The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on October 13, 1998, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Helen Voltz, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Mark Cook, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Commissioner Higgs introduced Pastor Richard Phelps of Hope Ministries of Palm Bay; and advised the mission of Hope Ministries is to provide assistance to individuals from local churches who are suffering from addictions, trauma or other issues which cause dysfunction, by ministering and counseling a long-term message of faith and tough love, compassion and truth. She announced on October 14, 1998, Hope Ministries will host its first annual breakfast at Central Baptist Church at 6:45 p.m.; and encouraged anyone interested in learning more about the ministry to attend.

The Invocation was given by Pastor Richard Phelps, Hope Ministries, Palm Bay.

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

DISCUSSION, RE: SHARPES COMMUNITY CENTER

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated he faxed an item to each Commissioner concerning the authorization for the Sharpes Community Center; and Mr. Lusk will provide an explanation.

Community Services Administrator Don Lusk stated the Sharpes Community Center is a project contained in the CDBG list of projects, and approved in the Consolidated Action Plan; the residents of Sharpes have identified an appropriate parcel for the Center; and in order to consider the parcel, the Board needs to enter into an option agreement for six months. He requested the Board authorize staff to have the parcel appraised and negotiate; authorize the Chairman to execute an Option Agreement at the appraised value for six months; and authorize expenditure of General Fund Contingency in the amount of $2,500, $1,000 of that for option deposit and $1,500 for appraisal fee. Commissioner Scarborough stated there are a number of people from the community present; and requested they stand. He stated the action came from the community; they found the particular parcel after examining several parcels; staff recommended moving ahead expeditiously; and Mr. Lusk put some information together. He stated without the option agreement, the Board may not have an opportunity; but for a minimal amount of money, the Board will have time to go through the CDBG Advisory Board, community meetings, staff analysis, appraisal, etc. that others do not have to go through.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize staff to have the ten-acre parcel selected for the Sharpes Community Center appraised; and to negotiate an option agreement at the appraised value; authorize the Chairman to sign the option agreement; and authorize expenditure of $2,500 from General Fund Contingency for necessary costs.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the option agreement does not bind the Board, but allows an option; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it is an option, and the Board can walk away from it at any time. Chairman Voltz inquired if the $1,000 deposit would be lost; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the cost of the option is $1,000.

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

APPROVAL, RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION

County Attorney Scott Knox requested an executive session to discuss the Showboat v. Brevard County case after the October 27, 1998 meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve holding an executive session on October 27, 1998, after the scheduled Board meeting, to discuss Showboat v. Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: MERRITT ISLAND CHEERLEADERS

Commissioner O'Brien read aloud from a Florida TODAY article concerning the participation of Merritt Island High School students Jenna Bradford, Sissy Griffis, Kellee Moffitt, Amber Peavler, and Ashley Zysko, alumni Rebecca Brodnan and Coaches Heather Torchia and Suzanne Elliott in the National Cheerleading of the Year Scholarship Competition; stated Amber Peavler, Sissy Griffis, Kellee Moffitt and Ashley Zysko were chosen among the top fifty finalists; and Kellee Moffitt received $1,250 college scholarship for her second place finish in the competition. He stated there are good kids in Brevard County; they do things that are extraordinary; last year the Cocoa High Football Team was State champion; the cheerleaders from Merritt Island have become national champions; and Coach Suzanne Elliot has done a marvelous job.

REPORT, RE: WELL CONTAMINATION

Chairman Voltz advised of tigers in Palm Bay; and stated tests have been done on the wells surrounding the property which show presence of E-coli which is a dangerous situation for the neighbors. She requested the County Health Department check on what can be done. County Attorney Scott Knox stated if it is a well contamination problem, it should go to the Health

Department. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Health Department and Office of Natural Resources Management can work together, if Chairman Voltz will advise of the location. Chairman Voltz stated she is also working with Representative Howard Futch's office; there are 11 tigers in a residential neighborhood; and expressed concern about dangers to neighborhood children. Mr. Jenkins stated he will confer with Chairman Voltz to get the details.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING ERNA NIXON MONTH

Chairman Voltz read aloud a resolution proclaiming November, 1998 as Erna Nixon Month. Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution proclaiming November, 1998 as Erna Nixon Month in commemoration of Ms. Nixon's 107th birthday. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Tibby Parker, Mayor of Melbourne Village, thanked the Board for the recognition; stated she, Hester Wagner, and Jean Henderson knew Erna Nixon personally; and they are active members of the Friends of Erna Nixon Park. She advised of the activities of the Friends of the Erna Nixon Park; and stated on November 3, 1998 there will be a recognition at the Park; and invited the public to attend.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS FORGET-ME-NOT WEEK

Commissioner O'Brien read aloud a resolution proclaiming October 22-24, 1998 as Disabled American Veterans Forget-Me-Not Week.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution proclaiming October 22-24, 1998 as Disabled American Veterans Forget-Me-Not Week. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

James Trump, Jr. stated the DAV has done its best to help those veterans who have come back; and requested everyone remember those who did not come back. He expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution. Commissioner O'Brien presented the Resolution to Mr. Trump; and thanked Mr. Trump and other veterans for putting their lives on the line for this country.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING RED RIBBON WEEK

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt Resolution proclaiming October 23-31, 1998 as Red Ribbon Week, and encouraging all citizens to help reduce the illegal use of drugs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page

for Resolution No. 98-251.) RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING WHITE CANE SAFETY WEEK

Commissioner Cook read aloud a resolution proclaiming October 11-17, 1998 as White Cane Safety Week.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution proclaiming the week of October 11-17, 1998 as White Cane Safety Week in appreciation to the members of the Brevard Council of the Blind for their outstanding contributions. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Cook noted there is a also a braille copy of the Resolution.

A representative of the Brevard Council of the Blind expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution. He demonstrated the use of the white cane; stated if someone has a white cane, they are totally blind or visually impaired to the extent they cannot function as a sighted person; and recommended people govern their actions accordingly. Commissioner Cook presented the Resolution.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING BREVARD COUNTY ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MEDIATION WEEK

Chairman Voltz read aloud resolution proclaiming Brevard County Alternative Dispute Resolution Mediation Week.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution proclaiming October 24-30, 1998 as Brevard County Alternative Dispute Resolution Mediation Week. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Court Alternatives Director Pat Bean stated she is proud of the program and the volunteers who make up 96% of the staff; the volunteers have handled 3,600 cases in the last three years, with an average settlement rate of 65% for all cases; and introduced Program Manager Nancy Anderson Hanshaw. Ms. Hanshaw introduced Senior Mediator Arthur Lamar, and volunteers Eva Welch, Zack Burns, Pat Goodenow, and Ollie Lyons. Chairman Voltz presented the Resolution to the group.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CITY OF ROCKLEDGE ORDINANCE NO. 1164-98, RE: ANNEXATION

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance No. 1164-98 from the City of Rockledge which annexed approximately .8 acre of property in Section 28, Township 25 South, Range 36 East. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CITY OF ROCKLEDGE ORDINANCE NO. 1165-98, RE: ANNEXATION

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance No. 1165-98 from the City of Rockledge which annexed approximately 3 acres of property in Section 23, Township 25 South, Range 36 East. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUNTREE NORTH - DEVONS GLEN, UNIT 1

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract with The Suntree Partners dated September 12, 1998 for improvements in Suntree North-Devons Glen, Unit 1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID, AWARD BID, AND EXECUTE CONTRACTS, RE: PEDWAY FACILITIES IN ALL DISTRICTS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant permission to bid construction for Rena Avenue, Westminister Avenue, Newfound Harbor Drive, Eber Road, Central Boulevard/Allen Street, Forest Lake Drive, and Wickham Road Pedway Projects; award the bids to the lowest responsible bidders; and authorize the Chairman to execute the contracts. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to appoint Ann Stacer to the Planning and Zoning Board replacing Frank Wrisley as District 1 Alternate, with the term expiring December 31, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve bills and budget changes, as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - JUDY SPENCER, RE: RESOLUTION NO. 98-241, FEES AND CHARGES FOR UTILIZATION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY BY UTILITY COMPANIES

Judy Spencer, representing BellSouth, requested the Board revisit the Resolution adopted on September 29, 1998, as BellSouth was not included in the original process. She stated Resolution No. 98-241 established new permitting fees for construction in the County's rights-of-way; it became effective on October 1, 1998; and County staff wrote a letter dated October 2, 1998 to notify BellSouth of the fees which would be effective on October 1, 1998 which was not received by BellSouth until October 6, 1998. She stated Public Works is now withholding permit processing pending receipt of fees; none of the parties had any prior knowledge of the change; it is a major change and charge; and BellSouth has no procedures in place to meet the payment requirements. She stated they would like to work with Public Works to resolve the issue; but right now they have several work orders which are on hold due to the Board's action. She stated BellSouth was asked by Public Works to do a large road move in conjunction with the Malabar Road project; when they went to get the permit to do the work, they were told that the permit would be $12,795, whereas prior to October 1, it would have been zero; and this was for work that BellSouth was going to do at no charge to the County. She requested the Board take action tonight to rescind the implementation of Resolution No. 98-241, and direct County staff to meet with the users of the rights-of-way to establish a solution to this situation; and proposed that the new permitting fees be waived until the Public Works Department has time to review it, then bring it back to the Board.

Henry Minneboo, Public Works Director, stated on September 29, 1998, the Board adopted a Fee Resolution; the revenue projections for the fees have been included in the budget for FY 1998-99; and the fees reflect the fair market value of the use of the public rights-of-way, as demonstrated in the letter from Ed Washburn to Mr. Jenkins, which is included in the package. He stated residential and commercial users have been paying permit fees for use of the public rights-of-way since 1990; and this is intended to establish a level playing field for all users of the public rights-of-way. He stated prior to the adoption of the fees, the financial impacts associated with the installations were borne by the Road and Bridge Department's MSTU budgets; the taxpayers were financially subsidizing the activities of the utility companies, all of which are profit-based businesses; and it is time for the utility companies to pay their fair share for the use of the public rights-of-way.

Chairman Voltz stated Ms. Spencer said no one knew what was going on. Mr. Minneboo stated staff talked to BellSouth in 1978, 1981, 1985, 1989 and six months ago, and he thought it was clear when staff advised that sooner or later, the County would have to come up with the fees. He stated this is nothing new; it has been talked about for years; but nothing has ever been done about it; and now something is being done. Chairman Voltz inquired how much does Florida Power & Light pay in franchise fees, etc.; with Mr. Minneboo responding Florida Power and Light's participation is $4,216,000. Chairman Voltz inquired how much does Time Warner pay; with Mr. Minneboo responding it was just negotiated at $1,031,000. Chairman Voltz inquired what does BellSouth pay; with Mr. Minneboo responding it has never paid a dime.

Ms. Spencer stated BellSouth has never been asked to enter into any kind of franchise agreement which is what the County has with Florida Power and Light and Time Warner; BellSouth has not said it will not pay permitting fees; but it has never been approached with a permitting fee schedule. She stated she was not aware of the new fee schedule, which went from zero to, in some cases, thousands of dollars.

Chairman Voltz stated she looked at pictures of the damage that was done to the roadway; it costs the taxpayers a lot of money; with the Malabar Road project, the original appraisal was $31,600 for the right-of-way, and BellSouth claimed damages and was paid $116,168 for the parcel, $3,250 for the appraisal, and $14,229.60 for the attorney on one parcel. She stated that is outrageous; and BellSouth needs to begin to pay up and pay back the taxpayers. Ms. Spencer stated in that specific case, she is not prepared to present the other side because she does not know the particulars; and if she had known the Board needed that tonight, she would have been glad to provide it. Chairman Voltz stated she is just saying this is what the taxpayers have paid for a piece of land to get the road project going; Phase 2 of Malabar Road project has been tied up for a year or two; and the schedule of fees is fair. Ms. Spencer stated she wants to sit around a table and discuss this; the only meeting she ever had with Mr. Minneboo was on July 13, 1998; and the purpose of the meeting was for another matter, not to discuss fees. She stated during the meeting Mr. Minneboo brought up the fact that BellSouth did not pay permitting fees; and she agreed, but noted she does not know why it does not. She stated if anyone had contacted BellSouth, she would have loved to have brought everybody in for discussion. She noted Randy Harris of City Gas is also present.

Randy Harris, Division Manager of City Gas, stated since 1991 he has never been approached by the County for permit fees; City Gas is a public utility mandated by the State to serve the public; and the use of the rights-of-way for public utilities serves the public. He stated the way the utilities are structured, fees that are passed on to the utilities are passed on to the recipients of the service; so to say that the County residents are not going to get charged any more because the public utility is using the right-of-way is not correct. He stated he received information from the County which illustrates the basis of the fees; and emphasized in normal construction his company has not cut a road in the County for the last year, or used jack and bore technology in the last five years. He stated he does not think the figures are right, and wants an opportunity to talk to the County about it. Mr. Minneboo stated if City Gas has not jacked and bored or cut a road, it will not have to pay the fee. Mr. Harris stated it is $825 to put a shovel in the ground. Mr. Minneboo stated they would pay the base rate of $825; last year City Gas pulled 31 permits; and it would have paid $26,000 using the same numbers. Mr. Harris stated that would be easily absorbed if he was maintaining a valve for the utilization of the distribution system; however, if he is extending service to a single customer, that will mean the customer will have to pay for half of that fee. Chairman Voltz stated the County residents are paying for it now. Mr. Harris stated he is not aware of a situation where City Gas has caused maintenance on the County that it has not been required to rectify or remedy; and he is prepared to rectify and remedy any kind of damage his utility structured causes to the County.

Commissioner Cook stated it would have been prudent to get everyone involved at the time; and he expressed concern the last time this came before the Board. He stated the PSC sets the rates for the telephone company, and the cost of doing business is added to the percentage they are allowed to make; so the taxpayers are paying for it on one end or the other. He stated there should be some permit fees; he does not know if there is any way to get the players involved now; and what has happened is the companies have run into this where previously they paid nothing, and now they have to pay thousands of dollars to do business. He stated it would have been prudent if the companies have been involved in the process, and he is sure it was an oversight that they were not included; and requested there be some dialogue between staff and the utilities.

Commissioner Higgs stated the idea of charges for use of the public rights-of-way is fair; she supported Resolution 98-241; but she has no problem with there being a dialogue between Public Works and the utilities about how it is implemented and making it less cumbersome to the utilities to go through the process. She stated she would like to see a report; but she is not ready tonight to back off of the Resolution. She stated there are costs to the public, and it is fair for the user to pay that; these are profit-making companies which should be assessed those costs; but she also recognizes it needs to be made a smooth and efficient process. She advised she supports having staff, through the County Manager, to discuss and work out processes, and come back to the Board with a report.

Commissioner Cook stated the costs have to be fair and reasonable; the County should not look at this as a revenue generator; and it should be the actual cost of the impact on the right-of-way. He stated it should not be a flat fee; and it has to be associated with the impacts involved.

Chairman Voltz stated it was associated with what was paid last year. Commissioner Cook stated there is an $825 flat fee. Commissioner Higgs stated it has to be associated with the cost, and not just short term cost, but the long-term impact to the road. Commissioner Cook stated the County should not assess the entire cost of the road. Commissioner Higgs stated it should be the cost of the repair as it contributes to the cost of the decline of the road over time; and that would be fair.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be advantageous to put this back on the Agenda to finalize it; they will keep the status quo; and inquired about time frame; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding 30 days.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to table consideration of fees and charges for utilization of rights-of-way by utility companies for 30 days, and direct staff to provide a report.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants to make sure it comes back to the Board to finalize. Commissioner Cook stated in the interim he would like for all players to be involved. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is the opportunity that is being provided because the County wants to be fair with whomever it deals with.

Chairman Voltz stated she got a call from Henry Hill, City Manager of Melbourne, requesting information on this issue; so staff needs to keep him informed.

Ms. Spencer inquired about the status; with Commissioner Scarborough responding nothing has changed, and the Board will discuss it further in 30 days. Commissioner Higgs seconded the motion. Chairman Voltz called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE GRANTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AD VALOREM EXEMPTION TO RENCO ELECTRONICS, INC.

