April 16, 2002

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on April 16, 2002, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Truman Scarborough, Commissioners Nancy Higgs and Susan Carlson, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox. Absent were: *Commissioners Randy O'Brien and Jackie Colon.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Chairman Scarborough stated Commissioner O'Brien had a flat tire this morning, and is running late; and Commissioner Colon is making opening remarks for a conference in the County, and will also be late.

The Invocation was given by Reverend Steve Schantz, World Wide Church of God, Melbourne, Florida.

Chairman Truman Scarborough led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING BREVARD COUNTY VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION
WEEK

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution proclaiming April 21, through 27, 2002 as Brevard County Volunteer Appreciation Week.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt a Resolution proclaiming April 21, through April 27, 2002 as Brevard County Volunteer Appreciation Week in recognition of the efforts and contributions of volunteers, and expressing gratitude to the volunteers for their outstanding service. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 02-089.)

Human Resources Director Frank Abbate stated the County joins in the national celebration honoring volunteers; the President has proclaimed next week as National Volunteer Week; and the theme "Celebrate the American Spirit, Volunteer" reflects the resolve of the American tradition and focuses on building greater awareness of volunteering by engaging more individuals, groups. and organizations to volunteer in their communities. He stated he is present to thank, recognize, and express gratitude to the individuals who have participated as volunteers in one or more of the over 20 volunteer programs in the County; and advised of various activities of the volunteers. He stated last year Brevard Citizens gave over 501,000 volunteer hours to various County programs. Paulette Davidson, BRAVE Volunteer Coordinator, stated there are 27,000 volunteers; and presented a check to the taxpayers for 501,000 volunteer hours, which in terms of money represents over $8 million. She expressed appreciation to the volunteer programs, volunteer managers, and volunteers for their great dedication.

Mr. Abbate requested all volunteers stand and be recognized. Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Mr. Abbate.

Chairman Scarborough stated one measure to judge the quality of a community is how the people respond to their neighbors, and whether they volunteer and become actively involved; and in Brevard County the answer is yes, they do. He stated it is more than $8 million because it makes the County a wonderful place to live. He stated the 27,000 volunteers do not include the cities, independent organizations, or churches; and expressed appreciation to the volunteers.

Commissioner Higgs stated it says it all that such a large group is present, and that it represents only a small part of the people who volunteer; volunteers are an asset to the community; and they are a statement of the quality of the individuals who live in the County. She expressed appreciation to the volunteers.

Commissioner Carlson thanked the volunteers; and recognized Melissa Rood, who has provided service through the Teen Advisory Program.

Ms. Davidson advised there will be a presentation of Certificates of Appreciation upstairs.

CERTIFICATES, RE: EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Human Resources Director Frank Abbate stated during 2001 there were a series of 18 classes that were organized into three different phases representing a total of 54 workshops on a variety of topics that employees were able to attend; and the topics included time management skills, communicating for results, conflict resolution, basic writing skills, anger management, measuring customer satisfaction, motivational skills, leadership, continuous improvement teambuilding, supervising and performance review, grievance handling, managing risk, the hiring process, budget training, advanced writing skills, and managing diversity. He stated there were 864 attendees who received a total of 2,584 hours of training; and of those employees, 13 passed the three examinations to earn Certificates of Professional Development, three with honors. He recognized Leigh Alberts, Robert Edminston, David Glenn, Mary Kane, Lisa Marasco, Robert Marcincuk, Richard Meckes, Daniel Romano, Carolyn Sautter, and Bruce Senchesen, who received Professional Development Certificates, and Marilyn Bankes, Carla Nicholson, and Elanya Quick who received Professional Development Certificates with honors.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS WEEK

Commissioner Carlson read aloud resolution proclaiming April 21, through April 27, 2002 as Administrative Professionals Week.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution proclaiming April 21, through April 27, 2002 as Administrative Professionals Week and saluting the valuable contributions of Administrative Professionals in the workplace on the 50th Anniversary of Administrative Professionals Week. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 02-090.)

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Charlene Spangler, CAP, representing the International Association of Administrative Professionals, Central Brevard Chapter. Ms. Spangler expressed appreciation to the Board.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY WEEK

Commissioner Higgs stated she had a great time Sunday afternoon at the Children's Home Society Fundraiser; and the group does wonderful work for the community.

Commissioner Higgs read aloud a resolution proclaiming the week of April 14, through April 20, 2002 as Children's Home Society Week in Brevard County, and congratulating the Children's Home Society on 100 years of service to Florida's children.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming April 14, through April 20, 2002 as Children's Home Society Week, and congratulating the Society for a century of service to children. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 02-091.)

Rene' Ledford, Executive Director of the Children's Home Society-Melbourne, expressed appreciation to the Board; stated they are very excited to be celebrating their Centennial Year; and they look forward to a brighter future for today's children and families. She noted the teddy bear is also 100 years old this year; they have adopted the teddy bear as their symbol; and gave each Commissioner a teddy bear.

Commissioner Carlson requested Ms. Ledford talk a little about Hacienda Ranch. Ms. Ledford stated they broke ground on Friday for a new pre-independent living cottage for girls who are transitioning out of foster care; it is a big project; and they have raised $123,000 through grants. She stated the cottage will house eight girls, and give them the opportunity to learn the skills they need to transition into adulthood and be good citizens for the community. She advised they have also received help from the City of Melbourne.

Commissioner Higgs presented the Resolution to Ms. Ledford and a group from the Children's Home Society.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING BREVARD COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution commending Brevard Community College (BCC) for its outstanding commitment to promoting ideas, leadership, and personal relationships among alumni and students of BCC.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution recognizing Brevard Community College for its commitment to promoting ideas, leadership, and personal relationships among alumni and students of BCC. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 02-092.)

Dr. Lance Armstrong, Alumni Association President, introduced Alumni Association Executive Director Debbie Grollmus and Dr. Bruce Wilson, Founding President of Brevard Junior College; and stated all it takes to join the Alumni Association is to have successfully completed one course. He stated the mission is to advance the cause of education at BCC through the activities, and promote ideas, leadership, and personal relationships among alumni and students of BCC during and after undergraduate years. He stated they are looking forward to having different organizations participate in taking a BCC student to work; and advised any BCC, BJC, or Carver Junior College student who has successfully completed one course is eligible to join. He stated Guy Spearman has donated $5,000 to provide the initial base for the scholarship program; and that would mean two students can be picked from high school seniors in the community who want to continue with their education; and they can do that by having a GPA that is interesting and a burning desire for higher education. He stated they will get two-year scholarships for the critical phase of education life; and that is the alumni's main goal. He stated other goals would be to put alumni who may not have seen each other for many years back together for different functions. He stated the website is at www.brevardcc.edu; and the phone number is 321-632-1111, extension 64543. He advised joining the Alumni Association is free; and commented on the advantages to joining and current members. He stated they look forward to putting high school seniors into BCC and having Scholarship Saturday to match students with scholarships.

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Dr. Armstrong.

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

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING CIVILITY MONTH

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt a Resolution proclaiming the month of May 2002 as Civility Month. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 02-093.)

Commissioner Higgs stated it is important to recognize the issue of public decorum and respect for all people; and that is what civility is all about.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING MANAGEMENT WEEK

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution proclaiming June 3 through June 8, 2002 as Management Week in Brevard County, and expressing sincere appreciation to the National Management Association for its valuable contributions and assistance to the citizens of the County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 02-094.)

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING MRS. TERRI CHASE, PREGNANCY RESOURCES, INC.
DIRECTOR

Commissioner Colon read aloud a resolution recognizing Terri Chase for her service as Director of Pregnancy Resources, Inc.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution recognizing Terri Chase for her accomplishments as Director of Pregnancy Resources, Inc. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 02-095.)

Terri Chase expressed appreciation to the Board; and stated it is an honor to be recognized by the Board. She stated her staff and volunteers make her job easy; and thanked them for their hard work and dedication.

Commissioner Colon presented the Resolution to Mrs. Chase.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING MELBOURNE CENTRAL CATHOLIC GIRLS
BASKETBALL TEAM

Commissioner Colon read aloud a resolution recognizing Melbourne Central Catholic Girls Basketball Team for winning the Class 2A State Championship.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution recognizing Melbourne Central Catholic Girls Basketball Team for winning the Class 2A State Championship. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 02-096.)

Head Coach Candy Terry stated the young ladies on the team are not just athletes but students as well; and the three graduating seniors have earned full scholarships based on academics and athletics. She thanked the community for its support, and the Board for the Resolution.

Commissioner Colon read aloud the names of the team members, coaches, and managers; and presented the Resolution to the team.

REPORT, RE: FERAL CATS

Commissioner Higgs stated yesterday she sent to each Commissioner an indication that she wishes to ask for support for Animal Services in its efforts to take care of nuisance situations with a colony of feral cats at Winn Dixie in Port St. John; it has come to her attention that there are problems with that particular colony; and Animal Services has begun to enforce the regulations that are in place. She stated unless there is some reason to change the law, the Board should indicate its support for staff in moving forward to enforce nuisance regulations and take care of the situation with that colony. She stated staff has indicated a 30-day window to take care of the problem; some people have advised they did not want the Board to take any action until there was an opportunity for further discussion and public comment; and if the Board wishes to change the law, it can be put on an agenda for discussion; but at this point staff is moving forward to resolve the problem. She stated she has supported the efforts to resolve the situation with feral cats as well as stray animals; the spay/neuter/return program and the efforts of the volunteers are critical; and she is not unsupportive of the feral cat program, but recommends a review of that. She requested the Board appoint a committee including the caregivers, activists, Humane Society, and Veterinary Association, to work together with Animal Services to review what is being done. She stated there needs to be some improvement in how the program is done; she has received letters, calls, and comments from people in the community who have had problems with the colonies; and it is necessary to respect the abutting property owners as well as the animals to be saved and taken care of.

Commissioner Carlson stated she also received information about problems with Turkey Creek and some other areas where the colonies are getting out of control; when the Ordinance was before the Board to establish the program, the Board never addressed where the animals could be placed; and if the colonies were existing on EEL's properties, the Board never determined whether they could go back there or if they were to be relocated elsewhere. She inquired if the Ordinance addresses that; with Assistant County Manager Don Lusk responding the Ordinance does not address location. Commissioner Carlson recommended the Board take a second look at the Ordinance, and that it come back as an agenda item so the Board can discuss some of the nuances. She stated some improvements and fine tuning are needed; and inquired if the County's program is modeled after the Alley Cat Allies program; with Mr. Lusk responding no, the County is not going along with that program exactly. Commissioner Carlson recommended getting them included in the review; stated an update would be helpful; and there is a lot of concern with how these colonies are handled. She stated it is important to deal with them in the way the Board professed to when it supported the program; the committee Commissioner Higgs recommended could be included in the discussion of the issues and working with Animal Control; and that might make the program much better.

Chairman Scarborough stated there are people present who want to address the issue; and requested those who have an interest in the issue to stand. Several people stood. Chairman Scarborough advised under Reports the Board does not take public comment.

Commissioner Colon stated this has come to the attention of all Commissioners; and thanked Susan Canada who has been instrumental in providing information. She stated she is aware the Board will probably have to take action; but she wants to make sure it is working to address bringing some of the feral cats into a new colony; and commented on the need for sufficient cages. She stated it is kitten season; so the Board needs to make sure it addresses all of these issues. She stated there are a lot of concerns over how it is going to be done; the Board is able to work closely with the rescue groups in the community; and it should be possible to make a smooth transition. She stated there were a lot of concerns that have been addressed by County staff; and the Board should move forward. She stated Ms. Canada brought a lot of information to her in regard to identifying areas where the cats could be moved; they are in the process of finding out where in the community there is plenty of open space so there will be no threat of coming into a community and having something similar to what has happened in Port St. John; and there is to be a meeting this week with some of the people involved with the colony to see if they can come up with some kind of arrangement to take care of it before the 30 days. She stated she is looking forward to making sure the Board works correctly and sensitively on what has to happen for this to occur; and there is still tweaking to be done to the Ordinance, so the Board needs to look at it and see where it can move from here. She stated when the action took place, a lot of things were not taken into account; and this will be okay as long as the Board is able to work closely with the rest of the group.

Chairman Scarborough stated he was briefed by Randy Jackson and met with some of the people with Winn Dixie, as well as with Susan Canada; and what bothers him is the finding of fact without a hearing on the fact. He stated there are people who have different views; the County enforces Ordinances, but normally not by having findings of fact by the Board without a public hearing to allow those who may dispute the facts to be heard; and procedurally that is not the way the Board should handle things. He stated to go to a finding of fact without having an opportunity for a staff memorandum of finding of fact followed by community comment on the finding is procedurally incorrect; but if it is just an Ordinance to be enforced, normally the Board does not have a finding of fact for enforcement of Ordinances. He stated he cannot support a finding of fact without a full hearing to allow for contrary comments on the finding of fact; and some things concern him; but the establishment of a review committee is an excellent idea. He stated a lot of issues are evolving; and he can support the second suggestion; but at this time he will not vote in favor of a finding of fact without a hearing on the matter.

Commissioner Carlson stated she is confused about the finding of fact. Chairman Scarborough stated the item says, "support the finding that the feral colony is creating a nuisance and health hazard"; if the Board is going to do that and there are people who dispute it, they should have an opportunity to be heard; and if the Board wishes to open this for public comment, he will do so at this time, and then the Board can proceed further. Commissioner Carlson stated at least three Commissioner agree this should come back in an agenda format to review the Ordinance and look at the idea of a committee. Chairman Scarborough stated he does not mind that; but it is a determination that it is creating a nuisance and health hazard. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board does not determine that. Chairman Scarborough stated the memorandum says, "a finding that it is a creation of a nuisance and a health hazard." Commissioner Higgs stated what she should have said is that the process needs to go forward as it would in any other instance; if they find a nuisance and health hazard, staff needs to go forward to resolve that according to the outlined procedures; and the Board should not be involved in a finding of fact in this regard. She stated the finding should be to support staff; there is procedure and law; and staff should go forward with that; so the finding of fact would be to go forward and enforce the Ordinance.

Chairman Scarborough stated he has a problem with the next paragraph where it says, "30 days from April 9"; normally he does not advise as to time parameters in which to take action; this is irregular; and there are certain issues that become problematic. He stated if the Board is setting a timetable, it needs to have an opportunity to hear and be fully involved. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is based on what Dr. Heshmati has determined to be a health risk; with Chairman Scarborough responding that is nice to say, but the Board meets in the Sunshine with the Clerk taking minutes and opportunity for comments from the public; and if the Board wants to open up for public comment, he will talk about these things; but right now this is a procedure disaster. Commissioner Higgs stated it is an equal disaster for staff not to be able to go forward and enforce the law. Chairman Scarborough stated it is fine to let them enforce the law; but the Board should not get involved at this level, unless it is willing to get involved. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is involved at various levels; and she is willing to concede that it is a legal enforcement issue, not a Board issue unless the issue comes back in the form of a change to the Ordinance.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to go forward and ask staff to draft a resolution to establish a committee to review the Ordinance and what the membership of the committee might include, and bring it back to the Board.

Commissioner Carlson stated Commissioner Higgs is talking about legislative intent; that is what the Board normally does when it is going to bring back an Ordinance for review or change; and the reason for bringing the item back is to review how to deal with the colonies. Commissioner Higgs stated the committee should review the implementation and the Ordinance, and then bring back recommended changes.

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

Commissioner Higgs stated staff would go forward to enforce the law as it stands. Chairman Scarborough stated staff is always supposed to do what it deems appropriate under the law. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board would not be involved in that; with Chairman Scarborough advising the Board does not have to instruct staff to do anything as far as the Ordinances. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board will hear about the Ordinance, but not the enforcement. Chairman Scarborough advised if someone wants to ask for a personal appearance on any item, that may occur; and if they want to raise issues, they may.

Discussion ensued on not taking action on the 30 days and finding of fact, putting a committee together to review the Ordinance, and staff enforcement of laws.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if staff understands what the motion entails and stated the Board wants the item brought back with recommendations from staff on the application of the program and what needs to be added or taken out of the Ordinances, and there will be discussion at a public hearing. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated he heard the Board say it wanted to come back and have a study committee take a look at the Ordinance with Commissioner Higgs advising that is correct. Commissioner Carlson stated the committee will review the Ordinance before it comes back to the Board. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board will want a draft of how the committee will be set up; with Commissioner Carlson recommending it include Alley Cat Allies. Mr. Jenkins advised he does not know if they are available. Chairman Scarborough stated the Veterinary Society is mentioned; and there may be others who will call in wanting to participate.

Commissioner Colon inquired about the 30 days, and whether the Board is saying to take action; with Chairman Scarborough responding if the Board wants to put it on the agenda, it would be appropriate; but without having something of more substance, staff does not need instructions every time it enforces an Ordinance. He stated there are thousands of staff decisions every day; and the Board does not have to be involved in it.

Commissioner Carlson stated she is not sure the Ordinance provides enough guidance for staff to do its job; that is part of the problem; and location of the colonies was never addressed in the Ordinance. Chairman Scarborough stated staff can bring back its comments on how the Ordinance needs to be improved.

Commissioner Colon stated Chairman Scarborough suggested it come back, not just as a discussion of the Ordinance, but in regards to the discussion of the Port St. John issue, so the community will be able to have some input. Chairman Scarborough stated there are people who took time to come today; the Board cannot say it will not hear from the public; and the Board will probably try to integrate the two concepts of how it is enforcing the current Ordinance and how the current Ordinance may be changed to better bring about the policy. Commissioner Colon stated the Board just heard one side, which is from staff; and inquired when does the opportunity take place for the public to speak. Chairman Scarborough advised it can be put on the agenda.

Commissioner Higgs stated in the interim, in the absence of other direction, staff should move forward to enforce the Ordinance as it is today. Chairman Scarborough stated he has never believed staff should do anything but enforce the current Ordinances.

REPORT, RE: SAMPLE THE ARTS

Commissioner Carlson stated the Melbourne Art Festival has a display in the foyer; and it will be having the annual art festival this month.

Commissioner Carlson congratulated Janice Kershaw, Chairman of the School Board, for the successful Very Special Arts Festival; stated she attended the Festival; and her daughter and husband were part of the event. She state the Very Special Arts Festival was put together to promote the creative talents of those with disabilities; and it was a wonderful time, with over 1,000 children who attended. She thanked Parks and Recreation staff and the Space Coast Marine Institute for helping with the event.

REPORT, RE: BILLBOARD LEGISLATION

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board wishes to bring suit on the billboard issue.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit on the billboard legislation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: MAX BREWER LAW LIBRARY

Chairman Scarborough stated he got a letter on the Max Brewer Law Library; he does not have the authority to proceed without the Board's approval. He inquired if the Board would prefer for staff to come back with a report; with Commissioner Carlson indicating she would. Chairman Scarborough stated staff can come back with a report on the next agenda.

AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL AND BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, RE:
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROJECT
FUNDING RECOMMENDATION

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve the recommendation of the Technical Advisory Committee for Impact Fee Benefit District 9; approve Budget Change Request to implement the project appropriation for FY 2001-02; and execute Agreement with the City of Cape Canaveral for $65,000 to fund the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Agreement and Budget Change Request.)

