $2 million to put toward the road program. Commissioner Higgs stated $2 million does not get the County very far. Mr. Pelham stated that is why staff identified other options as shown on Attachment B.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the overriding principles are that they are going to hold their expenditures at the current year's rate and not project any growth in the expenditures; and the work level will be predicated on what is in the budget rather than the demand. He stated if the cost of asphalt goes up, that will mean there will be fewer miles of road resurfaced; but they will live within their budget. He stated they do not have to go from $4.3 to $5.3 million as projected earlier; they can hold the line on expenses; however, there is a need to fund the projected salary increases, which would be an additional cost; and the Board can either find additional money to fund the increases or reduce expenses by that amount. Commissioner Higgs inquired if this will reduce the level of service that Road and Bridge will provide to citizens; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes. Mr. Jenkins stated if the cost of materials increases, Road and Bridge has a fixed amount of money, and will not be able to fulfill the same number of road projects. He stated they will do what they can to maximize productivity; but if there is a fixed amount, that will negate the impact of their use of the Local Option Gas tax. Commissioner Higgs stated the excess in buildable projects was projected at $500,000 initially; staff was talking about doing approximately $250,000; and inquired if staff believes, based on past history, it can really hit $500,000; with Public Works Director Henry Minneboo responding yes, they are on schedule, and have been able to pick up some projects during the summer. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is realistic to believe it can be done next year; with Mr. Jenkins advising staff thinks it can do it, and he has to rely on staff's opinion. Mr. Jenkins noted they have been successful in hitting it in the past; the excess revenue from construction projects was subsidizing Road and Bridge Maintenance as much as $700,000 in past years; Public Works attempted to reduce that dependence on excess revenues, which is why there is a decline in the projections; but since asphalt has gone up 40% and fuel costs have gone up 30 to 40%, something has to give, and in order to not consume all of the Local Option Gas Tax, staff is suggesting tightening belts and trying to generate as much revenue as possible. He stated he thinks they can hit $500,000 even though it is a challenge. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the long-term impact of not replacing equipment; with Mr. Jenkins responding they are going to keep the replacement funding at the same level it currently is, although they had originally proposed an increase. Commissioner Higgs inquired what will not be bought and what is the impact; with Mr. Pelham responding in the current year they are expending $350,000 to replace equipment; next year they proposed going to $425,000, which included a machine at $85,000 to patch potholes in a more efficient manner than the current method; and eliminating that one piece of machinery will bring the equipment replacements back down to the current year's level. Mr. Jenkins noted that results in a status quo budget for replacement equipment. Commissioner Higgs inquired what happens if the County cannot fix potholes; with Mr. Pelham advising of the current method for repair of potholes using cold asphalt and a shovel. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the efficiency of the new machine is such that it would be a cost savings in the long term; with Public Works Director Henry Minneboo responding the new equipment would have been more desirable; the County has to go more toward a patching approach; and staff is trying to get better patching equipment that makes the patches last longer. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the effect of not making the purchase; with Mr. Jenkins responding it will take more people to do it manually than using the machinery. Commissioner Higgs requested an analysis on the effect of not making the purchase now. She stated that potentially Road and Bridge will only need $4.4 million instead of $5.5 million out of LOGT, which would free up a million annually for the road program; and inquired that converts to a bondable amount of how much; with Mr. Jenkins responding Road and Bridge needs $4.3 million plus $363,000 for estimated employee salary increases; they will work to absorb that; but the preferable course would be to identify additional money for the salary increases. Commissioner Higgs inquired how much is that in terms of an annual debt service payment and how much is that bondable; with Mr. Pelham responding it will be approximately $250,000 in annual debt service payment, which will bring $2 million in bond funds if the LOGT accepts the bills for the salary increases. Mr. Jenkins inquired what it would be if the salaries are absorbed; with Mr. Pelham responding it would free up a million annually for debt service, which will get $10 to $12 million. Commissioner Higgs inquired if $1 million is not transferred out of LOGT to Road and Bridge, is there only going to be $200,000; with Mr. Pelham responding if the million is not transferred to Road and Bridge, that will free up a million for debt service, which will result in $10 to $12 million in bond proceeds. Mr. Jenkins noted if the million dollars is not transferred, then they will have to reduce their expenditures by $363,000.

Chairman Carlson stated the bottom line is an inability to pay for growth at this juncture. Mr. Jenkins stated over the past ten or fifteen years, the number of roads and ditches maintained by Road and Bridge has increased; there is a direct correlation between that increase and the budget; in addition the budget problems have been compounded by drastic increases in fuel, asphalt, and other material costs; and as a result it is becoming more costly to maintain the existing roads and deal with the growth that is occurring. He stated more of the LOGT is being consumed in order to operate the maintenance responsibility; so while in the past they have tried to use LOGT for new construction, they are now being confronted with what most of the municipalities have been doing for a number of years, which is to use the LOGT to operate their streets departments. Chairman Carlson stated by doing that, the amount of money that is bondable is being reduced; with Mr. Jenkins agreeing there is very little money left for growth. Chairman Carlson inquired if Mr. Jenkins sees the cost of doing business going down in the future; with Mr. Minneboo responding he is hearing fuel prices may be at $2.09 by the first of July, so he does not see any light over the horizon. Chairman Carlson stated the cost of doing business and growth is going to increase; the Board is not doing anything but putting a Band-Aid together; and it is going to be addressing this again next year unless it makes some hard decisions today. She stated there is a list of six alternatives, including minimizing as much as possible; and requested staff go over each item and advise of the potential dollars available.

Mr. Pelham stated the first alternative listed calls for an increase in the surface water assessment; there are $7.5 million worth of drainage projects that are currently being funded, with a portion being funded from the Constitutional Bond proceeds; and if surface water assessments in Districts 4 and 5, where the drainage projects are located, are increased 10%, that would result in approximately $100,000 additional revenue a year that could be put toward the drainage projects that are being funded out of the bond proceeds. He stated the estimated construction schedule of the drainage projects is five years; over a five-year period, approximately $500,000 could be put toward them; and that would reduce the amount of money the Board is looking for to fund the remaining transportation program. Commissioner Higgs stated if $500,000 is generated over five years on the $7.5 million of drainage projects, there would still be a shortfall. Mr. Pelham advised the 10% increase in the surface water bills would be $3.60 increase on a residential customer. He stated the next alternative is increasing the MSTU millage rates for each of the five Districts; if they were increased to a level sufficient to generate $200,000 in each District, that money could be used for Road and Bridge, and free up a million dollars a year of LOGT; and the million dollars could produce $10 to $12 million in bond proceeds to fund the transportation program. Commissioner Higgs inquired what it would be for individual tax bills. Commissioner Scarborough noted it would vary from District to District; with Mr. Pelham advising he can give the projected millage rate and percentage increase over rollback. Commissioner Scarborough stated some areas are more incorporated than others and therefore, produce much less MSTU revenue, so the increase would have to be greater. Mr. Pelham stated it would be a varying rate increase in each District depending on the size and amount generated; and in District 1 it would be an 18.5% increase, District 2 would be a 23.3% increase, District 3 would be a 33.7% increase, District 4 would be a 24.2% increase, and District 5 would be a 36.4% increase. Mr. Pelham stated it would have an overall effect on the aggregate millage rate of 9% increase.

Chairman Carlson stated that would generate $200,000 per year for each District, which would be equivalent to $12.4 million in bond proceeds.

Mr. Pelham stated the next alternative is to restore the General Fund transfer to Road and Bridge; two years ago Road and Bridge received a subsidy of $1.3 million from the General Fund, but over the last two years, it has been removed from General Fund support; if a General Fund transfer of $1 million to $2 million was restored, it would free up $1 million to $2 million of LOGT, which could result in $12.4 million to $24.8 million in bond proceeds; and that would be an aggregate millage rate increase of .9 to 1.77%.

Chairman Carlson inquired where would Mr. Jenkins get the funds for the General Fund; with Mr. Jenkins responding by raising taxes. Chairman Carlson inquired if Road and Bridge hasprojected how much per year it would need for the next five years.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the average number of miles of road the County accepts per year from newly built subdivisions; with Mr. Minneboo responding almost ten miles per year. Commissioner Higgs inquired about the total number of miles maintained; with Mr. Minneboo responding approximately 1,300 miles of paved road. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the County could not accept those; with Mr. Minneboo responding no, as most are subdivision streets. Mr. Jenkins noted they are paying the MSTU; and it would be discriminatory to accept some roads but not others. Chairman Carlson stated the County has already taken the roads and maintained them for years; and inquired how the County can say it does not want to maintain them any more. Commissioner Higgs stated she is talking about new roads; the Board is talking about growth paying for itself; and the Board needs to identify that each year it is adding to the volume of roads being maintained. She stated that may not be the decision the Board wants to make, but if the County is going to pay for growth, then it needs to identify where it is coming from and accept that it does not want to make the decision not to accept it. Chairman Carlson stated she agrees the Board needs to use caution in what it accepts and does not accept in the future. Commissioner Higgs stated she is not suggesting going retroactively; she is just saying the Board should realize it is contributing to the problem with its decisions.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should be exploring how many building permits were pulled last year, how many structures were built, how many are new on the tax rolls, and therefore how much new taxes have been generated not only in the General Fund but in the MSTU. He stated the General Fund has increased substantially across the last five or six years because of the increase in value of properties; there has been approximately $16 million in growth in the General Fund in the last six years; but it is necessary to look at the 3% inflation rate per year, the employee raises, and other things the Board has ventured into. He stated Mr. Minneboo has not advised what the MSTU collections were four years ago compared to the collections now and the increase in the General Fund; because the millage is based on a percentage, if there have been increases in property values, then the amount of money being collected by the MSTU should have also increased in proportion; so funds to Road and Bridge and other parts of the government have also been increased. He stated in the year a little that is left over is rolled over into the next year's reserves; but no numbers have been given and the Board has not looked at the bigger picture rather than focusing on Road and Bridge. He stated there are other areas within the government that the Board should look at; and funding in some areas may be cut to increase funding in other areas. He stated if the Board continues to fund Road and Bridge from the LOGT and MSTU, it is just taking money and throwing it in for repairs and maintenance rather than doing the right thing, which is doing some of the projects before the Board today. He stated Road and Bridge was funded through the General Fund in the past; a lot of the County roads go through municipalities, so he can see General Fund usage for Road and Bridge and maintenance of roads within the cities. He stated Mr. Jenkins said the only solution was to raise taxes; that is the solution; and the solution might be to find other places where the Board should be cutting.

Chairman Carlson requested the bottom line five-year projection if growth and the cost of doing business are considered. Mr. Pelham stated the budget for next year with the proposed reductions will be $10.9 million; and at the end of five years they have projected it to grow to $12.3 million. Chairman Carlson inquired about the annual percentage; with Mr. Pelham responding 3 to 5% including salary increases, operating expenditure increases, and any increases for capital equipment replacement. Chairman Carlson inquired if that includes growth in the road system; with Mr. Pelham responding they have increased expenditures by approximately 3% per year, but in projecting it, they used 5% to try and incorporate a growth factor. Mr. Jenkins noted there are two growth factors, the cost of living growth factor for existing service, and then additional growth; 5% would be a more realistic number; and this year there have been drastic increases in material and supply costs. Chairman Carlson stated that is why she asked whether staff sees the cost of petroleum flattening out or continuing to increase. Mr. Minneboo stated the light at the end of the tunnel is a train; he is getting no positive indicators; concrete and asphalt costs have escalated; nothing in the business has gone down; it is a much more abrupt change than originally expected; and it is almost out of control.

Chairman Carlson recommended the Board move to a discussion of impact fees, which is the next item under funding alternatives.

Mr. Pelham stated Planning and Zoning did a projection of what the impact fees would generate on a yearly basis for the next five years, including commercial impact fees, which have just been reimposed; the projection shows that it is going to collect approximately $2.9 million a year; and over a five-year period, if 70% of the impact fees are allocated to the transportation program, that would accumulate approximately $10 million that could be used to fund projects.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if impact fees are collected on new single-family homes; with Mr. Pelham responding affirmatively. Transportation Planning Director Bob Kamm advised it is approximately $875 per residential dwelling unit. Chairman Carlson stated it is necessary to look at it over a number of years because it is not a bondable resource. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how many building permits were pulled last year; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding approximately 2,000, but that includes sheds, pools, etc. for which impact fees are not collected. Commissioner O'Brien requested an estimate of the number of new houses or condominiums; with Ms. Busacca responding she can get that information.

Chairman Carlson inquired about the drainage projects diversion; with Mr. Pelham responding that alternative is finding an alternate funding source, other than gas tax and bond proceeds from the gas taxes, to fund the $7.5 million of drainage projects. Commissioner Higgs inquired how much of the project is in incorporated areas; with Drainage and Surface Water Director Ron Jones responding all of the identified funds are in the unincorporated area, and does not include the components that would be matched by respective cities. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the entire $7.5 million in need is in the unincorporated area, but affects all areas; with Mr. Jones responding that is correct. Mr. Jenkins stated that is the Constitutional Gas Tax share; and $5 million in Surface Water Improvement fees is being contributed. Chairman Carlson inquired if there has been any discussion on where the funds would come from; with Mr. Jenkins responding they have talked about growth in the General Fund. Mr. Jenkins explained how the rollback rate is calculated; stated the Budget Office has done charts showing where the increase in inflation has exceeded the County's increase in millage rates; so the County is behind the inflationary rate increase with a very status quo revenue stream. He stated that is coupled with tremendous expansion across the board in libraries, Mosquito Control, the Sheriff's Department, and Fire Department; and those are the ones consuming the ad valorem millages with dramatic increases. He stated it would be nice to say they could make $5 million in cuts; but realistically speaking, it would be difficult to do. He stated it can be done, but the Board will need to decide which programs it is going to reduce, because it is barely keeping up with inflation, and yet facilities and services have expanded.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he was aware of the inflation formula; employees deserve the raises they received; the Board wants to deliver all the services; however, there may be other ways of delivering those services. He stated the Juvenile Assessment Center is an example of something that may not be required; it is a place to warehouse certain young people who have been arrested, but the assessment is not necessary; and that is $1 million a year. He noted he does not know if the County has gotten the funds this year or not; with Mr. Jenkins advising the County was fortunate to receive the funds. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the County did not receive the funds, it would have some hard choices of what to cut. Mr. Jenkins noted even though the County got money from Tallahassee, there is also some local contribution to the JAC. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is not pointing out the JAC as being the only one; but it is a starting point; and there are many other points of government to look at as well. He stated the citizens want to have roads and parks; but he wants to make sure if three people are working on a pothole that all three have a shovel. Mr. Jenkins stated he could not agree more; and if the Board is prepared to make those kinds of decisions, it can make those prioritizations; but if it views the JAC as being an important service in preventing further juvenile delinquency, then the Board may conclude that it is worth the investment. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is not targeting the JAC, but is using it as an example, and there are other examples he could find.

