February 8, 2005

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on February 8, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Ron Pritchard, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Helen Voltz, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Reverend Jim Johnson, First Baptist Church of Indialantic.

Commissioner Jackie Colon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the October 7, and 19, 2004 Zoning Meeting Minutes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION FOR FIRST QUARTER SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider a resolution for first quarter supplemental budget for FY 2004-2005.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca requested Item V.D., Resolution, Re: First Quarter Supplemental Budget for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 be continued to the February 22, 2005 meeting.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution for first quarter supplemental budget for FY 2004-2005 until February 22, 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: RATIFICATION ON RETAINING LEGAL COUNSEL FOR CITY OF PALM
BAY AND EMS ISSUES

County Attorney Scott Knox stated when the Board talked about the City of Palm Bay and EMS issue, he indicated he would get backup counsel if he needed it; one of the Commissioners has been interested in seeing that there is some confirming opinion of some of the legal issues; he has retained David Smolker with Bricklemeyer, Smolker & Bolves to examine some of those issues; and requested the Board’s ratification of that action. He noted David Smolker is charging $250 an hour.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to ratify retaining David Smolker with Bricklemeyer, Smolker & Bolves to examine legal issues regarding the City of Palm Bay and the EMS issue, at $250.00 per hour. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: PERMISSION TO SEND LETTERS TO CITIES FOR INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENTS ON COUNTYWIDE IMPACT FEE COLLECTIONS

County Attorney Scott Knox stated he sent an email to the Board concerning the Countywide impact fee collection issue; there are several Countywide impact fees that have not been collected by the cities; it is done by interlocal agreement; and recommended the County try to negotiate those agreements.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize the Chairman to send letters to the respective governmental bodies requesting they enter into interlocal agreements with the County concerning Countywide impact fee collections. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: CITIZENS BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE

Chairman Pritchard stated he received an email from the County Attorney regarding the Citizens Budget Review Committee and its ability to request and examine documents that would allow it to conduct reviews for the purpose of gaining and understanding the structure, operation, and finances of a County department; the County Attorney’s analysis is that the Committee should be entitled to do that in the same manner that any member of the public would be allowed to do so; there was a question by the Committee regarding four items; and the Board questioned the fourth item. He noted the County Attorney’s opinion to item four is that it will not interfere with a department’s operation and County Ordinances, and it would be allowed.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was some suggested language.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated there was a resolution that came forward and he made one minor modification to it, which would eliminate the problem the Board was having.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to acknowledge the County Attorney’s opinion of the Citizens Budget Review Committee’s ability to request and examine documents that would allow it to conduct reviews for the purpose of gaining and understanding the structure, operation, and finances of a County department in the same manner that any member of the public would be allowed to do so; and adopt revised Resolution for the Citizens Budget Review Committee. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONTINUED USE OF NATURE TRAIL ON
PARCEL MCA-SOUTH-1 AT THE GREAT OUTDOORS

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board finally brought The Great Outdoors RV and Golf Resort issue to some degree of conclusion; an item it was requested to get involved in was utilization of a trail that has historically been used with electronic golf carts and non noise-making machinery; there are people who still want to use the trail; and it is now going to be with the St. Johns River Water Management District. He noted a resolution has been prepared; and he will move the resolution.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution supporting continued use of the nature trail on Parcel MCA-SOUTH-1 at The Great Outdoors RV and Golf Resort; and authorize the Chairman to send the Resolution to the St. Johns River Water Management District. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: CONGRESSMAN TOM FEENEY

Commissioner Scarborough stated Congressman Tom Feeney had hoped to be with the Board today; his mother passed away; and he will reschedule his presentation at a later late.

The Board sent its condolences to Congressman Feeney.

REPORT, RE: RIP CURRENT WARNING SIGNS

Commissioner Voltz stated she received a letter from Michael Fitzgerald regarding the rip current warning signs; the hurricanes blew the signs down; since the signs were put up, there has only been one death due to rip currents; and requested staff assess the beaches for putting up the signs again.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to assess the beaches for erecting rip current warning signs that were blown down during the hurricanes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is there any report on before and after the rip current signs were put up as to how many potential fatalities have been avoided because of such signs. Commissioner Voltz responded there has only been one death since placement of the signs in 1998.

Chairman Pritchard stated he had the opportunity to fly over the coastline this Sunday; there was a lot of wave action; he could see the rip currents; they are evident; and people need to be aware that rip currents are there and can pull them out in the ocean.

REPORT, RE: CLOSURE AND PRIVATIZING OF PUBLIC MARINAS

Commissioner Carlson stated Mark Leslie will give a brief report concerning the closure of several public marinas that are becoming privatized.

Mark Leslie stated as the Board is aware, the limited availability of public access, boat slips, launching ramps, dry stack storage buildings, boat yards, and outside storage is a serious problem in the County and State of Florida; vessel registration numbers are increasing, while public access to the waterways is decreasing; it is an economic issue as the marine industry ranks second only to tourism in the State of Florida; it is a quality of life issue as many people move to the coastal areas because of access to the water; and it is a tourism issue as many people come to the area for access to fishing, sailing, and the beautiful waters of Brevard County. He noted the County is home to many snowbirds and cruisers, who either store their boats locally during the summer and live here during the winter, or transit the intercoastal waterways to and from their destination in Brevard and elsewhere in Florida and the islands; without facilities to support these uses, the above mentioned users will disappear; a primary reason for the escalating prices of the water dependent properties is the Boat Facility Siting Element of the Brevard County Manatee Protection Plan (MPP); and when the Board adopted the MPP on January 16, 2003, a motion was carried and ordered unanimously to approve the MPP implementation schedule required by the Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) with the MPP update being at least a two-year cycle. Mr. Leslie stated in reading through the Minutes, one can see there was considerable discussion as to when to tweak the MPP or Boat Facility Siting Element; given the rapidly escalating waterfront problem, it is imperative that the Board take another look at such Element to see if there is anything that can be done to help solve this serious problem; the demand for waterfront property for non-water dependent use is insatiable; and developers have told him they would prefer to purchase undeveloped waterfront property to build their projects if they could get the permits to build the docks. He noted the Florida Senate is currently researching the feasibility of several options, including changes in local comprehensive plan requirements for water-dependent uses, creating an inventory of working waterfronts, and establishing a no net loss policy, which would prohibit rezoning to residential uses and the ability of marina owners to sell development rights; he recently invited Frank Harhold, Executive Director of the Marine Industry Association of South Florida, to speak to the Brevard County Marine Advisory Council; and Mr. Harhold discussed the South Florida marine master planning efforts and working waterfronts issue. He stated based on the information in the presentation, the County is splintered in its collective understanding of the problem of access to the waterways and working waterfronts; he recently attended a working waterfronts workshop sponsored by the Marine Industry Association of Florida; the workshop was well attended; and there were people from Monroe County, including its County Commissioners, DEP, developers, marina owners, boaters, City of Titusville staff, and Kim Barfield, a State Representative from St. Petersburg. Mr. Leslie stated good ideas came out of the discussion; a workshop, including industry and environmental folks, boater advocacy groups, developers, County and municipal planners, Marine Advisory Council members, the Legislative Delegation or their aides, and any others to be determined, should be held to get the ball rolling soon; and requested the Board unanimously recommend a forward step today. He noted there are only a few privately-owned marinas left in the County that have not been purchased for conversion to water-dependent use; inquired once the boats are out of their slips where are they going to go; stated the County has a river full of sailboats and it is going to get a lot fuller; and sailboats are not included in the MPP, but they are all over the river, they blow off their anchors, and they end up in the rocks and seagrass. He stated the issue needs to be addressed quickly.

Commissioner Carlson stated there are a couple of marinas in District 4 that are privatizing; one of them is in the small area plan along Pineda Causeway close to Pineda Landing; there are also density increases; and the public’s access is diminishing greatly. She noted she does not know if the MPP is the place to go, but the Senate report on working waterfronts has a lot of interesting ideas and new approaches to how to deal with this; Mr. Leslie mentioned a couple of those things; she would like to get the ball rolling and have staff look at the Summary Report and bring back a report as an agenda item for discussion purposes, including options; and when the MPP was submitted to the State, the issue of marina siting went to it for its basic review. She stated a lot of good communication is going on right now; and the Board needs to address the issue at some point in time in the near future.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to review the Senate Interim Summary Report and provide a report to the Board as an agenda item for discussion purposes on options concerning marinas that are closing down and privatizing.

Commissioner Colon stated she wants to make sure the Board is not planning on opening the whole can of worms and starting all over. Commissioner Carlson noted she would rather have staff look at the options; there are a lot of different tax incentives; and there are various ways to try to keep it in a working mode versus privatizing it.

Commissioner Voltz stated she will second the motion. Chairman Pritchard called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR BREVARD TOMORROW

Commissioner Carlson stated Kristin Bakke will speak about some Public Service Announcements (PSA’s) that have been developed for Brevard Tomorrow.

Kristin Bakke, representing Brevard Tomorrow, the Countywide Strategic Plan for the Future, stated the Leadership, Project Teams, and volunteers have all been busy; she is present to share one of the exciting outcomes of the public relations strategy, to spread the word and story of Brevard Tomorrow with the citizens of the community; and the outreach is the result of a number of partnerships and collaborations with the businesses and media. She noted Brighthouse Networks, that is a strategic partner with Brevard Tomorrow, has agreed to promote the Brevard Tomorrow initiative through a series of 30-second PSA’s, averaging 100 30-second spots per month for a year, including production time over the course of the year on an as-needed basis; the spots the Board and audience will see today are currently airing on nine Brighthouse channels; Bill Williams of A Cut Above Video has donated time to shoot the PSA’s; Harris Corporation is assisting with video editing; and Brevard Community College and others have provided background roll footage to wrap around the featured community leaders presented in the PSA’s. She stated Brevard Tomorrow wants to thank the individual community leaders who gave time to be part of the project; Brevard Tomorrow invites the Board to join the other community contributors by agreeing that the PSA’s deserve airtime on the County’s Space Coast Government Television channel; other Brevard Tomorrow segments have aired; and the PSA spots carry the message further into the community and showcase several of the leaders involved in the effort. Ms. Bakke noted once the Board has seen the three clips, it will agree that this is one more way to take the Brevard Tomorrow message into the community; it will help Brevard Tomorrow achieve one of its many goals of increased citizen involvement and pride throughout the County; three PSA’s follow, featuring Lieutenant Governor Toni Jennings, who was Brevard Tomorrow’s keynote speaker at its celebration last year, Kennedy Space Center Director Jim Kennedy, and El Playero’s Publisher and community leader Anselmo Baldonado. She showed the PSA’s to the Board and audience.

Commissioner Carlson stated it has been the Board’s policy as long as the PSA’s are community-based that they can be shown on SCGTV; and the proposed PSA’s are no different than the previous ones the Board allowed Brevard Tomorrow to do.

Chairman Pritchard inquired does the County do PSA’s for other organizations like Brevard Tomorrow; with Commissioner Carlson responding she does not know, but it is part of the community interest segment.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated she is not aware of any other PSA’s the County does, but it has put Brevard Tomorrow’s information in various workshops on the television program before.

Chairman Pritchard inquired does the County need a disclaimer stating Brevard Tomorrow is not an entity of Brevard County Government. Ms. Busacca responded if the Board desires that, it can do it. Chairman Pritchard inquired did the County run into a problem with the Brevard Museum of Science and History with the naming of it at one point; there was confusion among the public as to who owned the Brevard Museum of Science and History; and people assumed it was an outreach of Brevard County government, but it was not. Chairman Pritchard stated he does not have a problem running the PSA’s, but there needs to be a disclaimer.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board can move forward with it and ask the County Attorney to look into it; and perhaps it might be something that legally needs to be addressed.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated it is probably a good thing to put a disclaimer on it. Commissioner Carlson inquired does Brevard Tomorrow have to do it or does John Bober of SCGTV do it. Attorney Knox responded SCGTV can do it.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize airtime on the County’s Space Coast Government Television Channel for Public Service Announcements (PSA’s) for Brevard Tomorrow; and direct SCGTV staff to include a disclaimer stating Brevard Tomorrow is not an entity of Brevard County Government. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR BREVARD TOMORROW

Commissioner Carlson stated it has been a marvelous effort; and thanked Brighthouse for its in-kind donation. She inquired how many advertisements will there be and when will they be aired. Ms. Bakke responded Brevard Tomorrow is on nine Brighthouse stations; there are a total of nine PSA’s; the Board and audience has seen three of them; and other PSA’s feature Howard Lance of Harris Corporation, Myla Zonka with A.G. Edwards, Debbie Bradley of Hoyman, Dobson, Randy Harris with Meade Construction, Barbara Moore with Child Care Association, and Dr. Tom Gamble of Brevard Community College. She noted Brighthouse is going to average 100 spots a month spread over the nine channels for one year; and Brevard Tomorrow appreciates the Board’s additional support.

Commissioner Colon stated Brevard Tomorrow is going to assist with the Summit in March 2005; and expressed appreciation to Brevard Tomorrow for its efforts. She noted it is nice to see the different cities and so forth on SCGTV; but the residents of Brevard County want to be able to see the things the County has, such as the zoo, Commission on Aging, and services and programs available for the youth, elderly, the County’s Parks and Recreation Department, and activities available in the community; she has been trying to encourage that; and she hopes it is something the Board feels comfortable with because it is a tool that can be used to be able to inform the community.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is there a format Commissioner Colon is interested in or just talking about running information. Commissioner Colon responded an actual format; for example, the Commission on Aging being able to have a panel; and Joe Steckler would be wonderful with that and anybody else who is interested in community issues. Commissioner Colon stated the citizens are not taking advantage of the beauty in Brevard County; and the TDC has clippings, etc. Commissioner Carlson stated maybe staff could bring back an agenda item with some ideas; the County has to be careful; the PSA has to be government related in some form or fashion and something that is good for the community and their interests; but not put in commercials for eco-tourism, vendors, and things like that. She noted the County has to be sure that it has that fine line of definition. Commissioner Colon stated the County needs to have control of what is being discussed versus commercials.

REPORT, RE: PALM BAY SERVICE CENTER

Commissioner Voltz stated the Palm Bay Service Center was supposed to be finished in July 2005, but is not; the County needs to get rid of whoever is working on the project and get somebody else to finish it up; and requested staff provide an update.

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated the Palm Bay Service Center was scheduled to be completed in July 2004; it is about eight months behind schedule; there was a conference call yesterday with the surety company; and it wants to meet with County staff next Monday to discuss the issues. He noted he does not know what solutions it is going to propose on Monday, but he will advise the Board of the issues after the meeting.

Commissioner Voltz stated she is getting calls in her office saying it is irresponsible government that the Service Center is not open yet; people need to know what they are getting for taxpayers’ dollars; and inquired if the County Attorney has a suggestion.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated when a surety company is notified, it has the option of finishing the work as it is getting hammered by the subcontractors who are paid by said company; the company will tell the County at the meeting on Monday what it can do to finish the project immediately; and if it cannot do something or ignore its responsibility to finish such project, the County will have to terminate who is working on it and get its own people to do it.

Commissioner Voltz inquired can the Board make a decision at next Tuesday’s meeting; with Attorney Knox responding yes. Commissioner Voltz requested staff put the item on the February 15, 2005 agenda.

REPORT, RE: BOAT RAMPS IN GRANT

Commissioner Voltz stated she is receiving calls concerning the boat ramps in Grant, which the people voted on having; the County is collecting money and nothing is being done; and requested staff provide a report.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Board told staff to move forward on condemnation of Couch Pump property; the hearing is February 24, 2005; and the County will be able to begin to move forward if it gets title to the property.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated once the money is deposited, the County gets title to the property.

Commissioner Voltz inquired are there any soil issues; with Ms. Busacca responding staff will provide a report to the Board.

REPORT, RE: U.S. 1 CONSTRUCTION TO PINEDA CAUSEWAY

Commissioner Carlson stated this morning on the northbound side of U.S. 1 to the Pineda Causeway there was confusion and problems; construction is coming to an end, but there is still some paving to do, etc.; there were signage problems; and requested staff provide a report on what is going on. She noted there have been timeframe problems on the project with the contractor.

Chairman Pritchard inquired is the boat ramp open; with Commissioner Carlson responding the
boat ramp portion is open, but the construction onsite is not completed.

REPORT, RE: CANVASSING BOARD

Commissioner Colon stated she has to meet with the Canvassing Board today at 10:00 a.m. and also in the afternoon.

REPORT, RE: HURRICANE SEASON

Chairman Pritchard suggested the Board consider that at the beginning of each hurricane season aerial shots of the County, specifically the ocean and river coastlines be photographed or videotaped so there are before and after event documentation. He stated he is not sure if the County has contracts with whoever takes photos for the aerial books it has or if it is an activity that SCGTV could do; perhaps the Interim County Manager can review the issue and bring back a report to see what the cost may be; and it would be a good cost-effective way of managing the County’s resources.

REPORT, RE: SHORT-TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTALS

Chairman Pritchard stated Attorney Michael Minot represents some owners of short-term residential rentals; he mentioned a way to resolve some of the issues currently by providing clear direction; when the Board had discussions about the A1A corridor, it did not provide such direction; and it may have charged the consultant to come back with a report at a future date. He stated Attorney Minot alleged to him that some of his clients would be willing to liquidate their properties in single-family residential neighborhoods and move to the A1A corridor or other areas where it would be more appropriate; the Board would get out of having to figure out how it would abate their properties; and if it can avoid something by doing something, then why not.

Attorney Michael Minot stated after hearing the legislative intent discussion the Board had, Zoning Manager Rick Enos indicated he was unclear as to whether there was any motion regarding the issue of multifamily use as compared to single-family use, a multifamily zone as compared to single-family use, and the A1A corridor both east of A1A and the frontage property west of A1A; there was some discussion regarding that; but there was not any legislative intent motions made as a result of it. He stated in the event the Board was to go forward on any of those, particularly the A1A corridor discussion, and make a legislative intent motion to staff, it would give direction to not only staff but also those people affected, who then can govern their affairs in the future in a much more orderly way, including abatement, which ends in May 2005; and the consultant is probably going to go at least up to that point, if not beyond that, in producing the findings, etc. He noted the ongoing of this type of work, including taking reservations, etc. go well beyond May 2005; and if there is a geographic place where the Board has decided on a policy basis, it has now given the public an opportunity to say if they are going to be regulated in the future with amortization periods then maybe they want to consider moving from where they are to the geographic area that is not regulated. He stated if the Board indicates that is not a concern in its policy, then that gives the people directions; and if it regulates single-family residences, there will be a list of people the County would qualify, either because they are State licensed or they have been paying the resort tax, etc. Attorney Minot stated there will be a list of people whose properties would be non-conforming for a period of time; the list will grow shorter in the event the Board gives clear direction regarding the multifamily use, multifamily zone, and A1A corridor; and the County would be dealing with less people, which would be to its benefit.

Chairman Pritchard stated he thought the Board was clear that the A1A corridor on the east and west sides, and houses that front on A1A would be allowed to conduct business as short-term residential rentals.

Commissioner Scarborough stated that is true, but the Board expressed some reservations that in some places it may blend so quickly into a single-family zone that it needed to have additional information.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what did the Board do with multifamily; stated she does not know if it addressed it because there were some issues in the agenda report regarding multifamily and single-family attached; and she does not know if the Board took an action on it.

Chairman Pritchard stated Commissioner Scarborough confused him on how the single-family home could become a single-family neighborhood. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board expressed concern that in some locations the proximity may be close on the west side and it needs to be careful; its concern was going there immediately without having more knowledge of all areas; and A1A is a long strip of land. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board did not directly go there and indicated it was considering it. Chairman Pritchard inquired is the Board talking about houses that fall linearly along A1A and if they are all single-family with the east and west side of A1A as a commercial corridor. Commissioner Scarborough stated maybe there are some locations that are single-family areas to an extent they would be an exception to the rule; he does not think the Board took it any further than that; and it had some concern that there might be some areas along A1A that it did not want to apply the policy. Commissioner Carlson stated it was the proximity to a residential community or however they were laid out linearly speaking; the issue was going to come back to the Board for discussion; it was legislative intent; and the Board is going to look at an ordinance and have a public hearing. She noted the ordinance may need to be tweaked.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Board granted permission to advertise a public hearing to consider the ordinance; and the ordinance will go forward to the Local Planning Agency (LPA) and then come to the Board.

Chairman Pritchard inquired how long will the process be; with Ms. Busacca responding through May 2005. Commissioner Carlson requested staff find out how the Board is going to address multifamily and if it made any comment concerning it; and stated it was part of the agenda report, but it overlooked that part. Ms. Busacca stated staff will provide its understanding of the issues to the Board; and if it feels there is anything that has been missed, then it can bring the issue back for discussion. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board wanted to make sure the community understood where it was at and where it was going; and if there is a problem with clarity then it needs to be addressed now versus later. Chairman Pritchard stated he agrees, including the multifamily use versus multifamily zoning; there are some homes that fall into unique categories with what has happened with surrounding properties; some of the properties have become BU-1, BU-2, and multifamily, but right in the middle of them there is a single-family house with a multifamily use; and inquired how is the Board going to adopt that into the process. He stated the Board is still where it was and nothing changed; and the abatement process continues.

REPORT, RE: CITY/COUNTY/STATE SUMMIT

Chairman Pritchard inquired did Commissioner Colon contact the Florida Chamber of Commerce regarding the date of the presentation he received at the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Alliance meeting.