Chairman Voltz called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance granting economic development ad valorem exemption to Renco Electronics, Inc. She stated Renco Electronics plans to add over $3.12 million worth of machinery and equipment for its manufacturing operations; and once fully operational it plans to hire 350 employees averaging $30,000 per year.

There being no objections, motion was made by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt an Ordinance granting an economic development ad valorem exemption to Renco Electronics, Inc., 595 International Place, Rockledge, FL. 32955; specifying the items exempted; providing the expiration date of the exemption; finding that the business meets the requirements of F.S. 196.012; providing for proof of eligibility for exemption; providing for an annual report by Renco Electronics, Inc., providing an effective date.

Commissioner O'Brien advised Renco Electronics is moving to Rockledge from Deer Park, New York. Commissioner Cook stated the salaries are $30,000 a year average which is good. Commissioner O'Brien reiterated the statistics; stated the company makes coils and transformers; and this is a good deal for the County.

Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: PROPOSAL TO DEPURATE SHELLFISH AT SHELLFISH, INC. IN GRANT

Peter Barile stated he has spoken to Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs in the past concerning the Indian River Lagoon; he has been involved with the National Research Agenda on conservation of biological diversity; and he supported his career as a student through commercial clamming in the Indian River Lagoon. He advised of the threat of biological invasion by non-indigenous species and the potential for biological damage from non-native species; and stated traditionally transfer of shellfish across state lines has been closely monitored to prevent biological invasions. He advised several water bodies, including the Chesapeake Bay, have problems with contamination; and the issue of transferring shellfish across state lines is a big concern. He expressed concern about dinoflagellates which have caused big fish kills; stated this type of pathogen can easily be held by shellfish and transferred into the County; and the concern about bringing shellfish from North and South Carolina is that those areas have had outbreaks of the toxic dinoflagellates. He described the depuration process; stated when clams are depurated, contaminants are exuded which sit on the bottom of the tanks, and some of the pathogens may be washed into the Indian River Lagoon. He noted there is no process to kill some of the forms of dinoflagellates which have resisted killing by UV radiation or chlorine, so there is potential for a problem.

Barry Ambrosio, Plant Manager of Shellfish, Inc., stated after the product is run through the sterilization system, the water is left in the tanks and cleaned with ten parts per million of chlorine, run through UV lights for six hours, and dechlorinated with sodium thiosulfate before the product is put in the river; and DEP came up with this particular method. He stated if there is a problem, they can make leaching fields; but DEP has approved it so far.

Bill Leeming stated he has been a shell fisherman for 40 years, 20 years in Brevard County; clammers live by supply and demand, and can stand low prices if there are a lot of clams; but right now clammers are catching one-tenth of the clams they have caught in the past years because of El Nino and other environmental problems. He stated there is a strong price right now; if clams are brought in, they will compete with Brevard County clams; and clams in question would not be on the market, but would live and die in polluted waters in South Carolina if they were not brought in for the sole benefit of one wholesaler. He stated this is going to hurt the County's shellfish industry.

Perry McMahon stated he has been a commercial fisherman for 30 years, has a degree in biology, and was appointed by Governor Chiles to represent the commercial fishing industry on the Aquaculture Review Council from 1992 to 1996. He stated the solution to the problem is to depurate the clams in the state of origin and not transfer them out of the state; and inquired why risk bringing an organism that can contaminate the Indian River Lagoon. He stated the clams are being taken from contaminated waters, and should be depurated there, and not brought to the County to allow some of the contaminants to be put in the Indian River; and ultraviolet light and chlorine, which are the cleansing agents, will not kill all the contaminants. He stated there are a lot of diverse species in the waterway; there are people making amazing amounts of money on fishing, crabbing, boating, etc.; and any of these occupations could be affected by any one of the organisms. He recommended the Board make sure that Central Seafood depurates the clams in the state of origin; there is nothing to be gained by allowing that product to come into the County contaminated; and he fails to see why bringing the clams to the County and depurating here would benefit anybody.

Environmental Services Administrator Steve Peffer stated he prepared two reports for the Board; the first is a summary of the request which was presented by Central Seafood and where that stood with regard to FDEP and its rulemaking process; and the second report provided comments from various people who might to be affected by the proposal. He stated there were some serious concerns raised about the public health with regard to clams that might eventually reach the market if they were transported from South Carolina; there are a number of opportunities for the clams to be diverted along the way; and one concern was that if any found their way to market without depuration, there could be a negative public health impact from people eating contaminated clams. He stated it could happen, but should not; and there would be things put in place to prevent it; but it is not possible to be 100% sure. He distributed a copy of a letter from State Representative Howard Futch who stated his opposition, and expressed support for the comments made by Mr. McMahon. He stated under an existing permit, clams from South Carolina or other states can be brought to the depuration facility in Grant now; the difference is that they have to be brought from waters that are approved or conditionally approved for shellfish harvesting; and the request tonight is to bring clams from waters that are closed to shellfish harvesting. He stated that difference is important; it is not allowed by the current rule; but even though there are legitimate environmental concerns, the problem already exists because clams that are brought in today could be bringing with them microorganisms or other things. He stated if the Board takes a position on this issue, it needs to address that as well.

Commissioner Cook concurred it would be prudent that depuration occur in the state the clams are coming from, because in transferring clams a long distance there is always the risk of something going wrong.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize staff to draft a letter for the Chairman's signature expressing the Board's concern to Secretary Wetherell and Governor Chiles, and taking the position that out-of-state clams should not be brought into Brevard County for depuration. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 6:34 p.m. and reconvened at 6:46 p.m.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - MARK E. CANNON, CANNON AVIATION, INC., RE: VALKARIA AIRPORT FBO LEASE

Chairman Voltz stated on September 15, 1998 the Board made a decision which she believes to be unfair to a citizen of the community; and she asked Mr. Cannon to appear tonight in hopes the Board can do what it should have done then, which is to attempt to renegotiate his lease for the FBO operations at Valkaria Airport. She stated Mr. Cannon was asked to meet with Tom Jenkins and Peggy Busacca, at which time he was informed of the item being on the Agenda; at that time, he informed them he would not be able to make the meeting as he would be out of town on a business matter; at a subsequent meeting, he again informed staff he could not make the September 15, 1998 meeting; and Ms. Busacca requested he put that in writing which he did in a letter dated September 12, 1998. She stated she discussed the issue of extending the contract with Ms. Busacca who advised if the issue was tabled to October 20, 1998, it would be cutting it close if the Board chose not to renew the contract; however, her staff talked to Stockton Whitten on September 14, 1998 and was advised the issue was off the Agenda. She stated the next morning at the meeting, she found it was back on the Agenda; Ms. Busacca explained there was not enough time for renegotiation if the issue waited until the October meeting; and at that time she asked Ms. Busacca to request that the item be tabled. She stated it was brought up that she could have set a time certain for the item; she usually sets a maximum of three time certains for any meeting, and had already set three time certains for the meeting; and inquired why she would have set a time certain for an item that was already off the Agenda. She stated in a letter from Rob Varley dated September 28, 1998, he stated the item was not withdrawn during Reports although a few other Agenda items were; and explained why she did not pull the item due to the meeting running behind and people waiting for presentation of resolutions. She noted Mr. Varley also stated that her attempt via telephone to table the renewal for five weeks at the very point the item came up on the Agenda deviated from standard meeting practices; and that is typical of the lies and innuendoes that come from anti-airport people who assume they know what is going on. She stated she does not know where Mr. Varley got his information; and inquired how she would have known just the right time to phone in to ask that the item be tabled. She stated she wanted the Board to know what happened leading up to the September 15, 1998 meeting because someone made the comment that Mr. Cannon could at least have sent a letter, when, in fact, he had. She stated the fact that all the anti-airport people were sitting for several hours should not have been an issue, as Mr. Cannon's contract was the main issue, and he was not even present; the issue at the September 15, 1998 meeting was clearly one-sided; and she would like to give Mr. Cannon a chance to speak.

Mark Cannon, Cannon Aviation d/b/a Valkaria Aviation, stated Cannon Aviation has been the sole fixed base operator at Valkaria Airport for the last five years, and wishes to continue indefinitely. He stated the first step would be to exercise the option on his lease for the next five years or renegotiate for a longer period of time; the Board discussed the issue, in his absence, on September 15, 1998 and came to a misinformed decision to not exercise the option; the Board was not fully aware of the facts of the lease; and requested the Board reconsider its action this evening, and grant staff the authority to renegotiate a lease with Cannon Aviation. He stated there are three topic areas he would like to cover in detail, but has only been granted ten minutes to save five years of investment and hard work. He stated in late January or early February, 1998, he had a conversation with Valkaria Airport Manager Bill Plute where he indicated his desire to exercise the lease option; that was repeated in the April-May time frame; and on July 5, 1998 he put the request in writing, requesting a meeting with the County Manager in July or early August to iron out the details. He stated a meeting took place on September 3, 1998; and during that meeting he was informed for the first time that staff recommendation was to take over his business, and that the meeting to discuss this was scheduled for September 15, 1998. He stated the rationale presented was that the County needed the gross profits generated by his business to place against salaries of personnel hired at the airport; it was stressed that the purpose of taking his business away from him was purely financial and that all the Airport Managers and staff thought he had done a good job and found him cooperative and an asset to the airport; and in those meetings he advised of his inability to attend the September 15, 1998 meeting due to a prior business commitment. He stated standard business practice and common courtesy would dictate that all parties would be consulted prior to scheduling a business meeting; but this was not done. He stated in at least six different meetings or telephone conversations and in the letter of September 12, 1998, he requested a delay, and was led to believe as late as the afternoon of September 14, 1998 that his request would be honored. He stated he does not know what happened, but from where he sits the perception is not good; he is willing to chalk it up to an honest misunderstanding; and he hopes it will be possible to proceed with constructive discussions now that the Board knows that he believed the item would not be discussed, and was not just ignoring the Board. He stated during the September 15, 1998 meeting there was a lot of Cannon-bashing, including insinuations that he did not care enough to attend the meeting, that he would probably sue, and a picture from the anti-airport group of an incompetent, disruptive, manipulative, dangerous person named Cannon; and emphasized the outrageous claims are either false or a misrepresentation of facts. He stated the anti-airport group are out to satisfy their own anti-airport agenda, and are now focusing on him; in the past they have focused on County personnel to include Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Plute, Ms. O'Neal, and Mr. Henderson; and the anti-airport group is the primary reason for the County's change of airport management six times in the last five years. He stated Mr. Henderson informed him that soon after it was announced that he was removed as airport manager, Mr. Lorenc said words to the effect, we got rid of you, Cannon is next. He stated staff has investigated the allegations against him and found them baseless; the County Attorney's Office has reviewed his compliance with the lease in the areas of hours of operation and UNICOM operations and found him compliant; and he would be happy to meet individually with each Commissioner to refute the allegations. He stated the information presented to the Board was slanderous misinformation intended to impugn his reputation and destroy his business; the anti-airport group looks for ways to harass him and others working to further the utilization of the airport in order to cripple and kill the airport; such groups will always be around; and the Board must not let that interfere with rational decision making.

Mr. Cannon stated Cannon Aviation has demonstrated superb financial responsibility; he paid all his bills to the County on time; he has been committed to Valkaria Airport, providing service far beyond the lease requirements; and advised of his commitment to aviation, the Airport, and the aviation community. He advised of his community service contributions, including Young Eagles Days, Valkaria Road Litter Patrol, Civil Air Patrol, VAA, Annual Emergency Communications Exercises, Angel Flight Program and Brevard County Welcome Mat; and he supports noise abatement. He stated business was nonexistent at Valkaria in 1993; the only way to get gas was to call the Airport Manager, make an appointment, and show up with your checkbook; before getting into this, he specifically asked staff why the County was not doing this; and they advised they were too busy with County work. He stated now that he has invested five years of his life and a lot of his money and there is a customer base, it seems the County would like to take over the business purely for financial reasons; and he does not necessarily have a problem with that, but Cannon Aviation should be reasonably compensated for the loss of the business. He advised the business can be valued in various ways with the average being $233,750; the airport cannot afford a cash buy out; but the airport could compensate him with a long-term land lease. He stated his proposal is for the County to take over the existing business; he will provide equipment, training and a turnkey operation; and what he would like in return is that Cannon Aviation be provided a 60-year lease on five acres of land based on private construction funding and the precedent set with the Lockwood Aviation Lease that was let in 1992. He noted the success of Lockwood in Sebring and the loss to the County's economy because it was not aggressive enough in pursuing the business. He stated he wants to build some permanent structures to support the recreational aspect of the airport; his view of the airport is the stated view of the anti-airport group; and he wants a small, friendly airport with grass, trees, and a swimming pool that people can enjoy and where people can learn about general aviation. He requested permission to build T-hangars, plane ports, maintenance facilities, offices, conference areas, restrooms, a pilot's supply store and lounge, a pancake pavilion, swimming pool, and bed and breakfast; stated he cannot understand how anyone would be opposed; and at the end of the lease the County would gain all the facilities. He stated it is a win/win resolution; the County accomplishes its stated objectives; Cannon Aviation's claims are equitably settled with no cash outlay; the hangar waiting list is satisfied; the recreational aviation community is supported; and the County will live up to its deed obligations and at the end of the lease gain the facilities at no cost. He requested the Board reconsider and reverse its decision of September 15, 1998.

Commissioner Cook stated there are 25 speaker cards; this issue has been discussed previously; and he would like to impose a three-minute time limit. He noted there are a number of people present to address other Agenda items.

Discussion ensued on who spoke at the last meeting, letting everyone speak, people coming all the way from Valkaria and not being allowed to speak, assumption that speakers would be allowed five minutes, standard procedure being five minutes, limiting people who have already spoken to three minutes and those who have not spoken to five minutes, discrimination, and people who have been allowed to address the Board on other issues.

The item was postponed until later in the meeting.

DISCUSSION, RE: REGULATION OF OFF-ROAD VEHICLES

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are other groups present; and inquired if the Canaveral Groves group wants to be heard later or rescheduled. Discussion ensued on fairness, scheduling both items, disservice to put things so late that people have to leave, off-road vehicle issue, Canaveral Groves group having a time certain, and not interrupting one time certain to take another time certain.

A speaker from the audience inquired if the ATV item is rescheduled, can it be at a time certain; with Chairman Voltz responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be on October 27, 1998 which would be a day meeting. Another speaker advised that would be a problem due to work commitments.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table consideration of regulation of off-road vehicles to December 8, 1998 at 6:30 p.m. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING REGULATIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF WEST CANAVERAL GROVES

Chairman Voltz called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending regulations governing development of West Canaveral Groves.

Commissioner Scarborough requested a show of hands of people interested in Canaveral Groves; with a large group indicating interest. He inquired if a new meeting can be scheduled for this item. Various speakers indicated desire to hear the item at this meeting rather than deferring. Commissioner Cook advised how late the meeting may go.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to impose a three-minute time limit on speakers. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioner Voltz voted nay.

Al Marshall, President of the Aviation Association at Valkaria, stated he represents 100 pilots and aviation enthusiasts; and Mark Cannon is honest and his integrity is impeccable. He stated accusations that were made at the September 15, 1998 meeting were absolutely false; and advised of Mr. Cannon's military history. He stated the main goal in Mr. Cannon's life is the advancement and promotion of Valkaria Airport and general aviation; and to take Mr. Cannon's lease away from him is a slap in the face to all of the aviation community.

Ed Everette, representing the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, stated he was associated with FIT for a number of years; FIT established a limited FBO at Valkaria primarily for a training operation; and while they were successful in what they wanted to do, they did not make money. He urged the County to stay out of the FBO business; and explained how Cannon Aviation has been good for general aviation at Valkaria. He stated if the Board does not renew Mr. Cannon's lease, it should get a qualified aviation expert to run the FBO; and he doubts the County can make money from it. Commissioner Cook stated the Board's previous action did not take away Mr. Cannon's business; it was to advertise request for proposals in which Mr. Cannon could submit a proposal; and the motion was not for the County to take over the airport. He stated that was suggested and staff discussed it; but some Commissioners expressed concern about that. Chairman Voltz stated the issue is that action was taken before staff had an opportunity to do as the contract specified, which was to try to renegotiate a lease, and then if that did not work, to go out for RFP. Commissioner Cook stated he is not sure the contract said that.