Chairman Carlson stated each year Commissioner O'Brien brings up the same idea of cutting taxes and stripping things to the bone; she agrees where the Board can cut back, it should; but she would appreciate it if Commissioner O'Brien could present his plan to the Board at the budget hearings outlining where he wants to cut, how he wants to cut, and the justification, so the Board can look at it. She stated this year the Board is not going to beat around the bush; and it needs to make some hard decisions. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is talking about making those kinds of decisions; what the Board decides today will affect everything else it does; and it is the same conversation.

Commissioner Colon stated the community is not just made up of roads and bridges; it is also made up of human services; and the Board is robbing Peter to pay Paul. She stated she is not in favor of cutting taxes; the community is not asking to cut taxes, but not to increase taxes; and if the Board keeps cutting, it is going to hurt somebody. She invited people to come to Juvenile Assessment Center to see what is being done; stated juveniles are being targeted because they are the ones getting in the most trouble; and the Board would not be doing any justice if it starts attacking departments and deciding which one is more important than the other. She stated she has been having town meetings for six years; people have not requested their taxes be cut; and if taxes are cut, it will hurt someone in the long run.

Commissioner Higgs inquired when the surface water fee was established; with Mr. Jones responding in 1990 at $36 per equivalent residential unit. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it has ever been increased; with Mr. Jones responding no. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is an estimate of the amount of federal and State revenue, as a percentage of the County's revenue, that it got six or eight years ago, and what it is today, so the Board can have a sense of what the impact of other entities has been to the County's situation. Mr. Jenkins stated that is an important number; and another factor would be how many services the State no longer provides, although he is not sure how to quantify that. Commissioner Higgs stated it has been the philosophy of the State and federal governments that local governments take over a number of services, but they no longer feel compelled to provide funding; some of that has been discretionary, but other funds have been quantifiable; and requested an estimate on the percentage. Mr. Jenkins stated one example is State Medicaid; the County is spending $3.5 million a year to fund a State responsibility; the County is spending millions each year to fund the State court system; and those things are impacting the County every year. He stated when judges cannot get money from the State for psychologists to assess and evaluate juveniles, they come to the Board for funding; and the Board is constantly besieged with those kinds of costs. Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Minneboo talks about the light at the end of the tunnel being a train coming this way; there has been a change in the last six to eight years from the State and federal governments that local government should assume responsibility; and it would be helpful for people to understand the impact. She stated if the federal or State government does not want to fund something, it says it is a local responsibility; then it becomes a challenge the County has to deal with.

Commissioner Colon stated when she spoke to the State Representatives, their platform was to cut taxes, which is good for getting reelected; but the reality is that the citizen is going to pay the taxes whether they are paid at the State, County, or municipal level. She stated unfunded mandates are not fair to local government; it makes Tallahassee look good when it says it is going to cut taxes; but it hurts locally because the local government has to pick up the tab for millions of dollars; and the citizens need to see the burden that is put on the County.

Chairman Carlson suggested discussing the 9th cent gas tax.

Mr. Pelham stated the last alternative listed is the implementation of the 9th cent gas tax; it is currently placed on diesel fuel, but not gasoline; and implementing it on gasoline would generate approximately $2 million a year, which would free up LOGT money that could be bonded to get approximately $25 million.

Chairman Carlson stated the Board had long discussions on the gas tax; and inquired if there is any support for increasing it. She stated she supports the gas tax because of the need to keep up with growth and the cost of living.

Commissioner Colon stated even at the municipal level she has continuously not supported gas tax, and does not plan to support it at the County level. She stated she does not believe in the Board cutting back, but does not believe in increasing taxes; people are already struggling; the County keeps building but does not have the money for maintenance; and the Board needs to be careful of the projects it puts out there, so it does not put that burden on the community. She stated the reality is the more the County builds, the more it has to maintain, and she would not support it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when this issue came to the Board, there did not appear to be four votes, so the Board opted to place it as a referendum; but some individuals suggested it would be a mistake to have it appear on the ballot at the same time gas prices were rising; gas prices have risen even further since then; and unless there are four votes in favor of this, there are better options to be considered such as sales tax, which other counties have used successfully. He stated it would be a mistake to put this on the ballot, although the Board has had some success with other referendums; the Local Option Gas Tax is a matter that is not well advised; and sales tax should be considered as an option.

Commissioner Higgs stated when the Board discussed this a year ago, her concern was that it is not possible to build enough roads; the Board should focus on controlling the amount of demand that will be on the highways; and unless the Board can make a commitment to work on the supply side of the equation, it should not move forward. She stated at some point the Board is going to have to come up with more money to fund the construction of highways; but this year with the price of gasoline and the way things are going, is not the time to do it; and the Board should concentrate on smart growth and controlling demand.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what should the Board do in that regard that it has not done. He stated he agrees with Commissioner Higgs that the Board should not be doing things that impact the County; but he has yet to figure precisely what the Board can do to make that happen. He stated the Board could downsize the density per acre; it has talked about urban boundaries; and the whole idea is the Board is doing things that could cost the taxpayer a tremendous number of dollars. He stated Commissioner O'Brien brought up the schools; even if the School Board spends funds, it involves tax money; if the School Board has to raise taxes to build a school because the County allowed development, it is all related; and he would like to pursue those measures. He suggested staff provide a report, not tied to taxes, but whether the County is within its Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has moved in positive directions talking about the issues of schools, roads, quality development, and smart growth; and it just needs to move further and faster. She stated the County needs to pursue the interlocal agreements with municipalities and move aggressively in those ways to smartly develop the community; at that point, the Board can look at some other means of providing infrastructure; the Comprehensive Plan is one thing; however, the Board can get some addition to that.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is an existing memo on the subject or should staff put together something. Mr. Jenkins stated there was a workshop on best practices in growth management; the Board gave staff a number of tasks that Commissioner Higgs is referring to; a number of those issues had 60 to 90 day timeframes; and they should be coming back to the Board in the summer months.

Commissioner Higgs stated last year the Board moved forward with $40 million in road expansion projects; and she supported those. She stated she hopes the Board will be able to find some additional ways to do other capacity projects; she voted to extend the LOGT to take care of some things; and she is not willing to support the additional 9th cent or any additional cents until the County makes some progress in those areas. She stated the Board needs to buckle down and figure out how to do it.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Mr. Jenkins is going to bringing that information back in a workshop setting so the Board can be more aggressive about it; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he cannot support an increase in the gas tax; commented on increasing gas prices; advised he is worried about people who live in the County but work in Orlando or cut grass for a living or drive trucks; they have to use gasoline; and they are facing the same cost problem of increased fuel costs. He stated there are working people who cannot afford this kind of increase; they are fighting right now to make ends meet at $2 a gallon; and he cannot support an increase.

Commissioner Colon stated in terms of the interlocal agreements, the municipalities need to be more involved so they can see the crunches the Board is going through; the municipalities are under the impression the County has money; and most of District 5 is incorporated. She stated the reality is that citizens do not care if a road is the County's or the municipality's; they just want to be able to drive on safe roads; a lot of City managers are present today; and inquired if the County is going to be watching growth, what will the municipalities be doing to help. She stated there needs to be a dialogue between the County and the municipalities about the demands; demands are coming from the municipalities; she is aware that they are paying taxes; but inquired what are the municipalities doing to take responsibility. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has made tremendous progress in recent months with the interlocal agreements; and she is particularly pleased with the developing cooperation and forward thinking between the County and Palm Bay. She stated the Board is moving in the right direction.

Commissioner Scarborough stated looking at the gas tax or sales tax, almost half the money goes to the municipalities; this is headed to a local referendum; and there needs to be greater partnership since the municipalities' share of the sales tax is approximately $22 million a year while the County's is approximately $25 million. Chairman Carlson noted the $22 million is split between the 15 municipalities. Commissioner Scarborough stated some of the larger municipalities take a nice chunk of the funds; bonded out that can do a tremendous amount in a municipality; and if they really have needs, the municipalities should partner with the County in the discussions to delineate to the people where the funds will go. He stated the people of the County are willing to tax themselves if they have defined projects that are going to result from the tax; there is a need to be very precise; and the cities need to define their projects and come in with the County. He stated there is the potential to create a great community in Brevard County if that occurs, but there are no easy answers; and it will take a lot of work.

Commissioner Colon stated the Board will be criticized today for not putting on the ninth-cent tax; but the Board needs to challenge the municipalities to do that to the citizens they represent; and it is viewed as easier for the County to do it versus the municipalities taking the lead.

Chairman Carlson stated she does not think the municipalities will be too disappointed because they have made it clear if the Board passes the ninth cent, it will have to pass the tenth and eleventh cent for them. She stated the Board needs to reach a consensus on which issues under the funding alternatives it wishes to completely ignore; she heard consensus about not worrying about the gas tax; there was discussion about the sales tax; and inquired if a workshop is scheduled for the sales tax discussion with all the possible issues to be covered. Mr. Jenkins stated the second half of today's workshop is on the Capital Improvements Program where there will be a list of unfunded needs. Chairman Carlson stated some of the big issues could be itemized and brought back to a discussion on sales tax; and inquired what is the consensus on the surface water issue. Commissioner Scarborough noted that is just Districts 4 and 5. Chairman Carlson stated that is part of it, but the other part is the increase in all of the MSTU's. Commissioner Scarborough advised that is not part of it; with Chairman Carlson agreeing that is Road and Bridge. Chairman Carlson stated in 1990 the surface water assessment amount was set at $36; the increase in Districts 4 and 5 would be $3.60; but the discussion was for the entire County.

Commissioner Higgs stated none of the fees for the surface water program have been increased; but there has been concern about the quality of the receiving water bodies; and before making a decision, the Board needs to understand what could be accomplished with the additional funds in addition to the drainage projects in Districts 4 and 5. She stated if the County only generates those dollars it is talking about, it is a long way from being able to fund the projects; but if it looked at additional surface water assessments, she would want to know what it is in other districts. Chairman Carlson stated that is a direction. Commissioner Higgs stated what the Board is doing this morning is looking at road projects and seeing how it might directly effect additional projects; she sees the potential revenue sources; and it would be useful to look at the road projects to know what is essential now and get an idea of the size of the problem in terms of immediate projects. She stated before agreeing to increase the surface water assessment, she would want to know what the County will be getting. Chairman Carlson stated she is not talking about increase, but getting some information together so the Board can give staff direction. Commissioner Higgs stated she wants to see each of the concepts expanded for cause and effect, what the County would get, and how much it would need to generate for the projects deemed to be essential now.

Chairman Carlson stated there is no point in talking about the nine-cent gas tax if nobody is interested; and there are five issues to expand on to see the cause and effect. Commissioner Higgs stated additional discussion is needed on those issues. Chairman Carlson stated the Board needs to be more specific so it can sculpt the discussion to have outcomes it can make decisions on.

Commissioner O'Brien suggested restoring the General Fund transfer to Road and Bridge because a $1 million transfer annually would generate between $12 to $24 million for construction; and that can be done without having to raise taxes by .9 mill. Commissioner Higgs stated that is optimistic, as the Sheriff wants 16 more deputies. Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board did not go to rollback this year, what would be generated; with Mr. Jenkins advising it is too early to determine that, but he can provide that figure when he gets the tax rolls in June. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to know that as well as the revenue from the State in terms of sales tax; it needs to know the impact of the additional days of the sales tax holiday on the revenue stream; and that all plays into where the Board is going to be at the end of the year. She stated if the federal government institutes the federal decrease in gas tax, that will have an impact; inquired if that would impact direct revenue or would there just not be any improvements to I-95 for additional years; and advised those are the kinds of things that are outside the County's influence, but will have an effect.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he would also like to see something that educates the public as well as the Board about drainage; the citizens pay a tax to St. Johns River Water Management District as well as to the County; the County's taxes are used to clean up the waters coming off roads, etc. before they enter the rivers; and inquired what is the mission of the St. Johns River Water Management District, is it the same as the County's, and should the District be coming to the table with more money. He inquired what kind of return is the County getting; and commented on lack of return from Florida Inland Navigation District. He stated it is the job of the St. Johns River Water Management District to look at wetlands; that is also done by Department of Environmental Protection; and inquired about duplication. He inquired if the County is doing the St. Johns River Water Management District's job and is it being reimbursed for its expenses; and stated the County's rules are stricter than the St. Johns River Water Management District. He inquired at what point do Brevard residents pay St. Johns River Water Management District, and how much money does that generate versus how much is spent in the County.

Chairman Carlson requested a written report on what the increases would be across-the-board of the Road and Bridge MSTU millages based on the projects the Board identifies today and what is already on the books, and how much it would cost each MSTU. She stated $2.9 million per year is generated in impact fees; and inquired if the Board is going to be looking at that as a source; with Mr. Minneboo responding yes. Mr. Jenkins noted that includes both commercial and residential and the only variable is the impact fee credits. Mr. Kamm noted impact fees are collected by district, and have to be allocated according to projects within certain districts. Chairman Carlson inquired if the same analysis can be done with the road projects on impact fees as with the MSTU's; with Mr. Kamm responding yes.

Commissioner Higgs stated she and Chairman Carlson supported an increase on the residential impact fees equal to the Consumer Price Index increase over the last ten to twelve years; and inquired if that would be included as the Board looks at the whole funding scenario.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired how many building permits were pulled last year for construction; with Ms. Busacca responding there were a total of 1,835 single-family residential building permits, 102 for duplexes, and 602 for commercial, which includes multifamily units, for a total of 2,539. Ms. Busacca advised there were also an additional 8,000 permits pulled for things like electrical fences and sheds; the total impact fees for single-family houses for transportation is $855; which is estimated to be 19.5% of the cost of constructing a mile of road; and the total impact fees per house is $1,200, which includes emergency medical and correctional facilities. Commissioner O'Brien inquired about multifamily structures such as condominiums; with Ms. Busacca responding multifamily is different than single family for transportation based on the number of units of traffic generation; she only gave the number for single family; and the number for multifamily is a little lower. Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like to see that broken down. Ms. Busacca stated the $2.9 million assumes that single-family residential would be increased to 27.5% as was done with commercial. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is scheduled to come back to the Board; with Ms. Busacca responding yes, in July. Commissioner O'Brien stated if 1,835 is multiplied times $850, how much is generated. Ms. Busacca responded the $2.9 million includes not only single family but the duplexes, multifamily, and commercial as well, and includes an assumption that single-family residential will also be increased to 27.5% of the cost of the road. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if impact fees collected will exceed $3 million next year; with Ms. Busacca responding the estimate is $2.9 million. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if that money is bondable; with Mr. Pelham responding no. Commissioner Higgs advised that money cannot be applied to ongoing maintenance, but must be applied to capacity improvements based on the demand created by the growth. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how the $3 million per year that will be collected on impact fees be used. Mr. Pelham responded staff would identify each project by impact fee district; and that money could be moved from the impact fees to fund the projects on a pay-as-you-go basis. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how was it spent last year. Commissioner Higgs noted there is a committee of city and County people. Mr. Kamm stated staff officials develop a program on how the impact fees will be spent for the upcoming year that is brought to the Board each year for ratification. Mr. Jenkins noted typically they are used to supplement other revenue sources.