LEGISLATIVE INTENT, RE: STREAMLINING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND USES
REGULATIONS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve the legislative intent of streamlining the Zoning Code's references to accessory buildings and uses; and direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance for Board consideration. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE:
ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING REGULATIONS RELATING TO ERRONEOUS
REFERENCE IN PARKING, LOCATING, AND STORING TRAILERS, BOATS, VEHICLES
AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to accept the legislative intent for proposed amendment to Chapter 62, Article VI, Land Development Regulations, relating to erroneous reference in Section 62-2118, parking, locating, and storing trailers, boats, vehicles, and heavy equipment; and grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider the ordinance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE:
ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING REGULATIONS RELATING TO BU-1-A, BU-1, AND
BU-2 SETBACKS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to accept the legislative intent for proposed amendment to Chapter 62, Article VI, Land Development Regulations, relating to BU-1-A, BU-1, and BU-2 setbacks; and grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider the ordinance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE A PUBLIC HEARING RE:
ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING REGULATIONS RELATING TO COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to accept the legislative intent for proposed amendments to several sections of Chapter 62, Article VI, Land Development Regulations, relating to commercial and industrial development standards; and granted permission to advertise a public hearing to consider the ordinance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE:
ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING REGULATIONS RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to accept the legislative intent for proposed amendment to Chapter 62, Article VI, Land Development Regulations, relating to conditional use permits; and grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider the ordinance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL ENGINEERING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, RE: CRYSTAL BAY

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approval for Crystal Bay, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and developer obtaining necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL ENGINEERING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, RE: AUBURN HILLS
SUBDIVISIONS, TRACTS F4 AND F5

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approval for Auburn Hills Subdivision, Tracts F4 and F5, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and developer obtaining necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: RIVER OAK ESTATES

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant final plat approval for River Oak Estates, subject to minor changes, if necessary, receipt of documents required for recording, and developer obtaining jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: NAPOLO DRIVE

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant final plat approval for Napolo Drive, subject to minor changes, if necessary, receipt of documents required for recording, and developer obtaining jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, RE: OCEAN PARK TOWNHOMES

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant preliminary plat approval for Ocean Park Townhomes, with the developer obtaining necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACT WITH JOSEPH DIPRIMA, RE: SORRENTO VILLAGE

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to execute Infrastructure Contract with Joseph DiPrima for infrastructure improvements to Sorrento Village. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Infrastructure Contract.)

EXTENSION AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDRON LTD., INC., RE: INDIAN LANDING
SUBDIVISION, PHASE II

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to execute Extension Agreement with Floridron Ltd., Inc. for infrastructure improvements to Indian Landing Subdivision, Phase II. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Infrastructure Contract.)

ACCEPTANCE OF DEED FROM GROVES INDUSTRIAL PARK J. V., INC., RE:
CANAVERAL GROVES BOULEVARD AND DEVOE AVENUE RIGHTS-OF-WAY

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to accept Right-of-way Deed from Grove Industrial Park J.V., Inc. for Canaveral Groves Boulevard and Devoe Avenue rights-of-way, and approve retention and permitting assistance by County staff in exchange for materials that are needed in Section 31, Township 23S., Range 36E. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Deed.)

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: CENTRAL AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve request for installation of four speed humps on Central Avenue, located in Merritt Island, at approximate cost of $2,237.20. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, APPOINT SELECTION AND
NEGOTIATING COMMITTEES, AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACT, RE:
REPLACEMENT OF RED AND GREEN TRAFFIC SIGNAL BULBS WITH LIGHT
EMITTING DIODES

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize staff to solicit proposals for a performance contract to replace red and green bulbs with light emitting diodes; appoint Henry Minneboo, Dick Thompson, Greg Pelham, Doug Mihalich, and Billy Osborne to the Selection Committee; appoint Eden Bentley, Dick Thompson, and Greg Pelham to the Negotiating Committee; reallocate $170,000 for light emitting diodes to purchase traffic signal control equipment; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract with the successful proposer for the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Contract.)

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, APPOINT SELECTION AND
NEGOTIATING COMMITTEES, AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACT, RE:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF TRAFFIC
SIGNAL SYSTEMS TIMING

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize staff to solicit proposals for professional services for retiming of traffic signal systems; appoint Dick Thompson, Robert Zaitooni, Doug Mihalich, Billy Osborne, and Henry Minneboo to the Selection Committee; appoint Eden Bentley, Dick Thompson, and Robert Zaitooni to the Negotiating Committee; and authorize the Chairman to execute Contract with the successful proposer for the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Contract.)

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF MELBOURNE AND AGREEMENT WITH
BELLSOUTH, RE: CROTON ROAD WIDENING PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to execute Interlocal Agreement with City of Melbourne and Agreement with BellSouth for installation of utilities in conjunction with the Croton Road Widening Project, from Johnson Jr. High School to north of Lake Washington Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Agreements.)

APPROVAL, RE: TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY E, CULTURAL
EVENTS REVISED GRANT APPLICATION HANDBOOK

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve the revised Tourist Development Council Category E, Cultural Events Revised Grant Application Handbook, which includes eligibility requirements, types of grants available, criteria for evaluation, instructions, and application forms. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT GRANT PROPOSAL TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION, RE: DRUG-FREE
COMMUNITIES SUPPORT FUNDING

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize staff to submit a grant proposal to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, for drug-free communities support funding; and approve $18,000 from the General Fund Contingency as matching funds for the grant. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT GRANT PROPOSALS TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
JUVENILE JUSTICE, JJDP PROGRAM, RE: TITLE V DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
FUNDING

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize submission of grant proposals to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, JJDP Program for Title V Delinquency Prevention Funding. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: DONATIONS TO MELBOURNE BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve a List of Opportunities for making donations, in honor or memory of an individual, to the Melbourne Beach Library. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION TO USE STATE CONTRACT AND PURCHASE OPENING DAY BOOK
COLLECTION FROM BAKER & TAYLOR, INC., RE: MELBOURNE BEACH PUBLIC
LIBRARY SUPPLIES

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize use of the State Contract to purchase an opening day book collection from Baker & Taylor, Inc. for Melbourne Beach Public Library at a cost of $125,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO CITIES OF MELBOURNE AND PALM BAY,
TITUSVILLE JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND PORT ST. JOHN, RE: FOURTH
OF JULY FIREWORKS DISPLAYS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve contributions in the amount of $1,000 each for the Fourth of July fireworks displays sponsored by the City of Melbourne, City of Palm Bay, Thunder Over Indian River, Inc. for Port St. John, and the Titusville Jaycees. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL TO PIGGYBACK LAKE COUNTY BID, RE: FIRE ENGINE AND TANKER
OUTFITTING EQUIPMENT

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve piggybacking the Lake County Bid, Contract No. 02-010D, to acquire new fire engine and tanker outfitting equipment in the amount of $192,878.20. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: 2002 FIRE GRANT APPLICATION

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve the 2002 Fire Grant Application to provide capital, operating expenses, equipment, and supplies to further improve the Department's Health, Wellness, and Fitness Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH D&D MORTUARY SERVICE, RE: REMOVAL AND TRANSPORT OF
BODIES FOR MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to execute Agreement with D&D Mortuary Service for the removal and transport of bodies for the 18th District Medical Examiner's Office as a sole source provider; and authorize the County Manager to approve additional one-year extensions as detailed in the Agreement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

AGREEMENT WITH SPACE COAST ADVERTISING CONSORTIUM, INC., RE: BUS
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to execute Agreement to Extend Existing Contract with Space Coast Advertising Consortium, Inc. to provide marketing and advertising services for SCAT through May 31, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

PERMISSION TO BID AND AWARD BID, RE: PHASE I REHABILITATION OF LANDFILL
GAS COLLECTION SYSTEM

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant permission to bid Phase I, Rehabilitation of Landfill Gas Collection System at the Central Disposal Facility; and to award bid to the lowest, qualified, and responsive bidder. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH BETTY BROWNING, RE: FUTURE WATER LINE REIMBURSEMENT

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to execute Agreement with Betty Browning for future reimbursement of half the cost to extend a water line to her property in the event the property owner of 3542 Barney Court in Mims wishes to connect to the County's water system using the line installed by Mrs. Browning. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

AUTHORIZE PROPRIETARY PURCHASE INCREASE AND ANNUAL PAYMENT OF
AQUIFER MAINTENANCE AND PERFORMANCE SYSTEMS, RE: WATER SUPPLY
WELL MAINTENANCE

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize increase of Purchase Order No. 4500012350 to $50,000; and authorize annual payment of $65,000 to Aquifer Maintenance and Performance Systems for water supply well maintenance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF REVISED POLICY BCC-45, RE: INITIATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW
ORDINANCES OR AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCES

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve revised Policy BCC-45 for initiation and development of new or amended ordinances. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Policy BCC-45.)

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, APPOINT SELECTION AND
NEGOTIATING COMMITTEES, AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS,
COMMERCIAL PAPER FINANCING, AND RESOLUTION FOR COLLECTION OF TAXES,
RE: A&E AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR NEW OFFICE
BUILDING FOR TAX COLLECTOR IN VIERA

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant permission to advertise request for proposals for A&E and Construction Management Services for a new Office of the Tax Collector in Viera; appoint Rod Northcutt or his designee, Jaime Irizarry, Ed Washburn, and Sam Stanton to the Selection Committee; appoint Rod Northcutt or his designee, Jaime Irizarry, and Sam Stanton to the Negotiating Committee; authorize the Chairman to execute all associated Contracts for construction of an 8,000 square-foot office building for the Tax Collector in Viera; authorize Commercial Paper financing for the project; and authorize the Chairman to execute a Resolution authorizing the Tax Collector to collect ad valorem taxes at that location. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Contracts and Resolution No. 02-103.)

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: MERGER AND TRANSFER OF
AT&T BROADBAND AND COMCAST CORPORATION NON-EXCLUSIVE CABLE
TELEVISION FRANCHISE TO AT&T COMCAST CORPORATION

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant permission to advertise public hearing on May 21, 2002 for merger and transfer of AT&T Broadband and Comcast Corporation for non-exclusive cable television franchise to AT&T Comcast Corporation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF AWARD PAYMENT, RE: EMPLOYEE INNOVATIONS PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve award of payment in the amount of $50 to Sylvia M. Anderson with Library Services for submitting a recommendation to the Employee Innovations Program Screening Committee and having it implemented by the affected Department. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING WINNIE TUMBLIN AS GOVERNOR OF THE FLORIDA
DISTRICT OF PILOT INTERNATIONAL

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution congratulating Winnie Tumblin on her appointment as Governor of the Florida District, Pilot International, effective April 27, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 02-097.)

ACCEPTANCE OF BYRNE GRANT FORMULA BASE, BREVARD COUNTY FEDERAL
AWARD, AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION, RE:
EDWARD C. BYRNE GRANT APPLICATIONS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize the Chairman to approve and sign Certificate of Participation for the Edward C. Byrne grant applications for FY 2003; and approve local match of $90,179 from the County's General Fund for the Booking System Improvement/Prisoner Transportation Program II. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, RE: BREVARD COUNTY V. RAYMOND AMY,
ET AL - SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT - SOUTH REACH, PHASE 1

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize advertising and scheduling an executive session for April 30, 2002, at 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible to discuss settlement related to litigation regarding Brevard County v. Raymond Amy, et al - Shore Protection Project - South Reach, Phase 1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to appoint Peggy R. Moore to the Brevard County Commission on the Status of Women; Herman Skambraks to the Metropolitan Planning Organization Citizens Advisory Committee; Kim Zarillo to the Planning and Zoning Board replacing David Matte; and Garrett Pomichter to the Veterans Memorial Park Advisory Board, with all terms to expire December 31, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve the Bills and Budget Changes as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for List of Bills and Budget Change Requests.)

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE, RE: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO BREVARD COUNTY
CODE CHAPTER 106, GOLF CART USE ON PUBLIC ROADS

Frank Gallo stated he has been a resident of Viera for just under six years; when the PUD was put together, it was with golf carts as a secondary means of transportation; and the change in front of the Board would increase the safety of use of golf carts, if approved. He stated in Viera there are currently 4,000 homes, which will go to 6,000 in Viera East; golf carts relieve a lot of the congestion on some streets; as the Ordinance is currently written, he could drive a golf cart on Viera Boulevard, but not on the sidewalks near Viera Boulevard; and it would be safer to allow the use of golf carts on the sidewalks, if there was signage on designated pathways advising the golf carts were going to be on those pathways along with pedestrian traffic. He stated The Viera Company has agreed to put up signage on the sidewalks so they can be properly used; and commented on Viera being comprised predominantly of empty nesters and retirees, with few children in the community. He stated there are not a lot of people racing around in golf carts; if people are responsible enough to drive cars, they should be responsible enough to operate golf carts in a safe manner; and requested the Board consider the Ordinance, which would allow them to do what they want within the community. He stated it would lessen traffic on Murrell Road and Viera Boulevard; it would lessen the impact of fumes; and it would be a better way to go. He stated the subdivisions within the community have been planned with the use of golf carts as a secondary mode of transportation; and requested the Board approve the ordinance. Vincent Battiato stated he is a resident of Viera East; most of the residents are retirees over the age of 55; and when they moved there, it was with the understanding they would be allowed to use golf carts as a secondary means of transportation to and from shopping and the golf course. He stated most, if not all, of the golf carts are insured; and operation of the golf carts is done in a safe manner with no racing up and down the streets or sidewalks. He stated the sidewalks are widening to ten feet, which is sufficient area for the golf carts to go with pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

Susan Amarant stated she is a resident of the Viera East Golf Community; one of the factors influencing her choice to live in Viera East was that she would have the option of using a golf cart as an alternative means of mobility within the community; and she is in support of designating safe transportation with the use of a golf cart.

Ronald Ryan stated he lives in Six-Mile Creek; when he purchased his house, he was under the impression he could take his golf cart to the golf course and back; and it was one of the reasons for his decision to move there. He stated he would like to reiterate what the previous speakers have said in favor of the ordinance.

James O'Connor stated he lives at the Viera East Golf Club; and he is in total support of the ordinance. He stated he has been here about seven years; one of the main reasons for moving into the Viera community was the secondary use of golf carts; and he has not heard of a safety incident with a golf cart within the community. He stated he knows there were some concerns; but the proposed ordinance would make the current ordinance much safer.

Gerald S. Watson, member of the Board of Supervisors of the Viera East Community Development District, stated he is speaking on behalf of many of the residents who could not come this morning; he has lived in the Heron's Landing Subdivision of Viera since 1997; they purchased the home with the understanding they were residents of the Viera East Community Development District, and could avail themselves of not only the golf fees but the use of their golf carts; and in all the years they have been driving to the golf course, they have never driven on Viera Boulevard or Murrell Road, but have always used the pedways provided. He stated they crossed at the designated cross streets; to insure they were not violating any of the laws, he addressed this situation on several occasions with high-ranking officers of the Sheriff's Department at the Annual Neighborhood Night Out; and on each occasion he was told as long as they did not drive on the roadways, they were okay. He urged the Board to change the existing Ordinance so the residents can continue to enjoy the lifestyle which has made Viera and the County the best place to live.

Wilson Butler stated he resides in Viera; he moved to Florida after 39 years of federal service in Washington, D.C.; and his dream was to come and play golf. He stated they moved here two years ago; they were given a golf cart with the purchase of their home; and they were told that they would have to make sure they had insurance on it, lights, and everything in order to use it in the area. He stated that was a big selling factor because they looked at other areas where carts were used with no problem; and they came here knowing they could do the same thing.

Mr. Butler stated they have a very disciplined community; and commented on safety practices. He stated it is a great amenity to be able to use the golf carts; recently when he ran for a seat on the CDD Board, many people asked him to do something about being able to use the golf carts in the community; and advised of the advantages to a one-car family. He requested the Board support the request.

Stan Weckstein stated he supports the request for changing the Ordinance; it would not be unique to Viera; and there are other areas throughout the County and State that have the use of golf carts as a second means of transportation. He stated he has not heard of any serious accidents; the change would make it easier for people to get around; it would be better for the environment; and it is just as safe as other means of transportation.

Richard Jeffery stated he concurs with the previous speakers; he lives in Heron's Landing; and several neighbors would have like to have come, but could not. He stated they have to travel almost two miles to get to the golf course; a shopping center is convenient; and his wife always asks him to stop and pick up something; so the change would be very positive.

Bruce Merrill stated he lives in Viera; when he and his wife first came to the County in 1988 looking for a place to spend their retirement, they were impressed by the lifestyle available in Viera and the County; and they were introduced to the concept of a planned community and the idea that all segments of Viera would be accessible to its residents and business people by the interconnecting golf cart paths and that everyone would be able to go to the shops, town center, etc. using their golf carts on the trails or cart paths. He stated this would cut down on the use of
gasoline driven vehicles and reduce pollution; and it sounded good. He stated now they understand there is some objection to this concept; they are unaware of any cogent or rational reasons to not permit golf carts on paths or trails that have been carefully planned and constructed to accommodate the residents; and requested each Commissioner support the proposed revisions.

Ralph Solvold stated he lives in Viera; he bought into the lifestyle; and he thought they would be able to freely use the golf carts. He stated alternate fuels are a big issue today; there is high density now with additional apartments being built in the area; and the use of golf carts would make an easier flow of traffic and improve safety. He stated he supports the revisions as written.

Jay Decatur stated he lives in Viera, and is counsel for The Viera Company; and thanked the residents for turning out in support of the amendment. He stated the State law that governs golf cart use on roads allows operation of golf carts by persons over the age of 14; there was some concern whether a 14-year old person would be responsible enough to operate golf carts safely; but the County Ordinance already addresses this issue by requiring operators be at least 16-years old. He requested the Board approve the amendment.

Commissioner Carlson stated in terms of liability, the 16-year old is one of those issues; but it is possible to get a permit to drive a car at 16; so she does not have an issue as long as there is that age requirement. She stated in terms of other liabilities such as crossing over intersections and things like that, she would like to know what liabilities The Viera Company is going to take on or if it is all on the County. County Attorney Scott Knox stated there is no liability for making the decision to allow the golf carts to be used; the only liability the County would have is if it was in a position of having to maintain the ways the carts get back and forth or the signage, striping, etc.; so to the extent the County keeps up with that stuff, it will not have that much of a problem. Commissioner Carlson stated traditionally pedways, trails, etc. have been for non-motorized vehicles; but she understands The Viera Company has created ten-foot pathways, and that those along Murrell Road are ten feet. Mr. Decatur stated the trails that golf carts would be allowed to operate on are ten feet; there are pedways in Viera that are not ten feet wide; but along the main roads to and from the village center and golf course, those would be ten feet wide. Commissioner Carlson stated going from Kash N Karry, the path is not ten feet; with Mr. Decatur responding it will be. Mr. Decatur stated currently the path on the north side of Viera Boulevard is eight feet; but they are hoping the County will designate a crossing at Heron's Landing and Indian River Colony Club, because on the south side of Viera Boulevard, it is a ten-foot path, which The Viera Company will extend to Murrell Road. Commissioner Carlson inquired about the paths on Murrell Road; with Mr. Decatur responding those are ten feet wide on the west side.