Bob Varley stated the Board has the real data; it is a matter of public record; and he is counting on the Board to do the right thing by following through with its previous commitment.

Neil Ridenour, representing 190 members of the Brevard County Air and Power Boaters Association, stated they buy a lot of fuel from Cannon Aviation; if Mr. Cannon has been doing a good job, he should not be fired; and Mr. Cannon has the cheapest gas and supplies. He stated if the Board considers other people, it should consider the charges.

Barbara Ray, representing the Valkaria Residential Association, stated it is laudable that Commissioner Voltz wants to be fair to Mr. Cannon; and she wishes she would extend the same courtesy to the people. She stated twice in public meetings, Commissioner Voltz has referred to anti-airport people, but they are not anti-airport; and they are the organization that was foremost in helping to get the golf course on the airport. She stated she also does not appreciate the Association and the citizens of Valkaria who have taken their time to come to the Government Center being called liars or accused of spreading innuendo. She stated this issue has already been decided; four members of the Board were present; and it was a prudent decision. She stated the Board decided to do what it usually does which is let this out for bid; the bid process is the way to go; the County may find there is someone else who can do a better job; and the County may be able to do a better job. She stated they have heard that the County should not be its own tenant, but the County runs a golf course and Mosquito Control on this property. She stated a great deal of the money that comes in to support the airport comes from County-owned facilities; and it makes sense for the County to look into this if it can do the job and bring in more funding to make the airport safer and provide service for the aviation community. She stated the County can bring in tangibles as well as economic things; the County might be in a position, if it won the bid, to provide not only a good service and money for the airport, but also have a presence there; in the past people have brought up liability issues; and the County could help to make this a safer airport by being able to fund someone to be there all the time. She urged the Board to stay with the fair and rational decision it made at the last meeting.

Del Yonts stated Mr. Cannon has done a lot of good things for the airport; however, at the same time some of the things he has done seem to be against what the Board was saying the airport was about, which is a rural recreational airport. He stated at one point Mr. Cannon sent a letter to the FAA requesting to take control of the airport; Mr. Cannon is trying to convince the Board he is the right person with vision for the airport; but he does not think a swimming pool should be at a recreational airport. He stated the best thing to do is go out for bids; Mr. Cannon can make a proposal; and if his is the best proposal, that is fine.

Dr. Robert Cross stated he has been flying for 35 years and owned 12 airplanes, and he has been landing and taking off at many airports; and his experience with Mark Cannon at Valkaria Airport has been the most positive. He stated Mr. Cannon is always there to greet people and provide service.

Dewey Leidal stated he lives in Valkaria; the Board made the proper decision when it decided this should go out for bid; and he hopes the Board will continue that process, not only on this issue but in others as well. He stated he resents Mr. Cannon classifying the residents as anti-airport because he has never said anything that was anti-airport; there are a few pilots who flew too low; but the present airport manager runs a good ship there. He noted there have been problems in the past; and it has been the fault of some he could name, but that is not the proper way to go. He urged the Board to carry on the way it has and put this out for bid. He stated the Board and the citizens should examine Mr. Cannon's proposal carefully; it sounds as though it might be all right; but recommended caution.

Joseph Curtin, Secretary of Valkaria Aviation Association, stated originally the Board said it was holding up the renewal of Mr. Cannon's lease because it wanted the profits from the fuel sales; then it found the profits were not at all important, and the County will go out for bids; and a potential bidder was at the meeting. He stated at the meeting the issue was raised to divorce the fuel sales and tie downs from the parts depot, an entity which does not exist at Valkaria; and he would have thought someone from District 3 would have known that. He stated this does not support the allegation that the County wants to take over the operation for its profits. He stated this is a transparent move to cater to a half dozen vicious malcontents; and these are people who see an attack on Cannon as another way to attack the airport itself. He stated Mr. Cannon has done a good job; and the Board has an opportunity to right a grievous wrong. He stated in watching the video he became conscious of the body language of three of the Commissioners, and began to get the feeling the discussion lacked spontaneity, and that the votes were foreordained; and he would have dismissed this thought immediately if it had not been for the closing remarks of Rob Varley which were delivered looking in the direction of Commissioners Scarborough, Cook, and Higgs, requesting they keep their promise and give Cannon Aviation its walking papers. He stated it is all on the video and recommended this be looked into to determine if anyone promised anything to anyone, when it was promised, and in return for what.

Commissioner Scarborough asked that a full inquiry take place on this allegation; stated it is a criminal act; and he categorically denies it. He stated he would like to instruct the County Attorney to do a complete investigation of the allegation; and he does not know if Mr. Curtin understands the severity of what he said this evening. Mr. Curtin stated he said it should be looked into.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct the County Attorney to do a complete investigation of the allegation of a criminal act made by Joseph Curtin.

Commissioner Higgs stated she talks to people about issues in advance of coming to meetings; however, the allegation is false.

Chairman Voltz stated this is just what Mr. Varley said at the last meeting; and that is all Mr. Curtin was addressing.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Curtin said there was a discussion and preplanned action by three Commissioners to vote a certain way. Mr. Curtin stated that was not what he said. Commissioner Cook inquired what did Mr. Curtin mean. Mr. Curtin stated it appears that the conversation was not spontaneous; and that is his opinion. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Curtin is insinuating the Commissioners had a preconceived agreement to vote a certain way; with Mr. Curtin responding he said what he said. Commissioner Cook stated that is irresponsible. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is to be an investigation of whether the Commissioners allegedly discussed this issue. Commissioner Scarborough stated if that is what is insinuated, it violates the Sunshine Law; and the State Attorney's Office should investigate the Board.

Commissioner Cook inquired if that is what Mr. Curtin is saying. Commissioner Scarborough stated if this is what is being alleged, it should be investigated by the proper party. Commissioner Higgs stated she has never discussed this with Commissioners Scarborough or Cook outside of the meeting. Commissioner Scarborough advised he did not either, but apparently Mr. Curtin would like an investigation; there is a chief prosecuting office; and requested the County Attorney write to the State Attorney advising there have been allegations, and the Board asks that he investigate the proceedings. He stated one time the Public Works Director was accused of a criminal activity; there was a full investigation; he was found to be totally innocent; and the person making the accusation had to come before the Board and apologize publicly to Mr. Minneboo. He stated when an allegation of this nature comes before the Board, it is its responsibility to proceed to investigate.

Commissioner Cook inquired if it is Mr. Curtin's allegation that the Sunshine Law was violated. Chairman Voltz stated if Mr. Curtin is saying there is a possibility that the Sunshine Law is violated by three Commissioners, then there is a problem. Mr. Curtin inquired if the Sunshine Law means collusion between the Commissioners; with Chairman Voltz responding yes. Mr. Curtin stated that is not what he meant; and what he meant was apparently there had been some intimidation on the part of the anti-airport group to the Commissioners. Chairman Voltz stated that is altogether different.

Commissioner Higgs stated the clarification is not that the Commissioners violated the law, but that perhaps the Commissioners felt intimidated by a group; she does not feel intimidated; and she does not know that an investigation is necessary. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can proceed.

Janis Walters stated the FBO Lease was for five years only, and the five years are up; in the past five years, Cannon Aviation has violated the terms of the Lease Contract as well as the rules and regulations of the airport; read portions of the Lease and airport rules; and outlined various violations and areas of non-compliance, including lack of full-time service, lack of compliance with FBO standards, and failure to provide UNICOM advisories to flight traffic in accordance with FAA and FCC regulations. She stated Mr. Cannon has been instrumental in perpetuating and escalating the conflict between the airport users and the local residents; and further County involvement with this vendor would be unwise. She stated there is no shotgun clause or golden parachute arrangement in the Lease which requires the County to buy the business or pay Mr. Cannon to leave; Mr. Cannon has no realistic expectation of any compensation upon the termination of a five-year lease after the five years have expired; and the County deserves most of the credit for the FBO's business success, by upgrading the airport, building T-hangars, reconstructing the primary runway, and approving the entrance road. She stated Mr. Cannon merely occupied an existing facility and waited for the customers to show up; the FBO concession has been opened for bids; and it would not be right to make any new decisions before the request for bids has been issued and other interested parties have had an opportunity to prepare and present their proposals. She stated Mr. Cannon's popularity is not a basis for making a good business decision for the County; and recommended continuing with the open bidding process.

Robert Munch stated Mark Cannon is a good and capable FBO. He stated it is alleged that Mr. Cannon is unwilling to staff the FBO and operate the UNICOM as required in his Lease; but the truth is there is not a single provision in his Lease requiring him to maintain a constant UNICOM watch. He stated another allegation is that Mr. Cannon lobbied FAA to turn management of the airport over to him, and criticized the Board for mismanaging the airport, and also lobbied for Melbourne Airport to manage Valkaria Airport; the truth is problems surrounding the airport prompted Mr. Cannon to urge the FAA to take over the airport under its reverter clause and appoint him to manage it; and the Board had displayed no talent or inclination at that time to solve airport problems, and subsequently asked Melbourne Airport to consider a management contract, which it declined.

He stated on September 15, 1998 the Board trampled on the rights of a man who is respected in the aviation community and who is an enthusiastic Brevard booster to pacify six to eight rabble-rousers who bought property near an airport. He stated today the Board has the opportunity to show some backbone and do the right thing.

Curt Lorenc stated the Agenda item should be properly listed, and the public should have the right to speak; and the previous comment was terrible because everyone has a right to speak at a public meeting. He stated Mr. Cannon did not do much for the FBO; the facility was already out there; and the day Mr. Cannon walked in, he was making money. He stated the facility has been unattended, the last three years of fuel sales have been going down, and the business is being run into the ground. He stated Mr. Cannon sent a letter to the FAA requesting the airport be removed and to manage the airport without political interference from the County; and that is challenging the Board's authority. He stated Mr. Cannon has run his business in a reckless manner; and a young man's life was cut short by a Cannon Aviation employee.

Chairman Voltz stated that had nothing to do with Mr. Cannon; and she resents the fact that Mr. Lorenc brings that up continuously.

Mr. Lorenc stated this is a public meeting and he has a right to speak. Chairman Voltz stated she also has a right to speak. Mr. Lorenc stated Chairman Voltz does not have the right to censor him; with Chairman Voltz responding she does. Mr. Lorenc stated he is speaking to the issue. Chairman Voltz stated that issue had nothing to do with Mr. Cannon. Mr. Lorenc stated Mr. Cannon was on several rules committees and acted in a conflict of interest; he effected rule changes which were dangerous; and one was the landing of the helicopters next to the 10,000-gallon fuel tank. He stated that had a direct monetary impact for Mr. Cannon as he did not have to put in a new facility to fuel helicopters. He stated Mr. Cannon violated many terms of his Lease; when he presented his resume, he misrepresented his degree; he is supposed to be at the facility seven days a week, sunrise to sunset, but has not done that; he is supposed to man the UNICOM radio which is a safety issue, but has not done that; he does not have the necessary insurance coverage; and he has not put a shelter on the site.

Arthur Irvine stated he is a user of the airport, and is one of the fortunate few who has hangar space there. He stated the issue is a proposal to make changes at the airport; those changes will make some people happy and others unhappy; and the change would be to the fixed base operator. He stated the current fixed base operator is operating in good faith; and inquired if the Commissioners can assure in the bid process, that any potential bidder including the County would be in a position to operate in good faith. He recommended considering the consequences; stated if the pilots perceive this as one more attack on Valkaria Airport, fuel sales would drop appreciably, and any profits would disappear as well; and that is not the intent of the change. He stated if Mr. Cannon loses the bid, he should be compensated; and if he is not, there are consequences to be considered.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board wants bids or a request for proposal; with Chairman Voltz responding it was a request for proposals. Commissioner Scarborough requested an explanation of the difference between a bid and an RFP. County Attorney Scott Knox stated an RFP does not necessarily involve financial terms; a bid definitely involves financial terms; and he is not sure how the particular RFP will be structured. Commissioner Scarborough stated when the Board does a bid it says it wants to buy a particular item, and everyone bids; but when an RFP is done, the question is what the proposers can do for the County and why they can do a good job. He stated Mr. Cannon is not excluded from the process; it is a process that brings a whole gamut of positives and negatives into play; and the Board has not said that Mr. Cannon did a good job or a bad job.

Commissioner Cook stated there is no intent other than to go out for proposals; and Mr. Cannon could very likely get the new contract.

Chairman Voltz stated Mr. Cannon has a contract; he had an opportunity to renegotiate that contract; and that was not done. Chairman Voltz stated it may have ended up going out for bid anyway, but that is not the issue at hand; and Mr. Cannon did not have an opportunity to even talk to staff about the contract before the Board decided to go out for RFP.

Commissioner Higgs stated there were meetings; the Board's action, in looking at the issue of going out for RFP, was a reasonable decision; and she supports the County assuming responsibility for fuel sales and operating the tie-downs. She stated the Board's action allows everyone to give their best proposal; the current contract with Mr. Cannon clearly outlines that it is a five-year contract; the County goes out to bid at the end of a contract; and it is not significantly different from what the Board does in regard to other items.

Chairman Voltz stated if Mr. Cannon had been at the September 15, 1998 meeting, and that is what the Board decided to do after all the discussion, there would not be a problem; but he was not here and able to defend himself against some of the wild accusations.

Commissioner Higgs stated it is unfortunate that Mr. Cannon was not present and that he chose not to have a representative; the item was on the Agenda; there was a note from the Chairman that she was going to ask for it to be delayed during Reports; and when she did not do that, the Board at 3:00 p.m. was in the position of having people present who had waited all day to hear the item. She stated Mr. Cannon has been given the opportunity to address the Board tonight, and the Board can make a decision.

Jim Soldini, Vice President of the Pilot's Association, stated he worked with Mr. Cannon at the airport; Mr. Cannon is a decent, responsible man; the Board is aware of the accusations made against Mr. Cannon in September; and Mr. Cannon has not risen to the bait. He stated Mr. Cannon spent five years coming out to the airport on weekends; Mr. Cannon has a job in the aerospace industry; and he has taken the time from his family to come out to be a good representative to the aviation community. He stated there are some people who say they do not want the airport closed; they have been called liars by the Commission at this meeting and another one, and they do not like to be called liars; but he assumes the Commissioners must have some basis for saying that. He stated the people accusing Mr. Cannon are not believable; Mr. Cannon's customers are pleased with him; and it seems cavalier to make a decision when Mr. Cannon is away, after he spent five years on the business. He stated Mr. Cannon has another proposal; it is for the airport; and those anti-airport people who claim that they are not will probably be happy to hear how the airport will be a better recreational airport; so everyone on both sides should be in favor of Mr. Cannon's proposal.

Michael Cardinale stated when he reads about the airport problems in the newspaper, it is always the pilots versus the homeowners; but there are a considerable number of pilots who are also homeowners in the area. He advised of his dealings with Mr. Cannon; and stated he is a great asset to the airport and the community. He requested the Board renegotiate the Lease with Mr. Cannon first before putting it out for bids.

Paul Goetsch stated he is a pilot; if the decision is to go out for bids, it takes more than simple proposals from non-aviators to become a fixed base operator at a small airport; and advised of his experience as FBO at Valkaria from 1979 to 1984. He stated Mr. Cannon has met all the requirements to be the FBO at Valkaria Airport; and urged the Board to extend his Lease.

Don Darby objected to being called an anti-airport person; and stated he is a pro-community person. He inquired if Mr. Cannon has so much to offer and has been doing such a good job, why is he afraid of the competition of a request for proposals. He stated the FBO has not been run in accordance with the Lease or the expectations of the County or the community; and all this should be taken into consideration when the RFP's are evaluated. He stated Mr. Cannon is not the kind of person the County wants to lock into a long-term lease because he has not shown an ability to get along with the community; and requested the Board continue the RFP approach.

Johnnie Wimpee stated he is not sure why Mr. Cannon feels the County owes him future business from his contract; and he agrees with the Board's previous action to authorize going out for RFP.