Commissioner Colon requested staff give the equation that gives District 5 the highest increase and the figures per District. Mr. Pelham stated District 5 has the smallest assessed value for tax purposes; its current rollback rate is .6 mill; so the increase he gave was what it took based on the assessed value to come in with an additional $200,000. Mr. Jenkins noted there is a lot of incorporated area in District 5, so the unincorporated area is smaller; and when there is a flat increase of $200,000, it is going to have a bigger impact on a smaller pot. Commissioner Colon stated it is almost like penalizing District 5 for the smaller unincorporated area; and she wanted to be sure staff could explain the equation. Commissioner Higgs stated she asked how to generate $1 million out of the MSTU's; it was just divided by five; and that percentage may not be the fair way to do it. She stated the concept was to look to the MSTU to generate some of the needs to free up some of the gas tax; and Commissioner Colon's concern is valid. Chairman Carlson stated it is 36%; and inquired what does it equate to in dollars. Mr. Jenkins advised some Districts have a higher MSTU rate than other Districts; District 1 has a much higher rate; and inquired if it is fair to increase the District 1 percentage by the same amount when it is already being assessed more than other Districts. Commissioner Higgs stated that is a valid concern as well; there are a variety of ways to look at the MSTU; and the Board needs to look at those ways.

Commissioner Scarborough stated another problem with the MSTU is the concept of what is raised in the MSTU benefits the people of that MSTU. Commissioner Higgs noted most MSTU's do not carry any personnel cost, so the cost of operations is being carried under the General Fund; with Mr. Jenkins advising it is coming from gas tax right now. Commissioner Higgs stated those costs are not showing up in the MSTU, so the real cost of the MSTU is not there. Commissioner Scarborough stated within certain Districts, there are monies other than the MSTU's; and like the Surface Water or impact fees, the Board is looking at those as being totally available, but they are restricted. He stated the Board is not going to be able to move things to the extent it is talking about as it gets to specific districts; it is the wrong approach; and advised a one-cent sales tax would raise a quarter of a billion dollars, which would be enough to answer all the road needs as well as other needs of the County. He stated these things are going to be like what the Board did with transferring Local Option Gas Tax for operations; sooner or later each will not work because they will be difficult to move around; they all have restrictions; and there is no answer there. Commissioner Higgs stated one of the criticisms leveled at the Board is that it is not willing to make hard decisions; and the Board needs to know the options. Commissioner Scarborough stated these are not hard decisions; they are non-decisions; if there was a 10% increase in Districts 4 and 5 Surface Water assessment, it would produce $500,000, but the need is $7 million; the Board says it can move money from the General Fund, but the Sheriff is requesting $10 million; and while he appreciates the work that has been done, it is a non-decision. Commissioner Higgs stated it would be a non-decision if the Board never looks at the options. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is glad to look at the options; and he will analyze each one and advise why it will leave the Commission short and failing. Commissioner Higgs stated it may be totally unfunded if it goes to a sales tax that people have no interest in funding; the Sheriff's MSTU is Countywide; and suggested the MSTU for services could be Countywide to address the needs in the unincorporated areas. She stated she wants to look at all the opportunities before saying the Board cannot solve this problem. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is glad to look at the options, but if one of them is an answer, he has not heard it yet. Commissioner Higgs stated there may be some answers to some short-term problems; but in terms of long-term road deficiencies, the Board cannot solve them under the caps it has; and it should be making whatever progress it can because it may find people at the ballot box saying no if it has not done everything it could. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to show the people all the things it would get beyond roads if it went to sales tax; and the Board needs to look at complete solutions as opposed to partial solutions.

Chairman Carlson stated Commissioner Higgs was saying she wants to get the whole picture on all the alternatives, and to see by looking at sales tax, how to take a piece of the cost being discussed and try to fund it through sales tax; and commented on the possibility of a sales tax referendum failing. She stated she is interested in looking at the MSTU's from the perspective of the needs in the MSTU area; the analysis of road projects and revenue being brought in from the MSTU's and impact fees should be assessed; but sales tax is a very interesting topic because in addition to transportation there are tons of other needs.

Commissioner O'Brien stated in 1979 through 1981 the nation suffered a recession caused by an increase in gasoline due to an embargo by Iran. Commissioner Higgs advised the cause was a tax increase by the Reagan administration in 1981 and an increase by the Federal Reserve. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what was the effect of the recession and the inflationary costs on the County; and stated if there was another recession, people would spend less because they would have less buying power; collection of sales tax and gas tax revenues would shrink; and the Board may want a projection on whether the nation will face another recession in the next four or five years or somewhere down the road as it bonds money out for 20 years. He inquired if that occurs, will the County have sufficient funds to pay down the bond, and keep on working; and stated the Board needs to take a close look to see what may occur. He commented on inflation rates, being shortsighted, and rising gasoline costs; and stated if the Board does not look to the future, it is leaving out an important facet of the funding mechanism.

Chairman Carlson stated Commissioner O'Brien brings up an interesting point about looking at history and learning from it; and Commissioner Higgs is probably the best one to report on how monetary policy was derived. Commissioner Higgs stated she is reading a book about the Federal Reserve, which addresses the issue.

Commissioner Colon stated it is also a matter of trust and getting what you pay for; the unincorporated areas in District 5 are between cities; areas such as Merritt Island are blessed because they know the service and manpower are there; but in areas like west of Minton Road between Palm Bay and West Melbourne or on the beaches between Indialantic and Satellite Beach, the level of service is not there. She stated she does not mind paying; but inquired if she is just going to contribute to the other areas where the numbers are greater. She stated she is a team player, but wanted to explain where she is coming from in the matter of trust.

Commissioner Scarborough stated even with the percentage increases in the MSTU's, District 1 is paying more than District 5 would be paying with the increase; historically District 5 had less MSTU than District 1, but District 1 may not be increasing as much; and if they are increased across the Board, District 1 may not be increased at all and District 5 may be increased much more. He stated the Board could look at whether having equity is having uniform rates across the board; and what is fair can be addressed in a number of ways.

Commissioner Colon commented on trust in taxes, targeting taxes, and the success of the Parks and Recreation referenda.

Commissioner Scarborough stated people tend to vote for MSTU's because they realize the money will stay within their particular area; the Parks and Recreation referenda may not have passed if it had been Countywide because there would have been too much distrust; and it worked because there were little segments of the community working for their own projects.

Commissioner Higgs stated she would like to get an analysis on the five MSTU's, the percentage of incorporated versus unincorporated, and how they are actually funded in terms of salaries that are covering the delivery of the produce dollars that are there.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if there was only one MSTU, projects such as the dredging of the canals in Merritt Island would be difficult to obtain; and by having separate MSTU's, the residents of District 2 pay for the dredging. Commissioner Scarborough stated it allows them to define their needs in their own neighborhoods; canals are important in District 2, but not in District 1; and because of that it is possible to direct funds to a need in a way that someone in District 1 would not understand. Commissioner Higgs stated some different services like dredging, significant landscaping programs, etc. need to be outlined so the Board gets that flavor in the report; but what it really needs to know is how much is actually going to road maintenance out of the MSTU and what is coming from the gas tax for the salary portion.

The meeting recessed at 10:37 a.m. and reconvened at 10:49 a.m.

Chairman Carlson suggested discussing the Riverside Drive intersection improvement project first because many cards have been submitted. Commissioner Higgs suggested staff enumerate all the different projects before starting; with Chairman Carlson responding that is fine, but the Board will zero in on the Riverside Drive project.

Engineering Design Director John Denninghoff stated for the Riverside Drive project, the recommended alternative, after the results of the study were all in, was to provide intersection improvements in the form of left-turn lanes on six intersection for the corridor; the southerly intersection was U.S. 192 with improvements on both legs of the Riverside Drive portion; and the additional intersections are at Franklin Avenue, Riviera Boulevard, Pine Tree Drive, Rio Villa Boulevard, and Falcon Drive. He stated associated with these improvements is the need to relocate the existing six-foot pedway, which is on the west side of the corridor; no additional signalization is proposed or recommended; none of the warrants were met; and there were some improvements at the intersection to improve the pedestrian access from the east side of the corridor to the west side. He stated the U.S. 192 improvements are estimated at just under $1 million; and the remainder of the intersections are approximately $230,000 each for a total of $2.4 million. He stated public input at the meeting was strongly against the recommendation; it was suggested that the proposed improvements would encourage additional traffic on Riverside Drive by diverting traffic off of A1A, and increase the travel speeds; and the public felt the corridor should be a residential street as opposed to a major collector or arterial roadway.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board wants to go through each project; with Commissioner Higgs responding she just wanted a summary of the project so people would have a grasp.

Nadine Durham advised of the need for traffic signals at Riviera Boulevard and Franklin Avenue because of children going to Indialantic Elementary and Hoover Junior High Schools; and expressed concern about the usurping of Eastminster Presbyterian Church property by putting in an additional lane to the west of the intersection. She noted the proposed lane goes too close to the preschool campus and playground, and it demolishes the Church's handicapped parking area. She commented on the rationale that it would be cheaper to add the additional lane on the west side. She stated the intersection at U.S. 192 and Riverside Drive is adequate and working well; and Riverside Drive is a residential, not commercial road.

Elmer Floyd, Pastor of Eastminster Presbyterian Church, stated the Church just finished building a new facility and installed five new handicapped parking spots so they would be closest to get to activities at the Fellowship Hall and Church; and if the new lane is extended as drawn, it would take out the handicapped parking lot. He stated the intersection is crowded; and encouraged the Board to look at other alternatives such as a shorter turn lane or two right-hand turn lanes going south. He commented on the impact to the Church from the longer turn lane.

Dr. Anthony Cardinale, representing the Cloisters Homeowners Association, expressed opposition to the Riverside Drive intersection improvement projects; and requested the speed limit be reduced from 45 mph to 35 mph on North Riverside Drive from Eau Gallie Boulevard to Mosswood. He commented on high number of access points on North Riverside Drive, nearby schools, foot and bicycle traffic, near misses of students crossing the road, lack of sidewalks, and danger presented by drainage ditch; and requested the Board consider piping and filling the ditch. He reiterated his request to reduce the speed limit.

Robert Beatty, Secretary-Treasurer for the River Oaks Homeowners Association, expressed opposition to the proposed projects, specifically the widening of various intersections on North Riverside Drive, because multiple center turn lanes will create a dangerous serpentine roadway. He commented on residential character of neighborhood, speeding, impact to neighborhood environment and property values, little growth between the Melbourne and Eau Gallie Causeways, opposition to increasing volume of traffic on North Riverside Drive, and road not designed as a connector road between the causeways. He stated the majority of residents on North Riverside Drive opposed the proposed project at two hearings held to discuss the project, with only one person speaking in favor of it; and urged the Board to vote against it.

Ed Enochs advised the project as proposed creates significant safety risks; money should be spent on enforcement; and there is a lack of engineering analysis to support the proposal. He stated the project will increase the probability of collisions between cars and pedestrians and the severity of those collisions. He commented on drivers handling the choice of two different lanes, traffic, children crossing the road and the end of bikepaths; and stated he sent letters to Commissioner Colon. He advised a petition was submitted on May 5, 2001 outlining six alternatives to the proposed improvements; the traffic study data indicates the County is not enforcing speed limits; and recommended money be put into enforcement.

Roland Cook, President of the River Shores East Homeowners Association, stated in the past 20 years he has never seen a single issue so unite hundreds of people as the North Riverside Drive intersection improvement project; and he will speak on the five things they do want. He recommended reducing the speed limit from 45 mph to 35 mph on North Riverside Drive from Eau Gallie Causeway to Mosswood, using some money from the County's enhancement funds to plant palms or other trees along North Riverside Drive between the roadway and bike path, repair and maintain the existing bikepath/pedway, add marked and posted pedestrian crossways at key intersections, and increase enforcement of existing traffic laws on North Riverside Drive. He stated 96% of the people approached agree with the five-point plan, and signed the petition; scrapping the North Riverside intersection improvement project will save the County's $2 million; and requested the Board consider replacing it with the five-point plan.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the recommendation includes no improvements at U.S. 192 and Riverside Drive; with Mr. Cook responding that is correct. Commissioner Higgs stated it might be possible to do other improvements than the ones currently proposed; with Mr. Cook clarifying they are opposed to the plan proposed to create a five-lane roadway on North Riverside Drive adjacent to Eastminster Presbyterian Church.

Bill McMillan commented on speeders, lack of enforcement, people using North Riverside Drive as an alternative to U.S. 1 or A1A, and need for repair of bike path. He noted the speed limit in front of his house is 45 mph; and there have been accidents there.

Cliff Cook commented on the study advising of insufficient capacity to meet future traffic needs; stated it is an engineering company justifying future revenue for its company; and challenged the finding as there is only 3% vacant land between the causeways. He suggested improving the road with curbs, crosswalks, and stoplights, improving the bike path, and reducing speed limits. He recommended the Board consider the alternatives that will improve the County and save at least half of the proposed budget for the project by improving the road intelligently.

Ed Andre commented on the Board's funding problems; and stated he agrees with the previous speakers about Riverside Drive being residential and doing minor improvements like fixing the bike path and landscaping. He recommended enforcing the existing traffic laws and no through-traffic. Commissioner Scarborough stated all the Board has addressed so far are unfunded road projects; this afternoon it will discuss capital improvements; and the needs are more than just roads, but the money is limited. Mr. Andre commended Commissioner Scarborough on his earlier position on sales tax; and stated he does not want to pay more sales tax, but it makes more sense than taking money from stormwater and paving roads with it.

Commissioner Higgs stated nobody suggested paving roads with stormwater funds; there are $7.5 million of potentially unfunded drainage projects; and the question was how much money will be generated from the stormwater fee for that purpose. She stated because they are road-related drainage issues almost exclusively, it would be appropriate to use the road funds; and those are the only ones.

H. L. Clark voiced opposition to the plan; and recommended reducing the speed limit. He commented on the intersection of Eau Gallie Boulevard and Riverside Drive, near misses, and pedestrians in jeopardy; and stated when he drove the stretch at 45 mph and then at 35 mph, the difference was only two minutes. He commended Commissioner Colon for taking the initiative to get consensus at the two meetings; and inquired about the cost for the traffic study; with staff advising it was $277,000. He stated if someone had asked the people first, that money could have been saved; and the turnout shows the people are concerned.