Mary Ellen McKibben, Project Director for The Viera Company, stated right now golf carts are permitted to travel to and from the golf course; and what they are trying to change is to allow the carts to be used to stop at the grocery or for other errands in the area of the ten-foot golf cart paths. She stated The Viera Company is going to put up signage to indicate the pedway system, golf cart, and bike system would be a shared pathway; and there will be designated crossings at the intersection of Viera Boulevard and Murrell Road, so it will be safe for the residents. She stated they are going to do all the right things to keep the residents safe; having the golf carts as an alternative means of travel is a good thing for the environment; and they are looking to the Board for support.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if staff talked to Barbara Meyer, who is the sidewalk expert, before this was brought to the Board. Traffic Engineering Director Dick Thompson responded he spoke with Ms. Meyer yesterday; and she has concerns about the safety aspect of mixing vehicles with pedestrians, as does he, primarily because many of the pedestrians, bicyclists, or skateboarders use a Walkman and a golf cart could slip up on them very easily, creating possibility for injury. Commissioner Carlson stated there can be some conflict; it is necessary to respect everyone on a pathway; and the pathways along Murrell Road and that area are significantly used. Public Works Director Henry Minneboo stated there were some safety concerns; but those issues can be addressed if the Board approves the Ordinance change. Commissioner Carlson inquired if lighting is scheduled to go up on Clubhouse Drive and Viera Boulevard; with Mr. Thompson responding that is correct. Commissioner Carlson stated her big concern is that there are no traffic lights there now; and there is a huge concern about safety when there are no lights because cars are much bigger than golf carts. She stated she would like comments from the other Commissioners; in Suntree golf carts are allowed to go throughout the community, but not to Publix, etc. because the community is not set up to
access facilities like that; and inquired how can the Board keep from setting a precedent for other golf communities that do not have ten-foot sidewalks, or should it make requirements that say this cannot be done until certain things are in place such as what Viera is trying to do. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the difference is that Viera is being designed for this purpose, whereas Suntree is an older community that was not designed for such use; Suntree has much more narrow sidewalks/pedways; and it is a different physical layout. He stated he was extensively involved in drafting the Ordinance the first time; it originated in Suntree; Viera was a fairly new community at that time; and as Viera has grown, additional locations are being requested because the community has grown significantly in size since the Ordinance was drafted. He stated the Suntree situation is physically different than Viera; it was expected there would be some needs for additional locations as Viera grew; but when the Ordinance was adopted, there were only a few subdivisions at that time.

Commissioner Colon stated she had concerns regarding the intersections; but she is comfortable knowing that The Viera Company would not support something it did not feel would protect its community. She stated had there been opposition from The Viera Company, she would have had concerns about the safety issue with carts and pedestrians occupying the same path; but she is comfortable because they are already doing it. She stated staff has already spoken to the Sheriff's Department to be sure any concerns are addressed; and she is comfortable enough to support it based on those decisions. She stated people will have to watch carefully at the intersection once the light goes in; and the Board wants to make sure the citizens are enjoying the community, but also that they are safe. She stated there are going to be even more neighbors coming into the area; the fact that there are ten-foot sidewalks is important to both pedestrians and people riding the carts; and she hopes that is something that is being taken care of, and is not just pending because the safety of both parties is at risk.

Commissioner Higgs stated Commander Smith of the Sheriff's Office is in the audience; and inquired if he wishes to speak to the item. Commander E. C. Smith stated he reviewed this with Mr. Thompson at length; his concerns were purely about safety; and as long as the safety issues are addressed, the ordinance is immaterial to them. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there are safety concerns that are not written in that should be considered; with Commander Smith responding he does not recall specific ones; the main one was the mixture of pedestrians and people with radios in the ears, making it difficult to hear golf carts, which can sneak up on people; and it would be incumbent upon the people using the carts to be extra cautious because they are the ones getting additional privileges. Commissioner Higgs stated there are communities where there are golf facilities; in District 3, Barefoot Bay does not have ten-foot sidewalks; there are golf carts sharing the sides of the roadways; and inquired if Commander Smith sees implications for this. Commander Smith stated initially when the Ordinance first went into effect, there was a lot of conflict and calls; but he does not recall any calls in the recent past. He stated any time different size vehicles are mixed, there will be some conflict that creates potential safety hazards; but as long as the safety issues are addressed, it is fine with the Sheriff's Office.

Commissioner Carlson stated the real issue is going along the side of the road; most folks who want to get from a to b are not going to traverse Murrell Road or Viera Boulevard because of the high level of traffic and speed; but that does not mean there will not be the occasional person who will do that. She inquired if the real issue is intersections in terms of accidents.

Commander Smith responded those are the most dangerous places; but if the lights are timed correctly to allow them adequate time and the crossings are appropriately marked, the potential for danger can be minimized. Commissioner Carlson stated that is an important issue; a person who is walking or skating can get away from an oncoming car; but in a golf cart, someone would be a sitting duck if they did not have enough time to get across the intersection. She stated in Suntree the golf carts traverse the roads; usually they are not on the sidewalks; it is only 30 miles an hour through Suntree, so that is a big issue; but Murrell Road and Viera Boulevard are 45 miles per hour, which is a potential danger. She stated she is concerned about grandma and grandpa letting their grandson hop on the golf cart and misuse it; that would be a concern; and she does not know if The Viera Company will be striping the pedways to designate an area for golf carts so they do not hog the pedways. She stated in other communities, golf carts yield to those walking or riding bikes, etc. because of the motorized versus pedestrian aspect of it. She stated she does not have any real problems with the additions to the Ordinance as it stands; they will see what happens; and hopefully everyone will be able to work with having golf carts on the pathways. She stated if there are issues, and people come back, the Board will have to revisit it; but she supports alternative energy sources, and is all for getting more people onto golf carts and off the road; but recommended using the same caution with golf carts that people use with regular vehicles.

Commissioner Higgs stated if this goes forward, she would like to see a map showing exactly where the carts are going to be and who would be potentially incompatible with those; and she would like to look more specifically at where the roadways are. She stated she is reluctant to do this on a full-scale basis; but she will reserve judgment until she sees the map and the full ordinance. She stated there may be some amendments to the existing Ordinance that she could be supportive of; but she would wish to see additional limitations because she is concerned about the sharing of roadways. She stated she does not know that anything is harmed by looking further at the Ordinance, but she wants to see it nailed down further.

Commissioner Carlson stated the existing Ordinance allows for golf carts to go to and from the golf course by the shortest path possible; and she assumes Commissioner Higgs is talking about the implication of other communities coming to get the same treatment. Commissioner Higgs stated she is looking at this one as well as others. Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board does not pin down some of these issues, it may be opening the door to other issues.

Chairman Scarborough stated there are two ways to proceed; it can come back in this format before the Board grants permission to advertise or the Board can advertise and have the questions worked out as it moves forward.

Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board is granting permission to advertise, it can come back with the maps and things like that; and there is other tweaking that needs to be done.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Higgs has a problem with granting permission to advertise today; with Commissioner Higgs responding she does not have a problem with that, and is willing to continue the discussion, but she is not sure she will be supportive in the long run. Chairman Scarborough recommended the ordinance be advertised broadly.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated it has been the Board's direction to have legislative intent; and inquired if this would suffice for legislative intent; with Chairman Scarborough responding he does not think there needs to be another hearing of this type; there have been a lot of comments today; and Commissioner Higgs' questions will be answered at the public hearing. Commissioner Higgs stated that is fine.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to waive the requirement to return with legislative intent; grant permission to advertise an ordinance revising Brevard County Code, Chapter 106, to designate specific areas of Murrell Road and Viera Boulevard as golf cart crossing areas, and allow carts to be used for other purposes such as shopping and visiting within the Viera North PUD; direct the ordinance be advertised broadly enough to allow changes; and direct staff to address safety concerns and bring back maps showing where the carts would be and potential incompatibilities. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACT, RE: PALMS WEST
SUBDIVISION

Attorney Joel Moss, representing the developer of Palms West Subdivision, stated Palms West is a small seven-lot subdivision off Parkway near Wickham Road in Melbourne; and in addition to the plat approval, he would like approval of the construction contract for the infrastructure. He stated it is a standard contract; it has been reviewed and approved by County staff; and staff recommended he come before the Board and get the matter over with.

Land Development Director Bruce Moia stated staff has reviewed what Mr. Moss submitted; very often both items are submitted on one agenda; but through a miscommunication that did not happen in this case.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant final plat approval for Palms West Subdivision, subject to minor changes, if necessary, receipt of documents required for recording, and developer obtaining jurisdictional permits; and execute Infrastructure Contract with C. Wayne Thompson for the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Infrastructure Contract.)

*Commissioner O'Brien's presence was noted at this time.

The meeting recessed at 10:44 a.m. and reconvened at 10:58 a.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN BANKER'S
RESERVE PROPERTIES, INC., FIRST ADDITION TO MICCO - LEONARD D.
HEARNDON

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating rights-of-way in Banker's Reserve Properties, Inc., First Addition to Micco, as petitioned by Leonard D. Hearndon.

Commissioner Higgs stated there are some issues regarding access.

Leonard Hearndon stated a couple of issues were brought to his attention by Commissioner Higgs; and requested the item be tabled for 60 days to clear up an issue on the easement to the south of him.

Commissioner Higgs stated she would be happy to continue it for 60 days; Land Development staff has indicated they cannot support it because of the parcels to the south not having access; and they can work on that.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating rights-of-way in Banker's Reserve Properties, Inc., First Addition to Micco, as petitioned by Leonard D. Hearndon to July 23, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENTS IN CAMBRIDGE PARK, PHASE 3 - WILLIAM J. RIEBEL

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility and drainage easements in Cambridge Park, Phase 3, as petitioned by William J. Riebel.

Road and Bridge Director Billy Osborne stated there were no objections.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility and drainage easements in Cambridge Park, Phase 3, as petitioned by William J. Riebel. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 02-098.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE; RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENT IN VILLA DE PALMAS, SYKES COVE, SECTION II - DONALD AND DEBRA
MAYER

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement in Villa De Palmas, Sykes Cove, Section II, as petitioned by Donald and Debra Mayer.

Road and Bridge Director Billy Osborne stated there were no objections.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement in Villa De Palmas, Sykes Cove, Section II, as petitioned by Donald and Debra Mayer. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 02-099.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND
EXECUTE HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR FOXRIDGE PLACE IN DEVON'S
GLEN, UNIT 3 - GORDON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider resolution vacating public drainage easement and execute hold harmless agreement for Foxridge Place in Devon's Glen, Unit 3, as petitioned by Gordon & Associates, Inc.

Road and Bridge Director Billy Osborne stated the petitioner requested the item be continued to May 7, 2002 for additional information.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public drainage easement and execute hold harmless agreement for Foxridge Place in Devon's Glen, Unit 3 as petitioned by Gordon & Associated, Inc. to May 7, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE GRANTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AD VALOREM EXEMPTION TO ALLSTAR CORPORATE MEDIA, INC.

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance granting economic development ad valorem exemption to Allstar Corporate Media, Inc.

There being no comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt an Ordinance granting economic development ad valorem exemption to Allstar Corporate Media, Inc. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay. (See page for Ordinance No. 02-15.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 58-37(e), SELECTION OF
CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Section 58-37(3), Selection of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Historical Commission.

There being no comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt an Ordinance amending Section 58-37(3), Selection of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Historical Commission. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Ordinance No. 02-16.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: APPEAL BY SAWGRASS LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY TO
SECTIONS 62-4361 AND 62-4367, LAND CLEARING AND TREE PROTECTION
ORDINANCE FOR DENIAL OF AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an appeal by Sawgrass Land Development Company to Sections 62-4361 and 62-4367, Land Clearing and Tree Protection Ordinance for denial of agricultural exemption.

Commissioner Carlson stated the question is the issue of the active development order; a site plan was submitted along with the zoning when Sawgrass was developed, which included the parcel in question; and that is the issue.

Attorney Jack Kirschenbaum, representing the applicant, stated this comes before the Board for a determination of what a phrase means; on December 4, 2001, against the desire of the owners, the Board rezoned the property to GU; and the owner seeks to clear the land to use it for agricultural purposes, now that he cannot proceed with the development. He stated pursuant to the agricultural exemption in Section 62-4364(8) of the Code, no permit is required when land clearing is done for agricultural purposes; and submitted paperwork to the Board, but not the Clerk. He stated Division 3 of the Land Clearing and Tree Protection Section 62-4364, Exemption for Permit Requirements, says, "no survey permit or land clearing permit shall be required in the following situations"; and Section 8 says, "a site parcel that is defined as having an agricultural or silvicultural purpose under the Division, and the proposed land clearing is to be made in conjunction with those agricultural purposes or activities are exempt, when an active development order is not being sought." He stated the County has taken the unreasonable position that an appeal of the December 2001 rezoning is an active development order; but it is not an active development order, which is defined in the County Code as an action by the County approving a site development plan, a final development plan, a subdivision plat, the issuance of a building permit, or the approval of a conditional use permit for a borrow pit or a manmade lake; and appeal of an unwanted rezoning is not included on the list. He stated the Board does not need to look elsewhere in its Code for a definition; in fact, it is not lawful for it to look elsewhere in the Code for definition of an active development order; and it is being done just to punish the owners for appealing. He stated Division 3, Land Clearing and Tree Protection, Section 62-4361, Definitions, says, "for the purposes of this Division, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth in this section"; the Ordinance tells the Board that these definitions are the ones it has to use when determining what Division 3 means; and "active development order" means what he said previously. He stated that is the County's Code; the Code says the Board cannot look elsewhere; and advised of Nicholson versus State, a court case from 1992, found at 600 Southern Second, 1001, where the Supreme Court said when a definition of a word or phrase is provided in a Statute, that meaning must be ascribed to a word or phrase whenever it is repeated in a Statute.

Chairman Scarborough stated the speaker's time has elapsed.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to allow two additional minutes to the speaker. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Kirschenbaum stated the second case is another Supreme Court case called Irvin versus the Capital Weekly, from 1957, and cited at 97 Southern Second 464; and it says, "a statutory definition of the word is controlling and will be followed by the courts." He stated courts cannot look to other Statutes, and neither can the Board; and the Board is bound by what the Ordinance says. He stated the Rinker Materials Corporation versus the City of North Miami case, from 1973, and cited at 286 Southern Second 552, says municipal ordinances are subject to the same rules of construction as are State Statutes; his position is when there is an Ordinance that says for the purpose of this Division, the definition for active development order means certain things, that is what it means; and it is unfair and illegal to look in the Comprehensive Plan or other Ordinances or Sections for meaning just to say the exemption does not apply. He stated the other case is on appeal; but that should not affect the Board's decisions here or what type of use the property is going to be put to agriculturally. He stated there are cows running out there; there is a cattle lease; it has already been cleared and cows have been allowed to utilize the property; and it is not fair or lawful to look for a definition the Board likes rather than using the one provided.

Commissioner Carlson stated she did not look at the definitions under 62-4361, but just looked at the Agenda item, which says an action by the County approving a site development plan, not just intent. She inquired if the County Attorney agrees with Mr. Kirschenbaum. County Attorney Scott Knox stated the question the Board needs to resolve is whether an active development order is being sought; that is the standard; and it is not whether an active development order has been approved, but whether it is being sought. Commissioner Carlson stated the definition does not say "sought"; with Mr. Knox responding it does. Commissioner Carlson stated it says, "means an action by the County approving a site development plan"; with Mr. Knox responding Section 62-4364, which is where the exemption is created, says, "a site, parcel, or lot that is defined as having an agricultural or silvicultural purpose under this Division, and the proposed land clearing that is to be made in conjunction with those agricultural purposes or activities are exempt when an active development order is not being sought." He stated the issue is whether an active development order is being sought. Commissioner Carlson stated the definition says it is not an active development order based on what the Board knows of the case, which is the Board has not approved any site development plan; and inquired if it can be based on intent. Mr. Knox stated the staff interpretation was that part of the rezoning application involved a subdivision plat that was proposed and submitted to the Board in evidence; and it was clear in staff's mind that Sawgrass was ultimately seeking approval of that subdivision plat. Commissioner Carlson stated she misread; it says, "when an active development order is not being sought"; but in this case, an active development order is potentially being sought. Mr. Knox stated that is the issue, whether the pursuit of a rezoning, which set forth in evidence a proposed subdivision plat, is sufficient to meet the burden of being an active development order being sought. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the issue is that the Board actually rezoned the property not knowing what the outcome of the appeal would be, and highest and best use. Mr. Knox stated the highest and best use is a concept in an eminent domain proceeding; the reasonable use of property is what the Board is concerned about; and in this case, it is zoned GU, so whatever is available in GU zoning is what the applicant is entitled to use it for right now.

He stated whether they are entitled to use it for agricultural purposes is an issue the Board needs to decide today, and whether they actually sought a development order for something else.

Commissioner Higgs stated it is her understanding the staff went to the Comprehensive Plan to answer the question of the active development order and used the definition in the Comprehensive Plan; and inquired if that is correct. She stated Mr. Kirschenbaum is presenting a position that the Board has to use what is actually in the Section of the Code. Mr. Knox advised staff did use the definition of development order in the Comprehensive Plan; development regulations have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; but that is not the real issue today. He stated the issue today is whether an active development order is being sought. Commissioner Carlson inquired what the Comprehensive Plan says about active development orders; with Mr. Knox responding it does not saying anything about active development orders; it says what a development order means; and it includes rezoning.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if it would be advantageous to have something prepared by the County Attorney's office; with Mr. Knox responding depending on how the Board decides, he can come back with a proposed order for the Board. Chairman Scarborough stated it might be prudent when getting involved with things that may be in litigation; and it might be prudent. Mr. Knox advised initially the Board needs to decide whether or not an active development order is being sought. Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board takes a position contrary to what Mr. Kirschenbaum is seeking, it would be prudent to proceed along the lines of a more thoughtful process.

Commissioner Higgs stated to determine whether it is an active development order, the Board needs additional insight from the County Attorney's office on the definition in the Comprehensive Plan and how it applies and relates to the Code; Mr. Kirschenbaum is suggesting it does not; and she would like Mr. Kirschenbaum to submit the cases so the Board can review them. She requested a memorandum from the County Attorney; and stated the item should be continued to allow the Board to get that memo. Chairman Scarborough stated it would be best to do it that way.

Mr. Kirschenbaum requested it be continued to a time certain; and stated the view that an active development order is being sought because they have appealed a rezoning is in error. He stated they have gone to the Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to quash the zoning the Board gave the property; they are seeking zoning; and that is not within the list. He stated staff is saying because the original application included a proposed subdivision plan, that means an active development order is being sought; but that is not what is being appealed; they have appealed to quash the zoning; so there is nothing on the table to indicate they are seeking an active development order under Mr. White's letter to them of February 14, 2002.

Commissioner Higgs stated the applicant is seeking rezoning; with Mr. Kirschenbaum advising they are seeking a quashing of the GU zoning. Commissioner Higgs stated that is because the applicant does not like GU; with Mr. Kirschenbaum advising the applicant did not ask for that zoning and does not like it; if it is quashed, it goes back to what it was, and who knows what the applicant will ask for; and the applicant is certainly not seeking an active development order as defined.

Chairman Scarborough stated if a motion is made to continue the public hearing, it will allow both sides to further delineate their positions; and Commissioner Higgs has requested Mr. Kirschenbaum share the cases he cited with the County Attorney; with Mr. Kirschenbaum advising he will be happy to do so. Commissioner Higgs inquired if this item can be continued to the next meeting; with Mr. Knox responding it could be done on April 30, 2002.

Chairman Scarborough advised he just received a card; and inquired if the Board wants to hear the speaker. The Board reached consensus to let the individual speak.

Melissa Hoagland, representing Citizens for Responsible Growth, stated the Suntree community has voiced strong and sustained opposition to the site development plan proposed by the developer in his request for zoning of the subject parcel because of impact to schools, roads and local environmental assets; they understand the actions currently before the court are for an appeal of the rezoning decision; but the intent of having an exclusion to the agricultural exemption on the basis of pursuit of an active development order, appears to the community to be intent to halt use of a property for temporary agricultural purposes when the long-term goal is not for agricultural purposes. She stated if the parcel is utilized for agricultural purposes for grazing cattle without protection of the wetlands, one side effect will be degradation of the wetlands that exist, which they have fought hard to protect; and this would presumably result in a less intense mitigation requirement at a later date. She stated the community feels the intent of the exclusion to the agricultural exemption would be to avoid having someone come in and use a parcel for agricultural purposes for a short period of time and then develop it; it seems the long-term intent for the parcel is clearly development, given the active pursuit of the appeal; and therefore, they feel this is pursuit of an active development order, and ask that the Board not overturn staff's decision to disallow the agricultural exemption.