Commissioner Colon responded yes, and the Chamber is supposed to confirm this week whether or not someone will be present at the Summit.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING 2-1-1 DAY

Commissioner Colon read aloud a resolution proclaiming February 11, 2005 as 2-1-1 Day in Brevard County.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution proclaiming February 11, 2005 as 2-1-1 Day in Brevard County, and wishing 2-1-1 Brevard, Inc. success with its future endeavors. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mac McLouth expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution; stated the real work is done by Libby; it is a great team effort; and it has been a success story. He noted they are pleased with the support they have received from the County; he cannot say enough about what is happening; 2-1-1 is growing fast and the word is getting out; and the value of the 2-1-1 system in protecting the 9-1-1 system from extraneous calls and its utilization has been a great effort.

Libby stated most of the County departments received copies of the 2-1-1 directories; another edition will soon be published; and copies will be provided to the departments.

Chairman Pritchard inquired has the Cocoa Water Department emergency phone number been added to the directory; with Libby responding yes. Chairman Pritchard stated in his desire to drain his ditch of water and create a pitch to the inlet, he ran the ditch witch across the domestic pressure line and flooded his ditch; it happened on Saturday at 5:00 p.m.; there was no shutoff available because he was on the street side of the meter; and 2-1-1 did not have the number. Libby stated there are all kinds of utility emergency numbers now.

*Commissioner Colon’s absence was noted at this time.

RESOLUTION, RE: CONGRATULATING ROTARIANS ON 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF
SERVICE

Chairman Pritchard read aloud a resolution congratulating the 15 Rotary Clubs in Brevard County and all Rotarians everywhere in celebration of their 100th Anniversary of service.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution recognizing and congratulating the 15 Rotary Clubs in Brevard County and all Rotarians everywhere in celebration of their 100th Anniversary of service helping to build goodwill and peace in Brevard County and throughout the world. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Jean Starkey, District Governor for 52 Rotary Clubs from Titusville to Boca Raton, stated Rotary spearheaded the polio campaign in 1985 and got the world health organization involved with it, along with United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to immunize children; it is down to less than 1,000 cases of the wild polio virus around the world at this particular point; it was very hopeful it could declare its 100th year as the year it eradicated it, but it has to wait two years until no further outbreaks before that can actually happen; it is very close; and moving into its second 100 years, the focus is going to switch to issues that affect Brevard County as well, including clean water. She noted Rotary’s view is that those areas that will control clean potable water will become more precious than gold and they will control the world; Rotary will continue to expand health care, preventative measures particularly, here and around the world; it will continue with literacy campaigns; that is something that strikes here in Brevard County as well; and the statistics of the United States are that 40% of the American population read at a fourth grade level or less. She stated people at that capability cannot find or keep the type of jobs that will support them well; Rotary is moving into a great literacy campaign to help move all of those people up to a much better standard; Rotary is the largest privately-funded source of international scholarships in the world; and her District awards from one to three international scholarships, depending on the amount of funds it has, to young people who are going into graduate school for study at a foreign university. Ms. Starkey stated the award is worth $26,000; the student chooses the university of his or her choice; it is called the Rotary Ambassadorial Scholarship; Rotary is looking for fine candidates for their studies; and they are also looking for someone who would represent the District well. She noted surprisingly for such a large scholarship there are always very few candidates for it; if there are one dozen candidates it is considered a good year; that is for all of the District, from Titusville to Boca Raton and over to the Okeechobee area; and it is a life-changing experience. She stated Rotary is celebrating its 100th Anniversary as the power of one individual to have a great idea that is spread around the world and changed it for the better.

Chairman Pritchard presented the Resolution to Ms. Starkey.

RESOLUTION, RE: EXPRESSING GRATITUDE TO DAVID RUSSO

Commissioner Scarborough read aloud a resolution expressing gratitude to David Russo for going above and beyond the call of duty by saving the lives of a mother and her two sons.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution recognizing and expressing gratitude to David P. Russo, North Area Roadway Manager, for going above and beyond the call of duty by possibly saving the lives of a mother and her two sons. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough presented the Resolution to Mr. Russo.

FINAL ENGINEERING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND FINAL PLAT APPROVALS, RE:
DURAN EAST

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to grant final engineering, preliminary plat, and final plat approvals for Duran East, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining applicable jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: MARKETCENTER VIERA

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to grant final plat approval for Marketcenter Viera, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining applicable jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT WITH LENNAR HOMES FOR HERITAGE
ISLE, PHASE II

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract with Lennar Homes dated April 27, 2004 guaranteeing improvements in Heritage Isle, Phase II, as the infrastructure work has been completed. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH LENNAR HOMES, RE: HERITAGE
ISLE SUBDIVISION, PHASE III

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to grant final plat approval for Heritage Isle, Phase III, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining applicable jurisdictional permits; and execute Contract with Lennar Homes guaranteeing improvements in the Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL ENGINEERING APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH MATT WERLE, RE:
EXTENSION OF LOUISIANA STREET

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to grant final engineering approval for extension of Louisiana Street, subject to minor engineering changes as necessary and developer responsible for obtaining applicable jurisdictional permits; and execute Contract with Matt Werle guaranteeing improvements to Louisiana Street. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

UNPAVED ROAD AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT AND JANET CARON, RE: REYNOLDS
ROAD

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to execute Unpaved Road Agreement with Robert and Janet Caron for a building permit off an existing right-of-way, known as Reynolds Road, which has been constructed to the standards of the Unpaved Road Ordinance, Section 62-012. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, RE: SHERWOOD VILLAS CONDOMINIUMS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to grant preliminary plat approval for Sherwood Villas Condominiums, subject to compliance with recommendations of review agencies and all applicable policies, Ordinances, laws, and regulations. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BINDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGREEMENT WITH STEVE J. AND BETH M. HOSKINS,
JASON CARMINE UVARO, MICHAEL FRANCIS DUFFIELD, AND CARL UVARO, RE:
PROPERTY LOCATED ON SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 20TH STREET AND SOUTH
ORLANDO AVENUE, HAVING FRONTAGE ON SOUTH ATLANTIC AND SUMMER
STREET

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to execute Binding Development Agreement with Steve J. and Beth M. Hoskins, Jason Carmine Uvaro, Michael Francis Duffield and Carl Uvaro for property located on the southeast corner of 20th Street and South Orlando Avenue, also having frontage on the west side of South Atlantic Avenue and the north side of Summer Street. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BINDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGREEMENT WITH ROB ABBOTT, ABBOTT
MANUFACTURED HOUSING, INC., LEONARD HEARNDON, LINDA STRYKER,
LORETTA MIKULSKIS, AND THOMAS SCOTT, RE: PROPERTY LOCATED ON
BOTH SIDES OF U.S. 1, NORTH OF BAREFOOT BOULEVARD

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to execute Binding Development Plan with Ron Abbott, Abbott Manufactured Housing, Inc., Leonard Hearndon, Linda Stryker, Loretta Mikulskis, and Thomas Scott for property located on both sides of U.S. 1, immediately north of Barefoot Boulevard. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BINDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGREEMENT WITH FRED D. BOOZER, JR., TRUSTEE,
RE: PROPERTY LOCATED ON WEST SIDE OF U.S. 1, OPPOSITE WEST SIDE OF
RUBY STREET

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to execute Binding Development Plan Agreement with Fred D. Boozer, Jr., Trustee for property located west side of U.S. 1, opposite of the west side of Ruby Street. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: CREATION OF INDIAN RIVER
ISLES MAINTENANCE DREDGING MSBU

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing on February 22, 2005 to consider an ordinance creating the Indian River Isles Maintenance Dredging Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU). Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RATIFICATION OF EMERGENCY PURCHASE ORDER TO RENTAL SERVICE
CORPORATION, RE: CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FOR MITCH ELLINGTON PARK

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to ratify emergency Purchase Order to Rental Service Corporation for a Forced Air Trench Burner at $13,203 for three months to clear and dispose of debris at Mitch Ellington Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY REDUCTION IN MONTHLY RENT, RE: THREE HURRICANE
DAMAGED T-HANGAR UNITS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve a 50% temporary reduction of the monthly rental rate payable by tenants of T-Hangars #13, #16, and #28 at Valkaria Airport that were damaged by the hurricanes in September 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT AND AMENDMENT TO BUDGET, RE: LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to execute Contract with the Florida Department of Community Affairs for the FY 2005 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds in the amount of $478,125; approve amendment to the current budget to reflect the funds; and authorize the Chairman to execute the necessary follow-up amendments or additions contingent upon Risk Management and County Attorney approval. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT, RE: LOCAL HEALTH COUNCIL OF EAST
CENTRAL FLORIDA

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to reappoint Robert A. Klaus and appoint Joanne Masuret to the Local Health Council of East Central Florida, with terms of appointments expiring October 1, 2006. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE TERMINATION OF OWNER-CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT WITH TIM
WILLIAMS BUILDERS, ADVERTISE AND AWARD BID, AND EXECUTE
AGREEMENT, RE: CONSTRUCTION OF MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND
RESTROOM CONCESSION BUILDING AT FLUTIE ATHLETIC COMPLEX

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize termination of the Owner-Contractor Agreement with Tim Williams Builders; authorize advertisement of formal bids for construction of the maintenance building and restroom/concession building at Flutie Athletic Complex, award bid to the lowest qualified bidder; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement with the successful bidder. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 WITH EMERALD ISLAND TURF, RE: SOD MATERIALS FOR
PARKS AND RECREATION SITES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Change Order No. 1 with Emerald Island Turf, Inc. reducing contract amount by $86,127.85 for sod installation at various park sites. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO MANAGEMENT LEASE AGREEMENT WITH BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE STATE
OF FLORIDA, RE: PARCELS WITHIN BREVARD COASTAL SCRUB ECOSYSTEM
PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to execute Amendment No. 3 to Management Lease Agreement #4263 with Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida for three parcels acquired by the County and State within the Brevard Coastal Scrub Ecosystem Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF MEDICAID NON-EMERGENCY
TRANSPORTATION DAY PASS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution authorizing Space Coast Area Transit to issue a Medicaid MNET day pass in the amount of $2.50 for a full fare and $1.25 for half fare. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO PURCHASE SOLE SOURCE FROM TRAPEZE SOFTWARE GROUP,
INC., RE: PARATRANSIT SCHEDULING SOFTWARE UPGRADE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to grant permission for Space Coast Area Transit to purchase a sole source upgrade of the paratransit scheduling software at a cost not to exceed $70,000; exempt the Software License Agreement from the Board’s Applicable Law clause; and execute Software License Agreement and Software Maintenance Agreement with Trapeze Software Group, Inc. for the upgrade. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

EXTENSION, RE: TEMPORARY LOAN FROM WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
CAPITAL FUNDS TO TRANSIT SERVICES OPERATING FUND

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize two-year extension of the temporary loan of $700,000 from the Water Resources Department Capital Fund to the Transit Services Operating Fund for FY 2004, with the loan to be repaid with interest upon the receipt of State Grants, Federal Grants, and FEMA funds. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RATIFY EMERGENCY PURCHASE ORDERS TO AMERICAN FENCE AND JOHNSEN
AMPHIBIOUS MARINE, RE: REPAIRS AFTER HURRICANE JEANNE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to ratify emergency purchases on Purchase Order No. 4500029739 issued October 27, 2004 to American Fence of Brevard for repair and replacement of fencing at various parks at a total amount of $119,470, and Purchase Orders Nos. 4500030622 and 4500030711 to Johnsen Amphibious Marine for repair of docks and railings at Lee Wenner Park and Valencia Dock at a total amount of $40,604. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: SPACEPORT COMMERCE PARK AUTHORITY

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to appoint Ed Washburn, replacing Peggy Busacca, and Pat Conner, replacing Al Matroni; and reappoint Susan Cossey, Jay Schenck, and Greg Jones to the Spaceport Commerce Park Authority, with terms of appointments expiring December 31, 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ADDITION, RE: BREVARD COUNTY’S 2005 LEGISLATIVE REQUESTS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve addition of a request for amendment to Section 421-27(2), Florida Statutes, to allow local governments to make the appointments to the Local Housing Authority Board, to the 2005 Legislative Requests package. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to appoint Delores Spearman, replacing Barbara Barnett, and reappoint Cindy Flachmeier to the Brevard County Commission on Status of Women; reappoint Yvette Torres to the Community Action Board; appoint Sharon Haydon to the Country Acres Advisory Board, with terms of appointments expiring December 31, 2005; and appoint George Newman, replacing Charlene Neuterman to the North Brevard Commission on Parks and Recreation, with term expiring December 31, 2006. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve the Bills and Budget Changes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION AND AGREEMENT WITH TOWNE REALTY, INC.
VACATING AND ACCEPTING RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ACCESS EASEMENT, AND
PARK TRACT IN WINSLOW RESERVE SUBDIVISION - TOWNE REALTY, INC.

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider a resolution and agreement with Towne Realty, Inc. vacating and accepting rights-of-way, access easement, and park tract in Winslow Reserve Subdivision, as petitioned by Towne Realty, Inc.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated there were a number of issues of minor concern when the agreement was discussed previously; at this point, with a couple of minor changes, staff is ready to move forward with the item without any objections; and the petitioner has met all of the conditions that were expressed in the prior hearing process two weeks ago.

Commissioner Carlson inquired did staff go over the right-of-way issue, crossovers, and access, and has it all been qualified on how much the County was getting in terms of how much the applicant was taking in right-of-way; with Mr. Denninghoff responding yes. Mr. Denninghoff stated there is a difference of .07 acre between what is being vacated and what is being dedicated; the calculation excludes all of the easements that would be dedicated for sidewalk; there is a 30-foot easement that is being dedicated for the dune crossover on the south end of the project; and the reason it is excluded is because it is also counted as part of the breezeway requirement, so it was not double counted as part of the dedication calculation. Commissioner Carlson inquired have all of the issues been resolved; with Mr. Denninghoff responding yes.

Attorney John Evans, representing the applicant, stated after the last Board meeting, his client received comments from Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley and Zoning Manager Rick Enos; the comments have been incorporated into the agreement; he and his client met with County Attorney Scott Knox yesterday to resolve some final items that concerned the County Attorney’s office; and there is one typographical error in the agreement, which has been corrected. He stated his client has agreed to provide surveys on all parcels of land that the County is going to receive from the applicant; the intent of the agreement is that all public improvements be completed before his client is entitled to have anything vacated; the agreement accomplishes that and is at no cost to the public; and the public is adequately protected. He requested the Board’s approval.

Werner Grewe and William O’Bryan advised they support the project.

Mr. Denninghoff stated the typographical error that Attorney Evans referred to is in paragraph 8 of the agreement; it should read on the first line where the strike through was, “Items 4 and 5”; the error was striking out number 5; and with that correction and addition of the terms to provide the survey, staff is happy with the agreement.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when he was briefed yesterday, there was still concern about enjoining lots and setback requirements, and inquired have those issues been resolved; with Mr. Denninghoff responding yes.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution and execute Agreement with Towne Realty, Inc. vacating and accepting rights-of-way, access easement, and park tract in Winslow Reserve Subdivision, as petitioned by Towne Realty, Inc.

Commissioner Voltz stated she received a fax from Green International Real Estate and an email from Margaret Cronin concerning several issues; she will provide the information to Kohn Bennett; and she wants to make sure such issues have been taken care of.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS IN
BAREFOOT BAY, UNIT TWO - WILLIAM S. AND GERI REINLE AND EVELYN
AND BEN T. WISE

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility easements in Barefoot Bay, Unit Two, as petitioned by William S. and Geri Reinle and Evelyn and Ben T. Wise.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easements in Barefoot Bay, Unit Two, as petitioned by William S. and Geri Reinle and Evelyn and Ben T. Wise. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE GRANTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AD
VALOREM EXEMPTION TO MANCHESTER COPPER PRODUCTS, LLC

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance granting economic development ad valorem exemption to Manchester Copper Products, LLC.

Jim Burton, representing Manchester Copper Products, LLC, stated the Company is looking to bring 39 new jobs to Rockledge and hopeful the Board will approve the application today.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Ordinance granting an economic development ad valorem exemption to Manchester Copper Products, LLC, 435 Gus Hipp Boulevard, Rockledge, Florida; specifying the items exempted; providing the expiration date of the exemption; finding that the business meets the requirements of Florida Statutes 196.012; providing for proof of eligibility for exemption; providing for an annual report by Manchester Copper Products, LLC; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION AND STAFF DIRECTION, RE: PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES, SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL FEES, AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF BREVARD COUNTY

Housing and Human Services Director Gay Williams stated the Housing Authority is asking the Board to waive past due and future payments of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), enter into a new cooperative agreement, and exempt the Housing Authority from paying solid waste disposal fees. She stated the Housing Authority presently, pursuant to Agreement, must make payments to the County in lieu of taxes; for some time now, those payments have not been made; and staff is unable to give the Board an actual amount of past due PILT as County Finance cannot show any payment of PILT to the County. She noted staff has requested that information from the Housing Authority; the past due amount is in excess of $500,000 that is owed to the Board; the Authority is requesting the Board waive the fees, any future payment of PILT, and enter into a new cooperative agreement; and staff has provided several options to the Board. She stated the Board could grant the Housing Authority’s request to waive past and future PILT owed to the County; it could require the Housing Authority to pay past due PILT for all or a number of years as determined by the Board, and future PILT; the Board could authorize further analysis by outside counsel, as recommended by the County Attorney’s office; the County’s disclosure counsel has specialists in the area of this particular law; and the Board could consider other options if it desires.

Ron Sellers, representing the Housing Authority of Brevard County, stated he became the CEO of the Housing Authority in October 2002; shortly after taking over the Authority, he became aware of an outstanding issue regarding PILT; there were some historical issues between the Housing Authority and the County that, in the past, had not made for the most harmonious of working relationships; and initial meetings he began to have was with County staff to address the issue of PILT. He noted the Housing Authority began to do a total assessment of its inventory stock and how its current level of service met the housing needs of the low-income people throughout the County; the Authority’s assessment determined that one of the two most under-served segments of the population were affordable housing for the elderly and special needs housing for the non-elderly disabled; the assessment also determined that many of the Authority’s developments were old and becoming increasingly more expensive to maintain; and the Authority began to look for opportunities to rid itself of some blighted properties, and address the two needs it identified in its service assessment, which was affordable housing for the elderly and special needs housing. Mr. Sellers stated the Authority began to discuss the issues with other partners in the community; it began to attend Affordable Housing Council meetings where those two topics were discussed extensively, particularly the issue of special needs housing, and talk to folks from Circles of Care and Coalition for the Hungry and Homeless; it also reviewed the County’s Comprehensive Plan and saw that the two most critical needs identified in the Plan was for affordable housing for the elderly and special needs housing for the non-elderly disabled; and as the Authority begins to develop concepts for its redevelopment initiatives, it took into consideration some of the guidelines HUD had changed with regard to housing authorities. He noted in 1998, HUD passed the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act; prior to the Act, housing authorities were not allowed to be involved in affordable housing; the Act specifically removed that restriction; and not only did it remove it, but it encouraged housing authorities to become more entrepreneur. He stated housing authorities were challenged to find other means to develop income streams into the organizations to help sustain operations because the subsidy and capital fund dollars from HUD are being diminished year after year; such dollars continue to be challenged; as a result of the Act, housing authorities around the country began to look for opportunities to become more entrepreneur, but still serving the needs of the people they are chartered to do; a popular way of doing that is to remove blighted properties, but replace them with mixed finance developments; and a portion of those units will continue to be low income, tax credit, and market rate. Mr. Sellers noted low income is going to be at the same level housing authorities normally address, which is folks who are making less than 80% of area median income; tax credit units can stretch down to folks making 60% or below of area median income; the market rate units will be whatever the market rate is in the area someone is in; and County staff looked at the initial design the Housing Authority had for Island Horizons on Merritt Island, and made some appropriate observations and recommendations. He stated the Housing Authority made changes to its concept; it is trying to move forward and provide affordable housing for the elderly and non-elderly in the community; it appreciates the fact that there have been problems in the past between the Housing Authority and County working together; and he cannot speak to those problems prior to October 2002, but everything he has geared his actions toward since that time has been to move forward to solve those problems. Mr. Sellers noted the Housing Authority desires to have a cooperative agreement that would have it paying PILT as it goes forward; there are some assessments that come into question; and the Authority is trying to address the two primary needs stated in the Comprehensive Plan, which is affordable housing for the elderly and special needs housing for the non-elderly disabled.

Attorney Michael Syme of Cohen and Grigsby Law Firm, stated his firm was brought in to help the Housing Authority with its mixed finance transactions; the firm represents housing authorities throughout the country on mixed finance revitalization; it has been doing that since 1995 when mixed finance was first permitted by the United States Housing and Urban Development; and the firm sees a lot of the same problems across the country, including the non-elderly disabled, disabled, public housing in general, and the dilapidated condition public housing has been allowed to become. He noted there have been a lot of changes; the cooperation agreement is dated in the 1950’s; it is word for word the same all across the country; and it was written by lawyers at HUD in 1950, and has been sitting out there ever since. He stated the Housing Authority has been talking to County staff and recognizes there is a problem; nobody understood the cooperation agreement; for at least 15 years the Housing Authority did not make payment; and it recognizes that. He noted there is a solid waste disposal assessment that the Authority has been paying; it paid $779,000 over the last 10 or 11 years; it suggests putting aside the differences and trying to work together cooperatively to rebuild affordable housing in the County; and a new cooperation agreement could be written in language that is not circa 1950 and makes it clear that the Authority will be paying a PILT payment, as well as paying a special assessment, and other things going forward. Attorney Syme stated the Housing Authority is trying to achieve a mixed finance, mixed income community; mixed finance is the new wave in HUD; it does not require federal assistance the way the public housing did; and HUD has cut back all monies to all housing authorities across the country. He noted where it used to be funded with operating subsidy at 100% of need, now it is lucky if it sees 90%; where it used to get Section 8 administrative fees it could use to pay PILT and other things, the government has restricted housing authorities to only keeping reserves of 105%; now it has told authorities they can only use the reserves they have earned and are non-federal funds for Section 8 purposes; and there are lawsuits between housing authority organizations and HUD about that interpretation, but that is the law that stands today until authorities can get the money released and used as required. He stated mixed finance brings in new money for affordable housing; there are going to be public housing units; those are the same types of units as there are now only they will be new refurbished units; and they will be available to people at or below 80% of the area median income. He noted there will be low-income housing tax credit units; those are units where actual equity from third parties have been brought in; they are not coming from the federal government subsidy; and there are tax credits under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. Attorney Syme stated those units have to be made available to lower income people 60% or less of the area median income; all existing residents will have the right to return if they fit within the parameters, not just the 80% or below, but also the 60% or below; this can be done with private funds; and the Housing Authority is hoping for a new future. He noted it has proposed a cooperation agreement and provided a draft to the County Attorney’s Office; it can rewrite the agreement any way it desires, including the numbers; the issue can be resolved amicably between the parties; and the Housing Authority is willing to work with the County. He stated the Authority wants to move forward in the future in a cooperative spirit with the County and put the past where it belongs, which is history.