LeRoy Rotgers inquired why does the County think it can do a better job with the fuel and tie-downs, has Mr. Cannon asked for help to improve the airport, and if he has, why has help not been given. Commissioner Cook stated no one said the County wants to take it over; and the Board has made no decision on the County taking it over. Chairman Voltz stated it was insinuated. Commissioner Cook stated staff suggested that, but it does not compel the Board.

Mr. Rotgers stated his brother in Texas who runs three FBO's advised no city or county should run an FBO because it does not work. He stated they discussed the number of planes and the fact that the operator is mainly there on the weekends because there are not enough planes to support him being there every day; and his brother advised the FBO needs more hangars and planes to bring his business up.

Dan Faden stated he is pro-community; the airport is a reality; it has a paved runway, and they are going to pave the next runway; and he accepts that the airport is not going away. He stated there have been six airport managers; the airport is coming under good control and being a good neighbor under the new manager and the codified rules; and he would like to see the County look at running the FBO. He stated Mr. Cannon has said he will give the business to the County to run if it will give him five acres; and he does not agree with that, but Mr. Cannon has said that maybe the County should run it. He stated the County should be in the bidding; no one has an inherent right to a County contract; and it should continue per the September 15, 1998 action.

Mary Jo Faden stated she resents being called anti-airport person; there were a lot of problems at the airport, but things are beginning to go well; and she supports the FBO facility going for RFP. She stated if Mr. Cannon did a good job in the view of the airport users, that is wonderful; he will have an opportunity to put in his proposal; and the Board needs to look at all angles. She advised of improvement to the airport under the new manager.

Terry Haugen stated she is an employee of Cannon Aviation; she works a 12-hour shift on Saturday; and Mr. Cannon is the one who rallies the VAA to pick up the Valkaria homeowners's trash on Valkaria Road. She stated Mr. Cannon provides the FBO for the Civil Air Patrol, and participates in Angel Flight. She inquired why Mr. Cannon's option has not been considered; and if the County takes over the FBO, will it manage it the same way the County employees manage the manager's office on Saturday and Sunday. She advised of problems with the students who work on weekends; and stated if the County cannot manage the students, how is it going to be able to manage the FBO seven days a week from sunrise to sunset.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Cannon had an option to renew with the County; with Mr. Knox responding Mr. Cannon had a option to renew subject to the Board's approval.

Thomas Angello stated he is a homeowner, pilot, and aircraft owner; and encourages the Board to renew Mr. Cannon's Lease. He stated Mr. Cannon is a fine and decent man; he has known him for two and one-half years; and he is a credit to his community and his country. He stated Mr. Cannon is a voice for the homeowners who live close to the airport because he encourages the pilots who fly in that area to fly patterns that keep them away from the homes. He advised of Mr. Cannon's community activities. He advised of liabilities that could result if the County takes over the FBO operation; and recommended giving Mr. Cannon his lease option.

Jeff May stated the first time he was aware of this was one month ago in the newspaper; although he does not believe everything that he reads, it said that the County was going to take over the operation of the FBO; and this is probably incrementalism. He explained how the airport would be closed through incrementalism. He stated the first ones that will leave will be the ones who do not want to buy gas for $2.50 or $3 a gallon; and after all the people leave, there will be no reason to have the airport, so it will be closed. He stated by chipping away a little bit at the time, the people will get what they want, whether it is right or not. He stated he has been flying for three years, and cannot name anyone he met through his experience as a pilot who is a better person than Mr. Cannon. He advised of his experiences with Mr. Cannon as fixed base operator. He requested the Board reconsider approving Mr. Cannon's option renewal, and if it does not do that, it should seriously consider his proposal.

Donna Wilt stated she is a pilot, but does not fly out of Valkaria; she flies out of Melbourne Airport; she is concerned that the County thinks if it takes over the fuel sales, it will get the same revenues as Mr. Cannon. She stated Mr. Cannon spent a lot of time marketing, and makes his money because he sells his fuel cheaper than Melbourne Airport sells its fuel; people in Melbourne fly to Valkaria on the weekend to buy fuel; and if the County takes over the facility at Valkaria and raises fuel prices to the same as Melbourne, there would be no reason to go to Valkaria, and business would be lost. She stated if someone has a contract with an option, it does not seem American to take away the right to exercise the option on a contract.

Commissioner Scarborough advised there was no absolute right to the contract; that is not what it says in the contract; and it is the prerogative of the Board when contracts expire, to see what else is out there.

The meeting recessed at 8:11 p.m. and reconvened at 8:24 p.m.

Chairman Voltz stated Mr. Cannon told her there was a contract versus other County contracts; and requested the County Attorney address how this contract is different. Mr. Cannon read from his Lease, "the tenant shall have the option to renew this Lease subject to the County's approval"; and stated that was a sticking point in negotiations. He inquired why it was put in the lease; and stated if it is subject to the County's approval, that is not an option, but the Board is calling it an option. He stated he was assured this was standard for the County, and that he should not worry because they understood he wanted to be there for ten years. He stated he has not made money in the first five years; and his hope was to recoup some of the investment in the second five years; and he was assured that was the case. He stated everyone knew when he was negotiating the Lease, including Mr. Varley who was briefed as part of the Advisory Board, that he was in this for the long-term; he had a five-year, ten-year, and fifteen-year plan; he briefed Commissioner Higgs after he entered into the Lease; and he was assured by staff that this was standard County language, so he agreed to it. Mr. Knox stated he cannot verify if Mr. Cannon's discussion with County staff indicated this was a standard provision of a lease; but he has seen a lot of leases and options, and this is not a standard way to deal with an option. He stated Mr. Cannon is right, the way it is worded does not really constitute an option; if there is an option, it is a unilateral decision whether to do it five more years; but if it is subject to someone else's approval, the individual does not have the right to make the determination to continue the business for five years.

Commissioner Higgs stated it is the Board's ability at the end of the five years because the Lease talks about the term expiring within five years; so the language is consistent that at five years, the Board has an option. She stated the Board has the ability to decide what to do. Mr. Knox stated that is what the wording means.

Chairman Voltz stated this is not normal language for County contracts; with Mr. Knox responding he cannot recall ever having seen that type of language. Chairman Voltz stated it is not really an option in this case; with Mr. Knox agreeing. Chairman Voltz requested clarification concerning the UNICOM; with Mr. Cannon responding when he negotiated the lease, he realized he could not comply with the Valkaria rules and regulations in putting in a self-service operation; and the Lease specifically exempts him from those paragraphs of the rules and regulations. Mr. Cannon said the County Attorney's Office reviewed, and determined he was in compliance with the Lease. Mr. Knox stated Assistant County Attorney Katherine Harasz reviewed the Lease, and he thinks what Mr. Cannon says is accurate. Mr. Cannon stated there is a letter in the records to that effect; UNICOM operation is in accordance with FCC and FAA regulations; and explained UNICOM operations. He stated a UNICOM operator is not an air traffic controller; the way to control airplanes at an uncontrolled airport is through the common traffic advisory frequency; and advised how the CTAF is used to control traffic flow. He stated the UNICOM operator does not clear airplanes to take off or land; that is a misunderstanding of people who are not versed in aviation; and even some pilots get confused. He advised of various uses of the UNICOM. Chairman Voltz inquired would the County have to invest in capital equipment to be in the fuel business under Mr. Cannon's proposal; with Mr. Cannon responding no. Mr. Cannon advised his proposal is that the County does not have to invest a dime, and can be in the fuel business if it would like to be; and in return for that, he would like some consideration for the five years he put in at Valkaria and the business which he generated. Chairman Voltz stated the proposal is on the aggressive side; and inquired if Mr. Cannon has the funding to do everything being proposed; with Mr. Cannon responding no, he would have to find investors. Chairman Voltz inquired about the general public being able to use any of the facilities; with Mr. Cannon advising the public would be able to use the facilities, and even the Valkaria residents would benefit from a bed and breakfast or public swimming pool. Chairman Voltz inquired about the video of the helicopter fueling service; with Mr. Cannon responding the video was taken at an angle; the people who fly in with helicopters are flight instructors; and an FAA inspector said there is nothing wrong with the operation. He stated he understands how people not involved in aviation might think things are more dangerous than they really are. Chairman Voltz inquired about Mr. Cannon's letter to FAA about turning the Valkaria Airport over to him; with Mr. Cannon responding he wrote the letter in 1995 when it was apparent to him that not much was happening at Valkaria Airport. He stated he was not trying to hide anything; he copied Commissioners Higgs and Ellis to make sure everyone knew how he felt about the activities at the airport; and today the infield is still not cleared. He stated he wrote the letter, and stands by it; at the time he believed that nothing was happening, which was the case; and hopefully with the new airport manager things will get better. Chairman Voltz stated there were several statements indicating Mr. Cannon was ridiculing the Commission; with Mr. Cannon responding he has never attacked anyone, but has criticized actions of the Board. Mr. Cannon stated Valkaria Airport is the smallest in the County, and it is crazy for the Board to try and run a tiny airport when there are two professional airport authorities within the County which have the expertise to operate it. He stated it is doomed to failure; a professional airport authority is needed to operate the airport; and it would make sense to lump it with one of the other two airport authorities.

Commissioner Cook stated that was tried; and they indicated they were not interested. Commissioner Higgs stated none of those boards are professional people, they are all citizen boards. Mr. Cannon stated they are supported by professional people. Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Shimkus is the professional airport manager. Mr. Cannon stated there have been two professional managers in less than a year; and hopefully Mr. Shimkus will stay around a while.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the reason Mr. Cannon wrote to the FAA is highlighted in the first sentence which provides that if Brevard County defaults on its obligation to maintain the airport as part of the national air transport system by closing the airport, Mr. Cannon is requesting the FAA to let him run the airport. He stated he does not find that to be objectionable; Mr. Cannon is saying that if the County chose to close the airport, the FAA has an obligation to keep the airport open; and if it does, he would like to run it. He inquired to what extent is Mr. Cannon's personal financial investment in the FBO; with Mr. Cannon responding he hesitates to answer that, but it is significant. Commissioner Higgs stated it is not relevant, and it is not fair to ask Mr. Cannon to disclose that. Commissioner O'Brien stated the reason he asked the question is because it was stated that Mr. Cannon walked right into this with no investment and was making money the next morning; and in an effort to find out whether all that is true, he wants to make sure he has the facts clear. Commissioner Higgs suggested asking what Mr. Cannon had to put in as opposed to the dollar figure, that would get at what Commissioner O'Brien is interested in. Chairman Voltz stated there were some people who said this has gone downhill in the last couple of years and that everything is falling apart, and on the other hand others say it is really doing great. Mr. Cannon stated he put in the automated fuel system which was in excess of $10,000; he purchased the trailer; and he purchased tie-down ropes, and a lawn mower and tractor; so there was significant investment. Commissioner O'Brien stated on September 15, 1998 people came forward with receipts showing how much money Mr. Cannon made every month and how much profit throughout the year; and he wanted to know about the opposite side. He stated in the first five years Mr. Cannon has put work back into the operation to make it successful.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired when the discussion started with Mr. Cannon, did he say he wanted to exercise his option or have a proposal. Community Development Administrator Peggy Busacca stated in June, 1998, Airport Manager Bill Plute wrote a letter to Mr. Cannon inquiring about his intent as far as renewal of the Lease; and Mr. Cannon responded in July, 1998 confirming his intention of renewing the Lease. Commissioner Scarborough noted Mr. Cannon indicated he was willing to renew the Lease as is; and inquired what was communicated after that. Chairman Voltz advised she has a timeline. Commissioner Scarborough stated there was discussion today about a swimming pool; and inquired what did staff do. Ms. Busacca stated staff invited Mr. Cannon to come in with a draft copy of the Agenda item; he met with her and Mr. Shimkus; and they discussed the draft item being put on the Agenda. She stated Mr. Cannon brought papers because he thought they were going to renegotiate the Lease; he called back later that afternoon concerning scheduling; and eventually he met with her, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Shimkus which is when Mr. Cannon provided them with the "win-win" proposal. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would have been one thing if it was Mr. Cannon coming in to exercise his option, but as Mr. Cannon got into discussions about different elements, he was asking to negotiate a new lease; and Mr. Cannon was bringing on the RFP through his actions in bringing new ideas to the table. Mr. Knox read aloud the last sentence of Mr. Cannon's letter, "I would like to suggest a meeting with Mr. Jenkins in the latter part of July or the first part of August to review the Lease and discuss the renewal process"; and that indicates there is something else that has to be done other than automatically renewing the Lease. Commissioner Scarborough stated if someone has an option to continue, all he or she has to do is exercise it; but if he or she comes in to renegotiate, that is not exercising an option; and by seeking to renegotiate the contract Mr. Cannon further dilutes his position. Mr. Knox stated that is a legitimate reading of what happened.

Mr. Cannon stated when he met with Ms. Busacca and Mr. Shimkus, he believed they were going to talk about renewing the Lease; both sides had problems with some of the wording in the existing Lease; and he believed that would be the appropriate time to iron out the problems. He stated he was told at that meeting that this was not a renewal, and staff's recommendation was to take over the business; and he thought since he was being thrown out, it was not appropriate to continue the discussion. He stated he decided what he needed to do was meet with County staff to see if there was something that would be agreeable to both parties; and that is when he came up with the win-win proposal which he, Mr. Jenkins, and staff discussed on September 10, 1998.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if most of the fuel sales are through the automated self-service system; with Mr. Cannon responding every fuel sale is tracked on the automated self-service system, but the majority of the sales occur on weekends when he is staffed. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the automated system is open to anyone; with Mr. Cannon responding anyone with a credit card. Commissioner Higgs stated in terms of skill level, the pilot handles his or her own fuel. Commissioner Higgs stated the Lease calls for the tenant to install a semi-permanent portable shelter building approximately 12-feet by 12-feet with a bulletin board, telephone, etc.; and inquired if Mr. Cannon has done that. Mr. Cannon responded he has not, but in lieu of that he has the trailer available with public access telephone, soft drink machine, and bulletin boards; and he has complied with that part of the Lease through the trailer which also provides a lot more than what was originally intended such as the air conditioned lounge. Commissioner Higgs stated staff is mainly there on the weekend; and inquired if there is access during the week; with Mr. Cannon responding the telephone is outside, but there is no access to the inside.

Commissioner Cook stated Mr. Cannon said the term, "subject to the County's approval" was a bone of contention originally; and that indicates Mr. Cannon understood that five year's later renewal would require the County's approval. Mr. Cannon stated he was assured this was standard, all the options are exercised, the County understood he wanted to be there for at least ten years, and he was not to worry about it. Commissioner Cook stated he does not know who told Mr. Cannon that.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the phrase that keeps coming up is the renewal process; it has been five years since Mr. Cannon talked about the contract; and he indicated his desire to exercise his option to renew. He stated then Mr. Cannon advised he had other ideas as well, which does not indicate that he does not want to renew his contract as is; and the verbiage used by Mr. Cannon indicates only an inquiry in to what is the process. Mr. Cannon stated he wanted to open the lines of communication with the County to discuss how to get this done. Commissioner O'Brien stated then Mr. Cannon came back with the 60-year idea; and if the County entered into a long-term lease, there would be deadlines for some, if not all, of the ideas mentioned in the proposal. Mr. Cannon stated that would depend on what was negotiated in the lease; and he just requested authorization to build those things. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board is not here to operate an airport; and advised of the operations by the Port Authority and the Tico Airport Authority. He inquired how the County can let someone like Mr. Cannon do business and still operate as well; and stated it is necessary to be careful with people like Mr. Cannon who make the investment.