Commissioner Colon requested an update for the people from Suntree who just walked in. Mr. Knox stated he has been asked to do a memorandum of law explaining what the County's position would be on the applicant's legal argument to the effect that the definitions and use of the Comprehensive Plan cannot be used to interpret this particular Ordinance.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to continue the public hearing to consider an appeal by Sawgrass Land Development Company to Sections 62-4361 and 62-4367, Land Clearing and Tree Protection Ordinance for denial of agricultural exemption to 6:00 p.m. time certain on April 30, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION TO PREVENT SERVITUDE, RE: WAIVER OF PERMIT
AND COUNTY FEES FOR PERSONS OF INDIGENT STATUS

Roland Carlson stated he wants to get his property rezoned to agriculture; to do this he needs money; it seems that every time he turns around, he needs money to do things he normally should be able to do; the cost of this would be about $800 or more; and requested the fees be waived. He stated there is no procedure now other than to go before the Board when someone is indigent, as he is; the value of the land will be better for him if it is turned to agriculture; and inquired if there is any way the Board can waive the fees without his having to go to the courts. He stated he is indigent due to disability; and if he every does go back to work, he would request he not have to come before the Board for fee waivers. He stated the fees are not going to hurt the County's budget; the only one being hurt is him; shutting off his electricity is only hurting him; and advised he spent $377 in 15 days for gasoline for his generator, $370 for property to move his things onto, and only has $545 coming in. He stated he was not able to pay his mortgage; there are a lot of things that are unreasonable as far as his livelihood and pursuit of happiness; and he does not know where the Board is coming from in terms of Statutes or Ordinances. He stated someone is going to be paying a lot more than what he is paying now; he can only last a little longer with the bills he is having to pay; and this is cruel and unusual punishment. He stated he came before the Board to ask for help, but it does not seem like he is getting help; Mr. Jenkins has helped to a certain point; and the rest is up to the Board.

Chairman Scarborough inquired what can the Board do; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding the Board has adopted a policy for waiving fees for not-for-profit organizations when it comes to rezoning; but there is no policy currently for individuals for the waiver of fees, and it has been done on a case-by-case basis as individuals make requests to the Board. Ms. Busacca stated the fees are used for advertising, notification, and approximately 60% of the cost of the rezoning action; so it is not self supporting. Chairman Scarborough inquired if the request the Board is hearing now is within the parameters of what the Board has done in the past in terms of waiver of fees. Ms. Busacca advised the Board has previously waived fees; but she does not remember it being done for individuals, except in instances where, as the policy was evolving, the Board reimbursed people who had applied for ARR zoning and the properties were found to be the floodplain.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Carlson is suggesting the fees be waived based on his indigent status; and inquired about the definition for indigence. Assistant County Manager Don Lusk responded in the Health and Human Services arena, they look at income and expenses to determine if there is ability for self-sufficiency; and they generally use 100% of the poverty guidelines in making those determinations. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board can apply those sort of things to a policy to deal with individuals like Mr. Carlson.

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board has to be careful to be consistent; and commented on a methodology for dealing with indigence.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is an emergency loan fund to help people deal with critical needs; with Mr. Lusk responding in the past, based on the assessment of an individual's conditions, the County made payment of fees as part of the emergency welfare program. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Carlson has used that; with Mr. Lusk responding it is his understanding he has, but he does not have the details. Ms. Busacca advised Mr. Carlson had his permit for the construction of his home paid for through Housing and Human Services, which was in excess of $300. Housing and Human Services Director Gay Williams stated Mr. Carlson was given one-time emergency assistance for permitting fees of $237.35. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is a maximum qualification under the Emergency Loan Program; with Ms. Williams responding there is a cap on how much and the type of assistance one can receive; and at the time Mr. Carlson came to them, they paid the fees to allow him to provide for his basic needs such as getting electricity. Chairman Scarborough inquired if there is an overall policy to provide staff direction or is it case-by-case. Ms. Williams responded it is case-by-case; they come through the Emergency Welfare Assistance Program; and staff looks at their income and their needs. Chairman Scarborough inquired if staff does that rather than the Board; with Ms. Williams responding that is correct. Chairman Scarborough stated it would be staff that would pay the fees and the Board that would waive the fees; and inquired if staff has looked at the issue of paying the fees requested today; with Ms. Williams responding staff has not looked at that request. County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if there is a cap; with Ms. Williams responding there is for rent and different things, it is approximately $300 because there are so many people who need so many things.

Ms. Busacca stated in addition to the fees that would be required for rezoning, it would also require a survey that may also be costly to Mr. Carlson; so even the initial waiver of the fee may not provide him all the information necessary to put together a complete application.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board should also look at health, safety, and welfare, and how rezoning would affect those things. Ms. Busacca stated she does not even know if this property can be zoned AU; AU has a 2.5 acre minimum lot size; and she is not sure the property meets that minimum. She stated originally this was a nonconforming lot of record; she does not know what the current zoning is; and there may be several issues outside Mr. Carlson's ability to pay.

Chairman Scarborough stated the waiver of the fee may not answer the question because there are other issues; with Ms. Busacca responding it would take some investigation on the part of staff; and staff can provide that information to the Board. Chairman Scarborough stated he has no problem with having a methodology to waive fees for the needy because it is beneficial for people to have a place to live; however, it needs to be done as a policy rather than being fragmented.

Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board is going to waive anything, the Board needs to define what categories it can waive. She stated if it is something that is more of a luxury and not something that is needed to sustain someone, the Board needs to review those sorts of waivers and have some sort of criteria to define whether a person qualifies. She stated some waivers are not appropriate in this circumstance. Commissioner O'Brien stated it goes back to health, safety, and welfare.

Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board is going to go the waiver route, he would like to see how to implement it appropriately in a broader policy manner; and requested Ms. Williams share information about limitations on her program. He stated the Board needs to know if this will meet the criteria for AU.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to look at the request from Roland Carlson for waiver of fees for persons of indigence status, answer Chairman Scarborough's questions; and place an item on the Agenda with options for a policy for discussion.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Board travels down this road, it will end up with a line of people who own property and see benefit to rezone their property, and who will request waiver of fees because they are retired and have an income of x dollars. He inquired if someone wants to rezone from AU to RR-1 or from GU to BU-1, will the Board waive those fees. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board is strictly talking about indigent status and the way Housing and Human Services addresses it, not a retiree who wants to rezone but does not want to pay. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board can address that in the policy. Commissioner O'Brien stated rezoning does not affect health, safety, or welfare; and inquired why is the Board going forward. Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board makes things so problematic, it will drive people away; it may make it more cumbersome on the homeless issue; and there are benefits in working through problems with people.

Chairman Scarborough inquired how much time is needed; with staff responding 30 days.

Commissioner Higgs seconded the motion to bring back the item in 30 days. Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired how can somebody be indigent if they own property. Commissioner Carlson stated that is a good question; and that might be a requirement why they cannot get a waiver.

The meeting recessed at 11:40 a.m. and reconvened at 1:06 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE TRANSMITTING 2002A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS TO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance transmitting 2002A Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Department of Community Affairs.

Doug Robertson, representing the owner, stated the request is to change the remaining 29 acres of property along Port St. John Parkway from neighborhood commercial to community commercial, which is more appropriate for the interchange properties. He stated he came to the
Board previously with properties on the south side of the Parkway; this request is for the properties on the north side; and this would complete everything that was already reviewed and approved by the Board and DCA as mixed use. He stated the reason they are before the Board is because the County did away with the mixed use designation; they were given neighborhood commercial; and they are trying to go back and make that right. He stated the request for community commercial has been approved by the CRG and LPA; and a presentation was made at the Port St. John Special District Board, which was received favorably.

Commissioner Colon inquired what the people of Port St. John had questions or concerns about; with Mr. Robertson responding the questions were about when the area would get some restaurants; and the only concern was about the potential for a 250-unit hotel. Mr. Robertson stated when they went through the zoning and Comprehensive Plan change process, they had to limit a potential hotel to 250 units because of the DRI threshold; in fact, they could not absorb that many units; but they did not want to get involved with a DRI, so the perception was they were going to build a 250-unit hotel. He stated he explained that was not the case; no hotel is planned; and the people had no problem with that. He noted that was the only question of a critical nature.

Charles Moehle, representing Modern, Inc. and himself, stated Modern, Inc. manages several thousand acres of land in the County, including commercial, industrial, agricultural, and residential; and the application seems to fly in the face of the amendments made by the Board in the 1998-2000 time period. Chairman Scarborough inquired which Comprehensive Plan amendment Mr. Moehle is addressing. Mr. Moehle responded the amendments that address the issue of the maximum amount of acreage to be used in commercial at intersections, which is 40 acres, and the minimum distance separation between commercial developments of intersections. Mr. Moehle stated Modern was in opposition to those and fought them vehemently; however, the Board adopted them; and those issues fly in the face of what is being considered now. He stated there are more than 40 acres at the intersections; there is no concurrency, water or sewer; and fire protection may be another issue. He stated this seems to fly in the face of growth management; and it is bewildering that County and other agencies spent $2.6 million to buy conservation lands all around the intersection. He inquired what is the real intent, and was it to limit density in areas where there is nothing. He inquired if so, why is the County increasing density from mixed use to community commercial; and why is the County buying conservation lands close to high-density areas when there are management problems with the conservation lands. He stated there seems to be a conflict; he is not opposed to the concept, but is opposed to the Board adopting certain Ordinances and then applying them differently to different people; and he is very confused. He stated this is not in order at this time unless there is a change; he understands this is not an approval hearing, but just a transmittal hearing; but in the package there are no recommendations from the LPA or the Board. He stated the people would like some explanation why this is moving forward.

Planner Todd Corwin stated this particular application is at the transmittal stage; if the Board transmits the items, it will see them again in August or September at an adoption hearing; the LPA only heard this last night; and the reason for the short time frame between the LPA hearing
and the Board hearing is due to lack of a quorum at the March LPA meeting. He stated the 40-acre policy Mr. Moehle referenced says community commercial should be limited to 40 acres and that it should be spaced five miles apart; however, those are planning guidelines that were adopted as part of a Comprehensive Plan update in the Summer of 2001. He stated based upon strict application of the Code, in an area where there is no adjoining issue such as a new intersection, the 40-acre issue would be seen as a little less gray; but in the incidence the Board is looking at, the area has existing commercial and is along a roadway for which the County spent significant money to put in. He stated it was anticipated there may be times when the issue is not cut and dry, so they used should rather than shall. He advised "should" expresses obligation, but is not a command; there may be items where the strict application will be contrary to public interest, or public values being protected are insignificant and the strict application would result in excessive hardship to the project, or the strict application may place an excessive hardship on the project and alternative action is available, which is equal to or superior to the original requirements, and the activity is not financially feasible for the local government; and the "should" in the policy gives the Board the option to use the planning principle in those areas where the issue is not black and white.

Chairman Scarborough stated no one from Port St. John has come; but he has asked about this, knowing it was coming on the agenda; and the feedback he received is there is a concern of Grissom Parkway through the residential area or Fay Boulevard becoming commercialized. He stated people realize that U.S. 1 is maxed out on commercialization; and they see this as a capacity to have something. He inquired what is it restricted to with the current opposed to the new classification; with Mr. Corwin responding the community commercial designation permits all uses in BU-1, BU-2, and the tourist uses. Chairman Scarborough inquired what can be put there that could not be placed there previously; with Mr. Corwin responding a community commercial complex would be something such as the Publix on Wickham Road, which has a mixture of shops that may include a restaurant and other uses. Mr. Corwin stated the properties do not currently have commercial zoning; so the use would be developed at a later date when the applicant makes a request for rezoning. He stated typically community commercial is a BU-1 type of use. Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board did nothing what would be the extent of how that could be developed; with Mr. Corwin responding without a Comprehensive Plan change, it could only be developed as single family, or gift shops or very small snack bars. Chairman Scarborough stated it would be more of a strip mall as opposed to a shopping center; with Mr. Corwin agreeing it could be viewed that way. Chairman Scarborough stated the question is whether the Board wants to have strip malls on a four-laned I-95 interchange or does it want to have a shopping plaza type thing; and that is where the community has said this makes sense. Commissioner Carlson stated it does not mean they cannot get a strip mall there. Chairman Scarborough stated he hopes there is enough emphasis that something other than a strip mall is needed.

Commissioner O'Brien stated on the Plan Amendment 02A.3, the justification is listed improvements, which are not listed in the MPO's long-range plan; and inquired if the list should be brought to the MPO first before it is put in the Transportation Element. Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated he would like to withdraw the item from the package; so the Amendment package will only be A.1 and A.2.

Commissioner Carlson commented on a zoning item concerning Washingtonian where a frontage road fronts I-95; and stated in the next transmittal, she would like to see language, once it goes to the MPO, about creating a frontage road to I-95 from U.S. 192 all the way to Pineda, eventually connecting to St. Andrews.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve transmittal of Amendments 02A.1 and 02A.2. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE REVISING CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE XII, COASTAL
SETBACK AND CONTROL LINES

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance revising Chapter 62, Article XII, Coastal Setback and Control Lines.

John Smith, representing the Villager Condominium Homeowners Association, stated they have been before the Board numerous times in the past searching for a remedy to a pre-existing condition throughout the shoreline south of Patrick Air Force Base; and the proposed ordinance will affect all of those properties. He requested the Board consider that there are a large number of pre-existing structures on the beach that will need more than sand to shore up their foundations; and stated life and property should not be condemned to temporary solutions. He stated the County needs to post the restrictive hardships with the County Board of Realtors for a submittal with all condo sales within the Coastal Construction Lines, in so far as buyers have no remedy and are unaware of the lack of consistency in the County for its own coastline. He requested the Board consider co-insuring all pre-existing structures which it does not find in compliance with the new Comprehensive Plan; and stated they would like provisions for emergency to not just include sand protection for structures south of Patrick Air Force Base, but also consider subterranean fixes for foundation problems. He stated everyone on the beach lives there because they want to be confluent and consistent with the beach; they want to be in a beach setting; and they are looking to maintain their existence in the County. He requested the $400 that is being asked of the Villager be paid by the County as the Villager was asked to withdraw the variance application after it was discovered there could be no variance. He stated he would like to know that the proposed system of change the Board is going to discuss today will involve the need for a solution. He stated when they were here last time, a motion was withdrawn requesting a hardening structure or the Board's interpretation of a non-hardening structure; and they did not ask, nor did they understand that the Board was taking away their emergency status, which was voted on and approved at the first meeting.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has just been given a revision by the County Attorney; and requested an explanation. County Attorney Scott Knox stated he and Ms. Coles were transferring drafts back and forth; he caught some mistakes, which he tried to clean up at the last minute; and what is before the Board are substitute pages 9 through 13. He stated on page 9, subparagraph 3, in the second line down, there should be a comma after the word "projects" and before "or"; and that is to indicate the Board can approve sand bag systems, beach renourishment projects, and beach restoration projects under all circumstances, but the rigid coastal and shore protection structures are only allowed during emergencies.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what about page 11. Discussion ensued on the redrafted pages, different wording having same effect, and allowing rigid coastal and shore protection projects.

Commissioner O'Brien stated when an emergency exists, the Board may approve, after a public hearing, sandbag systems, etc.; and the new wording says after a public hearing, the Board may declare the existence of an emergency. Commissioner Higgs stated the term "rigid" is the difference.

Discussion resumed on the wording.

Commissioner Carlson suggested Mr. Knox work on this and bring it back at the end of the meeting. Commissioner Higgs expressed concern about the wording.

Commissioner O'Brien stated part D says no rigid coastal armoring shall be requested unless an emergency authorizes construction of such a structure; so the door is open, but it would still take more to authorize an amendment. He recommended the Board not box itself in so tightly that it loses all elasticity; stated the intent is no new rigid coastal armoring south of Patrick Air Force Base; but there may come a time when rigid coastal armoring may be the only avenue left, so the door should be left open.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance revising Chapter 62, Article XII, Coastal Setback and Control Lines, to April 30, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve reimbursement of $400 to Villager Condominium for its variance application. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REQUEST FROM KIMBERLY BONDER REZANKA, RE: AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE XIV,
LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR ISLANDS, CHAPTER 62, LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS, SECTION 62-4805

Attorney Kimberly Rezanka stated she supplied a supplement and an index to all the Commissioners' offices. She inquired about time constraints; with County Attorney Scott Knox advising she has ten minutes. She stated she is representing the Davidsons in this request for a change to the Ordinance; and the change would have application far beyond the Davidsons and their property. She stated the Board often deals with property rights of owners with dirt issues; and she is adding the component of sewage to those types of issues. She stated this is about an Ordinance that is a dinosaur; it was adopted in 1976 prior to there being power on Grant Farm Island or the technological advances there are today regarding septic systems; and essentially the Ordinance is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She advised the Ordinance was adopted prior to the Comprehensive Plan; and the request is about equal treatment under the law, the right to use property as others are allowed in similar situations, consistency in zoning, and fairness in implementation and enforcement. She stated the intent of the 1976 Ordinance is antiquated; the Ordinance is not adhered to by the citizens or the County; it is not enforced most of the time; and it is unnecessary because of the State and federal regulations regarding shellfish harvesting and the State sewer and septic regulations. She stated the Ordinance is not defensible; and it is discriminatory. She stated she is dealing with the north end of Grant Farm Island, which is currently developed; the south end is to be developed on one-acre lots; and distributed an aerial map. She stated the Ordinance is unique in that it provides for maximum square footage of living area of 500 or 700 square feet depending on the property; most of the properties on the north end are 50 feet by 100 feet; and with the premium on waterfront property, the properties are going for in excess of $50,000 to $80,000 for just one vacant lot. She stated the Ordinance only affects the north end of Grant Island, and affects no other area of the County; and the purpose of the Ordinance was to protect the shellfish industry, which abutted and surrounded Grant Island and to preserve the rights of owners in the platted section. She stated the 1976 Board minutes show there was no competent evidence introduced or discussed regarding the need for the Ordinance; the numbers selected on the square footage and the coliform count are arbitrary; and there was no rational basis, nor did it comply with State standards. She requested the Board read the original stormwater utility report submitted on November 30, 2001, which says that these standards are indefensible and that one of the options is to get rid of this part of the Ordinance. She stated the report explains that the State reclassified the waters adjacent to Grant Farm Island from conditionally-approved to conditionally-restricted in 1992; and the package includes a map showing where the conditionally-approved and restricted areas are. She noted there is one active case on the southwest corner of Grant Island, but it is in conditionally-approved waters. She stated her submittal says that shellfish harvesting is prohibited; that is not correct; but it has not been permitted, and there have been no new permits issued by DEP in the area since 1995. She stated the RSUD summary explains that neither the County nor the Department of Health conducts the samplings, which are required by the Ordinance; and Bill Browning of DEP further explained that the fecal coliform bacteria results from all animals, not just septic tanks, and it is not possible to differentiate between the bacterial coliform in the water. She stated it is Mr. Browning's opinion that the water is not getting any worse; he advised there is no harvesting in the immediate area because although individuals could get permits, they would also have to have a relay permit requiring them to take all shellfish to an area to have it cleansed, which would be too expensive; and there are no active relay permits on the east coast. She stated tab 14 of the submittal shows active shellfish leases in the surrounding area; there are quite a few; and tab 7 provides information from the Property Appraiser's Office about Grant Farm Island. She stated there are 57 homes; 16 of the homes were built prior to the Ordinance, and there is no telling what size they were at the time, but the Ordinance grandfathered in a number of them; and prior to the Ordinance being adopted, there were only two homes that were 500 square feet or less, with the largest of the homes being 1,912 feet at least according to the Property Appraiser's map. She stated since the Ordinance was adopted, 41 houses have been built; only four of them are 500 square feet or less; and some of those are accessory structures such as storage units or guest houses. She stated 37 of the new homes are in violation; they either have closed-in porches, added a ground floor, or the true size may not have been adopted; there are 22 homesteaded lots, although this was intended for non-permanent
residential structures; and there are 29 registered voters on Grant Farm Island. She stated it is obvious the Ordinance has not been adhered to by the owners of the property; the County has not enforced it, but has allowed permanent residents and structures larger than 500 to 700 square feet; and the County does not monitor the water quality. She stated on the flip side, the County has been consistently reaping the benefits of the non-enforcement by collecting taxes on structures larger than 500 to 700 square feet. She stated the Ordinance is unnecessary because of federal and State shellfish regulations and State regulations regarding sewer and septic; and such regulations are found in Chapter 381.0065, Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code 64-6.008. She stated the County Ordinance refers to standards under Florida Administrative Code 10D-6, which has been repealed; and the Ordinance has not been updated. She reiterated it is not a defensible Ordinance; it has become discriminatory in that water standards are higher than State and federal standards; and it is the only area in the County where bacterial restrictions apply. She commented on no differentiation between human and animal waste, not being able to tell if septic systems are the cause of new water deterioration, and exceeding standards having no impact on the shellfish harvesting in the immediate area. She stated the Board should look at changing the Ordinance because it is a denial of equal protection under the law; there is arbitrary enforcement; violations have been known to the County, but have not been prosecuted; and it is an arbitrary exercise of power without reference to the stated intent of the Ordinance. She stated the Board has two options; it can either change the Ordinance or the enforcement of the Ordinance; if it changes the Ordinance, it should allow for the changes that reflect existing structures and current zoning classifications, and allow the State to continue to monitor the water quality and septic contributions, as it has been doing. She stated otherwise the Board can enforce the Ordinance; but it will likely face lawsuits regarding constitutionality of the Ordinance and belated enforcement as it has reaped the benefits of not enforcing it.