Mary Hayward stated she has lived on Riverside Drive since 1945; and commented on the changes caused by increased development and decline in safety conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. She requested the Board consider reducing speed limits from 45 mph to 35 mph on North Riverside Drive, adding marked pedestrian crosswalks at all major cross streets, and increasing law enforcement to stop speeding and cars passing illegally on the right.

Commissioner Colon stated the County went through each of the projects to get feedback from the community; and she would like to make a motion to remove this project from the list. She stated from U.S. 192 to the Eau Gallie Causeway, the whole of Riverside Drive is not 45 mph; some areas are 30 and 35 mph; and the Town of Indialantic took the initiative to challenge the County to lower the speed limit by reducing it in the Town to 30 mph. She stated the Board is talking about a future catastrophe if it is not careful; there are 1,300 children who live in the area; the Church has 1,000 members who also live in the area; over 300 people have signed petitions; and there have been dozens of phone calls and emails on the issue. She stated the speed limit signs are for 45 mph, but the reality is the cars are going 55 and 60 mph; and the citizens would like the Board to follow Indialantic's initiative to protect them. She requested the Board support her in removing the project from the list, allocating money for pedestrian crosswalks, changing the speed limit, and insuring there is a pedway for the citizens. She advised at any time of the day it is possible to see children riding their bicycles and people walking for exercise in the area; when she came to the Board, one of the first things she wanted to address was lowering the speed limit; and she knew the community was totally against this project.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the 100 feet of right-of-way north of Indialantic is owned by the County; with Mr. Denninghoff responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the right-of-way is 60 feet in the Indialantic portion; with Mr. Minneboo responding affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that was acquired when the road was first built many years ago; with Mr. Minneboo responding that is right. Commissioner Higgs stated the church parking that people are describing is actually in the right-of-way; and inquired if the County permitted the parking; with Mr. Denninghoff responding he has not researched that. Commissioner Higgs requested staff research that and report to the Board as she is curious as to how they got there. She stated she hears the concerns about North Riverside Drive; the statistics show that between now and 2020, there will be an increase in the trips from 13,300 to 15,100, which is not a huge increase; so the statistics do not back up the need to greatly increase capacity. She stated they are on target with pedestrian markings and the bike path; and some enhancement of the landscaping would be appropriate. She stated she can be supportive of the reduction in speeds, but is concerned about the intersection at U.S. 192 and Riverside Drive. She stated she does not know that there is a need to buy additional right-of-way, impact businesses, or do huge improvements; however, she has received correspondence from a number of people with simple suggestions for changes to make the intersection work better for everyone; and she would hate to have the Board not further discuss with the Town of Indialantic and residents some improvements to make the intersection function better. She stated the reality is in the next 20 years just west of the intersection is projected to go from 40,000 to 50,000 trips and east of the intersection is projected to go from 26,000 to 34,000 trips; she can be supportive of Commissioner Colon's motion if the Board will continue to work with the residents to study ways to improve the intersection; and that does not mean she is supporting taking out the church, the 7-Eleven, or anyone's house. She stated there are some improvements the community could support that would be good for everyone long-range; and if the dialogue continues on the intersection improvements at U.S. 192 and Riverside Drive, she is happy to support the motion to remove the other improvements from the table, assuming the other improvements that seem to be the consensus of the community move forward.

Commissioner Colon stated the community has addressed some of those issues; there are things that can be done that do not take a lot of money; and continuing the dialogue would be good. She stated she wants to move forward today to take the project, as it is now, completely off the table; then she would like to make another motion concerning what can be done in the intersection; but she would be very concerned about trying to pursue anything that would affect the church. Commissioner Higgs stated anything the Board does affects someone; she does not want to say it is not going to affect the church; and there needs to be continuing discussions. She noted the church has parking in the right-of-way; and the Board has to discuss with the church and affected parties how to improve the intersection. Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board will allow her to remove the North Riverside project from the list and take it one step further concerning reducing the speed limit. Commissioner Higgs stated the project should not be removed altogether because that would take it out of consideration of funding; and if the intent is to do some improvements to the bike path, put in markings and landscaping enhancement, speed remarking, and work on the intersection, it will need some engineering help; but she can agree to remove the proposal that is there now, and put on the table the other items.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to remove the North Riverside project from the list, as it is currently proposed.

Chairman Carlson inquired how is programming laid out for resurfacing the road; and stated when the road is resurfaced, the bike path is also resurfaced. She inquired what is the date forthe resurfacing and is that in the program budget. Mr. Minneboo advised it is not in the program budget as at this juncture there is no intent to resurface. Commissioner Higgs inquired when was it last resurfaced; with Mr. Minneboo responding the roadway was done some time ago.

Mr. Jenkins noted staff is not opposed to resurfacing the road, but there is no money budgeted to do so; it is a matter of prioritization; and that project could be done over a different project. Chairman Carlson stated the Board is dealing with the whole financial picture; there should be some method where all the existing 1,300 miles of roadway the County maintains are scheduled out for maintenance; and inquired if that does not exist; with Mr. Jenkins responding staff did not say that. Chairman Carlson requested staff bring the schedule back at the next meeting when the Board discusses all the other issues, so it will have a clear maintenance program. Mr. Minneboo advised there is a five-year program on residential streets, but not on streets such as Sarno Road or Wickham Road. Chairman Carlson inquired if North Riverside Drive is considered more a residential street than an arterial road; with Commissioner Higgs responding it is a residential collector road. Chairman Carlson stated for the benefit of transportation planning it would be nice to know when these are maintained and the time frame; and she does not know how a budget can be done unless it is laid out in such a way. Mr. Minneboo noted volumes are increasing significantly on roads; Micco Road would have lasted a much greater period of time if it had not been impacted by truck traffic; so there are significant variables that are not taken into account. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the County's practice has been that before a road is repaved, it has to be expanded to additional lanes; with Mr. Minneboo responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to listen to what Mr. Minneboo is saying; one of the pieces of equipment he wanted to buy was a patching machine; the Board is wanting to move money into construction, but Mr. Minneboo is indicating he is not going to be doing resurfacing, but will be patching; and unless there is more money in the pot, the County is going to be doing more patching.

Chairman Carlson inquired how long is it possible to patch roads without it starting to be a safety issue. Commissioner Scarborough stated the subsurface gives way. Chairman Carlson stated then there is a road project with a large bill; with Commissioner Scarborough advising it is a sevenfold increase when there is loss of the subsurface.

Chairman Carlson stated there is a motion on the floor; and requested it be restated. Commissioner Colon stated the motion is to take out the North Riverside Drive project as recommended, and then she will make another motion about how she wants it; so the motion is only to remove it, as it is, from the rest of the projects.

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

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to add to the project list, work on the bike paths along North Riverside Drive, pedestrian ways with markings, lowering the speed limit to 35 mph on North Riverside Drive from U.S. 192 to Eau Gallie Boulevard, look into enhancement funds for beautification, and continue dialogue with all parties on improvements to the U.S. 192 and North Riverside Drive Boulevard intersection. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

*Commissioner Colon's and County Manager Tom Jenkins' absences were noted at this time.

Chairman Carlson inquired about Barnes Boulevard. Mr. Denninghoff stated the Barnes Boulevard project is an intersection improvement study with two major features, to do a rough cost estimate associated with the possibility of four-laning the road in the future and a major drainage study component associated with any future road improvements. He stated the result of the intersection improvement aspect of the project was to prioritize three intersections for improvements, based on safety concerns and capacity issues; and the intersections selected by the consultant are Rio Mar Street, Admiralty Boulevard, and Three Meadows Drive. He stated the proposed improvements include left and right-turn lanes, drainage pipes, and addition of sidewalks where they currently do not exist; and the proposed improvements can be completed in the existing right-of-way. He stated the estimated cost associated with the projects is $302,000 for the Rio Mar intersection, $1.05 million for the Admiralty Boulevard intersection, and $980,000 for the Three Meadows intersection, for a total of $2.33 million; four-laning from the railroad tracks to Fiske Boulevard would be approximately $14.6 million; and four-laning the portion west of Murrell Road only would be approximately $8.55 million.

*County Manager Tom Jenkins' presence was noted at this time.

Mr. Denninghoff stated the major input on the project was to ask why the County was not going to four-lane the road; and the second input dealt with concerns about noise and landscaping. He stated a number of residents who live along the corridor requested walls be incorporated into the proposed improvements; but walls are not included at this time as they are not technically required for noise abatement. He noted the City of Rockledge indicated it would assume maintenance responsibilities for the roadway if it is four-laned.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the subdivisions represented by the intersections were permitted by the County or City of Rockledge; with Mr. Denninghoff advising Three Meadows was permitted by Rockledge, and Rio Mar and Admiralty by the County. Commissioner Higgs stated all three are fairly new subdivisions; with Mr. Minneboo noting Admiralty has been there for a long time.

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

Commissioner Higgs stated the requirements regarding the developer making the improvements on Barnes does not seem to have been adequate. Mr. Denninghoff responded if he had it to do over again differently, he probably would. Commissioner Higgs stated there may be problems with the permitting of subdivisions that are not being adequately addressed on the front end, so it is necessary to come back and pay for it at the back end. Mr. Minneboo stated the County is taking a hard line on those issues today; and commented on the requirements being met by the Lowe's being built on Barnes Boulevard. Commissioner Higgs requested the County Manager advise the Board what it needs to do to address the current Land Development Codes to adequately address the issue on roads.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the things the Board looks at is level of service, but not accident analysis showing the propensity for greater accidents and the costs related to reducing the propensity for accidents; that issue has been laying dormant; and it is not in the thought process fully enough. Commissioner Higgs stated she was asked earlier what she wanted to do to address the issue of supply and demand on roads, and this is a place to start.

Mr. Denninghoff stated the existing level of service for Barnes Boulevard is D; a major impact to the existing level of service is that the Viera Boulevard interchange has not been constructed yet; the estimates with the traffic circulation analysis and modeling associated with that area are that when the interchange is constructed, the need to four-lane Barnes Boulevard will diminish dramatically; and that is something that needs to be considered. He stated currently there is a great deal of traffic that avoids the use of Wickham Road by using U.S. 1 and crossing on Barnes Boulevard to get to I-95; a lot of traffic on the southern end of Murrell Road actually drives up that road to Barnes Boulevard to access I-95 or U.S. 1 rather than use Wickham Road; and it is important to recognize that many of these issues have not been addressed in the planning process. Commissioner Higgs inquired are the three intersections eligible for impact fees; with Mr. Denninghoff responding affirmatively. Mr. Jenkins commented on the subdivision process compared to the DRI process, and impact fees. Chairman Carlson stated impact fees are only the impact of the additional traffic on a road, not the cost of making a turn lane or other improvement to the road; with Mr. Jenkins advising it would not be enough to four-lane Barnes Boulevard. Commissioner Higgs stated as the subdivisions are done, the County requires improvements by the developers; and if that and the concurrency issues are set up correctly, the County should be able to address some of these problems. Mr. Jenkins stated the County may require a turn lane or something of that nature, but not four-laning a road. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is not being asked to four-lane Barnes Boulevard; it is being asked to improve the intersections, and down the road may have to four-lane Barnes Boulevard; and maybe it could have anticipated the need for the improvements.

Chairman Carlson requested Mr. Kamm provide the history of Barnes Boulevard. Mr. Kamm stated one of the unusual features of Barnes Boulevard is that on the south side of the road for much of its length is a major ditch; and widening the street to four lanes would be a high cost due to the major drainage structures. He stated the ditch drains the whole south side of Rockledge; several years ago, there were rain events in South Rockledge that flooded the area dramatically; and the water eventually works its way through the Fiske interchange, under I-95, and to the St. Johns River. He stated the engineering study established what they need in terms of property drainage conveyance; and if they have to pipe the ditch, they know what is needed in terms of proper sized culverts. He stated there is a good understanding of what the long-term needs on Barnes Boulevard would be to widen it; there is a master plan for the roadway; what has been suggested is to work on it piece-by-piece, using the master plan in the engineering study; and eventually they will get to a four-lane roadway. He stated the cost will be very high, but a lot of issues that have been unknown for a long time have been resolved; and the County knows what it will take to get it to four lanes, and is in a position to implement a series of improvements over time, perhaps using impact fees with the cooperation of the City of Rockledge. Mr. Denninghoff noted staff has tried to resolve some major engineering issues, which were previously poorly identified; in the case of Barnes Boulevard, the drainage analysis that was available prior to the study was very sketchy, but there was a serious problem there; and any time an existing two-lane road with major ditches is widened to four lanes, the ditches have to be considered. He stated the County has a major tool to help implement small improvements through the normal development process. Mr. Kamm stated in the late 1980's there was a serious look at the future that indicated it would be necessary to widen Barnes Boulevard; it connects U.S. 1 to I-95, which not all of the east/west roads in Central Brevard do; so it has a different function. He stated the proposal to build an interchange at Viera Boulevard, which would also connect U.S. 1 and I-95, a lot of the traffic diverted away from Barnes Boulevard; and the emphasis on Barnes Boulevard decreased because there was no need to widen the road if Viera Boulevard was picking up that function. He stated the unwillingness of the Federal Highway Administration to permit an interchange at Viera Boulevard, and I-95 and Viera continuing to develop, the traffic patterns have changed, and traffic is back on Barnes Boulevard. He stated while Barnes Boulevard was off the planning horizon for a while, it now needs to be back on because the traffic is there due to the interchange development not going through. Chairman Carlson stated in addition to that issue, there has been major development along Barnes Boulevard.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the developer was responsible, as part of the DRI, for the interchange, and is no longer responsible for it; is traffic shifting to Barnes Boulevard something that should have been addressed in the DRI process; and is that something the Board can move forward with as a substantial deviation. Mr. Kamm advised The Viera Company still has interest in building the interchange. Commissioner Scarborough inquired since Viera is being relieved of the economic responsibility, should that shift to what it is impacting, and can the County initiate that action. Commissioner Higgs stated the same question was asked at the zoning meeting; and it is important. Mr. Kamm stated The Viera Company has not removed the interchange from its program; it is awaiting approval from the Federal Highway Administration; and the Federal Highway Administration has laid down some conditions on how it will approve it. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that does not occur, what will happen; with Mr. Kamm responding if it does not occur, then that is a different situation than what is in the Development Order. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is a timeframe in the DRI for construction of the interchange; with Mr. Kamm responding it is a federal highway issue rather than a DRI issue; and the Federal Highway Administration will not consider permitting the Viera interchange until it can be demonstrated there is degradation at the adjacent Fiske and Wickham Road interchanges. Commissioner Higgs stated that information needs to be fed back to the planning staff to understand the impact, and determine if this is a substantial deviation from what was agreed to. Mr. Kamm stated the Federal Highway Administration changed the rules; with Commissioner Scarborough advising that change of rules shifted a burden that should have been on The Viera Company to the taxpayers, which is not fair to the people of the County.