Commissioner Cook stated the issue is whether to go out for proposals or not. Chairman Voltz stated that is not the issue; the Board already decided that; and the issue is whether or not Mr. Cannon should have had an opportunity to negotiate a renewal of his Lease before deciding to go out for RFP. Commissioner Cook stated Mr. Cannon is asking the Board to reconsider its decision to go out for proposals; a lot has been said about intent; he expressed concern about the County taking over anything at the airport; however, he has always been an advocate of the bidding process after a contract expires. He stated there was a time when nothing went out to bid and a favored few had access to the County's contracts; that has changed for the better; and the bidding process is very important to him. He stated the Board is dealing with public property; as a trustee of that property, the Board has an obligation to the taxpayers to insure they are getting the best deal; and that is why he advocates going out to bid. He stated he does not have a problem with Mr. Cannon; Mr. Cannon can submit a proposal; and Mr. Cannon has a shot at getting a contract for another five years. He noted he assumes it was important to the Board five years ago to put in "subject to the County's approval" so it would not be an automatic renewal; and that is why he supported the motion when it came up. Chairman Voltz stated Mr. Cannon is not questioning the automatic renewal, but trying to negotiate what he already had.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is looking for the best deal for the taxpayers; and the term of the Lease was for five years ending on October 31, 1998 unless sooner terminated. She stated the County goes out to bid all the time; and this is going out for a proposal for services at the airport which is more than just a financial bid. She stated she wanted the sale of fuel to provide revenue for the airport so it could be better maintained and managed; she is still interested in seeing what staff can propose; and recommended proceeding with the current course.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he disagrees; the Board may want to exercise the option; but it may also not want to exercise the option to go out for RFP. He expressed concern about small businesses with tight profit margins; and stated if the County does exercise renewal options on people who have already invested time and money, all of the small businesses who do work for the County will do no long-term investments, and there will not be good quality services being delivered to the County. He commented on the Canaveral Port Authority being a business advocate; and stated the Board is not giving Mr. Cannon the fair shot he deserves.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board is being very fair to Mr. Cannon; Mr. Cannon signed a contract that said "subject to the County's approval"; Mr. Cannon raised an objection to it at the time; and so he was aware that the County would review the Lease. He stated he is not saying Mr. Cannon has done a bad job; his performance is not the question; but the question is whether the Board should go out after five years and allow a competitive situation to occur on a County contract; and it is a philosophical issue. He stated if Mr. Cannon has done a good job, then going out and being competitive should not cause him any problem; when the proposals are submitted, the Board will evaluate them and come up with whatever is in the best interest of the taxpayers; the Port had problems with long-term leases in the past; and it is important to be careful of long-term leases when dealing with public assets. He stated Mr. Cannon has an opportunity to bid on the contract; he will have a fair and open hearing; and the Board has not been unfair to Mr. Cannon.

Commissioner Higgs stated there is an assumption from some vendors that they have a right to continue forever; that is not right; and it is not the way to do business. She noted this was a five-year contract; there is no God-given right to do business with the County; there is a fair and competitive process; and people can get business. She stated there has been an implication that the County is not committed to seeing that the airport is maintained and run; the commitment by the Board has been significant in recent years; and outlined improvements at the airport, including T-hangars, runway improvements, codification of rules, and professional airport manager. She stated the Board has been committed to the airport; and no one should think that commitment is not there.

Chairman Voltz stated Mr. Cannon knows there was no automatic renewal, and that the County does not owe him any sort of future business; but the Board owes the courtesy of sitting down and renegotiating before deciding to go out for bid. She stated there are a handful of people who have never dealt with Mr. Cannon on a professional basis, but criticize him for doing a lousy job; they are the same people who have accused Mr. Cannon of being responsible for the death of a County employee, and said that she called to have this item tabled; and they have made many ridiculous accusations. She stated Mr. Cannon has done a great job according to those who use the airport; and those are the people the Board should be listening to. She stated the Board will be hearing this over and over until it decides to do something; and in the two years she has been on the Board, not one thing has been accomplished at the airport. Chairman Voltz stated a lot of stuff was decided on before two years ago, and just now some of it is getting done.

Commissioner O'Brien stated in the past the Board approved the options of quite a few contracts with the County; Mr. Cannon has made a substantial investment into a small scale business; and he does not know why this has to go for bid. He stated last week something did not go out to bid; Road and Bridge renewed a contract without the Board's review; this is not the first time something has come for renewal; and generally, the Board has renewed the contracts. He stated he does not understand why this one contract is being treated differently when some contracts have been renewed on the Consent Agenda.

Commissioner Cook stated this is not that unusual; he is not reacting to any particular group; and reiterated his philosophical position.

Chairman Voltz stated if there had been no objections to the contract, it would have gone through. Commissioner Scarborough disagreed; and advised of the situation where the animal shelter services were put out for bid and nobody bid on it. He advised of the difference between Mr. Cannon's Lease and the contract for the auctioneer which recently came before the Board. He stated the Board said nothing derogatory about Mr. Cannon's operation; Mr. Cannon should participate in the bid; the Board tried to keep the process open; and a lot is being read into the Board's action which did not occur. He stated the Board is spending far too much time on this issue in relationship to all the other things it needs to consider.

Chairman Voltz inquired if there is a motion to do anything; and no response was heard. Commissioner Higgs stated staff will proceed with the RFP, and the decision the Board made earlier stands.

Community Development Administrator Peggy Busacca stated on August 25, 1998 the Board considered an ordinance that would have amended an existing Ordinance relating to the development within West Canaveral Groves; at that time, the Board continued the item and directed staff to come forward with additional information about mechanisms for funding; and the report gives cost estimates for roads, sanitary sewer and water supplies, and outlines funding options. She stated there are two types of needs which have been identified within the area, improvements to individual properties and infrastructure improvements; the report only focuses on the improvements in the area and is not intended to be a discussion of individual grant or funding mechanisms for individual septic tanks, etc.; and road, sanitary sewer, and water were chosen as the highest priority. She stated the funding mechanisms that have been considered include a municipal service benefit unit; and explained how an MSBU works. She stated the second option would be a municipal service taxing unit; it would be based on the valuation of the property; and that is typically done by the Board without a vote of the people within the area. She stated another option considered was whether gas tax revenues could be used to offset some of the cost for roads so that the individual property owner would pay a portion and the gas tax would pay another portion; and that is a legal option. She stated another option would be a community redevelopment district; the area meets the Statutory requirements for that funding mechanism; and explained the way the option would work. She stated the next option would be a community development block grant where federal dollars would offset some of the costs of the improvements; however, there are criteria which provides that 51% of the individuals in the area must meet certain financial requirements; staff does not know if the area is eligible or not; and the only way to determine that would be by survey. Chairman Voltz inquired what survey questions would be used; with Ms. Busacca responding how much money they make, family size, and whether they own or rent.

Ms. Busacca stated the last option staff identified is the FannieMae program; there is potential for FannieMae to put $10 million into a program for the County to redevelop the area; but FannieMae would want its $10 million back eventually. She stated FannieMae would assist in purchasing lots of people who wanted to sell their property; there would be no condemnation; improvements would be put into the area which would cause property values to go up; and FannieMae would resell the property and be repaid from the difference of the purchase price and the sale price. She stated the options include paving all of the roads within the West Canaveral Groves area which will cost $14.6 million; the advantage is there is lower maintenance on paved roadways and it would be consistent with the rest of the County; and the disadvantages are the cost and the fact that residents in the area may prefer dirt roads to maintain their lifestyle. She stated the second option is to pave Satellite Boulevard and leave the side streets dirt; the advantages are it would be the lowest cost to the property owner and would be consistent with the County regulations; the disadvantages are the side roads would still not be brought up to standards; and it would be necessary to consider how the costs would be spread across the property owners as it would be difficult to charge everyone the same amount of money whether they are on Satellite Boulevard or some of the side streets. She stated another option is to pave Satellite Boulevard and bring the side streets up to dirt road standards; the current side streets are not up to standards, and some are almost impassible; the advantages are the lower construction costs and that dirt roads may be preferred by some residents; and the disadvantages are that the maintenance costs are much higher on dirt roads. She stated the Board could choose to have unpaved roads throughout the area; it has the lowest construction cost, although not the lowest maintenance cost; and it is also inconsistent with the current County policy. She stated phasing of the improvements is also an issue; the West Canaveral Groves area is approximately four square miles; it does not have to be considered that all roads within the area would have to come up to the same standard immediately; and there could be a variety of ways to determine which roads would be the ones improved first. She noted there are some areas where there is more development than other areas; there are also roads which have electricity; and the Board could look at some distribution such as roads which have higher development and more people have electricity. She stated the report identifies that the right-of-way is not County-owned, and there is no drainage for the roads; and the costs do not include engineering and any required piping or infrastructure costs for drainage including land acquisition, if drainage improvements are required.

Chairman Voltz stated she had a meeting with representatives of Congressman Weldon's office concerning FannieMae, and they are prepared to come down and do something; and that issue would not cost the residents anything now. Ms. Busacca stated FannieMae is willing to put $10 million together in a package, but that is not sufficient to do all of the improvements necessary plus purchase lots because the way that money is repaid is through resale, but it would be possible to do a section or two. Chairman Voltz inquired if the County would have to purchase those lots. Ms. Busacca responded FannieMae would give the County the money; and the County would establish a not-for-profit or some kind of staff to do the acquisition and development of the infrastructure.

Commissioner Higgs stated FannieMae would want its money back; and the only way to get that money back to FannieMae is through resale of lots if the land is redeveloped and replatted which is a major undertaking. Ms. Busacca stated FannieMae did not talk about replatting, but that development of the infrastructure would increase the value of the lots; and the County would purchase the lots and do some of the improvements, and then resell them. Chairman Voltz inquired if the County could take the $10 million to put in water, sewer, roads, etc., and then let the owners see the advantage of that increase; with Ms. Busacca responding that could be done as long as there was another option to repay FannieMae. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it would be useful for the Board to have some discussion so people will have some idea of where things are. Commissioner Scarborough stated this will not be solved tonight; the County surveyed once to see if there was some desire for participation; and it needs to go back out to see what mechanism works because the community has to be a partner. He stated the public comment will lead the Board to understanding where the community's interest is which will allow staff to pose questions to the community; and advised of the results of the previous survey.

The Board reached consensus to limit speakers to three minutes.

Harold Beard stated he is interested in water and having the roads maintained; and suggested Satellite Boulevard be shelled and maintained.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many people think water is the primary issue; with a number of people indicating it is the primary issue, and approximately four people indicating it is not.

Sam Ball stated some improvements are needed in the area; no more permits are being issued; and he has owned land in the area for three years. He noted he was raised in Rockledge on a dirt road, and the property is now worth a lot of money; and if water and roads are upgraded, he would be willing to pay more taxes because he wants to build if he can obtain a permit. He stated the old section of Canaveral Groves was in the same shape 20 years ago, but has been improved. He advised they do not need sewer, but if Satellite Boulevard and some side roads could be paved, that would help improve the property; and stated with road improvements in the past three years, even though it has been a wet year, it has never been to where someone could not get to their property.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many people agree with Mr. Ball that the roads need to be upgraded rather than paved; with a number of people indicating agreement with upgrading the roads and no one agreeing with paving. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many people would not be willing to pay additional taxes; with a number of people indicating they would not.

Lynn Knight stated the improvements will cost money; and they do not expect something for nothing. She noted most of the residents do not have a lot of money; they do not expect luxury infrastructure; and encouraged the Board to do what is minimally necessary for access, health and safety, but not necessarily paved roads everywhere.

Joseph Stadnik, Acting Chairman of the Property Coalition of West Canaveral Groves, stated the organization represents property owners who live in West Canaveral Groves as well as owners who expect to some day retire and settle in this area, and was started as a protection to maintain West Canaveral Groves as a rural residential home site, and not as another concrete jungle of spreading city life. He stated they are concerned about the interests of the Board and staff, the change in the Comprehensive Plan as it affects the present and future residents of the area, the proposed water treatment plant in North Canaveral Groves for future sanitary sewer installation for Port St. John and Canaveral Groves, and increased density from one dwelling per acre to six or eight dwellings per acre in the Cox and Friday Roads areas. He stated with the increase in population the one-acre homesite will go the way of the scrub jay; some owners purchased their property at a low price as undeveloped land, with their meager savings; they ask for no charity; and they work hard to improve the land for the betterment of their families, community, and country. He stated the improvements and the Comprehensive Plan changes must be discussed with the people involved; some cannot afford these changes; and these families must be protected from the loss of their property, their future, their family life, and their dreams. He stated in the past the Board has protected its citizens from tax increases and unwanted burdens; he believes it will do the same today; and they need to study to see what is needed and what is wanted. He stated the West Canaveral Groves road system and funding must not be part of the District 1 Road Committee; the area with the most representatives on the Committee gets the most funding; the Committee voted not to fund dirt roads; and the area with the most dirt roads, Canaveral Groves, had only one representative. He recommended that the funds for any roads in West Canaveral Groves not be in the control of the Committee, but under the control of Public Works Director Henry Minneboo.

Dick Gregory advised of research he did concerning city water; and stated he is looking for a reasonable price on water. He noted Ms. Busacca mentioned a paved road option for Satellite Boulevard at $590; the report from Speegle Construction was for water done in three phases; the cost is $1,790 per acre; and over fifteen years, that is approximately $150 per year. He stated he is representing approximately 65 people who are agreeable to city water and the paving of Satellite Boulevard only; when the water is installed, the roads would be brought up to grade, but not up to standards; and he does not want all the roads paved in Canaveral Groves. He stated he wants to maintain the area as rural; most people want dirt roads; and requested the ARR zoning be changed from 400 square feet to 800 square feet as there is nothing in the area that is 400 square feet.

Robert Lee stated there is a lot of wildlife in Canaveral Groves. He advised there is a cellular phone tower two streets away from him; and he does not know how that happened in the area. He displayed a printout from the Tax Collector showing vacant residential properties assessed in 1996 at $2,000 and $3,500 in 1997; stated presumably the tax base went up in that area; and inquired where did the money go. He stated he agrees with Mr. Gregory on paving the main road and getting city water there; but he is not for paving the other streets or changing the country setting. He stated he would like the area to stay as it was intended in the 1940's as one-acre ranchettes; and people cannot have horses on paved roads.

Hans Saurenmann stated he and many West Canaveral Grove property owners disagree with the present proposal; in 1994 the Board agreed to take over Satellite Boulevard free of charge to the property owners, improve it to County standards, and maintain it within four years; but that is not the case. He stated in the meantime there are three new Commissioners on the Board who are not even aware of that promise. He stated the solution to the problem is to create a municipal service benefit unit or municipal service taxing unit, implement and allocate local option gas tax revenue supplement to the MSBU, and combine dual County/MSBU in a community redevelopment district; and the community development block grant has to be embedded in the solution for the benefit of the area. He stated Satellite Boulevard, between SR 520 and SR 528, needs to be brought up to County standards as promised by the Board in 1994, including the necessary drainage canals on each side; they need city water as proposed by Mr. Gregory; and they need a citizen advisory board to be filled only with property owners from West Canaveral Groves, Sections 29 South, 20, 17, and 8, from Barcelona Avenue to Simpson south of SR 528. He stated the West Canaveral Groves property owners will incorporate a not-for-profit corporation called West Canveral Groves Property Owners, Inc.; and advised of the next meeting on October 22, 1998. He stated they want to establish their own community and need the help and support of the Board. He advised of a newspaper item showing notice of North Merritt Island Dependent Special District referendum; and stated West Canaveral Groves could do something like that. He stated a survey is not necessary; and suggested asking the people whether they are for an advisory board.

Jacquelyn Warzeche stated she appreciates what the County is trying to do with the ARR zoning; but she heard the State is trying to take it away. She stated eleven years ago she came to the area to do things for herself; it is not important to her if the road is perfect or if she has city water; and inquired about the status of existing permanent structures and whether grandfathering will be extended. She recommended the County not stop issuing building permits; and stated she has other lots that are undeveloped which she would like to see be developed. She stated there are many different issues; and they need some kind of committee to determine exactly what the people want. Mary Hill declined the opportunity to speak.