Dr. Alan Theis stated he is a local dentist; he has lived here for 30 years; and advised of purchasing a house on Grant Farm Island. He stated they bought one of the two houses that are 500 square feet; it is on a lot that is 75 feet, not 50 feet; and the County's information shows it is on .23 acre. He stated they have one of the larger lots; they drew up plans for a house that was going to be 700 square feet; but when they went to the Building Department, they were told they could try to get a variance or tag along and try to get the zoning change. He stated they have one of the smallest houses; they taxes are $1,800, which is one of the highest tax rates for one of the smallest houses; and they are looking to build a 700-square foot structure.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has directed Code Enforcement to respond to complaints; there have not been any complaints on Grant Farm Island until the ones that were submitted; and the Code should be enforced. She stated the Code may be antiquated, but the mistake was to permit development in the middle of the Indian River Lagoon, although that was done a long time ago. She stated there have been discussion in the last couple of years about high-density lease areas; that area of aquaculture is just south of Grant Farm Island; DEP measures and monitors the water quality in the area; and it would be a mistake to permit larger structures and more intense development in an area where development at all is unadvisable. She stated of the two options, to enforce or change the Code, the Board should enforce the
Ordinance; the Board has seen what can happen when it ignores or changes the Code in order to comply with people who are already there; it just causes bigger problems; and the Board should enforce the Code.

Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees; strict adherence to the vacation concept was the intent in 1976; and requested Ms. Busacca address enforcing the Code. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated when staff received this information, it moved forward as if this were a complaint; so research has been done, which shows there are 12 permits that have been issued through the County; those houses were built correctly; however, if those houses are larger today, the addition was probably done after the CO was issued and without a permit. She stated staff is moving forward to enforce the Code on those houses that are larger than permitted by Code. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the County is up on the state-of-the-art septic systems that are supposedly being used. Ms. Busacca stated an appeal was brought forward to the Board within the last several months by a gentleman who wanted to use a lesser standard than the most advanced standard; and the Board denied the appeal; so her understanding is the State requires the advanced secondary treatment. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that would apply to Grant Island; with Ms. Busacca responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Higgs stated she will not make a motion to change the Ordinance. Chairman Scarborough stated the County will enforce the current Ordinance. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board will be seeing some Code Enforcement issues coming back.

REQUEST FROM DOUG RIEHL, RE: WAIVER OF FEE FOR VESTED RIGHTS
APPLICATION

Doug Riehl stated he purchased property in West Canaveral Groves in 1999; last month he went to get a permit for a mobile home and was denied due to a change in law in 2001; he was not informed of that law; and requested a vested rights application with waiver of fee.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated the Board has waived fees for property owners in West Canaveral Groves that had similar circumstances.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what are the circumstances; with Mr. Scott responding Mr. Riehl purchased a lot at a time when the lot did not have to have access to a County-maintained road right-of-way; subsequent to that the rule changed so now he does need that access; and Mr. Riehl is claiming he was not informed of that rule change and wants vested rights with waiver of fee. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is the case even though the person who sold him the property had potentially been advised; with Mr. Scott responding at the time that Mr. Riehl purchased the property, the rules that were in place would have allowed for a landlocked parcel to pull a building permit in West Canaveral Groves. Mr. Scott stated if Mr. Riehl had proceeded immediately after purchasing the property to obtain a building permit, one could have been obtained if all the other regulations were adhered to.

Chairman Scarborough inquired as to the first item the Board has approved in situations like this; with Mr. Scott responding affirmatively. Chairman Scarborough inquired about the vested rights; with Mr. Scott responding that is a whole separate set of circumstances. Mr. Scott stated there is a request to waive the fee so Mr. Riehl can have his day before the Board with a vested rights application.

Commissioner Colon stated based on staff's recommendation, she would like to waive it so he can proceed with vested rights process.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve waiver of vested rights determination fees for Doug Riehl. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Chairman Scarborough stated he understands Mr. Riehl attended two other meetings but was unable to stay due to the length of the meetings; and apologized for the inconvenience.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACT WITH FLORIDRON, INC.,
RE: INDIAN LANDING, PHASE IV

Ed Fleis, representing Floridron Indian Landing, Inc., stated staff has reviewed and brought to the Board's attention an interpretation that has been made through the preparation of the final plat. He stated since approval of the preliminary plat, they have been in negotiations with the St. Johns River Water Management District on boat access to the river for Indian Landing; there are two canals on the property; the north canal is approximately 1,500 feet long and 100 feet wide; and because of the extensive seagrasses that lie west of the property, there was interest placed on the protection of those seagrasses. He stated to protect the seagrass, they agreed to only use non-motorized watercraft in the Babe Cushman Canal, which is the north canal. He stated as part of the negotiations, there was an agreement that 22 of the boat docks could be put on the south canal, which is the smaller canal that outlets to the south of the property; and the objective has been for the docks to be single-family docks. He stated in order to accomplish a single-family dock, it is necessary to have frontage on the canal; Chapter 62-2116 provides for a double frontage lot; and ten of the 29 lots are double frontage lots, which front on the Babe Cushman and Cal Fox Canals. He stated in looking at Section 62-2116, it refers to a parcel of land divided by public right-of-way; he met with a number of people including staff from different departments; the wording is such that it would allow this even though it does have a public right-of-way; and it would allow a lot to extend on both sides of the right-of-way. He stated it appears the Board has to acknowledge that they relied on the interpretation of Section 62-2116 to allow the double frontage lots on the property.

Commissioner Higgs stated this is a subdivision being developed in District 3; it is an old subdivision vested a long time ago; and the interpretation given in the staff report on page 2, number 2, interprets Section 62-2116 to permit the division of parcels within new
subdivisions by public rights-of-way or roads is acceptable. She stated she is willing to make a motion to approve the final plat approval with that interpretation; but the Board also needs to direct staff to look at the section of the Code, do some clarification, and bring it back to the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to accept the interpretation of Section 62-2116, to permit the division of parcels within new subdivisions by public rights-of-way or roads; approve final plat for Indian Landing, Phase IV; execute Infrastructure Contract with Floridron, Inc. for the project; and direct staff to review and clarify Section 62-2116 and bring it back to the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Infrastructure Contract.)

REQUEST FROM MAUDI JANE SHEAHAN, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING OF
FRANKLIN EXCAVATION'S COMMERCIAL ZONING

Maudi Jane Sheahan distributed paperwork to the Board, but not the Clerk; and stated she is present to speak about rescinding a zoning that was issued in August 1987, which has been a continuous problem for her and her neighbors since that time. She advised of health and other problems of her neighbors that prevented their coming to the meeting today; and stated she is speaking for all of them. She stated there is a Code Enforcement Case #020447 against Franklin Excavating and Peter Charmut; currently the place is a junkyard, and is way outside the current zoning that was received in 1987; and it has been a constant battle to try and keep Franklin Excavating within its zoning. She stated in the last month he has been storing iron pipes from billboards, sewer pipes, and derelict truck beds; and explained a picture showing the area. She stated there is a big crane in front of her back door almost every day, especially on holidays and weekends; he has currently moved a truck back into the corner with four others; and there are others east of that and on the left side of the house. She stated there are five or six houses that have been recently built; right in front of the house is a ten-foot dirt pile that is approximately 50 or 60 feet long; and with the current zoning, they are not allowed to go over six feet unless it is watered, which this is not being watered. She stated her neighbor has emphysema; and her house is dirty because of the trucks making turns in the bare spot. She commented on a truck trying to make the turn in the 150-foot area and almost jackknifing, presence of bulldozers and other truck equipment, orange grove being removed in 1990 or 1991, lack of buffers, presence of bulldozer, damages to her fence, and presence of tires. She requested the Board rescind the zoning; and stated she has been fighting this for a long time.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is one outstanding violation on the property; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding that is correct. Ms. Busacca stated the violation is storage of junk and debris. Commissioner Carlson stated there are recovered materials and a processing facility, which is not a landscaping business; and inquired if that is something that is going before the Special Master. Ms. Busacca responded it will go before the next available Special Master.

Commissioner Higgs stated the reference in the 1987 minutes is to the 152 feet and a natural vegetated buffer maintained on the north side of the property; and inquired if that has ever been dealt with by Code Enforcement; with Ms. Busacca responding that has never been a complaint. Ms. Busacca advised there have been complaints as far as noise, improper storage, dirt piles, and land alteration. Commissioner Higgs stated there has been a complaint now; and inquired if that can be enforced; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Ms. Sheahan advised she would like the orange grove back, which is supposed to be directly behind her property.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Special Master is going to be looking at specific areas including the obvious violations that have been delineated; and inquired if the Board is looking at the entire usage and all the Code violations. Ms. Busacca advised the way Code Enforcement works is they go out on a specific complaint, but do no go out looking for violations on a piece of property; the open case will go to the Special Master; and the complaint received this morning about removal of the vegetated buffer will be investigated as well. Commissioner Carlson stated it sounds like it will be taken care of by the Special Master.

Commissioner Higgs requested the Board be kept advised on those issues; and inquired if the Board desires to revisit the concept of proactive Code Enforcement. She stated she thinks it is time to do that; with Chairman Scarborough agreeing. Commissioner Higgs stated that means looking at a different way of enforcement and perhaps the number of personnel needed; but it is time to review the issue.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to return to the Board within 30 days with discussion of the concept of proactive Code Enforcement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Scarborough read aloud from the 1987 Minutes when the property was rezoned; and inquired if someone violates the stipulations, what should the Board's action be in response, and could it administratively rezone it back to the original zoning. County Attorney Scott Knox responded the Board could do that. Chairman Scarborough stated a person comes to the Board and gives a promise; they then violate the promise; and inquired why should people come and promise things and not have to live by them.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is aggravating when a Board in 1987 put in stipulations that there be no parking of equipment on the westerly 152 feet, and it is obvious looking at the pictures, that was for naught. She stated people have been living with the problem for several years; and inquired if it has gone in front of the Special Master before; with Ms. Busacca responding she does not have a complete history.

Chairman Scarborough passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Colon.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to initiate administrative rezoning of Franklin Excavation property to remove the BU-2 zoning granted on August 24, 1987. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Vice Chairman Colon passed the gavel to Chairman Scarborough.

Chairman Scarborough advised this just starts the process, and will come back for a public hearing.

BOARD CLARIFICATION OF SECTION 62-2102, RE: ALTERATION OF LOTS

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised the Board has directed staff to periodically identify unclear provisions of the Zoning Code, and bring them to the Board for consideration and possible staff direction on how they may be clarified; it is in everyone's best interest to have a Code that is easily readable and user friendly; and this is a provision of the Code that is widely used. He stated the provision relates to the alteration of lots, the act of severing a parent parcel
to create more than one lot; the point that needs clarification is, "No person shall sever any lot in such a manner that a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter would be created on any new or altered lot including their uses or structures"; and the three words that need to be clarified are "would be created." He stated there are two ways to read this provision; if there was an auto mechanic shop located on two acres of property that was residentially zoned, the auto mechanic use would be a nonconforming use; it would require BU-2; if the owner of the parcel wanted to subdivide to create two one-acre parcels, based on the zoning classification, the two lots would meet the dimension requirements; but at issue would be whether or not a nonconforming or illegal use would be created by the act of severing the two-acre parcel to create two one-acre parcels. He stated one could argue that the auto mechanic shop was there on the two-acre parcel, remains on the one-acre parcel, and does not create an illegal use, so the lot severance is consistent with the Code; but another way to read it is that it is creating an illegal use because the auto shop was never on a one-acre parcel before, so taking the two-acre parcel, reducing its size, and creating a new lot creates a violation of the Code.

Chairman Scarborough stated this plays into the next item and how the Board will respond there. Mr. Scott stated the next item has a circumstance where there is a duplex, which is a multi-family use, that is on property that has single-family zoning; the owner seeks to subdivide the property to split out a parcel to build another structure; and in doing so, the two resulting lots will both be consistent with the lot dimensions set forth in that zoning category, but like the auto mechanic shop, it used to be situated on two acres and would now be on a new one-acre lot. He stated the question is whether it is creating a violation of the Zoning Code by virtue of having multi-family zoning on a smaller lot with single-family zoning.

Commissioner Higgs stated if she had a 100-acre lot on which her ancestors built a farmhouse too close to the border of the property, and wanted to subdivide the 100 acres, by taking the strict interpretation that she has to resolve all nonconformities, she could not do it. She stated it might be reasonable as long as the parent parcel conforms in size and dimensions; in other words, if she kept her farmhouse on 2.5 acres and the dimensions were right, she might not conform to the setbacks, but she would conform to size and dimension of the parent parcel; and it would make sense that she or someone else could use the rest of the parcel.

Chairman Scarborough states the first parcel has something that is a problem; but in the process no additional nonconformity should be created, and people should not think there is a loophole to create other nonconformities.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is the lesser of the two evils; either nothing can occur on a property that conforms by separating it; or there might be a property that would conform based on the split.

Commissioner Higgs stated she prefers the first interpretation with the additional clarification that the parent parcel must conform in size and dimension.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to clarify the intent of Section 62-2102, Alteration of Lots, to allow nonconforming uses to remain as a result of lot splits so long as the parent parcel complies with lot size and dimension and no new violations are created, and the preservation of a non-conforming use on a newly created lot would not be viewed as creating a nonconformity. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

STAFF DIRECTION, RE: LOT ALTERATION/DEVELOPMENT REQUEST

Gomer Mitchell inquired if the Board was talking about his property in the previous example; with Commissioner Carlson responding the Board was using it as an example. Mr. Mitchell stated he would like to re-establish the flag lot that was granted in 1986 or 1987; at that time he asked the surveyor to establish the flag lot behind what is now a duplex; and as the surveyor did not locate any buildings on the property, the flag lot went through part of the building. He stated he did not pay any attention at the time; but now he would like to re-establish the flag lot and move the stem from the north to the south side of the property and also include the 40 feet of the property across Rockledge Drive into the flag lot. He stated the duplex has been the big hang-up; before the duplex was recognized as a duplex, the lot that it is on was .34 acre; and it has continued to be that size all these years, and will continue to be even though the legal description would change because of moving the stem. He stated there have been errors; and he thought this would be the easiest way to resolve the complicated problem, to grant the flag lot that was established in 1987 and change the stem from north to south and include 40 feet of the parcel across the street.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated Mr. Mitchell currently owns two parcels; his request is to create three parcels; and recommended referencing page 4 of the Agenda item, which is a schematic illustrating what Mr. Mitchell is seeking to achieve. He stated on the far right side of the page is a black line pointing to Mr. Mitchell's residence, which is along the river; south on the property is a boat house; and currently that is one parcel. He stated what Mr. Mitchell would like to do is create a flag lot on which he would be able to construct his house as depicted on the far left of the page. He stated in creating the flag lot, Mr. Mitchell would also like to retain the boat house as part of the flag lot, and would also like to have the flag stem, which currently traverses the northern portion of the duplex, shifted to the south boundary. He stated on the face of it, it is a simple request, but with the Zoning Code there are various provisions that have to be looked at in applying it and determining whether or not it is acceptable. He stated he has identified five provisions of the Zoning Code, which are applicable to this request; and the Board has rendered a decision on two of them. Mr. Scott stated the first is that Mr. Mitchell would need to amend the Binding Concept Plan; the Zoning Code is clear in Section 62-1157 that any amendments or revisions to binding site plans first need to proceed before the LPA and the Board; and recommended the Board direct Mr. Mitchell to pursue those public hearings. He stated in allowing the flag stem to be shifted, another provision of the Code that came into question was the lot alteration section; and it is necessary to determine whether or not by reconfiguring the lot that currently contains the duplex, which is a nonconforming use with single-family zoning, a violation of the Zoning Code would be created. He stated the Board has instructed that as long as the lot dimensions are consistent with the Zoning Code, that will not be viewed as a creation of a new nonconformity; and the duplex is currently there and will remain there after the flag stem is shifted. He stated the third provision was interpreting whether parcels of land divided by a public right-of-way could be created after the roadway has been laid; and an example would be whether one could create a remnant parcel along the river that would abut or be tied into a parcel that was landward of the road. He stated the Board has already decided, in the Ed Fleis item, that a remnant parcel can be created and tied to the flag lot. He stated the fourth issue is in creating the remnant parcel, the provision states in platting new subdivisions or new roads, the land area must meet the minimum lot area requirements on at least one side of the public right-of-way or road; that calls into question whether or not Mr. Mitchell would have to engage in a subdivision process or in one lot split; and if the Board wished to relieve Mr. Mitchell of the added time and expense, the Code would support the determination that he could do a simple lot split. He stated that section clearly identifies how the Zoning Code will give standing to remnant parcels that are divided by a public right-of-way; and if Mr. Mitchell recorded the remnant parcel through the Clerk of Courts and brought it to the County inquiring about the status of the remnant parcel, because it is directly across the street from the flag lot, staff could go to paragraph 2 and determine the Zoning Code gives that remnant parcel status. He stated it is necessary to go to the other side of the street landward of the river to make sure that the parcel meets the lot dimension requirement of the zoning classification; it is necessary to make sure the property owner builds his house on the landward portion that meets the dimensions of the Zoning Code, and that he should not have an expectation that he could construct a principal use on the remnant parcel; so the Zoning Code allows treatment of the remnant parcel as something legal. He recommended the Board recognize the flag lot approval as acceptable; and stated if the lot alteration had gone the other way, there may have been more to talk about. He stated Mr. Mitchell will proceed through the public hearing process to move the stem, and then proceed following all the other rules and regulations of the Code with his lot split from two to three lots.

