The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on April 11, 2000, at 9:03 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Sue Carlson, and Helen Voltz, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Spiritual Leader John Goldring, Temple Beth El, Barefoot Bay.

Commissioner Randy O'Brien led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Minutes of the December 7, 1999 and January 11, 2000 Regular Meetings, February 1, 2000 Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District Board meeting, and February 3, 2000 Zoning Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: IDEAS FOR REGIONAL MEETING

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Volusia County Commission is going to have a regional meeting; Brevard County hosted the first meeting; and the Chairman of the Volusia Commission requested ideas on a format. He stated he will develop some ideas and put the issue on the Agenda next week for comment.

Commissioner Voltz inquired when it will be; with Commissioner Scarborough responding in approximately one month, but he does not have a specific date.

REPORT, RE: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Commissioner O'Brien advised the words "under God" were not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1921.

DISCUSSION, RE: EXPANSION OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Commissioner O'Brien read aloud from a newspaper article concerning adding three universities to the State system. He stated the Senate Education Committee considered a measure which would have required the creation of three new universities to open in the Fall, 2002 in Pinellas, Broward, and Sarasota Counties; Senator Sullivan wanted the universities to serve only those students working toward bachelors and masters degrees because the State's rate of granting baccalaureate degrees ranks 46th in the nation; and while there are ten schools in the State University System, many students have to drive dozens of miles to get the courses they want. He stated the Board has worked on improving quality of life in the County; he does not know how the Board can approach the Senate panel to advise of the demand on the east coast of Florida for this type of university; and advised if young people from Brevard County want to go to college, they have to go to Gainesville, Jacksonville, Miami, etc. He stated FIT is an excellent school, but it is private; and recommended the Board work to bring a State university to the County. He inquired what direction should the Board take to try to capture one of the expansion universities.

Commissioner Voltz suggested contacting the Senators who sit on the Education Committee to request an appearance before them to plead the County's case.

Chairman Higgs requested the County Manager ask the Legislative Liaison and Lobbyist what the proper course of action would be, and report at the workshop on April 13, 2000.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE OF THE VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST

Commissioner Voltz read aloud a resolution proclaiming April 20 through May 6, 2000 as Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution proclaiming April 20 through May 6, 2000 as Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Spiritual Leader John Goldring, Temple Beth El, commented on the lives of the survivors of the Holocaust; and stated participation in the local Holocaust Memorial Service is a sign of respect to those who perished and a source of strength to those who could not mourn. He expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution, and extended an invitation to attend the memorial service on May 1, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. at Temple Israel.

Chairman Higgs thanked Mr. Goldring for being present, and helping everyone remember the need to move forward with a sense of tolerance and respect for all people. Commissioner Voltz presented the Resolution to Mr. Goldring.

JUDY COLLIER, CHAIRMAN, AND FERNANDA SAFARIK, SECRETARY, BREVARD COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD, RE: PRESENTATION OF PEN AND INK DRAWINGS, AND RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING NATIONAL LIBRARY WEEK

Judy Collier stated she and Fernanda Safarik, representing the Brevard County Library Board, will present this year's pen and ink drawings to the Commissioners for their offices, in appreciation for the Board's help and support. She commented on Library Day in Tallahassee and efforts to lobby for the three construction grants; stated the House recommended funding for the first ten grants; the Melbourne Beach Library is included in the first ten grants; Suntree is listed as 14; and the expansion at Port St. John is 15. She stated the Senate recommended funding for all 15 grants at $300,000 each; the Secretary of State recommended funding at $400,000; and a decision has not been made as to which grants will be funded. She advised of a news conference with Katherine Harris, Secretary of State, who presented a literacy grant to Brevard County; and thanked the Board for its support of libraries.

The Board expressed appreciation to the Library Board for the drawings for their offices.

Commissioner Scarborough read aloud a resolution proclaiming National Library Week.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution commending the Library system, and proclaiming the week of April 10 through 14, 2000 as National Library Week. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated staff and the Library Board have done a tremendous job of developing the library system for the community. Commissioner O'Brien stated Brevard County has one of the best library systems in the State.

Commissioner Scarborough presented the Resolution to Ms. Collier and Ms. Safarik.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING BREVARD COUNTY VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION WEEK

Human Resources Frank Abbate expressed appreciation and gratitude to all individuals who participate as volunteers; and stated the County is grateful for the support the volunteers bring to the County. He stated many County agencies rely heavily on the contributions of the volunteers who give unselfishly of their time and talents. He recognized representatives of the BRAVE Volunteer Program, Country Acres Volunteer Program, Guardian Ad Litem Program, Court Alternatives Volunteer Program, EELS Volunteer Program, Emergency Management Volunteer Program, Juvenile Justice Planning Committee, Libraries Volunteer Program, Literacy Volunteer Program, Parks and Recreation Volunteer Program, Public Safety-Fire Rescue Volunteer Program, Volunteers in Motion Program, and Agriculture and Extension Services 4-Program, Master Gardeners, and Family and Community Educators; and expressed appreciation to the volunteer coordinators.

Commissioner O'Brien read aloud a resolution proclaiming the week of April 9 through 15, 2000 as Brevard County Volunteer Appreciation Week.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming the week of April 9 through 15, 2000 as Brevard County Volunteer Appreciation Week in recognition of the efforts and contributions of volunteers, and expressing sincere gratitude to volunteers for their outstanding service. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien advised every Commissioner also has many volunteers who are appointed to various boards; and there is a large pool of people who are deeply involved in the community which is wonderful. Commissioner O'Brien presented the Resolution to Mr. Abbate.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING BREVARD ASSOCIATION OF VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT

Chairman Higgs stated the Brevard Association of Volunteer Management helps coordinate volunteers.

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution recognizing the Brevard Association of Volunteer Management.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution recognizing the Brevard Association of Volunteer Management for its contributions to the community, and encouraging citizens to join other community volunteers in dedicating a few hours each week to going aid and support to a deserving individual, group or cause. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Betty Wheeler-Cain. Ms. Wheeler-Cain, Treasurer of the Brevard Association of Volunteer Management, advised of the efforts of the organization; and encouraged the Board to send volunteers to the group for training. She expressed appreciation for the Resolution.

Chairman Higgs stated a lot of times the volunteers are only able to work because there is a coordinator; and expressed appreciation to the volunteers and Ms. Wheeler-Cain.

J. R. RUSSO, PUBLIC DEFENDER, RE: PRESENTATION OF CONFLICT FUNDS REIMBURSEMENT

Public Defender J. R. Russo stated long before Article V, the Florida Public Defenders' Association lobbied for funding for a portion of appropriated money the County pays for conflict cases, which the Association contends the County should not pay; and for fifteen years, they have gotten money from the judicial budget to reimburse the County, in part, for what they pay for conflict funding; and this year the Eighteenth Circuit got $100,000, which was divided into approximately $62,000 for Brevard County and $33,000 for Seminole County. He presented a check to the Board in the amount of $61,247.91 for reimbursement of conflict funds; and stated it is not full reimbursement, but Article V is coming, so the County will be out of the expenditure for State courts soon.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board appreciates the work of the Public Defender.

RELEASE OF DEED RESTRICTION, RE: CLEAR TITLE ON LOT 5, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND GROVES SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Release of Deed Restrictions to clear the title of County property located at Lot 5, Block 2, Highland Groves. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: CANCELING TAXES ON ACQUIRED ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution canceling real property taxes on properties acquired for public purposes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 4 WITH PAULUS, SOKOLOWSKI, AND SARTOR, RE: SPACE COAST STADIUM REPAIRS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Amendment to Agreement No. 4 with Paulus, Sokolowski and Sartor, in an amount not to exceed $50,000, for architectural and engineering services for the Space Coast Stadium repairs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 WITH ADVANCED HURRICANE PROTECTION, INC., RE: SCHOOL BOARD HURRICANE SHUTTERS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Change Order No. 2 with Advanced Hurricane Protection, Inc., increasing contract amount by $68,659.31 for installation of additional hurricane shutters at Rockledge High School. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SUBORDINATION OF UTILITY INTERESTS AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF COCOA, RE: CONSTRUCTION OF BAYTREE DRIVE

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Subordination of Utility Interests Agreement with the City of Cocoa in conjunction with the construction of Baytree Drive north of Wickham Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT DELIVERY METHOD, ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, APPOINT SELECTION AND NEGOTIATING COMMITTEES, AWARD PROPOSAL, AND EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE: SOUTH MAINLAND COMMUNITY CENTER - MICCO GYMNASIUM

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to utilize the Construction Management Delivery Method, advertise Request for Proposals from qualified construction management firms; appoint Selection Committee consisting of Assistant County Manager Don Lusk, Assistant Public Works Director Ed Washburn, Facilities Construction Director Sam Stanton, and Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson or their designees, and Construction Coordinator Bill Clifton; appoint Negotiating Committee consisting of Facilities Construction Director Sam Stanton and Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson or their designees, and Construction Coordinator Bill Clifton; and authorize the Chairman to execute contract with the number one ranked firm for construction of the South Mainland Community Center-Micco Gymnasium. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT FOR HAMPTON PARK SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt resolution releasing Contract with Pulte Home Corporation dated March 14, 2000 for Hampton Park Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL ENGINEERING APPROVAL, RE: HIVIS SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant final engineering approval for Hivis Subdivision, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and developer responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL ENGINEERING APPROVAL, RE: SUNSET LAKES WEST

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant final engineering approval for Sunset Lakes West, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and developer responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND CONTRACT, RE: BEL VISTA SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant final plat approval for Bel Vista Subdivision, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits; and execute Contract with Thomas A. Eason for infrastructure improvements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: CHATSWORTH SOUTH SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant final plat approval for the Chatsworth South Subdivision, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROJECT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the Technical Advisory Committee's recommendations for funding of Impact Fee Benefit District 4; approve the Budget Change Requests; and authorize the Chairman to execute Distribution Agreements with the Cities of Rockledge and Cocoa. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT AND DOCUMENTS, AND APPROVAL OF BUDGET SUPPLEMENT, RE: FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Grant Agreement with Florida Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services, accepting a grant of $24,019 for the Family Literacy Program; approve Budget Change Requests; and authorize the Chairman to execute the necessary documents. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

EASEMENT TO BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., RE: STUART PARK

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Easement to BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. conveying a 25 x 20-foot equipment easement to construct, operate, maintain, add, and/or remove such systems of communications facilities or related services as needed at Stuart Park in Titusville. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION TO SELL AND EXECUTE DOCUMENTS, RE: SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the private sale of .63 acre in Section 13, Township 24, Range 36, Subcode 02, Lot P to bidder David R. Lane at $5,250, as the property is surplus; and authorize the Chairman to execute all necessary documents. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENT, RE: COUNTY PUBLIC GOLF COURSE ADVISORY BOARD

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to appoint Bob Armbruster to the Public Golf Advisory Board, replacing Gil Ryan, with term of appointment expiring on April 3, 2001. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION AND ACCEPTANCE, RE: FY 2000-2001 BYRNE GRANT FUNDING

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Certificate of Participation for preparation of Brevard County project applications Edward Byrne Grant funds for FY 2000-2001; and authorize the Chairman to execute the forthcoming Edward Byrne Grant applications and Certificate of Acceptance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAYMENT TO ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT OF COCOA, INC., RE: CONSTRUCTION OF CARPENTER ROAD GRAVITY SEWER LINE EXTENSION

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Change Order No. 1 to Agreement with Atlantic Development of Cocoa, Inc., for construction of Carpenter Road Gravity Sewer Line Extension, decreasing contract amount by $69,399 to delete temporary access road, Miami curb and gutter, and drainage improvements, for new contract total of $172,592.95; and approve final payment upon submittal of the final pay request and acceptable closeout documents as specified in the Contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF POLICY, RE: DISCRIMINATORY HARASSMENT

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve a Policy providing direction relating to the Board's intent to maintain a work environment that respects the dignity and worth of each individual, and permits employees to feel free from intimidation, coercion, unlawful harassment or retaliation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF BID #B-3-0-26, RE: MIX IN PLACE SOIL CEMENT ROAD BASE PROCESSING

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to award Bid #B-3-0-26 for Mix in Place Soil Cement Base Road Processing to JoBear, Inc., contingent upon the Public Works Director negotiating acceptable pricing, contract or purchase order, and terms and conditions; and authorize the Bid to be reissued if negotiations fail with JoBear, Inc. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATIONS, AWARD PROPOSAL #P-2-0-14 AND EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE: SOLID WASTE ENGINEERING SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to award Proposal #P-2-0-14 for engineering and consulting services to S2LI; authorize the selection committee to negotiate the terms and conditions of the Contract; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD PROPOSAL #P-3-0-16 AND AUTHORIZE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE: FULFILLMENT CENTER SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to award Proposal #P-3-0-16 for Fulfillment Center Services for the Tourist Development Council at the estimated annual cost of $33,407 to Pat's Typing Service; and authorize the Tourist Development Director to execute the Contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT, RE: INTERNAL FOLLOW-UP AUDIT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to acknowledge receipt of the Internal Follow-up Audit of Environmental Health Services. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENT, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to appoint Hal Rose to the West Melbourne Public Library Board, replacing Christopher Graham, with term of appointment expiring December 31, 2000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Bills and Budget Changes as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN WINDOVER FARMS, UNIT 2-A - BARRY AND SANDRA CLINGER

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement in Windover Farms, Unit 2-A as petitioned by Barry and Sandra Clinger.

Commissioner Scarborough stated yesterday staff indicated there was no problem with vacating; and inquired if that is still the case; with Cynthia Fogle responding affirmatively.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement in Windover Farms, Unit 2-A as petitioned by Barry and Sandra Clinger. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN SUNNYLAND BEACH, SECTION 3 - SOUTH BREVARD WATER CO-OP, INC.

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility and drainage easements in Sunnyland Beach, Section 3 as petitioned by South Brevard Water Co-op, Inc. She inquired if the issue concerning the swales was worked out. Assistant Public Works Director Ed Washburn responded he has been unable to contact the petitioner; but if the Board wishes to vacate the easements, they can be vacated with the stipulation they be used for swales for drainage to get water off the roadway. Chairman Higgs stated she can support the vacating with the stipulation that swales be used to help with the drainage.

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility and drainage easements in Sunnyland Beach, Section 3 as petitioned by South Brevard Water Co-op, with the stipulation that they be used for swales to help with the drainage. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY WITH ATLANTIC RIDGE CORPORATION FOR REALIGNMENT OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution authorizing exchange of property with Atlantic Ridge Corporation for realignment of Old Dixie Highway.

Dan Nelson submitted a copy of a survey; stated the issue is a proposal from Atlantic Ridge Corporation; the area is in District 3 at the intersection of Valkaria Road and Old Dixie Highway; and explained what is shown in the survey. He stated there is nothing on public record that shows what right-of-way the County has or the width of the road, but the survey shows a right-of-way. He stated approximately three decades ago, the County requested an exchange of rights-of-way with Atlantic Ridge Corporation to straighten Old Dixie Highway approximately two to three miles from the area now being discussed; that was done; and at that time, the County ran Old Dixie Highway right along the right-of-way for the Florida East Coast Railroad. He stated they hope to do something with the property, although they currently have no plans for development of it; and before making plans, they wanted to offer Brevard County, if it is interested in exchanging, a 100-foot right-of-way which would be deeded to the County fee simple. He stated he presented this to the Public Works Department; there have been staff comments; and they wanted to give the Board the opportunity to address the right-of-way issue. He commented on the land abutting the railway right-of-way and the trips per day on the road from the industrial area to the south of the intersection.

Public Works Director Henry Minneboo stated staff had a couple of concerns, and one is the close proximity of the roadway to the railroad. He stated there are two specific issues which are almost identical in nature, one the Pineda Causeway, and the other being the location being discussed. He stated the Traffic Department expressed concern with the proximity to the railroad; it is approximately 108 feet wide; if there is a staging of vehicles of any significance, some vehicles could be left staggered on the railroad tracks; and that is a major concern. He stated the second part is staff has not determined who will build the road, the County or Mr. Nelson.