Chairman Carlson stated she does not know where this leaves Barnes Boulevard because right now development is going on, and the City is going to be looking at a moratorium on building; the federal government has changed its position and the County is stuck with it; and opening up and questioning the DRI is a fair thing to do, but she is not sure what that does for Barnes Boulevard now. Commissioner Scarborough inquired where is the money that is being moved out of the Barnes project; with Chairman Carlson responding there is none. Commissioner Scarborough stated if Barnes is going to get four-laned, it will be because the County aggressively goes after the developer with an amendment to the DRI. Chairman Carlson stated the Board will be justifying four-laning Barnes Boulevard again. Commissioner Higgs stated if developers want to develop along Barnes Boulevard, it is the County's subdivision Ordinances that are not adequately addressing things like turn lanes; and that needs to be corrected quickly. Chairman Carlson stated that is part of it, but a lot of property along Barnes Boulevard is in the City of Rockledge, which has a full right to ask for the same things the County is requesting. Commissioner Higgs stated there is an Interlocal Agreement, so if the City wants the County to fund any of the improvements, it will need to help take care of the road.

Jim McKnight, Rockledge City Manager, representing the Rockledge City Council, stated the City understands crunch; it happens at the City level too; and the City does lots of multi-jurisdictional things. He advised of a fatal accident on Barnes Boulevard at Three Meadows Drive; and stated he is concerned that Barnes Boulevard came off the radar screen. He advised of his background growing up in Rockledge; and stated there were three roads in Rockledge, Barnes Boulevard, Barton Boulevard, and Poinsett Street, and all were two-laned. He stated since that time the City has four-laned Barton Boulevard and added Eyster Boulevard, Roy Wall Boulevard, and Gus Hipp Boulevard; the City has done its job putting in roads to make the east/west connectors; and it also four-laned Murrell Road with the help of the County. He stated he is puzzled how Barnes Boulevard came off the radar screen; the Viera interchange is no longer a "when," but an "if"; in 1980, when Barnes was a State road, it was planned to be four-laned; and when the Comprehensive Plan was done, it continued to be in the same vein. He stated there is a serious situation; they are requiring turn lanes on all the projects going in now; but there are older subdivisions that do not have those turn lanes. He stated the position of the City Council is that Barnes Boulevard needs to be four-laned from Fiske Boulevard to Murrell Road, which is the critical segment. He commented on other projects including Dixon Boulevard and Micco Road; and stated he does not understand some of the recommendations. He stated the City has a serious problem; it is going to put on a moratorium; and reiterated he is at a loss as to how Barnes Boulevard got off the radar screen. He commented on building Roy Wall as a reliever to Barnes Boulevard to buy more time for Barnes Boulevard, development in the unincorporated area impacting the road, and commercial impact fees. He stated the widening would qualify as an impact fee project, although that will only meet a small portion of the funds needed.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Council is interested in making the subdivision improvements or just putting money into a fund to look at four-laning Barnes Boulevard between Fiske and Murrell. Mr. McKnight responded at this time the position of the Council is to continue the dialogue; there is concern about safety at the intersections; but the long-term solution is to four-lane the roadway. He noted the critical section is between Fiske and Murrell Road; and it is not necessary to go all the way to U.S. 1 at this time.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the City annexed the subdivisions; with Mr. McKnight responding some of the subdivisions were already in the City; and all the others on this segment are within City limits. He clarified Three Meadows and Admiralty are in the City, but Rio Mar is in the County, east of Murrell Road. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Rio Mar has been annexed; with Mr. McKnight responding a portion is annexed, but most is not.

Chairman Carlson stated there is a Joint Planning Agreement in place with Rockledge; the City, anticipating the widening of the road, would take it over at 51% of the annexation; but the annexations have occurred prior to the results the City was hoping to achieve, which puts the City and County in a sticky situation.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what year was Dixon Boulevard constructed; with Mr. Minneboo responding the County took it over in approximately 1974 to 1976; and it was probably built in the 60's. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Dixon Boulevard is a main corridor connecting Clearlake Road and U.S. 1; with Mr. Minneboo responding yes. Commissioner O'Brien inquired about the condition of the road; with Mr. Minneboo responding it needs work and has drainage problems. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the road is fixed, will the City of Cocoa take it over; with Mr. Minneboo responding yes. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the City will come to the table with money; with Mr. Minneboo advising of the City's willingness to provide drainage. Commissioner Higgs inquired how much is that worth; with Mr. Minneboo responding between $300,000 and $400,000.

Don Simms read aloud a letter he sent to Chairman Carlson, Mr. Minneboo, and Mr. Denninghoff concerning the development of the Barnes Boulevard corridor, need for four-laning of Barnes Boulevard, priority of Wickham Road, and increased traffic. He stated they have property under contract, ready to close, but are being told they cannot get a building permit; they have paid all the taxes and installed all the sewers, water lines, lift station, and infrastructure improvements; they have maintained all of the property; and they are heading into a precarious situation. He stated this needs to be solved so people can get building permits.

Brian Mosher commented on Barnes Boulevard as an asset to the City, the I-95 interchange at Fiske Boulevard, and rural character of the road in the past; and stated with annexation, Comprehensive Plan amendments, Future Land Use Map changes, and rezoning, Barnes Boulevard has become somewhat of a liability. He stated development does not pay for itself; there is a big sprawl problem in South Rockledge/North Viera; and it may be possible to get federal or State money to four-lane from Fiske Boulevard to I-95. He stated from Murrell Road to U.S. 1 there is a lot of undeveloped land; and advised of the special wildlife corridor, development pending approval, and interest by the EEL Committee in purchasing property on the south side of Barnes Boulevard. He stated if property is purchased before it is developed to be part of the wildlife corridor, it may not be necessary to four-lane that section of Barnes Boulevard; and there is enough room for a center turn lane without having to fill in the ditch if curb cuts are limited.

Curt Beyer, representing Meadow Creek Homeowners Association, stated there are over 55 residences in the neighborhood; and four-laning Barnes Boulevard would provide ingress and egress for the neighborhood. He stated with the Viera growth and the new Publix and Lowe's going in, it is difficult to get in and out of the neighborhood; and requested a sound barrier safety wall be installed due to the closeness of the road to the subdivision. He stated in the three-laning version, there are no sidewalks on either side of Barnes Boulevard; and recommended as Barnes Boulevard is one of the main feeder bands to I-95, that it mimic Wickham Road in construction style, speed limits, sidewalks, turning lanes, etc. He submitted a petition signed by 100% of the Meadow Creek homeowners requesting four-laning of Barnes Boulevard.

Chairman Carlson stated she had discussions with the City of Rockledge; the City would like to see the four-laning of Barnes Boulevard from Murrell Road to Fiske Boulevard; and she does not know if the action the Board needs to take is to move forward with the improvements or continue analyzing the overall costs. She inquired what is the estimate based on; with Mr. Denninghoff responding it is an estimate that was produced by the consultant; and the degree of engineering analysis that went into it is less than was involved with the intersections. Mr. Denninghoff stated it is a good estimate; all prior estimates were based on best guess; this analysis took into account the size of piping needed, which was larger than they had dreamed; and the cost is substantially higher. Chairman Carlson stated the Board understands the position it has been put in; it needs to prioritize the projects; none of the projects have been funded; but the Board needs to look at the possibility of funding that segment because of the impacts to development and to the investments that have already occurred based on the intention of doing the four-laning. She stated the information brought to the Board today should be kept for consideration, so as the Board moves on through the rest of the projects, it can set the priorities.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is an estimate of impact fees that will be generated in this area, that if added to the $2.3 million, would do the four-laning. Mr. Pelham responded staff did not take into consideration the impact fees that area for that specific project, but can do so. Commissioner Higgs inquired who has been denied building permits in this area; with Mr. Denninghoff responding nobody has been denied permits yet; but people have been advised by the City of Rockledge that building permits may not be issued. Mr. Kamm stated impact fees are an unknown in that the Viera East Community Development District will be coming forward with an impact fee credit request for the improvements on Murrell Road; and how those issues work out could affect the impact fee revenues that will be available for other projects in the area. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is a concurrency report on the section of Barnes Boulevard; with Mr. Kamm responding not specifically. Mr. Kamm advised the County monitors this, but the City does the permitting, so it would have the latest information. Commissioner Higgs stated it would be helpful to have the City and County concurrency studies and reports. Mr. Minneboo stated the County did not take over Barnes Boulevard until the late 1980's or early 1990's; and it was another DOT inheritance. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the level of service on Barnes Boulevard; with Mr. Denninghoff responding currently it is level of service D. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is acceptable; with Mr. Kamm responding E would be acceptable; and there might be level of service D now, but there are other projects in the pipeline that will generate traffic, and how those are factored in will lead to a conclusion of whether or not there is a pending concurrency problem. Mr. Kamm advised the City of Rockledge takes the position that there is enough pending traffic that it feels compelled to warn people who may be coming in for permits in the near term that there may be a concurrency issue. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the City's level of service that trips concurrency; with Mr. Kamm responding he is not certain what it is. Commissioner Higgs stated those are questions the Board needs information on to answer the overall question of priorities; and if level of service D is where the City trips concurrency, it is the City's choice to go to a different level of service that might be acceptable. Mr. Kamm advised he and Mr. McKnight discussed the fact that staff involved in the concurrency issue needs to get together to insure there is understanding of what everyone is doing so questions can properly be answered. Commissioner Higgs recommended the Board get those issues in writing. Chairman Carlson stated if it is being construed that concurrency is an issue, the Board needs to know the time frame in terms of development occurring.

Chairman Carlson stated the next item of concern is the Micco Road construction project. Mr. Minneboo stated the firm of Reynolds, Smith, and Hill was hired to undertake the engineering work on the Micco Road project, between Dottie Lane and U.S. 1; the existing roadway is two lanes with an open ditch system and no pedestrian or bicycle facilities; and the existing right-of-way varies from 50 to 100 feet. He stated the firm provided two alternatives; and the first alternative considers a two-lane divided road section being constructed with 14-foot travel lanes and five-foot paved shoulders; sidewalks would be provided on both sides of the roadway; landscaping would be provided in the median; and lighting would also be provided. He stated additional right-of-way would be needed for portions of the improvement, and retention pond areas will be required. He stated alternative two consists of constructing the entire roadway to a three-lane urban section; all travel lanes would be 12 feet wide with an 11-foot turning lane; curb and gutter would be provided with a closed drainage system; sidewalks would be provided on both sides of the roadway for the entire corridor; lighting would be provided; and additional right-of-way would be needed for portions of the improvement, and retention ponds would need to be acquired. Mr. Minneboo stated alternative one would be $6.6 million and alternative two would be $4.5 million. He stated the engineer of record recommended a combination of both alternatives, alternative one for the section from Dottie Lane to a point just west of Pine Ridge Trail, and alternative two from a point just west of Pine Ridge Trail to the project termination at U.S. 1. He stated the typical section for both alternatives solved the unique characteristics of both sections of roadway; and the introduction of turning lanes would greatly improve the safety of the corridor and bring the section into compliance with current design standards. He stated safety for pedestrians and bicyclists and drainage and aesthetic issues will also be enhanced; and the total cost for the combined alternative is $6.5 million. He stated they held a public information meeting on April 23, 2001; several speakers opposed the project; and several attendees expressed need to provide improvements west of Dottie Lane to Babcock Street.

Mike Cunningham complimented Mr. Minneboo, his staff, and the engineers of record for the work done on Micco Road; and stated it is a positive result as far as the people in the Village of Micco are concerned. He stated the existing roadway consists of two very narrow lane sections with an open ditch, which increases the danger factor; and the community agrees with the recommendation to combine the two alternatives that would solve unique characteristic problems of the road. He stated at the public information meeting, Mr. Graham mentioned that the residents of Micco are primarily older citizens who are very active; and those people have no bike paths, pedways, or sidewalks along the road. He commented on vehicles going into the ditches; and encouraged the Board to go forward with the project. He stated Dottie Lane to U.S. 1 is the primary project; and while improvements are needed west of Dottie Lane, the people would request the Board hold off on that segment until the problem with the "S" curve is eliminated. He noted there are places on the "S" curve where there are less than 18 inches between the blacktop and the ditch; and that is definitely a safety factor that needs to be eliminated. He stated the people of Micco agree with Mr. Minneboo, staff, and the engineers concerning the section of Micco Road between Dottie Lane and U.S. 1, and request approval.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the public considered alternative one or two; with Mr. Minneboo responding all the alternatives were shown. Chairman Carlson inquired about standard lane width; with Mr. Denninghoff responding it depends on what someone is trying to do with the roadway; a normal width is 12 feet; on a curve, the minimum width would be 14 feet; and the Florida Department of Transportation would say 16 feet to provide a four-foot shoulder between the curb and the edge strip for bicycles.

Commissioner Higgs recommended leaving the project on the list; and stated it is a significant roadway which services a lot of people between U.S. 1 and Babcock Street. She stated the Board has not addressed the western section of Micco Road.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to leave the Micco Road Project on the list. Chairman Carlson stated a motion is not necessary.

Chairman Carlson stated the next issue is Minton Road. Mr. Minneboo advised the existing Minton Road consists of a four-lane section with a 19.5-foot median between Malabar Road and U.S. 192; there is an open drainage system along the roadway with five-foot sidewalks on both sides; the existing bridge over I-95 is six lanes; and the existing right-of-way is 120 feet in width. He stated alternative one consists of adding a lane with a two-foot shoulder in each direction the total length of the project; the sidewalks and median would remain as they are currently; and the drainage system would be modified to a closed system. He stated the existing stormwater retention ponds are adequate to handle the stormwater requirements associated with the improvements; all improvements would be in the existing right-of-way with the exception of the intersection of Fell Road, which would required use of County-owned property to add a turn lane; and a median would be constructed on the south end of the project at Malabar Road for safer access management. Mr. Minneboo stated the second alternative consists of no improvements to the existing corridor; the report indicated the current facility has failing intersection segments and level of service F; and by the year 2005 all intersections and through movements will fail level of service F or exceed the current four-lane capacity. He stated alternative one is $6.2 million; and it is recommended by the engineer of record. He stated the typical section solves the major needs of the roadway; by implementing the improvements, the roadway will operate at an acceptable level of service through 2021, assuming the Palm Bay Parkway improvements are constructed; and landscaping is included in the project. He noted the public information meeting was held on April 25, 2001; and there was no major opposition to the recommended alternatives; but there was concern regarding water and sewer installation and need for improvements due to heavy traffic conditions. He advised the engineer of record is Dyer, Riddle, Mills and Precourt.