Jerry Wall stated a few months ago another depiction of West Canaveral Groves appeared in print in Florida TODAY, complete with stereotype and myth; the people of Canaveral Groves are not all a bunch of rednecks; and what they are is a diverse group of mostly independent resourceful rural people who prefer to be left alone, a lot like the people who built this country. He stated it is not necessary to pave all the roads. He stated when the subject was broached approximately four years ago, he was told his five-acre homestead would have a ten-year lien of approximately $36,000; and he does not need that kind of improvement. He stated he and his wife waited several years for the County to make up its mind what it was going to do; they have owned property for approximately twelve years, and have lived there for over a year; and his septic system and well are in compliance. He noted he brings in drinking water, but his well water is filtered and chlorinated; there are a number of people who cannot be in compliance; but just because they do not have all the amenities does not make them unhealthy or at risk. He advised of wildlife near his home; and requested the Board be fair to the homeowners and not improve Canaveral Groves to the point of pricing the people out.

Terry Rosenberger stated he hears a lot of complaints about the taxation process; people pay their taxes and do not receive services; but his $60 of taxes on one acre in Canaveral Groves is well served as he has three children who have gone through the public school system as well as benefits from the Agricultural Center and libraries. He stated part of the proposal is to stop the permitting process; and outlined actions taken to put in a culvert. He advised of the location of his property; stated he is 700 feet from the end of the electricity lines, water lines and maintained Palmetto Avenue; and requested the Board consider that when it improves the roads. He advised of difficulties in getting financing because the property is not on a County-maintained road; and encouraged the Board to pursue ownership of the road rights-of-way that are privately owned.

Wanda Pershing stated she lives at the corner of Outback Road and Satellite Boulevard; the church group that is trying to help her was told that the Sheriff will make her vacate her property in 30 days; and she has been trying to come into compliance. She stated she does not know anyone in the area who wants the roads to be paved; there are children in the area; and if the roads are paved, the cars will be speeding. She advised of health problems and attempts to come into compliance; and stated she is asking for more time. She stated she was told this meeting was to rescind the current zoning; she can come up with approximately $500; and outlined actions she took to get permitting.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the County is taking action to remove people. Ms. Busacca responded no, and when Ms. Pershing called her today, it was the first time she heard about this; and staff will follow up on it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct that no evictions or actions of that sort take place unless it is by the direction of the Board of County Commissioners because of the unique situation in Canaveral Groves.

Commissioner Higgs inquired about a situation where there is an environmental health issue. Commissioner Scarborough responded because of the situation in the area, it will cause more trouble than good for the Board to not get directly involved. Commissioner Higgs inquired if something is pending; with Ms. Busacca responding no, but the Ordinance, unless it is changed as proposed to extend dates, specifically says that the Board will begin Code Enforcement action. Commissioner Higgs recommended changing the Ordinance. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can approve the motion, and then change the Ordinance; it cannot change the Ordinance this evening; and without the motion, people will be going away in doubt. Commissioner Higgs suggested tabling the motion until the Board knows the consequences; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no. Commissioner Higgs inquired what would normally be done in terms of an eviction; with Mr. Knox responding he is not sure what the basis for an eviction would be at this time.

Ms. Pershing advised any time Code Enforcement has come out, she has complied.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board abates Code Enforcement all the time; it is not an unusual action; and in this case it is more merited than ever before.

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

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the motion only includes the West Canaveral Groves area of the County; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated if someone is in another area and if there is going to be action to put someone out of their home, it should come to the Board.

Ms. Pershing advised of the fear of the people; stated they want to keep the area natural; she does not want anything given to her; and even though she had a setback, she can do this.

Don Whidden stated he called Ms. Busacca about finding a charity organization for donation of septic systems so the ones donating could get some tax benefit; and he has never found an organization willing to channel such donations. Commissioner Scarborough stated a donation directly to the County would be just like a donation to a charitable organization. Mr. Whidden stated everything he heard presented causes financial problems to the individuals in the area; there are alternative ways of addressing the proposed improvements to the area; and it would best be done through an alliance of a homeowners association. He stated a lot of the infrastructure can be provided through grants from government and private corporations; and suggested alignment of the neighborhood association with a non-profit organization, possibly setting up a research and study area to get educational benefits. He stated so far the people are just hearing about special interests wanting to make money; and the people are not getting the correct information. He stated he lives in Canaveral Groves; his proposed taxes are $1,700; an MSBU on top of that would make the total $1,800 to $2,000; and he would hate to see the residents have to go through that sort of situation when there is a possibility infrastructure can be provided through grants. He requested the Board form an alliance with the citizens instead of dictating; stated the Board is bound by State and federal laws; and those things can be addressed to reach a more desirable resolution. He commented on a renewable fuel source.

Julie Heidamos stated she agrees with her neighbors in that she does not want the roads to be paved; it is a naturalist kind of community; and there are those who are happy with their well water. She stated she has lived in trailer parks and apartments for 24 years until she bought her acre of land; she was up to Code and awarded a certificate of occupancy within two and one-half weeks; and she moved her mobile home from Melbourne onto her property. She advised her mobile home is 400 square feet, which is the minimum; and she does not agree with Mr. Gregory's suggestion to increase the square footage.

Chairman Voltz stated this would not change what Ms. Heidamos has. Ms. Heidamos inquired if she would be grandfathered in; with Chairman Voltz responding affirmatively. Ms. Heidamos stated her concern is the zoning; the property is ARR, and she was told it would remain ARR for the rest of her life, as long as the mobile home was on the property. Chairman Voltz stated the whole context of the area could change. Ms. Heidamos expressed concern that people with millions of dollars could move next to her and build houses, and then she could not have her mobile home anymore. Commissioner Cook advised Ms. Heidamos is vested. Chairman Voltz stated Ms. Heidamos will be able to keep her mobile home.

The meeting recessed at 10:09 p.m. and reconvened at 10:21 p.m.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many people received the report on infrastructure improvements; with Ms. Busacca responding it was not sent out to the community. Commissioner Scarborough stated various people have ideas; money answers problems; and it is possible to be paralyzed by the possibilities. He stated there are so many things that Ms. Busacca presented, they do not know which avenue to go in; and they need to have a consensus of what they want to accomplish and the mechanism. He stated every place does not have to agree to everything; one area may want more infrastructure than another; and he would like to have a meeting with the community. He requested Ms. Busacca get names and addresses for those present so the report on infrastructure improvements can be mailed to them; and stated as long as the people are willing to come to meetings to work things out, the problems will be solved. He stated the last time they tried to work something out, the Board used an unrealistic figure and it did not work; and this time everyone wants to see this work. He stated where there are people with specific financial hardships, it will be necessary to have special programs because in addition to infrastructure needs, there is a need to look at individual needs to bring property up to health standards.

Discussion ensued on how to contact the people of West Canaveral Groves.

Chairman Voltz stated some year the Board has to solve this problem. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is understanding where it needs to go, and needs to work with the community.

Mr. Stadnik stated there will be a meeting on October 22, 1998 at the Agriculture Center in Cocoa at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Scarborough stated he will need to confer with Ms. Busacca to see if that is a good time; and advised it may take a little more time to put a meeting together.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to be sure that it continues to move forward; the Board is not even talking about the ordinance at this point; she understands concerns about stopping development; but the Board needs to insure that basic safety issues are dealt with. Commissioner Scarborough stated there are two problems; one is the individual problems; and the Board is going to have to figure ways for financial assistance to make that work because it cannot let good people suffer. He stated the second thing is the infrastructure; no one has said they do not want improvements; however, they do have strong ideas about what needs to be improved and what does not; and the people need to become better informed about the various funding mechanisms. He stated Mr. Gregory has done some work and communicated it to the community; and everyone needs to work together. Chairman Voltz inquired if FannieMae can be involved at this point; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he does not have a problem with it, but does not want to get ahead of the community. Chairman Voltz recommended representatives of FannieMae be included to hear the residents' concerns. Commissioner Scarborough stated it has to be the community saying it wants things to work this way. Commissioner Higgs noted FannieMae will want its money back; with Chairman Voltz responding someone will have to pay one way or the other. A speaker from the audience recommended the people be asked if they want FannieMae out there.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has the information; and the people will pick what they want; and inquired if the people want a representative of FannieMae at the meeting; with the audience responding no. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board will get more information on FannieMae before inviting them. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the ARR zoning classification and the grandfathering will be part of the agenda when it comes back. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to gather more information on all the issues; it will move more constructively if the Board gets this information to the people; and advised of the differences between a Board meeting and a community meeting. Commissioner Higgs stated she is comfortable if this is moving forward; but since 1995, she has not seen much progress; and she wants to see some things begin to come together. Commissioner Cook stated nothing will happen unless it is community driven. Commissioner Higgs stated she is frustrated with nothing happening. Chairman Voltz stated she is sure the people who live there are also frustrated. A member of the audience stated they are moving forward as a group.

Commissioner O'Brien suggested having a town meeting in a tent on a weekend. Commissioner Scarborough suggested it be done at the Agriculture Center; and advised of the advantages. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many want to go to the Agriculture Center, and how many want to go to F. Burton Smith Park; with the majority selecting the Agriculture Center.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance regulating development in West Canaveral Groves to December 8, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT, RE: SIGNATURE BONDS

Assistant County Attorney Kyle King advised the County Attorney was asked to research whether signature bonds are constitutional; and the short answer is yes. He stated there are statutory and court rule presumptions in favor of non-monetary forms of pre-trial release; signature bonds are one form of a non-monetary form of pre-trial release; and courts have a great deal of discretion when fashioning conditions of pre-trial release, with several factors which can be considered with each individual defendant on a case-by-case basis. He stated the presumption in conjunction with the court's discretion to analyze conditions of pre-trial release on a case-by-case basis led him to opine that signature bonds are constitutional. He stated the second question was whether the County can abolish signature bonds; and if the Board is talking about formal legislation, the answer is no because it is the province of the Supreme Court of Florida to create rules of procedure for the courts. He stated the legislative branch can legislate issues of substantive law, but the Supreme Court makes procedural rules for the court; so to the extent that a legislative branch would legislate court rules it would be unconstitutional. He noted in the past the State Legislature has legislated certain things which have been adopted by the Supreme Court as its own rule; but if there is a disagreement as to a Statute and the Rule, the Rule would prevail if it deals with a matter of procedure. He reiterated signature bonds are constitutional and are a valuable tool utilized by the courts in determining in individual cases the type of pre-trial release; and the County cannot formally legislate something inconsistent with the Court Rule.

Commissioner O'Brien stated what Mr. King is saying is the Board can do nothing about it. Mr. King advised the Board could always recommend through the legislative package; the attorneys found it acceptable; but to the extent it is inconsistent with the court rule, it is probably unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court could adopt the legislation as its own rule. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Mr. King has any other suggestions; with Mr. King responding the Board could write a letter to the judges if that is the pleasure of the Board.

Scott Ellis stated Mr. King refers to signature bonds as a valuable tool, but he would like to explain his circumstances with the signature bond. He stated the County Attorney's letter outlines the conditions for release for a signature bond including nature and circumstances of the offense charged, weight of evidence against the defendant, evidence, family ties, employment history, financial resources, mental health, and past and present conduct including convictions, previous flight, and failure to appear; but the person who robbed him was charged with felonies to which he pled guilty; could not live at home because he robbed his parents; had no job or money; had a crack cocaine problem; had previous convictions, previous jail time, and three failures to appear; and the individual robbed his house while on probation. He inquired if someone has no job, no money and no family, where does he go when he gets loose on a signature bond; and stated no one knows because, in his case, the individual does not have to make an appearance until October 22, 1998 for sentencing. He stated one of the problems with the signature bond is nothing is every collected on it; so it is not really a bond; it is a misnomer to call it a bond; and he got into a little heat with Judge Moxley because he said it was a get out of jail free, but unless there is an attempt to collect on the bonds for failure to appear, it is get out of jail free. He stated he heard it was because of jail overcrowding; the individual who robbed his home would be a non-violent felon; and there are 66 available spaces in the minimum security pod. He stated when he was on the Board, they worked to get the money to open the minimum security pod to increase the space; and one of the reasons they were increasing the space was so that people who do these kinds of crimes can stay in jail, not so they can be turned loose to rob other homes. He stated it boggles his mind that someone with a long record of robberies and pending charges was cut loose; and the least they could have done was ask where his stolen things were before letting him out of jail. He advised of various pending charges; and stated the signature bonds have been a joke. He requested the Board include something in the legislative package to have the Legislature look into whether the signature bonds can be abolished or not. He stated a judge can always use a release on own recognizance which is a no cash bond, and in that case it is the judge's signature not the defendant. He requested the County try to collect some of the signature bonds to find out if the form used is a legal bond; and he agrees that a letter should be sent to the judiciary that the Board is tired of spending County money to pick people up who skip on signature bonds. He stated his case emphasizes there are no requirements for a signature bond as none of the conditions are followed; and people can commit robbery while out on probation, plead guilty, and still get out of jail. He stated the signature bond needs to be abolished, if not by the County, than through legislative action.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired why would a judge opt for a signature bond rather than release on recognizance. Mr. King stated for the release on own recognizance the judge probably feels the person is not a high flight risk and the crime is not as serious. County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if it is typically for misdemeanors; with Mr. King responding most are, and a lot of the signature bonds are for misdemeanors or lower third degree felonies. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the judge is using this as a step between the release on recognizance and an actual bond; with Mr. King responding he cannot speak for the judges, but from his experience, it is a middle ground. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if he failed to appear, would he be in more trouble with the court with a signature bond or release on recognizance. Mr. King advised it is tough to answer because it is up to each individual judge; but it does say on the signature bond that by signing the document, the person acknowledges that a willful failure to appear is a third degree felony/first degree misdemeanor and contempt of court; so there is a Statute for failure to appear. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has no problem with the Board writing a letter to the judge; and he would like to know why they would use one rather than the other. He inquired if there is a higher level of crime if there is a signature bond rather than release on own recognizance. Mr. King stated another factor is there may be an individual who does not have the means to even post a $500 cash or surety bond; and sometimes a judge will take that into account.

Commissioner Cook expressed concern about who is getting signature bonds; noted what was faxed to his office was information about an individual with attempted first degree premeditated murder, aggravated battery with great bodily harm, aggravated assault, murder first degree premeditated design, first degree premeditated murder, and aggravated battery; and inquired if this individual got out on a signature bond. Mr. King stated maybe in individual cases, the Board can disagree. Mr. Jenkins stated if someone does not follow through with the requirements on the release on recognizance, they are brought back and tried for the original crime; but if someone violates a signature bond in addition to the original crime, there is a second crime; and inquired if a signature bond is the appropriate mechanism for someone who has committed a serious crime. Chairman Voltz inquired if someone is not going to be put in jail because they have committed a battery with intent to commit murder, why would they be put in jail for reneging on their signature bond. Mr. Jenkins stated the thrust of the issue is because a signature bond is for a higher grade of offense than a release on recognizance; and inquired if that is an appropriate sentencing tool for someone who has committed the kinds of things Mr. Ellis indicated.

Mr. Ellis inquired why the County does not collect the bonds; with Mr. Jenkins responding he will investigate that. Mr. Ellis stated when he was on the Board, the reason they were not collected was because they were legally uncollectible or the person was indigent. Mr. Jenkins stated most probably do not have assets. Mr. Ellis stated someone who is released on a signature bond and has no money, no home and no family will go right back on the street doing what he or she did.

Mike Alexander stated the signature bond is a form of pre-trial release; it is hard to find in the Florida Statutes; and it is a tool to prevent jail overcrowding. He stated it is compounding the problem; when they fail to appear in court, it is hurting the taxpayers because the Sheriff has to find them and put them back in jail; and in Brevard County, signature bonds are plentiful. He stated some signature bonds are used for cases that do not fit the pre-trial release guidelines; signature bonds are a waste of taxpayer money; there have only been three signature bonds collected in the County in the last ten years; and this is a burden on the taxpayer. He stated it would cost the taxpayer a lot of money to collect the signature bond; most defendants sign their own signature bonds; and once they are out most commit another crime, get back in and get another signature bond. He stated defendants who fail to appear in court are not allowed to have signature bonds according to the Florida Statutes; and any person with a failure to appear in their history cannot be released on their own recognizance or by signature bond. He stated the last time he was here in 1996, Yvette Parker advised the County was going to hire a vendor to collect the signature bond money; but it is impossible to collect something you cannot find. He stated Commissioner Scarborough was talking about finding someone to solve the problem of jail overcrowding; the jail is full of failure to appears; and if the Board recommends the judges not use signature bonds, the failure to appear rate will come down and there will be more space in the jail. He advised of the workload of warrant deputies; and stated no other county in Florida uses signature bonds.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if no other county uses signature bonds. Mr. Knox stated he has not found that yet. Mr. Alexander advised it took Tallahassee a week to find signature bond in the Statutes. He stated most are $5,000 signature bonds; Brevard County has over 26,000 active warrants; there are six warrant deputies in the County who cannot keep up; and one of the solutions to the jail overcrowding is to bring the failure to appear rate down.