Chairman Pritchard stated he has a copy of the financial submittals from the Housing Authority, but has not had a chance to go through them; the Authority’s fiscal year ends March 31, 2005; line item 4520 is PILT for $62,290; and for this fiscal year ending March 2005, the Authority has included the payment in its budget. He noted in previous budgets that line item was not there. Mr. Sellers stated when he first became aware of this and tried to dig into the history of what had taken place, there were some changes in personnel sitting in critical seats; the Authority paid PILT also to local municipalities and was invoiced by everybody for that; at some point in time there was a change in a critical seat; and the Authority no longer received invoices from the County. He noted it was calculated, booked, and not paid; and it is on the Authority’s books as an outstanding liability. Chairman Pritchard inquired is the money still there; with Mr. Sellers responding the dollar value is still there. Mr. Sellers stated in two years he has watched the operating subsidy reduce from 6% to 8%; capital funds over the last three years have reduced from 38% to 42%; and there is not $500,000 sitting there where he could write the County a check today. Chairman Pritchard noted the line items exists, but the dollars do not.

Ms. Williams stated the County has no records of ever receiving any payment of PILT; it would not be able to bill PILT because it is based on an aggregate total of income derived; the Authority is the determinate factor of the amount of PILT that is due to municipalities and the County; and the County has not received any PILT from the Authority since the Agreement.

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

Ms. Williams stated the County has requested documentation of any payment from the Housing Authority for PILT; it has not been able to provide any documentation of ever paying PILT; the type of finance has not been very clear as to how the new developments are going to be made; and County staff agrees with the Housing Authority that a new cooperative agreement is necessary because if the developments are changing, the Authority may not be entitled to any inclusion of PILT, and may have to pay taxes like any other developmental entity based on the developments provided. She noted affordability also stands as a question that staff has not been able to secure; with the mixed financing coming in and low tax credits, there is always an option as to whether or not that development continues providing low income; there is usually some type of ratio, such as 20-60 or 80-20, for providing affordable housing; and there are concerns as to what point will there no longer be public housing or the development will be all at market rate. She stated affordability is also a question as to how much someone pays; some units are $1,200 to $1,500; and inquired is it affordable for low-income people. She noted Mr. Sellers indicated he will meet with County staff tomorrow to talk about the project; and reiterated to date, the County has not received any PILT.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is it safe to say that the County never invoiced the Housing Authority; with Ms. Williams responding it has not invoiced because it would not know what to invoice for. Ms. Williams stated the Authority would know what PILT would be; the last correspondence she received from the Housing Authority estimated an average of $50,000 per year; the line item indicates $62,290; so the County would never know what to invoice and the Authority would determine it based on the formula as to how much would be owed to the County. Commissioner Carlson inquired does Ms. Williams feel comfortable meeting with Mr. Sellers and working out the new agreement or is additional County Attorney input needed per option 3 in the Agenda Report.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated it would not hurt to have outside counsel look at it; and the issues the County does not have familiarity with are covered by the outside disclosure counsel who has expertise in this kind of financing, as well as the actual representation of housing authorities. He stated one of the lawyers in that firm is a former city attorney who represented a housing authority in St. Petersburg, so he has some background; and outside counsel could review the issue and clear the air one way or the other.

Commissioner Colon inquired is the PILT about $500,000. Ms. Williams responded it is in excess of $500,000 depending on where the County starts at. Commissioner Colon inquired what are some of the recommendations the County would be able to do with the dollars; and stated it is critical to make sure the Board is clear that the dollars are paid. Ms. Williams responded the dollars could come back to the County; the Board would decide where the dollars would go; such dollars could go back to affordable housing; and staff suggests the monies not go back into the projects that public housing has, but go through the Affordable Housing Council to make a determination and have Board approval for any project it would like to pursue. She stated staff would have liked to have worked in conjunction with the Housing Authority through the projects, but it has not been done; and the County would like the Authority to work with Affordable Housing and those Councils that the Board has set in motion.

Commissioner Colon stated there is good cooperation; Mr. Sellers is not responsible for what has happened in the past; she is sensitive to that; and she believes there will be a good working relationship between the County and the Housing Authority. She stated one of her concerns is future PILT being paid yearly so the County does not end up with the same situation as now; she is happy about the partnership being formed today; it is critical because there is a huge need; and in order for there to be a partnership, the County needs to know everything the Housing Authority is doing so they can work closely on the issues. Commissioner Colon inquired has Ms. Williams talked to the Housing Authority prior to today’s meeting; with Ms. Williams responding yes. Ms. Williams stated she had a conversation with Mr. Sellers; and they will meet tomorrow to discuss the project. Commissioner Colon stated she is uncomfortable with having the discussion take place after today; the issue needs to move forward; she does not want an instant replay of what happened in the past; and there could be dollars coming back that would serve the community. She noted the Housing Authority needs to be working closely with Ms. Williams; the County wants to work with the Authority and have a partnership; the Authority is helping the community and there is a huge need; and inquired is there a deadline that the County and Housing Authority are trying to meet. She stated she is uncomfortable with the discussion happening tomorrow when she does not have a clue what the Authority is going to be discussing versus being able to have something concrete that the Board could vote on; and inquired are there deadlines that the Board is not aware of.

Mr. Sellers stated the meeting tomorrow is not the first, second, or third time that the Housing Authority and County staff have met; it is a continuation of previous meetings that have been held; the new cooperative agreement should spell out very specifically the annual payment of PILT, as well as any other special assessments or anything else the Authority would be required to pay; the Authority’s Attorney worked with the County Attorney’s Office and reviewed the Agreement that was originally crafted in December of 1950 and amended in August of 1961; and it has not been revised since then. He noted a lot has changed dramatically since that point in time; the Authority is looking to get a cooperative agreement that clearly spells out what its responsibilities are and is written in a spirit of cooperation between the County and Authority; in a mixed financed development, only 20% of the 100% of the units are geared to be at market rate; and 20% are geared to be low income, which is folks making 80% or less of area median income, and 60% are geared to be at low income tax credit. He stated it is on a sliding scale that can reach all the way down to folks making 60% or less of area median income; there are people living in low-income units; and those currently living at Baxley Manor qualify to come back either into a low-income unit or tax-credit unit.

Commissioner Colon stated the County and Housing Authority want the same thing, but getting there is what needs to be squared away; and inquired about accountability and the Housing Authority providing the data to the County so that nothing falls through the cracks. She noted she feels comfortable that the Authority will not allow that to happen; and she wants to be reassured that it will not happen. Mr. Sellers stated in addition to establishing a management presence at Baxley Manor, he tasked his staff to do one-on-one assessments with each individual who lives in the development, including their special needs and what their needs would be to move from Baxley Manor into the new development; the assessments are updated each quarter; and he will share them with the County for its review. Mr. Sellers noted there have been multiple meetings with the residents; as the Authority gets closer to moving from Baxley Manor into the new development, any decisions it is going to make in terms of how it is going to help the residents get there will be done with the most current information; and the residents have been very receptive and supportive of the one-on-one assessment updates each quarter. Mr. Sellers stated he inherited a lot of the issues that the County and Authority are dealing with; and the goal is to develop a new cooperative agreement between the two parties to move forward and address needs that are very critical.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Housing Authority is willing to be open and talk to the County on some of the issues it is concerned about; she is happy to hear that; and inquired about the garbage issue and payment. Ms. Williams responded there have been many discussions on trying to resolve the PILT issue; Mr. Sellers indicated that the solid waste fees had been paid to the County and he was not liable to pay them; his assertion was that he did not have to pay garbage collection fees; and County staff talked to the County Attorney’s office, which indicated such fees could not be waived by the Board and should have been assessed and rightly paid by the Authority. Commissioner Voltz inquired will the issue be discussed tomorrow. Ms. Williams responded she and Mr. Sellers had not planned to talk about any of the issues, including PILT; Mr. Sellers is going to discuss his continuing project at Merritt Island; County staff will ask him questions about the project and whether it is truly affordable housing; and there will be no discussions concerning past PILT, future PILT, or the solid waste fees. She stated one of the options is to request the Board allow outside disclosure counsel to look at those items. Commissioner Voltz stated Ms. Williams indicated staff did not receive any information on anything the Authority has paid on PILT; and inquired does it mean to the cities also. Ms. Williams responded the Cities of Cocoa and Melbourne have been paid. Commissioner Voltz inquired did the Cities bill the Housing Authority. Ms. Williams responded the Authority determines how much it owes to the municipalities and County, and then it writes a check for the payment of PILT; and Mr. Sellers indicated the cities provide invoices.

Attorney Knox stated there was discussion about the special assessment for garbage; it is a non-issue at this point; the Authority has agreed to pay the assessment prospectively from this point forward; and the only issue that was outstanding was the PILT payment.

Attorney Syme stated 80% of all the new units will be affordable housing units available to people at 80% and less of the area median income; many of them will be available to people at 60% or less of the area median income; so all the units would be affordable; and everybody who currently lives within Island Horizons is going to have the unmitigated right to return assuming they are still residents in good standing. He noted it is in the Authority’s relocation plan, which HUD requires; it is also in the re-housing with the right to return that is available to all residents; those people who require assistance will continue to receive it; and those living in affordable housing will still be allowed to pay the same rent they pay now, which is 30% of their income. He noted there will be some market rate units; the goal of this mixed income, mixed financed development is to no longer have enclaves that are 100% people in public housing; the goal is to have some mix of incomes in a neighborhood just like every other neighborhood in Brevard County; and there will be some units that will be market rate units. Mr. Syme stated those units may carry rental rates as high as $1,200 a month if those units will be able to support that kind of a rental rate; there will be no difference between a market rate unit and affordable housing unit to the public; it is just how much one is paying in rent; and the units will be the same size with all of the same amenities, but those who need affordable housing will get it and pay 30% of their income. He advised 80% of the units will be set aside for those in that type of need; the question about where will the PILT payments go and where will there be tax payments is another reason the County and Authority need a new cooperation agreement; when the development is finished, some of the units will be public housing units; and they should be subject to the cooperation agreement because they are not taxable. Attorney Syme stated the market rate units are taxable; the low-income housing tax-credit units, which are available to 60% and less of the area median income, are also taxable units; there will be taxes paid in the development that have never been paid before by the Housing Authority; and exactly what those taxes are going to be is going to end up resting on what the final numbers on the units look like. He noted the Authority does not know the final units number count yet; there is a deadline of February 16, 2005 to have a low-income housing tax-credit submission put in with the State; the Authority needs to get the tax credits awarded for the development so that it can get a tax-credit investor and bring in millions of dollars of fresh money from an equity investor; and one of the things that is important is getting the zoning done for the PUD so the Authority can get its tax credits and keep moving forward. He stated it is an urgent issue for the Authority if it is going to bring in third-party money and not taxpayer money; and he is talking about hard equity coming from a third-party provider. He stated concerning solid waste disposal fees and PILT, the issues are all going backward in time, not forward; going forward, the Authority is going to pay everything; and going backward there was some question because the Authority did not pay the PILT, but it paid the special assessment. Attorney Syme noted in reviewing Florida Statute and the way the Agreement was written in 1950, the Authority should have paid PILT and not assessment; it managed to pay assessment and not PILT; they are not a complete balance, but they are close enough; and the assessment was more than PILT would have been. He stated the County and Authority are two governments trying to do the same thing for the same population; they need to get the past behind them and move forward; and the cooperation agreement needs to be rewritten so it is clear the Authority pays PILT and the special assessment on solid waste.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the reason there is a problem with the solid waste assessment is because of bond covenants. Attorney Knox stated the County cannot treat anybody differently and has to charge everybody legally. Commissioner Scarborough inquired was there something in the Agreement that said solid waste was supposed to be waived.

Attorney Syme responded the Agreement was written 1950 and there was no solid waste assessment; in Paragraph 3 of the Agreement, it specifically stated that the Authority was not to pay any special assessments; it is fine for the Authority to pay PILT; but it has to get permission from HUD.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County may have a conflict depending on what it puts in a bond covenant as to its obligation not to waive; and it has to do that when it borrows from enterprise funds as they are independent funds from the County. Attorney Syme stated the Authority understands the County’s predicament; and the Authority has paid the fees and will continue to do so. Commissioner Scarborough inquired are there any counties in Florida that have waived PILT; with Ms. Williams responding there are some, but neighboring counties have allowed the PILT to go into certain projects for three years. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to know more about under what circumstances PILT has been waived or forgiven; one of the things requested in Ms. Williams’ memorandum is that the County hire outside counsel; and he assumes it is to have the expertise in revising the 1950 Agreement. Attorney Knox stated it is more than that; he would like the counsel to review some of the issues related to the overall ability to pay as it is something his office does not know; he can believe what the Authority is saying in terms of being limited to certain kinds of expenditures; but he does not know it for a fact; and somebody would know it beyond his expertise. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is hearing legal things, requirements, and that everybody wants to have a viable, good Housing Authority; and accountability is also needed.

Chairman Pritchard stated the accounting process falls into the same category as the County did for the Sheriff’s services for Malabar and Palm Shores; it was providing a service, but not collecting for it; the same issue applies with Countywide impact fees; and inquired how many other issues are out there where the County is not collecting its due revenues from. He noted in the past couple of years, the County has begun to identify several areas where it has been deficient; it needs to address it and make sure it stops doing business this way because it shifts the burden to somebody else; somebody else pays the freight when someone does not pay; and it is amazing the County would have a billing system that would require someone to provide it with the amount it should bill them; and when they do not do it, the County does not do it, so they do not pay. He stated it does not make any sense; inquired how can the County be in a position like this, where is the accountability, and how can it have any fiscal management when it relies on someone else. He stated he wants to assure that the County is going to have a real dedicated fiscal management program that is going to hold people accountable for what they are supposed to be paying; and he is not willing to write this off. Chairman Pritchard stated the bills were due and just; Mr. Sellers said it was a line item for years; it is still a line item, but there is no money to back it up; that is not his problem; and it was a line item and should have been paid. He noted the Authority should have notified the County and the County should have billed the Authority; the system fell apart but the Authority still owes the money; now it is a question as to how far back the County can reasonably go; and the Authority alleges it has been 15 years that it has not made a payment. He stated it is a line item in the budget of $62,290; he would expect the County is going to bill the Authority for it; he is more focused on today’s discussion, which is PILT, than he is with the makeup of the composition of the housing, etc.; and he wants to be assured that the County is going to be doing all it can to make sure it is collecting everything it is supposed to be from every entity that is supposed to be paying. Chairman Pritchard stated he likes option 2. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was going to look to option 3.

Commissioner Colon suggested the Board direct staff to provide feedback on what fees are owed to the County but not being collected.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the County has outside counsel, is it going to be able to do anything within the February 16, 2005 timeframe.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Authority’s issue is a zoning one, which is separate from this discussion.

Commissioner Voltz stated one of the reasons she requested the budget adjustments be continued for another time is because there were a number of items that clearly were not identified as to what they were; she is trying to look at it from an outsider’s perspective; she requested those things be itemized and show why there are budget adjustments; and the Board needs to see exactly where it can fiscally be responsible in cutting some of the spending. She noted she supports option 3; and she wants to make sure the County and Authority can work together.

Commissioner Carlson stated she supports option 3; and she does not have any problem with option 2, but option 3 may need to come before option 2. Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands what Chairman Pritchard is saying as to the monies; if the Board approves option 2, it could always come back and amend it; there are certain doctrines that after a period of time one loses the right to collect; and there may be other policies followed by other board of county commissioners. He noted that is where he is inclined to go; he does not want to see the funds disbursed to other directions than to affordable housing for those persons who really need it in different formats; option 2 is a more dynamic option than option 3; and option 3 is going to the table and writing a good contract.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Option 3, to authorize further analysis by outside counsel as recommended by the County Attorney’s Office concerning past due and future payment of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT); and acknowledge request to enter into a new cooperative agreement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to provide information on Option 2, to require the Housing Authority to pay past due PILT for all or a number of years as determined by the Board and future PILT, and what cases were forgiven of PILT; and such information come from other counties and the Housing Authority.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is conceivable if the Housing Authority does not have the money maybe the County could direct some of the Authority’s activities with funds and how things are done; the money is there but it is not liquid; and inquired how does the County interface with the Authority without a complete forgiveness if it cannot collect. He noted maybe there are other methodologies staff could come up with; if the money is not there, then there is a problem collecting it; and inquired what has happened elsewhere and what type of things have other counties done to affect policy. He stated counties share a policy of providing housing for people who cannot afford it; and perhaps they can work together in accomplishing things.

Commissioner Voltz inquired is Commissioner Scarborough talking about past due PILT versus future PILT; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated maybe there needs to be further consideration; and there may be other options the Board wants to review.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is that what Commissioner Scarborough would rather do in lieu of option 2. Commissioner Scarborough responded if the County requires the Housing Authority to pay, the Authority is going to say the County can take that posture, but the money is not there; the Board may go back to that posture and is not abandoning it; but it needs additional information from Ms. Williams and the Housing Authority to try to work it out for the benefit of the people the County is trying to help. Commissioner Carlson inquired from this point on is the Board saying the Housing Authority will pay; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated getting the additional information and the Housing Authority paying from this point forward is part of his motion.

Commissioner Voltz stated maybe the County could look at three to five years going back that the Authority would pay. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want to go to any numbers at this time; there are different legal doctrines on how far back a county can go; there are also different concepts that can be incorporated; and he would like to see what other counties have done, if they have gone in a different direction than PILT, and have they used things in a creative methodology to accomplish tasks. Commissioner Voltz stated she does not want the Housing Authority to think that the County is going to write-off everything. Commissioner Scarborough noted the County is not doing that; and it is not a write-off at all.

Commissioner Colon stated some apartments will be $1,200 a month; the County is going to try to think outside the box; it needs to get creative; and even if other counties are not doing it, the County can try to figure out something. She noted it is not letting anybody off the hook, but it is sensitive to the fact that there might be some other options. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is all the Board is asking. Commissioner Carlson inquired are all of Commissioner Scarborough’s comments included in the motion; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes.

Commissioner Carlson stated she will second the motion. Chairman Pritchard called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Colon requested staff schedule an agenda item for March 8, 2005 concerning the different fees that are owed to the County.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Colon previously asked about EMS fees specifically and what is being collected and what is not.

Chairman Pritchard stated once the County starts scratching the surface it is going to find that there are more fees out there that are not being collected.

The meeting recessed at 11:03 a.m. and reconvened at 11:20 a.m.

STAFF DIRECTION, RE: RESURRECTION RANCH

Commissioner Carlson stated staff had a meeting with Resurrection Ranch; Planner Ryan Rusnak has done a super job; and requested Mr. Rusnak explain the issue.

Planner Ryan Rusnak stated on December 14, 2004 the Board directed staff to report on four issues relating to the current operation of Resurrection Ranch; and the first issue was the right of felons to reside on the property. He stated a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) and a school was granted on Resurrection Ranch property on April 7, 1986; subsequent to that, Code amendments prohibited the relationship with Department of Corrections (DOC) and allowance of forcible felons to reside on the property; but the relationship with DOC and forcible felons to reside on the property is a legally-established non-conforming use. He stated the second issue was buffering the current operation from the surrounding neighborhood; the Resurrection Ranch agreed on December 2, 2004, in a mediation session, to provide buffering; and if the Board chooses to rezone the property to Institutional, perhaps it could accomplish such request in the form of a binding development agreement. He stated the third issue was required licensing for oversight purposes; he contacted Doris Stivey, Supervisor for Brevard of the Florida State Agency for Health Care Administration; he asked if Resurrection Ranch had the ability to be licensed by the State, and if that agency would provide an operating license to the Ranch; and currently, the Ranch is exempt because it is a religious facility. Mr. Rusnak noted Ms. Stivey pointed out that the Ranch does not qualify as an assisted living facility because it is not providing personal activity of daily living; activity of daily living is clothing, bathing, providing medications, etc.; it is an oversight the State would oversee if the Ranch was licensed by the State; and once it would be licensed by the State, it would mandate to the County’s Health Department that it conduct annual inspections for sanitary reasons. He stated if the Ranch is not licensed by the State, there is not an oversight committee per se in the zoning regulations; and perhaps if it did not obtain licensing from the State, an oversight committee could accompany a rezoning in the form of a binding development agreement. He stated the fourth issue was the number of permissible residents based on the square footage of the facility; and staff found on a couple of site visits that there were square footage limitations based on the property. He noted the most restrictive he found was the kitchen/dining area; the Code would limit the maximum population to be 16 residents; in the staff report, the site plan Resurrection Ranch obtained in 1987 was still active; but the County has since learned from Land Development Department that the site plan is no longer active. He stated it is an important distinction because it is a non-conforming use; the Code does not allow non-conforming uses to expand in any manner; there is a potential vested rights issue because the County issued site plan approval, with the Planning and Zoning Office approving such site plan; and staff was unaware of the current operations, and relationship with DOC and forcible felons. Mr. Rusnak stated the issues, which makes the operation currently a non-conforming use, include the relationship with DOC and forcible felons residing on the property since current Code Regulations prohibit both; there are square footage requirements; and there is an assigned resident definition in the Zoning Regulations that was enacted subsequent to the Ranch’s operation. He noted the definition talks about residents being assigned there in accordance with the restrictions of the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services; the agency no longer exists; the current State department that would issue an operating license for an assisted living facility is the Agency for Health Care Administration; and the assisted living facility has language, and did at the time of CUP approval, which says it may provide food, lodging, or one or more personal services to unrelated adults. He stated Resurrection Ranch has children, but they are more in the custody of adults that reside on the property; and the children are with the adults as opposed to the Ranch providing services to the children. Mr. Rusnak stated the Board has three options; one is that Resurrection Ranch comes into compliance with current Code Regulations; the Ranch would have to end its relationship with DOC and prohibit forcible felons to reside on the property; and it would require the Board to alter the definition of “assigned resident.” He noted staff would seek that direction because it refers to an agency that no longer exists, and either altering the assisted living facility definition dealing with adults, or the Board could interpret that the Resurrection Ranch is providing services to adults and the children are there with the adults. He stated the second option would be that the property remain as a non-conforming use; the Ranch today could remain a non-conforming use because it has a legally-established non-conforming use with the relationship with DOC and forcible felons, but it has problems with the square footage of its facility; and if it comes in to Land Development Department and applies for a site plan to enlarge the facility or erect additional structures, the County has to deny the application because the Ranch is a non-conforming use. He stated if the County were to administratively rezone the property to the Institutional Light zoning category, without the changes of DOC relationship and forcible felons, the property would still remain a non-conforming use; but the County should proceed with administrative rezoning to the Institutional Light zoning. He stated the third option follows on the non-conforming use; and if the Board does not provide any action today, the Ranch could request a vested rights determination from the special magistrate, specifically pertaining to the square footage of the facility. Mr. Rusnak advised the approved site plan in 1997 provided adequate square footage for the maximum resident population; some of the facilities were constructed, but not all of them; the Ranch could request a vested rights determination to allow the non-conforming use to remain, and to enlarge the facility based on a previously approved site plan.