Chairman Higgs stated the proposal does not indicate they are offering to build the road; the exchange would not be of like items; and the Board should not accept this proposal with the problems Mr. Minneboo has outlined plus the additional cost of building a road.

Commissioner Voltz stated it says Old Dixie Highway, 24-foot pavement; and inquired if that is being used currently; with Mr. Mineboo responding yes. Mr. Minneboo stated when Old Dixie was paved, it was aligned with the Tadlock Subdivision; and that has caused the majority of the concern today. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the applicant is asking the County to give up the paved road in exchange for a piece of dirt; with Mr. Minneboo responding they would like to move the existing alignment further to the east, closer to the railroad, which would make the property much more usable than it is today. Commissioner Voltz stated if the applicant is going to pave the road, that is one thing, but what is proposed is not exchanging like for like.

Mr. Nelson stated this is not a like exchange; the County has 24 feet, and that is all it has; there is nothing else on record in terms of deeded right-of-way; and Atlantic Ridge is offering 100 feet. Commissioner Voltz stated it is not paved; and that would cause the County to spend money to pave it. Mr. Nelson stated Atlantic Ridge does not need the existing road; but before they started to plan for the 45-acre tract, they wanted to at least offer it to the County to provide adequate right-of-way for future use.

Chairman Higgs stated she would be happy to talk with Mr. Nelson if there is some other proposal he would like to make that might be more in the County's interest.

Assistant Public Works Director Ed Washburn recommended a motion be made to deny the request. Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny exchange of property with Atlantic Ridge Corporation for realignment of Old Dixie highway at the intersection of Valkaria Road.

Discussion ensued on whether a motion is necessary.

County Attorney Scott Knox recommended the Board make a motion to deny rather than leave it open.

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

DISCUSSION, RE: IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY

Bob Wallace, representing Tindale Oliver and Associates, advised Bill Merrill who is the legal sub-consultant is also present to answer any questions the Board may have. He stated since the last meeting, Tindale Oliver provided the Board with a draft of the final report, and also responded to several questions the Board raised at the last workshop concerning comparative impact fees of other programs in the immediate area and what the impact fee could be if it had been raised to match the Consumer Price Index. He stated the goal today is to receive direction from the Board to allow them to update the existing Ordinances, and bring them back to the Board for consideration. He stated the first item is the transportation impact fee; that fee will be the most difficult to address and review; the maximum potential fee is $4,353; it is an impact fee for the capital costs of providing roads; and the current fee is $855, or approximately 20% of what could be charged. He stated during the last ten years, the Board has not touched the Impact Fee Program; costs have gone up and the impact fee credits that are applied to reduce the fee because of other funding sources available to fund the capital expansion have gone down; so that combination has caused the impact fee to dramatically increase over what it is today. He stated the Board asked them to look at what neighboring counties charge for impact fees; and the transportation impact fee for the counties surrounding Brevard County range from $1,061 to $2,150. He stated the Board requested they look at what would happen if a Consumer Price Index had been applied to the Impact Fee Program since inception; and advised the transportation impact fee would be $1,160 instead of $855. He noted they are not suggesting the Board tie the impact fee increases to the Consumer Price Index; and this was just an example to show what would have happened if the impact fees had been incremented to match the CPI over time. He displayed a chart showing the comparison of the impact fees for various counties and cities; and outlined the various fees being charged. He stated because the increases are so significant, a number of communities have adopted a phased implementation approach; and suggested the Board consider phasing the impact fees over time. He stated they would like to get guidance from the Board especially on the transportation impact fee.

Mr. Wallace stated the Board also asked them to look at exemptions; right now the County is exempting everything but residential land uses; and their legal consultant has come up with an opinion that the County could continue its exemption of industrial and manufacturing uses, or restrict it more; but the exemptions on commercial and other non-residential land uses should be lifted, and the impact fees reinstated. He stated the County is at risk should it be challenged in that area; and it would be difficult to defend why the County exempts all commercial land uses, but charges impact fees for residential land uses. He stated the recommendation is to reinstate the impact fees to the other land uses; ten years ago there was a limited number of impact fee land uses in the schedule; but in the last ten years, there have been a number of studies to provide a more detailed breakout of the land uses and the charges for those land uses. He stated right now the County charges a furniture store the same rate it charges a retail strip center; but furniture stores have been show to generate a lot less traffic than retail centers and therefore, should pay a lower fee. He stated if the Board were to reinstate the impact fees on the commercial land uses, he would advise going with a more expanded set of land uses that would more fairly distribute the impact fee costs across the land uses. He stated currently there are ten Benefit Districts; they were put in place to demonstrate to the fee payer that he was receiving a benefit through construction of infrastructure improvements; but ten is a lot of districts. He stated it creates difficulty in administering the program and building the capital improvement program, because there are limited funds when they are spread out over ten districts; and having fewer districts has been shown through the courts to be acceptable. He noted some communities go with a single countywide district, or one or two districts as opposed to the early impact fees which had multiple districts. He stated they have realigned the districts to follow the road improvement boundaries, to eliminate the bisecting of jurisdictional boundaries, and to provide a more rational way of addressing and allocating the funds.

Mr. Wallace stated impact fees are for capital improvements, not operating funding; the impact fee in the Fire Rescue area went down for a single-family home because assessments are in place to help fund the capital portions of the Fire Rescue Services; and those capital portions that are funded from other sources increase the impact fee credit for Fire Rescue, and cause the fee to actually go down. He stated the fee is fairly minimal at $57.72 for a single family home. He stated the Board asked them to compare the fees to surrounding counties; and the potential County fee is in line with the other fees on the low side. He noted some of the other communities have probably blended in some of the Fire/EMS rates with the Fire Services fee. He suggested the Board follow the same course of thinking for the exemptions as for the transportation impact fee, continue the exemption on the industrial/manufacturing uses, reinstate the fees on the commercial side, and add the additional land uses to create a more equitable assessment. He recommended the Board go from seven to two benefit districts-one for unincorporated Countywide service, and the second district for Viera. He stated there is a Development Order Agreement that requires impact fee credits to be applied to the Viera District; and in order to keep track of those, they recommend keeping it as a separate district.

Mr. Wallace stated Corrections Facilities is the third existing impact fee program; the maximum potential fee in that area would be $72; the current fee is $34; and the current fee is approximately 47% of the maximum potential fee. He stated the fees have gone up more dramatically for corrections because the costs per bed, which is what drives the Correctional Facilities fee, has gone up from $26,000 to $31,000, and the standard has gone from 1.9 beds for 1,000 population to 2.3 beds per 1,000. He stated the State average is 2.5 beds per 1,000; and while the County is not to the State average, it has increased the Countywide standard, which is driving some of the cost increases. He stated compared to other communities, the County is approximately the same as Orange County; Martin County is significantly higher; and the Cities of Palm Bay and Melbourne have adopted the County's fee schedule. He suggested the Board follow the same recommendations in terms of the exemption issue as well as adding the land uses to make the fee more equitably assessed.

He stated the Board also requested they look at other program areas; and they looked at Emergency Medical Services, Parks and Recreation and Libraries. He stated the first program is EMS; the County already has Fire Rescue Services; and explained the difference. He stated the impact fee has been calculated at $39 per single family home for EMS; and that fee is low because of the investment that is being made from the assessment and the money that is already going into EMS for capital. He stated the only other county that has a specific emergency medical services program is Martin County; and its fee is higher than what is proposed for the County. He noted some of the other counties have probably blended their fees for Fire Services to include the EMS and Rescue components. He stated exemptions should be consistent with what was previously discussed; and recommended going with two benefit districts.

Mr. Wallace stated library impact fees are assessed only on residential land uses; there is no current fee; and the maximum potential fee would be $224. He stated library impact fees would be assessed for the square footage for facilities as well as the books for libraries. He stated currently Seminole County has a library impact fee of $54; it has not been updated in ten years; it only includes books; their standard is one book per capita as opposed to the County's standard of 2.16 books per capita; and that is why there is such a difference between Seminole County's library fee and the one being proposed for the County. He stated Martin County assesses its library impact fee on both facilities and books; and the Martin County standard is comparable to the County's standard. He stated the library impact fee could be phased over time.

Mr. Wallace stated they have calculated the maximum fee for Parks and Recreation at $505; it would be applied only to residential uses as they are the primary benefactors of the Parks and Recreation facilities; and displayed the comparative statistics. He stated Palm Bay and Melbourne have a Parks and Recreation Impact fee which ranges from $174 to $288; Osceola County has a fee of $1,000; Volusia County has a fee of $444; and there is quite a variance in the Parks and Recreation impact fees, with the proposed County fee in the middle. He stated if the Board chose to go forward with this fee, it could be implemented over time with specific starting and ending points.

Mr. Wallace stated the total single-family home impact fee, implemented at 100%, would be a little over $5,000; the majority of it would be the Transportation Impact fee; and all the other programs together would total approximately $800. He stated it is within the prerogative of the Board to look at all, some, or none of the impact fees; it can set the recommended rate at the maximum level for some fees and at a reduced level for other fees; it may phase the implementation of the impact fees over time, as long as five years; and the Board may establish an effective date for implementing the new fees. He advised a lot of communities have given a three to six-month period for people to get their existing permits and site plans in the process and be able to pay the old fees; and then after that point in time, they would be assessed at the new fees. He stated vesting options could be set up for anyone having an active building permit or an approved site plan; and reiterated the phasing options. He advised of the percentages at which the Board could establish the impact fee.

Judy Collier, representing the County Library Board, commented on use of a library impact fee for capital expenditures including purchase of books, growth of the library system, keeping up with the demand for services, and computers not taking the place of libraries.

Ruben Narmore advised he is trying to buy a new home; and protested the imposition of impact fees.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Narmore's home is currently being built; with Mr. Narmore responding he just bought the property. Mr. Narmore advised of years of saving to build a new home; stated they thought they had gotten to the point where it was possible; additional impact fees will make a difference; and requested the Board reconsider.

Thomas Perkinson stated he lives in West Canaveral Groves; and inquired if the impact fee is approved, will he be able to pay half of his fee, and then pay the rest in a year, locking it in at $855. He inquired if a grace period will be allowed.

Thomas Metz submitted paperwork; and stated impact fees are selective taxation without representation. He stated the consultant said a lot about the amount of the impact fees, but not why impact fees are needed and what they will do to the community. He presented statistical data on affordable housing; and commented on income requirements, effect of impact fees on working class homebuyers, potential revenue from impact fees, loss of taxes for units that will not be built, and loss of jobs. He requested the Board consider very carefully raising impact fees; and suggested looking at broader funding methods.

Kim Gabriel, President of the South Brevard Habitat for Humanity, questioned the consultants recommendation to increase impact fees to the maximum; and commented on effects on construction. She requested the Board not set an across-the-board impact fee increase; and stated the building of a $40,000 home cannot be compared to the building of a $300,000 home, and the impact fee should not be the same. She advised of fees already paid by Habitat for Humanity, which amount to an average of 20% of the cost of the home; commented on opportunities for home ownership; and requested the Board not set the bar so high that the impact fees penalize the efforts of Habitat for Humanity to provide the dream of home ownership for even the very low-income citizens in the community.

Anita Cragg, President of the Homebuilders Association, stated a land planner from the National Homebuilders Association reviewed the documents they were given a week ago, and provided comments. She stated there is no explanation provided for why a proposed transportation fee is five times higher than the current fee; and commented on the disadvantage of fewer benefit districts. She commented on State roads being included for impact fees, costs per lane mile, deficiencies versus maintenance, and incorrect calculation on page 17. She advised of disadvantages of fewer EMS benefit units, corrections being a Countywide service, and illegality of charging new development fees based on higher level of service. She stated home ownership is the cornerstone of family security, stability and prosperity; and submitted documents published by the National Association of Homebuilders on affordable housing. She submitted approximately 150 letters from people opposing the impact fee; and commented on the effect of the impact fee on Holiday Builders.

Commissioner Carlson inquired about Ms. Cragg's statement that it is against the law to provide a higher level of service than existing residents have in regard to correctional facilities. Ms. Cragg responded she got that information from the National Association of Homebuilders; she cannot quote the law at this time; but she will look it up and get back to Commissioner Carlson.

Dolores Kane stated she echoes Anita Cragg and Kim Gabriel's concerns about affordability; the County has been getting along all right on the money it is currently collecting; and she does not see how the Consumer Price Index can be used because housing is only one factor of the CPI. She commented on additional costs due to the new Building Code and hurricane provisions; and stated an impact fee could be another nail in the coffin of affordable housing. She commented on taking fees from one area and using them in another. She stated she can see adding impact fees on commercial development, but not residential; and requested justification for the $175,000 study.

Lee Bohlmann, representing the Melbourne-Palm Bay Area Chamber of Commerce, stated everyone supports building an aesthetically pleasing and economically viable county. She gave a scenario on boiling a frog; and stated it is the same thing as phasing increase in prices. She commented on cost increases having a negative impact, excluding people from the marketplace, Brevard County being named a cost-effective place to live, and gas tax. She stated they do not support the large increase provided through the resources of the consultant; and cautioned about putting additional impact fees on industrial and commercial. She stated the economy is good; great things are happening for many businesses and residents; and she does not want to endanger that.

David Armstrong, President of Armstrong Custom Homes and member of the National Association of Homebuilders, advised of his work on affordable housing; stated he realizes the need for fees, expanded budgets, and better services; but he is outraged about any attack on residential construction. He commented on diminishing returns, effect of impact fees on residential construction, paying for needs of the community, taking slow growth to no growth, and school impact fees. He stated they understand the need for fees, and the need to put a price on the fee; but there is already an impact fee and it is adequate; and recommended the Board review the report from the National Homebuilders and Contractors. He commented on reports being generated for a desired outcome, numbers designed to generate income, need for broad-based funding, and gas tax. He stated the Chambers of Commerce and the Homebuilders and Contractors represent the largest employee base in the County; and they are saying no impact fees.

Barbara Jagrowski inquired if the same impact fee will be charged for an $85,000 house that is charged for an $850,000 house, if the Board has considered using a percentage of the appraised value, and whether the impact fee is paid upfront or rolled into the mortgage payments. She advised the Legislature is considering stripping the counties of ability to charge impact fees for schools, but that is just a step toward removing all impact fees. She submitted a newspaper article on impact fees.

Harry Fuller stated he has heard it is not possible to discriminate between homes with different prices; but the Board should try to protect low income people who are entering the market. He commented on insurance rates, new State regulations, and need for housing; and requested the Board include a 60-day vested interest period to allow people to get their mortgages approved and contracts signed.

Bob Wille, Vice President of Joyal Construction, Mayor of Melbourne Beach, and member of the MPO, stated new construction impact fees as a way to capture funding for perceived additional burdens that new residents bring to the County is fundamentally flawed; it assumes that all new residents buy new homes and work in newly constructed buildings instead of existing buildings; and as a result many citizens who have lived in Brevard County for many years are unfairly taxed when they build a new home. He stated in 1999, 39% of Joyal Construction homebuyers had lived in the County at least ten years, and 58% had lived in the County at least five years. He commented on transportation impact fees, limitations on impact fees, and inability to take care of major needs. He stated the plan to make I-4, from Volusia County to Osceola County, ten lanes will cost approximately $3 billion dollars; State and federal funding are being moved away from the local roads; and if planning and appropriate funding are not secured, the eventual degradation in the transportation system will impact the quality of life that the citizens currently enjoy. He advised of the need to use foresight to address obvious future infrastructure needs; and commented on bonding the current gas tax revenue, opportunity to increase gas tax, and increased housing costs. He stated this is not the time to increase impact fees.

Charles Moehle, President of Modern, Inc., stated impact fees are a regressive tax; the study does not show whether any new taxes are needed; and expressed concern about putting impact fees on industrial and commercial properties. He stated comparisons were made with Martin County which does not want growth; and inquired whether the Board favors or does not favor growth. He stated the people believe the Board has the appropriate amount of money to manage the County to an acceptable standard, and more taxes are not needed. He stated the Board has the report which shows what the Board can legally do to get money from the people; and recommended the Board find out whether it needs the money.

Peter Cario stated if more funds are needed, the homeowners should not be the only ones paying more impact fees and possibly increased taxes; and everybody should share the burden. He stated all non-residential projects should have impact fees reestablished; and if the Board has to raise fees on residential properties, it should be done by cost, so a low-income house does not pay as high a price as a $300,000 house. He expressed concern about increasing gas tax; and recommended the impact fee be put back on non-residential properties.