Commissioner Carlson inquired based on how the Board just treated the remnant parcel, is Mr. Scott saying Mr. Mitchell could have it recorded as part of the flag lot and come back, and then staff would only be looking at two lots, which would take him out of the subdivision process. Mr. Scott stated now that the Board has made interpretations of the Code, the Board needs to direct Mr. Mitchell to apply for the public hearing process to officially amend the Binding Concept Plan to shift the stem to the southern boundary of the property. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Mitchell understands what he needs to do; with Mr. Mitchell responding yes. Mr. Scott stated he will be happy to meet with Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. Mitchell stated that has been done; someone in Zoning advised they could not deal with three different parcels; it had to be made one; and he did that, as shown in the package. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Mitchell still has to go through the Binding Site Plan to revise it during the public hearing. Mr. Mitchell stated he was told to record all three as one parcel, which he did. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Mitchell still needs to go through the Binding Site Plan process; with Mr. Scott responding it is confusing what one has to do to satisfy a requirement and what is needed to be consistent with the Zoning Code. Chairman Scarborough inquired is there anything the Board can do this afternoon to help Mr. Mitchell; with Mr. Scott responding there is nothing else the Board needs to do.

Mr. Mitchell inquired if he can build his house; with Commissioner Carlson responding eventually after the public hearings. Mr. Mitchell inquired how long will it take; with Mr. Scott responding it will probably take a couple of months. Mr. Mitchell noted he has been waiting since December 4, 2001 to build his house; he thought it would be two weeks; and he does not understand why it has to go farther than the Board. Chairman Scarborough requested Mr. Scott explain to Mr. Mitchell the requirements for hearings on certain things.

DISCUSSION, RE: MEYERS-PEARCE & BARGE-TABACCHI STATE REIMBURSEMENTS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve retention of drainage easements in favor of the County on the Meyers-Pearce and Barge-Tabacchi properties to facilitate State reimbursements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACCEPTANCE OF MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY, RE: PROPOSED PROPERTIES IN
BREVARD COASTAL SCRUB ECOSYSTEM PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the County Manager to provide a letter to the State accepting management responsibility for the proposed addition to the Valkaria/Micco Expansion Site of the Brevard Coastal Scrub Ecosystem Florida Forever Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SURFACE WATER PROTECTION ORDINANCE PUBLIC INTEREST DETERMINATION, RE:
MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF MAN-MADE BOAT BASIN IN BANANA RIVER AQUATIC
PRESERVE

Carolyn Alvord requested permission to do maintenance dredging for the Hyne's property because there is a lot of sludge in the bottom, which makes it hard to get the boats in.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if this is a typical maintenance dredging; with Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer responding as far as staff can tell. Mr. Peffer advised they have a State permit; and the Board can consider maintenance dredging to be in the public interest because the muck removal could help the water quality of the Lagoon.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to determine dredging of a manmade boat basin and entrance canal in the Banana River Aquatic Preserve, waterward of 9730 South Tropical Trail in Merritt Island, in accordance with DEP permit #505-145890-4, to be in the public interest. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT, RE: DRAFT ORDINANCE RELATING TO SURFACE WATER
PROTECTION

Kent Cady, President of the Indian River Isles North Homeowners Association, advised he is representing himself and other members of the Homeowners Association who do not have seawalls and are suffering from soil erosion, and favor some change to the Ordinance. He stated this situation was brought up by one of the residents in a construction of a seawall with a permit; he owns a lot that is between two sites with seawalls; and he would not be able to put in a seawall under the present Code. He stated those who are in that situation do not want to hurt the environment or take away from the Ordinance; but they are trying to come up with a solution for those who fall between the cracks on this issue. He stated there is a situation there; Commissioner Carlson is aware of it; and there is some serious damage happening to some of the homes and lots. He introduced consultant Ronald Wilson.

Ronald Wilson, RH Wilson and Associates of Longwood, stated the firm designs various types of seawalls; in Mr. Cady's subdivision more than half of the units have seawalls; most are timber seawalls with a cap on top and anchors going back into the property too keep them from leaning to the waterward side; but the use of treated wood will not be available in approximately two years because of the arsenic in the wood. He stated there is a company in Rockledge or Cocoa that has a fiberglass or plastic type polyvinyl corrugated material; and described the dimensions and the installation methods. He stated they are using that material on a project in Volusia County; it works very well; they use a lot of aluminum seawalls, both residential and commercial; and he likes to use aluminum. He stated the canal probably has tannin acids; aluminum lasts a long time; and wood has a 20-year lifespan. He advised he used to live in Merritt Island, and had two homes there, both with concrete seawalls put in during construction, which usually makes it much easier. He advised of an installation in Putnam County where aluminum was used behind a filter fabric over sand filter, and then rock over the sand filter to revise the runoff from the condominium units. He stated that has worked well, and has been approved by the St. Johns River Water Management District; he has not put in a seawall that was not approved jointly by the St. Johns River Water Management District and DEP; and inquired if seawalls in Brevard County require a DEP permit; with Debbie Coles responding yes. Mr. Wilson stated he likes to get the permits because that way everybody knows the paper trail. He stated the idea is to protect the upland property and protect the canal from filling up with dirt sliding in, which would necessitate dredging of the canal.

Commissioner Higgs stated the issue is what kind of seawall can be built; with Commissioner Carlson advising it is Mr. Wilson's business to put in seawalls; and inquired if he has come across something other than seawalls, such as sandbag systems that use vegetation in combination with seawalls or without seawalls. Mr. Wilson responded he did some in Cape Cod in Chatham where he used open face rock revetments spun manmade filter fabrics for energy absorption; but in the canal in question there is no wave action or energy absorption requirement. He stated in Melbourne Beach they pumped concrete enriched sand into tubes to handle the wave action; and advised of seawalls installed in Titusville, rock revetments, and some use of sandbags filled with a weak mortar for longevity. Commissioner Carlson inquired about rock revetments versus seawalls in terms of protecting against additional erosion; with Mr. Wilson responding the rock revetments they put in were 22 feet high. Mr. Wilson stated they have placed rock like it was coming out of a pipe as rubble to absorb energy so there is no erosion; and it is good on points, but hard on boats trying to tie up there. He stated a foundation is needed; and described installation of such a foundation below the mean low water.

Beth McMillen, Environmental Resource Management, stated she is speaking on behalf of the Marine Resources Council; the U.S. Department of the Interior publication, Biological Impacts of Minor Shoreline Structures on the Coastal Environment, described seawalls and bulkheads as relatively impermanent means of separating water from land; and it further states that bulkheads and seawalls promote erosion front of them by causing an increase in wave energy due to waves reflecting off the face of the structure. She stated this reflected energy also promotes erosion of the adjacent shorelines; the turbulence and scouring action caused by bulkheads prohibits shorelines and aquatic vegetation from establishing, which eliminates their function and habitat in stabilizing shorelines and submerged bottoms. She stated the publication also cites numerous studies documenting that bulkheads eliminate the intertidal zone, which is the most productive zone in estuaries, and eliminates bird, reptile, and small mammal feeding, nesting, and restricting habitats. She stated elimination of the intertidal vegetation also removes their function to filter upland runoff, and eliminates the ability to trap sediments and nutrients. She stated she has provided some diagrams from a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report showing how bulkheads result in increased erosion in front and to either side of the bulkheads. She stated the engineer's solution is to add a rock revetment in front of the seawall, or build flanking walls to protect the seawalled property from the erosion that will undermine the neighboring properties; and the current Ordinances encourage alternatives that are more economical and ecologically sound. She stated when native shoreline planting is not enough to protect the shoreline, the Ordinance allows rock revetments, which are cheaper than seawalls and more effective in absorbing the forces of waves and wake. She stated rock revetments, if done properly, can also be vegetated with shoreline species, maintaining their filtering and habitat functions. She stated the currently Ordinance allows seawalls but only as a last resort and when the immediate surrounding shoreline is already seawalled; changing the Ordinance to make seawalls easier to construct will encourage the most expensive and most impacting alternative; and they have been unable to find a scientific study showing an ecological benefit of seawalls. She stated it has been stated that seawalls reduce sediment input into the water body; but that conclusion ignores that they increase erosion at the base of the seawall and increase the wave energy, which increases the suspension of the sediment eroded.

Commissioner O'Brien stated one of the points made is that if someone is using just a rock revetment, it is hard to tie up a boat unless a dock is put in; the problem is that there are no footers to a rock revetment, so there is sinking unless a geotextile is put underneath; and because of the water exposure, even then there is a tendency to sink further. He stated with the rock revetment there is no drainage protection; and there is sheetwater runoff bringing all the nutrients directly into the canal. He advised he is talking about canals, not the high wave energy along the Indian River or Banana River; the canals are all no wake zones; and pictures shown at the last two meetings show the steepness of the people's backyards. He stated if someone puts fertilizer or pesticide on the yard, the first good rain washes it directly into the water; and if there was a rock revetment there, it would go through the rocks as well. He stated if there is a seawall up with a swale behind it, it catches the first inch of rain; that runoff includes the fertilizer and possibly some of the pesticides; pesticides need four to six weeks to become inert; and sunlight hastens that process. He stated as the water sinks into the soil, it carries nutrients into the gravel behind the seawall; and the ordinance should require a geotextile behind it that would further trap the nutrients before they enter the column of water. He stated seawalls have benefits that far outweigh riprap or stone or whatever the Corps of Engineers pictures for high energy areas; the toe may be scoured out on some of the seawalls along the river if there is constant wave action; but some of the new construction techniques are to use cofferdam shaped walls, which dissipate the energy as good or better than rock. He commented on pictures of high energy areas, reflection of waves from certain walls, and some seawalls being ecologically sound because of prevention of pollution of waterways. He stated the swale and seawall combination is appropriate; the Board can say it prefers rocks, but the owner is going to say he does not want rocks, coquina rock in particular; and if a child fell into the coquina rock, there may not be enough thread in the State to sew up every cut on that child's body. He stated some of the canals are dead-end canals; the water quality is already bad; and commented on the improvement of water quality in seawalled canals that have been dredged in Merritt Island. He stated telling people they have to build a false environment that is not there now is not fair to the homeowners, especially when a seawall can been utilized; the seawalls have a purpose; and if the water is allowed to drain behind the wall, then the fertilizer and pesticides have been captured, where they can become inert rather than dissolving in the water of the canal. He stated if someone walked along the seawalls in Merritt Island or Cocoa Beach, they would see there is no scouring; if someone jumped off the seawall, he would be walking in one foot of water along the wall; and that is the reality. He stated the Board may have gone too far in saying it wants to be pro-environment; the logical view is that a seawall does little or no harm; it may be a plus instead of a minus for all parties involved; and the adjoining properties are not going to wash away because there is no wave action in a canal that is only 50 to 100 feet wide with no wake zones. He stated the Board should take a look at what it is doing, as it may have made the Ordinance too tough and stripped away the rights of the homeowners who would love to have a nice seawall they could sit on or fish from. He stated if the Board says to protect the property from the water, people have to put rocks out there and grow some vegetation, those people will never see the canal; and they bought the property because they wanted the view and easy access. He stated the Board should reverse itself in some of the Ordinances where it thinks it is protecting but is stopping the enjoyment of people's private property; and the Board is refusing to accept that seawalls can be utilized and do more for the environment than just putting down a seawall of rock, which will not trap the sediment or stop the fertilizer or pesticides.

Commissioner Carlson stated Commissioner O'Brien may have some points; but she went out to Mr. Bouvier's home and walk around the neighborhood; and she could see a lot just standing on his dock. She stated Jim Eagan of the Marine Resource Council (MRC) was there also; and he explained the environmental issues. She stated it has to be a combination in terms of protecting the shoreline property; potentially it would be taking the runoff that occurs when it rains and capturing the pesticides, etc. without them getting into the lagoon; and that could be done through a swale system and vegetation. She stated they did not come to a resolution as far as what combination would be best; Mr. Bouvier is in the position that there is an illegal seawall, which is a Code Enforcement issue; and the question is what, if anything, can be done to offset the negative impact of that seawall. She stated the information she received is that it could potentially be a negative impact; if a revetment was put up, it would protect the other properties; and there is also the issue of the dirt against the seawall at the bottom. She stated there is no conclusive evidence that having seawalls is a good idea; it is not good to weaken the Ordinance; but the Board needs to offset any negative impacts that the Ordinance does not cover in terms of what kinds of systems should be there. She stated Mr. Bouvier has done a swale system, which has not worked; his property has sunken down next to where his seawall is; and that is why he put the seawall up there. She advised of another property where the Board denied a seawall, which is sunken five or six feet outside the screen of the pool; stated they need to do some sort of revetment, but the Board denied them; and it is a comedy of errors because some seawalls, permitted or not, exist there and others have revetments, so it is a mixed bag. She stated it is hard to make the call; the Ordinance has been in place since 1991; and if the Board has not enforced the Ordinance, it is the Board's fault. She stated the Board can tell Mr. Bouvier to rip out his seawall and go through a civil action, which is his right, and have the contractor pay for taking it out since the contractor did not get the permit to begin with, or it can try to reduce the negative impact by requiring something else of Mr. Bouvier; and she is not sure the Board is benefiting anyone because of the implication throughout the lagoon system.

Commissioner O'Brien stated about six months ago a person came before the Board requesting to vacate some property behind his house because he had built an addition to his house illegally without a permit; it was already built over the right-of-way; and rather than ask the person to tear down the bedroom he added, the Board politely vacated the property. He inquired why the Board would tell Mr. Bouvier to tear out his already built seawall; and stated that would not be fair. He commented on benefits of the seawall.

Commissioner Carlson stated a permit has not been pulled to put in a seawall, but nothing was done to force the person to take it down; and that rule should apply to Mr. Bouvier. She stated the County did not go in there, even though staff understood seawalls had been put in without permits, and say they had to be removed; the only issue she has is with the person who put the wall in; Mr. Bouvier did not know the contractor had other complaints for putting in illegal seawalls; and that needs to be dealt with through the Contractors and Builders Licensing Board so this does not happen to another individual. She commented on responsibility for knowing the law and being sure that permits are obtained; and stated it is not reasonable to force a person to take out the seawall given the history of the area. She stated it is important to try to mitigate the impact of putting that seawall there; and if that means to complete construction of the seawall, put vegetation, and redo the swale to the betterment of the water body, that is what should be done.

Commissioner O'Brien stated first the County should determine how much damage the seawall is doing to the canal and mitigate that amount of damage; and it may determine the damage is zero. He commented on houses he has owned on Sykes Creek and Sykes Cove with no scouring on his seawalls; and stated the argument made by the Corps of Engineers about scouring in private canals where there is no wake is wrong. He recommended Commissioners walk along some seawalls, and see the truth. Commissioner Higgs stated the muck has built up so much, it is not possible to see the bottom where scouring might occur. Commissioner O'Brien stated that is not true; the muck is down in the deepest part of the canal; a lot of the canals in Merritt Island and those in other districts have been dredged; and water quality has dramatically improved. He stated the seawalls on this canal are going to dramatically start saving the canal; and he cannot see forcing someone to put rocks in front of the seawall now and plant plants to mitigate the damage because he has not done any damage, and has probably helped the water quality of the canal.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Wilson mentioned the arsenic in the treated wood being used; it has been used in Mr. Bouvier's seawall; and that is probably the most injurious to the canal because everything in the proximity of the arsenic as it leaches into the water is likely to die. Commissioner O'Brien stated the manufacturer of that kind of lumber is in Florida; and he explained that the amount of arsenic that leaches out of the wood is so miniscule that someone would have to suck on a piece of wood for a year and a half to just get a headache. He stated these are the kinds of phrases used to scare people; it is the same kind of argument that has been used about second-hand smoke; but someone would have to be in an enclosed room for eight hours a day, seven days a week for 23 years for it to have an effect on them. Commissioner Carlson stated it depends on who the arsenic is applied to; and it is not usually applied to people, but to organisms. She stated this is legislative intent; and she would like input from the other Commissioners. Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like to move this on for further hearing. Commissioner Carlson stated it will be difficult to create Code after the fact; there is nothing the Board could put in the Code tomorrow that would help Mr. Bouvier today; and the Board will either decide he has to remove it or keep it and figure out the best way to mitigate any kind of impact. She stated she does not think any Commissioner is going to go out there and dig it out. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board can forestall any application of the Code; with Commissioner Carlson advising that is what it has done to this point. Commissioner O'Brien suggested continuing that.

Commissioner Higgs stated she does not support a change in the Ordinance as there is no evidence that seawalls are good.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there is no evidence that planting rocks at the bottom of someone's hill is good either, but it is the same thing; the Board is trying to force people to do things they do not want to do; and that is not fair.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to move the draft ordinance relating to surface water protection on for a hearing. Motion died for lack of a second.

The meeting recessed at 3:06 p.m. and reconvened at 3:22 p.m.

APPROVE NEGOTIATED CONTRACTS WITH JOHN SOILEAU AND STEWART CAPPS
AND INCORPORATING PROCEDURAL RULES INTO CONTRACTS; AUTHORIZE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS; AND APPROVE APPOINTMENT OF
NUISANCE ABATEMENT SPECIAL MASTER, RE: SPECIAL MASTER SERVICES

Bea Polk inquired if the contracts are going to be given today; stated the problem is there are no restrictions; and inquired how long has the individual been special master at $60 an hour. Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responded $60 an hour has been the rate since 1996. Ms. Polk stated the advertisement is for $100 an hour without the Board's vote; and inquired if this happens in all the advertisements.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board voted on that.

Chairman Scarborough requested staff frame the issue. Mr. Whitten stated this item requests the Board's approval of negotiated contracts for special master services for Code Enforcement, Contractor Licensing, and Nuisance Abatement, Board approval of procedural rules incorporated into the contracts, authorization for the Chairman to execute the contracts, and appointment of a nuisance abatement special master at a rate of $100 per hour. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the rate was advertised as a proposed rate.

Ms. Polk stated today the Board is going to award the contract. Chairman Scarborough stated the item is to approve negotiated contracts with two gentlemen. Ms. Polk inquired who made the proposed contract, the County Commissioners or Administration; with Chairman Scarborough responding there was a Selection Committee comprised of Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, Public Safety Director Jack Parker, Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott, Housing and Human Services Director Gay Williams, and Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson. Ms. Polk noted those are all from Administration; this has gotten out of hand; and the public should have been on some of the boards to listen to this. She requested the Board not approve the contract today; there are people in the County who would like more say so; staff did not look at the surrounding counties; and commented on amounts charged by other counties including Dade and Hillsborough Counties and the City of Malabar. She stated the Board should watch what it is charging the taxpayers; and inquired why staff did not get prices from Volusia and Seminole Counties. She stated staff has already set the rate and advertised to hire a person; she thought they were supposed to bring this back to the Board; but Administration is deciding who is going to be hired. She stated this is such an important thing that the contract should come to the Board every time, for approval, amendment, or renewal; and inquired if there was a bid process.

Chairman Scarborough inquired how many applicants responded; with Mr. Whitten responding there were eleven responses. Mr. Whitten stated a solicitation was advertised for a request for qualifications for two weeks in Florida TODAY; additionally the membership list from the Brevard County Bar Association was purchased, and those members were sent solicitations; a Selection Committee was appointed by the County Manager, and a list of candidates was submitted to the Board on January 8, 2002; and the Selection Committee reviewed the qualifications of all respondents, and conducted interviews with candidates before selecting the best qualified. Ms. Polk stated the advertisement was improper because it was advertised before the Board heard it.

Maureen Rupe stated one of the most important aspects of the Special Master is to make sure the citizens are afforded due process under the law; when she heard that the Special Master process has operated for six years without formal hearing rules, she was concerned that citizens may have been denied a fair hearing, or may perceive that they have not had a fair hearing; and there must be in place rules that cannot come under suspicion, but are just and understandable. She stated she would like the process to be less stressful for everyone involved; and suggested adding citizens to the selection process and to oversee the rules.