*Commissioner Colon’s absence was noted at this time.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Rusnak has explained all the issues, and the Board can hear from Resurrection Ranch.

Mark Leslie stated the Resurrection Ranch indicated to him that it does not intend to renew its DOC Contract in April 2005; it agreed not to accept forcible felons as residents; the residents believe the courts and law enforcement departments should be officially noticed as to the policy change; and it is a huge step. He noted in his original letter, he mentioned the lack of oversight; while the residents are excited to have the opportunity to participate in an oversight committee, they do not want to be responsible for policing the Ranch; the residents were having to contact Code Enforcement, etc.; and the relationships have changed, and there is better one-on-one ability to correct issues before Code Enforcement has to be called. He stated there needs to be some other mechanism other than the residents having to call Code Enforcement and the police; the residents are not asking for a mechanism that creates a hassle for the Ranch; they would like something proactive and positive; and maybe someone from Housing and Human Services Department can be part of the committee. He noted calling Code Enforcement creates ill-will; he intends on having good will with his neighbors; item 4 includes the number of permissible residents; and he would support a variance for a limited time while the Ranch is able to construct new facilities. He stated the residents understand the Ranch is going to need time to build facilities to meet square footage requirements; as long as a reasonable time can be established, the residents would be happy with it; he supports a population cap of some sort based on the Ranch’s septic system; and 60 people is the maximum. He noted if a sewer system was ever hooked up in the neighborhood, he would like to see a population cap remain; it is a manageable number; if the County escalated that number it could become an issue again; and he is pleased to make positive comments on the item and happy with the way things are going.

Jinger Knox stated in 1986 the definition was that the Ranch would be providing one or more personal services to be an ACLF; and inquired if the County is saying the Ranch is not providing one or more personal services, is it then considered a boarding home instead of an ACLF. She noted if the Ranch is not required to get licensed because it is not providing a service, then it is a boarding home, which it does not have the zoning to do; in 1986, the Ranch would have been required to get State licensing because it would have had to provide one or more personal services under the ACLF definition; it can become State licensed if it chooses; and the State may not require the Ranch to be licensed because it is not providing a service, but if it chooses to, based on Board direction, it can receive State licensing. She stated while she is not against the oversight committee, she has a specific reservation about it; and inquired if she serves on the committee could she be liable and sued if the Ranch does not provide a service to a resident since she is supposed to be overseeing it. She noted she does not have any kind of governmental immunity, but would be doing what a government organization would be doing; and inquired would there be consequences for non-compliance and would the committee have access to criminal records of the residents and the number of residents. She stated without the information the committee would be of no use; it would not know if the Ranch was complying or not; and inquired would there be certain guidelines the committee would go by, and would the Ranch have to do what State licensing currently requires. Ms. Knox advised there are certain requirements that are protecting the residents of the facility and not just the community; in order to protect the residents in that type of environment, there needs to be some type of guidelines; and inquired who would come up with the guidelines, who would be on the committee, and would it be a geographic determination, people who live within one mile of the Ranch, or anybody in the community who thinks they have a stake in it; and who would be the person that is in charge of deciding who is going to be on the committee and what importance he or she has to the committee. Ms. Knox stated the term “assigned resident” should be changed; if someone is in a care home, he or she is not assigned there and can move whenever he or she wants to; it does not affect them being licensed or unlicensed; and if Resurrection Ranch is going to go forward, it should have to get a site plan revision. She noted the site plan of 1997 was well above the 50% that should have been allowed in a minimum site plan review; the community is entitled to a major site plan review and the County should not allow the old site plan; the square footage should not be given as a variance as the requirement is there to protect the residents and community; and it needs to be reviewed. Ms. Knox stated the buffer should not be contingent on a new site plan being approved; it may be a lengthy process; and the community deserves a buffer as agreed to in the mediation.

Commissioner Carlson requested Ms. Knox explain the 50% and minimum site plan review. Ms. Knox responded a minimum site plan amendment can be done if it is 50% more than the original footprint; Resurrection Ranch has never had to get a major site plan review; there is a lot more protection and different traffic patterns, etc. that have to be reviewed; and the Ranch has been allowed to continue to expand well over 50% of the original footprint.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated if it is structured the proper way, the concerns would not be terribly prominent; and if the Board appoints the oversight committee as an agency of the County in the sense it is an advisory agency, it would probably come under the County’s sovereign immunity umbrella.

Chairman Pritchard inquired about the consequences of non-compliance. Attorney Knox responded it is something the Board would probably have to address depending on what way it decides to go forward; and it depends on what Resurrection Ranch is finally approved for and how it is approved as to what the consequences would be if it does not comply. Chairman Pritchard stated the County has a tendency sometimes to say go ahead and then it does not have the accountability factor come back; and it needs to start looking at things as if it is running a business and expecting the Ranch to run a business in the same efficient manner.

Commissioner Carlson stated if there is an oversight committee it would collect information on a quarterly basis or whatever is decided; it will be brought before the Board if there is a problem; and it would have to take action of some sort or direct staff to do something.

David Miller, representing Resurrection Ranch, stated the Ranch and its Board of Directors has decided in the spirit of good will to their neighbors to not renew the DOC Contract, which will expire on June 30, 2005; they have also agreed that the Ranch will no longer take forcible felons as of July 1, 2005; there are currently three out of 55 people on the property that fit the criteria of forcible felon; and a timetable needs to be worked out so such felons can transition back into the community without being penalized because they are doing well at the Ranch. He noted the Ranch is going to try to come into compliance; it does not choose to be a non-conforming entity in the County; it is going to try to conform to those two provisions; it is going to continue to strive with the Building Department to get a new site plan; and the square footage requirements that are put forth to the Ranch are not health and safety issues. He stated building a basketball court or a gym and adding square footage to the facility would cause the Ranch to become compliant; and requested once it becomes compliant with DOC and forcible felons, that the Board give the Ranch time to develop a new site plan and submit it. He stated the goal is to build a kitchen, which would seat up to 200 residents with adequate square footage.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is a forcible felon as opposed to a felon. Mr. Miller responded a forcible felon is somebody that has committed murder, robbery with a gun, burglary, explosive charges, etc.; and it is a broad scope. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is a non-forcible felon; with Mr. Miller responding someone with a drug charge, forgery, writing bad checks, etc.

Charles Boyd, representing the Board of Directors of Resurrection Ranch, stated the Ranch is willing to put in a buffer soon and is not waiting on a site plan; it is also willing to have a population cap; the Ranch will be going in for a new site plan for a dining hall; and one comment was that the population cap could only be 16 people, but the information is misleading because there is a kitchen and another building where many of the residents eat, but they are not connected to each other. He noted if they were connected, the nonconformance would go away; the plan is to build a dining/kitchen facility in the same building; the plans have been drawn; and there are major commitments on fund-raising.

Commissioner Carlson stated Resurrection Ranch does not intend to continue with its Contract with the DOC; it is not going to allow forcible felons; she does not know how the Board wants to deal with existing forcible felons and the timeline; and the DOC Contract goes away in June 2005. She inquired is it a feasible timeframe for the forcible felons; with Mr. Miller responding it will take about six months to transition such felons back into the community. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Rusnak mentioned the ACLF designation and the children issue; and the Board would have to alter the ACLF definition to allow for children.

Mr. Rusnak stated there could be one of two methods; either the definition could be altered to specify that children could be accepted as long as they were custodians of an adult or the Board could interpret the Code to mean the Ranch is providing services to adults and the children are with the adults; the definition refers to personal services; and the Code says, . . . “a facility that may provide food, lodging, or one or more personal services.” He noted the word “may” may have been intentionally placed in that definition; and the Board has some effort to look at that as “may” as the Code does not say “will” or “can”. Commissioner Carlson stated the way the language is written, it does not go by how the State’s language is written; the State does not see fit to license this facility because it does not meet its requirements; the County’s language is slightly different; and inquired should the County keep it with the word “may” or should it go by what the State says. She noted if the County goes by the State’s definition, that means Resurrection Ranch could potentially not be an ACLF any longer; the County would have to redefine the Ranch; and she is not sure it has a category to redefine it. Mr. Rusnak stated he can envision an ALF being one of two components; one component is where it obtains an operating license through the State and the State regulates the facility; the other option is an ALF could be another type of function, meaning the State does not oversee it, and it is more of a local facility; and there is the ability to look within the definition for the two paths.

Commissioner Carlson stated the one issue discussed earlier was the concern the residents had in regard to having forcible felons and children in the same vicinity; if the Ranch is willing to give up the DOC Contract and forcible felons, the Board may want to interpret the ACLF as being “may” and give it more leeway to include the children if they are associated with an adult or custodian who lives there; and inquired is it something the Ranch can live with. Mr. Miller stated the Ranch does not take children without their parents.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired would there be any social or philosophical reason why children should not be with their parents in a facility like this. Commissioner Carlson responded she cannot think of any; the issue was having felons along with the children, and concerns about their safety and lack of oversight; and the children need to be with their parents. Commissioner Scarborough stated it leads to a healthier environment rather than separate facilities. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board does not need to alter the ACLF definition and needs to interpret that as long as they are along with a custodian it should be fine; and the Ranch wants to be in compliance. She stated the third item is non-conforming use; the Ranch wants to submit a site plan; and inquired can it submit the site plan given it has an existing expired site and it is non-conforming currently, and what steps does it have to go through before it can comply in that particular point. Mr. Rusnak responded the previous site plan has expired; if the Ranch were to come into the Land Development Department and apply for a new site plan, whatever requirements it has for a full review, that is how it will conduct such review; the County could not entertain a site plan until the use becomes conforming; and the DOC relationship and forcible felons need to go away before the County could entertain a site plan. He noted it may give the Ranch sufficient time to draw its plans, work on the facilities, and time it out to meet the date; if it is the Board’s discretion, a rezoning could occur and be timed out with that; and staff would recommend the Institutional zoning and one more mediation session between the Ranch and the residents to work out language in a binding development agreement. Commissioner Carlson stated all those things need to happen to move forward in a positive way; the only thing that has not been discussed was the oversight committee; she would suggest an advisory committee and not one that makes any decisions that are going to impact the Ranch specifically, but would be advisory to the Board; and perhaps someone from the Health Department can be on the committee.

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

Mr. Rusnak stated the Health Department may have conflicts with the State; the Department is mandated to inspect a facility once there is an operating license from the State; it became apparent to him the Department is no longer going to conduct sanitary inspections because there is no mandate from the State; and he will check into it. Commissioner Carlson stated health, safety, and welfare are the issues of the oversight committee; and as long as the County has the right individuals on the committee to provide that kind of oversight to make sure everything is going as it should, that is fine.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca inquired could Mr. Rusnak put the specifics together as part of the binding development plan that has to come back to the Board; with Mr. Rusnak responding yes.

Commissioner Carlson stated someone from staff, such as Housing and Human Services, Human Resources, and Code Enforcement Departments, folks who would know the issues, representatives from the Ranch, a member of the community, and the Board could provide input on how things are operating, etc.; and staff could come back with an idea of what the layout for such a committee would be after some thought with how the County has done it in the past and other types of issues similar to this.

Mr. Miller stated the Ranch will work with Mr. Rusnak to see if it can come up with the State licensing that will fit what the Ranch is doing; if it can, it will; and if not, it will work closely with Mr. Rusnak to develop a plan that will work and is agreeable to everyone.

Commissioner Carlson stated in the zoning piece there will be a binding development plan that will address buffers, population cap, etc.; and inquired is it satisfactory with everyone and does staff want to bring the issue back after June 2005 since the site plan issues cannot be addressed until the DOC Contract goes away. Mr. Rusnak responded staff can work out language in the binding development agreement through mediation; and perhaps such language could refer to the oversight committee.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board could proceed with the zoning and binding development plan, and have them contingent; it does zoning now and does not have it come into effect until the plan comes back to the Board; and if there are rough edges, they can be worked out without the time crunch.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to proceed with administrative rezoning to Institutional Use (Light) with a binding development plan for Resurrection Ranch; and work out the specifics to the BDP, such as buffering, population cap, and oversight committee, which will come back to the Board.

Mr. Miller stated the kitchen is going to be a non-conforming use until the site plan is done and the Ranch will have to address the issue; and there will have to be a variance of some sort. Commissioner Carlson stated staff will work on it and bring it back to the Board at the same the zoning is brought back.

Ms. Knox inquired will there be a public meeting for the variance issue. Ms. Busacca responded a variance request would have a public meeting, but she doubts a variance would be issued because it would be called a use variance; the County does not give those; and it will have to be another option. Ms. Knox stated until June 2005 there will be forcible felons; and the Ranch is going to continue to receive such felons until that time. Commissioner Carlson stated the DOC Contract is gone as of June 2005; and Mr. Miller does not anticipate bringing in any other forcible felons. Ms. Knox inquired will affiliation with any jail and not just the DOC Contract be discontinued also, and is the Board going to continue to allow 60 people to stay in the facility until June 2005. Commissioner Carlson responded time is needed to allow the County to work out the issues; it has been trying to get all the groups together; the Ranch serves the community; and the County is trying to make sure it has the best of both worlds so everyone can live together harmoniously, but without having to do anything that is going to harm anybody.

Commissioner Carlson stated the County is going down the right track, but it is going to have to take a little bit of time to transition; and it needs to hold the Ranch to what it says it is going to do in a timely manner so it does not impact the community any more than it already has. Ms. Knox stated she understands, but the residents have waited a long time; the quicker the transition would be beneficial to them; perhaps the Ranch can stop accepting the DOC people and only deal with the ones they have presently; and implementing some of the changes right now will make the June 2005 deadline a lot less.

Commissioner Voltz expressed appreciation to Ms. Knox; stated the residents have worked with Resurrection Ranch; it is important for everyone to work together; and the residents have been patient.

Mr. Miller stated the Ranch agrees not to take any more forcible felons on the facility as of today; there are a couple more people scheduled to be at the Ranch, according to the DOC Contract; and their records are not anything that would be objectionable to the residents.

Commissioner Carlson inquired about dealing with other jail facilities. Mr. Miller responded the Ranch does not have a contract with any other jail facility; it has residents who have court issues; and the Ranch assists them with transportation. Commissioner Carlson inquired does the Ranch agree there will not be any foreseeable contracts with any jail facilities; with Mr. Miller responding the Ranch intends to be in full compliance as the Code states.

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

RESOLUTION, RE: AUTHORIZING APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE

Commissioner Scarborough stated he was always concerned about having two staff members in the Sunshine committee and precluding them from carrying on their administrative functions; and Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten has taken care of his concern.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution authorizing the appointment process for the Investment Committee.

Commissioner Carlson stated as the Board changes the policy to bring in community members, there are a couple of folks who will be displaced that have served on the Investment Committee well; Amy Elliott is the Assistant City Manager for the City of Melbourne; and there is another person.

Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar stated Dr. Ripple is a Professor at UCF.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the continuity of good people is critical. Commissioner Carlson stated one of those two people is her preference.

Commissioner Voltz inquired when is each Commissioner supposed to make an appointment and what is the timeframe. Mr. Lugar responded staff will work with the Board to ensure the two individuals currently on the Committee will hopefully get reappointed.

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

The meeting recessed at 12:02 p.m. and reconvened at 1:02 p.m.

REPORT, RE: ANNEXATION ISSUES

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Board requested he provide an analysis of what the annexation laws currently are, how annexations are performed, and what authority the Board might have, if any, in the area of annexation; he prepared a memorandum, which describes the two processes currently set forth in State law for annexation, the involuntary annexation and voluntary annexation; the involuntary annexation involves cities’ efforts to annex property that is not necessarily consensual on a part of the owners of the property; and under those circumstances it generally requires the consent of 50% of the property owners who are being impacted. He noted if there are people residing on the property, then there has to be a referendum vote in the area that is being annexed; in the case of voluntary annexation, individuals who own property can apply to the city and be annexed as long as they are contiguous and the property is reasonably compact; those two requirements apply in both circumstances; and those are the two basic ways to do it under State law. He stated according to the voluntary annexation law, there is an exception that provides if a charter county has a charter provision that deals with exclusive methods for annexation, then that is the method that is followed; he tried to find some counties that had such a charter provision; Dade and Palm Beach Counties have same; Palm Beach County recently enacted its provision and it requires commission approval, as well as a vote in the area it has designated as an annexation district; and Dade County requires county commission approval before annexation can be done.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the people voted on it to support the annexation could the county vote in favor or could vice versa happen. Attorney Knox responded the Palm Beach County Charter says the commission has to approve it first before it goes to the election; and the commission would have veto authority over whether or not something is annexed. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board turned the annexation down, it went to the people for a vote, and the people supported the annexation, what would happen. Attorney Knox responded if the Board structured it that way, no matter what it says and it is voted in by the people that would be all right.

Commissioner Carlson inquired has the Dade County provision been tested, and is it in use currently. Attorney Knox responded he is not sure and has not gone that far with it; he suspects it has been part of Dade County’s Charter for a long time; it is a constitutionally recognized Charter; and Palm Beach County’s Charter is relatively new. Commissioner Voltz stated it was supposed to be heard on Friday. Attorney Knox noted he is not sure what the result was and will have staff find out such result.

Steve Jack, President of Mims Community Group, stated preservation districts have worked in Orange County for 12 years; one of the projects was Dr. Philips, which was dealing with voluntary and involuntary annexations; it has worked very well; and he would like to see it done in Brevard County. He noted it takes 51% of the people to approve the annexation; annexation is going wild; Titusville has annexed within one mile from his house; and the City is impacting the residents’ way of life. He stated property owners have rights also; and reiterated he would like to see preservation districts in the County. He requested the Board review something where property owners have property rights to protect them against annexations.

Commissioner Colon requested Mr. Jack explain preservation districts. Mr. Jack responded Mims is a rural area and totally set apart from the City of Titusville; Mims has a different lifestyle than Titusville; a lot of areas in Mims have one acre, 2½ acres, 5 acres, 10 acres, etc.; and within those areas there are some places, such as mobile home parks, etc. He stated the County’s Future Land Use Map has not been updated to reflect what is happening in the Mims area; there are $200,000 and $300,000 homes being built on one to three acres; the map needs to be updated because there can be a project consisting of 26 acres with 15 units per acre in the same area; and it is incompatible. Mr. Jack stated with preservation districts, if a city wants to annex property it has to hold a referendum; and 51% of the people in the affected area have to approve the annexation. Chairman Pritchard inquired what constitutes the affected area; with Mr. Jack responding whatever area the city wants annexed.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if he has a 20-acre tract next to Titusville, but there is nobody living there, then nobody is voting; it would be Florida Statute for voluntary annexation; and Mr. Jack is talking about an affected area, which means the abutting and adjoining properties that would be impacted by something that is incompatible. Mr. Jack noted that is correct.

Chairman Pritchard stated it is the predicament the County is in with the Cocoa annexation and Canaveral Groves, which is all part of the Cocoa annexation. Mr. Jack stated the residents would like to have a say in what is happening. Chairman Pritchard expressed concern about the potential for creating enclaves; stated it becomes a question of how does the County provide a service to a piece here and a piece there with nothing that is contiguous between them; and the County could end up in that position. Mr. Jack stated what is happening in the City of Titusville was generated by the City. Chairman Pritchard stated no good deed goes unpunished.

Bobby Putnam stated he is confused and thought there was a proposal for citizens who would be affected outside of the annexation to have a vote; and inquired do they have a vote or do the council members decide within the cities if they can annex properties, and can anything be done to propose that the surrounding citizens who would be impacted would have a decision.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board will be reviewing the issues.