Maureen Rupe, representing the Port St. John Library Board, stated the Port St. John Library Board is supporting the County Library Board in its position. She stated the Port St. John Library has not had an expansion for 12 years; advised of the population increase in the same period of time; and commented on complaints about the library. She stated everyone wants excellent services and good quality of life, but no one wants to pay for it; but it must be paid for somehow.

Heidi Brandow, representing the Cocoa Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber agrees with the Homebuilders Association; and other avenues to fund capital expenditures should be investigated. She stated the impact fee proposals sound like another effort to eliminate growth and development.

The meeting recessed at 10:55 a.m. and reconvened at 11:11 a.m.

Mr. Wallace stated it is good to have this much public input because everyone needs to understand how the impact fee program is implemented, how it is developed, and what it does. He explained what an impact fee is and how it is calculated; stated the County's impact fee has not been updated in ten years; and it is based on a cost of $905,000 per lane mile compared to current cost of $1.8 per lane mile. He stated there was a comment about including State roads; 70% of the travel in the County is on State roads; and the Board has used and leveraged its impact fees to help accelerate and build State projects. He stated most communities use impact fees to do that in order to get projects built more quickly; and it is defensible to use the total costs of County and State projects in the calculations. He stated if someone disagrees with the amount of the impact fee, the appropriate way to address it is through a policy decision to reduce the magnitude of the impact fee; but the calculations are technically sound and correct. He stated there were a number of comments about the technical validity of charging other land uses in the correctional facilities impact fee; the concept of how impact fees work on fire, EMS and correctional facilities is based on the fact that people cause services to have to occur; and some land uses have more people than others. He stated a fast food restaurant has a lot of people every day; and the potential need for service is greater at land uses that have more people. He stated the same holds true for correctional facilities; relationships have been developed to show the number of people who go to, reside, or work at all the land uses; that is how the impact fee is developed for correctional facilities, fire rescue, and emergency medical services; and it is called the functional resident concept. He stated it is technically sound to assess an impact fee across-the-board for correctional facilities, fire, and emergency medical services. He stated for the past ten years he has heard that impact fees stunt growth, are regressive, and cause growth not to occur; he has read a number of articles on the topic; and he does not agree. He advised of studies showing a positive correlation between impact fees and growth in Florida counties that have appropriately funded growth through various taxing sources; stated impact fees are not the overall solution, but are one of the components; and a lot of communities have shown sustained economic growth because of their impact fee programs. He stated they will address comments made today in the final report.

Attorney Bill Merrill stated several people commented about the grace period before adoption; that is legal and could be considered by the Board; and while it is not something that is required, many communities do take that into account. He stated another item that was mentioned was that this is a regressive tax; but from a case law perspective in Florida, impact fees, when properly drafted, are not taxes, but are fees; and cited two cases. He explained the components that make impact fees a fee rather than a tax. Commissioner Voltz stated with all due respect to the legal aspect, for the general public who are paying, they are considered taxes no matter what they are called. Mr. Merrill stated he appreciates that, and the term "tax" may have been used in the general sense rather than the legal sense. He stated another issue mentioned was that reduction of benefit districts would violate the law or create some other infirmity with the impact fees; but the rational nexus test is what controls; and as long as there is a fee payment connected to the benefit that is being received, then it should be supportable under the law. He stated Tindale Oliver has shown that by going from the higher number of districts to a small number would still comply with technical requirements. He stated there are several counties and municipalities that use one benefit district for their entire jurisdiction; and the ones that have been challenged would be supportable based on the case law, so that is not a true legal issue unless there are other non-legal issues involved that would sway that issue. He stated affordability is considered in impact fee discussions; but it is not legal to base impact fees on the value of a home or business; and if that is done, it leans more to the tax side. He stated there are ways to deal with the affordability issue. He stated to include commercial uses in an exemption may be legitimate, but it is treading on thin ice; 35% of the fees would be found in commercial uses; and 35% is a large loophole which becomes the rule rather than the exception. He stated based on that, there could be serious problems in a fee versus tax challenge which they might not be able to support; and cautioned against allowing the commercial exemption to continue. He stated he is comfortable with the industrial exemption as it is only 2% of the overall fee, and there are many legitimate reasons to continue it.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what the law says about low-income exemptions, such as first time homebuyers of affordable housing who may qualify for SHIP or HOME funds. Mr. Merrill stated those funds can be used to pay the impact fees; and an affordable housing exemption is also supportable. Commissioner Carlson inquired about the theory of impact fees as addressed to the new construction side of the equation versus those who have lived here 30 or 40 years. Mr. Merrill responded it is not possible to impose taxes on newcomers, but impact fees can be imposed on new development; and it is the new house that causes the infrastructure need. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the courts have made that distinction; with Mr. Merrill responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired about people who have been in the County for many years; with Mr. Merrill responding those numbers have been taken into account in the calculations that Tindale Oliver has done; but the impact fee is being imposed on new development.

Chairman Higgs stated it has been suggested that the Board look at a series of implementation options.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the first question should be whether the Board wants to have impact fees at all; and the public strongly feels that government has enough money to provide the level of service the citizens presently enjoy. He advised at one time at Lori Wilson Park, they were collecting $1 a car for parking; but the County was paying an individual $28,500 to collect $31,000 in fees. He stated collecting impact fees will also have an associated cost; and inquired if the Board approves impact fees today, will it reduce property taxes across-the-board in a matching amount. He stated there has been no study indicating a need for impact fees. He suggested an appropriate public debate would be to have the consultant in a workshop format against those people who disagree; and that would provide the Board with a full package of information to make a real decision. He stated he voted against it, but the Board bought a study; and the study seems one sided. He stated the effect the Board's actions may have on the community are still unresolved; and the counties that have imposed impact fees have never exhibited that they have a better and higher quality of life than Brevard County has. He stated he voted in 1995 to eliminate impact fees for commercial and industrial uses; and there has been a commercial boom in the past four years. He stated impact fees are punitive; and advised of his experience trying to build a factory. He noted lot grading requirements could increase the cost of a home by $2,500; the hurricane construction laws passed in Tallahassee would increase a house's cost by $8,000; and commented on various permit fees. He stated eventually fees and permits will be more than the cost to construct; and the Board needs to look at that. He stated the mortgage on an $85,000 home would be $532 a month and $80 in taxes and other fees for a total of $602 per month or $7,224 a year; and if an individual makes $28,000 a year, that is 25% of that income. He stated if the new requirements raise the price to $95,000, at 7%, the monthly payment jumps to $697 a month or $8,364 per year; and the same person making $28,000 a year would have to pay close to 34% of his total income to buy the same house. He stated if $5,000 of impact fees are added, the price of the house approaches $100,000; at 7%, the cost would be $745 per month or $9,000 a year. He stated the Board needs to take a serious look at other impacts; he has three sons; he would love to see them buy a house some day; but if the median income at that time is $28,000, they will never be able to do so. He stated the rich people will own all the houses and apartments, and rent the apartments to the young people who cannot afford to buy houses; and it is an economic circle. He stated he cannot support impact fees.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board has put the cart before the horse; before the study was done, the Board should have figured out what the needs will be for the next 20 years; and then it could have looked at how to fund those needs. She stated under the transportation fee, the Board is looking at a maximum potential increase of 80.4%; the fees in Martin County are among the highest because that County does not want any growth; and the fee on commercial property is really a tax. She inquired why the risk for challenge was not brought up when the Board did away with the impact fees on commercial property; and stated she does not see much chance of challenge because the builders and developers work closely together. She stated the attorney said the County cannot put the tax burden on the newcomer; but what the County is doing is putting the burden on its own people who already live here. She stated convenience markets, with or without gas service, and fast food restaurants go to areas where there are already residents; the people who are already driving by those places have paid taxes to have the services there; and they are not a burden or impact on the community because the community, which was there first, requires the businesses to be there. She expressed concern about distinguishing between a fast food and a quality restaurant; stated there are quality fast food restaurants; and to indicate that they are not quality and separate them out is an injustice. She stated the taxpayers just increased EMS impact fees for unincorporated Brevard County; and to want more is wrong. She stated if the Board is trying to find out if the residents want the improved infrastructure, it should go to the residents; and if the Board needs to go to referendum to ask for a sales tax increase, it should do so. She stated there were a number of other things that Commissioner O'Brien brought up earlier, such as the different fees and increases that are coming up with the new State regulations; those will severely impact the community; and the Board has no control over that. She stated the Board does not know why "x" dollars are needed for EMS, transportation, libraries, etc.; the County has the best library system in the State; and it is because the people pay for those services on a yearly basis with their taxes. She stated the issue is crippling an industry versus making sure the County has the right amount of money; but the Board does not have numbers showing what the needs are. She stated the Board received a lot of information today; it cannot proceed to make recommendations or pass fees; and suggested the Board put this off for 30 days or two weeks to allow time to review the information. She stated she has not seen any justification for any fees, and will not support impact fees at this time.

Commissioner Scarborough stated impact fees are to address the problem of growth and not to handle the current deficiencies; and inquired if the Board defines a deficiency and then uses impact fees, would that set it up for a legal challenge; with Mr. Wallace responding it would put the Board in a jeopardy position. Commissioner Scarborough stated impact fees are to handle problems that will occur as Brevard County continues to grow; when more people move to the County, there is more potential need; however, major road projects are not done in bits and spurts; and what the County has found beneficial is to bond gas tax to have enough money to do projects of magnitude and scale. Mr. Wallace stated many communities have looked at bonding gas taxes and have used impact fees as a secondary pledge to help pay off the bond programs that are being used to accelerate road improvement projects; and the County could do the same thing. He stated the County's Impact Fee Program with ten benefit districts has been limited in its ability to build major projects; but with some increased rate, along with consolidation of the benefit districts, there will be more money in five districts to do more significant projects, or the ability to use the impact fees as a secondary pledge for the bond issue to accelerate needed projects. Commissioner Scarborough stated he heard there could be one impact fee district, but there are people in some areas of the County who never utilize the roads in another part of the County; so there may be a legal ability to do that, but not a practical ability. He inquired if the consultant has seen other alternatives besides gas tax that could be used; with Mr. Wallace responding there are a number of other alternatives. Mr. Wallace advised ten or eleven counties in Florida have implemented half-cent to one-cent sales taxes, and earmarked 10% to 30% of those monies to building roads; and if the County does away with the need completely, it can do away with the impact fee program, but if not, then the sales tax will reduce the amount of impact fees because the credit or the amount of money being generated for future growth would be larger, so the credit would be higher and the impact fee would come down. He stated the same would happen if the County did a gas tax increase; and explained how it would decrease the impact fee. He stated if the Board looked at other revenue sources, it could reduce the magnitude of the impact fee, or delay the need for the impact fee over time; and if the Board looked at a minor increase, and then put into place a three or five-cent gas tax or did something with sales tax, it could eliminate any future increases to the impact fees or reduce those increases significantly. He stated it is his understanding that the Board has not funded all the road needs in the County. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if he can go to current deficiencies and pass an impact fee to respond to them. Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board does not want to repeat history and have the same sort of deficiencies, it could potentially use impact fees to defray some of the deficiencies in the future. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is inquiring about the legal issue; and if someone comes to the County, with its past deficiencies and increases deficiencies, to having increased deficiencies, he should be responsible to pay for those new deficiencies. Mr. Wallace responded the County can use impact fees to pay for the growth and impact a newcomer is going to create; and gas tax or other funding sources can be used to pay for that portion that is deficient already. He stated a number of communities have blended their impact fees, gas taxes, and sales taxes to fund deficient road projects; and explained how the allocations are made. He stated the County cannot assess impact fees at a level to correct deficiencies; but it can assess at what it costs to build the road capacity that is going to be consumed by future growth; and that is what has been done in the study. Commissioner Scarborough stated if that is the situation, then the Board needs to ask the Chambers and developers whether they would prefer a moratorium in a couple of decades or some means of paying for it today. Mr. Wallace stated that is another concept in terms of the concurrency systems and whether the County ends up in trouble or not; it is his understanding that the County is in reasonably good shape from a concurrency perspective, but it is not possible to know if that will continue for another five or ten years. Chairman Higgs stated the Board does know from the 2020 Road Program, if the community continues to grow, what the condition of the roads will be; and the need for more roadwork is not based on substantial facts that are available to the Board today. She stated the Board will discuss later today the needs on Wickham Road; it will discuss the needs for the Pineda Causeway next Tuesday night; and last week, it discussed drainage needs; and to imply that needs in the future for the County and inadequacy of funding are not known is not based on the facts before the Board. She noted today the Board collects gas tax, sales tax, impact fees, ad valorem taxes, and revenues from the State; and the real question for the Board is not whether there will be needs or whether there should have been impact fees in the past, but whether it wants to continue to levy impact fees and if so, at what rate. She stated it is not a question of need; the needs are there; and the fact that groups were before the Board eight to ten months ago supporting passage of the gas tax substantiates that there are needs that will be unfunded.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board has been able to create a much leaner government in the past six years; five years ago the Board was able to make a substantial reduction in taxes; and there has been a reduction in the millage rate every year since. He stated that is an indication that the annual increases in the collection of taxes because of growth make the present collection of taxes sufficient to accomplish the tasks before the Board; groups requesting the Board pass the gas tax, impact fees, etc. have their personal agendas and do not care about the cost of government to operate or the cost of a house; and he does not contribute to that philosophy. He stated if the needs were stronger than what they are, the Board would not be reducing taxes; but the Board has consistently reduced taxes every year because there are sufficient taxes being collected to meet the demands of the public. He commented on the addition of all taxes; and stated Orange County has all kinds of impact fees, but does not have a higher quality of life than Brevard County.

Commissioner Voltz stated she agrees there are needs; but the Board does not know what the County is going to look like in the year 2020; a million things could happen in that period of time; and the people should have some say. She recommended putting the issue out for referendum; and stated the Board should not pass taxes or fees without finding out what the people think. She inquired how much would a penny sales tax give the County each year; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding approximately $30 to $40 million, but it would be necessary to negotiate an agreement with the municipalities on a shared basis. Commissioner Voltz inquired how much does the County collect in gas tax; with Chairman Higgs responding it is $2 million per penny of gas tax. Commissioner Voltz stated if the people passed a one-cent sales tax for roads, the Board could do away with the gas tax; and commented on use of the tax. She recommended asking the people if they would prefer to pay the one-cent sales tax rather than gas tax. Chairman Higgs inquired if the public would also be asked about impact fees and whether they would desire to allocate them at the full cost and over how many years; with Commissioner Voltz responding she is just talking about sales tax. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wishes to ask the community about impact fees. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board could put that out for referendum, but if it is going to do that, it should also put out sales tax. Chairman Higgs stated she is not suggesting the Board do that, but it is the job of the Board to look at appropriate fees that are a reasonable mix of revenue sources to fund the infrastructure needs that will be demanded by new residents; and whether or not to go to the public to ask about sales tax or other things is a separate question. Commissioner Voltz stated she does not think it is appropriate to ask the public about these things; but the sales tax is appropriate. Chairman Higgs noted the Board cannot do that, so it would have to be done by referendum. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board could vote four to one or five to zero to have it go out to the people. Chairman Higgs noted sales tax cannot be imposed even by a super majority; with Commissioner Voltz advising the Board can vote to put it out on referendum; and she would much rather do that than increase the impact fees.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in 1989 the Board considered the sales tax issue; but it was a very convoluted difficult thing to sell; and recommended if the Board gets into the sales tax issue, it be done in a simplistic, straightforward manner. He stated when the Board went out with so many issues, people voted against it even though there were things included that they liked because it was too complex; and single structured issues seem to receive more support.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board can put the sales tax on the agenda later if it wants to discuss it; but there will be little support unless the Board looks at other revenues and tried to come up with a balance; and one of the things to be balanced is impact fees. She stated the Board has seen the documentation of the impact of growth; and that is the question before the Board today.