Curt Lorenc stated there are three items before the Board today, selection of a special master, some hearing rules, and a new contract; he has been through the special master process; he knows the strong and weak points; and he was shocked to find there were no hearing rules or procedures, and the hearings had been operated this way for six years. He stated this may have denied some people due process; and submitted paperwork to the Board, but not the Clerk. He stated the first sheet is notes from the Code Enforcement officer indicating he cannot locate the address; then it said no garbage was found; the page was faxed on August 6, 2001; and he questions why a citation was issued if they could not find the address and there was no garbage. He stated when he got a copy of the document later, it was altered to change the material facts of the case, which was disturbing. He stated on the third page, it shows where a Code Enforcement officer resigned, and the highlighted paragraph includes her comments. He stated there are some areas of improvement that can be made; and expressed concern about the hearing rules being done by the prosecuting attorney instead of someone not affected by the rules. He stated there should be public input to make sure the rules are understandable, clear, and fair; the current rules conflict with County Code; and recommended a rules committee be put in place. He commented on Hillsborough County using hearing officers, associated cost savings, simplification of the process, and process geared toward mediation. He stated the Code Enforcement process needs to go forward; and suggested keeping it under the old contract so cases can be processed, and putting rules in place. He stated once the rules are in place and there is a new contract, there should be a bid process; and recommended terminating John Soileau as the hearing officer because he operated for six years without hearing rules.

Janis Walters stated she does not see how the rate of compensation was established at $100 an hour; the Board requested an appearance on the part of the staff member who was to research this, but that did not happen; and $100 may not be the right amount. She stated the terms of the contract make it a five-year contract; and recommended there be annual review of performance before renewal, and renewal only be made through the Board, with appointment and direction to the special master to be reserved to the Board. She stated there should be no golden parachute for cancellation of the contract, especially if the special master is terminated for cause; and the special master should have no ability to change the hearing procedural rules unilaterally because that contradicts the intent and direction of the Board given on January 8, 2002. She stated the special master contract should not have a hold harmless clause, because there is no incentive to do a good job; and suggested special masters post a bond. She stated the Board asked the County Attorney to prepare rules for special master hearings; the rules presented today exceed the scope of the hearing, but the conduct of the hearing is not adequately addressed; the rules given are merely a rehash of the process already laid out in the Code for what happens from the time of the original citation through the final resolution of the case; but what happens in front of the special master is hardly mentioned. She commented on the rules being biased toward the County, power and discretion reserved to the County, little in the way of rights and power afforded to the respondent, and lack of ability for a respondent to prevail. She recommended extending the current special master contracts for a few months while the rules and a better contract are ironed out; stated meanwhile the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure would apply to the hearings; and the special master should be required to make a good faith effort to provide due process for the County and the respondent. She recommended Code Enforcement personnel be required to adhere to Policies 800 and 803, and that cases be reviewed for adequacy and completeness prior to referral to the special master for hearing; and commented on the case heard earlier where a woman had junk in her backyard. She stated if Policy 803 had been followed, the Code Enforcement officer would have cited all violations in plain view regardless of the violation for which he was called; and it would have been taken care of. She commented on local attorneys not wanting citizens' money; and stated they recommend individuals represent themselves and come to them for appeal.

Allyn Newman stated the information he is presenting comes from Henry Helmrich; and it represents quite a bit of research. He stated the Board instructed the County Attorney to draw up the special master rules; but he has been informed the special master contract was written by the Code Enforcement attorney, which does not imply that the contract is biased, but does change the direction given by the Board. He stated he is concerned about the content of Sections 9 and 10 of the conduct of hearing; the Constitution forbids the placement of liens upon homesteaded properties; and he would hope the Board would not place the County in a position that may bring about lawsuits. He requested the section involving liens be carefully researched before any decisions are considered; and stated the Florida Constitution, in several sections, exempts homesteaded property from forced sale and from any judgment or lien against the property unless the judgment is for taxes and assessments. He commented on case law, Demura vs. County of Volusia, which says under homestead, no lien created pursuant to administrative fine, which would be Code Enforcement, can exist as to homesteaded property. He stated the Constitution goes further in stating no lien exists as to homesteaded property; and advised in the case of Demura vs. County of Volusia, the order or dismissal by the trial judge was quashed. He stated he has noted evidence of record tampering by people in position; and commented on a similar situation where an offender was relieved of notary status by the State. He stated the citizens of Brevard County have every right to expect commensurate disciplinary action for such action at whatever level; they need to be guaranteed equal protection of the law at every level; and requested denial of the contract with Mr. Soileau.

Jerry Wall stated several speakers have made excellent points; and he is in total agreement. He stated in December and January there were several speakers who indicated that citizens have lost confidence in Code Enforcement; and one reason is the close relationship between Code Enforcement and the special master. He stated for the contract just completed, the contract monitor was the head of Code Enforcement, who not only monitored the contract of the special master, but on occasion gave testimony before the special master; and even if there were no infractions, it gave the appearance of it being possible. He stated there have been no rules or procedures; the question has been brought up about due process; there has been heavy-handed and subjective enforcement; staff was instructed to formulate rules and come back before the Board with those rules and other information; and instead, this was placed on the Consent Agenda, where normally there would have been no discussion. He stated questions remain such as whether Code Enforcement followed all the instructions issued by the Board in preparing contracts and rules pertaining to special masters, and whether Code Enforcement answered all the questions posed by the Board in hearings. He inquired if the special master concept was to make it easier for citizens to resolve Code issues and save the County money, why is the process so adverse that average citizens will require the services of an attorney and the County will have to spend more money. He inquired why Code Enforcement is developing an "us against them" mentality against the citizens, and why is Code Enforcement armoring itself with a cocoon of rules, procedures, and ordinances that are hostile to the citizens. He inquired who is putting together Code Enforcement rules and procedures for special masters and special master hearings, and who are they most interested in serving. He inquired why the Board would continue with the same special master who seems to be at the center of the loss of confidence; stated they were originally told there were ten or twelve qualified individuals to consider for the position; today they are told there are eleven; and inquired if of the eleven, the gentleman who has been the problem is the best choice. He recommended devising a better and easier system; and inquired if a board similar to the one used in the past could be used, and whether it is necessary to continue the anonymous complaint system.

Helen Dezendorf, President of the Port St. John Homeowners Association, stated she came before the Board previously about building codes and the lack of following of the law; and this is the same problem. She stated if a County employee says someone is not in compliance, but they say they are, then they can go to the special master; and if it had worked that way, it would have been great, but it does not seem to be working that way. She advised of a call from a constituent who has a boat parked behind a six-foot privacy fence, but because the boat has a flying bridge, it can be seen from the street, and because a neighbor does not like it, it has become a Code Enforcement issue; however, on the same street are four boats parked in driveways; so this is not being done even-handedly. She stated if one boat is wrong, then all the boats in Port St. John need to be stored somewhere; if one person cannot have his 35-foot motorhome in his yard, no one can; and they do not need a special master at $100 an hour to tell them this. She stated if the County was enforcing the rules in general, it would not need a special master nearly as often, would not have to worry about how much special masters are being paid, or have to worry about due process. She stated the County is putting a Band-Aid over a situation; and it needs to revisit the Code Enforcement policy. She commented on special masters making $60 to $100 an hour compared to the salaries of teachers and policemen; recommended getting back to the root of it, establishing the rules, and changing the way they are enforced; and stated then there will be hardly any reason to have a special master because the rules will be so succinct that there will not be loopholes. She requested the Board not make a decision on this today; and stated the Board is fixing the calculus end of the problem, but needs to go back to the arithmetic end and work on that first.

Cynthia Highmiller advised she is a senior at the University of Central Florida in the pre-law program; her teachers have encouraged her to attend jury trials or similar hearings; and she attended a special master hearing, and was appalled at what she saw. She stated she thought they were under the rules of civil procedure, but she saw evidence being introduced that was perjured, and heard testimony from witnesses on the stand being aided by people in the audience or by other County employees, with no objection from the special master. She stated she feels strongly about a clear and convincing standard of rules; that is the way it is handled at the upper levels of civil and criminal court; people need to be confident that when they go the boards they are going to have a fair trial; and she does not see that happening. She commented on bias, predisposition, hearsay evidence, special master services not specified, and lack of rules. She stated under number one, item D, if the County prevails in enforcing the case before the special master, it shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred in enforcing the case before the special master and in any appeals of the special master's order, and once assessed, these costs will not be reduced or waived; and inquired where does that leave citizens who win their cases, and do they have any redress to the special master hearing process to recover their costs. She stated it is all slanted in one direction; it is not pro-citizen; and there should be a balance between the justice system and the people, because without that, there is anarchy. She stated the rules and services are not clearly identified; they are ambiguous; and the Board needs to consider the way it hires the special master and if one is needed at all. She commented on the special master bid process, the City of Palm Bay's changing rules, and Florida Civil Rules of Procedure. She requested the County have attorneys not associated with the County or have a citizens panel look at the rules and come up with a more viable set of rules, or go back to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

Leonard Beckett stated West Canaveral Groves has a lot of Code Enforcement violation problems and activity; but there have been many situations of gross negligence or violation of the rules and procedures by Code Enforcement. He stated the individuals involved in hiring the special masters are the same people bringing charges against the residents; and that is not a good situation. He stated there is a hold harmless clause in the special master contract; inquired why would it be included; and advised it is unacceptable. He stated in terms of the special master adopting the rules, the Board should not give someone approval to set their own guidelines; expressed concern about the provision concerning the County prevailing; and inquired what happens if the respondent prevails as there is nothing in the rules that allows for that. He stated there are many complaints about abuse by Code Enforcement officers; and if the head of Code Enforcement is the one doing the hiring and firing, there is no possibility of a respondent getting a fair day in court. He stated it is the responsibility of the citizens to curtail the progression of government agencies and entities from becoming police states; and inquired if this is government for the people and by the people or a new Gestapo being created. He stated separation is needed between Code Enforcement and the special master; and as far as money, he does not care what the contract reads as long as there are competent people at whatever amount the Board finds appropriate. He stated the Board needs to consider if it has lost touch with common sense and logic in its decision making, and lost touch with the citizens and needs of the community. He stated when someone gets a Code Enforcement violation for having a dog house, it has reached too far; the Board should consider that type of situation; when people cannot have SUV's in their driveways or boats in their side yards, there are problems in the community. He stated everyone wants a community that looks good and is pleasant for everybody; but some problems being addressed are minor, such as parking of boats, as opposed to problems that are major where there are health situations. He stated the whole issue needs to be readdressed before the Board proceeds with the contract; and the Board needs to look at Code Enforcement and how it can be made better.

Commissioner Higgs stated somebody referenced the motion the Board made about being proactive; a few years ago the Board decided it would respond to citizen complaints rather than be proactive; so it is not Code Enforcement's decision, but Board policy. She stated it is unfair to tag Code Enforcement if there are rules the public does not like because the Board writes the rules and passes them in public sessions; Code Enforcement enforces those rules; so if people do not like the rules, they should tag the Board, not Code Enforcement. She stated the Florida Statutes and County Code also allow the Code Enforcement Board and the special master to adopt rules; there are procedures in the County Code; most of them are taken from the Florida Statutes; and concerns about procedures are starting to be addressed. She stated the Board can improve on those; and it is not fair to tag Code with a number of things that may be the Board's responsibility. She suggested the Board look at the contract; there are some things in the attachment to the contract that are inconsistent with the Code; and that needs additional work. She stated the special master agreement talks about the County being required to provide an attorney; that was in the previous contract as well; but County Code and the Florida Statute say that either an administrative person or an attorney may do that; and the Board needs to be sure the agreement is consistent with what it wants and what it adopted in the Code, as well as the Florida Statutes. She stated it also talks about a term of five years; that is a little long; and suggested looking at a three-year term. She stated number four concerns termination of the agreement; the current Code says the County Manager does the selection; in this case he gave that responsibility to a number of staff people, none of which were the Code Enforcement Director; the contract is between the Board and the special master; and there should be clarification of who terminates the contract. She stated number seven talks about the special master adopting rules, which is consistent with the contract; if the Board goes forward today, it is giving rules, but the special master may revise or amend the rules; and the Board needs to determine if it is going to adopt rules today or go through some procedure by which it will have a committee work on that. She stated page 1 of the Code Enforcement rules talks about the standard; she looked in the previous operating procedures in the Code and the Statutes, and they do not talk about the standard; and in this set of hearing rules, it says the County's competent substantial evidence must merely outweigh the respondent's evidence. She stated under most standards of civil hearings, the preponderance of evidence is the standard; and suggested the Board think a little longer about the standard it wants to put into its rules. She stated she is concerned about the contract and the things she has referenced, particularly the standard by which things are judged. She stated the Board could move forward with the two contracts before it under the old contract provisions for a six-month period, let the rules be looked at by a committee, and then determine what it wants to do. She stated the rate of pay is going to have to be adjusted to a different level in order to attract people who really want to do this job; and those are her concerns.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated if the Board wishes to invoke a higher standard of proof than preponderance of evidence, which is what is in the contract, it will need to let staff know that; and advised it could go to clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. Commissioner Higgs stated she is not necessarily interested in a higher standard than the normal civil standard; with Mr. Knox advising preponderance is 51% of the evidence, and that is
the normal civil standard, which is in the contract.

Discussion ensued on the wording of the standard and definition of preponderance. Mr. Knox advised the word "preponderance" can be included if it makes it clear.

Chairman Scarborough stated there was a time in Florida that these types of actions were handled by the municipal courts; when Article V was changed several decades ago, the concept was there was not going to be a means to take these things forward because the courts would not do them; so a section of Florida Statute was created that was not supposed to be anything but bringing things into compliance, which is a different concept. He stated many times people on the other side are upset because as soon as their neighbors come into compliance, there is an almost complete forgiveness. He stated Code Enforcement spends an inordinate amount of time in bringing something into compliance; and sometimes there is an inability to get rid of the problem. He stated the Board identifies what is a problem by creating the Code; and if there is a problem with dog houses, the Board needs to address that because it sets the level. He commented on the former Code Enforcement Committee; and stated he is not saying the special master is perfect, but there is a degree of professionalism. He stated if the Board wants to move the professionalism higher, that is fine, and he is all for that; if it wants to make the special master more independent, that is a fine idea; but there are some things that are being said that may be throwing out things on the people who are present. He commented on Code Enforcement trying to get someone to clean up their property, frustration in getting something done, taking issues to the special master, and length of time before something is resolved. He stated the special master has created a methodology to move things forward; justice delayed is justice denied; and recommended taking a historical perspective. He stated the Board may have a lot of changes it wants to make, but it may want to review history as it does them.

Commissioner Higgs stated she was on the Board when the special master program started; it has brought the level of the process higher; but it has only been in effect five or six years. She stated the Board needs to continue to work to improve the program; that is what the rules are about; and she would like to go forward with the two special master contracts at the $100 rate for six months, and then ask a committee of professionals and citizens to review the rules. She stated they can then be sure the Board is ready to adopt the rules and the revised contract.

Chairman Scarborough stated there are people on the selection committee who have nothing to do with Code Enforcement; but if the Board wants to create some further degree of independence in selection of a special master, it could do that. He suggested including a Commissioner and a member of the Bar Association. He stated he would prefer to have a high level of confidence in whoever is serving on the committee; the committee can be easily constructed, if the Board wants to go there; and it is just another idea as the Board is looking at these things. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board asked the Management Services Division to take responsibility for a number of functions regarding the special master; with Mr. Jenkins advising that is correct; the Board moved it from Community Development to Management Services for the specific purpose of creating a separation between those who do the enforcement and the special master process; and the process is now coordinated by Mr. Whitten and Management Services. Mr. Jenkins stated they are in the process of hiring an assistant to the special master who will be separate from anything to do with Code Enforcement, and will not report to Code Enforcement. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board further defined the sense of justice being done and any perception that there is no independent judicial eye watching that. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board already took action to separate the two functions, and that has been implemented; but there may be some misunderstanding based on some of the comments that were made. He offered to have Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca meet with the individuals as a group to discuss some of the concerns; and stated in many cases, it is just a matter of sharing information with those people, which might resolve some of the potential misunderstandings. He advised the County Attorney's office drafted the rules; it was not the special master or Code Enforcement; the only time it gets into enforcement is when compliance cannot be achieved; but the first priority is to reach compliance.

Commissioner Colon encouraged the citizens to meet with some of the Commissioners so they can hear both sides; stated she is under the impression some Commissioners only heard one side; but there are two sides to the story. She stated one of the things presented was allegation of alteration of documents; that is a serious accusation that should be investigated; and she has not heard whether it was or not. She stated what was shown to her is not acceptable; she agrees with Commissioner Higgs that five years is too long for the contract; and who terminates the contract should be discussed. She stated if the Board adopts the rules, the special master at midpoint should not determine that he wants to change the rules; if the special master has suggestions, it would be nice to bring them before the Board; and the Board, as elected officials, is the one accountable. She stated six months is acceptable; if whoever the Board is looking at does not like the six-month contract to allow time to establish a committee and come up with some rules, the Board can go to the second choice. She stated the Board has been discussing the issue for a number of months; and recommended the parties involved not take it personal. She stated the Board needs to study this and see if it can be fixed; and there is always room for improvement. She stated the Board is held accountable; the Board gives direction; and requested the people not take it out on the Code Enforcement officers who are just following the Board's rules. She stated if the rules need to be tweaked, moving forward with Commissioner Higgs' recommendations is a step in the right direction, which she would support. Commissioner Carlson stated she supports some of the suggestions on the agreement; but if the Board gets the committee together to review the rules, it should talk about a proactive approach because that might change the way the rules are laid out. Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board is going to do that, it will find many things that will be addressed as part of the process.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the previous special master agreement with changes and offer it to the two individuals for a six-month period beginning April 16, 2002, with the salary adjusted from $60 to $100 an hour, number eight amended to provide that the County Attorney or a member of administrative staff be able to represent the County by presenting cases, number nine be amended consistent with the County's operating procedures, which says the County will provide a secretary to the special master, number eleven amended to change the date to April 16, 2002; and number seventeen amended so that either party may terminate the agreement with 30 days written notice. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Agreements.)

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated they have already cancelled all special master hearings through April 2002; and inquired if the agreement could be started May 1, 2002. Chairman Scarborough stated the contract and scheduling are separate things. Ms. Busacca advised that would allow one additional meeting under the contract. Commissioner Higgs stated that is fine.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize appointing a committee and directing staff to draft an agenda item outlining a procedure that is finite in its time period, and that it come back to the Board in 90 days with a citizens and professional committee to review the procedures that have been suggested and others that might be appropriate.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board is going to include the context of what the committee is going to be reviewing, and if it is going to talk about being proactive. Commissioner Higgs stated it is the Board's decision in terms of proactive; but she would like the committee to review the rules. Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board is going to look at the policy concerning reactive versus proactive, that is going to have a bearing on the rules. Chairman Scarborough stated that may be a separate issue; with Commissioner Carlson advising staff can come back with both at the same time. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board already asked for that issue to come back; and they are two different things. She stated the Board can see them as one in terms of the whole function, but specifically the Board would like to ask the group of citizens, including some from the legal community, to look at the rules so there is a balance of interests; those can then be recommended to the Board; and that can be done in 120 days.

Commissioner Colon seconded the motion.

Chairman Scarborough stated in summary claims, there are relaxed rules so a person can come in and bring a lawsuit for a minimal amount of money, without having to get an attorney; the Board is talking about all these rules of civil procedure; however, they may not always be in favor of the person who feels he is at odds. He stated everything has been said with the best of intentions; but as the Board gets into the discussion, it should think of both sides and the ramifications because relaxed rules and allowing a less formal environment allows the citizen to make a presentation while the more formal it becomes, there may be a denying of rights. He suggested getting an attorney who does practice before the summary claims court and touching base with some of the County judges.