Commissioner Colon stated there is a representative from the City of Palm Bay who may wish to address the Board.

Sue Hann, Public Works Director for the City of Palm Bay, stated the City staff met with County staff recently to discuss funding issues relative to the overall transportation program, specifically whether the City would be able to participate in assisting the County in pursuing some of the more important transportation projects in the South Brevard area; and the City Council will be discussing that this week. She stated City staff is proposing to pledge future transportation impact fees from the City to assist the County in matching federal transportation funds that will hopefully be allocated to the Palm Bay Beltway as well as the Babcock Street project; and that should free some funds for the County to also pursue the Minton Road project. She stated the Palm Bay City Council will take action on Thursday night; and the Board will be provided with that information shortly. Chairman Carlson stated it is nice to see the cities taking the initiative to work with the County and vice versa.

Mr. Kamm stated in April the Board authorized staff to submit an application for funding of $1.7 under the County's incentive grant program; and described the program. He stated Minton Road is parallel to Babcock Street, and provides relief to I-95, an application for $1.7 million was submitted; and the Board should know by early July whether the application will be approved. He noted a similar application was submitted for Ellis Road. Mr. Denninghoff stated the Board is frequently criticized for not planning ahead; Minton Road is a six-lane widening project; and a number of steps were taken in the prior phases that have reduced the cost of the next phase dramatically. He stated the existing bridge over I-95 is six-lane capable although it is striped currently at four lanes; the drainage systems and sidewalks were all constructed to be compatible with the six-lane widening; and so the cost associated with this phase could have been easily three times what the Board is looking at now.

Commissioner Higgs stated the project will have considerable need by 2005 when it will reach level of service F, and needs to stay on the list.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct that the Minton Road project stay on the list.

Chairman Carlson stated Palm Bay is taking an initiative; there has been discussions with Rockledge; at the MPO there is discussion about strategic planning; and it is her hope to move forward with the strategic planning on how to fund some of the projects. She recommended Public Works and Transportation Planning work closely together.

The meeting recessed for lunch at 12:45 p.m. and reconvened at 1:49 p.m.

Chairman Carlson stated the next topic is Babcock Street. Mr. Minneboo stated engineering for the Babcock Street improvements are being undertaken by Frazier Engineering; the Department of Transportation is currently evaluating the widening of Babcock Street between Valkaria Road and Nasa Boulevard; and to expedite the improving of the section between U.S. 192 and Fee Avenue, the County has issued a work order to Frazier Engineering to assess improvement options, right-of-way, and drainage needs. He noted Frazier Engineering will subcontract with Kimley-Horn, the FDOT consultant, which has already compiled considerable information on the roadway; and information regarding the costs will be presented to the Board on July 24, 2001.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if all the options Frazier Engineering and Kimley-Horn are looking at are items that have been discussed in public hearings that have been held as part of the Babcock Street corridor study; with Mr. Minneboo responding affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs stated there has been a lot of public discussion on this project.

Henry Hill, City Manager from the City of Melbourne, encouraged the Board to continue to keep the Babcock Street segment alive and part of the active working list. He stated the City appreciates the effort that has been undertaken to get the project this far and keep it under consideration; this is a section of road that nobody likes because it is difficult and will not be easy to get done, which is probably why it has not been done in all these years; but he can think of no more vital piece of all the roadway segments being discussed. He stated this road segment is important to all of the efforts of transportation improvements from the south, working to the north, coming into the employment centers; and it is an important part internally within the transportation flow in the City of Melbourne. He stated the City is interested in seeing this project continue forward as well as other projects that have not been discussed yet such as John Rodes Boulevard and Ellis Road; and the City is willing and interested in participating with the County on Babcock Street and the other projects. He commented on the City's history of participating with the County on projects; and stated the City would like to continue the partnership with the County and insure this segment is included and continued on.

Commissioner Colon inquired where this project fits in the picture. Mr. Minneboo stated this is one of the intersections, which will be given consideration; and it is pretty critical to the Babcock Street plan. He noted the Board talked about this segment in 1971. Mr. Kamm stated much of the property on the east side of the roadway in the section between Fee Avenue and U.S. 192 is currently for sale; if the County waits until FDOT gets through with its engineering and funding, it will be many years before there is improvement of the roadway using federal funds; so it was thought that the County, working with the City of Melbourne, could expedite the process using local funds to take advantage of the fact that there are properties for sale. He stated they need to know about the right-of-way, design issues dealing with drainage, etc. so they will know the type of roadway improvement they will be looking at and what the cost will be. He stated Kimley-Horn is doing the work now for FDOT; and through Frazier Engineering, staff will be able to compile the information necessary for the Board to make an intelligent decision in a timely and cost-effective manner.

Chairman Carlson inquired if this is funded, how long would it take to get the study done; with Mr. Kamm responding the work being asked of Frazier Engineering and Kimley-Horn should be done next month. Mr. Minneboo stated they originally planned for July 24, 2001, but as soon as it is available, he will bring it to the Board.

Chairman Carlson stated the next project is Dixon Boulevard. Mr. Minneboo stated for Dixon Boulevard they hired the firm of Aikenhead & Odom, Inc.; the existing roadway consists of a substandard five-lane section with a bi-directional left turn lane; and the roadway is experiencing base failure and has various drainage problems. He stated additionally there are numerous design deficiencies throughout the project length that need to be addressed; pedestrian and bicycle facilities are not continuous and are mixed with parking lot access along the corridor; and existing right-of-way varies from 100 to 105 feet in width. He stated the first alternative consists of reconstructing the entire roadway to a five-lane section with center lane turn routes; all travel lanes would be 12 feet in width and the outside lane would have two-foot wide shoulders with F-type outside curb and gutter. He stated six-foot sidewalks would be provided on both sides of the roadway for the entire corridor; lighting would also be provided; and all improvements would be in the existing right-of-way with the exception of corner clips at the intersection and minor impacts at Byrd Plaza. He advised drainage would be conveyed to the Bracco Pond, which is owned by the City of Cocoa; and there would be little or no opportunity for landscaping. He stated alternative two consists of reconstruction of the entire roadway to a four lane divided urban section; all travel lanes would be 12 feet wide and the outside lane would have a two-foot wide shoulder with F-type curb and gutter; six-foot sidewalks would be provided on both sides of the roadway; a 22-foot wide median would be constructed with FDOT F-type curb and gutter and landscaping; and lighting would also be provided. He stated all improvements would be in the existing right-of-way with the exception of corner clips at the intersections and minor impacts at Byrd Plaza; and drainage would be conveyed to the Bracco Pond. He stated alternative one would cost $5.6 million and alternative two would cost $5.9 million; the engineer of record has recommended alternative two; and the typical section solves the major needs of the roadway. He stated the divided section will improve the safety of the corridor by providing needed access management and will bring the section into compliance with current design standards as well as enhancing pedestrian drainage and aesthetic issues. He stated there was a public meeting on April 10, 2001, and there was no major opposition to the recommended alternative. Kenneth Koch, Community Development Director for the City of Cocoa, stated the City supports alternative two; and commented on the public hearing, enhancements to landscaping, and Dixon Boulevard bisecting important redeveloping neighborhoods. He stated Dixon Boulevard connects the U.S. 1 corridor to the redevelopment district on Clearlake Road and ties in theneighborhoods and the BCC/UCF campus. He stated hopefully all Commissioners have received a copy of the letter from the Mayor; the City is willing to participate in drainage and allow stormwater to enter the system at Bracco Pond; and when the roadway improvement is completed, the City will assume all maintenance costs for that. He stated this is an important project for the City; it will enhance the safety of this particular road segment; and requested the Board move forward to study this project.

Chairman Carlson inquired how much is saved on a project like this if the County can drain to Bracco Pond; with Mr. Minneboo responding it is probably worth $300,000 or $400,000; and it allows the County to close the drainage system, which means piping. He stated there are significant drainage problems throughout the corridor; and most of the water would be directed to the east and then south to the Bracco Pond, so it would not be necessary to acquire any homes.

Commissioner Higgs stated one of the gentlemen earlier asked about using road money to fix drainage; her response then was they were road-related drainage problems; and inquired if what is being discussed are road-related drainage problems; with Mr. Minneboo responding most are road related. Mr. Minneboo stated the problem has been there for a long time; everybody has tried to address it; and the recommended design would address them once and for all. Mr. Kamm stated the City of Cocoa is working on the larger stormwater improvement project in the central Cocoa area; and this fits in as part of that larger project. Mr. Minneboo stated this will give the County the opportunity to treat a lot of the water that goes into the Indian River. Chairman Carlson stated because of the age of Dixon Boulevard, there are no existing stormwater drainage systems in place along the roadway. Mr. Denninghoff stated the corridor is a mishmash of fragmented drainage systems that are not comprehensive in any way. Mr. Minneboo stated there are partially closed systems and open systems; and some water still runs into people's houses. Commissioner Colon stated there is no retention area, so none of it is being pretreated. Chairman Carlson inquired to what extent will stormwater drainage have to be provided, if the County is going to reconstruct,. Mr. Minneboo stated Bracco Pond is not an expenditure. Chairman Carlson inquired if that is sufficient to do the whole thing; with Mr. Minneboo responding yes. Mr. Denninghoff stated it is not necessary for the project to purchase homes or businesses or find vacant property and run pipes to it because of the City's participation.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the road is substandard; it is a five-lane section; and it is experiencing base failure, which is a serious problem because if the base fails the entire length of the road, it could double the cost. He stated Dixon Boulevard terminates at the Indian River; it is one of two major connectors from Clearlake Road to U.S. 1; and there are ways this can be accomplished if the Board can find the funds, such as doing it in three phases. He noted the only other projects in District 2 total $640,000 versus other Districts that have a lot more; and the Garden Club would be more than happy to help out with the landscaping. He stated with the improvements to the road, there will be economic revitalization along the corridor.

Commissioner Colon inquired about funding; and stated $278,000 is allocated for Riverside Drive, $130,000 has been spent, and there is still a balance of $147,000. Mr. Minneboo stated that applies to the engineering study that was done; with Commissioner Colon inquiring what happens to all the money, and how does the Board determine where it will go. Mr. Minneboo noted that is the cost associated to doing Riverside. Commissioner Colon inquired about the difference between the amount spent and the balance and whether it is committed. Mr. Denninghoff responded those funds are all committed; the balance remaining is just what has not been paid out to the consultant at the time the chart was prepared; and the funds are obligated and not available to be shifted.

Discussion ensued on the amount allocated for Riverside Drive, funds yet to be invoiced, funds not available for other purposes, and projects being complete.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how is the rest going to be designed, and is there more money for any more design. Mr. Denninghoff stated it would be necessary to develop a scope of services with the consultant, negotiate a contract, and bring it back to the Board for additional funds. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the total was for the preliminary study; with Mr. Denninghoff responding that is correct.

Chairman Carlson stated the next road is Ellis Road; and no cards have been submitted. Mr. Denninghoff stated the firm of Kelly, Collins & Gentry, Inc. was hired to prepare the preliminary engineering report; and the recommended alternative is to construct a four-lane divided roadway with a median and sidewalks on both sides. He stated the recommendation would require right-of-way acquisition along the entire corridor varying in width from five feet up to 30 feet; and it would provide landscaping options in the grass median, and control left-turn movements. He stated two other significant projects are associated with it; on the east end DOT is currently designing the realignment of the Nasa/Wickham/Ellis Road intersection to bring them together; and that roadway improvement will have a grass median. He stated the other project of significance is the PD&E study being performed by FDOT for the Palm Bay Parkway, which includes bringing the Parkway all the way up to and interchanging with I-95 just west of the intersection of John Rodes Boulevard and Ellis Road, and then continuing on and connecting to John Rodes and Ellis; and that would also have a raised grass median associated with it. He stated the cost of the recommended alternative is approximately $7.31 million; and the other alternative is a five-lane section with center turn lane, and few landscaping options or control on left-turn movements, which is estimated to cost $7.04 million. He stated public input for this project was generally supportive; there were some concerns with respect to the need for U-turn movements that would be necessary with the medians; most of those concerns were addressed in the meeting; and the other major concern was that in some locations the majority of the right-of-way acquisition would be on one side of the road. He advised the City of West Melbourne contributed $80,000 to the Nasa/Wickham/Ellis Road project, and will assist the County in meeting the obligation for the Joint Project Agreement with DOT for the project.

Commissioner Colon stated Norma Black was present earlier and expressed opposition to the project because of the impact to 19 trailer homes. Mr. Denninghoff advised that is the Lake Ibis community; right-of-way would be taken at that location; however, the homes are set back pretty far from the existing road and would still be pretty far away.

Chairman Carlson inquired what is the status of the I-95 interchange; with Mr. Kamm responding the preliminary engineering study has begun for the Palm Bay Parkway, which will look at a new roadway from Malabar Road north to U.S. 192, and an extension north to the potential new interchange; and the feasibility, cost, and benefit will be evaluated during the preliminary engineering study. He stated the results will be known over the next several months. Chairman Carlson inquired if the land between the terminus of Ellis Road where it connects with Rodes Boulevard to I-95 is available; with Mr. Kamm responding it is currently vacant. Chairman Carlson inquired why the Board should go through this if it is never going to get a connection. Mr. Minneboo stated part of that is one of the County's outfalls for drainage, so there is some land there. Mr. Kamm stated Chairman Carlson's question is if it is found during the preliminary engineering study that an interchange is needed, and the County plans to put it on a piece of vacant land, will it be vacant by the time the interchange is built; and that needs further discussion.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the difference in the Ellis proposed interchange and the U.S. 192 interchange. Mr. Kamm stated the distance is approximately one and one-half miles. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is a distance that could be approved; with Mr. Kamm advising DOT likes to have two miles between interchanges so it would be in violation of the standards; but they are preparing to make a case that it is a necessary improvement for the area. Commissioner Higgs inquired if DOT can approve it; with Mr. Kamm responding the Federal Highway Administration ultimately has the approval, but DOT sets the spacing standards. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Viera interchange involves a distance issue; with Mr. Kamm responding no; and explained how it is different.