Commissioner Voltz stated if the Board is going to address the impact fees, she would like to put the sales tax referendum out with the effective date of any sort of impact fees beyond that; and if the referendum passes, the Board will not have to do the impact fees.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants to make this simple and straightforward; and if the Board wants to talk about sales tax, it needs to include the cities.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the County Manager to contact the city managers and advise them the Board of County Commissioners is discussing a potential sales tax to meet only transportation needs, and inquire how much money the municipalities anticipate and for what projects, and get back to the Board in 30 days.

Chairman Higgs inquired what about the jail; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he is scared to go too far. Commissioner Carlson stated there are so many different needs that have not been pinned down; and to throw this into the mix now is difficult for the public; and suggested getting back to impact fees.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it would be in lieu of impact fees. Commissioner Voltz stated that is something the Board needs to address. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not possible to answer one question without having the answers to other questions.

Commissioner Voltz seconded the motion. Commissioner Carlson stated she supports the idea of getting information on sales tax, but would not support a motion confining it to transportation because there are too many other issues that could be brought together under a sales tax scenario; and inquired if Commissioner Scarborough could include other things. Chairman Higgs suggested it be infrastructure; and stated the School Board also needs to be contacted. Commissioner Carlson advised of the need for analysis and a broader motion. Commissioner Scarborough stated the last time it failed because it was too broad. Commissioner Carlson stated she means not just transportation. Commissioner Scarborough stated each municipality will come up with different things; the Board will hear from the Sheriff and everyone else; soon there will be a whole laundry list; and it will go down. Commissioner Voltz stated she was not on the Board in 1989 and would like to get information on how it was structured so the Board will not do the same thing. Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Scarborough will include the School Board in the motion; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he is fundamentally concerned about anything passing that does not limit itself tremendously; and the more it is opened up, the more the Board will run into trouble. Chairman Higgs stated all the Board is doing is seeking information, and it is going to one source, the cities, but there is a significant need in terms of schools; so if the Board wants to ask the question, it needs to ask it of those who are involved in funding significant infrastructure, which is not just the cities.

Commissioner Scarborough withdrew the motion.

Commissioner Carlson suggested bringing it up at another time; and recommended the Board think about impact fees. She stated the Board had the tool of local option gas tax, but declined to pursue it; now it has impact fees, which the Board can actually do; and suggested since the Board paid for the consultant, it should see what the impact fees could potentially provide in terms of dollars. She stated there is no problem backing out of it; if it starts on a phased approach and finds out there are other means of revenue, the impact fees can be reduced; so the Board needs to look at that as well as sales tax.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Board is trying to find a solution to the sales tax, it can look at splitting it into one eighth of one cent, which would generate $4.375 million per year; and suggested the possibility of having, for example, eight referendums, one for each issue to determine public opinion.

Commissioner Voltz stated that is what the City of Palm Bay did with ad valorem taxes; people had the option of deciding how they wanted the community to look like; and they said yes to some things and no to others. She stated she would like to get the information from the County Manager on the last sales tax referendum and what a referendum would bring in. Chairman Higgs inquired if there are any objections to getting that information; and no objections were heard.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner O'Brien had the answer; this is what the people want; they want to line item where they are taxed and for what; and if it is done that way, there is a good chance people will get excited about having a better county, and voting yes.

Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chairman O'Brien.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve establishing a transportation impact fee beginning at $1,306 and increasing for five years, leaving it at 80% at the end of five years. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not ready to rule out impact fees, but is not prepared to look at them now; and suggested the Board take a more holistic approach to the whole thing. He stated the Board has to be fair with impact fees; but he would like to continue some of the other dialogues because impact fees will only be a partial answer. He stated impact fees deal with the future; they cannot handle past problems because the funds cannot be integrated; it was said that the money could be moved around Countywide; and that may be legal, but it is contrary to the basic concept that the fees should go toward the impact that is occurring. He stated he agrees with Mr. Wille that it is a very restrictive fund; the County cannot bond it; and when transportation cannot be bonded, it leaves the County against the wall with no place to run. He stated if the Board goes for sales tax for this, it needs to be able to tell people that it has a reasonable, fair impact fee that is not hurting people who need a home such as first-time buyers or putting the County at an economic disadvantage. He stated he cannot support the motion.

Chairman Higgs stated the proposed transportation impact fee would start the County in the range below Orange and Indian River Counties, and below many of the major counties of the area; and it is close to the figure if the County had increased those fees based on the CPI for the past ten years. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is including not reinstating non-residential impact fees based on the legal issues; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board needs to come back and address the commercial issue. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to discuss the coordinated effort between tax abatement and impact fees; and he would like to take the opportunity to discuss it at the Thursday workshop.

Vice Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion did not carry. Commissioners Higgs and Carlson voted aye; and Commissioners O'Brien, Scarborough, and Voltz voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct the consultant to update the Impact Fee Ordinance to include commercial impact fees.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is compelled to do this legally, but it should address it as part of the bigger issue; and indicated desire to address this in 45 to 60 days. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is ready to talk about any impact fee; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no. Commissioner Scarborough stated impact fees are a partial answer to the major problems of transportation; they have to be a part of it because people coming into the community do impact and will have to pay their share; however, what that share is and how the Board reaches some of the conclusions should be in terms of a complete community having a good transportation system. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Scarborough wishes to address other impact fees such as fire rescue or EMS; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he does not want to vote on anything with impact fees until the Board gets more information back on the other things; impact fees may be the only thing the Board can move forward with; and if sales tax does not work, he may be more aggressive with impact fees.

Commissioner Voltz expressed concern about discussing it at the Thursday workshop. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to bring it up with the EDC. Commissioner Voltz inquired if there will be enough time for the discussion; and noted there are people present today who would want to attend if it is going to be discussed. Commissioner Scarborough stated when the Board gets into industrial, it is working at a very complex method of doing tax abatement; and inquired if the same methodology should be moved over and used for impact fees. Commissioner Voltz stated she understands it is part of the bigger picture with EDC; but she does not know that the Board will want to make decisions on it. Commissioner Higgs requested Commissioner Scarborough explain how he would move to this discussion. Commissioner Scarborough stated growth needs to pay for itself to some extent, so he is not opposed to it; but since there is an inability to bond that money, there is an erratic flow of money that does not allow a real answer; and if sales tax is a potential and can be presented to the public in a meaningful manner, the Board will come forward with something that is much more fair. He stated the Board needs additional information; and indicated desire to discuss other issues.

Vice Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion did not carry. Commissioners Higgs and Carlson voted aye; Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, and Voltz voted nay.

Vice Chairman O'Brien passed the gavel back to Chairman Higgs.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the County Manager to contact all city managers on the transportation needs in their respective cities and what they would need if the County went to a sales tax, contact the School Board, and provide numbers for the jail.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is anyone else who should be contacted; with Mr. Jenkins responding unless Commissioner Scarborough is including parks, that is probably it. Commissioner Scarborough stated parks can be dangerous because then the Board has to explain every project throughout the County. Mr. Jenkins inquired about courts. Chairman Higgs stated as part of the sales tax issue, the Board would look at major infrastructure.

Commissioner Carlson requested the Brevard Cultural Alliance be contacted; with Commissioner Scarborough indicating he will include that in the motion.

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

Commissioner Scarborough requested the information prior to the June recess. Chairman Higgs stated until there is discussion on the sales tax, there will be no further scheduling on impact fees. Commissioner Scarborough stated there has to be discussion on the impact fees but in a holistic sense; people on both sides want to look at all possible sources of revenue; gas taxes are not going to work; and the Board may even want to give gas tax relief if it does something for transportation. Chairman Higgs stated the Board is going to have the discussion about sales tax as soon as possible, and then any further direction will come from the Board in regard to impact fees. Commissioner Carlson inquired when the sales tax issue will come up; with Mr. Jenkins responding prior to June, 2000. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has to have three months to put together ballot language, so it needs to consider a timeline. Chairman Higgs stated the Board needs to get it as early as it can.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board just spent a little under $200,000 on the study for impact fees; and he does not think the Board should be spending any more money on further studies. Chairman Higgs stated there is a contract to do certain things; and requested Mr. Jenkins look into that. Mr. Jenkins advised no new tasks are being ordered other than what has already been ordered; the consultant is on hold; and most, but not all, of the $175,000 has been spent. Chairman Higgs stated when the Board discusses where it wants to go with this issue, it will discuss other task orders.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE PROHIBITING OPEN BURNING, USE, SALE AND DISCHARGE OF FIREWORKS

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance prohibiting open burning, use, sale and discharge of fireworks.

Assistant County Attorney Kyle King stated State law regulates fireworks and authorizes some sales; the County wants to make sure its ordinance is consistent with State law; and language has been added so the County's prohibitions do not include sales that are authorized by State law. He stated there has also been a change in the drought index number that triggers the ordinance from 650 to 700; and the number that suspends the prohibition was increased from 400 to 450. He advised the ordinance has an objective component which is the drought index, and a discretionary component, which is the Chair and policy group, in triggering the prohibitions and suspension.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to discuss the drought index.

Fire Chief William Farmer introduced Scott Goodrick, Meteorologist for the Division of Forestry. Mr. Goodrick stated an article in Florida TODAY about delaying the fireworks ordinance contains misinformation about the drought index; the drought index is an indicator of how dry the soil is which uses a balance between how much rainfall goes into the soil and how much goes out through evaporation; and explained how information on rainfall in a 24-hour period, high temperature of the day, latitude of the location, and average annual rainfall are collected. He commented on the accuracy of the information; and explained how the drought index is calculated. He submitted a map of the Orlando Forestry District which includes Brevard County; and commented on the points used to calculate the index.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the map looks strange; with Mr. Goodrick responding there are individual points, and they try to fit the contours in between them, which makes the colors look strange; and the coastline looks strange because it is not a high resolution, detailed coastline. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the index is not important to the barrier islands; with Mr. Goodrick responding most of the barrier islands are small so they do not have good data for those; and if they made predictions for those area, it would be subject to question. Mr. Goodrick stated there is a weather facility on Merritt Island, so that makes it better; but doing all the barrier islands without having a weather station to provide some measure of ground truthing would be questionable. He stated it could be calculated, but some of the barrier islands are only 8 kilometers across, if that, so there may not even be a point on the island. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the fire index would be important for Cocoa Beach or Melbourne Beach. Mr. Goodrick advised it is not a fire index because it is just an indication of how dry the soil is. Chief Farmer noted Mr. Goodrick is a meteorologist, not a fire behavior analyst, so he will only be able to provide information with regard to predicting the weather and the impact of the weather as far as the drought. Mr. Goodrick stated he can talk to some of the issues; but there are many more factors that go into determining fire danger than just the drought index, such as relative humidity, wind speed and direction, and atmospheric stability; and the drought index is just one indicator in determining fire danger. He stated it is just providing an area average for a four kilometer by four kilometer block; there are probably variations in the values that they have no way of seeing at this time; and this is the best they can do with current technology. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if drought index affects structures. Mr. Goodrick responded it is strictly for soil; it goes from a maximum of 800 to a minimum of 0, which would be complete saturation of the soil; the values that are normally associated with certain fire behaviors are done as generalizations; and what is determined to be normal for a particular time of year can vary. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the water table is down two feet, would that have a dynamic effect on the plant evaporation; with Mr. Goodrick responding it would affect the plants, but what he is interested in is the upper layers of soil, which can burn when extremely dry and contribute to fire intensity. Mr. Goodrick presented a table showing 35 years of data; and stated for Central Florida, normal would be anywhere from 280 to 530.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Goodrick is referring to fire danger as another factor. Mr. Goodrick stated fire danger is the accumulation of all of the factors. Commissioner Scarborough suggested having a member of the County team assess dangers rather than just going by the numbers; stated at KSC right now, it is 800, but there are other areas that are in the 500 to 600 range; and inquired would it be such that due to rain patterns South Brevard could be at danger while it is flooding on Merritt Island. He stated there are abnormal weather patterns; and rather than just going by the numbers, it should be possible to have someone in the County designate certain areas as having a fire hazard. Public Safety Director Jack Parker stated they tried to think about that when they were developing the ordinance, and that is why there are two triggers; the first trigger is the 700 index; but the second is a subjective trigger such that if the Fire Chief starts to believe there is a real danger in a specific area, he can call the policy group together to act on that. Mr. Parker stated some of the other variables are important; that is what establishes what fire behavior they can expect; but the variables change every minute; and so the ordinance is specifically written to use the one specific index that is scientific and relatively consistent. Commissioner Scarborough stated where the shuttle is launched it is 700 to 800; in Titusville, it is 500 to 600 which is a substantial difference; someone driving to work in the morning is moving from a low fire issue to a high fire issue; and inquired if that is a problem. Mr. Parker responded if there were high drought indexes with the other variables that cause concern in just one area of the County, that would create a problem because the ordinance would not be in effect; and they would call a policy group meeting to deal with that as well as stepping up fire efforts in that area.

Commissioner O'Brien stated at every lift station in the County, there is a transmitter and an antenna that transmits back to the wastewater treatment plant; and inquired if a scientific probe could be placed near the transmitter to measure moisture in the soil at that point, and transmit the information back to the treatment plants which would forward the information to the Fire Chief. Chief Farmer responded there is no one within the County doing soil moisture nor is there any agency which could gear up to do it. Commissioner O'Brien stated probes can be purchased and hardwired to transmitters which are presently in place at the lift stations; it is just an idea to solve the problem; and commented about the concerns of the public. Chief Farmer advised staff can look into that.

Richard Torpy complimented staff for working with the public to accommodate concerns. He stated sometimes there are attempts to make automatic things which cannot be made automatic; the fire index is done scientifically but subjectively; and as Commissioner Scarborough pointed out, it may be 800 at KSC and 450 in Melbourne. He stated two years ago when there was a significant risk of fire, the County responded based on the input of all of its staff and made correct decisions to protect the County; and that may be a better approach than having an automatic trigger. He stated the way the ordinance is drafted now, the industry can live with it; and emphasized the importance of the action required to lift the ban in a timely manner.

Charles Moehle, President of Modern Inc., stated it is his understanding that the fire index measures the moisture in the soil; however, there is nothing in the data concerning the classification of the soil. He noted there are hydric and sandy soils; and inquired if the soil characteristics are not used in the map. Mr. Goodrick responded that is taken into account empirically though the definition of the index; the scale of 0 to 800 is based on 8 inches of available water in the soil; different soil types will have a different depth to get the 8 inches of available water; and so it varies by soil type. Mr. Moehle inquired if Mr. Goodrick used the County's Soil Conservation map which shows the soil classifications; with Mr. Goodrick responding it is not explicitly included. Mr. Moehle stated where the 8 inches is could be very different depending on the soil; and in Brevard County there are soils that are extremely different. He recommended adding a provision under Section 5 that there is an exception if the Division of Forestry has issued a permit for a burn; and commented on controlled permits by agricultural people.

Chairman Higgs requested comment from staff. Chief Farmer advised he does not have a problem with Mr. Moehle's suggestion; the ordinance was never meant to address permitting or fires that are permitted by the Division of Forestry; and language could be inserted to deal with that. Mr. King advised the ordinance was not intended to prohibit a State agency from doing controlled or permitted burns. Chairman Higgs inquired where and how should that be inserted; with Mr. King responding it could be included in Section 1, Prohibitions, adding, "such prohibitions do not include open burning authorized by State law." Mr. King noted open burning authorized by State law such as Mr. Moehle is talking about are contained in Chapter 590, Florida Statutes. Mr. Moehle stated he is not talking just about State agencies, but control burn permits. Mr. King reiterated Chapter 590, Florida Statutes, covers controlled burns and permitted burns. Mr. Goodrick suggested the term "permitted controlled burns as authorized by the Division of Forestry."