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

Commissioner Colon inquired if the first motion included the five-year contract; with Commissioner Higgs responding she went to the previous special master agreement as opposed to the new one; and when the Board gets ready to adopt the new rules, it will ask the County Attorney to revise the contract and come back with a new one. Commissioner Colon stated it should not be so adversarial; if anything it should be focusing on the fact that the County wants to bring them into compliance; and that message has to be straightforward.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the contract could be renewed annually up to five years before a new contract would have to be negotiated; with Commissioner Higgs responding her intent was to go with the previous special master agreement and have that in place for six months. She stated the old contract would be a template; the Board would look at the rules and how it is operating; then it would direct the County Attorney to draft the appropriate contract; but she did not refer to how many times it could be renewed.

Mr. Knox advised the Agenda item also included a nuisance abatement special master; and inquired what does the Board want to do. Commissioner Higgs stated the recommendation was that Mr. Capps be selected as the nuisance abatement special master; with Mr. Knox responding that is correct.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Stewart Capps as the nuisance abatement special master. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.


REVIEW DRAFT PROPOSAL BY BREVARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION OF FUNDING ARRANGEMENT, RE: SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS
PROGRAM EXPANSION GRANT MATCH

Chairman Scarborough stated he understands people have been hired. Deborah Barker, Sheriff's Finance Director, stated what is before the Board today is a draft interlocal agreement that has been forwarded to the Board by the School Board; the Sheriff's Office came forward last year with a grant opportunity for a school resource officer program funded through federal dollars; and they brought that program through to the Board and the Board agreed it was worthwhile, but suggested going to the School Board to help match the cost. She stated they did that; they all entered into an agreement, the Sheriff's Office, the County, and the Brevard County School Board, to share the cost of the program; and it is a three-year grant to fund eight school resource officers within the County. She stated the School Board is now bringing the draft agreement before the Board for consideration; and she is prepared to discuss the funding issues. Chairman Scarborough stated the School Board proposal contains a clause
reducing the School Board's obligation by $85.39 per officer per day, and therein lies a dilemma. Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated the Board's approval was for a 50-50 sharing between the School Board and the County; what the School Board is proposing is in the first year the Board fund 72% of the cost, and in subsequent years fund 18.4%, 49.1%, and 37%. He stated the Board's funding is contained within the law Enforcement MSTU, so any additional funding would have to come from some place other than that source, such as General Fund Reserves, or some other mechanism. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board has to find some money.

Commissioner Carlson inquired how can it go from 72% to 18%; with Mr. Whitten responding the total sum would be the same. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated that is true except where the School Board does not want to pay for them while they are not in the schools. Mr. Whitten stated that is the one caveat, listed in paragraph 3; their proposal is that the Board would fund the larger portion in the first year, and in the second through fourth years, the Board would fund a lesser portion. He stated the School Board is saying it cannot afford the 50-50 split for the first year. Mr. Jenkins stated the School Board made two changes to the formula; the first is it does not want to pay for them when school is not is session; and the second change is the distribution formula. Chairman Scarborough inquired if there is room for more discussion with the School Board; and has anyone talked to Dr. DiPatri. Mr. Jenkins stated he has not spoken to Dr. DiPatri; with Budget Manager Dennis Rogero responding he has spoken to the Public Safety Director and the Chief Financial Officer, and all indications are that the School Board can fund no more than the shown amounts. Mr. Jenkins advised the School Board has taken a hit from the legislative process this year. Chairman Scarborough stated he does not want to become adversarial. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board does not have a lot of leverage at this point because the Board agreed to do this and the people have been hired. Chairman Scarborough inquired if the officers have been hired, and are they on board; with Ms. Barker responding yes, seven were hired in December, and the last one was hired in January. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if these are the school resource officers for the elementary schools; with Ms. Barker responding yes. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if eight officers are being put in grades one through six; with Ms. Barker responding yes. Mr. Jenkins advised that is in the unincorporated area. Commissioner O'Brien inquired where is the crime wave in the elementary schools; stated there have been school resource officers in junior high and high schools for approximately three years; and four months ago the newspaper headline was that Brevard County has the biggest drug problem in the teenage population than any county in the State. He stated there are sworn officers in the schools who are supposed to be uncovering these kinds of things among the students; and inquired why the problem grew instead of shrinking. He stated when Ms. Barker and the Sheriff were before the Board last time, they talked about what happens after school, and he was told the officer is put back on the road patrol; but he passes Edgewood Junior High School four times a week long after 4:00 p.m. and the patrol car is still at the school; so that officer is not out patrolling to take up the extra hours. He stated now the School Board is saying it does not want to pay for any days an officer is not on duty at the schools ; he can see that reasoning; but he strongly feels the School Board has to come on board with the County to pay its fair share. He stated the Board is putting sworn officers into the schools; the School Board wanted the officers; and now when it is time to put forward the money, the School Board is saying it had a tough time in Tallahassee. He stated the truth is so has the County; and the Board started to talk last October about how to compensate for programs that were cut in Tallahassee. He stated he is opposed to putting the school resources officers into grammar schools; it is not a viable way to spend tax dollars; and if the Sheriff wants eight more officers to patrol the streets, he can see that.

Ms. Barker stated the focus of this issue is to negotiate the funding; the grant has already been agreed to by the School Board, Sheriff, and the County; and the scope of authority of the grant is not in question. She stated in terms of whether school resource officers are needed in schools, the reason they thought it was a worthwhile program was because they are interested in getting to the juveniles and making a difference in the younger years. She stated the County's strategic plan falls in line with the strategic plan of the Sheriff's office; one of the main issues is education of workforce; and she noticed today that one of the Board's main issues is to strengthen and support the pre-K and K-12 educational programs with the objective to create mentoring programs, continue support of pre-K and early childhood programs, and create a stronger connection between communities, parents, and schools. She stated Lt. Paul Ring is present to address any quality issues of the program; but the issue today is funding.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he can appreciate that; and inquired if that means the Sheriff is going to eliminate the DARE Program. Ms. Barker responded the DARE Program is a continuation; and it is taught by school resource officers. Commissioner O'Brien inquired where are the officers who used to teach the DARE Program; with Ms. Barker responding the entire purpose of the school resource officer program was to give a focus to schools, which would allow other officers that were doing the DARE Program to do other functions. Lt. Ring stated the duties of the DARE officers for the previous unit are included in the school resource officer program, so there is not longer a separate DARE unit. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the vehicles and funding for DARE have been pushed into the SRO program; with Ms. Barker responding the DARE responsibilities have been absorbed by the school resource officers; and any funds that were committed to DARE are within the general resources of the Sheriff's Office. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the funding that was specifically set up for the DARE Program has now been pushed back into the Sheriff's General Fund. Ms. Barker responded the SRO program does things besides DARE; there are still expenses that are associated with DARE that are borne by the General Fund and are not paid for by the SRO program; but the duties of the DARE program have been absorbed by the SRO program.

Commissioner Colon inquired if the fiscal year contributions balance out in the end; with Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responding yes, except for the one caveat on the days that the officer does not show up, the Board is absorbing 100% of that funding. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated during the summer, when school is not in session, the County is picking that up when the deputy is out patrolling. He stated the two changes are the County is
paying more upfront and less later to accommodate the School Board because of its significant reduction in State funding; and the proposal by the School Board says the County will pay for the deputies when they are not in school, but are patrolling. Ms. Barker noted they are commenting on sick and vacation days; the School Board does not want to pay for officers not in school; and the numbers portrayed in the agreement in the fourth year are not representative from the Sheriff's office, but may be something the School Board has estimated. She stated it is a three-year grant that will continue; and it must be continued one full year after the federal funding ceases.

Commissioner Carlson inquired when the Sheriff submitted for the grant, was it anticipated that there would be full-time school resource officers all year round, when schools are only in session nine months of the year. Mr. Jenkins advised it is hard to hire a deputy for only nine months. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not think that was understood when the Board said it wanted school resource officers. Ms. Barker stated it was a problem with the School Board; and the only issue now is the School Board does not have the full portion of the match it needs to pay. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the School Board does not want to pay when a school resource officer is not at school, and desires the Board to pick up the entire tab at approximately $86 a day, is the School Board willing to pay the entire $86 when the SRO is in school. Ms. Barker responded she does not see a representative of the School Board present; and the only negotiations the Sheriff's Office had was with the original grant agreement when it outlined the match and cost of the grant.

Commissioner Colon stated she is supporting it because the following year it goes way down, so it comes out even.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the proposal of the School Board for funding the School Resource Officers Program Expansion.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he cannot support the motion; there is no crime wave in elementary schools; and he cannot picture the taxpayers bearing the kind of money being discussed. He inquired if the DARE program was so good, why does the County have the highest instance of drug abuse in the State.

Mr. Jenkins advised the funding source will be the General Fund Reserve.

Chairman Scarborough stated there is a need because of the statistics; the Board is not putting up all the dollars; and it is getting some benefit.

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

Commissioner Carlson stated she appreciates Commissioner O'Brien's points; but the Board never got a pulse of what the community was about until Brevard Tomorrow analyzed it, and now the Board can approach it in a more proactive way. Commissioner O'Brien stated there is no accountability.

Commissioner Higgs stated she knows Ms. Barker will be back in a few weeks talking about the amount of money needed for the jail contract in terms of health insurance; and requested she see if there is some way to shift the officers during the summer into an open slot so all the costs do not have to be absorbed. Ms. Barker stated they will work with the Budget Office to see how that can be offset.

The meeting recessed at 4:51 p.m. and reconvened at 5:01 p.m.

RESOLUTIONS, RE: CONSIDER TAX ABATEMENT APPLICATION AND STATE
QUALIFIED TARGETED INDUSTRY ELIGIBILITY FOR KNIGHT L.L.C.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolutions qualifying Knight LLC as an eligible business under the County's Tax Abatement Program and authorizing a public hearing to consider adopting an exemption ordinance, and qualifying Knight LLC as an eligible Qualified Targeted Industry under the State of Florida QTI Program. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay. (See pages for Resolutions Nos. 02-100 and 02-101.)

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE REPEALING SELECT
TAX ABATEMENTS

Chairman Scarborough stated there are several groupings of businesses; and inquired if there were any questions as to the ones that failed.

Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar stated since the package went out, three companies have submitted annual reports and appear to still be eligible, DRS Optronics for two abatements and Stratos Lightwave.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if they are required by contract to submit by a certain date; with Mr. Lugar responding the first of March. Commissioner Higgs noted they did not do that, but did submit by April 16, 2002.

Dale Baswell stated he supports the tangible incentive of the ad valorem tax abatement exemption to relocate, or in the case of Hydro Aluminum Rockledge, to expand in Brevard County. He requested the Board's consideration of leniency in the ad valorem exemption program due to the downturn in the economy and the effects of the aftermath of the terrorism of 9-11. He stated Hydro Aluminum's downturn is due to the downturn in the automotive industry; although sales have been brisk in the last quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year, those sales have been out of dealers' inventories; and they have seen the inventories decrease. He stated in Ordinance 97-04, Hydro Aluminum's goal was to go from a base of 234 employees and add ten-plus employees; the application was to go to 260 or 265 employees, which they did; but in the last year's fourth quarter, they averaged 215 employees because of the economic downturn. He stated looking at the full year, there was an average of 242 employees; in the first six months of 2001, they averaged 258 employees; but the economy has taken a beating. He stated the automotive industry is rebounding; since January they have hired 14 people, with three more starting next week and five openings they are trying to fill; however, three of the fourteen people did not like the job and left, so they are trying to replace those as well. He stated if the economy continues to improve, which they think it will, they should be back within compliance before the end of the year; and requested consideration of the events that were not within their control when the Board considers repealing the Ordinances. He suggested it be considered on a case-by-case basis; and stated it is a good program that allowed his company to expand in Brevard County. He advised when he did the first abatement in 1995, he met personally with some of the Commissioners; and he would not have been able to have that expansion without the ad valorem tax exemption.

Chairman Scarborough stated there are different categories; and it would be advisable to go through them separately. He requested Mr. Lugar explain the first listing of six companies. Mr. Lugar stated there are 39 companies listed; there are 40 companies that have a tax abatement; but the 40th is Intercel that received an abatement this year and will not provide an annual report until next year. He stated of the 39 companies that are listed, the first six did not submit an annual report, or in the case of Terion, staff called because it understood the company was in Chapter 11 status, and was told the company would not be filling out an annual report. Chairman Scarborough inquired if there are questions concerning the first six companies. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised of the first six, DRS Optronics submitted reports late. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they are still eligible other than not being in compliance with the deadline; with Mr. Lugar responding affirmatively.

Mr. Lugar stated GE Harmon Railway Electronics and GE Harris Energy Control Systems both advised their numbers were down; GE Harris Energy Control Systems did not build the facility at the proposed location; and their abatements should be repealed. Chairman Scarborough inquired if there are questions on those two companies.

Mr. Lugar stated the next eight companies fall in a more partial or gray area; the eight companies submitted annual reports and their employment numbers met the statutory requirement of having created at least ten jobs; however, the applications originally submitted to the County had employment levels which were not met.

Chairman Scarborough stated it says the eight companies no longer meet statutory guidelines. Mr. Lugar advised the companies met the ten-job requirement; and the language in the Agenda Report is incorrect.

Discussion ensued on the language in the Agenda Report and the statutory eligibility requirements.

Chairman Scarborough stated he would like to continue the item; he does not like to get to the end of the day and find mistakes in a document; and a motion would be in order.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table consideration of permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance repealing select tax abatements to allow corrected information to be provided. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

STAFF DIRECTION, RE: PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR WEST CANAVERAL
GROVES

Chairman Scarborough called for Terry Rosenberger to speak. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised Mr. Rosenberger is not present.

Commissioner Carlson suggested taking no action.

Ms. Busacca stated although this item is for Walter Deer, there are many more people who are going to be coming to the Board asking for some kind of abatement of the regulations; and the alternatives talk about the Board doing these on a case-by-case basis, establishing guidelines so they can be done administratively, or to take no action. She stated this is not the last time this issue will come up.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if it would be better to defer the item. Ms. Busacca responded Mr. Deer is not here, but she provided him a copy of the report. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Deer was present at all today; with Ms. Busacca responding she does not know. County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired why is this on the Agenda, and what is unique about it; with Ms. Busacca responding the Board asked staff to provide options on how to address Mr. Deer's problem of not being able to build in West Canaveral Groves; and these are the options staff has identified. Ms. Busacca advised Mr. Deer had asked for an abatement of the regulations for his specific case; but the Board desired to look at it in a universal way to decide if it wanted to allow abatement for everyone, amend the Code, or take no action and require Mr. Deer's and all other existing permanent structures to come into compliance with the existing Code versus the Code at the time, which was a less restrictive standard. Mr. Jenkins inquired if it is possible to legally come into compliance with the old Code at this time; with Ms. Busacca responding no, the Code would have to be either abated or amended.

Terry Rosenberger stated he is a property owner, but does not have a structure on the land; he has an acre in West Canaveral Groves; and he appreciates all the work the Board has done toward this. He stated he is looking at applying for vested rights since he did do some things toward development, but missed the July 2001 deadline.

Chairman Scarborough stated Option 4 is to amend Section 62-510 to establish a wavier process for existing permanent structures; and requested Ms. Busacca elaborate. Ms. Busacca stated it would be possible to amend the Code to establish a waiver process to allow existing permanent structures to come into compliance; and it has been suggested that waiver conditions could include proof of coordination or contact, which would be an attempt to come into compliance with the old rules; physical necessity, such as a doctor's statement saying the person needs to have electricity for his/her medical condition; or to resolve existing Code Enforcement violations. She advised eventually all of the existing permanent structures that are out there that are not in compliance will become Code Enforcement violations.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated there is a fundamental legal question whether or not the Board can abate the Southern Standard Building Code; with Ms. Busacca responding the previous Code did that for six years.

Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board approved option 4, it would have to look at the details to see where it would be beneficial and where it would not be; and he would not have any problem doing that because sometimes to work through something is better than having rules that do not solve the problems, but only make them more problematic for staff.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board tried that for a period of six years; and it did not solve the problem, but rather multiplied it. She recommended taking no action, although she appreciates that Chairman Scarborough wants to find a way to resolve some of these issues. Chairman Scarborough stated he is in favor of working with the possibility of Option 4.

Chairman Scarborough passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Colon.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to prepare further discussion item for the potential of looking at a waiver. Motion did not carry. Commissioners Scarborough and Colon voted aye; Commissioners O'Brien, Higgs, and Carlson voted nay.

Vice Chairman Colon passed the gavel to Chairman Scarborough.

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board will take no action on the item.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: AUDIT OF CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND EMAIL

Bea Polk inquired if the Board ever received a decision on the audit of the Constitutional Officers and the email issue. County Attorney Scott Knox stated the memorandum on email was sent out quite a while ago; and one should have been sent to Ms. Polk. Ms. Polk advised she never received such memorandum; with Mr. Knox advising one will be sent to her. Mr.

Knox stated the Attorney General is still considering the audit issue; and the Tax Collector's attorney has sent in rebuttal. Ms. Polk stated she will wait for an answer. She stated this is the reason people get so upset with government because there are laws the people have to abide by, but when it comes to politicians, they can use public money to fight to keep things from happening. She inquired why Constitutional Officers spend taxpayers' money to keep the public from seeing audits of their books.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: PUBLIC PROPERTIES

Joan Wheeler stated she lives in Titusville; and everyone in Titusville is excited because someone promised they are going to get jobs if they give away a piece of property. She stated when the County gives tax abatements, it can take those abatements away; but if the County gives property, it cannot take it back. She stated she is excited, but not in the way others are because she is also enraged; with the referendum the people voted for in November 2000, there is still indecision with what can be done with the property she is speaking about; the City of Titusville owns the property; however, the County has the money. She stated the City thinks it should turn over part of the park to an individual business; there have been promises but no verification of anything; and it is thought the people do not need to have a referendum on giving away the property that belongs to the public. She stated at a recent Parks and Recreation meeting, it was discussed that it could go along with the plan to exchange five acres of a riverfront property for one acre with an old restaurant on it; but the people would not have any say in it other than coming up and talking about it. She stated at the Parks and Recreation meeting there were three options, to go ahead and let them have the property for business, deny it and proceed as planned, or have a referendum. She stated the Board is the only one that could call a referendum for that because the money comes from everyone in District 1, not just from the City of Titusville. She advised this started two years ago; the people found out about it a year ago; and they are in the same old quagmire. She stated if this comes before the Board, she hopes it will let the people make some decision about public land instead of giving it to people who are endowed with so much wisdom that they know what is best for all the people.

Chairman Scarborough stated with the Park and Recreation referendum certain monies were allocated to Marina Park; there was a proposal that some of the lands be shifted to a boat builder; and the discussion has ensued with the Titusville City Council and the Parks and Recreation Board. He stated the Parks and Recreation Board had a 4-4 vote at its last meeting; if at some time it makes a recommendation to be contrary to what was in the referendum, it will probably come to the Board; however, at this time, it is just information the Board needs to be aware of.

ANNOUNCEMENT, RE: MELBOURNE ART FESTIVAL

Commissioner Carlson advised the Melbourne Art Festival will be held on April 27 and 28, 2002 in downtown Melbourne.

REPORT, RE: DONATION TO CROSSWINDS

Commissioner Carlson stated she went to a gathering at Crosswinds to honor the Boeing Company for providing $165,000 to help Crosswinds with debt it has for new buildings. She expressed appreciation to the Boeing Company; and advised on Sunday, April 28, 2002, the Fourth Annual Duck Race will be held.

Commissioner O'Brien stated his firm provides the booms on the side of the water for the duck race; and advised people can buy a duck for $5 at any Publix, SunBank, and other locations.

REPORT, RE: UPDATE ON BREVARD TOMORROW

Commissioner Carlson stated she asked to put an item on Thursday's Agenda to provide an update on the Brevard Tomorrow business plan, and provided copies of the business plan for the Commissioners' review.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

__________________________________
ATTEST: TRUMAN SCARBOROUGH, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

( S E A L )