Mr. Putnam stated he supports preservation districts; people have moved to certain areas of the County for different reasons; many of them prefer living in the County instead of the cities; and inquired if a committee will be established on the issue. He noted many annexations are taking place; a lot of people in Deer Run are nervous about the City of Palm Bay annexations; the residents have no say; and requested the people be allowed to have a voice in the annexations.

Attorney Knox stated in terms of involuntarily annexation by a city, it has the choice of either making the decision itself and going out for a vote in the area where the annexation is taking place or it can have a vote inside the city; and it is up to the city.

Commissioner Scarborough stated whether it is voluntary or involuntary, people living in the County that are affected but not being annexed have no rights under the State law. Attorney Knox stated those individuals have zero rights.

Chairman Pritchard stated this came about because of the homeowner meetings that he, Commissioner Scarborough, Attorney Knox, and Steve Swanke attended regarding the Cocoa annexation; it is unfair; there are several hundred acres and three property owners; and it is all vacant property. He noted they asked to be annexed into the City of Cocoa; the City said sure and that it would allow them to build five or six units to the acre, which is not compatible with surrounding territory where property owners have no say in the matter; and inquired where is the fairness. He stated at that meeting there was discussion that the County would be interested in a referendum where it could put the cities on notice that it does not like this; that is why the Board is having the discussion today; there has been nothing ironed out; and nothing has been formulated in terms of a committee or how to go about it. Chairman Pritchard noted the County is looking for a clear and concise message from the community that says they want to have a say in their destiny too; one of the analogies he frequently draws upon is from his experience in Broward County; when it comes to some things, Brevard County is 25 and 30 years behind Broward County; and what happened in Broward County is what is happening in Brevard County, the choice parcels are being annexed, leaving the not so choice to fend for themselves or it has not gotten to all of the choice parcels yet. He stated the County will find annexations that will occupy the east side of the street but not the west; they may occupy the east and west, but they will not take the neighborhoods to the west; the cities will become a little focused in their annexation to develop a tax base without having to pay anything for the infrastructure that is behind the tax base; and the issues need to be addressed as a community, otherwise the County is going to end up like Broward County did with a State law that says the cities will annex the county and take this and that. He noted the neighborhoods that wanted to remain county did not want to become part of this town or that town; it created more problems; he is not sure it solved anything; and there still are county enclaves in Broward County.

Maureen Rupe, President of the Partnership for a Sustainable Future, stated the Partnership supports an amendment that will create an economically and environmentally sustainable future for Brevard County and a referendum that will give all parties affected within an area impacted a voice in their own future; and it requests a moratorium be placed on annexations until the result of the referendum. She inquired why cities can be allowed to negatively impact residents outside of their cities when they annex; stated there are planning and zoning laws to protect homeowners from a neighbor that is impacting their quality of life; thousands of people can be impacted by an annexation; and there is no protection except for lawsuits by the County. Ms. Rupe advised the County is presently in three lawsuits with cities at taxpayers’ expense; and inquired why is it unreasonable to ask for a voice in the process. She stated it would make voluntary annexations the same as involuntary annexations, except all the people impacted without a vote; the people in the cities would support the proposal; the citizens are tired of unmanaged growth and the disappearance of green space; and there are cities that cannot provide services to the residents whose properties are being annexed. She noted the City of Palm Bay offers sewer to potential annexation customers and leaves a large portion of City residents on septic systems; there are similar examples throughout the County; the problem is the inconsistency between the cities and County Comprehensive Plans; and the cities say they are putting together a task force to address the problem, but since 1980 when the State recommended joint planning agreements, only three cities have taken advantage of it. Ms. Rupe inquired how long before the League of Cities comes up with a solution, and why not have a referendum; stated she is going to ask the same question she asked when the cities opposed the Charter amendments she proposed to the Charter Review Committee; the residents of the cities will be voting on this the same as the unincorporated area, the same people who put the council persons in office; and she knows that the cost of the referendum is going to come up. She noted in 2000, when petitions were gathered by citizens initiative, it costs $200,000; in four years it has escalated to approximately $500,000; it is another example how growth is affecting County offices; and if this was a citizens initiative, the Board would be required to have a special election. She requested the Board listen to the people; and stated it is time to ask the citizens.

Doug Sphar requested the Board support a Charter amendment on voluntary annexations similar to that of Palm Beach County; he and his wife own two properties in the unincorporated areas of the County, one on Merritt Island and the other at Lake Poinsett west of Cocoa; at the Lake Poinsett property they see the City of Cocoa booming in their rearview mirror; and some years ago at a Cocoa City Council meeting, a planner stated that I-95 was a logical western boundary for Cocoa. He noted now people see that I-95 was no more of an impediment to the western march of Cocoa than the Great Wall of China was in stopping the Mongols; north of S.R. 520 and west of I-95, Cocoa is all the way out to Adamson Road; the citizens fear the City is casting eyes south of S.R. 520; and Cocoa uses its water utility as a tool for advancing the annexation agenda. He stated unincorporated property owners are told the City will bring water to their property, but first they must sign a contract agreeing not to oppose future annexations; two notable examples of the strategy include the Lost Lakes retirement community and Oleander Power Plant, both now in the City; the State Statute provision for voluntary annexations leaves nearby unincorporated residents, who may see the character of their community and quality of life compromised, with no voice or advocate in the process; and they do not have standing to seek legal remedy. Mr. Sphar noted developers are well aware of the voluntary annexation law and increasingly seeking annexation of their properties into municipalities; and the developers perceive that municipalities, eager for tax revenue, will be accommodating with favorable changes to land use designations and zoning. He requested the Board move forward with a Charter amendment that would implement the Palm Beach County method of dealing with voluntary annexations.

Jennifer Therrien, representing GroCo, requested the citizens have the right to vote in local annexation issues; stated such issues are taking place all over Brevard County; Titusville, Cocoa, and Palm Bay are some of the areas that are being impacted; she is part of GroCo, a group of concerned citizens; and they represent nearly 1,000 homeowners in the Cocoa and Canaveral Groves areas. Ms. Therrien stated the residents are concerned with their rural lifestyle that is being threatened by the annexations and subsequent zoning changes taking place because of the annexations; the residents have tried to work with the City of Cocoa with little or no affect; the City has not expressed any interest in listening to the residents, even though nearly 500 people attended the City Council meeting; the City’s response was to lock the door and call the police; and the residents thought by having a representative government that they would have a voice and be listened to. She noted the alternative was to turn to the DCA for some relief; when it looked at the documents, it decided it was not concerned with density issues; when people live on 2-½ acres and some homes in the surrounding area have at least one acre or more, it is reasonable to expect a rural lifestyle and have the ability to ride horses, etc.; but that is not what the City of Cocoa thinks; and it believes five homes per acre is acceptable. Ms. Therrien stated it takes away the rural aspect of the community, which the residents moved there to enjoy; it is something the residents should be able to expect; the City is impacting the rights of the citizens; and annexations are impacting the entire County, taking green spaces, and impacting traffic. She noted everyone is experiencing the gridlock; the infrastructure does not support the amount of growth that is taking place; it can be directly attributed to some of the annexations; and there are overcrowded schools. She stated careful consideration needs to take place; there are also water issues; it is just the beginning of the problems; and if the County wants to be another Dade or Broward County, it needs to keep marching on at the rate it is going now. She noted many people move to rural areas because they want to enjoy such lifestyle; they are not against growth, but want sensible growth and things thought out; they want the right to vote on annexations that are impacting communities all over the County; and requested the Board carefully consider what the citizens are saying. Ms. Therrien stated green spaces are important across the County; and requested the Board consider the issue and that every square foot of property will not have five or ten houses per acre, and give citizens the right to vote.

Barbara Streber stated when she was still working in Broward County and living in a nice community of 55 and over, she took her life in her hands to get out of the development and go to work every morning; it got so bad that motorcycle police officers were called in to direct traffic at the intersection to get residents out; when she goes back to Broward County, there are things that look worse; and she now lives in Grant and loves it. She noted people who may be affected by annexations on the periphery need a say also due to changes in traffic patterns and density; she supports the previous comments; and the people should be allowed to vote if an annexation involves them.

Denise Burr stated she moved to Grant about one year ago from Fort Lauderdale; in the 10 years she lived in Fort Lauderdale, it became impossible to get around on a day-to-day basis; it is not just the traffic to and from work, it is the every day quality of life; and some simple examples are going to the supermarket. She noted in Fort Lauderdale there are supermarkets every three or four miles, but one has to drive around the parking lot two to three times to find a parking space; the lines are so long in the checkout that the ice cream melts when standing in line for 20 minutes; it is hard to get doctor or hairdresser appointments; and Brevard County is heading in the same direction. She stated she moved to Brevard for the quality of life; and she wants to have a say in the quality of her life and a say in annexations.

Commissioner Colon stated the press attacks the Board for all the growth; it is unfair because it is not responsible for what the cities are doing; the growth on Eber Street is the responsibility of the City of West Melbourne; and the Cities of Cocoa and Palm Bay are responsible for whatever happens there. She noted the County has stayed quiet for too long; for the last four years the County has only allowed one development to come in, which was because there was an impact fee; it did not allow development to happen because of school capacity; she wishes the press would write about the fact that each municipality is responsible for what takes place in their respective city; and the editorial attacks the Board all the time. She stated it is not the reporter because the reporter puts what happens at the meetings; the editorial board keeps saying the Board is doing this and that; and requested the citizens watch Space Coast Government Television so they can see what is going on. She noted the Board would like to have a referendum to stop all of the annexations; it wants to make sure municipalities want the same thing as the County, which is one unit per acre or one unit per 1-½ acres; the Board wants to keep the integrity of the unincorporated area; and people need to be upset and tell the editorial board to stop lying to them because it is not the Board that is causing the growth.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board gets hammered all the time and it is always its fault for doing some of those things; when she ran for office, annexation was one of her biggest issues; it has to stop because an annexation of 500 acres ends up with ¼-acre lots; and there are terrible density issues. She noted the County is still responsible for the roads, and it gets clobbered; the cities are doing the annexations; and the County needs to work with them.

Sherry Ling stated her property abuts the annexation that Cocoa is proposing; and inquired if the County has received any feedback from DCA, as the residents were disappointed.

Commissioner Scarborough responded the County lost; Chairman Pritchard wrote a powerful letter; DCA is not reversing much and letting cities do what they please; and the County will be filing a lawsuit. He requested Attorney Knox go over the burden the County has in overturning this annexation lawsuit.

Attorney Knox stated there are three stages where the County can become involved in challenging these kinds of issues; it has sued on the annexation issue, which is pending before the Circuit Court; the second phase is the land use amendment issue, which is the one the DCA has indicated it is going to find the City of Cocoa in compliance on; and the County can file a petition for administrative review of that particular action by the DCA. He noted the standard the County has to show is that the City’s actions were not fairly debatable as determined by the City, meaning that if the City can justify what it did on any basis it gets upheld; it is a difficult thing to show; however, the County has been looking at the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and there are some issues the County can raise about internal inconsistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan as far as the new amendment. He stated a third phase that will come starting tomorrow night is implementation of the land use amendment through the rezoning process; the City is trying to have the property rezoned to PUD with a higher density than what is in the surrounding neighborhood; that is a third opportunity for the County to become involved; and if the rezoning is passed, the County can intervene by filing a suit again. He noted unfortunately that is the way things have to get resolved to challenge the PUD zoning as being inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; those are the three mechanisms available; in the case of the rezoning, that is probably the easier of the cases to prove, whether it is consistent or inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and it is straightforward.

Charles Moehle stated he came to Brevard County in 1958 and has been in business ever since then; 25 years of that business started as an engineering and planning firm; he has been one of the primary planners of many communities, including the new City of Poinciana; and there was nobody there in the 1960’s, so he understands the problems. He noted the problem is a complex one; the cities and County have been derelict in the last few years in not solving the problem; the basis is a service problem; and joint planning agreements are a vital part of that and the cornerstone. He stated the cities and County need to work together; the County has not responded to cities that have initiated such agreements in a timely manner; the City of Titusville has been trying for four years to get a joint planning agreement; and it has had a document for six or nine months before the County, but there has been no response. He noted the service areas have to be defined; it was part of the problem in Broward County; a decision has to be made who is going to provide the service, where, and how much; some of the cities have decided what they want to do but get no response from the County; and he was enthused with the Summit about two years ago, but nothing has happened. He stated the County needs to focus on it and not let everybody vote on everything, which will create chaos; but maybe it needs to do that eventually. He stated when he came to Brevard County, there were only 100,000 people; and it is a great place to live, grow, and have a business. Mr. Moehle noted people need to enjoy their property rights; the County needs to provide the services; the School Board is the most derelict of anybody; it is supposed to provide schools and education, but all it wants to do is make it somebody else’s problem and throw a bunch of money at it; and it does not address the problem properly. He requested the Board be careful about how it approaches the issue; stated the voting will not solve the problems the County faces; and the cities and County can solve the problem and not make it a gigantic morass.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if there are more home units, there needs to be more schools, roads, and infrastructure; part of the County’s problem has been when a city annexes many times it does not take the responsibility of roads; roads are impacted without the city recognizing a need too; and Sisson Road is an excellent example. He noted it is a County road; and the County was at an impasse with the City on it and some other properties around there as to the County’s inability because it had no funding source. He stated when someone lives in the city, the impact fees accrue to the city and not the County; and the city cannot use MSTU’s, which are paid in the County. He stated the County’s funding was being locked out, but the problem was occurring; it is making progress with the City; for a long time some of the issues were such that staff did not bring it forward; and there has to be a funding source for the impact that is occurring in the city, but is being pushed on the County because the city is not absorbing the road infrastructure. He noted it may not sound like a big problem, but staff was running some numbers on Sisson Road, which was $6.5 million; and inquired how does the County pay for it. He stated it can ask the taxpayers to vote themselves a gas tax or sales tax; it is asking the current residents to pay for growth; and inquired is that where it wants to go. Commissioner Scarborough stated these things are being discussed in detail at the staff level; and it would be good for the Board to see the status of where it is with the City of Titusville.

Chairman Pritchard stated Hillsborough County School Board took one mill out of property tax and dedicated it to building schools; dedicating it showed the growth part of the millage was set aside to pay for school construction; it is something the Board may want to consider and have a representative from Hillsborough County make a brief presentation at a workshop; and building a school is like building anything else, it is a building, and it depends on what level of construction is needed because of the type facility. He noted the insight such School Board has and the way it presents it would be most effective if presented to the Board; and perhaps he can get in touch with the School Board to make a presentation.

June Brown stated her biggest concern is the traffic; she moved to Valkaria two years ago to get some air; she was suffocating in Palm Bay; and unfortunately she is located where the proposed shopping center will be built. She noted she lives on 1-1/3 acres; she has great neighbors; her dog was hit by a car and died; and people travel fast down her road. She stated she has four children; if the traffic gets worse on her road, people are going to get run over; people are getting hit on Babcock Street; and the County should not allow the City to come in and take over.

Commissioner Colon stated public officials from municipalities wonder why there is such resentment; she tells them people save their money, move to an area with 1.5 acres, two acres, or five acres; they have worked their whole lives to have that lifestyle; and they do not want 80’ x 125’ lots. She noted the City of Palm Bay has 65 square miles; it is the fifth largest City in the State of Florida; and inquired why would it want more. She stated County staff will be meeting with the City in one week to review the damage that would take place if planning is not done right; the County kept suing everybody and losing; it is taxpayers money; and enough is enough. She noted if a municipality is going to come into the unincorporated area, then it needs to protect the integrity of the citizens; she hopes good discussions take place; the discussions will include who is going to pay for the roads and water, and where are the schools going to go; and acreage is everything as people do not want zero lot line. She stated all the players have been forced to the table whether they like it or not; and it is going to have a positive effect.

Commissioner Voltz stated it is not just protecting people who do not want to be annexed, but also the people within the cities who do not have a say; their quality of life is going to be impacted by some of the annexations also; and those people need to be considered too.

Esther Leitich stated she lives on James Road; she is directly affected by the City of Cocoa’s annexation south of the Beeline; the people have no one to turn to except the County; and requested the Board work this out so that some kind of referendum or voice be given to the people.

Joseph Mullins stated he supports preservation districts as it would put up a wall around the community where cities could not come in and take over; and a lot of property owners in the County do not want to be taken over and their taxes increased to build new infrastructure in the cities when they cannot support what they have now.

Beverly Sudermann stated she supports the comments of Ms. Therrien and her request for a referendum for the citizens to vote on; and requested a joint planning agreement between the County and City of Cocoa, and other cities as well. She noted Attorney Knox at a previous meeting stated, “United we stand, divided we fall”; everyone is present today united from a lot of different areas requesting support; the City of Cocoa is moving north to annex; and her home is an island in the middle of the 32 acres proposed for annexation. She requested the Board’s assistance.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is very important for the County to enter into joint planning agreements; they deal with how to handle putting the public infrastructure in; and they do not necessarily deal with the compatibility issue of how the neighborhood is impacted. He noted Commissioners are elected within the cities as well as the County; any agreement that is entered into is with the entire Board, which represents the County; it is in charge of what happens as a whole; however, the cities are independent entities. He stated the cities may opt not to enter into something that is not totally their way; the County has no way to force them; he has been pleased with a lot of progress it has made with the City of Titusville; and he will bring back a report on some of the things that are happening there. He noted he cannot report on the same things about the City of Cocoa at this juncture; until two parties want to agree, there is not an agreement; there has to be an understanding of why it is mutually in the benefit of all the residents in that area that the agreements come into play; and if they are not, then there will be a lack of funding source on the part of the County. He stated there will be a degradation of the quality of life; the cities will implode and become poor places to live because the County cannot carry the responsibility as the cities have taken the funding methodology the County needs to do what it is required to do; and if the cities are not able to understand that and appreciate it, then they are the ones who are going to destroy it by failing to go into joint planning agreements with the County.

Chairman Pritchard stated it is a lot like buying high, selling low, and making it up in volume, it does not work; the conversations he has had with the Mayor and Council of the City of Cocoa have been that the community is not opposed to the annexation, but the density; the Mayor and Councilman of the area have disagreed with the Council’s position on density; and his comment was that whether someone is in the County or City, the Board represents him or her. He noted his position is what is in the best interest of the community and the citizens; the density issue can be moot if a third individual on the Council supports the Mayor and Councilman; the people in the neighborhood have not been opposed to the annexation and it has always been the density and going from one acre and two acre parcels to five units per acre; and it is not compatible with the neighborhood.

Commissioner Colon stated it is an emotional issue; people work hard for their dream homes; this is not just numbers, but human lives are being affected; and what the City of Cocoa is doing is not acceptable. She noted the Board represents the entire County; density is the issue; the global picture is being presented today; and it is not just one area’s problem.

Ms. Sudermann stated her neighborhood put forth an amendment to the Future Land Use Map to change the density for the area at the DCA level; it was adopted by the Board; it affords the residents some protection if the City of Cocoa chooses to annex the mass quantity of land near the Beeline and U.S. 1 on the Indian River, which is approximately 32 acres; and if it annexes all the property into the City, it provides a little buffer to the residents with the new amendment. She noted there is a lawsuit between the City and the Board regarding 700+ acres; and inquired is there any way to put forth an amendment to the Future Land Use Map to try to protect the density in the area.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if somebody with 30 acres next to Ms. Sudermann wants to annex, he or she changes the Land Use Map as part of the annexation; that is what happened in the past; it was not that there was not something out there; part of the annexation is changing the land use and zoning; and there is the incompatibility issue. He noted the County is not being well received by DCA; and the only recourse is to go to court.

Ellen Plachter stated restricting annexation of the County would be to the Board’s benefit because if the County loses all of its land, the residents are going to lose their lifestyles and the Commissioners are going to lose their jobs; and the neighbors are going to support the Board in what it can do to give them more control over what happens in their areas to protect their healthy, rural lifestyle they know and love, and many generations before them created. She inquired does the Board not have any power or way to protect County land; and stated the County does not annex and try to take the cities’ land.

Attorney Knox stated the Board can make its feelings known at a city council meeting; if the city ignores it, the only recourse the County has is to sue the city either in court or at the administrative level in Tallahassee; and the other option is a charter amendment that would govern how annexations occur in the voluntary area.

Ms. Plachter stated the Board needs to be quick about this because too much can happen in the interim with annexations, etc.; and inquired does somebody from the County attend the annexation meetings. Commissioner Scarborough responded yes. Chairman Pritchard stated sometimes the County finds out about annexations in the newspaper. Ms. Plachter stated the Board does not have a lot of power to prevent annexations, so it has to get a referendum, charter amendment, or some plan to give more power to the people; when she and her husband buy property, they deed restrict it so that it cannot have more than one house per five or ten acres; and she does not know what else they can do to help.

Ralph Bird stated he supports Ms. Therrien and GroCo’s position on the referendum for the people affected by the Cocoa annexation; Friday Road would be one of the main thoroughfares along with James Road; there is quite a bit of traffic on Friday Road; and if the Brevard Crossings Mall comes into fruition, the traffic is going to be worse. He noted Wal-Mart recently opened at the end of S.R. 524; there would be gridlock in the area; he does not know who is doing the traffic studies; and somebody needs to see the area as it is bumper-to-bumper already. He stated he lives on seven acres; and if the annexation goes through it is going to be a mess.