Commissioner Scarborough read aloud from the proposed ordinance regarding fireworks; and stated there is an overlap because if it is outside of the County, it is also out of the State. Commissioner Voltz stated it could be shipped to Orlando or another County. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not necessary to say outside the State as it is redundant. He stated the larger issue is the problem of shipping fireworks in the State. Mr. King stated the sale of fireworks is generally prohibited by Statute, but there are several exceptions; and commented on retail and wholesale sales. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the County says outside the County, and Orange and Volusia Counties do the same, it would allow someone to continue their business of shipping in the State; and that does not seem to be appropriate. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is prohibition of the sale and use of fireworks in the County; if someone wants fireworks, there are ways to get them; and the ordinance is just saying fireworks cannot be sold retail in Brevard County. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. King is advising a fireworks dealer, who may be a retailer or wholesaler, can legally give fireworks to another wholesaler according to Florida Statute; and potentially that is a problem. Mr. King stated under the Florida Statute, a dealer can retail provided it goes outside the State of Florida, but he can wholesale within the State; and suggested removing the last sentence if the Board is uncomfortable with the language. He stated anything a dealer is allowed to do under State law, he would be allowed to do under the ordinance as well; and that would include wholesale distributing and manufacturing transactions of fireworks. Commissioner Scarborough outlined a scenario where someone from another county comes to Brevard County to buy fireworks, and has fireworks shipped to his home; with Mr. King advising a retail sale would have to be outside the State. County Attorney Scott Knox stated it is a two-pronged thing; use and sale are prohibited; so if they sell fireworks in Volusia County and come to Brevard County, they still cannot use it. Commissioner O'Brien expressed concern that use of fireworks is prohibited even though some municipalities shoot off fireworks over water; and recommended asking municipalities opt in rather than opt out, or exempt Fourth of July commercial displays. Chairman Higgs noted the County is not calling off the Fourth of July; it is talking about fireworks which is not the essence of the holiday. Commissioner Voltz commented on problems caused by only one municipality having ability to have a fireworks display. Commissioner Carlson stated the issue was to keep fireworks out of the hands of those who may potentially cause a problem; but she agrees with having sanctioned fireworks displays over water. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated there are provisions for authorized fireworks; and the cities would have jurisdiction to authorize their municipal fireworks.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance prohibiting open burning, use, sale, discharge of fireworks if certain conditions are present; providing for enforcement; providing for penalties; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the ordinance includes authorized and unauthorized fireworks. Chief Farmer stated that was not the intent; and it can be cleaned up.

Discussion ensued on the wording.

Mr. King suggested amending the motion to add, "such prohibitions do not include State permitted control burns, authorized fireworks displays, and fireworks sales which are authorized by State law. Commissioner Voltz and Commissioner Carlson accepted the amendment.

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

Mr. Jenkins stated there is an erroneous statement that has to be changed; with Chairman Higgs responding it was included in the motion that it would be clarified.

The Board expressed appreciation to Mr. Goodrick for his assistance.

The meeting recessed at 1:09 p.m. and reconvened at 2:08 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REQUEST FROM CLIFF AND JULIE GELMAN FOR VARIANCE FROM BREVARD COUNTY COASTAL SETBACK LINE

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a request from Cliff and Julie Gelman for variance from the Brevard County Coastal Setback Line.

Sean Burlingham, Structural Engineer representing Cliff and Julie Gelman, submitted affidavits; and stated the property owners want to build a small swimming pool east of their house; there is not enough room between the house and the Coastal Setback Line; initially they requested 12 feet past the line; but staff can only recommend 5 feet past the Coastal Setback Line, so he amended the proposed site plan.

Chairman Higgs stated the application says there were 20 feet of erosion between 1972 and 1997; and inquired what has happened between 1997 and the present; with Mr. Burlingham responding currently it is accreting at that location, and the only data he has to support that is that the dune crossover is slowly getting buried. Chairman Higgs inquired if there is any data to substantiate that; with Mr. Burlingham responding the Natural Resources Department agreed with that. Section Supervisor Debbie Coles advised according to the Olsen Report, there is zero erosion at that location. Chairman Higgs inquired if there was 20 feet of erosion between 1972 and 1997; with Ms. Coles responding yes, and they usually use the Olsen Report to fill in the gaps between survey periods. Chairman Higgs stated she looked at the item based on the data she was presented which showed 20 feet of erosion between 1972 and 1997; and given the performance during the recent hurricanes, she sees no way to recommend approval.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to deny request from Cliff and Julie Gelman for a variance of five feet from the Brevard County Coastal Setback Line to build a swimming pool. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Voltz voted nay.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, SECTION 62-1102, DEFINITIONS OF ZONING CODE TERMS

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Section 62-1102, Definitions of Zoning Code Terms.

Maureen Rupe inquired if the church steeple height should be a percentage of roof height, rather than 65 feet above the high point of the roof; and are there rules in place to protect the air space safety. She noted the flight path of Space Coast Regional Airport is over Port St. John, and a 100-foot tower would cause concern. She inquired on the alcoholic beverages in shopping centers, if there is still a distance requirement from churches, schools, and day care centers; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding it does not change the current restrictions on the conditional use permit.

County Manager Tom Jenkins cautioned the Board to look at the steeples and bell towers issue because there is a controversy going on in Rockledge because people do not want to live behind a church with a 100-foot steeple. Chairman Higgs stated she has some concern about the unlimited way that is characterized. Commissioner O'Brien stated there should be some kind of formula that makes sense; he would not want to live close to a church that has a 100-foot steeple which blocks sunshine and breeze; but it could be some percentage of the total height of the structure. He stated page 2, paragraph 3, reads, "where one level of parking is provided under the principal building, building height shall be measured from the elevation of the lowest point of the structure of the first habitable floor"; if there is a height restriction of 35 feet, and there is parking underneath, it could be a building that is 50 feet tall; and it defeats the intent of the height requirement. He suggested the parking be counted as part of the height; with Commissioner Carlson advising that is how it is being done now. Chairman Higgs stated they are basically getting a whole floor; with Commissioner Carlson responding right now they are. Mr. Enos stated in the mid-1980's when the provision was developed, the intent was to not use the height restrictions as a way of discouraging parking within the structure; otherwise, all of the parking would be outside; and there are tradeoffs there. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why would the County care whether they parked outside; with Commissioner Carlson advising parking under the building would require less asphalt; she has only seen it done on the beach; and it is an opportunity to reduce the amount of asphalt being put down. Commissioner O'Brien stated all they are going to do is put down more cement; instead of the building being 100 feet wide, it will be 225 feet wide; and not much is gained because where the asphalt would have been will be a condo. Chairman Higgs stated that is a good point, and it is also a good point on the steeple; and inquired if this can be continued to get other language to address unlimited steeple height and building height.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Section 62-1102, Definitions of Zoning Code Terms to May 9, 2000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE VII, DIVISION 4, SECTION 62-2956, PROVIDING FOR SIDEWALKS

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article VII, Division 4, Section 62-2956, Providing for Sidewalks.

Maureen Rupe stated she is uncomfortable about the provision that in industrial areas where it can be demonstrated by the applicant that there is no current or future need for sidewalks in the immediate area, the sidewalk requirement may be administratively waived; sidewalks were waived in Port St. John on U.S. 1 from Fay Boulevard to Kings Highway; the area is now commercial and sidewalks are needed; and the County will have to pay for them. She inquired if it could say it will be waived at this time, but in the future if there is ever a need for sidewalks, it will be up to the businesses to pay the cost.

Commissioner O'Brien advised of his experience with his factory in Cape Canaveral where sidewalks were required even though they did not go anywhere; and stated he can see sidewalks being waived in industrial where there are factories or large office complexes, but not in commercial which connect to commercial. He noted page 4, paragraph (b)(2) should be, "not less than four feet."

Chairman Higgs inquired if there was a provision in the Code that said it might not be necessary to build the sidewalk at that time, but it would be necessary to pay into a fund. Mr. Jenkins stated it was discussed at one time but he is not sure if it was implemented.

Commissioner Voltz stated there should be a contract with the property owner so when the sidewalk does need to go in, they would have to do so; it would save the owner money upfront; if they never needed sidewalks, they would never have to spend money to put them in; but if the need did arise, the owner would pay. She noted if there is a sidewalk in front, there would be foot traffic which would be good for business. Commissioner O'Brien stated if it is a manufacturer, the only foot traffic will be salesmen trying to sell raw materials or the employees; and he would not think there would be a need in an industrial park. Permitting and Enforcement Director Bill Osborne stated some time ago there was a payment in lieu program for sidewalks; however, several years ago, at the direction of the Board, that program was discontinued and all the funds that had been collected were refunded. Chairman Higgs stated it may be something the Board needs to consider again.

Commissioner Carlson stated page 3, number 8, talks about putting together access management as guidelines; and inquired about the status of the Wickham Road access management plan. Assistant Public Works Director Ed Washburn advised it is in draft status; and it should come to the Board in two weeks.

Discussion ensued on future sidewalks, difficulty in enforcement, sidewalks and other improvements in industrial parks, and payment in lieu of construction program.

County Development Engineer Bruce Moia advised of the possibility of doing a sidewalk assessment agreement with developers who choose not to construct a sidewalk at the time of development. Chairman Higgs and Commissioner Voltz indicated interest in the possibility. Mr. Moia stated staff will have to develop standard agreement language. Chairman Higgs inquired if it can be inserted today. Mr. Moia stated if someone requests a waiver, it could a condition of the waiver to enter into the agreement. Mr. Jenkins advised the Board would want to include that in the ordinance.

Commissioner Scarborough suggested the ordinance be adopted with Commissioner O'Brien's correction, and adding "provided a sidewalk assessment agreement is entered into by the applicant."

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 62, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, Land Development Regulations, Article VII, Subdivisions and Plats, Division 4, Engineering Design Standards for Subdivision and Site Plan Review; specifically amending Section 62-2956 providing sidewalks adjacent to roadways on which the development abuts; allowing consideration of reduced sidewalk width where conflicts can occur; allowing the County Development Engineer to request additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities to link the development with commercial, school or recreational areas; allowing administrative waivers of sidewalks in industrial areas; providing applicability in unincorporated areas, providing interpretation of conflicting provisions; providing severability; providing an effective date, amended to say "not less than four feet" on page 4, paragraph (b)(2) and adding "provided a sidewalk assessment agreement is entered into by the applicant." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN PORT. ST. JOHN CENTER SUBDIVISION - MELVYN R. YUSEM AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR PORT ST. JOHN CENTER SUBDIVISION

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating ingress/egress and public utility and drainage easements in proposed Port St. John Center Subdivision as petitioned Melvyn R. Yusem.

Commissioner Scarborough stated staff advises that it would be prudent to simultaneously consider item VI.A.2, Final Plat Approval, because the item is to vacate and reacquire through a plat.

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt a Resolution vacating ingress/egress and public utility and drainage easements in proposed Port St. John Center Subdivision as petitioned by Melvyn R. Yusem; and grant final plat approval for Port St. John Center, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and the developer responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2 2-48, LOT GRADING REQUIREMENTS

Chairman Higgs inquired about the estimated impact of the requirements. Commissioner O'Brien stated alternate construction methods could increase the cost of construction of a single-family house as much as $2,500. Chairman Higgs inquired if that figure includes what was previously discussed in terms of lot drainage issues; with County Development Engineer Bruce Moia responding yes, it could be measures such as stem walls, retaining walls, additional piping, elevated drain fields with pumps, or things like that. Chairman Higgs inquired when those would be required; with Mr. Moia responding only when they cannot meet the requirement for the elevation differential between existing homes; if they want to do it using fill, they would have to come up with an alternate method; and if by using fill, they exceed the requirement, they would have to come up with an alternate measurement such as the stem wall or the elevated drain field.

Harry Fuller stated he went over the ordinance as presented at the Building and Homebuilders Association meeting, and was the only dissenting member; and he voted against it for a number of reasons. He stated it includes, "surface water runoff from the placement of fill material for the construction of one or two-family dwellings shall not adversely affect surrounding properties and/or structures," and that is not a big problem because it usually does; but the next sentence is, "all building permit holders are required to provide for drainage in such a manner as not to drain surface water from normal rainfall events onto adjacent property," and he has a problem with that. He explained his concern about the sentence, "The permit holder shall provide an adequate drainage system whereby either surface water runoff from normal rainfall events is retained onsite and does not drain onto adjacent properties or is directed into a legal positive outfall" on page 3 is lawful. He stated the only way to not let water run off the side slope of the lot is to put up a retaining wall; and swales will not catch everything. He stated the intent is to control elevation and fill, but nothing in the ordinance controls the causes; and recommended control of the invert be included in the law.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is the invert; with Mr. Fuller responding the pipe that comes out of the house to the septic tank. Mr. Fuller stated there is no control over the invert; and commented on problems with different elevations. He stated the proposed ordinance controls the finished floor elevation and not the grade, and there is nothing that says the grade cannot go wherever it wants to go; the drainage plan cannot be submitted at the time required because it would be necessary to know the invert elevation; and there are no standards.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant more time to speaker Harry Fuller. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Mr. Fuller stated the County is getting calls now from people asking why it is letting people build so high that water runs all over their property; this will put controls on that; but if someone cannot satisfy the invert or drainage pipe requirements for the septic tank, the house will have to be built higher and it will have to be filled over the septic tank and drain pipes which will put a big mound in the yard. He stated the neighbor may think that the elevation is the same as his, but once construction starts, he is going to realize the roof is going to be 2 to 4 feet higher; and the County is going to start getting calls asking why it let someone build his house so high; and he does not think the ordinance is going to solve a lot of the complaints. He stated it is going to make the community look terrible; he does not see this as a solution to the problem; and the ordinance contains no standards. He stated it says the property must drain from back to front; he can put a level swale in, and as long as the end has a drop, it will drain; but an inspector may say there is no drain because there is no drop in the swale. He stated there is no requirement for a quarter-inch per foot like with a drain line; so the standard does not exist; and there will be a big debate in the field whether a drainage system has really been provided under that kind of situation.

Charles Moehle stated his impression of the ordinance is it is a possible solution if the land is all flat, but that is not true; most subdivisions are on relatively flat ground or created flat; but the ordinance is to take care of houses that are not in structured or engineered subdivisions. He stated the ordinance needs more work because it creates a lot of problems and not many solutions. He stated page 1, Section 1(b) says, "all new construction or substantial improvements of all structures, including manufactured homes . . . elevated at least 10 inches above the crown grade of the public thoroughfare on which the property abuts"; it does not say the road the property is getting a permit on; and inquired about a situation where there is more than one roadway, and thoroughfare could mean I-95 or an underpass or overpass so the ordinance could not be accommodated. He stated Section 1 (d) a and b have the same problem in that they work on flat land, but not necessarily on other lands or where there is an existing house that was built too low to have proper drainage; the lower house had a problem to begin with; the County is making the new builder have a problem because he cannot build any higher; and the ordinance does not seem to address all the problems that need to be addressed. He stated if the ordinance is going to be effective for unstructured developments or people who built outside of an engineered subdivision, it needs more work.

Chairman Higgs advised of meetings with the engineers and Homebuilders Association; and inquired about their answers to the issues. County Development Engineer Bruce Moia responded they met with the Homebuilders Association, the BCAC, LPA, and engineers who agree that the ordinance addresses the concerns. He stated the ordinance does talk about where there are lots that are going to be built next to other lots, and establishes a maximum differential; it no longer allows someone to build substantially higher than the neighbor just by placing fill on the property; and it tells the builder that he needs to come up with another solution other than fill and must address the fact that the neighbors are going to be impacted. He stated Mr. Fuller referenced the provision concerning building above the crown of the road; if the whole area where a home is being built is lower than the crown of the road, it will take some thought to get the lot to drain; and eventually it will have to match the existing grade, which may be difficult if it is a narrow lot with a big home. He stated the ordinance tries to eliminate the builder from building a home without thinking of the consequences of drainage and how the lot will affect the surrounding property owners.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if septic tanks were taken into consideration in talking about lot grading. Mr. Moia responded what usually happens with a septic tank in an area that is not engineered and if the person finds he has to elevate his drain field is that it drives up the finished floor elevation so high that it cannot be done with fill, and it is necessary to come up with some other solution; and it can be done with such things as an elevated mound drain field system, a stem wall, retaining walls on the property line, yard piping, or any other solution the owner imagines that does not impact the neighbor. He stated the biggest problem is where there are septic tanks and the neighboring house was built 10 years ago and is a little low; the new home may be three feet higher than the neighbor; and if it is not set back a certain amount of distance from the property line, there will be an impact which will have to be addressed with other alternatives. Commissioner Carlson inquired if a home was not in a residential subdivision and one individual built a fence and caused drainage to occur on another individual's property, and that individual's septic tank was on the property line with sitting water, would it be necessary to include provisions in the ordinance to protect health, welfare and safety, or is that encapsulated in the septic tank requirements. Mr. Moia advised there are setback and sloping requirements; and the regulations have been re-addressed with new criteria as far as setbacks from environmentally sensitive areas and things of that nature.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is in the lower areas; he finds it in Port St. John; and the septic situation drives it. He commented on how areas are developed with the first and second builders in an undeveloped area using neighboring properties as retention and flat lots becoming retention ponds for the area, different environment in areas with sandy hills, and two methods of building with one putting fill to the lot line and the other using a stem wall. He advised of recent calls to his office about the problem; stated it is not an infrequent occurrence in Port St. John; and the ordinance being considered may not be perfect, but he would like to proceed to advertise the public hearing and meet with Mr. Fuller, Mr. Moehle and staff to tweak the ordinance.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the problem with Paul and Sarah Bigelow is being taken care of; with Mr. Jenkins responding there is an appointment in Commissioner Scarborough's office to take care of the complaint. Commissioner Scarborough stated there are several cases going on concurrently.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board has been working on this for years; while what the Board is considering may not be perfect, it is an improvement; and she supports moving forward to a hearing. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board is interested in making this a pilot program to see if the ordinance proves to be effective without the engineered drainage requirement. She recommended making sure, when talking about non-subdivision platted property, that there is engineered drainage plan which stipulates what can and cannot be done and how it affects the neighbors and the entire area. She stated in a lot of areas such as Lake Washington, there is drainage behind the homes, but they can still alter their land and cause problems to occur; and she would like to see this come back in a year to see if it has been effective.