Commissioner Colon stated the paperwork shows $2 million was allocated to the Palm Bay Beltway; the amount that was spent was $181,000; and inquired if it was strictly for studies. Mr. Kamm advised when federal highway funds are used on a road that is not on the State highway system, DOT requires a local match of 12.5% of the cost, so the $2 million is the match for a $14 million project, and covers more than the study. Commissioner Colon inquired if the only thing that has been spent so far is approximately $200,000; with Mr. Denninghoff responding that is correct; and the $1.8 million is still there. Commissioner Colon inquired if the Palm Bay Road/I-95/RJ Conlan Road is a similar scenario. Mr. Kamm responded the project is going into design now; it involves federal funds not on the State highway system with the match required; and the match covers the cost estimates that DOT is giving for moving that through construction. Commissioner Colon stated she wanted that to be on the record because there is frustration in certain areas concerning money being there; and inquired about the Babcock Street project, U.S. 1 to Fee Avenue. Mr. Kamm stated there are two lines given for Babcock Street; and one showed a match and the other did not. Harriet Raymond advised the Board asked staff to do the PD&E study, but staff met with the City, which wanted to find out what the right-of-way impacts were going to be; and that is why they are holding off. Mr. Kamm advised there is a separate set-aside for the County work defining the improvements needed on Babcock Street; so there are two different studies going on, one being a County study, and the other a State study; and they are being shown as two different entries because they are two different funding mechanisms. He stated if the County chooses to take on improvements to Babcock Street north of U.S. 192, then it will not have to participate with DOT on the matching program, so it is an either/or situation. He noted there is an application before DOT under the County Incentive Grant Program for $3 million that would go toward the Ellis Road improvement; and the Board should know in July 2001 whether the application will be approved.

Chairman Carlson stated the next project for discussion is John Rodes Boulevard. Mr. Denninghoff stated the consultant for the project was Frazier Engineering; it is an intersection improvement project as opposed to a widening although the consultant did look at widening to some degree; and the recommended improvements are primarily left-turn lanes although there are a couple of right-turn lanes at a few of the intersections. He stated on the southerly end of the project at U.S. 192, they are proposing improvements at a cost estimated at $800,000; the next intersection moving north is Sheridan Road; and the proposed improvements at that location are approximately $1.44 million. He noted the Ellis Road intersection is not included in this study, but was included in the Ellis Road study. He stated moving north of Ellis Road, starting at Waterfront Street and continuing to Eau Gallie Boulevard, the proposal is to create a three-lane section with left-turn lanes provided at several of the intersections. Mr. Denninghoff stated the problem with the location is that many of the intersections, which need improvements because of safety needs, are so close to one another that the turn lanes would back into one another, so the County is left with the three-lane section without having to widen the roadway; and that portion of the improvements is estimated to cost $3.57 million, and includes the improvements on the north side of Eau Gallie for that portion of John Rodes Boulevard. He stated the only alternative considered is the possibility of not building or eliminating portions of the project or going to a complete no-build option. He stated public input on the project was received at a public meeting and a few letters; there was no significant opposition to the project although a few requests were made to include walls at the Sheridan Woods Subdivision and also along the Lamplighter Village portion of the roadway; and the attendees from Lamplighter Village also requested landscaping although the opportunities for landscaping with a three-lane section are very limited. He advised the cost of the walls was not included in the cost estimates, as they are not technically required to meet design standards.

Chairman Carlson inquired if piping the entire length is included in the estimate; with Mr. Denninghoff responding no; the stormwater for the intersections is being collected in a pipe system, but the main ditches along the roadway are being left open. Mr. Denninghoff noted sidewalks are being included at the locations where the intersections are improved; and eventually they may be able to be connected together to provide for a continuous sidewalk facility. Chairman Carlson stated it is not possible to get there unless it is piped because there is not enough room. Mr. Denninghoff stated a lot of that land is vacant; and as it is developed, it is assumed it would probably require sidewalks to be constructed. He noted the level of service for John Rodes Boulevard in its current configuration is acceptable; if the beltway is constructed, it is anticipated that 20 years from now, with the improvements proposed, it would still be at an acceptable level of service; but if the beltway is not constructed, the scenario changes substantially in a bad way.

Chairman Carlson stated the last project is Hollywood Boulevard. Mr. Minneboo stated the firms of Bussen Mayer, Frazier Engineering, and Outlaw, Rice and Jones were hired; the section of Hollywood Boulevard between Eber Road and U.S. 192 consists of two lanes of rural roadway through an area which is near and at an urban level use; there is currently an existing pedestrian bicycle facility along the east side of the corridor from U.S. 192 to Fell Road and along the west side of the corridor from Fell Road to Wingate Drive; and the existing right-of-way is 50 to 100 feet wide along the roadway. She stated alternative one consists of intersection improvements at Eber Road, Fell Road, and Henry Avenue/Gail Road; the improvements would include right and left-turn lanes, a traffic signal at Henry Avenue, and sidewalks at those intersections; and all the improvements would be in the existing right-of-way except at Henry Avenue, which would require minor acquisition. He stated alternative two consists of no improvements to the existing corridor; but reports indicted that the 2020 model shows that if no improvements are provided, intersection capacities will be greatly impacted and side street friction will increase with future development. He stated the alternative one total cost is approximately $1.6 million; Eber Road is estimated at $635,000; Fell Road is estimated at $364,000, and Henry Avenue/Gail Road is estimated at approximately $700,000. He stated the engineer of record recommended alternative one for the project; the typical section would eliminate the unacceptable intersection levels of service that are being experienced at certain periods of the day. He stated three consultants were preparing reports on three different intersections; and due to the time involved in preparing scopes of services and negotiations, a public information meeting has not been held for this project as of this date.

Mark Ryan, City Manager of West Melbourne, commended the County for its initiative in forming the study and the Public Works Department for doing a fantastic job coordinating the project; and expressed appreciation to Commissioner Higgs for spearheading the issue. He stated they have not seen the results of the study; but there is going to be a public meeting within the next two months. He stated the City is supportive of the results of the study and is concerned about the need to implement; it has allocated funds from impact fees to be reserved for the results of whatever the study says; and it is looking to be a partner with Brevard County to solve this transportation problem.

Commissioner Higgs stated the intersections are going to need some improvements; there may be significant public input because they are residential; and the sooner the public meetings can be held, the better.

Chairman Carlson inquired what kind of direction does the Board need to give staff at this point. Mr. Minneboo stated staff has given the Board a clear overview; and the rest of it the Board will have an opportunity to address. Chairman Carlson stated she does not know if the Board is interested in trying to place priorities on the list; and all the projects are unfunded, although the Board did vote on Riverside Drive. She stated it sounds like there is some question about the John Rodes Boulevard and Micco Road projects that could be potentially reduced in terms of the projected need; and inquired if the Board wishes to discuss it or have staff come back with recommendations. Commissioner Higgs inquired what Chairman Carlson means about reducing Micco Road project; with Chairman Carlson responding the discussion was that Dottie to U.S. 1 might be more significant and a priority. Commissioner Higgs advised the Board has not even looked at Dottie Lane west to Babcock Street.

Discussion ensued on public input, "S" curve on Micco Road, recommendation for combination of alternatives one and two, and no savings on Micco Road project.

Mr. Minneboo stated staff will try to provide some estimates on the project from Dottie Lane to I-95.

Chairman Carlson stated the bigger question is how will the projects be funded; but if any of the projects can be chiseled down in terms of what needs to be produced to fund it, it can ease the pain of trying to look for where the Board is going to get those dollars; and the Board has left open number five because there are improvements it might want to make on Riverside Drive. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to at least explore the intersection of U.S. 192 and Riverside Drive before it writes it off. Chairman Carlson inquired if staff will be coming back with ideas about how some projects can be reduced or streamlined; with Mr. Minneboo responding staff will take everything gathered today and when it comes back, it will try to address some of the specific issues. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board wants to save money, it will do the road and nothing else. Mr. Jenkins noted there is a Board policy on landscaping. Mr. Minneboo stated 3% of the projects have been allocated for landscaping. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board wanted to save money on the road projects, could it take out landscaping, pedways, and that sort of thing. Chairman Carlson stated there is the possibility of looking at it in terms of phasing to reduce the overall costs upfront.

Commissioner Scarborough stated taking out pedways and landscaping is not going to save money; the projects are not going to happen until the Board finds a substantial source of money; 3% of all the projects is not going to make it; and it is frustrating to even pretend that taking out the landscaping is a means to make the projects possible. Chairman Carlson stated Transportation Planning should look at the projects for the purpose of prioritizing the need and traffic and system flow, and come back with recommendations. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board took $200,000 from each of the MSTU's and bonded it out for $12 million, some of the projects would totally consume that; and there is not the capacity unless the Board wants to pick one project and do it and say no to the rest of the projects.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has already invested a certain amount of money on nine of the projects; there may be some projects the Board wants to put on the shelf; and it has two decisions to make. She stated the first decision concerns funding to see how big a pot of money it has so it can allocate some of the dollars to some of the projects; and the second thing is the prioritization process. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board would prioritize between one and two, and then it would be necessary to use all the methodologies that have been suggested, and if they do not work the money would not be there.

Commissioner Colon expressed concern about cutting down on landscaping; and commented on Minton and Malabar Roads, beautification, looking at the whole package, and July 24, 2001 workshop. She stated West Melbourne needs to provide public comments; and the Board would want feedback prior to July 24 from the citizens involved. She stated Commissioner Higgs is saying to cut back on sidewalks or landscaping; but that would be traumatic for the community when it is trying to beautify the County.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is not suggesting the Board do that; she is saying the only way she can see to save money on the projects is either to phase them or cut out some things; and she is not trying to get rid of landscaping or pedways.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not understand phasing; the Board does not have the money to do the projects; if it is going to do any of the projects, it will have to put money together and bond it; and once it is bonded, the Board has taken that whole source of money for a period of time to do one project. He stated unless there is another source of money, the Board cannot bond again; if it takes $200,000 per MSTU, it would have $1 million which it could bond to get $12 million; and that would do a couple of projects. He stated there will be phasing because the Board would lock up the stream of income, which would belong to the bond holders.

Commissioner Higgs stated that is not true; with Commissioner Scarborough inquiring where could there be phasing. Commissioner Higgs stated she is not necessarily advocating phasing; but if the Board could generate a way to have $1 million dollars, it could generate $12 million if it bonded it. Commissioner Scarborough noted it could only be bonded once. Commissioner Higgs stated that is nothing new; and if the Board had $12 million, it could do a number of different projects. Commissioner Scarborough advised some of the projects are $6 million, so the Board could only do a couple of the projects; inquired why the Board should prioritize a whole stack of projects; and suggested finding out how much money it is going to have. He stated the Board is fooling the people by pretending the projects are going to be coming forth when they are not. Chairman Carlson stated the Board has to figure out how it can come up with the funds. Commissioner Scarborough recommended the Board discuss sales tax as it is the only answer. Chairman Carlson agreed it is part of the answer; with Commissioner Higgs advising it is not the only answer. Commissioner Scarborough stated everything discussed today is nothing but subterfuge to pretend a project is still there, but the truth is that it is not. Chairman Carlson stated the Board cannot hang its hat completely on sales tax. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has to tell the people they do not have any projects. Chairman Carlson stated the Board can tell them that, and they may vote against it; and that may stop growth because it is the mentality out there. Commissioner Scarborough stated these are not funded projects; the Board has discussed means to do some funding; and each one had substantial problems about how the money can be moved and what can happen. He stated stormwater assessments can be increased or the MSTU's can be increased, but those are very small numbers in comparison to the total package; the numbers have to make some sense; and he does not see any math coming close to touching some of the projects.

Discussion ensued on alternative funding, no funding source taking care of everything, Sheriff's request for $10 million, raising the property tax millage to the cap to restore General Fund allocation to Road and Bridge, exceeding the millage cap, inability to deal with all needs with the cap, and difficulty getting the Board to agree to an increase in taxes.

Commissioner Colon stated the Board could attempt to do something; if it is able to come up with $12 million, it could look strategically at the entire County to see what has been done and where the need is; and the Board would allocate the money to the Pineda extension, to alleviate concerns in that area. She stated it does not solve everything; the Board is frustrated; but at least it can try to attack one project.

Commissioner Higgs stated it is the Board's job to look at the options and figure out the best it can do with the resources it has; it can inform the public this is the best that can be done with the resources, and present the other options; and she refuses to say the Board can do nothing.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is trying to be realistic; Public Works wants to buy a patching machine, which is indicative of where the County is going with road resurfacing; and the Board is trying to do capital projects, but at the same time, surfaces will deteriorate on other roads as the County becomes more aggressive with patching rather than resurfacing. He stated he is not happy and is not going to keep quiet about it; the only answer is sales tax; if it is bonded out it would result in $250 million to the County and another $200 million to the cities; the Board could solve the problems; and it should let the people know that is a possibility. Commissioner Higgs stated she has voted to allocate money to inform people about bond issues or referendum items; and the Board may not have allocated enough money to tell people. Commissioner Scarborough noted there is no referendum. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to do the best job it can with the resources it has so it can explain to the people that it has stretched as far as it can; and the solution to every problem is not to go to referendum. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not see any solution to the long-range County objectives without something like sales tax. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board may have to do that; but she has an obligation to go as far as she can in understanding other resources under the control of the Board that can be used to address the problem, and then inform the people; and she does not want to just go to referendum for a sales tax. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not saying that; he is just saying to look at it; and inquired where is any other substantial amount of money to do more than a couple of projects. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to see how the numbers fall out to see where it is. Chairman Carlson stated sales tax is not out of the question, but it is infrastructure sales tax; and it would be necessary to have dollars for operations and maintenance. She expressed concern about not having a maintenance work plan. Commissioner Scarborough stated local option gas tax money has been moved over to operations; and now the Board is deciding to cut down further on operations from resurfacing to patching; with Commissioner Higgs advising the Board has not decided to do that. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has continually moved out of construction; the people have supported the Board with capital improvements because they can see defined projects; and if there are defined projects funded through referendums, it allows the Board to move back into the operational side free of the encumbrance of having fights between the two objectives. Chairman Carlson stated she is not sure if a sales tax referendum passes that the Board would still be able to operate Road and Bridge at the level it needs because there are many more miles of roadway to maintain, even though it would release some of the dollars. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board would not be trying to take monies from operations and to construction; one of the things Mr. Minneboo tried to do today was cut back on operations so he could do new construction; and if that burden is taken off, there is more money free in operations so there would be better roads. Chairman Carlson stated if the Board goes to the sales tax issue, that would be an interesting analysis of dollars for road projects and operating expenses for maintenance; and her fear is that it is going to relieve some, but the Board is still going to be between a rock and a hard place in terms of getting the cost. Commissioner Scarborough stated many times things that could be capital are being picked up as operational; and if things are picked up as capital and done well, then that would relieve the operational expense. Chairman Carlson stated that is true to some degree, but not 100% true.