Chairman Voltz inquired if the County ever looked at privatizing the jail; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes, there was a report on it several years ago. Chairman Voltz requested a copy of the report.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, to authorize the Chairman to send a letter to the Chief Judge questioning the use of signature bonds for people accused of serious felonies.

Mr. Jenkins stated they are being told the jail is overpopulated; and suggested calling a meeting of the Correctional Planning Committee to bring this issue up. Commissioner Scarborough advised of previous problems with the Committee; and stated they can meet, but the letter should state the allegations and information the Board heard. Commissioner Cook stated he wants to know why someone accused of premeditated murder could get out on a signature bond; and there may be things the Board does not know. Chairman Voltz recommended including in the letter the fact that Brevard is the only County issuing signature bonds, if it is. Commissioner Higgs recommended the County Attorney check on that as well as whether a large percentage of people in the jail are there due to failure to appear, and report back to the Board.

Commissioner O'Brien advised of the ACES group for child support; stated the judges want to cooperate although they feel strongly about how they are operating their side of the bench; and it COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT, RE: SIGNATURE BONDS (CONTINUED)

may be more realistic to call the Committee together to meet with Chief Judge, Mr. Ellis and the bail bondsman to see if there can be a resolution of the problem locally. Commissioner Cook stated that is fine, but it is important for the letter to go forward expressing the Board's concerns, and the meeting of the Correctional Planning Committee is an appropriate forum to discuss this further.

Commissioner O'Brien requested the motion be amended to include the meeting of the Correctional Planning Committee; with Commissioner Cook advising he will include that. Commissioner O'Brien seconded the motion.

Chairman Voltz inquired whether it is an existing committee; with Commissioner O'Brien responding yes. Discussion ensued on the committee.

I. K. Smith stated the only judge willing to meet with anyone is Judge Majeed who periodically calls meetings of bondsmen and others to see how they can help each other.

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

Commissioner O'Brien suggested sending this to the Delegation in the Legislative Package. Commissioner Higgs recommended waiting to get the information to be sure the Board can back up the allegations which have been made. Mr. Jenkins advised the first cut of the Legislative Package will be November 10, 1998, but the Board can still add to it after that.

APPROVAL OF CONTRACT, RE: INTEGRATED FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Mike Roush, with GEAC Computers, congratulated the County for its unanimous approval on September 15, 1998 to move forward with GEAC; and stated they received a letter today which is contrary to their prior understanding.

David Ward, Regional Manager for GEAC Computers, stated on September 15, 1998, the Board approved GEAC as the provider for the integrated financial management system; the budget approved for it was $1.58 million; he has been in negotiations the past two weeks with Assistant County Attorney Katherine Harasz, Information Systems Director Gino Butto, and Purchasing Manager Joellen Moore; he has made several concessions, but has been unable to finalize the agreement; and he has been under the impression until today that the recommendation tonight would be for GEAC with a clause that some additional funding would possibly be needed. He stated license fees of $395,652 would be split into two payments of $197,826 which is what he agreed to with Ms. Harasz; and the first payment would be due 45 days after contract execution and the second would be six months later, at no interest. He stated maintenance would be paid for 12 months with three months free; the first payment would be scheduled at $111,000 due 45 days from the time the Contract is executed; and the remainder would be scheduled in March, 1999 for $259,000. He stated as Option 2, the County could pay for maintenance on an annual basis; and he could discount it by 10% annually and tie any increases to the Consumer Price Index. He stated consulting services would be paid with 40% within 45 days of Contract execution, and the remaining 60% would be made in two payments scheduled at 40% tied to implementation deliverables, and 20% at the end of the project; the hourly rate for the services would be $125 which is well under the industry norm; and the total for services would be $655,000. He stated travel expenses for the project consultants would be tiered as well to coincide with the services rates, 40%, 40%, and 20%; and they agreed the total could be capped at $110,500 or they could do a pay-as-you-go system on a monthly basis. He stated the total of these fees would be $1,583,000; last week he learned from Ms. Harasz that the County is not on maintenance for Sybase; he was asked if he would absorb the cost of the County coming back on maintenance; and he communicated that it would be inappropriate for GEAC to pay the fee. He stated they communicated that they would investigate the cost to get back on maintenance; the cost for a full-use license for Sybase and five years maintenance going forward is $104,000; this would permit the County to use this for different areas associated with government; and it is a deeper richer solution than its competitor. He stated the SAP software is old and almost impossible to implement; GEAC, if all costs are considered, is approximately $500,000 on the low end to well over $1 million cheaper; and GEAC scored higher on the RFP responses. He stated the project team is in place and is ready to start the project; and they hope the Board will validate them to get started.

Information Systems Director Gino Butto stated when they began the process there were a number of items that were uncovered; and they may have been new to Mr. Ward as an individual or Mr. Roush, but most of the issues were clear in the entire process from the beginning. He stated a significant issue was the payment schedule; at the onset the assumption presented was that GEAC's pricing scheme was tied to a prepayment on the entire system; and after negotiations, certain concessions were made as Mr. Ward described. He stated they also realized they were in jeopardy of reaching an agreement because of the time left on the project to get started; they needed to seek alternatives quickly to see if the mandates GEAC was imposing were consistent across different vendors; they found that a lot of the pricing schedules of other vendors could be tied to a deliverable rather than strictly a calendar date; and the risk is if the calendar date comes and the deliverable has not been met, the County would still be under obligation to pay. He stated the Sybase issue may have come to Mr. Ward's attention during the contract, but it has been a big issue in keeping GEAC in the negotiation process because several of their application modules were identified as inferior to their competitors; and there have been many misunderstandings in the budget area. He stated after the presentations, GEAC did not perform at the level of the other two vendors; and at the recommendation of the Board, GEAC was included in the negotiations because of the significant cost difference. He stated Sybase development has been a big issue all along, and he lost a sense of confidence in the process because there have been several misunderstandings. He stated the maintenance is an area where GEAC offered an alternative to a scheduled payment; however, they were also offering a less comprehensive service than what was originally stated in the RFP. He stated they asked for the same level of service for the full five years; the prepayment was one part and the degraded service was another; the Committee reviewed those and unanimously thought that this was not an arrangement it wanted to enter into; and therefore, the cost that is included is what GEAC said it would cost if the County wanted the same level of service it asked for originally, and which was in the proposals of the other vendors.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not understand how what the Board approved at $1.58 million has increased to $1.9 million. Mr. Butto responded the Sybase license added, over the course of the five years, an additional $104,000; the $282,000 addition is to get the maintenance program which was required in the RFP; when GEAC came back with a prepayment option and a less comprehensive level of service on years two through five, he, individually, entertained it; however when it was brought to the Committee, the consensus was that was not a level of service they were prepared to commit to; and those two items are over $300,000. Commissioner Cook inquired if they were not included in the RFP; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding the original maintenance program was at the specified level; in order to get the price down, GEAC's proposal had a lower maintenance level for years two through five; and that is how there was a cost reduction. Commissioner Cook inquired if that was what was reviewed. Mr. Butto responded these things were not apparent until they got the contract; they were not evident in any of the proposals or during any of the discussions; but in reviewing the contract, Ms. Harasz was able to identify some of the changes between previous proposals and the contract. Mr. Jenkins stated if the maintenance level was raised back to the same level as the other proposals, then the cost would go up to $1.9 million.

Mr. Ward stated he can make that disappear; there are two different types of maintenance they offer, basic and standard; Mr. Butto advised an audit trail would be beneficial to the County; and explained the difference in basic and standard. He stated he would be happy to provide standard if that is what the Board wants, although he thought basic was the preference.

Mr. Roush stated at the end of the product demonstration, they discussed the different types of maintenance levels; when the RFP was returned to the County, they gave the maximum amount the maintenance would be for the County; they assumed a 10% increase every year on the list price of the products; and that was the worst case scenario because they did not want to low ball the RFP. He reiterated the difference between standard and basic service; stated the response time for either would be the same; and if the County is in a production down situation, GEAC will return the call within one hour whether it is called in or they get it electronically. He stated in discussion with Mr. Butto, the prices were higher among all the vendors; the objective was to get the price down; they discussed the differences between standard and basic; and Mr. Butto asked when they provide the revised numbers, the basic be included. He stated during the initial implementation, there are more service requests, and as years go on, there is a reduced need to have ability to call; and that is what they factored into subsequent proposals.

Mr. Ward stated Mr. Butto said GEAC's software is inferior; GEAC has 20,000 customers worldwide; they have Volusia County, Pembroke Pines, and Broward County; he does not know what the competitor has; and requested the County do a comparison. He stated if the software is inferior, he would like to know why, in the RFP, GEAC scored higher than SAP or JD Edwards. He stated Mr. Butto advised there is $100,000 cost for Sybase to come back on maintenance and go forward for five years; but what he has not built into the cost is the cost for full use of Oracle, which could easily be $500,000 to $1 million. He inquired why is Mr. Butto comparing full use of Sybase to a limited use of Oracle.

Mr. Roush stated the payment schedule was based on calendar dates which is not the case; and the payment schedule is based on sign-off by the County on deliverable dates. He stated after completion of Phase 5, upon completion and sign-off by the County, GEAC will receive a second payment; and the final payment which is due upon completion of the module would not be payable until the County signs off on the module. Mr. Ward stated it is entirely tied to a deliverable which the County approved; it is not tied to a schedule; and he does not know how they can state one thing and have it come back in a different fashion. Mr. Roush advised of other local governments which have gone into production since GEAC has been involved in the evaluation; and stated the work effort of employees for the GEAC implementation will be 695 days with GEAC providing 655 days of consulting; SAP would require 2,816 days of employee effort for implementation; and if Brevard employees cannot complete that task, SAP can provide a consultant to help out at a rate of $150 an hour, which has not been factored into the analysis. Mr. Ward stated it equates to over 17,000 hours difference; and he does not know where the County will get that between now and January 1, 2000. Mr. Roush stated recently GEAC was awarded a contract by London Underground which licensed the SAP applications over two years ago; and London Underground gave the contract to GEAC because of fear that it could not get the SAP application in production by the year 2000.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the additional items which are driving the cost up, such as standard versus basic, were included in the other proposals but not in this one; with Mr. Butto responding their proposal already included the expected level of service. Mr. Butto stated the inferiority of the product is a result of the evaluation staff did; that determination was made based on viewing the product, looking at literature, talking to other vendors, and researching the trade; and staff is paid to do the type of research GEAC is asking the Commissioners do. He stated the determination was not based on a simple process; and it was the unanimous conclusion of the Committee. He stated the issue of the degraded level of service was never discussed as an option until the contract demonstrated that was what GEAC had proposed for the lower price; he did say, at that stage, it could be considered as having some potential value; but it was never a preference. He stated there are significant expenses to have the Oracle database do exactly what the Sybase license does; however, that is a fair comparison because the RFP never asked for the level of licensing GEAC is providing with the Sybase; and all along that has been a clear position on the County's part. He stated every time the process gets to this stage, there is a miscommunication; this has been a consistent theme; and that is a concern. He stated GEAC has made some concessions in its pricing scheme, but the County Attorney's Office advises the contract with SAP is stronger than the one proposed by GEAC; and what Mr. Ward and Mr. Roush are describing in verbiage is not what was in writing.

Mr. Ward stated he would be happy to put the verbiage in a contract; advised of his experience; and stated he does not know why the miscommunication continues. He stated he will stand behind what he stated; and if Mr. Butto cannot see the benefit of a full use of Sybase for all the ancillary departments which could potentially come into this, he does not know what to say. He stated the cost of full use license for Oracle database is at least $500,000; there is a strong preference from the Information Systems Department for Oracle; and he does not know why; but that is at the crux of this matter.

Commissioner Scarborough described how thorough and professional the Committee was; stated some of the most trusted people in the County voted unanimously for the recommendation; and it is a shame to bash Mr. Butto. He stated Mr. Butto is a professional; he asked the right questions; and staff was at its best.

Chief Deputy Clerk of Courts Jim Giles stated it has been a trial; it has been ongoing since April, 1998; it has gone back and forth between GEAC and JD Edwards; but it was a unanimous vote. He stated staff has been upset with the misunderstandings and miscommunications; SAP has the biggest share of the market; and it has the sophistication which is an advantage, but there is a complexity which is a disadvantage. He stated the Clerk's Office will need support for the hours staff needs to put in on the one project; the staff time for SAP is four times that of the GEAC project; and there is a limit as to how much current functions can be dropped.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was never a point where staff was not diligent and working hard to get to the bottom of the issue; he sat in on one presentation; and described the session. He expressed concern about the misunderstandings with GEAC.

Management Services Director Stockton Whitten stated there are a number of issues that Mr. Ward has raised that the SAP representatives can provide some answers to; and that will give staff an opportunity to answer the questions SAP has raised. He stated Mr. Ward continues to say they were scored higher on the RFP responses; but that was a self assessment by each of the vendors as to how well they met hundreds of functional requirements that were laid out for them.

Mr. Ward stated that is correct; but he is not going to say he has functionality and attach it to a license agreement, if he cannot do it. He stated on September 15, 1998 it came to GEAC doing this for $1.58 million; and now staff wants to talk about inferior software. He stated he can provide some of the largest references in the world, such as the States of North Carolina, Texas, and Utah; if the software is inferior, so be it, but it is always subjective when those statements are made; and he can document what he is saying, but he does not believe staff can.

Mr. Whitten stated on GEAC's documentation, it does not list the cost of the software at the number it was at on September 15, 1998. Mr. Ward inquired who put that together; with Mr. Whitten responding it is from Mr. Roush. Mr. Roush stated the number includes the Sybase total which is $104,000 for 164 concurrent full-use licenses. Commissioner Cook inquired why was that not in the original; with Mr. Roush responding it did not need to be put in the original because the County already owned the database. Mr. Ward stated he only found out last week from the County Attorney that the County had dropped maintenance on it three years ago; and three years from now if the County drops maintenance on whatever it buys, the vendor then will not know it unless the County tells them upfront. Mr. Butto stated members of the GEAC team knew it because staff discussed it with them; and when they talked to Sybase about the numbers, they indicated that several months ago people at GEAC/Smart Solutions had asked for this information; so Mr. Ward may not have known, but people within the GEAC organization knew. Mr. Ward disagreed.

Commissioner Higgs stated there is a unanimous recommendation from the Selection Committee; and inquired if the Board will make a decision tonight. She stated she is ready to take the recommendation.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize the Chairman to execute final negotiated Contract for an integrated financial management system with SAP America as recommended by the Selection Committee.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he could not vote for GEAC if it was $500,000 less right now; advised of the efforts of staff; and stated staff did not do a sloppy job. He stated if the Board allows GEAC to bash Mr. Butto, and then hires them, it will not work because they will be able to come back and whine any time they want to, and that is not the way to start a contract. Commissioner Cook stated he does not appreciate staff bashing; however, there is still $400,000 to consider. Commissioner Scarborough stated they are equal now. Commissioner Cook stated he has not heard from SAP, and would like to hear from the representative so he can have a level of confidence that what SAP is offering is not going to come back later and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars more. Commissioner Scarborough stated SAP has been dropped many times, but they have never come forward to claim foul or misunderstanding. Mr. Ward stated SAP put a bid in for $1.5 million, then retracted it, and raised it to $1.9 million. Commissioner Cook stated for $400,000 he is willing to stay until 4:00 a.m.; with Commissioner Scarborough advising there is no difference in the bids now. Commissioner Cook stated he wants to find out how that happened, and hear from the SAP representative that the same thing will not happen. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the difference in price is within $12,000; with Mr. Butto responding yes. Mr. Butto stated the numbers that are less are for a different level of service than what was requested and require the County to prepay.