Chairman Higgs stated in a sense it will be a pilot program because after a year, the Board will hear from people.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Section 22-48 of the Code relating to lot grading requirements and a resolution establishing a lot grading review fee.

Commissioner O'Brien suggested the first paragraph on page 3 include, "or deposited onto a legal outfall." Mr. Moia stated the first paragraph talks about where it cannot be put, and the following paragraph talks about where it has to go, so it already says it has to go to legal positive outfall or be retained onsite.

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

CALCULATION AND TRANSFER, RE: DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON PROPERTIES THAT CONTAIN WETLANDS

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the people directly affected by the calculation and transfer of development rights know the Board is considering this. Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated staff held off notifying people pending the Board's action today, because staff was not sure what might transpire today or who to inform; and if staff missed informing someone, it would have been doing something staff does not traditionally do unless the Board directs. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board passes this today, will staff be notifying people; with Mr. Scott responding if things transpire that change the way the County does business, staff will begin to notify the major homebuilders and interests like that.

Charles Moehle commented on lack of notification; and stated the Board should not deviate from the current interpretations because this was thoroughly discussed when the 1988 Comprehensive Plan was adopted, and people were assured that they would be able to transfer development rights, so there are some vested rights and value issues that may be being taken away from people. He stated everyone agreed in 1988 because it was an incentive to people to give up their wetlands and to develop in the uplands; and if the Board is going to contemplate a change, there should be full public hearings with proper notification.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what will the process be after today. Mr. Scott responded if the Board is happy to maintain the system where someone would be able to transfer density from wetland to the uplands consistent with the residential density map, it would proceed to adoption of amendment 99B, no notification would have to occur, and ultimately the Conservation and Future Land Use Elements would be adopted; however, the issue is before the Board today, because when it was deciding whether or not to transmit the 99B package, the Board identified a nuance to the policies that it wished to discuss.

Chairman Higgs requested Mr. Scott explain the two options. Mr. Scott stated using a 100-acre parcel as an example, with 50 acres as wetlands and 50 as upland and a one unit per acre density, currently if someone chooses to stay out of the wetlands and develop on the uplands, they are able to develop units on the upland 50 acres, up to 150% of the one to one density which would give 75 units in this particular scenario. He stated the policy says, "residential land uses shall be limited to not more than one dwelling unit per five acres"; and there is another provision in the Zoning Code that allows transfer of density to upland properties so long as it is consistent with the surrounding areas and it does not exceed 150% of the upland portion. He stated over the years, the County has allowed owners to retain the one to one density if they stayed out of the wetlands; but another way of interpreting the policy is that the owner has a one unit per five acre wetland density whether there is development in the wetlands or not; and using that scenario on the same 100-acre parcel, there would be 50 units on the uplands and a transfer of 10 units from the wetlands for a total of 60 homes. He stated the policy would tend to reduce the maximum potential of homes that could be built on an upland for those properties that had an extremely high or low density.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if someone with 50 acres mitigated, could they wipe out the wetlands and put in 50 homes. Mr. Scott advised theoretically someone could do that, but it would be a costly proposition; and typically developers would first look at ways to achieve the density they are looking to achieve by staying out of the wetlands; and it is only in those instances where they can only capitalize on the units they are desiring and need to go into the wetlands to get that number that there is mitigation. He stated theoretically someone could destroy the wetlands, mitigate with St. Johns River Water Management District, and then engage the County and proceed with development. Commissioner Voltz inquired would the County be allowing the destruction of many more wetlands if they can mitigate, and would it be encouraging that. Mr. Scott stated that is where the debate lies; and there could be arguments on both sides. Chairman Higgs stated that is the essence of what the Board has to decide. Commissioner Voltz inquired if an incentive is going to be taken away. Commissioner Scarborough stated the current policy gives more to stay out of the wetlands, while amendment to the policy would work the compatibility of the developed area. Chairman Higgs stated it is pushing the density on the upland portion.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to confirm the present policy for calculating densities transferred from wetlands to uplands within a residential development project.

Chairman Higgs stated she will vote in opposition to the motion; the density on the map is one to five; and she is concerned about moving the density and preservation of the wetlands.

Commissioner Carlson stated she will support the motion because under the alternative interpretation it is says, "may increase encroachment of lot platted into wetland areas"; and unless there is a more holistic approach to wetlands and preserving them, the current approach seems to work.

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

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2 2-48, LOT GRADING REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED)

Commissioner O'Brien stated five years ago houses had to be built 14 inches above the crown of the road; and the County reduced that to 10 inches because FEMA changed the rule. Chairman Higgs disagreed; and requested staff comment. County Development Engineer Bruce Moia stated the ten-inch requirement came in because they have to build the road within ten inches of the base flood elevation for FEMA; so the home being 10 inches above that is at or above the base flood elevation. Public Works Director Henry Minneboo advised that was developed in 1981 or 1982. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it was addressed in 1995. Mr. Minneboo stated the problem has been that the septic tank has been dictating the elevation of the slab. Commissioner O'Brien stated his house was built in 1989 and is 14 inches above the crown of the road. Mr. Minneboo noted Commissioner O'Brien's house is on a sewer system. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca noted there is no maximum. Commissioner O'Brien described the drainage on his property; and stated during a heavy rainfall, water comes into his garage. Mr. Minneboo commented on the rainfall pattern on Merritt Island and the fact that Commissioner O'Brien has a swimming pool.

DISCUSSION, RE: PUBLIC ACCESS ON FIRE STATION 80 PROPERTY

Public Safety Director Jack Parker stated the Board met previously on the placement of a fence on County property at Fire Station 80; originally the Sheriff's Office called with security concerns since there is a women's health clinic on adjacent commercial property, and asked that a fence be erected to separate the two properties and other miscellaneous things; in designing and placing the fence, there was an area that was being used by the businesses which had been slightly improved as a parking area; and that area was carved out to allow that parking to continue. He stated there was some debate about whether that area could be used for more than just parking and whether people who were counseling people or protesting using the services of the clinic would be allowed to be in that area, or if the County would continue to issue trespass warrants. He stated the Board decided to issue a directive that no one would use that area for any purpose until the County Attorney's office reviewed it and made a recommendation on the fence; and the County Attorney's office made that recommendation to move the fence on the property line.

Meredith Raney stated he represents a group of citizens who have a ministry to help people to solve their problems without having to resort to abortion; and explained why they operate outside abortion clinic entrances and why the clinic does not want them to be there. He outlined the events of December 15, 1999 which led to issuance of a trespass warning. He stated there is a dispute as to who started the process; according to Mr. Parker, the Sheriff's Department recommended the fence and promised to provide written justification; but Sheriff Williams' letter of March 1, 2000 does not provide the justification; and Sheriff Williams is now saying the whole thing was the County's idea. He stated Mr. Parker responded to the Sheriff's letter with a letter to Assistant County Attorney Kyle King dated March 2, 2000 saying it was the Sheriff's recommendation to construct the fence; and the justification for the fence in Mr. Parker's letter is only hearsay. He stated Sheriff Williams' letter expresses no concern about security, but only recommends, if Brevard County Fire Rescue was concerned about security, that a straight chain link fence would be most appropriate; and advised of the diagram for the fence. He stated the only purpose for the fence is to keep pro-life counselors away from the clinic; and if the clinic wanted a fence, it should have paid for it. He stated Mr. King, in his letter of March 28, 2000, recommended denying access to the general public because of potential premises liability in allowing general public access, but that is not what Sheriff Williams said; and the only statements about potential liability came secondhand from Mr. Parker. He stated there is no first hand evidence from the Sheriff showing any unusual security concerns at all; there is some degree of liability everywhere; and commented on security at different County locations. Mr. Raney stated several County employees have said that information justifying the fence came from conversations with a Washington, D.C. attorney Sarah Love; and expressed concerns about Attorney Love who is an abortion industry attorney. He requested since $4,000 of taxpayer money has already been wasted, it would cost even more to take the fence down or modify it, and no first hand security issues have been presented by the Sheriff, the County revert to its previous position of allowing the general public in the "notch" area.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Parker had any further discussions with Sheriff Williams; and requested he clarify his understanding of the recommendation of the Sheriff and his Precinct Commander. Public Safety Director Jack Parker stated he has had no communication with the Sheriff concerning this issue after his last letter; however, prior to that letter, he met with Commander Crosby and Sheriff Williams; and both expressed continuing concerns about security with the fence in its current configuration and recommended that the fence be moved or straightened or the County continue to trespass people out of that area who are not doing business in the commercial establishment. He stated the first he heard about the issue was when Commander Crosby called him and requested a meeting; and Commander Crosby recommended making security upgrades on the site. Chairman Higgs inquired if Commander Crosby's concern was the security of the site; with Mr. Parker responding yes.

Commissioner Voltz stated security is a very broad term; and inquired if Commander Crosby provided any specifics. Mr. Parker advised he was worried about increasing acts of domestic terrorism on that site, and felt that the County had to establish a clear delineation of the commercial versus County property. He stated Commander Crosby mentioned car bombings as an example; an unidentified vehicle was parked on the oak hammock between the two properties, which was actually County property; and the fire station believed it was part of the commercial establishment and the commercial establishment believed it was part of the fire station, and no one was suspicious of the vehicle. He stated if the County runs a fence between the two properties, it will allow the County to determine which vehicles belong to which establishment and decide if one is suspicious or not. Commissioner Voltz stated there is nothing that happened at the clinic that would have caused the County to do what it did. Mr. Parker advised the secondary reason expressed by Commander Crosby was that increasing pedestrian traffic would spill over from the commercial establishment onto the fire station and possibly impede egress of fire engines. Commissioner Voltz stated there is nothing but woods there; with Mr. Parker responding this was before the fence was constructed, and after the fence was constructed, additional concerns were expressed about the traffic safety pattern entering the facility off St. Andrews Boulevard. Commissioner Voltz stated if they were left on the property, they would not cause any sort of problem; and the only reason the County put up the fence is to keep out the picketers. She noted Commander Crosby and Sheriff Williams are not even present to provide justification; and that is not fair to Mr. Parker. Mr. Parker stated he is just trying to represent, as best he can, what the Sheriff's Department has told him; there was concern that any activity, even if it was not directly in the path of a vehicle, would possibly get the attention of drivers, causing them to slow down; and the secondary concern was that the enclave would be an enhanced area for conflict between those who are counseling and those who are entering the facility for services and there could be a propensity for violence in that area. Commissioner Voltz inquired if there have been any vehicles in that area since the last time the Board met; with Mr. Parker responding no, the area has been kept taped up. Commissioner Voltz stated she went out when they were putting up the fence, and recommended cutting it all off; and if it had been done that way, the Board would not be discussing it now. She recommended leaving it as is because there has been no problem there and there is no indication there will be any violence; and it is unfair of Sheriff Williams to not attend the meeting.

Chairman Higgs stated she talked to Sheriff Williams who expressed his support for the property line fencing and his concern about security issues.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the reason they put up the fence was because of the recommendation from the Sheriff's Department; Mr. Parker discussed the dogleg in the fence with him, and they were attempting to accommodate the stores which had been using that space for many years; and in hindsight, it may have been easier to frame it off as Commissioner Voltz described.

Commissioner Carlson stated having the fence keeps the separation but does not keep the security issue under wraps because it does not go around the whole fire station; and inquired what is really being prevented in terms of suspicious vehicles. Mr. Parker stated it is pretty effective; they keep a close watch on what happens on fire station grounds, and if there is any unidentified vehicle, it is reported immediately; but it does not physically obstruct someone from driving a car bomb onto the property. He stated in the past an unidentified vehicle could sit in the middle of the two properties, and the firefighters would often assume it belonged to the other commercial establishment.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is enough surveillance; with Mr. Parker advising of the patrols of the area. Mr. Jenkins advised it presents a barricade on one side only.

Commissioner Voltz inquired how a car could be readily identified; with Mr. Parker responding on the fire station property, the vehicles generally belong to the firefighters or someone who is visiting. Commissioner Voltz stated there have been no vehicles coming onto the fire station property, just people. Mr. Parker stated that is not correct; and there were some vehicles parking on the grass; that is the area that was in question by the Sheriff; and if the fence was erected, it would stop those people from parking in those areas. Commissioner Voltz inquired if they were parking there before the clinic came; with Mr. Parker responding he does not know. Commissioner Voltz stated if they were parking there all along, then what the County is doing is keeping the protesters out rather than addressing any security breach.

Chairman Higgs advised there are no motions heard.

RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2000-010, RE: CONSTITUTIONAL GAS TAX BONDS

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is happy with what is happening on Carpenter Road; and inquired about Wickham Road; with Commissioner Voltz advising she is happy with it. Chairman Higgs stated she supports doing Wickham Road, but if the $4.6 million is moved out of undesignated funds into Wickham Road, then the County has lost any flexibility it would have in regard to doing the drainage improvements the Board talked about last week; and the Board should look at the projects in South Brevard that already have money allocated, and move the money to Wickham Road, and maintain money for the drainage. She stated the Board cannot ignore the impacts that roads have had on the drainage systems; and if the Board does not use some of the gas tax money, it will not have any money to fix it.

Public Works Director Henry Minneboo stated he and Mr. Denninghoff have put some additional thought into the portion on Wickham Road, and would like to revisit that; there are some technical issues of significance that they need to work on with the engineer to see if there are other approaches they can take; and requested that portion be pulled from the agenda item, but still allow the Carpenter Road side to move forward. He stated they will modify the resolution and be prepared by April 25, 2000.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution amending Resolution 2000-010 for the Constitutional Gas Tax Revenue Bonds to include the Carpenter Road project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it says that for Wickham Road, U.S. 192 to Nasa Boulevard, the tests indicated there is little or no base material existing under a large portion of the roadway. Mr. Minneboo responded sometimes in the past, there was not a lot of time to put a lot of base in there; and that is staff's concern. He stated the road has been there for 25 years or more; it has withstood a substantial number of vehicles over the years; when there is an opportunity to restructure an entire corridor, they like to take into account all the physical aspects; and that is why they were initially concerned about rebuilding the entire road. He noted there are a lot of factors involved with why a road can do well without the normal amount of base and sub-base. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Mr. Minneboo is referring to U.S. 192; with Mr. Minneboo responding it is Wickham Road, from U.S. 192 to Nasa Boulevard. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it lasted 25 years and no one ever knew about the lack of base; with Mr. Minneboo responding the old timers knew it, but when the borings were done, that is when the deficiencies showed up.

Commissioner Carlson inquired when the Board was laying out the projects, did staff not know about the deficiency; with Mr. Minneboo responding, no, the project was under design before they did the projects the Board approved; it has been on the board for some time; and the engineer just brought the deficiencies to staff's attention. He stated he and Mr. Denninghoff would like to revisit it.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired who built that section of road; with Mr. Minneboo responding the County did.