Lisette Kolar stated a lot of people are concerned about the issues and it is not just a minority; the South Mainland is being beseeched by voluntary annexations by the City of Palm Bay; and provided copies of a map to the Board, but not the Clerk, showing a few of the large annexations the City has recently undertaken. Ms. Kolar noted she agrees that the County has no say; when developers cannot get the density they want in the County, they run to the willing cities; the annexations on the map have occurred to the south and east of the City limits, and there are many more; with every annexation comes a Comprehensive Plan amendment; and for her area the County’s Comprehensive Plan calls for a maximum density of one home per acre. She stated Palm Bay’s annexations and Comprehensive Plan amendments have increased the density by at least 50% and changed residential to commercial; on one 1,600-acre parcel, it is unknown what Palm Bay intends to do, although with I-95 running through it, major commercial seems logical; Brevard’s future land use assumed a rural area for the South Mainland; changes to the plans adversely affect the lives of thousands of South Brevard residents who have no say in the matter; and the Board also has no say. She stated thousands of people moved to the area because of the rural nature; many more have moved there fleeing the South Florida madness; now they are facing it again; and roads become impossible to travel. Ms. Kolar stated Babcock Street, from Valkaria Road to the County Line, is a County maintained two-laned rural road; according to the MPO, there are no plans or funds for the next 10 to 15 years to improve the road; the Waterstone community will add 17,000 car trips to a road with the capacity of 13,800; and the rural residential east-west roads, Micco, Grant, and Valkaria Roads will become major feeder roads. She noted with no County planned schools in the area, Palm Bay contracted for a for-profit company to provide schools; she recently read about the company’s financial problems in Lee County; Palm Bay is putting off the plan for schools for one year because of that; and inquired what kinds of schools would the children of South Brevard be offered. She stated large communities would demand urban services, such as grocery stores, strip malls, gas stations, restaurants, and possibly a mall; this is a predominantly and historically quiet, rural, environmentally-sensitive area; cities should have the right to expand their borders; but it should only be done when they are bursting at the seams. She noted Palm Bay has about 6,000 acres of undeveloped land within its city limits; South Brevard residents have come before the Board for help; and they have petitioned, objected, and provided information to DCA to no avail. Ms. Kolar stated they have petitioned the Charter Review Commission to no avail; DCA has been emasculated; there is no sense in fighting it anymore; and DCA found the 1,200-acre Comprehensive Plan amendment in compliance. She requested the Board look into it again; stated she has a petition with 300 signatures and all kinds of data on what impact the amendment would have; DCA ignored it; and the Board has 21 days to determine whether it can challenge DCA’s finding.

Commissioner Voltz requested Ms. Kolar contact her office to discuss the issue. Ms. Kolar stated Attorney Knox found two chartered counties that were able to find out how annexations could be made with a voice of county residents as part of the process; it took Miami-Dade and Palm Beach Counties too long and they are not examples of a way it is done well; Brevard County has a chance to do it now before it is too late; and she agrees with Commissioner Colon that a lot of the problem is the developers and cities, and the County has no say. She noted the residents understand that; and requested the Board give the residents a say, direct staff to generate a draft charter amendment that requires a vote of County residents on all annexations as soon as possible, and consider a moratorium on any more annexations until the County defines the method of annexation.

Commissioner Voltz inquired does the Board have the authority to put annexations on hold; with Attorney Knox responding no.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board has a limited time to challenge that particular annexation, maybe it should ask staff and the County Attorney to begin the process.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize staff and the County Attorney to begin the process concerning Palm Bay’s annexation.

Commissioner Colon stated this is the area she was referring to; inquired how many challenges have gone to DCA; and noted three of them went into mediation. Attorney Knox stated about four challenges have gone to DCA; and the County lost one and the other three were resolved with the City modifying its proposals. Commissioner Colon noted the County sounds good when it says it is going to take the City to court, but nothing happens; what seems to be working is having everybody sit down and discuss the density through mediation; the County needs to start getting things accomplished; and she likes the referendum issue. She stated the entire County would not be voting on the referendum; and it would be the unincorporated areas. Attorney Knox stated the figures he quoted were for the referendum on the Charter amendment as opposed to the actual referendum; and the referendum would be $12,000 to $24,000. Commissioner Colon stated the County can handle that; and it is waiting for the Palm Beach hearing. Attorney Knox stated the judge took it under advisement, so no one knows what the answer is yet.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Charter amendment has to come first and is going to cost a couple hundred thousand dollars; the County can look at the individual issues; and a special election would cost more.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would hope the County could work out the issues with the City; it is making tremendous progress with the City of Titusville and he is pleased about it; Planner Steve Swanke was getting information the day before on transportation issues; and staff did not have an ability to run the numbers to show where they were faulty. He noted at the first meeting there was not room for people to go inside; the police were called; the last person to speak was a County employee who implored the City to take more time to talk to the County; and the City ignored the request and went ahead. He stated perhaps the County is not winning, but he is always going to at least stand up and say, “Cut me off, rule against me, but I’m not going to sit silently by and say nothing because what is wrong is wrong”; to not even take the comments of staff or provide staff information in a timely manner is not the way to do business; and one can blame the County as much as he or she wants to, but he is not going to take the blame. He stated cities have a responsibility to come to the County in a timely manner and say they have an annexation request, would like to provide all the information, and get a report from the County; and noted if cities were doing that then the Board would not be discussing the issue today.

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

Commissioner Colon inquired is the joint planning agreement part of discussing annexation; with Chairman Pritchard responding it should be. Commissioner Colon stated if the cities want to annex, it would be nice for the County to know that instead of reading it in the newspaper; that is what a joint planning agreement is; the County only has three of them; and the cities have been guilty concerning communications, and she hopes it changes. Chairman Pritchard stated the County needs to let the cities know what its position is on what they are doing so they will perhaps voluntarily come to the table; he is not sure it is going to work; and it may be wishful thinking.

Commissioner Carlson stated the law favors the cities, so there is no reason for them to go anywhere else. Chairman Pritchard stated that is right, and as long as it does, the cities are going to continue; the annexation part needs to be addressed by the County separately from the density part; if people do not have a problem with being annexed, but have a problem with density and the affect it has on their lifestyle, then the County is looking at two separate issues; and one of the concerns he mentioned earlier is enclaves.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Palm Bay created enclaves with this one annexation; the County talks about the problem with enclaves, but the law favors the annexation; the joint planning agreements have the County consenting to and encouraging the cities to annex enclaves; and the County is trying to encourage the cities to take the enclaves because it becomes difficult to service people who live in enclaves. Commissioner Carlson stated the County is not allowed to create enclaves; Florida Statutes strictly defines it; and DCA is asleep at the wheel if it is allowing that sort of thing to happen.

Vicki Benoit stated she lives in Micco; the County cannot stop annexations; perhaps it needs to incorporate the unincorporated areas into one big large part of the County; and the cities cannot come after the County then. She noted density is an issue, but the whole thing is about money; if the whole area of Brevard County is incorporated it cannot be annexed by Palm Bay, Titusville, Cocoa, etc. because it is part of a corporation; and that may be the way to go.

Laura Ward stated the annexation issue has been going on for a long time and something needs to be done; the State law left out two of the parties most involved when it created the annexation laws; one of the parties is the County; and it is charged with fixing all the problems that are created by other people taking annexation actions. She noted the other parties left out are the people who live in the unincorporated areas; they are the most affected by actions taken by another party and have no vote in electing; the Board has a remedy; and that is an amendment to the County Charter that allows the citizens to decide how annexations are going to be handled. She stated it is important for the County to use that remedy to right something that is wrong; joint planning agreements are not the answer because there is nothing to compel any of the two parties to agree to agree; such agreements frequently do not address the most serious problems involved with annexations and address other things; and sometimes she hears discussion that the State legislative scheme had set the laws up this way so that decision-making would devolve to the most local form of government, which is municipalities. Ms. Ward stated the State left out the part that says the County is the people’s most local form of government; the Board has the opportunity to correct the problem with the State laws; there is something fundamentally wrong about people who are the most impacted by an action having no say about what happens to them; and requested the Board move forward to correct the problem.

Frances Putnam stated she lives in Valkaria; and expressed appreciation to the Board for looking into the annexation issues. She noted the people know the Board has the citizens’ best interest in mind; and she wishes Commissioner Colon the best of luck with Palm Bay. She stated during one City meeting, it rezoned eight large parcels of property and thanked the developer for building the Beltway; and the Council rezoned a couple more parcels the developer had plans for. She noted one citizen stood up to speak and the Mayor blew him off; however, Ken Greene addressed the gentleman’s concern about traffic. She noted in addition to land density issues, she has economic development concerns, including growth and developers building on small parcels; and inquired where will all the people work. She stated some people make minimum wage in the service industry; she does not see any plans of bringing large industry in for more professional jobs; she does not want to see her children working two or three jobs in order to buy a home in Brevard County; and she supports having a joint planning agreement with the City of Palm Bay and hopes the County is able to do that. Ms. Putnam noted in addition to supporting the citizen vote, she hopes there will be something provided prior to the vote that gives people an outline or report if a city is proposing annexation how it is going to support it, what will the development plans be long and short-term; and inquired how long will the Charter amendment take.

Attorney Knox responded if the Board adopts a resolution calling the special election, it requires at least 60 days notice to the Supervisor of Elections. He stated if people think it is difficult to stop annexations, they should try to get the whole County incorporated, which requires an act of the Legislature and a referendum. Chairman Pritchard noted it would be like herding cats.

Charlene Terry stated she lives in Grant; if the County thinks it has problems now, think what is going to happen in the next five to ten years; the Indians are coming and it is not going to stop them; the people are coming to Florida; and people from South Florida are moving to Brevard County. She noted the problem is going to get bigger; the Board and citizens present today are on the same page; she does not hear too much controversy; and wished the Board the best and requested its assistance and support on the annexation and density issues.

Kathy Kohler stated she has lived in Brevard County since 1948; she received a phone call last night telling her there is a possibility of Grant being annexed into Palm Bay; so she came to the meeting today to educate herself; and she needs basic information as to what action she can take with the issues that have been put before the people.

Chairman Pritchard stated Ms. Kohler is off to a good start, being here today and listening to what is going on. Ms. Kohler stated she would like to be able to continue to have more intelligent and correct information so she can share it with her neighbors and other property holders.

Chairman Pritchard inquired has Grant ever proposed incorporation; with Commissioner Voltz responding it is in the process of doing that right now, and she has a meeting with representatives in her office. Commissioner Voltz stated Ms. Kohler is welcome to attend that meeting.

Bill Myers stated on most issues he respects that the Commissioners were elected to represent the people; if they do not make the right decisions all the time, then the citizens have the opportunity to vote them out; there are major issues where the Board affects a lot of people and the quality of life; it should let the people have a vote on what is going on; and annexation is one of those issues. He noted Cocoa Beach recently attempted to annex Snug Harbor and some of the County land south of Cocoa Beach; the straw votes indicated strongly that the people did not want to be annexed, but Cocoa Beach spent $30,000 to $40,000 of taxpayers’ money on consultants and had the referendum anyway; the people voted against it; and the residents of Snug Harbor had the opportunity to vote on it, but the citizens in Cocoa Beach did not. He stated people in a city should have the right to vote; there are a lot of issues, including roads, sewers, and police and fire protection; south of Snug Harbor there was another adult entertainment club; and the City of Cocoa Beach already has four adult entertainment establishments, which the residents are trying to get rid of. He noted once such establishments are in, they are hard to get rid of; the residents did not want to inherit another one; they did not get a chance to vote on it; and between Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral there was an enclave and Cape Canaveral wanted to annex them. He stated the residents were given the opportunity to vote; a lot of people are concerned about annexations and the growth that is taking place in the County; the Board has an opportunity to put the issue on the ballot in November 2005; and he supports a moratorium on annexations.

Barbara Buzzo thanked the Board for its quick response when the residents needed information, input, and guidance; stated she is a former Broward County resident; and requested the Board support a referendum so there can be an amendment to the Charter and if necessary, go to the State Legislature regarding the annexation issue so that counties have required timeframes in which to respond rather than reading about annexations in the newspaper. She noted the County has been on a reaction mode instead of an action mode; it has always been behind the 8-ball; the County’s property is being traded for someone else’s profit; and it is unacceptable. She stated the residents have saved money their whole lives for what they have; it is about to be taken away and changed forever; the Mayor of the City of Cocoa requested an oversight and review committee regarding the City’s budget; and he was voted down. She noted the City cannot take care of what it has; and inquired why should the citizens think the City will take proper care of what it develops. She stated taxes will increase to take care of what the City has gobbled up; and it is not fair to the citizens or the County.

Barbara Bowman stated she is the daughter of former Broward County Commissioner Pat Brown; the residents do not want Brevard County to be another Broward County; Valkaria got its name from the Valkyries, believed to be the Norse goddesses who took dying soldiers from the battlefield to Valhalla; that is what Valkaria is to the residents, it is their heaven; and they want to keep it that way. She noted the citizens are entrusting their faith and hope in the Board and hope it does the right thing; and they appreciate the Board’s consideration.

Beverly Pinyerd stated she lives off the Viera East Golf Course; she and her neighbors were shocked that their little piece of the Golf Course is part of Rockledge city limits; they do not want to live in Rockledge; and the developers never told them they were within Rockledge city limits, which adds another layer of taxes on them and services they do not use because it is closer to go to Wickham Road to shop. She noted many people who have moved here from somewhere else want to be the last ones to come and want the door closed after they have arrived; it is unfair; there does not need to be increases in density; and she has served on the Planning and Zoning Board when many parcels were rezoned and resulted in an increase in density. She stated citizens tried to get their points across with the Charter Review Commission; members serving on such Commission were against trying to restrain growth; the last resort was the EELS amendment, which people resoundingly supported by 70%; and she is against sprawl. She noted if somebody owns an orchard or citrus grove, which is zoned agricultural, and it is not producing, the County does not have an obligation to let them subdivide the property into seven homes per acre; it does not owe them to make some kind of profit off of their land; all seven members of the Planning and Zoning Board were in favor of restraining growth when she was on said Board; and the present Planning and Zoning Board members are in favor of growth and the developers. Ms. Pinyerd stated at yesterday’s Planning and Zoning Board meeting the votes were 10:1; 10 members were in favor of increasing density; the one member holding back was the School Board representative; and it is unfair and going against the wishes of the people. She noted the annexation amendment is one small step in the right direction.

Robert Meighan stated there has been discussion about people and cities that are responsible for causing things; they are not accountable for what they do; they take an area and develop it, but they are not accountable to the citizens that already live there; and people living there now are the community, not the planned thousand new homes that are going to be built. He noted there is not a mechanism for the community to have a say in this as they should; as an American citizen, the most appropriate way to hold somebody accountable is to vote on something; there is no method to hold anybody accountable for how they plan on changing and developing the future here; and he strongly supports an initiative that will allow the citizens of Brevard County to decide what the future will be and not people outside of the County buying property, developing it, making money off of it, and not living here.

Don Page stated he lives in Titusville; the City is looking at several thousand acres for annexation; he is in favor of any referendum that will put some kind of controls on annexation; and it is unfortunate that the previous Charter Review Commission was stacked with so many pro-development/pro-builders because there were several good suggestions for referendum items that were turned down by such Commission. He noted he will willingly volunteer to be on any kind of committee or commission to review the annexation issue.

Commissioner Colon stated in the last four years the Board was responsible and concerned with school capacity; it did not give free reign to anyone to come into the community and develop; the first one it considered was based on school impact fees coming in; and other items were already rezoned and included site plans and things of smaller magnitude. She noted the Board looked at the school capacity chart, where a school was going to be impacted, and would say no as more work needed to be done, etc.; and it was more responsible than its neighbors.

Commissioner Carlson stated the County was doing that, but the cities were not; they were not abiding by the same rules the County was in terms of school capacity; it might have been an issue for joint planning agreements or not; but one would expect to see something occur from the city level to come forward and say look at what the County is doing. She noted the cities are as impacted, if not more, by capacity issues and schools; everyone is impacted that way; it was the obvious thing she saw throughout the last couple of years with the capacity issues in front of the County that the cities have never bothered to look at; and they have continued to build as they have always built and deal with those issues as they have always dealt with them. She stated it would have been nice if everyone could have done it throughout the County and municipalities; maybe the County could have seen some sort of benefit from it; it has been responsible; and inquired can the cities be more responsible.

Commissioner Colon stated she is proud of the last four years of what the Board has done and being responsible; it gets no credit from the media; her Planning and Zoning Board appointees have nothing to do with industry; Mr. Frink is a former president of the NAACP; and Evelyn Morrison lives by Trail Haven and reiterated she has no ties with the industry. She noted the Charter Review Commission held meetings sometimes until 12:00 midnight and 1:00 a.m.; such Commission was put together to have one year to decide what was going to go on the Charter ballot; the Board was not supposed to be deviating from it; and it was to take the recommendations of such Commission and put them on the referendum. She stated out of 40 recommendations there were people who felt some items needed to come before the Board for approval, even though the Commission did not approve them; the Board was uncomfortable with it; and she is not comfortable putting a referendum on the ballot that is going to cost $500,000 when the Board does not know if it has any teeth in it since a similar issue is being challenged in the Palm Beach court system. Commissioner Colon noted she is in favor of going through the process and allowing the citizens to have an opportunity to vote.

Commissioner Carlson stated it was her understanding that advisory board members have an orientation with staff; Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca told her it is only if the orientation is requested; every person who sits on an advisory board can have a setup orientation to see the big picture; and some of the votes coming out of the Planning and Zoning Board may be because the members do not know all of the information the Commissioners know. She noted it would be good to have each advisory board member go through an orientation to see the big picture; and perhaps it will assist them in looking at the capacity issues.

Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Frink and Ms. Morrison sat in her office for hours and reviewed the regulations as they are so complex.

Commissioner Voltz stated she heard from people that since the Board did not approve some of the projects, they were pushed into the cities; some property owners felt the County was not being responsive to their needs; in some cases it needs to work with those individuals so it does not push them into the cities; and it is a major problem. She noted if the County has an opportunity to allow somebody to have one unit per 2-½ acres or one unit per acre and it does not want to do it, he or she may go to the cities and request one unit per ¼-acre; that is a problem; and the County needs to work with people who are considering annexing into the cities so those kinds of things do not happen.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has heard comments about actions by the Board and Planning and Zoning Board, and the Board granted too much density; it is not the issue; the Board is split on many occasions; and the issue is when someone annexes a piece of property, there is a governmental entity that does not represent affected people and have denied them an opportunity to be heard. He noted people are always going to disagree; that is a part of life; the Commissioners are going to disagree on issues; and the issue is the right to be heard and have an ability to come to the table. He stated the person who has bought a piece of property, lived there, and paid taxes and the mortgage also has property rights, not just the developer who bought the 20 acres and wants the property to be annexed in a city; it is the issue before the Board; if it wants to analyze every action, it will never fully resolve what is right and what is wrong; and the issue is can the County afford people who are affected by an annexation, which increases density, the right to be heard. He noted whether it is in the courts or not, Palm Beach County has led the way.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct the County Attorney to return to the Board with a resolution and include items that may be discussed and considered concerning annexation issues; and direct staff to provide a report on the affected group and the impacted area by what is proposed as the ultimate number of units.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs the latitude to define within certain parameters who gets to vote and create a methodology which will bring the community into the discussions of what the issues are and where they want to be.

Commissioner Carlson inquired will the items be scheduled on the agenda for consideration by the Board; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes. Commissioner Carlson stated a geographic area needs to be defined with numbers; she does not know if statutorily the County has some limitations in assigning those type of equations; and inquired does it invent it itself and then get challenged. Attorney Knox responded the County makes it up.

Commissioner Voltz inquired what can the County do to have a Countywide Comprehensive Plan; stated it would address the issue better than anything, although she supports what has been said; and if there was a Countywide Comprehensive Plan, it would not make any difference whether somebody’s property was annexed or not.

Chairman Pritchard stated it was one of the recommendations he kept making when the League of Cities proposed the formation of a committee with the County and School Board to discuss how many people, the density, and where to put the people; adding up all of the comprehensive plans there would be 5 million or 6 million people; and Brevard County does not want that.

Commissioner Carlson stated the County worked on the build-out scenarios; that is what is causing so many opportunities; that happened four years ago and it is happening now; some are trying to reform growth management because they realize it is not working; and having all of the comprehensive plans has worked in a worse possible interest instead of the best possible interest. She noted the new Secretary of DCA is trying to address some of those things, but it is a lot too late; and now the County is trying to unravel something that has been around for 20 years.

Attorney Knox stated there could be a Charter amendment or a special act passed by the Legislature, which would be subject to a referendum in the entire County. Commissioner Carlson inquired what could the special act do for the County. Attorney Knox responded it would create a Countywide planning entity; but the County could do the same thing by Charter. Commissioner Carlson stated it would not eliminate comprehensive plans from the cities, but would force everyone to get together and try to agree on something. Attorney Knox advised Pinellas County has a countywide planning agency that is comprised of city and county representatives; and they plan the entire county. Commissioner Carlson stated that was one thing that was proposed during the Citizens Review Committee, and it lost its teeth. Commissioner Voltz stated that is where the County should head; a lot of the problems would be alleviated if there was not just a Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, but incorporation of what the cities want; the County is responsible for the roads and infrastructure when cities decide to annex; and that can all be part of it. She noted if the County does not demand what it is going to do, and just have suggestions and work together with the cities to form some sort of comprehensive plan, it would work out much better.

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

Commissioner Colon stated some of the municipalities participated in the Comprehensive Plan many years ago; 2005 is not the same world as 1995; the orange groves that are no longer producing include thousands of acres that are causing the dilemma; and the study the County is supposed to have in about one week is going to look at the entire area of District 5, including Barefoot Bay and past Deer Run. She noted the Board needs to say the integrity of the neighborhood is such that it wants to keep it that way; those are the kinds of discussions that need to take place; and no one looked at the fact that the orange groves were going to someday not produce and owners would be rezoning those properties.