David Knudsen, representing SAP America, advised SAP is the largest application software company in the world.

Commissioner Cook inquired if SAP does other counties in Florida; with Mr. Knudsen responding SAP has over 700 public sector installations worldwide; and the company was just picked by the State to be the software vendor of choice for human resources and payroll for all State agencies. He advised of the complexity of the State's RFP; stated SAP met 99.8% of the functionality; and the State considered all the vendors, and selected SAP. Mr. Knudsen stated SAP is in the process of implementing Orange County and Duval County schools. Commissioner Cook inquired if this is all new application; with Mr. Knudsen responding no. Mr. Knudsen advised SAP also has Sacramento County, City of Phoenix, and a lot of public sector accounts in the United States; and it is recognized by a lot of groups as having the most advanced product, from a technology standpoint.

Commissioner Cook inquired about standard versus basic; with Mr. Knudsen responding SAP only offers one type of maintenance support. Commissioner Cook inquired if it requires a phone; with Mr. Knudsen responding yes. Commissioner Cook stated GEAC is saying that is the only reason it increased $100,000 was it had to be through Internet. Mr. Knudsen stated SAP's service is through telephone support; SAP wants this to be a partnership in which Brevard County is made a showcase because it is the first county in Florida for SAP; and SAP has negotiated with the County Attorney that in the event the County, through no fault of its own, falls behind, SAP will bring its resources in at no additional cost, to catch up the project. Commissioner Cook inquired about Sybase. Mr. Knudsen responded the RFP stated clearly that Oracle was the database of choice; the RFP called for an open solution which required choice; and right now GEAC/Smart Solutions only supports Sybase. Mr. Ward advised that is incorrect. Mr. Knudsen stated GEAC is coming out with an Oracle version, but it is not out yet; SAP supports all databases except Sybase, because it is lacking an important functionality; and once Sybase comes out with a standard functionality, the software will also support Sybase. Commissioner Cook stated the other concern is the amount of personnel support. Mr. Knudsen stated sometimes it takes more work upfront to get a solution that will last into the 21st century; the SAP application may be more complex to implement; but the staff could implement the system itself because the guide provides step-by-step instructions; but with the Year 2000 problem, the County cannot take that risk. Commissioner Cook inquired why is so much more additional support required; with Mr. Knudsen responding there is so much more technology and functionality in the SAP system. Commissioner Cook inquired if SAP gets the contract at the stated cost, does it foresee any additional costs to the County. Mr. Knudsen stated the only additional cost would be the result of a change in scope or in the event the County does not live up to the staffing or deliverables it committed to. Mr. Whitten stated Mr. Roush stated if the County does not complete its deliverables, SAP would charge $150 an hour, but he did not say that GEAC has pretty much the same provision in its contract for $140 an hour; and what is different is on the SAP side the company agreed that if a delay is their fault, it will bring in, at its cost, additional consulting resources, and there was not that assurance on the GEAC side at the close of negotiations, even though Mr. Ward said something to that effect today. Mr. Giles inquired what will happen if the County puts in the hours, but still cannot satisfy the deliverables. Mr. Knudsen stated there will be a clear-cut set of deliverables the County will be responsible for. Mr. Giles inquired if the County cannot accomplish the deliverables in the time estimated, will there be additional expense; with Mr. Knudsen responding yes. Mr. Whitten stated that would also be true with GEAC; and at least there is some recourse with SAP contractually. Mr. Giles stated that is not for the employee hours. Chairman Voltz inquired what is the recourse. Mr. Whitten stated if the County does not live up to its deliverables, both GEAC and SAP will charge for additional hours; GEAC will charge at $140 per hour, and SAP at $150 per hour; and what is different about the implementation portion of the agreement is that if SAP does not deliver, those costs can be recouped by SAP paying for the additional consulting services, but as of the date of the County Attorney's comparison, that provision was not included for GEAC. Mr. Giles stated he appreciates that concession by SAP, but it has not been defined as to which is the County's deliverable and which is SAP's with a provision that is enforceable. Mr. Butto stated that would not be possible with any of the vendors until the County is further into the process where it will have planning sessions. Mr. Whitten stated the concession by SAP is largely the reason the Committee recommended SAP.

Mr. Ward distributed additional written information; and advised of failed SAP implementations including Georgia Pacific in Atlanta, the secondary education system in Georgia, and another company which is suing SAP for driving it into bankruptcy. He stated the SAP systems are very old; certain expertise is needed on site, which Mr. Butto does not have; this keeps going back to the Oracle issue; and the maintenance and support issue will go away. He stated he thought the County wanted an audit trail, so he offered basic support; there is one percentage point that separates the two in terms of cost; and he can provide other references. He stated what SAP has experienced in the marketplace could drag the County to its knees because it cannot implement within the next 14 months. Mr. Roush stated the deliverables with GEAC are known and are part of the agreement; and if he could have until tomorrow morning, he could advise whether the comment concerning bringing in additional resources if deliverables are delayed by GEAC could be added, although he is 99% sure it can be. He stated it is false that GEAC only supports one database; and advised of other database support. He stated a solution has to be in place by October 1, 1999 to address the Year 2000 issues; GEAC's solution calls for 689 days of effort on the part of the County; and advised of implementation in Volusia County which began in June and will be in production in November. He stated SAP needs 2,812 days which is a significant difference.

Mr. Butto stated part of the reason this is before the Board is because GEAC put a mandate that its pricing and contract terms were only good to October 10, 1998; and staff had to request it be extended to October 14, 1998 to meet the meeting schedule. Commissioner Cook inquired about the deadline; with Mr. Ward responding the intent for doing it by October 10 was because it was the end of the quarter and it would have permitted GEAC to roll the revenue to the 3rd quarter; it is now the 4th quarter; and he is not bashing Mr. Butto, but he and Mr. Butto disagree. He stated once he realized the meeting was not until October 13, 1998, he graciously extended the deadline, and can do it again; but he wants to know at what point he can anticipate a decision. He noted any license agreement has a contract expiration date associated with it.

Mr. Knudsen stated GEAC supports two databases; SAP supports seven or eight different databases; one of the databases mentioned was Microsoft Single Server; and Microsoft is one of SAP's customers and runs all its applications using SAP software. He stated the Aberdeen Group surveyed 25% of the live SAP installations; the average time to implement was 6.9 months; and the time allocated for the implementation is adequate to accomplish it. He stated the Gartner Group wrote a review in January, 1998 advising of problems with Smart Screen, and recommending certain companies should seek other solutions.

Commissioner Cook inquired if other areas have been contacted; with Commissioner Scarborough responding they were by multiple staff members, and then they brought the reports back for discussion. Commissioner Scarborough outlined the exhaustive research done by staff; and stated this was one of the best selection committee's he ever served on. Commissioner Cook inquired if Orange County and the State of Florida were happy with SAP; with Mr. Butto responding the ones within the State are still in the implementation process, but they are happy with the support and are on schedule. Mr. Butto stated at the time they did the original research the discrepancy in price was prohibitive; and now they see that the cost of ownership is not just the number that was thrown out.

Commissioner Cook stated the difference in going with a phone or not is a $100,000; with Mr. Butto responding the $100,000 difference was for the Sybase licensing; and the difference in the phone support and the prepayment was almost $300,000. Mr. Whitten advised that difference is $282,000; Mr. Ward said that maintenance and support issue will go away; and requested Mr. Ward quantify that now. Mr. Ward stated what he is prepared to offer is either basic or standard at the same price; there is no price differential; one was expressed as a preference because of the audit trail; and he will be happy to offer standard across the board for the basic rate. Commissioner Cook inquired where does the $282,000 come in; with Mr. Ward responding the $282,000 is based on the schedule for maintenance. Commissioner Cook inquired if GEAC is at $1.9 million regardless; with Mr. Ward responding GEAC is at $1.5 million. Commissioner Cook inquired if GEAC is back to the original amount; with Mr. Ward responding yes, with the exception of the database. He stated he did not know on September 15, 1998 that the County did not have maintenance which is $100,000 to come back on the database, make it current, and provide five years of maintenance going forward.

Chairman Voltz stated staff is saying that you did know. Mr. Ward inquired if Mr. Butto is saying he knew; with Mr. Butto responding the GEAC organization knew. Mr. Ward stated GEAC Smart Stream is $1.5 million that he explained earlier. Chairman Voltz inquired what is SAP; with Mr. Knudsen responding $1.9 million. Mr. Butto inquired for $1.5 million, can he use the GEAC system today; with Mr. Ward responding to use the system today, it would be necessary to upgrade the database, which is $104,000 for a full use. Mr. Ward stated with Oracle the County does not need a full use, so it does not with Sybase either as the two databases are very similar; and if the Board does not want the full use the price would be less than $104,000; but if it wants the full use, it will be $104,000. Mr. Butto advised for $1.5 million, the County cannot use the system.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is no way for the Board to fully understand without going back and hearing the presentations; and there was a unanimous recommendation from the Committee.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the Chairman to execute the final negotiated Contract for an integrated financial management system with SAP America as recommended by the Selection Committee.

Mr. Ward stated on September 15, 1998 the decision was for GEAC.

Commissioner Cook stated he is not going to support the motion because his obligation is not to the Committee but to the taxpayer. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to have all the presentations then. Commissioner Cook stated Commissioner Scarborough may be completely right. Commissioner Scarborough noted it was the recommendation of the whole Committee, not just Mr. Butto. Chairman Voltz stated she will not support the motion. Commissioner Cook stated it sounds as though things have changed, and the Committee is not aware of the changes. Commissioner Scarborough stated that has been happening throughout.

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

Commissioner Scarborough stated staff did not do a sloppy job; and they were extremely diligent and thorough. Commissioner Cook stated no one is questioning that, but he would have liked to have had more time to look at this because it involves hundreds of thousands of dollars.

LEASE AGREEMENT WITH COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT REAL ESTATE, INC., RE: LEASE OF SPACE FOR PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CENTRAL AREA OFFICE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to postpone consideration of lease agreement with Commercial Investment Real Estate, Inc. for space for Parks and Recreation Department Central Office until October 27, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM GUIDELINES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to postpone consideration of Tax Abatement Program Guidelines to October 27, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REQUEST FOR LOAN OF CONCRETE BARRICADES, RE: DEMOLITION DERBY AT BREVARD EXPO FAIR

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to deny request for loan of concrete barricades for demolition derby at Brevard Expo Fair.

Chairman Voltz stated the request is for loan of concrete barricades for a demolition derby to be held at the Brevard Expo Fair on November 5 through 15, 1998; and this is a safety issue.

Giles Malone, President of Brevard Expo Fair, Inc., stated they are planning to hold a fair at the fairgrounds in Cocoa on November 5 through 15, 1998; they are a 501C3 not-for-profit corporation; and a portion of the proceeds from the fair will go to Easter Seals of Central Florida. He advised of the schedule for the fair; and noted a new organization is running the fair this year. He stated one of the activities will be a demolition derby; in the past the County has helped with the public safety issue by providing concrete barricades; and requested permission to use them again.

Ernest Cowen, Secretary of the Brevard County Fair Association, stated Mr. Malone and Mr. Stottler are deceiving the public by implying they are the Brevard County Fair which has been held on their property for 14 years; the public is confused; and the reason he is present is so the Board will not be confused.

Chairman Voltz stated she already knew that it was not the same group.

Mr. Cowen stated the Brevard County Fair is a non-profit, tax-exempt 501C3 association established in 1984 which is licensed by the Florida Department of Agriculture, and is a member of the Florida Federation of Fairs; and he is a certified fair executive with the International Association of Fairs and Expositions. He stated the Brevard County Fair will not be held this year at Cocoa Expo; it has leased the Palm Bay campus of Brevard Community College for April 8 through 18, 1999; and they do not want the Board to think that the fair at Cocoa Expo is the Brevard County Fair. He stated they are proud of the reputation of the fair; they have worked hard for 14 years earning a good reputation; and they resent what the landowners are doing. He urged the Board not to support them by loaning equipment, and to make them jump through all the hoops that Brevard County Fair has done for 14 years.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Mr. Malone's group is not-for-profit; with Mr. Malone responding yes, a 501C3. Mr. Malone stated they are not trying to confuse anyone about the fair; they are putting themselves out as a separate fair; and they have entered into discussions with the other group's attorney to insure they have different names, etc. Mr. Malone stated Mr. Stottler has been on the board of directors of the Brevard County Fair and is still on the board, as well as being on the board of directors of the new organization.

Commissioner Higgs stated she indicated a lack of support for the item because this is a fundraising entity; it has always been that; and the County should not loan the equipment.

Chairman Voltz inquired if the County has done this in the past; with Public Works Director Henry Minneboo responding yes. Commissioner Higgs noted she voted against it when it was done before. Mr. Minneboo stated Mr. Malone also indicated a need for traffic control signs, and that has been done in the past at that location. Chairman Voltz stated it will not be necessary to have signs made up or spend any money; with Mr. Minneboo responding the same signs would be used as in the past. Chairman Voltz stated she has no problem with it because it is a safety issue. Commissioner Higgs stated people will be charged to go there, and this is an expense of doing business. Chairman Voltz reiterated it has been done in the past. Commissioner Cook inquired what would the charge be, if there was one; with Mr. Minneboo responding the County's cost to move the barricades would be approximately $2,500 and the cost of the traffic control signs would be approximately $1,500. Commissioner Cook inquired if in the past the County has waived all that; with Mr. Minneboo responding affirmatively.

Commissioner O'Brien noted the County previously waived this fee for the County fair, and this is not the County fair. Commissioner Cook stated it is still a 501C3 organization. Commissioner Higgs advised the County still has the cost, so it is a cost to taxpayers; if there is a service arrangement that might be proper in terms of cost, then Mr. Minneboo and Mr. Malone can talk about that and send a potential contract back to the Board for services from the County; and the Board should not take care of these kinds of things at the taxpayers' cost. Chairman Voltz reiterated the Board has done it in the past; with Commissioner Higgs responding if the County has done it for 800 years, it is still not the right thing to do.

Mr. Malone stated there will be a County Employee Day as well as a School Board Employee Day; and there will be tremendous savings to all those families.

Commissioner Cook inquired what will the barriers be used for; with Mr. Malone responding they will be used as the perimeter of the demolition derby arena. Commissioner Cook inquired if it is so the cars do not break out; with Mr. Malone responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Higgs stated the group should come up with a suitable financial arrangement and pay for them just like other groups; if it is a not-for-profit group, everyone is getting paid; the group is apparently going to give money to Easter Seals; and yet, the citizens of the County are going to pay the cost which is not right.

Chairman Voltz stated the Board can either choose to do this or take away money from Easter Seals Commissioner Higgs inquired how much is Easter Seals going to make. Mr. Malone noted both organizations are 501C3 organizations, the new fair and the Brevard County Fair; but there is a management company that runs the County Fair which is a profit making organization.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to deny request for loan of concrete barricades for demolition derby at Brevard Expo Fair. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Cook recommended Mr. Malone meet with Mr. Minneboo to work out an arrangement.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to refer the issue of loan of concrete barricades to Brevard Expo Fair to staff to see if suitable financial arrangements can be made, and return to the Board at the next meeting. Motion died for lack of a second.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct Public Works Director Henry Minneboo to confer with Mr. Malone to work out a contractual agreement for use of concrete barriers for the Brevard Expo Fair. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Scarborough, O'Brien, Higgs, and Cook voted aye; Commissioner Voltz voted nay.

Chairman Voltz indicated she would have preferred to grant the request.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - ATTORNEY DAVID YOUNG, RE: POSSIBLE NEED FOR VARIANCE FOR RON BROWN'S PAINT AND BODY SHOP

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the item has been withdrawn so they can go through the Code Enforcement process first.

APPROVAL, RE: APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to appropriate $5,000 from the Sheriff's Law Enforcement Trust Fund for expenses associated with the building activities for Halloween Fun Night to be conducted at Space Coast Stadium on Saturday, October 31, 1998, and $29,000 for the printing of the annual drug prevention calendar. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WARRANT LIST Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 12:17 a.m.

HELEN VOLTZ, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
( S E A L )