Mr. Minneboo stated they need to substitute the revised exhibit in the Resolution. Mr. Denninghoff stated the exhibit that was supplied to the Board has the increase for the Wickham Road project on it, and the motion that was approved would exclude that.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize substituting the appropriate exhibit not including the increase for Wickham Road, U.S. 192 to Nasa Boulevard, with Resolution No. 2000-130. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, CERTIFICATES, AND PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING, RE: SHIP HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution approving the State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) Housing Assistance Plan for FY 2000-2001 through 2002-2003; execute required State Certification; and authorize the Housing and Human Services Director to submit the Plan to the State of Florida Housing Finance Agency, with any minor amendments which FHFA determines are necessary to meet the requirements of the Florida Statute, and to advertise availability of funds. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: SENATE BILLS 1290 AND 2046

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated Senate Bills 1290 and 2046 would reduce or eliminate local jurisdiction over some solid waste issues; prior to retiring, Mr. Rabon reviewed the bills, and advised Senate Bill 2046 is not needed because the construction and demolition industry has plenty of protection opportunity to recycle without the bill; the bill blurs the lines between what is considered solid waste and construction and demolition debris; and it is a way to remove local governments from the C&D collection and disposal process so that such facilities, debris and haulers can deal solely with the State. He noted the County is having an experience with a C&D facility in Titusville. He stated Senate Bill 1290 has been modified through the process, and is creating conflicts between private industry and government; and it is primarily dealing with the revenue stream and the ability to do financing. He recommended the Board express its opposition to both bills through a letter.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there should be one letter covering both bills or one letter per bill. Commissioner Voltz stated it should be separate. Commissioner O'Brien read aloud from information on Senate Bill 1290; and inquired if that is all there is to it; with Mr. Jenkins responding at the time that was all staff could find out, but they can elaborate. Chairman Higgs recommended separate letters elaborating on each issue. Commissioner Scarborough commented on the workload of the Legislators; and recommended the letters be short and concise. Chairman Higgs recommended sending a copy to the lobbyist. Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the bills started with Bob Hires who was from the County; and requested permission to call Mr. Hires.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize sending letters expressing opposition to Senate Bills 1290 and 2046 to the Brevard Delegation, with a copy to Lobbyist Guy Spearman; and grant permission for Commissioner Scarborough to discuss the issue with Bob Hires. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT, RE: CANAVERAL PORT AUTHORITY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1999

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge receipt of the Canaveral Port Authority's Financial Statement for the period ending September 30, 1999. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - DENNIS L. LOVE, RE: MAINTENANCE OF OSPREY STREET IN CANAVERAL GROVES, SECTION 5

Dennis Love, representing some property owners on Osprey Street in Canaveral Groves, stated he recently applied for a building permit and was told he would have to engineer and build a road to County specifications prior to issuance of a permit. He stated the first 100 feet of Osprey Street and the streets on either end are County maintained; and this is the only cross street in the area that is not maintained. He submitted copies of maps and pictures of the area. He stated with the exception of having no marl or shell in place, Osprey Street is in comparable condition to the surrounding roads; and requested the County take over maintenance or issue building permits on the road as is. He described the pictures which were submitted.

Public Works Director Henry Minneboo advised of the history of the Osprey Street area; outlined which roads the County maintains and which it does not; and commented on building permits which were granted in 1983 and 1985.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what are the advantages and disadvantages of the County picking up maintenance on Osprey Street. Mr. Minneboo responded staff has tried diligently in the Canaveral Groves area to be consistent; there are probably 10 to 15 miles of roads the County does not maintain, and Osprey Street is one of them; and his concern is if the County does it for one road, it needs to do it for all roads. He stated all the roads are dirt; Osprey Street is probably in better shape than most; but there are many other areas that the County does not maintain. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is a policy for when the County goes from non-maintenance to maintenance, and is there an evaluation the Department utilizes. Mr. Minneboo responded the Development Department has been clear on the need to have those roads conform to the dirt road standards before the County will accept them; and they would need to follow those procedures. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it would be the Development Department that would make the recommendation to the Public Works Department that the County pick up a road for maintenance; with Mr. Minneboo responding that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the impact of picking up a road for maintenance; with Mr. Minneboo responding if it is close to other roads that the County grades on a regular basis, it is not a significant impact, but there are drainage issues. Commissioner Scarborough stated if there is not a systematic means of picking up maintenance, the Board can be opening Pandora's box and vastly increasing the County's workload. Mr. Minneboo advised of difficulty keeping up with work and the impact of picking up an additional mile or half-mile of maintenance. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated Mr. Love wanted to get a building permit; Land Development advised of the process for an unpaved road; and as Mr. Love did not feel comfortable with that process, he is present today. Commissioner Scarborough stated staff gave Mr. Love the information; once he develops the road to the County's standards, the County will pick up maintenance; and what Mr. Love is requesting is a deviation from the policy. Mr. Minneboo stated that is his understanding.

Chairman Higgs stated she hears no motion so the Board will be unable to help Mr. Love.

DISCUSSION, RE: BREVARD COUNTY VS. CITY OF PALM BAY

County Attorney Scott Knox stated this item relates to the hiring of an expert witness in the planning field to deal with the Palm Bay annexation petition that has been filed; and it would apply to the one- acre and 20-acre parcel, should the 20-acre parcel be annexed.

Attorney Richard Torpy stated he represents the applicant who filed the initial application to the City of Palm Bay for a voluntary annexation on the 18-acre parcel on the northeast corner of Babcock Street and Valkaria Road; and by Agreement with the City of Palm Bay, he is also present to speak on behalf of the City. He stated he is shocked by the way the Board has handled this issue; a couple of weeks ago, he read an article in the newspaper that this item had not been formally approved for a challenge to be filed against the City of Palm Bay; and commented on how he found out the item was to be brought up as a non-agenda item under the County Attorney's report and lack of opportunity for the public to speak. He stated the item today to discuss spending $23,800 to support a lawsuit against the City of Palm Bay is last on the Agenda; the discussion before the Board last week was whether to continue the suit that had been filed on behalf of the 1.6 acres; Commissioner Carlson inquired if a letter could be filed stating the Board's concerns with the DCA and let it go through the process when the issue of the 18 acres came up; and at that time, the County Attorney advised the issue was not ripe yet, or in other words, had not been formally adopted by DCA yet.

He stated no information has been sent out; there is not even time for a challenge yet; but the Board is talking about spending $23,800 to challenge the City. He advised the League of Cities voted unanimously last night to send a letter of objection to the Board for challenging the annexation. He inquired if the Board knows the facts that the City Council relied on when it decided to annex the land; and stated he does not think so as there has been no opportunity for public comment by the people who are informed. He noted there has been a lot of rumors, speculation and innuendo; and he knows because he has been doing the fact finding behind the scenes. He stated there have been comments made that his client only went to the City because this was rejected by the County, which is not true; and while there was an application years ago to change the zoning, it was not made by his client. He stated in November, 1999 the Board approved $2.4 million for a study on the widening of Babcock Street, from Malabar Road to Valkaria Road, to four lanes; and if that is not consistent with the fact that the area is growing and will require some commercial development, he is not sure what is. He inquired if the Board knows that when City Commissioner Pat Woodard made the motion and voted to approve the annexation, he specifically stated that he was not voting to approve a shopping center in the area, but based on the evidence, he clearly saw this was going to be some form of commercial and the action was appropriate, and would leave what was going to go there to the site plan stage. He stated the City has not made a final determination on what will be put there; and inquired if the Board is aware that the project is planned to begin in three to five years and not reach full buildout for ten years. He inquired if the Board is aware that the City of Palm Bay, in that section which is cut in half by Babcock Street, has approximately 8,000 residents on the Palm Bay side, and a significant population on the Valkaria side.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve allowing an extra five minutes for Mr. Torpy. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Torpy stated the Valkaria Homeowners Association says there are 300 people in opposition to the move; however, he sat through all the meetings, and there were 50 to 75 people who spoke in opposition; and the 300 figure came from a petition that was submitted. He noted he was asked if he would like to have a counter-petition prepared for his client at the cost of $1 per signature; and commented on petitions. Mr. Torpy stated out of the thousands of people who live within two and one-half miles of the area, only 50 to 75 well organized people objected; and commented on the number of public hearings. He stated the City listened to the facts and made the decision that annexing the land was the right thing to do in order to support the need for additional commercial property; and noted this is not the sole way of looking at the growing of commercial development and there are other methods as Chairman Higgs has proposed; but the Board is wrong in voting to spend thousands of dollars to challenge and sue the City of Pam Bay where there has not even been an advertised public hearing to hear the facts. He stated Commissioners Scarborough and O'Brien have spoken on this issue; Commissioner Carlson asked questions last week and received, in his opinion, incorrect answers; and Commissioner Voltz is in staunch opposition. He requested the Board not approve the item before it, but set a public hearing to get input from all the people involved, and then decide whether the Board should challenge one of its neighboring cities which is trying to control its growth.

Chairman Higgs stated the first time she brought this before the Board, it was an Agenda item, and there were people present from the City of Palm Bay; the Board asked for participation of the City through a joint planning agreement; and at this time, if it has not been adopted, the Board can object directly to DCA before having to go to court. County Attorney Scott Knox stated the amendment has been transmitted to DCA and there is a comment period extended to all governmental agencies including the County, so it is appropriate. Chairman Higgs stated the Board needs to comment strongly to that, and it is not timely yet, to file a suit on the larger parcel; but the smaller parcel was a small scale plan amendment so that was adopted. She reiterated the item was on the Agenda; to the best of her recollection there was an individual from the City present; the County Attorney chose to do the item under reports, but it was discussed at length in the newspaper; and everyone needs to be more careful what is done under Reports, and agenda as much as possible. She stated if the Board can make its comments on the 20-acre annexation without using the consultant, that is fine.

Commissioner Voltz stated when this was brought up under Reports, Nick Tsamoutales and Mr. Watkins were present, but were not given an opportunity to speak. Chairman Higgs noted all any Commissioner would have had to do was ask. Commissioner Voltz noted they did not put in a card. Commissioner Scarborough stated he noted there were people in the audience, and inquired if they wanted to talk; with Chairman Higgs advising she said there were no cards. Commissioner Voltz stated she is not making an issue out of it because they could have spoken if they wanted to; however, the Board asked the City to do a JPA after the fact when it was in the process of doing something; and if the Board wanted one before that, it should have asked a long time ago, knowing that some of these issues might be coming up, instead of waiting until the City was in the process of doing some of the issues for itself, and then expecting the City to drop what it was doing to enter into a JPA. She stated the County is clearly wrong and should not be suing its sister cities; and the Board should do whatever it can to not do that.

Mr. Knox advised the 18-acre amendment has not been transmitted yet. Chairman Higgs stated the point at which it is transmitted is when the County objects to DCA prior to filing any kind of suit; but in regard to the one-acre, the Board has to take a position.

Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chairman O'Brien.

Commissioner Higgs stated it is proper for the Board to make an objection to the Department of Community Affairs as soon as it is transmitted.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve objecting to the Department of Community Affairs on the 18 acres.

Commissioner Voltz stated it is within the City's realm of doing business; and inquired how the Board can say it wants to do that without hearing all the information. She stated the Board has not heard from both sides of the issue; it has not heard from the City of Palm Bay; and inquired what the Board is objecting to.

Vice Chairman O'Brien stated last Tuesday the Board made a motion and took action on this topic when it was not on the Agenda; that is why he voted against it; and he does not think the Board should spend approximately $23,000 on this. He stated this is a voluntary annexation; the person who owns the property wants to join the City of Palm Bay, and that may be because he wants a commercial store; and it is unconscionable for the Board to spend $23,000 on this. He stated he could support objecting to DCA with a strongly worded letter, but to start hiring expert witnesses and paying for trial time, etc. is going too far. He stated the end result may be that the County will spend as much money in legal actions as the property is worth; and he agrees with Commissioner Voltz that there has not been a fair hearing by both sides.

Commissioner Carlson stated she does not see the need to expend dollars for expert advice until the Board has sent in its objections to DCA and gotten return input; and inquired if all municipalities have been offered the option of doing a JPA; with Ms. Busacca responding that is correct. Commissioner Carlson inquired about Palm Bay's response; with Ms. Busacca responding the City has agreed to work with the County to do that. Commissioner Higgs stated that would be with the exclusion of the properties in question. Commissioner Voltz inquired about the timing of the JPA's. Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated staff continues to work with the City of Palm Bay; it is a lengthy process; and they have identified a lot of issues that will be in the JPA including future sewer areas and annexation areas; there are still a lot of details to work out; and staff is working with the City's planners. Commissioner Carlson stated this is not the right way of doing business with the cities; she would like to make sure DCA is aware of the County's thoughts on this; and if the County can get municipalities to work with it, it will not get into these kinds of situations.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands the motion is not to spend the $23,000, but it is to send the objection to DCA; and inquired if there is time to have a public hearing first before sending in the objections. Mr. Knox stated there is time for the one that is not yet transmitted. Commissioner Scarborough inquired when does the County need to send in its objections; with Mr. Knox responding 60 days after they transmit. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can easily have a public hearing before making this decision; with Mr. Scott responding there would be two opportunities, once at transmittal and once at adoption. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board can have the public hearing that Mr. Torpy requested without jeopardizing the County's posture with DCA; with Mr. Scott advising that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not going to vote for the motion because, in the spirit of working with the cities, it would be advantageous to have a public hearing. He requested the Vice Chairman recognize him for a motion to table after the other Commissioners have spoken.

Commissioner Voltz stated the question has not been answered; and inquired if the JPA was requested a long time ago or when this issue came up; with Mr. Scott responding it was before this issue. Commissioner Voltz inquired about the City's response when the request was made; with Mr. Scott responding the County has never received anything but a green light from the City to try to work through the details of a JPA; but it has been a time consuming process. Commissioner Voltz stated when this issue came up, the County issued an ultimatum that the City had to do a JPA now and stop the development. Ms. Busacca stated there was a motion to divide the JPA into four areas so they could come to agreement quicker on at least one area; so the Board directed staff to expedite that, but she does not remember what Commissioner Voltz is suggesting. Commissioner Voltz stated she is suggesting that it was expedited on that particular area; with Ms. Busacca advising of the Board direction.

Commissioner Higgs stated when this was first brought up, a letter was sent to Palm Bay asking it to be involved in a JPA and not move forward this; the City indicated it was not willing to do so at that time; and that is when the Board discussed the objection. She stated what the cities do impacts the County; the Board is the only entity responsible for Countywide issues; last summer there was the water and sewer district issue by the City of Palm Bay; and the City of Melbourne and the County entered into a joint agreement and a lawsuit in regard to that. She stated the County reacted last summer, as did the City of Melbourne; and while all municipalities may be members of the League of Cities, they are not always in agreement. She advised of other municipalities that were involved; and inquired if the County is still in that litigation; with Mr. Knox responding yes, and they tried to work out a deal with the City, which did not want to do it. Commissioner Higgs stated the issue does not exist in a vacuum; commented on what cities do having great effect; and advised the idea of moving out is adverse to the City of Palm Bay's long-term financial health. Commissioner Voltz stated the City is not going out after the property; the owners are requesting the annexation. Commissioner Higgs stated the City is making the adjustment to its boundaries.

Vice Chairman O'Brien stated he does not know why one fight is pulled into another; the issue is the annexation of an area of unincorporated Brevard County known as Valkaria; and the City of Titusville does this all the time. Commissioner Higgs inquired Titusville did it with 40,000 vacant parcels inside the City. Vice Chairman O'Brien stated that has nothing to do with it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table discussion of Brevard County vs. City of Palm Bay to a date to be determined in May, 2000 with direction that adequate notice be given. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board is losing any ground on the one-acre parcel; with Mr. Knox stating the City may be agreeable to an abatement pending the discussion. Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Higgs is addressing something different than her motion which was dealing with the item that had not been submitted yet, and which Mr. Scott advised there were no time limitations, and the only thing his motion addressed was the non-sensitive issue. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board pursues no further and has the discussion on both the parcels, has the County lost any ground; with Mr. Knox responding no, as long as the City is willing to agree to an abatement of the proceedings. Attorney Torpy indicated the City is willing to agree to an abatement. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the 120 hearing petition is withdrawn; with Mr. Torpy responding it will sit in limbo until the Board has its public hearing; the City will not be responding, and the County will not be taking further action; and that will be communicated to the DCA Administrative Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct staff to get an agreement from the City of Palm Bay to abate any further prosecution of the 120 hearing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Vice Chairman O'Brien passed the gavel to Chairman Higgs.