Mr. Jenkins clarified that Public Works has a maintenance schedule; and he will be glad to provide that to the Board. He stated not long ago Public Works and Road and Bridge provided the Board with a concept of preventive maintenance, the Pavement Management Program; scheduled planned maintenance would extend the life of a road at a much lower cost; all that information has been assembled; and inquired what was the price tag; with Mr. Minneboo responding $200,000 to $300,000. Chairman Carlson inquired if the cost is for a software program; with Mr. Jenkins responding no, it is the task itself; and he will show it to the Board again. Chairman Carlson inquired if the maintenance work program could be put on the Internet so people can access that information. Mr. Jenkins advised staff did a video on Space Coast Government TV about the recurring maintenance program. Chairman Carlson stated there is enough for another workshop; with Commissioner Colon inquiring if the target date is still July 24, 2001; with Mr. Jenkins advising that is a regular meeting. Chairman Carlson directed staff to put together a date for the workshop; and inquired if it can be combined with the budget hearings; with Mr. Jenkins responding possibly.

DISCUSSION, RE: CIP/BEST PRACTICES

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated the County utilizes the capital improvement program planning process to identify, quantify, and assess its capital improvement needs over a five-year period; in defining capital improvement, the definition in the Comprehensive Plan is used, which is any construction, land acquisition, equipment purchase, or rental proposal that costs $25,000 or more and has a five-year or longer expected service life; and projects that may cost less than $25,000, which are considered necessary for the implementation of any long-term improvement including implementation of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, are also considered as capital improvements.

Chairman Carlson inquired if staff is going to describe the changes made with the best practices segment; with Mr. Whitten responding staff will go over the summary information in terms of how many projects are funded or unfunded, and then will go over the formatting of the capital improvement page.

Dennis Rogero stated the CIP totals just under $794 million; the Parks and Recreation referendum projects portion is just under $73 million or 9% of the CIP document; the funded projects for the current year total just over $108 million or 14%; and the funded projects over the next four years through FY 2004-2005 are just over $179 million or 23%. He stated this breaks it out between unfunded projects shown at 55% or $433.5 million and funded projects. He stated primary funding sources include Solid Waste disposal fees at $19.5 million, Environmentally Endangered Lands ad valorem revenues of just over $10 million, Constitutional Gas Tax, federal grants for the Transit Department, and the Road and Bridge MSTU revenues at just over $4 million. He stated major expenditures by Board agencies include Solid Waste at $21.5 million, Parks and Recreation, and road construction; and the overview provides a snapshot of proprietary funds and programs within Public Works and Parks and Recreation, which make up the bulk of the capital expenses. He stated he has highlighted some of the changes made in the CIP format, based on Board direction at the January workshop; within the book it is organized by department, and then by program or service; within the department and/or program, it is organized by whether the project is funded, partially funded, or unfunded; and the Board will find that information in the revenue section on the lower part of the program sheet and also in the narrative that is part of the project description section of the CIP sheet. He stated information has also been included as to whether the Board approved a project, whether there have been previous fiscal year expenditures, and the projected completion date.

Chairman Carlson requested staff talk about the best practices section of the CIP and describe why that section was created. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the Board requested that when staff presented the preliminary CIP, in addition to requesting additional information on program changes or enhancements; what is provided is not officially a part of the CIP because it is not a capital project; but because of the Board's request, each department has reviewed its operations and identified a number of program enhancements or improvements it would be recommending, which are in most cases unfunded. Chairman Carlson stated the Board talked about making the CIP consistent in terms of how things are laid out in program years, but not with best practices; and if the Board wants to bite off some of this over a five-year period, there is no way to tell the best practice unfunded projects; and requested that be provided in the same format. Mr. Jenkins stated staff can do anything the Board requests, but for example Traffic Engineering is taking ten years to do a project because it is spreading out the funding over a manageable phase; and he requested the projects be submitted on the premise that if there were resources, it could be done. He stated most of the things on the program side could be implemented when funding becomes available or they could be done in a multi-year approach if there are limited resources. Chairman Carlson stated totally it was $15.2 million in best practices, if the Board wanted to take it in one gulp; but if it was divided over a five-year period, it would be close to $4 million or less per year. Mr. Jenkins stated if the Board would like them phased over five years, staff can do that. Chairman Carlson stated she is trying to see something more palatable because everyone is concerned about quality of life; and if these projects are what the departments and agencies have determined to be quality of life issues, it would be easier to look at them over a five-year period. Mr. Jenkins noted they should not be in the Capital Improvements Program because they are not capital; with Chairman Carlson noting some are. Mr. Jenkins stated the capital items are in the CIP side, and these are strictly programs. Chairman Carlson stated they could be programmed out so they would be more palatable; and staff could identify things it actually could do.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mosquito Control is very specific as to what it buys; and the person in the community would define Mosquito Control by how bad the mosquitoes get at any particular time. He stated Mosquito Control has a number of little expenditures that appear as line item expenditures; that has significance if money is being spent; however in the community people want to know how long it will be before the mosquitoes are gone. Mr. Jenkins stated the answer in this particular scenario is that the mosquitoes will never be gone; and the outcome shown is the number of acres that will be controlled will be increased by 1,250 acres. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what does that mean to the person on the street and his enjoyment of an evening walk; theoretically that should equate over; and it is not defined in terms of the consumer, but in terms of corporate expenditure. Mr. Jenkins noted Mosquito Control is a hard one to deal with. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what would the levels be, defined in a consumer sense as opposed to a helicopters/employees sense, if the County had the best Mosquito Control in the State of Florida. Commissioner Higgs inquired how many more acres could Mosquito Control cover with the $1.37 for a new helicopter; with Mr. Jenkins responding that is back in the CIP. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the helicopter is a replacement; and stated it would be interesting to have a better understanding of the level of service improvement from that. Commissioner Scarborough stated his question is if the County buys the new helicopter, how much more would the consumer feel as a benefit; with Commissioner Higgs responding possibly none, if it is a replacement. Mr. Jenkins noted mosquitoes are tough to define because they are never going to go away. Commissioner Scarborough stated that may be the wrong example. Mr. Jenkins stated it is not possible to say the County is going to reduce mosquitoes by 10%; but it can say it will increase prevention efforts by 10%. Commissioner Scarborough stated the point is to quantify something in a consumer sense of quality of life. Mr. Jenkins stated staff did that better with the best practices than with the CIP; unfortunately the CIP document was fairly well along, and redoing it at that stage was difficult; but as they did some of the new unfunded CIP's and new program changes that were to be funded, they attempted to do a better job of relating to the consumers' interest. He stated they also attempted to do less about complaining about a deficiency in services, but more as to how they were enhancing quality of life. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want to be too critical because this is the first time doing it this way; and commented on showing reduction of mosquitoes in human terms.

Chairman Carlson stated each of the best practices needs to be defined, justified, etc.; with Mr. Jenkins advising it is. Chairman Carlson stated on BP1, she does not know what the County is going to get for $500,000 and whether it is capital or programs; with Mr. Jenkins responding it is programs. Chairman Carlson stated she does not see any capital; so that would be "x" number of individuals to fill slots; and what she would like to see is some sort of phasing out over time to show how these could actually be achieved. She stated if the items shown as prescribed best practices to improve quality of life could be validated, the Board could decide whether those are things it really wants to go forward with, and create different lists that could be incorporated into the infrastructure sales tax discussion. She stated there is $400 million that is unfunded; the strategic planning process has started; and over the next six months, it will be interesting to see where the leaders in the community focus and what part the Board will play in the whole process. She stated hopefully that will provide better focus to some of the initiatives the Board is trying to do with the infrastructure sales tax and what projects need to be funded and which need to sit on the back burner. She stated she does not know how the Board wants to validate these; it is good to look at all the requests from the different agencies; but the Board needs some justification and a question/answer session on some of them. She stated they can be grouped by agencies and covered fairly rapidly; and then a couple of lists can be created, giving a place to start for the infrastructure sale tax discussion on the capital and program sides as well as how to put the dollars in place over time to do some of the programs.

Commissioner Colon stated this is moving in the right direction because the Board is being proactive; it can add on or tweak the document; and she is not criticizing the hard work that was put into the document. She stated it shows a problem of accreditation of Country Acres Children's Home; best practice standards are being talked about nationally in the care of abused children; and nationally they are moving toward the area of being able to be more proactive, but the document does not identify how to accomplish it. She stated best practices are very critical for the community because the Board is always acting on needs versus actually benchmarking quality of life; the document is good because it opens the mind; and the County is much more than roads and bridges.

Chairman Carlson stated it goes back to prioritization; and recommended the Board list the improvements it wants to include in the infrastructure sales tax discussion and those that it wants to list for general revenue funding, grants, or State or federal funding. She stated they need to be separated; and from those lists, the Board can create a priority list. She stated she hopes the strategic planning effort will help the Board beam in on where those priorities lie; and it is a good exercise for the Board and staff.

Commissioner Colon stated expanding computer and Internet training to library patrons seems like a luxury, but it is not; that is the way of the future; and it is being proactive and thinking ahead about getting information to the residents.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the analysis is refined about how the County's libraries compare with others in the State; in terms of number of square feet of libraries, the County is up at the top; but since it has been putting a lot into facilities, it is not at the top in terms of number of volumes. He stated the follow-up of having good libraries is to have the volumes; the County is headed in the right direction; library books are a capital expenditure and could be included in the sales tax funding methodology; so there are a lot of things that can be touched.

Chairman Carlson commented on best practices, program changes, libraries, incremental increases each year, and quality-of-life measurements; and inquired if the Board wants to approve the CIP, not including best practices.

Commissioner Scarborough commented on contrary proposals in the document; stated an animal shelter in North Brevard appears at AS10 and again at PW 103, and unfunded items are mixed in without delineation. He stated as this comes back to the Board it needs further integration; there is some redundancy as the County would not want to put an additional facility at the old animal shelter and build a new shelter; and there may be others of a similar nature.

Chairman Carlson stated she noticed some inconsistencies; those can be itemized and brought back under a regular agenda after the inconsistencies are figured out; and inquired have the Commissioners seen any other inconsistencies. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Whitten is aware of inconsistencies, and does not need instructions. Commissioner Colon stated the five-year plan is what the Board was looking for; and this is how she was used to looking at a capital improvement plan.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board wishes the document to be brought back with the corrections; with Mr. Jenkins advising staff will clean it up and bring it back. Chairman Carlson stated staff will set the stage for the discussion on infrastructure sales tax using the CIP and the programs that have been established to come up with the two lists mentioned earlier. Mr. Jenkins stated from this point forward staff will separate the CIP and best practices because one is a capital requirement and the other is programming; and they will try to phase the best practices over a period of several years. Chairman Carlson stated it is a good idea to have the programming set apart; it is nice to know what programs the agencies would like to have to make their operations better, so seeing it all in one document has been a plus; but it should not be absorbed in the regular budget. Mr. Jenkins requested all directors who are present stay after the meeting.

Commissioner Higgs stated one of the issues raised earlier was speed enforcement; it was also raised when the Board met last week in regard to South A1A; and inquired if the need for additional radar guns is provided for in the Sheriff's Capital Plan. Sheriff's Finance Manager Deborah Barker advised the radar guns are in the five-year plan, which the Sheriff submitted to the County in February; but they are not in the budget that was submitted; and the Sheriff is still looking at alternative funding sources for those. Commissioner Higgs inquired how many years out is it; with Ms. Barker advising it is shown as car video cameras on SO3. Commissioner Higgs stated that is not the same thing; and recommended staff get back to the Board on that because if it is going to enhance enforcement, radar guns will be essential equipment; and she would like to know where that is and how much. Ms. Barker stated that might be built into the vehicle cost; it is on new vehicles for new positions because they are trying to focus in on the mobile data and automatic external defibrillators, etc.; and she will validate that and see what has been submitted so far. Commissioner Higgs stated it would be helpful to know where that stands.

Chairman Carlson stated the CIP has the Sheriff's needs in terms of capital; and inquired if there are best practices for the Sheriff. Mr. Jenkins inquired if those were solicited; with Mr. Whitten responding staff requested those, but it is voluntary. Ms. Barker advised the Sheriff submitted based on the CIP, a five-year plan that was $80 million; things were included that were not technically capital improvement projects, such as new people and the anticipated raises; the Budget Office requested they pare that down in conjunction with what the CIP is defined as; and that is what has been submitted. She stated if there is another mechanism that the Board needs to look at or something that needs to be put in another form, the Sheriff's Office can put it in whatever format the Board desires; but to the best of her knowledge they supplied what was asked for. Chairman Carlson stated it would be nice to get the whole picture on enforcement since it is a big ticket item; and it would be nice to know what the best practices for the Sheriff would be, looking at it from a realistic perspective to say what programs would enhance quality of life of the citizens and enforcement of the law. Ms. Barker stated they have done that; but indicated willingness to put it in a form that fits the Board's paperwork. Mr. Jenkins explained the confusion with the Sheriff's budget submittal, which resulted in the best practices being left out. Ms. Barker stated the original budget submittal was $80 million, which included the people cost; and suggested she meet with the Budget Manager and County Manager to see exactly what is desired. Chairman Carlson stated the emphasis is on outcomes; the Sheriff has talked about how many officers per capita and things like that; and the Board wants to know outcomes and how best practices are justified.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he was looking at SO14 where the Sheriff is saying that if the County constructs a new courthouse facility, it is going to cost $15 million for security and services; and recommended in the upcoming workshop, that page be part of the documentation. Ms. Barker stated that was submitted under the Sheriff's budget; but it is an infrastructure issue that would fit under a different department. She stated they were attempting to identify for the Board all large expenses that were known; and while it may not belong in the Sheriff's budget, it needs to be recognized that the south precinct and courthouse construction are issues that need to be in someone's budget.

Commissioner Colon stated if it would replace Nieman Avenue facility, that is not acceptable; with Mr. Jenkins advising that is being remodeled; and it is functional, but small. Commissioner Colon stated when the trains go through, it is not possible to speak to the citizens; and that is the only department working under those conditions. Mr. Jenkins commented on the noise in Commissioner Scarborough's office when the train goes by.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Sheriff is making the Board aware of ancillary costs; a workshop is coming up; and he would like an explanation of how the Sheriff arrived at the figure shown on page SO14. Mr. Jenkins stated it is for the building; with Commissioner O'Brien responding it says court services and security. Mr. Jenkins stated it is the Sheriff's component of the building; and it is one of the duplications. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Sheriff is saying that his estimate is $15 million. Mr. Jenkins noted it is also under Facilities Construction. Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like to see some figures from the Sheriff's Department about whether there would be additional security requirements, and what the cost to the Sheriff would be if the County built a south facility. Mr. Jenkins stated Mr. Muller is providing that and has it for all support functions. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if that is broken down; with Facilities Management Director Hugh Muller responding affirmatively.

Chairman Carlson requested on the list it is going to create for capital and programs, staff designate each item that has anything to do with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jenkins stated he specifically requested any Comprehensive Plan mandates that are not being addressed; and he hopes the majority is included.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 3:34 p.m.

___________________________________
SUSAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)