Chairman Pritchard stated once someone can only make $1.00 a bushel, he or she knows the land becomes more valuable than the product. Commissioner Colon noted the Comprehensive Plan will not show it right now. Chairman Pritchard stated the problem is it is a little piece of a pie; and when putting all the pieces together they do not jive. Commissioner Carlson stated the Penn Study is happening, which is going to assist the County in looking at 2015 and 2025, and what it is going to look like if it builds out based on all the Comprehensive Plans of the County and cities. She stated Robin Sobrino is supposed to bring back a build-out scenario for the County’s existing Plan; the Plan and Study should lend a little credence to everything being said; and the Board needs to take steps after that point and see where it can go from there.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Voltz has a wonderful approach; it is more than being reactionary; it is planning in a comprehensive sense; he was intrigued with Chairman Pritchard’s idea and what the Penn Study is doing; he can say all of it should go in the refrigerator, but if he does not put it in there correctly he does not get as much in the refrigerator; and it conflicts. He noted by improper planning, the County can end up with the right numbers, but still have chaos; it is how the component parts come together; that is what would be nice about having a County plan; and if Commissioner Voltz wants to make a motion for a staff report on what it would take to have a Countywide Comprehensive Plan, he will second it.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to provide a report to the Board on what it would take to have a Countywide Comprehensive Plan.

Chairman Pritchard inquired should the issue be directed toward the Task Force that has been formed. Commissioner Voltz stated she and Commissioner Carlson are on the Task Force. Commissioner Carlson stated a meeting has not been called as of yet; there will be a summit with the Task Force; and it may be a good idea for the Task Force to meet prior to the summit meeting. Commissioner Scarborough stated staff can provide the report to the Board; and it can simultaneously let the Task Force study the report. Commissioner Carlson stated Brevard Tomorrow is looking at the Smart Growth information; part of it is what the Board has been talking about and trying to get a handle on annexation and comprehensive plans; the community has already looked at a lot of this stuff; and they are trying to provide feedback through the Smart Growth initiative. She noted it will be interesting to see what it will take to have some sort of commission or whatever to address the comprehensive planning problem and having multiple comprehensive plans. Commissioner Scarborough stated a singular comprehensive plan could incorporate all the individual plans and see where they are working together and where they are not. Chairman Pritchard stated such plan could identify the areas that are undeveloped, forecast what the density may be, and work toward the end goal of how many people; the elevator only holds so many people; and the County needs to look at that.

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

REPORT, RE: CITY OF PALM BAY EMS ISSUE

Commissioner Colon stated the EMS issue will be discussed later; it is extremely difficult and puts her in an awkward position; she has been trying to make sure that Ms. Busacca and Lee Feldman from the City of Palm Bay keep cool heads; and the issue has become controversial as to who would do the best job. She noted everyone needs to look at the bigger picture.

Commissioner Voltz stated she is concerned about the issue also and trying to work with the City of Palm Bay.

The meeting recessed at 3:14 p.m. and reconvened at 3:32 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: LOCATION OPTIONS FOR SOUTH BREVARD SENIOR CENTER IN
MELBOURNE

Jasper Trigg, representing South Brevard Senior Association, stated he is speaking for the 28,104 residents in Melbourne who are over the age of 50; 12,547 of those residents live alone; 1,987 residents are below poverty level; and the senior population in Melbourne is increasing at a rate of 3% annually. He noted the majority of seniors on mixed and fixed incomes are relegated to certain activities that are inexpensive, wholesome, and an enhancement to their quality of life; the Senior Center provides those activities; last year approximately 45,520 seniors participated in educational activities, bridge, bingo, shuffleboard, art, dances, health and wellness activities, travel, and many table games; and the seniors are highly energetic, active, and intellectualized citizens. He stated on a daily basis they have to cope with affordability, adaptability, and immobility; they come to the Senior Center, which is home away from home, where they are rewarded with personal gratification; and above all, the seniors are an asset to society and will continue to contribute to the City of Melbourne and Brevard County. He noted in June 2004, the Association vacated a building that was over 50 years of age, contained mold, asbestos, lead paint, and provided low functionality; the site where the building was located was landlocked in all directions and did not provide for future expansion; the site was totally inadequate for parking; and the concept of a new structure surfaced 20 months ago, and as of today no bulldozers are in sight. Mr. Trigg stated before the Board today are four options concerning construction of a new senior center; it is hopeful its decision will provide seniors with a quality product that can be constructed in an expedient manner and will enhance the quality of life of seniors in future years; the Association supports option 2 in meeting its identified expectations; and it supports the relocation of a new senior center. He noted the seniors want a new center and deserve it; and they need a new center now that is in a location that provides expandability based on growth and will provide adequate parking spaces.

Commissioner Colon inquired can Mr. Trigg explain the scenario of the Henegar Center and how complicated the parking is when there is a performance. Mr. Trigg responded the site is at 1618 E. Melbourne Avenue; there were 126 parking spaces, which were totally inadequate to accommodate activities at the Senior Center and Henegar Center, particularly if they were held concurrently; it has been estimated that if it was necessary to return to the old site, the seniors would lose approximately 24 to 26 parking spaces based on a retention pond and curbing; and it would be totally inadequate and impossible. He stated the Henegar Center is going to open its cultural building, which has been renovated and remodeled; it will create a more distinct need for additional parking spaces; and parking there is more than critical.

Pat Poole stated she worked on the first Comprehensive Plan in Brevard County; she took it to the Board and it was adopted; it was supposed to be the Comprehensive Plan for the whole County; but everybody wanted their own thing and it got worse. She noted the worst thing that is happening to the Plan is that everybody changes it; every meeting has an amendment to the Plan and zonings are changed; conditional use permits are given; and the City of Melbourne has 50’ x 80’ lots in places and PUD’s. She stated when the wildlife goes, then everything is lost; the City is going to be losing it because of Fort Lauderdale; Dr. Hines started it with the three condominiums; and now there are about six proposed for historical downtown Melbourne. She noted she has known Chuck Nelson and Jack Masson for many years; the County has the best staff; those two gentlemen are experts in their field and take care of things; and the County has great parks. She stated the Board and city councils are supposed to be the experts in budgets and doing what is best for the people, making sure taxpayers’ money goes to the right places, and to respect referendums that taxpayers are asked to pass; the referendum that was passed November 7, 2004 by the people had a brochure with it; it gave the cost of the projects and pictures of what they were to be; and it is up to the experts that have to take care of the money. Ms. Poole stated there used to be 2,500 people in Melbourne and now there are over 79,000 people; she hopes the County can do something about it; Mr. Masson said seniors are not only in downtown Melbourne, but in other areas also; and she supports having more senior centers. She noted such centers need to be in smaller areas; giant centers are not needed; Brevard County is not Las Vegas; and on December 14, 2004 the Melbourne City Manager reported to the Council, “Item 8. A new recommended option for a long-term lease of a new building at the Airport.” She noted the Council voted unanimously for a letter to be written to the County requesting the Senior Center remain in downtown Melbourne; what is being proposed is preposterous; the Association asked for five acres at the Airport and was quoted $60,000 a year; and now it has grown to a building, which can be built by the Airport for $1.4 million for the building and lease 5.6 acres for $198,000 a year for 20 years. She inquired does the Board want that when the land was given for the Senior Center and there is no lease there where it currently is; stated she went to the Variance Board when the issue came up; the plans were great; and such Board wanted railroad ties in the parking lot, which the City’s Ordinances do not allow. She noted it has been taken care of, including extra parking for overfill; very seldom were there 126 parking spaces filled except when there were functions; there is something that can be done about that too; and the area is fenced, window stickers are available, and there would be enforcement by the police to not allow others to park there. Ms. Poole stated the Henegar Center would not be able to use the parking area if it is for the Senior Center; and inquired are the people going to trust the County to ever pass another referendum if these are the kinds of things that are going to take place. She noted she knows some of the Commissioners were not on the Board at that time, but it was still the County Commission’s referendum, which was passed by the people because they were anxious about upgrading parks and recreation facilities, not building new facilities; the people want facilities for senior citizens; she is a senior citizen and the senior center was within three blocks of her house; but now the center has been demolished. She stated the parking was a football field; it is plenty of parking for average facilities; if the County wants to expand, instead of making a great big Taj Mahal on the Airport property, it could go to the downtown redevelopment area in Eau Gallie, which is going strong now; there are many seniors who live in that area; and there are three new buildings called the Pineapple House, which will house mostly senior citizens. She noted they would enjoy having a center within walking distance; the reason the people are not going from Trinity Towers is because they do not like to ride buses; some of them may want to participate in just one program; and they do not want to stay all day or have to wait for bus services. Ms. Poole stated where they live in the Towers and downtown area they can walk home if they are tired or when they finish; they can walk downtown and have a nice meal; there are specialty shops and antique shops; and there are many things to do. She noted there are three parks in the downtown area with benches for people to sit on; the big park is on Front Street; the Indian River Lagoon is there; and senior centers belong downtown where there are other activities besides the centers. She stated it is good for the economy and community; she loves the seniors and Brevard County; she wants what is best; and inquired why spend this amount of money for a new senior center when it can be saved by having the seniors stay where they are.

Harold Phillips stated the old site was very restricted in parking; the County is growing; to meet the needs of seniors today and the seniors tomorrow they are going to need a facility that has the room for enough parking and space; he hopes someday, because of the demand for the senior center activity, the County will expand the building that is presently proposed so it will be able to provide more services for more seniors; and he is afraid if there is consideration of staying at the old location that money spent on a new building would be obsolete because it would not be able to meet the needs for the future growth of Brevard County.

Shirley Massey, Board of Directors of the Brevard Seniors Association in Melbourne, stated the Board strives to offer programs and activities that enrich the lives of its many members 50 years of age and over; not only is shuffleboard an activity in everyone’s budget range, it is an activity that even some of those with physical disabilities are able to participate; it enables seniors to get outdoors and socialize with other seniors; and these are the good old days for them right now. She noted there are 60-plus members ranging in age from 50 to 88; there are less members now than recently due to people deciding to wait and see what is happening after the hurricanes; such hurricanes had an affect on many people; and friendships have been formed at the senior center, which exceed 20 years in time. She stated what a wonderful memory the seniors have to share with everyone they reminisce with periodically; this is one of the activities that falls under Parks and Recreation Department; the previous 12 courts that were at the Melbourne Avenue location were dedicated by the County in January 1980; and the South Brevard Senior Center strives to enrich the lives of all seniors, and with the cooperation the Association receives from the Center, they walk hand-in-hand with them and able to do it.

Commissioner Colon stated she has been working closely with the Association in the last five years; the roof is falling apart at the senior center; there is not enough parking; she brought Parks and Recreation Department into the picture, especially concerning accountability of the referendum; and that is how the dialogue started. She noted the rental of the facility was difficult because a kitchen was needed; the Henegar Center got involved because it wanted to expand and bring more programs to the community; the parking was difficult; and the seniors said they wanted a new building, but she told them the dollars were not available. She stated mold and asbestos were in the building; after the hurricanes the building got worse; the senior citizen population is growing rapidly, especially in the South Brevard area; and she asked the Association if the seniors wanted to move from the center. She noted the overwhelming support of the Association was incredible; the seniors deserve a new facility; the County has a wonderful opportunity to do it; and Palm Bay Community Center is a nice facility and has computers also. She noted the South Brevard Senior Center has been struggling for a long time; she would not support the issue if she did not feel it was in the best interest of the community; the County has a unique opportunity with the Melbourne Airport; and requested Chuck Nelson explain what was offered by the Airport and how supportive it is of making this happen.

Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson stated Mr. Ennis has been very helpful in putting this together; the numbers the Board was given on Friday are the beginning and at the high end; if the County does not need the full expansion area, it can take the land it needs and lease it with an option on additional land; and it would reduce the amount the County would pay. He noted the numbers could be better based on what is developed; the parking issue is significant; if the variance had been approved, the County would have ended up with the same number of parking spaces; it was trying not to lose spaces; and as much as it would have liked to have gained parking spaces, there was no more land. He stated rebuilding of the site triggered City Codes that would cause the County to upgrade, and it was going to be a problem; the senior population is growing and there is no space at this time; the County can build the facility at the existing location; but staff members have been there parking people associated between the conflicts, as the County manages the Agreement with the Henegar Center and the Senior Center; and staff was having to stand between activities to make sure busses with school children on them did not get in the wrong place that impacted activities with the seniors. Mr. Nelson noted it is not going to get better, but get worse; the Airport has offered the County some options; with all of the issues of usability, overcrowding, asbestos, lead, etc., the renovation costs were comparable to new construction costs; so that is how staff got to where they are today; and all of those issues piled up and suddenly it was better to build the building for the purpose it was being used as opposed to trying to fix one that was 50 years old. He stated the Board has made decisions that have been beneficial to the community based on conditions that have been discovered; something positive will be done at Rhodes Park; the County is relocating it and building a better facility; and concerning the Schecter Center in Satellite Beach, the Board received a request to move dollars to the Center because the City had taken on additional grants, and the County is able to build things it was supposed to. He noted the County has given more than it said it was going to give; a new building is better than what it promised; one option is that the County builds the building on Melbourne Airport property with County dollars and lease the land from the Airport Authority; and the downside is the County has its building on Airport property, which raised issues as to disposal or if the County wants to transition. He stated the second option is cleaner, which would be the leasing of the building the Airport builds to County specifications; the County would lease the building from the Airport; it would give the Board the ability to take those dollars and capital dollars committed to the project and allocate them to other projects; and construction costs have increased. Mr. Nelson stated there are several community centers that will need additional dollars; this is one of those possible sources; and the County can build in place or lease the land, build the facility, or have the Airport Authority build the facility and the County lease it from the Authority.

Commissioner Carlson stated she supports the Senior Center, but does not know if she supports it on Airport property; she went over the issues with Messrs. Nelson and Trigg, and some of the group a couple of times trying to come up with some remedy; her concerns included the cost of leasing property from the Airport Authority year-after-year and the cumulative affect on the County’s budget; and Ms. Poole was on point when she said what the people got was $500,000, and she does not know how the County got from $500,000 to $1.4 million.

Mr. Nelson stated staff brought back a proposal to the Board related to the choice to renovate versus replace; and it was allocated from interest earnings from the projects. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not agree with taking the senior center out of the City as she would prefer multiple senior centers closer to the folks that are used to having it there; it should stay in downtown Melbourne; Eau Gallie should have a senior center; and she does not believe the County has worked with the Melbourne Airport Authority enough to try to bring the price down. She noted she does not know what kind of lease agreement the County would have. Mr. Nelson stated there are some things that need to be tightened up; and if the Board directs staff to work with the Airport Authority, they will work out the details and bring them back for approval.

Commissioner Carlson inquired has the issue gone to the Melbourne Airport Authority for discussion; with Richard Ennis, representing Melbourne Airport Authority, responded no. Commissioner Carlson inquired how many City Council people sit on the Airport Authority; with Mr. Ennis responding three. Commissioner Carlson stated if the City Council folks want to keep the Senior Center in downtown Melbourne would they be vocalizing that at the Authority’s meeting; she would hope the Authority could reduce the price to something that is minimal for the lease; the senior center is needed, but $200,000 a year is a very expensive proposition; and the voters did not vote for that and voted to take what was existing and improve it. She noted there were some problems and the building had to be destroyed; the City tried to fix the parking issue; but now the County is thinking about five acres at Melbourne Airport Authority; and there is a bigger plan for seniors there because a different plan previously fell through. She inquired what keeps the Authority from coming back years later and saying it has a new plan for the area and would like to convert it back so it can get someone to develop there, and what security does the County have in a lease agreement. Mr. Ennis responded the lease itself; and there is no occasion the Airport has gone back on any lease it has had that did not terminate. Commissioner Carlson inquired what kind of lease agreement does the Authority anticipate. Mr. Ennis responded the typical industrial leases the Authority has that are in the non-air nautical property are 40-year leases with two 10-year options; and they are up to 60 years basically. Commissioner Carlson inquired what was the lease the Authority had with Portacal; with Mr. Ennis responding the original lease was 20 years and there were options after that. Mr. Ennis stated it reached a point of termination and that is where the Authority looked at the use of the land and thought there might be a better use for it than continuing with the trailer park. Commissioner Carlson inquired when does Mr. Ennis foresee the issue going back to the Authority for discussion; with Mr. Ennis responding it will not make next week’s meeting, but probably in March 2005. Mr. Ennis stated it depends on what the Board’s desire is today.

Commissioner Carlson stated there is not a cost benefit that is coming with the item; the cost benefit analysis says, “All the information and funding estimates for the above options have not been developed due to requests from the Senior Center membership to bring it forward for Board discussion”; the only thing she has seen is the cost; and she is assuming there is a lot of benefit because there is a growing senior population, but she wants to make sure in the referendum that was passed that the County is doing the best thing for downtown Melbourne because Trinity Towers has been there forever. She noted there are lots of folks who like to go downtown and the Senior Center; she does not want to alleviate the potential of having that there and putting any additional dollars into another center somewhere in Eau Gallie or something where it would feed into seniors and their interests; more importantly is the cost of the lease; and she has a real problem with it.

Mr. Nelson stated staff was reluctant to get into the extremely detailed discussion as they felt they were at risk because the Board had not had a discussion related to the issue; they are appreciative that the Authority gave them some information that would give the Board some guidelines; there were multiple options; and if the Board is interested, staff can meet with the Authority, nail the numbers down, and bring them back to the Board. He noted staff did not want to get too far out front, particularly with another governmental unit, without having discussed the issues with the Board.

Commissioner Voltz requested Mr. Trigg review the number of people going to the Senior Center from Trinity Towers. Mr. Trigg stated he did an analysis of the membership from last year, which was 1,140 members; 33 of those members were from Trinity Towers East, West, and South; of those 33 members, nine people came from Trinity South; and of those nine, only six members were active. He noted it is a misnomer when thinking the availability of memberships based on location of the Towers to the Center would create more members, but it has not; the seniors have been at Portacal for seven months now; there are 58 new members from Trailer Haven; and the possibility of increased membership is far greater at Trailer Haven, where the Center is currently located, than it was when the Senior Center was located next to Trinity Towers on Melbourne Avenue.

Commissioner Carlson inquired where does the majority of members come from; with Mr. Trigg responding throughout the City. Commissioner Carlson inquired has there been any thought to work with the City and split the cost of the lease; stated most of the folks the Center services are from the Cities of Melbourne or Palm Bay; and inquired are some seniors coming from the unincorporated area. Mr. Trigg responded the seniors come from throughout the County. Commissioner Carlson stated if there is a huge number of folks that are going to be serviced through the senior center who live in the Cities of Melbourne or Palm Bay, then maybe the County should be talking to them about a mutual lease agreement, unless Mr. Trigg thinks the burden should be completely on the County. Mr. Trigg noted he does not think so because the Association has had a discussion with the City of Melbourne in terms of it providing funding or co-funding the senior center; the senior center was given a $50,000 grant through the CDBG Program; based on the City Council’s concern about relocating from downtown to Melbourne Airport Authority, it was felt that the $50,000 could be an ineligible item; so the grant was canceled due to some uncertainties as to the availability of funds for that type of move. He stated all of the discussions with the City of Melbourne have ended up in a negative vein.

Commissioner Voltz inquired does the City of Palm Bay pay anything for Palm Bay Senior Center; with Mr. Nelson responding not that he is aware of. Commissioner Voltz inquired do any of the cities pay anything for any of the senior centers; with Mr. Nelson responding not that he is aware of. Mr. Nelson stated the County owns the properties where the senior centers are located. Commissioner Voltz stated going into this new facility at the Airport is very positive for the community and individual members; it would increase the membership; and she supports option 2.

Chairman Pritchard stated the referendum gave the County about $500,000; it is looking at $1.4 million if the County builds the facility; and inquired where would the $1 million come from. Mr. Nelson responded the Board previously authorized the allocation of interest earnings from the South Brevard Special Taxing District referendum. Chairman Pritchard noted so the County has the money; and inquired if the Board selected an option that the Airport Authority would construct the facility and the County would lease it from the Authority, what would the annual payment be. Mr. Nelson responded based on the structure of the information staff has, which is on the high side, it is $173,200; and there are a variety of assumptions in terms of acreage that could change the amount.

Commissioner Carlson stated option 3 is $195,000. Mr. Nelson stated the $195,000 was discounted because while the Airport Authority has the ability to do an amortized relationship where it sells to the County, there are some limitations in the Charter; so it is option 2, which has the improvements; and the acreage is a point where the County could look to some savings, as well as the return percentage.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if the Board looked at the size of the acreage and took it to a minimum the County would need, what would the annual lease be. Mr. Nelson responded based on the lease being at $80,000 for 5.6 acres, it could probably be reduced by $30,000 to $35,000 if the County went to a 3.5-acre site; and the entire cost would be about $140,000 a year. Chairman Pritchard inquired what is the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs on a building of this size if the County owns the building; with Mr. Nelson responding probably in the $100,000 range. Mr. Nelson stated community centers do their own fund raising and pay the bills. Chairman Pritchard stated if the County owns a building, there is a maintenance cost to having the facility; as the facility gets older, the maintenance cost tends to increase; and inquired would the first five years be $25,000 for maintenance or less. Mr. Nelson responded that is probably a reasonable estimate; the major systems are going to be in good operating condition; a lot of them will be under warranty; and it is probably a reasonable wear and tear kind of number over the first five years. Chairman Pritchard inquired would the $25,000 be reasonable per year or the entire five years; with Mr. Nelson responding it would grow over time and at year five it would be $25,000 and should not be that much in the first two, three, or four years. Chairman Pritchard stated if the County owns a facility and has infrastructure repairs, it all comes as an additional cost to it; frequently it is in a better position if it can lease something; lease option is a consideration; but the County would only own the building and not the land. He inquired where is the incentive to own a building and not own the land and are there any other options in the vicinity where the County could purchase the land and build the building. Mr. Nelson responded staff did not go into the option of trying to acquire land because it would have been additional up-front costs it had not identified at that point in time. Chairman Pritchard stated the County’s best option is to go onto the property and lease, not lease option, the building and do it perhaps as a 20-year lease with two 10-year options or whatever; who knows what is going to happen 40 years down the road; these may become a thing of the past and the County may not do it any longer; he likes the idea of having the building and responsibility for the maintenance of it with the lessee; and it is the consideration he would support.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County had about $500,000 from the referendum and money from the referendum of another $1 million; about $1.5 million was set aside in construction money; as the County shifts over to the lease, it is looking at a different type of money; and it can use construction money anywhere, etc., but it does not necessarily move from one side to the other. He noted he has run into problems in District 1 and had to increase the millage constantly; and inquired would there be an increase annually in the Recreation MSTU for District 5. Mr. Nelson responded the millage rate for South Brevard is 6/10ths of a mill; about 4/10ths is going toward debt retirement and 2/10ths is for O&M; and it has been sufficient to do and will be sufficient for some time to address the operational needs associated with referendum projects. Commissioner Scarborough stated this is on top of it; there is an annual cash flow that becomes recurring as opposed to a construction cost; and inquired is the County looking at having to do MSTU millage increases if it goes this route. He noted he sees it coming as a renewing annual cost with the lease as opposed to the building and having it done. Mr. Nelson stated the biggest difference between the other referendum areas is the south grew much more rapidly than the original projections had been; the available dollars for the operating side is much greater in the south than it is in the other Districts; it is going to take more money to make that payment; and the Board has authorized 6/10ths since the inception of the millage, so it cannot go above 6/10ths and can be done within the 6/10ths. Commissioner Scarborough inquired will it impact the operating budget negatively; with Mr. Nelson responding no, as the growth has accommodated that.