APPROVAL OF BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE: TRANSFER TDC BEACH FUNDS FROM RESERVES TO OPERATING TO FINANCE SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT

Chairman Higgs expressed concern about the TDC operating fund being established for Phase 2 of the project; the Board should have received a copy of a memorandum from Rob Varley regarding some discussions by the TDC; the Board could potentially move forward and have the entire project funded; and that is something the County has to commit to the Corps of Engineers.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he and Mr. Wille sit on the TDC; and inquired if there would be any violation of Sunshine Law discussing this issue in a public forum. County Attorney Scott Knox stated it is an agendaed item of a public meeting, so there is no Sunshine issue.

Bob Wille, Chairman of the Tourist Development Council, submitted paperwork; and stated there was no intent by staff to cause any friction. He commented on discussions about beach renourishment being split into two phases for logistical purposes, but is considered one project; and the financial plan is to provide for the local match. He stated the issue today is to move certain funds from a reserve account into an operating account to fund the first phase; and it will not require the full movement of the $3.9 million. He stated the amount in question is $1.5 million; and the issue is the financing of the balance for the first phase, which would secure the total match dollars that are anticipated for the second phase without any concern about having to go through a future referendum requirement. He stated the consistency of maintaining the funding for the project will be secure in the Board's action to do that. He noted the memorandum from Mr. Varley is to the Finance Committee, but the Board can take action to move forward with some financing of the balance.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board should move forward to get the financing in place for the entire project. County Manager Tom Jenkins recommended use of commercial paper.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Budget Change Request moving the current balance of the TDC Beach Other Reserve funds in the amount of $2,907,625 into a TDC Beach Operating fund in order to finance the Brevard County Shore Protection project; and approve use of commercial paper to finance the balance.

Commissioner O'Brien emphasized the funds are not derived from property taxes, but are derived from tourist taxes.

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

GRANT AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION, AND BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE: GRANT FOR INSTALLATION OF BOATING SAFETY KIOSKS

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer stated in November, 1999 two grant proposals came to the Board concerning environmental improvements; the County received both grants; and the one before the Board today has to do with kiosks which would be put at boat ramps to provide information on boating restrictions, local conditions, and boating safety. He advised of the design of the kiosks working with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; stated there is an opportunity to receive approximately $67,000; and there is no cash contribution but an in-kind contribution of services of staff. He stated Commissioner O'Brien has specific questions; and Natural Resources Section Supervisor Conrad White is present, and has copies of pictures of the panels that will be on the kiosks. Mr. White distributed pictures to the Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Commissioners have received copies of documents from Mr. Pritchard and Mr. McGill; with several Commissioners indicating they did not receive such documents. Commissioner O'Brien advised of the comments of Mr. Pritchard and Mr. McGill about the kiosks being manatee information booths and requesting redesign of the kiosks to include additional information. He advised of goals a, b, c, and d; and stated the observations may be correct because this is supposed to be a boating safety kiosk, yet the first three goals are about manatees. He stated the management of the project has been reassigned to Leesa Souto; the County will contribute in-kind services to complete the project at a cost of $11,792; and the impact will be fewer boating accidents and a cleaner environment that will contribute to public health and make the Lagoon a safer and more attractive location for visitors. He stated he is not against accepting the grant because the signs address various safety and environmental issues; in the manatee protection plan, the Board does call for education as being the most important facet; and the kiosk will share information about boating safety and manatee protection. He inquired if the signs will be in Spanish and English; with Mr. Peffer responding they will be in English only. Commissioner O'Brien inquired about teaming up with other counties; with Mr. Peffer advising of the cost advantage of teaming with other counties to use standardized signs. Commissioner O'Brien commented on inclusion of groups such as Citizens for Florida Waterways, Save the Manatee, the newly created boating committee, the Power Squadron, and other marine-related organizations in the decision as to where the kiosks go and what the message should be. He noted there may be other issues which the groups may want to address, such as damage from discarded monofilament line.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to execute Grant Agreement with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for the installation of 12 boating safety kiosks; approve Budget Change Request to disburse the grant funds; and direct staff to have a hearing where all affected parties are included in the input as to where the kiosks should be and what messages they should contain.

Chairman Higgs inquired, in the submittal to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, did the County include anything specific in terms of location or content. Mr. Peffer responded the County has committed to placing the kiosks in the most heavily used locations, but will work with Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson to insure they get maximum exposure; and he does not know if the County committed to exact locations. Mr. White advised 12 locations have been identified ranging from the Scottsmoor Boat Ramp to Long Point Park. Chairman Higgs stated the Board is not able to be flexible in the location of the kiosks; with Mr. Peffer responding he is not sure the State would have a problem if the County chose to modify the location. Mr. Peffer stated there may be difficulty in modifying the content of the signs; there was a committee that worked together to come up with the most appropriate language; and he is not sure how much flexibility there is in terms of the content of the signs, although there will be some site specific information. He stated he is not sure how the grant would apply if the County decided to go with different sign content; there would be new cost for developing a new concept; and he would have to report back to the Board on how much flexibility there might be. He stated the County is more or less committing to the design, and in return, it is getting $68,000 to do it. Chairman Higgs stated there are already commitments to what is going to be there; the County is going to sign a contract; and it is already outlined what will be done.

Commissioner Voltz stated she does not have any problem with the signs; and inquired who was on the committee which determined what would be on the signs; with Mr. Peffer responding he is not sure, but Ms. Souto was involved representing Brevard County. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it was not just Brevard County people; with Mr. Peffer responding no, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has provided this opportunity; the question is whether the County wishes to participate; and the program has been designed. Mr. Peffer stated during all the discussions the Board had about manatee protection, education was stressed by everyone as being important; and this is an opportunity to take advantage of State dollars to accomplish something that has been without any dissension in the County.

Commissioner Voltz withdrew the second to the motion.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired who was on the committee; with Mr. White responding representatives of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida Boating Advisory Council, and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is a Brevard County Boating Advisory Council; with Mr. White responding he is not aware of such a council. Chairman Higgs stated the Board formed such a committee. Commissioner Voltz stated the County is getting $67,000 to do boating safety, but 90% is manatee information; and the County does need manatee signs, but it is using boating safety funds. Mr. Peffer advised of the content of the signs including manatee and boating safety issues as well as local issues. He noted the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission which is providing the funding has a vested interest in manatee protection; and it seems to be a good deal for the citizens. Chairman Higgs stated the Board submitted the application; it has been funded; it outlines what will be done; and the Board has to either approve signing it the way it is or not.

Commissioner O'Brien stated a lot of people do not like having these called boating safety kiosks if they end up being a manatee-environmental kiosk; some people resent paying taxes to Florida Inland Navigation District when their major purpose is to find spoil sites for the Corps of Engineers dredging projects, but they spent money on manatee signs; and often funds are being expended in ways that are not totally appropriate. He stated he wanted to clarify that the signs were not totally about manatees; two-thirds are about boating safety; and he is satisfied with that.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Grant Agreement with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for the installation of 12 boating safety kiosks; and approve Budget Change Request to disburse the grant funds. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated a letter was forwarded from Commissioner Scarborough's office from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and read aloud part of the letter concerning need to address alternative approaches to manatee protection planning, voicing doubt that further expenditures of time and money on a plan will be beneficial, and proposing stopping any attempt to develop a single overall comprehensive manatee protection plan at this time. She noted the letter goes on to comment on boat speed zones and marina siting; and says that since the boat speed zones are clearly under their direct rulemaking authority, they will discontinue debate over speed regulations within the MPP context, and FWC staff will begin preparing recommendations for changes to be developed at a rule development workshop for Brevard County later this year. She stated FWC advises it will keep staff apprised of its plans and will consider the recommendations of the County and encourage further dialogue within the rulemaking process. She requested Mr. Jenkins and staff review the letter and make recommendations on what the Board might do; and noted a workshop has been scheduled.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there is a planned manatee workshop in April; with Mr. Peffer advising it is scheduled for April 27, 2000. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is asking the Board to work on the facility siting portion. Chairman Higgs stated it says if the Board wants to look at facility siting, it is on its own because that is an FDEP issue; and she is not sure whether the Board wants to have a workshop.

Discussion ensued on whether to hold the workshop, putting the issue on next week's agenda, and making decision on Thursday.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board will defer its decision on the workshop until April 13, 2000.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: NORTH BREVARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE Bea Polk stated the North Brevard Hospital wants to put an $80 million bond issue on the people; the Hospital has $80 million in cash; and commented on problems with the Hospital, responsibility for Board appointments to the Hospital Board, and putting issue on the ballot. She advised she will be going to the Titusville City Council tonight; two Council members have agreed; and she has not talked to the others. She stated the amount borrowed does not matter, because no matter how much they borrow, they are putting the taxpayers in debt. She stated the taxpayers own the Hospital; and commented on problems. She requested the issue be put on the ballot to let the people decide. She commented on the Hospital Board not holding meetings at Titusville City Council Chambers and appointments not being made by the public; and inquired if the Board will make a motion to put the bond issue on the ballot.

Nelly Strickland quoted various people including Empress Josephine and Adolph Hitler; and commented on treatment of taxpayers, Parrish Medical Center, Rod Baker, poll on HealthFirst, campaign contributions, offer to Parrish Medical Center to use Titusville Council Chambers, and PMC using $80 million savings instead of a bond issue. She stated Parrish Medical Center does not want to use Council Chambers, does not want meetings televised, and does not want the public to know what it is doing; and commented on the Hospital's ability to perform certain procedures. She stated the bond issue needs to be killed; and requested the Board do something. She stated she could request this be put on the ballot, but she does not trust the outcome because of things that happen with the elections system. She stated she would be in favor of gathering signed petition cards on the bond issue and the gas tax. She requested suggestions from the Board.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board can request or require the Parrish Medical Center to go out to referendum; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding the Board cannot require it because it is an independent district. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board should at least make the request because it repeatedly hears there is a problem and no one is addressing it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated a year or two ago, the District took RFP's for someone to purchase or merge; and the District promised the public it would not proceed to finalization until there was a referendum. He stated if it is said in the wrong way, it works against the rational approach; and suggested writing to request the District let the people express opinions on major decisions. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board has ever been notified of the justification for bonding when there is such a large savings. Commissioner Scarborough stated no single member has tried to convince him this is the right thing to do; and if they think it is that major of a decision and the City Council says something similar, there is nothing wrong with suggesting it go to ballot. Commissioner Carlson stated if there is a plan, it would be nice to know about it. Commissioner Scarborough stated the other side says the Board is not elected in North Brevard, and why should it be supervising what occurs at the Hospital; and a friendly suggestion that the public be involved in the decision may be best.

Chairman Higgs stated earlier Mr. Torpy commented on a decision of the Board which offended a public body because there was not an adequate public hearing; the Board has only heard one side of the information from Ms. Polk and Ms. Strickland; and if the Board wants to write that kind of a letter, it should be put on the Agenda and representatives of the Hospital District should be invited to come so there is a public hearing. Commissioner Scarborough stated in this case the Board is not suing; and the Board is just saying it may be appropriate for the District to submit this issue to the people; and that is a different type of thing than the Board expressing an opinion. Chairman Higgs stated the Board may want to say there should be a referendum; but she is saying that a decision of this magnitude deserves the Board knowing a little bit more of the facts rather than just hearing one side of the issue; and recommended it be put on the Agenda.

Ms. Polk recommended all Commissioners attend the meeting on April 20, 2000.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated each Commissioner got a fax yesterday providing some information; and he advised if the North Brevard Hospital District wanted to videotape its meeting, the Board would be willing to air it on Space Coast Government TV.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board has no control over what the District does; and suggested a friendly letter be sent to Rod Baker and the Hospital Board members requesting they go out for referendum.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize writing a friendly letter to Rod Baker and the North Brevard Hospital District Board suggesting it may want to consider putting the bond issue out for referendum.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Hospital Board will resent the Board telling it anything; but as an appointing body, it can make a suggestion. He stated if the Board did meet with the Hospital Board, he would be ill advised to say he liked or did not like the bond issue, and suggest it be put out for referendum. He stated the Hospital Board was created by the Florida Legislature, not the Board of County Commissioners; and the Board can provide friendly advice, but not give things a stamp of approval.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board has not generally taken action under public comments; it has required that action be taken under an Agenda item; and if the Board wants a thoughtful, productive relationship with the Hospital Board, it should proceed in a thoughtful manner, and schedule these things so people can come to make comment. Commissioner Voltz stated there is no harm in sending a friendly letter.

Commissioner Scarborough seconded the motion; and stated some of the Hospital Board members could take it the wrong way if the Board demanded their appearance to explain the bond issue because they have no requirement to report to the Board.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board does appoint members to the Hospital Board and should have some input; and a friendly letter to start would be good to broach the subject of having some public comment. She stated the public has addressed the Board on this issue many times; and there may be more to it than the Board sees. Commissioner Scarborough suggested including in the letter that the Board would welcome the opportunity for the Hospital Board to come to the Board meeting to explain its plans. Chairman Higgs stated she was suggesting the Board put on the Agenda the question that has been put before the Board which is whether or not to have a straw ballot on the issue. Commissioner Scarborough stated if it is done that way, the Hospital Board would feel compelled to come to respond; and they are far from having made a decision. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board has not worked toward resolution of the overall problem which is that a small group of people are discontented with the Hospital Board's decisions over along period of years; and suggested the Board ask the Governor to make the Hospital Board an elected body. He stated the Cape Canaveral Hospital Board is appointed by the Governor; the people of the district have no say as to who is on that board; and each board is different. He stated Port Canaveral is a special district and the members are elected; there is a dynamic change taking place in politics in Florida; people want to have more say in their future; and he hears this from a lot of people. He stated six of the appointees are made by the Board; and there is nothing wrong with the Commissioners lobbying its appointees. He stated the Board can request its appointees participate with the Board; and that may give two messages, one is that when they are up for reappointment, they may not be reappointed, and the other is that appointees have a responsibility to the Board. He suggested the letter be sent specifically to the Board's six appointees requesting they appear before the Board and stating the question is will this be put on referendum.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not think the Board, even if it had the authority, would want to immerse itself in the issue of the Hospital; explained the complexities and problems involved; and reiterated his suggestion for a letter.

Commissioner O'Brien stated each of the appointees submitted a r?sum? to the Board; the Board chose them based on those r?sum?s; and appointments are a two-way street. He stated it is important for the Board's appointees to represent the Board's picture of a situation; and in order for the Board to understand the complexities of the problem, it should request the Board's appointees to come back and be responsible to the appointing body.

Chairman Higgs stated it is an interesting perspective that it is a two-way street; and the Board does not frequently talk about that, particularly in relation to this issue. Commissioner Scarborough clarified the motion is to send a letter to the Hospital Board asking that it give consideration, based on its prior decisions, to allow people to vote on the major decisions, to putting the bonding issue on the ballot, and offer the opportunity to come before the Board to talk about what is going to happening.

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

Ms. Polk recommended sending the letter before May 1.

DISCUSSION, RE: PUBLIC ACCESS ON FIRE STATION 80 PROPERTY (CONTINUED)

Commissioner Voltz stated the last time the Board talked about the fence issue, it asked staff not to do anything about the fence until it heard further from the Board; today the Board took no action; and inquired if that means they are going to move the fence or not. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised it means they do not move the fence.

PERMISSION TO SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE SESSION

County Attorney Scott Knox requested the Board approve scheduling an executive session at the next day meeting on the Everts and Hammer cases.

Chairman Higgs recommended future requests for executive session be put on the Consent Agenda.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve scheduling executive session on April 25, 2000 to consider the Everts and Hammer cases. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

ATTEST:

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

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
( S E A L )