Commissioner Colon stated there is leverage as everything is not written in stone; Mr. Ennis can give the Authority some of the County’s feedback; the County has been able to identify how it is going to pay for the Senior Center; and there needs to be additional work done to massage some of the numbers. She noted the Board has to make sure it protects the County; the Senior Center was trying to make ends meet at the other facility; the Palm Bay Senior Center is self sufficient and hardly ever depends on the County for anything; and it has a new building, available parking, and is able to rent the facility for weddings, etc. She noted the Palm Bay Senior Center and South Brevard Senior Center in Melbourne are working closely together; a lot of senior citizens from Melbourne are driving to get to the Senior Center; it is in a critical area with the Henegar Center; and there is a lot of traffic and activity taking place, which makes it more difficult for the seniors. She stated the membership will increase and so will the dollars; the Senior Center did not have a kitchen so it could not rent the facility for weddings; and the Palm Bay Senior Center runs a business, the senior citizens go on cruises, and the Center does remarkable things.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Option 2, to relocate the South Brevard Senior Center in Melbourne to Melbourne Airport property, with the Melbourne Airport Authority responsible for construction, and the County leasing the property and building at fair market value; and direct the Parks and Recreation Director to work with the Melbourne Airport Authority and decide what the fair market value would be. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Carlson voted nay.

DISCUSSION, RE: COUNTY LOBBYIST

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are advantages and disadvantages of getting someone from Brevard County; she had Theda Roberts call the large firms and get the profiles; if he is going to consider John Thrasher or Jim Smith, he would like to know more of who the County would get in the firm; he would like to get the premier firm if he is going to pay good dollars, but he does not want to get somebody that is anybody, and would like to have some understanding of who he or she would be; and it was the thrust of the discussions he had yesterday.

Commissioner Colon stated she is not supporting any lobbyist for the County; it does a good job having communication with its Delegation; some of the phone calls she has received from members of the Delegation is to make sure whoever the County hires that he or she gets along with the Delegation and has a good working relationship; there were some hard feelings in the past with personalities; and it is difficult for the Delegation to work with some of those folks.

Commissioner Voltz stated she took the list that was given to her, but was not able to get all the information on everybody; she received information on Frank Tsamoutales; the information is on the firm Mr. Tsamoutales works for; and she looked at the positives. She noted the firm has a lot of information and staff regarding issues that are going to be important to Brevard County, including coastal construction, public lands acquisition, wetlands creation, mitigation, and eminent domain; it has a good working relationship with the EPA and DCA; it has experts on local government ad valorem tax and non-ad valorem tax special assessment law, which is extremely important; and it has federal income tax credits allocated by the Florida Housing Finance Agency. She stated she is extremely impressed with Tasha Buford’s credentials on environmental issues; it is very important to the County; another attorney in the firm has done a lot of appellate work and uniform non-ad valorem special assessment collection laws; Mr. Tsamoutales is a Brevard County resident and has been around a long time; and he has worked very well with the Delegation. She requested the Board consider Mr. Tsamoutales.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one member of the Delegation would prefer the Board not hire Mr. Tsamoutales. Commissioner Voltz stated it is Representative Mitch Needelman.

Chairman Pritchard stated he has a summary of the various lobbyists; some of them he has never heard of; he has notes next to them saying the Delegation likes certain persons; and he does not know Mr. Mixson, but Mixson and Associates represents the School Board, which might be a problem, but his notes say the Delegation likes the firm. He noted David E. Ramba has a home base in Brevard County and the Delegation likes him; it is important; Jerry Sansom is a favorite of members of the Delegation; but there may be a problem as Mr. Sansom represents various cities. He stated Jim Smith is a well-known Legislator and has a lot of credentials; John Thrasher was a former Speaker; and he met briefly with Mr. Tsamoutales whom he had not known him before such meeting. He noted Mr. Tsamoutales impressed him; he has a lot of credentials behind him; the Board needs a lobbyist; and there is money on the table, and if it does not get to the table, it is not going to get the money. He stated he had a problem with the last lobbyist as such lobbyist did not want to tell him what he was doing for the money the Board was paying him; the lobbyist was having a problem with the leadership in the Capitol, like the Governor; there was a bit of a contest with the Chairman of the Delegation; and it was not making for a good working relationship. Chairman Pritchard noted perhaps the Board can find out more about the individuals he mentioned; Commissioners may have others they would like to add to the list; the Board needs to move quickly because the Legislative process is beginning soon; and it needs to take action within the next couple of weeks.

Commissioner Carlson stated the County needs a lobbyist; the big lobbyists, such as Messrs. Thrasher and Smith, have a lot more leverage than the smaller lobbyists; she wants to be assured that the Board does not have conflicts with whoever it deals with; if anybody is representing the School Board or a city, there might be a potential conflict of interest; and the Board should eliminate those folks. She noted John Thrasher and Jim Smith do not have asterisks by their names, so she is not sure if they are highly regarded by any of the Legislators; she is not sure if that is good or bad because when it comes to clout they are representing the Board; they have to work with the County’s Legislators and get the money the County is asking for; and the Board makes requests through the Delegation what it would like, and it also tells its lobbyist. She stated the lobbyist and Legislators work on the issues; she does not know how they do the magic that they do; some are more effective than others; and the bigger ones tend to be more effective.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if someone is big, such as Wachovia Bank, he or she has the ability to get the best; and the question is if Brevard County is a significant client. He stated Theda Roberts said she talked to Messrs. Thrasher and Smith; and both of them want to make presentations to the Board. He noted he does not want somebody who is a second-tier lobbyist; in looking at the lists, they do not have the clientele that Messrs. Thrasher and Smith have; he would like to listen to those individuals; and those two looked like the best to him, but he may not go there for other reasons and would be remiss if he did not at least hear their presentations. Commissioner Carlson stated the track record of any of these given lobbyist ought to be presented. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County could see how long a lobbyist has had a client. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board can have a shortlist and invite those persons to Brevard County.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the five names that have been mentioned are Mixson, Ramba, Tsamoutales, Thrasher, and Smith; Commissioner Carlson made a comment about conflict with the School Board, so Mr. Mixson would be out of the shortlist; that would leave four individuals; and staff could request Messrs. Ramba, Tsamoutales, Thrasher, and Smith make presentations on February 22, 2005, and ask for the information the Board requested on track records and how long they have represented their clients.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if the Board is trying to work toward a Countywide Comprehensive Plan and do a lot of things as a Countywide operation, does it want to exclude Jerry Sansom because he represents many cities. Ms. Busacca responded the City Manager from City of Melbourne felt that may be a conflict as Mr. Sansom represents the Cities of Cocoa, Rockledge, Melbourne, and Satellite Beach, and Towns of Melbourne Beach and Malabar. Chairman Pritchard stated Mr. Sansom also represents Winter Springs. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Sansom is a great person to work with to try to understand the Cities better from a different perspective of other issues the County is doing. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a bill that is being filed with EMS and the refund of $20 million; he can see a lobbyist getting caught in the crossfire; he knows Mr. Sansom the best and likes him tremendously; but the Board cannot have a person representing two opposite views.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve a short list of David Ramba, Frank Tsamoutales, John Thrasher, and Jim Smith for a lobbyist to represent the County on State issues; direct staff to request they attend the February 22, 2005 Board meeting to make a 15-minute presentation each to the Board, and schedule them for a time certain in the afternoon, depending on their schedules; and provide information on track records and how long they have represented their clients. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 4:43 p.m. and reconvened at 4:53 p.m.

QUITCLAIM DEED AND RESOLUTION, RE: PALM BAY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
BETWEEN MINTON ROAD AND ROBERT J. CONLAN BOULEVARD

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated the item is a request on the part of FDOT, that is designing and going to construct the six-lane widening of Palm Bay Road; it is in the process of acquiring property, which the County has easements over; and in order to avoid the County being named in a condemnation suit, the Chairman needs to execute the quitclaim deed to relinquish the County’s rights to those easements. He noted there are no objections from staff.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Quitclaim Deed to Florida Department of Transportation, and adopt Resolution for Palm Bay Road improvements between Minton Road and Robert J. Conlan Boulevard. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 WITH ABBA CONSTRUCTION, INC., RE: TITUSVILLE
VETERANS’ PIER

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Change Order No. 2 with ABBA Construction, Inc. in the amount of $116,406.40 for emergency repairs to the seawall due to recent hurricanes at the Titusville Veterans’ Pier. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE FUNDING, RE: BUILDOUT OF HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE V. MOORE
JUSTICE CENTER EXPANSION SPACE

Commissioner Scarborough stated option 1 proposes the County get a running start with architectural work in case it gets some judges; and if no one has a problem, he will move option 1.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Option 1, to proceed with design only and wait to see if any new judges are approved for Brevard County during the legislative session for build out of the Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Justice Center expansion space.

Chairman Pritchard stated he wants to insure that what the County is doing is a responsible use of dollars; he is not opposed to building courtrooms, but wants to make sure the County is getting the most out of the existing courtrooms it currently has; it may have courtrooms that are being used by other than judges; and if that is true, he does not know why the County would need to build another courtroom. He noted perhaps what it would need to build is office space for the people who are using the courtrooms that are not judges; he understands the County can accommodate one judge at this point without having to increase anything; and if it has a courtroom or two that are being used by other than judges now, it can accommodate three judges and build two smaller office suites, which would be a lot less cost than a courtroom.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it can be part of the motion.

Commissioner Voltz stated she talked to Scott Ellis about the issue; he indicated that now each one of the judges has his or her own chamber; there are 16 judges and 16 chambers; and there are 22 suites, which means there is extra room. She noted Mr. Ellis indicated the County probably has enough room for two to three judges without building something else; Lee County has 19 judges and nine chambers; it works together to share; and requested staff provide a report on what the County funds to the court system, and what it must fund versus what it funds.

Commissioner Scarborough amended the motion to direct staff to provide a report to the Board on the functionality of the current space, what the Board funds to the court system, and what it must fund versus what it presently funds; and Commissioner Voltz accepted the amendment.

Commissioner Scarborough stated staff needs to get with the judges on the issue; there is the dynamics of how a judge moves cases through; and part of the issue is to move cases through, but if the ability does not exist to move cases through, then there is a backlog of cases. Commissioner Voltz stated if the County asks a judge if he or she wants to share a courtroom, the judge is going to say no; and it needs to review those issues. She inquired is the County going to have a courtroom empty for half a day versus having two judges share a courtroom; and noted there may need to be a scheduler.

Chairman Pritchard stated a report will come back to the Board on the functionality of the current space; and Court Administrator Mark Van Bever will be part of the input.

Commissioner Voltz stated the report on the jail to the Board says a judge is needed in the jail; if the County gets a new judge, perhaps he or she needs to go to the jail; and she talked to Mr. Ellis about the probation issue also.

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

DISCUSSION, RE: RIVER MOORINGS SUBDIVISION INFRASTRUCTURE CONCERNS

Chairman Pritchard stated his proposal is that the County live up to the agreement that was made in Commissioner O’Brien’s office in 1996 to repair the damaged road and infrastructure where the seawalls had leached out the material that was holding up the roadbed; the Association at that time said it would be responsible for the seawall repair, but the County should be responsible for the road repair since it allowed the infrastructure to be built as it was; and subsequently, the agreement seemed to have deteriorated over the years. He noted he and Jack Callinan were the parties representing River Moorings in the agreement; it is, to the best of his knowledge and Mr. Callinan’s knowledge, and the notes they took, what the agreement was, that the County would be responsible for the damage that was created by the sand and underlay leaching out through the insufficiently constructed bulkhead; it has caused problems in two or three areas on the roadway at River Moorings; and the issue is whether or not the County can use public funds for the private road, which is what has come into the discussion as of late.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired does Chairman Pritchard believe the County can use such funds; with Chairman Pritchard responding yes, in this situation, because it was agreed to in 1996. Chairman Pritchard stated he and Mr. Callinan walked out of that meeting knowing they had an agreement and they were not going to pursue litigation because they felt the County was at fault for not managing inspection of the properties; Scott Brown, who was one of the inspectors, had numerous notes saying everything was out of control; the County should have been more responsible; and it should live up to the agreement and pay for infrastructure repair to the roads.

Vincent Ferrando, representing River Moorings Homeowners Association, stated one of the things that has been under debate is whether or not the County’s inspection methods and specifications were sufficient; the professional engineers and others said everything was good to go and okay; if it was okay, it should not have failed three or four years after the inspection; and the reality does not face up to what happened to the infrastructure. He noted the homeowners are requesting the Board’s assistance based on discussions that took place almost seven years ago; there has been a lot of correspondence going back and forth; and the homeowners have not gone to court or fought anybody because they trusted the County to back up what it told the homeowners in 1996.

Jack Callinan stated in 1996 there were two major issues the homeowners were fighting with; the first issue was with the developer of the subdivision and the second issue was with the County; the homeowners went to an attorney who is noted for suing the County; and the attorney said the prognosis was great. He noted the Association decided to put the County issue on the backburner because there was time and the suit could be opened later; the Association went after the developer; the homeowners won the case; and the County made an agreement with the homeowners. He stated the Association wanted the roadbeds done, the lights fixed, and the seawalls repaired because all had failed; Henry Minneboo stated the County could not do that and has no experience with seawalls, but it would fix the problem in the roadbed; and everyone agreed. He requested the Board agree to do what was agreed on in 1996; stated the Association did not sue the County as the lawyers make the money and everybody loses; it would like to continue to avoid going to court; and requested the Board honor the agreement. He stated comment was made that the County cannot use public funds in a private area; its surrogates are out all the time doing that; the garbage collectors are paid for by the County; and the Association tried to save the County money by letting its people do the job instead of hiring someone. He noted if it is a problem for the County, then it can contract the job to somebody in the private sector; and the Association wants the County to honor what it committed to do six years ago.

Chairman Pritchard stated the County should live up to what was promised.

Interim Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn advised he was not in attendance at any of those meetings; Gwen Heller provided some information relating to how the County could bring the roads up to standard; and it is probably an issue the County Attorney needs to address as to whether or not the County can expend public monies on private roads.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated that is not the issue based on what he heard; if it was a matter of asking the County to fix the road, it could not do it because it cannot spend money on private roads as a normal practice; however, the Association thinks the County is responsible for damage caused to the road and contemplated suing the County; and as part of an agreement not to sue the County, the County agreed to go forward and do something. He noted if that is the case, the public purpose is avoidance of litigation through a covenant not to sue; and if the County were to depose to enter into a covenant not to sue with the homeowners
and Association, the public purpose would be taken care of.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if somebody walked into the District 1 office and had a similar situation as the proposed issue, he would always say this is something he cannot do and it has to come before the Board; and inquired can a conversation in a Commission Office obligate the Board. Attorney Knox responded no; if the Board decides today that it would like to enter into a covenant not to sue with any association on the basis the County might be liable for the repairs, it could do that; and it would be sufficient to meet the public purpose requirement. Commissioner Scarborough stated what occurred in Commissioner O’Brien’s office is not binding on the Board; with Attorney Knox responding that is correct.

Chairman Pritchard stated in attendance at the meeting was the County Manager, Henry Minneboo, Gwen Heller, Sue Hann, and Scott Brown; there were volumes of material from Mr. Brown saying the developer was out of control and the project needed to be stopped, but the project continued; what introduced him to Brevard County government was the lack of a seawall ordinance; and he became part of the committee that developed the current Seawall Ordinance. He noted what Commissioner Scarborough is saying is true; it is not binding on the Board because it was said in Commissioner O’Brien’s office; however, the principles of the County were there and agreed to what he, Mr. Callinan, and Mr. Ferrando are saying was agreed to. Commissioner Scarborough stated certain things have to come before the Board and it is okay if it takes action on them; with the event of equitable estoppel, there would be somebody acting in reliance on something staff said; they could have mistakenly believed a person had a right and later found out he or she did not; but the individual already expended monies. He noted the County does not have the act of reliance or equitable estoppel, so it is the action of the Board today to forego litigation as what would be the basis.

Chairman Pritchard stated he no longer owns property or reside in River Moorings; he sold the property in 2001; he fought the battles and the Association has recently come back; and it is time the Board takes appropriate action.

Commissioner Colon inquired does the County have anything in writing on this particular issue. Chairman Pritchard stated there are notes and letters that have gone back and forth; and there is no agreement that says what the County was going to do and what was agreed upon. Commissioner Colon inquired what is the cost to the County; with Mr. Ferrando responding $20,000.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated it may be more than that as the estimate is several years old. Commissioner Colon inquired where would the dollars come from; with Ms. Busacca responding she would assume the Board may want to either decide it is going to be out of the District 2 Road and Bridge MSTU or there is $340,000 left in Contingency.

Commissioner Voltz stated she was on the Board from 1996 through 2000; she never heard of this project; she does not know why it did not come up sometime when Commissioner O’Brien was on the Board; however, the Board needs to right a wrong.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve fixing the roads, but not the seawalls, in River Moorings Subdivision, with funds coming from District 2 MSTU; and direct staff to prepare a covenant not to sue, so there is a formalized agreement; and authorize the Chairman to sign the covenant.

Commissioner Colon stated a Commissioner cannot make those kinds of decisions without them coming before the Board on the agenda and being voted on.

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

REQUEST BY CITY OF PALM BAY, RE: PROCEDURES FOR PRESENTATION OF
APPLICATION FOR EMS PATIENT TRANSPORT SERVICES

Commissioner Scarborough stated when he was voting on the meeting he did not realize the order of sequence, which has been described to him that the special meeting with Palm Bay is to talk about the procedure and manner in which the item was to be discussed; the hearing was at the front end, so the County could have had the hearing and found out it was not according to procedure it should have followed, and had to come back; and this is not the way one would normally do something. He noted he does not know if the procedure item is a major one, but it seems the County is going backwards; the County Attorney talked to Lee Feldman and he concurs with the procedure; and if the County is only talking about procedure and it is a logical legal concept as opposed to getting into more of the substantive issues, he does not know if it needs to have special meetings in libraries.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the special meeting at the library will be to discuss the City’s view of why it believes the County’s Ordinance is not valid, and some of the substantive issues to be discussed at the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (COPCN) hearing; and it would be better for the Board and City Council to talk before the hearing is held.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County has the Florida Room upstairs where meetings can be televised; and inquired is there any problem with the City coming here. Attorney Knox responded the City claims it cannot hold a meeting outside the City limits by Charter. Commissioner Voltz inquired can the meeting be held in the Council Chambers so it is televised.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca responded Lee Feldman’s concern was that it would put the City Council on the dais and the Board at floor level, and they would be unequal; she asked him if there was room to put tables where all the Commissioners and City Council members could sit together; and Mr. Feldman felt there was not adequate room to do that.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Council does that when it has workshops; the Council members are around the table; staff is there also; and there is plenty of room. Ms. Busacca stated she was at a meeting in which there seemed to be enough room, which is why she asked Mr. Feldman about it; she would be delighted to go back to Mr. Feldman and say the Board would rather hold the meeting at that venue.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the City cannot hold a meeting legally outside the City then he understands the dynamics; and the County needs to handle the procedure before it goes into a hearing and find out the hearing was conducted under the wrong procedure. Chairman Pritchard stated he likes the idea of the meeting being televised. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not mind sitting down front and it does not bother him; if he wants to talk he does not think the City is not going to recognize him; his concern is handling the procedure first; and he will leave it up to the Board as to whether the meeting is held at the library or Council Chambers. Commissioner Voltz stated it does not matter to her where the meeting is held.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to establish a procedure for presentation of the City of Palm Bay’s COPCN Application for EMS Patient Transport Services on March 8, 2005 to permit the City to take 30 minutes for such presentation and the Chairman to establish a time certain; and request the March 1, 2005 meeting with the City concerning the conflict resolution process be televised. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: ANNEXATION ISSUES

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board discussed challenging the annexations in the City of Palm Bay earlier; and it has caused a firestorm of things happening with a school site being pulled out, an interchange, which was going to be funded by a developer on Babcock Street, and the Palm Bay Beltway. She noted she does not want to challenge the annexations at this point as it will be disastrous; and she is going to meet with the people.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to reconsider challenging the annexations in the City of Palm Bay. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny the motion to challenge the annexations in the City of Palm Bay. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BIRTHDAY GREETINGS, RE: SHANNON KNOX

Commissioner Colon extended birthday greetings to Shannon Knox, daughter of County Attorney Scott Knox.

WARRANT LIST

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 5:23 p.m.

ATTEST:
__________________________________
RON PRITCHARD, D.P.A., CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
_______________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)